Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Ecological Risk from Radiation Requires an Ecosystem Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Genetics, Evolution and Radiation

  • 892 Accesses

Abstract

In order to be fully adequate, efficient, pertinent and demonstrative with respect to ecological risk, a system for environment protection against radiation requires an ecosystem approach. Starting from an historical analysis of the cultural context within which environment protection has evolved in the radiation protection community, and taking stock of the IAEA member states’ reluctance to implement it in international regulation, we revisit the strategic justification expressed at the origin and observe that the scoping was weak due to aiming at “filling a conceptual gap” and a “demonstration goal” rather than simply assessing/preventing ecological detriment per se. The system framework best currently achieved is biocentric and dominated by high levels of reductionism because recent compilations of literature upon which the operational methodology is constructed are largely restricted to biological effects of radiation observed at organism level. As such, this first methodology misses to address also ecological risk, the actual goal of environment protection that all now acknowledge. It is stressed that addressing ecological risk cannot be extrapolated or simply derived from this first methodology, and requires designing an ecosystem approach in addition. Several results and findings recently published corroborate this view towards a more ecocentric vision. The ecosystem approach provides a conceptual vision which integrates humans within the environment. It therefore brings a suitable basis to build on for addressing ecological risk, assessing how, and to which extent, the human and environment radiation protection systems could be integrated together, and relating ecological detriment to potential loss of ecosystem services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CERAD: Centre (of excellence) for Environmental Radioactivity, based in Norway (www/cerad.nmbu.no).

  2. 2.

    EDR10: Effect Dose rate eliciting 10 % of effect.

  3. 3.

    EC10S: Effect concentration eliciting 10 % of effect on single-species population S.

References

  • Alonzo F, Hertel-Aas T, Gilek M, Gilbin R, Oughton DH, Garnier-Laplace J (2008) Modelling the propagation of effects of chronic exposure to ionising radiation from individuals to populations. J Environ Radioact 99(9):1464–1473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker RJ, Chesser RK (2000) The Chernobyl nuclear disaster and subsequent creation of a wildlife preserve. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1231–1232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker RJ, Dewoody JA, Wright AJ, Chesser RK (1999) On the utility of heteroplasmy in genotoxicity studies: an example from Chernobyl. Ecotoxicology 8:301–309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beresford NA, Copplestone D (2011) Effects of ionizing radiation on wildlife: what knowledge we have gained between the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents? Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:371–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beresford NA, Adam-Guillermin Ch, Bonzom J-M, Garnier-Laplace J, Hinton T, Lecomte C, Copplestone D (2012a) Comment on “abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl” by Møller et al (2012) Environ Poll 169:136

    Google Scholar 

  • Beresford NA, Adam-Guillermin Ch, Bonzom J-M, Garnier-Laplace J, Hinton T, Lecomte C, Copplestone D, Della-Vedova C, Ritz C (2012b) Response to authors’ reply regarding “abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl” by Møller et al (2012). Environ Pollut 169:139–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Boratynski Z, Lehmann P, Mappes T, Mousseau TA, Møller AP (2014) Increased radiation from Chernobyl decreases the expression of red colouration in natural populations of bank voles (Myodes glareolus). Sci Rep 4:7141; doi:10.108/srep07141

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw C, Kapustka L, Barnthouse L, Brown J, Ciffroy P, Forbes V, Geras’kin S, Kautsky U, Bréchignac F (2014) Using an ecosystem approach to complement protection schemes based on organism-level endpoints. J Environ Radioact 136:98–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Bréchignac F (2001) Environment versus man radioprotection: the need for a new conceptual approach? Radioprotection Colloques 37-C1:161–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Bréchignac F (2003) Protection of the environment: how to position radioprotection in an ecological risk assessment perspective. Sci Total Environ 307:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bréchignac F (2012) Environment protection: the current challenge in radioecology. In: Plastino W, Povinec PP (eds) Proceedings of conference “environmental radioactivity—new frontiers and developments”. SIF, Bologna 104:3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Bréchignac F (2016) The need to integrate laboratory- and ecosystem-level research for assessment of the ecological impact of radiation. Integr Environ Assess Manag, October issue, in press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bréchignac F, Doi M (2009) Challenging the current strategy of radiological protection of the environment: arguments for an ecosystem approach. J Environ Radioact 100:1125–1134

    Google Scholar 

  • Bréchignac F, Polikarpov G, Oughton DH, Hunter G, Alexakhin R, Zhu YG, Hilton J, Strand P (2003) Protection of the environment in the 21st century: radiation protection of the biosphere including humankind—statement of the international union of radioecology. J Environ Radioact 70:155–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bréchignac F, Bradshaw C, Carroll S, Jaworska A, Kapustka L, Monte L, Oughton D (2011) Recommendations from the international union of radioecology to improve guidance on radiation protection. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7(3):411–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JE, Alfonso B, Avila R, Beresford NA, Copplestone D, Prohl G, Ulanovsky A (2008) The ERICA tool. J Environ Radioact 99:1371–1383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll S (2009) Radiological protection of the environment from an NGO perspective. Radioprotection 44(5):439–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charpin FSI, Zavaleta ES, EvinerVT Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Diaz S (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Laender F, De Schamphelaere KAC, Vanrolleghem PA, Jansen CR (2008) Do we have to incorporate ecological interactions in the sensitivity assessment of ecosystems? An examination of a theoretical assumption underlying species sensitivity distribution models. Environ Int 34:390–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ERICA (2007) An integrated approach to the assessment and management of environmental risks from ionizing radiation. ERICA Project, European Commission, contract no. F16R-CT-2004–508847

    Google Scholar 

  • FASSET (2004) Framework for assessment of environmental impact. Final report of EC 5th framework programme, contract FIGE-CT-2000–00102:111 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleeger JW, Carman KR, Nisbet RM (2003) Indirect effects of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 317:207–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes VE, Calow P (2013) Use of the ecosystem services concept in ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9(2):269–275. doi:10.1002/ieam.1368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • French NR, Maza BG, Hill HO, Aschwanden AP, Kaaz HW (1974) A population study of irradiated desert rodents. Ecol Monogr 44:45–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvan I, Bonisoli-Alquati A, Jenkinson S, Ghanem G, Wakamatsu K, Mousseau TA, Møller AP (2014) Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation at Chernobyl favours adaptation to oxidative stress in birds. Funct Ecol doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12283

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnier-Laplace J, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Hinton T (2011) Fukushima wildlife dose reconstruction signals ecological consequences. Environ Sci Technol 45:5077–5078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garnier-Laplace J, Geras’kin S, Della-Vedova C, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Hinton TG, Real A, Oudalova A (2013) Are radiosensitivity data derived from natural field conditions consistent with data from controlled exposures? A case study of Chernobyl wildlife chronically exposed to low dose rates. J Environ Radioact 121:12–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Gralla F, Abson DJ, Møller AP, Lang DJ, von Werhden H (2014) The impact of nuclear accidents on provisioning ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 41:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinton TG, Bréchignac F (2005) A case against biomarkers as they are currently used in radioecological risk analyses: a problem of linkage. In: Bréchignac F, Howard BJ (eds) The scientific basis for radiological protection of the environment. Tec & Doc Lavoisier, Paris, pp 123–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiyama A, Nohara C, Kinjo S, Taira W, Gima S, Tanahara A, Otaki J (2012) The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly. Sci Rep 2:570; doi:10.1038/srep00570

  • Hiyama A, Nohara C, Taira W, Kinjo S, Iwata M, Otaki J (2013) The Fukushima nuclear accident and the pale grass butterfly: evaluating biological effects of long-term low-dose exposures. BMC Evol Biol 13:168 http://www.biomedcentral/1471-2148/13/168

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (2011) Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards—Interim edition, IAEA safety standards series no. GSR Part 3 (Interim), IAEA, Vienna (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (2014) Summary notes from the technical meeting of the coordination group on radiation protection of the environment: input to safety standards taking into account the BSS and relevant ICRP/International organizations recommendations. IAEA, Vienna, 2–3 July 2013, 8 p

    Google Scholar 

  • ICRP (2003) A framework for assessing the impact of ionizing radiation on non-human species. Ann ICRP 33(3):266 p (publication 91)

    Google Scholar 

  • ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP 37(2–4):332 p (Publication 103)

    Google Scholar 

  • ICRP (2008) Environmental protection: the concept and use of reference animals and plants. Ann ICRP 38(4–6):242 p (Publication 108)

    Google Scholar 

  • IUR (1997) Dose and effects in non-human systems. Summary of the work of the action group of IUR. International Union of Radioecology, IUR report n° 1. Østeras, Norway, 7 p

    Google Scholar 

  • IUR (2002) Protection of the environment: current status and future work. International Union of Radioecology, IUR report n° 3. Østeras, Norway, 23 p

    Google Scholar 

  • IUR (2012) Towards an ecosystem approach for environment protection with emphasis on radiological hazards. International Union of Radioecology, IUR report n° 7, 82 p (978-0-9554994-4-9) (www.iur-uir.org)

  • Jackson D, Copplestone D, Stone DM (2004) Effects of chronic radiation exposure on small mammals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Nucl Energy 43:281–287

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lance E, Alonzo F, Garcia-Sanchez L, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Garnier-Laplace J (2012) Modelling population-level consequences of chronic external gamma irradiation in aquatic invertebrates under laboratory conditions. Sci Total Environ 429:206–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig D, Jones DD, Holling CS (1978) Qualitative analysis of insect outbreak systems: the spruce budworm and forest. J Anim Ecol 47:315–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby L (2013) Ecosystem services and the protection, restoration, and management of ecosystems exposed to chemical stressors. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:974–983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maslin M (2013) A brief history of the global warming debate. In: Maslin M (ed) Global warming, a very short introduction, 3d edn. Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/actrade/9780199548248.001.0001

  • Mihok S (2004) Chronic exposure to gamma radiation of wild populations of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Environ Radioact 75:233–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mihok S, Schwartz B, Iverson SL (1985) Ecology of red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi) in a gradient of gamma radiation. Ann Zool Fenn 22:257–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, 160 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2007) Species richness and abundance of forest birds in relation to radiation at Chernobyl. Biol Lett 3:483–486

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2009) Reduced abundance of insects and spiders linked to radiation at Chernobyl 20 years after the accident. Biol Lett 5:356–359

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2013) Low-dose radiation, scientific scrutiny, and requirements for demonstrating effects. BMC Biol 11:92. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/11/92

  • Møller AP, Mousseau TA (2015) Strong effects of ionizing radiation from Chernobyl on mutation rates. Sci Rep 5:8363. doi:10.1038/srep08363

  • Møller AP, Surai P, Mousseau TA (2005) Antioxidants, radiation and mutation as revealed by sperm abnormality in barn swallows from Chernobyl. Proc R Soc B 272:247–252

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Mousseau TA, de Lope F, Saino N (2007) Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swallows from Chernobyl. Biol Lett 3:414–417

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Hagiwara A, Matsui S, Kasahara S, Kawatsu K, Nishiumi I, Suzuki H, Ueda K, Mousseau TA (2012) Abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl. Environ Pollut 164:36–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Nishiumi I, Suzuki H, Ueda K, Mousseau TA (2013) Differences in effects of radiation on abundance of animals in Fukushima and Chernobyl. Ecol Indic 24:75–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Mousseau TA, Nishiumi I, Ueda K (2015a) Ecological differences in response of birds to radioactivity from Chernobyl and Fukushima. J Ornithol doi:10.1007/s10336-015-1173-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Nishiumi I, Mousseau TA (2015b) Cumulative effects of radioactiveity from Fukushima on the abundance and biodiversity of birds. J Ornithol. doi:10.1007/s10336-015-1197-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau TA, Møller AP (2012) Reply to response regarding «abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl” by Møller et al (2012). Environ Pollut 169:141–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau TA, Møller AP, Ueda K (2012) Reply to “comment on «abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl” by Møller et al (2012)”. Environ Pollut 169:137–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau TA, Milinevsky G, Kenney-Hunt J, Møller AP (2013) Highly reduced mass loss rates and increased litter layer in radioactively contaminated areas. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-014-2908-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JF, Nagorskaya LL, Smith JT (2011) Abundance and diversity of aquatic ùacro in vertebrate communities in lakes exposed to Chernobyl-derived ionizing radiation. J Environ Radioact 102:688–694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nienstedt KM, Brock TCM, van Wensem J et al (2012) Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 415(SI):31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers BE, Baker RJ (2000) Frequencies of micronuclei in bank voles from zones of high radiation at Chernobyl, Ukraine. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1644–1648

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sazykina TG, Kryshev AI (2003) EPIC database on the effects of chronic radiation in fish: Russian/FSU data. J Environ Radioact 68:65–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sazykina TG, Kryshev AI (2006) Radiation effects in wild terrestrial vertebrates—the EPIC collection. J Environ Radioact 88:11–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Beresford NA (2005) Chernobyl—catastrophe and consequences. Springer, Berlin. Praxix Publishing Ltd, Chichester, 310 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand P, Aono A, Garnier-Laplace J, Hosseini A, Sazykina T, Steenhuisen F, Vivesi Battle J (2014) Assessment of Fukushima-derived radiation doses and effects on wildlife in Japan. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1:198–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW II (1999) Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5(2):375–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wensem J, Maltby L (2013) Ecosystem services: from policy to practice. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9(2):211–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wehrden H, Fischer J, Brandt P, Wagner V, Kümmerer K, Kuemmerle T, Nagel A, Olsson O, Hostert P (2012) Consequences of nuclear accidents for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conserv Lett 0:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams N (1995) Chernobyl: life abounds without people. Science 269:304

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) and International Union of Radioecology (IUR), BP 1, Center of Cadarache, St Paul-lez-Durance, Cedex, 13115, France

    François Bréchignac

Authors
  1. François Bréchignac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François Bréchignac .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia

    Victoria L. Korogodina

  2. Department of Medical Physics and Applied Radiation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Carmel E Mothersill

  3. Genetics and Biotechnology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Sergey G. Inge-Vechtomov

  4. Department of Medical Physics and Applied Radiation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Colin B. Seymour

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bréchignac, F. (2016). Assessing Ecological Risk from Radiation Requires an Ecosystem Approach. In: Korogodina, V., Mothersill, C., Inge-Vechtomov, S., Seymour, C. (eds) Genetics, Evolution and Radiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48838-7_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation