4.3 Article

Spatial and seasonal variations of radiocesium concentrations in an algae-grazing annual fish, ayu Plecoglossus altivelis collected from Fukushima Prefecture in 2014

Journal

FISHERIES SCIENCE
Volume 85, Issue 3, Pages 561-569

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12562-018-1280-8

Keywords

Algae-grazing fish; Ayu; Fukushima; Nuclear accident; Radiocesium; River

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [16H06199]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H06199] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To elucidate spatial and seasonal variations of radiocesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) concentrations in ayu Plecoglossus altivelis, amphidromous fish samples were collected both from shallow coastal waters in March 2014 and from seven rivers in Fukushima Prefecture during May-October 2014. Of the rivers, two were located within the designated evacuation zone. After standard length (SL) and body weight measurements, fish were dissected to two parts: body without head and internal organs, BD; head and internal organs, HI. Radiocesium concentrations in these parts were measured using germanium semiconductor detectors. Those in the whole body (WB) were reconstructed using their concentrations and weights. The Cs-137 concentrations in BD in oceanic samples (4.3-6.7cm SL) were below the detection limit, whereas those in riverine samples (6.4-18.8cm SL) were 0.719-902Bqkg(-1)-wet. Statistical analyses indicated a best-fit linear mixed-effects model including SL and sampling site as explanatory variables. Significant differences in Cs-137 concentrations in BD among rivers were detected. Our results indicate that Cs-137 concentrations in BD of riverine ayu, which showed lower but site-specifically constant values compared with those in HI or WB, are useful as a good indicator of radiocesium contamination of the respective rivers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available