4.7 Article

Sensitivity and response time of three common Antarctic marine copepods to metal exposure

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 267-272

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.07.051

关键词

Antarctica; Zooplankton; Contamination; Toxicity; Cadmium; Copper

资金

  1. Australian Antarctic Science Grant [AAS 2933]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the sensitivity of Antarctic marine organisms to metals is essential in order to manage environmental contamination risks. To date toxicity studies conducted on Antarctic marine species are limited. This study is the first to examine the acute effects of copper and cadmium on three common coastal Antarctic copepods: the calanoids Paralabidocera antarctica and Stephos long-ipes, and the cyclopoid Oncaea curvata. These copepods responded slowly to metal exposure (4-7 d) emphasising that the exposure period of 48-96 h commonly used in toxicity tests with temperate and tropical species is not appropriate for polar organisms. We found that a longer 7 d exposure period was the minimum duration appropriate for Antarctic copepods. Although sensitivity to metal exposure varied between species, copper was more toxic than cadmium in all three species. P. antarctica was the most sensitive with 7 d LC50 values for copper and cadmium of 20 mu g L-1 and 237 mu g L-1 respectively. Sensitivities to copper were similar for both O. curvata (LC50 = 64 mu g L-1) and S. longipes (LC50 = 56 mu g L-1), while O. curvata was more sensitive to cadmium (LC50 = 901 mu g L-1) than S. longipes (LC50 = 1250 mu g L-1). In comparison to copepods from lower latitudes, Antarctic copepods were more sensitive to copper and of similar sensitivity or less sensitive to cadmium. This study highlights the need for longer exposure periods in toxicity tests with slow responding Antarctic biota in order to generate relevant sensitivity data for inclusion in site-specific environmental quality guidelines for Antarctica. (C) 2014 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