Ecotoxicology

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 161–172 | Cite as

The role of biomarkers in environmental assessment (2). Invertebrates

  • M. H. Depledge
  • M. C. Fossi

Abstract

The potential use of biomarkers in ecological risk assessment is explored. The biomarker concept, initially developed to form a basis for studies at the individual/population level, is extended to include community and ecosystem level studies. A strategy is outlined in which biomarkers might be used to assess chemical exposureand the cumulative, adverse effects of toxicants on biotain situ. Protocols for identifying communities, species and populations most at risk are described. The role of biomarkers in the evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial action to alleviate pollution is discussed. It is proposed that, in addition to biomarker measurements on samples obtained from organisms at field sites, biomarker screening tests should be initiated in the laboratory with a range of new chemicals and organisms relevant to the field sites thought to be at risk. This will help to establish links between laboratory-based testing and adverse effectsin situ.

Keywords

biomarkers environmental assessment community level ecosystem level 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes, R.D. (1968)Invertebrate Zoology, Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, W.H., Baer, K.N. and Watson, C.F. (1990) Metallothionein as a biomarker of environmental metal contamination. In McCarthy, J.F. and Shugart, L.R. eds.Biomarkers of environmental contamination, pp. 255–65. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
  3. Cairns, J.Jr (1977) Quantification of biological integrity. In Ballantine, R.K. and Guarrio, L.J. eds.Integrity of water, pp. 171–87. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials.Google Scholar
  4. Cairns, J.Jr (1983) Are single species tests alone adequate for estimating environmental hazard?Hydrobiologia 100, 47–57.Google Scholar
  5. Cairns, J.Jr (1986) The case for direct measurement of environmental responses to hazardous materials.Water Res. Bull. 22, 841–2.Google Scholar
  6. Cairns, J.Jr and McCormick, P.V. (1992) Developing and ecosystem-based capability for ecological risk assessments.Environ. Profession. 14, 186–96.Google Scholar
  7. Depledge, M.H. (1984) Disruption of circulatory and respiratory activity in shore crabs (Carcinus maenas, (L.)) exposed to heavy metal pollution.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 78C, 445–59.Google Scholar
  8. Depledge, M.H. (1989) The rational basis for detection of the early effects of marine pollution using physiological indicators.Ambio 18, 301–2.Google Scholar
  9. Depledge, M.H. (1990) New approaches in ecotoxicology: can inter-individual physiological variability be used as a tool to investigate pollution effects?Ambio 19, 251–2.Google Scholar
  10. Depledge, M.H. (1992) Conceptual paradigms in marine ecotoxicology. In Bjornstad, E., Hagerman, L. and Jense, K. eds.Proceedings of the 12th Baltic Marine Biologists Symposium, pp. 47–52. Fredensborg, Denmark: Olsen & Olsen.Google Scholar
  11. Depledge, M.H. (1993) The rational basis for the use of biomarkers as ecotoxicological tools. In Fossi, M.C. and Leonzio, C. eds.Nondestructive biomarkers in vertebrates, pp. 261–85. FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
  12. Depledge, M.H., Amaral-Medes, J.J., Daniel, B., Halbrook, R., Kloepper-Sams, P., Moore, M.N. and Peakall, D.B. (1992) The conceptual basis of the biomarker approach. In Peakall, D.B. and Shugart, L.R. eds.Biomarkers: research and application in the assessment of environmental health, NATO ASI Series H:Cell Biology, Vol. 68, pp. 15–29. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Fava, J., Consoli, F., Denison, R., Dickson, K., Mohin, T. and Vigon, B. (1993)A Conceptual Framework for Life-cycle Assessment. Florida: SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  14. Fossi, C. and Leonzio, C. (1993)Nondestructive biomarkers in Vertebrates. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
  15. Giesy, J.P., Versteeg, D. and Graney, R. (1988) A review of selected clinical indicators of stress-induced changes in aquatic organisms. In Evans, M.S. eds.Toxic contaminants and ecosystem health; a Great Lakes focus, pp. 169–200. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Harwell, M.A., Cropper, W.P. and Ragsdale, H.L. (1978) Nutrient cycling and stability: a reevaluation.Ecology 58, 600–6.Google Scholar
  17. Kelly, J.R. and Harwell, M.A. (1989) Indicators of ecosystem response and recovery. In Levin, S.A., Harwell, M.A., Kelly, J.R. and Kendall, K.P. eds. pp. 9–35. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Kimball, K.D. and Levins, S.A. (1985) Limitations to laboratory bioassays: the need for ecosystem-level testing.Bioscience 35, 165–71.Google Scholar
  19. Levine, S.N. (1989) Theoretical and methodological reasons for variability in the response of aquatic ecosystem processes to chemical stresses. In Levin, S., Harwell, M.A., Kelly, J.R. and Kimball, K.D. eds.Ecotoxicology: problems and approaches, pp. 145–80. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Livingstone, D.R. (1991) Organic xenobiotic metabolism in marine invertebrates. I Gilles, R. ed.Advances in comparative and environmental physiology, Vol. 7, pp. 45–185. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. McCarthy, J.F. and Shugart, L.R. (eds) (1990)Biomarkers of Environmental Contamination. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
  22. Mance, G. (1987)Pollution Threat of Heavy Metals in Aquatic Environments. London: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
  23. Maugh, T.H. (1978) Chemicals: how many are there?Science 199, 162.Google Scholar
  24. Mayer, F.L., Versteeg, D.J., McKee, M.J., Folmar, L.C., Graney, R.L., McCume, D.C. and Ratner, B.A. (1992) Huggert, R.J., Kimerle, R.A., Mehrle, P.M. and Bergman, L.H. eds.Biomarkers: biochemical, physiological and histological markers of anthropogenic stress, pp. 5–85. FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
  25. NRC (National Research Council) (1987) Committee on biological markers.Environ. Health Perspect. 74, 3–9.Google Scholar
  26. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) (1989)Biologic Markers in Reproductive Toxicology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Peakall, D.B. (1992)Animal Biomarkers as Pollution Indicators. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Peakall, D.B. and Shugart, L.R. (1992)Biomarkers: Research and Application in the Assessment of Environmental Health. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Phillips, D.J.H. (1980)Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators. London: Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Ryder, R.A. and Edwards, C.J. (1985) A conceptual approach for the application of biological indicators of ecosystem quality in the Great Lakes Basin. InReport to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board. Windsor, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Stegeman, J.J., Brouwer, M., DiGuilio, R.T., Forlin, L., Fowler, B.A., Sanders, B.M. and Van, Veld, P.A. (1992) Molecular responses to environmental contamination: enzyme and protein systems as indicators of chemical exposure and effect. In Huggett, R.J., Kimerle, R.A., Mehrle, P.M. and Bergman, H.L. eds.Biomarkers: biochemical, physiological and histological markers of anthropogenic stress, pp. 235–335. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
  32. Suter, G.W. (1990) Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments.Environ. Mange. 14, 9–23.Google Scholar
  33. Webster, J.R., Waide, J.B. and Patten, B.C. (1975) Nutrient cycling and the stability of ecosystems. In Howell, F.G., Gentry, J.B. and Smith, M.H. eds.Mineral cycling in southeastern ecosystems, Springfield, VA: ERDA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. H. Depledge
    • 1
  • M. C. Fossi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of PlymouthUK
  2. 2.Department di Biologia AmbientaleUniversity of SienaItaly

Personalised recommendations