Prepared in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Conservation Effects of mining-derived metals on riffle-dwelling crayfish and in-situ toxicity to juvenile Orconectes hylas and Orconectes luteus in the Big River of southeast Missouri, USA By Ann L. Allert, Robert J. DiStefano, James F. Fairchild, Christopher J. Schmitt, and William G. Brumbaugh Administrative Report U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, Missouri 2010 Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ii Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Study area.................................................................................................................................................................. 6 In-situ toxicity test ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Crayfish collection and culture............................................................................................................................ 7 2. In-situ toxicity test............................................................................................................................................... 8 Crayfish density and species richness ....................................................................................................................... 9 Physical habitat measurements ................................................................................................................................. 9 In-situ water quality measurements ..........................................................................................................................10 Sediment collection...................................................................................................................................................11 Laboratory water quality analyses.............................................................................................................................12 Determination of metal concentrations......................................................................................................................13 1. Water.................................................................................................................................................................13 2. Biota and detritus ..............................................................................................................................................14 3. Sediment ...........................................................................................................................................................15 Statistical analysis.....................................................................................................................................................16 Results..........................................................................................................................................................................18 In-situ toxicity test .....................................................................................................................................................18 1. Number, sex ratio, and size of caged crayfish...................................................................................................18 2. Concentration of metals in caged crayfish.........................................................................................................19 Riffle (wild) crayfish density, species richness, sex ratio, and size............................................................................19 Number, sex ratio, size, and metal concentrations in riffle (wild) crayfish .................................................................20 iii Physical habitat measurements ................................................................................................................................21 Water quality measurements ....................................................................................................................................23 Metal concentrations in water, detritus, biota, and sediment.....................................................................................25 1. Water.................................................................................................................................................................25 2. Detritus and biota ..............................................................................................................................................26 3. Sediment ...........................................................................................................................................................27 Associations among riffle (wild) crayfish density and size, and physical and chemical variables..............................28 Principal components analyses.................................................................................................................................29 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................30 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................37 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................38 References cited...........................................................................................................................................................39 iv Figures Figure 1. Map of in-situ toxicity study sites and crayfish density sampling sites, within the Big River EDU (Ecological Drainage Unit), Missouri............................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 2. Mean metal concentrations (µg/g dry weight) in surviving Orconectes hylas and Orconectes luteus at days 0, 28, and 56 of the in-situ toxicity test, and wild O. luteus (day 28) at sampling sites, Big River, Missouri: (a) lead; (b) zinc; (c) cadmium; (d) cobalt; (e) nickel; and (f) copper................................................................................. 50 Figure 3. Riffle crayfish density and mean metal concentrations (µg/g dry weight) in wild O. luteus at sampling sites, Big River, Missouri: (a) lead; (b) zinc; (c) cadmium; (d) cobalt; (e) nickel; and (f) copper................................... 51 Figure 4. Riffle crayfish density and mean metal concentrations (µg/L) in surface water at sampling sites, Big River, Missouri: (a) lead; (b) zinc; (c) cadmium; (d) cobalt; (e) nickel; and (f) copper. ................................................. 52 Figure 5. Principal components ordination of sites, Big River, Missouri: (a) eight sampling sites, based on physical and chemical variables [axis 1 (x-axis) and 2 (y-axis) account for 48% and 30% of the variance among sites]; (b) four cage sites based on physical and chemical variables [axis 1 (x-axis) and 2 (y-axis) account for 84% and 13% of the variance among sites].................................................................................................................................................. 53 v Tables Table 1. Site locations for the density study and in-situ toxicity test, Big River, Missouri..................................... 54 Table 2. Substrate size class classification.......................................................................................................... 55 Table 3. Method detection limit (MDL) for the analyses of water, biota, detritus, and sediment........................... 56 Table 4. Number, sex ratio (F:M), mean carapace length, wet weight, and biomass (±1 standard error) of surviving Orconectes hylas and O. luteus exposed at days 28 and 56 of the in-situ toxicity test, Big River, Missouri. 57 Table 5. Growth rates [change per day in carapace length (CL) and wet weight (WT)], percent (%) increase in CL and WT from day 0, and % difference in increase of CL and WT between surviving O. hylas and O. luteus. ............. 58 Table 6. Mean metal concentrations (µg/g; ±1 standard error) in surviving Orconectes hylas exposed during the 56-d in-situ toxicity test, Big River, Missouri. ............................................................................................................... 59 Table 7. Mean metal concentrations (µg/g; ±1 standard error) in surviving Orconectes luteus exposed during the 56-d in-situ toxicity test, Big River, Missouri. ..............................................................................................................