Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 127, Issue 1–3, pp 105–117

Metals and radionuclides in birds and eggs from Amchitka and Kiska Islands in the Bering Sea/Pacific Ocean ecosystem

  • Joanna Burger
  • Michael Gochfeld
Original Article


Metals and radionuclide levels in marine birds of the Aleutians are of interest because they are part of subsistence diets of the Aleut people, and can also serve as indicators of marine pollution. We examined geographic and species-specific variations in concentrations of radionuclides in birds and their eggs from Amchitka, the site of underground nuclear tests from 1965 to 1971, and Kiska Islands (a reference site) in the Aleutians, and the levels of lead, mercury and cadmium in eggs. In 2004 we collected common eiders (Somateria mollissima), tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata), pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) and glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) from Amchitka and Kiska, and eggs from eiders and gulls from the two island. We also collected one runt bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) chick from both Amchitka and Kiska Islands. For most species, the levels of radionuclide isotopes were below the minimum detectable activity levels (MDA). Out of 74 cesium-137 analyses, only one composite (gulls) was above the MDA, and out of 14 composites tested for plutonium (Pu-239, 240), only one exceeded the MDA (a guillemots). Three composites out of 14 tested had detectable uranium-238. In all cases, the levels were low and close to the MDAs, and were below those reported for other seabirds. There were significant interspecific differences in metal levels in eggs: gulls had significantly higher levels of cadmium and mercury than the eiders, and eiders had higher levels of lead than gulls. There were few significant differences as a function of island, but eiders had significantly higher levels of cadmium in eggs from Kiska, and gulls had significantly higher levels of mercury on Kiska. The levels of cadmium and mercury in eggs of eiders and gulls from this study were above the median for cadmium and mercury from studies in the literature. The levels of mercury in eggs are within the range known to affect avian predators, but seabirds seem less vulnerable to mercury than other birds. However, the levels of mercury are within the action levels for humans, suggesting some cause for concern if subsistence Aleuts eat a large quantity of eggs.


Birds Eggs Radionuclides Mercury Lead Human consumption Risk 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme): (2002). Arctic Pollution. http://www.amap.no/. (accessed September 2006).
  2. Anthony, R.G., Miles, A.K., Estes, J.E., & Isaac, F.B. (1999). Productivity, diets, and environmental contaminants in nesting Bald Eagles from the Aleutian Archipelago. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18, 2054–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baeza, A.M., delRio, C., Miro, C., Moreno, A., Moreno, E., Navarro, E., Paniague, J.M., & Peris, M.A. (1991). Radiocesium and radiostrontium levels in song-thrushes (Turdus philomelos) captured in two regions of Spain. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 13, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BEST (2003). The Bering Sea Ecosystem, Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, 2003. http://www. arcus.org/bering/. (accessed September 2006).
  5. Burger, J., Jewett, S., Gochfeld, M., Hoberg, M., Harper, S., Chenelot, H., Jeitner, C., Burke, S.. 2006a. The use of biota sampling for environmental contaminant analysis for characterization of benthic communities in the Aleutians. Science of the Total Environment 369,393–402.Google Scholar
  6. Blais, J.M., Kimpe, L.E., McMahon, D., Keattley, B.F., Mallory, M.L., Douglass, S.S.V., & Smot, J.P. (2005). Arctic seabirds transport marine-derived contaminants. Science, 309, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brisbin, I.L. Jr. (1991). Avian radioecology. In: D.M. Power (ed.), Current ornithology (pp. 60–140). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burger, J. (1993). Metals in avian feathers: bioindicators of environmental pollution. Review of Environmental Toxicology, 5, 203–311.Google Scholar
  9. Burger, J. (2002). Food chain differences affect heavy metals in bird eggs in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Environmental Research, 90, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1993). Lead and cadmium accumulation in eggs and fledgling seabirds in the New York Bight. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 12, 261–267.Google Scholar
  11. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1997). Risk, mercury levels, and birds: relating adverse laboratory effects to field biomonitoring. Environmental Research, 75, 160–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2000). Effects of lead on birds (Laridae): a review of laboratory and field studies. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 3, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2001). Effects of chemicals and pollution on seabirds. In: E. A. Schreiber & J. Burger (Eds.), Biology of marine birds (pp. 485–525). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  14. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2004). Metal levels in eggs of common terns (Sterna hirundo) in New Jersey: Temporal trends from 1971 to 2002. Environmental Research, 94, 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burger, J., Bowman, R., Woolfenden, G.E., & Gochfeld, M. (2004). Metal and metalloid concentrations in the eggs of threatened Florida Scrub-jays in suburban habitat from south-central Florida. Science of the Total Environment, 328, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burger, J., Mayer, H., Greenberg, M., Powers, C.W., Volz, C.D., & Gochfeld, M. (2006b). Conceptual site models as a tool in evaluating ecological health: the case of the Department of Energy’s Amchitka Island nuclear test shot. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, 69, 1217–1238.Google Scholar
  17. CRESP (2005). Analytic methods and quality control, http://www.cresp.org.
  18. Crowley, K.D., & Ahearne, J.F. (2002). Managing the environmental legacy of U.S. nuclear-weapons production, American Scientist, 90, 514–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dasher, D., Hanson, W., Read, S., Faller, S., Farmer, D., Efurd, W., Kelley, J.J., & Patrick, R. (2002). An assessment of the reported leakage of anthropogenic radionuclides from the underground nuclear test sites at Amchitka Island, Alaska, USA to the surface environment. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 60, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Department of Energy (DOE): (2000). United States nuclear tests July 1945 through September 1992. Las Vegas, NV:Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV-209), Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
  21. Department of Energy: (DOE) (2002). Modeling groundwater flow and transport of radionuclides at Amchitka Island’s underground nuclear tests: Milrow, Long Shot, and Cannikan. Las Vegas, NV, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV-11508-51).Google Scholar
  22. Eisler, R. (1985). Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. Biology of Reproduction, 85, (#1.2).Google Scholar
  23. Eisler R. (1987). Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. Biology of Reproduction, 85, (#1.1).Google Scholar
  24. Eisler R. (1988). Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review, Biology of Reproduction, 85, (#1.14)Google Scholar
  25. Eisler R. (1994). Radiation hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A synoptic review. Biology of Reproduction, 26.Google Scholar
  26. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2001). http://www. epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2001/January/Day-08/w217.htm. (accessed September 2006)
  27. Faller, S.H., & Farmer, D.E. (1998). Long-term hydrological monitoring program: Amchitka, Alaska. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-402-R-98-002), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. FISH & WILDLIFE Service (2004). 2004 Alaska Subsistence Spring/summer Migratory Bird Harvest. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  29. Fitzgerald, W.F. (1989). Atmospheric and oceanic cycling of mercury. In: J.P. Riley & R. Chester (Eds), Chemical oceanography (pp. 151–186). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) (2001). FDA Consumer Advisory, Available: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2000/advisory.html.
  31. Fox, G.A., MacCluskie, M.C., & Brook, R.W. (2005). Are current contaminant concentrations in eggs and breeding female Lesser Scaup of concern? Condor 107, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Furness, R.W. (1996). Cadmium in birds. In: W. N. Beyer, G. H. Heinz, & A. W. Redmon-Norwood (Eds.), Environmental contaminants in wildlife: Interpreting tissue concentrations (pp. 86–143). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. GAO/RCED (1995). Concerns with nuclear facilities and other sources of radiation in the Former Soviet Union. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, Report to the Honorable Bob Graham, U.S. Senate. November 1995 (US GAO-RCED-96-4).Google Scholar
  34. Ginsberg, G.L., & Toal, B.F. (2000). Development of a single-meal fish consumption advisory for methylmercury. Risk Analysis, 20, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. George, J.C. (1999). Birds as bioindicators of ecotoxicological effects of heavy metal pollution. Journal of Animal Morphology and Physiology, 46, 1–22.Google Scholar
  36. Goudie, R.I., Robertson, G.J., & Reed, A. (2000). Common Eider (Somateria mollissima). In: A. Poole & F. Gill (Eds.), The birds of North America (pp. 1–28. No. 546). Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Hamrick, K., & Smith, J. (2003). Subsistence food use in Unalaska and Nikolski. Anchorage, AK: Aleutian Pribilof Island Association.Google Scholar
  38. Higley, K.A., & Alexakhin, R.M. (2004). Dose limits for man do not adequately protect the ecosystem. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 109, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holgye, Z., Schlesingerova, E., Ticl, J., & Filgas, R. (2004). 238Pu, 239,240Pu, 241A, 90Sr and 137Cs in soils around nuclear research centre near prague. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 71, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hunter, B.A., & Johnson, J.G. (1982). Food chain relationships of copper and cadmium in contaminated grassland ecosystems. Oikos, 38, 108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Irons, D.B., Anthony, R.G., & Estes, J.A. (1986). Foraging strategies of Glaucous-winged Gulls in a rocky intertidal community. Ecology, 67, 1460–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jacob, K. (1984). Estimates of long-term probabilities for future great earthquakes in the Aleutians. Geophysical Research Letters, 11, 295–298.Google Scholar
  43. Jewett, S.C. (2002). Radionuclide contamination in nearshore habitats around Amchitka Island, Alaska, In Proceedings of the Amchitka long-term stewardship workshop. CRESP/University of Alaska, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.Google Scholar
  44. Kenyon, K.W. (1961). Birds of Amchitka Island, Alaska. Auk, 78, 305–326.Google Scholar
  45. Kohlhoff, D.W. (2002). Amchitka and the bomb: Nuclear testing in Alaska. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  46. Layton, D.W., Eeson, R., Varela, M., & Napier, B. (1999). Radionuclides in the Arctic Sea from the former Soviet Union (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. U.S. DOE Office of Defense Programs-UCRL-CR-136696), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  47. Lewis, S.A., & Furness, R.W. (1991). Mercury accumulation and excretion by laboratory reared Black-headed Gulls (Larus ridibundus) chicks. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 21, 316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lowe, V.P.W. (1991). Radionuclides and the birds at Ravenglass. Environmental Pollution, 70, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mailman, R.B. (1980). Heavy metals. In J.J. Perry (Ed.), Introduction to environmental toxicology (pp. 34–43). New York, NJ: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  50. Matishov, D.G., & Matishov, G.M. (2004). Radioecology in Northern European seas. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Merritt, M.L., & Fuller, R.G. (Eds.) (1977). The environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, U.S. Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development Administration (Report NVO-79), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. Monteiro, L.R., & Furness, R.W. (1995). Seabirds as monitors of mercury in the marine environment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 80, 831–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mount, M.E., Layton, D.W., Lynn, N.H., & Hamilton, T.F. (1998). Use of (59)Ni and (236)U to monitor the release of radionuclides from objects containing spent nuclear fuel dumped in the Kiara Sea, International Symposium on Marine Pollution (US DOE W-7405-ENG-48), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). The Bering Sea ecosystem. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  55. Norris, R.S., & Arkin, W.M. (1995). NRDC nuclear notebook: known nuclear tests worldwide, 1945–1994. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 52, 70–71.Google Scholar
  56. Page, R.A., Biswas, N.N., Lahr, J.C., & Pulpan, H. (1991). Seismicity of continental Alaska. In D.B. Slemmons, R. Engldahl, M.D. Zoback, & D.D. Blackwell (Eds.), Neotectonics of North America (pp. 47–68). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.Google Scholar
  57. Patrick, R. (2002). How local Alaska native communities view the Amchitka issue. In Proceedings of the Amchitka Long-term Stewardship Workshop. CRESP/University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.Google Scholar
  58. Powers, C.W., Burger, J., Kosson, D., Gochfeld, M., & Barnes, D. (Eds.) (2005). Biological and geophysical aspects of potential radionuclide exposure in the Amchitka marine environment. Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, Piscataway, NJ, http://www.cresp.org.
  59. Rocque, D.A., & Winker, K. (2004). Biomonitoring of contaminants in birds from two trophic levels in the North Pacific. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23, 759–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robbins, A., Makhijani, A., & Yih, K. (1991). Radioactive heaven and earth — The health and environmental effects of nuclear weapon testing in, on and above the earth. New York, NY: Apex Press.Google Scholar
  61. SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems) (1995). SAS users’ guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Institute.Google Scholar
  62. Seymour, A.H., & Nelson, V.A. (1977). Radionuclides in air, water, and biota. In M.L. Merritt & R.G. Fuller (Eds.), The environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska (pp. 579–613). Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development Administration (Report TID-26712), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  63. Simon, S.L., Bouville, A., & Beck, H.L. (2004). The geographic distribution of radionuclide deposition across the continental U.S. from atmospheric nuclear testing. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 74, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spry, D.J., & Wiener, J.G. (1991). Metal bioavailability and toxicity to fish in low-alkalinity lakes: a critical review. Environmental Pollution, 71, 243–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Suokko, K., & Reicher, D. (1993). Radioactive waste and contamination in the Former Soviet Union. Environmental Science & Technology, 27, 602–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thomas, P.A., & Gates, T.E. (1999). Radionuclides in the lichen-caribou-human food chain near uranium mining operations in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107, 527–537.Google Scholar
  67. Thompson, D.R. (1996). Mercury in birds and terrestrial mammals. In W.N. Beyer, G.H. Heinz, & A.W. Redmon-Norwood (Eds.), Environmental contaminants in wildlife: Interpreting tissue concentrations (pp. 341–356). SETAC Special Publications. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, D.R., & Furness, R.W. (1989a). Comparison of the levels of total and organic mercury in seabird feathers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 20, 577–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson, D.R., & Furness, R.W. (1989b). The chemical form of mercury stores in South Atlantic seabirds. Environmental Pollution, 60, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson, D.R., & Furness, R.W. (1998). Seabirds as biomonitors of mercury inputs to epipelagic and mesopelagic marine food chains. Science of the Total Environment, 213, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trapp, J.L. (1979). Variation in summer diet of Glaucous-winged Fulls in the western Aleutian Islands: an ecological interpretation. Wilson Bulletin, 91, 412–419.Google Scholar
  72. Trust, K.A., Rummel, K.T., Scheuhammer, A.M., Brisbin, I.L. Jr., & Hooper, M.J. (2000). Contaminant exposure and biomarker responses in spectacled eiders (Somateria fischeri) from St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 38, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. VanStraalen, N.M., & Ernst, W.H.O. (1991). Metal biomagnification may endanger species in critical pathways. Oikos, 62, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weber, D.N., & Dingel, W.M. (1997). Alterations in neurobehavioral responses in fishes exposed to lead and lead-chelating agents. American Zoology, 37, 354–362.Google Scholar
  75. Wiener, J.G., & Spry, D.J. (1996). Toxicological significance of mercury in freshwater fish. In: W.N. Beyer, G.H. Heinz, & A. W. Redmon-Norwood (Eds.), Environmental contaminants in wildlife: Interpreting tissue concentrations (pp. 297–339). Boca Raton, FL: SETAC Special Publications, Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  76. Woodhead, D.S. (1986). The radiation exposure of Black-headed Gulls (Larus ridibundus) in the Ravenglass estuary, Cumbria, UK: A preliminary assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 58, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. World Health Organization (WHO) (1990). International programme on chemical safety—methylmercury. Environmental Health Criteria, 101, 42–58.Google Scholar
  78. World Health Organization (WHO) (1991). International programme on chemical safety - inorganic mercury. Environmental Health Criteria, 101, 42–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Burger
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael Gochfeld
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation and Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences InstitutePiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Environmental and Occupational MedicineUMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations