ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2010
Population-level effects of spinosad and Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis in Daphnia pulex and Daphnia magna: comparison of laboratory and field microcosm exposure conditions.
Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of mosquito control using the microbial agent Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems: a systematic review.Environmental evidence · 2023Pooled it
- MeasuringEcology and evolution · 2021Article
- The trouble with surrogates in environmental risk assessment: a daphniid case study.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Biocontrol, new questions for Ecotoxicology?Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
- Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on nonstandard microcrustacean species isolated from field zooplankton communities.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because exposure to toxicants not only results in mortality but also in multiple sublethal effects, the use of life-table data appears particularly suitable to assess global effects on exposed populations. The present study uses a life table response approach to assess population-level effects of two insecticides used against mosquito larvae, spinosad (8 μg/l) and Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti, 0.5 μl/l), on two non target species, Daphnia pulex and Daphnia magna (Crustacea: Cladocera), under laboratory versus field microcosms conditions. Population growth rates were inferred from life table data and Leslie matrices under a model with resource limitation (ceiling). These were further used to estimate population risks of extinction under each tested condition, using stochastic simulations. In laboratory conditions, analyses performed for each species confirmed the significant negative effect of spinosad on survival, mean time at death, and fecundity as compared to controls and Bti-treated groups; for both species, population growth rate λ was lower under exposure to spinosad. In field microcosms, 2 days after larvicide application, differences in population growth rates were observed between spinosad exposure conditions, and control and Bti exposure conditions. Simulations performed on spinosad-exposed organisms led to population extinction (minimum abundance = 0, extinction risk = 1), and this was extremely rapid (time to quasi-extinction = 4.1 one-week long steps, i.e. one month). Finally, D. magna was shown to be more sensitive than D. pulex to spinosad in the laboratory, and the effects were also detectable through field population demographic simulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.