Adaptation to environmental stress in Daphnia magna simultaneously exposed to a xenobiotic

In standardized ecotoxicological testing chemicals are investigated under optimal conditions for the test organisms despite the fact that environmental factors such as predation pressure and food availability are important parameters regulating natural populations. Food limitation and predator presence can induce shifts in life-history traits in various Daphnia species, especially trade-offs in reproductive biomass allocation. These adaptive responses are thought to ensure survival of the population in a highly variable environment. A xenobiotic dispersant (used in textile dyeing processes) also shifted the biomass allocation of Daphnia magna. To assess whether the dispersant could hinder D. magna adaptation to varying environmental conditions, we conducted experiments with food level and presence of Chaoborus larvae as environmental factors and simultaneous exposure to the dispersant. At low food level and in presence of the predator, D. magna produced fewer but larger sized neonates, regardless of dispersant exposure. The dispersant shifted biomass allocation towards more but smaller sized offspring in all experiments. However, the adaptive response to the environmental factors and the dispersant effect cancelled each other out in that they induced independently from each other opposite shifts in biomass allocation. In summary, the dispersant exposure resulted not in an inhibition of the adaptive response but in a reduction of the value of the response. Our study with this model substance demonstrates that xenobiotics can affect the adaptation of organisms to environmental stress which can result in effects likely to be overlooked in standardized testing.     

Pesticide studies: replicability of micro/mesocosms

The objective of this state-of-the-art review was to quantify the replicability of pesticide studies using micro/ mesocosms. Low interpretability of micro/mesocosm studies, and inconclusive and highly variable data, resulted in a discontinuation of the use of these studies for the registration of pesticides. Coefficients of variation, CV%, were calculated on the basis of data tables as a measure of statistical 'effectiveness' taken from the literature. The average CV in the investigated studies was 45%; larger out-door mesocosms averaged 51%, and smaller indoor micro/mesocosms averaged 32%. CVs on variables involving animals were higher than CVs on plant end-points, which in turn were higher than abiotic variables for all experiments. However, to enhance the interpretability and implementation of micro/mesocosm studies for pesticide registration, a number of context-dependent steps could be incorporated; 1) determine the appropriate experimental design and number of replicates by using power analysis, 2) Utilise advanced statistical analysis, such as probabilistic effect distribution and principal response curves, 4) report, preferably in quantitative terms using power analysis, the risk of Type II error. The author's primary conclusion is that the level of CVs is context dependent and, therefore, it is not possible to suggest a generally acceptable level of CVs for all experiments. This has been suggested both directly and indirectly in the literature. Moreover, the number of insignificant (p > 0.05) results is high, 88% of all test biotic variables had no statistical significance. The average number of replicates were 3-4, which theoretically should yield significant effects at least at the highest test-concentration, then resulting in 75-66% insignificant results.