These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Some arguments in favor of a Myriophyllum aquaticum growth inhibition test in a water-sediment system as an additional test in risk assessment of herbicides.
    Author: Tunić T, Knežević V, Kerkez Đ, Tubić A, Šunjka D, Lazić S, Brkić D, Teodorović I.
    Journal: Environ Toxicol Chem; 2015 Sep; 34(9):2104-15. PubMed ID: 25943248.
    Abstract:
    The present study compares the practicability, reproducibility, power, and sensitivity of a Myriophyllum aquaticum growth inhibition test in a water-sediment system with the recently accepted Myriophyllum spicatum test in an equivalent testing system and the standard Lemna sp. test. Special consideration was given to endpoints based on M. aquaticum control plant growth and variability of relative growth rate and yield: shoot length, fresh weight, dry weight, and root weight. Sensitivity analysis was based on tests performed with 3,5-dichlorophenol, atrazine, isoproturon, trifluralin, 2,4-dichlorophenoloxyacetic acid, and dicamba. Growth rates for average M. aquaticum control plants were 0.119 d(-1) and 0.112 d(-1), with average estimated doubling time 6.33 d and 6.74 d for relative growth rate fresh weight and shoot length, respectively. Intrinsic variability of M. aquaticum endpoints was low: 12.9%, 12.5%, and 17.8% for relative growth rate shoot length, relative growth rate fresh weight and yield fresh weight, respectively. The power of the test was fairly high. When the most sensitive endpoints were used for comparison, the 2 Myriophyllum species were similarly sensitive, more sensitive (in the case of auxin simulators), or at least equally sensitive as Lemna minor to other tested herbicides. The M. aquaticum 10-d test with a 7-d exposure period in a water-sediment system has acceptable sensitivity and can provide repeatable, reliable, and reproducible results; therefore, it should not be disregarded as a good and representative additional test in environmental risk assessment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]