Previous Article |
Table of Contents
| Next Article
* Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260; and Edited by David B. Wake, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
and approved December 8, 2000 (received for review February 22, 2000)
Global declines in amphibians likely have multiple causes,
including widespread pesticide use. Our knowledge of pesticide effects
on amphibians is largely limited to short-term (4-d) toxicity tests
conducted under highly artificial conditions to determine lethal
concentrations (LC50). We found that if we used slightly longer
exposure times (10-16 d), low concentrations of the pesticide carbaryl
(3-4% of LC504-d) killed 10-60% of gray treefrog
(Hyla versicolor) tadpoles. If predatory cues also were
present, the pesticide became 2-4 times more lethal, killing 60-98%
of tadpoles. Thus, under more realistic conditions of increased
exposure times and predatory stress, current application rates for
carbaryl can potentially devastate gray treefrog populations. Further,
because predator-induced stress is ubiquitous in animals and
carbaryl's mode of action is common to many pesticides, these negative
impacts may be widespread in nature.
Amphibian population declines
around the world have been receiving increased attention, but the
mechanisms responsible for many of these declines have remained
elusive. Hypothesized mechanisms include natural population
fluctuations, habitat destruction, introduced predators and pathogens,
increased UV radiation, and environmental contaminants (1-7). Whereas
evidence is accumulating for the first four hypotheses, little is known
about the effects of environmental contaminants such as heavy metals
and pesticides on amphibian populations. Given the pervasiveness of
pesticide applications, negative effects of pesticides could have an
impact on amphibians around the world. For example, in the United
States alone, 2 billion kg of pesticides are used annually across many different habitats, including nearly 75% of all farms and homes. Worldwide use is nearly 5 times this amount (8).
Our knowledge of pesticide effects on amphibians comes primarily from
acute toxicity tests that estimate LC50 (the concentration of a
pesticide predicted to kill 50% of a test population within a given
amount of time and under given conditions of exposure). These tests
typically are conducted for only 1-4 d and they are conducted without
consideration of many natural biotic and abiotic effects (9-11). LC50
estimates have been extremely useful in determining the relative
lethality of different pesticides and the relative susceptibility of
different organisms. However, the lethality of very low concentrations
of pesticides ( Abiotic and biotic stressors have the potential to interact with acute
pesticide effects, and this has provoked a great deal of interest about
the impact of multiple stressors. Abiotic factors such as pH,
temperature, and light can synergistically affect mortality caused by
pesticides (14-16), but we know little about the potential synergistic
effects of biotic factors. For example, the fear of predation is a
common stressor that causes most animals, including amphibians, to
become less active and grow more slowly (17-22), but there appear to
be no studies that have examined the interaction between
predator-induced fear and pesticides as multiple stressors. In this
study, we examined the impact of low concentrations of a pesticide and
predator-induced stress on the behavior, growth, and survival of larval
gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor). The gray treefrog is a
species common to eastern North America that breeds in the early summer
throughout its range. Treefrogs lay their eggs in ponds, and the eggs
hatch within a few days. The resulting tadpoles grow in the pond for
4-8 weeks and then metamorphose into terrestrial frogs.
For our experiments, we worked with carbaryl (1-naphthyl
N-methylcarbamate; commercial name, Sevin), one of the
world's most commonly used, broad-spectrum pesticides (an insecticide,
acaricide, molluscicide, and ectoparasiticide). It acts by inhibiting
acetylcholinesterase and has become popular throughout the world since
1959 because of its low toxicity to mammals and its relatively short
lifetime in the environment. Whereas myriad tests of carbaryl toxicity have been conducted on birds, mammals, fish, and invertebrates, there
are few published studies on amphibians. Past studies of amphibian
responses to carbaryl have found that carbaryl reduces tadpole activity
and growth, and LC50 estimates vary between 2.5 and 20.6 mg/liter
(12, 13, 15, 23).
Carbaryl is applied to croplands (>100 crop species), rangelands,
forests, wetlands, oceans, and sewage treatment plants to exterminate
animal pests, and it is applied to domesticated animals to control
lice, mites, ticks, and fleas (24). Ten to 15 million pounds of
carbaryl are applied annually in the United States on 200 million
acre-treatments (acres treated × number of treatments), including
28 million homes and 31 million gardens (25). Because carbaryl is
widely used, it can enter amphibian-containing wetlands through direct
aerial spraying, aerial drift, terrestrial runoff, or erosion (26, 27).
While our study focused on just carbaryl, it is important to note that
carbaryl represents only 1 of 21,000 chemical pesticides currently in
use (8).
Experiment 1.
In 1999, we conducted a pilot experiment to determine the chronic
(longer-term) effect of carbaryl and predator stress on larval treefrog
survival. We used eggs from 10 pairs of amplecting treefrogs collected
from a pond in the Baskett Wildlife Area near Ashland, MO. We hatched
the eggs in filtered tap water and then randomly assigned groups of 10 tadpoles (mean mass ± 1 SE in water = 56 ± 5 mg) to
polyethylene tubs containing 10 liters of filtered tap water.
Adsorption of carbaryl onto these plastic tubs has been found to be
negligible (28). The tubs were placed on two shelves in two spatial
blocks in a laboratory under a 15:9 h light:dark cycle.
Ecology
Predator-induced stress makes the pesticide carbaryl more deadly
to gray treefrog tadpoles (Hyla versicolor)
and
Department of Biological
Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
![]()
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
LC50) is often unknown (12, 13).
![]()
Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Experiments 2 and 3. In 2000, we conducted two, more-extensive, experiments to determine the effects of carbaryl and predator stress on larval treefrog behavior, growth, and survival. For both experiments, we collected fertilized eggs from a different population (12 km south of the first population) and hatched them in filtered tap water. As in experiment 1, groups of 10 tadpoles were randomly assigned to 10-liter polyethylene tubs filled with filtered tap water. Tubs were placed on shelves in four spatial blocks in a laboratory under a 15:9 h light:dark ratio. The tadpoles in experiment 2 were a mixture of 21 sibships (mean mass ± 1 SE = 13 ± 1 mg), whereas tadpoles in experiment 3 were a mixture of 8 sibships (mean mass = 11 ± 1 mg).
In each experiment, tubs were randomly assigned a factorial combination of two predator treatments and six chemical treatments (replicated four times). Predator treatments were identical to those in experiment 1, whereas the chemical treatments consisted of a negative control (water addition), a solvent control (acetone addition), and four concentrations of carbaryl. In experiment 2, we made a stock solution of carbaryl by dissolving 6,018 mg of technical grade carbaryl into 100 ml of acetone. The carbaryl concentration of the stock solution was 62.7 mg/ml (based on analyses by the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory). Tubs assigned to the four carbaryl treatments received 1.33, 0.67, 0.33, or 0.17 ml of stock solution for nominal carbaryl concentrations 8.3, 4.2, 2.1, and 1.0 mg/liter, respectively. Solvent control tubs received 1.33 ml of acetone, whereas negative controls received 1.33 ml of water. In experiment 3, we made a stock solution of carbaryl by dissolving 501 mg of technical grade carbaryl into 250 ml of acetone. The carbaryl concentration of the stock solution was 2.7 mg/ml (based on analyses by the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory). Tubs assigned to the four carbaryl treatments received 2.00, 1.00, 0.50, or 0.25 ml of stock solution for nominal carbaryl concentrations 0.54, 0.27, 0.14, and 0.07 mg/liter, respectively. Solvent control tubs received 2 ml of acetone, whereas negative controls received 2 ml of water. During the 16-d experiments, tadpoles and predators were fed as in experiment 1. We changed the tub water every 4 days, and the chemical treatments were reapplied after water changes. We observed the activity of the tadpoles 10 times per day by slowly approaching each tub and counting the number of tadpoles alive in each tub and the proportion of live tadpoles that were active (moving) by using scan sampling (32). At the end of the experiment, the surviving tadpoles were counted and weighed. Because tadpole growth was based only on those tadpoles that survived, our estimates of growth could be upwardly biased if slower-growing tadpoles were more susceptible to the stresses of predators and carbaryl. Midway through experiments 2 and 3, we quantified the oxygen, temperature, pH, and total ammonia in each tub. Oxygen and temperature were measured by using a Yellow Springs Instrument 55 dissolved oxygen meter (oxygen resolution = 0.01 mg/liter; temperature resolution = 0.1°C). Total ammonia and pH were measured using an Orion Expandable ionAnalyzer EA 940 (ammonia resolution = 0.001 mg/liter; pH resolution = 0.01 pH). The activity, growth, and abiotic data were analyzed with standard ANOVA. The survivorship data did not meet the assumptions of standard ANOVA, so we conducted a nonparametric analysis on survivorship by first ranking the data and then conducting an ANOVA on the ranks. Block interactions never approached significance (P > 0.5) and were dropped from the analysis. For all of the experiments, animal care was in accordance with institutional guidelines.| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Experiment 1. Survival remained high in the control chemical treatments, but the addition of carbaryl at all of the concentrations caused high mortality within 1 week (Fig. 1). Survival remained high in the presence of carbaryl through day 5 and then began a precipitous drop to a point that was significantly lower than the controls (F3,24 = 34.4, P < 0.0001). The chemical and predator treatments interacted with the predator treatments (F3,24 = 4.5, P = 0.012). When carbaryl was present at 0.090 mg/liter, survival declined to approximately 8% by day 8, regardless of predator treatment. When carbaryl was present at 0.05 mg/liter, tadpole survival declined to 40% with predators absent but declined to 3% with predators present.
|
Experiments 2 and 3. In the more extensive experiments conducted the following year, we found similar results (Figs. 2 and 3). In experiment 2 (which contained the highest four carbaryl concentrations), survivorship was 98% with either control treatment (regardless of predator treatment). However, in the presence of carbaryl, survivorship dropped off precipitously beginning on day 3 at the highest concentration and day 6 at the lowest concentration. After 16 d, mean survival across the four carbaryl treatments was 4%, significantly lower than the control treatments (F5,36 = 35.0, P < 0.00001). Predators did not affect tadpole survivorship (F1,36 = 0.7, P < 0.407). Because of the widespread death, tadpole activity could be assessed only during the first 6 days. Carbaryl caused a reduction in activity, and this reduction was larger as carbaryl concentration increased (F5,33 = 60.7, P < 0.0001). Predators generally reduced activity across all chemical treatments (F1,33 = 22.0, P < 0.001), but the reduction was not significant under the highest two carbaryl concentrations in which the activity levels were already extremely low (activity = 1-6%). The widespread death among most of the tubs containing carbaryl precluded any analysis of growth rates (24 tubs had no tadpoles alive), but the few tadpoles that remained alive with carbaryl present experienced about 50% of the growth experienced with carbaryl absent.
|
|
0.001, range of
means = 6.6-7.3 mg/liter), and pH (P = 0.048, range of means = 8.5-8.6) that were not related to carbaryl
concentration. Increased carbaryl was associated with increased ammonia
levels (P < 0.0001, range of means = 0.21-0.99 mg/liter), but this effect was likely due to the presence of dead tadpoles and an excess of unconsumed food (regression of survival against ammonia, P = 0.001, R2 = 0.395). Predators had no effect
on ammonia or temperature (P > 0.1) and only small
effects on oxygen and pH (a 9% decrease in oxygen, P < 0.0001; a 0.5% decrease in pH, P = 0.019, range of
means = 8.59-8.63).
In experiment 3 (which included the lowest four carbaryl
concentrations), survivorship was again very high in both control treatments, regardless of predator presence (mean = 90%).
However, in the presence of carbaryl, survivorship declined beginning
on days 10-11, and the final survivorship with carbaryl present was significantly reduced (mean across carbaryl treatments = 83%; F5,36 = 8.3, P = 0.00003). Predator cues made the pesticide 4 times more lethal
(F1,36 = 48.1, P < 0.00001); final survivorship across the four carbaryl treatments with
caged predators averaged 32%. Over the duration of the experiment,
there were small differences in activity among the control and carbaryl
treatments (F5,33 = 3.5, P = 0.011), but activity with carbaryl was similar to
activity with the solvent control (P
0.05).
Predators did not affect tadpole activity when carbaryl was absent but
significantly reduced activity when carbaryl was present (chemical × predator interaction: F5,33 = 4.8, P = 0.002). Predators and carbaryl also had an
interactive effect on growth rate
(F5,29 = 9.7, P = 0.00002); predators did not affect growth in the absence of carbaryl
but reduced tadpole growth by 50% in the presence of carbaryl.
When we monitored the chemical conditions in the water midway through
experiment 3, we found that carbaryl treatments and the solvent control
had 6% lower oxygen concentrations than the negative control
(P
0.002, range of means = 3.8-4.9
mg/liter), but there were no differences in pH (mean = 8.5),
temperature (mean = 22.9°C), or ammonia (mean = 0.22 mg/liter). Predators had no effect on oxygen, pH, temperature, or
ammonia (P > 0.1).
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our results demonstrate that very low concentrations of carbaryl can have dramatic effects on amphibian behavior, growth, and survival. As in past studies, carbaryl reduced tadpole activity and growth (12, 15, 22). Estimates of carbaryl LC50 in treefrog tadpoles have ranged from 12.9 mg/liter [a 2-d test (13)] to 2.5 mg/liter [a 4-d test (15)], similar to LC50 estimates in other larval anurans (12, 23). Our lowest pesticide concentrations in the two years were 2.8-3.8% of the LC504-d and 0.4-0.5% of the LC502-d, suggesting that our concentrations should have little short-term effect on tadpole survival in any of the experiments. Indeed, after 4 d, our pesticide concentrations had no negative effect on survival in any of the experiments. However, by the end of the experiments, up to 97% of the tadpoles died. Thus, very low concentrations of carbaryl can still cause widespread amphibian death, it just takes a few more days to observe the effect.
Our results also demonstrated that predatory cues can interact with carbaryl to cause substantial tadpole mortality. Predator-induced stress alone generally reduced tadpole activity, but it never reduced tadpole growth or survival. Similarly, when carbaryl concentrations were low, carbaryl alone had small impacts on tadpole survival. However, when both stressors were present, tadpole mortality increased by 2-4 times. When carbaryl concentrations were high, carbaryl-induced stress dominated, causing rapid mortality regardless of whether the predator-induced stress was present. The carbaryl concentration at which predators played a synergistic role differed between the two years; this difference may be attributable to either different initial sizes or genetic differences between the two source populations.
We are only beginning to appreciate how abiotic and biotic stressors can interact with pesticides. Researchers have found that changes in abiotic factors such as temperature, pH, and UV-B radiation can synergistically affect the lethality of pesticides (14-16). Our study is unique in that the synergism was caused by a biotic factor (predatory cues) that is extremely common in aquatic systems (the majority of ponds inhabited by treefrogs also are inhabited by aquatic predators; E. E. Werner, R.A.R., D. K. Skelly, and K. L. Yurewicz, unpublished data). Given the ubiquity of predator-induced stress in a wide variety of animals (17, 19), similar interactions among predator stress and similarly acting, widely used insecticides may be common. Further, it seems likely that other biotic stressors (e.g., competition, parasites) also could have interactive effects with pesticides. However, given the preliminary nature of our knowledge, it is important to note that this interaction between carbaryl and predator-induced stress is known only to occur in gray treefrogs. Further research will be necessary to determine whether the phenomenon occurs in other amphibian species.
The mechanism underlying the pesticide-predator interaction is currently unknown, but there are several possibilities. Predators produce chemical cues that induce prey fear (28, 29) and this fear may simply be an additional stressor on the amphibian's physiology that, when combined with the stress of the pesticide, causes a high rate of mortality. The predator-induced reduction of activity and growth provides evidence that predators do indeed pose a stressful environment to tadpoles. Alternatively, predators may alter the abiotic conditions, including the production of nitrogenous wastes that can be toxic to fish and amphibians (33, 34). Our monitoring of the abiotic conditions in experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that while predator cues reduced survival at low carbaryl concentrations, predators did not affect the temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, or ammonia concentrations in the water.
A potential concern in this study is the realistic nature of the
concentrations that were used in our experiments and the rate of
carbaryl breakdown. There is little information available on typical
carbaryl concentrations in natural ponds, but carbaryl can be as high
as 4.8 mg/liter (35, 36). The low concentrations used in experiments
1 and 3 were only 1-11% of the highest concentrations detected in
ponds under field conditions. Carbaryl also breaks down in natural
ponds and is typically considered to have a short lifetime (24). The
rate of hydrolytic breakdown depends on pH, which typically varies from
5 to 8 in natural ponds (37). When pH
7, carbaryl is relatively
short-lived [at pH = 9, half-life = 0.1 d; at pH = 8, half-life = 1 d; at pH = 7, half-life = 10 d (37, 38)]. Thus, in our experiment, the mean concentrations of
carbaryl between water changes were probably substantially lower than
the initial concentrations added (approximately one-third as
concentrated). In more acidic ponds (pH = 5-6.5), breakdown is
negligible and the half-life of carbaryl is nearly 4 years (37, 39,
40), providing plenty of time to cause amphibian mortality, even at low
concentrations. Photolytic breakdown can also be relatively rapid. In
full sunlight, photolysis can cause a 4- to 7-d half-life. Under
natural conditions (e.g., shaded ponds and cloudy water) and in
different seasons (e.g., lower temperature and light intensities), this
half-life is expected to vary (22, 41). In either case, the half-life
is sufficiently long to maintain carbaryl concentrations that can cause
severe tadpole mortality. Finally, whereas some pesticides can be
biologically decomposed, biological breakdown of carbaryl is negligible
(41).
The results of this study illustrate the dangers of extrapolating short-term toxicity results to long-term population effects on nontarget organisms. Such extrapolations are conducted because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has received the daunting mandate, from the Toxic Substances Control Act, to determine the effects of >50,000 chemicals on our natural flora and fauna. While the importance of long-term toxicity tests has been appreciated for some time, the only practical approach to meet this mandate has been to conduct acute (1- to 4-d) toxicity tests on a subset of chemicals and taxa and extrapolate safe chemical levels from these limited test results (42). Using extrapolations has been viewed as a necessary compromise, but the results of our study underscore the fact that such extrapolations may be without a strong foundation. For amphibian populations, low concentrations of carbaryl (<3% of LC50 levels) can kill up to 97% of treefrog tadpoles within a week. As an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, carbaryl shares its mode of action with many other insecticides. Thus, the impacts of longer exposure time and predator-induced stress may be relevant to a wide variety of insecticides and numerous organisms. At the very least, our data call for extending these tests by only a few days and conducting these tests under more realistic ecological conditions.
The dramatic changes in amphibian populations observed throughout the world likely have multiple causes, and all hypothesized mechanisms deserve our attention. We have information on the concentrations of commonly used pesticides in the environment, but we have little appreciation of the impact that this contamination could be having on amphibians. We have shown that very low concentrations of just one pesticide can cause high rates of mortality in gray treefrogs. However, there are far too few studies to assess the potential that such contamination could be having on amphibians. It is imperative that investigators continue to incorporate more natural experimental conditions to understand the full impact that pesticides may be having on our amphibian fauna.
| |
Acknowledgements |
|---|
We thank C. Glaude, J. Hoverman, M. Seaborn, and L. Winter for assistance in conducting the experiments, R. D. Semlitsch for the use of laboratory facilities, and M. D. Boone, C. M. Bridges, W. Carson, R. D. Semlitsch, and E. E. Werner for their reviews of this manuscript.
| |
Abbreviations |
|---|
LC50, the concentration of a pesticide that is predicted to kill 50% of a test population within a given amount of time under given exposure conditions.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail:
relyea+{at}pitt.edu.
This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Blaustein, A. R. & Wake, D. B. (1990) Trends Ecol. Evol. 5, 203-204. |
| 2. | Wake, D. B. (1991) Science 253, 860 (lett.). |
| 3. | Pechmann, J. H. K. , Scott, D. E. , Semlitsch, R. D. , Caldwell, J. P. , Vitt, L. J. & Gibbons, J. W. (1991) Science 253, 892-895. |
| 4. | Blaustein, A. R. (1994) Herpetologica 50, 85-97. |
| 5. | Blaustein, A. R. , Wake, D. B. & Sousa, W. P. (1994) Cons. Biol. 8, 60-71. |
| 6. | Pechmann, J. H. K. & Wilbur, H. M. (1994) Herpetologica 50, 65-84. |
| 7. | Wake, D. B. (1998) Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 379-380. |
| 8. | Aspelin, A. L. (1997) Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage (Environ. Protection Agency, Washington, DC), U.S. EPA Report No. 733-R-97-002. |
| 9. | Anonymous. (1975) Methods for Acute Toxicity Tests with Fish, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians (Environ. Protection Agency, Washington, DC), U.S. EPA Report No. EPA-660/3-75-009. |
| 10. | Rand, G. M. , Wells, P. G. & McCarty, L. S. (1995) in Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, ed. Rand, G. M. (Taylor and Francis, London), pp. 3-67. |
| 11. | (1996) Annual Book of ASTM Standards (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA), p. E729-E796. |
| 12. | Marian, M. P. , Arul, V. & Pandian, T. J. (1983) Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12, 271-275. |
| 13. | Bridges, C. M. (1997) Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16, 1935-1939. |
| 14. | Lohner, T. W. & Fisher, S. W. (1990) Aquatic Toxicol. 16, 335-354. |
| 15. | Zaga, A. , Little, E. E. , Raben, C. F. & Ellersieck, M. R. (1998) Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17, 2543-2553. |
| 16. | Boone, M. D. & Bridges, C. M. (1999) Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 1482-1484. |
| 17. | Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. (1990) Can. J. Zool. 68, 619-640. |
| 18. | Skelly, D. K. (1992) Ecology 73, 704-708. |
| 19. | Kats, L. B. & Dill, L. M. (1998) Ecoscience 5, 361-394. |
| 20. | Relyea, R. A. & Werner, E. E. (1999) Ecology 80, 2117-2124. |
| 21. | Relyea, R. A. (2001) Ecology 82, in press. |
| 22. | Bridges, C. M. (1999) J. Herpetol. 33, 303-306. |
| 23. | Marchal-Segault, D. (1976) Bull. Ecol. 7, 411-416. |
| 24. | (1989) Insecticide Background Statement (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Handbook No. 685. |
| 25. | (1992) Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1990 and 1991 Market Estimates (Environ. Protection Agency, Washington, DC), U.S. EPA Report, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. |
| 26. | Edwards, C. A. (1973) Environmental Pollution by Pesticides (Plenum, New York). |
| 27. | Currier, W. W. , MacCollom, G. B. & Baumann, G. L. (1982) J. Econ. Entomol. 75, 1062-1068. |
| 28. | Bridges, C. M. (2000) Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39, 91-96. |
| 29. | Petranka, J. W. , Kats, L. B. & Sih, A. (1987) Anim. Behav. 35, 420-425. |
| 30. | Kats, L. B. , Petranka, J. W. & Sih, A. (1988) Ecology 69, 1865-1870. |
| 31. | McCollum, S. A. & Leimberger, J. D. (1997) Oecologia 109, 615-621. |
| 32. | Altmann, J. (1974) Behaviour 49, 227-267. |
| 33. | Rubin, A. J. & Elmaraghy, G. A. (1977) Water Res. 14, 927-935. |
| 34. | Hecnar, S. J. (1995) Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14, 2131-2137. |
| 35. | Norris, L. A. , Lorz, H. W. & Gregory, S. Z. (1983) General Technical Report PNW-149 (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland, OR). |
| 36. | Peterson, H. G. , Boutin, C. , Martin, P. A. , Freemark, K. E. , Ruecker, N. J. & Moody, M. J. (1994) Aquatic Toxicol. 28, 275-292. |
| 37. | Aly, O. M. & El-Dib, M. A. (1971) Water Res. 5, 1191-1205. |
| 38. | Sharom, M. S. , Miles, J. R. W. , Harris, C. R. & McEwen, F. L. (1980) Water Res. 14, 1089-1093. |
| 39. | Wauchope, R. D. & Haque, R. (1973) Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9, 257-260. |
| 40. | Sikka, H. C. , Miyazaki, S. & Lynch, R. S. (1975) Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13, 666-672. |
| 41. | Wolfe, N. L. , Zepp, R. G. & Paris, D. F. (1978) Water Res. 12, 565-571. |
| 42. | Cooney, J. D. (1995) in Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, ed. Rand, G. M. (Taylor and Francis, London), pp. 71-102. |
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
V. T. Vredenburg Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog PNAS, May 18, 2004; 101(20): 7646 - 7650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. F. Gilbert The Genome in Its Ecological Context: Philosophical Perspectives on Interspecies Epigenesis Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2002; 981(1): 202 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||