Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 717–731 | Cite as

Bioaccumulation of methylmercury in wood frogs and spotted salamanders in Vermont vernal pools

  • Steven D. FaccioEmail author
  • Kate L. Buckman
  • John D. Lloyd
  • Amanda N. Curtis
  • Vivien F. Taylor
Article

Abstract

Mercury (Hg) has accumulated in forested landscapes in the Northeastern U.S., and hotspots with enhanced deposition have been identified throughout the region. Due to a variety of favorable landscape characteristics, including relatively high dissolved organic carbon (DOC), fluctuating water levels, and low pH and dissolved oxygen, vernal pools provide ideal conditions for the conversion of Hg to its more toxic and bioavailable form, methylmercury (MeHg). Yet little is known about the concentrations, speciation, and bioavailability of Hg in vernal pools, or its bioaccumulation in vernal pool fauna and potential export into terrestrial systems. We investigated the role of forest cover type on the bioaccumulation of MeHg in wood frog (Lithobates sylvatica) and spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) eggs, larvae, and adults, and investigated relationships among MeHg and water chemistry (pH, DOC). Water samples from pools located in coniferous stands had greater concentrations of THg and MeHg compared to deciduous pool water, and showed significant positive correlation to DOC (r = 0.683, P < 0.001) and correlated negatively with pH (r = −0.613, P < 0.001). Methylmercury levels in amphibian embryos were similar between the two species (L. sylvatica mean = 5.4 ng/g dw; A. maculatum mean = 3.5 ng/g dw). Concentrations of MeHg increased substantially in larvae, and were significantly greater in A. maculatum (mean = 237.6 ng/g ± 18.5 SE) than L. sylvatica larvae (62.5 ng/g ± 5.7 SE). Forest cover type did not explain variation in MeHg concentration among amphibian embryos or larvae. Methylmercury levels in adult tissue samples were significantly greater in A. maculatum (mean = 79.9 ng/g ± 8.9 SE) compared to L. sylvatica (mean = 47.7 ng/g ± 9.7 SE). This research demonstrates that vernal pools are important hotspots where amphibians bioaccumulate MeHg, which may then be transferred to terrestrial ecosystems. The abundance of amphibian larvae suggests they could be important bioindicators for monitoring MeHg loading and bioavailability.

Keywords

Vernal pools Methylmercury Amphibians Lithobates sylvatica Ambystoma maculatum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Meghan Wilson, Ann Chalmers, and volunteers Rick Biddle and Patrick Mullins for providing field assistance. We’d also like to thank Celia Chen for providing lab support, and several private landowners for providing access to study sites. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful insights that improved the final version of the manuscript. Funding was provided by the Northeastern States Research Cooperative and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences P42ES007373-20.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. This research was conducted under a protocol approved by Dartmouth College’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

References

  1. Adams MJ, Miller DAW, Muths E, Corn PS, Grant EHC, Bailey LL, Fellers GM, Fisher RN, Sadinski WJ, Waddle H, Walls SC (2013) Trends in amphibian occupancy in the United States. PLoS ONE 8:e64347.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin RF, Calhoun AJK, DeMaynadier PG (2006) Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol 40:443–454.  https://doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2006)40[442:CPFASW]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoń K (2018) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.42.1 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit JM, Gilmour CC, Heyes A, Mason RP, Miller CL (2003) Geochemical and biological controls over methylmercury production and degradation in aquatic ecosystems. In: Cai Y, Braids OC (eds) Biogeochemistry of environmentally important trace elements. ACS Symposium Series 835, p 262–297  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2003-0835.ch019
  6. Benoit JM, Cato DA, Denison KC, Moreira AE (2013) Seasonal mercury dynamics in a New England vernal pool. Wetlands 33:887–894.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-013-0447-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergeron CM, Bodinof CM, Unrine JM, Hopkins WA (2010a) Mercury accumulation along a contamination gradient and nondestructive indices of bioaccumulation in amphibians. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:980–988.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergeron CM, Bodinof CM, Unrine JM, Hopkins WA (2010b) Bioaccumulation and maternal transfer of mercury and selenium in amphibians. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:989–997.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergeron CM, Hopkins WA, Todd BD, Hepner MJ, Unrine JM (2011) Interactive effects of maternal and dietary mercury exposure have latent and lethal consequences for amphibian larvae. Environ Sci Technol 45:3781–3787.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-012-0850-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berven KA (2009) Density dependence in the terrestrial stage of wood frogs: evidence from a 21-year population study. Copeia 2:328–338.  https://doi.org/10.1643/CH-08-052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bridges C, Semlitsch R (2001) Genetic variation in insecticide tolerance in a population of southern leopard frogs (Rana sphenocephala): implications for amphibian conservation. Copeia 2001:7–13.  https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[0007:GVIITI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks RT, Eggert SL, Nislow KH, Kolka RK, Chen CY, Ward DM (2012) Preliminary assessment of mercury accumulation in Massachusetts and Minnesota seasonal forest pools. Wetlands 32:653–663.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0298-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke JN, Bergeron CM, Todd BD, Hopkins WA (2010) Effects of mercury on performance and behavior of northern two-lined salamanders. Environ Pollut 158:3546–3541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cade BS (2015) Model averaging and muddled multimodel inferences. Ecology 96:2370–2382.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1639.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Capps KA, Berven KA, Tiegs SD (2015) Modelling nutrient transport and transformation by pool-breeding amphibians in forested landscapes using a 21-year dataset. Freshw Biol 60:500–511.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carrier G, Bouchard M, Brunet RC, Caza M (2001) A toxicokinetic model for predicting the tissue distribution and elimination of organic and inorganic mercury following exposure to methylmercury in animals and humans. II. Application and validation of the model in humans. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 171:50–60.  https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.2000.9113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG (2009) Science and conservation of vernal pools in Northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. Colburn EA (2004) Vernal pools: natural history and conservation. McDonalds and Woodward Publishing Co., BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
  20. Colburn EA, Weeks SC, Reed SK (2009) Diversity and ecology of vernal pool invertebrates. In: Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG (eds) Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 105–126Google Scholar
  21. Davis E (2013) Seasonal changes in mercury stocks and methylmercury rations in vernal pools in the northeastern United States. M.S. thesis, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Day RD, Christopher SJ, Becker PR, Whitaker DW (2005) Monitoring mercury in the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta. Environ Sci Technol 39:437–446.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es049628q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Driscoll CT, Young-Ji H, Chen CY, Evers DC, Lambert KF, Holsen TM, Kamman NC, Munson RK (2007) Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the northeastern United States. BioScience 57:17–28.  https://doi.org/10.1641/b570106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eisler R (2006) Mercury hazards to living organisms. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. EPA (2002) Method 1631, Revision E: mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. EPA-821-R-02-019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  26. Evers DC, Han Y-J, Driscoll CT, Kamman NC, Goodale MW, Lambert KF, Holsen TM, Chen CY, Clair TA, Butler T (2007) Biological mercury hotspots in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. BioScience 57:29–43.  https://doi.org/10.1641/B570107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evers DC, Keane SE, Basu N, Buck D (2016) Evaluating the effectiveness of the Minamata Convention on mercury: principles and recommendations for next steps. Sci Total Environ 569:888–903.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faccio SD (2003) Post-breeding emigration and habitat use by Jefferson and spotted salamanders in Vermont. J Herpetol 37:479–489.  https://doi.org/10.1670/155-02A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Faccio SD, Lew-Smith M, Worthley A (2013) Vermont vernal pool mapping project 2009–2012. Final Report to the Natural Heritage Information Project of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife http://vtecostudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/vce-vernal-pool-mapping-final-report.pdf
  30. Faccio SD, MacFaden SW, Lambert JD, O’Neil-Dunne J, McFarland KP (2016) The North Atlantic Vernal Pool Data Cooperative: 2016 revision. Unpublished report submitted to the North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative http://vtecostudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NALCC_VPDC_Final-Report.V2.July2016_HiRez.pdf
  31. Fitzpatrick LC (1976) Life history patterns of storage and utilization of lipids for energy in amphibians. Am Zool 16:725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Flageole S, Leclair Jr R (1992) Demographic study of a spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) population by means of the skeleto-chronological method. Can J Zool 70:740–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Forzan MJ, Vanderstichel RV, Ogbuah CT, Barta JR, Smith TG (2012) Blood collection from the facial (maxillary)/musculo-cutaneous vein in true frogs (Family Ranidae). J Wildl Dis 48:176–180.  https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-48.1.176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galloway ME, Branfireun BA (2004) Mercury dynamics of a temperate forested wetland. Sci Total Environ 325:239–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gilhen J (1984) Amphibian and reptiles of Nova Scotia. Bulletin of the Nova Scotia Museum, HalifaxGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldstein RM, Brigham ME, Stauffer JC (1996) Comparison of mercury concentrations in liver, muscle, whole bodies, and composites of fish from the Red River of the North. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:244–252.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f06-081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  38. Grigal DF (2002) Inputs and outputs of mercury from terrestrial watersheds: a review. Environ Rev 10:1–39.  https://doi.org/10.1139/a01-013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Herrero Ortega S, Catalán N, Björn E, Gröntoft H, Hilmarsson TG, Bertilsson S, Wu P, Bishop K, Levanoni O, Bravo AG (2018) High methylmercury formation in ponds fueled by fresh humic and algal derived organic matter. Limnol Oceanogr 63:S44–S53.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jackson B, Taylor V, Baker A, Miller E (2009) Low level mercury speciation in freshwaters by isotope dilution GC-ICP-MS. Environ Sci Technol 43:2463–2469.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es802656p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krabbenhoft DP, Wiener JG, Brumbaugh WG, Olsen ML, DeWild JF, Sabin TJ (1999) A national pilot study of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems along multiple gradients. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, CharlestonGoogle Scholar
  42. Loftin CS, Calhoun AJK, Nelson SJ, Elskus AA, Simon K (2012) Mercury bioaccumulation in wood frogs developing in seasonal pools. Northeast Nat 19:579–600.  https://doi.org/10.1656/045.019.0404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazerolle MJ (2017) AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.1-1 https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg
  44. 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 14:53–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-004-6259-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mitchell JC, Paton PWC, Raithel CJ (2009) The importance of vernal pools to reptiles, birds, and mammals. In: Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG (eds) Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 169–190Google Scholar
  46. NEPARC (2010) Northeast amphibian and reptile species of regional responsibility and conservation concern. Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (NEPARC). Publication 2010-1 http://northeastparc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/NEPARC_NEspeciesofresponsibility.pdf
  47. NEPARC (2014) Disinfection of field equipment to minimize risk of spread of chytridiomycosis and ranavirus. NEPARC Publication 2014-02 http://www.northeastparc.org/products/pdfs/NEPARC_Pub_2014-02_Disinfection_Protocol.pdf
  48. Pfleeger AZ, Eagles-Smith CA, Kowalski BM, Herring G, Willacker Jr JJ, Jackson AK, Pierce JR (2016) From tails to toes: developing nonlethal tissue indicators of mercury exposure in five amphibian species. Ecotoxicology 25:574–583.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-016-1616-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and Computing. Springer, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahman GM, Wolle MM, Fahrenholz T, Kingston HM, Pamuku M (2014) Measurement of mercury species in whole blood using speciated isotope dilution methodology integrated with microwave-enhanced solubilization and spike equilibration, Headspace-solid-phase microextraction, and GC-ICP-MS analysis. Anal Chem 86:6130–6137.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac501352d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ralston NVC, Blackwell JL, Raymond LJ (2007) Importance of molar ratios in selenium-dependent protection against methylmercury toxicity. Biol Trace Elem Res 119:255–268.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-007-8005-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rimmer CC, Miller EK, McFarland KP, Taylor RJ, Faccio SD (2010) Mercury bioaccumulation and trophic transfer in the terrestrial food web of a montane forest. Ecotoxicology 19:697–710.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-009-0443-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Risch MR, DeWild JF, Krabbenhoft DP, Kolka RK, Zhang L (2012) Litterfall mercury dry deposition in the eastern USA. Environ Pollut 161:284–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scheuhammer AM, Meyer MW, Sandheinrich MB, Murray MW (2007) Effects of environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. Ambio 36:12–18.  https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[12:EOEMOT]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smallwood WM (1928) Notes on the food of some Onondaga Urodela. Copeia 169:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor VF, Jackson BP, Chen CY (2008) Mercury speciation and total trace element determination of low-biomass biological samples. Anal Bioanal Chem 392:1283–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-008-2403-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor VF, Carter A, Davies C, Jackson BP (2011) Trace-level automated mercury speciation analysis. Anal Methods 3:1143–1148.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C0AY00528B CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Semlitsch RD, Skelly DK (2009) Ecology and conservation of pool-breeding amphibians. In: Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG (eds) Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 127–147Google Scholar
  59. Sparling DW, Linder G, Bishop C (2000) Ecotoxicology of amphibians and reptiles. SETAC Press, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  60. Todd BD, Willson JD, Bergeron CM, Hopkins WA (2012) Do effects of mercury in larval amphibians persist after metamorphosis? Ecotoxicology 21:87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0768-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Townsend JM, Driscoll CT (2013) Red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus) as a bioindicator of mercury in terrestrial forests of the northeastern United States. Ecol Indic 34:168–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Unrine JM, Jagoe CH, Hopkins WA, Brant HA (2004) Adverse effects of ecologically relevant dietary mercury exposure in southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) larvae. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:2964–2970.  https://doi.org/10.1897/03-696.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Meter R, Bailey LL, Campbell Grant EH (2008) Methods for estimating the amount of vernal pools in the northeastern United States. Wetlands 28:585–593.  https://doi.org/10.1672/07-237.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wada H, Bergeron CM, McNabb FMA, Todd BD, Hopkins WA (2011) Dietary mercury has no observable effect on thyroid-mediated processes and fitness-related traits in wood frogs. Environ Sci Technol 45:7915–7922.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es201084q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wake DB, Vredenburg VT (2008) Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11466–11473.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801921105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wells KD, Bevier CR (1997) Contrasting patterns of energy substrate use in two species of frogs that breed in cold weather. Herpetologica 53:70–80Google Scholar
  67. Wiener JG, Krabbenhoft DP, Heinz GH, Scheuhammer AM (2003) Ecotoxicology of mercury. In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA, Cairns J (eds) Handbook of ecotoxicology Lewis Publishers, New York, NY, p 409–463Google Scholar
  68. Windmiller BW (1996) The pond, the forest, and the city: spotted salamander ecology and conservation in a human-dominated landscape. PhD Dissertation, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  69. Zheng W, Obrist D, Weis D, Bergquist BA (2016) Mercury isotope compositions across North American forests. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 30:1475–1492.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vermont Center for EcostudiesNorwichUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  3. 3.Program in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation BiologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Earth ScienceDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations