Advertisement

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?

  • Nina Schoch
  • Yang YangEmail author
  • Ruth D. Yanai
  • Valerie L. Buxton
  • David C. Evers
  • Charles T. Driscoll
Article

Abstract

Mercury (Hg), a neurotoxic pollutant, can be transported long distances through the atmosphere and deposited in remote areas, threatening aquatic wildlife through methylation and bioaccumulation. Over the last two decades, air quality management has resulted in decreases in Hg emissions from waste incinerators and coal-fired power plants across North America. The common loon (Gavia immer) is an apex predator of the aquatic food web. Long-term monitoring of Hg in loons can help track biological recovery in response to the declines in atmospheric Hg that have been documented in the northeastern USA. To assess spatial patterns and temporal trends in Hg exposure of the common loon in the Adirondack Park of New York State, we analyzed Hg concentrations in loon blood and egg samples from 116 lakes between 1998 and 2016. We found spatially variable Hg concentrations in adult loon blood and feathers across the Park. Loon Hg concentrations (converted to female loon units) increased 5.7% yr−1 from 1998 to 2010 (p = 0.04), and then stabilized at 1.70 mg kg−1 from 2010 to 2016 (p = 0.91), based on 760 observations. Concentrations of Hg in juvenile loons also increased in the early part of the record, stabilizing 2 years before Hg concentrations stabilized in adults. For 52 individual lakes with samples from at least 4 different years, loon Hg increased in 34 lakes and decreased in 18 lakes. Overall, we found a delayed recovery of Hg concentrations in loons, despite recent declines in atmospheric Hg.

Keywords

Common loon Adirondack Park Spatial pattern Temporal trends Mercury New York 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

Funding

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 international, 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 or practice at which the studies were conducted.

References

  1. Adams RM, Twiss MR, Driscoll CT (2009) Patterns of mercury accumulation among seston in lakes of the Adirondack Mountains, New York. Environ Sci Technol 43:4836–4842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B (2019) Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 567:305–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Branch UC (2008) The global atmospheric mercury assessment: sources, emissions and transport. UNEP-Chemicals, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown D, Goncharov A, Paul E, Simonin H, Carpenter DO (2010) The relationship between Adirondack lake pH and levels of mercury in yellow perch. J Aquat Anim Health 22:280–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess NM, Meyer MW (2008) Methylmercury exposure associated with reduced productivity in common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell JL, Driscoll CT, Pourmokhtarian A, Hayhoe K (2011) Streamflow responses to past and projected future changes in climate at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, United States. Water Resour Res 47:W02514.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Chen CY, Stemberger RS, Kamman NC, Mayes BM, Folt CL (2005) Patterns of Hg bioaccumulation and transfer in aquatic food webs across multi-lake studies in the northeast US. Ecotoxicology 14:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen C, Amirbahman A, Fisher N, Harding G, Lamborg C, Nacci D, Taylor D (2008) Methylmercury in marine ecosystems: spatial patterns and processes of production, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification. EcoHealth 5:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desorbo CR, Burgess NM, Nye P, Loukmas JJ, Brant HA, Burton M, Persico CP, Evers DC (2019) Mercury exposure differences in nestling bald eagles in New York, USA. EcotoxicologyGoogle Scholar
  12. Driscoll CT, Yan C, Schofield CL, Munson R, Holsapple J (1994) The mercury cycle and fish in the Adirondack lakes. Environ Sci Technol 28(3):136A–143ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Driscoll CT, Driscoll KM, Roy KM, Dukett J (2007) Changes in the chemistry of lakes in the Adirondack region of New York following declines in acidic deposition. Appl Geochem 22:1181–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Driscoll CT, Mason RP, Chan HM, Jacob DJ, Pirrone N (2013) Mercury as a global pollutant: sources, pathways, and effects. Environ Sci Technol 47(10):4967–4983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driscoll CT, Driscoll KM, Fakhraei H, Civerolo K (2016) Long-term temporal trends and spatial patterns in the acid-base chemistry of lakes in the Adirondack region of New York in response to decreases in acidic deposition. Atmos Environ 146:5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.08.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagles-Smith CA, Silbergeld EK, Basu N, Bustamante P, Diaz-Barriga F, Hopkins WA, Kidd KA, Nyland JF (2018) Modulators of mercury risk to wildlife and humans in the context of rapid global change. Ambio 47(2):170–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Evers DC (2001) Common loon population studies: Continental mercury patterns and breeding territory philopatry. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  19. Evers DC, Taylor KM, Major A, Taylor RJ, Poppenga RH, Scheuhammer AM (2003) Common loon eggs as indicators of methylmercury availability in North America. Ecotoxicology 12:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evers DC, Burgess NM, Champoux L, Hoskins B, Major A, Goodale WM, Taylor RJ, Poppenga R, Daigle T (2005) Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater avian communities in northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:193–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evers DC, Han YJ, 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. AIBS Bull 57:29–43Google Scholar
  22. Evers DC, Savoy LJ, DeSorbo CR, Yates DE, Hanson W, Taylor KM, Siegel LS, Cooley JH, Bank MS, Major A, Munney K, Mower B, Vogel HS, Schoch N, Pokras M, Goodale MW, Fair J (2008) Adverse effects from environmental mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Gerson JR, Driscoll CT (2016) Is mercury in a remote forested watershed of the Adirondack mountains responding to recent decreases in emissions? Environ Sci Technol 50:10943–10950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hongve D, Haaland S, Riise G, Blakar I, Norton S (2012) Decline of acid rain enhances mercury concentrations in fish. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2490–2491.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es3002629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hrabik TR, Watras CJ (2002) Recent declines in mercury concentration in a freshwater fishery: isolating the effects of de-acidification and decreased atmospheric mercury deposition in Little Rock Lake. Sci Total Environ 297:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Kramar D, Goodale WM, Kennedy LM, Carstensen LW, Kaur T (2005) Relating land cover characteristics and common loon mercury levels using geographic information systems. Ecotoxicology 14:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mao H, Ye Z, Driscoll CT (2017) Meteorological effects on Hg wet deposition in a forested site in the Adirondack region of New York during 2000–2015. Atmos Environ 168:90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer MW, Evers DC, Daulton T, Braselton WE (1995) Common loons (Gavia immer) nesting on low pH lakes in northern Wisconsin have elevated blood mercury content. In: Mercury as a global pollutant. Springer, Netherlands. pp 871–880Google Scholar
  32. 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: Int J 17:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Millard GD, Driscoll CT, Montesdeoca M, Yang Y, Taylor MS, Boucher S, Shaw AL, Paul EA, Parker C, Yokota K (2019) Patterns and trends of fish mercury in New York State. EcotoxicologyGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Parker KE (1988) Common loon reproduction and chick feeding on acidified lakes in the Adirondack Park, New York. Can J Zool 66:804–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salmi T (2002) Detecting trends of annual values of atmospheric pollutants by the Mann–Kendall test and Sen’s slope estimates-the Excel template application MAKESENS. Publ. Air Qual., 31, Finn. Meteorol. Inst., HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  38. SAS Institute Inc. (2013) SAS 9.4 guide to software. Updates. SAS Institute Inc, Raleigh, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 Report No. 12–06:116. https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Publications/Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports/Environmental-Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports#eco. Accessed 25 Jan 2017
  40. 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, New York, USA. Waterbirds 37:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Selin NE, Jacob DJ, Park RJ, Yantosca RM, Strode S, Jaeglé L, Jaffe D et al. (2007) Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury: global constraints from observations. J Geophys Res Atmos 112(D2):1–14Google Scholar
  42. Simonin HA, Loukmas JJ, Skinner LC, Roy KM, Paul EA (2009) Trends in mercury concentrations in New York State fish. Bull Environ Contamination Toxicol 83(2):214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steffan RJ, Korthals ET, Winfrey MR (1988) Effects of acidification on mercury methylation, demethylation, and volatilization in sediments from an acid-susceptible lake. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:2003–2009Google Scholar
  44. U.S. EPA (1994) Method 245.1: determination of mercury in water by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry. Revision 3.0. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  45. U.S. EPA (2007) Mercury in solids and solutions by thermal decomposition, amalgamation, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry. EPA-7473. U.S. EPA. p 17Google Scholar
  46. U.S. EPA (2012) Mercury and air toxics standards for power plants. 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. U.S. EPA. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf
  47. USGCRP (2018) In: Reidmiller, DR, CW Avery, DR Easterling, KE Kunkel, KLM Lewis, TK Maycock, and BC Stewart (eds) Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Report-in-Brief. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, p 186Google Scholar
  48. Weiss-Penzias PS, Gay DA, Brigham ME, Parsons MT, Gustin MS, ter Schure A (2016) Trends in mercury wet deposition and mercury air concentrations across the US and Canada. Sci Total Environ 568:546–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wolfe MF, Atkeson T, Bowerman W, Burger J, Evers DC, Murray MW, Zillioux E (2007) Wildlife indicators. In: Harris R, Murray MW, Saltman T, Mason R, Krabbenhoft DP, Reash R (eds) Ecosystem responses to mercury contamination: indicators of change. CRC Press, New York, NY, pp 123–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang Y, Yanai RD, Schoch N, Buxton VL, Gonzales KE, Evers DC, Lampman GG (2019) Determining optimum sampling strategies for monitoring mercury and reproductive success in common loons in the Adirondacks of New York. EcotoxicologyGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. Zhang Y, Jacob DJ, Horowitz HM, Chen L, Amos HM, Krabbenhoft DP, Slemr F, Louis VL, Sunderland EM (2016) Observed decrease in atmospheric mercury explained by global decline in anthropogenic emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:526–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhou H, Zhou C, Lynam MM, Dvonch JT, Barres JA, Hopke PK, Cohen M, Holsen TM (2017) Atmospheric mercury temporal trends in the northeastern United States from 1992 to 2014: are measured concentrations responding to decreasing regional emissions? Environ Sci Technol Lett 4(3):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Formerly of Biodiversity Research InstitutePortlandUSA
  2. 2.Adirondack Center for Loon ConservationRay BrookUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forest and Natural Resources ManagementState University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  4. 4.Biodiversity Research InstitutePortlandUSA
  5. 5.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations