CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Mercury impact and mitigation studiesToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

Forest fire increases mercury accumulation by fishes via food web restructuring and increased mercury inputs

Open access
Kelly, Erin N., Schindler, David W., St. Louis, Vincent L., Donald, David B., Vladicka, Katherine E.·2006·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0609798104PMC PMC1693476
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent findings indicate that fishes from lakes in partially burned catchments contain greater mercury (Hg) concentrations than fishes from reference catchments. Increased methyl Hg (MeHg) concentrations in fishes can result in serious health problems for consumers. Here we show that a forest fire caused a 5-fold increase in whole-body Hg accumulation by rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and smaller Hg increases in muscle of several fish species in a mountain lake. The enhanced Hg accumulation was caused primarily by increased nutrient concentrations in the lake, which enhanced productivity and restructured the food web through increased piscivory and consumption of Mysis. This restructuring resulted in increases to the trophic positions and Hg concentrations of fishes. Forest fire also caused a large short-term release of total Hg (THg) and MeHg to streams and the lake. This release initiated a small pulse of MeHg in invertebrates that contributed to enhanced Hg accumulation by fishes. Climate change and prescribed burning to compensate for past fire suppression are predicted to increase future forest fire occurrence in North America, and increased Hg accumulation by fishes may be an unexpected consequence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0609798104

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wildfire-mediated nutrient enrichment can increase algal biomass and shift composition.

    “Wildfire-mediated nutrient enrichment also can increase algal biomass and shift composition (Kelly et al., 2006; McCullough et al., 2019).”

    From Wildfire Induces Changes in Receiving Waters: A Review With Considerations for Water Quality Management (2022) · cites this paper as Kelly et al., 2006

    The Results and Discussion report that nutrient enrichment increased lake productivity and that phytoplankton chlorophyll a was 1.5-fold greater after the fire, supporting increased algal biomass. The passages describe shifts in fish diets and the food web, but do not report a shift in algal composition. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Fire-mobilized pollutants impacting water quality can also be harmful to aquatic life, at least in the short-term.

    “The same fire-mobilized pollutants impacting water quality can also be harmful to aquatic life, at least in the short-term (Bixby et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2006).”

    From Wildfire Induces Changes in Receiving Waters: A Review With Considerations for Water Quality Management (2022) · cites this paper as Kelly et al., 2006

    The Abstract reports a short-term release of mercury into streams and a lake, followed by increased mercury in invertebrates and fish. It describes methylmercury as neurotoxic, but does not show short-term harm to the aquatic organisms themselves; its explicit health concern is for animals and people that eat fish. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Mercury increased in rainbow trout, brown trout and European perch in Canadian and Norwegian lakes impacted by wildfires.

    “For example, mercury increased in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta) and European perch (Perca fluviatilis) in Canadian and Norwegian lakes impacted by wildfires (Kelly et al., 2006; Moreno et al., 2016).”

    From Wildfire Induces Changes in Receiving Waters: A Review With Considerations for Water Quality Management (2022) · cites this paper as Kelly et al., 2006

    The Results and Discussion identify Moab Lake in Alberta, Canada, as the fire-affected lake and report increased mercury in rainbow trout after the fire. The cited paper does not report increases in brown trout or European perch in Norwegian lakes, so it supports only part of the sentence attributed jointly to the two citations. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Mercury is particularly concerning because of its potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify, which can result in health problems for consumers of fish.

    “Mercury is particularly concerning because of its potential to bioaccumulate and biomagnify, which can result in health problems for consumers of fish.6”

    From Wildfire and the Future of Water Supply (2014) · cites this paper as [6]

  • Factors affecting mercury increases in fish after wildfires included higher water concentrations of mercury and methylmercury, as well as a restructuring of the food web and lengthening of trophic pathways, leading to greater potential for bioaccumulation.

    “Factors affecting this increase included both higher water concentrations of mercury and methylmercury following wildfires, as well as a restructuring of the food web and lengthening of trophic pathways, leading to greater potential for bioaccumulation.”

    From Wildfire Induces Changes in Receiving Waters: A Review With Considerations for Water Quality Management (2022) · cites this paper as Kelly et al., 2006

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. [1]Fitzgerald WF, Clarkson TW. Environ Health Perspect. 1991;96:159–166. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9196159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  2. [2]Swain EB, Engstrom DR, Brigham ME, Henning TA, Brezonik PL. Science. 1992;22:784–787. doi: 10.1126/science.257.5071.784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  3. [3]Vaidya OC, Howell GD. Water Air Soil Pollution. 2002;134:165–188. [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Shanley JB, Kamman NC, Clair TA, Chalmers A. Ecotoxicology. 2005;14:125–134. doi: 10.1007/s10646-004-6264-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  5. [5]Lawson NM, Mason RP. Water Res. 2001;35:4039–4052. doi: 10.1016/s0043-1354(01)00140-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. [6]Ullrich SM, Tanton TW, Abdrahitova SA. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2001;31:241–293. [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]Essington TE, Houser JN. Trans Am Fish Soc. 2003;132:57–68. [Google Scholar]
  8. [8]Kidd KA, Paterson MJ, Hesslein RH, Muir DCG, Hecky RE. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1999;56:2193–2202. [Google Scholar]
  9. [9]Pickhardt PC, Folt CL, Chen CY, Klaue B, Blum JD. Sci Total Environ. 2005;339:89–101. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  10. [10]Chen CY, Folt CL. Environ Sci Technol. 2005;39:115–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. [11]Simoneau M, Lucotte M, Garceau S, Laliberte D. Environ Res. 2005;98:73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2004.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  12. [12]Cabana G, Rasmussen JB. Nature. 1994;372:255–257. [Google Scholar]
  13. [13]Kidd KA, Hesslein RH, Fudge RJP, Hallard KA. Water Air Soil Pollution. 1995;80:1011–1015. [Google Scholar]
  14. [14]Allan RJ. Water Sci Technol. 1999;39:173–177. [Google Scholar]
  15. [15]Gresswell RE. Trans Am Fish Soc. 1999;128:193–221. [Google Scholar]
  16. [16]Carignan R, Steedman RJ. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2000;57(Suppl 2):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  17. [17]Spencer CN, Gabel KO, Hauer FR. Forest Ecol Manag. 2003;178:141–153. [Google Scholar]
  18. [18]Garcia E, Carignan R. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2005;24:685–693. doi: 10.1897/04-065r.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  19. [19]Allen EW, Prepas EE, Gabos S, Strachan WMJ, Zhang WP. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2005;62:1963–1977. [Google Scholar]
  20. [20]Friedli HR, Radke LF, Lu JY, Banic CM, Leaitch WR, MacPherson JI. Atmos Environ. 2003;37:253–267. [Google Scholar]
  21. [21]Sigler JM, Lee X, Munger W. Environ Sci Technol. 2003;37:4343–4347. doi: 10.1021/es026401r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  22. [22]Caldwell CA, Canavan CM, Bloom NS. Sci Total Environ. 2000;260:125–133. doi: 10.1016/s0048-9697(00)00554-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  23. [23]Weber MG, Stocks BJ. Ambio. 1998;27:545–550. [Google Scholar]
  24. [24]Flannigan MD, Logan KA, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM, Amiro BD, Todd JB. In: Forest Fire Research & Wildland Fire Safety. Viegas X, editor. Rotterdam: Millpress; 2002. pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  25. [25]Flannigan MD, Stocks BJ, Wotton BM. Sci Total Environ. 2000;262:221–229. doi: 10.1016/s0048-9697(00)00524-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  26. [26]Donald DB, DeHenau A-M. Limnological Studies in Jasper National Park, Part Eight A Limnological Survey and Management Study of 23 Lakes Near the Icefields Parkway. Edmonton: Canadian Wildlife Service; 1981. pp. 152–161. [Google Scholar]
  27. [27]Trippel EA, Beamish FWH. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1989;46:1531–1538. [Google Scholar]
  28. [28]Clarke KD, Knoechel R, Ryan PM. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1997;54:89–95. [Google Scholar]
  29. [29]Donald DB, Anderson RS. Trans Am Fish Soc. 1982;111:675–680. [Google Scholar]
  30. [30]Ice GG, Neary DG, Adams PW. J Forest. 2004;102:16–20. [Google Scholar]
  31. [31]Donald DB, Alger DJ. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1986;43:1733–1741. [Google Scholar]
  32. [32]Peterson BJ, Fry B. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1987;18:293–320. [Google Scholar]
  33. [33]Post DM. Ecology. 2002;83:703–718. [Google Scholar]
  34. [34]Post DM, Pace ML, Hairston NG. Nature. 2000;405:1047–1049. doi: 10.1038/35016565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  35. [35]Kidd KA, Schindler DW, Muir DCG, Lockhart WL, Hesslein RH. Science. 1995;269:240–242. doi: 10.1126/science.269.5221.240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  36. [36]MacCrimmon HR, Wren CD, Gots BL. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1983;40:114–120. [Google Scholar]
  37. [37]Harden JW, Neff JC, Sandberg DV, Turetsky MR, Ottmar R, Gleixner G, Fries TL, Manies KL. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2004;18:GB3014. [Google Scholar]
  38. [38]Amirbahman A, Ruck PL, Fernandez IJ, Haines TA, Kahl JS. Water Air Soil Pollution. 2004;152:313–331. [Google Scholar]
  39. [39]Mast MA, Campbell DH, Krabbenhoft DP, Taylor HE. Water Air Soil Pollution. 2005;164:21–42. [Google Scholar]
  40. [40]Mailman M, Bodaly RA. Environ Pollution. 2005;138:161–166. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  41. [41]Matilainen T, Verta M, Korhonen H, Uusi-Rauva A, Niemi M. Water Air Soil Pollution. 2001;125:105–119. [Google Scholar]
  42. [42]Krabbenhoft DP, Olson ML, Dewild JF, Clow DW, Striegl RG, Dornblaser MM, VanMetre P. Water Air Soil Pollution Focus. 2002;2:233–249. [Google Scholar]
  43. [43]Garcia E, Carignan R. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1999;56:339–345. [Google Scholar]
  44. [44]Garcia E, Carignan R. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2000;57:129–135. [Google Scholar]
  45. [45]US Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories. Washington, DC: Environ Protection Agency; 1998. EPA Publ No 823-F-98-009. [Google Scholar]
  46. [46]Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Progress Towards Sustainable Forest Management. Rome: Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2005. pp. 60–65. FAO Forestry Paper No 147. [Google Scholar]
  47. [47]St Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Beaty KG, Flett RG, Roulet NT. Environ Sci Technol. 1996;30:2719–2729. [Google Scholar]
  48. [48]US Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Method 1631: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapour Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry. Washington, DC: Environ Protection Agency; 1996. EPA Publ No 821-R-96-012. [Google Scholar]
  49. [49]Olson ML, Cleckner LB, Hurley JP, Krabbenhoft DP, Heelan TW. Fresen J Anal Chem. 1997;358:392–396. [Google Scholar]
  50. [50]Horvat M, Liang L, Bloom NS. Anal Chim Acta. 1993;282:153–168. [Google Scholar]
  51. [51]Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th Ed. Vol. 332. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall; 1999. pp. 360–368. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelly, E. N., Schindler, D. W., St. Louis, V. L., Donald, D. B., & Vladicka, K. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • *Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E9; and
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (CA)
ORCID
Donald, David B.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2006-12-19
Volume
103
Issue
51
Pages
19380-19385
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0609798104
PMC
PMC1693476
OpenAlex
W2058871943
Cited by
179
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Mercury impact and mitigation studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
forest fires, mercury accumulation, methylmercury, rainbow trout, piscivory, mysis, nutrient enrichment, trophic position, climate change, prescribed burning, mountain lakes, fish consumption risk
MeSH terms
Alberta, Animals, Environmental Monitoring, Fires, Fresh Water, Mercury, Nitrogen Isotopes, Species Specificity, Spectrometry, Fluorescence, Trees, Trout, Linear Models, Muscle, Skeletal, Food Chain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review