4.7 Article

Consecutive sexual maturation observed in a rock shell population in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Japan

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80686-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Japan [15H04537]
  2. JSPS [18H03962]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2011, the population of rock shell specimens near the plant decreased significantly, but they were found again in 2016. Research showed that specimens collected approximately 1 km south of the FDNPP exhibited consecutive sexual maturation, while those collected approximately 120 km south of the FDNPP only showed sexual maturation in summer.
In 2012, after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) that followed the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, no rock shell (Thais clavigera; currently recognized as Reishia clavigera; Gastropoda, Neogastropoda, Muricidae) specimens were found near the plant from Hirono to Futaba Beach (a distance of approximately 30 km). In July 2016, however, rock shells were again found to inhabit the area. From April 2017 to May 2019, we collected rock shell specimens monthly at two sites near the FDNPP (Okuma and Tomioka) and at a reference site similar to 120 km south of the FDNPP (Hiraiso). We examined the gonads of the specimens histologically to evaluate their reproductive cycle and sexual maturation. The gonads of the rock shells collected at Okuma, similar to 1 km south of the FDNPP, exhibited consecutive sexual maturation during the 2 years from April 2017 to May 2019, whereas sexual maturation of the gonads of specimens collected at Hiraiso was observed only in summer. The consecutive sexual maturation of the gonads of the specimens collected at Okuma might not represent a temporary phenomenon but rather a site-specific phenotype, possibly caused by specific environmental factors near the FDNPP.

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

4.7
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