| Literature DB >> 21814719 |
Vicki S Blazer1, Luke R Iwanowicz, Holly Henderson, Patricia M Mazik, Jill A Jenkins, David A Alvarez, John A Young.
Abstract
A high prevalence of intersex or testicular oocytes (TO) in male smallmouth bass within the Potomac River drainage has raised concerns as to the health of the river. Studies were conducted to document biomarker responses both temporally and spatially to better understand the influence of normal physiological cycles, as well as water quality and land-use influences. Smallmouth bass were collected over a 2-year period from three tributaries of the Potomac River: the Shenandoah River, the South Branch Potomac and Conococheague Creek, and an out-of-basin reference site on the Gauley River. The prevalence of TO varied seasonally with the lowest prevalence observed in July, post-spawn. Reproductive maturity and/or lack of spawning the previous spring, as well as land-use practices such as application of manure and pesticides, may influence the seasonal observations. Annual, seasonal, and site differences were also observed in the percentage of males with measurable concentrations of plasma vitellogenin, mean concentration of plasma vitellogenin in females, and plasma concentrations of 17β-estradiol and testosterone in both sexes. Bass collected in the South Branch Potomac (moderate to high prevalence of TO) had less sperm per testes mass with a lower percentage of those sperm being motile when compared to those from the Gauley River (low prevalence of TO). An inverse relationship was noted between TO severity and sperm motility. An association between TO severity and wastewater treatment plant flow, percent of agriculture, total number of animal feeding operations, the number of poultry houses, and animal density within the catchment was observed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21814719 PMCID: PMC3374114 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-2266-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Monit Assess ISSN: 0167-6369 Impact factor: 2.513
Characteristics of the catchments above the smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collection sites
| Site | Human populationa | Catchment area (ha) | Stream length (m)b | Stream orderc | Percent land coverd | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developed | Agriculture | Forest | |||||
| Gauley River | 1,157 | 18,698.1 | 133,458.6 | 3 | 3.9 | 0.5 | 95.1 |
| South Branch Petersburg | 15,067 | 219,944.4 | 1,584,013.9 | 7 | 3.8 | 16.4 | 79.4 |
| South Branch Moorefield | 20,940 | 315,074.0 | 2,379,186.9 | 5 | 3.9 | 15.2 | 80.4 |
| South Branch Springfield | 29,003 | 382,132.1 | 3,105,675.1 | 7 | 3.8 | 15.2 | 80.4 |
| Shenandoah North Fork | 67,426 | 241,004.3 | 1,227,982.3 | 5 | 6.6 | 32.7 | 60.2 |
| Shenandoah South Fork | 187,303 | 336,559.1 | 1,835,355.3 | 5 | 11.1 | 35.9 | 52.6 |
| Shenandoah Mainstem | 316,759 | 734,170.1 | 3,739,595.0 | 6 | 9.2 | 32.6 | 57.6 |
| Conococheague Creek (lower) | 100,239 | 145,446.0 | 1,117,871.5 | 5 | 12.4 | 50.3 | 35.8 |
aEstimated number of people from the US Census 2000, apportioned by percent of census tract in catchment
bMeters of stream from National Hydrography Dataset + dataset
cStrahler stream order, maximum
dFrom national land cover data 2001 database
Fig. 1Location of the sampling sites for smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collected in 2006–2007. Catchments upstream of the sampling sites (black dot) are outlined and shown in white. Insert illustrates the location of the Potomac River catchments within Chesapeake Bay drainage area
Fig. 2Microscopic appearance of testicular tissue of smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collected in the Potomac drainage. a Oocytes (arrows) within the epithelium lining testicular tubules. Scale bar = 50 μm. b Oocytes (arrows) within the lumen of testicular tubules. Scale bar = 20 μm. c Testes of smallmouth bass collected during the summer with no apparent residual sperm within the tubules (arrows). Nests of immature stages (a), spermatocytes, and spermatids are evident. Scale bar = 100 μm. d Testes of smallmouth bass collected during the summer with residual sperm (arrows) in some tubules. Scale bar = 100 μm. H&E stain
Morphometric comparisons of smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collected at selected sites in the Potomac drainage and the Gauley River in spring 2006
| Site |
| Age (years) | Length (mm) | Weight (gm) | Condition factor (Ktl) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gauley | 17 | No data | 215.0 (18.9)a | 120.4 (32.7)a | 1.18 (0.07) |
| Petersburg South Branch | 20 | 3.1 (1.1)ab | 260.3 (48.6)b | 234.9 (138.4)b | 1.20 (0.09) |
| Moorefield South Branch | 20 | 2.9 (1.1)a | 258.0 (40.4)b | 234.2 (118.1)b | 1.26 (0.09) |
| Springfield South Branch | 20 | 4.2 (1.7)b | 264.3 (56.6)b | 266.1 (177.1)b | 1.26 (0.09) |
| South Fork Shenandoah | 20 | No data | 283.6 (38.1) | 322.8 (136.2) | 1.29 (0.09) |
| North Fork Shenandoah | 20 | (1.0) | 289.4 (42.5) | 333.3 (164.2) | 1.23 (0.13) |
Data are presented as means (standard deviation). Values within the same column denoted with the same letter are not significantly different. If no statistical differences were identified among sites for a given parameter, annotation was omitted to facilitate readability. The Shenandoah sites were compared separately due to different sampling times. The threshold for statistical significance was p ≤ 0.05
Reproductive biomarkers of smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collected at selected sited in the Potomac drainage and the Gauley River in spring 2006
| Site | Sex | Sample size | Gonadosomatic index | Intersex severity | Vitellogenina (mg/ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gauley | F | 7 | No data | 0.02 (0.06)a | 1.076 (0.400) |
| M | 10 | 0.59 (0.24) | BD | ||
| Petersburg South Branch | F | 5 | No data | 0.75 (0.92)b | 1.782 (1.366) |
| M | 15 | 0.61 (0.14) | 0.021 (0.025) | ||
| Moorefield South Branch | F | 9 | No data | 0.50 (0.50)ab | 1.558 (0.900) |
| M | 11 | 0.71 (0.24) | 0.093 (0.052) | ||
| Springfield South Branch | F | 7 | No data | 1.14 (0.76)b | 0.863 (0.357) |
| M | 13 | 0.52 (0.13) | BD | ||
| South Fork Shenandoah | F | 7 | 5.88 (2.30)A | 1.62 (0.65)A | 6.014 (2.457)A |
| M | 13 | 0.43 (0.28) | BD | ||
| North Fork Shenandoah | F | 10 | 2.77 (1.50)B | 0.62 (0.40)B | 2.861 (2.574)B |
| M | 10 | 0.51 (0.19) | 0.007 (0.003) |
Data presented as means (standard deviation). Statistical comparisons were made between fish of the same sex. The Shenandoah sites were compared separately because of different sampling times. Values within a column denoted with the same letter are not significantly different. If no statistical differences were identified between sites for a given parameter, annotation was omitted to facilitate readability. The threshold for statistical significance was p ≤ 0.05
BD below detection
aVitellogenin means include only those samples that had measureable concentrations
Fig. 3Percentage of male smallmouth bass M. dolomieu with testicular oocytes (white bars) and plasma vitellogenin (black bars) collected in the Gauley River and selected sites within the Potomac River drainage. a 2006. b 2007
Sperm characteristics of smallmouth bass M. dolomieu spring 2006
| Site |
| Count (1 × 107) | % Mature | % Total motility | % Progressive motility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gauley | 10 | 10.01 (9.00)a | 63.54 (17.33) | 86.48 (6.91)a | 27.07 (15.88)a |
| Petersburg South Branch | 9 | 5.32 (4.04)b | 60.32 (15.69) | 28.97 (38.96)b | 6.63 (6.31)b |
| Moorefield South Branch | 9 | 7.86 (6.40)a,b | 51.34 (15.07) | 16.81 (15.35)b | 13.07 (11.32)b |
| Springfield South Branch | 10 | 3.74 (3.86)b | 59.33 (10.87) | 17.47 (15.46)b | 12.48 (10.75)b |
Data presented as means (standard deviation). Values within a column denoted with the same letter are not significantly different. If no statistical differences were identified among sites for a given parameter, annotation was omitted to facilitate readability. The threshold for statistical significance was p ≤ 0.05
Morphometric characteristics of smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collected at selected sited in the Potomac drainage and the Gauley River in spring 2007
| Site | Sample size | Age years | Length (mm) | Weight (gm) | Condition factor Ktl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gauley | 17 | ND | 230.1 (33.0)a | 147.2 (59.2)a | 1.13 (0.06)a |
| Petersburg South Branch | 18 | 4.1 (1.9)a | 282.9 (60.7)ab | 311.6 (255.9)b | 1.16 (0.09)a |
| Springfield South Branch | 19 | 4.7 (1.3)a | 298.8 (52.8)b | 318.4 (177.9)b | 1.14 (0.10)a |
| South Fork Shenandoah | 20 | 3.6 (1.0)a | 288.3 (41.9)b | 316.6 (167.1)b | 1.19 (0.11)ab |
| North Fork Shenandoah | 20 | 3.1 (1.2)ab | 273.9 (39.8)ab | 272.1 (141.5)b | 1.21 (0.09)ab |
| Conococheague | 16 | 2.3 (0.6)b | 222.5 (35.4)a | 153.4 (84.1)a | 1.27 (0.14)b |
Data are presented as means (standard deviation). Values within a column denoted with the same letter are not significantly different. If no statistical differences were identified among sites for a given parameter, annotation was omitted to facilitate readability. The threshold for statistical significance was p ≤ 0.05
ND no data
Reproductive parameters of smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collected at selected sites in the Potomac drainage and the Gauley River in 2007
| Site | Sex | Sample size | GSIa | Intersex severity | Plasma vitellogeninb mg/ml | E/T ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gauley | F | 9 | 3.21 (1.64)a | 0.03 (0.07)A | 8.366 (5.785) | 0.87 (0.23) |
| M | 8 | 0.49 (0.09)A | 0.024 (0.011) | 0.12 (0.05) | ||
| South Branch Petersburg | F | 7 | 6.26 (1.17)ab | 1.20 (0.88)AB | 6.683 (1.906) | 0.84 (0.25) |
| M | 11 | 0.76 (0.28)AB | 0.208 (0.180) | 0.14 (0.06) | ||
| South Branch Springfield | F | 5 | 7.20 (1.21)b | 0.63 (0.61)A | 7.897 (6.295) | 0.92 (0.24) |
| M | 14 | 0.57 (0.30)AB | 0.319 (0.256) | 0.13 (0.11) | ||
| Shenandoah South Fork | F | 9 | 3.80 (1.41)ab | 2.10 (0.58)B | 3.607 (2.779) | 0.94 (0.42) |
| M | 11 | 0.52 (0.08)A | 0.006 (0.006) | 0.26 (0.24) | ||
| Shenandoah North Fork | F | 8 | 3.04 (1.51)ab | 1.62 (0.72)B | 3.468 (1.886) | 1.07 (0.31) |
| M | 12 | 0.43 (0.11)A | 0.019 (0.016) | 0.20 (0.11) | ||
| Conococheague Creek | F | 8 | 1.81 (2.36)a | 1.10 (0.80)AB | 7.482 (6.499) | 0.77 (0.31) |
| M | 8 | 1.07 (1.49)B | BD | 0.30 (0.43) |
Data are presented as means and (standard deviation). Values within a column followed by the same letter (lowercase for females, uppercase for males) are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
E/T ratio estrogen/testosterone ratio, BD below detection, GSI gonadosomatic index
aGonadosomatic index calculated as (gonad weight/body weight) × 100
bMean and (standard deviation) of only those with measurable vitellogenin
Fig. 4Plasma concentrations of estradiol in smallmouth bass collected in the Gauley and Potomac River drainage in 2007. a Female, b male. The box represents the 25–75 percentile, the whiskers the 10th and 90th percentiles, the horizontal line within the box is the median, and outliers are indicated by dots
Fig. 5Plasma concentrations of testosterone in smallmouth bass collected in the Gauley and Potomac drainage in 2007. a Female, b male. The box represents the 25–75 percentile, the whiskers the 10th and 90th percentiles, the horizontal line within the box is the median, and outliers are indicated by dots
Seasonal sample sizes and ages of smallmouth bass M. dolomieu collected at three sites in the Shenandoah River
| Season | Site | Female smallmouth bass | Male smallmouth bass | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | Age | Sample size | Age | ||
| March 2006 | Mainstem | 6 | 2.5 (1.0) | 14 | 2.5 (1.1) |
| South Fork | 7 | ND | 13 | ND | |
| North Fork | 10 | 3.0 (0.9) | 10 | 2.7 (1.2) | |
| July 2006 | Mainstem | 9 | 2.9 (2.4) | 9 | 2.0 (0.5) |
| South Fork | 11 | 2.3 (0.9) | 9 | 2.8 (2.1) | |
| North Fork | 12 | 2.7 (0.9) | 8 | 2.0 (0.0) | |
| October 2006 | Mainstem | 6 | 1.9 (0.4) | 10 | 1.6 (0.5)a |
| South Fork | 10 | 2.3 (0.7) | 10 | 2.3 (0.9)a,b | |
| North Fork | 8 | 2.8 (0.9) | 12 | 2.7 (1.0)b | |
| March 2007 | Mainstem | 10 | 3.2 (1.0) | 5 | 3.6 (1.3) |
| South Fork | 9 | 3.6 (0.9) | 11 | 3.7 (1.1) | |
| North Fork | 8 | 3.1 (1.0) | 12 | 3.1 (1.3) | |
Data are presented as mean and (standard deviation). Values within a block representing sampling time and site followed by the same letter or no letters are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05
ND no data
Fig. 6Seasonal trends of plasma vitellogenin in female smallmouth bass M. dolomieu. a Mean plasma vitellogenin concentrations (milligrams per milliliter). b Percentage of female bass with measurable vitellogenin concentrations
Fig. 7Seasonal trends of reproductive endocrine biomarkers in male smallmouth bass collected at three sites within the Shenandoah drainage. a Percentage of males with measurable plasma vitellogenin. b Percentage of males with testicular oocytes
Fig. 8Seasonal and site comparisons of plasma 17β estradiol in smallmouth bass collected at three sites in the Shenandoah drainage. a Female smallmouth bass. b Male smallmouth bass
Fig. 9Site and seasonal comparison of plasma testosterone in smallmouth bass collected at three sites in the Shenandoah River drainage. a Female smallmouth bass. b Male smallmouth bass
Calculated estrogen equivalents (EEQ in nanograms per liter) relative to 17β-estradiol of extracts from polar organic chemical integrative samplers deployed in spring 2007 as measured by the yeast estrogen screen or BLYES
| Gauley | South Branch Petersburg | Shenandoah South Fork | Shenandoah North Fork | Shenandoah Mainstem | Conococheague Creek | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deployment date (days) | May 3–June 7 (35) | April 27–May 31 (34) | April 5–May 9 (34) | March 22–May 9 (48) | March 28–May 9 (42) | April 11–May 9 (28) |
| YES EEQ | BD | 3.6 | 5.0 | 4.1a | 2.3b | 9.1 |
| BLYES EEQ | BD | 2.3 | 7.3 | ND | ND | 9.1 |
BD below detection, BLYES bioluminescent yeast estrogen screen, YES yeast estrogen screen, ND no data
aFrom Alvarez et al. (2008a). Sites are the same as fish where fish were collected spring 2007
Comparison of potential sources of chemical contaminants in study catchments within the Potomac river drainage and the Gauley River
| Site | Human densitya | WWTPno.b | WWTP flowc | % Agd | AFOe | Animal numbersf | Animal densityg | Intersexh |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gauley River | 0.06 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 464 | 0.03 | 11.3% |
| 0.02 (0.07) | ||||||||
| South Branch Petersburg | 0.07 | 3 | 0.95 | 16.4 | 296 (296) | 1,450,120 | 6.59 | 74.3% |
| 0.97 (0.95) | ||||||||
| South Branch Moorefield | 0.07 | 4 | 1.43 | 15.2 | 497 (496) | 7,384,685 | 23.44 | 54.5% |
| 0.50 (0.50) | ||||||||
| South Branch Springfield | 0.08 | 5 | 1.93 | 15.2 | 565 (562) | 8,719,093 | 22.82 | 82.2% |
| 1.02 (0.76) | ||||||||
| Shenandoah North Fork | 0.28 | 50 | 1.59 | 32.7 | 1,174 (960) | 11,757,596 | 48.79 | 90.0% |
| 1.16 (0.78) | ||||||||
| Shenandoah South Fork | 0.56 | 19 | 20.84 | 35.9 | 2,029 (1,176) | 14,788,173 | 46.21 | 100.0% |
| 1.83 (0.65) | ||||||||
| Shenandoah Mainstem | 0.43 | 101 | 25.66 | 32.6 | 3,655 (2,539) | 33,928,442 | 43.94 | 93.0% |
| 1.64 (0.93) | ||||||||
| Conococheague Creek (lower) | 0.69 | 13 | 8.31 | 50.3 | 10 (1) | 1,819,225 | 12.51 | 87.5% |
| 1.03 (0.78) |
aHuman population/catchment area or number of people/hectare (from Table 1)
bNumber of permitted sewage system dischargers in catchment, from EPA’s permit compliance system
cPermitted average flow rate (million gallons per day) from sewage dischargers in catchment
dPercent agriculture from Table 1
eAnimal Feeding Operations including poultry (from USGS Leetown Science Center Aquatic Ecology Branch Google Earth/air photo mapping originally map in 2009, updated in 2010), dairy, beef, swine, and others (Shenandoah sites from the State of Virginia, DCR, all others from Google Earth mapping). Numbers in parentheses are poultry houses
fNumbers of animals including poultry (except broilers sold), cattle, sheep, and swine reported by county in the Agricultural Census of 2007, adjusted by area of county in catchment draining sample site
gTotal number of animals/catchment area in hectares (from Table 1)
hIntersex prevalence (percent) with severity below presented as mean and (standard deviation) of data from spring 2006 and 2007 combined, if available
Correlation (Pearson) analysis of intersex prevalence or severity and land-use characteristics within the catchment
| Land-use characteristics | Intersex prevalence | Intersex severity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Human population density | 0.39 | 0.10 | 0.42 | 0.08 |
| Number of WWTP | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.34 | 0.13 |
| WWTP flow | 0.32 | 0.15 |
|
|
| Percent agriculture |
|
|
|
|
| Total animal feeding operations | 0.28 | 0.17 |
|
|
| Poultry houses | 0.27 | 0.18 |
|
|
| Total animal numbers | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.48 | 0.06 |
| Animal density |
|
|
|
|
Values in bold are considered significant
WWTP wastewater treatment plant