Fundulus Heteroclitus) and Atlantic Silversides (Menidia Menidia) Daniel P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Coastal Carolina University CCU Digital Commons Electronic Theses and Dissertations College of Graduate Studies and Research 1-1-2015 A Comparison of Whole Body Mercury Concentrations of Mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) and Atlantic Silversides (Menidia menidia) Daniel P. Ferons Coastal Carolina University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/etd Part of the Biochemistry Commons Recommended Citation Ferons, Daniel P., "A Comparison of Whole Body Mercury Concentrations of Mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) and Atlantic Silversides (Menidia menidia)" (2015). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 16. https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/etd/16 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Graduate Studies and Research at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A comparison of whole body mercury concentrations of mummichogs ( Fundulus heteroclitus ) and Atlantic silversides ( Menidia menidia ) By Daniel P. Ferons ________________________________________________________________________ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Coastal Marine and Wetland Studies in the School of Coastal and Marine Systems Science Coastal Carolina University 2015 ___________________ ___________________ Dr. Jane Guentzel, Major Professor Dr. Andrew Heyes ___________________ ___________________ Dr. Juliana M. Harding Dr. Rachel Whitaker ___________________ ___________________ Dr. Eric Koepfler Dr. Michael Roberts, Dean ___________________ Dr. Paul Gayes, SCMSS Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Guentzel. She taught me how to collect mercury in the field and patiently corrected my writing. Without her guidance, this project would not have been possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Heyes for sample analysis. His help allowed me to expand the scope of this project. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Harding for teaching me the laboratory dissection techniques that I used to evaluate the gut contents of mummichogs and Atlantic silversides. I also want to thank Dr. Whitaker and Dr. Koepfler for being on my committee. Coastal Carolina University’s Professional Enhancement Grant awarded to Dr. Guentzel and a Coastal Carolina University’s Undergraduate Research Council Grant funded this project. I would like to thank Merrill Boyce for the use of his dock to launch a canoe for fish collection. I want to thank Richard Goldberg, Sam Gary, and Bryan Keller for driving the boat on mercury collection days. Another thank you to David Catalano, Bradley Craig, Hunter Fiuzat, Andrew Frink, Roni Lance, Cory Rodgers, James Rupinski, Dani Silva, Zach Smith, Lindsey Sherwood, Rob Schroeder Caleb Storovasik, Kristen Trevey, and Cara Wilck for their help collecting fish from the field and/or dissecting the fish in the lab. Thank you to Dr. Jenna Hill for letting me use the sediment lab to measure grain size. Also, I want to thank Dr. Keshav for his help with my statistical analysis. Finally, I want to thank my parents, family, and friends for supporting me during this process. ii ABSTRACT Few studies have focused on mercury cycling within salt marsh estuaries. Mummichogs ( Fundulus heteroclitus ) and Atlantic silversides ( Menidia menidia ) are two species of forage fish that live year round in South Carolina salt marshes. During high tide, mummichogs feed from the water column, sediment, and off of smooth cordgrass while Atlantic silversides prey upon zooplankton. In this study, total and methyl mercury within mummichogs and Atlantic silversides from Dunn Sound, SC were quantified and compared over four seasons throughout 2014. Gut contents were also quantified and compared to determine if there was a dietary impact on the concentrations of total and methyl mercury in these fish. Atlantic silversides (20-44.8 ng/g THg; 17.1-40.6 ng/g MeHg) had significantly higher whole body total and methyl mercury concentrations than mummichogs (6.2-26.7 ng/g THg; 2.8-19.5 ng/g MeHg; p < 0.01, Two- way ANOVA, Tukey’s Test). There was no significant difference between the percentages of methylmercury in mummichogs and Atlantic silverside (Two-way ANOVA). This suggests that mummichogs and Atlantic silversides assimilate mercury at the same rate. The percent gut contents by weight (%W) and by number (%N) of Atlantic silversides were significantly different than mummichogs (p < 0.01, PERMANOVA). Mummichog gut contents were more diverse consisting of more than ten percent (%W and %N) Arthropods, detritus, and miscellaneous throughout 2014. Atlantic silverside gut contents were dominated by planktonic Arthropods. The differences in mercury concentrations in these two fish may impact the bioaccumulation of mercury in higher trophic level organisms. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………ii Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..iii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….vi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………...viii Introduction A) Mercury Cycling………………………………………………………...1 B) Mummichogs ( Fundulus heteroclitus )…………....…………………….4 C) Atlantic Silversides ( Menidia menidia )………………………………....6 D) Objectives……………………………………………………………….8 Methods A) Site Selection……………………………………………………………10 B) Timetable………………………………………………………………..10 C) Fish……………………………………………………………………....10 D) Water………………………………….………………………………....12 E) Sediment………………………………………………………………....13 F) Smooth cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora ) ………………………………13 G) Data Analysis a. Fish………………………………................................................14 b. Water ……………………………………………………………17 c. Sediment.………………………………………………………...17 d. Smooth cordgrass……………………………………..………....17 Results A) Fish a. Mercury………………………………….……………………....19 b. Gut contents………………………………..................................21 B) Water a. Mercury i. Unfiltered………………………………………………..23 ii. Filtered…..………………………………........................23 Discussion…….……………………………….......………………………………...25 References………………………………....………………………………...............29 Appendix A) Water a. Unfiltered………………………………....……………………..38 b. Filtered………………………………....………………………..39 iv B) Sediment a. Mercury………………………………....………………………39 C) Smooth Cordgrass a. Mercury………………………………....………………………40 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1……………………………………………………………………………...41 Summary of the statistical tests used for fish total and methyl mercury by season. Tukey’s test was used for parametric post hoc multiple comparisons and Dunn’s test was used for non-parametric post hoc multiple comparisons. Table 2……………………………………………………………………………...42 Summary of the statistical tests used for mummichog length, mummichog weight, Atlantic silverside length, Atlantic silverside length, gut percent composition by weight (%W), gut percent composition by number (%N), and percent ingestion by fish (%F) by season. Tukey’s test was used for parametric post hoc multiple comparisons and Dunn’s test was used for non-parametric post hoc multiple comparisons. Table 3……………………………………………………………………………...43 Summary of the statistical tests used for unfiltered and filtered water total and methyl mercury by season. Tukey’s test was used for parametric post hoc multiple comparisons and Dunn’s test was used for non-parametric post hoc multiple comparisons. Table 4……………………………………………………………………………...44 Summary of the statistical tests used for unfiltered and filtered water total and methyl mercury by season and tide. Tukey’s test was used for parametric post hoc multiple comparisons and Dunn’s test was used for non-parametric post hoc multiple comparisons. vi Table 5……………………………………………………………………………...45 Summary of the statistical tests used for sediment total and methyl mercury by season and tide. Tukey’s test was used for parametric post hoc multiple comparisons and Dunn’s test was used for non-parametric post hoc multiple comparisons. Table 6……………………………………………………………………………...46 Summary of the statistical tests used for smooth cordgrass total and methyl mercury by season and living versus dead. Tukey’s test was used for parametric post hoc multiple comparisons and Dunn’s test was used for non-parametric post hoc multiple comparisons. vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1………………………………………………………………………………47 SDHEC South Carolina Mercury Consumption Advisories Map (http://www.scdhec.gov/FoodSafety/FishConsumptionAdvisories/AdvisoryMap/ ; SCDHEC, 2014) Figure 2………………………………………………………………………………48 Overview of mercury methylation in salt marsh sediments. The layers of brackish water, oxic sediments, and anoxic sediments do not represent actual depths. The sediment has been partitioned into an oxic region and a hypoxic region. Hg (II) = dissolved inorganic mercury; Hg i = undissolved inorganic mercury; MeHg = aqueous methylmercury. Downward arrows represent flocculation and sedimentation processes. Arrows pointing from Hg (II) and MeHg toward Hg i represent oxidative and reductive demethylation. Upward arrows represent passive aqueous diffusion and volatilization of mercury. The arrow pointing from MeHg to the diatom represents passive biological uptake by phytoplankton. Graphic is based on the information presented in Merritt and Amirbahman (2009). The graphic was produced by Kathryn Ferons Figure 3……………………………………………………………………………..49 Estuarine food web depicting the trophic levels occupied by mummichogs and Atlantic silversides in relation to other organisms. Drawing is courtesy