Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 14, Issue 1–2, pp 283–293 | Cite as

An Approach to Predict Risks to Wildlife Populations from Mercury and Other Stressors

  • Diane Nacci
  • Marguerite Pelletier
  • Jim Lake
  • Rick Bennett
  • John Nichols
  • Romona Haebler
  • Jason Grear
  • Anne Kuhn
  • Jane Copeland
  • Matthew Nicholson
  • Steven Walters
  • Wayne R. MunnsJr
Article

Abstract

Ecological risk assessments for mercury (Hg) require measured and modeled information on exposure and effects. While most of this special issue focuses on the former, i.e., distribution and fate of Hg within aquatic food webs, this paper describes an approach to predict the effects of dietary methylmercury (CH3Hg) on populations of piscivorous birds. To demonstrate this approach, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (U.S. EPA NHEERL) is working cooperatively with environmental and conservation organizations to develop models to predict CH3Hg effects on populations of the common loon, Gavia immer. Specifically, a biologically-based toxicokinetic model is being used to extrapolate CH3Hg effects on the reproduction of a tested bird species, the American kestrel (Falco sparverius), to the loon. Population models are being used to incorporate stressor effects on survival and reproduction into projections of loon population effects. Finally, habitat and spatially-explicit population models are being used to project results spatially, assess the relative importance of CH3Hg and non-chemical stressors, and produce testable predictions of the effects of biologically-available Hg on loon populations. This stepwise process provides an integrated approach to estimate the impact on wildlife populations of regulations that limit atmospherically-distributed Hg, and to develop risk-based population-level regulatory criteria.

Keywords

wildlife populations mercury effects ecological risk assessment land use changes environmental protection–conservation partnerships 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akçakaya, H.R. 2002RAMAS-GIS Linking Spatial Data with Population Viability Analysis (version 4.0.)Applied BiomathematicsSetauket, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, J.F. (1986). Population dynamics of the Common Loon (Gavia immer) associated with mercury-contaminated waters in northwestern Ontario. Occasional Paper Number 56, Canadian Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyer, W.N., Heinz, G.H. 2000Implications of regulating environmental contaminants on the basis of wildlife populations and communitiesEnviron. Toxicol. Chem19170312Google Scholar
  4. Evers, D.C. 2001. Common loon population studies: continental mercury patterns and breeding territory philopatry. Dissertation, University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  5. Evers, D.C. and Clair, T.A. (2005). Mercury in Northeastern North America: A Synthesis of Existing Databases. Ecotox. 14, 7–14Google Scholar
  6. Lande, R., Engen, S., Saether, B.-E. 2003Stochastic Population Dynamics in Ecology and ConservationOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Landis, W.G. 2002Uncertainty in the extrapolation from individual effects to impacts upon landscapesHuman Ecol. Risk Assess.8193204Google Scholar
  8. McIntyre, J.W. and Barr, J.F. (1997). Common Loon. The Birds of America, No. 313Google Scholar
  9. McMillan, A.M., Bagley, M.J., Evers, D.C. 2004Characterization of seven microsatellite polymorphic loci in the Common Loon (Gavia Immer)Mol. Ecol. Notes4297299Google Scholar
  10. NOAA. (1999). National estuarine eutrophication assessment: a summary of conditions, historical trends, and future outlook. Draft, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
  11. Piper, W.H., Paruk, J.D., Evers, D.C., Meyer, M.W., Tischler, K.B., Klich, M., Hartigan, J.J. 1997Local movements of color-marked common loonsJ. Wildlife Manage.6112531261Google Scholar
  12. Richards, W.H., Wallin, D.O., Schumaker, N.H. 2002An analysis of late-seral forest connectivity in western Oregon, USAConserv. Biol.1614091421Google Scholar
  13. Schumaker, N.H. (1998). A Users Guide to the PATCH Model. EPA/600/R-98/135, Office of Research and Development, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  14. U.S. EPA. (1991). Technical support document for water quality-based control. EPA/505/2-90-001, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. U.S. EPA. (1994). Interim guidance on determination and use of water-effect ratios for metals. EPA 823-B-94-001, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. U.S. EPA. (1995). Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative technical support document for wildlife criteria. EPA-820-B-95-009, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. U.S. EPA. (1997). Mercury Study Report to Congress. EPA-452/R-97-003, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. U.S. EPA. (1998a). Water quality criteria and standards plan – priorities for the future. EPA 822-R-98-003, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. U.S. EPA. (1998b). Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. U.S. EPA. (2005). Wildlife research strategy. Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/researchstrategies.htmGoogle Scholar
  21. U.S. EPA. (2002). Aquatic stressors: framework and implementation plan for effects research. Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NCGoogle Scholar
  22. Walters, S. 2001Landscape pattern and productivity effects on source-sink dynamics of deer populationsEcol. Model.1431732Google Scholar
  23. Wiegand, T., Moloney, K.A., Naves, J., Knauer, F. 1999Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspectiveAm. Nat.154605627Google Scholar
  24. With, K.A., Gardner, R.H., O’Neill, R.V. 1997Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environmentsOikos78151169Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Nacci
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marguerite Pelletier
    • 1
  • Jim Lake
    • 1
  • Rick Bennett
    • 1
  • John Nichols
    • 1
  • Romona Haebler
    • 1
  • Jason Grear
    • 1
  • Anne Kuhn
    • 1
  • Jane Copeland
    • 2
  • Matthew Nicholson
    • 1
  • Steven Walters
    • 1
  • Wayne R. MunnsJr
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryUSA
  2. 2.Computer Sciences CorporationUSA
  3. 3.U.S. EPA ORD NHEERL AEDNarragansettRIUSA

Personalised recommendations