Literature DB >> 17901207

Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition.

Reed C Harris1, John W M Rudd, Marc Amyot, Christopher L Babiarz, Ken G Beaty, Paul J Blanchfield, R A Bodaly, Brian A Branfireun, Cynthia C Gilmour, Jennifer A Graydon, Andrew Heyes, Holger Hintelmann, James P Hurley, Carol A Kelly, David P Krabbenhoft, Steve E Lindberg, Robert P Mason, Michael J Paterson, Cheryl L Podemski, Art Robinson, Ken A Sandilands, George R Southworth, Vincent L St Louis, Michael T Tate.   

Abstract

Methylmercury contamination of fisheries from centuries of industrial atmospheric emissions negatively impacts humans and wildlife worldwide. The response of fish methylmercury concentrations to changes in mercury deposition has been difficult to establish because sediments/soils contain large pools of historical contamination, and many factors in addition to deposition affect fish mercury. To test directly the response of fish contamination to changing mercury deposition, we conducted a whole-ecosystem experiment, increasing the mercury load to a lake and its watershed by the addition of enriched stable mercury isotopes. The isotopes allowed us to distinguish between experimentally applied mercury and mercury already present in the ecosystem and to examine bioaccumulation of mercury deposited to different parts of the watershed. Fish methylmercury concentrations responded rapidly to changes in mercury deposition over the first 3 years of study. Essentially all of the increase in fish methylmercury concentrations came from mercury deposited directly to the lake surface. In contrast, <1% of the mercury isotope deposited to the watershed was exported to the lake. Steady state was not reached within 3 years. Lake mercury isotope concentrations were still rising in lake biota, and watershed mercury isotope exports to the lake were increasing slowly. Therefore, we predict that mercury emissions reductions will yield rapid (years) reductions in fish methylmercury concentrations and will yield concomitant reductions in risk. However, a full response will be delayed by the gradual export of mercury stored in watersheds. The rate of response will vary among lakes depending on the relative surface areas of water and watershed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17901207      PMCID: PMC2034227          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0704186104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  12 in total

1.  Influences of watershed characteristics on mercury levels in wisconsin rivers.

Authors:  J P Hurley; J M Benoit; C L Babiarz; M M Shafer; A W Andren; J R Sullivan; R Hammond; D A Webb
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  1995-07-01       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Evasion of added isotopic mercury from a northern temperate lake.

Authors:  George Southworth; Steven Lindberg; Holger Hintelmann; Marc Amyot; Alexandre Poulain; Maryanna Bogle; Mark Peterson; John Rudd; R Harris; Kenneth Sandilands; David Krabbenhoft; Mark Olsen
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.742

3.  Effect of loading rate on the fate of mercury in littoral mesocosms.

Authors:  Diane M Orihel; Michael J Paterson; Cynthia C Gilmour; R A Bodaly; Paul J Blanchfield; Holger Hintelmann; Reed C Harris; John W M Rudd
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2006-10-01       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 4.  Recovery of mercury-contaminated fisheries.

Authors:  John Munthe; R A Drew Bodaly; Brian A Branfireun; Charles T Driscoll; Cynthia C Gilmour; Reed Harris; Milena Horvat; Marc Lucotte; Olaf Malm
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.129

Review 5.  A synthesis of progress and uncertainties in attributing the sources of mercury in deposition.

Authors:  Steve Lindberg; Russell Bullock; Ralf Ebinghaus; Daniel Engstrom; Xinbin Feng; William Fitzgerald; Nicola Pirrone; Eric Prestbo; Christian Seigneur
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 5.129

6.  Importance of the forest canopy to fluxes of methyl mercury and total mercury to boreal ecosystems.

Authors:  V L St Louis; J W Rudd; C A Kelly; B D Hall; K R Rolfhus; K J Scott; S E Lindberg; W Dong
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2001-08-01       Impact factor: 9.028

7.  Forest fire increases mercury accumulation by fishes via food web restructuring and increased mercury inputs.

Authors:  Erin N Kelly; David W Schindler; Vincent L St Louis; David B Donald; Katherine E Vladicka
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-12-07       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Mercury methylation in aquatic systems affected by acid deposition.

Authors:  C C Gilmour; E A Henry
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 8.071

9.  Reactivity and mobility of new and old mercury deposition in a boreal forest ecosystem during the first year of the METAALICUS study. Mercury Experiment To Assess Atmospheric Loading In Canada and the US.

Authors:  Holger Hintelmann; Reed Harris; Andrew Heyes; James P Hurley; Carol A Kelly; David P Krabbenhoft; Steve Lindberg; John W M Rudd; Karen J Scott; Vincent L St Louis
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2002-12-01       Impact factor: 9.028

10.  Increasing rates of atmospheric mercury deposition in midcontinental north america.

Authors:  E B Swain; D R Engstrom; M E Brigham; T A Henning; P L Brezonik
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-08-07       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  41 in total

1.  Mercury trends in fish from rivers and lakes in the United States, 1969-2005.

Authors:  Ann T Chalmers; Denise M Argue; David A Gay; Mark E Brigham; Christopher J Schmitt; David L Lorenz
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 2.513

Review 2.  Bioaccumulation syndrome: identifying factors that make some stream food webs prone to elevated mercury bioaccumulation.

Authors:  Darren M Ward; Keith H Nislow; Carol L Folt
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 5.691

3.  Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries.

Authors:  Erin N Kelly; David W Schindler; Peter V Hodson; Jeffrey W Short; Roseanna Radmanovich; Charlene C Nielsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Site-directed mutagenesis of HgcA and HgcB reveals amino acid residues important for mercury methylation.

Authors:  Steven D Smith; Romain Bridou; Alexander Johs; Jerry M Parks; Dwayne A Elias; Richard A Hurt; Steven D Brown; Mircea Podar; Judy D Wall
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Fish respond when the mercury rises.

Authors:  Daniel R Engstrom
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Over three millennia of mercury pollution in the Peruvian Andes.

Authors:  Colin A Cooke; Prentiss H Balcom; Harald Biester; Alexander P Wolfe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-05-18       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Distribution and enrichment of mercury in Tibetan lake waters and their relations with the natural environment.

Authors:  Chengding Li; Qianggong Zhang; Shichang Kang; Yongqin Liu; Jie Huang; Xiaobo Liu; Junming Guo; Kang Wang; Zhiyuan Cong
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 4.223

8.  Methylmercury exposure during early Xenopus laevis development affects cell proliferation and death but not neural progenitor specification.

Authors:  Ryan W Huyck; Maitreyi Nagarkar; Nina Olsen; Samuel E Clamons; Margaret S Saha
Journal:  Neurotoxicol Teratol       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.763

9.  Increasing mercury in yellow perch at a hotspot in Atlantic Canada, Kejimkujik National Park.

Authors:  Brianna Wyn; Karen A Kidd; Neil M Burgess; R Allen Curry; Kelly R Munkittrick
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 9.028

10.  Sources of mercury exposure for U.S. seafood consumers: implications for policy.

Authors:  Noelle E Selin; Elsie M Sunderland; Christopher D Knightes; Robert P Mason
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.