Advertisement

Do songbirds in wetlands show higher mercury bioaccumulation relative to conspecifics in non-wetland habitats?

  • Rebecka BrassoEmail author
  • Katie Ann Rittenhouse
  • Virginia L. Winder
Article

Abstract

Environmental conditions in wetlands facilitate favorable biogeochemical conditions for the conversion of inorganic mercury into methylmercury. For this reason, wetlands are increasingly classified as mercury hotspots, places where biota exhibit elevated mercury concentrations. While it is clear that wetlands play an important role in methylmercury production, factors such as geographic variation in mercury deposition, wetland type, and trophic dynamics can cause variation in mercury dynamics and bioaccumulation in biota occupying wetlands or connected to wetland trophic systems. Here, we use songbirds as bioindicators in a two-pronged approach aimed at evaluating the state of our understanding of mercury bioaccumulation by songbirds in wetland ecosystems. First, we use a case study in southeast Missouri to compare blood mercury concentrations in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) and eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) occupying wetland and non-wetland habitats to test the hypothesis that songbirds in wetlands will have higher mercury bioaccumulation than those in non-wetlands. Adult tree swallows in wetlands had significantly higher blood mercury concentrations than those in non-wetlands; however, no difference between ecosystems was detected in eastern bluebirds. Second, we present a review of the current literature on mercury in songbirds in wetland ecosystems across North America. Mercury concentrations in songbirds varied among wetland types and with geographic location, often in an unpredictable manner. Mercury concentrations in songbird blood varied 3–10 fold at locations separated only by ~10 to several hundred kilometers. This magnitude of difference in blood mercury concentrations among wetlands exceeds documented differences between wetland and non-wetland ecosystems. Therefore, we caution against the automatic assumption that songbirds occupying wetlands will have higher mercury bioaccumulation than conspecifics living in other habitats.

Keywords

Bioaccumulation Blood mercury Eastern bluebird Estuary Freshwater wetland Salt marsh 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank K. Cordell at Duck Creek Conservation Area for providing access to the site and workshop as well as employee assistance in setting up the nestbox trail. Kathy and Cliff Ham offered complete access to their farm property in Wayne County, MO (non-wetland site) and have been supportive of our research at Southeast Missouri State University (SEMO), for which we are incredibly grateful. A portion of our nestboxes were donated to R. Brasso by C. Fiedler, others were constructed for the project by D. Wood at SEMO. Field assistance was provided by SEMO graduate student K. Hixson and undergraduates L. Probst and E. Cordell. We would like to thank D. Cristol and D. Evers for inviting us to submit to this special issue.

Funding

Funding and support of laboratory and fieldwork awarded to R. Brasso from the Grants Research Funding Committee and College of Science, Technology, and Agriculture at Southeast Missouri State University. Additional funding provided by a Graduate Research Scholarship to K. Rittenhouse from the Audubon Society of Missouri (2017). Samples were collected in accordance with federal (#23903), state (Missouri Dept of Conservation, #16685, 17314), Missouri Dept of Natural Resources, and IACUC (Southeast Missouri State 16-001) permits awarded to R. Brasso.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ackerman JT, Eagles-Smith CA (2010) Agricultural wetlands as potential hotspots for mercury bioaccumulation: experimental evidence using caged fish. Environ Sci Technol 44:1451–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman JT, Eagles-Smith CA, Herzog MP, Hartman CA, Peterson SH, Evers DC, Jackson AK, Elliott JE, Vander Pol SS, Bryan CE (2016) Avian mercury exposure and toxicological risk across western North America: a synthesis. Sci Total Environ 568:749–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit JM, Gilmour CC, Mason RP, Heyes A (1999) Sulfide controls on mercury speciation and bioavailability to methylating bacteria in sediment pore waters. Environ Sci Technol 33:951–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouland AJ, White AE, Lonabaugh KP, Varian-Ramos CW, Cristol DA (2012) Female-biased offspring sex ratios in birds at a mercury-contaminated river. J Avian Biol 43:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasso RL, Cristol DA (2008) Effects of mercury exposure on the reproductive success of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 17:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks RT (2000) Annual and seasonal variation and the effects of hydroperiod on benthic macroinvertebrates of seasonal forest (‘vernal’) ponds in ventral Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 20:707–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi SC, Bartha R (1993) Cobalamin-mediated mercury methylation by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans LS. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:290–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi SC, Chase Jr T, Bartha R (1994) Metabolic pathways leading to mercury methylation in Desulfovibrio desulfuricans LS. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:4072–4077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chumchal MW, Drenner RW (2015) An environmental problem hidden in plain sight? Small human-made ponds, emergent insects, and mercury contamination of biota in the Great Plains. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1197–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chumchal MW, Drenner RW, Greenhill FM, Kennedy JH, Courville AE, Gober AA, Lossau LO (2017) Recovery of aquatic insect-mediated methylmercury flux from ponds following drying disturbance. Environ Toxicol Chem 9999:1–5Google Scholar
  11. Condon AM, Cristol DA (2009) Feather growth influences blood mercury level of young songbirds. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:395–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowardin LM, Golet FC (1995) US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: a review. Vegetation 118:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 320:35–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cristol DA, Smith FM, Varian-Ramos CW, Watts BD (2011) Mercury levels of Nelson’s and saltmarsh sparrows at wintering grounds in Virginia, USA. Ecotoxicology 20:1773–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driscoll CT, Han Y-J, Chen CY, Evers DC, Fallon Lambert K, Holsen TM, Neil C, Kamman NC, Munson RK (2007) Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the northeastern United States. Bioscience 57:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driscoll CT, Mason RP, Chan HM, Jacob DJ, Pirrone N (2013) Mercury as a global pollutant: sources, pathways, and effects. Environ Sci Technol 47:4967–4983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagles-Smith CA, Ackerman JT (2014) Mercury bioaccumulation in estuarine wetland fishes: evaluating habitats and risk to coastal wildlife. Environ Pollut 193:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagles-Smith CA, Silbergeld EK, Basu N, Bustamante P, Diaz-Barriga F, Hopkins WA, Kidd KA, Nyland JF (2018) Modulators of mercury risk to wildlife and humans in the context of rapid global change. Ambio 47:170–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edmonds ST, Evers DC, Cristol DA, Mettke-Hofmann C, Powell LL, McGann AJ, Armiger JW, Lane OP, Tessler DF, Newell P, Heyden K, O’Driscoll NJ (2010) Geographic and seasonal variation in mercury exposure of the declining rusty blackbird. Condor 112:789–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Euliss NH, Mushet DM (1996) Water-level fluctuation in wetlands as a function of landscape condition in the prairie pothole region. Wetlands 16:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Euliss Jr NH, Mushet DM, Wrubleski DA (1999) Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region: invertebrate species composition, ecology, and management. In: Batzer DP, Rader RB, Wissinger SA (eds) Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. Wiley, New York, NY, p 471–514Google Scholar
  22. Evers DC, Burgess NM, Champoux L, Hoskins B, Major A, Goodale WM, Taylor RJ, Poppenga R, Daigle T (2005) Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater avian communities in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:193–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evers DC, Han Y-J, Driscoll CT, Kamman NC, Goodale MW, Lambert KF, Holsen TM, Chen CY, Clair TA, Butler T (2007) Biological mercury hotspots in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. BioScience 57:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher MR, DeWild JF (2016) Monitoring inorganic mercury and methylmercury in created and natural wetlands at Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, 2014–2105. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ServCat Library No. 57339Google Scholar
  25. Friedman SL, Brasso RL, Condon AM (2008) An improved, simple nest-box trap. J Field Ornithol 79:99–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gillet A-MTY, Seewagen CL (2014) Mercury exposure of a wetland songbird, Agelaius phoeniceus, in the New York metropolitan area and its effect on nestling growth rate. Environ Monit Assess 186:4029–4036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gowaty PA, Plissner JH (2015) Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis), version 2.0. In: Poole AF Ed The birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA,  https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.381
  28. Hall BD, Aiken GR, Krabbenhoft DP, Marvin-DiPasquale M, Swarzenski CM (2008) Wetlands as principal zones of methylmercury production in southern Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico region. Environ Pollut 154:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hallinger KK, Cornell KL, Brasso RB, Cristol DA (2011) Mercury exposure and survival in free-living tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 20:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartman CA, Ackerman JT, Herring G, Isanhart J, Herzog M (2013) Marsh wrens as bioindicators of mercury in wetlands of Great Salt Lake: do blood and feathers reflect site-specific exposure risk to bird reproduction? Environ Sci Technol 47:6597–6605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howie MG, Jackson AK, Cristol DA (2018) Spatial extent of mercury contamination in birds and their prey on the floodplain of a contaminated river. Sci Tot Environ 630:1446–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hsu-Kim H, Eckley CS, Achá D, Feng F, Gilmour CC, Jonsson S, Mitchell CJ (2018) Challenges and opportunities for managing aquatic mercury pollution in altered landscapes. Ambio 47:141–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kerin EJ, Gilmour CC, Roden E, Suzuki MT, Coates JD, Mason RP (2006) Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:7919–7921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson AK, Evers D, Etterson M, Condon A, Folsom S, Detweiler J, Schmerfeld J, Cristol DA (2011) Mercury exposure affects the reproductive success of a free-living terrestrial songbird, the Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Auk 128:759–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jackson AK, Evers DC, Adams EM, Cristol AD, Eagles-Smith C, Edmonds ST, Gray CE, Hoskins B, Lane OP, Sauer A, Tear T (2015) Songbirds as sentinels of mercury in terrestrial habitats of eastern North America. Ecotoxicology 24:452–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kopec AD, Bodaly RA, Lane OP, Evers DC, Leppold AJ, Mittelhauser GH (2018) Elevated mercury in blood and feathers of breeding marsh birds along the contaminated lower Penobscot River, Maine, USA. Sci Tot Environ 634:1563–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lane OP, Major A, O’Brien K, Pau N, Evers DC (2008) Methylmercury availability in New England estuaries as indicated by saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, 2004–2007. BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine, Report BRI 2008-11Google Scholar
  38. Lane OP, O’Brien KM, Evers DC, Hodgman TP, Major A, Pau N, Ducey MJ, Taylor R, Perry D (2011) Mercury in breeding saltmarsh sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus caudacutus). Ecotoxicology 20:1984–1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mengelkoch JM, Niemi GJ, Regal RR (2004) Diet of the nestling tree swallow. Condor 106:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). Annual MDN maps. National Atmospheric Deposition Program, http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/MDN/maps.aspx. Accessed April 2018
  41. 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. Exotoxicology 14:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sando SK, Krabbenhoft DP, Johnson KM, Lundgren RF, Emerson DG (2007) Mercury and methylmercury in water and bottom sediments of wetlands at Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, 2003–04: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5219, p 66, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5219/pdf/sir07-5219.pdf
  43. Schwartzendruber P, Jaffe D (2012) Sources and transport. In: Bank M (ed) Mercury in the environment: pattern and process. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p 3–18Google Scholar
  44. Seewagen CL (2013) Blood mercury levels and the stopover refueling performance of a long-distance migratory songbird. Can J Zool 91:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shriver WG, Evers DC, Hodgman TP, MacCulloch BJ, Taylor RJ (2006) Mercury in sharp-tailed sparrows breeding in coastal wetlands. Environ Bioindic 1:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shriver WG, Hodgman TP, Hanson AR (2011) Nelson’s sparrow (Ammodramus nelsoni), version 2.0. In: Rodewald PG (ed) The birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  47. Silverthorn VM, Bishop CA, Jardine T, Elliott JE, Morrissey CA (2017) Impact of flow diversion by run-of-river dams on American dipper diet and mercury exposure. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:411–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Snodgrass JW, Jagoe CH, Bryan AL, Brant HA, Burger J (2000) Effects of trophic status and wetland morphology, hydroperiod, and water chemistry on mercury concentration in fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Beaty KG, Bloom NS, Flett RJ (1994) Importance of wetlands as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:1065–1076. StCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strom SM, Brady RS (2011) Mercury in swamp sparrows (Melospiza georgiana) from wetland habitats in Wisconsin. Ecotoxicology 20:1694–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsipoura N, Burger J, Feltes R, Yacabucci J, Mizrahi D, Jeitner C, Gochfeld M (2008) Metal concentrations in three species of passerine birds breeding in the Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey. Environ Res 107:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warner SE, Shriver G, Pepper MA, Taylor RJ (2010) Mercury concentrations in tidal marsh sparrows, and their use as bioindicators in Delaware Bay, USA. Environ Monit Assess 171:671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Winder VL, Emslie SD (2011) Mercury in breeding and wintering Nelson’s sparrows (Ammodramus nelsoni). Ecotoxicology 20:218–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winder VL, Emslie SD (2012a) Mercury in Nelson’s sparrow subspecies at breeding sites. PLoS ONE 2:e32257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winder VL, Emslie SD (2012b) Mercury in non-breeding sparrows of North Carolina salt marshes. Ecotoxicology 21:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Windham-Myers L, Fleck JA, Ackerman JT, Marvin-DiPasquale M, Stricker CA, Heim WA, Bachand PAM, Eagles-Smith CA, Gill G, Stephenson M, Alpers CN (2014) Mercury cycling in agricultural and managed wetlands: a synthesis of methylmercury production, hydrologic export, and bioaccumulation from an integrated field study. Sci Tot Environ 484:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winkler DW, Hallinger KK, Ardia DR, Robertson RJ, Stutchbury BJ, Cohen RR (2011) Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), version 2.0. In: Poole AF Editor The birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, New York, USA,  https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.11
  58. Wolfe JD, Lane OP, Brigham RM, Hall BD (2018) Mercury exposure to red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) and dragonfly (Odonata: Aeshnidae) nymphs in Prairie Pothole wetlands. Facets 3:174–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyWeber State UniversityOgdenUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologySoutheast Missouri State UniversityCape GirardeauUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyBenedictine CollegeAtchisonUSA

Personalised recommendations