Species Sensitivity Distributions Revisited: A Critical Appraisal

By V. Forbes, P. Calow. 2002

277 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/95732201562d33fcb522a4968320d075164096fe

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. B. Kefford

Citations in the corpus

• What is Meant by “95% of Species”? An Argument for the Inclusion of Rapid Tolerance Testing (2005, background): “This article will not address other premises and assumptions of SSD approaches, and toxicity testing in general, as they have been covered elsewhere (including: Selck et al. 2002 ; Forbes and Calow 2002a ).”
• Species Sensitivity to Toxic Substances: Evolution, Ecology and Applications (2020, background): “This selection, which can be based on taxonomy or function, avoids setting protection goals that disproportionately leave key functional species among the affected 5%, even when the protection goals for 95% of species is met (Hopkin, 1993; Forbes and Calow, 2002).”