| Literature DB >> 35091543 |
Jacqueline R Gerson1,2, Natalie Szponar3, Angelica Almeyda Zambrano4, Bridget Bergquist3, Eben Broadbent4, Charles T Driscoll5, Gideon Erkenswick6,7, David C Evers8, Luis E Fernandez9,10,11, Heileen Hsu-Kim12, Giancarlo Inga13, Kelsey N Lansdale14, Melissa J Marchese15,16, Ari Martinez17, Caroline Moore13, William K Pan15,16, Raúl Pérez Purizaca18, Victor Sánchez19, Miles Silman9,10,11, Emily A Ury20, Claudia Vega9,10,11, Mrinalini Watsa7,13, Emily S Bernhardt20.
Abstract
Mercury emissions from artisanal and small-scale gold mining throughout the Global South exceed coal combustion as the largest global source of mercury. We examined mercury deposition and storage in an area of the Peruvian Amazon heavily impacted by artisanal gold mining. Intact forests in the Peruvian Amazon near gold mining receive extremely high inputs of mercury and experience elevated total mercury and methylmercury in the atmosphere, canopy foliage, and soils. Here we show for the first time that an intact forest canopy near artisanal gold mining intercepts large amounts of particulate and gaseous mercury, at a rate proportional with total leaf area. We document substantial mercury accumulation in soils, biomass, and resident songbirds in some of the Amazon's most protected and biodiverse areas, raising important questions about how mercury pollution may constrain modern and future conservation efforts in these tropical ecosystems.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35091543 PMCID: PMC8799693 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-27997-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 17.694
Fig. 1Deposition pathways for mercury in the environment in the process of burning a mercury (Hg)–gold (Au) amalgam.
Mercury emitted as gaseous elemental mercury (GEM; Hg0) can undergo three atmospheric pathways to be deposited onto the landscape. First, GEM can be oxidized to ionic Hg (Hg2+), which can be entrained in water droplets and deposited as wet or dry deposition to foliar surfaces. Second, GEM can sorb to atmospheric particles (Hgp), which are intercepted by leaves and, along with intercepted ionic Hg, washed onto the landscape via throughfall. Third, GEM can be taken up into leaf tissue, and the Hg deposited onto the landscape as litterfall. Throughfall and litterfall together are considered as an estimate of total Hg deposition. While GEM may also diffuse into and adsorb onto soils and litter directly[77], this is likely not a major pathway for Hg entry into the terrestrial ecosystem.
Fig. 2Concentrations of mercury in depositing materials and surficial soil in Madre de Dios, Peru.
A Map of the five sampling sites shown as yellow circles. Two sites (Boca Manu, Chilive) are located in areas remote from artisanal gold mining, and three sites (Los Amigos, Boca Colorado, and Laberinto) are located in mining-impacted areas, with mining towns shown as blue triangles. The insets show a typical forested remote site and deforested mining-impacted site. In all figures, the dashed line represents the demarcation between the two remote sites (on the left) and the three mining-impacted sites (on the right). B Gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) concentrations at each site for the 2018 dry (n = 1 independent sample for each site; square symbol) and wet (n = 2 independent samples; square symbol) seasons. C Concentration of total mercury in precipitation collected in forested (green boxplots) and deforested (brown boxplots) areas during the 2018 dry season. For all boxplots, the line represents the median value, the box shows Q1 and Q3, and the whiskers denote 1.5 times the interquartile range (n = 5 independent samples for each forested site, n = 4 independent samples for each deforested site). D Concentration of total mercury in leaves collected during the 2018 dry season from the canopy of Ficus insipida and Inga feuillei (left axis; dark green square and light green triangle symbols, respectively) and as bulk litter on the ground (right axis; olive green circle symbol). Values are shown as mean and standard deviation (n = 3 independent samples for live leaves for each site, n = 1 independent sample for litter). E Concentration of total mercury in surficial soils (top 0–5 cm) collected during the 2018 dry season (n = 3 independent samples for each site) in forested (green boxplots) and deforested (brown boxplots) areas. Data for other seasons are shown in Figs. S1 and S2.
Fig. 3Mercury flux and surficial soil pools (0–5 cm) at the Los Amigos Conservation Concession.
Data are shown in A forested and B deforested areas. The deforested area at Los Amigos represents a clearing for the field station, which makes up a small fraction of total land. Fluxes are shown in arrows and expressed as µg m−2 yr−1. Pools are shown in circles for the top 0–5 cm of soil and expressed as μg m−2. Percentages represent the percent of the mercury present as methylmercury in the pool or flux. The average concentration between the dry season (2018 and 2019) and wet season (2018) for total mercury in throughfall, bulk precipitation, and litterfall were used for this upscaled estimate of mercury loading. Methylmercury data are based on the 2018 dry season, the only year that it was measured. For information on pool and flux calculations, see the “Methods”. C Relationship between total mercury concentration in throughfall and leaf area index at the eight plots at Los Amigos Conservation Concession according to an ordinary least square regression. D Relationship between precipitation total mercury concentration and surficial soil mercury total concentration at all five sites in the forested (green circle) and deforested (brown triangle) areas according to an ordinary least square regression (error bars show standard deviation).
Fig. 4Total mercury concentrations in tail feathers of bird species in the Peruvian Amazon.
Data were collected at the Los Amigos Conservation Concession (n = 10 for Myrmotherula axillaris [understory invertivore] and Phlegopsi nigromaculata [ant-following invertivore], n = 46 for Pipra fasciicauda [frugivore]; red triangle symbol) and the remote site of Cocha Cashu Biological Station (n = 2 for each species; green circle symbol). The effective concentrations (EC) at which reproductive success is reduced by 10, 20, and 30% (see Evers[58]) are shown. Bird photos are modified from Schulenberg[65].