2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125176
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Which soil Cu pool governs phytotoxicity in field-collected soils contaminated by copper smelting activities in central Chile?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
2
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

6
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
8
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Surprisingly, we found that there is little data available on Cu toxicity thresholds-like effective concentration (ECx), lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC), and no observed effect concentration (NOEC)-for fieldcontaminated soils. Six studies were found for plants (Hamels et al 2014;Kolbas et al 2014;Kolbas et al 2018;Lillo-Robles et al 2020;Mondaca et al 2017;Verdejo et al 2015), five for earthworms (Delgadillo et al 2017;Konečný et al 2014;Mirmonsef et al 2017;Scott-Fordsmand et al 2000;Van Zwieten et al 2004), and only three for soil microorganisms (Arthur et al 2012;Oorts et al 2006;Sauvé 2006). A specific EC x value for a given species, endpoint, and bioassay exposition time may have limited relevance from an agricultural or ecological point of view (Delgadillo et al 2017;Mondaca et al 2017).…”
Section: Effects Of Copper Contamination In Soil Organismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surprisingly, we found that there is little data available on Cu toxicity thresholds-like effective concentration (ECx), lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC), and no observed effect concentration (NOEC)-for fieldcontaminated soils. Six studies were found for plants (Hamels et al 2014;Kolbas et al 2014;Kolbas et al 2018;Lillo-Robles et al 2020;Mondaca et al 2017;Verdejo et al 2015), five for earthworms (Delgadillo et al 2017;Konečný et al 2014;Mirmonsef et al 2017;Scott-Fordsmand et al 2000;Van Zwieten et al 2004), and only three for soil microorganisms (Arthur et al 2012;Oorts et al 2006;Sauvé 2006). A specific EC x value for a given species, endpoint, and bioassay exposition time may have limited relevance from an agricultural or ecological point of view (Delgadillo et al 2017;Mondaca et al 2017).…”
Section: Effects Of Copper Contamination In Soil Organismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, the chemical form in which the metal is deposited into the soil also affects the level of soil metal toxicity. Third, field‐contaminated soils might not offer the range of metal contamination necessary to conduct ecotoxicological studies (e.g., Lillo‐Robles et al 2020). In the case of plants, fluctuating nutrient availability in soil may also affect responses, in addition to soil metal toxicity.…”
Section: Comparison Of Median Effect Concentration (Ec50) Values In Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, few such studies have been performed. For instance, we have found only 6 studies in which copper phytotoxicity thresholds have been determined using fieldcontaminated soils (Hamels et al 2014;Kolbas et al 2014Kolbas et al , 2018 Verdejo et al 2015;Mondaca et al 2017;Lillo-Robles et al 2020). Likewise, we are aware of only one study on the arsenic toxicity threshold for Eisenia fetida in fieldcontaminated soils (Bustos et al 2015).Although the importance of using field-contaminated soils-rather than spiked soils-is evident, interpretation of the results from field-contaminated soils presents several difficulties.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the results observed in the present study can be explained by the aforementioned quantity, intensity, and capacity factors. Specifically, in highly polluted soils, metal concentrations in the soil solution of the whole soil were buffered by desorption-dissolution reactions from the soil solid phase (Lillo-Robles et al 2020;Sauvé 2002), causing high phytotoxicity and, therefore, poor root growth. Importantly, the radicle's ability to absorb metals is confirmed in other studies (e.g., Zhang et al 2020).…”
Section: Differences In Root Elongation Results Under the Two Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%