模型物种(例如,肉食猎鸟,水禽,雀形目,驯化的啮齿动物)已经在指导实验室测试中使用了几十年来产生存活,用于鸟类和哺乳动物的前瞻性生态风险评估(ERA)的生长和生殖数据,虽然官方采用的两栖动物和爬行动物风险评估计划并不存在。目前的体内方法存在公认的缺点,并且在具有不同生活史的物种的程度上存在不确定性(例如,陆地两栖动物,爬行动物,bat)比这些常用模型受到现有ERA框架的保护。正在开发除了验证其他动物模型进行测试之外的方法,但将此类新方法方法(NAMs)纳入风险评估框架将需要针对体内反应的强大验证。这需要时间,将非动物研究结果推断为陆地野生动物的生物和种群水平影响的能力仍然很弱。未能充分预测和预测危险可能会对监管机构和产品注册人产生经济甚至法律后果。为了能够使用更少的动物或长期完全替代它们,脊椎动物的使用和整个生物体的数据将需要在短期内为NAMs验证提供数据。因此,值得投入资源,对实验室中使用的现有标准测试指南进行潜在更新,并满足对实地研究进行明确指导的需求。在这里,我们回顾了改进标准体内测试方法和推进野生生物风险评估中实地研究的潜力。因为在可预见的未来将需要这些工具。
Model species (e.g., granivorous gamebirds, waterfowl, passerines, domesticated rodents) have been used for decades in guideline laboratory tests to generate survival, growth, and reproductive data for prospective ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for birds and mammals, while officially adopted risk assessment schemes for amphibians and reptiles do not exist. There are recognized shortcomings of current in vivo methods as well as uncertainty around the extent to which species with different life histories (e.g., terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, bats) than these commonly used models are protected by existing ERA frameworks. Approaches other than validating additional animal models for testing are being developed, but the incorporation of such new approach methodologies (NAMs) into risk assessment frameworks will require robust validations against in vivo responses. This takes time, and the ability to extrapolate findings from nonanimal studies to organism- and population-level effects in terrestrial wildlife remains weak. Failure to adequately anticipate and predict hazards could have economic and potentially even legal consequences for regulators and product registrants. In order to be able to use fewer animals or replace them altogether in the long term, vertebrate use and whole organism data will be needed to provide data for NAM validation in the short term. Therefore, it is worth investing resources for potential updates to existing standard test guidelines used in the laboratory as well as addressing the need for clear guidance on the conduct of field studies. Herein, we review the potential for improving standard in vivo test methods and for advancing the use of field studies in wildlife risk assessment, as these tools will be needed in the foreseeable future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:699-724. © 2023 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.