Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 6

Ecotoxicological investigation of cyanobacterial crude extracts to Daphnia magna under subchronic test conditions

Pages
498–507
Publication Date
2020-11-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our results showed that both microcystin-containing (MCCE) and microcystin-free (NCCE) crude extracts insignificantly reduced survival but strongly enhanced reproduction and somatic growth of organisms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cyanobacterial blooms often consist of mixtures of microcystin-producing and microcystin-free species, and both can cause unpredictable effects on aquatic organisms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this work, the subchronic effects of the cyanobacterial crude extracts (CCEs) from microcystin-producing and microcystin-free cyanobacteria with different microcystin concentrations (1, 10, and 50 mu gL(-1))on Daphnia magna were investigated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our results showed that both microcystin-containing (MCCE) and microcystin-free (NCCE) crude extracts insignificantly reduced survival but strongly enhanced reproduction and somatic growth of organisms.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cyanobacteria · ecotoxicology · feeding rate

Abstract

Cyanobacterial blooms often consist of mixtures of microcystin-producing and microcystin-free species, and both can cause unpredictable effects on aquatic organisms. In this work, the subchronic effects of the cyanobacterial crude extracts (CCEs) from microcystin-producing and microcystin-free cyanobacteria with different microcystin concentrations (1, 10, and 50 mu gL(-1))on Daphnia magna were investigated. The life-history trait responses of D. magna to CCEs were determined based on survival, reproduction, and somatic growth. In addition, the physiological response, represented by the feeding rate of D. magna on green algae (Scenedesmus sp.), after exposure to both types of crude extracts was estimated. Our results showed that both microcystin-containing (MCCE) and microcystin-free (NCCE) crude extracts insignificantly reduced survival but strongly enhanced reproduction and somatic growth of organisms. However, degradation of eggs and neonates of the gravid females exposed to CCEs was observed. In addition, the feeding rate of D. magna exposed to MCCE increased significantly, whereas no change in the feeding rate was observed for NCCE-exposed D. magna. In general, new and interesting aspects of the toxicity of MCCE and NCCE were revealed by this study, which contributes to the understanding of the toxicity of Pseudanabaena sp. extract on D. magna under bioassays.

🔖

Cite This Article

NGUYEN, T. N. T., NGO, X. N. X., PHAM, T. P. T., DAO, T. D. T. (2020). Ecotoxicological investigation of cyanobacterial crude extracts to Daphnia magna under subchronic test conditions. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 6, 498–507. https://ajindex.com/articles/200187

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Bednarska A, 2013,
  2. HYDROBIOLOGIA, V715, P151, DOI 10.1007/s10750-012-1424-2 Blaha Ludek, 2009, Interdiscip Toxicol, V2, P36, DOI 10.2478/v10102-009-0006-2 Campos B, 2014, AQUAT TOXICOL, V148, P139, DOI 10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.01.001 Chen W, 2005, ENVIRON TOXICOL, V20, P323, DOI 10.1002/tox.20108 Chorus I., 1999, TOXIC CYANOBACTERIA. Cooke G.D., 2005,
  3. RESTORATION MANAGEME, VThird edition Cui F, 2017, ENVIRON TOXICOL CHEM, V36, P182, DOI 10.1002/etc.3520 da Costa SM, 2013, HARMFUL ALGAE, V28, P55, DOI 10.1016/j.hal.2013.05.017 Dao T. S., 2013, INT P CHEM BIOL ENV, V58, P41 Dao T.-S., 2014, J ENV PROTECTION, V5, P35, DOI DOI 10.4236/JEP.2014.51005 Dao TS, 2010,
  4. TOXICON, V55, P1244, DOI 10.1016/j.toxicon.2010.01.014 Dao TS, 2013, INT REV HYDROBIOL, V98, P235, DOI 10.1002/iroh.201301626 Diez-Quijada L, 2019,
  5. TOXINS, V11, DOI 10.3390/toxins11060318 Epel D, 2008, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V42, P3914, DOI 10.1021/es087187v FERRANDO MD, 1993, ECOTOX ENVIRON SAFE, V26, P1, DOI 10.1006/eesa.1993.1035 Ferrao AS, 2000, FRESHWATER BIOL, V45, P1, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2000.00613.x GAULD DT, 1951, J MAR BIOL ASSOC UK, V29, P695, DOI 10.1017/S0025315400052875 Ghadouani A, 2004, LIMNOL OCEANOGR, V49, P666, DOI 10.4319/lo.2004.49.3.0666 Guzman-Guillen R, 2017,
  6. TOXINS, V9, DOI 10.3390/toxins9060175 Herrera N, 2014, TOXICOL REP, V1, P909, DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.10.017 Herrera NA, 2015,
  7. TOXICON, V95, P38, DOI 10.1016/j.toxicon.2014.12.016 Hulot FD, 2012, ANN LIMNOL-INT J LIM, V48, P337, DOI 10.1051/limn/2012023 Kilham SS, 1998,
  8. HYDROBIOLOGIA, V377, P147, DOI 10.1023/A:1003231628456 Lau NS, 2015, BIOMED RES INT, V2015, DOI 10.1155/2015/754934 Liang Y, 2017, SCI REP-UK, V7, DOI 10.1038/srep43127 Lurling M, 2003, ENVIRON TOXICOL, V18, P202, DOI 10.1002/tox.10115 MEYER JS, 1986,
  9. ECOLOGY, V67, P1156, DOI 10.2307/1938671 OECD, 2012, GUID TEST CHEM NO 21, P202. Okumura DT, 2007,
  10. ECOTOXICOLOGY, V16, P263, DOI 10.1007/s10646-006-0126-9 Ortiz-Rodriguez R, 2012, J EXP BIOL, V215, P2795, DOI 10.1242/jeb.069211 Ortiz-Rodriguez R, 2010,
  11. TOXICON, V56, P1342, DOI 10.1016/j.toxicon.2010.07.020 Pawlik-Skowronska B, 2019, ENVIRON SCI POLLUT R, V26, P11793, DOI 10.1007/s11356-019-04543-1 Pham TL, 2015, TOXICOL REP, V2, P88, DOI 10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.01.012 Pham TL, 2017, J BIOTECHNOL, V15, P745, DOI [10.15625/1811- 4989/15/4/13418, DOI 10.15625/1811-4989/15/4/13418] Pietsch C, 2001, ENVIRON TOXICOL, V16, P535, DOI 10.1002/tox.10014 Pires LMD, 2005, J PLANKTON RES, V27, P331, DOI 10.1093/plankt/fb