Thursday 12 January 2017

Drunk on algal toxins



Harmful algal blooms (HABs) pose a significant threat to coastal economies and human health. Moreover, evidence suggest that HABs are increasing in intensity and frequency. Copepods have a key role in the transfer of toxins in food webs, as they generally are the first consumers of the algae and act as vectors for the toxins. To date, research on copepod responses to HABs has mostly been limited to studying algae rejection, algae avoidance and incapacitation of the copepod. In their paper, Lasley-Rasher et al. (2016) examined the effect of HABs on the swimming behaviour of copepods and if the changes affected encounter rates with predators. 

Specimens of the neurotoxic alga Alexandrium fundyense and the copepod Temora longicornis were collected from the Damariscotta River estuary in the Gulf of Maine. The dinoflagellate produces toxins (e.g. saxitoxins) that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning and red tides. HPL-chromatography showed the total amount of saxitoxins in the A. fundyense culture to be 2.9 pg/cell. Copepods were placed in a tank with filtered seawater and fed with either i) A. fundyense, ii) a 50/50 mixture containing A. fundyense and Rhodomonas lens (a non-toxic control alga) or iii) R. lens. After a 2h exposure period the copepods were transferred to other tanks. Incubation lasted for another 15h during which the copepods were fed with Tetraselmis sp. (another non-toxic alga) to minimize variation due to hunger levels. Subsequently the swimming behaviour of T. longicornis was tracked using the LABTRACK software to generate 3D tracks, of which only the first 10s of movement were analysed. Survivorship, ingestion and egg production were tested separately in beakers.
After being exposed to A. fundyense, the copepods swam faster (25%) and displayed straighter swimming paths than those conspecifics fed only on the control alga. Survival was not affected by exposure the harmful alga, nor were there significant differences in the amount of food ingested or in the egg production. Moreover, the copepods did not seem to avoid A. fundyense or become incapacitated.

Unexpectedly, exposure to A. fundyense had no significant effects on either survival, ingestion or egg production and even stimulated swimming behaviour. The authors theorize that this T. longicornis strain may be resistant to saxitoxins, as the characteristic blocking of sodium channels was not observed in this study. However, a growing number of evidence suggests that saxitoxins can sometimes stimulate grazers. Along with path straightness, faster swimming increases the probability of dispersal and of an encounter with a predator. Analysis using a model predicted the 25% increase in swimming speed to theoretically lead to an 56% increase in encounter rates with predators. This has considerable implications for HABs as it could potentially decrease grazing pressure while simultaneously increasing toxin uptake by copepod predators. So far, the bioaccumulation of saxitoxins in T. longicornis has not been studied and they are generally thought to be less likely to bioaccumulate than shellfish
.
In conclusion, the paper demonstrates how HABs can alter the behaviour of their grazers. In addition to more direct harmful impacts, the effects on grazer behaviour also have to be addressed when examining HABs. While the paper has not been cited yet, it has garnered quite a bit of attention online. On the whole, it was an interesting paper that had a good structure, was easy to follow and didn’t try to do too much. 

Reviewed Paper:

Lasley-Rasher, R. S., Nagel, K., Angra, A., & Yen, J. (2016, April). Intoxicated copepods: ingesting toxic phytoplankton leads to risky behaviour. In Proc. R. Soc. B (Vol. 283, No. 1829, p. 20160176). The Royal Society. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/283/1829/20160176

3 comments:

  1. Hi Johanna,

    You mention in your post that the copepods swam 25% faster and in a straighter path. You also mention that the copepods did not appear to avoid the neurotoxic algae. As the authors mention that this result adds to the growing body of evidence that saxitoxins stimulate grazers, do you have any thoughts as to why this might be? As it does not increase their fitness due to a significant increase in predation rate, could the faster swimming just be a secondary effect of an increased metabolic rate to break down the toxins? The author also suggests that the copepods are resistant to the harmful effects, do you think this maybe why the copepods do not appear to avoid the algae?

    Cheers,
    Scott

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Scott,

    The authors don’t really mention any theories as to the exact mechanism of the swimming stimulation. I am not quite sure I understand your theory of the side effect from an increased metabolic rate, wouldn’t there rather be an opposite effect if most of the energy is used for detoxification? I agree however that the lack of avoidance is likely linked with the apparent resistance. I’m going out on a limb here and theorize that the evolution of resistance in the copepods might lead to this more indirect harmful effect of the toxins. The higher predator encounter rates decrease fitness yes, but the effect is less immediate than incapacitation. Therefore, some of the copepods might reproduce before they get eaten by predators, making it more difficult for resistance against stimulation to spread in the population.

    Hope this answers your questions,
    Johanna

    ReplyDelete
  3. Johanna,

    Thank you for your response and your theory. The copepods would increase their metabolic rate to increase the speed of the toxin breakdown, not to put more energy into one specific reaction. So other secondary effects could be possible if the system is increasing as a whole. If that makes any more sense.

    Cheers,
    Scott

    ReplyDelete

Comments from external users are moderated before posting.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.