Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Patterns and trends of fish mercury in New York State

Abstract

In the mid-2000s a survey was conducted to evaluate fish mercury in lakes across New York State. Approximately 10 years later a second survey examining adult sportfish from 103 lakes and reservoirs was conducted to evaluate the response of fish mercury to recent declines in US mercury emissions. Of those lakes, 43 were part of the earlier survey and were examined to determine if mercury concentrations in four popular sport species, Yellow Perch, Walleye, and Small- and Largemouth Bass, declined in response to decreasing emissions. Water samples were also collected at 35 of these lakes and analyzed for mercury, methylmercury and other analytes. The Adirondack and Catskill regions remain biological mercury hotspots with elevated concentrations in fish. The most widely sampled species, Yellow Perch, showed significant increases in mercury in the Northeast and West regions of New York State over the past decade. The increases in Yellow Perch mercury is not consistent with significant reductions in water concentrations of both total and methylmercury observed corresponding in lake water samples. This discrepancy suggests watershed and in-lake processes beyond mercury emissions, such as recovery from acid deposition, impacts from climate change, or changes in food web structure may be controlling fish mercury concentrations. These results demonstrate a need for a consistent, long-term program to monitor fish mercury to inform the status of mercury contamination in New York State.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Åkerblom S, Nilsson M, Yu J et al. (2012) Temporal change estimation of mercury concentrations in northern pike (Esox lucius L.) in Swedish lakes. Chemosphere 86:439–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.09.037

  2. Baker RF, Blanchfield PJ, Paterson MJ et al. (2004) Evaluation of nonlethal methods for the analysis of mercury in fish tissue. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:568–576. https://doi.org/10.1577/T03-012.1

  3. Benoit JMM, Gilmour CCC, Heyes A, et al (2002) Geochemical and biological controls over methylmercury production and degradation in aquatic ecosystems. In: ACS symposium. p 262–297

  4. Bodaly RA, Rudd JWM, Fudge RJP, Kelly CA (1993) Mercury concentrations in fish related to size of remote Canadian shield lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:980–987. https://doi.org/10.1139/f93-113

  5. Bravo AG, Bouchet S, Tolu J et al. (2017) Molecular composition of organic matter controls methylmercury formation in boreal lakes. Nat Commun 8:14255. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14255

  6. Burns DA, Riva-Murray K, Bradley PM et al. (2012) Landscape controls on total and methyl Hg in the upper Hudson River basin, New York, USA. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences 117:n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001812

  7. Chen CY, Folt CL (2005) High plankton densities reduce mercury biomagnification. Environ Sci Technol 39:115–121. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0403007

  8. Chen L, Driscoll CT (2005) Regional assessment of the response of the acid−base status of lake watersheds in the adirondack region of New York to changes in atmospheric deposition using PnET-BGC. Environ Sci Technol 39:787–794. https://doi.org/10.1021/es049583t

  9. Chiasson-Gould SA, Blais JM, Poulain AJ (2014) Dissolved organic matter kinetically controls mercury bioavailability to bacteria. Environ Sci Technol 48:3153–3161. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4038484

  10. Climate Science Special Report (2017) Climate science special report: fourth national climate assessment, Vol I. Climate Science Special Report, Washington, DC

  11. Coleman Wasik JK, Engstrom DR, Mitchell CPJ et al. (2015) The effects of hydrologic fluctuation and sulfate regeneration on mercury cycling in an experimental peatland. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences 120:1697–1715. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG002993

  12. Dickinson NR (1983) A division of southern and western New York State into ecological zones. NYSDEC. Albany, NY

  13. Dittman JA, Shanley JB, Driscoll CT et al. (2010) Mercury dynamics in relation to dissolved organic carbon concentration and quality during high flow events in three northeastern US streams. Water Resour Res 46:W07522. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008351

  14. Driscoll CT, Driscoll KM, Fakhraei H, Civerolo K (2016) Long-term temporal trends and spatial patterns in the acid-base chemistry of lakes in the Adirondack region of New York in response to decreases in acidic deposition. Atmos Environ 146:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.08.034

  15. Driscoll CT, Driscoll KM, Mitchell MJ, Raynal DJ (2003) Effects of acidic deposition on forest and aquatic ecosystems in New York State. Environ Pollut 123:327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(03)00019-8

  16. Driscoll CT, Driscoll KM, Roy KM, Dukett J (2007a) Changes in the chemistry of lakes in the Adirondack region of New York following declines in acidic deposition. Appl Geochem 22:1181–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.03.009

  17. Driscoll CT, Han Y, Chen CY, Evers DC et al. (2007b) Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the northeastern United States. Bioscience 57:17. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570106

  18. Driscoll CT, Lawrence GB, Bulger AJ et al. (2001) Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. Bioscience 51:180

  19. Driscoll CT, Mason RP, Chan HM et al. (2013) Mercury as a global pollutant: sources, pathways, and effects. Environ Sci Technol 47:4967–4983. https://doi.org/10.1021/es305071v

  20. ESRI (2017) ArcGIS Desktop. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute

  21. Essington TE, Houser JN (2003) The effect of whole-lake nutrient enrichment on mercury concentration in age-1 yellow perch. Trans Am Fish Soc 132:57–68. 10.1577/1548-8659(2003)132<0057:TEOWLN>2.0.CO;2

  22. Evans CD, Chapman PJ, Clark JM et al. (2006) Alternative explanations for rising dissolved organic carbon export from organic soils. Glob Chang Biol 12:2044–2053. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01241.x

  23. Evers DC, Savoy LJ, Desorbo CR et al. (2008) Adverse effects from environmental mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:69–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-007-0168-7

  24. Fitzgerald WF, Engstrom DR, Mason RP, Nater EA (1998) The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in remote areas. Environ Sci Technol 32:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/es970284w

  25. Gerson JR, Driscoll CT, Demers JD et al. (2017) Deposition of mercury in forests across a montane elevation gradient: Elevational and seasonal patterns in methylmercury inputs and production. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences 122:1922–1939. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003721

  26. Gilmour CC, Riedel GS, Ederington MC et al. (1998) Methylmercury concentrations and production rates across a trophic gradient in the northern Everglades. Biogeochemistry 40:327–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005972708616

  27. Gorski PR, Armstrong DE, Hurley JP, Krabbenhoft DP (2008) Influence of natural dissolved organic carbon on the bioavailability of mercury to a freshwater alga. Environ Pollut 154:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.12.004

  28. Graham AM, Aiken GR, Gilmour CC (2012) Dissolved organic matter enhances microbial mercury methylation under sulfidic conditions. Environ Sci Technol 46:2715–2723. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203658f

  29. Halfman JD (2017) Decade-scale water quality variability in the eastern finger lakes New York. NYWEA. Clearwaters 47:20–33

  30. Harris RC, Rudd JWM, Amyot M et al. (2007) Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:16586–16591. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704186104

  31. Hayhoe K, Wake CP, Huntington TG et al. (2007) Past and future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the US Northeast. Clim Dyn 28:381–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-006-0187-8

  32. Herrero Ortega S, Catalán N, Björn E et al. (2018) High methylmercury formation in ponds fueled by fresh humic and algal derived organic matter. Limnol Oceanogr 63:S44–S53. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10722

  33. Hodgkins GA, Dudley RW, Huntington TG (2003) Changes in the timing of high river flows in New England over the 20th Century. J Hydrol 278:244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00155-0

  34. Hongve D, Haaland S, Riise G et al. (2012) Decline of acid rain enhances mercury concentrations in fish. Environ Sci Technol 46:2490–2491. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3002629

  35. Huntington TG, Hodgkins GA, Keim BD, Dudley RW (2004) Changes in the proportion of precipitation occurring as snow in New England (1949–2000). J Clim 17:2626–2636. 10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<2626:CITPOP>2.0.CO;2

  36. Jeffries DS, Brydges TG, Dillon PJ, Keller W (2003) Monitoring thE Results of Canada/USA acid rain control programs: some lake responses. Environ Monit Assess 88:3–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025563400336

  37. Jeremiason JD, Reiser TK, Weitz RA et al. (2016) Aeshnid dragonfly larvae as bioindicators of methylmercury contamination in aquatic systems impacted by elevated sulfate loading. Ecotoxicology 25:456–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-015-1603-9

  38. Jiang T, Bravo AG, Skyllberg U et al. (2018) Influence of dissolved organic matter (DOM) characteristics on dissolved mercury (Hg) species composition in sediment porewater of lakes from southwest China. Water Res 146:146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.054

  39. Kerin EJ, Gilmour CC, Roden E et al. (2006) Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:7919–7921. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01602-06

  40. Knight A, Bhavsar SP, Branfireun BA et al. (2019) A comparison of fish tissue mercury concentrations from homogenized fillet and nonlethal biopsy plugs. J Environ Sci 80:137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.12.004

  41. Kolka RK, Riggs CE, Nater EA et al. (2019) Temporal fluctuations in young-of-the-year yellow perch mercury bioaccumulation in lakes of northeastern Minnesota. Sci Total Environ 656:475–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.280

  42. Laudon H, Buttle J, Carey SK et al. (2012) Cross-regional prediction of long-term trajectory of stream water DOC response to climate change. Geophys Res Lett 39:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053033

  43. Mao H, Ye Z, Driscoll C (2017) Meteorological effects on Hg wet deposition in a forested site in the Adirondack region of New York during 2000–2015. Atmos Environ 168:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.058

  44. McAvoy DC, Santore RC, Shosa JD, Driscoll CT (1992) Comparison between pyrocatechol violet and 8-hydroxyquinonline procedures for determining aluminum fractions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:449–455

  45. McCabe GJ, Wolock DM (2002) A step increase in streamflow in the conterminous United States. Geophys Res Lett 29:38–1-38–4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015999

  46. Millard GD, Driscoll CT, Burns DA et al. (2018) Response of mercury in an Adirondack (NY, USA) forest stream to watershed lime application. Environ Sci Process Impacts 20:607–620. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7em00520b

  47. Minimata Convention on Mercury (2017) Minimata convention. Minimata Convention on Mercury, http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Convention/tabid/3426/language/en-US/Default.aspx

  48. Mitchell CPJ, Gilmour CC (2008) Methylmercury production in a Chesapeake Bay salt marsh. J Geophys Res 113:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000765

  49. Monson BA, Staples DF, Bhavsar SP et al. (2011) Spatiotemporal trends of mercury in walleye and largemouth bass from the laurentian great lakes region. Ecotoxicology 20:1555–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0715-0

  50. Monteith DT, Stoddard JL, Evans CD et al. (2007) Dissolved organic carbon trends resulting from changes in atmospheric deposition chemistry. Nature 450:537–540. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06316

  51. NYS DOH (2018) Health advice on eating fish you catch. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/fish/health_advisories/. Accessed 16 Feb 2019

  52. Peterson SA, Van Sickle J, Hughes RM et al. (2004) A biopsy procedure for determining filet and predicting whole-fish mercury concentration. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-004-0260-4

  53. Pickhardt PC, Folt CL, Chen CY et al. (2002) Algal blooms reduce the uptake of toxic methylmercury in freshwater food webs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:4419–4423. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.072531099

  54. Prestbo EM, Gay DA (2009) Wet deposition of mercury in the US and Canada, 1996-2005: Results and analysis of the NADP mercury deposition network (MDN). Atmos Environ 43:4223–4233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.05.028

  55. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://Rproject.org/

  56. Riva-Murray K, Chasar LC, Bradley PM et al. (2011) Spatial patterns of mercury in macroinvertebrates and fishes from streams of two contrasting forested landscapes in the eastern United States. Ecotoxicology 20:1530–1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0719-9

  57. Sebestyen SD, Boyer EW, Shanley JB (2009) Responses of stream nitrate and DOC loadings to hydrological forcing and climate change in an upland forest of the northeastern United States. J Geophys Res. Biogeosciences 114:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000778

  58. Simonin H, Loukmas J, Skinner L, Roy K (2008a) Strategic monitoring of Mercury in New York state fish. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/hgfish.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2016

  59. Simonin HA, Loukmas JJ, Skinner LC, Roy KM (2008b) Lake variability: Key factors controlling mercury concentrations in New York State fish. Environ Pollut 154:107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.12.032

  60. Skyllberg U (2008) Competition among thiols and inorganic sulfides and polysulfides for Hg and MeHg in wetland soils and sediments under suboxic conditions: Illumination of controversies and implications for MeHg net production. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences 113:n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000745

  61. Streets DG, Horowitz HM, Lu Z et al. (2019) Global and regional trends in mercury emissions and concentrations, 2010–2015. Atmos Environ 201:417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.031

  62. Taylor MS, Driscoll CT, Lepak JM, et al (2020) Temporal trends in fish mercury concentrations in an Adirondack Lake managed with a persistent predator removal program. Ecotoxicology

  63. Todorova S, Driscoll CT, Matthews DA, Steven WE (2015) Zooplankton community changes confound the biodilution theory of methylmercury accumulation in a recovering mercury- contaminated lake. 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5044084

  64. US EPA (2017) Mercury and air toxics standards: clean power plants. In: Mercur. Air Toxics Stand. https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants#controls. Accessed 4 Feb 2019

  65. US EPA (2007a) Method 7473: mercury in solids and solutions by thermal decomposition, amalgamation, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency

  66. US EPA (1995) Method 1669: sampling ambient water for trace metals at EPA water quality criteria levels. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, p 1–42

  67. US EPA (2002) Method 1631, revision E: mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, p 1–46

  68. US EPA (2007b) Method 1630 methyl mercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, p 1–55

  69. Warby RAF, Johnson CE, Driscoll CT (2005) Chemical recovery of surface waters across the northeastern United States from reduced inputs of acidic deposition: 1984-2001. Environ Sci Technol 39:6548–6554. https://doi.org/10.1021/es048553n

  70. Ward DM, Nislow KH, Folt CL (2010) Bioaccumulation syndrome: identifying factors that make some stream food webs prone to elevated mercury bioaccumulation. Ann N. Y Acad Sci 1195:62–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05456.x

  71. Watson SB, Miller C, Arhonditsis G et al. (2016) The re-eutrophication of lake Erie: harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Harmful Algae 56:44–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2016.04.010

  72. Weiss-Penzias PS, Gay DA, Brigham ME et al. (2016) Trends in mercury wet deposition and mercury air concentrations across the US and Canada. Sci Total Environ 568:546–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.061

  73. Will G, Stumvoll R, Gotie R, Smith E (1982) The ecological zones of northern New York. N. Y Fish Game J 29:1–25

  74. Ye Z, Mao H, Driscoll CT (2019) Primary effects of changes in meteorology vs. anthropogenic emissions on mercury wet deposition: a modeling study. Atmos Environ 198:215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.10.052

  75. Zhang Y, Jacob DJ, Horowitz HM et al. (2016) Observed decrease in atmospheric mercury explained by global decline in anthropogenic emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:526–531. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516312113

  76. Zhou C, Cohen MD, Crimmins BA et al. (2017) Mercury temporal trends in top predator fish of the Laurentian Great Lakes from 2004 to 2015: are concentrations still decreasing? Environ Sci Technol 51:7386–7394. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00982

  77. Zhou H, Zhou C, Hopke PK, Holsen TM (2018) Mercury wet deposition and speciated mercury air concentrations at rural and urban sites across New York state: temporal patterns, sources and scavenging coefficients. Sci Total Environ 637–638:943–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.047

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this study was provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and the National Science Foundation through the National Science Foundation Research Training program through the Educational Model Program of Water Energy Research (EMPOWER). NYSERDA has not reviewed the information herein, and the opinions expressed in this report to not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York. This research does not reflect the official positions and policies of the US EPA. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DGE-1449617 and by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) under Award No. 034357. NYSERDA has not reviewed the information contained herein, and the opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York.

Author information

Correspondence to Geoffrey Millard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millard, G., Driscoll, C., Montesdeoca, M. et al. Patterns and trends of fish mercury in New York State. Ecotoxicology (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-020-02163-x

Download citation