| Title |
Freshwater shrimps as sensitive test species for the risk assessment of pesticides in the tropics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11356-016-7451-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michiel A. Daam, Andreu Rico |
| Abstract |
The aquatic risk assessment of pesticides in tropical areas has often been disputed to rely on toxicity data generated from tests performed with temperate species. Given the differences in ecosystem structure between temperate and tropical ecosystems, test species other than those used in temperate regions have been proposed as surrogates for tropical aquatic effect assessments. Freshwater shrimps, for example are important components of tropical freshwater ecosystems, both in terms of their role in ecosystem functioning and their economic value. In the present study, available toxicity data of (tropical and sub-tropical) freshwater shrimps for insecticides and fungicides were compiled and compared with those available for Daphnia magna and other aquatic invertebrates. Freshwater shrimps appeared to be especially sensitive to GABA-gated chloride channel antagonist and sodium channel modulator insecticides. However, shrimp taxa showed a moderate and low sensitivity to acetylcholinesterase inhibiting insecticides and fungicides respectively. Implications for the use of freshwater shrimps in tropical pesticide effect assessments and research needs are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 34% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 26% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Design | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2016.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#5,443
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,755
of 347,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#96
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.