4.7 Article

Relative chronic sensitivity of neonicotinoid insecticides to Ceriodaphnia dubia and Daphnia magna

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 238-244

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.07.086

关键词

Pesticides; Toxicity; Macroinvertebrates; Reproduction

资金

  1. NSERC CREATE program in Multiple Stressors and Cumulative Effects in the Great Lakes [2013-432269]
  2. Canada-Ontario Agreement through the MECP [2218]
  3. Ontario Graduate Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neonicotinoid insecticides are a group of plant protectants frequently detected in surface waters at low concentrations. Aquatic invertebrates therefore have the potential to be exposed chronically to low concentrations of neonicotinoids. The cladocerans Daphnia magna and Ceriodaphnia dubia are among the most commonly used invertebrate test species in aquatic toxicology. Both species are known to be acutely insensitive to neonicotinoids, and while chronic toxicity has been characterized for D. magna, little research has been conducted with C. dubia. In the present study we conducted 7-d static-renewal life cycle tests for 6 neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam) with C. dubia, and a 21-d test with imidacloprid with D. magna. 7-d LC50s for C. dubia ranged from 8.42 mg L-1 for imidacloprid to > 100 mg L-1 for clothianidin; 7-d reproduction EC50s were 2.98 for thiacloprid, to > 67 mg L-1 for dinotefuran. D. magna were less sensitive than C. dubia to imidacloprid, by 4-fold for lethality and 1.5-fold for reproduction; however, acute-to-chronic ratios (ACRs) were similar. ACRs, based on 48-h acute LC50s and 7- or 21-d chronic reproduction EC10s, ranged from 5.4 for acetamiprid to 53.0 for imidacloprid (mean 36.6, CV = 51%). Chronic toxicity values for both species were orders of magnitude greater than concentrations reported in the environment, and thus hazard to these cladocerans is negligible.

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