Responses of Aquatic Insects to Cu and Zn in Stream Microcosms: Understanding Differences Between Single Species Tests and Field Responses

Abstract

Field surveys of metal-contaminated streams suggest that some aquatic insects, particularly mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and stoneflies (Plecoptera), are highly sensitive to metals. However, results of single species toxicity tests indicate these organisms are quite tolerant, with LC50 values often several orders of magnitude greater than those obtained using standard test organisms (e.g., cladocerans and fathead minnows). Reconciling these differences is a critical research need, particularly since water quality criteria for metals are based primarily on results of single species toxicity tests. In this research we provide evidence based on community-level microcosm experiments to support the hypothesis that some aquatic insects are highly sensitive to metals. We present results of three experiments that quantified effects of Cu and Zn, alone and in combination, on stream insect communities. EC50 values, defined as the metal concentration that reduced abundance of aquatic insects by 50%, were several orders of magnitude lower than previously published values obtained from single species tests. We hypothesize that the short duration of laboratory toxicity tests and the failure to evaluate effects of metals on sensitive early life stages are the primary factors responsible for unrealistically high LC50 values in the literature. We also observed that Cu alone was significantly more toxic to aquatic insects than the combination of Cu and Zn, despite the fact that exposure concentrations represented theoretically similar toxicity levels. Our results suggest that water quality criteria for Zn were protective of most aquatic insects, whereas Cu was highly toxic to some species at concentrations near water quality criteria. Because of the functional significance of aquatic insects in stream ecosystems and their well-established importance as indicators of water quality, reconciling differences between field and laboratory responses and understanding the mechanisms responsible for variation in sensitivity among metals and metal mixtures is of critical importance.