Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2021.39.1.088

Marine ecosystem risk assessment using a land-based marine closed mesocosm: Proposal of objective impact assessment tool  

Yoon, Sung-Jin (Ulleungdo-Dokdo Ocean Science Station, Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Environmental Biology / v.39, no.1, 2021 , pp. 88-99 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, a land-based marine closed mesocosm (LMCM) experiment was performed to objectively assess the initial stability of an artificial ecosystem experiment against biological and non-biological factors when evaluating ecosystem risk assessment. Changes in the CV (coefficient of value) amplitude were used as data to analyze the stability of the experimental system. The CV of the experimental variables in the LMCM groups (200, 400, 600, and 1,000 L) was maintained within the range of 20-30% for the abiotic variables in this study. However, the difference in CV amplitude in biological factors such as chlorophyll-a, phytoplankton, and zooplankton was high in the 600 L and 1,000 L LMCM groups. This result was interpreted as occurring due to the lack of control over biological variables at the beginning of the experiment. In addition, according to the ANOVA results, significant differences were found in biological contents such as COD (chemical oxygen demand), chlorophyll-a, phosphate, and zooplankton in the CV values between the LMCM groups(p<0.05). In this study, the stabilization of biological variables was necessary to to control and maintain the rate of changes in initial biological variables except for controllable water quality and nutrients. However, given the complexity of the eco-physiological activities of large-scale LMCMs and organisms in the experimental group, it was difficult to do. In conclusion, artificial ecosystem experiments as a scientific tool can distinguish biological and non-biological factors and compare and analyze clear endpoints. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to establish research objectives, select content that can maintain stability, and introduce standardized analysis techniques that can objectively interpret the experimental results.
Keywords
ecosystem risk assessment; mesocosm; LMCM; stability; CV;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Yoon SJ. 2021. Critical low temperature and response of behavioral tolerance in red seabream Pagrus major fingerlings exposed to cold shock. J. Korea Acad. Indust. Coop. Soc. 22:575-584.   DOI
2 Sanchis J, M Llorca, M Olmos, GF Schirinzi, C Bosch-Orea, E Adad, D Barcelo and M Farre. 2018. Metabolic responses of Mytilus galloprovincialis to fullerences in mesocosm exposure experiments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:1002-1013.   DOI
3 Harris RML, PD Armitage, AM Milner and M Ledger. 2007. Replicability of physiochemistry and macroinvertebrate assemblages in stream mesocosms: implications for experimental research. Freshw. Biol. 52:2434-2443.   DOI
4 Louvado A, FJRC Coelho, V Oliveira, H Gomes, DFR Cleary, MMQ Simoes, A Cunha and NCM Gomes. 2019. Microcosm evaluation of the impact of oil contamination and chemical dispersant addition on bacterial communities and sediment remediation of an estuarine port environment. J. Appl. Microbiol. 127:134-149.   DOI
5 Raygosa-Barahona RR, S Putzeys, J Herrera and D Pech. 2019. Technical note: Low mesocosms design for studies of tropical marine environments. Biogeosci. Discuss. (preprint) https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2019-59.   DOI
6 Schindler DW. 1998. Replication versus realism: The need for ecosystem-scale experiments. Ecosystems 1:323-334.   DOI
7 Trepanier C, S Parent, Y Comeau and J Bouvrette. 2002. Phosphorus budget as a water quality management tool for closed aquatic mesocosms. Water Res. 36:1007-1017.   DOI
8 Andersson AJ, DI Kline, PJ Edmunds, SD Archer, N Bedenarsek, RC Carpenter, M Chadsey, P Goldstein, AG Grottoli, TP Hurst, AL King, JE Kubler, IB Kuffner, KRM Mackey, BA Menge, A Paytan, U Riebesell, A Schnetzer, ME Warner and RC Zimmerman. 2015. Understanding ocean acidification impacts on organismal to ecological scales. Oceanography 28:16-27.
9 Sommer U, N Aberle, A Engel, T Hansen, K Lengfellner, M Sandow, J Wohlers, E Zollner and U Riebesell. 2007. An indoor mesocosm system to study the effect of climate change on the late winter and spring succession of Naltic Sea phytoand Zooplankton. Oecologia 154:665-667.
10 Parent S and A Morin. 2000. N budget as water quality management tool in closed aquatic mesocosms. Water Res. 34:1846-1856.   DOI
11 Cappello S and MM Yakimov. 2010. Mesocosm for oil simulation. pp. 3513-3521. In: Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology (Timmis KN, ed.). Springer-Verlag. Berlin.
12 Carpenter SR. 1996. Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677-680.   DOI
13 Crossland NO and TW La Point. 1992. The design of mesocosm experiments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:1-4.   DOI
14 De Lafontaine Y and WG Leggett. 1987. Evaluation of in situ enclosures for larval fish studies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:54-65.   DOI
15 Kraufvelin P. 1999. Baltic hard bottom mesocosms unplugged: replicability, repeatability and ecological realism examined by non-parametric multivariate techniques. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 240:229-258.   DOI
16 Falkenberg LJ, BD Russel and SD Connell. 2016. Design and performance evaluation of a mesocosm facility and techniques to simulate ocean acidification and warming. Limnol. Oceanogr. Meth. 14:278-291.   DOI
17 Giddings JM and GK Eddlemon. 1979. Some ecological and experimental properties of complex aquatic microcosms. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 13:119-123.   DOI
18 Kim JH, EJ Kang, KY Kim and KY Kim. 2018. A continuous-flow on-site mesocosm for ocean acidification experiments on benthic organisms. Algae 33:359-366.   DOI
19 Lee IC, HE Woo, KM Kim, JH Lee and KH Kim. 2018. A study on changes in pore water quality of polluted sediment due to mixing ratio of granulated coal ash. J. Korean Soc. Coast. Ocean Eng. 30:201-206.   DOI
20 MLTM. 2008. Marine environment standard test method. Ministry of Land Transport and Maritime Affairs. p. 516.
21 Pratt JR and NJ Browers. 1992. Variability of community metrics: Detecting change in structure and function. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:451-457.   DOI
22 Kraufvelin P. 1998. Model ecosystem replicablility challenged by the "soft" reality of a hard bottom mesocosm. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 222:247-267.   DOI
23 Lehtinen KJ, K Mattsson, J Tana, C Grotell and C Engstrom. 1998. Effects on ecosystem structure and function of fish farming as simulated in littoral brackish water mesocosms. Aquaculture 165:179-202.   DOI
24 Pages JF, M Perez and J Romero. 2010. Sensitivity of the seagrass Cymodoceanodosa to hypersaline conditions: A microcosm approach. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 386:34-38.   DOI
25 Pansch C and C Heibenthal. 2019. A new mesocosm system to study the effects of environmental variability marine species and communities. Limnol. Oceanogr. Meth. 17:145-162.   DOI
26 Passarelli MC, I Riba, A Cesar, A Newton and TA del Valles. 2018. Using a mesocosm approach to evaluate marine benthic assemblage alteration associated with CO2 enrichment in coastal environments. Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 157:29-39.   DOI
27 Sharma KV, B Kumar and SR Marigoudar. 2021. A review of mesocosm experiments on heavy metals in marine environment and related issues of emerging concerns. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28:1-13.   DOI
28 Ryu SH and IC Lee. 2018. Estimation of nutrient mass balance in a Phragmites australis community in Jindo through a mesocosm experiment. J. Korean Sco. Mar. Environ. Safe. 24:545-552.   DOI
29 Sim JH, JN Kwon, JM Park and SN Kwak. 2013. The effects of ocean acidification on early growth of juvenile oliver flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus): in suit mesocosm experiemt. Korean J. Environ. Biol. 31:353-361.   DOI
30 Sorf M, Z Brandl, P Znachor and M Vasek. 2013. Floating largevolume mesocosms as a simple, low-coast experimental design suitable for the variety of lakes and reservoir. Fundam. Appl. Limnol. 183:41-48.   DOI
31 Bellworthy J and M Fine. 2018. The red sea simulator: A highprecision climate change mesocosm with automated monitoring for the long-term study of coral reef organisms. Limnol. Oceanogr. Meth. 16:367-375.   DOI
32 Conquest LL. 1983. Assessing the statistical effectiveness of ecological experiments: Utility of the coefficient of variation. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 20:209-221.   DOI
33 Yang JS and YH Jeong. 2011. Mesocosm as a scientific tool for marine science: Focused on the soft-bottom environment. J. Kor. Soc. Mar. Environ. Engineer. 14:93-106.
34 Duggan SB, CJ Kotalik and WH Clements. 2018. Integrating results of field biomonitoring and mesocosm experiments to validate postspill impacts of petroleum hydrocarbons on stream benthic communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:13584-13590.   DOI
35 Giesy JP and PM Allred. 1985. Mutispecies Toxicity Testing. pp. 18-24. In: Replicability of Aquatic Multispecies Test Systems (Cairns J, ed.). Pergamon Press. New York.
36 Stewart RIA, M Dossena, DA Bohan, E Jeppesen, RL Kordas, ME Ledger, M Meerhoff, B Moss, C Mulder, JB Shurin, B Suttle, R Thompson, M Trimmer and G Woodward. 2013. Mesocosm experiments as a tool for ecological climate-change research. pp. 71-181. In: Advances in Ecological Research (Woodward G and EJ O'Gorman, eds.). Academic Press. Amsterdam.
37 Tsiaras KP, S Christodoulaki, G Petihakis, C Frangoulis and G Triantafyllou. 2017. Model simulations of a mesocosm experiment investigating the responses of a low nutrient low chlorophyll (LNLC) marine ecosystem to atmospheric deposition events. Front. Mar. Sci. 4:1-19.
38 Watts MC and GR Bigg. 2001. Modelling and the monitoring of mesocosm experiments: two case studies. J. Plankton Res. 23:1081-1093.   DOI
39 Yoon SJ and GS Park. 2012. Microcosm approach for brine impact assessment from seawater desalination on benthic assemblages. Desalin. Water Treat. 43:102-112.   DOI