Spatial Trends and Factors Affecting Mercury Bioaccumulation in Freshwater Fishes of Washington State, USA

  • Callie A. MattieuEmail author
  • Chad V. Furl
  • Tanya M. Roberts
  • Michael Friese


Twenty-four lakes in Washington State, United States, were sampled for largemouth and smallmouth bass as well as water chemistry parameters during 2005 to 2009 to evaluate trends in mercury (Hg) concentrations. We analyzed spatial patterns in bass Hg levels across a gradient of land and climate types, lake chemistry parameters, and physical watershed characteristics to identify factors influencing Hg bioaccumulation. Across the state, bass Hg levels followed rainfall patterns and were statistically greater on the coastal west side of the state and lowest in the drier eastern region. Lake and watershed variables with the strongest correlations to Hg bioaccumulation in bass were annual watershed precipitation (+) and lake alkalinity (–). Principal component analysis (PCA) explaining 50.3 % of the variance in the dataset indicated that wet, forested landscapes were more likely to contain lakes with greater fish Hg levels than alkaline lakes in drier agriculture-dominated or open space areas. The PCA did not show wetland abundance and lake DOC levels as variables influencing bass Hg levels, but these were generally associated with small, shallow lakes containing greater chlorophyll levels. The effect of in-lake productivity may have counteracted the role of wetlands in Hg bioaccumulation among this study’s lakes.


Standard Length Ground Moraine Smallmouth Bass Cascade Mountain Olympic Peninsula 
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.


  1. 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
  2. Chasar LC, Scudder BC, Stewart AR, Bell AH, Aiken GR (2009) Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems 3: trophic dynamics and methylmercury bioaccumulation. Environ Sci Technol 43:2733–2739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen CY, Stemberger RS, Kamman NC, Mayes BM, Folt CL (2005) Patterns of Hg bioaccumulation and transfer in aquatic food webs across multi-lake studies in the Northeast US. Ecotoxicology 14:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Driscoll CT, Han Y-J, Chen CY, Evers DC, Lambert KF, Holsen TM et al (2007) Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the Northeastern United States. Bioscience 57:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories. vol. 1: Field sampling and analysis (3rd ed). EPA-823-B-00-007. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) 2008 Biennial national listing of fish advisories. EPA-823-F-09-007Google Scholar
  7. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Primary distinguishing characteristics of level III ecoregions of the continental United StatesGoogle Scholar
  8. Evers DC, Kaplan JD, Meyer MW, Reaman PS, Braselton WE, Major A et al (1998) Geographic trend in mercury measured in common loon feathers. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evers DC, Han Y-J, Driscoll CT, Kamman NC, Goodale MW, Fallon Lambert K et al (2007) Biological mercury hotspots in the Northeastern United States and Southeastern Canada. Bioscience 57:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Furl CV, Colman JA, Bothner MH (2010) Mercury sources to Lake Ozette and Lake Dickey: highly contaminated remote coastal lakes, Washington State, USA. Water Air Soil Pollut 208:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grieb TM, Driscoll CT, Gloss SP, Schofield CL, Bowie GL, Porcella DB (1990) Factors affecting mercury accumulation in fish in the Upper Michigan Peninsula. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:919–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grigal DF (2002) Inputs and outputs of mercury from terrestrial watersheds: a review. Environ Rev 10:1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hammerschmidt CR, Fitzgerald WF (2006) Methylmercury in freshwater fish linked to atmospheric mercury deposition. Environ Sci Technol 40:7764–7770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanten RP Jr, Neumann RM, Ward SM, Carley RJ, Perkins CR, Pirrie R (1998) Relationships between concentrations of mercury in largemouth bass and physical and chemical characteristics of Connecticut lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 127:807–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris RC, Rudd JM, 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
  16. Huggett DB, Stevens JA, Allgood JC, Lutken CB, Grace CA, Benson WH (2001) Mercury in sediment and fish from North Mississippi lakes. Chemosphere 42:923–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katner A, Sun M-H, Suffet M (2010) An evaluation of mercury levels in Louisiana fish: trends and public health issues. Sci Total Environ 408:5707–5714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, Holoka MH (2003) Effect of pH on mercury uptake by an aquatic bacterium: implications for Hg cycling. Environ Sci Technol 37:2941–2946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolka RK, Nater EA, Grigal DF, Verry ES (1999) Atmospheric inputs of mercury and organic carbon into a forested upland bog watershed. Water Air Soil Pollut 113:273–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lange TR, Royals HE, Connor LL (1993) Influence of water chemistry on mercury concentration in largemouth bass from Florida lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 122:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin C-J, Pehkonen SO (1999) The chemistry of atmospheric mercury: a review. Atmos Environ 33:2067–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McBride D (2003) Statewide bass advisory. Washington State Department of Health, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  23. McNab WH, Avers PE (1994) Ecological subregions of the United States. USFS Report WO-WSA-5Google Scholar
  24. Miller EK, Vanarsdale A, Keeler GJ, Chalmers A, Poissant L, Kamman NC et al (2005) Estimation and mapping of wet and dry mercury deposition across Northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munthe J, Bodaly RA, Branfireun BA, Driscoll CT, Gilmour CC, Harris R et al (2007) Recovery of mercury-contaminated fisheries. Ambio 36:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Atmospheric Deposition Program NRSP-3 (2011) NADP Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  27. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1985) Narrative summaries, tables, and maps for each state with overview of state climatologist programs (3rd ed). vol. 2Google Scholar
  28. Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Ann Assoc Am Geog 77:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orihel DM, Paterson MJ, Blanchfield PJ, Bodaly RA, Hintelmann H (2007) Experimental evidence of a linear relationship between inorganic mercury loading and methylmercury accumulation by aquatic biota. Environ Sci Technol 41:4952–4958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pacyna EG, Pacyna JM, Steenhuisen F, Wilson S (2006) Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000. Atmos Environ 40:4048–4063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pickhardt PC, Folt CL, Chen CY, Klaue B, Blum JD (2002) Algal blooms reduce the uptake of toxic methylmercury in freshwater food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:4419–4423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porvari P, Verta M, Munthe J, Haapanen M (2003) Forestry practices increase mercury and methyl mercury output from boreal forest catchments. Environ Sci Technol 37:2389–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prestbo EM, Gay DA (2009) Wet deposition of mercury in the U.S. and Canada, 1996–2005: results and analysis of the NADP mercury deposition network (MDN). Atmos Environ 43:4223–4233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rose J, Hutcheson MS, West CR, Pancorbo O, Hulme K, Cooperman A et al (1999) Fish mercury distribution in Massachusetts, USA Lakes. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1370–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rypel AL (2010) Mercury concentrations in lentic fish populations related to ecosystem and watershed characteristics. Ambio 39:14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sackett DK, Aday DD, Rice JA (2009) A statewide assessment of mercury dynamics in North Carolina water bodies and fish. Trans Am Fish Soc 138:1328–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seiders K (2006) Quality assurance project plan: Measuring mercury trends in freshwater fish in Washington State. Publication No 06-03-103, Washington State Department of Ecology, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  38. Selin NE (2009) Global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: A review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simoneau M, Lucotte M, Garceau S, Laliberte D (2005) Fish growth rates modulate mercury concentrations in walleye (Sander vitreus) from eastern Canadian lakes. Environ Res 98:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simonin HA, Loukmas JJ, Skinner LC, Roy KM (2008) Lake variability: Key factors controlling mercury concentrations in New York State fish. Environ Pollut 154:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stahl LL, Snyder BD, Olsen AR, Pitt JL (2009) Contaminants in fish tissue from US lakes and reservoirs: A national probabilistic study. Environ Monit Assess 150:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sveinsdottir AY, Mason RP (2005) Factors controlling mercury and methylmercury concentrations in largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and other fish from Maryland reservoirs. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 49:528–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warner KA, Bonzongo JJ, Roden EE, Ward GM, Green AC, Chaubey I et al (2005) Effect of watershed parameters on mercury distribution in different environmental compartments in the Mobile Alabama River Basin, USA. Sci Total Environ 347:187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Watras CJ, Back RC, Halvorsen S, Hudson RJM, Morrison KA, Wente SP (1998) Bioaccumulation of mercury in pelagic freshwater food webs. Sci Total Environ 219:183–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiener JG, Fitzgerald WF, Watras CJ, Rada RG (1990) Partitioning and bioavailability of mercury in an experimentally acidified Wisconsin lake. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiener JG, Knights BC, Sandheinrich MB, Jeremiason JD, Brigham ME, Engstrom DR et al (2006) Mercury in soils, lakes, and fish in Voyageurs National Park (Minnesota): Importance of atmospheric deposition and ecosystem factors. Environ Sci Technol 40:6261–6268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Xun L, Campell NER, Rudd JWM (1987) Measurements of specific rates of net methyl mercury production in the water column and surface sediments of acidified and circumneutral lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44:750–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Callie A. Mattieu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chad V. Furl
    • 1
  • Tanya M. Roberts
    • 1
  • Michael Friese
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington State Department of EcologyOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations