Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

2,4-D and Glyphosate affect aquatic biofilm accrual, gross primary production, and community respiration

  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and glyphosate are widely used agricultural herbicides commonly found in surface waters near cultivated land. Field experiments were conducted to determine the effects of 2,4-D and glyphosate on biofilms in a pond next to agricultural land in Athabasca, Alberta. Contaminant-exposure substrates (CES) consisted of GF/C glass fiber or a cellulose filter paper substrates placed on specimen jars filled with agar that contained low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, and different concentrations (15, 9.0, 1.5 mM) of either 2,4-D or glyphosate. Nutrients and herbicide diffused freely through the agar to the substrate surface. CES arrays were deployed 15 cm below the water surface for 22 days, after which biofilms were collected and biomass (chlorophyll a), autotroph gross primary production (GPP), and heterotroph community respiration (CR) were measured. 2,4-D (15 mM) caused significant decreases in rates of biomass accrual (−22%), GPP (−34%), and CR(−63%). Glyphosate (15 mM) also caused significant decreases in rates of biomass accrual (−50%), GPP (−67%), and CR (−47%). For the contaminant concentrations used, mean flux rates are estimated to be between 50–700 ng cm−2 min−1.

    Citation: Lawton E. Shaw, Ahmad Mibbayad. 2,4-D and Glyphosate affect aquatic biofilm accrual, gross primary production, and community respiration[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 663-672. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.663

    Related Papers:

    [1] Francesco Teodori . Health physics calculation framework for environmental impact assessment of radiological contamination. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(4): 403-420. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021026
    [2] Patricia Morcillo, Maria Angeles Esteban, Alberto Cuesta . Mercury and its toxic effects on fish. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(3): 386-402. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.3.386
    [3] Nurul Akhma Zakaria, A.A. Kutty, M.A. Mahazar, Marina Zainal Abidin . Arsenic acute toxicity assessment on select freshwater organism species in Malaysia. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 804-814. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.804
    [4] Jacqueline Jerney, Magdalena Mayr, Michael Schagerl . Biofilm scrubbing for restoration—algae community composition and succession in artificial streams. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(3): 560-581. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.560
    [5] Hoa T. Trinh, Peter Adriaens, Christian M. Lastoskie . Fate factors and emission flux estimates for emerging contaminants in surface waters. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(1): 21-44. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.1.21
    [6] P. U. Singare, J.P. Shirodkar . Persistent and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the north-western coastal marine environment of India. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(2): 169-189. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021012
    [7] Vera Barbosa, Madalena Morais, Aurora Silva, Cristina Delerue-Matos, Sónia A. Figueiredo, Valentina F. Domingues . Comparison of antibiotic resistance in the influent and effluent of two wastewater treatment plants. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(2): 101-116. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021008
    [8] Navid Ahmadi, Mozhgan Ahmadi Nadoushan, Mohammad Hadi Abolhasani, Abbas Hosseini . Investigating the efficiency of biological treatment process of oil pollutants using mix of Scenedesmus obliquus and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii algae: A case study. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(3): 221-237. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021015
    [9] Muhammad Arinal Surgama Yusuf, Anwar Mallongi, Anwar Daud, Agus Bintara Birawida, Sukri Palutturi, Lalu Muhammad Saleh, Setiawan Kasim . Environmental health risk analysis from detergent contamination in well water. AIMS Environmental Science, 2025, 12(2): 256-275. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2025013
    [10] Melanie Voigt, Alexander Wirtz, Kerstin Hoffmann-Jacobsen, Martin Jaeger . Prior art for the development of a fourth purification stage in wastewater treatment plant for the elimination of anthropogenic micropollutants-a short-review. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(1): 69-98. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020005
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and glyphosate are widely used agricultural herbicides commonly found in surface waters near cultivated land. Field experiments were conducted to determine the effects of 2,4-D and glyphosate on biofilms in a pond next to agricultural land in Athabasca, Alberta. Contaminant-exposure substrates (CES) consisted of GF/C glass fiber or a cellulose filter paper substrates placed on specimen jars filled with agar that contained low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, and different concentrations (15, 9.0, 1.5 mM) of either 2,4-D or glyphosate. Nutrients and herbicide diffused freely through the agar to the substrate surface. CES arrays were deployed 15 cm below the water surface for 22 days, after which biofilms were collected and biomass (chlorophyll a), autotroph gross primary production (GPP), and heterotroph community respiration (CR) were measured. 2,4-D (15 mM) caused significant decreases in rates of biomass accrual (−22%), GPP (−34%), and CR(−63%). Glyphosate (15 mM) also caused significant decreases in rates of biomass accrual (−50%), GPP (−67%), and CR (−47%). For the contaminant concentrations used, mean flux rates are estimated to be between 50–700 ng cm−2 min−1.


    1. Introduction

    Herbicides are applied to agricultural land in very large quantities. Glyphosate and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) are two of the most widely used herbicides. Glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide while 2,4-D is a broadleaf herbicide that leaves grass species, such as cereals, largely unaffected. In 2008, in the province of Alberta, Canada, 6100 tons of glyphosate and 840 tons of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) were sold [1].

    Glyphosate and 2,4-D have been detected frequently in surface waters in Canada, at a range of concentrations. An Alberta Environment study [2] showed that 2,4-D was found at a median measurable concentration of 0.043 ppb, and a maximum concentration of 439 ppb. Glyphosate was found at a median measurable concentration of 0.3 ppb, and a maximum concentration of 6.1 ppb. A separate study of glyphosate surface waters in Ontario found a maximum concentration of 40.8 ppb glyphosate [3]. Glyphosate has also been detected in highway runoff [4]. High transient environmental concentrations are most likely at times of mass application of herbicides.

    The effects of herbicides on the aquatic environment are not well understood. While herbicides are designed to target unwanted plant species, herbicide compounds can affect a range of aquatic species, including microbes [5]. For example, there are a number of studies that demonstrate that glyphosate and 2,4-D are toxic towards algae [6,7,8,9]. Those studies generally focused on single species of phytoplankton, in laboratory conditions.

    Aquatic biofilms comprise an important set of microbial communities because they underpin aquatic food webs. Biofilm algae are a basal resource for higher trophic levels, and heterotrophs are responsible for the decomposition of organic matter. Small changes in biofilms induced by herbicides have the potential to alter entire aquatic ecosystems. Thus, herbicides have the potential to influence both aquatic ecosystem structure and function by affecting microbial populations and communities. For example, an herbicide may diminish algal communities, thus changing the structure of biofilms and indirectly affecting the populations of fungi and bacteria [10].

    Chemical diffusing substrates (CES) have recently been applied to studying the effects of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) on biofilms. CES are a modification of nutrient diffusing substrates, which are an established method for studying nutrient limitation in situ [11,12,13]. A nutrient diffusing substrate consists of a permeable substrate fastened on top of a volume of agar that has been amended with varying amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds that slowly diffuse out of the agar to the substrate. Diffusing substrates are then placed in the aquatic system of interest, for example on L-bars anchored to a stream bottom. Biofilms grow on the substrates over a chosen time period, after which they can be analyzed for biomass, primary production, and respiration. Bunch and Bernot used CES to study the effects of acetaminophen, caffeine, ibuprofen, or nicotine on aquatic biofilms in streams [14]. Rosi-Marshall et al. showed significant changes to gross primary production in lotic biofilms using CES amended with a range of PPCPs [15]. Shaw et al. reported similar findings on biofilms in a lentic system [16].

    Here, we report the results of a contaminant exposure substrate study on glyphosate and 2,4-D in a lentic (lake) system. To our knowledge, this is the first in situ study on the effects of herbicides on aquatic biofilms.


    2. Materials and Methods


    2.1. Contaminant-exposure substrates (CES)

    Each contaminant-exposure substrate (CES) consisted of a 70 mL screw top specimen cup, 6 cm in height, filled with 2% agar (Fisher, granulated) that was amended with 50 mM NaNO3 (Fisher, reagent grade) and 3 mM KH2PO4 (Fisher, 99%), (16:1 N:P ratio), and 15,9, or 1.5 mM of 2,4-D (99%) or glyphosate (isopropylamine salt). Control CES contained agar amended only with NaNO3 and KH2PO4. Either a glass fibre Whatman GF/C (1.2 μm) or cellulose Whatman #1 (11 μm) filter paper was placed on top of the solidified agar, and held in place with a screw top lid through which a 2.5 cm diameter hole had been drilled. This procedure is a modification of the methods of Rosi-Marshall et al. [15] and Tank & Dodds [12], and is also described by Shaw et al. [16]. Autotroph and heterotroph populations grow simultaneously on both types of substrate. Unlike glass fibre substrates, the cellulose substrates can function as food source for heterotrophs. In these experiments, as with Rosi-Marshall et al. [15], analysis of biofilm function on the cellulose substrates was limited to heterotrophs.

    CES were placed in two plastic trays that were designed to float 15 cm below the surface. This was achieved by attaching four 8 cm diameter Styrofoam balls to each of the corners with wire, and bolting a galvanized steel angle bracket to the bottom of the tray for ballast. The length of the wires through the foam balls were adjusted to the correct water depth. CES were held inside the tray with a sheet of chicken wire (see Figure 1). CES were organized in a random array pattern using a random number generator. Each CES tray was attached with wire to a metal post that was staked into the bottom of a pond. The CES arrays were left in the pond for 22 days.

    Figure 1. Randomized array of CES deployed in pond.

    2.2. Field site

    CES were deployed in a rural pond adjacent to cultivated farmland, located on the campus of Athabasca University, in Athabasca, Alberta, Canada. Water input to the pond is primarily through drainage and runoff.

    Water quality parameters were measured on the first and last day of the field deployment. Temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH (Oakton pH/DO 300), and turbidity (Oakton T-100 Turbidimeter) were measured. Water quality results are presented in Supplementary Information.


    2.3. Biofilm function and biomass

    GF/C and cellulose substrates were carefully removed from the surface of the agar, folded, and placed in 12 mL screw top vials with septum lids (Thermo Scientific). Two glass beads were added to each vial for mixing. Vials were filled underwater, to prevent bubbles, with pond water that had been filtered at 0.2 μm to remove microbes. Measurements of dissolved oxygen in the vials were taken with a retractable fibre optic probe passing through a stainless steel needle (Firesting DO meter, Pyroscience). For cellulose substrates, community respiration (CR) was determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen concentration before and after a dark incubation period (1 hour). For GF/C substrates, gross primary production (GPP) was determined by measuring the increase in dissolved oxygen after a 1 hour incubation in a plant growth chamber (Percival, Model E-36LC8) at room temperature, followed by measuring the decrease in dissolved oxygen after a 1 hour dark incubation. Vials were mixed by inversion before each measurement. To correct for background respiration and production, the changes in dissolved oxygen were also measured in 5 sealed vials that were filled with the filtered water only.

    For chlorophyll analysis, GF/C substrates were recovered from the vials, and the incubation medium was filtered on a second GF/C filter to collect any biofilm material that had been dislodged from the substrate. Both filters were placed in a 15 mL centrifuge tube. 9 mL of acetone (Fisher, reagent grade) was added to each tube. Sealed tubes were sonicated for 5 minutes, and stored at 4 °C for 24 hours. To each tube, 1 mL of deionized water was added and the tube was centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 7 minutes. A 3 mL portion of each sample was transferred to 1 cm pathlength, quartz cuvettes, and absorbances were measured at 630, 647, 664, 665, and 750 nm with a Thermo Scientific NanoDrop 2000 Spectrophotometer. Following this, 10 μL of 1 M HCl was added to the sample, gently mixed by bubbling air through the sample, and absorbances measured again after 1 minute had elapsed. The amount of chlorophyll a in each biofilm sample was corrected for the presence of pheophytin a [17]. The chlorophyll a content of biofilms on cellulose substrates was not measured.

    GPP, CR, and chlorophyll a data were analysed by ANOVA with pairwise comparisons (Tukey HSD).


    3. Results and Discussion


    3.1. Effects of 2,4-D

    For autotrophs (i.e., algae) in biofilms grown on CES with inert, sintered glass substrata, 2,4-D caused a reduction in gross primary production and biofilm accrual, as measured by chlorophyll a content (Figures 2 & 3). The effect was statistically significant only for 15 mM, the highest concentration of 2,4-D used in this study (34% reduced GPP; 22% reduced chlorophyll a). The higher chlorophyll a result for 9 mM 2,4-D appears to be an experimental anomaly.

    Figure 2. Gross primary production of biofilms grown on glass fibre CES. *Indicates a significant difference relative to the control group. For 2,4-D: 15 mM (p < 0.0269). For glyphosate (GLP): 15 mM (p < 0.0039), 9 mM (p < 0.0319).

    For heterotrophs on cellulose substrata, 2,4-D caused a reduction in community respiration (Figure 4). As in the autotroph GPP and chlorophyll a, the effect was only significant for the 15 mM concentration of 2,4-D (−63%).


    3.2. Effects of Glyphosate

    For autotrophs, glyphosate caused a reduction in GPP and biofilm accrual (Figures 2 & 3). The reduction appeared to be dose-dependent; the highest concentration of glyphosate reduced GPP by 67% (15 mM) and 46% (9 mM). Chlorophyll a was reduced at all doses of glyphosate: 50% (15 mM); 30% (9 mM); 25% (1.5 mM).

    Figure 3. Chlorophyll a extracted from biofilms on glass fibre CES. *Indicates significant difference relative to the control group. For 2,4-D: 15 mM (p < 0.0251). For glyphosate (GLP), 15 mM (p < 0.0019), 1.5 mM (p < 0.0234). The 9 mM dose was only significantly different to the control at the 90% level (p ˂ 0.0683).

    For heterotrophs, glyphosate caused a reduction in community respiration (Figure 4). This reduction was only significant at the 15 mM glyphosate concentration (−47%).

    Figure 4. Community respiration of biofilms grown on cellulose CES. *Indicates significant difference relative to the control group. For 2,4-D: 15 mM (p < 0.0259). For glyphosate (GLP): 15 mM (p < 0.0352).

    2,4-D and glyphosate show toxicity towards different species of free phytoplankton [6,7,8,9]. As a herbicide, 2,4-D mimics natural auxin and induces abnormal plant growth, leading to plant death at high doses [18,19]. Auxins also have a role in controlling the growth of algae [20,21,22,23]. Thus, 2,4-D may interfere with the growth of algae through a similar mechanism to what occurs in plants.

    The herbicide action of glyphosate arises from a different mechanism than 2,4-D. In a wide range of organisms, glyphosate inhibits EPSP synthase, which is part of the shikimic acid pathway [24,25]. When EPSP synthase is inhibited, aromatic amino acids cannot be synthesized, which leads to reduced protein synthesis. Ultimately, this leads to reduced growth, and eventually the death of the organism. This is a likely mechanism for the observation of reduced GPP and biomass in biofilms exposed to glyphosate.

    We observed that heterotroph CR was also reduced by 2,4-D and glyphosate. The mechanism for this could be as simple as toxicity of the two herbicide compounds towards bacterial and fungal populations in the biofilm. An additional possibility is that 2,4-D and glyphosate separately reduce algal growth, which in turn reduces that amount of biomass available to heterotroph species, thus hindering the growth of heterotrophs [10]. In such a scenario, reductions to both autotroph production and heterotroph respiration would be observed. The relationships among autotrophs and heterotrophs in biofilm communities may be more complicated, involving forms of cooperation that benefit both groups [26]. While it is possible that heterotroph and autotroph populations are directly, and negatively affected by 2,4-D and glyphosate, this could lead to compounded negative effects on the biofilm community as a whole.

    Bozeman et al. reported that glyphosate was significantly less toxic towards Selenastrum that was immobilized in alginate, as compared with free Selenastrum [27]. This brings up questions about the role of the biofilm matrix in protecting microbes from external toxic compounds. The extracellular polymer substances (EPS) in a biofilm matrix can account for over 90% of the dry mass of biofilms [28].The polysaccharides and proteins can act as a protective barrier from antimicrobial agents such as antibiotics. Further, the EPS can absorb organic compounds [28]. It is likely that the biofilm matrix confers some degree of protection to biofilm microbes from the negative effects of herbicides. In future studies, it may be possible to determine the fates of 2,4-D, glyphosate, and other herbicides in biofilm matrices.


    3.3. Flux rates in CES

    CES studies have experimental advantages over other forms of toxicity tests, such as flume studies in which a biofilm is exposed to different conditions or toxins in an artificial stream in the laboratory. CES can be placed in situ. CES biofilms are colonized naturally by microbes that are already present in the aquatic habitat, and the biofilms are subjected to natural environmental conditions (sunlight, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.). In flume studies, however, it is possible to use concentrations of toxins that are representative of the concentrations found in the environment. In the case of CES, the contaminant diffuses out of the agar. While it is not possible to know the contaminant concentration that the biofilm is exposed to, it is possible to estimate the flux rate through the biofilm [16,29].

    The flux rate of the compound can be estimated using the model of Fickian, one-dimensional diffusion from a slab [30]. This has been described by Shaw et al. [16] and Costello et al. [29]. Using equation 1, and assuming a diffusion coefficient of D=5 × 10−10 m2 s−1, and L=0.06 m, we can estimate the total mass of 2,4-D and glyphosate released:

    MtM0=2(DtπL2)(1/2) (Equation 1)

    Flux rates correspond to the amount of compound that diffuses out of the amended agar of the CES into the biofilm. Flux rates decrease over time, and are non-linear. Thus, a large pulse ( > 10%) of compound is released in the first two days.

    The estimated mean flux rates are calculated using equation 2. JCES is the mean flux rate; Mt is the total mass at a given time; MEQ is the mass released during an initial equilibration period (2 days); A is the surface area; t is the total exposure time.

    JCES=MtMEQAt (Equation 2)

    Mean flux rates (Table 1) are proportional to the initial contaminant concentrations in the CES. This allows for experimental control of the relative flux rate, and the design of studies of dose dependent effects. For example, the results presented in Figures 3-5 are strongly suggestive of a linear dose response—where increasing concentrations of 2,4-D or glyphosate correspond to larger decreases in biofilm function and biomass. More studies are needed to show that this effect is statistically significant over the concentration range used here.

    Table 1.Estimated mean flux rates for 2,4-D and Glyphosate from contaminant exposure substrates.
    CompoundConcentration in CES (mM)Mean Flux Rate (ng cm-2 min-1)
    2,4-D15670
    9400
    1.567
    Glyphosate15510
    9310
    1.551
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In order to compare exposure of soluble contaminants from CES to typical exposure from chemicals in the water column, it is possible to estimate a dose rate using an approach for calculating O2 flux into sediments [31]. The flux rate (J) of a solute is given by:

    J=DΔCZδ (Equation 3)

    where D is the diffusion coefficient (m2 s−1), ΔC is the concentration change across the DBL, and Zδ is the height of the diffusive boundary layer (DBL). The size of the DBL above biofilms depends on water velocity, and is typically in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 mm [32]. The largest DBL occurs in a static water column and small DBL in fast-flowing streams.

    Using equation 3, a relatively high environmental contaminant concentration of 400 ppb, and a small DBL of 0.1 mm, the expected solute flux rate into the biofilm is 12 ng cm−2 min−1. This is approximately 40-60 times smaller than the mean flux rate from the highest concentration CES (15 mM) used in this experiment. In the results, statistically significant decreases in biofilm GPP, chlorophyll a, and CR were observed at this concentration for each of 2,4-D and glyphosate. At this time, we cannot conclude whether or not 2,4-D and glyphosate affect aquatic biofilms at flux rates that correlate with the expected exposure rates at known contaminant concentrations in the aquatic environment. Further experimentation using the CES technique will be required to address this question.


    Acknowledgments

    This work was supported with an Academic Research Fund Grant from Athabasca University. The authors thank Ms. Elaine Goth-Birkigt for administrative and technical support at various stages of the work.


    Conflict of interest

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper


    [1] Byrtus G (2011) Overview of 2008 Pesticide Sales in Alberta. Alberta Environment. Edmonton.
    [2] Alberta. Alberta Environment. Overview of Pesticide Data in Alberta Surface Waters Since 1995. Alberta Environment, 2005.
    [3] Struger J, Thompson D, Staznik B, et al. (2008) Occurrence of Glyphosate in Surface Waters of Southern Ontario. B Environ Contam Tox 80: 378-384. doi: 10.1007/s00128-008-9373-1
    [4] Huang X, Fong S, Deanovic L, et al. (2005) Toxicity of herbicides in highway runoff. Environ Toxicol Chem 24: 2336-2340. doi: 10.1897/04-174R.1
    [5] Cedergreen N, Streibig JC (2005) The toxicity of herbicides to non-target aquatic plants and algae: assessment of predictive factors and hazard. Pest Manag Sci 61: 1152-1160. doi: 10.1002/ps.1117
    [6] Fargašová A (1994) Toxicity determination of plant growth hormones on aquatic Alga—Scenedesmus quadricauda. B Environ Contam Tox 52: 706-711. doi: 10.1007/BF00195491
    [7] Wong PK (2000) Effects of 2,4-D, glyphosate and paraquat on growth, photosynthesis and chlorphyll-a synthesis of Scenedesmus quadricauda Berb 614. Chemosphere 41: 177-182. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00408-7
    [8] Ma J, Lin F, Wang S, et al. (2003) Toxicity of 21 Herbicides to the Green Alga Scenedesmus quadricauda. B Environ Contam Tox 71: 594-601. doi: 10.1007/s00128-003-8521-x
    [9] Vendrell E, Ferraz DG, Sabater C, et al. (2009) Effect of glyphosate on growth of four freshwater species of phytoplankton: a microplate bioassay. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 82: 538-542. doi: 10.1007/s00128-009-9674-z
    [10] Romani AM, Sabater S (1999) Effect of primary producers on the heterotrophic metabolism of a stream biofilm. Freshwater Biol 41: 729-736. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00413.x
    [11] Fairchild G, Winfield G, Lowe RL, et al. (1985) Algal periphyton growth on nutrient-diffusing substrates: an in situ bioassay. Ecology 66: 465-472. doi: 10.2307/1940395
    [12] Tank JL, Bernot MJ, Rosi-Marshall EJ (2006) Nitrogen limitation and uptake. In: Hauer FR, Lamberti GA, editors. Methods in Stream Ecology. San Diego, California, USA: Academic Press. 213-238.
    [13] Hoellein TJ, Tank JL, Kelly JJ, et al. (2010) Seasonal variation in nutrient limitation of microbial biofilms colonizing organic and inorganic substrata in streams. Hydrobiologia 649: 331-345. doi: 10.1007/s10750-010-0276-x
    [14] Bunch AR, Bernot MJ (2011) Distribution of nonprescription pharmaceuticals in central Indiana streams and effects on sediment microbial activity. Ecotoxicology 20: 97-109. doi: 10.1007/s10646-010-0560-6
    [15] Rosi-Marshall EJ, Kincaid DW, Bechtold HA, et al. (2013) Pharmaceuticals suppress algal growth and microbial respiration and alter bacterial communities in stream biofilms. Ecol Appl 23: 583-593. doi: 10.1890/12-0491.1
    [16] Shaw L, Phung C, Grace M (2015) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products alter growth and function in lentic biofilms. Environ Chem 12: 301-306.
    [17] Lorenzen CJ (1967) Determination of chlorophyll and pheopigments: spectrophotometric equations. Limnol Oceanogr 12: 343-346. doi: 10.4319/lo.1967.12.2.0343
    [18] Grossmann K (2010) Auxin herbicides: current status of mechanism and mode of action. Pest Manag Sci 66: 113-120.
    [19] Song Y (2014) Insight into the mode of action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) as an herbicide. J Integr Plant Biol 56: 106-113. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12131
    [20] Bradley PM (1991) PLANT HORMONES DO HAVE A ROLE IN CONTROLLING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALGAE. J Phycol 27: 317-321.
    [21] Tate JJ, Gutierrez-Wing MT, Rusch KA, et al. (2013) The Effects of Plant Growth Substances and Mixed Cultures on Growth and Metabolite Production of Green Algae Chlorella sp.: A Review. J Plant Growth Regul 32: 417-428.
    [22] Stirk WA, Ordog V, Novak O, et al. (2013) Auxin and cytokinin relationships in 24 microalgal strains. J Phycol 49: 459-467.
    [23] Stirk WA, Balint P, Tarkowska D, et al. (2014) Effect of light on growth and endogenous hormones in Chlorella minutissima (Trebouxiophyceae). Plant Physiol Bioch 79: 66-76.
    [24] Sáenz EM, Di Marzio DW, Alberdi LJ, et al. (1997) Effects of Technical Grade and a Commercial Formulation of Glyphosate on Algal Population Growth. B Environ Contam Tox 59: 638-644. doi: 10.1007/s001289900527
    [25] Ma J, Xu L, Wang S, et al. (2002) Toxicity of 40 Herbicides to the Green Alga Chlorella vulgaris. Ecotox Environ Safe 51: 128-132. doi: 10.1006/eesa.2001.2113
    [26] Carr GM, Morin A, Chambers PA (2005) Bacteria and algae in stream periphyton along a nutrient gradient. Freshwater Biol 50: 1337-1350. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01401.x
    [27] Bozeman J, Koopman B, Bitton G (1989) Toxicity testing using immobilized algae. Aquat Toxicol 14: 345-352. doi: 10.1016/0166-445X(89)90032-5
    [28] Flemming HC, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Micro 8: 623-633.
    [29] Costello DM, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Shaw LE, et al. (2015) A novel method to assess effects of chemical stressors on natural biofilm structure and function. Freshwater Biology.
    [30] Hadgraft J (1979) Calculation of Drug Release Rates from Controlled Release Devices. The Slab. Int J Pharm 2: 177-194. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(79)90019-X
    [31] Jorgensen BB, Revsbech NP (1985) Diffusive boundary layers and the oxygen uptake of sediments and detritus. Limnol Oceanogr 30.
    [32] Kuenen JG, Jørgensen BB, Revsbech NP (1986) Oxygen microprofiles of trickling filter biofilms. Water Res 20: 1589-1598. doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(86)90125-9
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Hongyong Xiang, Yixin Zhang, David Atkinson, Raju Sekar, Effects of anthropogenic subsidy and glyphosate on macroinvertebrates in streams, 2020, 27, 0944-1344, 21939, 10.1007/s11356-020-08505-w
    2. Louis Carles, Joan Artigas, Interaction between glyphosate and dissolved phosphorus on bacterial and eukaryotic communities from river biofilms, 2020, 719, 00489697, 137463, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137463
    3. Szandra Klátyik, Eszter Takács, Mária Mörtl, Angéla Földi, Zsuzsa Trábert, Éva Ács, Béla Darvas, András Székács, Dissipation of the herbicide active ingredient glyphosate in natural water samples in the presence of biofilms, 2017, 97, 0306-7319, 901, 10.1080/03067319.2017.1373770
    4. Gracieli Fernandes, Virginia Carolina Aparicio, Marilia Camotti Bastos, Eduardo De Gerónimo, Jérôme Labanowski, Osmar Damian Prestes, Renato Zanella, Danilo Rheinheimer dos Santos, Indiscriminate use of glyphosate impregnates river epilithic biofilms in southern Brazil, 2019, 651, 00489697, 1377, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.292
    5. Xiuqi You, Nan Xu, Xi Yang, Weiling Sun, Pollutants affect algae-bacteria interactions: A critical review, 2021, 276, 02697491, 116723, 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116723
    6. Hongyong Xiang, Yixin Zhang, David Atkinson, Raju Sekar, Anthropogenic Carrion Subsidy and Herbicide Glyphosate Depressed Leaf-Litter Breakdown: Effects on Environmental Health in Streams, 2022, 10, 2296-665X, 10.3389/fenvs.2022.806340
    7. Szandra Klátyik, Gergely Simon, Marianna Oláh, Eszter Takács, Robin Mesnage, Michael N. Antoniou, Johann G. Zaller, András Székács, Aquatic ecotoxicity of glyphosate, its formulations, and co-formulants: evidence from 2010 to 2023, 2024, 36, 2190-4715, 10.1186/s12302-024-00849-1
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5915) PDF downloads(1029) Cited by(7)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog