Determining optimal sampling strategies for monitoring mercury and reproductive success in common loons in the Adirondacks of New York

  • Yang YangEmail author
  • Ruth D. Yanai
  • Nina Schoch
  • Valerie L. Buxton
  • Kara E. Gonzales
  • David C. Evers
  • Gregory G. Lampman


The common loon (Gavia immer), a top predator in the freshwater food web, has been recognized as an important bioindicator of aquatic mercury (Hg) pollution. Because capturing loons can be difficult, statistical approaches are needed to evaluate the efficiency of Hg monitoring. Using data from 1998 to 2016 collected in New York’s Adirondack Park, we calculated the power to detect temporal changes in loon Hg concentrations and fledging success as a function of sampling intensity. There is a tradeoff between the number of lakes per year and the number of years needed to detect a particular rate of change. For example, a 5% year−1 change in Hg concentration could be detected with a sampling effort of either 15 lakes per year for 10 years, or 5 lakes per year for 15 years, given two loons sampled per lake per year. A 2% year−1 change in fledging success could be detected with a sampling effort of either 40 lakes per year for 15 years, or 30 lakes per year for 20 years. We found that more acidic lakes required greater sampling intensity than less acidic lakes for monitoring Hg concentrations but not for fledging success. Power analysis provides a means to optimize the sampling designs for monitoring loon Hg concentrations and reproductive success. This approach is applicable to other monitoring schemes where cost is an issue.


Power analysis Sampling guidance Mercury Fledging success Bioindicator Common loon Lake acidity Adirondack Park 



We greatly appreciate the many hours the Adirondack field crew has devoted each summer to document the return rate and reproductive success of the color-banded study loons. The Adirondack Watershed Institute of Paul Smith’s College and the Adirondack Ecological Center of SUNY ESF generously provided students annually to assist with monitoring the banded loons on some of our study lakes. The staff of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Zoological Health Program, and Calvin College have provided in-kind staff support and equipment for the loon capture and sampling fieldwork each year.


Financial support was provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the Wildlife Conservation Society, The Wild Center, the Raquette River Advisory Council, and numerous private foundations and donors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution at which the studies were conducted.

Supplementary material

10646_2019_2122_MOESM1_ESM.docx (92 kb)
Supplementary Information


  1. Alvo R (2009) Common Loon, Gavia immer, breeding success in relation to lake pH and lake size over 25 years. Can Field Naturalist 123:146–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barkay T, Gillman M, Turner RR (1997) Effects of dissolved organic carbon and salinity on bioavailability of mercury. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4267–4271Google Scholar
  3. Barr JF (1986) Population dynamics of the Common Loon (Gavia immer) associated with mercury-contaminated waters in northwestern Ontario. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service 56:25Google Scholar
  4. Burgess NM, Meyer MW (2008) Methylmercury exposure associated with reduced productivity in common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buxton VL, Evers DC, Schoch N (2019) The influence of biotic and abiotic factors on banded common loon (Gavia immer) reproductive success in a remote, mountainous region of the northeastern United States. EcotoxicologyGoogle Scholar
  6. Champoux L, Masse DC, Evers D, Lane OP, Plante M, Timmermans ST (2006) Assessment of mercury exposure and potential effects on common loons (Gavia immer) in Québec. In: Limnology and aquatic birds . Springer, Dordrecht, pp 263–274Google Scholar
  7. Chan HM, Scheuhammer AM, Ferran A, Loupelle C, Holloway J, Weech S (2003) Impacts of mercury on freshwater fish-eating wildlife and humans. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 9:867–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen CY, Serrell N, Evers DC, Fleishman BJ, Lambert KF, Weiss J, Mason RP, Bank MS (2008) Meeting report: methylmercury in marine ecosystems—from sources to seafood consumers. Environ Health Perspect 116:1706–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evers DC (2001) Common loon population studies: continental mercury patterns and breeding territory philopatry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  10. Evers DC (2004). Status assessment and conservation plan for the Common Loon (Gavia Nimmer) in North America. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Evers DC, Kaplan JD, Meyer MW, Reaman PS, Braselton WE, Major A, Burgess N, Scheuhammer AM (1998) Geographic trend in mercury measured in common loon feathers and blood. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evers DC, Savoy LJ, DeSorbo CR, Yates DE, Hanson W, Taylor KM, Siegel LS, Cooley JH, Bank MS, Major A, Munney K (2008) Adverse effects from environmental mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evers DC, Williams KA, Meyer MW, Scheuhammer AM, Schoch N, Gilbert AT, Siegel L, Taylor RJ, Poppenga R, Perkins CR (2011) Spatial gradients of methylmercury for breeding common loons in the Laurentian Great Lakes region. Ecotoxicology 20:1609–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fevold BM, Meyer MW, Rasmussen PW, Temple SA (2003) Bioaccumulation patterns and temporal trends of mercury exposure in Wisconsin Common Loons. Ecotoxicology 12:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field M, Gehring TM (2015) Physical, human disturbance, and regional social factors influencing Common Loon occupancy and reproductive success. Condor 117(4):589–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerrodette T (1987) A power analysis for detecting trends. Ecology 68:1364–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Götmark F (1992) The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. In Current ornithology. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 63–104.Google Scholar
  18. Hake M, Dahlgren T, Ahlund M, Lindberg P, Eriksson MO (2005) The impact of water level fluctuation on the breeding success of the Black-throated Diver Gavia arctica in South-west Sweden. Ornis Fennica 82:1–2Google Scholar
  19. Kelly CA, Rudd JW, Holoka MH (2003) Effect of pH on mercury uptake by an aquatic bacterium: implications for Hg cycling. Environ Sci Technol 37:2941–2946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levine CR, Yanai RD, Lampman GG, Burns DA, Driscoll CT, Lawrence GB, Lynch JA, Schoch N (2014) Evaluating the efficiency of environmental monitoring programs. Ecol Indic 39:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lovett GM, Burns DA, Driscoll CT, Jenkins JC, Mitchell MJ, Rustad L, Shanley JB, Likens GE, Haeuber R (2007) Who needs environmental monitoring? Front Ecol Environ 5:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meyer MW, Evers DC, Hartigan JJ, Rasmussen PS (1998) Patterns of common loon (Gavia immer) mercury exposure, reproduction, and survival in Wisconsin, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer MW, Rasmussen PW, Watras CJ, Fevold BM, Kenow KP (2011) Bi-phasic trends in mercury concentrations in blood of Wisconsin common loons during 1992–2010. Ecotoxicology 20:1659–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller EK, Vanarsdale A, Keeler GJ, Chalmers A, Poissant L, Kamman NC, Brulotte R (2005) Estimation and mapping of wet and dry mercury deposition across northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miskimmin BM, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA (1992) Influence of dissolved organic carbon, and microbial respiration rates on mercury methylation and demethylation in lake water. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitro MG, Evers DC, Meyer MW, Piper WH (2008) Common loon survival rates and mercury in New England and Wisconsin. J Wildl Manag 72:665–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson GA (2015). Fishmethods: fishery science methods and models in R. R package version 1.7–0.
  28. Ream CH (1976) Loon productivity, human disturbance, and pesticide residues in northern Minnesota. Wilson Bull 88(3):427–432Google Scholar
  29. Schoch N, Glennon M, Evers D, Duron M, Jackson A, Driscoll C, Yu X, Simonin H (2011) Long-term monitoring and assessment of mercury based on integrated sampling efforts using the common loon, prey fish, water, and sediment NYSERDA Rep No 12-06:116. Accessed 25 Jan 2017
  30. Schoch N, Glennon MJ, Evers DC, Duron M, Jackson AK, Driscoll CT, Ozard JW, Sauer AK (2014) The impact of mercury exposure on the Common Loon (Gavia immer) population in the Adirondack Park. Waterbirds, New York, USA, pp 133–146. 37Google Scholar
  31. Schoch N, Yang Y, Yanai RD, Buxton VL, Evers DE, Driscoll CT (2019) Spatial patterns and temporal trends in mercury concentrations in common loons (Gavia immer) from 1998 to 2016 in New York’s Adirondack Park: has this top predator benefitted from mercury emission controls? EcotoxicologyGoogle Scholar
  32. Simonin HA, Loukmas JJ, Skinner LC, Roy KM (2008) Lake variability: key factors controlling mercury concentrations in New York State fish. Environ Pollut 154:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Uher-Koch BD, Schmutz JA, Wright KG (2015) Nest visits and capture events affect breeding success of Yellow-billed and Pacific loons. Condor 117:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Mercury in solids and solutions by thermal decomposition, amalgamation, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-7473. 17ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Weeber RC (1999) Temporal patterns in breeding success of Common Loons in Ontario, 1981–1997. Final report. Bird Studies Canada to Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Windels SK, Beever EA, Paruk JD, Brinkman AR, Fox JE, Macnulty CC, Evers DC, Siegel LS, Osborne DC (2013) Effects of water‐level management on nesting success of common loons. J Wildl Manag 77:1626–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolfe MF, Atkeson T, Bowerman W, Burger J, Evers DC, Murray MW, Zillioux E (2007) Wildlife indicators. In: Harris R, Krabbenhoft DP, Mason R, Murray MW, Reash R, Saltman T (eds) Ecosystem responses to mercury contamination: Indicators of change. Webster, NY: CRC Press, pp 134–200Google Scholar
  38. Yu X, Driscoll CT, Montesdeoca M, Evers D, Duron M, Williams K, Schoch N, Kamman NC (2011) Spatial patterns of mercury in biota of Adirondack, New York lakes. Ecotoxicology 20(7):1543–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu X, Driscoll CT, Huang J, Holsen TM, Blackwell BD (2013) Modeling and mapping of atmospheric mercury deposition in Adirondack Park, New York. PLoS ONE 8(3):e59322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest and Natural Resources ManagementState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Adirondack Center for Loon ConservationRay BrookUSA
  3. 3.Formerly of Biodiversity Research InstitutePortlandUSA
  4. 4.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  5. 5.California Department of TransportationOaklandUSA
  6. 6.Biodiversity Research InstitutePortlandUSA
  7. 7.New York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations