Loading...
2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Body feather mercury and arsenic concentrations in five species of seabirds from the Falkland IslandsPublication . Furtado, Ricardo; Pereira, Maria Eduarda; Granadeiro, José Pedro; Catry, PauloSeveral pollutants, including heavy metals, magnify along the food chain, and top predators such as seabirds can be used to monitor their trends in the marine environment. We studied mercury and arsenic contamination in body feathers in penguins, petrels and cormorants in three islands of the Falklands Islands. There were significant differences among species and sites in the concentration of trace elements in feathers. Black-browed albatrosses and gentoo penguins had consistently high mercury concentrations on New Island, while Rockhopper penguins and imperial shags presented considerably higher concentrations at Beauchene Island. Mercury levels in black-browed albatrosses increased since 1986 on one of the islands, probably reflecting world-wide emission trends. Rockhopper penguins exhibited high arsenic levels, but levels were less variable among species, and were not correlated with mercury levels, suggesting low biomagnification. These results provide a reference line for bioindication studies using feathers from species on the Falkland Islands.
- Comment on “Marine plastic debris emits a keystone infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds” by Savocaet alPublication . Dell'Ariccia, Gaia; Phillips, Richard; Franeker, Jan A. Van; Gaidet, Nicolas; Catry, Paulo; Granadeiro, José Pedro; Ryan, Peter G.; Bonadonna, FrancescoIn their recent paper, Savoca and collaborators (2016) showed that plastic debris in the ocean may acquire a dimethyl sulfide (DMS) signature from biofouling developing on their surface. According to them, DMS emission may represent an olfactory trap for foraging seabirds, which explains patterns of plastic ingestion among procellariiform seabirds. This hypothesis is appealing, but some of the data that Savoca et al. used to support their claim are questionable, resulting in a misclassification of species, as well as other decisions regarding the variables to include in their models. Furthermore, with their focus on a single lifestyle trait (nesting habit) of dubious relevance for explaining plastic ingestion, Savoca et al. neglect the opportunity to explore other factors that might provide better ecological insight. Finally, we are deeply concerned by the conservation policy recommendation proposed by Savoca et al.-to increase antifouling properties of consumer plastics-which constitutes a substantial environmental risk and delivers the wrong message to decision-makers. The reduction of plastic consumption, waste prevention, and proactive reuse through a circular economy should be at the heart of policy recommendations for future mitigation efforts.