Relationships Between Mercury Concentration in Young-of-the-Year Yellow Perch and Precipitation Depth, Water Level, and Temperature
This article identifies environmental factors that explain most of the dynamic year-to-year changes in mercury concentrations of young-of-year (YOY) yellow perch (Perca flavescens) in study reservoirs. Mercury concentrations in fish, collected each fall, were measured for 9 years in four reservoirs in northeastern Minnesota. Three to 4 years of data were also obtained for two natural lakes and one other reservoir. Average annual concentrations varied considerably from year to year with a mean change of 39% between consecutive years across all lakes. Those averages show a similar time trend for each lake over the years and suggest that important factors influencing mercury bioaccumulation change annually and are also experienced in common over the study region. Three factors satisfying that description are precipitation depth, water level, and average air temperature. This article reveals that all three have statistically significant correlations with observed mercury concentrations. Moreover, multiple regressions indicate that maximum water levels and average air temperatures explain most of the observed variations. Regressions employing precipitation depth and temperature are less significant.
KeywordsMercury Fish Water levels Reservoir Temperature
Field sampling was assisted by FDLR staff including Thomas Howes, Terry Perrault, Brian Borkholder, Sean Thompson, Adam Thompson, John Goodreau, and Lance Overland. Also helping with sample collection were Gary Sorensen, Diane Sorensen, and Donna Busick. Stephanie Suckow helped with mercury analyses, and Richard Green provided valuable assistance with statistics advice. Amber Waseen, Gary Glass, Diane Sorensen, and Donna Busick provided appreciated advice with writing this report.
Funding for sample collection and analyses were obtained from the National Park Service 6820-0202-NYZ, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Fond du Lac Reservation (FDLR).
- Anderson, C., Niemela, S., Anderson, J., Grayson, S., Monson, B., Christopherson, D., Lundeen, B., Jasperson, J., Kennedy, M., Parson, K., & Kelly, M. (2013). St. Louis River watershed monitoring report and assessment report. St. Paul: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.Google Scholar
- Gilmour, C. C., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Orem, W. H., & Aiken, G. R. (2004). Appendix 2B-1: influence of drying and rewetting on mercury and sulfur cycling in Everglades and STA soils. In: 2004 Everglades consolidated report (19 pp.). West Palm Beach: South Florida Water Management District.Google Scholar
- MDC. (1968). An inventory of Minnesota lakes. Bulletin No. 25. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Conservation.Google Scholar
- Mosteller, F., & Fisher, R. A. (1948). Questions and answers. The American Statistician, 2(5), 30–31.Google Scholar
- MPC. (2003–2013). Series of personal communications. Duluth: Minnesota Power Company.Google Scholar
- NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration https://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/maps/ncei/summaries/daily. Accessed Jan 2016.
- Sorensen, J. A., Glass, G. E., Schmidt, K. W., Huber, J. K., & Rapp, G. R. (1990). Airborne mercury deposition and watershed characteristics in relation to mercury concentrations in water, sediments, plankton, and fish of eighty northern Minnesota lakes. Environmental Science & Technology, 24(11), 1716–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- USDA. US Department of Agriculture http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_022925.pdf. Accessed Jan 2017.
- USEPA. (1991). Methods for the determination of metals in environmental samples. EPA/600/4-91/010. Washington, D. C: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
- Wasik, K. C., Engstrom, D. R., Mitchell, C. P. J., Swain, E. B., Monson, B. A., Balogh, S. J., Jeremiason, J. D., Branfireun, B. A., Kolka, R. K., & Almendinger, J. E. (2015). The effects of hydrologic fluctuation and sulfate regeneration on mercury cycling in an experimental peatland. JGR Biogeosciences, 120(9), 1697–1715.Google Scholar