4.5 Article

Lethal toxicity of the herbicides acetochlor, ametryn, glyphosate and metribuzin to tropical frog larvae

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 707-715

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10646-019-02067-5

关键词

Native species; Ttropics; Bioassays; Aquatic ecotoxicology; Herbicides; Amphibians

资金

  1. FAPESP Bioenergy Research Program [2008/57939-9]
  2. FAPESP Global Climate Change Research Program [2015/18790-3]
  3. Portuguese government (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/109199/2015]
  4. CENSE [UID/AMB/04085/2019]
  5. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2011/05280-6]
  6. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [08/57939-9, 11/05280-6] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the high amphibian biodiversity and increasing pesticide use in tropical countries, knowledge on the sensitivity of tropical amphibians to pesticides remains limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute toxicity of the active ingredients of four of the main herbicides used in Brazilian sugarcane production to tadpoles of two tropical frog species: Physalaemus cuvieri and Hypsiboas pardalis. The calculated 96h-LC50 (median lethal concentration; in mg a.s./L) values for P. cuvieri and H. pardalis were 4.4 and 7.8 (acetochlor); 15 and <10 (ametryn); 115 and 106 (glyphosate); and 85 and 68 (metribuzin), respectively. These toxicity values demonstrated little interspecies variation and the toxicity of the herbicides appeared to be at least partly related with the respective octanol-water coefficient. Published acute toxicity data of fish and amphibians for herbicides were also compiled from the US-EPA ECOTOX database. These data indicated little difference in herbicide sensitivity between tropical amphibians and both non-tropical amphibians and fish. These findings indicate that temperate (fish and amphibian) herbicide toxicity data are also protective for tropical amphibians. Constraints in such extrapolations and indications for future research are discussed.

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