response of juvenile rainbow trout to pesticides in surface waters within urban streams in western...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
223 views
TRANSCRIPT
Response of Juvenile Rainbow Trout to Pesticides in Surface Waters within Urban
Streams in Western Washington
Christie Shavey
Sara Bogard, Jacki Bricker, Erin Lowery, Cara MenardUniversity of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
FISH 455 / ESC 457
Cat Curran Martin Grassley Chris GrueUniversity of Washington, Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Pesticide Usage
• Pesticide Concentrations in Surface Waters
• Salmonids
• Acetylcholinesterase (AChE)
• Organophosphates
• Carbamates
Objective:
To determine effects of a chemical cocktail representative of that reported in storm waters flows in Western Washington on brain acetylcholinesterase activity, behavior and survival of juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Endpoints:
•Mortality
•Behavior
•Changes in AChE activityPhoto by M. Lorenzoni
Chemical Cocktail
Name Nominal Concentration (ppb)Atrazine 0.022,4-D 3.30Dicamba 0.09Dichlobenil 0.54MCPA 0.38MCPP 0.77Prometon 0.19Simazine 4.99Triclopyr 2.70Carbaryl 0.21Diazinon 0.43Malathion 0.22Pentachlorophenol 0.134-nitrophenol 0.29
Maximum Concentration Values
Testing
Two Tests Conducted:
Replicates of 10 / concentration
Test 1:
• Control & 1x original chemical cocktail
• n = 20
Test 2:
• Control, 1x, 3.3x & 10x original chemical cocktail
• n = 10
Testing
•Followed U.S. EPA Protocols for Static 96-hour Toxicity Tests
•Fish Loading: 1.25 L / g
•Average Fish Length / Weight
Test 1: Length 9.7 cm / Weight 10.38 g
Test 2: Length 9.8 cm / Weight 10.62 g
Treatment n Temp (°C) DO (mg/L) pHConductivity
(µS)
Test 1 Control 20 12.7 ± 0.7 9.27 ± 0.5 6.75 ± 0.2 70.4 ± 4.0
1X 20 12.7 ± 0.6 9.00 ± 1.0 6.88 ± 0.1 71.0 ± 4.9
Test 2 Control 10 12.62 ± 1.6 9.96 ± 0.77 6.94 ± 0.73 75.22 ± 4.6
1X 10 12.66 ± 2.0 10.07 ± 0.95 7.03 ± 0.6 75.68 ± 5.6
3.3X 10 13.10 ± 1.6 9.75 ± 1.72 7.00 ± 0.44 74.68 ± 4.0
10X 10 12.69 ± 2.0 9.76 ± 2.66 6.97 ± 0.68 75.77 ± 6.2
Water Quality Data Results
Meets EPA requirements:
Temp: 12 ± 2oC
DO: ≥5 mg/L
pH: 6 - 8
O2
O2
O2
Brain Cholinesterase Results – Test 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Control 1x 3x 10x
Treatment
Per
cen
t o
f C
on
tro
l
106%
16%
77%
AChE Activity in Juvenile Rainbow Trout Exposed to Chemical Cocktail
Key: Active; Lethargic; Dead
Fish Behavior Results – Test 2P
erce
nt R
espo
ndin
g
Control
0
20
40
60
80
100
6 hr 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr 96 hr
Chemical 1X
0
20
40
60
80
100
6 hr 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr 96 hr
Chemical 3.3X
0
20
40
60
80
100
6 hr 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr 96 hr
Chemical 10X
0
20
40
60
80
100
6 hr 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr 96 hr
Interpretations
• Maximum Concentrations ↔ Concentrations in Streams
• Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition:
1x = No
3.3x & 10x = Yes
• Fish Behavioral Effects
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.13
10.
393
0.65
50.
917
1.17
91.
441
1.70
31.
965
2.22
72.
489
2.75
13.
013
3.27
5
Concentration (ppb)
Fre
qu
en
cy
2,4-D Unfiltered
Geometric Mean = 0.206 ppb
95% CI = 0.145 – 0.295
Maximum 3.30 ppb
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Concentration (ppb)
Fre
qu
ency
Geometric Mean = 0.022 ppb
95% CI = 0.016 – 0.029
Prometon Filtered
Maximum 0.19
Name 1x Concentration LC50 (ppb)Atrazine 0.02 4,000 (18,000-32,000)
2,4-D 3.30 >100,000Dicamba 0.09 28,000Dichlobenil 0.54 6,260 (4,680-8,370)
MCPA * 0.38 >10,000MCPP 0.77 124,800Prometon 0.19 20,000Simazine 4.99 >100,000Triclopyr 2.70 >100,000Carbaryl 0.21 1,950 (1450-2630)
Diazinon 0.43 90Malathion 0.22 200 (160-240)
Pentachlorophenol 0.13 115 (108-122)
4-nitrophenol 0.29 3,800
LC50 Values for Rainbow Trout
* Indicates different species
Chemical Interactions
2.1 ppbCarbaryl
4.3 ppbDiazinon
2.2 ppbMalathion
84% Inhibition or Mortality
Synergism &/or Potentiation
Summary
• No brain inhibition at 1x
• Brain inhibition of 23% at 3.3x & 84% at 10x
• Apparent change in behavior at 1x, 3.3x & 10x
• Potential chemical interactions resulting in brain cholinesterase & mortality
• Concentrations tested were 1-2 orders of magnitude greater than average field concentrations
Acknowledgements
We thank the USGS Cooperative Units Program, the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.
The unit is financially supported by the USGS, University of Washington, Washington State University and the Washington Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources.
We also thank Windy Madsen for help with the toxicity tests and cholinesterase assays.