Species Differences in the Sensitivity of Avian Embryos to Methylmercury - Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
- ️Erwin, Carol A.
- ️Fri Apr 18 2008
Abstract
We injected doses of methylmercury into the air cells of eggs of 26 species of birds and examined the dose–response curves of embryo survival. For 23 species we had adequate data to calculate the median lethal concentration (LC50). Based on the dose–response curves and LC50s, we ranked species according to their sensitivity to injected methylmercury. Although the previously published embryotoxic threshold of mercury in game farm mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) has been used as a default value to protect wild species of birds, we found that, relative to other species, mallard embryos are not very sensitive to injected methylmercury; their LC50 was 1.79 μg/g mercury on a wet-weight basis. Other species we categorized as also exhibiting relatively low sensitivity to injected methylmercury (their LC50s were 1 μg/g mercury or higher) were the hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and laughing gull (Larus atricilla). Species we categorized as having medium sensitivity (their LC50s were greater than 0.25 μg/g mercury but less than 1 μg/g mercury) were the clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), chicken (Gallus gallus), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), herring gull (Larus argentatus), common tern (Sterna hirundo), royal tern (Sterna maxima), Caspian tern (Sterna caspia), great egret (Ardea alba), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and anhinga (Anhinga anhinga). Species we categorized as exhibiting high sensitivity (their LC50s were less than 0.25 μg/g mercury) were the American kestrel (Falco sparverius), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor). For mallards, chickens, and ring-necked pheasants (all species for which we could compare the toxicity of our injected methylmercury with that of published reports where methylmercury was fed to breeding adults and was deposited into the egg by the mother), we found the injected mercury to be more toxic than the same amount of mercury deposited naturally by the mother. The rank order of sensitivity of these same three species to methylmercury was, however, the same whether the methylmercury was injected or maternally deposited in the egg (i.e., the ring-necked pheasant was more sensitive than the chicken, which was more sensitive than the mallard). It is important to note that the dose–response curves and LC50s derived from our egg injections are useful for ranking the sensitivities of various species but are not identical to the LC50s that would be observed if the mother bird had put the same concentrations of mercury into her eggs; the LC50s of maternally deposited methylmercury would be higher.
Access this article
Subscribe and save
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
Buy Now
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Abbott WS (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol 18:265–267
Borg K, Wanntorp H, Erne K, Hanko E (1969) Alkyl mercury poisoning in terrestrial Swedish wildlife. Viltrevy 6:301–379
Burgess NM, Meyer MW (2008) Methylmercury exposure associated with reduced productivity in common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:83–91
Eisler R (2000) Handbook of chemical risk assessment: health hazards to humans, plants, and animals. Volume 1, metals. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL
Evers DC, Savoy LJ, DeSorbo CR et al (2008) Adverse effects from environmental mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:69–81
Fimreite N (1971) Effects of dietary methylmercury on ring-necked pheasants. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 9, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 39 pp
Fimreite N (1974) Mercury contamination of aquatic birds in northwestern Ontario. J Wildl Manage 38:120–131
Heinz G (1974) Effects of low dietary levels of methyl mercury on mallard reproduction. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 11:386–392
Heinz GH (1979) Methylmercury: reproductive and behavioral effects on three generations of mallard ducks. J Wildl Manage 43:94–401
Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ (1998) Methylmercury chloride and selenomethionine interactions on health and reproduction in mallards. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:139–145
Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ (2003) Embryotoxic thresholds of mercury: estimates from individual mallard eggs. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 44:257–264
Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ, Kondrad SL, Erwin CA (2006) Factors affecting the toxicity of methylmercury injected into eggs. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 50:264–279
Henny CJ, Hill EF, Hoffman DJ, Spalding MG, Grove RA (2002) Nineteenth century mercury: hazard to wading birds and cormorants of the Carson River, Nevada. Ecotoxicology 11:213–231
Hill EF, Henny CJ, Grove RA (2008) Mercury and drought along the lower Carson River, Nevada: II. Snowy egret and black-crowned night-heron reproduction on Lahontan Reservoir, 1997–2006. Ecotoxicology 17:117–131
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 17:184–190
Nishimura M, Urakawa N (1976) A transport mechanism of methyl mercury to egg albumen in laying Japanese quail. Jpn J Vet Sci 38:433–444
Rumbold DG, Niemczyk SL, Fink LE, Chandraesekhar T, Harkanson B, Laine KA (2001) Mercury in eggs and feathers of great egrets (Ardea albus) from the Florida Everglades. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41:501–507
Scheuhammer AM (1987) The chronic toxicity of aluminum, cadmium, mercury, and lead in birds: a review. Environ Pollut 46:263–295
Scheuhammer AM, Meyer MW, Sandheinrich MB, Murray MW (2007) Effects of environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. Ambio 36:12–18
Scheuhammer AM, Perrault JA, Bond DE (2001) Mercury, methylmercury, and selenium concentrations in eggs of common loons (Gavia immer) from Canada. Environ Monit Assess 72:79–94
Schwarzbach SE, Albertson JD, Thomas CM (2006) Effects of predation, flooding, and contamination on reproductive success of California clapper rails (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) in San Francisco Bay. Auk 123:45–60
Simpson PG, Hopkins TE, Haque R (1973) Binding of methylmercury chloride to the model peptide, N-acetyl-l-cysteine. A proton magnetic study. J Phys Chem 77:2282–2285
Tejning S (1967) Biological effects of methyl mercury dicyandiamide-treated grain in the domestic fowl Gallus gallus L. Oikos (Suppl 8):1–116
Thompson DR (1996) Mercury in birds and terrestrial mammals. In: Beyer WN, Heinz GH, Redmond-Norwood AW (eds) Environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 341–356
Wiemeyer SN, Lamont TG, Bunck CM et al (1984) Organochlorine pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, and mercury residues in bald eagle eggs—1969–79—and their relationships to shell thinning and reproduction. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 13:529–549
Wiener JG, Krabbenhoft DP, Heinz GH, Scheuhammer AM (2003) Ecotoxicology of mercury. In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA Jr, Cairns J Jr (eds) Handbook of ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 409–463
Wolfe MF, Schwarzbach S, Sulaiman RA (1998) Effects of mercury on wildlife: a comprehensive review. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:146–160
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s Ecosystem Restoration Program (grant no. ERP–02D-C12) with additional support from the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. We thank Donna Podger and Carol Adkins of the California Bay-Delta Authority for help and project support. Steve Schwarzbach and Tom Suchanek provided much appreciated guidance and support during the development of the project, and Collin Eagles-Smith and Tom Maurer handled much of the work with reports and budget matters. We thank Kevin Brittingham, Michael Hammond, Michael Hoffman, and Dan Murray for their help in conducting the laboratory parts of the study and Julie Yee and Linda Green for statistical advice. We are very grateful to the following people who helped in one way or another in the collection and shipping of eggs to us: Ray Adams, Josh Ackerman, Terry Adelsbach, David Allen, Tom Augspurger, Wayne Bauer, Alicia Berlin, Sue Cameron, Melissa Duron, Collin Eagles-Smith, David Evers, Karen Gaines, Brian Heinz, Patricia Heinz, Michael Koterba, Jerry Longcore, Frank McGilvrey, Peter McGowan, Jason Miller, Jane Nicolich, Holliday Obrecht, Matthew Perry, Michael Rickard, Darren Rumbold, Lucas Savoy, and Paul Spitzer. Barnett Rattner and Natalie Karouna-Renier provided helpful reviews of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, BARC-East, Building 308, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD, 20705, USA
Gary H. Heinz, David J. Hoffman, Jon D. Klimstra, Katherine R. Stebbins, Shannon L. Kondrad & Carol A. Erwin
Authors
- Gary H. Heinz
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
- David J. Hoffman
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
- Jon D. Klimstra
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
- Katherine R. Stebbins
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
- Shannon L. Kondrad
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
- Carol A. Erwin
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Gary H. Heinz.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heinz, G.H., Hoffman, D.J., Klimstra, J.D. et al. Species Differences in the Sensitivity of Avian Embryos to Methylmercury. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 56, 129–138 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-008-9160-3
Received: 27 December 2007
Accepted: 26 February 2008
Published: 18 April 2008
Issue Date: January 2009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-008-9160-3