PRIMEASIA UNIVERSITY

Assignment on
Ecological Assessment

Course Code: PHN-308

Course Title: Assessment of Nutritional Status- II

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Farzana Sultana Bari Name: Al Imran
Assistant Professor ID:191044034
Dept. of PHN
Primeasia University

‌‍ Submission Date: 07/09/2021

 Ecological Assessment

Definition

Ecological assessment consists in monitoring the current and changing conditions of

ecological resources from which success or failure of the ecosystem can be judged without
bias; understanding more fully the structure and function of ecosystems in order to develop
improved management options; developing models to predict the response of ecosystems
to changes resulting from human-induced stress from which possible ecosystem
management strategies can be assessed and assessing the ecological consequences of
management actions so that decision makers can best understand the outcomes of
choosing a particular management strategy.

Ecological Indicators

The term ecological indicator is increasingly being used in connection with environmental

monitoring and with reporting on the state (condition of health) of the environment. In
ecology, the term ecological indicator has a fairly precise meaning. However the term is
being used more and more in a very general or generic sense to refer to data, information,
indicators, and indices.

Ecological indicators are biological assemblages or taxa that by their presence or condition
indicate something about the environment. For example, the presence or absence of
patches of plants or bare soil can be used as indicators of the state of the health of the
landscape. Such variables have been used as indicators of rangeland health in North
America.

In Western Europe, for example, lowland heathland communities (low-growing ericoid

shrubs) are indicators of low-nutrient, acid soils. By way of contrast, the assemblages of
grasses and herbs on chalk soils are made up of specific mixes of species. In water
monitoring studies, some freshwater invertebrate communities have been described as
indicator communities.

These indicator communities have important applications in ecological monitoring. For

example, some freshwater invertebrate communities have been the basis of some
ecological monitoring programs. The community structure and the species present have also
been bases for the classification of rivers and lakes. For example, a software package aptly
called RIVPACS (the river invertebrate prediction and classification system) is based on the
assumption that the presence of certain taxonomic groups depends on certain physical and
chemical variables.
There are both indicator communities and indicator species. Ecological indicator species are
those species that by their presence or condition or numbers tell us something about the
state of the environment. This of course assumes that the condition of the environment
affects the distribution, state, and numbers of the particular species. Lichens have long been
used as indicator species. Particularly well-known freshwater indicator species are species of
fish and species of macro-invertebrates that are intolerant to high levels of organic load or
pollution. Salmon are fish that are well-known ecological indicators of the health of rivers.
Species of mayflies and caddis flies are examples of macro-invertebrate indicator species.

Influence of ecological Assessment on Nutritional Status :

Introduction

Adequate nutrition lies at the heart of the fight against hunger and poverty [1]. Great strides
in reducing hunger through increases in agricultural productivity have been made
worldwide; however, more than 1 billion people remain chronically underfed, i.e., do not
have proper access to food to continuously meet dietary requirements [2]. It has long been
known that malnutrition undermines economic growth and perpetuates poverty [3].
Healthy individuals contribute to higher individual and country productivity, lower
healthcare costs, and greater economic output by improving physical work capacity,
cognitive development, school performance, and health [4]. Unrelenting malnutrition is
contributing to widespread failure to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, the first of the
eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); moreover, if malnutrition is not eradicated,
most of the other MDGs—improving maternal health, reducing the child mortality rate,
combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, achieving universal primary education, and
promoting gender equality and empowering women—will be difficult to achieve [3]. Yet the
international community and most governments in developing countries continue to
struggle in tackling malnutrition.
Malnutrition has many dimensions, including not only an insufficient amount of food and
calories, but also lack of essential nutrients, poor absorption, and excessive loss of nutrients.
It is increasingly recognized that the current global crisis in malnutrition has roots in
dysfunctional agricultural and food systems that do not deliver enough essential nutrients to
meet the dietary requirements of everyone [5, 6]. Agricultural practices are almost always
directed at maximizing production while minimizing costs. Recently, preserving the
environment has become a more prominent goal of agriculture worldwide; however,
maximizing the micronutrient output of farming systems has never been a primary objective
in modern agriculture, human health, or public policy. Increased crop production during the
Asian Green Revolution prevented mass starvation in many nations. The focus, however,
was primarily on cereal crops (rice, wheat, and maize), which are mainly sources of
carbohydrates and contain only modest amounts of protein and a few other nutrients
essential to meet human nutritional requirements. The change in agricultural production
from diversified cropping systems toward ecologically more simple cereal-based systems
may have contributed to poor dietary diversity, significant micronutrient deficiencies, and
resulting malnutrition [5].Malnutrition involves many different nutrient deficiencies.
The current global nutrition gaps cannot be corrected by increasing the supply of only one
or a couple of foods and nutrients. The role of micronutrients in human health and the
synergies in their physiologic functions are recognized and support the concept that nutrient
deficiencies rarely occur in isolation [7]. The challenge is to provide the diversity and
adequate amount of nutrients required for a complete human diet. This urges a
multidimensional approach. One of the dimensions often not recognized as part of
malnutrition is ecology, the study of the interactions between organisms and their
environment. Yet the relationship between organisms, in this case humans, and resource
acquisition (nutrients) is fundamentally an ecological question. We suggest that human
nutrition is one of the most important, but often overlooked, ecosystem services. Ecologists
work in multidimensional systems, composed of organisms, energy, and the physical
environment interacting at various spatial and temporal scales, which can be described in
terms of composition, structure, functions, fluxes, resilience, or other dynamics [8, 9].
Increasingly, ecologists have focused on the impact of communities and their interactions
on ecological processes, functions, and ecosystem services. These studies, known as
biodiversity and ecosystem function studies, explore the relationship between the numbers
and kinds of organisms in a community and the ecosystem services that are derived from
them.
Though many ecologists have focused on the relationship between biodiversity and
ecosystem functioning, there has been little focus on the role that ecosystems in providing
the essential elements of human diets. How does the combination of environment,
communities, and species and human modification of these assemblages impact human
nutrition? How can ecological knowledge of species–environment interactions be used as a
means of improving human nutritional well-being? What is gained through increased
interactions among ecologists, agronomists, and nutritionists?

Nutritional Assessment

“Nutritional assessment can be defined as the interpretation from dietary, laboratory,

anthropometric and clinical studies. It is used to determine the nutritional status of
individual or population groups as influenced by the intake and utilization of nutrients”
(Gibson, 2005).

There are four forms of nutritional assessment: surveys, surveillance, screening, and

interventions.

Selection of the forms depends from the objectives. For example, nutrition surveys are used
to assess the nutritional status of selected population to identify the group at risk for
chronic malnutrition or for evaluation of the existing nutritional problems in order to
formulate nutrition policies. In nutritional surveillance studies data are collected, analyzed,
and evaluated on standardized method during longer period for identification of the
possible nutritive risk factors for malnutrition for policy formulation of the whole population
or specific vulnerable group or for evaluation and monitoring of the nutrition intervention.
Nutrition screening is used for the identification of malnourished individuals and nutrition
interventions are used for the population subgroups at risk (Gibson, 2005).

Nutritional assessment methods are based on dietary, laboratory-biochemical,

anthropometric and clinical observations. Correct interpretation of the results of nutritional
assessment usually requires consideration of other factors, such as socioeconomic status,
cultural practices, health and vital statistics (ecological; factors).

Nutritional status represents satisfaction of the human body with nutritive and protective
substances and the reflection of this to the physical characteristics, biochemical
composition, physiological characteristics, functional capability, and the health status. Aim
of the examinations and nutritional status assessments is an early discovery of nutritive
disorders in individual and/or population and undertaking appropriate preventive measures.

General Aspects of Nutritional Assessment

Nutritional assessment, in any application, has three general purposes:

 Detection of deficiency states

 Evaluation of nutritional qualities of diets, food habits, and/or food supplies
 Prediction of health effects.
The need to understand and describe the health status of individuals, a basic tenet of
medicine, spawned the development of methods to assess nutrition status as appreciation
grew for the important relationship between nutrition and health. The first applications of
nutritional assessment were in investigations of feed-related health and production
problems of livestock, and, later, in examinations of human populations in developing
countries. Activities of the latter type, consisting mainly of organized nutrition surveys,
resulted in the first efforts to standardize both the methods employed to collect such data
and the ways in which the results are interpreted.1 More recently, nutritional assessment
has also become an essential part of the nutritional care of hospitalized patients, and has
become increasingly important as a means of evaluating the impact of public nutrition
intervention programs.
Systems of Nutritional Assessment
Three types of nutritional assessment systems have been employed both in population-
based studies and in the care of hospitalized patients:
 Nutrition surveys – cross-sectional evaluations of selected population groups;
conducted to generate baseline nutritional data, to learn overall nutrition status, and
to identify subgroups at nutritional risk
 Nutrition surveillance – continuous monitoring of the nutritional status of selected
population groups (e.g., at-risk groups) for an extended period of time; conducted to
identify possible causes of malnutrition
  Nutrition screening – comparison of individuals’ parameters of nutritional status with
predetermined standards; conducted to identify malnourished individuals requiring
nutritional intervention.
Methods of Nutritional Assessment

Systems of nutritional assessment can employ a wide variety of specific methods. In general,
however, these methods fall into five categories:
 Dietary assessment – estimation of nutrient intakes from evaluations of diets, food
availability, and food habits (using such instruments as food frequency
questionnaires, food recall procedures, diet histories, food records)
 Anthropometric assessment – estimation of nutritional status on the basis of
measurements of the physical dimensions and gross composition of an individual’s
body

 Clinical assessment – estimation of nutritional status on the basis of recording a

medical history and conducting a physical examination to detect signs (observations
made by a qualified observer) and symptoms (manifestations reported by the
patient) associated with malnutrition
 Biochemical assessment – estimation of nutritional status on the basis of
measurements of nutrient stores, functional forms, excreted forms, and/or
metabolic functions

 Sociologic assessment – collection of information on non-nutrient-related variables

known to affect or be related to nutritional status (e.g., socioeconomic status, food
habits and beliefs, food prices and availability, food storage and cooking practices,
drinking water quality, immunization records, incidence of low birth-weight infants,
breastfeeding and weaning practices, age- and cause-specific mortality rates, birth
order, family structure).
Typically, nutritional assessment systems employ several of these methods for the complete
evaluation of nutritional status. Some of these approaches, however, are more informative
than others with respect to specific nutrients, and, particularly, to early stages of vitamin
deficiencies (Table 20.1).

Table 20.1 . Relevance of Assessment Methods to the Stages of Vitamin

Deficiency
 Most Informative Methods
Stage of
Deficiency Dieta Biochemi Anthropome Clinic Sociolo
ry cal tric al gic

1.
Depletion
+ +
of vitamin
stores

2. Cellular
metabolic + + +
changes

3. Clinical
+ + +
defects

4.
Morphologi + +
cal changes

5.
Behavioral +
signs

Ecological and nutritional functions of compounds in the plant world:

Why is there an association between crop diversity and human nutrition? The question can
be rephrased as why is there such a great diversity of nutritional compounds within the
plant world? The evolution of nutritional traits by plants is purely a function of rewarding us
or other animals for dispersing their seeds, as in the case of almost every piece of fruit we
consume, a defense against plant pests, as in the case of chili peppers and mint, or ensuring
that their seeds are best prepared for the ultracompetitive world of seedlings, as in the case
of beans. The point is that ecological interactions are at the heart of the nutritional content
of most species we consume. Members of the genus Capsicum, more commonly known as
chili peppers, are frequently consumed in the tropics and enjoyed by many in either their
sweet or their spicy form. Why are these chili peppers so pungent? Birds consume the fruit
and facilitate the dispersal of chili seeds, apparently unaffected by the spiciness, unlike
mammals. However, recent research [25] has shown that plants with greater rates of insect
piercing on the fruit have higher levels of the phytochemical capsaicin, and that the plant
uses this chemical primarily as a defense against fungi that enter the fruit on the backs of
insects to consume the seed. From a nutritional point of view, Capsicum has among the
highest levels of vitamin A, vitamin C, and β-carotene of crops commonly consumed in
poverty hotspots. Capsaicin has been shown to have an antibacterial function [26–28], and
some researchers propose that the prevalence of spicy foods in tropical regions is no
coincidence but rather a means of preserving food or killing off bacteria in food [26, 29].
Another example of ecological application in human nutrition is the use of nitrogen-fixing
plants in agricultural systems. Nutritionists, development specialists, and most farmers
recognize that legumes, such as common beans, groundnuts, and soybeans, are important
sources of protein. This comes as no surprise to agronomists or ecologists, who recognize
that all three of these food items come from a unique and third largest plant family, the
legumes or Fabaceae. This plant family is also a major player in the nitrogen cycle in
terrestrial ecosystems and is recognized as a driver of several ecosystem functions, including
primary productivity in natural systems. From a nutritional point of view, legumes contain 5
times more high-quality protein than maize and 18 times more protein content than
potatoes and are also superior to cereals as a source of micronutrients [30]. It is worth
exploring the ecological foundation of these high protein levels. Manufacturing protein has
a high nitrogen demand, and although 80% of our atmosphere is composed of nitrogen
(N2), none of this’s available to plants. To further exacerbate the problem, most soils are
nitrogen-limited. Many species in the legume family have developed a unique symbiotic
association with Rhizobium, a soil bacterium found in the roots of most legumes that allows
the plant to convert atmospheric dinitrogen gas into ammonium, which the plant then uses
to form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The plant in return provides the
bacterium with photosynthetic sugars. This relationship is energetically expensive to
legumes; however, this cost provides unique access to nitrogen, one of the nutrients most
limiting to primary production in terrestrial ecosystems. This access to nitrogen allows
legumes to colonize soils that are inhospitable to many other plant families or to
outcompete other plants in nitrogen-poor environments. The high protein content of
legume seeds provides the plants’ progeny with a competitive advantage for growth in
systems low in nitrogen [31, 32]. Humans have learned to take advantage of this high
nitrogen content for our own nutritional well-being, as well as a natural source of organic
nitrogen fertilizer.

Legumes are often advocated in diets because of their beneficial effects and because they
are a low-cost source of protein [33]. However, compared to other food crops, legumes
have high contents of secondary metabolites with antinutritional effects, such as amylase
inhibitors, lectins, and trypsin inhibitors, which can cause adverse physiological responses or
diminish the availability of certain nutrients [34, 35]. This raises the question of why
legumes combine such attractive nutritional characteristics as high protein and mineral
contents with relatively high contents of antinutritional factors? Secondary metabolites,
including antinutrients, have been shown to provide natural mechanisms of defense for
plants against microbes, insects, and herbivores [35, 36]. In many agricultural crops, which
have been optimized for yield, their original lines of defense have been selected out
because the underlying metabolites are unpalatable or toxic for humans or livestock. But in
legumes, the numerous nitrogen containing metabolites with antinutritional properties
appear to function both as chemical defenses and as nitrogen storage compounds that
facilitate germination in low-nitrogen systems. Legume genotypes selected for low to no
amounts of antinutrients have reduced germination power and thus reduced general
selective advantage [35, 37]. During germination, however, these antinutrients are
degraded to a lower level by the action of several enzymes, resulting in improved
digestibility of bean sprouts for humans, compared to dry beans. This example illustrates
how enhanced knowledge of underlying ecological functions can benefit human nutrition.
Although we tend to consider humans outside of natural systems, the examples above
demonstrate that interactions between species are literally the spice of human life. Long
term interactions between plants and animals and the active selection of plants from
various families by humans have resulted in a large diversity of nutritional traits. It is
proposed that the long-term approach toward diversification of nutrient-rich crops will
address the significant deficits in micronutrients among the diets and the particular nutrition
needs of communities
Conclusions
The global health crisis of malnutrition afflicts massive numbers of people and urges
changes in global food systems to provide adequate nutrition for all. In this paper we argue
that ecological knowledge, tools, and models have an important role to play in efforts to
direct food systems at improved human nutrition. Malnutrition has many dimensions, and
the complex nature of human nutrition calls for dietary diversification. If agricultural
practices are directed at improving the nutritional quality and diversity of their output, they
must encompass a holistic system perspective to assure that the intervention will be
sustainable. It is here where ecology, through studying interactions between species and
their environment, can identify synergies and tradeoffs between agriculture and nutrition
and have an important role to play in guiding agricultural interventions for improved human
nutrition. Agricultural biodiversity and dietary diversity illustrate the nexus of nutrition and
ecology.
Examples in community ecology, biogeochemistry, and soil ecology described in this
manuscript pertain to the linkages among ecology, nutrition, and agriculture and are only a
beginning in the use of ecology to improve food systems for human nutrition.
A clear understanding of which species have specific nutritional, as well as ecological,
functions shows tremendous promise for managing agricultural systems that provide
numerous functions by identifying and combining species assemblages that maximize
functions. If we aim toward a truly new Green Revolution in agriculture, we’d better invite
ecologists to the table.
References
1. Sanchez P, Swaminathan M, Dobie P, Yuksel N, UN Mil-lennium Project Task Force on
hunger. Halving hunger: it can be done. New York, NY. Millennium Project, 2005.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization. The state of food insecurity in the world. Rome: FAO,
2009.
3. World Bank. Repositioning nutrition as central to development. Washington, DC: World
Bank, 2006.
4. Grosse S, Roy K. Long-term economic effect of early childhood nutrition. Lancet
2008;371:365–6
5. Graham R. Micronutrient deficiencies in crops and their global significance. In: Alloway B,
ed. Micronutrient deficiencies in global crop production. New York, NY: Springer, 2008:41–
62.
6. Pollan M. Farmer in chief. New York Times Magazine, 12 October 2008.
7. Frison E, Smith I, Johns T, Cherfas J, Eyzaguirre P. Agricultural biodiversity, nutrition, and
health: making a difference to hunger and nutrition in the developing world. Food Nutr Bull
2006;25:143–55.
8. Pickett S, Cadenasso M. The ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: meaning, model,
and metaphor. Ecosystems 2002;5:1–10.
9. DeClerck F, Ingram J, Rumbaitis del Rio C. The role of ecological theory and practice in
poverty alleviation and environmental conservation. Front Ecol Environ 2006;10(4):533–540.
10. Deckelbaum R, Palm C, Mutuo P, DeClerck F. Econutrition: implementation models from
the Millennium Villages Project in Africa. Food Nutr Bull 2006;27:335–42.
11. Flynn D, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T, Molinari N, Richers BT, Lin B, Simpson N, Mayfield
M, DeClerck F. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple
taxa. Ecol Lett 2009;12:22–33.
12. Brock J, Hansen J, Howe E, Pretorius P, Daval J, Hen-dricks R. Kwashiorkor and protein
malnutrition. A dietary therapeutic trial. Lancet 1955;2:355–60.
13. McLaren D. A fresh look at protein calorie malnutrition. Lancet 1966;2:485–8.
14. McLaren D. The great protein fiasco. Lancet 1974;2:93–6.
15. Ruel M, Levin C. Food based approaches for alleviating micronutrient malnutrition—an
overview. J Crop Prod 2002;6:31–5.
16. Foote J, Murphy S, Wilkens L, Basiotis P, Carlson A. Dietary variety increases the
probability of nutrient adequacy among adults. J Nutr 2004;134:1779–85.
17. Hatloy A, Hallund J, Diarra M, Oshaug A. Food variety, socioeconomic status and
nutritional status in urban and rural areas in Koutiala (Mali). Public Health Nutrition
2000;3:57–65.
18. Kennedy G, Pedro M, Seghieri C, Nantel G, Brouwer I. Dietary diversity score is a useful
indicator of micronutrient intake in non breast-feeding Filipino children. J Nutr 2007;137:1–
6.