4.5 Article

Effect of crude oil exposure and dispersant application on meiofauna: an intertidal mesocosm experiment

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 997-1004

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5em00051c

关键词

-

资金

  1. DISCOBIOL ANR
  2. CNRS INEE
  3. Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dispersant application is used as a response technique to minimize the environmental risk of an oil spill. In nearshore areas, dispersant application is a controversial countermeasure: environmental benefits are counteracted by the toxicity of dispersant use. The effects of the use of chemical dispersants on meiobenthic organisms and nematodes were investigated in a mesocosm experiment. A 20 day experiment was performed in four experimental sets of mesocosms. In three of them, sediments were contaminated, respectively by oil (500 mg kg(-1)), dispersed oil (oil + 5% dispersant), and dispersant alone, whereas in the last set sediments were kept undisturbed and used as a reference (Re). Our results showed that the meiobenthic response to oil contamination was rapid, for copepods and nematodes. One-way ANOVA showed a significant decrease of the abundance of copepods. In the case of nematodes, univariate and multivariate analyses indicated a clear decrease of the abundance of the species after only 20 days of pollutant exposure and thus reducing Shannon-Wiener diversity and Pielou's evenness. In contrast, Sphaerolaimus gracilis and Sabateria sp. became more frequent within disturbed assemblages and appeared to be resistant and/or opportunistic species in the presence of these kinds of toxicants. Moreover, responses of copepods and nematodes to the treatment seemed to be the same irrespective of whether only oil or oil + dispersant was performed. The main toxicities of dispersed oil come not from the composition of a newly formed oil and oil spill dispersant mixture but from the quantities of increased dispersed oil droplets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据