4.5 Article

TROPHODYNAMICS OF CURRENT USE PESTICIDES AND ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BATHURST REGION VEGETATION-CARIBOU-WOLF FOOD CHAIN OF THE CANADIAN ARCTIC

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 1956-1966

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2634

关键词

Biomagnification; Terrestrial; Current use pesticides; Ecotoxicology; Trophic dilution

资金

  1. Environment Canada
  2. Molson Foundation
  3. Northern Contaminants Program
  4. Government of the Northwest Territories

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bioaccumulation of current use pesticides (CUPs) and stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen were investigated in vegetation-caribou-wolf food chain in the Bathurst region (Nunavut, Canada). Volumetric bioconcentration factors (BCFv) in vegetation were generally greatest for dacthal (10-12) >= endosulfan sulfate (10-11) > beta-endosulfan (>9.0-9.7) >= pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB; 8.4-9.6)> alpha-endosulfan (8.3-9.3) > chlorpyrifos (8.0-8.7) > chlorothalonil (7.6-8.3). The BCFv values in vegetation were significantly correlated with the logarithm of the octanol-air partition coefficients (log K-OA) of CUPs (r(2) 0.90, p = 0.0040), although dacthal was an outlier and not included in this relationship. Most biomagnification factors (BMFs) for CUPs in caribou: diet comparisons were significantly less than 1. Similarly, the majority of wolf: caribou BMFs were either significantly less than 1 or were not statistically greater than 1. Significant trophic magnification factors (TMFs) were all less than 1, indicating that these CUPs exhibit trophic dilution through this terrestrial food chain. The log KOA reasonably predicted bioconcentration in vegetation for most CUPs but was not correlated with BMFs or TMFs in mammals. Our results, along with those of metabolic studies, suggest that mammals actively metabolize these CUPs, limiting their biomagnification potential despite entry into the food chain through effective bioconcentration in vegetation. (c) 2014 SETAC

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

4.5
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