Eine Weight-of-Evidence-Studie zur Bewertung der Sedimentbelastung und des Fischrückgangs in der Oberen Donau

6Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background and aim Despite intensive and continuous stocking and improvement of water quality since the 1970s, fish populations, especially those of the grayling (Thymallus thymallus), have declined over the last two decades in the upper Danube River (Germany). In order to assess 1) possible links between molecular/biochemical responses and ecologically relevant effects, and 2) if ecotoxicological effects might be related to the decline in fish catches in the upper Danube river, sediment samples and fish were collected at different locations and analyzed using a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach with several lines of evidence. The objective of the presentation is to introduce the conceptual framework and to review results of the ongoing study. As previously addressed by Chapman and Hollert (2006) a variety of lines of evidence can be used in WOE studies. Briefly, 1) a comprehensive battery of acute and mechanism-specific bioassays was used to characterize the ecotoxicological hazard potential. 2) Histopathological investigations and the micronucleus assay with erythrocytes were applied, analyzing in situ parameters. 3) Diversity and abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish as well as 4) persistent organic pollutants, endocrine disrupting substances, limnochemical parameters and the concentration of heavy metals were recorded. To identify organic contaminants a spotential causes of sediment toxicity assays, 5) effect directed analysis was applied. © 2009 Springer-Verlag.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hollert, H., Bluhm, K., Keiter, S., Böttcher, M., Grund, S., Seitz, N., … Strähle, U. (2009). Eine Weight-of-Evidence-Studie zur Bewertung der Sedimentbelastung und des Fischrückgangs in der Oberen Donau. Umweltwissenschaften Und Schadstoff-Forschung, 21(3), 260–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12302-009-0063-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free