4.7 Article

Linking in situ bioassays and population dynamics of macroinvertebrates to assess agricultural contamination in streams of the Argentine pampa

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 133-141

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.007

关键词

in situ bioassay; Hyalella curvispina; chlorpyrifos; population dynamics; drift

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The two local crustacean species Hyalella curvispina and Macrobrachium borelli were chosen for assessment of agricultural contamination in two streams (Horqueta and Maguire) in the Argentine pampa. In parallel with in situ bioassays of both species, the population dynamics and the organismic drift of H. curvispina were investigated throughout the main period of insecticide application, from December 2001 to March 2002. In Maguire none of the current-use insecticides (chlorpyrifos, alpha-cypermethrin, and endosulfan) in question were detected throughout the sampling period. During 1-week intervals with no contamination by insecticides the survival rate of H. curvispina varied between 77 +/- 6% (+/-SE, n = 4) and 85 +/- 3%. In Horqueta during a week with a peak insecticide contamination of 64 mug/kg chlorpyrifos in the suspended particles, a mortality of 100% was observed in the in situ bioassays for both species, H. curvispina and M. borelli. At the same time, in Maguire H. curvispina showed reduced survival rates of 23 +/- 5% and 25 +/- 18% at the two sites' while the survival rate of M. borelli was 60 +/- 11% upstream and 93 +/- 5% downstream, below a wetland. During the period with 100% mortality of H. curvispina in Horqueta, the population density of this species decreased correspondingly, from 106 +/- 26 to 0 individuals/m(2). We conclude that in situ bioassays can be successfully linked to in-stream population dynamics for the same species and that this link is very useful for interpreting causal exposure-effect relationships. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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