It's Still in the Water!

Randy,

For what it's worth, that puts it into the potential toxic range (0.32 mg/L for the LC50 with plaice larvae) IF what you measured has the same toxicity as that measured by Sieberth and Johnson.

You wanted to impress me with the 0.32 mg/L value?;)

This is nothing compared to the 0.03 mg/L PO4-P which is sufficient to decrease the ferilization of an Acropora eggs drastically. I will post it when I am back in the office (it's almost midnight here).

And if you consider the high PO4-P values..........
 
Yes, I agree, there are loads of things that may be toxic in our tanks. Anions (phosphate, arsenate, etc) are certainly among them.

Inhibition of calcification of corals happens at fairly low phosphate levels (<0.2 ppm) and even organic phosphate levels. The levels are in my calcification article (the one that Eric kindly supplied many references for: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/chem.htm

Midnight? You sleep? What about all those people wanting your test kits? They have to wait while you sleep?
 
Here is what I said about highly reduced fertilisation at a PO4 concentration of 1 microM (approx. 0.1 ppm as phosphate or 0.03 ppm as PO4-P).


Elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus reduce fertilisation success of gametes from scleractinian reef corals
P. L. Harrison1, and S. Ward1

(1) Centre for Coastal Management, Southern Cross University, P.O. Box 157, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia

Communicated by G.F. Humphrey, Sydney

Abstract. Spawned gametes were collected from colonies of Acropora longicyathus at One Tree Island and Goniastrea aspera at Magnetic Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia, for use in fertilisation trials. Mean fertilisation rates were significantly reduced compared with controls (P<0.003), when gametes from the branching coral A. longicyathus were exposed to elevated ammonium concentrations at 1 Ã"šÃ‚µM and above in one cross (60-64% reduction), and at 100 Ã"šÃ‚µM in another cross (16% reduction). Mean fertilisation success of A. longicyathus gametes was also significantly reduced compared with controls in both crosses (P=0.000) at concentrations of 1 Ã"šÃ‚µM phosphate and above (35-75% reduction), and at 1 Ã"šÃ‚µM ammonium plus 1 Ã"šÃ‚µM phosphate and all higher concentrations (68-74% reduction). Similarly, the mean percentage of regular embryos that were developing normally was significantly reduced in most nutrient treatments compared with controls (P=0.000). Fertilisation trials using gametes from the brain coral G. aspera resulted in a significantly lower percentage of regular embryos (P=0.001) and a significantly higher percentage of deformed embryos (P=0.001) developing after exposure to elevated nutrient treatments compared with controls. Mean fertilisation rates for this species were only significantly reduced (P=0.034) in the 50 Ã"šÃ‚µM ammonium plus phosphate treatment in one cross (8% reduction), compared with the control. Therefore, ammonium and phosphate enrichment significantly impairs fertilisation success and embryo development in scleractinian reef corals.
 
I was going to suggest that we might be able to work up a collaborative project on this, one that might well result in publication in the professional literature as well as in the hobbyist press, but in light of your contentious response, I think such a project would have little chance of success.

Hmmm, proposed that way, I'd have to agree

I must say that after following this thread from the beginning and even printing it out so I could make some notes and keep it for future reference, this seems an excellent idea, to me anyway.

Each of you would bring an excellent balance and welth of knowledge to the project. I know things can get a bit heated in the scientific world, however this seems like potentially very important work at least in our small world of reefkeepers. I for one would like to see you two work together, for my selfish benefit if for no other reason, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
 
Sorry for my absence but I've been busy. I spent the day in the library today, and not specifically for you guys...but in the process, well, my nature got the best of me again.

OK, I'm not finished yet, but here's what I have found so far in addition to all theprevious articles/books, etc..

Randy: Thanks for the links and I'll be sure and read them and any others as soon as I can. I also agree that if Habib or anyone would further our knoweldge of these things with real science, I would be more than open minded enough to read them. I also wanted to throw in, as an aside to others reading this thread the following before getting to the meat of my post: A lot of people tend to think because someone has written something in the aquarium literature, it is true. That's a very scary way to think.

Similarly, a lot of people think that if something apppears in the scientific literaure, it is true. Equally scary, on a different level. Yes, it is peer-reviewed and it helps, but is absolutely no guarantee of correctness or applicability to similar subjects. In fact, unless one is familiar with the materials and methods and can be assured, even if those were chosen properly, that the experiment was conducted properly, that the resutls are valid, that statistics were done correctly and using an appropriate test, and mostly that any conclusions based on thee results have any merit at all.

Now...

1. Glynn, Peter W., Szmant, Alina M., Corocoran, Eugene F. Cofer-Shabica, Stephen V. 1989. Condition of coral reef cnidarians from the North Flordia Reef Tract: pesticides, heavy metals, and histopathological examination. Mar Poll Bull 20(11): 568-576.

summary: found high levels of As, Cu, Pb in corals at low ppm levels in coral tissue, cadmium and mercury at less than 0.6 ppm. Histopathological abnormalities were present including disease, bite parks, bleaching, galls, algae, epidermal erosion, neoplasia and necrosis and presence of numerous foreign organisms - was not possible to determine effects of metals directly compared to all stresses. Trace metals applied at concentrations comparable to tissue levels here resulted in bleaching and mortality of reef building corals (Evans 1977), but no unusual morbidity or mortality at these sites. Questions exist as to how florida corals with a high "tissue burden" of pesticides and metals will respond to additional stresses.

2. Benson, A.A., Summons, R. E. 1981. Arsenic accumulation in Great Barrier Reef invertebrates. Science. 211 (4481): 482-3.

summary: massive accumulation of arsenic in Tridacna clams even though low levels in water. thought to be related to metabolsim of arsenic in low phosphate waters. Accumulation results by deposition into host tissue after accumulation by zooxanthellae. Massive accumulation also occuyrs in other symbiotic inverebrates, greatest in mollusks and ascidiians

3. Harland, A.D., Brown, B.E. 1989l. Metal tolerance in the scleractinian coral Porites lutea. Mar Poll Bull 20(7): 353-357.

summary (Randy take note!!): Exposure to elevated iron led to loss of zooxanthellae from tissues - repsonse is very marked in corals not regualrly exposed to high environmental concentrations of iron. Tolerance is suggested here, but other studies conflict as well as support tolerance theory. Some evidence exists to suggest effective metal regulation of exclusion in coelenterates (Brown and Howard 1985, Howard and Brown 1987). Skeletal studies suggest uptake and sequestration in skeleton relative to env. conditions.

(Ron, take note!!) The elevated seawater levels mg/l recorded around a tin smelter and ore washing effluent were Fe: 0.61-29 Zn 0.02-0.22 Cu <0.005-0.06 Cd 0.01-0.04 Mn 0.02-0.09 Pb <0.005 - 0.71

This particular article has an abundance of references I will be getting on my next afternoon there. Probably next week. the Brown and Howard papers look critical to this discussion.

Back to work...
 
Similarly, a lot of people think that if something apppears in the scientific literaure, it is true. Equally scary, on a different level. Yes, it is peer-reviewed and it helps, but is absolutely no guarantee of correctness or applicability to similar subjects. In fact, unless one is familiar with the materials and methods and can be assured, even if those were chosen properly, that the experiment was conducted properly, that the resutls are valid, that statistics were done correctly and using an appropriate test, and mostly that any conclusions based on thee results have any merit at all.

I fully agree! And especially if a scientsist has to publish a minimum number of publications per year then it is more suspect:D

My professor once told me that if experiments are carried out properly etc the data will remain but conclusions and theories can change in time.

I have been used to being shot at or to shoot at others during presentations of research results for select groups. This not to denigrate or insult some one but only to improve the quality of the research, the quality of the conclusions, getting (better)aware of the weak points, to formulate further experiments,.......

Having said that a few notes on Eric's last post.

to be related to metabolsim of arsenic in low phosphate waters.

Phosphate has a strong tendency to complex a.o. with arsenate, molybdate and vanadate. Phosphate is an inorganic ligand for such species of metals.

A study conducted on vanadate uptake by tunicates showed that elevated phosphate inhibits vanadate uptake by tunicates.

Elevated phosphate showed decreasd Sr/Ca ratios in PO4 polluted areas in Australia.

Regarding the Harland and Brown's iron paper I would be interested to read at least the Experimental part of the paper. What sort of light was used? How high were the iron levels?

Some iron compexes will generate reactive oxygen species if UV light is present and might cause bleaching.

I would like to add one more which shows if iron is added an increase in zooxanthellae density and reduction of growth rate (I don't know if they have measured calcification rates!!):

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Vol. 259 (2) (2001) pp. 249-261

Response of a scleractinian coral, Stylophora pistillata, to iron and nitrate enrichment
Christine Ferrier-Pagès * a , Vanessa Schoelzke a, Jean Jaubert a, Len Muscatine b and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg c
a Observatoire Océanologique Européen, Centre Scientifique de Monaco Av. Saint-Martin, MC-98000 Monaco
b Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
c Center for Marine Studies, University of Queensland St. Lucia, 4069 QLD, Australia
Received 4 August 2000; received in revised form 31 January 2001; accepted 12 March 2001

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of iron alone or in combination with nitrate affects growth and photosynthesis of the scleractinian coral, Stylophora pistillata, and its symbiotic dinoflagellates. For this purpose, we used three series of two tanks for a 3-week enrichment with iron (Fe), nitrate (N) and nitrate+iron (NFe). Two other tanks were kept as a control (C). Stock solutions of FeCl3 and NaNO3 were diluted to final concentrations of 6 nM Fe and 2 Ã"šÃ‚µM N and continuously pumped from batch tanks into the experimental tanks with a peristaltic pump. Results obtained showed that iron addition induced a significant increase in the areal density of zooxanthellae (ANOVA, p=0.0013; change from 6.3Ã"šÃ‚±0.7Ãâ€"105 in the control to 8.5Ã"šÃ‚±0.6Ãâ€"105 with iron). Maximal gross photosynthetic rates normalized per surface area also significantly increased following iron enrichment (ANOVA, p=0.02; change from 1.23Ã"šÃ‚±0.08 for the control colonies to 1.81Ã"šÃ‚±0.24 Ã"šÃ‚µmol O2 cm2 h1 for the iron-enriched colonies). There was, however, no significant difference in the photosynthesis normalized on a per cell basis. Nitrate enrichment alone (2 Ã"šÃ‚µM) did not significantly change the zooxanthellae density or the rates of photosynthesis. Nutrient addition (both iron and nitrogen) increased the cell-specific density of the algae (CSD) compared to the control (G-test, p=0.3Ãâ€"109), with an increase in the number of doublets and triplets. CSD was equal to 1.70Ã"šÃ‚±0.04 in the Fe-enriched colonies, 1.54Ã"šÃ‚±0.12 in the N- and NFe-enriched colonies and 1.37Ã"šÃ‚±0.02 in the control. Growth rates measured after 3 weeks in colonies enriched with Fe, N and NFe were 23%, 34% and 40% lower than those obtained in control colonies (ANOVA, p=0.011).



This one shows incorporation of iron by a totally different mechanism and could perhaps also be be applicable for other metals besides iron:

Brown, B.E., A.W. Tudhope, M.D.A. Le Tissier & T.P. Scoffin, 1991.

A novel mechanism for iron incorporation into coral skeletons. Coral Reefs, 10: 211-215.

Intertidal corals living in seawater with high concentrations of iron incorporate the metal into their skeletons. Cross-sections of the coral skeleton reveal orange-stained banding patterns reflecting periods of high availability of iron. The mechanism of metal incorporation involves deposition of iron compounds on to skeletal spines that are exposed as a result of temporary tissue retraction during periods of extreme stress. Subsequent tissue recovery and calcification trap the iron compounds which provide a visible environmental signature in the coral skeleton. This previously unrecognised mechanism has significant implications for the reconstruction of past environments from chemical analysis of annually-banded massive coral skeletons.





I have 7 year old measurements of metals in different genetically identical corals grown in NSW (original habitat) and in various aquariums and of course also the water analyses.
I hope to have them published soon after I am ready with the article.
These measurements were done to measure the effect of element concentration (total metal concentration) on metal incorporation in the skeletal material.;)

Besides that I have far more results and because most of them were meant for our own use they have nor been published.

I know that besides my research and Ron's there have been more studies done on aquariums and I am working to obtain them.

To all who read this thread I would like to say that I think that we all are here for further advancement of our hobby and if there are conflicting ideas, theories or whatever, it will only be of advantage :)
 
3. Harland, A.D., Brown, B.E. 1989l

received in revised form 31 January 2001

Guys as Habib mentioned, be very careful quoting references pre late 90's. A lot has changed.
 
Thanks for the info, Eric!

Regarding the Harland and Brown's iron paper I would be interested to read at least the Experimental part of the paper. What sort of light was used? How high were the iron levels?

I don't have ready access to it today since I'm on my lkeave still. I'd also be interested in knowing what type of iron. The idea (not mine but the literature consensus, at least at the time of Spotte's publication in the 90's) with chelated iron (like with EDTA) is that the bulk of it is unavailable until UV light degrades the chelate and the iron falls out, available for uptake. Consequently, adding a large amount of chelated iron may only result in a low, steady concentration of free iron.

If the study in question added free iron itself, the situation may be very different.

I would have though that adding hundreds of millions of times the NSW amount of iron EVERY DAY would have shown a problem in my tank if there were one. Of course, I've not measured zoox densities, and that may be a critical difference, but the corals and anemones have certainly not bleached and are growing nicely.
 
Bomber:

Do you know what the revised version says?

I'm keen to do some literature searching of more recent works myself, but that will have to wait until I'm back at work.
 
Randy
More than likely all you need to do it pick up the phone and call Mote.
Several years ago they had almost a complete wipe out because of Red Tide. As a result, they now have everything they could find on iron. What would more than likely apply for you is what was used as bioindicators.
Jerel
 
Jerel:

Totally agree - papers on iron abound now. The reason I used this particular one was that it was investigating metal uptake in general and happened to use iron as the indicator metal. Personally, I was disappointed to see that it, of all metals, was used in this study.

I wouldn't go so far as to say anything older than late 90's should be approached cautiously, though, except in certain fields of study. I think all papers should be approached cautiously, and do agree sometimes, though, as I read and older paper (sometimes not even all that old) with something so totally known as wrong today... In contrast, the sometimes profound ignorance of young researchers of studies already done and totally ignored in their background search not only compromises their own study, but I keep running across more and more papers that "miraculously" discover something that was known thrity years ago and subsequently disproved or fell out of favor in the interim period by "Then new" research.

Randy: they used ferric nitrate.

I'm off to to work in a few minutes, but forgot another one with major references and was a good study.

Nipper, Marion, Carr, R. Scott. 2001. Porewater toxicity testing : a novel approach for assessing contaminant impacts in the vicintity of corals reefs. Bull Mar Sci 69(2): 407-420.

interesting points:

carbon is considered a major factor in reducing contaminant bioavailability because it can both sorb organic chemicals and complex metalsl.

Mobilization of metals caused by dredgingwas analyzed by Reichelt and Jones (1994).High uranium found in sediments corals, algae and seagrass of polluted sites in Gulf of Aqaba (Abu-Hilal 1994)

Sandy sediments believed not to retain contaminants...Clays do - but high carbon of clay ameliorates

Use of sea urchin gametes and embryos lauded as ideal and useful measure for toxicity tests for many reasons

Metals consistently referred to as pollutants, contaminants and potential sources of detriment to corals, coral reefs, etc.
 
It's just that the money was there for iron. Once iron was identified as a marker for African/Saharan dust - everyone's knee jerk reaction was to blame it for everything.

For other metals I would be contacting The South Florida Water Management, IFAS, and (of all things) The Florida Farm Bureau. The farmers have to spend untold amounts of money every year defending their right to farm South Florida (produces over 90% of your winter produce). They spray (copper), fertilize, etc. and every bit of that ends up in the aquifer (oolitic limestone, live rock) or as runoff. From there it's non-stop to 18 national parks and reserves. Or work it backwards from the parks and reserves.
At one time or the other all these "aquarium" critters have been used as bioindicators.

Good luck, you all have your work cut out for you
Jerel
 
Jerel: LOL

Not really...once I get these last few refs, read them out of sheer morbid curiosity and post them, I'm outta here and back to my own real areas of interest....the other guys with the real expertise in the area can finish hashing this out...I'm just throwing some more fuel in the fire ;-)
 
Habib:

Growth rates measured after 3 weeks in colonies enriched with Fe, N and NFe were 23%, 34% and 40% lower than those obtained in control colonies (ANOVA, p=0.011).

How do you interpret this last sentence? Are they talking about growth of the coral or something else? Things sound good for iron up to that point in the abstract. Is "lower" a typo?
 
Well, it is pretty straight forward...

They had controls...

The growth rate with the factors indicated was lower than in the controls. The probability of the coral growth with the factors added and in the corals without the factors added being the same was 0.011, or 1.1%. Basically it says Iron decreased the growth rate by 23%.

This is the advantage of using proper experimental design with replication, controls and the proper interpretation of statistics.
 
Randy,

How do you interpret this last sentence? Are they talking about growth of the coral or something else? Things sound good for iron up to that point in the abstract. Is "lower" a typo?

It is not my typo. It could be a typo in the abstract but the chance that it is is minimal.

I doubt (but I can be wrong) if they have measured calcification rates (45Ca uptake rate). If they have just measured e.g. just extension rate then there is even the possibility that calcification rate was increased (with increased phtosynthesis rate) but that the growth was just more denser.

Getting hold of the article would give more information.


You might perhaps have also noted that the experiment with just addition of only 1 micromol/L of NO3-N (0.12 ppm NO3) gave a decrease of 40% in growth rate!

Also increased photosynthesis rate could have caused depletion of other nutrients resulting in a different calcium deposition.

The abstract however shows the opposite of coral bleaching when iron is added. Namely an increase in zooxanthellae.

One more thing I can add is that several manufactures sell liquid phosphate removers. All of them are iron based. They are used in several tens of thousands of tanks and the dosages are far more then what you add as a trace element.

I have never seen or heard of any bleaching events using such products.

I personally doubt that dosing of significant amounts of iron causes bleaching.
 
Ron,

Don't you know that various invertebrate stages require nutrients which they derive from the surrounding water? That these nutrients are a.o amino acids or other nitrogen compounds.

No, sir, they don't.

In early development any nutrition is dependent upon yolk. They may absorb some compounds from the water, but they don't absorb meaningful amount of amino acids, or any other food.


I'm sorry Ron, actually larvae do uptake meaningful about of amino acids. Here are just a few papers demonstrating this fact.

Jaeckle WB, Manahan DT (1989) Feeding by a "nonfeeding"
larva: uptake of dissolved amino acids from seawater by lecithot-
rophic larvae of the gastropod Haliotis rufescens.
Mar Biol 103 :87-94.

Jaeckle WB, Manahan DT (1989) Amino acid uptake and metabol-
ism by larvae of the marine worm Urechis cuupo (Echiura), a newspecies in axenic culture. Biol Bull 176: 317-32.

Manahan DT (1983) The uptake and metabolism of dissolved
amino acids by bivalve larvae. Biol Bull 164: 236-250.

Manahan DT (1990) Adaptations by invertebrate larvae for nutrient acquisition from seawater. Am Zoo1 30: 147-160.

-Michael
 
The probability of the coral growth with the factors added and in the corals without the factors added being the same was 0.011, or 1.1%. Basically it says Iron decreased the growth rate by 23%.

I guess that you then ought to be on a nitrate toxicity bandwagon as well, since it is more toxic than the iron at the tested levels, and is known to be present in most reef tanks at levels exceeding those tested in the paper. Many tanks exceed that level by several orders of magnitude. But the corals still grow well, including the exact species listed. Somehow, I think your simplistic interpretation is missing something. Perhaps if any of us had read the actual paper, we'd know better:D
 
Last post to the topic:

I now have the following articles and the ones with stars by them I would suggest those invovled in this discussion should obtain - there are definitely some key works here and while still not answering many questions, definitely answer many of the issues posed here - I'll list them, make a general summary statement of all of them, and if Ron, Randy, Habib or other major contributors to this thread want a copy, I'll be happy to send them snail mail (cause its about a ream of paper).

1. Dalliner, Reinhard and Rainbow, Philip. 1993. Ecotoxicology of metals in invertebrates. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 445+ pages.

2. **Howard, L.S., and Brown, B.E. 1984. Heavy metals and reef corals. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 22: 195-210.

3. Deslarzes, Kenneth J. P., et al. 1995. Historical incorporation of barum in the reef-building coral Montastrea annularis at the Flower Garden bansk, North-West Gulf of Mexico. Mar Poll Bull 30(11) 718-722

4. **Brown, B.E.,and Holley, M.C. 1982. Metal levels associated with tin dredging and smelting and their effect upon intertidal reef flats at Ko Phuket Thailand. Coral Reefs 1(2): 131-137.

5. Pilson, Michael E. Q. 1974. Arsenate uptake and reduction by Pocillopora verrucosa. Limnology and Oceanography. 19(2): 339-341.

6. Meehan, William J., and Ostrander, Gary K. 1997. Coral bleaching: a potential biomarker of environmental stress. J Tox Env Health 50(6): 529-552

7. Readman, J.W. et al. 1996. Discrete bands of petroleum hydrocarbons and molecular organic markers identified within massive coral skeletons. Mar Poll Bull 32(5): 437-443.

8. ** Recihelt, A.J. and Jones, B.R. 1994. Trace metals as tracers of dredging activity in Cleveland Bay - field and laboratory studies. Aus J Mar Freshwater Res 45: 1237-1257.

9. **Howard, L.S., and Borwn B.E. 1987. Metals in Pocillopora damicornis exposed to tin smelter effluent. Mar Poll Bull 18(8): 451-454

10. **Denton, G.R.W., and Burdon-Joes, C. 1986. Trace metals in corals from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Poll Bull 17(5): 209-213.

11. Brown, B.E., and Howard, L.S. 1985. Assessing the effects of "stress" on reef corals. Adv mar Biol 22: 1-63
(this is a paper I have used many many times and has less to do with metals, although some, but is a tremendously seminal paper in general)

There are a couple more papers that look like they are definitely worth looking into, but I'm finished.

1. St. John, B.E. 1973. Trace elements in corals of the Coral Sea: their relationship to oceanographic factors. In: Proc Int Symp on Oceanogr of the South Pacific (Wellington, R. Fraser, ed.)pp: 149-158 UNESCO

2. St. John, B.E. 1974. Heavy metals in the skeletal carbonate of sclearctinian corals In: Proc. 2nd Int Coral Reef Symp 2: 461-469 (note: this proceedings is hard to find)

3. Brown, B.E. and Howard, L.S. 1985. Responses of coelenterates to trace metals - a field and laboratory evaluation. Proc 5th Int Coral Reef Cong

Eric's overall summary:

Various trace metals are necessary in varying amounts for varying organisms at normal environmental levels through either food (primary) or absorption (secondary). Levels above normal environmental levels quickly become toxic at varying rates to varying organisms and must be dealt with through accumulation, sequestration, detoxification, or excretion. Some organisms can accumulate metals at very high amounts. The overall effect of these metals is variable, with some highly tolerant and some highly sensitive. In no case does it appear that anything above normal environmental levels is beneficial, and can cause mortality, reproductive failure, diminished growth rate, abnormalities, etc.

Trace metals are available as free ions (rarest) or complexed (most common) to various organics. It is likely that most of the trace metal excess found in both tissue and skeletons of marine organisms comes from trace metals at elevated concentrations in sediments and particulates. These particulates and free ions can be directly absorbed chemcially onto substrate or directly incorporated biologically. They can also be incorporated by physical deposition. Bioavailability is a key issue and either varies substantially
according to metal/metal complex/ and organisms, or is not known.

The effects of trace metals on corals is hard to characterize. There is pretty strong evidence for tolerance in areas of greater inputs or availability, but the effects of tolerance are not known and tolerance implies survival.... and equally strong evidence to support diminishing reproductive output and stunted growth rates, reduced diversity, fragile skeletons, different forms of carbonate, and direct histopathologic events. Bleaching seems like a common finding (and I do not necessarily mean a stark white coral, although maybe). I estimate there is fairly strong evidence to support the fact the zooxanthellae play a key role in uptake and accumulation of metals with subsequent release of zooxanthellae by the coral (bleaching) - has been shown for lead, copper, iron, barium, and others. Levels of metals in coral tissue seem surprisingly low in several studies, indicating a fairly effective means of dealing with them. Levels in skeleton seem to depend largely on if chitin is present in the skeleton (Pocilloporids, etc.), and the form of metal present. If based from particulates, it appears to be higher. If free, appears to be present in correlation with levels in water. Only uranium appears higher than expected.

Overall, I'd say any levels above NSW are probably deleterious - from minimally to lethally, depending on the organism and the metal. Given the information presented by Ron, irrespective of bioavailability and means of dealing with the excess, I'd say this is a very major area of concern for at least several of the metals in the study.
 
Here are a few more references with abstracts.

2177. Dallinger,R (1994): Invertebrate organisms as biological indicators of heavy metal pollution. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 48, 27-31.
<Some species of invertebrate animals are known to be efficient accumulators of trace elements. Generally, metal accumulation by such organisms is based on efficient detoxification mechanisms, such as intracellular compartmentalization, or metal inactivation by binding to metallothioneins. Metal accumulators have often been used as accumulation indicators of environmental metal pollution. This means that, ideally, metal concentrations in the animal's body reflect quantitatively or semiquantitatively environmental pollution levels. In reality, however, many factors, such as the animal's weight and age, can disturb such quantitative relationships. These factors have, therefore, to be considered carefully before an invertebrate is utilized as accumulation indicator for metal pollution. Apart from accumulation, many invertebrates exposed to elevated metal concentrations respond to this stress by metal-induced synthesis of metallothioneins. Additionally, metallothionein in metal-loaded organisms can be present in different isoforms that are specifically synthesized in response to different metals. These facts make metallothionein a potential biomarker for metal stress in invertebrates. One possibility may be to assess parameters of metallothionein synthesis at the molecular or biochemical level. Moreover, metallothionein isoform patterns could provide information on different isoforms synthesized in response to different metals or chemicals. In any case, however, care must be taken to consider intrinsic physiological parameters, such as nutritional or developmental factors, which could also interfere with metallothionein synthesis>

2213. Wang,WX; Fisher,NS (1999): Delineating metal accumulation pathways for marine invertebrates. Sci. Tot. Environ. 237-238, 459-472.
<Delineating the routes of metal uptake in marine invertebrates is important for understanding metal bioaccumulation and toxicity and for setting appropriate water and sediment quality criteria. Trace element biogeochemical cycling can also be affected if the rates of metal uptake and regeneration by marine animals are dependent on the routes of metal accumulation. In this paper we review recent studies on the pathways of metal accumulation in marine invertebrates. Both food and water can dominate metal accumulation, depending on the species, metal and food sources. Trace elements which exist in seawater primarily in anionic forms (e.g. As and Se) are mainly accumulated from food. For metals that tend to associate with protein, uptake from water can be an important source. Kinetic modeling has recently been used to quantitatively separate the pathways of metal uptake in a few marine invertebrates. This approach requires measurements of several physiological parameters, including metal assimilation efficiencies (AE) from ingested food, metal uptake rates from the dissolved phase, and metal efflux rates (physiological turnover rates) in animals. For suspension feeders such as mussels and copepods, uptake from the dissolved phase and food ingestion can be equally important to metal accumulation. Metal AE and partition coefficients for suspended particles, which are dependent on many environmental conditions, can critically affect the exposure pathways of metals. For marine surface deposit feeding polychaetes such as Nereis succinea, nearly all metals are obtained from ingestion of sediments, largely because of their high ingestion rates and low uptake from solution. The bioavailability of metals from food and the trophic transfer of metals must be considered in establishing water and sediment quality.>

Note the following study was done using "mesocosms" = aquaria.

2214. Breitburg,DL; Sanders,JG; Gilmour,CC; Hatfield,CA; Osman,RW; Riedel,GF; Seitzinger,SP; Sellner,KG (1999): Variability in responses to nutrients and trace elements, and transmission of stressor effects through an estuarine food web. Limnology and Oceanography 44, 837-863.
<Aquatic systems are increasingly exposed to multiple stressors from anthropogenic sources. These stressors can vary in the consistency and magnitude of responses they elicit in biota and in how the presence of additional stressors modifies their effects. Understanding how the biological environment and temporal dynamics influence responses to stressors, and how stressors interact, is important to predicting their effects in the natural environment. We examined temporal variability in responses of an experimental estuarine food web to elevated trace elements and nutrients, as well as non-additive effects of the combination of these two stressors. Experiments were conducted four times during spring through autumn 1996 in 20 l-m3 mesocosms. We measured a range of system-, population-, and individual-level parameters to quantify responses of phytoplankton, bacterioplankton, heterotrophic nanoflagellates, copepods, fish, and benthic invertebrates to trace element and nutrient additions. The response to trace element additions was more variable both temporally and among phytoplankton and higher trophic level taxa than was the response to nutrient additions. Most taxa increased, either significantly or showed a trend toward increasing, in response to nutrient additions in all four mesocosm runs. In contrast, the direction as well as the magnitude of responses to trace element additions varied considerably among taxa and experimental runs. Two distinct types of nutrientXtrace element interactions were important. First, temporal dynamics of nutrient ratios appeared to affect the temporal pattern of toxicity of trace elements to phytoplankton. Second, in the June mesocosm run when trace element additions reduced production, abundance, or growth of many organisms, these reductions were often proportionately greater in nutrient addition tanks than where no nutrients were added. Our results suggest that considerable temporal and taxonomic variation in responses to trace element loadings are likely to be seen in field settings even under constant loadings to the system and that trace elements may mask the magnitude of the response to high nutrient loadings in eutrophic systems. More generally, the presence of multiple stressors may either increase or dampen the temporal and spatial variability seen in aquatic systems, depending on the interactions among stressors and the influence of background environmental conditions and sensitive species on the expression of stressor effects.>


2227. Wang,WX; Stupakoff,I; Fisher,NS (1999): Bioavailability of dissolved and sediment-bound metals to a marine deposit-feeding polychaete. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 178, 281-293.
<Assimilation efficiencies (AEs) of trace elements (Ag, Cd, Co, Se and Zn) in a marine deposit-feeding polychaete, Nereis succinea, from ingested sediments were measured using a pulse-chase radiotracer feeding technique. Radiolabeled sediments were encapsulated and fed to the worms for 1 h, after which the worms were allowed to depurate their ingested materials for 3 d. The ranges of AEs were 12 to 36% for Ag, 5 to 44% for Cd, 35 to 96% for Co, 29 to 60% for Se and 21 to 59% for Zn. Trace metal assimilation was little affected by sediment source and sediment grain size. Metals (Ag, Cd, Co and Zn) associated with anoxic sediments were assimilated with a significantly lower efficiency than metals from oxic sediments. The AE of Cd decreased with the duration of sediment radiolabeling; AEs of Ag, Co, Se and Zn were weakly affected by sediment aging. Metal uptake in worms from the dissolved phase was proportional to metal concentration in the dissolved phase, although there was some evidence of Cd and Zn regulation in response to an increase in ambient concentrations. Uptake rate constants were highest for Ag, followed by Zn > Co > Cd > Se. By incorporating metal influx from both the dissolved and particulate (sediment) phases, a bioenergetic-based kinetic model indicates that most (>98%) of the Cd, Co, Se and Zn in polychaetes arises from sediment ingestion due to the high ingestion rates of these animals and the low uptake rate of metals from the dissolved phase (porewater or overlying water). For Ag, approximately 5 to 35% is due to uptake from the dissolved phase. Our study suggests that the establishment of sediment quality criteria must consider sediment as a potentially important source for metal uptake in benthic invertebrates.>

4783. Nystrom,M; Nordemar,I; Tedengren,M (2001): Simultaneous and sequential stress from increased temperature and copper on the metabolism of the hermatypic coral Porites cylindrica. Marine Biology (Berlin) 138, 1225-1231.
<Stressors arising from human activities may interact not only with each other, but also with natural disturbances. However, experimental studies on disturbance complexity and physiological responses of corals to sublethal stresses, especially those due to human activities, are surprisingly few. In this study we investigated the stress response of the scleractinian coral Porites cylindrica after 24 h of exposure to copper (11 mug Cu l-1) and increased temperature (following a 4degreeC above-ambient curve), separately and in combination. We also investigated the effect of sequential stress where corals pre-exposed to increased temperature for 24 h were exposed to copper (for 24 h) after a 5-day recovery period. Changes in gross primary production (Pg: per milligram chlorophyll a per hour) and respiration (R:per square centimeter per hour) in terms of dissolved oxygen were used as indicators of stress. The results show that heat and the combination of heat and copper significantly reduced production rate. However, corals exposed to elevated temperature displayed a significantly higher production rate following the 5-day recovery period. The combination of the two stressors showed no additive or synergistic effects. Copper alone had no effect on the production rate. However, corals that were pre-exposed to increased temperature and again exposed to copper after 5 days displayed a significant reduction in production rate. The respiration rate was significantly reduced by all treatments, although no significant differences between treatments were detected. The results presented here illustrate how a stressor that does not affect corals when acting in isolation may do so in sequential combination with other stressors>

4929. Reichelt-Brushett,AJ; Harrison,PL (2000): The effect of copper on the settlement success of larvae from the scleractinian coral Acropora tenuis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41, 385-391.
<This study examined the effect of copper on the settlement success of planula larvae of the reef-building coral Acropora tenuis during 1994 and 1996 at Magnetic Island, Great Barrier Reef. Copper concentrations of 2, 10, 20 mug l-1 did not inhibit larval settlement after 48-h exposure. However, copper concentrations of 42 mug l-1 and 81 mug l-1 significantly reduced settlement success of A. tenuis larvae after 48-h exposure compared with controls using normal seawater. At 200 mug l-1 copper, all larvae died. EC50 values for the effect of copper on A. tennis larval settlement were calculated from the 1996 results using measured copper concentrations. The 48-h EC50 was 35 mug l-1 with an upper and lower 95% confidence limit of 37 mug l-1 and 32 mug l-1, respectively. The 48-h NOEC value for both experiments was 20 mug l-1 copper. These experiments provide some of the first data on sub-lethal effects of trace metals on tropical marine organisms, and demonstrate that relatively low copper concentrations impair or inhibit settlement of coral larvae.>
 
Back
Top