4.7 Article

Heavy metals accumulation in two syntopic sandhopper species:: Talitrus saltator (Montagu) and Talorchestia ugolinii Bellan Santini and Ruffo

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 50, 期 11, 页码 1328-1334

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.04.041

关键词

sandhoppers; Talitrus saltator; Talorchestia ugolinii; Corsica; heavy metals; bioaccumulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the capacity for heavy metals accumulation in Talorchestia ugolinii by standard methods of heavy metals analysis. To compare the bioaccumulation in syntopic sandhopper species, we collected samples of T ugolinii and Talitrils saltator living oil the same and on different beaches in Corsica. There was a marked difference in the zonal distribution of the two species along the sea-land axis of the beach: T ugolinii was distributed nearer the water line than T saltator. The bioaccumulation capacity of T ugolinii only partly matched that of the Mediterranean T saltator: while Hg, Zn, Cu, and Cd were accumulated by both species, Al and Fe were accumulated by T saltator but not by T ugolinii. Pb was accumulated only by T ligolinii, while Cr did not seem to be accumulated by either species. The bioaccumulation in sympatric T saltator and T ugolinii specimens collected on the same beach reflected the general trend of the two species oil the Tyrrhenian and Corsican coasts, respectively. Moreover, six of the eight heavy metals considered (Hg, Pb, Zn, Fe, Al, Cu) were present in higher quantities in T ugolinii than in T saltalor, independently of whether the trace elements were accumulated by the two species. Thus, there are some differences between T ugolinii and T saltator, even when the two species live in the same locality. These differences involve their zonation within the damp belt of sand, the bioaccumulation of some heavy metals (Al, Pb, Fe), and the quantity of each heavy metal in the body, independent of the bioaccumulation capacity. (c) 2005 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