Effects of chronic dietary copper exposure on growth and reproduction of Daphnia magna
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, ISSN: 0730-7268, Vol: 23, Issue: 8, Page: 2038-2047
2004
- 75Citations
- 54Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations75
- Citation Indexes72
- 72
- CrossRef65
- Policy Citations3
- Policy Citation3
- Captures54
- Readers54
- 54
Article Description
A matter of current, intense debate with regard to the effects of metals on biological systems is the potential toxicity of metals associated with food particles. Recently developed biotic ligand models (BLM), which predict the toxicity of waterborne metals, may not be valid if the dietary exposure route contributes to metal toxicity. The present study is, to our knowledge, the first that investigates the potential toxicity of dietary copper to a freshwater invertebrate (i.e., Daphnia magna) feeding on a live diet (i.e., the green alga Pseudokircheneriella subcapitata). Algae were exposed for 3 d to different copper concentrations, resulting in algal copper burdens between approximately 6.2 × 10 and 250 × 10 g cell . These algae were then used as food in chronic, 21-d D. magna toxicity tests in which growth, reproduction, and copper accumulation were assessed. Three exposure scenarios were tested: A waterborne exposure, a dietary exposure, and a combined waterborne and dietary exposure. Although exposure to dietary copper resulted in an increased copper body burden of the adult daphnids, it did not contribute to toxicity and did not affect the 21-d effect concentrations expressed as waterborne copper, indicating that the previously established good predictive capacity of the chronic D. magna BLM is not affected. On the contrary, exposure to the highest dietary copper levels resulted in an increase of as much as 75% in growth and reproduction. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that dietary copper exposure of a freshwater invertebrate feeding on a live diet resulted in a beneficial effect.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=3442895893&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/03-411; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15352495; https://academic.oup.com/etc/article/23/8/2038/7775263; https://dx.doi.org/10.1897/03-411; https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1897/03-411
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know