Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 512–519 | Cite as

Swimming speed alteration of Artemia sp. and Brachionus plicatilis as a sub-lethal behavioural end-point for ecotoxicological surveys

  • Francesca Garaventa
  • Chiara Gambardella
  • Alessio Di Fino
  • Massimiliano Pittore
  • Marco Faimali
Article

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the possibility to improve a new behavioural bioassay (Swimming Speed Alteration test—SSA test) using larvae of marine cyst-forming organisms: e.g. the brine shrimp Artemia sp. and the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. Swimming speed was investigated as a behavioural end-point for application in ecotoxicology studies. A first experiment to analyse the linear swimming speed of the two organisms was performed to verify the applicability of the video-camera tracking system, here referred to as Swimming Behavioural Recorder (SBR). A second experiment was performed, exposing organisms to different toxic compounds (zinc pyrithione, Macrotrol® MT-200, and Eserine). Swimming speed alteration was analyzed together with mortality. The results of the first experiment indicate that SBR is a suitable tool to detect linear swimming speed of the two organisms, since the values have been obtained in accordance with other studies using the same organisms (3.05 mm s−1 for Artemia sp. and 0.62 mm s−1 for B. plicatilis). Toxicity test results clearly indicate that swimming speed of Artemia sp. and B. plicatilis is a valid behavioural end-point to detect stress at sub-lethal toxic substance concentrations. Indeed, alterations in swimming speed have been detected at toxic compound concentrations as low as less then 0.1–5% of their LC50 values. In conclusion, the SSA test with B. plicatilis and Artemia sp. can be a good behavioural integrated output for application in marine ecotoxicology and environmental monitoring programs.

Keywords

Artemia sp. Behavioural end-point Brachionus plicatilis Swimming speed 

References

  1. Amsler MO, Amsler CD, Rittschoff D, Becerro MA, Mc Clintock JB (2006) The use of computer-assisted motion analysis for quantitative studies of the behaviour of barnacle (Balanus amphitrite) larvae. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 39(4):259–268. doi: 10.1080/10236240600980640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baillieul M, Blust R (1999) Analysis of the swimming velocity of cadmium-stressed Daphnia magna. Aquat Toxicol 44:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillieul M, Scheunders P (1998) On-line determination of the velocity of simultaneously moving objects by image analysis for the detection of sublethal toxicity. Water Res 32(4):1027–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauvais SL, Jones SB, Brewer SK, Little EE (2000) Physiological measure of neurotoxicity of diazinon and malathion to larval rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and their correlation with behavioural measures. Environ Toxicol Chem 19(7):1875–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2001) Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calabrese EJ, Blain R (2005) The occurrence of hormetic responses in toxicological literature, the hormesis database: an overview. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 202:289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charoy C, Janssen CR (1999) The swimming behaviour of Brachionus calyciflorus (rotifer) under toxic stress. II. Comparative sensitivity of various behavioural criteria. Chemosphere 38(14):3247–3260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charoy CP, Janssen CR, Persoone G, Clément P (1995) The swimming behaviour of Brachionus calyciflorus (rotifer) under toxic stress. I. The use of automated trajectory for determining sublethal effects of chemicals. Aquat Toxicol 32:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chelossi E, Faimali M (2006) Comparative assessment of antimicrobial efficacy of new potential biocides for treatment of cooling and ballast waters. Sci Total Environ 356:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davenport J, Healy A (2006) Relationship between medium salinity, body density, buoyancy and swimming in Artemia franciscana larvae: constraints on water column use? Hydrobiologia 556:295–301. doi: 10.1007/s10750-005-9118-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dell’Omo G (2002) Behavioural ecotoxicology. Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Faimali M, Magillo F, Piazza V, Garaventa F, Geraci S (2002) A simple toxicological bioassay using phototactic behaviour of Balanus amphitrite (Darwin) nauplii: role of some cultural parameters and application with experimental biocides. Period Biol 104(2):225–232Google Scholar
  13. Faimali M, Falugi C, Gallus L, Piazza V, Tagliafierro G (2003) Involvement of acetyl choline in settlement of Balnus amphitrite. Biofouling 19:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faimali M, Garaventa F, Piazza V, Greco G, Corra’ C, Magillo F, Pittore M, Giacco E, Gallus L, Falugi C, Tagliafierro G (2006) Swimming speed alteration of larvae of Balanus amphitrite (Darwin) as a behavioural end-point toxicological bioassays. Mar Biol 149(1):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falugi C (1988) Localisation and possible functions of cholinesterase activity in Balanus amphitrite embryos and larvae. Acta Embryol Morphol Exp New Ser 9:133–156Google Scholar
  16. Finney DJ (1978) Statistical method in biological assay, 3rd edn. Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  17. Georgalas V, Malavasi S, Franzoi P, Torricelli P (2007) Swimming activity and feeding behaviour of larval European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L): Effects of ontogeny and increasing food density. Aquaculture 264:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerhardt A, Janssens de Bisthoven L, Soares AMV (2005) Evidence for the stepwise stress model: Gambusia holbrooki and Daphnia magna under acid mine drainage and acidified reference water stress. Environ Sci Technol 39:4150–4158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goto T, Hiromi J (2003) Toxiciy of 17α-ethynylestradiol and norethindrone, constituents of any oral contraceptive pill to the swimming and reproduction of cladoceran Daphnia magna, with special reference to their synergetic effect. Mar Pollut Bull 47:139–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janssen CR, Ferrando MD, Persoone G (1994) Ecotoxicological studies with the freshwater rotifer Brachionus calcyflorus. 4. Rotifer behavior as a sensitive and rapid sublethal test criterion. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 28:244–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juergensen L, Busnarda J, Caux P-Y, Kent RA (2000) Fate, behaviour, and aquatic toxicity of the fungicide DDAC in the Canadian environment. Environ Toxicol 15:174–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kane SA, Salierno JD, Gipson GT, Molteno TCA, Hunter C (2004) A video–based movement analysis system to quantify behavioural stress responses of fish. Water Res 38(18):3993–4001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kane SA, Salierno JD, Brewer SK (2005) Fish models in behavioral toxicology: Automated techniques, updates and perspectives. In: Ostrander GK (ed) Methods in aquatic toxicology, vol 2. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp 559–590Google Scholar
  24. Korstad J, Neyts A, Danielsen T, Overrein I, Olsen Y (1995) Use of swimming speed and egg ratio as predictors of the status of rotifer cultures in aquaculture. Hydrobiologia 313(314):395–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsen PS, Madsen CV, Riisgård HU (2008) Effect of temperature and viscosity on swimming velocity of the copepod Acartia tonsa, brine shrimp Artemia salina and rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. Aquat Biol 4:47–54. doi: 10.3354/ab00093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Little EE, Brewer SK (2001) Neurobehavioral toxicity in fish. In: Schlenk D, Benson WH (eds) Target organ toxicity in marine and freshwater teleosts new perspectives: toxicology and the environment. Vol. 2. Systems. Taylor and Francis, London and New York, pp 139–174Google Scholar
  27. Little EE, Finger SE (1990) Swimming behaviour as an indicator of sublethal toxicity in fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lubzens E, Minkoff G, Maron S (1985) Salinity dependence of sexual and asexual reproduction in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. Mar Biol 85:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mochida K, Ito K, Harino H, Tanaka H, Onduka T, Kakuno A, Fujii K (2009) Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by metabolites of copper pyrithione (CuPT) and its possible involvement in vertebral deformity of a CuPT-exposed marine teleostean fish. Chemosphere 48:563–569Google Scholar
  30. Persoone G, Wells PG (1987) Artemia in aquatic toxicology: a review. In: Sorgeloos P, Bengtson DA, Decleir W, Jasper F (eds) Artemia research and its application. Vol. 1. Morphology, genetics, strain characterization, Toxicology. Universa Press, Wetteren, Belgium, pp 259–275Google Scholar
  31. Pineda-Rosas A, Santos-Medrano GE, Zavala-Reynoso MF, Rico-Martínez R (2005) Identification of acetylcholinesterase receptors in Rotifera. Hydrobiologia 546:249–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Preston BL, Cecchine G, Snell TW (1999) Effects of pentachlorophenol on predator avoidance behaviour of the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Aquat Toxicol 44:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rand GM (1985) Behaviour. In: Rand GM, Petrocelli SR (eds) Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology: methods and applications. Hemisphere Publishing, New York, pp 221–256Google Scholar
  34. Shimizu N, Ogino C, Kawanishi T, Hayashi Y (2002) Fractal analysis of Daphnia motion for acute toxicity bioassay. Environ Toxicol 17:441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snell TW, Joaquim-Justo C (2007) Workshop on rotifers in ecotoxicology. Hydrobiologia 593:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steinberg CEW, Lorenz R, Spieser OH (1995) Effects of atrazine on swimming behaviour of zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio. Water Res 29(3):981–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tahedl H, Häder DP (2001) Automated biomonitoring using real time movement analysis of Euglena gracilis. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 48(2):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Untersteiner H, Kahapka J, Kaiser H (2003) Behavioural response of the cladoceran Daphnia magna Straus to sublethal copper stress-validation by image analysis. Aquat Toxicol 65:435–442Google Scholar
  39. Untersteiner H, Gretschel G, Puchner T, Napetschnig S, Kaiser H (2005) Monitoring behavioural responses to the heavy metal cadmium in the marine shrimp Hippolyte inermis leach (Crustacea: Decapoda) with video imaging. Zool Stud 44(1):71–80Google Scholar
  40. Varó I, Navarro JC, Amat F, Guilhermino L (2002) Characterisation of cholinesterases and evaluation of the inhibitory potential of chlorpyrifos and dichlorvos to Artemia salina and Artemia parthenogenetica. Chemosphere 48:563–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Venkateswara Rao J, Kavitha P, Jakka NM, Sridhar V, Usman PK (2007) Toxicity of organoposphates on morphology and locomotor behavior in brine shrimp, Artemia salina. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 53:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vogl C, Grillitsch B, Wytek R, Hunrich Spieser O, Scholz W (1999) Qualification of spontaneous undirected locomotor behavior of fish for sublethal toxicity testing. Part I. Variability of measurement parameters under general test conditions. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(12):2736–2742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams TA (1994) A model of rowing propulsion and the ontogeny of locomotion in Artemia larvae. Biol Bull 187:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xu J, Liu Y, Cui S, Miao X (2006) Behavioral responses of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) to acute fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels as monitored by computer vision. Aquac Eng 35(3):207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yúfera M (2007) Swimming behaviour of Brachionus plicatilis in relation to food concentration and feeding rates. Hydrobiologia 593:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yúfera M, Pascual E, Olivares JM (2005) Factors affecting the swimming speed in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. Hydrobiologia 546:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Garaventa
    • 1
  • Chiara Gambardella
    • 1
  • Alessio Di Fino
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Pittore
    • 2
  • Marco Faimali
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Marine ScienceNational Council of Researches (CNR)GenoaItaly
  2. 2.E-magine-it Srl, Solution for a Clear VisionGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations