Three perspectives on the prediction of chemical effects in ecosystems

Abstract

The increasing production, use and emission of synthetic chemicals into the environment represents a major driver of global change. The large number of synthetic chemicals, limited knowledge on exposure patterns and effects in organisms and their interaction with other global change drivers hamper the prediction of effects in ecosystems. However, recent advances in biomolecular and computational methods are promising to improve our capacity for prediction. We delineate three idealised perspectives for the prediction of chemical effects: the suborganismal, organismal and ecological perspective, which are currently largely separated. Each of the outlined perspectives includes essential and complementary theories and tools for prediction but captures only part of the phenomenon of chemical effects. Links between the perspectives may foster predictive modelling of chemical effects in ecosystems and extrapolation between species. A major challenge for the linkage is the lack of data sets simultaneously covering different levels of biological organisation (here referred to as biological levels) as well as varying temporal and spatial scales. Synthesising the three perspectives, some central aspects and associated types of data seem particularly necessary to improve prediction. First, suborganism‐ and organism‐level responses to chemicals need to be recorded and tested for relationships with chemical groups and organism traits. Second, metrics that are measurable at many biological levels, such as energy, need to be scrutinised for their potential to integrate across levels. Third, experimental data on the simultaneous response over multiple biological levels and spatiotemporal scales are required. These could be collected in nested and interconnected micro‐ and mesocosm experiments. Lastly, prioritisation of processes involved in the prediction framework needs to find a balance between simplification and capturing the essential complexity of a system. For example, in some cases, eco‐evolutionary dynamics and interactions may need stronger consideration. Prediction needs to move from a static to a real‐world eco‐evolutionary view.

Bibliographic Information