Longevity and Reproduction of Ceriodaphnia Dubia in Receiving Waters

Stewart, Arthur J.; Konetsky, Belinda K.

doi:10.1897/1551-5028(1998)017<1165:larocd>2.3.co;2

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each of these modifying factors can affect an organism's response to toxicants. For example, differences in diet [34][35][36][37][38][39][40], temperature [30,41], and water quality [42][43][44] can affect the results of toxicity tests with daphnids. Such is also the case for other organisms.…”

Section: Laboratory Versus Receiving Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Chapman¹

2000

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general status of whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests is assessed relative to their generally accepted purpose of identifying, characterizing, and eliminating toxic effects of effluents on aquatic resources. Although WET tests are useful, they are not perfect tools (no perfect tools exist). Imperfections include the innate variability of these tests, due both to biotic and anthropogenic factors; the reality of species differences both between the laboratory and the field and within the field; and differences between the laboratory and the receiving environment. Whole effluent toxicity tests may be overprotective (because of their conservative nature, the absence of environmental and ecological processes that could ameliorate exposure, and sensitivity to noncontaminant effects), underprotective (because the most sensitive species cannot be tested, multiple stresses tend to be present in the receiving environment, and failure to account for food chain effects or all possible endpoints), or offer an uncertain level of protection (intermittent doses and mixtures in the environment, adaptations, and hormesis). The implication of hormesis and inverted U‐shaped dose responses for WET testing are reviewed in particular detail. Comparisons to field conditions indicate that WET tests are not reliable predictors of effects or lack of effects in the receiving environment. Whole effluent toxicity tests are only the first stage in a risk assessment and as such identify hazard, not risk. Identification of risk requires discarding the concept of independent applicability. The appropriate use of WET tests is identified in the context of their advantages and disadvantages.

show abstract

Section: Laboratory Versus Receiving Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Chapman¹

2000

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several other investigators [8,55,61,62,64,81] noted the effectiveness with which cladoceran test results predict biotic community impacts and environmental effect concentrations. However, C. dubia is not sensitive to all contaminants [82].…”

Section: Ecological Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

Application of whole effluent toxicity test procedures to ambient water quality assessment

Vlaming¹,

Connor²,

DiGiorgio³

et al. 2000

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) protocols for conducting freshwater toxicity tests have been used in California, USA, to evaluate ambient water quality since 1986. Testing evolved from conducting broad watershed surveys for assessing the distribution of toxicity to conducting detailed studies for identifying chemical causes and sources. Using Ceriodaphnia dubia tests, pulses of diazinon toxicity have been detected over a 10-year period throughout California's Central Valley in waters receiving drainage from dormant orchards. In the 1980s, toxicity to C. dubia, caused by methyl parathion and carbofuran in drainage from rice fields, was detected in the Sacramento River. Rice drainage also was toxic to two important local species, larval striped bass and Neomysis. Throughout the state, diazinon and chlorpyrifos toxicity to C. dubia occurs year-round in waters receiving drainage from urban areas. Several years of monitoring the Alamo River in Imperial County with C. dubia demonstrated a recurring seasonal toxicity pattern. Toxicity during a 3-month autumn period was caused by chlorpyrifos and diazinon and during a 2-month spring period by diazinon and carbofuran. Although most toxicity has been detected with C. dubia and linked to insecticides, other examples of toxicity have been identified. Toxicity to Selenastrum has been linked to copper and zinc from mines and to the herbicide diuron in waters receiving agricultural or urban runoff. Ammonia-caused toxicity, originating from dairies and wastewater treatment plants, to fathead minnows has also been identified. Taken together, the results reveal that the three whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing procedures, in association with toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) and chemical analyses, can be effective for the identification of an array of toxicants originating from several land use practices. In several cases, alternative land use practices or management strategies have resulted in improved water quality as demonstrated by continued toxicity testing.

show abstract

“…These fluctuations may have been caused by a general decrease in river productivity during the colder winter and spring months. During the warm months, reproduction of C. dubia can exceed normal levels because larger amounts of particulate matter such as algae, bacteria, and detritus provide supplemental nutrition (beyond that of standard feeding protocols) (Schulze, 1999;Stewart and Konetsky, 1998). Discharge data from a USGS gage at Ford Street in Rochester indicates a small runoff event occurred during January which could have increased river productivity and C. dubia reproduction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxicity of waters from the Rochester Embayment Area of Concern to the plankton species Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Ceriodaphnia dubia

Baldigo

Duffy

Smith

et al. 2016

Journal of Great Lakes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lower Genesee River and Rochester Embayment of Lake Ontario are a designated Area of Concern (AOC) under the binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The "degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations" or plankton Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) was classified as unknown and in need of further assessment in this AOC because water quality data suggested plankton communities could be effected and community data were either unavailable or indicated impacts. The plankton BUI may now be obsolete because local contaminant sources have been largely eliminated. The present study was conducted between July 2013 and August 2014 to assess the BUI-removal criteria: "AOC plankton bioassays confirm that toxicity in ambient waters (i.e., no growth inhibition) is not significantly higher than comparable non-AOC controls". Acute and chronic toxicity of waters from 13 sites were quantified seasonally using standardized bioassays with the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and water flea Ceriodaphnia dubia to test the hypothesis that toxicity of waters from AOC sites was not higher than that of waters from comparable non-AOC reference sites. Survival and reproduction of C. dubia did not differ significantly between site types, systems, or months. The growth of P. subcapitata did not differ between site types, but differed among systems and months. All results indicate that waters from AOC sites were no more toxic to both plankton species than waters from reference sites. Assuming test species represent natural plankton assemblages, water quality should not negatively affect survival and growth of resident plankton populations in the Rochester Embayment AOC.Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for Great Lakes Research.

show abstract

Longevity and Reproduction of Ceriodaphnia Dubia in Receiving Waters

Cited by 10 publications

References 28 publications

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Application of whole effluent toxicity test procedures to ambient water quality assessment

Toxicity of waters from the Rochester Embayment Area of Concern to the plankton species Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Ceriodaphnia dubia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About