To assess the impact of monensin, lasalocid, and a 1:1 (w/w) mixture of monensin and lasalocid on the formation of Microcystis aeruginosa-based harmful algal blooms (HABs), laboratory experiments were conducted [temperature 20 ± 1°C, illumination PAR 30 ± 4 μmol/m2 ·s (12-h light/dark cycle), growth medium BG-11] at concentrations of 100, 200, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 μg/L. Measurements included optical density, cell protein, chlorophyll ‘a’ (Chl. a) content, oxidative stress, catalase activity (CAT), and guaiacol peroxidase activity (GPX). Monensin treatment showed a dose-dependent positive effect on M. aeruginosa growth at concentrations ≤500 μg/L and a gradual dose-dependent growth inhibition at concentrations of 1,000 and 2,000 μg/L. The results indicated that monensin has a significant positive effect on the formation of HABs by M. aeruginosa. Lasalocid treatment showed a growth reduction of M. aeruginosa at concentrations ≤500 μg/L and a growth increase at higher concentrations (1,000 and 2,000 μg/L). The 1:1 (w/w) mixture test showed an intermediate response, as indicated by the individual treatments signifying the potential interactive effects of these antibiotics on M. aeruginosa. Furthermore, alterations in Chl. ‘a’, oxidative stress, CAT, and GPX measurements provided evidence of the impact of these antibiotics on the existence of M. aeruginosa.

  • The impacts of monensin and lasalocid on Microcystis aeruginosa remained unknown.

  • Both antibiotics caused to create oxidative stress conditions in M. aeruginosa.

  • Antioxidant enzyme mechanisms of M. aeruginosa have been activated to defend these situations.

  • Oxidative stress-induced growth changes might alter M. aeruginosa bloom developments.

During the digestive process of ruminants, methane (CH4) gas is generated as a by-product of the metabolism of anaerobic microbes (Tseten et al. 2022). Globally, CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation have accounted for 43% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from livestock (Herrero et al. 2016). To enhance production efficiency and minimize CH4 emissions from livestock, scientists have started to investigate the functionality of various forms of feed additives (Sun et al. 2021). Methane inhibitors are included in ruminant feed to alter energy loss pathways, with the goal of minimizing methane emissions arising from enteric fermentation (Palangi & Lackner 2022).

Ionophore antibiotics represent a category of feed additives that alter the rumen fermentation pattern of cattle and this is widely used in cattle diets to increase feed efficiency, body weight gain, and reduce environmental emissions (Hersom & Thrift 2018). Ionophores prevent methanogenesis by reducing hydrogen and formate availability, which are key substrates for methanogenesis (Azzaz et al. 2015). Monensin supplementation in cattle feed can reduce methane emissions by 27–30% over 2–4 weeks, depending on feed energy content (Guan et al. 2006).

Ionophores could be defined as a group of natural and synthetic compounds forming lipid soluble cation complexes, by allowing cations to transport across low polar barriers such as organic solvents and lipids (Pressman 1976). These compounds are lipid soluble and have a reversible relationship with cations and this enables a mechanism to transport ions across biological membranes (Meliton 2012). Since the outer surfaces of the ionophores are hydrophobic, they are able to form complexes with hydrophobic membranes, allowing them to pass across (Novilla et al. 2017). Monensin, lasalocid, salinomycin, laidlomycin, and narasin are commercially available ionophores with similar modes of action, enabling dose-reliant animal performances (Bretschneider et al. 2008; Duffield et al. 2012). In gram-negative bacteria, the outer membrane is not permeable to larger hydrophobic molecules. Consequently, it exhibits a reduced response to ionophores, whereas gram-positive bacteria and animal cells tend to be more sensitive (Decad & Nikaido 1976). Among the rumen bacteria, in many cases, gram-positive bacteria are more sensitive to ionophores than gram-negative bacteria but this resistance is not always clear-cut (Houlihan & Russell 2003).

Nearly 50–60% of monensin will be excreted as parent form by animals and it has a relatively short half-life when it is mixed into the soils (Hillis et al. 2007). According to Arikan et al. (2018), monensin has been detected in environment manure, soil, surface water, groundwater, and sediments as 0.3–4.5 mg/L, 0.0004 μg/kg, 0.01–0.05 μg/L, 0.04–0.39 μg/L, and 1.5–31.5 μg/kg, respectively. The EC50 (half maximal effective concentration) of monensin is highly species-dependent and it is ranging from 0.2 to 7.3 mg/L (Hansen et al. 2009). In 75% of surface water samples taken from streams in El Pantanoso, Argentina, monensin was detected at concentrations of 0.4 and 4.7 μg/L as median and maximum values, respectively (Pérez et al. 2021). The recent study by Sandoz et al. (2018) reported a maximum monensin concentration of 84.37 μg/L in water samples taken near a beef cattle feedyard system. Furthermore, monensin detection levels at a beef lagoon are reported as 40 μg/L (Sassman & Lee 2007). In a dairy wastewater system, the theoretically estimated maximum concentration of monensin in a nearby lagoon is recorded as 246 μg/L, assuming no degradation occurs (Watanabe et al. 2008).

The effects of monensin on freshwater ecosystems are largely unknown. The experimental results on monensin treatment in algae revealed both negative and positive effects on algae growth, with some algae showing no response to the antibiotics (Winkworth et al. 2015). However, negative effects of monensin on the zooplankton communities and species richness are reported (Hillis et al. 2007). Antibiotic toxicity in freshwater does not consistently inhibit the growth of green algae and cyanobacteria (Sharma et al. 2021). In a range-finding test, Anabaena flos-aquae exposed to monensin sodium for 72 h showed a 72-h EC50 of 6.8 mg/L and a 72-h no observed effect concentration of 0.2 mg/L (Rychen et al. 2017).

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) pose a significant environmental concern and are prevalent across freshwater, brackish water, and marine ecosystems (Hallegraeff 1993). With the environmental degradations that have occurred over the past centuries, there is a clear increase in the severity and global distribution of HABs (Kling et al. 2011; Paerl & Paul 2012). HABs are influencing ecosystem function and structure, resulting in both present and future impacts. The formation of toxins, carcinogens, irritants, taste and odor compounds, and poor aesthetics has brought several social and ecological issues (Watson & Molot 2013). Among many Cyanobacterial species, Microcystis aeruginosa is the most common and extensively dispersed species found in tropical to the sub-frigid zone. The blooms of M. aeruginosa have created numerous environmental issues such as forming bad odors and toxic compounds (Harke et al. 2016).

The primary objective of administrating ionophore antibiotics in ruminant feeds is to improve digestibility, thereby reducing environmental emissions. However, excessive and frequent antibiotic use in livestock feed can lead to their accumulation in nearby aquatic environments. Consequently, this study aimed to identify one of the secondary environmental impacts associated with the use of monensin, lasalocid, and their combination. In this study, a series of laboratory experiments were conducted with predetermined concentrations of monensin and lasalocid, as well as their 1:1 (w/w) mixture, to assess the potential effects of these antibiotics on the growth, photosynthetic pigment production, oxidative stress, and antioxidant enzyme activities of M. aeruginosa. The primary expected outcome of this study was to evaluate the potential risks posed by monensin and lasalocid as environmental contaminants with regard to the proliferation of M. aeruginosa blooms in aquatic environments near cattle farming areas.

Cyanobacteria culture conditions

M. aeruginosa (strain NIES – 111) samples were ordered from the National Institute of Environmental Studies (NIES, Tsukuba, Japan) and cultured in BG – 11 media. The cultures were incubated in an incubator (MIR554PJ, Panasonic, Osaka, Japan) at a temperature of 20 ± 1 °C, following a 12-h light:12-h dark cycle controlled by an electric timer, with light intensity set at PAR 30 ± 4 μmol/m2 s (Supplementary data 01). The samples were shaken two times per day manually at specific intervals. Monensin sodium salt Thin Layer Chromatography ((TLC) 90–95%) and lasalocid A sodium salt (analytical standard) were obtained from Sigma Aldrich (Tokyo, Japan). Monensin and lasalocid antibiotics were dissolved in 70% ethanol (2 and 1 mg from each monensin and lasalocid dissolved in 1,000 and 500 μL of 70% ethanol, respectively). The mixtures were left undisturbed on a glass Petry dish for approximately 2–3 h to allow for the extensive evaporation of ethanol, to avoid potential collateral effects on the treatments. The dissolved antibiotics were diluted into a 40 mg/L stock solution by diluting with prepared BG – 11 media.

Experimental setup

Experiments were planned in three steps after conducting a few early trials; Test I – Monensin (TM) test, Test II – lasalocid (TL) test, and Test III – TM:TL (w/w) – 1:1 test. Based on the previous literature and after a few early trials, for lower concentrations (approximately ≤ 500 μg/L), antibiotic concentrations on treatments were decided as L1 to L2 range; higher concentrations possible in the environment, M, H1 and H2 range (500–2,000 μg/L) concentrations determined to test the further impact. Five treatments excluding the control were arranged with three replicates. The same concentrations were arranged for TM test, TL test, and TM:TL – 1:1 (w/w) test. In the 1:1 test, the concentrations were arranged 50% (w/w) from each antibiotic to create the predetermined concentration (Table 1).

Table 1

Concentrations of antibiotics in monensin (TM) test, lasalocid (TL) test, and monensin (TM): lasalocid (TL) 1:1 (w/w) test

TestAntibiotic concentrationsControl (Co)Low 1 (L1) (μg/L)Low 2 (L2) (μg/L)Medium (M) (μg/L)High 1 (H1) (μg/L)High 2 (H2) (μg/L)
(TM) test Monensin – 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 
Lasalocid – – – – – – 
(TL) test Monensin – – – – – – 
Lasalocid – 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 
(TM):(TL) 1:1 Test Monensin – 50 100 250 500 – 
Lasalocid – 50 100 250 500 – 
TestAntibiotic concentrationsControl (Co)Low 1 (L1) (μg/L)Low 2 (L2) (μg/L)Medium (M) (μg/L)High 1 (H1) (μg/L)High 2 (H2) (μg/L)
(TM) test Monensin – 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 
Lasalocid – – – – – – 
(TL) test Monensin – – – – – – 
Lasalocid – 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 
(TM):(TL) 1:1 Test Monensin – 50 100 250 500 – 
Lasalocid – 50 100 250 500 – 

The initial OD730 (absorption at 730 nm in spectrophotometer) of cell cultures for each treatment was adjusted to 0.5119, 0.5322, and 0.5458 for TM, TL, and TM:TL (w/w) 1:1, respectively, by mixing the main cultures with BG – 11 media. Antibiotic treatments were introduced on the same day for each treatment, emulating the natural scenario where antibiotics are commonly added to ponds along with the nutrition source.

All experiments were maintained in the same incubator at 20 ± 1°C temperature and lighting (12 h:12 h light-dark cycle) 30 ± 4 μmol/m2 s for 7 days and samples were shaken two times per day manually with constant intervals. Optical density (OD730) of each replicate was measured daily and on day 7 cells samples were collected into 1 mL centrifuge tubes and pelleted through centrifuging 12,000 G at 4 °C for 15 min (Tomy MX – 105, Digital Biology, Tokyo, Japan) and kept preserved at −80 °C freezer. Three samples from each replicate of every treatment were collected to assess the respective parameters. The same procedure was repeated for all three tests (Test I, Test II, and Test III) separately by providing equivalent conditions.

Optical density measurements (OD730)

The optical density of all replicates for each treatment was recorded daily for 7 days using the spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV mini – 1280, Tokyo, Japan) at a wavelength of 730 nm. Three measurements from each replicate were measured and recorded. The flasks were properly shaken before taking the samples, to disperse cyanobacteria cells equally throughout the media (Oginni et al. 2021).

Chlorophyll ‘a’ measurement

Samples preserved at −80 °C were thawed for 15 min to reach room temperature (20–25 °C) and pigments were extracted into 1 mL of 95% (v/v) ethanol. Tubes were shaken manually and later vortexed for 10 s to ensure all cells were mixed properly with ethanol. Tubes were kept in a water bath for 10 min at 60 °C and kept in the dark for 20 h at 4 °C temperature. After 20 h, samples were centrifuged at 4,000G for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was pipetted out carefully and the absorbance under multiple wavelengths (750, 665, 649, and 470 nm) with a spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV mini – 1280). The absorption values for ethanol at the three shorter wavelengths were either added or subtracted to correct the auto-zero error. The measurements were done under low lighting conditions to minimize photodegradation of extracted chlorophyll. Chl. ‘a’ concentrations were measured using Equation (1), respectively (Lichtenthaler 1987; ISO 10260:1992 en).
(1)
(2)
(3)

Cellular protein content

The protein content was measured by following Bradford assay methods (Bradford 1976) with minor alterations. Cell samples, from which chlorophyll was extracted, were washed with 750 μL of 95% ethanol. This step aimed to mitigate chlorophyll interferences and prevent potential distortions in colorimetric measurements. Later, samples were kept 24 h in 25 °C in an oven to evaporate ethanol. In measuring cellular protein, each sample was kept in a water bath for 10 min at 70 °C after the addition of 0.5 M, 0.5 ml NaOH. After that samples were centrifuged at 7,000G for 10 min under 4 °C. The absorptions were measured spectrophotometrically (Shimadzu UV mini – 1280, Tokyo, Japan) under 595 nm wavelength, after 10 min precise incubation period of mixture with formulated protein assay Bradford reagent (Fujifilm Wako Chemicals, Osaka Japan). Protein levels were determined using a pre-prepared standard curve.

Hydrogen peroxide measurement

The objective is measuring H2O2 content is to identify the oxidative stress levels of the cyanobacteria. Preserved cell pellets were kept at room temperature (20–25°C) for 15 min for thawing and pellets were homogenized in 1 mL of 0.1 M phosphate buffer. After that, samples were centrifuged at 10,000G for 10 min at 4 °C. The 1 mL of reaction mixture for one sample was prepared using 1:3 ratio of sample supernatant and 0.1M Ti (SO4)2 in 20% (v/v) H2SO4, respectively. The absorbance of each sample was measured at 410 nm wavelength using a spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV mini – 1280, Tokyo, Japan) and H2O2 concentrations were determined using a pre-prepared standard curve for known concentrations (Patterson et al. 1984).

Catalase activity (CAT) measurement

CAT activity was measured according to Aebi (1984) with fewer modifications. The enzymes from preserved cell pellets were extracted into 1 mL of extraction solution prepared with 6.057, 0.37, 0.177, 0.155, 0.308, 2.171 mg/mL of tris, 2Na(EDTA.2Na), ascorbic acid, dithiothreitol, glutathione (reduced form), MgCl2.6H2O, respectively and 45 μL/mL of 1 M HCl. The mixture was centrifuged at 12,000G for 20 min under 4 °C. The reaction solution was prepared with 5.606 and 0.37 mg/mL of Tris, 2Na(EDTA.2Na) and 45 μL/mL of 1 M HCl. The testing mix was prepared with, a 23:1:1 ratio of reaction solution, 750 mM H2O2 solution and enzyme samples, respectively. The samples were measured under 240 nm wavelength for 3 min with 10 s continuous intervals under the spectrophotometer. CAT activity was calculated as the reduction of absorption units per second per milliliter of the enzyme sample and divided from the cell protein content of the same treatment (μg/mL) to interpret the CAT activity on cellular basis.

Guaiacol peroxidase (GPX) activity

GPX was measured by following the method by Ewing & Janero (1995), with slight modifications. Enzymes were extracted into an extraction solution (CAT method) from preserved cell pellets. The mixture was centrifuged at 12,000G for 20 min under 4 °C. The reaction solution was prepared with Tris, 2Na(EDTA.2Na), HCl, H2O2, 2.22% guaiacol in ethanol. The testing mix was prepared with 24:1 reaction solution and sample solution, respectively. The absorbance of the test mixture was measured using a spectrophotometer under 470 nm wavelength for 3 min with 10 s continuous intervals. GPX activity was calculated as the increase in absorption units per second per milliliter of the enzyme sample and later divided from cellular protein content of the same treatment (μg/mL) to interpret the GPX activity on a cellar basis.

pH measurements

The initial pH measurements of the BG – 11 media and the pH measurements of the monensin and lasalocid 2,000 μg/L solutions were taken (AS ONE – AS 800, Osaka, Japan) at the beginning of the test. The pH values of each treatment flask were not measured during the test period to avoid cross-contamination of the culture flasks. At the end of each test, three pH measurements of the culture media were taken from each replicate of each treatment.

Statistical analysis

All data were recorded manually and later transferred into MS Excel (version 16.0) 2016. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using MS Excel (version 16.0), and all other statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS (Version 25. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The three tests monensin, lasalocid, and TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 were conducted separately following a completely randomized design model, therefore statistical analyses were performed separately for each test. All treatments in each of the three tests were conducted with three replicates, and three samples from each replicate were collected. Hence, nine independent analyses were performed for each parameter of each treatment. The normality of data for each parameter was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. Significance between control and treatments, and between treatments, was tested using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Tukey HSD (honestly significant difference) test (for normally distributed data) for levels of significance p < (0.05)* and p < (0.01)** and Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA with pairwise comparison (for data not normally distributed) for levels of significance p < (0.05)*. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to check the relationship between interrelated parameters.

Visual and microscopic observations

M. aeruginosa shows varied responses to monensin, lasalocid, and a TM:TL 1:1 (w/w) mix during a one-week treatment. In all treatments, visible changes in the cultures appeared in the latter part of the week. When observing the cultures on the day – 07, all replicates of the monensin test, L1, L2, and M treatments exhibited a gradual increase in green color intensity compared to the control. The H1 and H2 treatments displayed a sequential increase in brownish color, accompanied by a corresponding sequential decrease in green color intensity, respectively. In the H2 treatment, a microscopic examination of the culture media revealed the presence of ruptured cells of M. aeruginosa. In the lasalocid treatment, all experimental groups, including the control, exhibited vigorous growth of M. aeruginosa. However, the L1, L2, M, H1, and H2 treatments, respectively, exhibited a subtle increasing trend in the intensity of green color compared to the control, which was not readily discernible to the naked eye. The L1, L2, M, and H1 treatments of the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 exhibited a consistent pattern of color change, aligning with the trend observed in the monensin treatment, nevertheless with a lower variation in color intensity with adjacent treatments (Supplementary data 2–4).

Cyanobacteria growth

Optical density measurements

Based on the OD730 measurements, in the monensin test (Figure 1(a)), the M treatment exhibits the highest optical density compared to all other treatments from day one onward. Conversely, the H2 treatment consistently demonstrates the lowest optical density throughout the treatment period, while the H1 treatment displays a higher optical density than H2 but lower than all other treatments. In the lasalocid test (Figure 1(b)), the control demonstrates the lowest optical density from the beginning, with a notable increase in optical density between day – 05 and day – 06, surpassing that of the L1 treatment. Treatments M, H1, and H2 consistently exhibit higher optical density compared to L1 and the control throughout the treatment period. In the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 (Figure 1(c)), the optical density of each treatment does not exhibit clear variations compared to the previous two treatments.
Figure 1

Distribution of 7-day mean OD730 values of monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and monensin: lasalocid 1:1 mix (c) treatments. X and Y axes display the day of treatment and absorption (Abs) at 730 nm wavelength in UV–visible spectrophotometer. Error bars represent the standard error.

Figure 1

Distribution of 7-day mean OD730 values of monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and monensin: lasalocid 1:1 mix (c) treatments. X and Y axes display the day of treatment and absorption (Abs) at 730 nm wavelength in UV–visible spectrophotometer. Error bars represent the standard error.

Close modal
According to the statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA post-hoc Tukey HSD test) in the monensin (Figure 2(a)) treatment, day – 03 OD730 values of treatment H2 shows a significant difference compared to the control (p < 0.01) while other treatments do not show any significant difference compared to the control. Similarly, the H1 treatment shows a statistically significant (p < 0.01) reduction in optical density compared to the M treatment while the H2 treatment shows a statistically significant (p < 0.01) reduction in optical density compared to the H1 treatment. In the day – 05 all L1, L2, M, H1, and H2 treatments show statistically significant differences with the control. The L1, L2, and M treatments show statistically significant increases compared to the control (p < 0.05, p < 0.05, and p < 0.01, respectively). The H1 and H2 treatments show a statistically significant decrease in optical density with respect to the control (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01’, respectively). In pairwise comparisons, there is a statistically significant difference between M and H1 treatments and H1 and H2 treatments (p < 0.01). In the lasalocid treatment (Figure 2(b)) on the day – 03 of the experiment, L2, M, H1, and H2 treatments show statistically significantly higher optical density compared to the control (for L2 p < 0.05 and for M, H1, and H2 p < 0.01). Conversely, there are no statistically significant differences between adjacent treatments. In the day – 05 of the treatment, H1 shows statistically significantly higher optical density (p < 0.05) compared to the control, while there are no statistically significant differences between adjacent treatments. In the TM:TL {w/w} 1:1 test (Figure 2(c)) at day – 03, M and H1 treatments show a statistically significant (p < 0.05’ and p < 0.01, respectively) lower optical density to the control and there is no any significant difference in between the adjacent treatments. In the day – 05 of the experiment, even though there is a slight variation of the optical density present, they are not statistically significant compared to the control.
Figure 2

Mean values of OD730 measurements in absorbance units (Abs) at day – 03 and day – 05 of each treatment of monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and monensin: lasalocid 1:1 mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05) and ** for (p < 0.01).

Figure 2

Mean values of OD730 measurements in absorbance units (Abs) at day – 03 and day – 05 of each treatment of monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and monensin: lasalocid 1:1 mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05) and ** for (p < 0.01).

Close modal

OD730 values at day of cell harvesting

Optical density at the day of cell harvesting, based on OD730, is shown in Figure 3(a)–3(c) for monensin, lasalocid, and the 1:1 mix, respectively. In the monensin treatment, L1, L2, and M treatments exhibit higher optical density compared to the control, while H1 and H2 treatments show lower optical density compared to the control. Starting from the control, L1, L2, and M treatments demonstrate a gradual increasing trend in optical density, respectively, whereas H1 and H2 treatments show a gradual declining trend in optical density, respectively. In the lasalocid treatment, all experimental groups exhibit higher optical density compared to the control, but they do not demonstrate a clear concentration-dependent gradient in optical density. In the 1:1 mix treatment, all treatments including L1, L2, M, and H1 treatments show higher optical density compared to the control where H1 shows a lower optical density compared to L1, L2, and M treatments. Based on the statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA post-hoc Tukey HSD test), neither the lasalocid test nor the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test exhibited any statistically significant differences compared to the control or between adjacent treatments. In the monensin treatment, both L2 and M treatments exhibited a statistically significant increase in OD730 values compared to the control (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). On the contrary, the H2 treatment exhibited a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.01) compared to the control. When examining pairwise comparisons with adjacent treatments, the H1 treatment displayed a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.01) in optical density compared to treatment M, and the H2 treatment demonstrated a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.01) in optical density compared to the H1 treatment.
Figure 3

Mean values of OD730 measurements in absorbance units (Abs) at day – 07 of each treatment of monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and monensin: lasalocid {w/w} 1:1 test (c) treatments. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05) and ** for (p < 0.01).

Figure 3

Mean values of OD730 measurements in absorbance units (Abs) at day – 07 of each treatment of monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and monensin: lasalocid {w/w} 1:1 test (c) treatments. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05) and ** for (p < 0.01).

Close modal

Cellular protein contents

Cellular protein contents were measured to approximate the number of cells present in each replicate of each treatment at day −07, aiming to represent other measurements Chl. ‘a’ content, oxidative stress, CAT, and GPX on a per unit cell basis. In the monensin test (Figure 4(a)), on the day – 07, all treatments exhibited higher cellular protein contents compared to the control. However, only treatments L1, L2, M, and H1 showed statistical (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA) significance (p < 0.05). Among the adjacent treatments, statistical significance was observed between L2 and M and between M and H1, (p < 0.05). In the lasalocid test (Figure 4(b)), cellular protein content exhibited a decreasing trend up to 200 μg/L and an increasing trend thereafter up to 2,000 μg/L. Among the treatments, L2, M, and H2 treatments displayed a statistically significant difference compared to the control (p < 0.05). In the TM: TL (w/w) 1:1 test (Figure 4(c)), cellular protein content exhibits an increasing trend up to the M treatment, followed by a decreasing trend from 500 to 1,000 μg/L. When compared to the control, treatments L2, M, and H1 demonstrate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4

The mean values of cellular protein content (μg/mL) of each treatment of M. aeruginosa cultures harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin: lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Figure 4

The mean values of cellular protein content (μg/mL) of each treatment of M. aeruginosa cultures harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin: lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Close modal

Chlorophyll ‘a’ content

In the monensin test (Figure 5(a)), the control shows the highest mean Chl. ‘a’/cellular protein ratio among all treatments. With the increase in the monensin concentration, mean Chl. ‘a’/cellular protein ratios of L1, L2, M, H1, and H2 show a steady decrease, respectively. According to the statistical analysis (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA), all treatments exhibit a significant difference compared to the control (p < 0.05). When comparing pairwise, the H2 treatment shows a statistically significant (p < 0.05) decrease compared to the H1 treatment. In lasalocid treatment (Figure 5(b)) L1 and L2 treatments show higher mean Chl. ‘a’/cellular protein ratio compared to the control with a steady increasing trend where L2 treatments show the highest mean Chl. ‘a’/cellular protein ratio. When looking into the pairwise comparison, the L2 treatment shows a statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase compared to the L1 treatment and the H2 treatment shows a statistically significant (p < 0.05) decrease compared to the H1 treatment. In the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test (Figure 5(c)) M treatment and H1 treatment show a statistically significant decrease compared to the control (p < 0.05).
Figure 5

The mean values of Chl. ‘a’ content (μg/mL)/cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin: lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Figure 5

The mean values of Chl. ‘a’ content (μg/mL)/cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin: lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Close modal

Oxidative stress

In the monensin test (Figure 6(a)), for L1, L2, and M treatments M. aeruginosa show a gradual increase of stress compared to the control which is statistically not significant (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA). But for the H1 and H2 treatments, M. aeruginosa showed a higher stress condition which is statistically significant (p < 0.05). In the lasalocid treatment (Figure 6(b)), stress levels gradually increase with the lasalocid concentration up to 1,000 μg/L and then suddenly decrease at 2,000 μg/L concentration. When compared to the control, L2, M, H1, and H2 treatments show a significant increase in stress levels of M. aeruginosa (p < 0.05). At the same time, for adjacent treatments, stress levels of M. aeruginosa for L1 and L2 treatment and H1 and H2 treatments show a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). In the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test (Figure 6(c)), all treatments demonstrate a statistically significant increase in stress levels compared to the control (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, pairwise comparisons revealed no statistical significance between the adjacent treatments.
Figure 6

The mean values of H2O2 concentration (mM) /cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin:lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Figure 6

The mean values of H2O2 concentration (mM) /cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin:lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Close modal

CAT activity

In the monensin test (Figure 7(a)), the CAT activity/cell protein ratio demonstrates a progressive increase with rising monensin concentration. Both H1 and H2 treatments exhibit statistical (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA) significance compared to the control (p < 0.05), while pairwise comparisons between adjacent treatments do not show any statistical significance. In the lasalocid treatment (Figure 7(b)), all treatments except the H2 treatment show a statistically significant increase in the CAT activity/cell protein ratio compared to the control, (p < 0.05). In the pairwise comparison, statistical significance is only observed between the H1 and H2 treatments (p < 0.05). In relation to CAT activity measures, all treatments of TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test did not exhibit any overall statistical significance with respect to the control.
Figure 7

The mean values of CAT activity (△Abs/sec/mL)/cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin:lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Figure 7

The mean values of CAT activity (△Abs/sec/mL)/cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin:lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Close modal

According to Pearson correlation analysis between the H2O2/cell protein ratio and the CAT activity/cell protein ratio, the monensin treatment and the lasalocid treatment showed Pearson correlation values of 0.655 and 0.335, respectively, with p-values of <0.01 and 0.013, respectively, indicating a significant correlation between the two parameters.

GPX activity

Although the values demonstrate a gradual increase in GPX activity/cell protein ratio as the concentration of monensin increases, there is no statistical significance (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA) present when comparing the treatments with the control (Figure 8(a)). However, in the lasalocid treatment (Figure 8(b)), L2, M, and H1 treatments show a statistically significant increase in GPX activity/cell protein ratio (p < 0.05). In the pairwise comparison, statistical significance is present between L1 and L2 treatments, and H1 and H2 treatments (p < 0.05). In the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test (Figure 8(c)), none of the treatments showed any statistical significance in GPX activity.
Figure 8

The mean values of GPX activity (△Abs/sec/mL)/cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin:lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Figure 8

The mean values of GPX activity (△Abs/sec/mL)/cellular protein (μg/mL) ratio of each treatment of M. aeruginosa harvested at the end of the one-week treatment period in each monensin (a), lasalocid (b), and the monensin:lasalocid 1:1 (w/w) mix (c) tests. Error bars represent the standard error. Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as * for (p < 0.05).

Close modal

pH values of the culture media at day – 07

The mean initial pH value of the media (BG – 11) at the beginning of the treatment was recorded as (8.55 ± 0.02) for the media prepared for all three tests, and at the end of the treatment period, pH values of the test media have changed as showed (Table 2). The mean pH of 2,000 μg/L monensin in BG – 11 (n = 3) is recorded (7.85 ± 0.38) indicating mixing of monensin has caused to reduction in the pH of BG – 11. All three controls showed similar increased pH values compared to the pH value of BG – 11 after the 7-day treatment period. In the monensin treatment, the M, H1, and H2 treatments exhibit a statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA, p < 0.05) lower pH compared to the control. In contrast, in the lasalocid treatment, the pH values of each treatment remain unchanged compared to the control. But in the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test, a similar trend as to the monensin treatment is observed, where M and H1 treatments exhibit a statistically significant (p < 0.05) low pH compared to the control.

Table 2

The mean and standard deviation values of pH measurements of M. aeruginosa culture media at the end of the one-week treatment period for each of the following tests: monensin (TM), lasalocid (TL), and the (TM):(TL) 1:1 (w/w) mix

Test/treatmentCo BG – 11L1 – 100 (μg/L)L2 – 200 (μg/L)M – 500 (μg/L)H1 – 1000 (μg/L)H2 – 2000 (μg/L)
TM test 11.76 ± 0.02 11.79 ± 0.03 11.72 ± 0.03 11.39 ± 0.28a 9.73 ± 0.22a 9.63 ± 0.027a 
TL test 11.42 ± 0.01 11.48 ± 0.14 11.32 ± 0.09 11.38 ± 0.04 11.37 ± 0.03 11.25 ± 0.08 
TM:TL 1:1 (w/w) Test 11.6 ± 0.03 11.65 ± 0.04 11.62 ± 0.02 11.22 ± 0.10a 10.27 ± 0.11a – 
Test/treatmentCo BG – 11L1 – 100 (μg/L)L2 – 200 (μg/L)M – 500 (μg/L)H1 – 1000 (μg/L)H2 – 2000 (μg/L)
TM test 11.76 ± 0.02 11.79 ± 0.03 11.72 ± 0.03 11.39 ± 0.28a 9.73 ± 0.22a 9.63 ± 0.027a 
TL test 11.42 ± 0.01 11.48 ± 0.14 11.32 ± 0.09 11.38 ± 0.04 11.37 ± 0.03 11.25 ± 0.08 
TM:TL 1:1 (w/w) Test 11.6 ± 0.03 11.65 ± 0.04 11.62 ± 0.02 11.22 ± 0.10a 10.27 ± 0.11a – 

Significant differences compared to the control are indicated as ‘a’ for (p < 0.05).

Nutrient influxes into aquatic ecosystems are modulated by various environmental determinants. Fertilizers used in agriculture contribute to nutrient heterogeneity in soils, with cattle manure being a significant source, varying depending on animal-specific factors and dietary composition (William et al. 2007). Acid rains increase the leaching of minerals and metal ions, including Cu²⁺, Mn²⁺, and Al³⁺ (Koptsik et al. 2003). The composition of runoff from areas near cattle farms is highly variable and unpredictable. Therefore, to ensure consistency, all experiments in this study utilized the standard BG – 11 media to minimize potential variability arising from changes in the growth medium.

Cyanobacteria exhibit diverse responses and defence mechanisms against biotic and abiotic stressors. Cyanobacteria adapt to diverse stress conditions through modifications in their physiological, biochemical, and molecular pathways (Singh & Montgomery 2011). Increased toxicity might result in the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which interact with macromolecules such as proteins, DNA, and lipids. This interaction disturbs the membrane structure and leads to oxidative stress conditions. The antioxidant defence systems such as CAT, GPX, APX (ascorbate peroxidase), SOD (superoxide dismutase), and GR (glutathione reductase) are enabled to counteract these stress conditions (Fujita & Hasanuzzaman 2022).

The results of the current study revealed that the stress responses of the same cyanobacterial species vary depending on individual contaminants as well as their combinations. The results of the monensin test of our study were partially consistent with the intrinsic biochemical properties of ionophores, including their antimicrobial effects and their distinctive modulation of membrane activity, as well as the complex cellular responses demonstrated by cyanobacteria under various stress conditions. Monensin possesses three reactive functional groups, a carboxyl group is situated at the C1 position and two hydroxyl groups are located at the C7 and C26 positions. Among these, the two hydroxyl groups are pivotal in the formation of metal ion complexes (Sakakibara et al. 1988). The capability of monensin to form complexes with monovalent cations follows the order: Na⁺ > K⁺ > Li⁺ > Rb⁺ > Cs⁺ (Lutz et al. 1970).

An experiment on Synechococcus UTEX 625’ has revealed that Na+ stimulates the transport of HCO3 ion which is a dissolved inorganic carbon source for photosynthesis. The results of the research determined that the transportation of Cl ions and PO43− require μM levels of Na+ while, NO3 and HCO3 require mM levels of Na+ ions for the maximum transport activity. The Na+ binding ability of monensin inhibited the ion transportation mechanisms of cyanobacteria (Espie & Kandasamy 1994). This is one of the fundamental factors that drives the antibacterial action of ionophore antibiotics.

Similarly, monensin catalyses the exchange of Na+ and H+ ions across biological membranes (Sandeaux et al. 1982). Monensin is able to act as an antiporter of metal ions and protons, that are involved in exchanging the H+ either for K+ or Na+ (Pressman 1976; Russell & Strobel 1989). Once monensin is introduced, it exchanges the intracellular K+ for extracellular H+ or extracellular Na+ for intracellular H+ (Russell 1987). These processes resulted in blocking the nutrition transport across the membrane and maintaining a pH difference across the membrane. The unbalanced Na+ and K+ distribution tends to activate the ATP utilizing primary pumps to re-establish the ion balance in between the cell membrane. Prolonged ATP utilization under conditions of malnutrition depletes cellular energy reserves, ultimately leading to cell death.

In the current study, the cellular mortality observed at 1,000 and 2,000 μg/L concentrations of monensin can be ascribed to the ionophore's sodium ion (Na⁺) chelation mechanism. This process obstructs the transmembrane transport of vital anions, including bicarbonate (HCO3⁻), nitrate (NO3⁻), and phosphate (PO43⁻), which are indispensable for the photosynthetic process. At lower concentrations of monensin (100, 200, and 500 μg/L), M. aeruginosa exhibited an increased optical density, which was statistically significant compared to the control on the day – 05 of the treatment (Figure 2(a)). This trend persisted on day – 07 (Figure 3(a)), with only the 200 and 500 μg/L concentrations showing statistical significance. This observation reflected a stress response induced by the presence of an exogenous substance.

Previous studies indicated that the decrease in photosynthetic pigments resulting from environmental stress may be attributed to the replacement of Mg²⁺ ions, inhibition of chlorophyll biosynthesis enzymes, or an elevation in ROS (Chittora et al. 2020). In the monensin test, Chl. ‘a’ concentration (Figure 5(a)) significantly reduced compared to the control with increasing monensin concentration (100–2,000 μg/L). This is attributed to stress-induced inhibition of Chl. ‘a’ synthesis. This standpoint is further strengthened by the increase in H2O2/cell protein ratio, which was observed with increasing monensin treatment concentration ranging from 100 to 2,000 μg/L. The catalase enzyme functioned as a protective antioxidant enzyme, decomposing H₂O₂ generated under oxidative stress conditions to safeguard cells from oxidative damage. The distribution of CAT activity/cell protein ratio (Figure 6(a)) in the monensin test followed the same trend as the H₂O₂/cell protein ratio (Figure 5(a)), indicating the catalase activity of the cells, which enables them to defend against the H₂O₂ produced under oxidative stress conditions induced by monensin.

Guaiacol peroxidase performs the same comparable protective function against hydrogen peroxide, generated by stressed cells. Our study revealed that monensin induced a comparable trend in oxidative stress (Figure 6(a)), CAT activity (Figure 7(a)), and GPX activity (Figure 8(a)) curves, demonstrating the activation of cellular defence mechanisms in M. aeruginosa in response to monensin-induced oxidative stress. Monensin activity increases the concentration of H+ ions in the media as a result of its ion transportation mechanism. Most of the time cyanobacteria uphold an acidified cytoplasm during the growth at high pH, which is maintained by the sodium cycle (Buck & Smith 1995; Miller et al. 1984). The pH distribution on day – 07 (Table 2) in the monensin treatment showed a significantly lower increase in pH (9.73 ± 0.22) in 1,000 and 2,000 μg/L (9.63 ± 0.027) treatments compared to the control (11.76 ± 0.02). This could be a result of the ion antiport mechanism of monensin through M. aeruginosa plasm membranes, which causes the accumulation of H+ ions outside the membrane, that has been significantly enabled at comparatively higher concentrations of monensin. Monensin effects underscore the typical antibacterial mechanism of ionophore antibiotics, particularly at concentrations of 1,000 and 2,000 μg/L. This is illustrated by the OD730 distribution on day – 7 (Figure 3(a)) and the cellular protein distribution curve (Figure 4(a)). Consequently, for all monensin treatments at concentrations ≤500 μg/L, an enhanced growth response (Figure 4(a)) and decreased Chl ‘a’ measurement (Figure 5(a)) should be attributed to the stress conditions induced by monensin.

Lasalocid treatment showed a deviation from the monensin results. On the day – 03 curve (Figure 2(b)), concentrations of 200, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 μg/L showed a statistically significant increase in optical density values. However, by day – 07 (Figure 3(b)), although there was a continuing increasing trend in optical density, no significant difference was observed. During the 100, 200, and 500 μg/L concentrations, M. aeruginosa cells showed a decrease in cellular protein contents (Figure 4(b)) but an increase in OD730 of the day – 07 (Figure 3(b)). This may be due to higher Chl. ‘a’ production by cells under lasalocid action. In the latter two treatments (1,000 and 2,000 μg/L), protein content decreased while OD730 values increased. This increase might have been caused by the increase in cell number rather than an increase in Chl. ‘a’ content. Since OD730 is influenced by the turbidity or cloudiness of the cyanobacteria culture, it is difficult to make a precise assumption.

Lasalocid has higher Chl. ‘a’ production for lower concentrations (100, 200, and 500 μg/L) and inhibition for higher concentrations (1,000 and 2,000 μg/L) (Figure 5(b)). This might be a stress response of M. aeruginosa for lasalocid action. Based on the cellular protein results, it can be assumed that lasalocid has a negative impact on the growth of M. aeruginosa, even though the OD730 (Figure 3(b)) values showed a progressive increase with the increasing treatment concentration. The oxidative stress curve of lasalocid (Figure 6(b)) showed a significant progressive increase up to 1,000 μg/L treatment and a noticeable reduction in 2,000 μg/L treatment. Verifying the oxidative stress status, CAT activity distribution (Figure 7(b)), and the GPX distribution (Figure 8(b)) followed the same trend by showing the lowered enzyme activities at 2,000 μg/L concentration. The action of lasalocid on M. aeruginosa did not show the typical antibacterial actions of ionophore antibiotics.

In the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test, the behavior of OD730 on the day – 07 (Figure 3(c)), cellular protein curve (Figure 4(c)), and Chl. ‘a’ curve (Figure 5(c)) exhibited a trend similar to that observed in the monensin treatment. The activity of the monensin and lasalocid combination seems to have brought the individual impact of each antibiotic into an intermediate state in the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test. Based on the OD730 data on day – 05 and day – 07 (Figures 2(c) and 3(c)), treatments did not show any significant difference compared to the control. Initially, a significant impact could be observed for the M and H1 treatments on day – 03 (Figure 2(c)). According to the cellular protein content, it can be assumed that the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 test has a positive impact on the growth of M. aeruginosa, up to the M treatment.

With the outcomes of our study, we can make an argument that the selected environmentally possible ranges of monensin (100, 200, and 500 μg/L) have a positive impact on the growth of M. aeruginosa, potentially leading to the formation of HABs caused by M. aeruginosa. When considering environmentally relevant concentrations (100, 200, and 500 μg/L) of lasalocid, it can be inferred that lasalocid exerts a negative impact on the formation of HABs caused by M. aeruginosa. The synergistic effect of the two antibiotics has produced an intermediate outcome when compared to the individual effectiveness of each antibiotic, simultaneously underscoring the notable activity of monensin. According to the TM:TL (w/w) 1:1 ratio, the combination of the two antibiotics still has a positive impact on the growth of M. aeruginosa-based HABs, with the impact of monensin becoming more prominent. This situation may depend on the concentration ratio of monensin to lasalocid.

It is recommended to introduce two or more ionophore antibiotics into cattle feed rotationally to maintain their continuous effect over a considerable period. Consequently, there is a possibility of accumulating more than one ionophore antibiotic in the same livestock ponds. Therefore, based on our experimental results, within the environmental concentration ranges of 100–500 μg/L, the accumulation of monensin is comparatively more harmful in creating M. aeruginosa blooms than accumulating either lasalocid or a 1:1 (w/w) mixture of monensin and lasalocid.

Monensin treatment demonstrated a concentration-dependent effect on the growth of M. aeruginosa, with lower concentrations showing a positive impact and higher concentrations leading to growth reduction or cell death. Additionally, monensin reduces the Chl. ‘a’ content, induces oxidative stress and increased catalase activity in the cyanobacteria. Lasalocid showed a growth reduction of M. aeruginosa for lower concentrations and growth promotion for higher concentrations, necessitating further investigation. The combined treatment of monensin and lasalocid yielded intermediary responses compared to individual treatments, suggesting potential interactive effects between the two antibiotics. Overall, within environmentally relevant concentrations, monensin may promote the formation of M. aeruginosa-based HABs, while lasalocid might have a negative impact. This study could be further expanded by incorporating additional variables and parameters.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Aebi
H.
(
1984
)
Catalase in vitro
,
Methods in Enzymology
,
105
,
121
126
.
doi:10.1016/s0076-6879(84)05016-3
.
Arikan
O. A.
,
Mulbry
W.
,
Rice
C.
&
Lansing
S.
(
2018
)
The fate and effect of monensin during anaerobic digestion of dairy manure under mesophilic conditions
,
Plos One
,
13
(
2
),
e0192080
.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192080
.
Azzaz
H. H.
,
Murad
H. A.
&
Morsy
T. A.
(
2015
)
Utility of ionophores for ruminant animals: A review
,
Asian Journal of Animal Sciences
,
9
,
254
265
.
doi:10.3923/ajas.2015.254.265
.
Bretschneider
G.
,
Elizalde
J. C.
&
Pérez
F. A.
(
2008
)
The effect of feeding antibiotic growth promoters on the performance of beef cattle consuming forage-based diets: A review
,
Livestock Science
, 114, 135–149.
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.12.017
.
Buck
D. P.
&
Smith
G. D.
(
1995
)
Evidence for a Na +/H + electrogenic antiporter in an alkaliphilic cyanobacterium Synechocystis
,
FEMS Microbiology Letters
,
128
,
315
320
.
doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.1995.tb07542.x
.
Chittora
D.
,
Meena
M.
,
Barupal
T.
&
Swapnil
P.
(
2020
)
Cyanobacteria as a source of biofertilizers for sustainable agriculture
,
Biochemistry Biophysics Reports
,
22
,
100737
.
doi:10.1016/j.bbrep.2020.100737
.
Decad
G. M.
&
Nikaido
H.
(
1976
)
Outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria XII. Molecular-sieving function of cell wall
,
Journal of Bacteriology
,
128
,
325
336
.
doi:10.1128/jb.128.1.325-336.1976
.
Duffield
T. F.
,
Merrill
J. K.
&
Bagg
R. N.
(
2012
)
Meta-analysis of the effects of monensin in beef cattle on feed efficiency, body weight gain, and dry matter intakem
,
Journal of Animal Science
,
90
,
4583
4592
.
doi:10.2527/jas2011-5018
.
Ewing
J. F.
&
Janero
D. R.
(
1995
)
Microplate superoxide dismutase assay employing a nonenzymatic superoxide generator
,
Analytical Biochemistry
,
232
,
243
248
.
doi:10.1006/abio.1995.0014
.
Fujita
M.
&
Hasanuzzaman
M.
(
2022
)
Approaches to enhancing antioxidant defense in plants
,
Antioxidants
,
11
,
925
.
doi:10.3390/antiox11050925
.
Guan
H.
,
Wittenberg
K. M.
,
Ominski
K. H.
&
Krause
D. O.
(
2006
)
Efficacy of ionophores in cattle diets for mitigation of enteric methane
,
Journal of Animal Science
,
84
,
1896
1906
.
doi:10.2527/jas.2005-652
.
Hallegraeff
G. M.
(
1993
)
A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global increase
,
Phycologia
,
32
,
79
99
.
doi:10.2216/i0031-8884-32-2-79.1
.
Hansen
M.
,
Krogh
K. A.
,
Björklund
E.
,
Halling-Sørensen
B.
&
Brandt
A.
(
2009
)
Environmental risk assessment of ionophores
,
Trends in Analytical Chemistry
,
28
,
534
542
.
doi:10.1016/j.trac.2009.02.015
.
Harke
M. J.
,
Steffen
M. M.
,
Gobler
C. J.
,
Otten
T. G.
,
Wilhelm
S. W.
,
Wood
S. A.
&
Paerl
H. W.
(
2016
)
A review of the global ecology, genomics, and biogeography of the toxic cyanobacterium, Microcystis spp
,
Harmful Algae
,
54
,
4
20
.
doi:10.1016/j.hal.2015.12.007
.
Herrero
M.
,
Henderson
B.
,
Havlík
P.
,
Thornton
P. K.
,
Conant
R. T.
,
Smith
P.
,
Wirsenius
S.
,
Hristov
A. N.
,
Gerber
P.
,
Gill
M.
,
Butterbach-Bahl
K.
,
Valin
H.
,
Garnett
T.
&
Stehfest
E.
(
2016
)
Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector
,
Nature Climate Change
.
doi:10.1038/nclimate2925
.
Hersom
M.
&
Thrift
T.
(
2018
)
Application of Ionophores in Cattle Diets. UF IFAS Extension AN 285
.
Hillis
D. G.
,
Lissemore
L.
,
Sibley
P. K.
&
Solomon
K. R.
(
2007
)
Effects of monensin on zooplankton communities in aquatic microcosms
,
Environmental Science & Technology
,
41
,
6620
6626
.
doi:10.1021/es070799f
.
Houlihan
A. J.
&
Russell
J. B.
(
2003
)
The susceptibility of ionophore-resistant Clostridium aminophilum F to other antibiotics
,
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
,
52
,
623
628
.
doi:10.1093/jac/dkg398
.
ISO 10260
. (
1992
)
(en) Water quality – Measurement of biochemical parameters – Spectrometric determination of the chlorophyll-a concentration
.
Kling
H. J.
,
Watson
S. B.
,
Mccullough
G. K.
&
Stainton
M. P.
(
2011
)
Bloom development and phytoplankton succession in lake Winnipeg: A comparison of historical records with recent data
,
Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management
,
14
,
219
224
.
doi:10.1080/14634988.2011.577722
.
Koptsik
G. N.
,
Sokolova
T. A.
,
Makarov
M. I.
,
Dronova
Y.
&
Tolpeshta
I. I.
(
2003
)
Degradation of soil caused by acid rain
,
Eurasian Soil Science
,
36
(
supp. 1
),
S43
S58
.
Lichtenthaler
K. H.
(
1987
)
Chlorophyll and carotenoids; pigments of photosynthetic bio membranes
. In:
Methods in Enzymology
, Vol.
148
.
doi:10.1016/0076-6879(87)48036-1
.
Lutz
W. K.
,
Wipf
H.-K.
&
Simon
W.
(
1970
)
Alkali cation specificity and carrier properties of the antibiotics nigericin and monensin
,
Helvetica Chimica Acta.
,
53
,
1741
1746
.
doi:10.1002/hlca.19700530723
.
Meliton
N. N.
(
2012
)
Ionophores
. In:
Veterinary Toxicology
.
Elsevier
, p.
1281
.
Miller
A. G.
,
Turpin
D. H.
&
Canvin
D. T.
(
1984
)
Na+ requirement for growth, photosynthesis, and pH regulation in the alkalotolerant cyanobacterium Synechococcus leopoliensis
,
Journal of Bacteriology
,
159
(
1
),
100
106
.
doi:10.1128/jb.159.1.100-106.1984
.
Novilla
M. N.
,
McClary
D.
&
Laudert
S. B.
(
2017
)
Ionophores
. In:
Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology
.
Elsevier
, pp.
53
518
.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804239-7.00029-9
.
Oginni
G.
,
Dzakpasu
L.
,
Babu
W.
&
Ezekiel
A.
(
2021
)
Relative effects of varying light conditions on the growth of toxic and non-toxic strains of Microcystis aeruginosa
,
Journal of Environmental Protection
,
12
,
1161
1173
.
doi:10.4236/jep.2021.1212068
.
Paerl
H. W.
&
Paul
V. J.
(
2012
)
Climate change: Links to global expansion of harmful cyanobacteria
,
Water Research
,
46
,
1349
1363
.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.002
.
Palangi
V.
&
Lackner
M.
(
2022
)
Management of enteric methane emissions in ruminants using feed additives: A review
,
Animals
,
12
(
24
),
3452
.
doi:10.3390/ani12243452
.
Patterson
B. D.
,
Iviacrae
E. A.
&
Fergusont
A. B.
(
1984
)
Estimation of hydrogen peroxide in plant extracts using titanium(W)
,
Analytical Biochemistry
,
139
,
487
492
.
doi:10.1016/0003-2697(84)90039-3
.
Pérez
D. J.
,
Okada
E.
,
Iturburu
F. G.
,
De Gerónimo
E.
,
Cantón
G.
,
Aparicio
V. C.
,
Costa
J. L.
&
Menone
M. L.
(
2021
)
Monensin occurrence in surface water and its impact on aquatic biota in a stream of the southeast Pampas, Argentina
,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
,
28
,
8530
8538
.
doi:10.1007/s11356-020-11009-2
.
Pressman
B. C.
(
1976
)
Biological applications of ionophores
,
Annual Review of Biochemistry
,
45
,
501
530
.
doi:10.1146/annurev.bi.45.070176.002441
.
Russell
J. B.
&
Strobel
H. J.
(
1989
)
Minireview effect of ionophores on ruminal fermentation
,
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
,
55
(
1
),
1
6
.
doi:10.1128/aem.55.1.1-6.1989
.
Rychen
G.
,
Aquilina
G.
,
Azimonti
G.
,
Bampidis
V.
,
de Lourdes Bastos
M.
,
Bories
G.
,
Chesson
A.
,
Cocconcelli
P. S.
,
Flachowsky
G.
,
Kolar
B.
,
Kouba
M.
,
Puente
S. L.
,
López-Alonso
M.
,
Mayo
B.
,
Ramos
F.
,
Saarela
M.
,
Villa
R. E.
,
Wallace
R. J.
,
Wester
P.
,
Brantom
P.
,
Halle
I.
,
van Beelen
P.
,
Holczknecht
O.
,
Vettori
M. V.
&
Gropp
J.
(
2017
)
Safety and efficacy of Sacox® microGranulate (salinomycin sodium) for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying
,
EFSA Journal
,
15
.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4670
.
Sakakibara
J.
,
Nakamura
A.
,
Nagai
S.-I.
,
Ueda
T.
&
Ishidab
T.
(
1988
)
Studies on the chemical modification of monensin.I. Synthesis and crystal structures of NaBr complexes of monensylamino acids
,
Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin
,
36
(
12
),
4776
4747
.
doi:10.1248/cpb.36.4776
.
Sandeaux
R.
,
Sandeaux
J.
,
Gavach
C.
&
Brun
B.
(
1982
)
Transport of Na+ by monensin across bimolecular lipid membranes
,
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. Biomembranes
,
684
(
1
),
127
132
.
doi:10.1016/0005-2736(82)90056-6
.
Sandoz
M. A.
,
Wooten
K. J.
,
Clendening
S. L.
,
Hensley
L. L.
,
Smith
L. R.
&
Smith
P. N.
(
2018
)
Transport mechanisms for veterinary pharmaceuticals from beef cattle feedyards to wetlands: Is aerial deposition a contributing source?
,
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
,
252
,
14
21
.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.016
.
Sassman
S. A.
&
Lee
L. S.
(
2007
)
Sorption and degradation in soils of veterinary ionophore antibiotics: Monensin and lasalocid
,
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
,
26
(
8
),
1614
1621
.
doi:10.1897/07-073r.1
.
Singh
S. P.
&
Montgomery
B. L.
(
2011
)
Determining cell shape: Adaptive regulation of cyanobacterial cellular differentiation and morphology
,
Trends in Microbiology
,
19
(
6
), 278–285.
doi:10.1016/j.tim.2011.03.001
.
Sun
K.
,
Liu
H.
,
Fan
H.
,
Liu
T.
&
Zheng
C.
(
2021
)
Research progress on the application of feed additives in ruminal methane emission reduction: A review
,
PeerJ
9
,
e1115
.
doi:10.7717/peerj.11151
.
Tseten
T.
,
Sanjorjo
R. A.
,
Kwon
M.
&
Kim
S. W.
(
2022
)
Strategies to mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminant animals
,
Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
,
32
,
269
277
.
doi:10.4014/jmb.2202.02019
.
Watanabe
N.
,
Harter
T. H.
&
Bergamaschi
B. A.
(
2008
)
Environmental occurrence and shallow ground water detection of the antibiotic monensin from dairy farms
,
Journal of Environmental Quality
,
37
(
S5
),
S-78
.
doi:10.2134/jeq2007.0371
.
Watson
S. B.
&
Molot
L.
(
2013
)
Harmful Algal Blooms
. In:
Encyclopedia of Aquatic Ecotoxicology
,
Springer
, pp.
575
596
. .
William
P. W.
,
Normand
R. S.
&
Lynn
B. W.
(
2007
). ‘
Factors Affecting Manure Output on Dairy Farms
’,
Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference
.
Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
.
Winkworth
C. L.
,
Salis
R. K.
&
Matthaei
C. D.
(
2015
)
Interactive multiple-stressor effects of the antibiotic monensin, cattle effluent and light on stream periphyton
,
Freshwater Biology
,
60
,
2410
2423
.
doi:10.1111/fwb.12666
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Supplementary data