Endosulfan Effects on Rana dalmatina Tadpoles: Quantitative Developmental and Behavioural Analysis

  • Manuela Lavorato
  • Ilaria Bernabò
  • Antonio Crescente
  • Mathieu Denoël
  • Sandro Tripepi
  • Elvira Brunelli
Article

Abstract

Endosulfan is an organochlorine pesticide that was recently labeled as a persistent organic pollutant, but it is still widely employed, particularly in developing countries. The goal of this study is to evaluate the acute (LC50) and chronic effects (developmental and behavioural traits) of this insecticide on Rana dalmatina tadpoles after exposure to ecologically relevant concentrations (0.005, 0.01, and 0.05 mg/L) by applying video-tracking techniques to evaluate the quantitative effect of endosulfan on amphibian behavioural patterns. The 96 h LC50 value was 0.074 mg endosulfan/L. Tadpoles chronically exposed to 0.01 and 0.05 mg endosulfan/L underwent high mortality rate, decreased larval growth, delayed development, and increased incidence of malformations, and they did not reach metamorphosis by the end of the experiment. Moreover, tadpoles exposed to these concentrations exhibited several abnormalities in swimming patterns, such as shorter distance moved, swirling, resting, and unusual use of space. The exposure to 0.005 mg endosulfan/L did not cause any significant effects on behaviour, larval growth, or development, but we observed a significant decrease in both survival and time to metamorphosis. We showed that developmental abnormalities are dose-dependent and that the pesticide effects could differ depending on the endosulfan concentration and the species tested. We also validated the hypothesis that behavioural analysis, along with the use of new analytical methods, could be a useful tool in amphibian ecotoxicological studies.

References

  1. Altwegg R, Reyer HU (2003) Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogs. Evolution 57:872–882Google Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing and Materials (1997) Standard practice for conducting acute toxicity tests with fishes, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. American Society for Testing and Materials Standards, Philadelphia, pp E729–E790Google Scholar
  3. Ballesteros ML, Durando PE, Nores ML, Díaz MP, Bistoni MA, Wunderlin DA (2009) Endosulfan induces changes in spontaneous swimming activity and acetylcholinesterase activity of Jenynsia multidentata (Anablepidae, Cyprinodontiformes). Environ Pollut 157:1573–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernabò I, Brunelli E, Berg C, Bonacci A, Tripepi S (2008) Endosulfan acute toxicity in Bufo bufo gills: ultrastructural changes and nitric oxide synthase localization. Aquat Toxicol 86:447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernabò I, Gallo L, Sperone E, Tripepi S, Brunelli E (2011a) Survival, development, and gonadal differentiation in Rana dalmatina chronically exposed to chlorpyrifos. J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol 315:314–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernabò I, Sperone E, Tripepi S, Brunelli E (2011b) Toxicity of chlorpyrifos to larval Rana dalmatina: acute and chronic effects on survival, development, growth and gill apparatus. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 61:704–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berrill M, Coulson D, McGillivray L, Pauli B (1998) Toxicity of endosulfan to aquatic stages of anuran amphibians. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1738–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyger L, Orrego R, Guchardi J, Holdway D (2012) The acute and chronic effects of endosulfan pulse-exposure on Jordanella floridae (Florida flagfish) over one complete life-cycle. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 76:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boone MD, Semlitsch RD (2002) Interactions of an insecticide with competition and pond drying in amphibian communities. Ecol Appl 12:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bridges CM (2000) Long-term effects of pesticide exposure at various life stages of the Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bridges CM, Semlitsch RD (2000) Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among and within species of Ranidae and patterns of amphibian decline. Conserv Biol 14:1490–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broomhall S (2002) The effects of endosulfan and variable water temperature on survivorship and subsequent vulnerability to predation in Litoria citropa tadpoles. Aquat Toxicol 61:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broomhall S (2004) Egg temperature modifies predator avoidance and the effects of the insecticide endosulfan on tadpoles of an Australian frog. J Appl Ecol 41:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Broomhall SD (2005) Measuring chemicals impacts on amphibians: ecotoxicity and behavioural data in governmental regulation. Appl Herpetol 2:259–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Broomhall S, Shine R (2003) Effects of the insecticide endosulfan and presence of congeneric tadpoles on Australian treefrog (Litoria freycineti) tadpoles. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 45:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brunelli E, Bernabo I, Berg C, Lundstedt-Enkel K, Bonacci A, Tripepsi S (2009) Environmentally relevant concentrations of endosulfan impair development, metamorphosis and behaviour in Bufo bufo tadpoles. Aquat Toxicol 91:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brunelli E, Bernabo I, Sperone E, Tripepi S (2010) Gill alterations as biomarkers of chronic exposure to endosulfan in Bufo bufo tadpoles. Histol Histopathol 25:1519–1529Google Scholar
  18. Carriger JF, Rand GM (2008) Aquatic risk assessment of pesticides in surface waters in and adjacent to the Everglades and Biscayne National Parks: I. Hazard assessment and problem formulation. Ecotoxicology 17:660–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalvie MA, Cairncross E, Solomon A, London L (2003) Contamination of rural surface and groundwater by endosulfan in farming areas of the Western Cape, South Africa. Environ Health 2:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denoël M, Bichot M, Ficetola GF, Delcourt J, Ylieff MY, Kestemont P et al (2010) Cumulative effects of a road de-icing salt on amphibian behavior. Aquat Toxicol 99:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Denoël M, D’Hooghe B, Ficetola GF, Brasseur C, De Pauw E, Thomé JP et al (2012) Using sets of behavioral biomarkers to assess short-term effects of pesticide: a study case with endosulfan on frog tadpoles. Ecotoxicology 21:1240–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eddins D, Cerutti D, Williams P, Linney E, Levin ED (2010) Zebrafish provide a sensitive model of persisting neurobehavioral effects of developmental chlorpyrifos exposure: comparison with nicotine and pilocarpine effects and relationship to dopamine deficits. Neurotoxicol Teratol 32:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ernst WR, Doe JK, Julien G, Hennigar P (1991) Toxicity to aquatic organisms of off-target deposition of endosulfan applied by aircraft. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ezemonye L, Tongo I (2010a) Acute toxic effects of endosulfan and diazinon pesticides on adult amphibians (Bufo regularis). J Environ Chem Ecotoxicol 2:73–78Google Scholar
  25. Ezemonye L, Tongo I (2010b) Sublethal effects of endosulfan and diazinon pesticides on glutathione-S-transferase (GST) in various tissues of adult amphibians (Bufo regularis). Chemosphere 81:214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ezemonye L, Ikpesu TO, Tongo I (2009) Distribution of endosulfan in water, sediment and fish from Warri river, Niger delta, Nigeria. Afr J Ecol 48:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis, vol 3. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 668Google Scholar
  28. Gopal K, Khanna RN, Anand M, Gupta GSD (1981) The acute toxicity of endosulfan to freshwater organism. Toxicol Lett 7:453–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetetology 16:183–190Google Scholar
  30. Greulich K, Pflugmacher S (2003) Differences in susceptibility of various life stages of amphibians to pesticide exposure. Aquat Toxicol 65:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harris ML (2000) Species- and age-related differences in susceptibility to pesticide exposure for two amphibians, Rana pipiens, and Bufo americanus. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 64:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horat P, Semlitsch RD (1994) Effects of predation risk and hunger on the behaviour of two species of tadpoles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:393–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2003) The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1078–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, Schmidt BR, Meyer AH, Kuzmin SL (2000) Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population decline. Nature 404:752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hourdry J, Hermite A, Ferrand R (1996) Changes in the digestive tract and feeding behavior of anuran amphibians during metamorphosis. Physiol Zool 69:219–251Google Scholar
  36. Jones DK, Hammond JI, Relyea RA (2009) Very highly toxic effects of endosulfan across nine species of tadpole: lag effects and family level selectivity. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:1939–1945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jung RE, Jagoe CH (1995) Effects of low pH and aluminum on body size, swimming performance, and susceptibility to predation of green frog (Hyla cinerea) tadpoles. Can J Zool 73:2171–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kang HS, Gye MC, Kim MK (2008) Effects of endosulfan on survival and development of Bombina orientalis (Boulenger) embryos. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 81:262–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kavitha P, Venkateswara Rao J (2008) Toxic effects of chlorpyrifos on antioxidant enzymes and target enzyme acetylcholinesterase interaction in mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis. Environ Toxicol Pharm 26:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mann RM, Hyne RV, Choung CB, Wilson SP (2009) Amphibians and agricultural chemicals: review of the risks in a complex environment. Environ Pollut 157:2903–2927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Noldus LPJJ, Spink AJ, Tegelenbosch RAJ (2001) EthoVision: a versatile video tracking system for automation of behavioral experiments. Behav Res Methods 33:398–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Noldus LPJJ, Spink AJ, Tegelenbosch RAJ (2002) Computerised video tracking, movement analysis and behaviour recognition in insects. Comput Electron Agric 35:201–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peltzer PM, Lajmanovich RC, Sanchez-Hernandez JC, Cabagna MC, Attademo AM, Bassò A (2008) Effects of agricultural pond eutrophication on survival and health status of Scinax nasicus tadpoles. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 70:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pollet I, Bendell-Young LI (2000) Amphibians as indicators of wetland quality in wetlands formed from oil sands effluent. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2589–2597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rabiet M, Margoum C, Gouy V, Carluer N, Coquery M (2010) Assessing pesticide concentrations and fluxes in the stream of a small vineyard catchment—effect of sampling frequency. Environ Pollut 158:737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rao JV, Begum G, Pallela R, Usman PK, Rao RN (2005) Changes in behavior and brain acetylcholinesterase activity in mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis in response to the sub-lethal exposure to chlorpyrifos. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2:478–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Relyea RA, Hoverman JT (2006) Assessing the ecology in ecotoxicology: a review and synthesis in freshwater systems. Ecol Lett 9:1157–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rohr JR, Elskus AA, Shepherd BS, Crowley PH, McCarthy TM, Niedzwiecki JH et al (2003) Lethal and sublethal effects of atrazine, carbaryl, endosulfan, and octylphenol on the streamside salamander, Ambystoma barbouri. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:2385–2392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Semlitsch RD, Scott DE, Pechmann JHK (1988) Time and size at metamorphosis related to adult fitness in Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 69:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith DC (1987) Adult recruitment in chorus frogs: effects of size and date at metamorphosis. Ecology 68:344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sparling DW, Fellers GM (2009) Toxicity of two insecticides to California, USA, anurans and its relevance to declining amphibian populations. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:1696–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Srivastava N, Harit G, Srivastava R (2009) A study of physico-chemical characteristics of lakes around Jaipur, India. J Environ Biol 30:889–894Google Scholar
  53. Stanley KA, Curtis LR, Simonich SLM, Tanguay RL (2009) Endosulfan I and endosulfan sulfate disrupts zebrafish embryonic development. Aquat Toxicol 95:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor B, Skelly D, Demarchis LK, Slade MD, Galusha D, Rabinowitz PM (2005) Proximity to pollution sources and risk of amphibian limb malformation. Environ Health Perspect 113:1497–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. United Nations (2011) Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants. Adoption of an amendment to Annex A. UN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Endosulfan: 2010 environmental fate and ecological risk assessment. USEPA, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Vardia HK, Rao PS, Durve VS (1984) Sensitivity of toad larvae to 2,4-D and endosulfan pesticides. Arch Hydrobiol 100:395–400Google Scholar
  58. Venturino A, Rosenbaum E, Caballero de Castro A (2003) Biomarkers of effect in toads and frogs. Biomarkers 8:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winandy L, Denoël M (2011) The use of visual and automatized behavioral markers to assess methodologies: a study case on PIT-tagging in the alpine newt. Behav Res Methods 43:568–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuela Lavorato
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ilaria Bernabò
    • 1
  • Antonio Crescente
    • 1
  • Mathieu Denoël
    • 2
  • Sandro Tripepi
    • 1
  • Elvira Brunelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EcologyUniversity of CalabriaRendeItaly
  2. 2.Laboratory of Fish and Amphibian Ethology, Behavioural Biology Unit, Department of Biology, Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of LiègeLiegeBelgium

Personalised recommendations