Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 14–19 | Cite as

Mercury Concentrations in Lentic Fish Populations Related to Ecosystem and Watershed Characteristics

  • Andrew L. Rypel
Report

Abstract

Predicting mercury (Hg) concentrations of fishes at large spatial scales is a fundamental environmental challenge with the potential to improve human health. In this study, mercury concentrations were examined for five species across 161 lakes and ecosystem, and watershed parameters were investigated as explanatory variables in statistical models. For all species, Hg concentrations were significantly, positively related to wetland coverage. For three species (largemouth bass, pike, and walleye), Hg concentrations were significantly, negatively related to lake trophic state index (TSI), suggestive of growth biodilution. There were no significant relationships between ecosystem size and mercury concentrations. However, Hg concentrations were strongly, positively related to ecosystem size across species. Scores of small or remote lakes that have never been tested could be prioritized for testing using models akin to those presented in this article. Such an approach could also be useful for exploring how Hg concentrations of fishes might respond to natural or anthropogenic changes to ecosystems over time.

Keywords

Contaminant Ecology Fish tissue Food chain GIS Methylation Wisconsin 

Notes

Acknowledgments

James G. Vennie III provided the digital data from the Wisconsin lakes book. Debra M. McCallum, Institute for Social Science Research at University of Alabama assisted in developing the statistical approach used in this study; but I take ultimate responsibility for the experimental design and choice of statistical analyses. D. Albrey Arrington, Craig A. Layman, Lori-Tolley Jordan, and three anonymous reviewers provided comments on earlier manuscripts that dramatically improved the study.

References

  1. Belger, L., and B.R. Forsberg. 2006. Factors controlling Hg levels in two predatory fish species in the Negro river basin, Brazilian Amazon. Science of the Total Environment 367: 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björklund, I., H. Borg, and K. Johansson. 1984. Mercury in Swedish lakes—Its regional distribution and causes. AMBIO 13: 118–121.Google Scholar
  3. Bonzongo, J.C.J., and W.B. Lyons. 2004. Impact of land use and physicochemical settings on aqueous methylmercury levels in the Mobile-Alabama River System. AMBIO 33: 328–333.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, C.Y., and C.L. Folt. 2005. High plankton densities reduce mercury biomagnification. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drevnick, P.E., D.E. Canfield, P.R. Gorski, A.L.C. Shinneman, D.R. Engstrom, D.C.G. Muir, G.R. Smith, P.J. Garrison, L.B. Cleckner, J.P. Hurley, R.B. Noble, R.R. Otter, and J.T. Oris. 2007. Deposition and cycling of sulfur controls mercury accumulation in Isle Royale fish. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 7266–7272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driscoll, C.T., Y.J. Han, C.Y. Chen, D.C. Evers, K.F. Lambert, T.M. Holsen, N.C. Kamman, and R.K. Munson. 2007. Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the Northeastern United States. BioScience 57: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald, W.F., and T.W. Clarkson. 1991. Mercury and monomethylmercury: Present and future concerns. Environmental Health Perspectives 96: 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeremiason, J.D., D.R. Engstrom, E.B. Swain, E.A. Nater, B.M. Johnson, J.E. Almendinger, B.A. Monson, and R.K. Kolka. 2006. Sulfate addition increases methylmercury production in an experimental wetland. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 3800–3806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lindberg, S., R. Bullock, R. Ebinghaus, D. Engstrom, X.B. Feng, W. Fitzgerald, N. Pirrone, E. Prestbo, and C. Seigneur. 2007. A synthesis of progress and uncertainties in attributing the sources of mercury in deposition. AMBIO 36: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindeberg, C., R. Bindler, C. Bigler, P. Rosen, and I. Renberg. 2007. Mercury pollution trends in subarctic lakes in the northern Swedish mountains. AMBIO 36: 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mergler, D., H.A. Anderson, L.H.M. Chan, K.R. Mahaffey, M. Murray, M. Sakamoto, and A.H. Stern. 2007. Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: A worldwide concern. AMBIO 36: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Munthe, J., S. Hellsten, and T. Zetterberg. 2007. Mobilization of mercury and methylmercury from forest soils after a severe storm-fell event. AMBIO 36: 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pickhardt, P.C., C.L. Folt, C.Y. Chen, B. Klaue, and J.D. Blum. 2002. Algal blooms reduce the uptake of toxic methylmercury in freshwater food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 4419–4423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Post, D.M. 2002. The long and short of food-chain length. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Post, D.M., M.L. Pace, and N.G. Hairston. 2000. Ecosystem size determines food-chain length in lakes. Nature 405: 1047–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Qian, S.S., W. Warren-Hicks, J. Keating, D.R.J. Moore, and R.S. Teed. 2001. A predictive model of mercury fish tissue concentrations for the southeastern United States. Environmental Science and Technology 35: 941–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rudd, J.W.M. 1995. Sources of methyl mercury to freshwater ecosystems: A review. Water, Air, and Soil pollution 80: 697–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rypel, A.L., and C.A. Layman. 2008. Degree of aquatic ecosystem fragmentation predicts population characteristics of gray snapper in Caribbean tidal creeks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rypel A.L., D.A. Arrington, and R.H. Findlay. 2008. Mercury in southeastern US riverine fish populations linked to waterbody type. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 5118–5124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schindler, D.W., and J.P. Smol. 2006. Cumulative effects of climate warming and other human activities on freshwaters of Arctic and subarctic North America. AMBIO 35: 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. St. Louis V.L., J.W.M. Rudd, C.A. Kelly, K.G. Beaty, N.S. Bloom, and R.J. Flett. 1994. Importance of wetlands as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 51: 1065–1076.Google Scholar
  22. Stokstad, E. 2008. New rules on saving wetlands push the limits of the science. Science 320: 162–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. U.S.E.P.A. 2000. Quality assurance project plan for sample collection activities for a national study of chemical residues in lake fish tissue. Report EPA-823-R-02-005. p. 114. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Warner, K.A., J.C.J. Bonzongo, E.E. Roden, G.M. Ward, A.C. Green, I. Chaubey, W.B. Lyons, and D.A. Arrington. 2005. Effect of watershed parameters on mercury distribution in different environmental compartments in the Mobile Alabama River Basin, USA. Science of the Total Environment 347: 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Warner, K.A., E.E. Roden, and J.C. Bonzongo. 2003. Microbial mercury transformation in anoxic freshwater sediments under iron-reducing and other electron-accepting conditions. Environmental Science and Technology 37: 2159–2165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin lakes, Pub-FH-800. Watershed Bureau, Madison.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest Service Stream Hydrology LabUniversity of Mississippi Biology DepartmentOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations