Next Article in Journal
Colour Sonar: Multi-Frequency Sidescan Sonar Images of the Seabed in the Inner Sound of the Pentland Firth, Scotland
Next Article in Special Issue
Vegetation Impact and Recovery from Oil-Induced Stress on Three Ecologically Distinct Wetland Sites in the Gulf of Mexico
Previous Article in Journal
Atmospheric Layers in Response to the Propagation of Gravity Waves under Nonisothermal, Wind-shear, and Dissipative Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Consensus Ecological Risk Assessment of Potential Transportation-related Bakken and Dilbit Crude Oil Spills in the Delaware Bay Watershed, USA
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 4
Issue 1
10.3390/jmse4010024
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Exposure of Pink Shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, Larvae to Macondo Canyon 252 Crude Oil and the Corexit Dispersant

by
Susan Laramore
1,*,
William Krebs
1,2,† and
Amber Garr
1,3,†
1
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University, 5600 US 1 North Fort Pierce, FL 34946, USA
2
Colorado Catch, LLC., PO Box 210, Sanford, CO 81151, USA
3
Fountain Valley School of Colorado, 6155 Fountain Valley School Road, Colorado Springs, CO 80911, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4(1), 24; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4010024
Submission received: 1 January 2016 / Revised: 1 February 2016 / Accepted: 2 February 2016 / Published: 8 March 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Marine Oil Spills)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) during the Deepwater Horizon event coincided with the white and pink shrimp spawning season. To determine the potential impact on shrimp larvae a series of static acute (24–96 h) toxicity studies with water accommodated fractions (WAFs) of Macondo Canyon (MC) 252 crude oil, the Corexit 9500A dispersant, and chemically enhanced WAFS (CEWAFs) were conducted with nauplii, zoea, mysid, and postlarval Farfantepenaeus duorarum. Median lethal concentrations (LC50) were calculated and behavior responses (swimming, molting, light sensitivity) evaluated. Impacts were life stage dependent with zoea being the most sensitive. Behavioral responses for all stages, except postlarvae, occurred at below LC50 values. Dispersants had the greatest negative impact while WAFs had the least. No short-term effects (survival, growth) were noted for nauplii exposed to sub-lethal CEWAFs 39 days post-exposure. This study points to the importance of evaluating multiple life stages to assess population effects following contaminant exposure and further, that the use of dispersants as a method of oil removal increases oil toxicity.

1. Introduction

The Gulf of Mexico (GOM) has some of the most productive coastal bodies of water in the world, making it a major source for the U.S. seafood industry and the most economically important of all domestic commercial seafood harvesting sectors [1]. One of the most important GOM fisheries is the shrimp industry, extending from Brownsville, Texas to Key West, Florida. In 2010 the GOM provided 68% of U.S.-harvested shrimp with a total dockside value of $281 million [2]. The fishery consists of three major species: brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) [3]. Both the pink and white shrimp began migrating offshore to spawn in the spring, with continued spawning migration throughout the summer (pink shrimp) and fall (white shrimp), while the spawning season for brown shrimp is less defined in terms of season [4,5,6]. Fertilized eggs pass through nauplii, zoea, and mysis stages in offshore waters before migrating back to coastal estuaries as postlarvae within three to four weeks, throughout the spring and summer, dependent on species. On April 20, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil platform exploded resulting in 200 million gallons of oil being released into the GOM until the well was capped on July 15 [7,8]. It is estimated that 100,000 km2 of the GOM was affected by the spill, which coincided with the spring spawning season of a number of key GOM species, including shrimp [3,4,5,6,8]. In an effort to contain the spill and prevent the oil from reaching the shoreline, booms, skimmers, burning, direct recovery, and dispersants were used [7]. It has been calculated that 1.9 million gallons of dispersant (Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500A) were used [9]. Dispersants do not remove oil from water but act to break the oil into smaller droplets that are more readily dispersed into the water column [10]. While dispersant use decreases the amount of surface oil lessening the amount of oil that reaches shorelines, the small dispersed droplets that remain in the water column are now made available to pelagic organisms that inhabit the water column [7].
Several studies have shown negative impacts of oil or dispersed oil exposure on various invertebrates, including mollusks [11,12,13,14,15], echinoderms [16,17,18], and crustaceans [11,13,19,20,21,22]. Other studies have focused on determining the effect of dispersants on marine organisms [10,23,24,25,26]. Most studies concentrate on one stage of development. Early life stages are typically more sensitive to pollutants than juveniles or adults and may be impacted at concentrations that, at least on the surface, do not cause acute mortality in juveniles or adults. Yet, in the long term survival may be impacted by behavioral modifications such as reduced activity that may affect predator avoidance and food intake [27,28,29,30,31]. The aim of our study was to determine what concentration of MC252 oil, Corexit dispersant and chemically dispersed MC252 would adversely affect the survival, development, and behavioral responses of the four major larval stages of shrimp (nauplii, zoea, mysis, and postlarvae). Behavioral responses included swimming activity, light response, feeding, and molting.

2. Experimental Section

2.1. Animals

Various life stages: nauplii (stage N1, N5), proto-zoea (stage Z1, Z3), mysis (stage M1, M2), and six-day-old post-larvae (Pl6) of shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) were obtained from two commercial shrimp facilities in Florida (Scientific Associates, Indiantown and Pine Island Aquafarms, St. James City, FL, USA).

2.2. Solution Preparation

Oil and dispersant solutions for all experiments were prepared with MC252 oil (British Petroleum Company, BP PLC, London, UK) or Corexit 9500A dispersant (Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, Sugarland, TX, USA). Solutions were prepared following CROSERF procedures [32,33]. Prior to solution preparation, crude oil was physically weathered in the lab for 24 h by placement of oil in a beaker on a stir plate and mixing with a magnetic stir bar in the dark in a chemical fume hood. Stock solutions of water accommodated fractions (WAFs) of crude oil (2 g L−1), dispersant (2 g L−1) and chemically enhanced WAFs (CEWAFs) (1:10 ratio) were prepared in 2 L flasks of filtered, UV treated seawater (28 ppt), covered, and mixed at moderate intensity (25% vortex) for 24 h. Stock solutions were allowed to settle for 3 h prior to preparation of working solutions.

2.3. PAH Analysis

Samples of oil and dispersed oil stocks (2 g L−1) used in the acute toxicity experiments were preserved in glass jars with dichloromethane (1:10 v/v) and extracted using modified EPA method 3510C (Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, parent compounds, and homologues) were analyzed using GC/MS (Agilent 7890A/5975C), modified EPA method 8260. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) n-C9 to n-C42 were analyzed using a GC with a flame ionization detector (FID, Agilent 7890A, Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA).

2.4. Acute Toxicity Bioassays

2.4.1. Survival (Determination of LC50 Values)

Acute static toxicity tests (May 2011) were conducted with N2, Z1, and M1 using nominal WAF concentrations of 0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg L−1, and for Pl6 shrimp using nominal WAF concentrations of 0, 50, 100, 200, and 400 mg L−1 . CEWAF concentrations of 0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg L−1, and dispersant concentrations of 0, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, and 50 mg L−1 were used for all four life stages, with five replicates per treatment for each of the three solutions. Nauplii (N = 15) were placed in finger bowls containing 50 mL of the appropriate solution. All other life stages (N = 15 Z1; N = 12 M1, Pl6) were placed in 1000 mL beakers containing 600 mL of the appropriate solution. All containers were placed in incubators (28 °C, 12:12 h light:dark cycle). Shrimp were fed once per day. Nauplii and zoea were fed a mixture of Chaetocerous gracilis and Isochrysis galbana, mysis were fed rotifers, and postlarvae were fed a pelleted diet (Shrimp PL 40-9, Zeigler Bro. Inc., Gardners, PA, USA). Survival was assessed at 24, 48, 72, and 96 h. Lethal concentrations (LC50) were determined using the trimmed Spearman-Karber method (ToxCalcv5.0).

2.4.2. Behavioral Responses

Several experiments were conducted to evaluate behavioral responses. Activity level (swimming behavior) and molting frequency were evaluated for M1 and Pl6 stages for both WAF (0, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1200 mg L−1) and CEWAF (0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg L−1) exposures, with five replicates per treatment group, and 12 shrimp per replicate. Activity level was scored on a scale of 1–4: 1 = actively moving, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic/moving appendages only, 4 = dead. Molting frequency was calculated as the percent of shrimp that molted compared to the total number of shrimp.
Subsequent behavioral response experiments were conducted for CEWAF exposures only for N5, Z1, Z3, and M2 stages. Concentrations used varied based on life stage evaluated, with five replicates per treatment group, 15 shrimp per replicate. CEWAF concentrations of 0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg L−1 were used for nauplii and mysis stages, while concentrations were adjusted to 0, 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg L−1 for the more sensitive proto-zoeal stages as determined by the LC50 experiments. Behavioral parameters assessed included activity and molting as defined above, and feeding and photo-taxic response. Feeding was scored on a 1–4 scale: 1 = actively feeding (food in gut, fecal strands), 2 = 50% or less feeding, 3 = 25% or less feeding, 4 = 0% feeding. Photo-taxic response was evaluated by placing a light source to one side of the container and noting the proportion of shrimp that were attracted to the light (N5, Z1) or avoided the light (Z3, M2). Photo-taxic response was scored on a 1–3 scale: for N5, Z1—1 = actively moving towards light, 2 = sluggish response, 3 = no response; for Z3, M2—1 = actively moving away from light, 2 = slow avoidance response, 3 = no response. The proportion of shrimp that underwent metamorphosis to the next stage was also noted in these experiments.

2.5. Sub-Lethal Toxicity Bioassays

Approximately 10,000 L. duorarum nauplii were evenly divided between one of six 13 L buckets containing either filtered, UV treated HBOI salt well water (N = 3) or 23 mg L−1 CEWAF (N = 3). During the 24 h exposure, shrimp were fed Isochrysis galbana during experimental exposure at a rate of 15,000 (or ×103) cells/mL. Surviving shrimp from both control buckets and treatment buckets were sieved, combined and then redistributed into one of four 400-L larval rearing tanks (two control, two treatment) containing filtered, UV treated HBOI salt well water. On day 1 (24 h exposure) and on alternate days, seven to eight shrimp were randomly removed from each of the four tanks (15 control, 15 exposed) for 39 days, collected and placed in vials containing 10% NBT formalin. After a 24 h fixation period, shrimp were placed in 70% ethanol, examined microscopically, and photographed (Infinity 2 digital camera, Luminera Co., Sachse, TX, USA). Developmental stage was recorded and length measurements averaged for each data point using Infinity Analyze (Luminera Co.).

3. Results

3.1. PAH Analysis

The total PAH level in the CEWAF stock solution (1429 µg L−1) was three times greater than that of the WAF stock solution (452 µg L−1) while the TPH level (62,613 µg L−1) in the CEWAF solution was 25 times greater than that of the WAF stock solution (2467 µg L−1) (Table 1). The predominant compound was napthalene, which made up 83.5% of the compounds in the WAF and 65% of the compounds in the CEWAF stock solution. Compounds containing three and four carbon rings (e.g., anthracene, fluorene, pyrene, chrysene, and phenanthrene) were approximately two times greater in the CEWAF compared to the WAF solution.

3.2. Acute Toxicity Bioassays

3.2.1. Survival (Nominal LC50 Values)

Dispersants had the greatest impact on survival of all larval stages while WAFs had the least, with the proto-zoeal (Z1) stage exhibiting the greatest sensitivity and the postlarval (Pl6) stage the least sensitivity to all three contaminants (Table 2). The dispersant had the greatest impact on Z1 shrimp (3.1 mg L−1, LC50, 24 h; 2.5 mg L−1 LC50, 48 h; 100% mortality, 72 h), with all other stages having similar LC50 values at 24 h (21–33 mg L−1) (Table 2). LC50 values continued to decrease for nauplii (N2) and mysis (M1) over time, but not for Pl6 (22–28 mg L−1). CEWAFs, likewise, had the greatest impact on Z1 shrimp (15.4 mg L−1, LC50, 24 h; 100% mortality, 48 h), with all other stages having similar LC50 values at 24 h (81.5–100 mg L−1) (Table 2). LC50 values continued to decrease for all stages over time, but less for Pl6 (44 mg L−1, LC50, 96 h) than for M1 (8.5 mg L−1, LC50, 96 h). WAFs had the least impact on all life stages, with Z1 being the most sensitive (67.4 mg L−1, LC50, 24 h; 25.5 mg L−1 LC50, 48 h; 100% mortality, 72 h) and Pl6 the least, with no LC50 value determined for concentrations tested (>400 mg L−1, 96 h) (Table 2).

3.2.2. Survival (Determined PAH and TPH LC50 Values)

PAH and TPH values for nominal CEWAFs and WAFs could only be compared at 24 h for Z1 and 96 h for M1 (Table 2). Toxicity of CEWAFs and WAFs were similarly toxic when PAH concentrations were compared, however WAFs were more toxic than CEWAFs when TPH concentrations were compared.

3.2.3. Behavioral Response—WAF & CEWAF (M1,Pl6)

Activity (swimming ability) was significantly decreased for M1 exposed to CEWAF and WAF (Figure 1 and Figure 2). CEWAFs decreased M1 activity at 50 mg L−1 (36 μg L−1 PAH) at 24 h (F5,24 = 103.6, p < 0.0001), 12.5 mg L−1 (18 μg L−1 PAH) at 48 and 72 h (F5,24 = 25.93, p < 0.0001; F5,24 = 26.53, p < 0.0001) and 6.25 mg L−1 (4 μg L−1 PAH) at 96 h ((F5,24 = 119.73, p < 0.0001 (Figure 1). WAFs decreased M1 activity at 800 mg L−1 (181 μg L−1 PAH) at 24 h (F5,24 = 28.11, p < 0.0001), 400 mg L−1 (90 μg L−1 PAH) at 48 h (F5,24 = 9.62, p < 0.0001) and 100 mg L−1 (23 μg L−1 PAH) at 72 and 96 h (F5,24 = 12.38, p < 0.0001; F5,24 = 25.05, p < 0.0001 ) (Figure 2).
Activity of Pl6 was not affected by exposure to CEWAFs or WAFs at concentrations tested (Figure 3 and Figure 4). There were significant differences in activity in Pl6 exposed to CEWAFs at 48 h (F5,24 = 4.56, p = 0.0046) and 96 h (F5,24 = 15.73, p = 0.0001), however this was not dose dependent (Figure 3). There were significant differences in activity in Pl6 exposed to WAFs at 48 h (F5,24 = 3.81, p = 0.0111), however activity was not dose dependent (Figure 4).
CEWAFs ≥ 12.5 mg L−1 caused a significant increase in molting of M1 (Figure 5). Significant differences were seen at both 24 (F5,17 = 7.71, p = 0.0006) and 48 h (F5,17 = 63.79, p < 0.0001).

3.2.4. Behavioral Response—CEWAF (N5, Z1, Z3, M2)

Exposure of nauplii (N5) to CEWAFs impacted swimming ability, feeding activity and phototaxic response (Table 3). Activity (swimming ability) of N5 shrimp significantly decreased (F4,25 = 98.8, p < 0.0001) after 24 h exposure to all concentrations of CEWAF tested (12.5–100 mg L−1) in a dose dependent matter. At 48 h, activity of N5 shrimp was significantly different (F4,25 = 98.8, p=.0262) only at 100 mg L−1. Feeding activity was likewise reduced (F4,10 = 35.75, p < 0.0001) at 24 h at all CEWAF concentrations. Phototaxtic response was also reduced at both 24 (F4,25 = 81.45, p < 0.0001) and 48 h (F4,15 = 7.67, p = 0014), in a dose dependent manner, with exposed shrimp, being slower to respond at both 24 and 48 h. There was no difference in metamorphosis from nauplii to zoea stages by 48 h, except for at 100 mg L−1.
The behavior responses of proto-zoeal larvae (Z1, Z3) were impacted at lower concentrations of CEWAFs than were nauplii and mysis larvae (see below), and Z1 larvae tended to exhibit these responses at levels lower than did Z3 larvae (Table 3). Activity of Z1 (F4,25 = 6.68, p = 0.0008) and Z3 (F4,25 = 707, p < 0.0001) shrimp was significantly decreased at 6.125 and 12.5 mg L−1, respectively, at 24 h. No significant differences were seen for either zoeal stage at 48 h, or for Z3 shrimp at 72 h, however, Z1 shrimp exposed to 12.5 and 25 mg L−1 for 72 h (F4,25 = 2.96, p = 0.039) were dead or moribund. Feeding activity was not monitored for Z1 shrimp, however no difference was seen with Z3 shrimp (Table 3). Molting frequency increased following exposure to 3.125 mg L−1 CEWAFs at 24 h for Z1 and 48 h for Z3 shrimp (Table 3). Phototaxic response was reduced for Z1 shrimp at both 24 (F4,25 = 7.78, p = 0.003) and 48 h (F4,25 = 2.77, p = 0.05) at 6.125 and 12.5 mg L−1 respectively, and for Z3 shrimp at 24 (F4,25 = 3751, p < 0.0001 ) and 72 h (F4,25 = 5.12, p = 0.0036) at 12.5 mg L−1. All Z1 control shrimp developed to Z2 stage by 72 h, while some of the shrimp in all exposed groups were still in stage Z1. An interesting pattern was seen in Z3 exposed shrimp. A greater percentage of shrimp exposed to the highest CEWAF concentrations (12.5 and 25 mg L−1) developed to M1 stage than did control Z3 shrimp, or shrimp exposed to lower CEWAF concentrations (Table 3).
Exposure of M2 larvae to CEWAFs affected swimming ability, feeding response, phototaxic response and molting (Table 3). Swimming ability was affected at 25 mg L−1 at 24 h (F4,20 = 21, p = 0.0007) and at 50 mg L−1 at 48 (F4,20 = 13.8, p < 0.0001) and 72 h (F4,20 = 3.0, p = 0.043). Feeding behavior was affected at 25 mg L−1 at all exposure times (F4,20 = 99, p < 0.0001, 24 h; F4,20 = 45, p < 0.0001, 48 h; F4,20 = 48.9, p < 0.0001, 72 h) and shrimp exposed to higher concentrations had ceased feeding at 72 h. Molting frequency increased following exposure at 24 h for concentrations 25–100 mg L−1 (Table 3). Light avoidance was affected at 25 mg L−1 at 24 h (F4,20 = 956, p < 0.0001) and at 12.5 mg L−1 at 48 (F4,20 = 1483, p < 0.0001) and 72 h (F4,20 = 44.2, p < 0.0001). No apparent lag in development to M3 was noted between control and exposed groups.

3.3. Long Term Sublethal Effects

3.3.1. Survival

No difference in survival was seen between control and treatment groups. Survival was approximately 25% for both groups at day 39 post exposure.

3.3.2. Growth

No significant difference was seen in growth. Growth, as defined by total body length, was not significantly different between control and exposed groups from N5 to Pl28 (F1,12 = 0.42, p = 0.5302) (Figure 6).

3.3.3. Developmental Stages

A slight developmental delay was seen between the control and exposed treatments on day five. Development from Z3 to M1 proceeded at a slower pace in the exposed groups resulting in a delayed development from M2 to M3 from day seven to nine. By day 11, development was similar and both groups reached Pl1 (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

Exposure of various stages (nauplii, zoea, mysis, and postlarvae) of F. duorarum shrimp larvae to MC252 surrogate oil from the Deepwater Horizon well, and the primary dispersant, Corexit 9500A, used during the spill, adversely affected survival and behavior. Zoea (Z1) were more sensitive to contaminant effects than other life stages. Dispersant exposure had a more pronounced affect, than did water accommodated fractions of crude oil (WAFs) or chemically enhanced WAFs (CEWAFs), and affected all larval stages equally and negatively. CEWAFs generally had a more negative impact than WAFs. Effects were dose and exposure dependent, with short-term sublethal effects resulting in slight developmental delays, with no longer term consequences to growth or survival seen in the laboratory.
The water column is the most likely route of contaminant uptake following an oil spill and therefore the toxicity of oil within the water column are commonly measured by analyzing the amount of oil contaminants within the WAFs and CEWAFs. Oil used was artificially weathered, to decrease the amount of volatile organic compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene) that tend to evaporate readily, in order to more closely mimic the type of oil that most organisms in the water column would likely encounter.
Concentrations of WAFs and CEWAFs used in this study represent moderate to maximum environmentally relevant levels based on reported literature. Oil levels ranging from 20 to 600 mg L−1 and dispersed oil levels ranging from 25 to 75 mg L−1 have been reported in the water column 24 h after a spill and may be a magnitude greater immediately following a spill [34]. Dispersants are used in relatively few spill events due in part to unfavorable conditions that are necessary for dispersants to work effectively [35]. Due to the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon event large amounts of dispersant were used. Although the majority of water column organisms were likely exposed to either oil or dispersant and oil mixtures during the event it is possible that some organisms were inadvertently exposed to dispersants alone. Levels of dispersant used in these experiments were considered relevant based on reported literature. Dispersant concentrations of 0.1–15 mg L−1 have been reported in the field [10,31,36], although initial dispersant concentrations are generally below 10 mg L−1 (maximum range 5–15 mg L−1), dropping to less than 1 mg L−1 in a few hours [24,36].

4.1. Acute Toxicity Effects

4.1.1. Survival

Survival is often used as the endpoint to determine oil toxicity effects. Previous studies have reported lethal concentration (LC50) values for crustaceans, including shrimp, following acute exposure to oil, however, researchers typically focus on only one life stage and one contaminant (oil, dispersed oil, or dispersant). Early life stages tend to be more susceptible to toxic compounds than adults, which may negatively affect populations in affected areas, especially in the short-term. This study is unique in studying the effects of various shrimp larval stages simultaneously, to oil, dispersed oil, and a dispersant, and reporting behavioral responses along with LC50 values. We found that larval shrimp mortality varied dependent on developmental stage, and was not age dependent as zoea were more sensitive than nauplii. This is likely the result of differing feeding modalities at these two larval stages. Nauplii have undeveloped mouth parts and rely on their yolk sac for nutrition, while zoea are indiscriminate feeders and consume anything large enough to enter their mouth, and mysis seek out and capture their food [37]. Feed sources provided during this study varied: nauplii and zoea were provided with algae, mysis with rotifers, and postlarvae with commercial pellets. Exposure of WAFs or CEWAFs through either the water column or exposed feed resulted in similar alterations of metabolic enzymes in fish [38]. The addition of small quantities of feed may have resulted in larvae being exposed to oil contaminants through both the water column via the gills and the digestive tract via ingestion. We believed that administration of some feed was necessary to eliminate the likelihood of starvation as the cause of death as larvae, unlike postlarvae and juvenile shrimp, need to eat continuously. Preliminary experiments conducted with untreated and unfed larvae resulted in notable lethargy at 24 h and 50%–90% mortality of nauplii and zoea, respectively, at 48 h.
We noted that dispersant exposure negatively impacted all four larval stages at similar concentrations, although zoea were the most adversely affected, with all Z1 shrimp dead by 48 h. Our reported values for 96 h exposures for F. duorarum M1 and Pl6 for Corexit 9500A, were similar to those previously reported for Corexit 9527 for L. setiferus postlarvae (96 h LC50, 12–31 mg L−1) [11,13]. Similar LC50 values (3.5–83 mg L−1) have been reported following 48 to 96 h of exposure of other postlaval and juvenile crustaceans to Corexit 9500 [10,26,32,39,40].
Exposure to nominal concentrations of CEWAFs resulted in increased mortality compared to WAFs in our study. The majority of researchers have concluded that chemically dispersed oil is more toxic than physically dispersed oil [35]. However, reporting methods (nominal, PAH, TPH), may impact researchers conclusions [41]. In our study, when PAH, rather than nominal values were compared, the toxicity of WAFs and CEWAFs were equivalent, although WAFs appeared to be more toxic when TPHs were compared, similar to that seen for L. setiferus juveniles [13]. The increase in toxicity of CEWAFs is attributed to increased availability of PAHs in the water column through the creation of a large number of small oil droplets [35]. The PAH levels in the prepared CEWAF stocks in our study were three times greater and the TPH levels 25 times greater than in the WAF stocks. Oil droplets were observed in fecal strands and the digestive tract and fecal strands of some zoea and mysis larvae exposed to CEWAF concentrations ≥ 25 mg L−1 indicating ingestion of oiled particulates in larvae that were still feeding. At 50–100 mg L−1 oil was noted on appendages and molts of some shrimp larvae, implicating narcosis (PAH toxicity) and perhaps restricted motility as likely causes of mortality.
Although previous researchers have compared survival of crustaceans exposed to WAFs and CEWAFs by reporting LC50 values, there is little consistency in the reporting method (nominal, TPH, PAH) which makes comparison difficult. In this study, we attempted to make cross-comparison easier by listing LC50 values for all three parameters. The majority of early crustacean studies were conducted with larval mysid shrimp, Americanus (Mysiopsis) bahia, where TPH values were reported, and 96 h LC50 values ranged from 0.15–83 mg L−1 WAFs and 0.5–120 mg L−1 CEWAFs [26,42,43]. That these results differ somewhat may be explained by variation in exposure methods used (constant, spiked, static renewal), however, each study reported a similar toxicity for WAFs and CEWAFs based on comparison of TPHs. Similar results have been reported for Americamysis (Holmesimysis) costata (1–35 mg L−1 WAF, 8–33 mg L−1 CEWAF, 96 h) and L. setiferus juveniles (6.5 mg L−1 WAFs, 5–7.5 mg L−1 CEWAFs, 96 h) [13,25,44]. In contrast, we report a 96 h TPH toxicity with larval F. duorarum (0.029–0.037 mg L−1 WAFs, 0.27–1.38 mg L−1 CEWAFs), indicating that WAFs were more toxic. This is in contrast to 96 h LC50 PAH values, in which little difference in toxicity was seen for WAFs and CEWAFs. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon event, reported concentrations of TPAHs in May 2010 varied greatly dependent on site and sampling depth and ranged from 0 to 146 mg L−1 at the wellhead, 0 to 0.9 mg L−1 in field collected WAFs, 0 to 18 mg L−1 in field collected CEWAFs, and 0 to 0.17 μg L−1 in shoreline samples [45,46,47]. Following capping of the well in July concentrations in collected sample were significantly lower at all sites and depths.

4.1.2. Behavior

Factors in addition to mortality need to be considered when assessing contaminant effects, as behavioral responses, such as swimming ability, and response to stimuli affect the ability to locate prey or escape predation. Some researchers have reported behavioral inhibitory (IC50) effects following exposure to lower levels of oil contaminants than at which mortality (LC50) occurs. Changes in behavior due to sublethal exposures are considered to be the most sensitive indicators of environmental disturbance, and yet are among the least studied effects with regards to toxicity [48]. A variety of behavioral responses of marine organisms to pollutants, including oil, such as motivation (e.g., feeding response), sensory responses (e.g., phototaxis), and motor activity (e.g., swimming performance) are given in a summary of early work [49]. Examples of depressed feeding responses associated with PAHs have been shown in a variety of invertebrates including rotifers, crabs, and shrimp [50,51,52]. Examples of differential phototaxic responses associated with invertebrates have been reported with crabs and barnacles [27,53]. Invertebrates, such as crabs, shrimp, and barnacles, have also been shown to exhibit erratic swimming behavior in response to oil contaminants [27,53,54] and it has been postulated that differential sensory and motor responses that resulted in differential depth distribution might affect larval distribution and recruitment via directional current activity [53].
Some researchers have reported behavioral effects, such as reduction of swimming ability, at lower than LC50 concentrations [15,28]. Others have reported similar LC50 and EC50 values following exposure to oil contaminants, including swimming ability, settlement behavior and burying behavior [27,31,39]. Decreased swimming behavior is likely a result of narcosis typically seen in acute toxicity of high short-term exposures to naphthalene [55]. Narcotic chemicals affect the lipid bilayer in membranes reducing activity and the ability to react to stimuli, which may ultimately lead to mortality [56]. However narcosis does not account for other reported toxic effects such as deformities, edema, and cardiovascular effects [57] Regardless of whether this is the result of narcosis, or some other phenomenon the end result is that decreased swimming ability results in decreased ability to find food or escape predation, either of which will likely reduce survival.
In this study, swimming ability was significantly decreased for M1 larvae exposed to both CEWAF and WAF at all exposure times. Exposure to CEWAFs caused an initial decrease in activity at concentrations that were two times less than LC50 values at 24 h and three to four less than LC50 values at 48 and 72 h. Similar results were seen with N5, Z1, Z3, and M2 larvae exposed to CEWAFs. However, results were stage dependent, in that Z1 larvae were the most sensitive, whereas, older shrimp (Pl6) did not exhibit reduced swimming ability at sublethal concentrations of either CEWAFs or WAFs. Although significant differences in activity in Pl6 shrimp exposed to CEWAFs at 48 and 96 h and to WAFs at 48 h occurred, they were not dose dependent and thought to be due to water quality issues. Phototaxic response, whether attraction to light (N5, Z1) or avoidance (Z3, M2) followed a similar pattern to that seen with swimming ability, and this manifested itself in reduced feeding response for N5, Z1 stages.

4.1.3. Molting

Molting frequency increased in response to CEWAFs at 24 or 48 h post-exposure. Response was stage dependent with Z1 and Z3 larvae responding at lower concentrations than M1 or M2 larvae. It is postulated that this behavior is a stress response to compounds present in CEWAFs or an attempt by the shrimp to rid itself of oil adhering to the carapace or appendanges. Molting was not associated with metamorphosis to the next stage, as, except for the Z3 stage, metamorphosis occurred at the same rate as the controls or was somewhat delayed, and control shrimp molted less frequently. An unwanted side effect of this response might be increased susceptibility to oil contaminants. Crustaceans are more susceptible to environmental stressors, including oil pollutants during molting, and may experience increased mortality [58,59]. In the present study, molting frequency was not followed after 72–96 h post-exposure. PAHs has been shown to increase the length of the intermolt period, resulting in decreased molting in a variety of invertebrates [58,60,61]. The use of additional measurements, such as biochemical endpoints, provide researchers with another set of tools for evaluating oil toxicity, allowing additional means of assessing the potential consequences of oil exposure for marine organisms, such as shrimp.

4.2. Sublethal Effects

Survival following sublethal exposures of invertebrates varies based on species and life stage [21,54,62,63]. In the present study, F. duorarum nauplii exposed to sub-lethal amounts (23 mg L−1, LC10) of CEWAFs for 24 h showed no difference in survival compared to controls over 39 days and was approximately 25% for both groups. Shrimp were cultured in larval tanks specific to the penaeid shrimp industry and industry operational procedures followed. Due to the sensitivity of handling the zoeal stage, tanks are not drained, water is instead added to partially filled tanks to alleviate water quality issues. Unfortunately, Artemia proliferated in the tanks, competing with shrimp for resources, and causing low survival in tanks regardless of exposure. Delayed morality has been reported by other researchers in shrimp and crab larvae and embryos exposed to low levels of WSF for short periods with zoea being more sensitive than later developmental stages [21,54,62]. Other research has shown no survival effects in crab zoea following either short term exposure or continuous exposure to low concentrations of oil [63].
Developmental delays have been reported for invertebrate larvae exposed to PAHs [21,63,64,65]. Developmental delays in invertebrates are typically accompanied by an increased period of intermolt following exposure to oil [58,64]. We saw a slight developmental lag in the exposed group between Z3 and M1 resulting in delayed development to subsequent mysis stages, but both groups developed in postlarvae at roughly the same time. Other researchers have reported similar findings. Zoeal stages of the mud crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii increased following prolonged exposure to chronic, low levels of WSF, however short term exposure had no impact [63,64]. Minor differences (one day lags) in development times were also reported in Pandalus borealis larvae in early stages of development but effects decreased at later stages [21]. The more time spent in pelagic larval stages, as would occur as a result of delayed development, may result in increased likelihood of predation, impact dispersion, increase time to maturity, and therefore negatively affect population growth rate [66].
In our study, despite slight developmental lags, no lasting growth effects were seen in the exposed group at day 39 (Pl28). This is consistent with results reported in the literature for Cancer irroratus larvae exposed to WAFs, R. harrisii larvae exposed to low concentrations of naphthalene, and grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio exposed to sublethal WAFs [59,67,68]. Other research has indicated decreased growth following exposure to oil. Decreased growth was reported in DWH exposed juvenile brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus but not in juvenile white shrimp L. setiferus exposed to the same waters [22].

5. Conclusions

This study shows that the concentrations of oil released and dispersant used during the DWH event could have negatively affected penaeid shrimp in the GOM, whether through altered behavioral responses, delayed development, or mortality. Even though the spill occurred during the spring spawning season and likely affected shrimp larvae at select locations, GOM shrimp populations as a whole do not appear to have been affected long term, perhaps in part due to fishery closures that were put in place following the spill [69].

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible by a grant from BP/The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative through the Florida Institute of Oceanography #4710-1101-00B. We thank Sloane Wendell, BP GCRO Reference Material Account Manager for providing us with surrogate MC252 oil #SO-20110212-HMPA9-008; David Giddings, Strategic Technology Manager of Nalco Co., Sugarland Texas, for providing us the Corexit 9500A dispersant; and to FAU student Kaitlin Gallagher (currently UConn). This is HBOI-FAU publication # 1989.

Author Contributions

Susan Laramore and Amber Garr conceived and designed the experiments; Susan Laramore and William Krebs performed the experiments; Amber Garr analyzed the data; Susan Laramore and William Krebs wrote the paper; Amber Garr edited the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Fisheries of the United States 2003. In National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology; NMFS: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Fisheries of the United States 2010. In National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology; NMFS: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zimmerman, R.J.; Minello, T.J.; Rozas, L.P. Saltmarsh linkages to productivity of penaeid shrimps and blue crabs in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. In Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology; Weinstein, M.P., Kreeger, D.A., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 293–314. [Google Scholar]
  4. Linder, M.J.; Anderson, W.W. Growth, Migration, Spawning and Size Distribution of Shrimp: Penaeus setiferus; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1956; Volume 56, pp. 555–645. [Google Scholar]
  5. Renfro, W.C. Life History Stages of Gulf of Mexico Brown Shrimp; United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries: Galveston, TX, USA, 1964; pp. 94–98. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cummings, W.C. Maturation and spawning of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1961, 90, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Deep Water: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. 2011; Report to the President. Available online: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOAA_related_docs/oil_spills/DWH_report-to-president.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2011). [Google Scholar]
  8. Kelly, T.R. Environmental health insights into the 2010 Deepwater Horizon (BP) oil blowout. Environ. Health Insights 2010, 4, 61–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Federal Interagency Solutions Group. Oil Budget Calculator: Deepwater Horizon, November 2010. Available online: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/OilBudgetCalc_Full_HQ-Print_111110.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2011).
  10. George Aryes, A.; Clark, J.R. Aquatic toxicity of two Corexit dispersants. Chemosphere 2000, 40, 897–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fucik, K.W.; Carr, K.A.; Balcom, B.J. Toxicity of oil and dispersed oil to the eggs and larvae of seven marine fish and invertebrates from the Gulf of Mexico. In The Use of Chemicals in Oil Spill Response; ASTM STP 1252; Lane, P., Ed.; American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1995; pp. 135–171. [Google Scholar]
  12. Le Hir, M.; Hily, C. First observations in a high rocky-shore community after the Erika oil spill (December 1999, Brittany, France). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, B.; Romaire, R.P.; Delaune, R.D.; Lindau, C.W. Field investigation on the toxicity of Alaska North Slope crude oil (ANSC) and dispersed ANSC crude to Gulf killifish, Eastern oyster and white shrimp. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 520–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Saco-Alvarez, L.; Bellas, J.; Nieto, O.; Bayona, J.M.; Albaiges, J.; Beiras, R. Toxicity and phototoxicity of water-accommodated fraction obtained from Prestige fuel oil and Marine fuel oil evaluated by marine bioassays. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 394, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Laramore, S.; Krebs, W.; Garr, A. Effects of Macondo Canyon 252 oil (naturally and chemically dispersed) on larval Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791). J. Shell. Res. 2014, 33, 709–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Temara, A.; Gulec, I.; Holdway, D.A. Oil induced disruption of foraging behavior of the asteroid keystone predator, Coscinasterias muricata (Echinodermata). Mar. Biol. 1999, 133, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fernandez, N.; Cesar, A.; Salamanca, M.J.; DelValls, T.A. Toxicological characterization of the aqueous soluble phase of Prestige fuel oil using the sea urchin embryo bioassay. Ecotoxicology 2006, 15, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Beiras, R.; Saco Alvarez, L. Toxicity of seawater and sand affected by the Prestige fuel oil spill using bivalve and sea urchin embryogenesis bioassays. Water Air Soil Poll. 2006, 177, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martínez-Jerónimo, F.; Villaseñor, R.; Ríos, G.; Espinosa-Chavez, F. Toxicity of the crude oil water soluble fraction and kaolin-adsorbed crude oil on Daphnia magna (Crustacea: Anomopoda). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2005, 48, 444–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Roth, A.M.F.; Baltz, D.M. Short-term effects of an oil spill on marsh edge fishes and decapod crustacean. Estuar. Coasts 2009, 32, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bechmann, R.K.; Larsen, B.K.; Taban, I.C.; Hellgren, L.I.; Moller, P.; Sanni, S. Chronic exposure of adults and embryos of Pandalus borealis to oil causes PAH accumulation, initiation of biomarker responses and an increase in larval mortality. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2010, 60, 2087–2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rozas, L.P.; Minello, T.J.; Miles, M.S. Effect of Deepwater Horizon oil on growth rates of juvenile penaeid shrimps. Estuar. Coasts 2014, 37, 1403–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Swedmark, M.; Granmo, A.; Kollberg, S. Effects of oil dispersants and oil emulsions on marine animals. Water Res. 1973, 7, 1649–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wells, P.G. The toxicity of oil dispersants to marine organisms: A current perspective. In Oil Spill Chemical Dispersants: Research, Experience and Recommendations; ASTM International: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1984; pp. 177–202. [Google Scholar]
  25. Singer, M.M.; Aurand, D.; Coelho, G.; Bragin, G.E.; Clark, J.R.; Sowby, M.L.; Tjeerdema, R.S. Making, measuring and using water-accommodated fractions of petroleum for toxicity testing. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Tampa, FL, USA, 26–29 March 2001; pp. 1269–1274.
  26. Fuller, C.; Bonner, J. Comparative toxicity of oil, dispersant and dispersed oil to Texas marine species. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Tampa, FL, USA, 26–29 March 2001; pp. 1243–1248.
  27. Wu, R.S.S.; Lam, P.K.S.; Zou, B.S. Effects of two oil dispersants on phototaxis and swimming behavior of barnacle larvae. Hydrobiologia 1997, 352, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Barron, M.G.; Carl, M.G.; Short, J.W.; Rice, S.D. Photoenhanced toxicity of aqueous phase and chemically dispersed weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil to Pacific herring eggs and larvae. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 650–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Georgiades, E.T.; Holdway, D.E.; Brennan, S.E.; Butty, J.S.; Temera, A. The impact of oil derived products on the behavior and biochemistry of the eleven armed asteroid Coscinasterias muracata, Echinodermata. Mar. Environ. Res. 2003, 55, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lopez, B.A.; Lopez, D.A. Moulting frequency and behavioural responses to salinity and diesel oil in Austromegabalanus psittacus (Molina) (Cirripedia: Balanidae). Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 2005, 38, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Greco, G.; Corra, C.; Garaventa, F.; Chelossi, E.; Faimali, M. Standardization of laboratory bioassays with Balanus amphitrite larvae for preliminary oil dispersants toxicological characterization. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 22, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Clark, J.R.; Bragin, G.E.; Febbo, R.J.; Letinski, D.J. Toxicity of physically and chemically dispersed oils under continuous and environmentally realistic exposure conditions: Applicability to dispersant use decisions in spill response planning. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Tampa, FL, USA, 26–29 March 2001; pp. 1249–1255.
  33. Barron, M.G.; Ka'aihue, L. Critical evaluation of CROSERF test methods for oil dispersant toxicity testing under subarctic conditions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2003, 46, 1191–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. National Research Council (NRC). Committee on understanding oil spill dispersants. In Oil Spill Dispersants Efficacy and Effects; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 400. [Google Scholar]
  35. Fincas, M. A Review of Literature Related to Oil Spill Dispersants 1997–2008; Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council: Anchorage, AK, USA, 2008; p. 155. [Google Scholar]
  36. Trudel, K. Environmental risks and trade-offs in Prince William Sound. In Proceedings of the Dispersant Application in Alaska: A Technical Update, Anchorage, AK, USA, 1998; pp. 159–188.
  37. Treece, G.D.; Fox, J.M. Design, Operation and Training Manual for an Intensive Culture Shrimp Hatchery; Publication TAMU-SG-93–505; Texas A&M University, Sea Grant College Program: Galveeston, TX, USA, 1993; p. 187. [Google Scholar]
  38. Cohen, A.M.; Gagnon, M.M.; Nugegoda, D. Alterations of metabolic enzymes in Australian bass, Macquaria novemaculeata, after exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2005, 49, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gulec, I.; Leonard, B.; Holdway, D.A. Oil and dispersed oil toxicity to amphipods and snails. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 1997, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fuller, C.; Bonner, J.; Page, C.; Ernest, A.; McDonald, T.; McDonald, S. Comparative toxicity of oil, dispersant and oil plus dispersant to several marine species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2004, 23, 2941–2949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Perkins, R.A.; Rhoton, S.; Behr-Andres, C. Toxicity of dispersed and undispersed, fresh and weathered oil to larvae of a cold water species, Tanner crab (C. bairdi) and standard warm water test species. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2003, 36, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rhoton, S.; Perkins, R.A.; Braddock, J.F.; Behr-Andres, C. A cold weather species response to chemically dispersed fresh and weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Tampa, FL, USA, 26–29 March 2001; pp. 1231–1236.
  43. Wetzel, D.L.; Van Fleet, E.S. Cooperative studies on the toxicity of dispersants and dispersed oil to marine organisms: A 3 year Florida study. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Tampa, FL, USA, 26–29 March 2001; pp. 1237–1241.
  44. Singer, M.M.; George, S.; Lee, I.; Jacobson, S.; Weetman, L.L.; Blondina, G.; Tjeerdema, R.S.; Aurand, D.; Sowby, M.L. Effects of dispersant treatment on the acute aquatic toxicity of petroleum hydrocarbons. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1998, 34, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boehm, P.D.; Cook, L.L.; Murray, K.J. Aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in seawater: Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, Portland, OR, USA, 23–26 May 2011; Volume 1. Abstract 371.
  46. Echols, B.S.; Smith, A.J.; Gardinali, P.R.; Rand, G.M. Acute aquatic toxicity studies of Gulf of Mexico water samples collected following the Deepwater Horizon incident (2 May 2010 to 11 December 2010). Chemosphere 2015, 120, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Allan, S.E.; Smith, B.W.; Anderson, K.A. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on bioavailable polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons in Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. Environ. Sci. Techno. 2012, 46, 2033–2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gerhardt, A. Aquatic behavioral ecotoxicology—Prospects and limitations. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2007, 13, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Eisler, R.; Carney, G.C.; Lockwood, A.P.M.; Perkins, E.J. Behavioural responses of marine poikilotherms to pollutants (and discussion). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1979, 286, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Takashashi, F.T.; Kittredge, J.S. Sublethal effects of the water soluble component of oil: chemical communication in the marine environment. In The Microbial Degradation of Oil Pollutants; Ahearn, D.G., and Mers, S.P., Eds.; Louisiana State University: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 1973; pp. 259–264. [Google Scholar]
  51. McCain, B.B.; Malins, D.C. Effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on selected demersal fishes and crustaceans. In Sediment Toxicity Assessment; Burton, G.A., Ed.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1992; pp. 315–325. [Google Scholar]
  52. Jensen, L.K.; Carroll, J. Experimental studies of reproduction and feeding for two Artic dwelling Calanus species exposed to crude oil. Aquatic. Biol. 2010, 10, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bigford, TE. Effects of oil on behavioral response to light, pressure and gravity in larvae of the rock crab Cancer irroratus. Mar. Biol. 1977, 43, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brodersen, C. Rapid narcosis and delayed mortality in larvae of king crabs and kelp shrimp exposed to the water soluble fraction of crude oil. Mar. Environ. Res. 1987, 22, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rice, S.D.; Short, J.W.; Brodersen, C.C.; Mecklenburg, T.A.; Moles, D.A.; Misch, C.J.; Cheatham, D.L.; Karinen, J.F. Acute toxicity and uptake-depuration studies with Cook Inlet crude oil, Prudhoe Bay crude oil, No. 2 fuel oil, and several subarctic marine organisms. In Northwest Fisheries Center Auke Bay Fisheries Laboratory, Processed Report; National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA: Juneau, AK, USA, 1976; p. 90. [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Wezel, A.P.; Opperhuizen, A. Narcosis due to environmental pollutants in aquatic organisms—Residue-based toxicity, mechanisms and membrane burdens. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 1995, 25, 255–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Barron, M.G.; Carls, M.G.; Heintz, R.; Rice, S.D. Evaluation of fish early life stage toxicity models of chronic embryonic exposures to complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures. Toxicol. Sci. 2004, 78, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Weis, J.S.; Cristini, A.; Rao, K.R. Effects of pollutants on molting and regeneration in Crustacea. Amer. Zool. 1992, 32, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Johns, D.M.; Pechenik, J.A. Influence of water accommodated fraction of No. 2 fuel oil on energetics of Cancer irroratus larvae. Mar. Biol. 1980, 55, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Karinen, J.F.; Rice, S.D. Effects of Prudhoe bay crude oil on molting tanner crabs, Chionoecetes bairdi. Mar. Fish. Rev. 1974, 36, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cantelmo, A.; Lazell, R.; Mantel, L. The effects of benzene on molting and limb regeneration in juvenile Callinectes sapidus. Mar. Bio. Lett. 1981, 2, 333–343. [Google Scholar]
  62. Cucci, T.L.; Epifanio, C.E. Long term effects of water soluble fractions of Kuwait crude oil on the larval and juvenile development of the mud crab Eurypanopeus depressus. Mar. Biol. 1979, 55, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Laughlin, R.B., Jr.; Ng, J.; Guard, H.E. Hormesis: A response to low environmental concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Science 1981, 211, 705–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Laughlin, R.B. Jr.; Young, L.G.L.; Neff, J.M. A long term study of the effects of water soluble fractions of No. 2 fuel oil on the survival, development rate and growth of the mud crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii. Mar. Biol. 1978, 47, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bang, H.W.; Lee, W.; Kwak, L.S. Detecting points as developmental delay based on the life-history development and urosome deformity of the harpacticoid copepod, Tigriopus japonicus sensu lato, following exposure to benzo(a)pyrene. Chemosphere 2009, 76, 1435–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Worboys, M.A.; Leung, K.M.Y.; Grist, E.P.M.; Crane, M. Time should be considered in developmental ecotoxicity test. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2002, 45, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Laughlin, R.B., Jr.; Neff, J.M. Ontogeny of respiratory and growth responses of larval mud crabs Rhithropanopeus harrisii exposed to different temperatures, salinities and naphthalene concentrations. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1981, 5, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gunderson, D.T.; Kristanto, S.W.; Curtis, L.R.; AL-Yakoob, S.N.; Metwally, M.; Al-Aljimi, D. Subacute toxicity of the water soluble fractions of Kuwait crude oil and partially combusted crude oil on Menidia beryllina and Palaemontes pugio. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 31, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Van der Ham, J.L.; de Musert, K. Abundance and size of Gulf shrimp in Louisiana’s coastal areas following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PLOS ONE 2014, 9, e108884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmse 04 00024 g001 1024
Figure 1. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum mysis 1 (M1) shrimp larvae exposed to chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions of MC252 crude oil (CEWAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods. Statistical differences were seen at all exposure times (p < 0.0001).
Figure 1. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum mysis 1 (M1) shrimp larvae exposed to chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions of MC252 crude oil (CEWAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods. Statistical differences were seen at all exposure times (p < 0.0001).
Jmse 04 00024 g001
Jmse 04 00024 g002 1024
Figure 2. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum mysis 1 (M1) shrimp larvae exposed to water accommodated fractions of MC252 crude oil (WAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods. Statistical differences were seen at all exposure times (p < 0.0001).
Figure 2. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum mysis 1 (M1) shrimp larvae exposed to water accommodated fractions of MC252 crude oil (WAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods. Statistical differences were seen at all exposure times (p < 0.0001).
Jmse 04 00024 g002
Jmse 04 00024 g003 1024
Figure 3. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum postlarval (Pl6) shrimp exposed to chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions of MC252 crude oil (CEWAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods (p ≤ 0.0046, 48 h; p = 0.3642, 72 h; p ≤ 0001, 96 h).
Figure 3. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum postlarval (Pl6) shrimp exposed to chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions of MC252 crude oil (CEWAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods (p ≤ 0.0046, 48 h; p = 0.3642, 72 h; p ≤ 0001, 96 h).
Jmse 04 00024 g003
Jmse 04 00024 g004 1024
Figure 4. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum postlarval (Pl6) shrimp exposed to MC252 water accommodated fractions of crude oil (WAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Significant differences were seen at 48 h (p = 0.0111).
Figure 4. Average activity level (±S.D.) of F. duorarum postlarval (Pl6) shrimp exposed to MC252 water accommodated fractions of crude oil (WAF). Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each: 1 = active, 2 = moderately active, 3 = lethargic, and 4 = dead. Significant differences were seen at 48 h (p = 0.0111).
Jmse 04 00024 g004
Jmse 04 00024 g005 1024
Figure 5. Proportion of F. duorarum M1 shrimp larvae (±S.D.) that molted following exposure to CEWAFs. Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods. Significant differences were seen at 24 and 48 h (p ≤ 0.0006).
Figure 5. Proportion of F. duorarum M1 shrimp larvae (±S.D.) that molted following exposure to CEWAFs. Treatment groups consisted of five replicates with 12 shrimp each. Numerical representations indicate statistical comparisons of exposure periods. Significant differences were seen at 24 and 48 h (p ≤ 0.0006).
Jmse 04 00024 g005
Jmse 04 00024 g006 1024
Figure 6. Average growth (±S.D.) of F. duorarum shrimp nauplii (N = 15) exposed to sub-lethal concentrations (23 mg L−1) of CEWAFs for 24 h (F1,12 = 0.42, p = 0.5302).
Figure 6. Average growth (±S.D.) of F. duorarum shrimp nauplii (N = 15) exposed to sub-lethal concentrations (23 mg L−1) of CEWAFs for 24 h (F1,12 = 0.42, p = 0.5302).
Jmse 04 00024 g006
Jmse 04 00024 g007 1024
Figure 7. Development of F. duorarum nauplii (N = 15) exposed to sublethal concentrations of dispersed oil (23 mg L−1) for 24 h. Life stage, (y axis), were assigned a numerical function for graphical representation. 1 = nauplii V, 2 = zoea 1, 3 = zoea 2, 4 = zoea 3, 5 = mysis 1, 6 = mysis 2, 7 = mysis 3, 8 = postlarvae.
Figure 7. Development of F. duorarum nauplii (N = 15) exposed to sublethal concentrations of dispersed oil (23 mg L−1) for 24 h. Life stage, (y axis), were assigned a numerical function for graphical representation. 1 = nauplii V, 2 = zoea 1, 3 = zoea 2, 4 = zoea 3, 5 = mysis 1, 6 = mysis 2, 7 = mysis 3, 8 = postlarvae.
Jmse 04 00024 g007
Table
Table 1. Individual PAH and total TPH and PAH concentrations (μg L−1) of 2 g L−1 stock solutions of water accommodated fractions (WAF) and chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions (CEWAF) used to prepare working solutions used in the acute toxicity experiments.
Table 1. Individual PAH and total TPH and PAH concentrations (μg L−1) of 2 g L−1 stock solutions of water accommodated fractions (WAF) and chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions (CEWAF) used to prepare working solutions used in the acute toxicity experiments.
Target CompoundsC rings2 ppt CEWAF2ppt WAF
µg L−1µg L−1
Napthalene (C0-C4)2925.96377.66
Acenaphthylene26.400.05
Acenaphthene20.610.67
Fluorene (C0-C4)3102.9214.65
Anthracene (C0-C4)3235.3830.14
Phenanthrene334.798.36
Fluoranthene31.530.18
Chrysene (C0-C4)432.64.02
Pyrene (C0-C4)461.56.71
Benzo[A]anthracence40.210.14
Napthobenzothiophene (C0-C4)41.320.16
Dibenzothiophene (C0-C4)55.475.6
Benzo[B]fluorene50.720.09
Benzo[B]fluoranthene50.000.07
Benzo[K]fluoranthene50.430.00
Benzo[E]pyrene50.610.11
Benzo[A]pyrene50.000.02
Perylene50.770.13
Dibenzo[A,H]anthracene50.000.01
Indeno[1,2,3-Cd]pyrene60.010.00
Benzo[G,H,I]perylene60.000.02
Total PAH in µg L−1 1428.64451.92
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon C9-C42 in µg L−1 62,613.502466.57
Table
Table 2. Lethal concentration (LC50) values for shrimp exposed to oil (WAF), dispersant (Corexit 9500A) and oil/dispersant mixture (CEWAF) as determined by a trimmed Spearman-Karber method (ToxCalc). Reported values include nominal LC50 (95% CL) (mg L−1) and corresponding PAH and TPH levels (μg L−1). Non-determined values are indicated by ND; Non-calculated values are indicated by NC.
Table 2. Lethal concentration (LC50) values for shrimp exposed to oil (WAF), dispersant (Corexit 9500A) and oil/dispersant mixture (CEWAF) as determined by a trimmed Spearman-Karber method (ToxCalc). Reported values include nominal LC50 (95% CL) (mg L−1) and corresponding PAH and TPH levels (μg L−1). Non-determined values are indicated by ND; Non-calculated values are indicated by NC.
TimeWAF LC50PAHTPHCEWAF LC50PAHTPHCorexit LC50
24 h
Nauplii>100NCNC81.5 (75.3, 88.1)582,55133.3 (31.8, 34.9)
Zoea 167.4 (39, 100)158315.4 (11.6, 20.4)114703.1 (0.7, 13.7)
Mysis 1>100NCNC84.6 (74.9, 95.7)602,64920.9 (19.2, 22.7)
PL 6>400NCNC99.7 (77.3, 100)713,12128.4 (24.2, 33.3)
48 h
Nauplii>100NCNC41.5 (36.3, 47.5)301,29918.6 (16.8, 20.5)
Zoea 125.5 (22.5, 28.9)631NDNCNC<2.5
Mysis 1>100NCNC47.4 (41.3, 54.3)341,48418.3 (16.1, 20.8)
PL 6>400NCNC70.4 (56.4, 87.9)502,20426.5 (22.4, 31.3)
72 h
NaupliiNDNCNCNDNCNCND
Zoea 121.2 (17.7, 25.5)526NDNCNCND
Mysis 1>100NCNC31.9 (28.6, 35.7)239998.3 (6.8, 10.1)
PL 6>400NCNC49.2 (40, 60.5)351,00222.4 (20.8, 23.9)
96 h
NaupliiNDNCNCNDNCNCND
Zoea 123.3 (20.9, 26)529NDNCNCND
Mysis 129.77378.5 (7.1, 10.1)62662.6 (2.2, 3.0)
PL 6>400NCNC44 (36.5, 53.2)311,37722.5 (21.4, 23.8)
Table
Table 3. Behavioral response of various larval stages of F. duorarum exposed to nominal CEWAF concentrations. Activity level is ranked on a 1–4 scale (1 = active, 4 = no response); feeding is ranked on a 1–4 scale (1 = 100% feeding, 4 = 0% feeding); phototaxic response is ranked on a 1–3 scale, which indicates attraction to light (1 = 100% attracted, 3 = 0% response) for nauplii (N5) and zoea (Z1), but light avoidance (1 = 100% avoidance, 3 = 0% response) for zoea (Z3) and mysis (M2). For each concentration a total of five replicates consisting of 15 shrimp each were averaged. Letters indicate significant differences between behavioral responses for concentrations at each time point.
Table 3. Behavioral response of various larval stages of F. duorarum exposed to nominal CEWAF concentrations. Activity level is ranked on a 1–4 scale (1 = active, 4 = no response); feeding is ranked on a 1–4 scale (1 = 100% feeding, 4 = 0% feeding); phototaxic response is ranked on a 1–3 scale, which indicates attraction to light (1 = 100% attracted, 3 = 0% response) for nauplii (N5) and zoea (Z1), but light avoidance (1 = 100% avoidance, 3 = 0% response) for zoea (Z3) and mysis (M2). For each concentration a total of five replicates consisting of 15 shrimp each were averaged. Letters indicate significant differences between behavioral responses for concentrations at each time point.
Larval StageTime (h)Concentration (mg L−1)Activity Level (1–4) ± S.D.Feeding (1–4) ± S.D.% moltsPhototaxic (1–3) ± S.D.Metamorphosis
N52401.03±0.05 a1.0 ± 0.0 a-1.02 ± 0.05 aN5-Z1
12.52.13 ± 0.05 b3.33 ± 0.5 b-2.13 ± 0.05 bN5-Z1
252.35 ± 0.35 bc3.67 ± 0.5 b-2.27 ± 0.41 bN5-Z1
502.28 ± 0.14 bc4.0 ± 0.0 b-2.28 ± 0.14 bN5-Z1
1002.98 ± 0.04 c4.0 ± 0.0 b-3.0 ± 0.0 cN5-Z1
4801.33 ± 0.52 a--1.5 ± 0.58 aZ1-Z2
12.52.17 ± 0.98 a--2.25 ± 0.29 bZ1-Z2
252.23 ± 0.74 a--2.34 ± 0.45 bcZ1-Z2
503.19 ± 0.95 ab--2.53 ± 0.67 bcZ1-Z2
1003.83 ± 0.41 b--3.0 ± 0.0 cZ1
Z12401.67 ± 0.82 a-4%1.67 ± 0.82 aZ1-Z2 (4:1)
3.1252.29 ± 0.56 ab-12%2.33 ± 0.58 abZ1
6.252.54 ± 0.56 b-21%2.63 ± 0.38 bZ1
12.52.92 ± 0.13 bc-21%2.92 ± 0.13 bcZ1
253.0 ± 0.0 c-21%3.0 ± 0.0 cZ1
4802.0 ± 1.55--1.67 ± 1.03 aZ1-Z2
3.1252.17 ± 1.47--1.83 ± 0.98 aZ1-Z2
6.253.0 ± 1.55--2.5 ± 0.77 abZ1-Z2
12.53.17 ± 1.33--2.5 ± 0.84 abZ1-Z2
254.0 ± 0.0--3.0 ± 0.0 b-
7202.5 ± 1.64 a--2.0 ± 1.1Z2
3.1252.75 ± 1.47 a--2.33 ± 1.03Z1-Z2
6.253.75 ± 0.61 ab--2.75 ± 0.61Z1-Z2
12.54.0 ± 0.0 b--3.0 ± 0.0-
254.0 ± 0.0 b--3.0 ± 0.0-
Z32401.0 ± 0.0 a1.0 ± 0.00.80%1.0 ± 0.0 a-
3.1251.0 ± 0.0 a1.0 ± 0.01.60%1.0 ± 0.0 a-
6.251.0 ± 0.0 a1.0 ± 0.00%1.0 ± 0.0 a-
12.52.0 ± 0.0 b1.0 ± 0.02.80%3.0 ± 0.0 b-
252.0 ± 0.0 b1.0 ± 0.01.60%3.0 ± 0.0 b-
4801.02 ± 0.041.0 ± 0.09.1%-Z3-M1 (3:2)
3.1251.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.015%-Z3-M1 (1:4)
6.251.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.019.0%-Z3-M1 (1:4)
12.51.0 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.013.3%-M1
251.02 ± 0.041.0 ± 0.014.1%-Z3-M1 (2:3)
7201.13 ± 0.31-0%1.29 ± 0.71 ab-
3.1251.7 ± 1.1-0%1.7 ± 1.1 ab-
6.251.03 ± 0.05-0%1.03 ± 0.05 a-
12.51.12 ± 0.12-0%2.39 ± 0.47 b-
251.07 ± 0.05-1.60%2.03 ± 0.03 b-
M22401.0 ± 0.0 a1.0 ± 0.0 a4%1.0 ± 0.0 aM2
12.51.2 ± 0.45 a1.0 ± 0.0 a1%1.0 ± 0.0 aM2
251.84 ± 0.19 b2.2 ± 0.45 b28%3.0 ± 0.0 bM2
501.9 ± 0.12 b3.6 ± 0.55 c37%3.0 ± 0.0 bM2
1002.0 ± 0.0 b4.0 ± 0.0 c51%3.0 ± 0.0 bM2
4801.0 ± 0.0 a1.0 ± 0.0 a2%1.0 ± 0.0 a-
12.51.2 ± 0.45 a1.0 ± 0.0 a4%2.0 ± 0.0 b-
251.35 ± 0.41 a2.0 ± 0.0 b28%2.0 ± 0.0 b-
501.98 ± 0.08 b2.6 ± 0.55 bc2%3.0 ± 0.0 c-
1002.28 ± 0.04 b3.4 ± 0.55 c0%3.0 ± 0.0 c-
7201.8 ± 1.1 a1.0 ± 0.0 a0%1.0 ± 0.0 aM3
12.52.29 ± 0.40 a1.0 ± 0.0 a0%2.2 ± 0.45 b-
252.6 ± 0.55 ab3.2 ± 1.1 b3%2.8 ± 0.45 bc-
503.0 ± 0.0 b4.0 ± 0.0 b0%3.0 ± 0.0 c-
1003.0 ± 0.0 b4.0 ± 0.0 b0%3.0 ± 0.0 c-

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Laramore, S.; Krebs, W.; Garr, A. Effects of Exposure of Pink Shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, Larvae to Macondo Canyon 252 Crude Oil and the Corexit Dispersant. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4010024

AMA Style

Laramore S, Krebs W, Garr A. Effects of Exposure of Pink Shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, Larvae to Macondo Canyon 252 Crude Oil and the Corexit Dispersant. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2016; 4(1):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4010024

Chicago/Turabian Style

Laramore, Susan, William Krebs, and Amber Garr. 2016. "Effects of Exposure of Pink Shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum, Larvae to Macondo Canyon 252 Crude Oil and the Corexit Dispersant" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 4, no. 1: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4010024

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop