Advertisement

Monensin Is Not Toxic to Aquatic Macrophytes at Environmentally Relevant Concentrations

  • Erin B. McGregor
  • K. R. Solomon
  • M. L. HansonEmail author
Article

Abstract

Monensin, a common livestock feed additive, has been detected in surface waters around areas of intensive agriculture. The effect of this ionophore antibiotic on floating (Lemna gibba) and submersed (Myriophyllum spicatum, Elodea canadensis, Egeria densa) freshwater macrophytes was investigated under seminatural field conditions using 12,000 l of outdoor microcosms. Exposure concentrations of 0, 12, 25, 50, and 100 μg/l (n = 3) were evaluated over a 35-day period. Submersed plants were grown individually in 115-ml plastic “cone-tainers” and assessed for various growth and pigment end points. E. canadensis and M. spicatum also were grown in assemblages to represent model populations and two-species communities. Few statistically significant differences from control organisms were observed for any of the monitored end points. Overall, monensin is deemed unlikely to cause toxicity in freshwater macrophytes at current environmental concentrations. However, the ability to characterize toxicity in macrophytes is based partially on the relative growth rates (RGRs) of the plants. The greater the RGR, the more sensitive the assay may be to contaminants. The RGRs of E. canadensis and M. spicatum grown in model populations and communities were found to be significantly higher than the RGRs of plants grown individually. This implies that the “cone-tainer” method, although simple and easy to perform, may underestimate toxicity in simulated field studies.

Keywords

Macrophyte Relative Growth Rate Aquatic Macrophyte Monensin Hazard Quotient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Craig DeVito, Jason Miller and Mike Carl for their help in the field and Tamara Reitsma, Amanda Warne, Linda Lissemore, and Richard Brain for experimental assistance. This research was funded by the University of Manitoba.

References

  1. Abernethy VJ, Sabbatini MR, Murphy KJ (1996) Response of Eldoea canadensis Michx.and Myriophyllum spicatum L. to shade, cutting, and competition in experimental culture. Hydiobiologia 340:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agami M, Reddy KR (1990) Competition for space between Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms and Pistia stratiotes L. cultured in nutrient-enriched water. Aquat Bot 38:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agami M, Waisel Y (2002) Competitive relationships between two water plant species: Najas marina L. and Myriophyllum spicatum L. Hydrobiologia 482:197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1999a) Standard guide for conducting static, axenic, 14-day phytotoxicity tests in test tubes with the submersed aquatic macrophyte, Myriophyllum sibiricum Komarov. E 1913-04. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.05. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp 1434–1448Google Scholar
  5. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1999b) Guide for coducting static toxicity tests with Lemna gibba G3. E 1415–91. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Section, Vol 11.05. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp 784–793Google Scholar
  6. Boxall ABA, Kolpin DW, Halling-Sorenson B, Tolls J (2003) Are veterinary medicines causing environmental risks? Environ Sci Technol 37:286A–294ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brain RA, Johnson DJ, Richards M, Sanderson H, Sibley PK, Solomon KR (2004) Effects of 25 pharmaceutical compounds to Lemna gibba using a seven-day static-renewal test. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calow P, Forbes V (2003) Does ecotoxicology inform ecological risk assessment? Environ Sci Technol 37:147A–151ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson JC, Mabury SA (2006) Dissipation kinetics and mobility of chlortetracycline, tylosin, and monensin in an agricultural soil in Northhumberland County, Ontario, Canada. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cedergreen N, Streibig JC, Spliid NH (2004) Sensitivity of aquatic plants to the herbicide metsulfuron-methyl. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christian T, Schneider RJ, Farber HA, Skutlarek D, Meyer MT, Goldbach HE (2003) Determination of antibiotic residues in manure, soil, and surface waters. Acta Hydroch Hydrob 31:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daughton CG, Ternes TA (1999) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle change? Environ Health Perspect 107:907–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidonis G (1993) Cotton fiber growth and development in vitro: effects of tunicamycin and monensin. Plant Science 88:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies J, Honegger JL, Tencalla FG, Meregalli G, Brain P, Newman JR, Pitchford HF (2003) Herbicide risk assessment for nontarget aquatic plants: sulfosulfuron: a case study. Pest Manage Sci 59:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Wit CT (1960) On competition. Versl Landbouwk Onderz 66:1–82Google Scholar
  16. Donoho A, Manthey J, Occolowitz J, Zornes L (1978) Metabolism of monensin in the steer and rat. Ag Food Chem 26:1090–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donoho AL (1984) Biochemical studies on the fate of monensin in animals and in the environment. J Animal Sci 58:1528–1539Google Scholar
  18. Driever SM, van Nes EH, Roijackers RMM (2005) Growth limitation of Lemna minor due to high plant density. Aquat Bot 81:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elanco Products (1989) Environmental assessment for the use of rumensin premixes in the feed of beef cattle for the prevention and control of coccidiosis. NADA 095-735. Technical report. Indianapolis, IN, USA, pp 1–81Google Scholar
  20. Forbes VE, Calow P (1999) Is the per capitia rate of increase a good measure of population-level effects in ecotoxicology? Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1544–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halling-Sorenson B, Nors Nielson S, Lanzky PF, Ingersley F, Holten Lutzhoft HC, Jorgensen SE (1998) Occurrence, fate, and effects of pharmaceutical substances in the environment: a review. Chemosphere 36:357–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanson ML, Knapp CW, Graham DW (2006) Field assessment of oxytetracycline exposure to the freshwater macrophytes Egeria densa Planch. and Ceratophyllum demersum L. Environ Pollut 141:434–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanson ML, Sibley PK, Solomon KR, Mabury SA, Muir DCG (2001) Chlorodifluoroacetic acid (CDFA) fate and toxicity to the macrophytes Lemna gibba, Myriophyllum spicatum, and Myriophyllum sibiricum in aquatic microcosms. Environ Sci Technol (accepted)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hao CY, Lissemore L, Nguyen B, Kleywegt S, Yang P, Solomon KR (2006) Determination of pharmaceuticals in environmental waters by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 384:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herber RJ, Van Duyn RL (1969) Excretion and tissue distribution studies in chickens fed H3 monensin (Na salt). J Agric Food Chem 17:853–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herberg R, Manthey J, Richardson L, Cooley C, Donoho A (1978) Excretion and tissue distribution of [14C]monensin in cattle. J Agric Food Chem 26:1087–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillis DG, Lissemore L, Sibley PK, Solomon KR (2007) Effects of monensin on zooplankton: communities in aquatic microcosms. Environ Sci Technol (accepted)Google Scholar
  28. Hoagland RE (1996) Herbicidal properties of the antibiotic monensin. J Sci Food Ag 70:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huebert DB, Shay JM (1993) Considerations in the assessments of toxicity using duckweeds. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:481–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hunt R (1990) Basic growth analysis. Unwin Hyman Ltd., London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim SC, Carlson K (2006) Occurrence of ionophore antibiotics in water and sediments of a mixed-landscape watershed. Water Res 40:2549–2560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD, Barber LB, Buxton HT (2002) Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999–2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Technol 36:1202–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kramarz P, Zwolak M, Laskowski R (2005) Effect of interaction between density dependence and toxicant exposure on population growth rate of the potworm Enchytraeus doerjesi. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:537–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lillie RA, Budd J, Rasmussen PW (1997) Spatial and temporal variability in biomass density of Myriophyllum spicatum L. in a northern temperate lake. Hydrobiologia 347:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lissemore L (2005) Pharmaceuticals in the environment: detection, distribution, exposure and risk. Thesis. University of Guelph, Department of Environmental Biology, Guelph, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Lissemore L, Hao C, Yang P, Sibley PK, Mabury S, Solomon KR (2006) An exposure assessment for selected pharmaceuticals within a watershed in Southern Ontario. Chemosphere 64:717–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin MPLD, Snaydon RW (1982) Analysis of competition experiments. J Appl Ecol 19:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marwood CA, Solomon KR, Greenberg BM (2001) Chlorophyll fluorescence as a bioindicator of effects on growth in aquatic macrophytes from mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:890–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mollenhauer HH, Morre DJ, Droleskey RE (1986) Monensin inhibition of growth of ryegrass seedlings. Bot Gaz 147:432–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pressman BC (1976) Biological applications of ionophores. Ann Rev Biochem 45:501–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pressman BC, Fahim M (1982) Pharmacology and toxicology of the monovalent carboxylic ionophores. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 22:465–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Preston BL (2004) Indirect effects in aquatic ecotoxicology: implications for ecological risk assessment. Environ Manage 29:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Raimondo S, McKenney Jr CL (2006) From organisms to populations: modeling aquatic toxicity data across two levels of biological organization. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:589–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson SD (2003) Water analysis: emerging contaminants and current issues. Anal Chem 75:2831–2857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sassman SA, Lee LS (2007) Sorption and degradation in soil of veterinary ionophore antibiotics: monensin and lasalocid. Environ Toxicol Chem 26 (in press)Google Scholar
  46. Sibly RM, Williams TD, Jones MB (2000) How environmental stress affects density dependence and carrying capacity in marine copepod. J Appl Ecol 37:388–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simkiss K, Daniels S, Smith RH (1993) Effects of population density and cadmium toxicity on growth and survival of blowflies. Environ Pollut 81:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solomon KR, Smith KE, Stephenson GL (1982) Depth integrating samplers for use in limnocorrals. Hydrobiologia 94:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spencer DF, Ksander GG (2005) Root size and depth distribution for three species of submersed aquatic plants grown alone or in mixtures: evidence for nutrient competition. J Freshwater Ecol 20:109–116Google Scholar
  50. Spinosa HDS, Nicolau AA, Maruo VM, Bernardi MM (1999) Effects of monensin feeding during development on female rats and their offspring. Neurotox Teratol 21:467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stanley RA (1974) Toxicity of heavy metals and salts to Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2:331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stephenson GL, Koper N, Atkinson GF, Solomon KR, Scroggins RP (2000) Use of nonlinear regression techniques for describing concentration-response relationships of plant species exposed to contaminated site soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2968–2981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suter GW II (1995) Introduction to ecological risk assessment for aquatic toxic effects. In: Rand GM (ed) Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology, effects, environmental fate, and risk assessment. 2nd ed. Taylor and Francis, Bristol, PA, USA. pp 803–816Google Scholar
  54. Valley RD, Newman RM (1998) Competitive interactions between Eurasian watermilfoil and northern watermilfoil in experimental tanks. J Aquat Plant Manage 36:121–126Google Scholar
  55. Wang L-W, Showalter AM, Ungar IW (2005) Effects of intraspecific competition on growth and photosynthesis of Atriplex prostrate. Aquat Bot 83:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watkins CH, Hammerschlag RS (1984) The toxicity of chlorine to a common vascular aquatic plant. Water Res 18:1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu Z, Yu D (2004) The effects of competition on growth and biomass allocation in Nymphoides peltata (Gmel.) O. Kuntze growing in microcosm. Hydrobiologia 527:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin B. McGregor
    • 1
  • K. R. Solomon
    • 2
  • M. L. Hanson
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Environment and GeographyUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of Environmental BiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations