using eco epidemiology to assess the risks of uv filters ... · stressor vs. coral reef responses...
TRANSCRIPT
Using Eco‐epidemiology to Assess the Potential Risks of UV Filters to Corals
Scott D. DyerWaterborne Environmental Inc., LeTourneau University
Christopher M. HolmesWaterborne Environmental, Inc., Applied Analysis Solutions, LLC
Iain DaviesPersonal Care Products Council
Carys MitchelmoreUniv. Maryland – Center for Environmental Science
SETAC Europe 29th Annual MeetingHelsinki, Finland
29 May 2019
Background
• Downs et al (2016) Arch Environ Contam Toxicol (2016) 70: 265‐288.• Measured toxicity of benzophenone‐3 on coral planulae and cultured primary cells• Questions the sufficiency of environmental risk assessments associated with benzophenone‐3 via
sunscreen use
• Coral reefs have been shown to be adversely affected by numerous other chemical, biological and physical stressors• Hughes, T. P. et al. Nature (2017) 543: 373‐377. ”Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals”• Rodgers, K.S. et al. PeerJ – Life & Environ. (2017). “Patterns of bleaching and mortality following
widespread warming events in 2014 and 2015 at the Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve, Hawai‘i”
• Advocate the use of eco‐epidemiology to evaluate the relationships between environmental stressors and ecological status within a realistic ecological context
Eco‐epidemiology
• Ecological communities are integrators
Factors Affecting Biotic Integrity
ChemicalVariables
FlowRegime
EnergySource
HabitatStructure
Biotic Integrity
Solubilities
pH
Temp.
Organics
Alk/Hardness
Metals
Nutrients
D.O.Turbidity
Land Use
GroundWater
PPT &Runoff
Velocity
Hi/LowExtremes
Channelization
Modified from Karr et al., 1986; Yoder & Rankin, 1993
SeasonsNutrients
1o & 2o
Production Sunlight
OrganicMatter
Canopy
RiparianVegetation
BankStability
Siltation
Sinuosity Substrate
Disease
Predation
Reproduction
Competition
Feeding
Eco‐epidemiology
• Ecological communities are integrators
• USEPA’s Coral Reef Biological Criteria• EPA/600/R-10/054• Figure 1-2 (at right)
Multiple Stressor Potentially Affected Fraction of Species (ms‐PAF) vs. Biological Condition Gradient
% Spe
cies Affe
cted
Magnitude of Stress
Multiple Stressor Potentially Affected Fraction of Species (ms‐PAF) vs. Biological Condition Gradient
% Spe
cies Affe
cted
Magnitude of Stress
% Spe
cies NOT Affected
Magnitude of Stress
Multiple Stressor Potentially Affected Fraction of Species (ms‐PAF) vs. Biological Condition Gradient
ms‐PA
F
Biological Condition Gradient
Stressor vs. Coral Reef Responses (EPA EPA/600/R‐10/054) Stressor Biological ResponseGlobal Climate Change (Warming) Coral Bleaching (loss of Acropora spp.)Acidification Decreased calcification rates; decreased coral growthCoral disease Lesions, banding or bleachingFishing Reduced herbivores and large predators
Increased growth of macro‐algaeLoss of substrate suitable for coral recruitment
Land‐based pollutants Nutrients loss of coral cover, increased macro‐algaeSedimentation loss of substrate suitable for recruitment
Boating and shipping (includes marine debris, dredged channels)
Broken colonies, loss of substrate
Invasive species E.g., Lionfish loss of fish taxa richnessTourism & recreation Broken colonies, anchor damage
CRAMP: Coral Reef Assessment & Monitoring Program*
• Ecological Gradient Model: used to determine levels of impairment• Utilizes physical factors of wave energy and depth as the 1st approximation to separate natural vs. anthropogenic impacts
• Reference Sites = minimally affected by human influence• Partitioned into 12 habitat classes: 3 depths and 4 wave exposures
• Non‐Reference Sites• PCA showed difference from Reference
* http://cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu/default.htm
CRAMP Ecological Gradient Model Results
• Forty‐six physical and biological variables modeled relating coral and fish assemblage characteristics
• Biological Community Status was highly dependent on:• Human population within 5 km of sampling locations (status decreased with greater pop.)
• Rugosity (surface area/geometric surface area)• Approximately 85% of stations with high coral cover (>20%) and fish biomass also have high rugosities >1.5
• Silt/clay > 9% low coral cover and fish pop.• Sediment organic content >6% low coral cover and fish pop.
Where Do UV‐filters Fit?
Unknown
Human Population
Habitat Impairment
Temperature Increase
UV Filters?
Unknown
Human Population
Habitat Impairment
Temperature Increase
UV Filters? Unknown
Human Population
Habitat Impairment
Temperature Increase
UV Filters?TemperatureIncrease
HabitatImpairment
HumanPopulation
Unknown
UV Filters?
TemperatureIncrease
HabitatImpairment
HumanPopulation
Unknown
UV Filters?
Oahu Island Sampling Sites (Mitchelmore et al., 2019. Sci Tot. Env. 670: 398‐410.)
Ka’a’wa(Lowest UV‐filter pot.)
Kaneohe Bay(Mixed Site)
Waikiki Beach
Sampling Sites – Absolute Coral Cover Overlay
Ka’a’wa(Lowest UV‐filter pot.)
Kaneohe Bay(Mixed Site)
Waikiki Beach
Benzophenone‐3 and Homosalate (HMS) Water Concentrations• Mitchelmore sampled 13 UV-filters• Eight were detected from at least one
sampling site• Five were measured in the majority of
sites: BP-3 (100%); Homosalate, HMS, (65%)
• Average concentrations of BP-3 were greatest at Waikiki Beach (136 ng/L)
• BP-3 concentrations below 24h LC50 for coral planulae (49,000 ng/L)• Downs et al 2016
• HMS concentrations did not seem to correspond with beach activity (i.e., numbers of beachgoers)• Natural sources?
Merits of Eco‐epidemiological Studies vs. Prospective Risk Assessment
• Not an either/or need, but an “and”• More work is needed to develop acute and chronic PNECs for diverse UV Filters• Understanding coral ecotoxicity vs. other taxa is needed• Unlikely that UV‐filter data will be directly related to coral reef ecological status
• Eco‐epidemiology enables the inclusion of diverse physical, chemical and biological stressors• Addresses the “so what” question
• Several state, federal and non‐governmental organizations have ongoing biological monitoring programs to understand the ecological status of coral reefs• Data are available for immediate use
Thank You
waterborne-env.com | (703)777-0005 | [email protected]
For more information:Scott Dyer ([email protected])