Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 75–85 | Cite as

A plea for the use of copepods in freshwater ecotoxicology

  • Devdutt Kulkarni
  • André Gergs
  • Udo Hommen
  • Hans Toni Ratte
  • Thomas G. Preuss
Review Article

Abstract

Standard species used in ecological risk assessment are chosen based on their sensitivity to various toxicants and the ease of rearing them for laboratory experiments. However, this mostly overlooks the fact that species in the field that may employ variable life-history strategies, which may have consequences concerning the vulnerability of such species to exposure with contaminants. We aimed to highlight the importance of copepods in ecology and to underline the need to include freshwater copepods in ecotoxicology. We carried out a literature search on copepods and Daphnia in ecology and ecotoxicology to compare the recognition given to these two taxa in these respective fields. We also conducted a detailed analysis of the literature on copepods and their current role in ecotoxicology to characterize the scale and depth of the studies and the ecotoxicological information therein. The literature on the ecology of copepods outweighed that in ecotoxicology when compared with daphnids. Copepods, like other zooplankton, were found to be sensitive to toxicants and important organisms in aquatic ecosystems. The few studies that were conducted on the ecotoxicology of copepods mainly focused on marine copepods. However, very little is known about the ecotoxicology of freshwater copepods. To enable a more realistic risk higher tier environmental risk assessment, we recommend considering freshwater copepods as part of the hazard assessment process. This could include the establishment of laboratory experiments to analyse the effects of toxicants on copepods and the development of individual-based models to extrapolate effects across species and scenarios.

Keywords

Freshwater Ecological risk assessment Pesticides Mesocyclops leuckarti Cyclopoid Copepod Ecotoxicology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been financially supported by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme (project acronym CREAM, contract number PITN-GA-2009-238148). The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to improve the quality of this paper.

References

  1. Adams WJ, Rowland CD (2003) Aquatic toxicology test methods. In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA Jr, Cairns J Jr (eds) Handbook of ecotoxicology, 2nd edn. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 19–38Google Scholar
  2. Alekseev VR, De Stasio BT, Gilbert JJ, Ravera O (2007) Diapause in aquatic invertebrates Preface. Monographiae Biologicae 84, XIII. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird DJ, Van den Brink PJ (2007) Using biological traits to predict species sensitivity to toxic substances. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 67:296–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnthouse LW, Munns WR, Sorensen MT (2007) Population-level ecological risk assessment. Taylor & Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boxshall GA, Defaye D (2008) Global diversity of copepods (Crustacea: Copepoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiol 595:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brock TCM, Van Wijngaarden RPA (2012) Acute toxicity tests with Daphnia magna, Americamysis bahia, Chironomus riparius and Gammarus pulex and implications of new EU requirements for the aquatic effect assessment of insecticides. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-012-0930-0
  7. Butlin R, Schön I, Martens K (1998) Asexual reproduction in nonmarine ostracods. Hered 81:473–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caceres CE, Soluk DA (2002) Blowing in the wind: a field test of overland dispersal and colonization by aquatic invertebrates. Oecologia 131:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calow P, Forbes VE (2003) Does ecotoxicology inform ecological risk assessment? Environ Sci Technol 37:146A–151ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandler GT, Cary TL, Volz DC, Walse SS, Ferry JL, Klosterhaus SL (2004) Fipronil effects on estuarine copepod (Amphiascus tenuiremis) development, fertility, and reproduction: a rapid life-cycle assay in 96-well microplate format. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman PM, Fairbrother A, Brown D (1998) A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleuvers M (1995) Die Auswirkungen der negativen Interferenz auf die F1-Generation von Daphnia magna STRAUS. Diploma thesis (German). RWTH Aachen University, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen GM, Shurin JB (2003) Scale-dependence and mechanisms of dispersal in freshwater zooplankton. Oikos 103:603–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl U, Breitholtz M (2008) Integrating individual ecdysteroid content and growth-related stressor endpoints to assess toxicity in a benthic harpacticoid copepod. Aquat Toxicol 88:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahms HU, Fernando CH (1993) Redescription of Mesocyclops leuckarti (Copepoda, Cyclopoida), including a study of its naupliar development. Int Rev ges Hydrobiol 78:589–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diz FR, Araújo CV, Moreno-Garrido I, Hampel M, Blasco J (2009) Short-term toxicity tests on the harpacticoid copepod Tisbe battagliai: lethal and reproductive endpoints. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1881–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drillet G, Hansen BW, Kiørboe T (2011) Resting egg production induced by food limitation in the calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa. Limnol Oceanogr 56:2064–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan A (1989) Food limitation and body size in the life cycles of planktonic rotifers and cladocerans. Hydrobiologia 186(187):11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. (EC) European Commission (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Off J Eur Comm L 309:1–50Google Scholar
  20. EFSA (2010) Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues: scientific opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J 8:1821Google Scholar
  21. Fedorenko AY, Swift MC (1972) Comparative biology of Chaoborus americanus and Chaoborus trivittatus in Eunice Lake, British Columbia. Limnol Oceanogr 17:721–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fergusson E Jr (1944) Studies on the seasonal life history of three species of freshwater Ostracoda. Am Midl Nat 32:713–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer JM, Moore MV (1993) Juvenile survival of a planktonic insect: effects of food limitation and predation. Freshw biol 30:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. FOCUS (2001) Surface water scenarios in the EU evaluation process under 91/414/EEC, SANCO/4802/2001. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  25. Forbes VE, Calow P (2002) Species sensitivity distributions revisited: a critical appraisal. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8:473–492Google Scholar
  26. Frisch D, Arechederra A, Green AJ (2009) Recolonisation potential of zooplankton propagule banks in natural and agriculturally modified sections of a semiarid temporary stream (Doñana, Southwest Spain). Hydrobiol 624:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fryer G (1957) The food of some freshwater cyclopoid copepods and its ecological significance. J Anim Ecol 26:263–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galassi DMP (2001) Groundwater copepods: diversity patterns over ecological and evolutionary scales. Hydrobiol 453–454:227–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galassi DMP, Huys R, Reid JW (2009) Diversity, ecology and evolution of groundwater copepods. Freshw Biol 54:691–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gergs A, Classen S, Hommen U, Preuss TG (2011) Identification of realistic worst case aquatic macroinvertebrate species for prospective risk assessment using the trait concept. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-011-0484-6
  31. Gophen M (1976) Temperature effect on lifespan, metabolism, and development time of Mesocyclops leuckarti (Claus). Oecologia 25:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Green AS, Chandler GT, Piegorsch WW (1996) Life-stage-specific toxicity of sediment-associated chlorpyrifos to a marine, infaunal copepod. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1182–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gustafsson K, Blidberg E, Elfgren I, Hellström A, Kylin H, Gorokhova E (2010) Direct and indirect effects of the fungicide azoxystrobin in outdoor brackish water microcosms. Ecotoxicol 19:431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gutierrez MF, Gagneten AM, Paggi JC (2010) Copper and chromium alter life cycle variables and the equiproportional development of the freshwater copepod Notodiaptomus conifer (SARS). Water Air Soil Pollut 213:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hammers-Wirtz M, Ratte HT (2000) Offspring fitness in Daphnia: is the Daphnia reproduction test appropriate for extrapolating effects on the population level? Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1856–1866Google Scholar
  36. Hansen AM, Santer B (1995) The influence of food resources on the development, survival and reproduction of the 2 cyclopoid copepods—Cyclops vicinus and Mesocyclops leuckarti. J Plankton Res 17:631–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hansen AM, Santer B (2003) The life cycle of Cyclops vicinus in Lake Søbygård: new aspects derived from sediment analyses. Hydrobiol 510:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hansen BH, Altin D, Rørvik SF, Øverjordet IB, Olsen AJ, Nordtug T (2011) Comparative study on acute effects of water accommodated fractions of an artificially weathered crude oil on Calanus finmarchicus and Calanus glacialis (Crustacea: Copepoda). Sci Total Environ 409:704–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Havel JE, Talbott BL (1995) Life history characteristics of the freshwater ostracod Cyprinotus incongruens and their application to toxicity testing. Ecotoxicol 4:206–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hendley P, Holmes C, Kay S, Maund SJ, Travis KZ, Zhang MH (2001) Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: III. A spatial analysis of the Mississippi, USA, cotton landscape. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holmstrup M, Bindesbol A-M, Oostingh GJ, Duschl A, Scheil V, Koehler H-R, Loureiro S, Soares AMVM, Ferreira ALG, Kienle C, Gerhardt A, Laskowski R, Kramarz PE, Bayley M, Svendsen C, Spurgeon DJ (2010) Interactions between effects of environmental chemicals and natural stressors: a review. Sci Total Environ 408:3746–3762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hommen U, Baveco JM, Galic N, van den Brink PJ (2010) Potential application of population models in the European ecological risk assessment of chemicals I: review of protection goals in EU directives and regulations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hopp U, Maier G (2005) Survival and development of five species of cyclopoid copepods in relation to food supply: experiments with algal food in a flow-through system. Freshw Biol 50:1454–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Humes AG (1994) How many copepods? Hydrobiologia 292/293:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hutchinson TH, Pounds NA, Hampel M, Williams TD (1999) Life-cycle studies with marine copepods (Tisbe battagliai) exposed to 20-hydroxyecdysone and diethylstilbestrol. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2914–2920Google Scholar
  46. Jenkins DG, Buikema AL (1998) Do similar communities develop in similar sites? A test with zooplankton structure and function. Ecol Monogr 68:421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kajak Z, Rybak J (1979) The feeding of Chaoborus flavicans MEIGEN (Diptera, Chaoboridae) and its predation on lake zooplankton. Int Rev ges Hydrobiol 64:361–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kang SW, Seo J, Han J, Lee JS, Jung J (2011) A comparative study of toxicity identification using Daphnia magna and Tigriopus japonicus: implications of establishing effluent discharge limits in Korea. Mar Pollut Bull 63:370–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ki JS, Raisuddin S, Lee KW, Hwang DS, Han J, Rhee JS, Kim IC, Park HG, Ryu JC, Lee JS (2009) Gene expression profiling of copper-induced responses in the intertidal copepod Tigriopus japonicus using a 6K oligochip microarray. Aquat Toxicol 93:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kirk KL (1997) Life-history responses to variable environments: starvation and reproduction in planktonic rotifers. Ecol 78:434–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Korovchinsky NM (1990) Evolutionary morphological development of the Cladocera of the Superfamily Sidoidea and life strategies of crustaceans of continental waters. Int Rev ges Hydrobiol 75:649–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kusk K (1997) Acute and chronic toxicity of tributyltin and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate to the marine copepod Acartia tonsa. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:1629–1633Google Scholar
  53. Lampert W, Sommer U (1997) Limnoecology: the ecology of lakes and streams. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Leonard AW, Hyne RV, Lim RP, Chapman JC (1999) Effect of endosulfan runoff from cotton fields on macroinvertebrates in the Namoi River. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 42:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. López-Mancisidor P, Van den Brink PJ, Crum SJH, Maund SJ, Carbonell G, Brock TCM (2008) Responses of zooplankton in lufenuron-stressed experimental ditches in the presence or absence of uncontaminated refuges. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1317–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lynch M (1980) The evolution of cladoceran life histories. Q Rev Biol 55:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Macken A, Giltrap M, Foley B, McGovern E, McHugh B, Davoren M (2009) An integrated approach to the toxicity assessment of Irish marine sediments: application of porewater toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) to toxic Irish marine sediments. Environ Int 35:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maier G (1993) An example of niche partitioning in three freshwater cyclopoid copepods. J Plankton Res 15:1097–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maier G (1994) Patterns of life history among cyclopoid copepods of central Europe. Freshw Biol 31:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maier G (1998) Differential success of cyclopoid copepods in the pelagic zone of eutrophic lakes. J Mar Syst 15:135–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Marten GG (1990) Evaluation of cyclopoid copepods for Aedes albopictus control in tires. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 6:681–688Google Scholar
  62. Maul JD, Belden JB, Schwab BA, Whiles MR, Spears B, Farris JL, Lydy MJ (2006) Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of polychlorinated biphenyls by aquatic and terrestrial insects to tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Environ Toxicol Chem 25:1017–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mösslacher F (2000) Sensitivity of groundwater and surface water crustaceans to chemical pollutants and hypoxia: implications for pollution management. Arch Hydrobiol 149:51–66Google Scholar
  64. Nandini S, Sarma SSS (2006) Ratio of neonate to adult size explains life history characteristics in cladoceran zooplankton. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 34:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. OECD (2011) OECD guideline for testing and assessment of chemicals 158. Report of progress on the interlaboratory validation of the OECD harpacticoid copepod development and reproduction test. Adopted 22 August 2011. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  66. Preuss TG, Hammers-Wirtz M, Hommen U, Rubach MN, Ratte HT (2009) Development and validation of an individual based Daphnia magna population model: the influence of crowding on population dynamics. Ecol Model 220:310–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Preuss TG, Hammers-Wirtz M, Ratte HT (2010) The potential of individual based population models to extrapolate effects measured at standardized test conditions to environmental relevant conditions—an example for 3,4-dichloroaniline on Daphnia magna. J Environ Monitor 12:2070–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raisuddin S, Kwok KWH, Leung KMY, Schlenk D, Lee J-S (2007) The copepod Tigriopus: a promising marine model organism for ecotoxicology and environmental genomics. Aquat Toxicol 83:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reid JW (2001) A human challenge: discovering and understanding continental copepod habitats. Hydrobiol 453(454):201–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Robinson L, Thorn I (2005) Toxicology and ecotoxicology in chemical safety assessment. Blackwell, Oxford, p 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Roessink I, Crum SJH, Bransen F, Van Leeuwen E, Van Kerkum F, Koelmans AA, Brock TCM (2006) Impact of triphenyltin acetate in microcosms simulating floodplain lakes. I. Influence of sediment quality. Ecotoxicol 15:267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rubach MN, Ashauer R, Buchwalter DB, HJ Dl, Hamer M, Preuss TG, Topke K, Maund SJ (2011) Framework for traits-based assessment in ecotoxicology. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7:172–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sánchez-Bayo F (2006) Comparative acutetoxicity of organic pollutants and reference values for crustaceans. I. Branchiopoda, Copepoda and Ostracoda. Environ Pollut 139:385–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [SANCO] Sante’ des Consommateurs (2002) Guidance document on aquatic ecotoxicology in the context of the Directive 91/414/EEC. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, SANCO/3268/2001 rev. 4 (final). Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  75. Santer B (1998) Life cycle strategies of free-living copepods in fresh waters. J Mar Syst 15:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sarma SSS, Nandini S, Gulati RD (2005) Life history strategies of cladocerans: comparisons of tropical and temperate taxa. Hydrobiologia 542:315–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schulz R (2001) Comparison of spray drift- and runoff-related input of azinphos-methyl and endosulfan from fruit orchards into the Lourens River, South Africa. Chemosphere 45:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schulz R, Stehle S, Elsaesser D, Matezki S, Mueller A, Neumann M, Ohliger R, Wogram J, Zenker K (2009) Geodata-based probabilistic risk assessment and management of pesticides in Germany: a conceptual framework. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Seitz A, Ratte HT (1991) Aquatic ecotoxicology: on the problems of extrapolating from laboratory experiments with individuals and populations to community effects in the field. Comp Biochem Physiol C 100:301–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Seuntjens P, Holvoet K, Vanrolleghem PA (2008) Monitoring and modelling pesticide dynamics in surface water. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Dangerous Pollutants (Xenobiotics) in Urban Water Cycle, 3–6 May 2007. Lednice, Czech Republic, pp 181–190Google Scholar
  81. Smyly WJP (1961) The life-cycle of the freshwater copepod Cyclops leuckarti Claus in Esthwaite water. J Anim Ecol 30:153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Snell TW, Carmona MJ (2009) Comparative toxicant sensitivity of sexual and asexual reproduction in the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:415–420Google Scholar
  83. Solomon KR, Baker DB, Richards RP, Dixon KR, Klaine SJ, La Point TW, Kendall RJ, Weisskopf CP, Giddings JM, Giesy JP, Hall LW Jr, Williams WM (1996) Environ Toxicol Chem 15:31–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stark JD, Banken JAO (1999) Importance of population structure at the time of toxicant exposure. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 42:282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stark JD, Banks JE, Acheampong S (2004a) Estimating susceptibility of biological control agents to pesticides: influence of life history strategies and population structure. Biol Control 29:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stark JD, Banks JE, Vargas R (2004b) How risky is risk assessment: the role that life history strategies play in susceptibility of species to stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:732–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stearns SS (1997) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  88. Stelzer CP (2005) Evolution of rotifer life histories. Hydrobiologia 546:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Szlauer B, Szlauer Z (1980) The use of lake zooplankton as feed for carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) fry in pond culture. Acta Ichthyol Piscat 10:79–102Google Scholar
  90. Turesson EU, Stiernström S, Minten J, Adolfsson-Erici M, Bengtsson BE, Breitholtz M (2007) Development and reproduction of the freshwater harpacticoid copepod Attheyella crassa for assessing sediment-associated toxicity. Aquat Toxicol 83:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Van den Brink PJ, Crum SJH, Gylstra R, Bransen F, Cuppen JGM, Brock TCM (2009) Effects of a herbicide-insecticide mixture in freshwater microcosms: risk assessment and ecological effect chain. Environ Pollut 157:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Van der Hoeven N (1990) Effect of 3, 4-dichloroaniline and metavanadate on Daphnia populations. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 20:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Leeuwen CJ, Luttmer WJ, Griffioen PS (1985) The use of cohorts and population in chronic toxicity studies with Daphnia magna: a cadmium example. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 9:26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Straalen NM (1994) Biodiversity of ecotoxicological responses in animals. Neth J Zool 44:112–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Van Wijngaarden RPA, van den Brink PJ, Crum SJH, oude Voshaar JH, Brock TCM, Leeuwangh C (1996) Effects of the insecticide Dursban® 4E (active ingredient chlorpyrifos) in outdoor experimental ditches: I. Comparison of short-term toxicity between the laboratory and the field. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1133–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Van Wijngaarden RPA, Brock TCM, van den Brink PJ, Gylstra R, Maund SJ (2006) Ecological effects of spring and late summer applications of lambda-cyhalothrin on freshwater microcosms. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 50:220–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vijverberg J (1989) Culture techniques for studies on the growth, development and reproduction of copepods and cladocerans under laboratory and in situ conditions—a review. Freshw Biol 21:317–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wendt-Rasch L, Friberg-Jensen U, Woin P, Christoffersen K (2003) Effects of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin on a freshwater community studied under field conditions. II. Direct and indirect effects on the species composition. Aquat Toxicol 63:373–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wheeler JR, Grist EPM, Leung KMY, Morritt D, Crane M (2002) Species sensitivity distributions: data and model choice. Mar Pollut Bull 45:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Williams R, Conway DVP, Hunt HG (1994) The role of copepods in the planktonic ecosystems of mixed and stratified waters of the European shelf seas. Hydrobiol 293:521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Williamson CE (1984) Laboratory and field experiments on the feeding ecology of the cyclopoid copepod, Mesocyclops edax. Freshw Biol 14:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wogram J (2009) Regulatory challenges for the potential use of ecological models in risk assessment of plant protection products. In: Thorbek P, Forbes V, Heimbach F, Hommen U, Thulke HH, van den Brink P, Wogram J, Grimm V (eds) Ecological models for regulatory risk assessments of pesticides: developing a strategy for the future. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zafar MI, Belgers JDM, Van Wijngaarden RPA, Matser A, Van den Brink PJ (2012) Ecological impacts of time-variable exposure regimes to the fungicide azoxystrobin on freshwater communities in outdoor microcosms. Ecotoxicol 21:1024–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Devdutt Kulkarni
    • 1
  • André Gergs
    • 3
  • Udo Hommen
    • 2
  • Hans Toni Ratte
    • 1
  • Thomas G. Preuss
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Environmental ResearchRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied EcologySchmallenbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial ChangeRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations