Literature Review of the Effects of Persistent Toxic Substanceson Great Lakes Biota
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Renort to the Literature Review of the Effects of Persistent Toxic Substanceson Great Lakes Biota Report of the Health of Aquatic Communities Task Force by J. Fitchko IEC Beak Consultants Ltd. Mississauga, Ontario International Joint Commission Great Lakes Regional Office Windsor, Ontario December, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PR EFACE V C 1.0 SUMMARY OF GREATLAKES RESEARCH 1 1.1 Summary of StructuralResponse Studies of GreatLakes Biota and Persistent Toxic Substances 1 1.2 Summary of FunctionalResponse Studies of GreatLakes Biota and Persistent Toxic Substances 1 1.3 Summary of HumanToxicology Studies Related to Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes 4 1.4 Synthesis of Researchon Effects of PersistentToxic Substances on Great Lakes Aquatic Populations 4 I. 5 Conclusions 12 2.0 INTRODUCTION 14 3.0 STUDYBACKGROUND AND APPROACH 25 3.1 DEAK'sStudy Approach 27 4.0 STIiIJCTURALINDICATORS OF HEALTH 34 4. I Rac ter ia 34 4.2 Phytoplankton 35 4.3 Periphyton 38 4.4 Macrophy ton 39 4.5 Zooplankton 41 4.6 Benthos 43 4.7 Fish 54 5.0 F'lJNCTIONALINDICATORS OF HEALTH 56 5. I PhysiologicalResponses 56 5.1.1 Bacteria ' 56 5.1.2 Phytoplankton 60 1 Page 5.1.3 Periphyton 70 5.1.4 Macrophyton 71 5.1.5 Zooplankton 72 5.1.6 Benthos 77 5.1.7 Fish 81 5.1.8 Amphibians 95 5. I. 9 Birds 96 5.2.10 Mammals 107 5.2 Behavioral Responses i10 5.2. I Zooplankton 110 5.2.2 Benthos 110 5.2.3 Fish 114 5.2.4 Amphibians 119 5.2.5 Birds 119 5.3 Genetic and Morphological Responses 121 5.3.1 MutagenicAssays 122 5.3.2 Phytoplankton 123 5.3.3 Benthos 124 3.3.4 Fish 128 5.3.5 Amphibians 141 5.3.6 Birds 143 5.3.7 Mammals 145 5.3.8 Adaptation 146 6.0 HUMANHEALTH CONSIDERATIONS 147 6.1 DrinkingWater Quality 147 6.2 FishConsumption 149 6.3 Summary of HumanHealth Effects of PersistentToxic Substances in the Great Lakes 157 Page 7.0 EVALUATION OF TEST PROCEDURES 159 7.1 StructuralResponse Tests 159 7.1.1 IndicatorSpecies orTaxa 160 7.1.2 Change5 in RelativeNumbers of Individual5or Taxa 162 7.1.3 SpeciesDiversity or Community Comparison Indexes 164 7.1.4 StatisticalTechniques 167 7.1.5 ComparativeEvaluation of StructuralResponse Test ptility 168 7.2 FunctionalResponse Tests 174 7.2.1 PhysiologicalResponse Tests 174 7.2.2 BehavioralResponse Tests 179 7.2.3 Genetic Respon5e Tests 179 7.3 ComprehensivePrograms 183 8.0 REFERENCES 184 List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Summary of GreatLakes Studies on StructuralResponses to Specific Toxic Substances Based on Biotic Group 2 Table 2: Summary of GreatLakes Studies on FunctionalResponses to Specific Toxic Substances Based on Biotic Group 3 Table 3: SummaryFindings of GreatLakes Research on Effects of Persistent Toxic Contaminants Based on Biotic Group 5 Table 4: Structuraland Functional Response Studies in Areas of Concern of the Great Lakes 9 Table 5: WaterQuality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life 17 Table 6: WaterQuality Criteria for Human HealthProtection 20 Table 7: Structuraland Functional Example5 in the AquaticEcosystem That May Indicate Health 26 ... 111 Page Table 8: Areas of Concernin the Great Lakes Basin 29 Table 9: NeoplasiainGreat Lakes Fish Species 139 Table 10: Examples of CommunityDiversity Indexes 165 Table 11: Examples of CommunityComparison or Similarity Indexes 166 Table 12: FunctionalResponse Tests Used in GreatLakes Studies 175 Figure 1: Areas of Concernin the Great Lakes Basin 31 iv PREFACE The results of this literature review reaffirm the basic opinion held by the Health of AquaticComrnunities Task Forcethat the role of toxic substances in affectingthe health of the Great Lakes Ecosystem is poorly understood.Although many studies have investigated the effects of toxic substances on the structural and functional responses of Great Lakesorganisms, a clearunderstanding has yet to emerge on the role of toxic substances in affecting change in Great Lakes communities. The reasons for this lack of understanding are several: 1. The toxics issue is highly complex,especially when contrastedtheto eutrophication issue. Unlike eutrophication, which essentially is concerned with theinput of a singlechemical (phosphorus), the toxics issue is concerned with inputs of a wide variety of inorganic and organic compounds. It is an exceedingly difficultproblem to evaluatethe ecosystem effects of thesemany compounds, each of which possess unique physical and chemical properties. The effects of phosphorusloading to a lake aregenerally well understood. Phosphorus directlyaffects the plant community, stimulating an increase in productivity and eventually a shift in algal community structure towards species with low-silica requirements and significant nitrogen-fixing abilities. Changes in algalcomposition and productivity ultimately affect other components of the food web throughvarious mechanisms. In contrast, toxics, as general metabolic poisons, can directly affect allcomponents of thelake ecosystem from phytoplankton to fish, and a number of physiological, biochemical, behavioral ana genetic responses. 'rhus, because of the potential for toxics to directly affect so rnany aspects of ecosystemstructure and function, their role in affecting ecosystem change is less readily understood. 2. Many factorscan confoundthe effects of toxics on theGreat Lakes Ecosystem. There is strong evidence that species vary in their sensitivity to toxic substances and that, within a given species, adaptation can occur. Furthermore, organisms may be moresensitive to toxicsubstances during some times of theyear,than others. Low temperature,food-limitations and other stresses may increasethe V sensitivity to toxic stress. Organismsmay be more sensitive to toxicstress duringcertain periods of theirlife history; the embryo may -be especially vulnerable.Interactive effects amongtoxic substances can be significant. Furthermore,other factors such as eutrophicationand alterations infish communities may mask toxic effects. 3. Althoughnumerous studies have been conducted on toxic substances, there has been a generallack of a coherentecosystem approach. Few studies have been conductedin the Areas of Concern,regions where toxic concentrations are highestand most likely to haveaffected the aquatic ecosystem. Although several field studies have demonstrated the effects of toxic substances on lake populations, most have failed to conduct the appropriate laboratory studies, thus thespecific toxics have not been identified nor the stress mechanisms elucidated.There is no consensus on how to bestmeasure the effects of toxic substanceson the lake ecosystem. This is in contrast to eutrophicationstudies whichare, inlarge measure, based ondeterminations of phytoplankton abundance,species composition, productivity and nutrient determinations. Such studiesare incorporated into surveillance programs. However, there isno implicitdesign in surveillance studies for the assessment of toxic effects on GreatLakes biota. Newer studies are beginning to remedysome of these problems. 4. Despitethe various limitations in our understanding of toxics,there isstrong evidencethat toxics have affected the Great Lakes Ecosystem, thus further researchinthis area iswarranted. In manyAreas of Concern,benthic community structure has been altered. Toxic substances have been implicated as a causalfactor; bioassays have shown that contaminated sediments from these regions are toxic to a widevariety of test organisms(benthos, zooplankton, fish).There isevidence that toxic body burdens have bioaccumulated to sufficientlyhigh levels as to adversely affect thesurvivorship of salmonid progeny.Herring gulls, ternsand other aquatic birds also have been adversely affected by toxic substances; however, the causal factods) have yet to be clearly identified.Although PCBs wereoriginally implicated as a causalfactor, new studiessuggest that dioxins and dibenzofurans were the major toxicants. Such studiesillustrate the potential dangers of correlatingtoxic effects with the vi concentration of suspectedtoxic compounds; correlations may be spurious and appropriate confirmatory laboratory studies must be conducted. In order to betterunderstand the effects of toxicsubstances on Great Lakes Ecosystem health, the following issues must be addressed: 0 Moreinformation is required on the mode of action of toxicsubstances on the variousbiota and how this action is modified by environmentalfactors (e.g., other toxics, eutrophication, temperature, adaptation). 0 Betterfield and laboratory criteria must be developed for assessing the health of theGreat Lakes Ecosystem and the impairment of thishealth by exposureto toxic substances. 0 Thelinkage between field and laboratory studies should be strengthened in order to clearly identify causal factors and modifying agents. 0 Surveillancestudies should be specifically designed to investigate the effects of toxicson the lake ecosystem. Such studies must be based on good sampling design,including statistical considerations of samplelocations, frequency and methods,and subsequent data analysis. The various Areas of Concernmerit special attention. Marlene S. Evans Chairperson Health of Aquatic Communities Task Force vi i 1.0 SUMMARY OF GREAT LAKESRESEARCH 1.1 Summary of StructuralResponse Studies of GreatLakes Biota and Persistent Toxic Substances Most researchon alteration of communitystructure is related to trophic (nutrient) or general pollution conditions. A few studies have been undertaken to assess the effects of specific persistent toxicsubstances on the structural integrity of GreatLakes aquatic communities, e.&, the effects of organochlorinepesticides (Pfister