Advertisement

Wetlands

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Cross-Ecosystem Effects of Agricultural Tile Drainage, Surface Runoff, and Selenium in the Prairie Pothole Region

  • Brianna L. HenryEmail author
  • Jeff S. Wesner
  • Jacob L. Kerby
General Wetland Science

Abstract

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the United States and Canada is a vast network of wetlands that provide rich habitat for waterfowl and aquatic organisms. Much of the landscape surrounding these wetlands is dominated by agriculture, allowing for contaminants such as neonicotinoid insecticides and selenium to enter these water bodies following precipitation. We surveyed 18 wetlands in the PPR of South Dakota that were categorized as receiving surface runoff, tile drainage, or surrounded by grassland (control) for larval and adult insects and contaminant concentrations over two years. Selenium concentrations in the water, as well as in larval and adult insects were the biggest difference among our treatments, and concentrations of all three were approximately two times higher in tile drainage sites than in surface or control sites. For example, adult insect tissue concentrations were (μg/g, mean ± S.D.) 1.5 ± 1.3 in control sites, 1.7 ± 2.4 in surface runoff sites, and 4.4 ± 5.0 in tile drainage sites. Adult insects responded more sensitively to agricultural influences than larval insects, with up to 50% reductions in adult abundance in the tile drainage treatment even in the absence of larval population reductions. Reductions in adult populations in combination with the retention of selenium over metamorphosis indicate that agricultural influence in these wetlands may also affect the terrestrial ecosystem by reducing quantity and/or quality of insect prey for terrestrial consumers, such as waterfowl.

Keywords

Prairie potholes Neonicotinoids Selenium Subsidies Tile drainage Aquatic insects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Drew Davis and Jillian Farkas for their extensive field and lab assistance in collecting this data, as well as the numerous undergraduate students who contributed their time and energy to data collection. Funding was primarily through a South Dakota Game Fish and Parks Wildlife Action Plan grant awarded to J.S.W. and J.L.K., and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship awarded to B.L.H. Additional funding was provided by the University of South Dakota’s Graduate Research and Creative Scholarship Grant.

Supplementary material

13157_2019_1194_MOESM1_ESM.docx (146 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 146 kb)

References

  1. Alexander AC, Culp JM, Liber K, Cessna AJ (2007) Effects of insecticide exposure on feeding inhibition in mayflies and oligochaetes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:1726–1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander AC, Heard KS, Culp JM (2008) Emergent body size of mayfly survivors. Freshwater Biology 53:171–180Google Scholar
  3. Ashauer R, Hintermeister A, Potthoff E, Escher BI (2011) Acute toxicity of organic chemicals to Gammarus pulex correlates with sensitivity of Daphnia magna across most modes of action. Aquatic Toxicology 103:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Sanders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology 50:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckon WN, Eacock MC, Gordus A, Henderson JD (2006) Biological effects of the grassland bypass project. The Grassland Bypass Annual Report Chapter 7:93–167Google Scholar
  6. Benke AC, Huryn AD, Smock LA, Wallace JB (1999) Length-mass relationships for freshwater macroinvertebrates in North America with particular reference to the southeastern United States. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:308–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buerkner PC (2016) brms: Bayesian regression models using Stan. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/brms/brms.pdf. Accessed 7/2/19
  8. Burdon FJ, Harding JS (2008) The linkage between riparian predators and aquatic insects across a stream-resource spectrum. Freshwater Biology 53:330–346Google Scholar
  9. Cadmus P, Pomeranz JP, Kraus JM (2016) Low-cost floating emergence net and bottle trap: comparison of two designs. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 31:653–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conley JM, Funk DH, Buchwalter DB (2009) Selenium bioaccumulation and maternal transfer in the mayfly Centroptilum triangulifer in a life-cycle, periphyton-biofilm trophic assay. Environmental Science & Technology 43:7952–7957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conley JM, Funk DH, Cariello NJ, Buchwalter DB (2011) Food rationing affects dietary selenium bioaccumulation and life cycle performance in the mayfly Centroptilum triangulifer. Ecotoxicology 20:1840–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conley JM, Watson AT, Xie L, Buchwalter DB (2014) Dynamic selenium assimilation, distribution, efflux, and maternal transfer in Japanese medaka fed a diet of se-enriched mayflies. Environmental Science & Technology 48:2971–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croteau M-N, Fuller CC, Cain DJ et al (2016) Biogeochemical controls of uranium bioavailability from the dissolved phase in natural freshwaters. Environmental Science & Technology 50:8120–8127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey SL (1986) Effects of the herbicide atrazine on aquatic insect community structure and emergence. Ecology 67:148–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eldridge J (1990) 13.3. 3. Aquatic invertebrates important for waterfowl production. Waterfowl management handbook 1–7Google Scholar
  16. Euliss NH, Mushet DM (1999) Influence of agriculture on aquatic invertebrate communities of temporary wetlands in the prairie pothole region of North Dakota, USA. Wetlands 19:578–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finocchiaro RG (2014) Agricultural subsurface drainage tile locations by permits in South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey data releaseGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser H, Fleming R, Eng P (2001) Environmental benefits of tile drainage. Prepared for: LICO. Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario. Ridgetown College, University of GuelphGoogle Scholar
  19. Harding LE (2008) Non-linear uptake and hormesis effects of selenium in red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Science of the Total Environment 389:350–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinz GH (1996) Selenium in birds. In: Beyer WN, Heinz GH, Redmon AW (eds) Interpreting environmental contaminants in animal tissues. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 453–464Google Scholar
  21. Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ, Gold LG (1989) Impaired reproduction of mallards fed an organic form of selenium. The Journal of Wildlife Management:418–428. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/5222242. Accessed 7/2/19
  22. Heyland A, Moroz LL (2006) Signaling mechanisms underlying metamorphic transitions in animals. Integrative and Comparative Biology 46:743–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs NT, Hooten MB (2015) Bayesian models: a statistical primer for ecologists. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10523.html. Accessed 7/2/19
  24. Ingersoll CG, Dwyer FJ, May TW (1990) Toxicity of inorganic and organic selenium to Daphnia magna (Cladocera) and Chironomus riparius (Diptera). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9:1171–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen PD, Sorensen MA, Walton WE, Trumble JT (2007) Lethal and sublethal responses of an aquatic insect Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) challenged with individual and joint exposure to dissolved sodium selenate and methylmercury chloride. Environmental Toxicology 22:287–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King KW, Williams MR, Fausey NR (2015) Contributions of systematic tile drainage to watershed-scale phosphorus transport. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:486–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klett AT, Shaffer TL, Johnson DH (1988) Duck nest success in the prairie pothole region. The Journal of Wildlife Management:431–440. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1218&context=usgsnpwrc. Accessed 7/2/19
  28. Kraus JM, Schmidt TS, Walters DM et al (2014a) Cross-ecosystem impacts of stream pollution reduce resource and contaminant flux to riparian food webs. Ecological Applications 24:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kraus JM, Walters DM, Wesner JS et al (2014b) Metamorphosis alters contaminants and chemical tracers in insects: implications for food webs. Environmental Science and Technology 48:10957–10965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luoma SN, Rainbow PS (2005) Why is metal bioaccumulation so variable? Biodynamics as a unifying concept. Environmental Science and Technology 39:1921–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Macadam CR, Stockan JA (2015) More than just fish food: ecosystem services provided by freshwater insects. Ecological Entomology 40:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Main AR, Headley JV, Peru KM et al (2014) Widespread use and frequent detection of neonicotinoid insecticides in wetlands of Canada’s prairie pothole region. PLoS One 9:e92821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malison RL, Benjamin JR, Baxter CV (2010) Measuring adult insect emergence from streams: the influence of trap placement and a comparison with benthic sampling. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin PF (1988) The toxic and teratogenic effects of selenium and boron on avian reproduction. M.S. Thesis, University of California DavisGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin DB, Hartman WA (1987) The effect of cultivation on sediment composition and deposition in prairie pothole wetlands. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 34:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKenna OP, Mushet DM, Rosenberry DO, LaBaugh JW (2017) Evidence for a climate-induced ecohydrological state shift in wetland ecosystems of the southern Prairie Pothole Region. Climatic Change 145:273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morrissey CA, Mineau P, Devries JH et al (2015) Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: a review. Environment International 74:291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ohlendorf HM, Heinz GH (2011) Selenium in birds. In: Beyer WN, Meador JP (eds) Environmental contaminants in biota: interpreting tissue concentrations, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 669–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paetzold A, Tockner K (2005) Effects of riparian arthropod predation on the biomass and abundance of aquatic insect emergence. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rasband WS (1997) ImageJ. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Sabo JL, Power ME (2002) Numerical response of lizards to aquatic insects and short-term consequences for terrestrial prey. Ecology 83:3023–3036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sanzone DM, Meyer JL, Marti E et al (2003) Carbon and nitrogen transfer from a desert stream to riparian predators. Oecologia 134:238–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmidt TS, Kraus JM, Walters DM, Wanty RB (2013) Emergence flux declines disproportionately to larval density along a stream metals gradient. Environmental Science and Technology 47:8784–8792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith DR, King KW, Johnson L et al (2015) Surface runoff and tile drainage transport of phosphorus in the midwestern United States. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stan Development Team (2016) RStan: the R interface to Stan. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rstan/vignettes/rstan.html. Accessed 7/2/19
  46. Stewart RE, Kantrud HA (1974) Breeding waterfowl populations in the prairie pothole region of North Dakota. The Condor 76:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stewart AR, Luoma SN, Schlekat CE et al (2004) Food web pathway determines how selenium affects aquatic ecosystems: a San Francisco Bay case study. Environmental Science & Technology 38:4519–4526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. US EPA (1986) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/ambient-wqc-dissolved-oxygen-1986.pdf. Accessed 7/2/19
  49. US EPA (2016) Preliminary aquatic risk assessment to support the registration review of imidacloprid. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-and-ecological-risk. Accessed 7/2/19
  50. US EPA (2017a) Preliminary risk assessment to support the registration of Dinotefuran. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-and-ecological-risk. Accessed 7/2/19
  51. US EPA (2017b) Clothianidin- transmittal of the preliminary aquatic and non-pollinator terrestrial risk assessment to support registration review. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-and-ecological-risk. Accessed 7/2/19
  52. Walters DM, Fritz KM, Otter RR (2008) The dark side of subsidies: adult stream insects export organic contaminants to riparian predators. Ecological Applications 18:1835–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walters DM, Mills MA, Fritz KM, Raikow DF (2009) Spider-mediated flux of PCBs from contaminated sediments to terrestrial ecosystems and potential risks to arachnivorous birds. Environmental Science & Technology 44:2849–2856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wesner J, Kraus J, Schmidt T et al (2014) Metamorphosis enhances the effects of metal exposure on the mayfly, Centroptilum triangulifer. Environmental Science and Technology 48:10415–10422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilber C (1980) Toxicology of selenium: a review. Clinical Toxicology 17:171–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wood TJ, Goulson D (2017) The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a review of the evidence post 2013. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 24:17285–17325CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of South DakotaVermillionUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resources Conservation ServiceBeltsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations