Advertisement

Comparisons Between Laboratory Sediment Toxicity Test Results and Assessment of Benthic Community Changes for a Lake with Mild Metal Contamination

  • Andrew Y. Oguma
  • Paul L. KlerksEmail author
Article

Abstract

Effects of moderate-to-severe sediment contamination may be readily discernable in both sediment toxicity bioassays and benthic community assessments. However, the impact may be less obvious under conditions of relatively mild contamination and significant variation of natural environmental variables. This study evaluated sediment toxicity and benthic community impacts for a shallow eutrophic lake system with relatively low levels of sediment metal contamination. We evaluated selected sediment physical and chemical properties, as well as benthic community structure, for 50 sites along a sediment Pb contamination gradient in the lake. We tested the toxicity of sediment from 20 of the sites, using a standardized 42-days sediment bioassay with Hyalella azteca survival, reproduction, and growth endpoints. Using principal component and correlation analyses we found negative relationships for both Pb and Cu, between sediment metal concentrations and the diversity and abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates. Taxa known to be metal-sensitive (e.g., Hyalella sp. and Physa sp.) were less abundant at sites with relatively higher Pb and Cu concentrations. However, amphipod performance in the chronic toxicity test was not related to sediment Pb or Cu concentrations (but was influenced by sediment organic content). Our results demonstrate that an assessment of community-level effects may be warranted even when sediment metal concentrations are too low to elicit detectable toxic effects in standardized laboratory tests.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Ecology Center and the Graduate Student Organization of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette for funding. Thanks to Amber Oguma, Marvin “Trey” Mace III, Courtney Curtis, and Stephen “Mitch” Wagener for assistance in field work, benthic sample sorting, and identifications. Thanks to Paul Leberg for advice on statistical analyses.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

244_2019_692_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
244_2019_692_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)
244_2019_692_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 15 kb)
244_2019_692_MOESM4_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. Allert AL, DiStefano RJ, Fairchild JF, Schmitt CJ, McKee MJ, Girondo JA, Brumbaugh WG, May TW (2013) Effects of historical lead–zinc mining on riffle-dwelling benthic fish and crayfish in the Big River of southeastern Missouri, USA. Ecotoxicology 22:506–521.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-013-1043-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artigas J, Arts G, Babut M, Caracciolo AB, Charles S, Chaumot A, Combourieu B, Dahllöf I, Despréaux D, Ferrari B, Friberg N, Garric J, Geffard O, Gourlay-Francé C, Hein M, Hjorth M, Krauss M, De Lange HJ, Lahr J, Lehtonen KK, Lettieri T, Liess M, Lofts S, Mayer P, Morin S, Paschke A, Svendsen C, Usseglio-Polatera P, van den Brink N, Vindimian E, Williams R (2012) Towards a renewed research agenda in ecotoxicology. Environ Pollut 160:201–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beketov MA, Liess M (2012) Ecotoxicology and macroecology - time for integration. Environ Pollut 162:247–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgmann U, Norwood WP (1999) Assessing the toxicity of lead in sediments to Hyalella azteca: the significance of bioaccumulation and dissolved metal. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:1494–1503Google Scholar
  5. Borgmann U, Norwood WP, Reynoldson TB, Rosa F (2001) Identifying cause in sediment assessments: bioavailability and the Sediment Quality Triad. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:950–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Box GEP, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc B Methodol 26:211–252Google Scholar
  7. Burton GA (2013) Assessing sediment toxicity: past, present, and future. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:1438–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements WH, Carlisle DM, Lazorchak JM, Johnson PC (2000) Heavy metals structure benthic communities in Colorado mountain streams. Ecol Appl 10:626–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Lange HJ, De Haas EM, Maas H, Peeters ETHM (2005) Contaminated sediments and bioassay responses of three macroinvertebrates, the midge larva Chironomus riparius, the water louse Asellus aquaticus and the mayfly nymph Ephoron virgo. Chemosphere 61:1700–1709.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.03.083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feio MJ, Reynoldson TB, Graça MAS (2006) The influence of taxonomic level on the performance of a predictive model for water quality assessment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:367–376.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Field LJ, Norton SB (2014) Regional models for sediment toxicity assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:708–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hesslein R, Broecker W, Schindler D (1980) Fates of metal radiotracers added to a whole lake: sediment-water interactions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Höss S, Ahlf W, Fahnenstich C, Gilberg D, Hollert H, Melbye K, Meller M, Hammers-Wirtz M, Heininger P, Neumann-Hensel H, Ottermanns R, Ratte HT, Seiler TB, Spira D, Weber J, Feiler U (2010) Variability of sediment-contact tests in freshwater sediments with low-level anthropogenic contamination—determination of toxicity thresholds. Environ Pollut 158:2999–3010.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingersoll CG, Wang N, Hayward JMR, Jones JR, Jones SB, Ireland DS (2005) A field assessment of long-term laboratory sediment toxicity tests with the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:2853–2870.  https://doi.org/10.1897/04-393R.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keddy PA, Fraser LH, Solomeshch AI, Junk WJ, Campbell DR, Arroyo MTK, Alho CJR (2009) Wet and wonderful: the world’s largest wetlands are conservation priorities. Bioscience 59:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000) Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malaeb Z (1997) A SAS® code to correct for non-normality and non-constant variance in regression and anova models using the Box–Cox method of power transformation. Environ Monitor Assess 47:255–273.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005798521296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Malaj E, Grote M, Schäfer RB, Brack W, von der Ohe PC (2012) Physiological sensitivity of freshwater macroinvertebrates to heavy metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1754–1764.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.1868 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mamindy-Pajany Y, Hamer B, Roméo M, Géret F, Galgani F, Durmiši E, Hurel C, Marmier N (2011) The toxicity of composted sediments from Mediterranean ports evaluated by several bioassays. Chemosphere 82:362–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maret T, Cain D, MacCoy D, Short T (2003) Response of benthic invertebrate assemblages to metal exposure and bioaccumulation associated with hard-rock mining in northwestern streams, USA. J N Am Benthol Soc 22:598–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maxon CL, Barnett AM, Diener DR (1997) Sediment contaminants and biological effects in southern California: use of a multivariate statistical approach to assess biological impact. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:775–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  23. Milani D, Reynoldson TB, Borgmann U, Kolasa J (2003) The relative sensitivity of four benthic invertebrates to metals in spiked-sediment exposures and application to contaminated field sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J (2013) Taxonomic sufficiency in freshwater ecosystems: effects of taxonomic resolution, functional traits, and data transformation. Freshwat Sci 32:762–778.  https://doi.org/10.1899/12-212.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muñoz I, López-Doval JC, Ricart M, Villagrasa M, Brix R, Geiszinger A, Ginebreda A, Guasch H, de Alda MJL, Romaní AM, Sabater S, Barceló D (2009) Bridging levels of pharmaceuticals in river water with biological community structure in the Llobregat River basin (northeast Spain). Environ Toxicol Chem 28:2706–2714.  https://doi.org/10.1897/08-486.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nowierski M, Dixon D, Borgmann U (2005) Effects of water chemistry on the bioavailability of metals in sediment to Hyalella azteca: implications for sediment quality guidelines. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 49:322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oguma AY, Klerks PL (2015) Evidence for mild sediment Pb contamination affecting leaf-litter decomposition in a lake. Ecotoxicology 24:1322–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oguma AY, Klerks PL (2017) Pollution-induced community tolerance in benthic macroinvertebrates of a mildly lead-contaminated lake. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:19076–19085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phipps GL, Mattson VR, Ankley GT (1995) Relative sensitivity of three freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates to ten contaminants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 28:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pennak RW (1989) Freshwater invertebrates of the United States, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Roman YE, De Schamphelaere KA, Nguyen LT, Janssen CR (2007) Chronic toxicity of copper to five benthic invertebrates in laboratory-formulated sediment: sensitivity comparison and preliminary risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 387:128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sánchez-Bayo F, Goka K (2012) Evaluation of suitable endpoints for assessing the impacts of toxicants at the community level. Ecotoxicology 21:667–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schumacher BA (2002) Methods for the determination of total organic carbon (TOC) in soils and sediments. EPA/NCEA-C-1282 EMASC-001. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strom D, Simpson SL, Batley GE, Jolley DF (2011) The influence of sediment particle size and organic carbon on toxicity of copper to benthic invertebrates in oxic/suboxic surface sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:1599–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. USEPA (2000) Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, 2nd edn, EPA 600/R-99/064. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. USEPA (2001) Methods for collecting, storage and manipulation of sediments for chemical and toxicological analyses: technical manual. EPA 823-B-01-002. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. USEPA (2005) Procedures for the derivation of equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks (ESBs) for the protection of benthic organisms: metal mixtures (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc. EPA-600-R-02-011. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Vandegehuchte MB, Nguyen LT, De Laender F, Muyssen BT, Janssen CR (2013) Whole sediment toxicity tests for metal risk assessments: on the importance of equilibration and test design to increase ecological relevance. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:1048–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang F, Goulet RR, Chapman PM (2004) Testing sediment biological effects with the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca: the gap between laboratory and nature. Chemosphere 57:1713–1724.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.07.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang N, Ingersoll CG, Kunz JL, Brumbaugh WG, Kane CM, Evans RB, Alexander S, Walker C, Bakaletz S (2013) Toxicity of sediments potentially contaminated by coal mining and natural gas extraction to unionid mussels and commonly tested benthic invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watzin MC, McIntosh AW, Brown EA, Lacey R, Lester DC, Newbrough KL, Williams AR (1997) Assessing sediment quality in heterogeneous environments: a case study of a small urban harbor in Lake Champlain, Vermont, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:2125–2135.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620161020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson JT (2003) Occurrence of and trends in selected sediment-associated contaminants in Caddo Lake, east Texas, 1940-2002. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4253. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Division of Math and SciencesMassasoit Community CollegeBrocktonUSA

Personalised recommendations