4.6 Article

Evaluating Multiple Stressor Effects on Benthic-Pelagic Freshwater Communities in Systems of Different Complexities: Challenges in Upscaling

期刊

WATER
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w14040581

关键词

microcosms; mesocosms; community complexity; stressor interactions; biotic interactions; copper; terbuthylazine; pirimicarb; tebuconazole; climate warming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Upscaling from indoor microcosms to outdoor mesocosms is challenging due to the differences in water types and biodiversity, which may mask the stressor effects observed in controlled experiments.
Upscaling of ecological effects from indoor microcosms to outdoor mesocosms bridging the gap between controlled laboratory conditions and highly complex natural environments poses several challenges: typical standard water types used in laboratory experiments are not feasible in large outdoor experiments. Additionally, moving from the micro- to meso-scale, biodiversity is enhanced. We performed an indoor microcosm experiment to determine the effects of agricultural run-off (ARO) on a defined benthic-pelagic community comprising primary producers and primary consumers, exposed to ambient summer temperature and +3.5 degrees C. Treatments were replicated in two water types (standard Volvic and Munich well water). We then scaled up to outdoor mesocosms using an ARO concentration gradient and +3 degrees C warming above ambient temperature, using Munich well water. We included the same benthic macroorganisms but more complex periphyton and plankton communities. All the functional groups were affected by stressors in the microcosms, and a shift from macrophyte to phytoplankton dominance was observed. While effects were present, they were less pronounced in the mesocosms, where a higher biodiversity may have modified the responses of the system to the stressors. The stressor effects observed in controlled experiments may thus be masked in more complex outdoor experiments, but should not be interpreted as no effects.

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