Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 71, Issue 3–4, pp 281–291 | Cite as

Relative sensitivity of survival, growth and reproduction of Eurytemora affinis (Copepoda) to assessing polluted estuaries

  • S. I. Hartwell
  • D. A. Wright
  • J. D. Savitz


Groups of Eurytemora affinis were held in flow-through chambers and exposed to ambient water from moderately (Station 1) and heavily (Station 2) polluted sites in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. A control group was held in identical chambers supplied with water from a clean site. Survival, growth and reproduction were assessed after 10 days exposure. At the moderately polluted site, an additional treatment consisting of a 50∶50 mix of control and ambient water was also run. Survival of E. affinis was not a reliable indicator of water quality. Growth was indicative of water quality at each station, but not between stations. Relative fecundity was the best indicator of water quality within and between stations. At Station 1, the relative fecundity was 2.6, 4.2 and 10.0 in ambient, 50∶50 mix and control water, respectively. At Station 2, the relative fecundity was 0.8 and 10.0 in ambient and control water, respectively.


Water Quality Additional Treatment Reliable Indicator Control Water Relative Sensitivity 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batiuk, R.: 1987, Survey of Tributyltin and Dibutyltin in Concentrations at Selected Harbors in Chesapeake Bay, Final Report to U.S. E.P.A. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, CBP/TRS 14/87.Google Scholar
  2. Berdugo, V., Harris, R. P., and O'Hara, S. C.: 1977, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 8, 138.Google Scholar
  3. Capuzzo, J. M. and Lancaster, B. A.: 1985, ‘Zooplankton Population Responses to Industrial Wastes Discharged at Deepwater Dumpsite 106’, in D. R. Kester, R. C. Hittinger and P. Mukherji (eds.), Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 5, Deep-sea waste disposal. J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.Google Scholar
  4. Daniels, R. E. and Allan, J. D.: 1981, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 38, 485–494.Google Scholar
  5. Hall, L. W., Pinkney, A. E., Horseman, L. O., and Finger, S. E.: 1985, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 114, 861.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, L. W., Jr., Hall, W. S., Bushong, S. J. and Herman, R. L.: 1987, Aquat. Toxicol. 10, 73.Google Scholar
  7. Hall, L. W., Jr., Bushong, S. J., Hall, W. S., and Johnson, W. E.: 1988, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7, 41.Google Scholar
  8. Heinle, D. R. and Beaven, M. S.: 1980, ‘Toxicology of Chlorine-Produced Oxidants to Estuarine Copepods’, in A. L. Buckema, Jr. and J. Cairns, Jr. (eds.), Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassays. American Society of Testing and Materials Special Technical Publication 715, Philadelphia, PA, p. 109.Google Scholar
  9. McCarthy, J. F. and Shugart, L. R. (eds.): 1990, Biomarkers of Environmental Contaminations, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Fl. 457 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Mehrle, P. M., Buckler, D., Finger, S., and Ludke, L.: 1984, Impact of Contaminants on Striped Bass, Interim Reports, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Columbia National Fisheries Research Lab., Columbia, MO. 28 pp.Google Scholar
  11. MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment): 1992, Unpublished data. MDE, Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Section, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  12. Roberts, M. H., Warinner, J. E., Tsai, C-F., Wright, D. A., and Cronin, L. E.: 1982, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11, 681.Google Scholar
  13. Savitz, J. D., Wright, D. A., and Smucker, R. A.: 1993, ‘Toxic Effects of the Insecticide Diflubenzuron (Dimilin) on Survival and Development of Nauplii of the Estuarine Copepod, Eurytemora affinis’ Mar. Environ. Res. (in press).Google Scholar
  14. Sosonowski, S. L. and Gentile, J. H.: 1978, J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 35, 1366.Google Scholar
  15. Sunda, W. G., Tester, P. A., and Huntsman, S. A.: 1987, Mar. Biol. 94, 203.Google Scholar
  16. Tester, P. A. and Costlow, J. D.: 1981, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 5, 297.Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1977, Evaluation of the Problem Posed by In-Place Pollutants in Baltimore Harbor and Recommendation of Corrective Action, EPA 440/5-77-015B.Google Scholar
  18. Villa, O., Jr. and Johnson, P. G.: 1974, Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor Sediments, U.S. EPA Annapolis Field Office Tech. Rept. #59. EPA 903/9-74-012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. I. Hartwell
    • 1
  • D. A. Wright
    • 2
  • J. D. Savitz
    • 3
  1. 1.Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring DivisionAnnapolisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of MarylandSolomonsUSA
  3. 3.Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.SolomonsUSA

Personalised recommendations