Effects of Dispersant and Oil on Survival and Swimming Activity in a Marine Copepod
- 775 Downloads
Knowledge of lethal and sublethal effects of crude oil and dispersants on mesozooplankton are important to understanding ecosystem impacts of oil spills in marine environments. Here we (1) establish median lethal concentrations for water accommodated fractions of Corexit EC9500A dispersant, MC-252 crude oil (WAF), and dispersed crude oil (CEWAF) for the coastal copepod Labidocera aestiva, and (2) assess acute effects on L. aestiva swimming activity. Mortality assays with L. aestiva support that copepods are more sensitive than other zooplankton taxa to dispersant toxicity, while WAF and CEWAF are generally similar in their toxicity to this copepod species and other zooplankton. Acute effects on L. aestiva activity included impaired swimming upon WAF and CEWAF exposure. These results highlight that copepods are particularly sensitive to dispersant exposure, with acute effects on survival most evident with dispersant alone, and on swimming behavior when dispersant is mixed with crude oil.
KeywordsCorexit EC9500A Water accommodated fraction Chemically-enhanced water accommodated fraction Labidocera aestiva
- Aurand D, Coelho G (2005) Cooperative aquatic toxicity testing of dispersed oil and the “chemical response to oil spills: ecological effects research forum (CROSERF).” Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc. Lusby, MD. Tech. Report 07–03Google Scholar
- Haddad R, Murawski S (2010) Analysis of hydrocarbons in samples provided from the cruise of the R/V Weatherbird II(May). Silver Spring, MD: NOAAGoogle Scholar
- Mitra S, Kimmel DG, Snyder J, Scalise K, McGlaughon BD, Roman MR, Jahn GL, Pierson JJ, Brandt SB, Montoya JP, Rosenbauer RJ, Lorenson TD, Wong FL, Campbell PL (2012) Macondo-1 well oil-derived polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mesozooplankton from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Geophys Res Lett 39:L01605Google Scholar
- Smith NF, Cohen JH (2012) Comparative photobehavior of marine cercariae with differing secondary host preferences. Biol Bull 222:74–83Google Scholar