The protection of our natural environment with its human-induced declining biodiversity calls for a multidisciplinary effort aimed at halting the decline and restoring nature from what is left. This effort is hampered by fragmentation of the scientific disciplines supporting nature conservation. In a somewhat stereotypic division, we see the field divided into three worlds:
• The classical nature conservation approach with an emphasis on landscapes and vegetation.
• The approach of biodiversity protection, aimed at conserving species with high appeal, such as butterflies and birds.
• Ecological risk assessment, with its emphasis on contamination as a factor prohibiting successful nature restoration programs
We initiated the Research Topic Connecting Biodiversity Protection, Nature Conservation Assessment, and Ecological Risk Assessment from the observations that there seems to be a disconnect between Biodiversity Protection, Nature conservation Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment and that they are worlds apart. All three “worlds” have their own governance and culture, basic principles and assumptions, vocabulary and terminology, with GBI, IUCN, and SETAC as prominent representatives and signboards.
What we hoped for were papers comparing these worlds apart and providing bridges connecting them.
The result so far is modest, with two papers touching on the basics of the connections and a number of papers illustrating how difficult it is to combine these worlds.
Maltby et al. provide a functional biodiversity approach (ecosystem services) to derive environmental quality standards. But ecosystem services are not linked to classical species diversity yet, in particular in connection to the red list principles of the IUCN. In a tiered approach these refinements could perhaps be achieved, but more research is needed then.
Aidoo et al. touch upon the risk of invasions by the coconut beetle Oryctes monoceros due to climate change. The study outcomes indicate that although risk of extinction is evident, the role of climate change in the extinction of the species is not that clear.
The other papers provide interesting perspectives on impacts of different stressors (i.e., genetic, emerging and legacy contaminants) on specific species.
Manning et al. describe the risks of hybridization between native and introduced brook trout using a habitat model and thereby providing an outlook at a landscape perspective.
Dahms et al. analyse the impact of microplastic on the fish species Clarias garipinus. It would be interesting to compare the results with this predator fish with fish species with other food patterns, and preferably a red or orange conservation status.
Van As et al. provide the first record of organochlorine pesticides in the blood of African leopards, an iconic and threatened species. It illustrates the remarkably limited research on environmental chemical threats and management implications to wild life and specifically apex predators, which was already observed in relation to heavy metal contamination (Eijsackers et al., 2019).
Hopefully these papers will provide inspiration for further research on the topic, providing bridges, or when that is too far, bridgeheads. Given the number of views for these papers so far, the interest is apparent.
Statements
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
EijsackersH.ReineckeA.ReineckeS.MaboetaM. (2019). “Heavy metal threats to plants and soil life in southern africa: Present knowledge and consequences for ecological risk assessment,” Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. Editor de VoogtP., 249, 30–70. 10.1007/398_2019_23
Summary
Keywords
nature, conservation, biodiversity, risk assessment, ecology
Citation
Eijsackers HJP, Maboeta MS, van Straalen NM and Wepener V (2022) Editorial: Nature conservation, biodiversity protection and ecological risk assessment: Three worlds apart in need of connection. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:1044494. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1044494
Received
14 September 2022
Accepted
16 September 2022
Published
03 October 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited and reviewed by
Oladele Ogunseitan, University of California, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Eijsackers, Maboeta, van Straalen and Wepener.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Herman J. P. Eijsackers, herman.eijsackers@wur.nl
This article was submitted to Toxicology, Pollution and the Environment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.