4.7 Article

Pleurochaete squarrosa (Brid.) Lindb. as an alternative moss species for biomonitoring surveys of heavy metal, nitrogen deposition and delta N-15 signatures in a Mediterranean area

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 1221-1228

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.023

关键词

Pleurochaete squarrosa; Hypnum cupressiforme; Biomonitoring; Nitrogen; Heavy metals; delta N-15 isotopic signatures

资金

  1. Asociacion de Amigos de la Universidad de Navarra

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a significant lack of data in biomonitoring surveys from southern Europe and other Mediterranean biogeographic areas. This scarcity is mainly due to the impossibility of finding the commonly recommended species in a great portion of these dry environments. The present work was carried out with the aim of assessing the validity of the moss Pleurochaete squarrosa (Brid.) Lindb. (PS) as a feasible alternative in these regions. The study was developed in the Mediterranean area of Navarra, in northern Spain, where the response of PS to multiple atmospheric pollutants (N, Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb, Ti and Zn) was compared to that of Hypnum cupressifonne Hedw. (HC), an accepted and widely used species In biomonitoring surveys. Moreover, N isotopic signatures from both species were studied to evaluate their effectiveness when identifying nitrogen emission sources. The enrichment factor (EF) approach was used to evaluate the heavy metal uptake, showing a similar behaviour for both species: low EF for Al, As, Cr and Fe; intermediate for Mn, Ni, Pb and Sb; and high for Cd, Cr, Hg and Zn. Equally, both species depicted the same N deposition patterns across the study area. However, regarding delta N-15, PS gave a more congruent picture with the location of the main sources of N emissions in the area. These data suggest that PS may be a suitable biomonitor to fill the aforementioned gaps in Mediterranean biogeographic areas. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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