2010
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1803-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Toxicity evaluation of natural samples from the vicinity of rice fields using two trophic levels

Abstract: An ecotoxicological screening of environmental samples collected in the vicinity of rice fields followed a combination of physical and chemical measurements and chronic bioassays with two freshwater trophic levels (microalgae: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Chlorella vulgaris; daphnids: Daphnia longispina and Daphnia magna). As so, water and sediment/soil elutriate samples were obtained from three sites: (1) in a canal reach crossing a protected wetland upstream, (2) in a canal reach surrounded by rice fi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
5
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The reduction of N. libonensis relative growth rates in plain stream water irrespective of the test conditions was consistent with previously reported data (e.g. Marques et al 2011;MoreiraSantos et al 2002MoreiraSantos et al , 2004a. Whenever natural samples are being assayed in the laboratory, it is important to discern a toxic effect from that caused by nutrient deprivation, the latter being avoided by adding nutrients to the test water (USEPA 2002).…”
Section: First Trial-optimization Of Growth Conditionssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The reduction of N. libonensis relative growth rates in plain stream water irrespective of the test conditions was consistent with previously reported data (e.g. Marques et al 2011;MoreiraSantos et al 2002MoreiraSantos et al , 2004a. Whenever natural samples are being assayed in the laboratory, it is important to discern a toxic effect from that caused by nutrient deprivation, the latter being avoided by adding nutrients to the test water (USEPA 2002).…”
Section: First Trial-optimization Of Growth Conditionssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In fact, planktonic microalgae show high sensitivity to toxicants, often being more sensitive than other planktonic organisms (e.g. Marques et al 2011;Pereira et al 2009). However, in lotic Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3713-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…매체로서 토양공극수(Soil pore water, soil solutions, soil water, 또는 leachate solutions)나 토양추출액(Soil elutriates, soil extracts, 또는 soil suspensions)을 적용한 것으로 보고된 바 있다 (Cook et al, 2002;Maderova et al, 2011;Tiensing et al, 2001;Romkens et al, 1999;Shen and Shen, 2001;Arnold et al, 2003;Power and de Pomerai, 1999;Anbalagan et al, 2012Anbalagan et al, , 2013Thomas et al, 1990;Hammel et al, 1998;Baun et al, 2002;Aruoja et al, 2004;Robidoux et al, 2004;Antunes et al, 2010;Maisto et al, 2011;Marques et al, 2011;Bowers et al, 1997;Ronnpagel et al, 1998;Loureiro et al, 2005;Ore et al, 2010;Miranda et al, 남선화·안윤주 J. Soil Groundw.…”
Section: 기존 생태독성평가는 토양 오염물질의 이차원적 오염mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vol. 19(3), p. 15~24, 2014Tiensing et al, 2001;Shen and Shen, 2001;Power and de Pomerai, 1999;Anbalagan et al, 2012Anbalagan et al, , 2013 (Thomas et al, 1990;Hammel et al, 1998;Baun et al, 2002;Aruoja et al, 2004;Robidoux et al, 2004;Antunes et al, 2010;Maisto et al, 2011;Marques et al, 2011). Thomas et al(1990) Mixing temperature 20 (Thomas et al, 1990;Hammel et al, 1998;Baun et al, 2002;Aruoja et al, 2004;Robidoux et al, 2004;Antunes et al, 2010;Maisto et al, 2011;Marques et al, 2011), …”
Section: 기존 생태독성평가는 토양 오염물질의 이차원적 오염mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ecotoxicological effects of soil extracts as a source http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.01.005 0045-6535/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. of secondary soil pollution have been evaluated using algae, plants, ciliates, bacteria, and waterfleas in prior studies (Thomas et al, 1990;Bowers et al, 1997;Hammel et al, 1998;Ronnpagel et al, 1998;Power and de Pomerai, 1999;Romkens et al, 1999;Shen and Shen, 2001;Tiensing et al, 2001;Baun et al, 2002;Cook et al, 2002;Arnold et al, 2003;Aruoja et al, 2004;Robidoux et al, 2004;Loureiro et al, 2005;Antunes et al, 2010;Ore et al, 2010;Maderova et al, 2011;Maisto et al, 2011;Marques et al, 2011;Miranda et al, 2011). When these studies were conducted, representative freshwater algae (e.g., Chlorella vulgaris, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, and Scenedesmus subspicatus) were mainly used to evaluate the effects of soil extracts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%