1 / 30

Expanding the Seabird Tissue

NPRB Project No. 534. Expanding the Seabird Tissue. Archival and Monitoring. Project in the North Pacific. Interim Analytical Results. David G. Roseneau, Paul R. Becker, Steven J. Christopher , Glenn K. Chen,

arista
Download Presentation

Expanding the Seabird Tissue

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NPRB Project No. 534 Expanding the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project in the North Pacific Interim Analytical Results David G. Roseneau, Paul R. Becker, Steven J. Christopher, Glenn K. Chen, W. Clay Davis, Rusty D. Day, Michael B. Ellisor, David Point, Rebecca S. Pugh, Kristin Simac, Stacy S. Vander Pol, and Geoffrey S. York

  2. Long History of Using Seabird Eggs for Environmental Monitoring and Research • Canadian Wildlife Service has used seabird eggs for monitoring chemicals in the environment since 1968

  3. Advantages of using seabird eggs for monitoring • Contain bioaccumulative contaminants • Representative of female exposure • Indicative of the contaminant burden of the next generation • Relatively easily collected • Relatively low inter-colony variability (enhanced statistical power)

  4. Factors to consider when using seabird eggs • Effect of egg laying sequence • Representation of area (where bird is exposed) • Position of species in food web • Shifts in food source • Effect on contaminant concentration in the food • Effect on energy content of the food • Egg collection logistics

  5. POPs - common murre (Marth et al. 2000) • POPs & PBDEs – common murre (Bignert et al. 1995) • PBDEs – common murre (Kierkegaard et al. 1999) • POPs & Hg - herring gull, common & thick-billed murre, black-legged kittiwake, razorbill, puffin(Barrett et al. 1985; 1996) • POPs & Hg - thick-billed murre, black-legged • kittiwake, northern fulmar • (Braune et al. 2001; 2002) • POPs – herring gull (Elliott 1985; • Wakeford & Kasserra 1997; • Hebert 1999) • PBDEs – herring gull • (Norstrom et al. 2002) • First “biomagnifying natural • POPs” reported - Leach’s • storm petrel (Tittlemier et al. • 1999; 2002)* • Dioxin, PCBs, & PBDEs - Caspian, • Forsters, least tern(She et al. 2004) 6 7 4 3 5 2 1 *(halogenated dimethyl bypyrroles)

  6. Use of Seabird Eggs for Environmental Monitoring in Alaska • Bering Sea & Gulf of Alaska - 15 species: geographic comparison of POPs in 18 colonies from collections during 1970s (Ohlendorf et al. 1982) • Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, & Gulf of Alaska – herring, glaucous, glaucous-winged gull: geographic comparisons of POPs and heavy metals in 5 colonies (Jack and Martinez 2003)

  7. Persistent Bioaccumulative Contaminants • Organohalogen Compounds (OCs): • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – 50 congeners • DDT compounds - 6 dominated by 4,4’-DDE • Chlordane compounds - 5 dominated by trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane • Heptachlor epoxide • Dieldrin • Hexachlorobenezene (HCB) • Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-, b-, g-) • Mirex • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) – 11 congeners • Metals and Organometallic Compounds: • Mercury, methylmercury, butyltin compounds (mono-, di-, tri-)

  8. Colonies with analytical results Cape Lisburne OCs Butyl-Sn MeHg Noatak Little Diomede I. OCs Hg, MeHg Butyl-Sn St. Lawrence I. OCs Hooper Bay Butyl-Sn MeHg Togiak East Amatuli I. Butyl-Sn MeHg OCs Hg, MeHg Butyl-Sn OCs Hg, MeHg Butyl-Sn St. Lazaria I. Viesokoi Rock St. George I. OCs PBDEs Hg, MeHg Butyl-Sn Bogoslof I. Thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia) Common murres (U. aalge) Glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) Glaucous-winged gulls (L. glaucescens) OCs Hg, MeHg

  9. Why murres? • Global distribution • Do not migrate great distances • Diving fish feeders • Lay large single egg • Eggs important in subsistence diets TBMU COMU

  10. Why gulls? GLGU • Global distribution • Feed on: • fish and invertebrates • other bird’s eggs • garbage dumps • animal carcasses • Eggs important in subsistence diets GWGU 2 - 3 egg clutch

  11. Geographic Patterns?

  12. Total Mercury, Common Murres From: Christopher et al. 2002 Little Diomede n=9 > 95 % in the form of methyl-Hg St. George I. n=11 Bogoslof I. n=9 East Amatuli I. St. Lazaria I. n=11 n=10

  13. Common Murres n=9 From: Vander Pol et al. 2004 n=10 n=11 n=11 n=9

  14. From: Vander Pol et al. 2004 & Vander Pol, unpublished Common & Thick-billed Murres Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska Chukchi Sea n = 3 9 3 11 7 3 9 10 11 10 10 10 3

  15. BO = Bogoslof I LD = Little Diomede I SG = St. George I EA = East Amatuli I SL = St. Lazaria I CO = Common murre TB = Thick-billed murre Total Mercury Gulf of Alaska Bering Sea SLCO 2001 SGCO SGTB SLCO 1999 BOCO From: Christopher et al. 2002; Day, et al. in press SLTB EACO LDCO BOTB

  16. Comparisons to other colonies STAMP Colonies Farrallon I. Prince Leopold I. E. Finmark & Kola Peninsula Svaldbard Stora Karlsö Common Murre Thick-Billed Murre

  17. E. Canada CA, USA 1993 1993 1998 Alaska, USA 1999-2000 Norway 1992-1993 ng/g wet mass ± 91 CO CO CO CO CO TB CO TB SP TB TB TB TB CO TB CO TB TB

  18. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs St. Lazaria I., Gulf of Alaska Common Murre Thick-billed Murre Wide variation in values; no significant differences between species; BDEs 17, 71, 66, 85, and 138 were below the limit of detection From: Vander Pol, unpublished

  19. Species Differences?

  20. Murres Hg: St. Lazaria – COMU > TBMU Bogoslof & St. George – TBMU > COMU OCs: St. Lazaria – COMU = TBMU Bogoslof & St. George – TBMU > COMU (except for HCB) From: Vander Pol et al. 2004; Vander Pol unpublished; Day et al. in press

  21. Organotin Compounds Chukchi Sea Bering Sea Gulf of Alaska Atlantic Common murre Little Diomede n=6 Glaucous gull Noatak n=5 Common murre St. George I. n=6 Glaucous gull Hooper Bay n=5 Glaucous-winged gull Togiak n=6 Common murre East Amatuli I. n=6 Common murre St. Lazaria I. n=7 Glaucous-winged gull Sitka n=5 Brown pelican Charleston, SC n=2 Murres sampled in 1999 Gulls sampled in 2005 Pelicans sampled in 2005 MBT = monobutyltin DBT = dibutyltin TBT = tributyltin

  22. Temporal Trends?

  23. From: Ohlendorf et al. 1982 & Vander Pol et al. 2004 + 266 St. George I. * Bogoslof I. * * 1973-76 1999 St. George I. Bogoslof I. * 1973-76 2000 Values are ng/g wet mass

  24. Summary - Murres • For most OCs & Hg: Gulf of Alaska > Bering Sea (HCB shows a reverse pattern) • OCs & Hg: Alaska murres £ murres from other parts of the northern hemisphere • Differences in TBMU vs COMU vary by region • Organotin: murres > gulls • Too early to see temporal trends • Difficult to compare to 1970s work of Ohlendorf, but contemporary murres generally have lower OCs, except for HCB

  25. Future Analyses Based on recommendations resulting from the STAMP Long-Range Planning Workshop held at the Alaska Islands and Ocean Visitors Center, Homer, Alaska, February 2005

  26. Improve temporal trends information Chukchi Sea Cape Lisburne Bering Sea St. Lazaria I. St. George I. Gulf of Alaska Thick-billed murres Common murres

  27. Establish baseline data on gulls Noatak R. Delta Safety Sound Penny R. Hooper Bay Kikertalik Lake Gull I. Middleton I. Shaiak I. Ualik Lake St. Lazaria I. Viesokoi Rock Glaucous gulls Glaucous-winged gulls

  28. Improve geographical trends information Cape Lisburne St. Lawrence I. Middleton I. 2002 Thick-billed murres East Amatuli I. St. Lazaria I. St. George I. 2003 Common murres Gulf of Alaska Thick-billed murres Common murres

  29. Additional Analytes Hexabromochlorododecane (HBCD) – another BFR Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) – PFOS; PFOA, etc. Stable isotopes – trophic position Fatty acids– food web/prey selection differences

  30. Acknowledgments Funding: USGS/BRD, USFWS, NIST, BIA, NPRB Partners and Collaborators: Point Hope IRA Council—Earl Kingik, Wildlife and Parks Director and Russel Lane, resident); Maniilaq Association—Enoch Schiedt and residents of Deering; Little Diomede Island residents; Kawerak Inc.—Austin Ahmasuk, Subsistence Director, and residents of Nome and Shaktoolik; St. Lawrence Island (Brandon Waghiyi and local residents); Paimiut Traditional Council—Albert Simon, Hooper Bay; Native Village of Mekoryuk—Marvin Kiokun, Natural Resources Director; Togiak Traditional Council—Francisca Kamkapak, Tribal Environmental Program Manager and Peter Lockuk Sr.; St. George Traditional Council—Anthony Merculieff, Executive Director, and Andy Malavansky, Island Sentinel; Sitka Tribe and Jack Lorrrigan, Tribal Fisheries Biologist; Loran Buck, Kodiak local biologist; Seldovia Tribe—Michael Opheim, Environmental Coordinator and Paul McCollum, Seldovia Tribe Environmental Program Consultant; Nick Tanape Sr., Traditional Ecological Knowledge Specialist, Nanwalek; Paul McCollum, Nanwalek IRA Council Environmental Program Consultant;University of Alaska;USGS/BRD; USFWS; BIA; ADF&G; Canadian Wildlife Service. Special Thanks to: Glenn Chen (BIA); Vern Byrd (USFWS); Tony DeGange (USGS-BRD); Michael Smolen, WWF; Lyman Thorsteinson (USGS-BRD); Minerals Management Service (MMS)

More Related