Volume 34, Issue 9 p. 2104-2115
Environmental Toxicology

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

Tanja Tunić

Corresponding Author

Tanja Tunić

Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Address correspondence to [email protected].

Search for more papers by this author
Varja Knežević

Varja Knežević

Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Search for more papers by this author
Đurđa Kerkez

Đurđa Kerkez

Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Search for more papers by this author
Aleksandra Tubić

Aleksandra Tubić

Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Search for more papers by this author
Dragana Šunjka

Dragana Šunjka

Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Search for more papers by this author
Sanja Lazić

Sanja Lazić

Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Search for more papers by this author
Dragica Brkić

Dragica Brkić

Institute for Pesticides and Environmental Protection, Belgrade-Zemun, Serbia

Search for more papers by this author
Ivana Teodorović

Ivana Teodorović

Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 05 May 2015
Citations: 9

Abstract

The present study compares the practicability, reproducibility, power, and sensitivity of a Myriophyllum aquaticum growth inhibition test in a 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 endpoints based on M. aquaticum control plant growth and variability of relative growth rate and yield: shoot length, fresh weight, dry weight, and root weight. Sensitivity analysis was based on tests performed with 3,5-dichlorophenol, atrazine, isoproturon, trifluralin, 2,4-dichlorophenoloxyacetic acid, and dicamba. Growth rates for average M. aquaticum control plants were 0.119 d–1 and 0.112 d–1, with average estimated doubling time 6.33 d and 6.74 d for relative growth rate fresh weight and shoot length, respectively. Intrinsic variability of M. aquaticum endpoints was low: 12.9%, 12.5%, and 17.8% for relative growth rate shoot length, relative growth rate fresh weight and yield fresh weight, respectively. The power of the test was fairly high. When the most sensitive endpoints were used for comparison, the 2 Myriophyllum species were similarly sensitive, more sensitive (in the case of auxin simulators), or at least equally sensitive as Lemna minor to other tested herbicides. The M. aquaticum 10-d test with a 7-d exposure period in a water–sediment system has acceptable sensitivity and can provide repeatable, reliable, and reproducible results; therefore, it should not be disregarded as a good and representative additional test in environmental risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2015;34:2104–2115. © 2015 SETAC