Bioindicators: Types, Development, and Use in Ecological Assessment and Research

Abstract

Government, scientists, managers, and the public are interested in assessing the health of ecosystems. Initially ecologists concentrated on assessing condition, reproductive success, and survival of a wide range of individual species, but this approach quickly broadened to include the health of communities, ecosystems, and landscapes, as well as the human dimension. Monitoring ecosystem health requires the use of a suite of bioindicators that are biologically, methodologically, and societally relevant, and can be used effectively over time to assess trends and provide early warning. Bioindicators can be developed for ecosystem health assessment, for human effects and interventions, human health assessment, and for evaluating sustainability. Whereas ecologists initially developed indicators to measure health or well-being of relatively pristine environments, the usefulness of indicators is enhanced if they can assess both ecological and human health, provide trends data, and be used to examine a wide range of stressors, from natural to anthropogenic. A literature review indicated that most ecological indicators have been developed for ecosystem function, followed by political, regulatory, cost, and risk assessment considerations. There are four main types of indicators, which are not mutually exclusive, including 1) ecosystem health assessment, 2) human effects, 3) human interventions, and 4) human health and well-being. These indicators can then be used to assess the current health of a species or system, the effects of particular human activities on ecosystems, and the efficacy of management, remediation, and restoration, or just to track trends over time. Bioindicators that encompass several categories have the greatest chance of being implemented over the long term.

Many people contributed to various aspects of my research and thinking about bioindicators over the years, and I thank then now: M. Gochfeld, M. Greenberg, B. D. Goldstein, C. W. Powers, K. Cooper, I. L. Brisbin Jr., R. Ramos, C. Dixon, C. Jeitner, K. F. Gaines, R. A. Kennamer, C. Lord, C. Safina, T. Shukla, and S. Shukla. The research reported herein was conducted under approved Rutgers University protocols, and was funded by NIMH, NIEHS (ESO 5022), EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Foundation, NJ Endangered and NonGame Species Program, Wildlife Trust, Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) through the Department of Energy cooperative agreement (AI # DE-FC01-95EW55084), and the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute. The views expressed in this paper are solely the responsibility of the author, and do not represent those of the funding agency.

Keywords:

• bioindicator
• environmental
• contaminants
• ecological receptors
• vertebrates

Notes

Many people contributed to various aspects of my research and thinking about bioindicators over the years, and I thank then now: M. Gochfeld, M. Greenberg, B. D. Goldstein, C. W. Powers, K. Cooper, I. L. Brisbin Jr., R. Ramos, C. Dixon, C. Jeitner, K. F. Gaines, R. A. Kennamer, C. Lord, C. Safina, T. Shukla, and S. Shukla. The research reported herein was conducted under approved Rutgers University protocols, and was funded by NIMH, NIEHS (ESO 5022), EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Foundation, NJ Endangered and NonGame Species Program, Wildlife Trust, Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) through the Department of Energy cooperative agreement (AI # DE-FC01-95EW55084), and the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute. The views expressed in this paper are solely the responsibility of the author, and do not represent those of the funding agency.