Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 123, Issue 1–3, pp 249–258 | Cite as

Mercury Concentrations in Fish from Lake Meredith, Texas: Implications for the Issuance of Fish Consumption Advisories

  • William C. Mcclain
  • Matthew M. Chumchal
  • Ray W. Drenner
  • Leo W. Newland


We examined how length of fish is related to mercury concentrations in muscle tissue of seven species of fish from Lake Meredith, Texas and determined how sex and growth rate are related to mercury concentration in walleye (Sander vitreus). Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), walleye and white bass (Morone chrysops) had the highest concentrations of mercury and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), river carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) had the lowest concentrations of mercury. Mercury concentrations were positively correlated with total length (TL) of fish for all species except gizzard shad, which exhibited a negative correlation between mercury concentration and TL. Male walleye grew more slowly than females, and males had higher concentrations of mercury than females. We also assessed the differences in fish consumption advisories that would be issued using Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) guidelines versus United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommendations. Using DSHS guidelines, no fish species in Lake Meredith would be issued a fish consumption advisory. Nevertheless, DSHS has issued an advisory for walleye in Lake Meredith, possibly due to an inadequate sample size of fish. Using USEPA guidelines, a fish consumption advisory would be issued for the largest size class of flathead catfish but no advisory exists for flathead catfish in Lake Meredith. We suggest that when fish in a lake may be contaminated with mercury, all game fish in the lake should be assessed, and mercury advisories should take fish size into account.


fish fish consumption advisory mercury 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Fisheries Society (AFS): 1999, ‘Forum on Contaminants in Fish,’ Proc. Am. Fish. Soc. http://www.fisheries.org/html/publications/epubs/Contaminants/contaminants.pdf.
  2. Barbosa, A. C., Souza, J. de, Dorea, J. G., Jardim,W. F. and Fadini, P. S.: 2003, ‘Mercury biomagnification in a tropical black water, Rio Negro, Brazil,’ Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 45, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom, N. S.: 1992, ‘On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue,’ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49, 1010–1017.Google Scholar
  4. Bowles, K. C., Apte, S. C., Maher, W. A., Kawei, M. and Smith, R.: 2001, ‘Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of mercury in Lake Murray, Papua New Guinea,’ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 888–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckmeier, D. L., Irwin, E. R., Betsill, R. K. and Prentice, J. A.: 2002, ‘Validity of otoliths and pectoral spines for estimating ages of channel catfish,’ North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 22, 934–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cizdziel, J. V., Hinners, T. A., Pollard, J. E., Heithmar, E. M. and Cross, C. L.: 2002, ‘Mercury concentrations in fish from Lake Mead, USA, related to fish size, condition, trophic level, location, and consumption risk,’ Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doyon, J. F., Schetagne, R. and Verdon, R.: 1998, ‘Different mercury bioaccumulation rates between sympatric populations of dwarf and normal lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in the La Grande complex watershed, James Bay, Quebec,’ Biogeochemistry 40, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henderson, B. A., Collins, N., Morgan, G. E. and Vaillancour, A.: 2003, ‘Sexual dimorphism of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum),’ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60, 1345–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson, T. A.: 1997, ‘Long-range atmospheric transport of mercury to ecosystems and importance of anthropogenic emissions: A critical review and evaluation of the published evidence,’ Environ. Rev. 5, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maceina, M. J.: 1988, ‘Simple grinding procedures to section otoliths,’ North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 8, 141–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Morel, F. M. M., Kraepiel, A. M. L. and Amyot, M.: 1998, ‘The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury,’ Annu. Rev.Ecol. Syst. 29, 543–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mummert, J. R. and Drenner, R. W.: 1986, ‘Effect of fish size on the filtering efficiency and selective particle ingestion of a filter-feeding clupeid,’ Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115, 522–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Munger, C.: 2003, ‘Statewide freshwater fisheries monitoring and management program: 2002 survey, Meredith Reservoir,’ Performance Report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  14. NRC (National Resource Council): 2001, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Power, M., Klein, G. M., Guiguer, K. R. R. A. and Kwan, M. K. H.: 2002, ‘Mercury accumulation in the fish community of a sub-Arctic lake in relation to trophic position and carbon sources,’ J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 819–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schaus, M. H., Vanni, M. J. and Wissing, T. E.: 2002, ‘Biomass-dependent diet shifts in omnivorous gizzard shad: Implications for growth, food web, and ecosystem effects,’ Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 131, 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS): 2004, Listing of water bodies with advisories or bans and areas where no advisory was issued. TDH Bureau of Food and Drug Safety: Seafood Safety Division Web site, http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bfds/ssd/fiscount.html.
  18. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency): 1998, ‘Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’ Method 7473.Google Scholar
  19. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency): 2000, ‘Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories,’ Report # EPA-823B00007.Google Scholar
  20. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency): 2001, ‘Water quality criterion for the protection of human health: methylmercury,’ Report # EPA-823R101001.Google Scholar
  21. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency): 2003, ‘America's Children and the Environment: Measures of contaminants, body burdens, and illnesses,’ Report # EPA-240R03001.Google Scholar
  22. Weiner, J. G. and Spry, D. J.: 1996, ‘Toxicological significance of mercury in freshwater fish,’ in W. N. Beyer, G. H. Heinz, and A. W. Redmond-Norwood (eds), Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife – Interpreting Tissue Concentrations. CRC Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Wilkinson, L.: 2002, SYSTAT version 10.2 user's manual. SYSTAT Software Inc. Richmond, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Mcclain
    • 1
  • Matthew M. Chumchal
    • 2
  • Ray W. Drenner
    • 1
  • Leo W. Newland
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthU.S.A.
  2. 2.Zoology DepartmentUniversity of OklahomaNormanU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations