a unified aquatic life framework for addressing the ......avg effect, cv=0.52 avg effect, cv=0.31...

A Unified Aquatic Life Framework forAddressing the Affected Percentages

of Individuals, Species, and Time

Charles DelosGreat Lakes Environmental Center

cdelos@glec.com

Two Approachesfor Addressing Time Variability

• Simple approach uses distribution of exposureconcentrations.

• Complex approach uses a long time series ofconcentrations.

An Actual Application Applying theSimple Distribution of Concentrations

• State of Utah adopted a selenium criterion for theGreat Salt Lake, Gilbert Bay.– Applies to the Se concentration in bird eggs.

– Set at 12.5 mg/kg, the State’s estimate of the EC10 formallard duck, the most sensitive known species.

– Applies as the geometric mean concentration.

• Question: What is the aggregate level of effect ifthe water body geometric mean rises to the EC10and the variability of concentrations (expressed asa CV or log standard deviation) remains as present?

Combining Ambient Concentration Distributionwith a Species Concentration-Response Curve:

Aggregate Effect = ∑ probabilityi x Effecti

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.5

1

1.5

4 8 16 32 64 128

Frac

tio

nR

ed

uce

dH

atch

Pro

bab

ility

De

nsi

ty,P

DF

Egg Conc (mg/kg)

Allowable ConcProb Density(left axis)

Conc-Resp Curve(right axis)

Hypothetical Illustration: Selecting aReturn Interval for Exceeding a Criterion

• Possible application: let’s say a state wants toallow the annual reproductive season mean Sefish tissue concentration to exceed thecriterion only once in “X” number of years.

• We ask: for various values of the returnfrequency, X, what is the level of aggregateeffect on the hypothetical 5th percentilespecies having EC10=Criterion?

Trial 1: Once in 2 Years

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

1.5

0.25 0.5 1 2

Re

pro

Imp

airm

en

to

f5

th%

ileSp

eci

es

Pro

bab

ility

De

nsi

tyfo

rA

nn

ual

Co

nc

Annual Mean Concentration Relative to Criterion

Probability Density ofAnnual Concentration

Conc-Response Curve

Trial 2: Once in 3 Years

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

1.5

0.25 0.5 1 2

Re

pro

Imp

airm

en

to

f5

th%

ileSp

eci

es

Pro

bab

ility

De

nsi

tyfo

rA

nn

ual

Co

nc

Annual Mean Concentration Relative to Criterion

Probability Density ofAnnual Concentration

Conc-Response Curve

Trial 3: Once in 5 Years

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

1.5

0.25 0.5 1 2

Re

pro

Imp

airm

en

to

f5

th%

ileSp

eci

es

Pro

bab

ility

De

nsi

tyfo

rA

nn

ual

Co

nc

Annual Mean Concentration Relative to Criterion

Probability Density ofAnnual Concentration

Conc-Response Curve

Trial 4: Once in 10 Years

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

1.5

0.25 0.5 1 2

Re

pro

Imp

airm

en

to

f5

th%

ileSp

eci

es

Pro

bab

ility

De

nsi

tyfo

rA

nn

ual

Co

nc

Annual Mean Concentration Relative to Criterion

Probability Density ofAnnual Concentration

Conc-Response Curve

Results forVarious Exceedance Frequencies

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20

%R

ep

roIn

hib

itio

nin

5th

%ile

Spe

cie

s

Return Interval of Exceedances for Repro Season (yr)

Long-term Avg Effect

10% Effect Line (EC10)

Influence ofAnnual Concentration Variability

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20

%R

ep

roIn

hib

itio

nin

5th

%ile

Spe

cie

s

Return Interval of Exceedances for Repro Season (yr)

Avg Effect, CV=0.52

Avg Effect, CV=0.31

Avg Effect, CV=0.13

Avg Effect, CV=0.05

Avg Effect, CV=0.00

Complex Approach

• The next set of slides addresses the complexapproach, which uses a time series ofexposures rather than the statisticaldistribution of exposures.

13

Higher Tier Assessment: Combined Applicationof Kinetic Toxicity Model and Population Model

- For Each Species, Apply Two Models -

• Kinetic toxicity model to translate from lab testexposures to continuously variable concentrations.

• Life-stage structured population model.

• The combination allows discerning:– How sensitivity differs among individuals and between life

stages.

– How reductions in survival, growth, and reproduction differin their effect on populations.

– How population effects differ between species that recoverrapidly and species that recover slowly.

14

Higher Tier Assessments: Combined Applicationof Kinetic Toxicity Model and Population Model

- For Each Species, Apply Two Models -

• Kinetic toxicity model to translate from lab testexposures to continuously variable concentrations.

• Life-stage structured population model.

• The combination allows discerning:– How sensitivity differs among individuals and between life

stages.

– How reductions in survival and reproduction differ in theireffect on populations.

– How population effects differ between species that recoverrapidly and species that recover slowly.

• Toxicant concentration,short example

• Accumulation of stressin individuals of onespecies

• Population response inone species

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

nD

am

ag

eP

op

ula

tio

n

Days

Density Dependent

Generating an Assemblage Toxicity Indexfor Tested Representative Species

Kinetic Toxicity Model

• Needed to predict toxicity of continuouslyvariable concentrations

• Provides input (such as death rates) topopulation model.

Minimum Data Needed to CalibrateToxicity Model for Each Animal Species

- Required

• Acute LC50

• Chronic survival EC50 or EC20

• Chronic EC50/EC20 ratio (conc-response slope)

- Desirable

• Chronic ECx differences between early life stagesand juvenile-adult stages

- Optional

• Chronic ECx differences between lethal andsublethal effects (growth-reproduction)

Simple Use of the Kinetic Modelto Help Understand Acute-Chronic Ratios

2

4

8

16

32

64

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Effe

ctC

on

cen

trat

ion

(mg

/L)

Exposure Duration (days)

Juv EC50

Juv EC20

ELS EC20

Components of Ammonia ACRfor Fathead Minnow

Stage-Structured Population Model

Population Model Input Parameters

• Decide how many life stages you want todivide the species lifespan into.

• For each life stage, specify its:

– Duration

– Background survival rate

– Reproductive rate – for adult stage(s) only.

Modeling Effects on Populations

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1F

ract

ionalP

opula

tion

Toxi

cS

tress

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Day

Daphnia

Bluegill

Toxic Stress

Mortality v. Repro EffectsDaphnia response to 30-day Pulse Exposure at EC50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Dap

nid

Ad

ult

Po

pu

lati

on

Day

daphnid mortality - all life stages

dapnid repro impairment

30-day exposure to EC50

Mortality v. Repro EffectsBluegill response to 30-day Pulse Exposure at EC50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Blu

egi

llA

du

ltP

op

ula

tio

n

Day

bluegill mortality - all life stages

bluegill ELS mortality / repro impairment

30-day exposure to EC50

Comparing the Simple and Complex Approaches:

Coupled Concentration Distribution & Response Curvevs.

Coupled Toxicity Model & Population Model

Co

ncen

trati

on

Dam

ag

eP

op

ula

tio

n

Days

Density Dependent

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.5

1

1.5

4 16 64Fr

acti

on

Re

du

ced

Hat

ch

Pro

bab

ility

De

nsi

ty,P

DF

Egg Conc (mg/kg)

Comparing the Simple and Complex Approaches:

Coupled Concentration Distribution & Response Curvevs.

Coupled Toxicity Model & Population Model

• Simple approach:

– Bypasses kinetics of toxicity.

– Bypasses sequencing of events.

– Cannot discern life-stage sensitivity differences.

– Cannot discern chronic lethal from sublethal effects.

– Omits persistence of loss concepts (recovery time):cannot discern short-lived from long-lived species.