Impact of glufosinate-ammonium and bialaphos on the phytoplankton community of a small eutrophic northern lake

被引:20
作者
Faber, MJ
Thompson, DG [1 ]
Stephenson, GR
Boermans, HJ
机构
[1] Canadian Forest Serv, Nat Resources Canada, Sault Ste Marie, ON P6A 5M7, Canada
[2] Univ Guelph, Dept Environm Biol, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
[3] Univ Guelph, Dept Biomed Sci, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
关键词
glufosinate-ammonium; bialaphos; phytoplankton; flow cytometry; phosphinothricin;
D O I
10.1002/etc.5620170713
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The impact of glufosinate-ammonium and bialaphos on the phytoplankton community in a shallow eutrophic lake ecosystem was investigated using in situ enclosures. Flow cytometry was used to size phytoplankton cells and sort them as live or dead, depending upon their chlorophyll a autofluorescence intensity. Flow cytometric analyses provided significantly (p < 0.001) higher abundance estimates as compared to conventional microscopic analyses. At the highest treatment levels (10 mg/L), both herbicides caused a significant but transient reduction in live phytoplankton cells (days 3-14, which was particularly apparent in the small (1-2 and 2-3 mu m) classes. Transient impacts on phytoplankton live cell abundances were mirrored by depression in dissolved oxygen content in the treated enclosures. At an application rate of 10 mg/L, abundance of smaller phytoplankton in the bialaphos-treated enclosures recovered more rapidly (14 d) than those in the glufosinate-ammonium-treated enclosures (49 d). For days of maximal impact, estimated median effect concentrations (EC50) for reduction of phytoplankton abundance ranged from 2.5 to 3.4 mg/L for glufosinate-ammonium and 3.3 to 8.1 mg/L for bialaphos. whereas estimates of concentration inducing 20% reductions in abundance (EC20; 0.9-1.2 and 1.6-4 mg/L, respectively) more closely approximated the expected environmental concentration (1 mg/L), assuming direct overspray into water bodies of 15-cm depth.
引用
收藏
页码:1282 / 1290
页数:9
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
*AGR AGR CAN, 1993, B AGR AGR CAN
[2]  
*AM PUBL HLTH ASS, 1995, STAND METH EX WAT WA
[3]  
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1991, ANN BOOK ASTM STAND
[4]  
BASKERVILLE G L, 1972, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, V2, P49, DOI 10.1139/x72-009
[5]  
BOURRELL P, 1966, ALGUES CAU DOUCE
[6]  
CAIRNS J, 1984, B ECOL SOC AM, V65, P301
[7]  
*CAN CTR INL WAT, 1994, MAN AN METH, V1
[8]   A warning: NOECs are inappropriate for regulatory use [J].
Chapman, PM ;
Caldwell, RS ;
Chapman, PF .
ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, 1996, 15 (02) :77-79
[9]  
CLEVEEULER A, 1951, BIBLIOTHECA PHYCOLOG, V5
[10]  
*DEL TOUCH MAN CON, 1991, EC BEN ASS TRICL FOR