Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 412–418 | Cite as

Patchy sediment contamination scenario and the habitat selection by an estuarine mudsnail

  • Cristiano V. M. Araújo
  • Mónica Martinez-Haro
  • Antónia J. Pais-Costa
  • João C. Marques
  • Rui Ribeiro
Article

Abstract

Since mudsnails are able to avoid contaminated sediment and that the contaminants in sediment are not uniformly distributed, the mudsnail Peringia ulvae was exposed to cadmium (Cd) spiked sediment and assessed for avoidance response in a heterogeneous contamination scenario. Four Cd concentrations were prepared and disposed in patches on dishes, which were divided in 25 fields (six fields for each sediment concentration); 24 organisms were deployed in the central field, with no sediment. Observations were made at 2, 4 and 6 h (corresponding to immediate response), 8, 10 and 12 h (very short term), and 24 h (short term). A trend to avoid contaminated patches was observed in the immediate and very short term. After 24 h exposure, the organisms exposed to the highest level of contamination seemed to have lost the ability to move and avoid contaminated patches. In a contamination scenario in which non- and contaminated sediment patches are heterogeneously distributed, local mudsnail populations can simply rearrange their locality without needing to move to a different habitat. Such less contaminated patches can become donor areas in a future recolonization scenario.

Keywords

Avoidance Peringia ulvae Non-forced exposure Preference Tolerance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

CVM Araújo is grateful to FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal) for postdoctoral fellowships and SENESCYT (Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Ecuador) (reference SFRH/BPD/74044/2010 and PROMETEO program, respectively). This research was partially funded by the 7th Framework Programme (FP7 2007-2013) of the European Commission, through a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship for Career Development (PIEF-GA-2011-299747) awarded to M. Martinez-Haro. Currently, M. Martinez-Haro benefits from a postdoctoral contract with the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha and the European Social Fund (Operational Programme FSE 2007/2013; POST 2014/7780). AJ Pais-Costa is grateful to FCT for PhD fellowship. The authors are grateful to Jon Nesbit for his revision of the English text.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Araújo CVM, Blasco J, Moreno-Garrido I (2012) Measuring the avoidance behaviour shown by the snail Hydrobia ulvae exposed to sediment with a known contamination gradient. Ecotoxicology 21:750–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo CVM, Blasco J, Moreno-Garrido I (2013) Motionless of snail Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant) as response to sediment toxicity and its consequences for the post-exposure feeding. Ecotoxicol Environ Contam 8:69–75Google Scholar
  3. Araújo CVM, Moreira-Santos M, Sousa JP, Ochoa-Herrera V, Encalada AC, Ribeiro R (2014a) Active avoidance from crude oil soluble fraction by an Andean páramo copepod. Ecotoxicology 23:1254–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo CVM, Shinn C, Moreira-Santos M, Lopes I, Espíndola ELG, Ribeiro R (2014b) Copper-driven avoidance and mortality in temperate and tropical tadpoles. Aquat Toxicol 146:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Araújo CVM, Shinn C, Vasconcelos AM, Ribeiro R, Espíndola ELG (2014c) Preference and avoidance responses by tadpoles: the fungicide pyrimethanil as a habitat disturber. Ecotoxicology 23:851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Araújo CVM, Moreira-Santos M, Sousa JP, Ochoa-Herrera V, Encalada AC, Ribeiro R (2014d) Contaminants as habitat disturbers: PAH-driven drift by Andean paramo stream insects. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 108:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Araújo CVM, Moreira-Santos M, Patrício J, Martins I, Moreno-Garrido I, Blasco J, Marques JC, Ribeiro R (2015) Feeding niche preference of the snail Peringia ulvae. Mar Freshw Res 66:573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balachandran KK, Lalu Raj CM, Nair M, Joseph T, Sheeba P, Venugopal P (2005) Heavy metal accumulation in a flow restrict, tropical estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 65:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes RSK, Greenwood JG (1978) The response of the intertidal gastropod Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant) to sediments of differing particle size. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 31:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campana O, Rodríguez A, Blasco J (2013) Evaluating the suitability of Hydrobia ulvae as a test species for sediment metal toxicity testing applying a tissue residue approach to metal mixtures in laboratory and field exposures. Chemosphere 91:1136–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardoso PG, Lillebø AI, Pardal MA, Ferreira SM, Marques JC (2002) The effect of different primary producers on Hydrobia ulvae population dynamics: a case study in a temperature intertidal estuary. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 277:173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cardoso PG, Sousa E, Matos P, Henriques B, Pereira E, Duarte AC, Pardal MA (2013) Impact of mercury contamination on the population dynamics of Peringia ulvae (Gastropoda): implications on metal transfer through the trophic web. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 129:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chakraborty P, Raghunadh Babu PV, Sarma VV (2012) A study of lead and cdmium speciation in some estuarine and coastal sediments. Chem Geol 294–295:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakraborty S, Bhattacharya T, Singh G, Maity JP (2014) Benthic macroalgae as biological indicators of heavy metal pollution in the marine environments: a biomonitoring approach for pollution assessment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 100:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapman PM, Wang F (2001) Assessing sediment contamination in estuaries. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa FO, Correia AD, Costa MH (1998) Acute marine sediment toxicity: a potential new test with the amphipod Gammarus locusta. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 40:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dallinger R, Höckner M (2013) Evolutionary concepts in ecotoxicology: tracing the genetic background of differential cadmium sensitivities in invertebrate lineages. Ecotoxicology 22:767–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Lange HJ, Sperber V, Peeters ETHM (2006) Avoidance of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon–contaminated sediments by the freshwater invertebrates Gammarus pulex and Asellus aquaticus. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dolbeth M, Cardoso PG, Ferreira SM, Verdelhos T, Raffaelli D, Pardal MA (2007) Anthropogenic and natural disturbance effects on a macrobenthic estuarine community over a 10-year period. Mar Pollut Bull 54:576–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elliott M, Quintino V (2007) The estuarine quality paradox, environmental homeostasis and the difficulty of detecting anthropogenic stress in naturally stressed areas. Mar Pollut Bull 54:640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forbes VE, Lopez GR (1986) Changes in feeding and crawling rates of Hydrobia truncata (Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae) in response to sedimentary chlorophyll-a and recently egested sediment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 33:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. García-Alonso J, Greenway GM, Munshi A, Gómez JC, Mazik K, Knight AW, Hardege JD, Elliott M (2011) Biological responses to contaminants in the Humber Estuary: disentangling complex relationships. Mar Environ Res 71:295e303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gomes IDL, Lemos MFL, Soares AMVM, Díez S, Barata C, Faria M (2014) Effects of Barcelona harbor sediments in biological responses of the polychaete Capitella teleta. Sci Total Environ 485–486:545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Granberg ME, Forbes TL (2006) Role of sediment organic matter quality and feeding history in dietary absorption and accumulation of pyrene in the mud snail (Hydrobia ulvae). Environ Toxicol Chem 25:995–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gutierrez MF, Paggi JC, Gagneten AM (2012) Microcrustaceans escape behavior as an early bioindicator of copper, chromium and endosulfan toxicity. Ecotoxicology 21:428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hack LA, Tremblay LA, Wratten SD, Forrester G, Keesing V (2008) Toxicity of estuarine sediments using a full life-cycle bioassay with the marine copepod Robertsonia propinqua. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 70:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hampel M, Moreno-Garrido I, González-Mazo E, Blasco J (2009) Suitability of the marine prosobranch snail Hydrobia ulvae for sediment toxicity assessment: a case study with the anionic surfactant linear alkylbenzene sulphonate (LAS). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1303–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansen JA, Woodward DF, Little EE, DeLonay AJ, Bergman HL (1999) Behavioral avoidance: possible mechanism for explaining abundance and distribution of trout species in a metal-impacted river. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:313–317Google Scholar
  29. Holmes CW, Slade EA, McLerran CJ (1974) Migration and redistribution of zinc and cadmium in marine estuarine systems. Environ Sci Technol 8:255–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutchins CM, Teasdale PR, Lee SY, Simpson SL (2009) The effect of sediment type and pH-adjustment on the porewater chemistry of copper- and zinc-spiked sediments. Soil Sedim Contam 18:55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keilty TJ, White DS, Landrum PF (1988) Short-term lethality and sediment avoidance assays with endrin-contaminated sediment and two oligochaetes from Lake Michigan. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 17:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kravitz MJ, Lamberson JO, Ferraro SP, Swartz RC, Boese BL, Specht DT (1999) Avoidance response of the estuarine amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated, field-collected sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1232–1235Google Scholar
  33. Krell B, Mreira-Santos M, Ribeiro R (2011) An estuarine mudsnail in situ toxicity assay based on postexposure feeding. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:1935–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lefcort H, Abbott DP, Cleary DA, Howell D, Keller NC, Smith MM (2004) Aquatic snails from mining sites have evolved to detect and avoid heavy metals. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46:478–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leung KMY, Morley NJ, Grist EPM, Morritt D, Crane M (2004) Chronic toxicity of tributyltin on development and reproduction of the hermaphroditic snail Physa fontinalis: influence of population density. Mar Environ Res 58:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lillebø AI, Pardal MA, Marques JC (1999) Population structure, dynamics and production of Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant) (Mollusca: Prosobranchia) along an eutrophication gradient in the Mondego estuary (Portugal). Acta Oecol 20:289–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lopes I, Baird DJ, Ribeiro R (2004) Avoidance of copper contamination by field populations of Daphnia longispina. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1702–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luoma SN (1996) The developing framework of marine ecotoxicology: pollutants as a variable in marine ecosystems? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 200:29–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Macken A, Giltrap M, Foley B, McGovern E, McHugh B, Davoren M (2008) A model compound study: the ecotoxicological evaluation of five organic contaminants employing a battery of marine bioassays. Environ Pollut 153:627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marklevitz SAC, Almeida E, Flemming J, Hellou J (2008) Determining the bioavailability of contaminants and assessing the quality of sediments. Part 1: variables affecting the behavioural response of Ilyanassa obsoleta towards contaminated sediments. J Soils Sedim 8:86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martinez-Haro M, Taggart MA, Mateo R (2010) Pb-Al relationships in waterfowl feces discriminate between sources of Pb exposure. Environ Pollut 158:2485–2489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martinez-Haro M, Moreira-Santos M, Marques JC, Ribeiro R (2014) A short-term laboratory and in situ sediment assay based on the postexposure feeding of the estuarine isopod Cyathura carinata. Environ Res 134:242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maufrett A, Rico-Rico A, Temara A, Blasco J (2010) Exposure of the marine deposit feeder Hydrobia ulvae to sediment-associated LAS. Environ Pollut 158:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maurer BA, Holt ED (1996) Effects of chronic pesticide stress on wildlife populations in complex landscape: processes al multiple scales. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:420–426Google Scholar
  45. Mil-Homens M, Vale C, Raimundo J, Pereira P, Brito P, Caetano M (2014) Major factors influencing the elemental composition of surface estuarine sediments: the case of 15 estuaries in Portugal. Mar Pollut Bull 84:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moe SJ, De Schamphelaere K, Clements WH, Sorensen MT, Van den Brink PJ, Liess M (2013) Combined and interactive effects of global climate change and toxicants on populations and communities. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moreira-Santos M, Donato C, Lopes I, Ribeiro R (2008) Avoidance tests with small fish: determination of themedian avoidance concentration and of the lowest-observed-effect gradient. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1575–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pereira P, Vale C, Ferreira AM, Pereira E, Pardal MA, Marques JC (2005) Seasonal variation of surface sediments composition in Mondego River estuary. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 40:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosa R, Materatski P, Moreira-Santos M, Sousa JP, Ribeiro R (2012) A scaled-up system to evaluate zooplankton spatial avoidance and population immediate decline concentration. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1301–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sakuma M (1998) Probit analysis of preference data. Appl Entomol Zool 33:339–347Google Scholar
  51. Serafim A, Company R, Lopes B, Pereira C, Cravo A, Fonseca VF, França F, Bebianno MJ, Cabral HN (2013) Evaluation of sediment toxicity in different Portuguese estuaries: ecological impact of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 130:30–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shipp EY, Grant A (2006) Hydrobia ulvae feeding rates: a novel way to assess sediment toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:3246–3252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spromberg JA, John BM, Landis WG (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: indirect effects and multiple distinct outcomes in ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1640–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stringer TJ, Glover CN, Keesing V, Northcott GL, Gaw S, Tremblay LA (2014) Development of acute and chronic sediment bioassays with the harpacticoid copepod Quinquelaophonte sp. Ecotoxicolo Environ Saf 99:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. USEPA (1994) Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. Assessment Guidance Document. US Environmental Protection Agency. ARCS Assessment Guidance Document, EPA 905-B94-002, Chicago, Great Lakes National Program OfficeGoogle Scholar
  56. Ward DJ, Simpson SL, Jolley DF (2013) Avoidance of contaminated sediments by an amphipod (Melita plumulosa), a harpacticoid copepod (Nitocra spinipes), and a snail (Phallomedusa solida). Environ Toxicol Chem 32:647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. West CW, Ankley GT (1998) A laboratory assay to assess avoidance of contaminated sediments by the freshwater oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White DS, Kielty TJ (1988) Burrowing avoidance assays of contaminated Detroit River sediments, using the freshwater oligochaete Stylodrilus heringianus (Lumbriculidae). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 17:673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristiano V. M. Araújo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mónica Martinez-Haro
    • 3
  • Antónia J. Pais-Costa
    • 3
  • João C. Marques
    • 3
  • Rui Ribeiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Functional Ecology (CFE), Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Central Department of Research (DCI), Ecuadorian Aquatic Ecotoxicology (ECUACTOX) GroupUniversidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí (ULEAM)MantaEcuador
  3. 3.MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations