| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Agrobiologia. |
|
Data corrente: |
13/06/2008 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
13/06/2008 |
|
Autoria: |
BURGER, J. |
|
Título: |
Bioindicators: a review of their use in the environmental literature 1970-2005. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2006 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Environmental Bioindicators, 1:136-144, 2006. |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
A wide range of scientists, managers, governamental agencies, and the public are interested in assessing the health and well-being of species, populations, and ecosystems. This has resulted in increased studies of the usefulness of different indicators as a measure of stressors and contaminants. This paper presents a review of bioindicators since 1970 by using four journals: Science of the total environment, environmental science and technology, environmental pollution, and ecotoxicology and environmental safety. The overall objective was to examine temporal trends in publications on bioindicators, the species used as bioindicators, the contaminants of concern, and what they indicated (e.g., pollution or air quality). Overall, there has been a steady rise in the publication of papers about indicators since 1970, with nearly 35% of the indicator papers published in the last 5 years. Most papers that use the term indicator or bioindicator deal with some form of pollution, environmental quality or human health. The greatest percent of indicator papers dealt with metal pollution and other chemical pollution, and the least dealth with oil. Despite the recent attention the developed countries have given to radioactive radiation and nuclear waste storage, only 5% of the papers were describing bioindicators of radiation. Plants accounted for over 40% of the indicator papers, followed by invertebrates and then fish. Of the total indicator papers, less tham 2% each were attributable to sediments, reptiles, amphibians, and ecosystems. These data indicate that indicators have not been developed equally for different contaminants or with the use of different species.Mammals and birds, which often represent top-trophic levels, are clearly underrepresented. Although the choice of journals examined clearly affected the results, these data indicate a disproportionate emphasis on plants, overall pollution, and metals. To design an adequate biomonitoring plan, managers and public policy makers require more information on a suite of species from the same location. Only with such information can the best accumulators for particular contaminants be selected. MenosA wide range of scientists, managers, governamental agencies, and the public are interested in assessing the health and well-being of species, populations, and ecosystems. This has resulted in increased studies of the usefulness of different indicators as a measure of stressors and contaminants. This paper presents a review of bioindicators since 1970 by using four journals: Science of the total environment, environmental science and technology, environmental pollution, and ecotoxicology and environmental safety. The overall objective was to examine temporal trends in publications on bioindicators, the species used as bioindicators, the contaminants of concern, and what they indicated (e.g., pollution or air quality). Overall, there has been a steady rise in the publication of papers about indicators since 1970, with nearly 35% of the indicator papers published in the last 5 years. Most papers that use the term indicator or bioindicator deal with some form of pollution, environmental quality or human health. The greatest percent of indicator papers dealt with metal pollution and other chemical pollution, and the least dealth with oil. Despite the recent attention the developed countries have given to radioactive radiation and nuclear waste storage, only 5% of the papers were describing bioindicators of radiation. Plants accounted for over 40% of the indicator papers, followed by invertebrates and then fish. Of the total indicator papers, less tham 2% each were attributable t... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Bioindicador; Bioindicator; Contaminant; Environmentals; Plantas; Plants. |
|
Thesagro: |
Contaminação; Meio Ambiente; Metal. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
metals; radionuclides. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02819naa a2200253 a 4500
001 1629999
005 2008-06-13
008 2006 bl --- 0-- u #d
100 1 $aBURGER, J.
245 $aBioindicators$ba review of their use in the environmental literature 1970-2005.
260 $c2006
520 $aA wide range of scientists, managers, governamental agencies, and the public are interested in assessing the health and well-being of species, populations, and ecosystems. This has resulted in increased studies of the usefulness of different indicators as a measure of stressors and contaminants. This paper presents a review of bioindicators since 1970 by using four journals: Science of the total environment, environmental science and technology, environmental pollution, and ecotoxicology and environmental safety. The overall objective was to examine temporal trends in publications on bioindicators, the species used as bioindicators, the contaminants of concern, and what they indicated (e.g., pollution or air quality). Overall, there has been a steady rise in the publication of papers about indicators since 1970, with nearly 35% of the indicator papers published in the last 5 years. Most papers that use the term indicator or bioindicator deal with some form of pollution, environmental quality or human health. The greatest percent of indicator papers dealt with metal pollution and other chemical pollution, and the least dealth with oil. Despite the recent attention the developed countries have given to radioactive radiation and nuclear waste storage, only 5% of the papers were describing bioindicators of radiation. Plants accounted for over 40% of the indicator papers, followed by invertebrates and then fish. Of the total indicator papers, less tham 2% each were attributable to sediments, reptiles, amphibians, and ecosystems. These data indicate that indicators have not been developed equally for different contaminants or with the use of different species.Mammals and birds, which often represent top-trophic levels, are clearly underrepresented. Although the choice of journals examined clearly affected the results, these data indicate a disproportionate emphasis on plants, overall pollution, and metals. To design an adequate biomonitoring plan, managers and public policy makers require more information on a suite of species from the same location. Only with such information can the best accumulators for particular contaminants be selected.
650 $ametals
650 $aradionuclides
650 $aContaminação
650 $aMeio Ambiente
650 $aMetal
653 $aBioindicador
653 $aBioindicator
653 $aContaminant
653 $aEnvironmentals
653 $aPlantas
653 $aPlants
773 $tEnvironmental Bioindicators, 1:136-144, 2006.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Agrobiologia (CNPAB) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 8 | |
| 5. |  | SILVA, S. A.; CRUZ, E. M. de O.; REIS, R. V. dos; FERREIRA, C. F.; PASSOS, A. R. Caracterização morfológica e molecular de genótipos de mangaba. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, Jaboticabal - SP, v. 35, n. 4, p. 1093-1100, dez. 2013.| Tipo: Artigo em Periódico Indexado | Circulação/Nível: A - 2 |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura. |
|    |
| 7. | | PASSOS, A. R.; SILVA, S. A.; CRUZ, P. J.; ROCHA, M. de M.; CRUZ, E. M. de O.; ROCHA, M. A. C. da; BAHIA, H. F.; SALDANHA, R. B. Divergência genética em feijão-caupi. Bragantia, Campinas, v. 66, n. 4, p. 579-586, 2007.| Tipo: Artigo em Periódico Indexado | Circulação/Nível: Internacional - C |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Meio-Norte. |
| |
| 8. | | ARAGÃO, W. M.; RESENDE, J. M.; CRUZ, E. M. de O.; REIS, C. dos S.; SAGGIN JUNIOR, O. J.; ALENCAR, J. A. de; MOREIRA, W. A.; PAULA, F. R. de; LIMA FILHO, J. M. P. Fruto do coqueiro para consumo natural. In: ARAGÃO, W. M. (Ed.). Coco: pós-colheita. Brasília, DF: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, 2002. cap. 3, p. 19-25. (Frutas do Brasil, 29).| Tipo: Capítulo em Livro Técnico-Científico |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Semiárido. |
| |
| Registros recuperados : 8 | |
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
