Effects of methylmercury on approach and avoidance behavior of mallard ducklings
- 70 Downloads
Mallard ducks were fed a control diet or a diet containing 0.5 or 3 ppm mercury (as methylmercury dicyandiamide) based on the dry feed. These mercury diets are approximately equivalent to 0.1 and 0.6 ppm mercury in a natural succulent diet. I measured for the ducklings the approach behavior in response to a tape-recorded maternal call and the avoidance of a frightening stimulus.
There were no significant differences among controls and ducklings from mercury-treated parents in the percentage of ducklings that approached the tape-recorded call. Control ducklings, however, moved back and forth toward the call more than ducklings from mercury-treated parents and also spent more time in the end of the runway near the loudspeaker than ducklings whose parents were fed a diet containing 0.5 ppm mercury.
Compared to control ducklings, ducklings from parents fed a diet containing 0.5 or 3 ppm mercury were hyper-responsive in the test of avoidance of a frightening stimulus.
Mallard eggs collected in the wild have been found to contain levels of mercury exceeding the 1 ppm (wet-weight) found in the eggs of hens fed a diet containing 0.5 ppm, but there are no reports of mallard eggs collected in the wild that were found to contain as much mercury (6 to 9 ppm) as eggs from hens fed a diet containing 3 ppm mercury. On a dry-weight basis, the concentration of mercury in the eggs was about 6 times as great as that in the feed for ducks fed the 0.5 ppm mercury diet and about 6 to 9 times as great for ducks fed the 3 ppm mercury diet.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- BORG, K., H. WANNTORP, K. ERNE, and E. HANKO: Viltrevy6, 301 (1969).Google Scholar
- DILLON, JR., O. W.: Trans. N. A. Wildlife Conference24, 374 (1959).Google Scholar
- DUNCAN, D. B.: Biometrics11, 1 (1955).Google Scholar
- DUSTMAN, E. H., L. F. STICKEL, and J. B. ELDER: InEnvironmental Mercury Contamination. Edited by R. Hartung and B. D. Dinman. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 46 (1972).Google Scholar
- HEINZ, G.: Bull. Env. Cont. and Toxicol.11, 386 (1974).Google Scholar
- KRAMER, C. Y.: Biometrics12, 307 (1956).Google Scholar
- LAHUE, R.: Bull. Env. Cont. and Toxicol.10, 166 (1973).Google Scholar
- LJUNGGREN, L.: Viltrevy5, 423 (1968).Google Scholar
- McATEE, W. L.: Wildfowl food plants their value, propagation, and management. Collegiate Press, Inc.; Ames, Iowa. 141 p. (1939).Google Scholar
- MARTIN, A. C. and F. M. UHLER: U. S. Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report 30, 308 p. (1939).Google Scholar
- MEEKS, R. L.: J. Wildl. Management32, 376 (1968).Google Scholar
- RICKETT, H. W.: Wisc. Acad. Sciences, Arts, and Letters20_, 501 (1921).Google Scholar
- ROSENTHAL, E. and S. B. SPARBER: Life Sciences11, 883 (1972).Google Scholar
- VERMEER, K.: Trans. N. A. Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference36, 138 (1971).Google Scholar
- VERMEER, K., F. A. J. ARMSTRONG, and D. R. M. HATCH: J. Wildl. Management37, 58 (1973).Google Scholar