Mercury in Tadpoles Collected from Remote Alpine Sites in the Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains, California, USA
- 164 Downloads
Amphibians in alpine wetlands of the Sierra Nevada mountains comprise key components of an aquatic–terrestrial food chain, and mercury contamination is a concern because concentrations in fish from this region exceed thresholds of risk to piscivorous wildlife. Total mercury concentrations were measured in whole tadpoles of the Sierra chorus frog, Pseudacris sierra, two times at 27 sites from high elevations (2786–3375 m) in the southern Sierra Nevada. Median mercury concentrations were 14 ng/g wet weight (154 ng/g dry weight), which were generally low in comparison to tadpoles of 15 other species/location combinations from studies that represented both highly contaminated and minimally contaminated sites. Mercury concentrations in P. sierra were below concentrations known to be harmful in premetamorphic tadpoles of another species and below threshold concentrations for risk to predaceous wildlife. Concentrations in tadpoles were also lower than those observed in predaceous fish in the study region presumably because tadpoles in the present study were much younger (1–2 months) than fish in the other study (3–10 years), and tadpoles represent a lower trophic level than these fish. Mercury concentrations were not related to distance from the adjacent San Joaquin Valley, a source of agricultural and industrial pollutants.
KeywordsMercury Concentration Garter Snake Sierra Nevada Mountain Piscivorous Wildlife Premetamorphic Tadpole
We thank Kerri Stanley for determining tadpole moisture content. We are grateful for the support from Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and we thank many other individuals who contributed to the project: Hassan Basagic, Danny Boiano, Joanna Christion, Annie Esperanza, Amanda Marusich, Rebecca Rising, Carrie Vernon, and Harold Werner. We also thank Deb Chaloud for comments on the manuscript. This research was funded in part by the US EPA through Interagency Agreement DW14989008 with the National Park Service. The article has been approved for publication by the EPA.
- Bradford DF, Stanley K, McConnell LL, Tallent-Halsell NG, Nash MS, Simonich SM (2010) Spatial patterns of atmospherically deposited organic contaminants at high-elevation in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, California. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1056–1066Google Scholar
- Cahill TC, Carroll JJ, Campbell D, Gill TE (1996) Air quality. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to congress, vol. II. Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, pp 1227–1261Google Scholar
- Curtis LR (2003) Sources and chronology of mercury contamination in Cottage Grove Reservoir. Final report for US Army Corps of Engineers, PortlandGoogle Scholar
- Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
- Hayes TP, Kinney JJR, Wheeler NJM (1984) California surface wind climatology. California Air Resources Board, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
- Landers DH, Simonich SL, Jaffe DA, Geiser LH, Campbell DH, Schwindt AR, Schreck CB, Kent ML, Hafner WD, Taylor HE, Hageman KJ, Usenko S, Ackerman LK, Schrlau JE, Rose NL, Blett TF, Erway MM (2008) The fate, transport, and ecological impacts of airborne contaminants in western national parks (USA). US Environmental Protection Agency, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
- One EPA (1991) Metals manual of 1991. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
- Shair FH (1987) Atmospheric tracer experiments aimed at characterizing upslope/downslope flows along the southwestern region of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Final Report Contract No. A4–126-32. California Air Resources Board, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
- Vredenburg VT, Fellers GM, Davidson C (2004) Rana muscosa Camp, 1917b. In: Lannoo M (ed) Amphibian declines; the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 563–566Google Scholar