Heavy Metals and Selenium in Grebe Feathers from Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge in Northern Minnesota



Metal levels in feathers can often be used as an indicator of exposure and of potential effects in birds. In previous work at Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, northwestern Minnesota, pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) eggs had significantly higher levels of manganese and mercury and significantly lower levels of selenium than eared (Podiceps nigricollis) or red-necked grebes (Podiceps grisegena), but in 1999, pied-billed grebes had significantly higher levels of mercury, but lower levels of selenium and tin than the other grebes. This led us to examine whether these patterns held up in feathers of grebes as a function of age. The feathers of young birds represent local exposure. We collected feathers of flightless young and adult grebes from 1997 to 1999 in the marshes at Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge. Regression models indicated that year, age, or species were significant factors accounting for variations in the levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and selenium, depending on the metal. Overall, there were significant intraspecific differences for all metals. Pied-billed grebes had the highest levels of arsenic, chromium, and selenium, and eared grebes had the highest levels of cadmium, manganese, and mercury. Pied-billed and western grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis) had the highest levels of lead. There were significant age-related differences in cadmium, chromium, and mercury for both eared and red-necked grebes, for arsenic in eared grebes, and for lead and manganese in red-necked grebes. Adults had higher levels of all metals, except young had higher levels of chromium. Mercury in the feathers of eared grebes were higher than found from other studies with a wide range of aquatic and marine birds and were above those known to cause adverse effects in laboratory studies, suggesting some cause for concern.


Mercury Cadmium Lead Selenium Grebes Age-related Feathers Metals 



Feathers were collected under appropriate state and federal permits to Eichhorst. We thank M. Anderson, G. Huschle, D. Bennett, S. Wockenfuss, G. Tischer, and B. Wikstrom for logistical support at Agassiz NWR and T. Shukla, C. Dixon, and C. Jeitner for help with the analysis. This research was a cooperative project with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, was approved by the Rutgers University Animal Review Board, and was funded by the University of North Dakota, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) through the Department of Energy (AI # DE-FC01-95EW55084, DE-FG-00NT-40938), the Division of Life Sciences of Rutgers University, and NIEHS (P30ES005022).


  1. Burger J (1993) Metals in avian feathers: bioindicators of environmental pollution. Rev Environ Toxicol 5:203–311Google Scholar
  2. Burger J, Eichhorst B (2005) Heavy metal and selenium levels in grebe eggs from Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge in Northern Minnesota. Environ Monit Assess 107:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burger J, Gochfeld M (1991) Cadmium and lead in common terns (Aves: Sterna hirundo): relationship between levels in parents and eggs. Environ Monit Assess 16:253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger J, Gochfeld M (1996) Heavy metal and selenium levels in birds at Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota: food chain differences. Environ Monit Assess 43:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burger J, Gochfeld M (2000) Effects of chemicals and pollution on seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 485–525Google Scholar
  6. Burger J, Peakall D (2003) Methodologies for assessing exposure to metals: speciation, bioavailability, and ecological host factors. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 56:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cullen SA, Jehl JR Jr, Nuechterlein GL (1999) Eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis). In: Poole A, F. Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 433. The Birds of North America, Inc., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Custer TW, Hohman WL (1994) Trace elements in canvasback (Aytha valisineria) wintering in Louisiana, USA, 1987–1988. Environ Pollut 84:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisler R (1987) Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife and invertebrates: a synoptic review. Biological Report 85 (1.10). US Department of Interior, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald WF (1989). Atmospheric and oceanic cycling of mercury. In: Riley JP, Chester R (eds) Chemical oceanography, Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York, pp 151–186Google Scholar
  11. Furness RW (1993) Birds as monitors of pollutants. In: Furness RW, Greenwood JJD (eds) Birds as monitors of environmental change. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 86–143Google Scholar
  12. Furness RW, Camphuysen KCJ (1997) Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. ICES J Marine Sci 54:726–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Furness RW, Rainbow PS (eds) (1990) Heavy metals in the marine environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  14. Furness RW, Muirhead SJ, Woodburn M (1986) Using bird feathers to measure mercury in the environment: relationship between mercury content and moult. Marine Poll Bull 17:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gochfeld M (1971) Premature feather loss: a new disease of common terns. Kingbird 21:206–211Google Scholar
  16. Gochfeld M (1975) Developmental defects of common terns of western Long Island, New York. Auk 92:58–65Google Scholar
  17. Gochfeld M (1980) Mercury levels in some seabirds of the Humboldt Current, Peru. Environ Poll A 22:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hays H, Risebrough RW (1972) Pollutant concentrations in abnormal young terns from Long Island Sound. Auk 89:19–35Google Scholar
  19. Houghton JT, Callander BA, Varney SK (1992) Climate change 1992. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Hudson RJM, Cherint SA, Watras CJ, Porcella DB (1994) Modeling the biogeochemical cycle of mercury in lakes: the mercury cycling model (MCM) and its application to the MTL study lake. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW (eds) Mercury pollution: Integration and synthesis Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 473–523Google Scholar
  21. Hutton M (1987) Cadmium. In: Hutchinson TC, Meema KM (eds) Lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic in the environment. SCOPE Monograph 31, Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  22. Monteiro LR, Furness RW (1995) Seabirds as monitors of mercury in the marine environment. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:831–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muller MJ, Storer RW (1999) Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 410. The Birds of North America, Inc., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmer RS (ed) (1962) Handbook of North American birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  25. Parmeggiani L (1983) Encyclopedia of occupational health and safety. Intern. Labor Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. Peakall DB (1992) Animal biomarkers as pollution indicators. Chapman & Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. SAS (1995) SAS users’ guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  28. Storer RW, Nuechterlein GL (1992) Western and Clark’s grebe. In: Poole A, F. Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 26. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia/ The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Stout BE, Nuechterlein GL (1999) Red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena). In: Poole A, F. Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 465. The Birds of North America, Inc., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Walsh PM (1990) The use of seabirds as monitors of heavy metals in the marine environment. In: Furness RW, Rainbow PS (eds) Heavy metals in the marine environment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 183–204Google Scholar
  31. Zillioux EJ, Porcella DB, Benoil JM (1993) Mercury cycling and effects in freshwater wetland ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:2245–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Nebraska at KearneyKearneyUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations