Ecotoxicology

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 493–496 | Cite as

An introduction to evolutionary processes in ecotoxicology

Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Keywords

Directional Selection Fitness Cost Ecological Risk Assessment Quantitative Genetic Pond Snail 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the Editors, Lee Shugart and Richard Handy for inviting us to propose this project to Ecotoxicology, and for their collaboration and help during the reviewing process. We also thank John Bickham, Michael Depledge, Paul Klerks, Isabel Lopes, Chris Theodorakis and Nico van Straalen, for accepting invitation to the SETAC Special Session on Evolutionary processes in Ecotoxicology, from which this special issue originated. We are aslo grateful to external referees for their valuable contribution (John Benzie, David Buchwalter, Laura Cantone, Thierry Caquet, Anja Coors, Luc DeMeester, Guillaume Evanno, Mike Forstner, Ary Hoffmann, Martin Holmstrup, Paul Klerks, Isabel Lopes, Juha Merilä, Diane Nacci, Benjamín Piña, Rui Ribeiro, Christopher Salice, Lee Shugart, Dave Spurgeon, Arnaud Tanguy, Knut-Erik Tollefsen, Vance Trudeau, Doris Vidal, Christian Vogt, and other anonymous referees).

References

  1. Agra AR, Guilhermino L, Soares A, Barata C (2010) Genetic costs of tolerance to metals in Daphnia longispina populations historically exposed to a copper mine drainage. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:939–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barata C, Baird DJ, Amat F, Soares AMVM (2000) Population responses to contaminants, between laboratory and field: an approach using Daphnia magna ephippial egg banks. Funct Ecol 14:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barata C, Baird DJ, Soares AMVM (2002) Determining genetic variability in the distribution of sensitivities to toxic stress among and within field populations of Daphnia magna. Environ Sci Technol 36:3045–3049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickham JW, Sandhu S, Hebert PDN, Chikhi L, Athwal R (2000) Effects of chemical contaminants on genetic diversity in natural populations: implications for biomonitoring and ecotoxicology. Mutat Res-Rev Mutat 463:33–51Google Scholar
  5. Bonduriansky R, Day T (2009) Nongenetic inheritance and its evolutionary implications. Annu Rev Evol Ecol Syst 40:103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breitholtz M, Ruden C, Hansson SO, Bengtsson BE (2006) Ten challenges for improved ecotoxicological testing in environmental risk assessment. Ecotox Environ Safe 63:324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coutellec MA, Barata C (2010) Evolutionary processes in ecotoxicology. SETAC Globe 11 (10), archive 2010Google Scholar
  8. Coutellec MA, Lagadic L (2006) Effects of self-fertilization, environmental stress and exposure to xenobiotics on fitness-related traits of the freshwater snail Lymnaea stagnalis. Ecotoxicology 15:199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Depledge MH (1994) Genotypic toxicity: implications for individuals and populations. Environ Health Perspect 102(Suppl 12):101–104Google Scholar
  10. Forbes VE (1999) Genetics and ecotoxicology—insights from the interface. In: Forbes VE (ed) Genetics and ecotoxicology. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  11. Forbes VE, Depledge MH (1996) Environmental stress and the distribution of traits within populations. In: Baird DJ, Maltby L, Greig-Smith PW, Douben PET (eds) Ecotoxicology: ecological dimensions. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 71–86Google Scholar
  12. Klerks PL (2002) Adaptation, ecological impacts, and risk assessment: insights from research at Foundry Cove, Bayou Trepagnier, and Pass Fourchon. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8:971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Matson CW, Lambert MM, McDonald TJ, Autenrieth RL, Donnelly KC, Islamzadeh A, Politov DI, Bickham JW (2006) Evolutionary toxicology: population-level effects of chronic contaminant exposure on the marsh frogs (Rana ridibunda) of Azerbaijan. Environ Health Perspect 114:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Medina MH, Correa JA, Barata C (2007) Micro-evolution due to pollution: possible consequences for ecosystem responses to toxic stress. Chemosphere 67:2105–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgan AJ, Kille P, Sturzenbaum SR (2007) Microevolution and ecotoxicology of metals in invertebrates. Environ Sci Technol 41:1085–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nowak C, Vogt C, Diogo JB, Schwenk K (2007) Genetic impoverishment in laboratory cultures of the test organism Chironomus riparius. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1018–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shugart LR, Theodorakis C (1996) Genetic ecotoxicology: the genotypic diversity approach. Comp Biochem Phys C 113:273–276Google Scholar
  18. Van Straalen NM, Hoffmann AA (2000) Review of experimental evidence for physiological costs of tolerance to toxicants. In: Kammenga JE, Laskowski R (eds) Demographic ecotoxicology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 147–158Google Scholar
  19. Van Straalen NM, Timmermans MJTN (2002) Genetic variation in toxicant-stressed populations: an evaluation of the “genetic erosion hypothesis”. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8:983–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Xie LT, Klerks PL (2004) Fitness costs of resistance to cadmium in the least killifish (Heterandria formosa). Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1499–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRA, UMR ESE 0985, Equipe Ecotoxicologie et Qualité des Milieux AquatiquesRennesFrance
  2. 2.Department of Environmental ChemistryIDAEA-CSICBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations