Abstract
The biogeochemistry of tidal marsh sediments facilitates the transformation of mercury (Hg) into the biologically available form methylmercury (MeHg), resulting in elevated Hg exposures to tidal marsh wildlife. Saltmarsh and Acadian Nelson’s sparrows (Ammospiza caudacutua and A. nelsoni subvirgatus, respectively) exclusively inhabit tidal marshes, potentially experiencing elevated risk to Hg exposure, and have experienced range-wide population declines. To characterize spatial and temporal variation of Hg exposure in these species, we sampled total mercury (THg) in blood collected from 9 populations spanning 560 km of coastline, including individuals resampled within and among years. Using concurrent nesting studies, we tested whether THg was correlated with nest survival probabilities, an index of fecundity. Blood THg ranged from 0.074–3.373 µg/g ww across 170 samples from 127 individuals. We detected high spatial variability in Hg exposure, observing differences of more than 45-fold across all individuals and 8-fold in mean blood THg among all study plots, including 4-fold between study plots within 4 km. Intraindividual changes in blood Hg exposure did not vary systematically in time but were considerable, varying by up to 2-fold within and among years. Controlling for both species differences and maximum water level, the dominant driver of fecundity in this system, nest survival probability decreased by 10% across the full range of female blood THg concentrations observed. We conclude that Hg has the potential to impair songbird reproduction, potentially exacerbating known climate-change driven population declines from sea-level rise in saltmarsh and Acadian Nelson’s sparrows.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data are available on request through the Saltmarsh Habitat and Avian Research Program via www.tidalmarshbirds.org.
Code availability
The program MCestimate is available for free from the Environmental Protection Agency via https://archive.epa.gov/med/med_archive_03/web/html/mcestimate.html.
References
Ackerman JT, Eagles-Smith CA, Herzog MP et al. (2016) Avian mercury exposure and toxicological risk across western North America: A synthesis. Sci Total Environ 568:749–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.071
Alpers CN, Eagles-Smith C, Foe C, et al. (2008) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Regional Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan.
Bennett RS, Etterson MA (2007) Incorporating results of avian toxicity tests into a model of annual reproductive success. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:498–507
Borowske AC (2015) Effects of Life History Strategies on Annual Events and Processes in the Lives of Tidal Marsh Sparrows. University of Connecticut
Brasso RL, Cristol DA (2008) Effects of mercury exposure on the reproductive success of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 17:133–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-007-0163-z
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-theoretic Approach. Springer, New York, NY
Chételat J, Ackerman JT, Eagles-Smith CA, Hebert CE (2020) Methylmercury exposure in wildlife: A review of the ecological and physiological processes affecting contaminant concentrations and their interpretation. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135117
Correll MD, Wiest WA, Hodgman TP et al. (2017) Predictors of specialist avifaunal decline in coastal marshes. Conserv Biol 31:172–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12797
Crain CM, Silliman BR, Bertness SL, Bertness MD (2004) Physical and biotic drivers of plant distribution across estuarine salinity gradients. Ecology 85:2539–2549. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0745
Cristol DA, Evers DC (2020) The impact of mercury on North American songbirds: Effects, trends, and predictive factors. Ecotoxicology 29:1107–1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-020-02280-7
Cristol DA, Smith FM, Varian-Ramos CW, Watts BD (2011) Mercury levels of Nelson’s and saltmarsh sparrows at wintering grounds in Virginia, USA. Ecotoxicology 20:1773–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0710-5
Custer CM, Custer TW, Etterson MA et al. (2018) Reproductive success and contaminant associations in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) used to assess a Beneficial Use Impairment in U.S. and Binational Great Lakes’ Areas of Concern. Ecotoxicology 27:457–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-018-1913-9
Driscoll CT, Mason RP, Chan HM et al. (2013) Mercury as a global pollutant: Sources, pathways, and effects. Environ Sci Technol 47:4967–4983. https://doi.org/10.1021/es305071v
Eagles-Smith CA, Silbergeld EK, Basu N et al. (2018) Modulators of mercury risk to wildlife and humans in the context of rapid global change. Ambio 47:170–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1011-x
Eagles-Smith CA, Wiener JG, Eckley CS et al. (2016) Mercury in western North America: A synthesis of environmental contamination, fluxes, bioaccumulation, and risk to fish and wildlife. Sci Total Environ 568:1213–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.094
Etterson MA, Bennett RS (2005) Including transition probabilities in nest survival estimation: A Mayfield Markov chain. Ecology 86:1414–1421
Etterson MA, Greenberg R, Hollenhorst T (2014) Landscape and regional context differentially affect nest parasitism and nest predation for Wood Thrush in central Virginia, USA. Condor 116:205–214. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-13-045.1
Evers DC, Burgess NM, Champoux L et al. (2005) Patterns and interpretation of mercury exposure in freshwater avian communities in northeastern north America. Ecotoxicology 14:193–221
Evers DC, Han Y-J, Driscoll CT et al. (2007) Biological Mercury hotspots in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. Bioscience 57:29. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570107
Evers DC, Savoy LJ, Desorbo CR et al. (2008) Adverse effects from environmental Mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology 17:69–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-007-0168-7
Field CR, Bayard TS, Gjerdrum C et al. (2017) High-resolution tide projections reveal extinction threshold in response to sea-level rise. Glob Chang Biol 23:2058–2070. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13519
Fox J, Weisberg S, Adler D, et al. (2015) Package “car.” version 2.1–1.
Fuchsman PC, Brown LE, Henning MH et al. (2017) Toxicity reference values for methylmercury effects on avian reproduction: Critical review and analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 36:294–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3606
Gilmour CC, Podar M, Bullock AL et al. (2013) Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ Sci Technol 47:11810–11820. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403075t
Gjerdrum C, Elphick CS, Rubega M (2005) Nest site selection and nesting success in saltmarsh breeding sparrows: The importance of nest habitat, timing, and study site differences. Condor 107:849–862
Gjerdrum C, Sullivan-Wiley K, King E et al. (2008) Egg and chick fates during tidal flooding of saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow nests. Condor 110:579–584. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2008.8559
Gratz LE, Keeler GJ, Miller EK (2009) Long-term relationships between mercury wet deposition and meteorology. Atmos Environ 43:6218–6229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.08.040
Greenberg R, Maldonado JE, Droege S, McDonald MV (2006) Tidal marshes: A global perspective on the evolution and conservation of their terrestrial vertebrates. Bioscience 56:675–685
Greenlaw JS, Elphick CS, Post W, Rising JD (2020) Saltmarsh Sparrow (Ammospiza caudacuta). In: Birds of the World. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.sstspa.01. Accessed 24 Jun 2021
Hall BD, Aiken GR, Krabbenhoft DP et al. (2008) Wetlands as principal zones of methylmercury production in southern Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico region. Environ Pollut 154:124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.12.017
Hallinger KK, Cristol DA (2011) The role of weather in mediating the effect of mercury exposure on reproductive success in tree swallows. Ecotoxicology 20:1368–1377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0694-1
Hartman CA, Ackerman JT, Herzog MP (2019) Mercury exposure and altered parental nesting behavior in a wild songbird. Environ Sci Technol 53:5396–5405. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07227
Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ, Klimstra JD et al. (2009) Species differences in the sensitivity of avian embryos to methylmercury. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 56:129–38
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2013) Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY
Humphreys S, Elphick CS, Gjerdrum C, Rubega M (2007) Testing the function of the domed nests of Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrows. J F Ornithol 78:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-9263.2007.00098.x
Kopec AD, Bodaly RA, Lane OP et al. (2018) Elevated mercury in blood and feathers of breeding marsh birds along the contaminated lower Penobscot River, Maine, USA. Sci Total Environ 634:1563–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.223
Lane O, Adams EM, Pau N, et al. (2020) Long-term monitoring of mercury in adult saltmarsh sparrows breeding in Maine, Massachusetts and New York, USA 2000–2017. Ecotoxicology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-020-02180-w
Lane OP, O’Brien KM, Evers DC, et al. (2011) Mercury in breeding saltmarsh sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus caudacutus). Ecotoxicology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0740-z
Levin LA, Talley TS (2000) Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Concepts Controv Tidal Marsh Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47534-0
Marvin-DiPasquale M, Agee J, Bouse R, Jaffe B (2003) Microbial cycling of mercury in contaminated pelagic and wetland sediments of San Pablo Bay, California. Environ Geol 43:260–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-002-0623-y
Mason RP (2012) A Framework for a Mercury Monitoring and Assessment Program. In: Bank MS (ed) Mercur. Environ. Pattern Process. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p 81–96
Mayfield HF (1975) Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson J Ornithol 87:456–466
Morel FMM, Kraepiel ML, Amyot M (1998) The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of Mercury. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:543–566
Nichols JW, Bennett RS, Rossmann R et al. (2010) A physiologically based toxicokinetic model for methylmercury in female American kestrels. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1854–1867. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.241
Perrins CM (1970) The timing of birds’ breeding seasons. Ibis (Lond 1859) 112:242–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1970.tb00096.x
Pigeon JG, Heyse JF (1999) A cautionary note about assessing the fit of logistic regression models. J Appl Stat 26:847–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664769922089
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Core Team R (2018) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R Packag. version 3:1–137
R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Rimmer CC, Mcfarland KP, Evers DC et al. (2005) Mercury concentrations in Bicknell’s thrush and other insectivorous passerines in montane forests of northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:223–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-004-6270-1
Roberts SG, Longenecker RA, Etterson MA et al. (2019) Preventing local extinctions of tidal marsh endemic seaside sparrows and saltmarsh sparrows in eastern North America. Condor 121:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duy024
Rosenberg KV, Dokter AM, Blancher PJ et al. (2019) Decline of the North American avifauna. Science (80-) 366:120–124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1313
Rowse LM, Rodewald AD, Sullivan SMP (2014) Pathways and consequences of contaminant flux to Acadian flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) in urbanizing landscapes of Ohio, USA. Sci Total Environ 485–486:461–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.095
Ruskin KJ, Etterson MA, Hodgman TP et al. (2017a) Seasonal fecundity is not related to geographic position across a species’ global range despite a central peak in abundance. Oecologia 183:291–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3745-8
Ruskin KJ, Etterson MA, Hodgman TP et al. (2017b) Demographic analysis demonstrates systematic but independent spatial variation in abiotic and biotic stressors across 59 percent of a global species range. Auk 134:903–916. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-16-230.1
Shriver GW, Evers DC, Hodgman TP et al. (2006) Mercury in sharp-tailed Sparrows breeding in coastal wetlands. Environ Bioindic 1:129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555270600695734
Shriver W, Gibbs J, Vickery P (2005) Concordance between morphological and molecular markers in assessing hybridization between sharp-tailed sparrows in New England. Auk
Shriver WG, Hodgman TP, Hanson AR (2020) Nelson’s Sparrow (Ammospiza nelsoni). In: Birds of the World. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.nstspa.01. Accessed 24 Jun 2021
Shriver WG, Vickery PD, Hodgman TP (2007) Flood tides affect breeding ecology of two sympatric sharp-tailed sparrows. Auk 124:552–560
Thompson D, Furness R (1989) Comparison of the levels of seabird feathers. Mar Pollut Bull 20:577–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(89)90361-5
UNEP (2013) Global mercury assessment 2013: Sources, emissions, releases and environmental transport. UNEP Chem Branch. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-483X(03)00203-8
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Method 7473 Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Amalgamation, and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. 1–17.
Varian-Ramos CW, Swaddle JP, Cristol DA (2014) Mercury reduces avian reproductive success and imposes selection: An experimental study with adult- or lifetime-exposure in zebra finch. PLoS One 9:e95674. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095674
Verhulst S, Nilsson J-A (2008) The timing of birds’ breeding seasons: A review of experiments that manipulated timing of breeding. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2146
Walsh J, Olsen BJ, Ruskin KJ, et al. (2016) Extrinsic and intrinsic factors influence fitness in an avian hybrid zone. Biol J Linn Soc 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.14264
Walsh J, Shriver WG, Olsen BJ et al. (2015) Relationship of phenotypic variation and genetic admixture in the Saltmarsh–Nelson’s sparrow hybrid zone. Auk 132:704–716. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-14-299.1
Warner SE, Shriver WG, Pepper MA, Taylor RJ (2010) Mercury concentrations in tidal marsh sparrows and their use as bioindicators in Delaware Bay, USA. Environ Monit Assess 171:671–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1312-z
Weiss-Penzias PS, Gay DA, Brigham ME et al. (2016) Science of the total environment trends in mercury wet deposition and mercury air concentrations across the U. S. and Canada. Sci Total Environ 568:546–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.061
Williams TP, Bubb JM, Lester JN (1994) Metal accumulation within salt marsh environments. Mar Pollut Bull 28:277–289
Winder VL, Emslie SD (2011) Mercury in breeding and wintering Nelson’s sparrows (Ammodramus nelsoni). Ecotoxicology 20:218–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-010-0573-1
Winder VL, Emslie SD (2012a) Mercury in Nelson’s sparrow subspecies at breeding sites. PLoS One 7:e32257. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032257
Winder VL, Emslie SD (2012b) Mercury in Non-breeding sparrows of north Carolina salt marshes. Ecotoxicology 21:325–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0794-y
Zabala J, Rodríguez-Jorquera I, Trexler JC et al. (2021) Accounting for food availability reveals contaminant-induced breeding impairment, food-modulated contaminant effects, and endpoint-specificity of exposure indicators in free ranging avian populations. Sci Total Environ 791:148322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148322
Acknowledgements
This work was primarily funded by a Competitive State Wildlife Grant (U2-5-R-1) via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid in Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration to the states of Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, and Maine. Additional support was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (Ecosystems Mission Area and Contaminant Biology Program), as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 5, Division of Natural Resources, National Wildlife Refuge System), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Projects NH00068-M and ME0-H-6-00492-12), and the National Science Foundation (DEB-1340008). This is Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Publication Number 3859. Graduate students were also funded in part by the National Science Foundation, the University of Maine, the University of New Hampshire, and the University of Connecticut. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. This product paper has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1367/). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the USEPA. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the USEPA. Thank you to landowners: the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy: New Hampshire Chapter, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the Madison Land Trust, and the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. We also thank A. Amirbahman and A. A. Elskus for their generous intellectual support at early stages of this manuscript project. Appropriate animal care was ensured by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Maine under approval A2011-04-02, University of New Hampshire under approvals 100605 and 130604, University of Connecticut under approval A11-013, and the University of Delaware under approval AUP1157-2015-2.
Author contributions
Katharine J. Ruskin, Garth Herring, Collin A. Eagles-Smith, Matthew A. Etterson, and Brian J. Olsen contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed or overseen by all authors. Katharine J. Ruskin led analysis and writing. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript, as well as read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This work was primarily funded by a Competitive State Wildlife Grant (U2-5-R-1) via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid in Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration to the states of Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, and Maine. Additional support was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (Ecosystems Mission Area and Contaminant Biology Program), as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 5, Division of Natural Resources, National Wildlife Refuge System), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Projects NH00068-M and ME0-H-6-00492-12), and the National Science Foundation (DEB-1340008). Graduate students were also funded in part by the National Science Foundation, the University of Maine, the University of New Hampshire, and the University of Connecticut.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing of interests.
Ethical approval
Appropriate animal care was ensured by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Maine under approval A2011-04-02, University of New Hampshire under approvals 100605 and 130604, University of Connecticut under approval A11-013, and the University of Delaware under approval AUP1157-2015-2.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ruskin, K.J., Herring, G., Eagles-Smith, C.A. et al. Mercury exposure of tidal marsh songbirds in the northeastern United States and its association with nest survival. Ecotoxicology 31, 208–220 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-021-02488-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-021-02488-1