Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 51, Issue 1–2, pp 247–257 | Cite as

Seed Clam Growth: An Alternative Sediment Bioassay Developed During EMAP in the Carolinian Province

  • Amy H. Ringwood
  • Charles J. Keppler


A new sediment bioassay was developed in conjunction with EMAP studies conducted in the Carolinian Province using juvenile seed clams, Mercenaria mercenaria. This is a sublethal assay, based on growth (total dry weight) after a 7 day incubation period. Seed clam chronic growth assays were significantly more sensitive than amphipod acute toxicity assays. Optimization components include use of hatchery-reared juvenile clams in a rapid growth phase, and size-sieving to ensure a similar size range. Juvenile clam growth was not affected by sediment type, i.e., clams grew well in muddy and sandy sediments. Clams were slightly more sensitive to ammonia than amphipods (NOEC porewater total ammonia 14 - 16 mg/L for clams). Ammonia concentrations above these levels were more common in reference sites, so most of the false positives could be explained by ammonia toxicity. This assay possesses a number of other positive attributes that are desirable for a bioassay, including the requirement for a relatively small sample size (500 ml of sediments), balanced sensitivity, low incremental costs, and high information gained. The seed clam assay is believed to be a valuable tool for EMAP as well as other monitoring efforts for estimating potential chronic toxicity.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ankley G.T., DiToro, D.M., Hansen, D.J. and Berry, W.J.: 1996, Assessing the Ecological Risk of Metals in Sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15, 2053–2055.Google Scholar
  2. Burgess, R.M. and Morrison, G.E.: 1994, A Short-Exposure, Sublethal, Sediment Toxicity Test Using the Marine Bivalve Mulinia Lateralis: Statistical Design and Comparative Sensitivity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13, 571–580.Google Scholar
  3. Carr, R.S., Long, E.R., Windom, H.L., Chapman, D.C., Thursby, G., Sloane, G.M. and Wolfe, D.A.: 1996, Sediment Quality Assessment Studies of Tampa Bay, Florida. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15, 1218–1231.Google Scholar
  4. DeWitt, T.H., Ditsworth, G.R. and Swartz, R.C.: 1988, Effects of Natural Sediment Features on Survival of the Phoxocephalid Amphipod, Rhepoxynius Abronius. Mar. Environ. Res. 25, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hach: 1994, DR/700 Colorimeter Procedures Manual. Hach Chemical Company, Loveland, CO.Google Scholar
  6. Hamelink, J.L., Landrum, P.F., Bergman, H.L. and Benson, W.H.: 1994, Bioavailability: Physical, Chemical and Biological Interactions. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor. 239 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Hyland, J.L., Herrlinger, T.J., Snoots, T.R., Ringwood, A.H., Van Dolah, R.F., Hackney, C.T., Nelson, G.A., Rosen, J.S. and Kokkinakis, S.A.: 1996, Environmental Quality of Estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97, 102 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Kokkinakis, S.A., Hyland, J.L., Mageau, C. and Robertson, A.: 1994, Carolinian Demonstration Project — 1994 Field Operations Manual. August 1994 Draft.Google Scholar
  9. Long, E.R., MacDonald, D.D., Smith, S.L. and Calder, F.D.: 1995, Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Environ. Management. 19, 81–97.Google Scholar
  10. Long, E.R., Robertson, A., Wolfe, D.A., Hameedi, J. and Sluane, G.: 1996, Estimates of the Spatial Extent of Sediment Toxicity in Major U.S. Estuaries. Environ. Sci. Tech. 30, 3583–3592.Google Scholar
  11. Luoma, S.N.: 1994. ‘Prediction of Metal Toxicity in Nature From Bioassays: Limitations and Research Needs’ in: Tessier, A. and Turner Metal, D.R. (eds.), Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 609–659.Google Scholar
  12. Moore, D.W., Bridges, T.S., Gray, B.R., and Duke, B.M.: 1997, Risk of Ammonia Toxicity During Sediment Bioassays with the Estuarine Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16, 1020–1027.Google Scholar
  13. Ringwood, A.H., Holland, A.F., Kneib, R. and Ross, P.: 1996, EMAP/NS&T Pilot Studies in the Carolinian Province: Indicator Testing and Evaluation in Southeastern Estuaries. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 102, 115 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Ringwood, A.H., DeLorenzo, M.E., Ross, P.E. and Holland, A.F.: 1997, Interpretation of Microtox® Solid-phase Toxicity Tests: The Effects of Sediment Composition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16, 1135–1140.Google Scholar
  15. Sims, Jerre G. and Moore, David W.: 1995, Risk of Pore Water Ammonia Toxicity in Dredged Material Bioassays. US Army Corps of Engineers, Miscellaneous paper D-95-3, 66 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy H. Ringwood
    • 1
  • Charles J. Keppler
    • 2
  1. 1.Marine Resources Research InstituteCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Grice Marine LaboratoryUniversity of CharlestonCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations