, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 906–917

Do estuaries pose a toxic contamination risk for wading birds?

  • J. T. Smith
  • L. A. Walker
  • R. F. Shore
  • S. E. A. le V. dit Durell
  • P. D. Howe
  • M. Taylor


The impact of potentially toxic chemicals on wildlife is commonly assessed by comparing the intake of the contaminant with the “no observable effects level” (NOAEL) of intake. It is known, however, that there are considerable uncertainties inherent in this method. This study presents a Monte-Carlo based model to assess the degree of risk posed to birds (dunlin, Calidris alpina) from important estuarine habitats, and to show the limitations of such risk assessments, particularly with regard to data availability. The model was applied to predict the uptake of metals (Hg, Pb) in this shorebird species in Poole Harbour and the Severn Estuary/Bristol Channel, UK, two internationally important shorebird habitats. The results show that in both areas, Pb and Hg concentrations may pose an ecologically relevant toxic risk to wading birds. For Pb, uncertainty in NOAEL values dominates the overall uncertainty. Use of lethal toxicity data (LD50/100) was investigated as a method for assessing sub-lethal impacts from Hg. It was found that this method led to a significant under-estimate of the potential impact of Hg contamination, compared with direct estimation of NOAEL.


Mercury Lead Probabilistic modelling Estuaries Reproductive toxicity Dunlin Bird 

Supplementary material

10646_2009_352_MOESM1_ESM.doc (194 kb)
(DOC 193 kb)


  1. Bryan GW, Langston WJ (1992) Bioavailability, accumulation and effects of heavy metals in sediments with special reference to United Kingdom estuaries: a review. Environ Pollut 76:89–131. doi:10.1016/0269-7491(92)90099-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bull KR, Roberts RD, Inskip MJ, Goodman GT (1977) mercury concentrations in soil, grass, earthworms and small mammals near an industrial Emission Source. Environ Pollut 12:135–140. doi:10.1016/0013-9327(77)90016-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bull KR, Every WJ, Freestone P, Hall JR, Osborn D, Cooke AS et al (1983) Alkyl lead pollution and bird mortalities on the Mersey Estuary, UK, 1979–1981 Environmental Pollution Series A. Ecol Biol 31:239–259Google Scholar
  4. Cox GM, Gibbons JM, Wood ATA, Craigon J, Ramsden SJ, Crout NMJ (2006) Towards the systematic simplification of mechanistic models. Ecol Model 198:240–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crane M, Ward RM, McInnes RJ (2005) Potential risks to shorebirds from exposure to contaminants in the Severn estuary, UK: a screening level study. English Nature, pp 65Google Scholar
  6. Duquesne S, Newton LC, Giusti L, Marriott SB, Stärk H-J, Bird DJ (2006) Evidence for declining levels of heavy-metals in the Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel UK and their spatial distribution in sediments. Environ Pollut 143:187–196. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2005.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durell S, Stillman RA, Caldow RWG, McGrorty S, West AD, Humphreys J (2006) Modelling the effect of environmental change on shorebirds: a case study on Poole Harbour, UK. Biol Conserv 131:459–473. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferns PN, Anderson JI (1997) Lead in the diet and body tissues of dunlins Calidris alpina from the Bristol Channel, UK. Environ Pollut 96:35–42. doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(97)00008-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goss-Custard JD, McGrorty S, Pearson B, Clarke RT, Rispin WE, Durell SEALVd (1988) Prediction of post-barrage densities of birds, vol 4, Birds, Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  10. ISI (2005) ISI Web of KnowledgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Langston WJ, Chesman BS, Burt GR, Hawkins SJ, Readman J, Worsfold P (2003a) Characterisation of the south west european marine sites: the severn Estuary pSAC, SPA. Occasional Publications of the MBA No. 13. 13. Marine Biological Association, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  12. Langston WJ, Chesman BS, Burt GR, Hawkins SJ, Readman J, Worsfold P (2003b) Characterisation of the South west european marine sites: Poole harbour SPA. Occasional publications of the MBA No. 12. Marine Biological Association, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  13. Morgan JE, Morgan AJ (1991) Differences in the accumulated metal concentrations in 2 epigeic earthworm species (Lumbricus-Rubellus and Dendrodrilus-Rubidus) living in contaminated soils. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 47:296–301. doi:10.1007/BF01688655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Muhaya BBM, Leermakers M, Baeyens W (1997) Total mercury and methylmercury in sediments and in the polychaete Nereis diversicolor at Groot Buitenschoor (Scheldt estuary, Belgium). Water Air Soil Pollut 94:109–123Google Scholar
  15. Nagy KA (2001) Food requirements of wild animals: predictive equations for free-living mammals, reptiles and birds. Nutr Abstr Rev Ser B Livest Feeds Feeding 71:21–31Google Scholar
  16. Pain DJ, Sanchez A, Meharg AA (1998) The Donana ecological disaster: contamination of a world heritage estuarine marsh ecosystem with acidified pyrite mine waste. Sci Total Environ 222:45–54. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00290-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pickess BP, Underhill-Day JC (2002) Important birds of Poole harbour. Poole Harbour Study Group, WarehamGoogle Scholar
  18. Pirrie D, Power MR, Rollinson G, Camm GS, Hughes SH, Butcher AR (2003) The spatial distribution and source of arsenic, copper, tin and zinc within the surface sediments of the Fal Estuary, Cornwall, UK. Sedimentology 50(3):579–595. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3091.2003.00566.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollitt MS, Hall C, Holloway SJ, Hearn RD, Marshall PE, Musgrove AJ (2003) The wetland bird survey 2000–01: wildfowl and wader counts. BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, SlimbridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Sample BE, Opresko DM, Suter GW II (1997) Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. oak ridge national laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, pp 217Google Scholar
  21. Sheppard SC, Evenden WG, Schwarz WJ (1995) Ingested soil: bioavailability of sorbed lead, cadmium, cesium, iodine and mercury. J Environ Qual 24:498–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spurgeon DJ (1994) The ecological relevance of the OECD earthworm toxicity test, and its use in establishing soil quality criteria. PhD Thesis, University of Reading, Reading, UK, 1994, pp 273Google Scholar
  23. Stillman RA, West AD Durell SEALVd, Caldow RWG, McGrorty S, Yates M, et al. (2005) Estuary special protection areas—establishing baseline targets for shorebirds. Final report, English Nature, pp 157Google Scholar
  24. US (1999) Environmental Protection Agency Data collection for the hazardous waste identification rule. Sect. 14.0 ecological benchmarks. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, 1999, pp 105Google Scholar
  25. US (2002) Environmental Protection Agency ECOTOXicology database system. office of research and development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002Google Scholar
  26. US (2005) Environmental Protection Agency Ecological soil screening levels for lead. Office of solid waste and emergency response, Washington, DC, 2005, pp 242Google Scholar
  27. USACHPPM (2000) Technical Guide No. 254: standard practice for wildlife toxicity values. US Centre for health promotion and preventative medicine, 2000, pp 45Google Scholar
  28. USEPA (1993) Wildlife exposure factors handbook, vol 1. USEPA, Washington, p 572. doi:EPA/600/R-93/187 Google Scholar
  29. Verdonck FA, Van Sprang PA, Vanrolleghem PA (2005) Uncertainty and precaution in European environmental risk assessment of chemicals. Water Sci Technol 52:227–234. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3297-8_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. World Health Organisation (1989a) Environmental health criteria 85: lead-environmental aspects. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  31. World Health Organisation (1989b) Environmental health criteria 86: mercury—environmental aspects. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  32. World Health Organisation (1990) Health criteria 101: methylmercury. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  33. World Health Organisation (1991) Environmental health criteria 118: inorganic mercury. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. Worrall DH (1984) Diet of the Dunlin Calidris alpina in the Severn Estuary. Bird Study 31:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. T. Smith
    • 1
  • L. A. Walker
    • 2
  • R. F. Shore
    • 2
  • S. E. A. le V. dit Durell
    • 3
  • P. D. Howe
    • 4
  • M. Taylor
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.NERC Centre for Ecology & HydrologyLancaster Environment CentreLancasterUK
  3. 3.DorsetUK
  4. 4.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyHuntingdonUK
  5. 5.Natural EnglandTaunton, SomersetUK

Personalised recommendations