Avian species as indicators of ecosystem health in the Tittabawassee/Saginaw river watershed

Transcription

1 Avian species as indicators of ecosystem health in the Tittabawassee/Saginaw river watershed Prof. Matthew Zwiernik Animal Science/Vet.Med Anthony Hall Saginaw Audubon Society 23 March 2010

2 MSU Researchers Matthew J. Zwiernik Rita Seston Timothy B. Fredricks Sarah J. Coefield Dustin L. Tazelaar Jeremy N. Moore David W. Hamman Mike M. Fales Megan Barker Michael N. Nadeau Melissa S. Shotwell Steph Plautz William Folland Patrick W. Bradley Steve Bursian Ph.D John P. Giesy, Ph.D. and many more

3 Research Contributors Mike Bishop (Alma College) Cooperating landowners (~60) Chippewa Nature Center Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (East Lansing) Sean Kennedy, Environment Canada The Dow Chemical Company Technical Support Group

4 Tittabawassee River Wildlife Health Studies Initiated Spring 2004 Completion Fall 2008 (> 20,000 hours in the field) Designed to assess the exposure and possible impacts of dioxinlike contaminants on resident wildlife of the Tittabawassee river basin Multi-year Multi-species Site-specific Multi-lines of evidence

5 To Streamline Studies, Select Specific Species intensity of exposure appropriateness as a surrogate species ecological function time spent on-site ease or difficulty of conducting field studies with the organisms size and types of the contaminated habitat relative sensitivity to contaminants

6 Avian Species as Environmental Health Indicators Canary in the Coal Mine CH 4, CO American Robin (Turdus migratorius ) DDT Bald Eagle, Terns, Double-crested Cormorants, Herring Gulls PCBs DDTs

7 Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Song birds

8 Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Fish eating birds

9 Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Raptors

10 Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Migratory waterfowl

11 Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Mink

12 Multiple Lines of Evidence Dietary exposure assessment Determine dietary composition Determine foraging range Analyze site-specific dietary items Predict exposure Tissue-based exposure assessment Concentrations in adult tissues Concentrations in nestling tissues Concentrations in fresh/addled eggs

13 Multiple Lines of Evidence Individual and Population Health Measurement Endpoints Clutch size Hatching success Fledging success Productivity Abundance (occupancy rate) Long term survival Nestling growth curve Nest attentiveness Yearly return rates Habitat suitability Individual health Population demographics

14 Dietary Composition Stomach content

15 Dietary Composition Scat analysis

16 Dietary Composition Prey Remains

17 Dietary Composition Visual Observations

18 Dietary Composition Bolus Sampling

19 House wren (n=948) Lepidoptera Tree swallow (n=21,182) Brachycera 52% Nematocera 17% 35% Orthoptera 20% 6% Other Hemiptera Trichoptera 9% Opiliones Brachycera Araneae 14% Tricoptera 10% Ephemeroptera Other Hymenoptera Hemiptera 7% Coleoptera Odonata Eastern bluebird (n=576) Orthoptera 44% Lepidoptera 28% Other 12% Coleoptera Araneae Oligochaeta

20 Collect Prey Items Multiple time-points Multiple locations

21

22 Mean ng mammalian TEQ / kg Error bars represent one standard deviation Concentrations of contaminants in dietary items Crayfish tissue 0 Sanford Chippewa Nature Center Smiths Crossing Tittabawassee Township Park Freeland Festival Park Imerman Park Shiawassee Wildlife Refuge Veterans Memorial Park Dow Light House Sum Mamm TEQ Terrestrial beetle tissue CRAYFISH CRAYFISH SAN N=4 CNC 5 SC 3 TTP 5 FFP 4 IP 6 SNW R 3 VM P 2 DLH 4 0 Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA Reference Tittabawassee Saginaw Sanford Chippewa Nature Smiths Crossing Tittabawassee Freeland Festival Imerman Park Shiawassee Veterans Dow Light House Upstream Downstream TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATE

23 Results of Dietary Exposure Assessment Contaminants are entering the food web The greatest exposures occur in the Imerman Park area Exposures are approaching levels at which adverse reproductive effects would be seen for the most sensitive species

24 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs

25 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs

26 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs

27 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

28 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

29 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

30 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

31 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

32 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

33 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma

34 Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma Tissues

35 Results of Tissue Based Exposure Assessment Wildlife are accumulating contaminants in tissues The greatest exposures occur in the Immerman Park area Tissue concentrations bracket those at which adverse effects could be expected

36 Multiple Lines of Evidence Individual and Population Health Measurement Endpoints Clutch size Hatching success Fledging success Productivity Abundance (occupancy rate) Long term survival Nestling growth curve Nest attentiveness Yearly return rates Habitat suitability Individual health Population demographics

37

38

39

40 Great blue heron Reproductive Health Measurements FRE SNWR CAS Clutch Size 3.8±1.0 (22) 4.0±1.6 (9) 3.9±1.4 (23) Nestlings/nest 2.7±0.86 (21) 2.5±1.1 (13) 3.4±2.1 (8) Nestlings / successful nest = number of chicks present at 4-5 weeks of age. Both clutch size and the number of nestlings per successful nest are similar among rookeries and consistent with values found in the literature

41 American Robin Reproductive health measurements Reference Area Nests n Study Area n p-value Mean clutch (±SD) 3.3 (0.8) (0.8) 55 Mean hatch (±SD)* 87% (17%) 23 71% (24%) Mean adj. hatch (±SD)* 94% (14%) 23 77% (56%) Mean fledge (±SD) 74% (30%) 23 80% (26%) 70 Mean adj. fledge (±SD)* 93% (18%) 23 98% (10%) Mean productivity (±SD) 68% (29%) 17 59% (29%) 39 Mean adj. productivity (±SD)* 83% (20%) 17 71% (24%) % Successful nests 90% * Population health variable significantly different 29 95% 76 (α = 0.05) between reference and study areas per Wilcoxon rank sum test

42 Great blue heron Challenges Kingfisher Burrow Sites Dietary exposure assessment 2005 Burrows 2006 Burrows 2007 Burrows

43 Kingfisher Reproductive Health Reference Target Nests Excavated 9 28 Clutch Size 6.3±0.52 (6) 6.9±0.34 (16) Hatch Success 0.75±0.50 (4) 0.74±0.43 (9) Fledging Success 0.83±0.29 (3) 0.71±0.36 (12) No differences in reproductive health between exposed and reference birds

44 Receptor Species House wren Eastern bluebird Tree swallow

45 Passerine Study House wren Tree swallow Eastern bluebird Clutches initiated Fledged at least 1 nestling * For among all study areas

46 Nest success Key productivity measures for eastern bluebird Study area Endpoint R-1 R-2 T-3 T-6 S-7 S-9 n Clutch size Hatching success Fledging success Productivity

47 Nest success Key productivity measures for tree swallows Study area Endpoint R-1 R-2 T-3 T-6 S-7 S-9 n Clutch size 5.0 b 5.2 b 5.6 a Hatching success Fledging success Productivity 0.80 ab 0.70 b 0.81 a

48 Nest success Key productivity measures for house wrens Study area Endpoint R-1 R-2 T-3 T-6 S-7 S-9 n Clutch size Hatching success Fledging success a 0.82 ab 0.73 b Productivity

49 Other Direct Measures of Reproductive success Measurement Clutch Initiation Clutch Size Egg mass Nestling Growth Nestlings Fledged per Female Nestlings Fledged by egg concentration Difference between Reference and Tittabawassee River animals No No No No No No

50 Results of Reproductive Endpoints No significant differences in any of the measures of reproductive performance Reproductive parameters for all species were within the range expected based on published studies No abnormalities including those associated with dioxin like exposure have been seen (>4000 birds)

51 Population Health Banded and Monitored more than 4,000 birds Demographics Age Sex Ratio Long term Survival Adult return rate Nestling return rate

52 Band Return Rates, Breeding Adults o Survival of breeding adults residing in the study area (greater exposure) was either not different or greater than reference area birds.

53 Band Return Rates, Nestlings

54 Population Health Conclusions o o o o o Adult band return rates were on the greater end of literature reported Survival was not different between areas of greater and lesser exposure for House wrens and Tree swallow adults Predicted survival of Eastern bluebirds was greater in the exposure area PCDF exposure on the Tittabawassee river does not seem to be adversely effecting adult passerine survival Considering the low background probability of nestlings surviving and returning to their natal site to breed; contaminants exposure does not appear to be affecting post-fledging survival

55 Population Health Conclusions o o o o For all species monitored banded individuals returned to the site for multiple years Age and sex ratios for passerine species were indicative of a healthy and stable population Abnormalities were not noted in any of the more than 5,000 birds handled All species expected to be on site, were

56 Overall Conclusions Based on Multiple Lines of Evidence Approach Line of Evidence Confidence in Conclusion Probability of Adverse Effects Dietary Exposure Low Low to Moderate Tissue Based Exposure Moderate Low to Moderate Individual Health Moderate Very Low Reproductive Health High Very Low Population Health High Very Low

57 Overall Conclusions Despite a massive effort by many, many hard working people and the somewhat forced cooperation by more than 5,000 birds of various species, we were unable to conclude that contaminants in the Tittabawassee River are adversely effecting the local ecosystem

58 Questions Prof. Matthew Zwiernik Animal Science/Vet.Med Anthony Hall