Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 62–68 | Cite as

The trouble with surrogates in environmental risk assessment: a daphniid case study

  • John E. BanksEmail author
  • Azmy S. Ackleh
  • Amy Veprauskas
  • John D. Stark
Article

Abstract

The use of indicator species to test for environmental stability and functioning is a widespread practice. In aquatic systems, several daphniids (Cladocera: Daphniidae) are commonly used as indicator species; registration of new pesticides are mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency to be accompanied by daphniid toxicity data. This reliance upon a few species to infer ecosystem health and function assumes similar responses to toxicants across species with potentially very different life histories and susceptibility. Incorporating lab-derived life-history data into a simple mathematical model, we explore the reliability of three different daphniid species as surrogates for each other by comparing their responses to reductions in survivorship and fecundity after simulated exposure to toxicants. Our results demonstrate that daphniid species’ responses to toxicant exposure render them poor surrogates for one another, highlighting that caution should be exercised in using a surrogate approach to the use of indicator species in risk assessment.

Keywords

Matrix Surrogate species Population model Sublethal effects 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Banks JE, Ackleh AS, Stark JD (2010) The use of surrogate species in risk assessment: using life history data to safeguard against false negatives. Risk Anal 30:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks JE, Stark JD, Vargas RI, Ackleh AS (2011) Parasitoids and ecological risk assessment: can toxicity data developed for one species be used to protect an entire guild? Biol Control 59:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks JE, Stark JD, Vargas RI, Ackleh AS (2014) Deconstructing the surrogate species concept: a life history approach to the protection of ecosystem services. Ecol Appl 24:770–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barata C, Alanon P, Gutierrez-Alonso S, Riva MC, Fernández C, Tarazona JV (2008) A Daphnia magna feeding bioassay as a cost effective and ecological relevant sublethal toxicity test for environmental risk assessment of toxic effluents. Sci Tot Environ 405:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (2017) Title 40-ChapterI-Subchapter E-Part 158.Title 40: Protection of Environment PART 158—Data requirements for pesticides. Accessed 16 April 2017. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1996-title40-vol11/pdf/CFR-1996-title40-vol11-part158.pdf
  6. Caswell H (2001) Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation, 2nd Ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushing JM (1998) An introduction to structured population dynamics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, vol. 71, pp. 193, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia PAGoogle Scholar
  8. Damasceno de Oliveira LL, Nunes B, Antunes SC, Campitelli-Ramos R, Rocha O (2018) Water Air Soil Pollut 229:116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deardorff AD, Stark JD (2009) Acute toxicity and hazard assessment of spinosad and R-11 to three cladoceran species and Coho salmon. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 82:549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duchet C, Coutellec MA, Franquet E, Lagneau C, Lagadic L (2010) Population-level effects of spinosad and Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis in Daphnia pulex and Daphnia magna: comparison of laboratory and field microcosm exposure conditions. Ecotoxicology 19:1224–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duchet C, Inafuku MM, Caquet T, Larroque M, Franquet E, Lagneau C, Lagadic L (2011) Chitobiase activity as an indicator of altered survival, growth and reproduction in Daphnia pulex and Daphnia magna (Crustacea: Cladocera) exposed to spinosad and diflubenzuron. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74:800–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyer SD, Versteeg DJ, Belanger SE, Chaney JG, Mayer FL (2006) Interspecies correlation estimates predict protective environmental concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 40:3102–3111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Han GH, Hur HG, Kim SD (2006) Ecotoxicological risk of pharmaceuticals from wastewater treatment plants in Korea: occurrence and toxicity to Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harmon SM, Specht WL, Chandler GT (2003) A comparison of the daphnids Ceriodaphnia dubia and Daphnia ambigua for their utilization in routine toxicity testing in the Southeastern United States. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 45:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lefkovitch LP (1965) The study of population growth in organisms grouped by stages. Biometrics 21:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leslie PH (1945) On the use of matrices in certain population dynamics. Biometrika 33:184–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy DD, Weiland PS, Cummins KW (2011) A critical assessment of the use of surrogate species in conservation planning in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California (USA). Conserv Biol 25:873–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muyssen BT, Janssen CR (2001) Multigeneration zinc acclimation and tolerance in Daphnia magna: Implications for water-quality guidelines and ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2053–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nunes B, Antunes SC, Santos J, Martins L, Castro BB (2014) Toxic potential of paracetamol to freshwater organisms: A headache to environmental regulators? Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 107:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Printes LB, Callaghan A (2004) A comparative study on the relationship between acetylcholinesterase activity and acute toxicity in Daphnia magna exposed to anticholinesterase insecticides. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1241–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stark JD, Vargas RI (2003) Demographic changes in Daphnia pulex (Leydig) after exposure to the insecticides spinosad and diazinon. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 56:334–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taylor NS, Kirwan JA, Johnson C, Yan ND, Viantm MR, Gunn JM, McGeer JC (2016) Predicting chronic copper and nickel reproductive toxicity to Daphnia pulex-pulicaria from whole-animal metabolic profiles. Environ Poll 212:325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. USEPA (2016) EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OCSPP 850.1010: Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater Daphnids. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0041
  24. Wiens JA, Hayward GD, Holthausen RS, Wisdom MJ (2008) Using surrogate species and groups for conservation planning and management. Bioscience 58:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State UniversitySeasideUSA
  2. 2.University of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Washington State University Puyallup Research and Extension CenterPuyallupUSA

Personalised recommendations