Trophic Transfer Efficiency of Methylmercury and Inorganic Mercury to Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush from Its Prey

  • C. P. Madenjian
  • S. R. David
  • D. P. Krabbenhoft
Article

Abstract

Based on a laboratory experiment, we estimated the net trophic transfer efficiency of methylmercury to lake trout Salvelinus namaycush from its prey to be equal to 76.6 %. Under the assumption that gross trophic transfer efficiency of methylmercury to lake trout from its prey was equal to 80 %, we estimated that the rate at which lake trout eliminated methylmercury was 0.000244 day−1. Our laboratory estimate of methylmercury elimination rate was 5.5 times lower than the value predicted by a published regression equation developed from estimates of methylmercury elimination rates for fish available from the literature. Thus, our results, in conjunction with other recent findings, suggested that methylmercury elimination rates for fish have been overestimated in previous studies. In addition, based on our laboratory experiment, we estimated that the net trophic transfer efficiency of inorganic mercury to lake trout from its prey was 63.5 %. The lower net trophic transfer efficiency for inorganic mercury compared with that for methylmercury was partly attributable to the greater elimination rate for inorganic mercury. We also found that the efficiency with which lake trout retained either methylmercury or inorganic mercury from their food did not appear to be significantly affected by the degree of their swimming activity.

References

  1. Bakir F, Damlugi SF, Amin-Zaki L, Murtadha M, Khalidi A, Al-Rawi NY et al (1973) Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq. Science 181:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker DS, Bigham GN (1995) Distribution of mercury in the aquatic food web of Onondaga Lake, New York. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:563–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom NS (1989) Determination of picogram levels of methylmercury by aqueous phase ethylation, followed by cryogenic gas chromatography, with cold vapour atomic fluorescence detection. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:1131–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom NS (1992) On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:1010–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (1993) Performing ecological risk assessments. Lewis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  6. Hammerschmidt CR, Fitzgerald WF (2006) Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of methylmercury in Long Island Sound. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 51:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansen MJ (1999) Lake trout in the Great Lakes: basinwide stock collapse and binational restoration. In: Taylor WW, Ferreri CP (eds) Great Lakes fishery policy and management: a binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East Lannsing, pp 417–453Google Scholar
  8. Harris RC, Rudd JWM, Amyot M, Babiarz CL, Beaty KG, Blanchfield PJ et al (2007) Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:16586–16591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hrenchuk LE, Blanchfield PJ, Paterson MJ, Hintelmann HH (2012) Dietary and waterborne mercury accumulation by yellow perch: a field experiment. Environ Sci Technol 46:509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kannan K, Smith RG, Lee RF, Windom HL, Heitmuller PT, Macauley JM et al (1998) Distribution of total mercury and methyl mercury in water, sediment, and fish from South Florida estuaries. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 34:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacCrimmon HR, Gots BL (1980) Fisheries for charrs. In: Balon EK (ed) Charrs: Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr W. Junk b.v. Publishers, The Hague, pp 797–839Google Scholar
  12. Madenjian CP, David SR, Pothoven SA. Effects of activity and energy budget balancing algorithm on laboratory performance of a fish bioenergetics model. Trans Am Fish Soc (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Madenjian CP, O’Connor DV (2008) Trophic transfer efficiency of mercury to lake whitefish from its prey. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 81:566–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Madenjian CP, Carpenter SR, Rand PS (1994) Why are the PCB concentrations of salmonine individuals from the same lake so highly variable? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:800–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Madenjian CP, Elliott RF, Schmidt LJ, DeSorcie TJ, Hesselberg RJ, Quintal RT et al (1998a) Net trophic transfer efficiency of PCBs to Lake Michigan coho salmon from their prey. Environ Sci Technol 32:3063–3067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Madenjian CP, DeSorcie TJ, Stedman RM (1998b) Ontogenic and spatial patterns in diet and growth of lake trout in Lake Michigan. Trans Am Fish Soc 127:236–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Madenjian CP, O’Connor DV, Nortrup DA (2000) A new approach toward evaluation of fish bioenergetics models. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:1025–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin NV, Olver CH (1980) The lake charr, Salvelinus namaycush. In: Balon EK (ed) Charrs: Salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr W. Junk b.v. Publishers, The Hague, pp 205–277Google Scholar
  19. Mohapatra SP, Nikolova I, Mitchell A (2007) Managing mercury in the Great Lakes: an analytical review of abatement policies. J Environ Manage 83:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norstrom RJ, McKinnon AE, deFreitas ASW (1976) A bioenergetics-based model for pollutant accumulation by fish. Simulation of PCB and methylmercury residue levels in Ottawa River yellow perch (Perca flavescens). J Fish Res Board Can 33:248–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pastorok RA, Bartell SM, Ferson S, Ginzburg LR (2002) Ecological modeling in risk assessment: chemical effects on populations, ecosystems, and landscapes. Lewis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  22. Raymond B, Rossmann R (2009) Total and methyl mercury accumulation in 1994–1995 Lake Michigan lake trout and forage fish. J Great Lakes Res 35:438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodgers DW (1994) You are what you eat and a little bit more: Bioenergetics based models of methylmercury accumulation in fish revisited. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW (eds) Mercury pollution: integration and synthesis. Lewis, Ann Arbor, pp 427–439Google Scholar
  24. Ruohtula M, Miettinen JK (1975) Retention and excretion of 203Hg-labelled methylmercury in rainbow trout. Oikos 26:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sandheinrich MB, Bhavsar SP, Bodaly RA, Drevnick PE, Paul EA (2011) Ecological risk of methylmercury to piscivorous fish of the Great Lakes region. Ecotoxicology 20:1577–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Thomann RV (1989) Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic food chains. Environ Sci Technol 23:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomann RV, Connolly JP (1984) Model of PCB in the Lake Michigan lake trout food chain. Environ Sci Technol 18:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trudel M, Rasmussen JB (1997) Modeling the elimination of mercury by fish. Environ Sci Technol 31:1716–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trudel M, Rasmussen JB (2001) Predicting mercury concentration in fish using mass balance models. Ecol Appl 11:517–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trudel M, Tremblay A, Schetagne R, Rasmussen JB (2000) Estimating food consumption rates of fish using a mercury mass balance model. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Method 1630: methyl mercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Method 1631, revision E: mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry, EPA-821-R-02-019. Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Walleghem JLA, Blanchfield PJ, Hintelmann H (2007) Elimination of mercury by yellow perch in the wild. Environ Sci Technol 41:5895–5901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weis P, Ashley JTF (2007) Contaminants in fish of the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey: size, sex, and seasonal relationships as related to health risks. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wren CD (1986) A review of metal accumulation and toxicity in wild mammals. I. Mercury. Environ Res 40:210–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. P. Madenjian
    • 1
  • S. R. David
    • 2
  • D. P. Krabbenhoft
    • 3
  1. 1.Great Lakes Science CenterUS Geological SurveyAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Wisconsin Water Science CenterUS Geological SurveyMiddletonUSA

Personalised recommendations