2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2005.04.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An evaluation of mixed species in-situ and ex-situ feeding assays: The altered response of Asellus aquaticus and Gammarus pulex

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Baird et al (2007a) review the selection of test organisms and measurement endpoints for in situ assays and provide a framework for linking effects at different levels of biological organization, using G. pulex as an example. The most widely used endpoint is feeding rate, which has been employed to investigate the toxicity of farm waste (Veerasingham and Crane, 1992), pesticide spray drift (Maltby and Hills, 2008), municipal wastewaters (Maltby et al, 2002;Bundschuh et al, 2011), coal mine effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), industrial effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), and landfill leachates (Bloor and Banks, 2006), among others. The most widely used endpoint is feeding rate, which has been employed to investigate the toxicity of farm waste (Veerasingham and Crane, 1992), pesticide spray drift (Maltby and Hills, 2008), municipal wastewaters (Maltby et al, 2002;Bundschuh et al, 2011), coal mine effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), industrial effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), and landfill leachates (Bloor and Banks, 2006), among others.…”
Section: In Situ Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Baird et al (2007a) review the selection of test organisms and measurement endpoints for in situ assays and provide a framework for linking effects at different levels of biological organization, using G. pulex as an example. The most widely used endpoint is feeding rate, which has been employed to investigate the toxicity of farm waste (Veerasingham and Crane, 1992), pesticide spray drift (Maltby and Hills, 2008), municipal wastewaters (Maltby et al, 2002;Bundschuh et al, 2011), coal mine effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), industrial effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), and landfill leachates (Bloor and Banks, 2006), among others. The most widely used endpoint is feeding rate, which has been employed to investigate the toxicity of farm waste (Veerasingham and Crane, 1992), pesticide spray drift (Maltby and Hills, 2008), municipal wastewaters (Maltby et al, 2002;Bundschuh et al, 2011), coal mine effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), industrial effluents (Maltby et al, 2002), and landfill leachates (Bloor and Banks, 2006), among others.…”
Section: In Situ Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Feeding inhibition, either during or after exposure to con- taminants, has been used as an ecotoxicological endpoint in a variety of organisms, mainly aquatic but also in terrestrial species. Feeding inhibition during exposure especially has been demonstrated in the freshwater cladoceran, Daphnia magna, for a variety of pollutants [14,[28][29][30][31], and in other aquatic invertebrates [13,[32][33][34][35]. Other authors have detected feeding inhibition behavior in several crustaceans [15,23,36] and fish [37] when relocated to uncontaminated environments, after previous exposure to contaminants (so-called postfeeding inhibition).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The experiments are executed under the same conditions as chosen for the culture concerning light and temperature (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22) • C). The exposures are arranged in rectangular white-opaque hard-polyethylen containers (PE, 400 mL: 10 cm × 10 cm × 6 cm in high); the exposure lasts for 12 days without any renewal of water, food, or faeces (Figure 1).…”
Section: Experimental Design Ex Situmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Feeding rate is a sensitive sublethal endpoint compared to community-related measures which require changes in species composition before an impact is detected [16,17]. Bloor and Banks [18] compared in situ and ex situ feeding assays with both the pollution-sensitive G. pulex, and the pollution tolerant A. aquaticus. Both, mortalities and feeding rates followed similar trends during the in situ and ex situ tests, but the response of test animals was amplified during in situ testing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%