A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Myriophyllum aquaticum versus Lemna minor: sensitivity and recovery potential after exposure to atrazine. | LitMetric

The relative sensitivity and recovery potential of two aquatic macrophyte species, Lemna minor and Myriophyllum aquaticum, exposed to atrazine (concentration ranges 80-1,280 µg/L and 40-640 µg/L, respectively) were evaluated using slightly adapted standard protocol for Lemna spp.: relative growth rates (RGR) and yield of both plants were measured in 3-d-long intervals during the exposure and recovery phase. Myriophyllum aquaticum was also exposed to atrazine-spiked sediment (0.1-3.7 µg/g) in a water-free system. The results of M. aquaticum sediment contact tests showed that root- and shoot-based growth parameters are equally sensitive endpoints. In the water (sediment-free) test system, L. minor recovered after short (3 d) and longer exposure (7 d) to all atrazine concentrations after only a 5- to 6-d-long recovery phase. The recovery of M. aquaticum after short exposure was slower and less efficient: after 12 d of recovery phase the final biomass of plants exposed to 380 and 640 µg/L was below the initial values. The last interval RGR provides a good indication of plant recovery potential regardless of species growth strategy. If compared to L. minor, the difference in growth rate, sensitivity, lag phase, recovery potential from water-column substances, and also suitability for studies investigating the effect of sediment-bound pollutants advocates the use of M. aquaticum as an additional macrophyte species in risk assessment.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.748DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

recovery potential
16
myriophyllum aquaticum
12
recovery phase
12
lemna minor
8
recovery
8
sensitivity recovery
8
exposure atrazine
8
macrophyte species
8
aquaticum exposed
8
phase recovery
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!