4.7 Article

Differential sensitivity of four Lemnaceae species to zinc sulphate

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 25-33

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.10.014

Keywords

Lemna; Wolffia; Landoltia; Zinc sulphate; Toxicity; Chlorophyll-a fluorescence; Colony disintegration

Funding

  1. IRCSET (Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lemnaceae are currently the only freshwater plants required for regulatory toxicity testing of pesticides and other chemicals. Toxicological protocols allow for the use of different Lemnaceae species in tests. However, few studies have compared the relative sensitivity of individual duckweed species. Zinc is an essential plant nutrient but is also a common pollutant in aquatic environments and elevated levels are phytotoxic. This study shows that four species of Lemnaceae differ in their relative sensitivities to zinc sulphate, a commonly used reference chemical. Comparative zinc sensitivity, in order, from most tolerant to most sensitive was: Landoltia punctata > Lemna minor > Wolffia brasiliensis > Lemna gibba. Zinc sensitivity was also endpoint dependant. EC50 values typically increased in order of: specific biomass growth rate < specific frond number growth rate < chlorophyll absorbance. However, specific frond number growth rate was the most sensitive endpoint for L. punctata. Unlike the other species, L punctata displayed no significant colony disintegration. Lemna species and L punctata appear to be employing distinct response strategies when exposed to zinc. L gibba and L minor produce and release young, single fronds which are severely affected by zinc. In contrast, L punctata produces fewer fronds, which are not released and form large colonies of high biomass that are relatively zinc tolerant. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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