Ambient Bioassays - US Environmental Protection Agency
Ambient Bioassays - US Environmental Protection Agency
Ambient Bioassays - US Environmental Protection Agency
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Relationships among exceedences of<br />
metals criteria, the results of ambient<br />
bioassays, and community metrics in<br />
metals-impaired streams<br />
Michael B. Griffith 1 , James M. Lazorchak 2 ,<br />
and Alan T. Herlihy 3<br />
U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Agency</strong>, Office of Research<br />
and Development, 1 National Center for <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Assessment & 2 National Exposure Research Laboratory,<br />
Cincinnati, Ohio & 3 Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,<br />
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Three Methods<br />
• Chemical criteria – AWQCs or sediment<br />
effect levels – for the protection of aquatic<br />
life<br />
• <strong>Ambient</strong> <strong>Bioassays</strong> – assess the<br />
ambient toxicity of water or sediment<br />
• Bioassessments of selected biotic<br />
assemblages – fish or macroinvertebrates
Measurement Endpoints<br />
• Chemical criteria: based on measures of<br />
individual responses in bioassays –<br />
individual-level effects<br />
• <strong>Ambient</strong> bioassays: measure individual<br />
responses of selected species – individuallevel<br />
effects<br />
• Bioassessments: measure communitylevel<br />
effects
Other Differences<br />
• differences in the stressor specificity:<br />
Chemical criteria - measured contaminants<br />
with criteria<br />
<strong>Ambient</strong> bioassays - bioavailable toxicants<br />
in the tested media<br />
Community metrics - although sensitive to a<br />
toxicant, may also be sensitive to other<br />
stream alterations
Objectives<br />
• Compare conclusions: effects of<br />
contaminants in different reaches - three<br />
methods for assessment of contaminant<br />
exposure and effects (waters or<br />
sediments)<br />
• Greater understanding of relationships:<br />
levels of biological organization used as<br />
measurement endpoints in these methods
e<br />
e<br />
G<br />
n<br />
R .<br />
Colorado R.<br />
Upstream Random-selection sites sites<br />
S<br />
a<br />
n Juan<br />
R .<br />
R<br />
io<br />
G ra<br />
n d<br />
e<br />
Denver<br />
S<br />
o<br />
u thPlatteR.<br />
Colorado Springs<br />
Downstream sites<br />
Mineralized region<br />
Arkansas R.
Methods<br />
• Standard EMAP protocols – biological<br />
assemblages, physical habitat, and water<br />
chemistry<br />
• Water – dissolved metals and hardness, 48hr<br />
mortality tests with Ceriodaphna dubia &<br />
Pimephales promelas<br />
• Sediment – total metals, 7-d growth and<br />
mortality tests with Hyallela azteca
Variables to Classify Reaches<br />
Variable<br />
Dissolved concentrations<br />
– Cd, Cu, Pb, or Zn<br />
Survival – C. dubia or P.<br />
promelas (48-hr test)<br />
Sediment concentrations<br />
– Cd, Cu, Pb, or Zn<br />
Survival or growth – H.<br />
azteca (7-day test)<br />
Endpoint<br />
> Hardness-adjusted<br />
dissolved chronic criteria<br />
< 80% survival<br />
> TEL (28-day H. azteca<br />
sediment toxicity test)<br />
< 85% survival or < 90%<br />
growth
Criteria (? = +0.89)<br />
Were sediment<br />
TELs exceeded?<br />
Did sediment<br />
bioassays show<br />
effects?<br />
Comparing Media<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
Total<br />
<strong>Bioassays</strong> (? = +0.83)<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
Total<br />
Were water criteria exceeded?<br />
No<br />
53<br />
15<br />
68<br />
Did water bioassays show<br />
effects?<br />
No<br />
63<br />
10<br />
73<br />
Yes<br />
3<br />
15<br />
18<br />
Yes<br />
4<br />
7<br />
11<br />
Total<br />
56<br />
30<br />
n = 86<br />
Total<br />
67<br />
17<br />
n = 84
Water (? = +0.98)<br />
Did water<br />
bioassays<br />
show effects?<br />
Did sediment<br />
bioassays<br />
show effects<br />
Comparing Methods<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
Total<br />
Sediment (? = +0.73)<br />
No<br />
Yes<br />
Total<br />
Were water criteria exceeded?<br />
No<br />
65<br />
1<br />
66<br />
Were sediment TELs exceeded?<br />
No<br />
49<br />
5<br />
54<br />
Yes<br />
8<br />
10<br />
18<br />
Yes<br />
18<br />
12<br />
30<br />
Total<br />
73<br />
11<br />
n = 84<br />
Total<br />
67<br />
17<br />
n = 84
Metrics exhibiting differences<br />
Macroinvertebrates<br />
Total taxa richn.<br />
Total abundance<br />
Abundance per taxon<br />
Intolerant taxa richn.<br />
Ephemeroptera taxa richn.<br />
Plecoptera richn.<br />
Trichoptera taxa richn.<br />
EPT taxa richn.<br />
Chironomidae taxa richn.<br />
% Ind., tolerant taxa<br />
Orthoclainae taxa richn.<br />
Tanytanrsini taxa richn.<br />
Coleoptera taxa richn.<br />
% Ind., Ephemeroptera<br />
% Orthocladinae (Chironomidae)<br />
% Tanytarsini (Chironomidae)<br />
% Ind., Coleoptera<br />
% Ind., Diptera & noninsects<br />
% Ind., 5 most common taxa<br />
Collector-filterer taxa richn.<br />
Collector-gatherer taxa richn.<br />
Predator taxa richn.<br />
Shredder taxa richn.<br />
Scraper taxa richn.<br />
Fish<br />
Total species richn.<br />
Salmonidae species richn.<br />
Total abundance<br />
Adult abundance<br />
Salmonidae abundance<br />
% Ind., native species<br />
% Ind., Salmonidae<br />
% Ind., native Salmonidae<br />
% Oncorhynchus (Salmonidae)
Total taxa richness - macroinvertebrates<br />
n =<br />
60<br />
67 18 73 11 55 30 67 17<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
**<br />
**<br />
**<br />
**<br />
U A U A U A U A<br />
Dissolved<br />
criteria<br />
Water<br />
bioassay<br />
Sediment<br />
TEL<br />
Sediment<br />
bioassay
Total number of individuals - Macroinvertebrates<br />
Collector-gatherer richness<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
n = 67 18 73 11 55 30 67 17<br />
4000 ns<br />
ns<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
**<br />
U A U A U A U A<br />
Dissolved<br />
criteria<br />
**<br />
*<br />
**<br />
**<br />
U A U A U A U A<br />
Dissolved<br />
criteria<br />
*<br />
Water<br />
bioassay<br />
Water<br />
bioassay<br />
Sediment<br />
TEL<br />
Sediment<br />
TEL<br />
Sediment<br />
bioassay<br />
Sediment<br />
bioassay<br />
EPT taxa richness<br />
Chironomidae taxa richness<br />
n = 67 18 73 11 55 30 67 17<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
** **<br />
U A U A U A U A<br />
Dissolved<br />
criteria<br />
Water<br />
bioassay<br />
Sediment<br />
TEL<br />
* *<br />
Sediment<br />
bioassay<br />
ns ns<br />
* **<br />
U A U A U A U A<br />
Dissolved<br />
criteria<br />
Water<br />
bioassay<br />
Sediment<br />
TEL<br />
Sediment<br />
bioassay
Metric<br />
Total taxa richn.- inverts<br />
Total no. individuals<br />
EPT taxa richn.<br />
Total taxa richn.– inverts<br />
Ephemeroptera t. richn.<br />
Chironomidae t. richn.<br />
Individual-effects measures<br />
versus community metrics -<br />
Classified<br />
as<br />
unimpaired<br />
water<br />
Water criteria<br />
67<br />
67<br />
67<br />
73<br />
73<br />
73<br />
Metric <<br />
95% LCL for<br />
unimpaired<br />
group<br />
28<br />
36<br />
20<br />
Water bioassays<br />
29<br />
24<br />
32<br />
Classified<br />
as<br />
impaired<br />
18<br />
18<br />
18<br />
11<br />
11<br />
11<br />
Metric ><br />
95% UCL for<br />
impaired<br />
group<br />
6<br />
1<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
3
Metric<br />
Total taxa richn.- inverts<br />
Ephemeroptera t. richn.<br />
Shredder taxa richn.<br />
Total taxa richn.– inverts<br />
Tanytarsini t. richn.<br />
Tanytarsini/Chironomidae<br />
Individual-effects measures<br />
versus community metrics –<br />
Classified<br />
as<br />
unimpaired<br />
sediment<br />
Sediment TELs<br />
55<br />
55<br />
55<br />
67<br />
73<br />
73<br />
Metric <<br />
95% LCL for<br />
unimpaired<br />
group<br />
21<br />
25<br />
30<br />
Sediment bioassays<br />
26<br />
24<br />
32<br />
Classified<br />
as<br />
impaired<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
17<br />
11<br />
11<br />
Metric ><br />
95% UCL for<br />
impaired<br />
group<br />
13<br />
9<br />
8<br />
7<br />
2<br />
3
y = α + α x + β log x + β x log x<br />
0 1 1 0 e 2 1 1 e 2<br />
y = α + β log x<br />
Total taxa richness -<br />
macroinvertebrates<br />
0 0 e 2<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
log e(Sconcentration/chronic AWQC)<br />
(1)<br />
(2)
Total taxa richness -<br />
macroinvertebrates<br />
Intolerant taxa richness<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
y = 34.22 + 0.02 x 1 - 0.17 log e x 2 - 5.40 * (x 1 log e x 2 )<br />
r 2 = 0.31, F = 266.1 (p < 0.001)<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
y = 9.40 - 1.48 x 1 + 0.52 log e x 2 - 1.61 * (x 1 log e x 2 )<br />
r 2 = 0.17, F = 127.0 (p < 0.001)<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
log<br />
e (Σconcentration/chronic AWQC)<br />
Collector-gatherer richness<br />
EPT taxa richness<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
y = 9.12 - 0.07 x 1 - 0.25 log e x 2 - 1.20 (x 1 log e x 2 )<br />
r 2 = 0.18, F = 118.7 (p < 0.001)<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
y = 16.90 - 2.77 x 1 + 1.57 * log e x 2 - 3.69 * (x 1 log e x 2 )<br />
r 2 = 0.22, F = 153.3 (p < 0.001)<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
loge (Σconcentration/chronic AWQC)
Total taxa richness -<br />
macroinvertebrates<br />
Intolerant taxa richness<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
y = 8.95 + 0.35 x<br />
1 - 2.67 * loge x2 + 1.52 (x1 loge x2)<br />
r 2 0<br />
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
= 0.22, F = 525.0 (p < 0.001)<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
y = 35.22 + 3.03 x 1 - 5.63 * log e x 2 + 0.97(x 1 log e x 2 )<br />
r 2 = 0.26, F = 243.6 (p < 0.001)<br />
0<br />
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
log e (Σconcentration/TEL)<br />
Collector-gatherer taxa richness<br />
EPT taxa richness<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
30<br />
y = 14.93 - 0.24 x<br />
1 - 4.86 * log<br />
e x2 + 3.43 * 0<br />
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
(x<br />
1 loge x2 )<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
y = 9.82 + 0.83 x 1 - 2.65 * log e x 2 + 1.32(x 1 log e x 2 )<br />
r 2 = 0.18 F = 118.3 (p < 0.001)<br />
r 2 = 0.21 F = 151.7 (p < 0.001)<br />
0<br />
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5<br />
log e (Σconcentration/TEL)
Conclusion<br />
• Using a simple approach, we demonstrated<br />
effects shown by criteria or<br />
ambient bioassays are both predictive of<br />
community effects as reflected in<br />
community metrics.