Distribution of Heavy Metals in a Woodland Food Web

Abstract

Often investigations deal with the residue situation in contaminated areas and their effects on ecosystems, however, information are rare concerning relatively uncontaminated areas -so called "reference areas". In such areas we can assume an insignificant influence of pollutants and we can measure the metal flux under relatively natural conditions.Since 1988 we have investigated the nutrient and energy flow as well as the metal flux in an area which is hardly influenced by anthropogenic activities besides some agro-chemical compounds. For example, the depostion and contamination of some plants is relatively low in comparison to other places in North Germany. Also the average of geological background concentrations of soil from Schleswig-Holstein are higher than soil concentrations from Bornhöved. With this investigation we demonstrate the flux of metals through selected biotic compartments of a relatively uncontaminatedwoodland. Good indicators accumulating the non essential metals Cd and Pb are beetles and isopods. In contrast ground spiders, although predators, show only low metal concentrations. The essential metals Cu and Zn were relatively homogenous in concentration in the animals. Zn showed the highest values and beetles seem to accumulate it.

Hepatic mercury, cadmium, and lead in mink and otter from New York State: monitoring environmental contamination

“…Reductions in directly deposited Pb, therefore, likely will have reduced the exposure of herbivores even if soils are a substantial repository of Pb. Shrews and moles, however, are exposed to Pb through edaphic sources, such as earthworms and isopods, and, consequently, may accumulate Pb (Scharenberg and Ebeling 1996;Reinecke et al 2000). Nevertheless, exposure of mink to elevated levels of Pb through terrestrial prey is probably minimal because edaphic invertivores are relatively rare in the diet of New York mink (Hamilton 1959).…”

Distribution of Low Organochlorine Residues in a Woodland Ecosystem

“…This is true for OC and heavy metals and refers to limnic and terrestrial ecosystems (Scharenberg et al 1994;Scharenberg and Ebeling 1996).…”

Multi-scale assessment of metal contamination in residential soil and soil fauna: A case study in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan region, USA

“…Isopods are epigeic (surface dwellers) and thus were more likely than earthworms to forage outside the individual patches in which they were sampled. Isopods have been shown to be good indicators of heavy metal contamination both in urban (Dallinger, Berger, & Birkel 1992) and industrial (Hopkin, Hardisty, & Martin 1986;Donker, Van Capelleveen, & Van Straalen 1993;Scharenberg & Ebeling, 1996) areas. A handful of isopod species, including those in our study area, are synanthropic, occurring in every continent both in anthropogenic and natural landscapes.…”

“…Indeed, soil invertebrates are often used as indicators of pollutant levels (Dallinger, 1994;Nahmani & Lavelle, 2002), although interpreting the results can be challenging due to the multiple factors involved (Beyer & Cromartie, 1987;Nahmani, Hodson, & Black 2007). Soil taxa exhibit differences in their response to trace metal exposure due to their physiology, feeding habits, mobility, and microhabitat preferences (Beyer & Cromartie, 1987;Pižl & Josens, 1995;Scharenberg & Ebeling, 1996;Kamitani & Kaneko, 2007). For instance, earthworms are less mobile and consume a mixture of soil and detritus while isopods and millipedes are more active and feed mainly on plant detritus.…”