, Volume 40, Issue 2–3, pp 327–345 | Cite as

Methylmercury concentrations and production rates across a trophic gradient in the northern Everglades

  • Cynthia C. Gilmour
  • G.S. Riedel
  • M.C. Ederington
  • J.T. Bell
  • G.A. Gill
  • M.C. Stordal


Methylmercury (MeHg) concentrations and production rates were examined along with sulfur biogeochemistry in Everglades sediments in March, July and December, 1995, as part of a large, multi-investigator study, the Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades (ACME) project. The sites examined constitute a trophic gradient, generated from agricultural runoff, across the Everglades Nutrient Removal (ENR) Area, which is a re-constructed wetland, and Water Conservation Areas (WCA) 2A, 2B and 3 in the northern Everglades. MeHg concentrations and %MeHg (MeHg as a percent of total Hg) were lowest in the more eutrophic areas and highest in the more pristine areas in the south. MeHg concentrations ranged from <0.1 ng gdw-1 sediment in the ENR to 5 ng gdw-1 in WCA3 sediments; and MeHg constituted <0.2% of total Hg (HgT) in ENR, but up to about 2% in two sites in WCA2B and WCA3. Methylation rates in surficial sediments, estimated using tracer-level injections of203 Hg(II) into intact sediment cores, ranged from 0 to 0.12 d-1, or about 1 to 10 ng g-1 d-1when the per day values are multiplied by the ambient total Hg concentration. Methylation was generally maximal at or within centimeters of the sediment surface, and was never observed in water overlying cores. The spatial pattern of MeHg production generally matched that of MeHg concentration. The coincident distributions of MeHg and its production suggest that in situ production controls concentration, and that MeHg concentration can be used as an analog for MeHg production. In addition, the spatial pattern of MeHg in Everglades sediments matches that in biota, suggesting that MeHg bioaccumulation may be predominantly a function of the de novo methylation rate in surficial sediments.

Sulfate concentrations in surficial pore waters (up to 400 µm), microbial sulfate-reduction rates (up to 800 nm cc-1 d-1) and resultant pore water sulfide concentrations (up to 300 µm) at the eutrophic northern sites were all high relative to most freshwater systems. All declined to the south, and sulfate concentrations in WCA2B and in central WCA3 resembled those in oligotrophic lakes (50–100 µm). MeHg concentration and production were inversely related to sulfate reduction rate and pore water sulfide. Control of MeHg production in the northern Everglades appears to mimic that in an estuary, where sulfate concentrations are high and where sulfide produced by microbial sulfate reduction inhibits MeHg production.

mercury methylmercury sulfate reduction sulfide wetlands 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amador JA & Jones RD (1995) Carbon mineralization in pristine and phosphorous-enriched peat soils of the Florida Everglades. Soil Sci. 159: 129–141Google Scholar
  2. Andren AW & Harriss RC (1973) Methylmercury in estuarine sediments. Nature 245: 256–257Google Scholar
  3. Belanger TV, Scheidt DJ & Platko II JR (1989) Effects of nutrient enrichment on the Florida Everglades. Lake and Reservoir Managment 5: 101–111Google Scholar
  4. Bodaly RA, Hecky RE & Fudge RJP (1984) Increases in fish mercury levels in lakes flooded by the Churchill River diversion, northern Manitoba. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41: 682–691Google Scholar
  5. Bloom NS, Colman JA & Barber L (1997) Artifact formation of methylmercury during aqueous distillation and alternative techniques for the extraction of methyl mercury from environmental samples. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 358: 372–377Google Scholar
  6. Bloom NS & Von der Geest EJ (1995a) Matrix modification to improve the recovery of MMHg from clear water during distillation. Water Air Soil Poll. 80: 1319–1323Google Scholar
  7. Bloom NS, Horvat M & Watras CJ (1995b) Results of the International aqueous mercury speciation intercomparison exercise. Water Air Soil Poll. 80: 1257–1268Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, N (1989) Determination of picogram levels of methylmercury by aqueous phase ethylation followed by cryogenic gas chromatography with cold vapour atomic fluorescence detection. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 46: 1131–1140Google Scholar
  9. Bloom N & Fitzgerald WF (1988) Determination of volatile mercury species at the picogram level by low-temperature gas chromatography with cold vapour atomic fluorescence detection. Anal. Chim. Acta 208: 151–161Google Scholar
  10. Branfireun BA, Heyes A & Roulet NT (1996) The hydrology and methylmercury dynamics of a Precambrian Sheild headwater peatland. Water Res. Res. 32: 1785–1794Google Scholar
  11. Brouwer H & Murphy TP (1994) Diffusion method for the determination of acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) in sediment. Environ. Tox. Chem. 13: 1273–1275Google Scholar
  12. Browder JA, Gleason PJ & Swift DR (1994) Periphyton in the Everglades: Spatial variation, environmental correlates and ecological implications. In: Davis SM & Ogden JC (Eds) Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration (pp 379–418). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FLGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleckner LB, Garrison PJ, Hurley JP & Krabbenhoft DP (1997) Relationships between water chemistry and trophic transfer of total and methylmercury in the northern Florida Everglades. Biogeochem. 40: 347–361Google Scholar
  14. Compeau G & Bartha R (1985) Sulfate-reducing bacteria: Principle methylators of mercury in anoxic estuarine sediment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50: 498–502Google Scholar
  15. DeBusk WF, Reddy KR, Koch MS & Wang Y (1994) Spatial distribution of soil nutrients in a northern Everglades marsh: Water Conservation Area 2A. Soil Sci. Am. J. 58: 543–552Google Scholar
  16. Drake HL, Aumen NG, Kuhner C, Wagner D, Greiβhammer A & Schmittroth M (1996) Anaerobic microflora of Everglades sediments: Effects of nutrients on population profiles and activities. Appl. Environ. Micro. In pressGoogle Scholar
  17. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection (1994) Health Advisories for Mercury in Florida Freshwater Fish. Tallahasee, FLGoogle Scholar
  18. Fossing H & Jorgensen BB (1989) Measurement of bacterial sulfate reduction in sediments: Evaluation of a single step chromium reduction method. Biogeochem. 8: 205–222Google Scholar
  19. Gill GA & Fitzgerald WF (1987) Picomolar mercury measurements in seawater and other materials using stannous chloride reduction and two-stage gold amalgamation with gas phase detection. Marine Chem. 20: 227–243Google Scholar
  20. Gilmour CC & Riedel GS (1995) Measurement of Hg methylation in sediments using high specific-activity 203Hg and ambient incubation. Water Air Soil Poll. 80: 747–756Google Scholar
  21. Gilmour CC, Henry EA & Mitchell R (1992) Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26: 2281–2287Google Scholar
  22. Hintelmann H & Evans RD (1997) Application of stable isotopes in environmental tracer studies – Measurement of monomethylmercury by isotope dilution ICP-MS and detection of species transformation. Fesenius J. Anal. Chem. 358: 378–385Google Scholar
  23. Horvat M, Bloom NS & Liang L (1993a) Comparison of distillation with other current isolation methods for the determination of MeHg compounds in low level environmental samples. Part I. Sediment. Anal. Chim. Acta 282: 135–152.Google Scholar
  24. Horvat M, Liang L & Bloom NS (1993b) Comparison of distillation with other current isolation methods for the determination of MeHg compounds in low level environmental samples. Part II. Water. Anal. Chim. Acta 282: 153–168Google Scholar
  25. Hurley JP, Krabbenhoft DP, Cleckner LB, Olson ML, Aiken G & Rawlik PJ (1997) System controls on aqueous mercury distribution in the northern Florida Everglades. Biogeochem. 40: 293–310Google Scholar
  26. Hurley JP, Benoit JM, Babiarz CL, Schafer MM, Andren AW, Sullivan JR, Hammond R & Webb DA (1995) Influences of watershed characteristics on mercury levels in Wisconsin rivers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29: 1867–1875Google Scholar
  27. Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, Bodaly RA, Roulet NT, St. Louis VL, Heyes A, Moore TR, Aravena R, Dyck B, Harris R, Schiff S, Warner B & Edwards G (1996) Increases in fluxes of greenhouse gases and methylmercury following the flooding of an experimental reservoir. Environ. Sci. Technol. In pressGoogle Scholar
  28. Korthals ET & Winfrey MR (1987) Seasonal and spatial variations in mercury methylation and demethylation in an oligotrophic lake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53: 2397–2404Google Scholar
  29. Krabbenhoft DP, Hurley JP, Olson ML & Cleckner LB (1997) Diurnal variability of mercury phase and species distribution in the Florida Everglades. Biogeochem. 40: 311–325Google Scholar
  30. Krabbenhoft DP, Benoit JM, Babiarz CL, Hurley JP & Andren AW (1995) Mercury cycling in the Allequash Creek Watershed, Northern Wisconsin. Water Air Soil Poll. 80: 425–433Google Scholar
  31. Marnette EC, Hordijk CA, van Breeman N & Cappenberg ThE (1992) Sulfate reduction and S-oxidation in a moorland pool sediment. Biogeochem. 17: 123–143Google Scholar
  32. Oremland RS, Miller LG, Dowdle P, Connel T & Barkay T (1995) Methylmercury oxidative degradation potentials in contaminated and pristine sediments of the Carson River, Nevada. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61: 2745–2753Google Scholar
  33. Ramlal PS, Kelly CA, Rudd JWM & Furutani A (1993) Sites of methylmercury production in remote Candian Shield Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 972–979Google Scholar
  34. Rood BE, Gottgens JF, Delfino JJ, Earle CD & Crisman TL (1995) Mercury accumulation trends in the Florida Everglades and Savannas Marsh flooded sediments. Water Air Soil Poll. 80: 981–990Google Scholar
  35. Sellers P, Kelly CA, Rudd JWM & Machutchon AR (1996) Photodegradation of methylmercury in lakes. Nature 380: 694–697Google Scholar
  36. St. Louis VL, Rudd JMW, Kelly CA, Beaty KG, Bloom NS & Flett RJ (1994) The importance of wetlands as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 1065–1076Google Scholar
  37. Stordal M & Gill, G (1995) Determination of mercury methylation rates using a 203Hg radiotracer technique. Water Air Soil Poll. 80: 725–734Google Scholar
  38. Urban NR, Brezonik PL, Baker LA & Sherman LA (1994) Sulfate reduction and diffusion in sediments of Little Rock Lake, Wisconsin. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39: 797–815Google Scholar
  39. Ware FJ, Royals H & Lange T (1990) Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44: 5–12Google Scholar
  40. Watras CJ, Bloom NS, Claas SA, Morrison KA, Gilmour CC & Craig SR (1995b) Methylmercury production in the anoxic hypolimnion of a dimictic seepage lake. Water Air Soil Poll. 80: 735–745Google Scholar
  41. Watras CJ et al. (1994) Sources and fates of mercury and methylmercury in Wisconsin Lakes. In: Watras CJ & Huckabee JW (Eds) Mercury Pollution: Intergration and Synthesis (pp 153–177). Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  42. Wiener JG, Fitzgerald WF, Watras CJ & Rada RG (1990) Partitioning and bioavailability of mercury in an experimentally acidified Wisconsin lake. Environ. Tox. Chem. 9: 909–918Google Scholar
  43. Willie S & Berman S (1995) Ninth round intercomparison for trace metals in marine sediments and biological tissues. NRC/NOAAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia C. Gilmour
  • G.S. Riedel
  • M.C. Ederington
  • J.T. Bell
  • G.A. Gill
  • M.C. Stordal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations