Post on 21-Mar-2020
transcript
Sediment Quality Triad in the Deep Sea During Fall 2010Deep‐Sea During Fall 2010
Paul A. Montagna
October 25, 2011
1
• Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:– Funding: BP and NOAA
• Disclaimers• Disclaimers:– The views expressed are mine and not attributable to the agency or the companyto the agency or the company.
2
OutlineOutline
• What we know about SQTWhat we know about SQT
• What we know about Platforms
h k b h d• What we know about the deep‐sea
• What we found during Fall 2010 sampling
3
Sediment Quality Triad Studies(SQT)
• Chemical Dose: contaminant concentrationsChemical Dose: contaminant concentrations
• Biological Response: in situ toxicity using the Microtox testMicrotox test
• Ecological Response: benthic communities
Used successfully in GOOMEX study!study
4
GOOMEX((Gulf Of Mexico Offshore Operations
Monitoring Experiment*)
• Goals– Identify chronic, sublethal effects of offshore oil and gas production activities
– Relate effects to a contamination gradient
– Recommend monitoring strategies
• Team– GERG/TAMU, UT, UWO, UNC, NMFS, MMS/ , , , , ,
*Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (1996) 53:1584-2654. (8 papers) 5
GOOMEX Sampling schemeGOOMEX Sampling scheme
BoxcoreBulls-eye Design: 50, 100, 200, 500, 3000 mFour Cruises: 1993 - 1994
"Far"
BoxcoreStations
"Near"50 m100 m100 m
200 m
500 m
3000 m
6
Summary of GOOMEX ResultsSummary of GOOMEX ResultsGeology‐ Coarser within 100 m of platformsChemistry Elevated contaminants within 100–200Chemistry‐Elevated contaminants within 100–200 m of platforms◦ Bottom shunting caused most contaminationBiolog Responses ithin 100 m of platformsBiology‐ Responses within 100 m of platforms◦ Molecular biomarkers (megafauna)‐ No response◦ Megafauna community– No responseGeneti Di ersit Red ed ithin 100 m◦ Genetic Diversity– Reduced within 100 m
◦ Toxicity– Within 100 m at 2 platforms◦ Macrofauna/Meiofauna– Community change within 100 mmIncreased deposit feeders (worms) relative to surface feeders (crustaceans)Decrease in crustacean populationsp pIncreased abundances, but decreased diversity
7
Deep Gulf of Mexico Benthos p(DGoMB*)
D t i i t d t il th t t d• Determine in greater detail the structure and function of northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope communities p– Bacteria Meiofauna Macrofauna Megafauna– Grain size Trace metals Organics Geochemistry– Physical settingPhysical setting
• Infer relationships with local conditions and major driving processes by testing specific hypotheses
• Cruises over 3‐year period (2000–2002)
*D S R h II (2008) 55 2535 2711 (21 )*Deep-Sea Research II (2008) 55: 2535–2711 (21 papers)
8
DGoMB experimental design
H01 – Depth H Longitude
H03 – Basins H Canyon
H05 – Escarpment H Primary ProdH02 – Longitude H04 – Canyon H06 – Primary Prod.
9
Summary of DGoMB resultsTrace metal chemistry◦ No indication of anthropogenic input trace metals Be
Summary of DGoMB results
◦ No indication of anthropogenic input trace metals Be, Co, Cr, Fe, Si, Ti, V, K, Mg, Ca, Sr and Zn, based on normalization to AlThese metals derived from trace‐metal‐rich Mississippi River outflow
◦ In contrast, a general enrichment of the elements Ba, Ni, Pb, Cd, As, Cu and Mn, which show considerable scatter when normalized to AlThese metals identified as drilling byproducts in GOOMEXThese metals identified as drilling byproducts in GOOMEX
Total PAH concentration ranged from not detected to 1033 ng/g with a mean of 140 ng/gg g g g
10
MC‐252 Incident data• Deep‐sea benthic
MC 252 Incident data
mission was carried out by BP and NOAA from 16 Sept. – 24 Oct. 2011
• 169 stations occupied p– Chemistry
– Microtox
– Infauna
11
Microtox Analyses• Method
– Response of luminescent bacteria a freeze‐dried
y
Response of luminescent bacteria, a freeze dried preparation of a specially selected strain of the marine bacterium Vibrio fischeri
– The results are normalized and the EC50(concentration producing a 50% reduction in light) calculated
– Low EC50 values are toxic
• Ecological relevance– Comparable to amphipod exposure– Has good sensitivity to a broad range of toxic
b tsubstances
• Expedient: small sample, fast analysis, and cheap12
Microtox Analyses Problemsy
• Many false‐positives C t i tMany false positives (common to all toxicity testing)
Contaminants
BiologicalResponse
No Yes
• Need data for trace metals, hydrocarbons,
Response
No
ammonia, sulfide, and sediments to interpret the response
Yes
the response
13
PAH ConcentrationsOperational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) Report 17 Dec 2011Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) Report - 17 Dec 2011
25 Km!Km!
75 Km!
14
Microtox vs. PAHTo Develop a Threshold (6,016 EC50 Units)
100000
80000
100000
Linear Regression for PAH over DGOMB mean of 140 ug/kgMicrotox = 6016 - 0.3351*PAH, R2 = 0.33
xici
ty (m
g/L)
10000
xici
ty (m
g/L)
60000
Mic
roto
x
Mic
roto
x
20000
40000
PAH (ug/kg)
10 100 1000 10000 100000
1000
PAH (ug/kg)
0 5000 10000 15000 200000
PAH (ug/kg)PAH (ug/kg)
15
16
17
18
Analyses to Link Biological Response to Environment
1.0
1.5
2.0
Low ToxicityLow Contaminants
Low ToxicityHigh Contaminants
ToxP
C1
-0.5
0.0
0.5
0 Low Contaminants High Contaminants
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
0.5High ToxicityLow Contaminants
High ToxicityHigh Contaminants
ChemPC1-2 -1 0 1 2
2.0
Source: Long, Carr, Montagna. 2003.
19
Analyses to Link Biological Response to Sediment Environment Variables
OSAT 2010 data
0 5
1.0
AlCrFeV
SiltClay
(79%
)
0.0
0.5
TOCTCAg
AsBa
Fe
Mn
SOC
ects
PC 1
-0.5
TPH
imen
t Effe
1 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 1 0-1.0
Sand
Sed
20
PC 2 (20%)
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Oil Spill Effects
Linking Microtoxicity to EnvironmentLinking Microtoxicity to Environment
12
Log(EC50 = 8.66 + (-0.351 × PC2) r = -0.42, p < 0.0001
11
12
1.17
1.19
EC
50)
9
10
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.081.091.101.11
1.121.13
1.141.15
1.17
1.18
1.20
2.25
2.26
2.30
3 35
4.49ALTFF002D055S
D062SD072S D096SD300S
D302S
FF001
FF003FF004
FF011
FFMT1
FFMT2
FFMT3LBNL11LBNL7M014SM015S
M034SM037S
M039SM200SM201SM202SM203S
M204SM205SM206S
M207S
M208S
NF010S012SS016SW
S01SS022SS05S
Log
(
8
90.00
1.011.02 1.031.04
1.16
2.212.22
2.232.24 2.27
2.282.29
3.313.32
3.33
3 34
3.35
4.444.45
4.464.474.48ALTFF012
ALTNF001
ALTNF015
D002SD003S
D006SD007SD009S
D010S
D011S
D012S
D013SD019S
D021SD024S D031SD034S
D042SD046S
D050S
D053S
D057S
D062S
D064SD067S
D068S
D069S
D070S
D071S
D077S
D084S
D085SD089S D101S
D301S
FF003FF004
FF005
FF010FFC4
FFC7
FFMT4
FFMT5
FFMT6
LBNL1
LBNL14LBNL17
LBNL3
LBNL4LBNL5
M001SWM002SW
M004SM009SW
M012S
M013SW
M016SW
M019S
M023SM026SW
NF006MODNF008
NF011
NF012
NF013NF014S016SW
Log EC50 = 8.702
58 stations with spill
6
7
3.34
D008S
D012S
D038SW
D040S
D071SD094S with spill
characteristics and high toxicity
21Sediment Chemistry (PC 2)
-2 -1 0 1 2
Toxicity vs. Contaminants
Uncolored=missing data
PC2<0 + PC2>0 +
Color Key:
Log EC50>8.7 Log EC50>8.7
PC2 0
Toxi
city
PC2<0 + Log EC50<8.7
PC2>0 +Log EC50<8.7
←
Contaminants →
22
Macrofauna vs. Sediments Macrofauna vs. Contaminants
23
Preliminary SummaryPreliminary Summary
• There is wide‐spread oil on the bottom of h d ff hthe deep offshore environment
• There is strong toxicity up to 25 km away, and weaker toxicity everywhere in theand weaker toxicity everywhere in the deep‐sea
• There is a correlation between the chemical signature characteristic of drilling effects and toxicity
• There is a correlation between the• There is a correlation between the chemical signature and decreases in benthic diversity and biomass
24
Thank youThank you
Questions?Questions?
25