Avian species as indicators of ecosystem health in the Tittabawassee/Saginaw river watershed Prof. Matthew Zwiernik Animal Science/Vet.Med. 3270 Anthony Hall 517-749-5243 zwiernik@msu.edu www.riverwildlife.msu.edu/ Saginaw Audubon Society 23 March 2010
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
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
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
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
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
Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Song birds
Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Fish eating birds
Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Raptors
Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Migratory waterfowl
Tittabawassee River Wildlife Studies Mink
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
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
Dietary Composition Stomach content
Dietary Composition Scat analysis
Dietary Composition Prey Remains
Dietary Composition Visual Observations
Dietary Composition Bolus Sampling
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
Collect Prey Items Multiple time-points Multiple locations
Mean ng mammalian TEQ / kg Error bars represent one standard deviation Concentrations of contaminants in dietary items 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 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 250 200 Terrestrial beetle tissue CRAYFISH CRAYFISH 150 100 50 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
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
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma
Tissue Based Exposure Eggs Plasma Tissues
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
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
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
American Robin Reproductive health measurements Reference Area Nests 67 172 n Study Area n p-value Mean clutch (±SD) 3.3 (0.8) 29 3.3 (0.8) 55 Mean hatch (±SD)* 87% (17%) 23 71% (24%) 56 0.0037 Mean adj. hatch (±SD)* 94% (14%) 23 77% (56%) 56 0.0009 Mean fledge (±SD) 74% (30%) 23 80% (26%) 70 Mean adj. fledge (±SD)* 93% (18%) 23 98% (10%) 70 0.0443 Mean productivity (±SD) 68% (29%) 17 59% (29%) 39 Mean adj. productivity (±SD)* 83% (20%) 17 71% (24%) 39 0.0493 % Successful nests 90% * Population health variable significantly different 29 95% 76 (α = 0.05) between reference and study areas per Wilcoxon rank sum test
Great blue heron Challenges Kingfisher Burrow Sites Dietary exposure assessment 2005 Burrows 2006 Burrows 2007 Burrows
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
Receptor Species House wren Eastern bluebird Tree swallow
Passerine Study House wren Tree swallow Eastern bluebird Clutches initiated 427 245 122 Fledged at least 1 nestling 277 176 75 * For 2005-2007 among all study areas
Nest success Key productivity measures for eastern bluebird Study area Endpoint R-1 R-2 T-3 T-6 S-7 S-9 n 31 52 4 Clutch size 4.5 4.6 4.0 Hatching success Fledging success 0.70 0.84 083 0.84 0.87 0.90 Productivity 0.63 0.76 0.73
Nest success Key productivity measures for tree swallows Study area Endpoint R-1 R-2 T-3 T-6 S-7 S-9 n 56 89 50 Clutch size 5.0 b 5.2 b 5.6 a Hatching success Fledging success 0.81 0.76 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.92 Productivity 0.80 ab 0.70 b 0.81 a
Nest success Key productivity measures for house wrens Study area Endpoint R-1 R-2 T-3 T-6 S-7 S-9 n 83 206 53 Clutch size 6.0 5.6 5.9 Hatching success Fledging success 0.81 0.77 0.82 0.86 a 0.82 ab 0.73 b Productivity 0.71 0.66 0.65
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
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)
Population Health Banded and Monitored more than 4,000 birds Demographics Age Sex Ratio Long term Survival Adult return rate Nestling return rate
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.
Band Return Rates, Nestlings
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
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
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
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
Questions Prof. Matthew Zwiernik Animal Science/Vet.Med. 3270 Anthony Hall. 517-749-5243 zwiernik@msu.edu www.riverwildlife.msu.edu/