Advertisement

pp 1-20 | Cite as

In Situ Exposure of Aquatic Invertebrates to Detect the Effects of Point and Nonpoint Source-Related Chemical Pollution in Aquatic Ecosystems

  • Mirco BundschuhEmail author
  • Ralf Schulz
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology book series

Abstract

As an intermediate step between laboratory and (semi-)field experiments, in situ bioassays are a valuable active biomonitoring tool for the assessment of effects. By measuring lethal or sublethal responses of caged aquatic (in)vertebrates in the field, the biological consequences of point and nonpoint sources of pollution can be determined. As the test organisms—here we focus on aquatic invertebrates—and response variables selected can be diverse, we first provide some general considerations related to the experimental design including the selection of test species, sampling sites, response variables, replication, as well as data evaluation. Subsequently, a case study using leaf-shredding amphipods as model organisms for the assessment of point sources of pollution is presented to underpin these theoretical considerations by a practical example. Thereby, a more detailed protocol is provided to contextualize the results of this case study. All in all, this book chapter aims at providing guidance for researchers interested in employing in situ bioassays in their studies or monitoring efforts.

Keywords

In situ Gammarids Feeding rate Sublethal responses Chemical stress response Active biomonitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Figures 3 and 4 were reprinted with permission from Bundschuh, M., Pierstorf, R., Schreiber, W.H., and Schulz, R. (2011). Positive effects of wastewater ozonation can be displayed by in situ bioassays in the receiving stream. Environmental Science & Technology 45(8), 3774-3780. Copyright 2011 American Chemical Society.

References

  1. 1.
    Chappie DJ, Burton GA (1997) Optimization of in situ bioassays with Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:559–564Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crane M, Maltby L (1991) The lethal and sublethal responses of Gammarus pulex to stress: sensitivity and sources of variation in an in situ bioassay. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:1331–1339Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schulz R (2005) Aquatic in situ bioassays to detect agricultural non-point source pesticide pollution: a link between laboratory and field. In: Ostrander GK (ed) Techniques in aquatic toxicology, vol 2. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, p 784Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bundschuh M, Schulz R (2011) Ozonation of secondary treated wastewater reduces ecotoxicity to Gammarus fossarum (Crustacea; Amphipoda): are loads of (micro)pollutants responsible? Water Res 45:3999–4007Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jergentz S, Pessacq P, Mugni H, Bonetto C, Schulz R (2004) Linking in situ bioassays and population dynamics of macroinvertebrates to assess agricultural contamination in streams of the Argentine pampa. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 59:133–141Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schulz R, Liess M (1999) Validity and ecological relevance of an active in situ bioassay using Gammarus pulex and Limnephilus lunatus. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2243–2250Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bundschuh M, Pierstorf R, Schreiber WH, Schulz R (2011) Positive effects of wastewater ozonation can be displayed by in situ bioassays in the receiving stream. Environ Sci Technol 45:3774–3780Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Englert D, Zubrod JP, Schulz R, Bundschuh M (2013) Effects of municipal wastewater on aquatic ecosystem structure and function in the receiving stream. Sci Total Environ 454-455:401–410Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Englert D, Zubrod JP, Schulz R, Bundschuh M (2015) Variability in ecosystem structure and functioning in a low order stream: implications of land use and season. Sci Total Environ 538:341–349Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandez D, Voss K, Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Schäfer RB (2015) Effects of fungicides on decomposer communities and leaf decomposition in vineyard streams. Sci Total Environ 533:40–48Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulz R (2003) Using a freshwater amphipod in situ bioassay as a sensitive tool to detect pesticide effects in the field. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1172–1176Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schlenk D et al (2001) Toxicity of fipronil and its degradation products to Procambarus sp.: field and laboratory studies. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41:325–332Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Den Besten PJ, Naber A, Grootelaar EMM, Van de Guchte C (2003) In situ bioassays with Chironomus riparius: laboratory-field comparisons of sediment toxicity and effects during wintering. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manage 6:217–228Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faria MS et al (2006) Biological and functional responses of in situ bioassays with Chironomus riparius larvae to assess river water quality and contamination. Sci Total Environ 371:125–137Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salmelin J, Leppanen MT, Karjalainen AK, Vuori KM, Gerhardt A, Hamalainen H (2017) Assessing ecotoxicity of biomining effluents in stream ecosystems by in situ invertebrate bioassays: a case study in Talvivaara, Finland. Environ Toxicol Chem 36:147–155Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lopes I, Moreira-Santos M, da Silva EM, Sousa JP, Guilhermino L, Soares AMVM, Ribeiro R (2007) In situ assays with tropical cladocerans to evaluate edge-of-field pesticide runoff toxicity. Chemosphere 67:2250–2256Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pereira AMM, Soares AMVM, Goncalves F, Ribeiro R (1999) Test chambers and test procedures for in situ toxicity testing with zooplankton. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1956–1964Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pereira AM, Soares AMVM, Goncalves F, Ribeiro R (2000) Water-column, sediment, and in situ chronic bioassays with cladocerans. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 47:27–38Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salazar MH, Duncan PB, Salazar SM, Rose KA (1995) In situ bioassays using transplanted mussels: II. Assessing contaminated sediments at a superfund site in Puget sound. In: Hughes JS, Biddinger GR, Mones E (eds) Environmental toxicology and risk assessment, vol ASTM STP 1218. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 242–263Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burton GA Jr et al (2005) In situ exposures using caged organisms: a multi-compartment approach to detect aquatic toxicity and bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut 134:133–144Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herrero O, Morcillo G, Planello R (2017) Transcriptional deregulation of genetic biomarkers in Chironomus riparius larvae exposed to ecologically relevant concentrations of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). Plos One 12.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171719Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wagner M, Oehlmann J (2009) Endocrine disruptors in bottled mineral water: total estrogenic burden and migration from plastic bottles. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:278–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0107-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner M, Oehlmann J (2011) Endocrine disruptors in bottled mineral water: estrogenic activity in the E-Screen. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 127:128–135Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prato E, Biandolino F (2006) Monocorophium insidiosum (Crustacea, Amphipoda) as a candidate species in sediment toxicity testing. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 77:1–8Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Newman MC (2013) Quantitative ecotoxicology. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adam O, Degiorgi F, Crini G, Badot PM (2010) High sensitivity of Gammarus sp. juveniles to deltamethrin: outcomes for risk assessment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73:1402–1407Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pascoe D, Kedwards TJ, Blockwell SJ, Taylor EJ (1995) Gammarus pulex (L.) feeding bioassay—effects of parasitism. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 55:629–632Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grabner DS, Weigand AM, Leese F, Winking C, Hering D, Tollrian R, Sures B (2015) Invaders, natives and their enemies: distribution patterns of amphipods and their microsporidian parasites in the Ruhr Metropolis, Germany Parasite Vector 8 doi: ARTN 419.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1036-6
  29. 29.
    Franke U (1977) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Respiration von Gammarus fossarum in Abhängigkeit von Temperatur, Sauerstoffkonzentration und Wasserbewegung. Archiv Hydrobiol Suppl 48:369–411Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoffman ER, Fisher S (1994) Comparison of a field and laboratory-derived population of Chironomus riparius (Diptera, Chironomidae)—biochemical and fitness evidence for population divergence. J Econ Entomol 87:318–325Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bundschuh M, Goedkoop W, Kreuger J (2014) Evaluation of pesticides monitoring strategies in agricultural streams based on the toxic-unit concept—experiences from long-term measurements. Sci Total Environ 484:84–91Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stehle S, Knäbel A, Schulz R (2013) Probabilistic risk assessment of insecticide concentrations in agricultural surface waters: a critical appraisal. Environ Monit Assess 185:6295–6310Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liess M, Schulz R (2000) Sampling methods in surface waters. In: LML N (ed) Handbook of water analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matthiessen P et al (1995) Use of a Gammarus pulex bioassay to measure the effects of transient carbofuran runoff from farmland. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 30:111–119Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maltby L, Clayton SA, Wood RM, McLoughlin N (2002) Evaluation of the Gammarus pulex in situ feeding assay as a biomonitor of water quality: robustness, responsiveness and relevance. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:361–368Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Education Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ashauer R (2016) Post-ozonation in a municipal wastewater treatment plant improves water quality in the receiving stream. Environ Sci Eur 28:1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-12015-10068-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dangles O, Gessner MO, Guerold F, Chauvet E (2004) Impacts of stream acidification on litter breakdown: implications for assessing ecosystem functioning. J Appl Ecol 41:365–378Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Macneil C, Dick JTA, Elwood RW (1999) The dynamics of predation on Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Biol Rev 74:375–395Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Schulz R (2011) The functional and physiological status of Gammarus fossarum (Crustacea; Amphipoda) exposed to secondary treated wastewater. Environ Pollut 159:244–249Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Coulaud R et al (2011) In situ feeding assay with Gammarus fossarum (Crustacea): modelling the influence of confounding factors to improve water quality biomonitoring. Water Res 45:6417–6429Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bärlocher F (1992) Effects of drying and freezing autumn leaves on leaching and colonization by aquatic hyphomycetes. Freshw Biol 28:1–7Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bärlocher F (1985) The role of fungi in the nutrition of stream invertebrates. Bot J Linn Soc 91:83–94Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dang CK, Chauvet E, Gessner MO (2005) Magnitude and variability of process rates in fungal diversity-litter decomposition relationships. Ecol Lett 8:1129–1137Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Naylor C, Maltby L, Calow P (1989) Scope for growth in Gammarus pulex, a freshwater benthic detritivore. Hydrobiologia 188/189:517–523Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Poulton M, Pascoe D (1990) Disruption of precopula in Gammarus pulex (L.)—development of a behavioural bioassay for evaluating pollutant and parasite induced stress. Chemosphere 20:403–415Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Maltby L, Naylor C, Calow P (1990) Effect of stress on a freshwater benthic detritivore: scope for growth in Gammarus pulex. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 19:285–291Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Baird DJ et al (2007) In situ-based effects measures: determining the ecological relevance of measured responses. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:259–267Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bundschuh M, Schulz R (2011) Population response to ozone application in wastewater: an on-site microcosm study with Gammarus fossarum (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Ecotoxicology 20:466–473Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wieczorek MV, Bakanov N, Bilancia D, Szöcs E, Stehle S, Bundschuh M, Schulz R (2018) Structural and functional effects of a short-term pyrethroid pulse exposure on invertebrates in outdoor stream mesocosms. Sci Total Environ 610–611:810–819Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.iES Landau, Institute for Environmental SciencesUniversity Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic Sciences and AssessmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations