USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · ofr20231024

Responses of juvenile mussels to metals in sediment and water of the Tri-State Mining District

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey and collaborators from EcoAnalysts, Inc., completed field and laboratory studies during 2016–19 to evaluate the toxicity of metals to freshwater mussels in streams draining the Tri-State Mining District. This project consisted of (1) sampling and analysis of metals in water and sediment, (2) surveys of mussel assemblages at sites with suitable mussel habitat, (3) toxicity tests with juvenile mussels exposed to zinc or to a mixture of metals (zinc, lead, and cadmium) in water, and (4) toxicity tests to evaluate the contributions of metals in sediment and metals in overlying water to toxic effects on mussels. Field sampling at sites in the Spring River and Neosho River and their tributaries demonstrated wide ranges of metal contamination in water and sediment. Zinc was the predominant toxic metal in water, and concentrations of lead and cadmium were much lower. Mussel areal density and species richness were greater at reference sites with low sediment metal concentrations (for example, zinc, 29–141 micrograms per gram) than at test sites that had higher concentrations of sediment zinc (416–3,420 micrograms per gram) as a result of effects of upstream mining activity. Juvenile mussels were highly sensitive to zinc in water in 12-week toxicity tests compared to previous water-only tests, and adding low levels of waterborne lead and cadmium typical of their occurrence in Tri-State Mining District streams produced greater toxicity. Thresholds for mussel toxicity were at or less than waterborne metal concentrations detected in Tri-State Mining District streams, and sites with waterborne metal concentrations exceeding thresholds had decreased mussel density and decreased mussel species richness. The 12-week toxicity tests with juvenile mussels in Tri-State Mining District sediments also demonstrated negative mussel responses with metal exposure. Thresholds for reductions in survival, growth, or biomass were at sediment metal concentrations less than thresholds reported for previous 4-week tests. We documented strong associations between reduced survival in laboratory tests and reduced species richness in community surveys. Attempts to estimate combined toxicity thresholds for metals in sediment and overlying water were not successful. These inconclusive results may be attributable to several factors, including (1) unexpected losses of waterborne metals from solution, (2) differences in sensitivity of different age/size classes of juvenile mussels, (3) disruption of sediment-water equilibria and changes in metal bioavailability, and (4) behavioral or physiological responses allowing juvenile mussels to temporarily reduce or avoid metal exposure. We also observed differences in metal toxicity thresholds between sediment toxicity tests started with different ages/sizes of test organisms. A followup study that combined exposure to Tri-State Mining District sediments with exposures to multiple levels of waterborne metals demonstrated toxic effects of sediments with low metal concentrations; however, some treatments also indicated unexpected reversals of concentration-response trends and reduced toxicity in treatments that had high metal concentrations in overlying water. These unusual responses may reflect development of physiological tolerance to metal toxicity by induction of metal-binding proteins (for example, metallothionein) in response to high metal levels in water. Results of laboratory and field studies indicated strong associations between metal exposure in Tri-State Mining District streams and toxic effects on juvenile freshwater mussels. Mussel community characteristics corresponded to differences in metal concentrations in sediment and water among Tri-State Mining District sampling sites. Responses of juvenile mussels in 12-week water and sediment exposures were strongly correlated with the status of mussel assemblages in Tri-State Mining District streams. The combined results support the hypothesis that exposure to metals from historical mining activities adversely affects freshwater mussel communities in the Spring River/Neosho River drainage.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 36.5° to 37.5° latitude; -95° to -94° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John M. Besser, Chris D. Ivey, James L. Kunz, Nile E. Kemble, Danielle M. Cleveland, Jeffery A. Steevens, Heidi Dunn, Ryan Foley. 2023-09-19. Responses of juvenile mussels to metals in sediment and water of the Tri-State Mining District. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231024

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona