Global perspectives on observing ocean boundary current systems

© The Author(s), 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Todd, R. E., Chavez, F. P., Clayton, S., Cravatte, S., Goes, M., Greco, M., Ling, X., Sprintall, J., Zilberman, N., V., Archer, M., Aristegui, J., Balmaseda, M., Bane, J. M., Baringer, M. O., Barth, J. A., Beal, L. M., Brandt, P., Calil, P. H. R., Campos, E., Centurioni, L. R., Chidichimo, M. P., Cirano, M., Cronin, M. F., Curchitser, E. N., Davis, R. E., Dengler, M., deYoung, B., Dong, S., Escribano, R., Fassbender, A. J., Fawcett, S. E., Feng, M., Goni, G. J., Gray, A. R., Gutierrez, D., Hebert, D., Hummels, R., Ito, S., Krug, M., Lacan, F., Laurindo, L., Lazar, A., Lee, C. M., Lengaigne, M., Levine, N. M., Middleton, J., Montes, I., Muglia, M., Nagai, T., Palevsky, H., I., Palter, J. B., Phillips, H. E., Piola, A., Plueddemann, A. J., Qiu, B., Rodrigues, R. R., Roughan, M., Rudnick, D. L., Rykaczewski, R. R., Saraceno, M., Seim, H., Sen Gupta, A., Shannon, L., Sloyan, B. M., Sutton, A. J., Thompson, L., van der Plas, A. K., Volkov, D., Wilkin, J., Zhang, D., & Zhang, L. Global perspectives on observing ocean boundary current systems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, (2010); 423, doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00423.Ocean boundary current systems are key components of the climate system, are home to highly productive ecosystems, and have numerous societal impacts. Establishment of a global network of boundary current observing systems is a critical part of ongoing development of the Global Ocean Observing System. The characteristics of boundary current systems are reviewed, focusing on scientific and societal motivations for sustained observing. Techniques currently used to observe boundary current systems are reviewed, followed by a census of the current state of boundary current observing systems globally. The next steps in the development of boundary current observing systems are considered, leading to several specific recommendations.RT was supported by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Endowed Fund for Innovative Research at WHOI. FC was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. MGo was funded by NSF and NOAA/AOML. XL was funded by China’s National Key Research and Development Projects (2016YFA0601803), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41490641, 41521091, and U1606402), and the Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (2017ASKJ01). JS was supported by NOAA’s Global Ocean Monitoring and Observing Program (Award NA15OAR4320071). DZ was partially funded by the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) under NOAA Cooperative Agreement NA15OAR4320063. BS was supported by IMOS and CSIRO’s Decadal Climate Forecasting Project. We gratefully acknowledge the wide range of funding sources from many nations that have enabled the observations and analyses reviewed here

Comparative toxicity of two glyphosate-based formulations to Eisenia andrei under laboratory conditions

Glyphosate-based products are the leading post-emergent agricultural herbicides in the world, particularly in association with glyphosate tolerant crops. However, studies on the effects of glyphosate-based formulations on terrestrial receptors are scarce. This study was conducted to evaluate the comparative toxicity of two glyphosate-based products: Roundup FG (monoammonium salt, 72% acid equivalent, glyphosate-A) and Mon 8750 (monoammonium salt, 85.4% acid equivalent, glyphosate-B), towards the earthworm Eisenia andrei. Median lethal concentration (LC50) showed that glyphosate-A was 4.5-fold more toxic than glyphosate-B. Sublethal concentrations caused a concentration-dependent weight loss, consistent with the reported effect of glyphosate as uncoupler of oxidative phosphorylation. Glyphosate-A showed deleterious effects on DNA and lysosomal damage at concentrations close to the applied environmental concentrations (14.4μg ae cm-2). With glyphosate-B toxic effects were observed at higher doses, close to its LC50, suggesting that the higher toxicity of formulate A could be attributed to the effects of some of the so-called "inert ingredients", either due to a direct intrinsic toxicity, or to an enhancement in the bioavailability and/or bioaccumulation of the active ingredient. Our results highlight the importance of ecotoxicological assessment not only of the active ingredients, but also of the different formulations usually employed in agricultural practices.Fil: Piola, Lucas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; ArgentinaFil: Fuchs, Julio Silvio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; ArgentinaFil: Oneto, Maria Luisa. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; ArgentinaFil: Basack, Silvana Beatriz. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; ArgentinaFil: Kesten, Eva Marta. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; ArgentinaFil: Casabe, Norma Beatriz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; Argentin

Biomarcadores para a avaliação dos efeitos de clorpirifós em minhocas e em parâmetros funcionais do solo

The objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of chlorpyrifos on earthworms and on soil functional parameters. An integrated laboratory-field study was performed in a wheat field in Argentina, sprayed with chlorpyrifos at two recommended application rates (240 or 960 g ha-1 a.i.). Laboratory tests included neutral red retention time, comet assay (single cell gel electrophoresis), and avoidance behavior, each using the earthworm Eisenia andrei exposed in soil collected 1 or 14 days after pesticide application, and the bait-lamina test. Field tests assessed organic matter breakdown using the litterbag and bait-lamina assays. Earthworm populations in the field were assessed using formalin application and hand-sorting. The neutral red retention time and comet assays were sensitive biomarkers to the effects of chlorpyrifos on the earthworm E. andrei; however, the earthworm avoidance test was not sufficiently robust to assess these effects. Feeding activity of soil biota, assessed by the bait lamina test, was significantly inhibited by chlorpyrifos after 97 days, but recovered by the 118th day of the test. Litterbag test showed no significant differences in comparison to controls. Earthworm abundance in the field was too low to adequately test the sensitivity of this assessment endpoint.O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar os efeitos do clorpirifós sobre as minhocas e sobre parâmetros funcionais do solo. Foi executado um estudo integrado campo-laboratório, em uma plantação de trigo na Argentina, onde foi aplicado clorpirifós em duas doses recomendadas (240 ou 960 g ha-1 a.i.). Os ensaios laboratoriais incluíram tempo de retenção do vermelho-neutro, ensaio cometa (eletroforese em gel de célula única) e teste de fuga, cada um com a minhoca Eisenia andrei exposta aos solos coletados 1 e 14 dias após tratamentos, e teste com a lâmina-isca. Nos bioensaios de campo, avaliou-se a decomposição da matéria orgânica em sacolas com alfafa e com a lâmina-isca. As populações de minhocas foram avaliadas no campo com uso do método de extração com formalina e remoção manual. O tempo de retenção do vermelho-neutro e o ensaio cometa foram biomarcadores sensíveis aos efeitos do clorpirifós na minhoca E. andrei; porém, o comportamento de fuga não foi eficiente para avaliar tais efeitos. A atividade alimentar da biota do solo, avaliada pelo teste de lâmina-isca, foi significativamente inibida pelo clorpirifós após 97 dias, mas recuperou-se no 118o dia do teste. O teste de sacolas com alfafa não mostrou diferenças significativas em comparação aos controles. A abundância das minhocas em campo foi muito baixa, para testar adequadamente a sensibilidade desta variável

Biomarkers for the assessment of chlorpyrifos effects on earthworms and on soil functional parameters

The objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of chlorpyrifos on earthworms and on soil functional parameters. An integrated laboratory-field study was performed in a wheat field in Argentina, sprayed with chlorpyrifos at two recommended application rates (240 or 960 g ha-1 style='vertical-align:baseline'> a.i.). Laboratory tests included neutral red retention time, comet assay (single cell gel electrophoresis), and avoidance behavior, each using the earthworm Eisenia andrei exposed in soil collected 1 or 14 days after pesticide application, and the bait-lamina test. Field tests assessed organic matter breakdown using the litterbag and bait-lamina assays. Earthworm populations in the field were assessed using formalin application and hand-sorting. The neutral red retention time and comet assays were sensitive biomarkers to the effects of chlorpyrifos on the earthworm E. andrei; however, the earthworm avoidance test was not sufficiently robust to assess these effects. Feeding activity of soil biota, assessed by the bait lamina test, was significantly inhibited by chlorpyrifos after 97 days, but recovered by the 118th day of the test. Litterbag test showed no significant differences in comparison to controls. Earthworm abundance in the field was too low to adequately test the sensitivity of this assessment endpoint

Ecotoxicological assessment of the effects of glyphosate and chlorpyrifos in an Argentine soya field

Background, Aim and Scope. Continuous application of pesticides may pollute soils and affect non-target organisms. Soil is a complex ecosystem; its components can modulate the effects of pesticides. Therefore, it is recommended to evaluate the potential environmental risk of these compounds in local conditions. We performed an integrated field-laboratory study on an Argentine soya field sprayed with glyphosate and chlorpyrifos under controlled conditions. Our aim was to compare the sensitivity of a series of endpoints for the assessment of adverse effects of the extensive use of these agrochemicals. Materials and Methods. A RR soya field in a traditional farming area of Argentina was sprayed with glyphosate (GLY) or chlorpyrifos (CPF) formulations at the commercially recommended rates, according to a randomized complete block design with 3 replicates. In laboratory assays, Eisenia fetida andrei were exposed to soil samples (0-10 cm depth) collected between the rows of soya. Endpoints linked to behavior and biological activity (reproduction, avoidance behavior and bait-lamina tests) and cellular/subcellular assays (Neutral Red Retention Time - NRRT; DNA damage - Comet assay) were tested. Field assays included litterbag and bait-lamina tests. Physico/chemical analyses were performed on soil samples. Results. GLY reduced cocoon viability, decreasing the number of juveniles. Moreover, earthworms avoided soils treated with GLY. No effects on either reproduction or on avoidance were observed at the very low CPF concentration measured in the soils sampled 10 days after treatment. Both pesticides caused a reduction in the feeding activity under laboratory and field conditions. NRRT was responsive to formulations of CPF and GLY. Comet assay showed significantly increased DNA damage in earthworms exposed to CPF treated soils. No significant differences in DNA migration were observed with GLY treated soils. Litterbag field assay showed no differences between treated and control plots. Discussion. The ecotoxicological effects of pesticides can be assessed by monitoring the status of communities in real ecosystems or through the use of laboratory toxicity tests. Litterbag field test showed no influence of the treatments on the organic matter breakdown, suggesting a scarce contribution of soil macrofauna. The bait-lamina test, however, seemed to be useful for detecting the effects of GLY and CPF treatments on the activity of the soil fauna. CPF failed to give significant differences with the controls in the reproduction test and the results were not conclusive in the avoidance test. Although the field population density of earthworms could be affected by multiple factors, the effects observed on the reproduction and avoidance tests caused by GLY could contribute to its decrease, with the subsequent loss of their beneficial functions. Biomarkers measuring effects on suborganism level could be useful to predict adverse effects on soil organisms and populations. Among them, NRRT, a lysosomal destabilization biomarker, resulted in demonstrating more sensitivity than the reproduction and avoidance tests. The Comet assay was responsive only to CPF. Since DNA damage can have severe consequences on populations, it could be regarded as an important indicator to be used in the assessment of soil health. Conclusions. Reproduction and avoidance tests were sensitive indicators of GLY exposure, with the former being more labor intensive. Bait-lamina test was sensitive to both CPF and GLY. NRRT and Comet assays revealed alterations at a subcellular level, and could be considered complementary to the biological activity tests. Because of their simplicity, some of these bioassays seemed to be appropriate pre-screening tests, prior to more extensive and invasive testing. Recommendations and Perspectives. This study showed deleterious effects of GLY and CPF formulations when applied at the nominal concentrations recommended for soya crops. Further validation is needed before these endpoints could be used as field monitoring tools in Argentine soya soils (ecotoxicological risk assessment - ERA tools).Fil: Casabe, Norma Beatriz. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Piola, Lucas. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Fuchs, Julio Silvio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Oneto, Maria Luisa. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Pamparato, Laura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; ArgentinaFil: Basack, Silvana Beatriz. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Giménez, Rosana. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomia. Departamento de Producción Vegetal. Cátedra de Zoología Agrícola; ArgentinaFil: Massaro, Rubén. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Santa Fe. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Oliveros; ArgentinaFil: Papa, Juan C.. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Santa Fe. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Oliveros; ArgentinaFil: Kesten, Eva Marta. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Química Biológica. Laboratorio de Toxicología y Química Legal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin