| Literature DB >> 29495289 |
Daniel Wiltsie1, Astrid Schnetzer2, Jason Green3, Mark Vander Borgh4, Elizabeth Fensin5.
Abstract
The eutrophication ofEntities:
Keywords: BMAA; North Carolina; SPATT; anatoxin-a; cyanobacteria; cyanotoxins; freshwater blooms; microcystin; water quality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29495289 PMCID: PMC5848192 DOI: 10.3390/toxins10020092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Figure 1Map of Jordan Lake sampling sites. Biological, chemical and physical data were analyzed over a 6-year period (2011 to 2016) for sites A, B and C (red circles). Information over approximately 2 years (2014 to 2016) was available for an additional six sites (sites D through I, blue circles). Arrows indicate the three main rivers flowing into the lake. Map from snazzymaps.com.
Latitude (Lat) and longitude (Long) for the nine sampling sites across Jordan Lake. Sampling was conducted on a monthly basis with more frequent biweekly monitoring during months with higher bloom activity (May through September). Included are the Site ID and Division of Water Resources (DWR) site names. n = number of sampling time points per site. Depth describes the average water column depth.
| Site ID | DWR ID | Lat (° N) | Long (° W) | From | To | Depth (m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | CPF086C | 35.794 | 79.004 | January 2011 | December 2016 | 98 | 5.06 |
| B | CPF087D | 35.742 | 79.021 | January 2011 | December 2016 | 96 | 7.67 |
| C | CPF055C | 35.687 | 79.083 | January 2011 | December 2016 | 95 | 5.87 |
| D | CPF086CUPS | 35.837 | 79.001 | October 2014 | June 2016 | 26 | 1.47 |
| E | CPF086C | 35.825 | 78.998 | October 2014 | December 2016 | 34 | 2.92 |
| F | CPF081A1B | 35.836 | 78.976 | October 2014 | June 2016 | 25 | 1.82 |
| G | CPF081A1C | 35.815 | 78.983 | October 2014 | December 2016 | 32 | 3.16 |
| H | CPF055C1 | 35.699 | 79.082 | October 2014 | June 2016 | 27 | 2.25 |
| I | CPF055C6 | 35.682 | 79.078 | October 2014 | June 2016 | 27 | 8.50 |
Figure 2Average cell densities for cyanobacteria (black circles) and microeukaryote phytoplankton (white triangles) and for Chl a concentration (white squares). Before October 2014, averages were calculated for sites A through C. After October 2014, averages were calculated for all nine sites. Note: all axes are log-transformed.
Figure 3Cyanobacterial cell densities at each of the sampling locations (sites A through I are shown as panels A through I). Colors depict the six most abundant genera, and less abundant taxa are grouped as “Other”. Long-term sites A through C were sampled from January 2011 to December 2016. D, F, H and I were monitored from October 2014 to June 2016, while monitoring at E and G continued through December 2016. Vertical dashed lines separate years. Note, there are differing scales on the y-axes for A, C and E.
Figure 4(A) MDS plot based on Bray–Curtis similarities for cyanobacterial communities as a non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) plot by season (data from all years and stations combined). (B) Relative changes in cyanobacterial community composition shown along a month-to-month trajectory (site A in 2015). Stress values are reported in the top right corner of each plot.
Figure 5Changes in (A) temperature, (B) NOx, (C) NH3 concentration and (D) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN):TP ratio averaged for each sampling event. Standard error bars are included. Vertical dashed lines separate years.
Figure 6MDS plot showing Euclidian distances for environmental fingerprints by season. Parameters included in these analyses were temperature, NOx, NH3, TKN, TP and DO concentrations, TKN:TP ratios, pH levels and turbidity. The stress value is reported in the top right corner.
Figure 7Weekly averages of meteorological and hydrological parameters: (A) precipitation; (B) wind speed; (C) PAR; (D) overall river flow. Vertical dashed lines separate years.
Figure 8SPATT toxin values (columns) and toxin concentrations based on grab sampling (symbols) for (A) MCY, (B) CYN and (C) ANA for site E. SPATT toxin concentrations in ng toxin (g resin−1) d−1 are shown at the half-point of each deployment period. Grab samples are represented as µg toxin L−1 (filled symbols). Empty symbols along the x-axis indicate when toxin values fell below the LDL for each ELISA kit (LDLs shown as horizontal dashed lines originating from the secondary y-axes).
Figure 9Seasonal averages for dissolved toxin concentrations based on (A) discrete sample analyses for sites A through G and (B) in-situ tracking (SPATTs) of MCY, ANA and CYN for sites E and G. Standard error bars are included whenever multiple samples tested positive. Note there are differing log-scales on the y-axes.
Percentage (%) of samples that tested positive for varying toxins using discrete sampling and the Solid Phase Adsorption Toxin Tracking (SPATTs) approach. Average concentrations (Ave) for dissolved (Diss) toxins are shown as µg L−1 (values below LDL were not included when calculating the average for each toxin), and for SPATT as ng toxin (g resin)1 d−1. n = number of samples tested. LDL = low detection limit of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) detection method; BDL = below detection limit of ELISA test; MCY = microcystin; ANA = anatoxin-a; CYN = cylindrospermopsin; BMAA = β-N-methylamino-l-alanine; STX = saxitoxin.
| Toxin | Sample Type | Ave | Range | Positive (%) | LDL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCY | Diss | 0.37 | BDL—1.98 | 15 | 65 | 0.10 |
| SPATT | 39.49 | BDL—347.45 | 92 | 24 | ||
| ANA | Diss | 0.2 | BDL—0.68 | 57 | 69 | 0.10 |
| SPATT | 3.97 | 0.31—13.28 | 100 | 23 | ||
| CYN | Diss | 0.27 | BDL—0.83 | 10 | 63 | 0.04 |
| SPATT | 0.05 | BDL—0.05 | 13 | 24 | ||
| BMAA | Diss | 10.75 | BDL—23.45 | 14 | 64 | 4.00 |
| STX | Diss | BDL | BDL | 0 | 40 | 0.015 |
Results from correlation analyses. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) shown in bold are significant at p < 0.05. Cyano = cyanobacteria; Microphyto = microeukaryote phytoplankton; Diss = dissolved; DO = dissolved oxygen; Chl a = chlorophyll a.
| Chl | Cyano (Cells mL−1) | Cyano (mm3 m−3) | Microphyto(Cells mL−1) | Microphyto(mm3 m−3) | MCY (ng mL−1) | ANA (ng mL−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyano (cells mL−1) | |||||||
| Cyano (mm3 m−3) | |||||||
| Microphyto (cells mL−1) | |||||||
| Microphyto (mm3 m−3) | |||||||
| Diss MCY (ng mL−1) | 0.101 | 0.055 | |||||
| Diss ANA (ng mL−1) | −0.166 | 0.125 | 0.132 | −0.008 | |||
| NH3 (mg L−1) | − | − | − | − | − | −0.044 | −0.135 |
| NOx (mg L−1) | − | − | − | − | − | −0.102 | −0.106 |
| TKN (mg L−1) | 0.147 | −0.016 | |||||
| TP (mg L−1) | −0.022 | 0.061 | 0.049 | −0.031 | −0.023 | −0.183 | |
| TKN:TP | 0.089 | 0.200 | |||||
| Turbidity (NTU) | − | 0.002 | 0.068 | − | −0.075 | −0.230 | |
| Temp (°C) | 0.150 | 0.150 | |||||
| DO (mg L−1) | −0.018 | − | − | −0.081 | − | −0.017 | −0.125 |
| pH | 0.437 | 0.255 | 0.043 |
Results from multiple regression analyses. Adj. R2 = adjusted coefficient of determination at p < 0.05. Individual t-statistics are listed in parenthesis. Turb = turbidity. Degrees of freedom for each regression = 441.
| Adj. R2 | Parameter 1 | Parameter 2 | Parameter 3 | Parameter 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chl | 0.680 | NH3 (−8.61) | NOx (−10.50) | TKN (19.99) | DO (5.66) | 427 |
| Cyano (cells mL−1) | 0.521 | NOx (−9.10) | TKN (5.43) | DO (−5.56) | pH (8.62) | 446 |
| Cyano (mm3 m−3) | 0.406 | NOx (−8.79) | TKN (6.31) | pH (6.19) | 452 | |
| Microphyto (cells mL−1) | 0.132 | NOx (−4.42) | TKN (5.05) | 454 | ||
| Microphyto (mm3 m−3) | 0.189 | NH3 (−3.12) | NOx (−3.99) | TKN (5.34) | Turb (−3.71) | 454 |
Summary of reported cyanotoxins in North Carolina (NC) water bodies (based on discrete sampling). Average (Ave) concentrations denoted with an asterisk are approximated from published figures. BDL = below detection limit. ND = no data provided. n = replicates. Res = Reservoir. * = average value approximated from graph.
| Location | Month/Year | Water Body | Toxin | Ave (µg L−1) | Range (µg L−1) | Method | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apex | August 2015–December 2016 | Jordan Lake | MCY | 0.06 | BDL—1.98 | 65 | ELISA | |
| CYN | 0.02 | BDL—0.83 | 63 | |||||
| ANA | 0.11 | BDL—0.68 | 69 | |||||
| BMAA | 9.32 | BDL—23.45 | 64 | |||||
| Piedmont | June 2002–August 2002 | Jordan Lake | MCY | 0.20 * | ND | 6 | ELISA | [ |
| Kerr Scott Res | MCY | 0.30 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Tuckertown Res | MCY | 0.12 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Oak Hollow Lake | MCY | 0.10 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Falls Lake | MCY | 0.22 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Narrows Res | MCY | 0.15 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Lake Rhodhiss | MCY | 0.25 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Lake Michie | MCY | 0.15 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| High Rock Lake | MCY | 0.05 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Lake Tillery | MCY | 0.35 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| High Point Lake | MCY | 0.12 * | ND | 6 | ||||
| Piedmont | June 2011–September 2012 | City Lake | MCY | 0.22 | BDL—0.31 | 6 | ELISA | [ |
| Oak Hollow Lake | MCY | 0.21 | BDL—0.26 | 4 | ||||
| Randleman Res | MCY | 0.17 | BDL—0.18 | 7 | ||||
| Lake Mackintosh | MCY | 0.17 | BDL—0.17 | 5 | ||||
| Waterville | October 2007 | Waterville Res | MCY | 824.3 | ND | 3 | LC-MS | [ |
| Statewide | June 2007–July 2007 | Lake Lee | MCY | 0.21 | 0.17—0.24 | 2 | ELISA | [ |
| Lake Rhodhiss | MCY | 0.14 | BDL—0.14 | 2 | ||||
| STX | 0.03 | BDL—0.03 | 2 | |||||
| Lake Orange | MCY | 0.54 | 0.54 | 1 | ||||
| Lake Fisher | MCY | 0.17 | 0.147 | 1 | ||||
| High Rock Lake | MCY | 0.52 | 0.52 | 1 | ||||
| Lake Townsend | MCY | 0.16 | 0.16 | 1 | ||||
| Falls Lake | MCY | 0.28 | 0.28 | 1 | ||||
| Lake Hickory | MCY | 0.16 | 0.16 | 1 | ||||
| Beaverdam Lake | MCY | 0.23 | 0.23 | 1 | ||||
| Graham-Mebane Lake | MCY | 0.11 | 0.11 | 1 |