Advertisement

Species Differences in the Sensitivity of Avian Embryos to Methylmercury

  • Gary H. Heinz
  • David J. Hoffman
  • Jon D. Klimstra
  • Katherine R. Stebbins
  • Shannon L. Kondrad
  • Carol A. Erwin
Article

Abstract

We injected doses of methylmercury into the air cells of eggs of 26 species of birds and examined the dose–response curves of embryo survival. For 23 species we had adequate data to calculate the median lethal concentration (LC50). Based on the dose–response curves and LC50s, we ranked species according to their sensitivity to injected methylmercury. Although the previously published embryotoxic threshold of mercury in game farm mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) has been used as a default value to protect wild species of birds, we found that, relative to other species, mallard embryos are not very sensitive to injected methylmercury; their LC50 was 1.79 μg/g mercury on a wet-weight basis. Other species we categorized as also exhibiting relatively low sensitivity to injected methylmercury (their LC50s were 1 μg/g mercury or higher) were the hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and laughing gull (Larus atricilla). Species we categorized as having medium sensitivity (their LC50s were greater than 0.25 μg/g mercury but less than 1 μg/g mercury) were the clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), chicken (Gallus gallus), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), herring gull (Larus argentatus), common tern (Sterna hirundo), royal tern (Sterna maxima), Caspian tern (Sterna caspia), great egret (Ardea alba), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and anhinga (Anhinga anhinga). Species we categorized as exhibiting high sensitivity (their LC50s were less than 0.25 μg/g mercury) were the American kestrel (Falco sparverius), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor). For mallards, chickens, and ring-necked pheasants (all species for which we could compare the toxicity of our injected methylmercury with that of published reports where methylmercury was fed to breeding adults and was deposited into the egg by the mother), we found the injected mercury to be more toxic than the same amount of mercury deposited naturally by the mother. The rank order of sensitivity of these same three species to methylmercury was, however, the same whether the methylmercury was injected or maternally deposited in the egg (i.e., the ring-necked pheasant was more sensitive than the chicken, which was more sensitive than the mallard). It is important to note that the dose–response curves and LC50s derived from our egg injections are useful for ranking the sensitivities of various species but are not identical to the LC50s that would be observed if the mother bird had put the same concentrations of mercury into her eggs; the LC50s of maternally deposited methylmercury would be higher.

Keywords

Methylmercury Wild Bird Common Tern Great Egret Clapper Rail 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s Ecosystem Restoration Program (grant no. ERP–02D-C12) with additional support from the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. We thank Donna Podger and Carol Adkins of the California Bay-Delta Authority for help and project support. Steve Schwarzbach and Tom Suchanek provided much appreciated guidance and support during the development of the project, and Collin Eagles-Smith and Tom Maurer handled much of the work with reports and budget matters. We thank Kevin Brittingham, Michael Hammond, Michael Hoffman, and Dan Murray for their help in conducting the laboratory parts of the study and Julie Yee and Linda Green for statistical advice. We are very grateful to the following people who helped in one way or another in the collection and shipping of eggs to us: Ray Adams, Josh Ackerman, Terry Adelsbach, David Allen, Tom Augspurger, Wayne Bauer, Alicia Berlin, Sue Cameron, Melissa Duron, Collin Eagles-Smith, David Evers, Karen Gaines, Brian Heinz, Patricia Heinz, Michael Koterba, Jerry Longcore, Frank McGilvrey, Peter McGowan, Jason Miller, Jane Nicolich, Holliday Obrecht, Matthew Perry, Michael Rickard, Darren Rumbold, Lucas Savoy, and Paul Spitzer. Barnett Rattner and Natalie Karouna-Renier provided helpful reviews of the manuscript.

References

  1. Abbott WS (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol 18:265–267Google Scholar
  2. Borg K, Wanntorp H, Erne K, Hanko E (1969) Alkyl mercury poisoning in terrestrial Swedish wildlife. Viltrevy 6:301–379Google Scholar
  3. Burgess NM, Meyer MW (2008) Methylmercury exposure associated with reduced productivity in common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eisler R (2000) Handbook of chemical risk assessment: health hazards to humans, plants, and animals. Volume 1, metals. Lewis, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  5. Evers DC, Savoy LJ, DeSorbo CR et al (2008) Adverse effects from environmental mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fimreite N (1971) Effects of dietary methylmercury on ring-necked pheasants. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 9, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 39 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Fimreite N (1974) Mercury contamination of aquatic birds in northwestern Ontario. J Wildl Manage 38:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heinz G (1974) Effects of low dietary levels of methyl mercury on mallard reproduction. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 11:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heinz GH (1979) Methylmercury: reproductive and behavioral effects on three generations of mallard ducks. J Wildl Manage 43:94–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ (1998) Methylmercury chloride and selenomethionine interactions on health and reproduction in mallards. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ (2003) Embryotoxic thresholds of mercury: estimates from individual mallard eggs. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 44:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ, Kondrad SL, Erwin CA (2006) Factors affecting the toxicity of methylmercury injected into eggs. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 50:264–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henny CJ, Hill EF, Hoffman DJ, Spalding MG, Grove RA (2002) Nineteenth century mercury: hazard to wading birds and cormorants of the Carson River, Nevada. Ecotoxicology 11:213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill EF, Henny CJ, Grove RA (2008) Mercury and drought along the lower Carson River, Nevada: II. Snowy egret and black-crowned night-heron reproduction on Lahontan Reservoir, 1997–2006. Ecotoxicology 17:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyer MW, Evers DC, Hartigan JJ, Rasmussen PS (1998) Patterns of common loon (Gavia immer) mercury exposure, reproduction, and survival in Wisconsin, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nishimura M, Urakawa N (1976) A transport mechanism of methyl mercury to egg albumen in laying Japanese quail. Jpn J Vet Sci 38:433–444Google Scholar
  17. Rumbold DG, Niemczyk SL, Fink LE, Chandraesekhar T, Harkanson B, Laine KA (2001) Mercury in eggs and feathers of great egrets (Ardea albus) from the Florida Everglades. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41:501–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scheuhammer AM (1987) The chronic toxicity of aluminum, cadmium, mercury, and lead in birds: a review. Environ Pollut 46:263–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scheuhammer AM, Meyer MW, Sandheinrich MB, Murray MW (2007) Effects of environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. Ambio 36:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scheuhammer AM, Perrault JA, Bond DE (2001) Mercury, methylmercury, and selenium concentrations in eggs of common loons (Gavia immer) from Canada. Environ Monit Assess 72:79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwarzbach SE, Albertson JD, Thomas CM (2006) Effects of predation, flooding, and contamination on reproductive success of California clapper rails (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) in San Francisco Bay. Auk 123:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simpson PG, Hopkins TE, Haque R (1973) Binding of methylmercury chloride to the model peptide, N-acetyl-l-cysteine. A proton magnetic study. J Phys Chem 77:2282–2285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tejning S (1967) Biological effects of methyl mercury dicyandiamide-treated grain in the domestic fowl Gallus gallus L. Oikos (Suppl 8):1–116Google Scholar
  24. Thompson DR (1996) Mercury in birds and terrestrial mammals. In: Beyer WN, Heinz GH, Redmond-Norwood AW (eds) Environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 341–356Google Scholar
  25. Wiemeyer SN, Lamont TG, Bunck CM et al (1984) Organochlorine pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, and mercury residues in bald eagle eggs—1969–79—and their relationships to shell thinning and reproduction. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 13:529–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiener JG, Krabbenhoft DP, Heinz GH, Scheuhammer AM (2003) Ecotoxicology of mercury. In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA Jr, Cairns J Jr (eds) Handbook of ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 409–463Google Scholar
  27. Wolfe MF, Schwarzbach S, Sulaiman RA (1998) Effects of mercury on wildlife: a comprehensive review. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:146–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary H. Heinz
    • 1
  • David J. Hoffman
    • 1
  • Jon D. Klimstra
    • 1
  • Katherine R. Stebbins
    • 1
  • Shannon L. Kondrad
    • 1
  • Carol A. Erwin
    • 1
  1. 1.US Geological SurveyPatuxent Wildlife Research CenterBeltsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations