Although chemicals released to the environment have the potential to tax any number of biological processes in nonhuman species, the case can be made that reproductive effects are the ones that need to be most seriously addressed. Whereas the public's perception of reproductive toxicity may primarily or only reflect matters of societal relevance (e.g., hunting or fishing as recreational pastimes may all of a sudden be jeopardized; the desire to have in abundant number, a species whose image is on a state emblem), a stark biological reality should heighten the attention given to reproductive toxicity, more so than any other chemically caused ill-effect - if reproduction is being compromised in a species, extinction, in a specific locality or beyond, may ensue. The argument can be made that the primacy of reproductive toxicity as an ecotoxicological endpoint of concern is reflected in
Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW, and Chipman JW (2004) Remote Imaging and Image Interpretation, 5th edn. New York: Wiley.
Maune DF (2001) Digital Elevation Model Technologies and
Applications: The DEM Users Manual. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing.
Rencz AN (ed.) (1999) Manual of Remote Sensing, Vol. 3: Remote Sensing for the Earth Sciences: Manual of Remote Sensing, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schowengerdt RA (1997) Remote Sensing: Models and Methods for Image Processing. San Diago, CA: Academic Press.
Skidmore A (ed.) (2002) Environmental Modeling with GIS and Remote Sensing. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, et al. (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(6): 306-314.
Ustin SL (ed.) (2004) Manual of remote sensing, Vol. 4: Remote Sensing for Natural Resource Management and Environmental Monitoring, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wilkie DS and Finn JT (1996) Remote Sensing Imagery for Natural Resources Monitoring: A Guide for First-Time Users. New York: Columbia University Press.
Was this article helpful?