4.5 Article

Biomonitoring of surface water quality in the Chopim River within the Conservation Unit Campos de Palmas Wildlife Refuge, southern Brazil

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-021-09464-6

关键词

Allium cepa L; Bioindicators; Cytotoxicity; Eisenia fetida; Mutagenicity; Avoidance test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study used bioindicators to assess the water quality in the Campos de Palmas Wildlife Refuge area and found that all sampling points within the area had cytotoxic effect on Allium cepa. Only a few sampling points showed toxicity on the animal bioindicator, Eisenia fetida, indicating potential issues with management practices within the area.
The Campos de Palmas Wildlife Refuge (RVS-CP) is a full protection conservation unit (CU) formed by private properties. The present study aimed to use the bioindicators Allium cepa L. (cytotoxicity and mutagenicity tests) and Eisenia fetida (avoidance test) to assess the quality of surface water of the Chopim River within the RVS-CP area and its surroundings during the four seasons of the year. To do so, water samples were collected at five points, four inside the RVS-CP area and a fifth point outside thereof. Samples from all sampling points had cytotoxic effect on A. cepa in at least one season of the year. Such a finding may be related to inadequate management practices (without land-use control) in the areas surrounding the sampling points such as forestry, native fields, pastures, agriculture, and housing areas. As for the animal bioindicator (E. fetida), only points 1 (in the winter) and 5 (in the autumn) were toxic. Concerning mutagenicity, points 1 and 4 (in the spring), 1 and 2 (in the summer), and 3 (in the autumn) showed mutagenic effect on A. cepa meristematic cells, therefore only within the RVS-CP area. Overall, these results show that biomonitoring can be an ally of the residents of the RVS-CP area in controlling management practices, aiming to bring together economic support and conservation of resources, especially water.

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