Banks, John

Stark, John D

BioScience

English

University of Washington: UW Tacoma Digital Commons

University of Washington TacomaUW Tacoma Digital CommonsSIAS Faculty Publications School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences3-2002Response From Stark and BanksJohn D. StarkJohn BanksUniversity of Washington Tacoma, jebanks@csumb.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/ias_pubThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at UW Tacoma Digital Commons. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in SIAS Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UW Tacoma Digital Commons.Recommended CitationStark, John D. and Banks, John, "Response From Stark and Banks" (2002). SIAS Faculty Publications. 13.https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/ias_pub/13Response from Stark and Banks:We appreciate Dr. Forbes’s commentsabout our recently published paper,“Selective Pesticides: Are They LessHazardous to the Environment?”(BioScience 51: 980–982), and we are gladto take this opportunity to clarify sev-eral important points.The extinction concentrations that Dr.Forbes calls into question in her letterwere calculated by running regressions onthe curves depicted in Figure 1. Becausedifferent numbers of pesticide concen-trations were evaluated for each chemi-cal, we decided to use regression analysisto calculate the extinction concentra-tions, rather than simply read values offthe curves, in order to avoid sample sizebiases. The apparent discrepancy betweenthe data presented in Figure 1 and the ex-tinction concentrations reported in Table3 stems from the difference between thedata points depicted in the graph andMarch 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 3 •  BioScience 215Letters216 BioScience  •  March 2002 / Vol. 52 No. 3the values of the x-intercepts used to cal-culate the extinction concentrations.While we are acutely aware of theECOFRAM and CEC risk-assessmentpolicies and the safety buffers establishedby the United States, the European Union,and others, it is precisely the uncertaintyinherent in carrying out risk assessmentand the widely variable response to reg-ulating such uncertainty that we’re hop-ing might be better served by using abroader scientific approach. Our paperwas not meant to be an indictment ofcurrently used protocols in risk assess-ment, but rather to emphasize, as Dr.Forbes points out, the importance ofconsidering different endpoints of effect.Finally, we thank Dr. Forbes for point-ing out some typographic errors that weoverlooked—in particular the reversedprose in the footnote to Table 3. Thefootnote should read “Hazard quotientsequal to or greater than 1 indicate that thechemical poses a risk.”Dr. Forbes has been a proponent ofpopulation-level effects over the LC50(see V. E. Forbes and P. Calow, 1999, “Isthe Per Capita Rate of Increase a GoodMeasure of Population-Level Effects inEcotoxicology?”Environmental Toxicologyand Chemistry 18: 1544–1556) in thepast, and we agree with her position that population-level impacts are more mean-ingful than individual-level effects such as the LC50.We hope that our paper and the workof Dr. Forbes and others will stimulatefurther discussion and research on thisimportant topic.JOHN D. STARKEcotoxicology ProgramDepartment of EntomologyWashington State UniversityPuyallup, WA 98371-4998JOHN E. BANKSInterdisciplinary Arts and SciencesUniversity of WashingtonTacoma, WA 98402-3100Letters

Response From Stark and Banks

CARDOSO DA SILVA, JOSÉ MARIA

BATES, JOHN M

University of Miami: Scholarship Miami

Biogeographic Patterns and Conservation in the South American Cerrado: A Tropical Savanna Hotspot

https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ias_pub

Response From Stark and Banks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Washington: UW Tacoma Digital Commons

University of Miami: Scholarship Miami