Fish samples representative of several trophic levels were taken from the Wolf and Loosahatchie Rivers of western Tennessee during the early 1980s. Results indicate that DDT, with metabolites DDD and DDE, remains common in fish tissues in these areas and approaches the levels recommended as maxima for human consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Samples of top carnivores and forage fishes, particularly the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedlanum, commonly exceeded 500 ppb DDE. The results are discussed in light of sediment disturbing activities

Knight, Luther A., Jr.

Sewell, Stephen A.

English

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 40 Article 19 1986 Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi River Delta Streams: A Case Study Stephen A. Sewell University of Mississippi Luther A. Knight Jr. University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Environmental Monitoring Commons Recommended Citation Sewell, Stephen A. and Knight, Luther A. Jr. (1986) "Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi River Delta Streams: A Case Study," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 40 , Article 19. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol40/iss1/19 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. XXXX,198656CONTINUED DDT PERSISTENCE INMISSISSIPPIRIVER DELTA STREAMS: A CASE STUDYSTEPHEN A. SEWELL and LUTHER A. KNIGHT, JR.Department of BiologyUniversity of MississippiUniversity, MS 38677ABSTRACTFish samples representative of several trophic levels were taken from the Wolf and Loosahatchie Riversof western Tennessee during the early 1980s. Results indicate that DDT, with metabolites DDD and DDE,remains common in fish tissues in these areas and approaches the levels recommended as maxima forhuman consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Samples of top carnivores and foragefishes, particularly the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedlanum, commonly exceeded 500 ppb DDE. Theresults are discussed in light of sediment disturbing activities.INTRODUCTIONThe synthetic organochlorine insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was discovered to be a remarkable residual insecticideat Basle, Switzerland in 1939 (Brown, 1978; EPA, 1976). In1963, 155million pounds of DDT were sold, of which approximately 39% (60million pounds) were used in the continental United States. Ina 1964survey of 56 United States' rivers, 42% contained DDT(Weaver et al.,1965). Inaddition, several studies revealed egg-shell thinning in a numberof raptors, especially fish-eaters, as well as deaths in amphibian andreptilepopulations attributable to DDTand metabolites, particularlyDDE(Fleet et al., 1972; Ames, 1966; Brown, 1951). Use of the insec-ticide was suspended in the United States in 1972, although several thou-sand tons are stillapplied worldwide in insect and disease control pro-grams (Brown, 1978). On cropland in the United States, DDT was oftenapplied onhighly erodible soils, and/or excessive slopes. The insecticidewas displaced from croplands under those conditions to area streamsand rivers, predominantly adsorbed to eroded soil particles (USDA-ARS and US EPA, 1975).This report describes a portion of fish tissue analysis studies con-ducted in the Wolfand Loosahatchie River Basins of western Tennessee(Fig. 1)by federal, state, and local agencies during the 1978-1981 period(USDA-SCS, 1985; Sinclair and Higgs, 1980; Simco, 1979). These studieswere used to determine the persistence of historically applied pesticidesin the aquatic food chains of these river systems, particularlyorganochlorines such as DDT.STUDY AREAThe study area is located in southwest Tennessee and northwestMississippi. The drainage area of the Wolf River consists of about520,200 acres (208,000 ha), while the Loosahatchie River drains about474,600 acres (189,900 ha). The rivers are within the eastern half ofthe GulfCoastal Plain physiographic area. The present land forms arethe result of erosion whichhas dissected this plain. The valleys are wellincised, and streams have moderately wide valley floors. The streamshave dentritic drainage patterns with rounded hills and ridges withmoderately sloping valley walls. The Gulf Coastal Plain is further sub-divided into the West Tennessee Uplands and the West Tennessee Plain.A small portion of the eastern end of the basin lies in the Uplands.This area is characterized by hillyto rolling topography and flat floodplains. Most of the basins are in the Plain which is gently rollingwithsmall ridges and drainage divides.The hilly topography, high rainfall index and inherent erosioncharacteristics of upland soils formed from these geologic formationscontribute to excessive erosion rates. Sediment deposited in channelsand on flood plain land range from silts drived from loess to fine andmedium sand derived from underlying coastal plain formations. Floodplain soils are classed as recent geologic deposition of unconsolidatedsilty, andy alluvium and colluvium. These soils may be highly unstableifstripped of protective vegetation and accompanying root systems(USDA-SCS, 1985) and serve as the vehicle for transport of adsorbedpesticide pollutants into surface waters (USDA-ARS and EPA, 1975).METHODS AND MATERIALSFish samples were collected through use of fish toxicants (5°/rotenone), standard minnow seines (4.5 m x 1.2 m x 0.3 cm and 6.m x 1.2 mx 0.3 cm) and a Coffelt electro fishing boat. Specimens weridentified using Pflieger (1975), Douglas (1974), Buchanan (1973), andCook (1959). Trophic level classifications followedinformation contained foreach species inthese references and are a follows; CategorA = detritivores/omnivores (bottom feeders), Category B =herbivores(plant material/plankton feeders), Category C = lesser carnivores, amCategory D = top carnivores. These are summarized inTable 1.Individual fish were prepared for analysis by removing edible portion(filets)from all fish regardless ofsize and freezing until delivery to thlaboratory. No organs were included.Laboratory analysis used gas chromatrography electron capture detec-tion as outlined in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol.Iand II(Foodand Drum Administration, 1970 et seq.) and in accordance witlestablished methodology (APHA,1985). Alllaboratory analyses werdone by Woodson-Tenent Laboratories, Inc., an affiliate of NationaHealth Laboratories, Inc., 345 Adams Street, Memphis, TennesseeFigure 1.The study area of the Wolf and Loosahatchie River Basinsof Western Tennessee and northern Mississippi.56Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 40 [1986], Art. 19Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1986>Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.XXXX,1986 57Stephen A. Sewell and Luther A. Knight, Jr.(Bassett, 1980, pers. comm.). Action levels referred to herein, followFood and Drug Administration (1980) guidelines as established and re-vised according to the criteria specified inTitle 21, Code ofFederalRegulations, Parts 109 and 509.Table 1.Fish species analyzed for pesticide residues by trophic categoriesfrom the Wolf and Loosahatchie river basins, Tennessee.CATEGORY DESCRIPTION SPECIES INCORPORATEDA Detritivores/omnivores Common carp. Cyprinus carpio(bottom feeders) Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalusSmallmouth buffalo, Ictiobus cyprinellusSpotted sucker, Minytrema melanopsBlack bullhead, Ictalurus melasB Herbivores Gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum(plant-plankton feeders)C Lesser carnivores/ White crappie, Pomoxis annularisomnivores Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus(predators, opportunists) Blue catfish, Ictalurus furcatusWarmouth, Lepomis gulosusLargemouth bass (<9"),Micropterus salmoidesBluegill,Lepomis macrochirusLongear sunfish, Lepomis megalotisGreen sunfish, Lepomis cyanellusD Top carnivores Bowfin, Amia calva(fish eaters and Flathead catfish, Pylodictus olivarisdecomposers) Spotted gar, Lepisosteus oculatusLargemouth bass (>9"),Micropterus salmoidesRESULTSConcentrations of DDT and metabolites in the tissues of Wolf andLoosahatchie River fishes were summarized inTable 1 for upper reaches.Results from lower reach stations have been previously reported andare subject to the non-agricultural influences of the Memphismetropolitan area (Sinclair and Higgs, 1980; Simco, 1979).Ingeneral, results display the bioaccumulation tendency ofDDTandmetabolites in the aquatic food chain in these systems (ARS, 1979; EPA,1976), and support the conclusion of Macek and Korn(1970) that bioac-cumulation occurs predominantly through the food chain rather thandirect absorption (Johnson and Finley, 1980). Exceptions to thisconclusion in these systems occurred in levels recorded for forage feeders(planktivores), predominantly gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum,and in the metabolite concentrations in bottom feeders, Minytremamelanops and Cyprinus carpio. In the former case, DDE concentra-tions exceeded those noted ineither detritivores or carnivores. In thelatter case, DDTconcentrations exceeded DDDconcentrations, a rever-sal of the most commonly encountered situation due to the rapid up-take and degradation of DDT(Menzie, 1980; Addison and Willis,1978;Johnson et al., 1971). However, DDT concentrations were typicallyhigher than DDD concentrations during recent spring and summersampling of the lower reaches of both of these systems (Simco, 1979).DISCUSSIONIn118 American rivers surveyed in 1968, highest DDT concentra-tions were 316 ppm inBeauliue River,Florida, and 840 ppm in KansasRiver, Kansas (Lichtenberg et al., 1970). Since banning in 1972, severaldocumented effects of DDT and metabolites in the aquatic environ-ment have lessened or improved. There is not enough data to deter-mine ifthe levels in Tennessee and Mid-South fishes are decreasing,however, the insecticide has remained indetectable concentrations inthese areas. Highest levels were noted in the Wolf and LoosahatchieRivers in the herbivores, predominantly gizzad shad, Dorosoma cepe-dianum. This species is planktivorous as an adult, taking the majorityofits food by filter feeding (Pfleiger, 1975). Brown (1978) pointed outthat many phytoplankton species were resistant to DDTat 15ppm con-Table 2. DDTand metabolite concentrations infishes ofthe upper Wolfand LoosahatchieRiver Basins, Tennessee and Mississippi.CATEGORY/TROPHIC LEVEL1 RESIDUE (ppb)DDT DDD DDE tDDTA = Detritivores/Omnivores 85 63 370 518(bottom feeders)<10 412 1085 1500 2B = Herbivores(plankton feeders)<10 63 338 4002C = Lower Carnivores(predators/opportunists)<10 107 710 820 2D = Top Carnivores1See Table 1centration, though growth decreased slightly at 0. 1 ppm. Also, mos(70%) of the D. cepedianum specimens used were insize classes >inches (17.5 cm) and were too large to be considered prey for secondary consumers (Jenkins and Morais, 1976). Therefore, the bioconcentrations inD. cepedianum did not pass on through the food chain anwas not reflected inpesticide concentrations in trophic category C (lessecarnivores).Concentrations in the bottom feeders (trophic category A)revealedgreater levels of DDT than DDD, a reversal of the trend seen at othertrophic levels. One explanation for this may lie in the fact that withinthe sediments DDT and metabolites tend to concentrate in the top 2cm or that area most disturbed or ingested by bottom feeders (Brown,1978).Inconclusion, the study reveals that although concentrations do noexceed the 5 ppm action level of the Food and Drug Administration(1980), DDTremains in the sediments ofmajor river courses and continues to enter aquatic food chains. Actions which disturb sedimentsincluding normal feeding by bottom feeders, also resuspend DDT inthe water column where it becomes available to other trophic level(USA-COE, 1985; Yokley and Gooch, 1976). These systems have beenaltered in the past by both the channelization (deepening and wideningwithheavy equipment) and hand clearing oflog jams, falling trees, etcLITERATURE CITEDADDISON, R. F., and D. E. WILLIS. 1978. The metabolism ofDDT and some ofits possible degradation products. Toxicol. Appl.Pharmacol. 43:303-315.AMES, P. L. 1966. DDT residues in the eggs of osprey from thenortheastern United States. J. App. Ecol. 3 (Suppl.):87-97.BROWN, A. W. A. 1978. Ecology of Pesticides. John Wiley &Sons,New York, NY. 525 p.BROWN, A. W. A. 1951. Insecticides arid the balance of animalpopulations. InInsect Control by Chemicals, Wiley&Sons, NewYork, NY, NY. pp. 720-780.BUCHANAN, T. M.1973. Fishes of Arkansas. Ark. Game and FishComm., Little Rock, AR. 68 p.COOK, F. A. 1959. Freshwater Fishes in Mississippi. Miss. Gamesand Fish Comm., Jackson, MS. 239 p.DOUGLAS, N. H. 1974. Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana. ClaitorPubl. Co., Baton Rouge, LA.443 p.57Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 40 [1986], Art. 19https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol40/iss1/19Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi River Delta Streams: A Case StudyENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY. 1976. Quality Criteriafor Water. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. pp. 139-141.rLEET, R. R., D. R. CLARK, and F. W. PLAPP. 1972. Residuesof DDT and dieldrin insnakes from two Texas agro-ecosystems.BioScience 22:664-665.FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1980. Action levels forPoisonous and Deleterious Substances in Human Food and AnimalFeed. U.S. FDA, Washington, D.C. 13 p.FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1970 et seq. PesticideAnalytical Manual, Vol. Iand II.U.S. FDA, Washington, D.C.[ENKINS, R. M., and D. I.MORAIS. 1976. Prey-predator relation-ships in the Predator-Stocking-Evaluation reservoirs. Proc.Annu. Conf. Southeast. Asso. Game Fish Comm. 30:141-157.IOHNSON, B. T., C. R. SAUNDERS, H.O. SANDERS, and R. S.CAMPBELL. 1971. Biological magnification and degradation ofDDT by freshwater invertebrates. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.28:705-709.IOHNSON, W. W., and M.T. FINLEY. 1980. Handbook of AcuteToxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. USDI-FWS Res. Publ. 137, Washington, D.C. pp. 24-26.FICHTENBERG, J. J., J. W. EICHELBERGER, R. C. PRESSMAN,and J. E. LANGBOTTOM. 1970. Pesticide in the surface watersof the United States — a 5-year summary, 1964-68. Pestic. Monit.J. 4:71-86.rACEK, K. J., and S. KORN. 1970. Significance of the food chaininDDTaccumulation by fish. J. Fish Res. Bd.Can. 27:1496-1498.rENZIE, C. M. 1980. Metabolism of Pesticides: Update III.USDI-FWS, Spec. Sci. Rpt.-Wildl. #232, Washington, D.C. pp.214-226.PFLIEGER, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Mo. Dept. ofConserv., Jefferson City, MO. 343 p.SIMCO, B. A. 1979. Survey of fishes, environmental stresses, andproposed stream classification. Memphis and Shelby Co. Officeof Planning and Development, Memphis, TN. Tables 3 and 4.SINCLAIR, R. M.and M.HIGGS. 1980: Organic residues present inTennessee fish. TN Dept. ofHealth, Div. ofWtr. Qual., Nashville,TN. 11 p.U.S. ARMY-CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 1985. Environmental Effectsof Dredging. USA-COE, Waterways Exp. Stat., Vicksburg, MS.Tech. Note EEDP-01-1. 7 p.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-AGRICULTURALRESEARCH SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTEC-TIONAGENCY. 1975. Control ofWater Pollution from CroplandVol. I:A Manual for Guideline Development. USDA-ARS andEPA-ORD, Washington, D.C. Illp.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-SOILCONSERVATIONSERVICE. 1985. A Land Treatment Plan for Erosion Control inthe Wolfand Loosahatchie River Basins, Tennessee and Mississippi.USDA-SCS, Nashville, TN. 56 p.WEAVER, J., C. G. GUNNERSON, A. W. BREIDENBACK, andJ. J. LICHTENBERG. 1965. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticidesin major U.S. river basins. U.S. Dept. of Publ. Health Rpt.80:481-493.YOKLEY,P., JR., and C. H. GOOCH. 1976. The effect of Dredgingon Primary Production, Invertebrate Production and Mussel Pro-duction. Tennessee Wildl. Resource Agency, Nashville, TN, TWRATech. Rpt. #76-56. 32 p.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. XXXX,1986 58Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 40 [1986], Art. 19Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1986

Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi River Delta Streams: A Case Study

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 40 Article 191986Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi RiverDelta Streams: A Case StudyStephen A. SewellUniversity of MississippiLuther A. Knight Jr.University of MississippiFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Agriculture Commons, and the Environmental Monitoring CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationSewell, Stephen A. and Knight, Luther A. Jr. (1986) "Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi River Delta Streams: A Case Study,"Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 40 , Article 19.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol40/iss1/19Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. XXXX,198656CONTINUED DDT PERSISTENCE INMISSISSIPPIRIVER DELTA STREAMS: A CASE STUDYSTEPHEN A. SEWELL and LUTHER A. KNIGHT, JR.Department of BiologyUniversity of MississippiUniversity, MS 38677ABSTRACTFish samples representative of several trophic levels were taken from the Wolf and Loosahatchie Riversof western Tennessee during the early 1980s. Results indicate that DDT, with metabolites DDD and DDE,remains common in fish tissues in these areas and approaches the levels recommended as maxima forhuman consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Samples of top carnivores and foragefishes, particularly the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedlanum, commonly exceeded 500 ppb DDE. Theresults are discussed in light of sediment disturbing activities.INTRODUCTIONThe synthetic organochlorine insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was discovered to be a remarkable residual insecticideat Basle, Switzerland in 1939 (Brown, 1978; EPA, 1976). In1963, 155million pounds of DDT were sold, of which approximately 39% (60million pounds) were used in the continental United States. Ina 1964survey of 56 United States' rivers, 42% contained DDT(Weaver et al.,1965). Inaddition, several studies revealed egg-shell thinning in a numberof raptors, especially fish-eaters, as well as deaths in amphibian andreptilepopulations attributable to DDTand metabolites, particularlyDDE(Fleet et al., 1972; Ames, 1966; Brown, 1951). Use of the insec-ticide was suspended in the United States in 1972, although several thou-sand tons are stillapplied worldwide in insect and disease control pro-grams (Brown, 1978). On cropland in the United States, DDT was oftenapplied onhighly erodible soils, and/or excessive slopes. The insecticidewas displaced from croplands under those conditions to area streamsand rivers, predominantly adsorbed to eroded soil particles (USDA-ARS and US EPA, 1975).This report describes a portion of fish tissue analysis studies con-ducted in the Wolfand Loosahatchie River Basins of western Tennessee(Fig. 1)by federal, state, and local agencies during the 1978-1981 period(USDA-SCS, 1985; Sinclair and Higgs, 1980; Simco, 1979). These studieswere used to determine the persistence of historically applied pesticidesin the aquatic food chains of these river systems, particularlyorganochlorines such as DDT.STUDY AREAThe study area is located in southwest Tennessee and northwestMississippi. The drainage area of the Wolf River consists of about520,200 acres (208,000 ha), while the Loosahatchie River drains about474,600 acres (189,900 ha). The rivers are within the eastern half ofthe GulfCoastal Plain physiographic area. The present land forms arethe result of erosion whichhas dissected this plain. The valleys are wellincised, and streams have moderately wide valley floors. The streamshave dentritic drainage patterns with rounded hills and ridges withmoderately sloping valley walls. The Gulf Coastal Plain is further sub-divided into the West Tennessee Uplands and the West Tennessee Plain.A small portion of the eastern end of the basin lies in the Uplands.This area is characterized by hillyto rolling topography and flat floodplains. Most of the basins are in the Plain which is gently rollingwithsmall ridges and drainage divides.The hilly topography, high rainfall index and inherent erosioncharacteristics of upland soils formed from these geologic formationscontribute to excessive erosion rates. Sediment deposited in channelsand on flood plain land range from silts drived from loess to fine andmedium sand derived from underlying coastal plain formations. Floodplain soils are classed as recent geologic deposition of unconsolidatedsilty, andy alluvium and colluvium. These soils may be highly unstableifstripped of protective vegetation and accompanying root systems(USDA-SCS, 1985) and serve as the vehicle for transport of adsorbedpesticide pollutants into surface waters (USDA-ARS and EPA, 1975).METHODS AND MATERIALSFish samples were collected through use of fish toxicants (5°/rotenone), standard minnow seines (4.5 m x 1.2 m x 0.3 cm and 6.m x 1.2 mx 0.3 cm) and a Coffelt electro fishing boat. Specimens weridentified using Pflieger (1975), Douglas (1974), Buchanan (1973), andCook (1959). Trophic level classifications followedinformation contained foreach species inthese references and are a follows; CategorA = detritivores/omnivores (bottom feeders), Category B =herbivores(plant material/plankton feeders), Category C = lesser carnivores, amCategory D = top carnivores. These are summarized inTable 1.Individual fish were prepared for analysis by removing edible portion(filets)from all fish regardless ofsize and freezing until delivery to thlaboratory. No organs were included.Laboratory analysis used gas chromatrography electron capture detec-tion as outlined in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol.Iand II(Foodand Drum Administration, 1970 et seq.) and in accordance witlestablished methodology (APHA,1985). Alllaboratory analyses werdone by Woodson-Tenent Laboratories, Inc., an affiliate of NationaHealth Laboratories, Inc., 345 Adams Street, Memphis, TennesseeFigure 1.The study area of the Wolf and Loosahatchie River Basinsof Western Tennessee and northern Mississippi.56Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 40 [1986], Art. 19Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1986>Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.XXXX,1986 57Stephen A. Sewell and Luther A. Knight, Jr.(Bassett, 1980, pers. comm.). Action levels referred to herein, followFood and Drug Administration (1980) guidelines as established and re-vised according to the criteria specified inTitle 21, Code ofFederalRegulations, Parts 109 and 509.Table 1.Fish species analyzed for pesticide residues by trophic categoriesfrom the Wolf and Loosahatchie river basins, Tennessee.CATEGORY DESCRIPTION SPECIES INCORPORATEDA Detritivores/omnivores Common carp. Cyprinus carpio(bottom feeders) Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalusSmallmouth buffalo, Ictiobus cyprinellusSpotted sucker, Minytrema melanopsBlack bullhead, Ictalurus melasB Herbivores Gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum(plant-plankton feeders)C Lesser carnivores/ White crappie, Pomoxis annularisomnivores Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus(predators, opportunists) Blue catfish, Ictalurus furcatusWarmouth, Lepomis gulosusLargemouth bass (<9"),Micropterus salmoidesBluegill,Lepomis macrochirusLongear sunfish, Lepomis megalotisGreen sunfish, Lepomis cyanellusD Top carnivores Bowfin, Amia calva(fish eaters and Flathead catfish, Pylodictus olivarisdecomposers) Spotted gar, Lepisosteus oculatusLargemouth bass (>9"),Micropterus salmoidesRESULTSConcentrations of DDT and metabolites in the tissues of Wolf andLoosahatchie River fishes were summarized inTable 1 for upper reaches.Results from lower reach stations have been previously reported andare subject to the non-agricultural influences of the Memphismetropolitan area (Sinclair and Higgs, 1980; Simco, 1979).Ingeneral, results display the bioaccumulation tendency ofDDTandmetabolites in the aquatic food chain in these systems (ARS, 1979; EPA,1976), and support the conclusion of Macek and Korn(1970) that bioac-cumulation occurs predominantly through the food chain rather thandirect absorption (Johnson and Finley, 1980). Exceptions to thisconclusion in these systems occurred in levels recorded for forage feeders(planktivores), predominantly gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum,and in the metabolite concentrations in bottom feeders, Minytremamelanops and Cyprinus carpio. In the former case, DDE concentra-tions exceeded those noted ineither detritivores or carnivores. In thelatter case, DDTconcentrations exceeded DDDconcentrations, a rever-sal of the most commonly encountered situation due to the rapid up-take and degradation of DDT(Menzie, 1980; Addison and Willis,1978;Johnson et al., 1971). However, DDT concentrations were typicallyhigher than DDD concentrations during recent spring and summersampling of the lower reaches of both of these systems (Simco, 1979).DISCUSSIONIn118 American rivers surveyed in 1968, highest DDT concentra-tions were 316 ppm inBeauliue River,Florida, and 840 ppm in KansasRiver, Kansas (Lichtenberg et al., 1970). Since banning in 1972, severaldocumented effects of DDT and metabolites in the aquatic environ-ment have lessened or improved. There is not enough data to deter-mine ifthe levels in Tennessee and Mid-South fishes are decreasing,however, the insecticide has remained indetectable concentrations inthese areas. Highest levels were noted in the Wolf and LoosahatchieRivers in the herbivores, predominantly gizzad shad, Dorosoma cepe-dianum. This species is planktivorous as an adult, taking the majorityofits food by filter feeding (Pfleiger, 1975). Brown (1978) pointed outthat many phytoplankton species were resistant to DDTat 15ppm con-Table 2. DDTand metabolite concentrations infishes ofthe upper Wolfand LoosahatchieRiver Basins, Tennessee and Mississippi.CATEGORY/TROPHIC LEVEL1 RESIDUE (ppb)DDT DDD DDE tDDTA = Detritivores/Omnivores 85 63 370 518(bottom feeders)<10 412 1085 1500 2B = Herbivores(plankton feeders)<10 63 338 4002C = Lower Carnivores(predators/opportunists)<10 107 710 820 2D = Top Carnivores1See Table 1centration, though growth decreased slightly at 0. 1 ppm. Also, mos(70%) of the D. cepedianum specimens used were insize classes >inches (17.5 cm) and were too large to be considered prey for secondary consumers (Jenkins and Morais, 1976). Therefore, the bioconcentrations inD. cepedianum did not pass on through the food chain anwas not reflected inpesticide concentrations in trophic category C (lessecarnivores).Concentrations in the bottom feeders (trophic category A)revealedgreater levels of DDT than DDD, a reversal of the trend seen at othertrophic levels. One explanation for this may lie in the fact that withinthe sediments DDT and metabolites tend to concentrate in the top 2cm or that area most disturbed or ingested by bottom feeders (Brown,1978).Inconclusion, the study reveals that although concentrations do noexceed the 5 ppm action level of the Food and Drug Administration(1980), DDTremains in the sediments ofmajor river courses and continues to enter aquatic food chains. Actions which disturb sedimentsincluding normal feeding by bottom feeders, also resuspend DDT inthe water column where it becomes available to other trophic level(USA-COE, 1985; Yokley and Gooch, 1976). These systems have beenaltered in the past by both the channelization (deepening and wideningwithheavy equipment) and hand clearing oflog jams, falling trees, etcLITERATURE CITEDADDISON, R. F., and D. E. WILLIS. 1978. The metabolism ofDDT and some ofits possible degradation products. Toxicol. Appl.Pharmacol. 43:303-315.AMES, P. L. 1966. DDT residues in the eggs of osprey from thenortheastern United States. J. App. Ecol. 3 (Suppl.):87-97.BROWN, A. W. A. 1978. Ecology of Pesticides. John Wiley &Sons,New York, NY. 525 p.BROWN, A. W. A. 1951. Insecticides arid the balance of animalpopulations. InInsect Control by Chemicals, Wiley&Sons, NewYork, NY, NY. pp. 720-780.BUCHANAN, T. M.1973. Fishes of Arkansas. Ark. Game and FishComm., Little Rock, AR. 68 p.COOK, F. A. 1959. Freshwater Fishes in Mississippi. Miss. Gamesand Fish Comm., Jackson, MS. 239 p.DOUGLAS, N. H. 1974. Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana. ClaitorPubl. Co., Baton Rouge, LA.443 p.57Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 40 [1986], Art. 19http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol40/iss1/19Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi River Delta Streams: A Case StudyENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY. 1976. Quality Criteriafor Water. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. pp. 139-141.rLEET, R. R., D. R. CLARK, and F. W. PLAPP. 1972. Residuesof DDT and dieldrin insnakes from two Texas agro-ecosystems.BioScience 22:664-665.FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1980. Action levels forPoisonous and Deleterious Substances in Human Food and AnimalFeed. U.S. FDA, Washington, D.C. 13 p.FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1970 et seq. PesticideAnalytical Manual, Vol. Iand II.U.S. FDA, Washington, D.C.[ENKINS, R. M., and D. I.MORAIS. 1976. Prey-predator relation-ships in the Predator-Stocking-Evaluation reservoirs. Proc.Annu. Conf. Southeast. Asso. Game Fish Comm. 30:141-157.IOHNSON, B. T., C. R. SAUNDERS, H.O. SANDERS, and R. S.CAMPBELL. 1971. Biological magnification and degradation ofDDT by freshwater invertebrates. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can.28:705-709.IOHNSON, W. W., and M.T. FINLEY. 1980. Handbook of AcuteToxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. USDI-FWS Res. Publ. 137, Washington, D.C. pp. 24-26.FICHTENBERG, J. J., J. W. EICHELBERGER, R. C. PRESSMAN,and J. E. LANGBOTTOM. 1970. Pesticide in the surface watersof the United States — a 5-year summary, 1964-68. Pestic. Monit.J. 4:71-86.rACEK, K. J., and S. KORN. 1970. Significance of the food chaininDDTaccumulation by fish. J. Fish Res. Bd.Can. 27:1496-1498.rENZIE, C. M. 1980. Metabolism of Pesticides: Update III.USDI-FWS, Spec. Sci. Rpt.-Wildl. #232, Washington, D.C. pp.214-226.PFLIEGER, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Mo. Dept. ofConserv., Jefferson City, MO. 343 p.SIMCO, B. A. 1979. Survey of fishes, environmental stresses, andproposed stream classification. Memphis and Shelby Co. Officeof Planning and Development, Memphis, TN. Tables 3 and 4.SINCLAIR, R. M.and M.HIGGS. 1980: Organic residues present inTennessee fish. TN Dept. ofHealth, Div. ofWtr. Qual., Nashville,TN. 11 p.U.S. ARMY-CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 1985. Environmental Effectsof Dredging. USA-COE, Waterways Exp. Stat., Vicksburg, MS.Tech. Note EEDP-01-1. 7 p.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - AGRICULTURALRESEARCH SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTEC-TIONAGENCY. 1975. Control ofWater Pollution from CroplandVol. I:A Manual for Guideline Development. USDA-ARS andEPA-ORD, Washington, D.C. Illp.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - SOILCONSERVATIONSERVICE. 1985. A Land Treatment Plan for Erosion Control inthe Wolfand Loosahatchie River Basins, Tennessee and Mississippi.USDA-SCS, Nashville, TN. 56 p.WEAVER, J., C. G. GUNNERSON, A. W. BREIDENBACK, andJ. J. LICHTENBERG. 1965. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticidesin major U.S. river basins. U.S. Dept. of Publ. Health Rpt.80:481-493.YOKLEY,P., JR., and C. H. GOOCH. 1976. The effect of Dredgingon Primary Production, Invertebrate Production and Mussel Pro-duction. Tennessee Wildl. Resource Agency, Nashville, TN, TWRATech. Rpt. #76-56. 32 p.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. XXXX,1986 58Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 40 [1986], Art. 19Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1986

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2411&amp;context=jaas

Continued DDT Persistence in Mississippi River Delta Streams: A Case Study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK