4.7 Article

Comparative acute toxicity of twenty-four insecticides to earthworm, Eisenia fetida

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 122-128

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.12.016

关键词

Soil invertebrate; Comparative toxicity; Terrestrial ecotoxicology; Neonicotinoids

资金

  1. International Cooperation Fund [S2010GR0905]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2011AA100806]
  3. Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we used two different types of bioassay, a contact filter paper toxicity bioassay and a soil toxicity bioassay, to compare the acute toxicity of twenty-four insecticides belonging to six chemical categories on earthworm species, Eisenia fetida. Results of the contact filter paper toxicity bioassay indicated that neonicotinoids were super toxic to E. fetida (48 h-LC50 value ranged from 0.0088 to 0.45 mu g cm(-2)), pyrethroids were very toxic (48 h-LC50 values ranged from 10.55 to 25.7 mu g cm(-2)) and insect growth regulators (IGRs) were moderately toxic (48 h-LC50 values ranged from 117.6 to 564.6 mu g cm(-2)) to the worms. However, antibiotics, carbamates and organophosphates induced variable toxicity responses in E. fetida, and were very to extremely toxic (48 h-LC50 values ranged from 3.64 to 75.75 mu g cm(-2)). Results of the soil toxicity bioassays showed a different pattern of toxicity except that neonicotinoids were the most toxic even under the soil toxicity bioassay system. The acute toxicity of neonicotinoids was higher than those of antibiotics, carbamates. IGRs and organophosphates. In contrast, pyrethroids were the least toxic to the worms under the soil toxicity bioassay system. It was concluded that irrespective of bioassay systems, earthworms were more susceptible to neonicotinoids than other modern synthetic insecticides. (C) 2012 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