Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 80, Issue 1–4, pp 851–870 | Cite as

Seabirds as monitors of mercury in the marine environment

  • L. R. Monteiro
  • R. W. Furness
Part IX Marcury in Fish and Wildlife

Abstract

The oceans play a major role in global cycling of mercury and widespread contamination of marine ecosystems has been demonstrated in recent years. Monitoring mercury in the marine environment is a priority and biomonitoring has featured prominently in this respect. Seabirds, as top predators, present high mercury levels due to food chain amplification and thus will reflect slight variations in environmental mercury and its hazards to humans better than do most invertebrates and cold blood vertebrates. There is experimental evidence that levels of mercury in seabirds show a dose-response relationship, so that increased contamination of the environment causes a corresponding increase in the level in birds. This coupled with current knowledge on the dynamics of mercury in birds gives a good basis for the use of seabird as monitors of mercury. Internal tissues, blood, eggs, feathers and chicks have been used as monitoring units. Feathers are the most attractive amongst them. They are both chemically and physically stable, accumulate higher mercury levels than other tissues and their sampling is non-destructive. However, it is essential to sample a consistent feather area from all birds to minimise the effects of moult and body feathers are the most adequate. Feathers from birds in museum collections offer a great potential for the study of synoptic geographical and historical of changes in mercury levels on a global scale with large sample sizes. For example, studies with time series of feather samples from seabirds provide evidence of a 3-fold increase of mercury contamination in the marine ecosystem of North-eastern Atlantic over the last 100 years and little increase in mercury contamination in the Southern hemisphere during the same period.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andren, A. W. and Nriagu, J.O.: 1979, ‘The global cycle of mercury’. In J. O. Nriagu (ed)The Biogeochemistry of Mercury in the Environment, Elsevier North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Appelquist, H., Asbirk, S. and Drabaek, I.: 1984,Mar. Pollut. Bull. 15, 22–24.Google Scholar
  3. Appelquist, H., Drabaek, I. and Asbirk, S.: 1985,Mar. Pollut. Bull 16, 244–248.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, R. T., Skaare, J. U., Norheim, G., Vader, W. and Froslie, A.: 1985,Environ. Pollut. 39, 79–93.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, P. H.: 1989,Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 43, 395–405.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, P. H.: 1991, ‘Population and contamination studies in coastal birds: the Common TernSterna hirundo’. In C. M. Perrins, J. D. Lebreton, and G. J. M. Hirons (eds)Bird Population Studies: Relevance to Conservation and Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, P. H.: 1992,Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 48, 762–767.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, P. H., Furness, R. W. and Henning, D.: 1993a,Ecotoxicol. 2, 33–40.Google Scholar
  9. Becker, P. H., Schuhmann, S. and Koepff, C.: 1993b,Environ. Pollut. 79, 207–213.Google Scholar
  10. Beijer, K. and Jernelöv, A.: 1979, ‘Methylation of mercury in aquatic environments’. In J.O. Nriagu (ed)The Biogeochemistry of Mercury in the Environment, Elsevier NorthHolland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Berg, W., Johnels, A., Sjostrand, B. and Westermark, T.: 1966,Oikos 17, 71–83.Google Scholar
  12. Braune, B. M.: 1987,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16, 217–224.Google Scholar
  13. Braune, B.M. and Gaskin, D.E.: 1987,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16, 539–549.Google Scholar
  14. Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M.: 1991,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 21, 311–315.Google Scholar
  15. Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M.: 1992,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23, 105–108.Google Scholar
  16. Burger J., Nisbet, I. C. T. and Gochfeld, M.: 1992a,J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 36, 327–338.Google Scholar
  17. Burger, J., Schreiber, E. A. E. and Gochfeld, M.: 1992b,Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 815–822.Google Scholar
  18. Burger, J., Nisbet, I. C. T. and Gochfeld, M.: submitted,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Google Scholar
  19. Clarkson, T.W.: 1990,Env. Toxicol. Chem. 9, 957–961.Google Scholar
  20. Crewther, W. G., Fraser, R. D. B., Lennox, F. G. and Lindley, H.: 1965,Adv. Prot. Chem. 20, 191–346.Google Scholar
  21. Cuvin-Aralar, M. L. and Furness, R. W.: 1991,Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 21, 348–364.Google Scholar
  22. Elliott, J. E., Scheuhammer, A. M., Leighton, F. A. and Pearce, P. A.: 1992,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 22, 63–73.Google Scholar
  23. Fimreite, N.: 1979, ‘Accumulation and effects of mercury on birds’. In J.O. Nriagu (ed)The Biogeochemistry of Mercury in the Environment. Elsevier North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Fitzgerald, W. F.: 1986, ‘Cycling of mercury between the atmosphere and oceans’. In Buat-Ménard (ed)The Role of Air-Sea Exchange in Geochemical Cycling. D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Focardi, S., Fossi, C., Lambertini, M., Leonzio, C. and Massi, A.: 1988,Environ. Monitor. Assess. 10, 43–50.Google Scholar
  26. Furness, R. W.: 1993, ‘Birds as monitors of pollutants’. In R.W. Furness and J.J.D. Greenwood (eds)Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change. Chapman and Hall, London, 86–143.Google Scholar
  27. Furness, R. W., Muirhead, S. J. and Woodburn, M.: 1986,Mar. Pollut. Bull 17, 27–30.Google Scholar
  28. Furness, R. W., Lewis, S. A. and Mills, J. A.: 1990,Environ. Pollut. 63, 33–39.Google Scholar
  29. Furness, R. W., Thompson, D. R. and Becker, P. H.: in press,Helgoländer Meeresuntersulhungen. Google Scholar
  30. Gochfeld, M. and Burger, J.: 1987,Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 12, 389–399.Google Scholar
  31. Hahn, E.: 1991,Schwermetallgehalte in Vogelfedern — ihre Ursache und der Einsatz von Federn standorttreuer Vogelarten im Rahmen von Bioindikationsverfahren, Berichte des Forschungszentrums, Julich.Google Scholar
  32. Heinz, G.: 1974,Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11, 386–392.Google Scholar
  33. Hobson, K. A. and Montevecchi, W. A.: 1991,Oecologia 87, 528–531.Google Scholar
  34. Hoffman, R. D. and Curnow, R. D.: 1979,J. Wildl. Manage. 43, 85–93.Google Scholar
  35. Honda, K., Min, B. Y. and Tatsukawa, R.: 1985,Bull. Environ. Contant. Toxicol. 35, 781–789.Google Scholar
  36. Honda, K., Nasu, T. and Tatsukawa, R.: 1986a,Environ. Pollut. (A)42, 325–334.Google Scholar
  37. Honda, K., Yamamoto, Y., Hidaka, H. and Tatsukawa, R.: 1986b,Mem. Natl. Inst. Polar Res. Spec. Issue 40, 443–453.Google Scholar
  38. Jugo, S.: 1977,Environ. Res. 13, 36–46.Google Scholar
  39. Lewis, S. A.: 1991, Studies of mercury dynamics in birds. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, S. A., Becker, P.H. and Furness, R. W.: 1993,Environ. Pollut. 80, 293–299.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, S. A. and Furness, R. W.: 1991,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 21, 316–320.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, S. A., Stewart, F. M. and Furness, R. W.: 1992, ‘The use of eggs to monitor heavy metal pollution’. In J. Bohac (ed)Proc. 6th Int Conf. Bioindicatores Deteriorisationis Regionis. Inst. Landscape Ecol. CAS, Ceske Budejovice.Google Scholar
  43. Lindberg, S.: 1987, ‘Group report: mercury’. In T. C. Hutchinson and H. M. Meema (eds)Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment. John Willey and Son Ltd., Chichester.Google Scholar
  44. Lindqvist, O.: 1991,Wat. Air Soil Pollut. 55, 1–261.Google Scholar
  45. Lock, J. W., Thompson, D. R., Furness, R. W. and Bartle, J. A.: 1992,Environ. Pollut. 75, 289–300.Google Scholar
  46. Magat, W. and Sell, J. L.: 1979,Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 161, 458–463.Google Scholar
  47. March, B. E., Poon, R. and Chu, S.: 1983,Poult. Sci. 62, 1000–1009.Google Scholar
  48. Mason, R. P. and Fitzgerald, W. F.: 1990,Nature 347, 457–459.Google Scholar
  49. Monteiro, L. R., Furness, R. W. and del Nevo, A. J.: submitted,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Google Scholar
  50. Mougin, J.-L., Jouanin, C. and Roux, F.: 1988,L'Oiseau et R. F. O. 58, 303–318.Google Scholar
  51. Muirhead S. J. and Furness, R. W.: 1988,Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19, 278–283.Google Scholar
  52. Nicholson, J. K. and Osborn, D.: 1983,J. Zool. Lond. 200, 99–118.Google Scholar
  53. Nisbet, I. C. T.: 1993, ‘Effects of pollution on marine birds’. In D. N. Nettleship, J. Burger, and M. Gochfeld (eds.)Seabirds on Islands: Threats, Case Studies and Action Plans. ICBP Technical Publication No. 8, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  54. Norheim, G.: 1987,Environ. Pollut. 47, 83–94.Google Scholar
  55. Nriagu, J. and Pacyna, J. M.: 1988,Nature 333, 134–139.Google Scholar
  56. Parslow, J. L. F. and Jefferies, D. J.: 1975,Ann. Rep. Inst. Terr. Ecol. 1974, 28–31.Google Scholar
  57. Pelletier, E.: 1986,Mar. Environ. Res. 18, 111–132.Google Scholar
  58. Phillips, D. J. H.: 1980,Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators: Their Use to Monitor trace Metal and Organochlorine Pollution, Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London.Google Scholar
  59. Renzoni, A., Focardi, S., Fossi, C., Leonzio, C. and Mayol, J.: 1986,Environ. Pollut. (A) 40, 17–35.Google Scholar
  60. Scheuhammer, A. M.: 1987,Environ. Pollut. 46, 263–295.Google Scholar
  61. Slemr, F. and Langer. E.: 1992,Nature 355, 434–437.Google Scholar
  62. Stern, A. H.: 1993,Risk Anal. 13, 355–364.Google Scholar
  63. Stewart, F. M., Thompson, D. R., Furness, R. W. and Harrison, N.: in press,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Google Scholar
  64. Stickel, L. F., Wieneyer, S. N. and Blus, L. J.: 1973,Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9, 193–196.Google Scholar
  65. Thompson, D. R.: 1990, ‘Metal levels in marine vertebrates’. In R. W. Furness and P. S. Rainbow (eds)Heavy Metals in the Marine Environment. CRC Press, New York.Google Scholar
  66. Thompson, D. R. and Furness, R. W.: 1989a,Environ. Pollut. 60, 305–317.Google Scholar
  67. Thompson, D. R. and Furness, R. W.: 1989b,Mar. Pollut. Bull 20, 577–579.Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, D. R., Stewart, F. M. and Furness, R. W.: 1990,Mar. Pollut. Bull. 21, 339–342.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson, D. R., Hamer, K. C. and Furness, R. W.: 1991,J. Appl. Ecol. 28, 672–684.Google Scholar
  70. Thompson, D. R., Furness, R. W., Walsh, P. M.: 1992a,J. Appl. Ecol. 29, 79–84.Google Scholar
  71. Thompson, D. R., Furness, R. W. and Barrett, R. T.: 1992b,Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 23, 383–389.Google Scholar
  72. Thompson, D. R., Becker, P. H. and Furness, R. W.: 1993a,J. Appl. Ecol. 30, 316–323.Google Scholar
  73. Thompson, D. R., Furness, R. W. and Lewis, S. A.: 1993b,Polar Biol. 13, 239–244.Google Scholar
  74. Topping, G., Davies, I. M.: 1981,Nature 290, 243–244.Google Scholar
  75. Vermeer, K. and Peakall, D. B.: 1977,Mar. Pollut. Bull. 8, 205–210.Google Scholar
  76. Walsh, P. M.: 1990, ‘The use of seabirds as monitors of heavy metals in the marine environment’. In R. W. Furness and P. S. Rainbow (eds)Heavy Metals in the Marine Environment. CRC Press, New York.Google Scholar
  77. Westermark, T., Odsjö, T. and Johnels, A.: 1975,Ambio 4, 87–92.Google Scholar
  78. WHO: 1990, Environmental Health Criteria 101: Methylmercury. World Health Organisation, Geneve.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. R. Monteiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. W. Furness
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Oceanography and FisheriesUniversity of the AzoresHortaPortugal
  2. 2.Applied Ornithology UnitUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations