Advertisement

Doklady Biochemistry and Biophysics

, Volume 480, Issue 1, pp 169–172 | Cite as

The Sensitivity of Resting Eggs of the Cladoceran Moina macrocopa to the Effect of Ionizing Radiation during the Reactivation of the Eggs

  • T. S. Lopatina
  • E. S. Zadereev
  • N. A. Oskina
  • M. V. Petrichenkov
Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Molecular Biology
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

We investigated the sensitivity of resting eggs of the cladoceran Moina macrocopa to the effect of ionizing radiation during the reactivation of the eggs. The study showed that the resting eggs during reactivation are more vulnerable to irradiation than the resting eggs in a stage of deep dormancy. The decrease in the efficiency of egg reactivation was observed at high doses, the growth rate of juveniles, fecundity, and the number of produced clutches by females strongly decreased when resting eggs at the reactivation stage absorbed doses of 64 Gy and higher.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alekseev, V.R., Diapauza rakoobraznykh: ekologo-fiziologicheskie aspekty (Diapause of Crustaceans: Ecological and Physiological Aspects), Moscow: Nauka, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brendonck, L. and De Meester, L., Hydrobiologia, 2003, vol. 491, pp. 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilus, E., Puhakainen, M., and Saxen, R., Gammaemitting radionuclides in the bottom sediments of some Finnish lakes, Report STUK-A112, Helsinki: Painatuskeskus Oy, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zadereev, E.S., Lopatina, T.S., Zotina, T.A., Os’kina, N.A., Dement’ev, D.V., and Petrichenkov, M.V., Dokl. Biochem. Biophys., 2016, vol. 466, pp. 611–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donaldson, L.R. and Foster, R.F., in The Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries, no. 551, Washington: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1957, pp. 96–102.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zadereev, E.S. and Gubanov, V.G., Zh. Obshch. Biol., 1996, vol. 57, pp. 360–367.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krebs, C.J., Ecology: the Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance, New York: Harper & Row, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suyama, I., Etoh, H., Maruyama, T., Kato, Y., and Ichikawa, R., J. Rad. Res., 1981, vol. 25, pp. 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zadereev, E., Lopatina, T., Oskina, N., Zotina, T., Petrichenkov, M., and Dementyev, D., J. Environ. Radioact., 2017, vols. 175–176, pp. 126–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisler, R., Radiation Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a Synoptic Review. Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report, USNational Biological Service, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior., 1994, no. 29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. S. Lopatina
    • 1
  • E. S. Zadereev
    • 1
    • 2
  • N. A. Oskina
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. V. Petrichenkov
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Biophysics, Krasnoyarsk Research Center, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesKrasnoyarskRussia
  2. 2.Siberian Federal UniversityKrasnoyarskRussia
  3. 3.Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations