4.7 Article

Effect of different microcystin profiles on toxin bioaccumulation in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) larvae via Artemia nauplii

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 73, Issue 5, Pages 762-770

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.12.015

Keywords

Cyanobacterial blooms; Microcystin variants; Accumulation; Transfer; Toxicity; Fish growth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, a 12-day growth trial was conducted to compare the effect of the variation in microcystin (MC) composition in two Microcystis aeruginosa bloom samples on the growth performance and MC accumulation/transfer in the common carp (Cyprinus carpi L) larvae. Fish were fed Anemia sauna nauplii that had been preexposed to extracts from two M. aeruginosa natural blooms with different microcystins (MCs) profiles. Bloom A had MC-LR as major toxin (74.05%) while bloom B had a diversity of MC (MC-RR; MC-(H4)YR; MC-YR; MC-LR; MC-FR; MC-WR) with no dominance of MC-LR. Newly-hatched Artemia nauplii were exposed separately to the two M. aeruginosa extracts A and B (100 mu g L-1 Eq MC-LR) for 2 h. The MC concentration in the nauplii was 73.60 +/- 7.88 ng Eq MC-LR g(-1) FW (n=4, mean +/- SE) for bloom A and 87.04 +/- 10.31 ng Eq MC-LR g(-1) FW for bloom B. These contaminated nauplii were given at the same ration to different groups (A and B) of fish larvae. Larval weight and length from day 9 were significantly different between groups A and B. and in both cases lower than that of a control group fed non-exposed nauplii. MCs accumulation by larvae, inversely correlated with the growth performance, was also significantly different between groups A and B (37.43 +/- 2.61 and 54.55 +/- 3.01 ng Eq MC-LR g(-1) FW, respectively, at the end of the experimental period). These results indicate that MC profile of a bloom may have differential effects on toxin accumulation/transfer and toxicity. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available