The decline of mink in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina: The role of contaminants

  • S. L. Osowski
  • L. W. Brewer
  • O. E. Baker
  • G. P. Cobb


Since the 1960s, mink (Mustela vison) populations in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina have declined, especially in the coastal plain. A prior study suggested that the decline may stem from environmental contaminants. Based on water quality data from each state, we identified 17 substances potentially related to the decline: aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, DDD, DDE, DDT, PCBs, chlordane, alpha-BHC, toxaphene, dibenzofuran, copper, chromium, cadmium, lead, arsenic, and mercury. Mink livers were analyzed for PCB and organochlorine pesticides, and kidneys and femurs were analyzed for metals. Reference sample concentrations from piedmont, mountain, and foothill locations were compared to state coastal plain totals and counties. PCBs for Georgia, dieldrin for South Carolina, and endrin and aldrin for North Carolina were significantly higher than the piedmont reference group. Liver PCB concentrations were higher than those known to cause mink reproductive dysfunction. Mercury concentrations were significantly higher in coastal plain mink from all three states and were in the range of those known to cause impacts to reproduction, growth, and behavior to wild mink. It is unknown what concentrations of cyclodienes cause reduced reproduction or other physiological effects in mink, but the levels reported here probably indicate background concentrations that do not contribute to the decline.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aulerich RJ, Ringer RK (1970) Some effects of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides on mink. Am Fur Breeder 43:10–11Google Scholar
  2. Aulerich RJ, Ringer RK (1977) Current status of PCB toxicity to mink, and effect on their reproduction. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 6:279–292Google Scholar
  3. Aulerich RJ, Ringer RK, Iwamoto S (1974) Effects of dietary mercury on mink. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2:43–51Google Scholar
  4. Aulerich RJ, Ringer RK, Polin D (1972) Rate of accumulation of hydrocarbon pesticide residues in adipose tissue of mink. Can J Zool 50:1167–1173Google Scholar
  5. Carmichael DB, Baker OE (1989) Pesticide, PCB, and heavy metal residues in South Carolina mink. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 43:444–451Google Scholar
  6. Cumbie PM, Jenkins J (1974) Mercury accumulation in native mammals of the southeast. 28th Proc Southeast Assoc Game Fish Comm 28:444–451Google Scholar
  7. Foley RE, Jackling SJ, Sloan RJ, Brown MK (1988) Organochlorine and mercury residues in wild mink and otter: Comparison with fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 7:363–374Google Scholar
  8. Frank R, Holrinet MV, Suda P (1979) Organochlorine and mercury residue in wild mammals in Southern Ontario, Canada 1973–1974. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 22:500–507Google Scholar
  9. Franson JC, Dahm PA, Wing LD (1974) Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide residues in adipose, liver, and brain samples from Iowa mink. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 11:379–385Google Scholar
  10. Franson JC, Dahm PA, Wing LD (1975) A method for preparing and sectioning mink (Mustela vison) mandibles for age determination. Am Midl Nat 53:218–223Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert FF (1969) Physiological effects of natural DDT residues and metabolites on ranch mink. J Wildl Manage 33:933–943Google Scholar
  12. Henny CJ, Blus LJ, Gregory SV, Stafford CJ (1981) PCBs and organochlorine pesticides in wild mink and river otters from Oregon. In: Chapman JA, Pursely D (eds) Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings. Frostburg, MD, pp 1763–1780Google Scholar
  13. Hornshaw TC, Aulerich RJ, Johnson HE (1983) Feeding Great Lakes fish to mink: Effects on mink and accumulation and elimination of PCBs by mink. J Toxicol Environ Health 11:933–946Google Scholar
  14. Jernelov A, Johansson A, Sorensen L, Svenson A (1976) Methyl mercury degradation in mink. Toxicology 6:315–321Google Scholar
  15. Junk GA, Avery MJ, Richard JJ (1988) Interferences in solid-phase extraction using C-18 bonded porous silica cartridges. Anal Chem 60:1347–1350Google Scholar
  16. Linscombe G, Kinler N, Aulerich RJ (1982) Mink. In: Chapman JA, Feldhammer GA (eds) Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD pp 629–643Google Scholar
  17. Livingston M (1994) State posts mercury warnings. [South Carolina] State 64:1A,6AGoogle Scholar
  18. Mason CF, MacDonald SM (1986) Levels of cadmium, mercury, and lead in otter and mink faeces from the United Kingdom. Sci Total Environ 53:139–146Google Scholar
  19. Novak MI (1987) Furbearer harvests in North America, 1600–1984. Ontario Trappers Association, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. O'Connor DJ, Nielsen SW (1981) Environmental survey of methyl mercury levels in wild mink (Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis) from the Northeastern United States and experimental pathology of methyl mercurialism in the otter. In: Chapman JA, Pursely D (eds) Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings Frostburg, MD, pp 1728–1745Google Scholar
  21. Ogle MC, Scanlon PF, Kirkpatrick RL, Gwynn JV (1985) Heavy metal concentrations in tissues of mink Mustela vison in Virginia. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 35:29–37Google Scholar
  22. O'Shea TJ, Kaiser TE, Askins GR, Chapman JA (1981) Polychlorinated biphenyls in a wild mink population. In: Chapman JA, Pursely D (eds) Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings. Frostburg, MD pp 1746–1751Google Scholar
  23. Osowski SL (1992) The role of contaminants in the decline of mink (Mustela vison) in the coastal plain of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. M.S. thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SCGoogle Scholar
  24. Osowski SL, Brewer LW (1993) The role of contaminants in the decline of mink (Mustela vison) in the coastal plain of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. TIWET Report No. 09117, Clemson University, Clemson, SCGoogle Scholar
  25. Platonow NS, Karstad LH (1973) Dietary effect of polychlorinated biphenyls on mink. Can J Comp Med 37:391–400Google Scholar
  26. SAS Institute (1990) SAS Procedures Guide, Version six, Third edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  27. Satsmadjis J, Georgakopoulos-Gregoriades E, Voutsinou-Taliadouri F (1988) Separation of organochlorines on alumina. J Chromatography 437:254–259Google Scholar
  28. Sherburne JA, Dimond JB (1969) DDT persistence in wild hares and mink. J Wildl Manage 33:944–948Google Scholar
  29. Wobeser GA, Nielsen NO, Scheifer B (1976) Mercury and mink II: Experimental methyl mercury intoxication. Can J Comp Med 40:34–45Google Scholar
  30. Wobeser GA, Swift M (1976) Mercury poisoning in wild mink. J Wildl Dis 12:335–340Google Scholar
  31. Wren CD (1991) Cause-effect linkages between chemicals and populations of mink (Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis) the Great Lakes basin. J Toxicol Environ Health 33:549–585Google Scholar
  32. Wren CD, Leatherland DB, Stokes PM (1987a) The effects of PCBs and methyl mercury singly and in combination on mink. I: Uptake and toxic responses. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 16:441–447Google Scholar
  33. Wren CD, Leatherland DB, Stokes PM (1987b) The effects of PCBs and methyl mercury singly and in combination on mink. II: Reproduction and kit development. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 16:449–454Google Scholar
  34. Wren CD, Stokes PM, Fischer KL (1986) Mercury levels in Ontario mink and otter relative to food levels and environmental acidification. Can J Zool 64:2854–2859Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. L. Osowski
    • 1
  • L. W. Brewer
    • 1
  • O. E. Baker
    • 2
  • G. P. Cobb
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute of Wildlife and Environmental ToxicologyClemson UniversityPendletonUSA
  2. 2.South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources DepartmentColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUtah State UniversityLogan
  4. 4.Ecotoxicology and Biosystems Associates, IncSnow Camp

Personalised recommendations