A meta-analysis comparing the toxicity of sediments in the laboratory and in situ

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1148-1152

  Hose, Grant C ^a   Murray, Brad R ^a   Park, Margaux L ^a   Kelaher, Brendan P ^a   Figueira, Will F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

In situ toxicity tests; Laboratory field comparison; Meta analysis; Sediment toxicity

Indexed keywords

BIOREMEDIATION; ECOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEDIMENTS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

IN SITU TOXICITY TESTS; LABORATORY-FIELD COMPARISON; META-ANALYSIS; SEDIMENT TOXICITY;

TOXICITY;

IN SITU TEST; LABORATORY METHOD; META-ANALYSIS; REMEDIATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEDIMENT; TOXICITY;

ARTICLE; BENTHOS; BIOREMEDIATION; CHIRONOMIDAE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECOTOXICITY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; LABORATORY TEST; MERCENARIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEDIMENT; WATER CONTAMINATION; WATER QUALITY; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; CLINICAL TRIAL; LABORATORY; META ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; SAFETY; TOXICOLOGY;

GEOLOGIC SEDIMENTS; LABORATORIES; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 33746898654     PISSN: 07307268     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1897/05-322R.1     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson BS, Hunt JW, Phillips BM, Nicely PA, Tjeerdema RS, Martin M. 2004. A comparison of in situ and laboratory toxicity tests with the estuarine amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46:52-60.
2. Cairns J Jr. 1983. Are single-species toxicity tests alone adequate for estimating environmental hazard? Hydrobiologia 100:47-57.
3. Giesy JP. 1985. Multispecies tests: Research needs to assess the effects of chemicals on aquatic life. In Bahner RC, Hansen DJ, eds, Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Eighth Symposium. STP 891. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 67-77.
4. DeWitt TH, Hickey CW, Morrisey DJ, Nipper MG, Roper DS, Williamson RB, Van Dam L, Williams EK. 1999. Do amphipods have the same concentration response to contaminated sediment in situ as in vitro? Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1026-1037.
5. Ireland DS, Burton GA, Hess GG. 1996. In situ toxicity evaluations of turbidity and photoinduction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:574-581.
6. Pereira AMM, Soares A, Goncalves F, Ribeiro R. 1999. Test chambers and test procedures for in situ toxicity testing with zooplankton. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1956-1964.
7. Sibley PK, Benoit DA, Balcer MD, Phipps GL, West CW, Hoke RA, Ankley GT. 1999. In situ bioassay chamber for assessment of sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation using benthic invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2325-2336.
8. Castro BB, Guilhermino U, Ribeiro R. 2003. In situ bioassay chambers and procedures for assessment of sediment toxicity with Chironomus riparius. Environ Pollut 125:325-335.
9. Arnqvist G, Wooster D. 1995. Meta-analysis: Synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 10:236-240.
10. Piegorsch WW. 1998. Statistical aspects for combining information and meta-analysis in environmental toxicology. Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology Reviews 16:83-99.
11. Hedges LV, Olkin I. 1985. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic, New York, NY, USA.
12. Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH. 2001. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Rex 32:199-247.
13. Haddock CK, Rindskopf D, Shadish WR. 1998. Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. Psychological Methods 3:339-353.
14. Bailey KR. 1987. Inter-study differences: How should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results? Stat Med 6:351-358.
15. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. 1999. Explaining heterogeneity in metaanalysis: A comparison of methods. Stat Med 18:2693-2708.
16. Petitti DB. 2001. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 20:3625-3633.
17. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150-1156.
18. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV. 1999. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80:1142-1149.
19. Song FJ, Sheldon TA, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. 2001. Methods for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Evaluation and the Health Professional 24:126-151.
20. Murray BR, Leishman MR, Kelaher B, Hose GC, Figueira W. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between seed size and species abundance in plant communities. Oikos 110:191-194.
21. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. 1994. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088-1101.
22. Kater BJ, Postma JF, Dubbeldam M, Prins JTHJ. 2001. Comparison of laboratory and in situ sediment bioassays using Corophium volutator. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:1291-1295.
23. Ringwood AH, Keppler CJ. 2002. Comparative in situ and laboratory sediment bioassays with juvenile Mercenaria mercenaria. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:1651-1657.
24. Sasson-Brickson G, Burton GA Jr. 1991. In situ and laboratory sediment toxicity testing with Ceriodaphnia dubia. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:201-207.
25. Pereira AMM, Soares A, Goncalves F, Ribeiro R. 2000. Water-column, sediment, and in situ chronic bioassays with cladocerans. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 47:27-38.
26. Den Besten PJ, Naber A, Grootelaar EMM, van de Guchte C. 2003. In situ bioassays with Chironomus riparius: Laboratory-field comparisons of sediment toxicity and effects during wintering. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 6:217-228.
27. Chapman PM. 1995. Do sediment toxicity tests require field validation? Environ Toxicol Chem 14:1451-1453.