4.4 Article

Soil ecotoxicology: state of the art and future directions

期刊

ZOOKEYS
卷 -, 期 176, 页码 275-296

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.176.2275

关键词

Toxicity tests; bioavailability; ecological effects; biomarkers; soil organisms; isopods

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Developments in soil ecotoxicology started with observations on pesticide effects on soil invertebrates in the 1960s. To support the risk assessment of chemicals, in the 1980s and 1990s development of toxicity tests was the main issue, including single species tests and also more realistic test systems like model ecosystems and field tests focusing on structural and functional endpoints. In the mean time, awareness grew about issues like bioavailability and routes of exposure, while biochemical endpoints (biomarkers) were proposed as sensitive and potential early-warning tools. In recent years, interactions between different chemicals (mixture toxicity) and between chemical and other stressors attracted scientific interest. With the development of molecular biology, omics tools are gaining increasing interest, while the ecological relevance of exposure and effects is translating into concepts like (chemical) stress ecology, ecological vulnerability and trait-based approaches. This contribution addresses historical developments and focuses on current issues in soil ecotoxicology. It is concluded that soil ecotoxicological risk assessment would benefit from extending the available battery of toxicity tests by including e.g. isopods, by paying more attention to exposure, bioavailability and toxicokinetics, and by developing more insight into the ecology of soil organisms to support better understanding of exposure and long-term consequences of chemical exposure at the individual, population and community level. Ecotoxicogenomics tools may also be helpful in this, but will require considerable further research before they can be applied in the practice of soil ecotoxicological risk assessment.

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

4.4
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