, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 61–70 | Cite as

Direct and indirect effects of copper-contaminated sediments on the functions of model freshwater ecosystems

  • Stephanie Gardham
  • Anthony A. Chariton
  • Grant C. Hose


Copper is acutely toxic to, and directly affects, primary producers and decomposers, which are key players in essential processes such as the nutrient cycle in freshwater ecosystems. Even though the indirect effects of metals (for example effects due to changes in species interactions) may be more common than direct effects, little is known about the indirect effects of copper on primary producers and decomposers. The effects of copper on phytoplankton, macrophytes, periphyton and organic matter decomposition in an outdoor lentic mesocosm facility were assessed, and links between the responses examined. Copper directly decreased macrophyte growth, subsurface organic matter decomposition, and the potential for high phytoplankton Chlorophyll a concentrations. However, periphyton cover and organic matter decomposition on the surface of the sediment were stimulated by the presence of copper. These latter responses were attributed to indirect effects, due to a reduction in grazing pressure from snails, particularly Physa acuta, in the higher copper-contaminated mesocosms. This permitted the growth of periphyton and other heterotrophs, ultimately increasing decomposition at the sediment surface. The present study demonstrates the pronounced influence indirect effects may have on ecological function, findings that may not be observed in traditional laboratory studies (which utilize single species or simplistic communities).


Ecosystem function Primary production Decomposition Metal-contamination Mesocosm Environmental assessment 



Construction of the mesocosms was funded by a Macquarie University Infrastructure Grant. Stephanie Gardham was supported by a Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship. Thanks to Manuel Nigel and Alexander Michie for their help in running the experiment. We also wish to thank the CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country flagship.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10646_2014_1355_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (328 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 328 kb)


  1. Barranguet C, van den Ende FP, Rutgers M et al (2003) Copper-induced modifications of the trophic relations in riverine algal-bacterial biofilms. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1340–1349Google Scholar
  2. Brinke M, Ristau K, Bergtold M et al (2011) Using meiofauna to assess pollutants in freshwater sediments: a microcosm study with cadmium. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:427–438. doi: 10.1002/etc.387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briones MJ, Ineson P (1996) Decomposition of Eucalyptus leaves in litter mixtures. Soil Biol Biochem 28:1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burkepile DE (2013) Comparing aquatic and terrestrial grazing ecosystems: is the grass really greener? Oikos 122:306–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20716.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canhoto C, Graca MAS (1996) Decomposition of Eucalyptus globulus leaves and three native leaf species (Alnus glutinosa, Castanea sativa and Quercus faginea) in a Portuguese low order stream. Hydrobiologia 333:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza R, Arge R, De Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daufresne T, Loreau M (2001) Ecological stoichiometry, primary producer-decomposer interactions, and ecosystem persistence. Ecology 82:3069–3082Google Scholar
  8. Duarte S, Pascoal C, Alves A et al (2008) Copper and zinc mixtures induce shifts in microbial communities and reduce leaf litter decomposition in streams. Freshw Biol 53:91–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01869.x Google Scholar
  9. Eisler R (1998) Copper hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. Defense. No. USGS/BRD/BSR–1997-0002. p 98Google Scholar
  10. Fleeger JW, Carman KR, Nisbet RM (2003) Indirect effects of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 317:207–233. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00141-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardham S, Chariton A, Hose GC (2014a) Invertebrate community responses to a particulate- and dissolved-copper exposure in model freshwater ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem. doi: 10.1002/etc.2728
  12. Gardham S, Hose GC, Simpson SL et al (2014b) Long-term copper partitioning of metal-spiked sediments used in outdoor mesocosms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:7130–7139. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-2631-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guasch H, Paulsson M, Sabater S (2002) Effect of copper on algal communities from oligotrophic calcareous streams. J Phycol 38:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Havens KE (1994a) Structural and functional responses of a freshwater plankton community to acute copper stress. Environ Pollut 86:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Havens KE (1994b) Experimental perturbation of a freshwater plankton community: a test of hypotheses regarding the effects of stress. Oikos 69:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hills N, Hose GC, Cantlay AJ, Murray BR (2008) Cave invertebrate assemblages differ between native and exotic leaf litter. Aust Ecol 33:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Imberger SJ, Thompson RM, Grace MR (2010) Searching for effective indicators of ecosystem function in urban streams: assessing cellulose decomposition potential. Freshw Biol 55:2089–2106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02469.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lategan MJ, Korbel K, Hose GC (2010) Is cotton-strip tensile strength a surrogate for microbial activity in groundwater? Mar Freshw Res 61:351. doi: 10.1071/MF09144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Jeune A-H, Charpin M, Deluchat V et al (2006) Effect of copper sulphate treatment on natural phytoplanktonic communities. Aquat Toxicol 80:267–280. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le Jeune A-H, Charpin M, Sargos D et al (2007) Planktonic microbial community responses to added copper. Aquat Toxicol 83:223–237. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leland HV, Carter JL (1984) Effects of copper on species composition of periphyton in a Sierra Nevada, California, stream. Freshw Biol 14:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leland HV, Carter JL (1985) Effects of copper on production of periphyton, nitrogen fixation and processing of leaf litter in a Sierra Nevada, California, stream. Freshw Biol 15:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mal TK, Adorjan P, Corbett AL (2002) Effect of copper on growth of an aquatic macrophyte, Elodea canadensis. Ecology 120:307–311Google Scholar
  24. Mayer-Pinto M, Underwood AJ, Tolhurst T, Coleman RA (2010) Effects of metals on aquatic assemblages: what do we really know? J Exp Mar Bio Ecol 391:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2010.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Naeem S, Hahn DR, Schuurman G (2000) Producer–decomposer co-dependency influences biodiversity effects. Nature 403:762–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roussel H, Ten-Hage L, Joachim S et al (2007) A long-term copper exposure on freshwater ecosystem using lotic mesocosms: primary producer community responses. Aquat Toxicol 81:168–182. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roussel H, Chauvet E, Bonzom J-M (2008) Alteration of leaf decomposition in copper-contaminated freshwater mesocosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:637–644. doi: 10.1897/07-168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schreiber U (1998) Chlorophyll fluorescence: new instruments for special applications. In: Garab G (ed) Photosynthesis: Mechanisms and Effects, vol V. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 4253–4258Google Scholar
  29. Serra A, Guasch H (2009) Effects of chronic copper exposure on fluvial systems: linking structural and physiological changes of fluvial biofilms with the in-stream copper retention. Sci Total Environ 407:5274–5282. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Serra A, Corcoll N, Guasch H (2009) Copper accumulation and toxicity in fluvial periphyton: the influence of exposure history. Chemosphere 74:633–641. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sinha S, Gupta M, Chandra P (1994) Bioaccumulation and toxicity of Cu and Cd in Vallisneria spiralis (L.). Environ Monit Assess 33:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soldo D, Behra R (2000) Long-term effects of copper on the structure of freshwater periphyton communities and their tolerance to copper, zinc, nickel and silver. Aquat Toxicol 47:181–189. doi: 10.1016/S0166-445X(99)00020-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tiegs SD, Langhans SD, Tockner K, Gessner MO (2007) Cotton strips as a leaf surrogate to measure decomposition in river floodplain habitats. J North Am Benthol Soc 26:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  35. Vajpayee P, Rai UN, Ali MB et al (2005) Possible involvement of oxidative stress in copper induced inhibition of nitrate reductase activity in Vallisneria spiralis L. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 74:745–754. doi: 10.1007/s00128-005-0645-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vanni MJ (2002) Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:341–370. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang P, Wang C, Ouyang P et al (2011) Physiological responses of Vallisneria spiraslis L. induced by different hydraulic conditions when exposed to copper and nitrogen. Afr J Biotechnol 10:7441–7452. doi: 10.5897/AJB11.784 Google Scholar
  38. Winner RW, Owen HA (1991) Seasonal variability in the sensitivity of freshwater phytoplankton communities to a chronic copper stress. Aquat Toxicol 19:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Gardham
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anthony A. Chariton
    • 2
  • Grant C. Hose
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environment and GeographyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Contaminants ResearchCSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere FlagshipSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations