Copper Tolerance of Amphibalanus Amphitrite As Observed in Central Florida
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copper Tolerance of Amphibalanus amphitrite as Observed in Central Florida by Hannah Grace Brinson Bachelor of Science Oceanography Florida Institute of Technology 2015 A thesis submitted to Department of Ocean Engineering and Sciences at Florida Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Science in Biological Oceanography Melbourne, Florida December 2017 We the undersigned committee hereby approve the attached thesis, “Copper Tolerance of Amphibalanus amphitrite as observed in Central Florida,” by Hannah Grace Brinson. ________________________________ Emily Ralston, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor of Ocean Engineering and Sciences; Department of Ocean Engineering and Sciences Major Advisor ________________________________ Geoffrey Swain, Ph.D. Professor of Oceanography and Ocean Engineering; Department of Ocean Engineering and Sciences ________________________________ Kevin B. Johnson, Ph.D. Chair of Ocean Sciences; Professor of Oceanography and Environmental Sciences; Department of Ocean Engineering and Sciences ________________________________ Richard Aronson, Ph.D. Department Head and Professor of Biological Sciences; Department of Biological Sciences ________________________________ Dr. Marco Carvalho Dean of College of Engineering and Computing Abstract Copper Tolerance of Amphibalanus amphitrite as observed in Central Florida by Hannah Grace Brinson Major Advisor: Emily Ralston, Ph.D. Copper tolerance in the invasive barnacle Amphibalanus amphitrite has been observed in Florida by the Center for Corrosion and Biofouling Control since 2012 and by Weiss (1947). To test the theory that this barnacle preferentially settles on copper coated surfaces to avoid settlement competition by other sessile species, a series of two experiments and a literature review of historical copper toxicity tests on larval barnacles was conducted. The barnacle A amphitrite was preferentially used in many previous toxicity studies because it is readily available, has high fecundity, and is more sensitive to some toxicants than other species, including the native barnacle A eburneus. In order to resolve the difference between observed recruitment by A amphitrite on copper coatings, with reported copper sensitivity as larvae in lab experiments, an in situ field experiment was performed. A series of panels coated with paint containing different concentrations of copper was immersed at the Florida Institute of Technology static test site at Cape Marina, located in Port Canaveral, FL during two different seasons: winter with low fouling pressure and summer with high fouling pressure. During the winter, the barnacle A amphitrite and an invasive species of bryozoan Watersipora subtorquata complex recruited on low copper content surfaces, but did not occupy enough space for competition to be a factor. During the summer, the barnacle A amphitrite recruited almost exclusively on the highest copper iii content panels, while the bryozoan W subtorquata complex recruited on the low copper content panels, similar to the pattern seen in winter. The native barnacle Amphibalanus eburneus settled exclusively in the inert surfaces. Through these results, it can be determined that A amphitrite likely responded to higher competition pressure by recruiting to higher copper treatments, unlike W subtorquata complex and A eburneus. A second set of experiments was designed to look at settlement preferences of A amphitrite. In one experiment, larvae of the barnacle A amphitrite were isolated in mesocosms with the choice of settlement on the high copper-content coated surface, that it readily recruited on in the previous experiment, and an inert surface. In the second experiment larvae of both A amphitrite and A eburneus were placed in the mesocosms with same choice of substrate. A amphitrite settled in significantly higher numbers on the inert surfaces rather than settling evenly on both surfaces, regardless of whether there was competition from a congenitor or not. Given the results of the previous in situ experiment this result was not expected. Copper tolerance in the barnacle A amphitrite has been observed through recruitment studies and observations in several parts of Florida. Though this barnacle is known to be sensitive to copper in the literature, the anomaly of its recruitment to copper coated surfaces is yet to be determined. Settlement studies of A amphitrite revealed a preference for settlement on inert surfaces without competing recruits, which is indicative of the literature sensitivity results but not the observed recruitment of this organism. iv Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... v List of Keywords ..................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ........................................................................................................ viii List of Tables............................................................................................................. ix List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................. x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Copper Toxicity in Different Barnacle Species; A Literature Review .... 1 Abstract ................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 Copper Tolerance of Barnacles .............................................................................. 8 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 18 Barnacle Toxicity.............................................................................................. 18 Biotic Ligand Model ......................................................................................... 22 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 25 Chapter 2: In Situ Recruitment of Fouling Organisms to Surfaces of a Varying Spectrum of Copper Concentrations ........................................................................ 26 Abstract ................................................................................................................. 27 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 28 Methods ................................................................................................................ 32 Results .................................................................................................................. 37 Winter Trial ...................................................................................................... 38 Summer Trial .................................................................................................... 41 v Discussion ............................................................................................................. 53 Winter Trial ...................................................................................................... 54 Summer Trial .................................................................................................... 59 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 65 Chapter 3: Settlement of Amphibalanus amphitrite in the Presence and Absence of a Congeneric Competitor ..................................................................................... 67 Abstract ................................................................................................................. 68 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 69 Methods ................................................................................................................ 73 Results .................................................................................................................. 79 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 81 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 86 Chapter 4: Conclusions and Future Research Recommendations............................ 87 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 88 Future Research Recommendations ..................................................................... 89 Works Cited ............................................................................................................. 92 Appendix A ............................................................................................................ 100 Appendix B ............................................................................................................ 106 Appendix C ...........................................................................................................