Ecotoxicology

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 1464–1473 | Cite as

Dietary mercury exposure causes decreased escape takeoff flight performance and increased molt rate in European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)

  • Jenna R. Carlson
  • Daniel Cristol
  • John P. Swaddle
Article

Abstract

Mercury is a widespread and persistent environmental contaminant that occurs in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Recently, songbirds that forage from primarily terrestrial sources have shown evidence of bioaccumulation of mercury, but little research has assessed the effects of mercury on their health and fitness. There are many indications that mercury negatively affects neurological functioning, bioenergetics, and behavior through a variety of mechanisms and in a wide array of avian taxa. Effective flight is crucial to avian fitness and feather molt is an energetically expensive life history trait. Therefore, we investigated whether mercury exposure influenced flight performance and molt in a common songbird, the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Specifically, we dosed the diet of captive starlings with methylmercury cysteine at 0.0, 0.75, or 1.5 μg/g wet weight and recorded changes in flight performance after 1 year of dietary mercury exposure. We also recorded the annual molt of wing feathers. We found that individuals dosed with mercury exhibited decreased escape takeoff flight performance compared with controls and blood mercury was also correlated with an increased rate of molt, which can reduce flight performance and thermoregulatory ability. This study reveals two novel endpoints, flight performance and molt, that may be affected by dietary mercury exposure. These findings suggest a potential impact on wild songbirds exposed to mercury levels comparable to the high dosage levels in the present study. Any decrease in flight efficiency could reduce fitness due to a direct impact on survival during predation events or by decreased efficiency in other critical activities (such as foraging or migration) that require efficient flight.

Keywords

Flight Mercury Molt Sub-lethal effects European starling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company and research was completed with oversight from the South River Science Team, which is a collaboration of state and federal agencies, academic institutions, and environmental interests. This study was also supported by NSF award IOS-1257590. The College of William and Mary provided additional funds. Thank you to Margaret Whitney for dose preparation and analyses. Special thanks S. Laurie Sanderson for advice and to all the graduate and undergraduate researchers who assisted in developing and carrying out this project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alvarez MC, Murphy CA, Rose KA, McCarthy ID, Fuiman LA (2006) Maternal body burdens of methylmercury impair survival skills of offspring in Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus). Aquat Toxicol 80:329–337. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschner M, Syversen T, Souza DO, Rocha JBT, Farina M (2007) Involvement of glutamate and reactive oxygen species in methylmercury neurotoxicity. Braz J Med Biol Res 40:285–291. doi:10.1590/S0100-879X2007000300001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boening DW (2000) Ecological effects, transport, and fate of mercury: a general review. Chemosphere 40:1335–1351. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00283-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouton SN, Frederick PC, Spalding MG, McHill H (1999) Effects of chronic, low concentrations of dietary methylmercury on the behavior of juvenile great egrets. Environ Toxicol 18:1934–1939. doi:10.1002/etc.5620180911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasso RL, Cristol DA (2008) Effects of mercury exposure on the reproductive success of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 17:133–141. doi:10.1007/s10646-007-0163-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke JN, Bergeron CM, Todd BD, Hopkins WA (2010) Effects of mercury on behavior and performance of northern two-lined salamanders (Eurycea bislineata). Environ Poll 158:3546–3551. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2010.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai Y, Liu G, O’Driscoll N (2011) Environmental chemistry and toxicology of mercury. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  8. Cambier S, Benard G, Mesmer-Dudons N, Gonzalez P, Rossignol R, Brethes D, Bourdineaud JP (2009) At environmental doses, dietary methylmercury inhibits mitochondrial energy metabolism in skeletal muscles of the zebra fish (Danio rerio). Int J Biochem Cell Biol 41:791–799. doi:10.1016/j.biocel.2008.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Condon AM, Cristol DA (2009) Feather growth influences blood mercury level of young songbirds. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:395–401. doi:10.1897/08-094.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Criscuolo F, Monaghan P, Proust A, Skorpilová J, Laurie J, Metcalfe NB (2011) Costs of compensation: effect of early life conditions and reproduction on flight performance in zebra finches. Oecologia 167:315–323. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-1986-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cristol DA, Brasso RL, Condon AM, Fovargue RE, Friedman SL, Hallinger KK, Monroe AP, White AE (2008) The movement of aquatic mercury through terrestrial food webs. Science 320:335. doi:10.1126/science.1154082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson A (2003) A detailed analysis of primary feather moult in European starlings—new feather mass increases at a constant rate. Ibis 145:E69–E76. doi:10.1046/j.1474-919X.2003.00161.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson A, Hinsley SA, Ferns PN, Bosner RH, Eccleston L (2000) Rate of moult affects feather quality: a mechanism linking current reproductive effort to future survival. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2093–2098. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dial KP, Jackson BE, Segre P (2008) A fundamental avian wing-stroke provides a new perspective on the evolution of flight. Nature 451:985–989. doi:10.1038/nature06517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickens MJ, Romero LM (2009) Wild European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) adjust to captivity with sustained sympathetic nervous system drive and a reduced flight-to-flight response. Phys Biochem Zool 82:603–610. doi:10.1086/603633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driscoll C, Han YJ, Chen CY, Evers DC, Lambert KF, Holsen TM, Kamman NC, Munson RK (2007) Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the Northeastern United States. Bioscience 57:17–28. doi:10.1641/b570106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evers DC, Savoy LJ, DeSorbo CR, Yates DE, Hanson W, Taylor KM, Siegel LS, Cooley JH Jr, Bank MS, Major A, Munney K, Mower BF, Vogel HS, Schoch N, Pokras M, Goodale MW, Fair J (2008) Adverse effects from environmental mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:69–81. doi:10.1007/s10646-007-0168-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franceschini MD, Lane OP, Evers DC, Reed JM, Hoskins B, Romero LM (2009) The corticosterone stress response and mercury contamination in free-living tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor. Ecotoxicology 18:514–521. doi:10.1007/s10646-009-0309-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frederick P, Jayasena N (2011) Altered pairing behaviour and reproductive success in white ibises exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations of methylmercury. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:1851–1857. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman AS, Chen H, Rabuck LD, Zirkin BR (1998) Accumulation of dietary methylmercury in the testes of the adult brown Norway rats: impaired testicular and epididymal function. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:867–871. doi:10.1002/etc.5620170514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fryday SL, Hart ADM, Marczylo TH (1995) Effects of sublethal exposure to an organophosphate on the flying performance of captive starlings. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 55:366–373. doi:10.1007/bf00206674 Google Scholar
  22. Giesy J, Feyk L, Jones P, Kannan K, Sanderson T (2003) Review of the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in birds. Pure Appl Chem 75:2287–2303. doi:10.1351/pac200375112287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ginn HB, Melville DS (1983) Moult in birds. British Trust for Ornithology, NorfolkGoogle Scholar
  24. Glaser V, Leipnitz G, Straliotto MR, Oliveira J, dos Santos VV, Duval Wannmacher CM, de Bern AF, Teixeira Rocha JB, Farina M, Latini A (2010) Oxidative stress-mediated inhibition of brain creatine kinase activity by methylmercury. Neurotoxicology 31:454–460. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2010.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hahn T, Swingle J, Wingfield J, Ramenofsky M (1992) Adjustments of the prebasic molt schedule in birds. Ornis Scand 23:314–321. doi:10.2307/3676655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hallinger KK, Cristol DA (2011) The role of weather in mediating the effect of mercury exposure on reproductive success of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 20:1368–1377. doi:10.1007/s10646-011-0694-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hallinger KK, Zabransky DJ, Kazmer KA, Cristol DA (2010) Birdsong differs between mercury-polluted and reference sites. Auk 127:156–161. doi:10.1525/auk.2009.09058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hawley DM, Hallinger KK, Cristol DA (2009) Compromised immune competence in free-living tree swallows exposed to mercury. Ecotoxicology 18:499–503. doi:10.1007/s10646-009-0307-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath JA, Frederick PC (2005) Relationships among mercury concentrations, hormones, and nesting effort of white ibises (Eudocimus albus) in the Florida everglades. Auk 122:255–267. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2005)122[0255:RAMCHA]2.0.CO;2
  30. Hoffman DJ, Heinz GH (1998) Effects of mercury and selenium on glutathione metabolism and oxidative stress in mallard ducks. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:161–166. doi:10.1897/1551-5028(1998)017<0161:eomaso>2.3.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hontela A, Rasmussen JB, Audet C, Chevalier G (1992) Impaired cortisol response in fish from environments polluted by PAHs, PCBs, and mercury. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 22:278–283. doi:10.1007/bf00212086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson AK, Evers DC, Folsom SB, Condon AM, Diener J, Goodrick LF, McGann AJ, Schmerfeld J, Cristol DA (2011) Mercury exposure in terrestrial birds far downstream of an historical point source. Environ Poll 159:3302–3308. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jakka NM, Rao TG, Rao JV (2007) Locomotor behavioral response of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) to subacute mercury stress monitored by video tracking system. Drug Chem Toxicol 30:383–397. doi:10.1080/01480540701522551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laties VG, Evans HL (1980) Methylmercury induced changes in operant discrimination by the pigeon. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 214:620–628Google Scholar
  35. Leblond VS, Hontela A (1999) Effects of in vitro exposures to cadmium, mercury, zinc, and 1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane on steroidogenesis by dispersed interrenal cells of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Toxicol Appl Pharm 157:16–22. doi:10.1006/taap.1999.8660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis CA, Cristol DA, Swaddle JP, Varian Ramos CW, Zwollo P (2013) Decreased immune response in zebra finches exposed to sublethal doses of mercury. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 64:327–336. doi:10.1007/s00244-012-9830-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lima SL (1993) Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on escape from predatory attack: a survey of North American birds. Wilson Bull 105:1–47Google Scholar
  38. Lodenius M, Solonen T (2013) The use of feathers of birds of prey as indicators of metal pollution. Ecotoxicology 22:1319–1334. doi:10.1007/s10646-013-1128-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Metcalfe NB, Ure SE (1995) Diurnal-variation in-flight performance and hence potential predation risk in small birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 261:395–400. doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nam D, Rutkiewicz J, Basu N (2012) Multiple metals exposure and neurotoxic risk in bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from two Great Lakes states. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:623–631. doi:10.1002/etc.1712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nocera JJ, Taylor PD (1998) In situ behavioral response of common loons associated with elevated mercury (Hg) exposure. Conserv Ecol [Ecology and Society] 2(2):10Google Scholar
  42. Nolan V, Ketterson ED, Ziegenfus C, Chandler CR, Cullen DP (1992) Testosterone and avian life histories: effects of experimentally elevated testosterone on molt and survival in male dark-eyed juncos. Condor 94:364–370. doi:10.2307/1369209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsen B, Evers DC, DeSorbo C (2000) Effect of methylated mercury on the diving frequency of the common loon. J Ecol Res 2:67–72Google Scholar
  44. Pyle P (1997) Identification guide to North American birds. Slate Creek Press, BolinasGoogle Scholar
  45. Ralph CJ, Geupel GR, Pyle P, Martin TE, DeSante DF (1993) Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. General technical report PSW-GTR-144. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Albany, CAGoogle Scholar
  46. Rayner J (1985) Bounding and undulating flight in birds. J Theor Biol 117:47–77. doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(85)80164-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Renner M (2006) Repeatable measures of take-off flight performance in auklets. J Zool 268:395–404. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2005.00036.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rimmer CC, McFarland KP, Evers DC, Miller EK, Aubry Y, Busby D, Taylor RJ (2005) Mercury concentrations in Bicknell’s thrush and other insectivorous passerines in Montane forests of northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:223–240. doi:10.1007/s10646-004-6270-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seewagen CL (2010) Threats of environmental mercury to birds: knowledge gaps and priorities for future research. Bird Conserv Int 20:112–123. doi:10.1017/S095927090999030X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spalding M, Frederick P, McGill H, Bouton S, Richey L, Schumacher I, Blackmore C, Harrison J (2000) Histologic, neurologic, and immunologic effects of methylmercury in captive great egrets. J Wildl Dis 36:423–435. doi:10.7589/0090-3558-36.3.423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Swaddle JP, Witter MS (1997) The effects of molt on the flight performance, body mass, and behavior of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris): an experimental approach. Can J Zool 75:1135–1146. doi:10.1139/z97-136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swaddle JP, Witter MS, Cuthill IC, Budden A, McCowen P (1996) Plumage condition affects flight performance in common starlings: implications for developmental homeostasis, abrasion and moult. J Avian Biol 27:103–111. doi:10.2307/3677139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swaddle JP, Williams EV, Rayner JMV (1999) The effect of simulated flight feather moult on escape take-off performance in starlings. J Avian Biol 30:351–358. doi:10.2307/3677007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tobalske BW, Puccinelli LA, Sheridan DC (2005) Contractile activity of the pectoralis in the zebra finch according to mode and velocity of flap-bounding flight. J Exp Biol 208:2895–2901. doi:10.1242/jeb.01734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vagasi CI, Pap PL, Tokolyi J, Szekely E, Barta Z (2011) Correlates of variation in flight feather quality in the great tit Parus major. Ardea 99:53–60. doi:10.5253/078.099.0107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Varian-Ramos CW, Swaddle JP, Cristol DA (2014) Mercury reduces avian reproductive success and imposes selection: an experimental study with adult- or lifetime-exposure in zebra finch. PLoS ONE 9:e95674. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Veasey JS, Metcalfe NB, Houston DC (1998) A reassessment of the effect of body mass upon flight speed and predation risk in birds. Anim Behav 56:883–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wada H, Cristol DA, McNabb FMA, Hopkins WA (2009) Suppressed adrenocortical responses and thyroid hormone levels in birds near a mercury-contaminated river. Environ Sci Technol 43:6031–6038. doi:10.1021/es803707f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiersma P, Salomons HM, Verhulst S (2005) Metabolic adjustments to increasing foraging costs of starlings in a closed economy. J Exp Biol 208:4099. doi:10.1242/jeb.01855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Witter MS, Cuthill IC, Bonser RHC (1994) Experimental investigations of mass dependent predation risk in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Anim Behav 48:201–222. doi:10.1006/anbe.1994.1227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolfe M, Norman D (1998) Effects of waterborne mercury on terrestrial wildlife at Clear Lake: evaluation and testing of a predictive model. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:214–227. doi:10.1002/etc.5620170213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenna R. Carlson
    • 1
  • Daniel Cristol
    • 1
  • John P. Swaddle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Institute for Integrative Bird Behavior StudiesThe College of William and MaryWilliamsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations