4.5 Article

Mercury exposure and reproduction in fish-eating birds breeding in the Pinchi Lake region, British Columbia, Canada

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1433-1440

出版社

SETAC
DOI: 10.1897/05-181R.1

关键词

mercury; bald eagle; reproduction; blood; feather

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine whether Hg from geologic/mining-related sources at Pinchi Lake (BC, Canada) was causing elevated Hg exposure and/or adversely affecting reproduction in fish-eating birds, breeding bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) on Pinchi Lake and four nearby reference lakes were sampled for blood and feather Hg concentrations and monitored for reproductive success during the summers of 2000, 2001, and 2002. Eggs of red-necked grebes (Podiceps grisgena) also were collected and analyzed. Mercury levels in species at various trophic levels from Pinchi Lake averaged approximately twice those in the same species from nearby lakes combined, even in the absence of substantial new inputs of Hg to Pinchi Lake over several decades. In Pinchi Lake, Hg concentrations in blood and feathers of eagles and eggs of grebes were significantly higher than those in corresponding samples from reference lakes. However, the mean Hg concentration (0.25 mu g/g wet wt) in grebe eggs from Pinchi Lake was substantially lower than accepted threshold levels for reproductive toxicity in most avian species (0.5-1.0 mu g/g wet wt). Mercury concentrations in the blood of adult eagles and their chicks were highly correlated (r = 0.91, p = 0.004). Despite elevated Hg exposure in adult eagles nesting on Pinchi Lake (blood Hg concentration, 4.3-9.4 mu g/ml), birds appeared to be in good body condition, did not differ significantly in terms of weight from eagles nesting on reference takes, and exhibited no evidence of obvious abnormal behavior or lack of coordination. Eagle reproductive success and productivity on Pinchi Lake were not significantly different from those on all reference lakes combined (p = 0.483).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据