4.6 Article

Toxicity thresholds of three insecticides and two fungicides to larvae of the coral Acropora tenuis

期刊

PEERJ
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.9615

关键词

Great Barrier Reef; Coral; Insecticide; Fungicide; Toxicity

资金

  1. Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Tropical Water Quality Hub Project 3.1.5 Ecotoxicology of pesticides on the Great Barrier Reef for guideline development and risk assessments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tropical marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, face several threats to their health and resilience, including poor water quality. Previous studies on the risks posed by pesticides have focused on five priority herbicides; however, as the number of pesticides applied in coastal agriculture increases, a suite of 'alternative' pesticides is being detected in tropical nearshore waters. To improve our understanding of the risks posed by alternative pesticides to tropical marine organisms, the effects of three insecticides (diazinon, fipronil, imidacloprid) and two fungicides (chlorothalonil, propiconazole) were tested on larval metamorphosis of the coral Acropora tenuis. A. tenuis larvae were affected by all five pesticides and the reference toxicant copper. The no effect concentration (NEC) and the 10% and 50% effect concentrations (EC10 and EC50, respectively) for larval metamorphosis were estimated from concentration-response curves after 48 h exposure. The NEC, EC10 and EC50 (in mu g L--(1)), respectively, of each pesticide were as follows: chlorothalonil (2.4, 2.8, 6.0); fipronil (12.3, 13.9, 29.1); diazinon (38.0, 40.8, 54.7); imidacloprid (263, 273, 347); and propiconazole (269, 330, 1008). These toxicity thresholds are higher than reported concentrations in monitoring programs; however, these data will contribute to improving water quality guideline values, which inform the total risk assessments posed by complex contaminant mixtures to which these pesticides contribute.

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

4.6
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