Advertisement

Ambio

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 196–204 | Cite as

Linking landscape development intensity within watersheds to methyl-mercury accumulation in river sediments

  • Jean-Claude J. Bonzongo
  • Augustine K. Donkor
  • Attibayeba Attibayeba
  • Jie Gao
Report

Abstract

An indicator of the disturbance of natural systems, the landscape development intensity (LDI) index, was used to assess the potential for land-use within watersheds to influence the production/accumulation of methyl-mercury (MeHg) in river sediments. Sediment samples were collected from locations impacted by well-identified land-use types within the Mobile-Alabama River Basin in Southeastern USA. The samples were analyzed for total-Hg (THg) and MeHg concentrations and the obtained values correlated to the calculated LDI indexes of the sampled watersheds to assess the impact of prevalent land use/land cover on MeHg accumulation in sediments. The results show that unlike THg, levels of MeHg found in sediments are impacted by the LDI indexes. Overall, certain combinations of land-use types within a given watershed appear to be more conducive to MeHg accumulation than others, therefore, pointing to the possibility of targeting land-use practices as potential means for reducing MeHg accumulation in sediments, and ultimately, fish contamination.

Keywords

Watersheds Ecological Disturbance index LDI Mercury 

References

  1. Almeida, M.D., L.D. Lacerda, W.R. Bastos, and J.C. Herrmann. 2005. Mercury loss from soils following conversion from forest to pasture in Rondônia, Western Amazon, Brazil. Environmental Pollution 137: 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  3. Balogh, S.J., M.L. Meyer, and D.K. Johnson. 1998. Transport of mercury in three contrasting river basins. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balogh, S.J., Y. Huang, H.J. Offerman, M.L. Meyer, and D.K. Johnson. 2002. Episodes of elevated methylmercury concentrations in prairie streams. Environmental Science and Technology 36: 1665–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balogh, S.J., Y. Huang, H.J. Offerman, M.L. Meyer, and D.K. Johnson. 2003. Methylmercury in rivers draining cultivated watersheds. Science of the Total Environment 304: 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balogh, S.J., Y.H. Nollet, and H.J. Offerman. 2005. A comparison of total mercury and methylmercury export from various Minnesota watersheds. Science of the Total Environment 340: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom, N.S. 1989. Determination of picogram levels of methylmercury by aqueous phase ethylation, followed by cryogenic gas chromatography with cold vapor atomic fluorescence detection. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1131–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonzongo, J.-C., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Branfireun, B.A., N.T. Roulet, C.A. Kelly, and J.J.W. Rudd. 1999. In situ sulphate stimulation of mercury methylation in a boreal peatland: Toward a link between acid rain and methylmercury contamination in remote environments. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 13: 743–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, M.T., and M.B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101: 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey, R.O., K.W. Migliaccio, Y. Li, B. Schaffer, G.A. Kiker, and M.T. Brown. 2011. Land use disturbance indicators and water quality variability in the Biscayne Bay Watershed, Florida. Ecological Indicators 11: 1093–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, Y.C., and C.L. Folt. 2005. High plankton densities reduce mercury biomagnification. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crosbie, B., and P. Chow-Fraser. 1999. Percentage land use in the watershed determines the water and sediment quality of 22 marshes in the Great Lakes basin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 1781–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donkor, A.K., J.-C. Bonzongo, V.K. Nartey, and D.K. Adotey. 2005. Heavy metals in sediments of gold mining impacted Ghanaian Pra River Basin, West Africa. International Journal of Sediments and Soil Contamination 14: 479–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donkor, A.K., J.-C. Bonzongo, V.K. Nartey, and D.K. Adotey. 2006. Mercury in different environmental compartments of the Pra River basin, Ghana. Science of the Total Environment 368: 164–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drott, A., L. Lambertsson, E. Björn, and U. Skyllberg. 2007. Importance of dissolved neutral mercury sulfides for methyl mercury production in contaminated sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 2270–2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galatowitsch, S., D.C. Whited, R. Lehtinen, J. Husveth, and K. Schik. 2000. The vegetation of wet meadows in relation to their land use. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 60: 12–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilmour, C.C., E.A. Henry, and R. Mitchell. 1992. Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 26: 2281–2287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Habersach, H.M. 2000. The river scaling concept (Rsc): A basis for ecological assessments. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, B.D., G.R. Aiken, D.P. Krabbenhoft, M. Marvin-DiPasquale, and C.M. Swarzenski. 2008. Wetlands as principal zones of methylmercury production in southern Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico region. Environmental Pollution 154: 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins, C.P., R.H. Norris, J. Gerristen, R.M. Hughes, S.K. Jackson, R.K. Johnson, and R.J. Stevenson. 2000. Evaluation of the use of land use classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: Synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horvat, M., L. Liang, and N. Bloom. 1993. Comparison of distillation with other current isolation methods for the determination of methyl mercury compounds in low level environmental samples. Part 1: Sediments. Analytica Chimica Acta 281: 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Jones, B., A.C. Neale, T.G. Wade, J.D. Wickham, C.L. Cross, C.M. Edmonds, T.R. Loveland, et al. 2001. The consequences of landscape change on ecological resources: An assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region, 1973–1992. Ecosystem Health 7: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, J.K., J.E. Kostka, M.E. Frischer, and F.M. Saunders. 2000. Sulfate-reducing bacteria methylate mercury at variable rates in pure culture and in marine sediments. Applied and Environment Microbiology 66: 2430–2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lacerda, L.D., M. de Souza, and M.G. Ribeiro. 2004. The effects of land use change on mercury distribution in soils of Alta Floresta, Southern Amazon. Environmental Pollution. 129: 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li, Y., X. Zhu, X. Sun, and F. Wang. 2010. Landscape effects of environmental impact on bay-area wetlands under rapid urban expansion and development policy: A case study of Lianyungang, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 94: 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental accounting: Emergy and environmental decision making, 390 pp. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Oliver, L.M., J.C. Lehrter, and W.C. Fisher. 2011. Relating landscape development intensity to coral reef condition in the watersheds of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series 427: 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patil, G.P., R.P. Brooks, W.L. Myers, D.J. Rapport, and C. Tallie. 2001. Ecosystem health and its measurement at landscape scale: Toward the next generation of quantitative assessments. Ecosystem Health 7: 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramial, P.S., J.W.M. Rudd, A. Furutam, and L. Xun. 1985. The effect of pH on methyl mercury production and decomposition in lake sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 685–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roue-LeGall, A., M. Lucotte, J. Carreau, R. Canuel, and E. Garcia. 2005. Development of an ecosystem sensitivity model regarding mercury levels in fish using a preference modeling methodology: Application to the Canadian Boreal System. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 9412–9423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rypel, A.L., D.A. Arrington, and R.H. Findlay. 2008. Mercury in southeastern U.S. Riverine fish populations linked to water body type. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 5118–5124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT user’s guide, Version 6, 4th ed., 943 pp. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Shao, D., Y. Kang, S. Wu, and M.H. Wong. 2012. Effects of sulfate reducing bacteria and sulfate concentrations on mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Science of the Total Environment 424: 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 Sciences 51: 1065–1076.Google Scholar
  37. USGS. 2002. Environmental setting and water-quality issues of the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Water-resources investigations report 02-4162, U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Montgomery, AL.Google Scholar
  38. Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Warner, K.A., J.-C. 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
  41. Welch, K.A., W.B. Lyons, E.Y. Graham, N. Neumann, J.M. Thomas, and D. Mikessel. 1996. Determination of major element chemistry in terrestrial waters from Antarctica by ion chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A 739: 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Claude J. Bonzongo
    • 1
  • Augustine K. Donkor
    • 2
  • Attibayeba Attibayeba
    • 3
  • Jie Gao
    • 4
  1. 1.Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, Department of Environmental Engineering SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of GhanaLegonGhana
  3. 3.Faculté des SciencesUniversité Marien NgouabiBrazzavilleCongo
  4. 4.Manufacturing Technology & EngineeringCorning IncorporatedCorningUSA

Personalised recommendations