John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Some arguments in favour of a Myriophyllum aquaticum growth inhibition test in a water‐sediment system as an additional test in risk assessment of herbicides

0
The present study compares practicability, reproducibility, power and sensitivity of a Myriophyllum aquaticum growth inhibition test in water‐sediment system with the recently accepted Myriophyllum spicatum test in an equivalent testing system and the standard Lemna sp. test. Special consideration was given to M. aquaticum control plant growth and variability of relative growth rate (RGR) and yield (Y) based endpoints: shoot length (SL), fresh (FW) and dry weight (DW) and root weight (RW). Sensitivity analysis was based on tests performed with 3,5‐dichlorophenol, atrazine, isoproturon, trifluralin, 2,4 D and dicamba. Average M. aquaticum control plants growth rates were 0.119 and 0.112 d−1, with average estimated doubling time 6.33 and 6.74 d for RGR FW and SL, respectively. Intrinsic variability of M. aquaticum endpoints was low, 12.9, 12.5 and 17.8% for RGR FW, RGR SL and Y FW, respectively. The power of the test was fairly high. When most sensitive endpoints were used for comparison, the two Myriophyllum species turned out to be similarly sensitive, more (in case of auxin simulators) or at least equally sensitive as Lemna minor to other tested herbicides. M. aquaticum 10 d‐long test with 7 d‐long exposure period in water‐sediment system has acceptable sensitivity, can provide repeatable, reliable and reproducible results and therefore should not be disregarded as a good and representative additional test in environmental risk assessment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Customer comments

No comments were found for Some arguments in favour of a Myriophyllum aquaticum growth inhibition test in a water‐sediment system as an additional test in risk assessment of herbicides. Be the first to comment!