Passerine Productivity and PCB Exposure at the Kalamazoo River

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Passerine Productivity and PCB Exposure at the Kalamazoo River

Superfund Site, Michigan

Arianne M Neigh Monica A MacCarroll Carrie A Ruppert Dr Matthew J Zwiernik Cyrus S Park Torrey E Moss

Ray J Adams Ryan R Holem Denise Kay Dr John Newsted Dr John P Giesy

Reported PCB Effects on Passerines

• Supernormal Clutches• Decreased Hatching

Success• Decreased hepatic vitamin

A levels

•Nest abandonment•Increased blue-green coloration•Smaller, lower quality nests•Decreased nest attentiveness

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Plants

Soil/Sediment

NestlingsInsects Eggs Adults

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Passerine Study Objectives-Bottom Up

Determine PCB concentrations in specific prey items including terrestrial insects, aquatic insects, and earthworms.

Analyze PCB movement through the food web and describe BMFs between trophic levels.

Define site-specific dietary composition of key receptors.

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Passerine Study Objectives-Top Down

Compare reproductive success rates among exposed and unexposed populations.

Determine body burdensin passerine eggs, nestlings, and adults.

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Top-Down Risk Assessment

Aquatic Food WebTree Swallow

Terrestrial Food WebHouse Wren

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Study Sites (Reference Area)

Fort Custer State Recreation Area

– Upstream of source pollution

– 66 nest boxes– Located in preferred

habitat– Established nesting

population

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Former Trowbridge Dam Impoundment

–4 mile stretch downstream of source pollution–77 nest boxes–1yr. to establish a nesting population

Study Site (Experimental Site)

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Eggs/ Nestlings/AdultsBolus

Terrestrial InvertebratesSoil

Plants

Benthic InvertebratesAquatic Emergent InsectsSediment

Egg Concentrations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HOUSE WREN TREE SWALLOW

(11) (14)(6) (6)

(p<0.001)

(p=0.003)

(mg/

kg)

PCB Body Concentrations

HOUSE WREN TREE SWALLOW

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Nestling Concentrations

(7) (6)(6) (7)

(p=0.003)

(p=0.003)

Fort CusterTrowbridge

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Daily Accumulation/

Loss Rates

Tree Swallow = 0.09 mg/kg/d

House Wren = -0.48 mg/kg/d

(Cnstl - Cegg)/Agenstl=

Passerine Egg Dimensions

Fort Custer

Trowbridge

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

Average Length

House Wren Tree Swallow

(p=0.680)

(p=0.761)

(32)(71)

(37)(74)

(mm

)

Average Weight

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

House Wren Tree Swallow

(p=0.429)(p=0.006)

(71)(37)(74)

(32)

Tree Swallow

(p=0.748)(p=0.907)

(p=0.012)

Trowbridge

FLEDGLINGSNESTLINGSEGGS

(28)(28)(32) (62)(62)(72)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

House Wren

EGGS NESTLINGS FLEDGLINGS

(p=0.489) (p=0.980)

(p=0.149)

Fort Custer

(74) (24)(59) (24) (59)(37)

Egg and Nestling Production

Productivity of Passerine Species

PRODUCTIVITY

Tree Swallow

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91

(p=0.543)

(p=0.298)

(p=0.463)

Trowbridge

FLEDGINGSUCCESS

HATCHINGSUCCESS

%

(32)(71)(28)(62)(32)(71)

House Wren

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91

(p=0.233)

(p=0.044)

(p=0.618)

Fort Custer

% FLEDGINGSUCCESS

(72) (35)(35) (72)(24)(59)

Tree Swallow Nestling Growth Curve

R2 = 0.934

R2 = 0.903

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Age (days)

Fort Custer Trowbridge

R2 = 0.8356

R2 = 0.8955

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Fort Custer Trowbridge

Age (days)

House Wren Nestling Growth Curve

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Concentrations Relative to Other Sites

Hudson River > Fox River = Kalamazoo River

•Egg and nestling concentrations at the Kalamazoo River study site were comparable to concentrations in the Fox River system.•Total PCB concentrations causing threshold effects, on the Hudson River, were greater than egg and nestling concentrations on the Kalamazoo River.

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

Conclusions• KRAOC has significantly higher concentrations of

PCBs than the control area.• Number of eggs for TRSW was the only

significant difference between sites, while average egg weight, average egg length, number of nestlings, number of fledglings, hatching success, fledging success, and productivity did not differ between sites.

• The concentrations present in the Kalamazoo River appear to be below a threshold effect level for passerines.

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank the following people for their help in the project.Monica MacCarroll Torrey Moss Wade Knoll Cyrus Park Karl Strause Stephanie Pastva The Peterson Family George Klemolin Ryan Holem Carrie Ruppert Ray Adams Dr. John Newsted

Denise Kay Dr. Paul Jones Dr Alan Blankenship Patrick Bradley Karen Smyth Dong Hoon Kim Dr. Sook Hyeon Im Ruy Santos Dr. Matthew Zwiernik Dr. John Giesy Kalamazoo River Study Group

Dept. of Zoology and National Food Safety and Toxicology Center, Michigan State University

PCB Dietary Exposure and Body Burdens in Passerines at the

Kalamazoo River Superfund Site • Poster Session- Wednesday, November 20• Poster # P856

Arianne NeighMichigan State University-Aquatic Toxicology [email protected]

Contact Information: