INFORMATION TO USERS
While the moat advanced technology has been used to
photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of
the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the material submitted. For example:
•

Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such
cases, the best available copy has been filmed.

•

Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such
cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to
obtain miBsing pages.

•

Copyrighted material may have been removed from
the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the
deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are
photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is
also film ed as one exposure and is available, for an
additional charge, as a standard 35mm Blide or as a 17”x 23”
black and white photographic print,
Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive
microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic
copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge,
35nun slides of 6"x 9” black and white photographic prints
are available for any photographs or illuBtrationB that
cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.

8707209

W o o d y ard , D avid K e n t

RISK EVALUATION FOR SLUDGE-BORNE ELEMENTS TO WILDLIFE FOOD
CHAINS

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Ph.D.

1986

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a s e s th is m aterial h a s b een filmed In th e b e st p ossible w ay from th e available copy.
Problem s en c o u n te re d with this d o c u m e n t have been Identified here with a c h e c k mark V .

1.

G lossy p h o to g rap h s o r p a g e s ______

2.

Colored Illustrations, p ap er o r p rin t_______

3.

P hotographs with d ark b a c k g ro u n d ______

4.

illustrations a re p o o r c o p y _______

5.

P ag es with b lack m arks, not original c o p y ______

6.

Print show s th ro u g h a s th ere is text on both sides of p a g e ________

7.

Indistinct, broken o r sm all print on sev eral p ages

8.

Print ex ce ed s m arg in re q u ire m e n ts_______

9.

Tightly bound c o p y with print lost In s p in e ________

■ /

10.

C om puter p rintout p a g e s with indistinct p rin t_______

11.

P a g e (s )_____________lacking w hen m aterial received, a n d not available from sch o o l o r
author.

12.

P a g e (s )_____________seem to b e m issing in num bering only as text follows.

13.

Two p a g e s n u m b e re d

14.

Curling and w rinkled p a g e s _______

15.

Dissertation c o n ta in s p a g e s w ith print at a slant, filmed a s received

16.

O ther_____________________________________________________________________________

. Text follows.

< /

University
Microfilms
International

RISK EVALUATION FOR SLUDGE-BORNE ELEMENTS
TO WILDLIFE FOOD CHAINS

By
D a v i d K e n t Wo o d y a r d

A DISSERTATION

in

Submitted to
Michigan S t a te U n iv e rs ity
p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the r e q u ire m e n ts
f o r t h e d e g re e of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department

of F i s h e r i e s
19 86

and W i l d l i f e

ABSTRACT
RISK EVALUATION FOR SLUDGE-BORNE ELEMENTS
TO WILDLIFE FOOD CHAINS

by
D a v i d K e n t Wo o d y a r d

Studies
w ildlife
toxic

were

food

metals

lands.

conducted

chain

associated

The

fate

of

Z n , wa s d e t e r m i n e d
exposed
fate

of

to

risks

the

from

exposure

to

recycling

5 selected

in

selected

t o x i c o 1ogica 1

evaluate

with

both

sludge-borne

the

to

metals,

field

and

metals.

metals

to

Cd, Cr,

Cu,

laboratory

Knowledge

were

used

and

potentially

sludges

and e x i s t i n g

properties

human

forest
Ni

food

and

chains

gained

on

the

knowledge of

their

complete

risk

to

a

assessmen t .
Nonindustrial,
5 forest

types

Monitoring
and

small

of

2

a

metals

plant-small

to

in

and

was

sludge

northern
selected

completed

chains

were

sludge-borne

insectivore

food

other

for

chain.

forages,
on

both

In a d d i t i o n
metal

One f o o d
a

to

M ichigan,

3 years

plots.

metals.

applied

wildlife

evaluated

the

was
lower

for

sludge-treated

mammal-raptor

brate-vertebrate

of

soils,

tissues

food

exposure

sewage

2 counties

control

laboratory

after

in

mammal

replicated,

municipal

chain

fate
wa s

soil-macroinverte­

David

Some
w ildlife
but

primarily

forages

during

returned

growing
tudes
ties

metals,

to

in

doses

wildlife.

accumulation.
vation.
food

Laboratory

The

chain

soil

did

to

showed

appear

as

a potential

earthworms c o n c e n tra te d
However,

selected

metals.

Results
tion

rates

problem
trophic

to

used,

this

does

h u ma n s c o n s u m i n g

can

this

obser­

response

to

ensure

environm ental

sludge
and

at
a

small

be r e c o m m e n d e d

w ildlife.

fed

such
for

However,

sludgeand l i v e r
from

is

safety.

of

the
the

applica­

metal

toxicity

or

as

to

higher

species.

addressed

in

sludge-recycling
to w i l d li f e

monitoring

amendments

to

the

ma mma l

from m e t a l s

public

metals

concentrations

vegetation

types,

risks

insectivore

collected

that

and

m etal

for

m inor)

present

certain

forest

health

forest

not

consuming

upland

significant

suggest

toxici-

of

Cd i n k i d n e y

significant

consuming

investigation,

without

magni­

herbivorous

pathway

tissues

study

sludge

w ildlife

groups

were

chronic

support

(Philohela

muscle

contain

from

Consequently,
this

woodcock

not

second

macroinvertebrate-vertebrate

contaminated

did

the

evidence

experiments

in

application

by

from

no

as

woodcock

after

elicit

collected

accum ulate,

tissues.

year

Woodyard

accumulate

concentrations

suspected

mammals

did

concentrations

Tissues

small

Cr,

first

Maxi mum m e t a l

than

omnivorous

the

background

season.

less

Cd a n d

Kent

sewage

recommended
Forest

or
and
to

soils

David

supporting

habitat

invertebrate
study to

mo r e

suitable

detritivores

determine

safe

(e.g.

for

wildlife

earthworms)

application

Kent

rates.

Woodyard

that

consume

require

further

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

F u n d i n g f o r t h i s p r o j e c t wa s p r o v i d e d by t h e E n v i r o n ­
m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency* t h e M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of
N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , and t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , N o rth
C en tral F orest Experiment S ta tio n .
I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n a n d r e s p e c t
t o my a d v i s o r , D r . J o n a t h a n H a u f l e r f o r h i s i n v a l u a b l e
g u i d e n c e and f r i e n d s h i p .
My a p p r e c i a t i o n i s a l s o e x t e n d e d
t o Dr . Phu N g u y e n , D r , J a m e s S i k a r s k i e , D r . De an U r i e a n d
Dr. W i l l i a m T a y l o r .
T h e p e o p l e who a s s i s t e d i n t h e f i e l d a n d l a b o r a t o r y
a r e t o o n u m e r o u s t o name b u t t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l h e l p a n d
s a c r i f i c e i s remembered and t r u e l y a p p r e c i a t e d .
A special
t h a n k s t o a l l o f t h e g r a d s t u d e n t s who e n d u r e d my l e n g t h y
stay.
To R i q u e Campa a n d De a n B e y e r , I o f f e r my t h a n k s f o r
your f r i e n d s h i p , a d v i c e , a r g u m e n t s , and s u p p o r t , a l l of
w h i c h h a v e made me a b e t t e r s c i e n t i s t a n d p e r s o n .
To my w i f e , P e g , a n d o u r f a m i l i e s , who h a v e s a c r i f i c e d
m o r e t h a n o n e s h o u l d a s k , I o f f e r my t h a n k s a n d l o v e .

ii

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Page

L I S T OF TABLES

.....................................................................................................

6

.............................................. ,.. ...............................................

14

SLUDGE-BORNE METALS IN WILDLIFE FOOD CHAINS
FROM SLUDGE RECYCLING TO FORESTED LANDS ..............................

16

L I S T OF FIGURES

OBJECTIVES

..........................................................................................................

18

STUDY AREAS ........................................................................................................

20

METHODS ..................................................................................................................

24

E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n ..................................................
Sludge A p p lic a tio n
.............
S l u d g e M e t a l A p p l i c a t i o n ........................................................
V e g e t a ti v e T issue Sampling
............................................
S m a l l Mammal T i s s u e S a m p l i n g .....................................
S oil Sampling
................
C o l l e c t i o n o f D e e r S a m p l e s .............
A nalytical Procedures
.............................
D a t a A n a l y s i s .....................................................................................

24
26
27
29
29
32
36
37
37

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

..........................................................................

38

S o i l s ...............................
F o r a g e s .....................................................................................................
S m a l l mammal s ....................................................
W h i t e - t a i l e d D e e r .......................
Summar y
..........................................

38
40
49
56
59

iii

iv

Pages

CONTAMINATION RISKS TO RAPTOR FOOD CHAINS
FROM SLUDGE-BORNE METALS .....................................................................

60

..........................................................................................................

62

METHODS ..................................................................................................................

63

S l u d g e D e s c r i p t i o n ........................................................................
Th e P r o d u c t i o n o f R y e - G r a s s ................................................
Th e W h i t e - f o o t e d Mi c e ................................................................
T h e R a p t o r s .......................
Th e Fo o d c h a i n
.............................................
Metal A n a l y s is
...............................
D a t a A n a l y s i s .....................................................................................

63
63
65
66
67
67
68

OBJECTI VES

RESULTS .............................................................................
Th e R y e - g r a s s ..................
T h e W h i t e - f o o t e d Mi c e .....................
DISCUSSION ..........................
TRANSFER OF SLUDGE-BORNE METALS THROUGH A
WOODCOCK-EARTHWORM FOOD CHAIN ........................................................
OBJECTIVES

69
69
71
79

81

..........................................................................................................

82

METHODS ..................................................................................................................

83

S l u d g e D e s c r i p t i o n ........................................................................
T h e E a r t h w o r m s ..........................................
T h e Wo o d c o c k ..................................................................................
Th e Fo o d c h a i n ...................................................................................
M e t a l A n a l y s i s ...............................................................
D a t a A n a l y s i s .......................

83
83
84
84
85
85

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................

86

S o i l - s l u d g e and S o i l - i n o r g a n i c
M i x t u r e s ...............................................

86

V

Page s

E a r t h w o r m s .............................................................................................
T h e Wo o d c o c k
..........................

86
89

DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................

96

RISK ASSESSMENT OF SLUDGE-BORNE CD, CR, CU.
NI AND ZN TO WILDLIFE FROM RECYCLING
SLUDGES UPON FOREST LANDS ...................................................................

99

*

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.......................................................................................................

103

.....................................................................................................................

109

' APPENDI X

LI ST OF TABLES
Numbe r
1

2
3
4

Pane
C o n c e n t r a t r i o n s ( u g 3 ~* ) o f t h e s e l e c t e d m e t a l s
in the sludges ap p lied to the 5 study a r e a s ,
and l i m i t s c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e ( Ch a n e y and
G i o r d a n o 1 9 7 7 ) ................ , ..................................................................

23

R a te s of m e t a l a p p l i c a t i o n (Icg/ha)
the 5 study areas
.............

30

applied

to

Forage s p e c i e s c o l l e c t e d f o r metal a n a l y s i s
f r o m e a c h f o r e s t t y p e ..................................................................

31

S m a l l mammal s p e c i e s c o l l e c t e d
a n a l y s i s from each f o r e s t typ e

33

for metal
.............................................

5

Soil depths demonstrating a s i g n i f ic a n t d iffe re n c e
( 0 . 1 l e v e l ) i n m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e j a c k
p i n e c l e a r c u t ........................................................................................
39

6

Forage sp e c ie s dem onstrating a s i g n i f i c a n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 le v e l) in metal c o n ce n tra tio n
on t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t .................................................

41

Forage sp e c ie s dem onstrating a s i g n i f i c a n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 l e v e l) in metal c o n ce n tra tio n
on t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

Forage sp e c ie s dem onstrating a s i g n i f i c a n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 le v e l) in metal c o n ce n tra tio n
on t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a .................................................................

45

F o r a g e s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g as i g n i f i c a n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 le v e l) in metal c o n centration
on t h e j a c k p i n e / r e d p i n e s t u d y a r e a ..........................

46

7

8

9

vi

Number

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Page

Forage s p e c i e s dem on stratin g a s i g n i f i c a n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 l e v e l) in metal c o n c e n tra tio n
on t h e m i x e d h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a
...........

47

S m a l l mammal s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 l e v e l) in metal c o n c e n tra tio n
o n t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t .......................................................

50

S m a l l mammal s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c n t
d if f e r e n c e (0.1 l e v e l) in metal c o n c e n tra tio n
on t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a ...................................................

51

S m a l l mammal s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 le v e l) in metal co n cen tratio n
on t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a ..............................................................

52

S m a l l mammal s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 le v e l) in metal c o n ce n tra tio n
on t h e j a c k p i n e / r e d p i n e * s t u d y a r e a ........................

53

S m a l l mammal s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c n t
d iffe re n c e (0.1 le v e l) in metal c o n cen tratio n
on t h e m i x e d h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a ...................................

54

Mean ( + S . E . ) m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n t i s s u e s o f
w h i t e - t a i l e d d e er h a r v e s t e d from th e a sp en s t u d y
a r e a i n No v e m b e r 1 9 8 2
................

57

C o n c e n t r a t i o n s (ug g~*) o f t h e s e l e c t e d m e t a l s
i n s l u d g e s o b t a i n e d from A l p e n a and D e t r o i t ,
M i c h i g a n a n d t h e i n o r g a n i c f e r t i l i z e r ........................

64

Mean m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n r y e - g r a s s g r o wn
on s l u d g e - t r e a t e d a n d i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d
s a n d s o i l s ................................................................................................

70

Mean m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n r y e - g r a s s p e l l e t s
f e d t o w h i t e - f o o t e d m i c e ...........................................................

72

vii

Number

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27
23
29
30
31

Page

Mean m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
soil-inorganic fe rtiliz e r

i n s o i l - s l u d g e and
m i x t u r e s * ..............................

87

Mean r a e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d
t o s i u d g e - t r e a t e d and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d
s o i l .....................................

88

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s
of woodcock
f e d e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d t o s 1u d g e - t r e a t e d and
i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d s o i l ..............* .............................

90

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s
of woodcock
f e d e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d t o s l u d g e - t r e a t e d and
i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d s o i l .............................................

91

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s
o f woodcock
fed ear th wo rm s e xp ose d to s l u d g e - t r e a t e d and
i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d s o i l .................

92

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s o f w o o d c o c k
f e d e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d t o s l u d g e - t r e a t e d and
i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d s o i l ........................ * ..................

93

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s
o f woodcock
f e d e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d t o s l u d g e - t r e a t e d nnd
i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d s o i l ............................................

95

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s o i l s
c o l l e c t e d on
the jack
p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 0 2 ............................

109

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s o i l s
c o l l e c t e d on
the jack
p in e c l e a r c u t from
1980-1982

110

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s o i l s
c o l l e c t e d on
the jack
p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 ...........................

Ill

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s o i l s
c o l l e c t e d on
the jack
p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 ...........................

112

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s o i l s
c o l l e c t e d on
the jack
p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 ...........................

113

viii

Number

32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

Page

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 ..........................

114

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 .........................

116

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 ..........................

118

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 .......................

120

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 .......................

122

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ............................

124

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a from 1982-1984

126

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ............................

128

Mean Ni
co n ce n tra tio n s in forages c o lle c te d off
t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ............................

130

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ..............

132

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................

134

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................

135

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d o f f
t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................

136

ix

Humfaer

45
46
47

48

49

50

51

52
53
54
55
56

Page

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ...................................

137

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ...................................

138

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected
t h e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1982-1984
..........................................................

139

off

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
t h e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ..................................................................................................

141

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
t h e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ...................................................................................................

143

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected
th e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ...............................................

145

off

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
th e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ..................................................................................................

147

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
t h e mixed h a r d wo od s s t u d y

forages collected off
a r e a from 1982-1984 . .

149

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
t h e mixed h a r dw o o d s s t u d y

forages collected off
a r e a from 1982-1984 . .

151

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
t h e mixed h a r d wo o d s s t u d y a r e a from 1 9 82 - 19 8 4 . .

153

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
t h e mixed h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a f r om 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 . .

155

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
forages collected off
t h e mixed h a r d wo o ds s t u d y a r e a from 1 9 82 - 19 8 4 . .

157

x

Page

57

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ................ 159

58

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ................ 1 6 0

59

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ............... 161

60

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ................ 162

61

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ............... 163

62

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ................
164

63

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ..................... 166

64

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ...................... 168

65

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ...................... 170

66

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ...................... 172

67

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
off
t h e oak s t u d y
area

i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
from 1982-1984
...................... 174

68

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
off
t h e oak s t u d y
area

in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
from 1982-1984
.............. 175

69

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
in small
mammal s c o l l e c t e d
off
t h e oak s t u d y
a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ........................ 176

70

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
off
t h e oak s t u d y
area
xi

i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ........................ 177

Number

Page

71

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e o a k s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ........................ 178

72

Mean Cd, c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e / r e d p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 179

73

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l ma mma l s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 180

74

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 181

75

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e / red p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1982-1984
............................................................................................
182

76

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e j a c k p i n e / r e d p i n e s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 183

77

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e mixed h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a f r o m
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 184

78

Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e mixed h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a f r o m
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 185

79

Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e mixed h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a from
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 186

80

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e mixed h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a f r om
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .................................................................................................. 187

xi i

Number

81

Page

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s c o l l e c t e d
o f f t h e mi x e d h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a f r o m
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 6 ..................................................................................................

xiii

188-

L I S T OF FIGURES
is u mb e r
1

Fage
L o c a t i o n o f s t u d y p l o t s on a ) j a c k p i n e ’ c l e a r c u t ,
b) j a c k p i n e / r e d p i n e , c ) o a k ,
d) a s p e n , and
m i x e d h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a s ...........* .....................................

25

2

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice f ed s l u d g e - g r o w n ( Al p e n a o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
• a n d i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
73
0 t o 6 0 d a y s ...........................................................................................

3

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice f e d s l u d g e - g r o w n ( Al p en a o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s f r om
0 t o 6 0 d a y s ............................................................................................
73

A

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice f e d s l u d g e - g r o w n ( A l p en a o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s f r om
0 t o 60 d a y s .......................... ..
7A

5

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice f e d s l u d g e - g r o w n ( A l p e n a o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l L y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s ............................................................................................
7A

6

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed s l u d g e - g r o w n (A lpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s ...................................................................
75

xi v

xv

Mumber

Pane

7

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed s l u d g e - g r o w n (Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
75
0 t o 60 d a y s ...........................................................................................

8

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed s l u d g e - g r o w n (A lp ena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s . . . » ............... . . . . . . . .............................................
76

9

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Hi c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
n ic e fed sludge-grow n (Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0
t o 60 d a y s ....................................
76
D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice f ed s l u d g e - g r o w n ( A l p e n a o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
77
0
t o 60 d a y s .............................................................................................

10

11

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice f e d s i u d g e - g r o w n ( A l p e n a or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0
t o 60 d a y s . . . . . . . . . . ..............................................................
77

SLUDGE-BORNE METALS IN WILDLIFE FOOD CHAINS FROM
SLUDGE RECYCLING TO FORESTED LANDS

One o f

Che r e s i d u a l s

sewage s l u d g e .

Passage

from waste w a t e r

of

the

1972 a me ndme nt s

F e d e r a l Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l
of

sewage s l u d g e s .

disposal

were i n a d e q u a t e

alternatives,
allowed
trated

that

for
in

the

sewage

of n u t r i e n t s
sludges.

regulatory
existing

(Riordan

only a g r i c u l t u r a l

reuse

to

Ac t a c c e l e r a t e d

Subsequently,

waste managers r e a l i z e d

treatment

1983).

and

interest

production

agencies

Of t h e

and

of

disposal

landspreading

and o r g a n i c

Thus,

the

practices

forest

is

matter
in

land

concen­
treatment

developed.
Today,
lands

is

of

for

particular

have s u g g e s t e d
food c h a i n
forest

that

hazards

reasons,
interest

public
is

1979,

be c o s t

Zasoski

effective,

recycling

forested
Researchers

to h e a l th

mo r e w i t h

lands

1981).

to

in Michigan.

exposure

minimized

t h a n on a g r i c u l t u r a l

Brockway
can

several

risks

recycling

(Zasoski

In a d d i t i o n ,

et

a_l.

forest

and
on

197 7 ,
disposal

a s many M i c h i g a n c o m m u n i t i e s a r e
16

17

situated
studies

near
have

public-owned,
indicated

acceptance

for

(G igliotti

1983,

Specific
maintain
nitrate
Urie

the

forest

Michigan's

knowledge i s
quality

of

research

1978,

al_.

( Campa

1982,

Wo o d y a r d

with

is

sludge-borne,

generally

respond

forest

Other
(Harris
with

et

1982,

essential

positively

s ome o f

Urie

et

emphasis

lead
a l.

placed

for

habitat

forest

risks

associated

As w i l d l i f e

a n d We s t

food c h a i n

1986),

could

risks

be

possible metal accumulation
higher

game s p e c i e s

on

Seon 1 9 8 4 ) .

metals.

(Haufler

include

Brockway and

and w i l d l i f e

toxic

to

To a v o i d

concerns

1984,

analysis

Concerns

sensitive,

for

to understand

potentially

and i n

j ^l ,

Th o ma s 1 9 8 3 ,

augmented.

such as r a p t o r s

rates

of w i l d l i f e

the w ild lif e

bas e of

environment.

particular

entering

food

options

t o manage s l u d g e

environmental

from m e t a l s

the

than o th er

application

1984):

response

it

g e n e r a l l y more p u b l i c

necessary

To c o m p l e t e a r i s k - b e n e f i t
application,

Furthermore,

1983).

the

sand s o i l s .

the

lands*

of ground w ater q u a l i t y ,

determined

Urie e t

is

application

to a d ju n c tiv e

measuring

there

Lagerstrom

degradation

(1983)

forested

trophic

level

consumed

species,

by p e o p l e .

in

OBJECTIVES

This
designed

s t u d y was p a r t
to determine

u p o n some u p l a n d
included
potential
wildlife
1.

in

the

the

forested

influence

with

food c h a i n s ,

ecosystems.

sludge-borne

objectives

land a p p lic a tio n
W ildlife

metals

were
To i d e n t i f y

entering

included:

for

Cu,

and Zn)

between

s l u d g e - a m e n d e d and c o n t r o l

soils,

plants,

a n d s m a l l ma mma l s ,

Ni,
in

testing

for

tissues

concentration

potentially
of

measuring
produced

A finalobjective
knowledge

the

on t h e
18

deer

concentrations

(Odocoileus

of any m e t a l

changes

sewage s l u d g e s .

wa s t o c o m p l e t e
gained

metal

( f o r Cd, C r ,

from a sl u d g e - a m e n d e d a re a*

longevity

by r e c y c l i n g

differences

toxic

white-tailed

vlrginianus) collected

on t h e

project

testing

in

3.

of

ecosystem components examined.

problems

sites
2.

of a s l u d g e - r e c y c l i n g

a risk
fate

of

assessment
the

based

selected metals

19

and

existing

the

metals.

knowledge of

the

toxicological

properties

of

STUDY AREAS

Field
the

investigations

northern

4-year-old
County
year

lower

jack

(44°

later,

pine,

10-year-old

and 5 0 - y e a r - o l d
Climate

Michigan
region

is

5.8

During

64 Km t o

the

1980 a

i n Wexf or d
research

t y p e s were l o c a t e d
84°

site.

A

in

10*W) a n d i n c l u d e d

70-year-old

is

t h e West,

(180.0

period

typical

T h e mean a n n u a l
extremes

Influenced

precipitation
study

first

of

oak,

50-year-

old

mixed h a r d w o o d s .

C with monthly

snowfall

total

59'N,

both c o u n tie s

( 1 9 .6 C).

Michigan,
greater

of

fo.rest

aspen,

(NOAA 1 9 8 1 ) .

and J u l y

but

(44°

the

2 counties
In

wa s l o c a t e d

20*W) a s

4 additional

in

of Michigan.

clearcut,

85°

Mont mo r e n c y C o u n t y
stands of

peninsula

pine

16'N,

were c o n d u c t e d

cm)
is

by i t s

of

northern

temperature
in January
proximity

for

(-7.8

sim ilar

(May 1 9 8 0 20

(82.1

(152.4

cm a n d

December

this
C)

t o Lake

Wexford Count y a v e r a g e s
t h a n Montmorency

lower

76.7

1985),

a 20%
cm),
cm) .

21

t e m p e r a t u r e and p r e c i p i t a t i o n

followed

the

cold

1982 w i n t e r was u n u s u a l l y
Vegetation

successional

after

vegetation consisted
erating
cherry

jack

pine

CP r u n u s

pin cherry

grass

was i n a n e a r l y

in

of widely d i s p e r s e d

1976.

choke c h e r r y

(P^. p e n s y l v a n i c a ) .

Overstory

clumps o f r e g e n ­

b a n k s i a n a ) dominated

s e r o t i n a ).

the groundstory.

site

being c l e a r c u t

(Pinus

except

(NOAA 1 9 8 2 ) .

on t h e We x f o r d s t u d y

stage

the average

(P..

by b l a c k

v i r e i n l a n a ) and

Brambles ( Rubus) dominated

Common g r o u n d s t o r y

species

included

panic

( P a n i c u m v i r g a t u m ) , o r a n g e ha wkweed ( H i e r a c i u m
*

aurantiacum ).
existed

a nd s e d g e s

fCarex).

wi t h clumps of c h e r r i e s

A mosaic

and b r a m b l e s i n t e r s p e r s e d

w i t h g a p s o f no v e g e t a t i o n a n d e x p o s e d
study s i t e

were s a n d s o f

(Eutric

Glossoboralfs).

(Corder

1979),

unpubl.

data).

these

soil.

Soils

on t h i s

t h e G r a y c a l m a n d Mo n t c a l m s e r i e s
Excessively

soils

to well drained

we r e s t r o n g l y

A b s e n c e o f a n A2 h o r i z o n

v a t i o n may h a v e o c c u r r e d

pattern

within

the

last

acidic

( Wo o d y a r d

suggested c u l t i ­
century.

The Mo n t mo r e n c y C o u n t y S i t e s w e r e o f 4 d i f f e r e n t
vegetation
type

types.

included

unsuccessful

Past

repeated
effort

habitat
roller

to c r e a t e

r e s u l t was a l s o a m o s a i c

manipulation

of

the aspen

c h o p p i n g and b u r n i n g i n an
a wildlife

pattern

opening.

The

of clumps c o n s i s t i n g

of

22

bigtooth

aspen

( Populus

g r a n d i d e n t a ) and

(P_.

tremuloides) interspersed

red

maple

story

CA c e r r u b r u m ) ,

vegetation

braken

fern

Predominant
sands

of

soil

Rubicon

oak

(Q_,

of

(Eutic

sweetfern

of

oak s t a n d

the

panic

supported
oak

ment)

drained

grass,

species

sands

and Rubicon s e r i e s

and

brambles.

and w e l l d r a i n e d
and Montcalm

an o v e r s t o r y

(C^. a l b a ) a n d r e d

s a me s p e c i e s

( G a u l t h e r i a ) . and s e d g e s .
excessively

( Comptonia).

Haplorthod)

mixture
maple,

along with witch

( Hamamelis v i r g i n i a n a ) and s e r v i c e
Common g r o u n d s t o r y

Major u n d e r-

1984).

ru b ra ) . white

an u n d e r s t o r y

pin c h e rry ,

(Quercus)

were e x c e s s i v e l y

(Nguyen and H a r t

Th e u p l a n d
red

consisted

types

scattered

and o a k s

( Pteridium ) . sedges,

the

series.

with

trem bling aspen

berry

were b r a c k e n
Excessively

of

and

hazel

( Am elanchier).
fern,

wintergreen

and somewhat

from th e G r a y l i n g
were p r e d o m i n a t e

(Typic

Udipsam-

soils

on t h e

pine

inter­

site.
Th e p i n e
spersed

with

consisted
species

of

red

pine

(P_.

consisted

Soils

the Garyling

maple.

jack

A sparse

midstory

Dominant g r o u n d s t o r y

(Vacclnium) . sw eetfern,

consisted

series

of

r e s i n o s a ).

red oak and red

were b l u e b e r r y

and s e d g e s .
of

plantation

of e x c e s s iv e ly

(T ypic Udipsamment)

bracken

drained

fern

sands

and a w e l l

23

drained

coarse

loam of

t h e Montcalm s e r i e s

(Eutric

Glosso-

b o r a l f ).
Sugar maple

(A_.

sa cc h aru m ) . red m a p l e t American beech

( Fagus g r a n d i f o l i a ) and American basswood
were t h e

important

wo o d s t y p e ,
uals

of

overstory

the overstory

sparse

maple

(A.,

of

Haplorthods)

somewhat p o o r l y

species

t h e mixed h a r d ­

and w h i t e a s h

hophornbeam ( O strya

pensylvanicum) .

but diverse

S o i l s were sands
(Alfic

for

americana)

A w e l l d e v elo p ed midcanopy i n c l u d e d

americana) . eastern
striped

species

(T ilia

individ­

( Fraxinus

v i r g i n i a n a ) . and

The g r o u n d s t o r y

a n d was d e s c r i b e d

by T h o ma s

was

(1983).

t h e M a n c e l o n a a n d Me n o m i n e e s e r i e s
with sm aller

drained

E u t r o b o r a l f s ) a nd Si ms

soils
(Mollic

of

areas

consisting

of

t h e Kawkawlin ( Aqu ic

Haplaquept)

series.

METHODS

E x p erim en tal Design
A completely
field

randomized

experiments.

a mo n g p l o t s
design

T r e a t m e n t s were r and oml y

located

required

were d i f f e r e n t

d e s i g n wa s e m p l o y e d

within

each

modifications

as

the

jack

included

the

location

pine

clearcut,
of 6,

e a c h were r an do ml y c h o s e n

exist

as c o n tr o ls .
F o r Mont morency C o u n t y ,

selected

by M i c h i g a n ' s

required

application

the c o n stru ctio n

Consequently,

replicated

type.

spreading

this

to

the

Department

trails.

Plot
techniques

design

la).

sludge

Three
and

application

of N atural
impacts
trails

1.5 ha,

to

method

Resources
associated

could

was c o n s i d e r e d

each
24

(Fig.

sludge

of a p p l i c a t i o n

plots,

experimental

receive

As s i t e

manipulation

9 study

the

2 ha p l o t s

plots

significant,

land

all

between c o u n t i e s .

For

with

vegetation

for

be

a treatment.

were d e l i n e a t e d

25

□ H Q

0

,3 ,

0

EDED13

[ T

□
TS
-

0

f

C

control

C

T

trails

TS

5

sludge

p - 1

only

r

~Tj

C I TS I T

TS t r a i l s

and s l u d g e

N

PI nnnDEU
LJ

1

[■

|

FLJI HmSm9 .
B
Fig.

1,

L o c a t i o n o f s t u d y p l o t s on a ) j a c k p i n e c l e a r c u t ,
b) j a c k p i n e / r e d p i n e , c ) o a k , d) a s p e n , a n d
mi x e d h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a s .

26

in

each

vegetation

randomly a s s i g n e d
plots

received

type
as

(Figs.

controls

the c le a rin g

n o t amended w i t h s l u d g e .
application

trails

cut

lb-le).
with

Three

plots

no m a n i p u l a t i o n .

of a p p l i c a t i o n

trails

The r e m a i n i n g 3 p l o t s

and r e c e i v e d

were
Three

b u t were

had

sludge.

Sludge A p p lica tio n
Digested
water

municipal

treatment

facilities

City Michigan.
tanker
rain

trucks,

but

access,

to

in

Fall

I n May 1 9 8 0 ,

of

solids)

trails

pine c le a r c u t.
5 m-wide

sludges

1,020,000 L of C a d i l l a c

1981.

The p i n e

in
A

to

An a d a p t e d
trails

for

i n Montmorency

were l o c a t e d

to

the

jack

pine

s l u d g e wa s u s e d

One m o n t h

later,

from both Alpena and Rodgers C i t y ,

oak t y p e .

sites

20 m a p a r t

and

1981.

were a p p l i e d

in October

jack

to a l l

and Rodgers

p i p e were us e d

which r e q u i r e d

1 ,1 1 3 ,0 0 0 L of Alpena

site
L,

the

Alpena,

from

m et h o d s were e m p l o y e d .

irrigation

distribute

These access

constructed

%

over

spreader,

wa s u s e d

County.

in C a d illa c ,

2 application

portable

sludge

agricultural

wa s o b t a i n e d

S l u d g e wa s t r a n s p o r t e d

c annon and

distribute

sewage s l u d g e

plantation

sewage s l u d g e

clearcut.
to

treat

a total

of

wa s r e c y c l e d

(6

A total
the aspen
780,000
to

the

and mixed hardwood s t a n d

27

received

sludge

Approximately
to

the

in June

1982,

1 ,113 ,00 0 L of s lu d g e

plantation,

while

674,000 L a p p lied

to

ha)

so a s

were d e s i g n e d

nitrate

and J u l y

concentrations

f r o m A l p e n a wa s a p p l i e d

Rodgers C ity

the

hardwoods.
not

of

respectively.

was

the

source

Application

to exceed

projected

of

rates

the
(L/

groundwater

10 ppm.

Sludge Metal Composition
All

sludge

effort

of

Forest

Service

State

the

and

jack
the

of

Experiment

Forestry

Complete

the

within

w e r e Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
pine c le a r c u t,

sludges applied

no f e d e r a l

applied

oak s t a n d
to

restrictions

accumulations

in s o i l s

to s o i l s

b o r n e Cd c a n n o t

lim its

in

in

the

the

(Table

sludges

pine

used

supporting
exceed 0.5

for

are

annual

or

non-food

human f o o d s ,

1984).

applied
appropriate

1).

Excep­

applied

plantation

t h e mixed h a r d w o o d s
on t h e

the U.S.

a t Michigan

considered

lands

and

of

Ng u y e n a n d H a r t

metals

to a g r i c u l t u r a l

Station

cooperative

descriptions

1982,

selected

by t h e

Department

sludge

( Wo o d y a r d

were g e n e r a l l y

application

tions

the

elsewhere

Concentrations
sludges

were c o n d u c t e d

North C e n tra l

University.

presented

for

analyses

type.

There are
metal

crops.

however,

the

a n d Cu i n

cumulative
chain

to

When

sludge-

k g / h a / y e a r o r a maxi mum c u m u l a -

28

T a b l e 1. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s ( u g g ~ l ) o f t h e s e l e c t e d m e t a l s
the
s l u d g e s a p p l i e d to t h e 5 s t u d y a r e a s , and l i m i t s
c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e (Chaney and G io r da n o 19 7 7) .

F o r e s t Type

Metal
Maxi mum
suggested
concentration
Cd

50

Cr

1000

Cu

Jack
pine

Oak

Pine

Hardwoods

54

60

9

154

181

106

106

64

1000

428

5 70

775

515

1182

Ni

20 0

45

43

39

43

23

Zn

2000

98 5

7 05

11 45

931

942

weight

56*

As p e n

27

*dry

in

29

tive

application

Agency
0,63

1979).

kg/ha

receiving

in

of

Loading
this

Tissue

Vegetative
during spring,

clipped,
for

the

from

the

above

while only

collected

Paks u n t i l

from
pine

0.08

to

clearcut

2).

the

to

metal

beginning

and

forest

current

of

the

(Table
were
and

plants

wa s

g r o w t h wa s i n c l u d e d

at

to

60° C u n t i l

Samples were t h e n

p a s s a 1 ram s i e v e

and s t o r e d

twigs
a

ground

in Whirl

analyzed.

S m a l l Mammal T i s s u e

Sampling

S m a l l mammal s w e r e c o l l e c t e d

2

For h e r b a c e ­

samples were r e s t r i c t e d

Samples were d r i e d

for

transects

plants.

annual

first

Samples

belt

portion

the

species

type.

established

analyses

continuing

o f common f o r a g e

ground

Winter

for

winter,

w e i g h t wa s m a i n t a i n e d .

a Wiley M i l l

jack

(Table

f r o m many i n d i v i d u a l

o f woo dy s p e c i e s .

in

ranged

the

kg/ha

each

randomly

tissues

Cd

treatm ent

plot

from

woody s p e c i e s .

constant

were

sludge

collected

species,

only

s u mme r a n d e a r l y

Three sam ples/

ous

with
> 0.5

samples

years.

included

for

Protection

Sampling

after

collected

(Environm ental

rates

study,

season

were

kg/ha

an a p p l i c a t i o n

Vegetative

3)

5

during

late

s umme r when

30

Table 2,
Rates
5 study areas.

of metal

application

(kg/ha)

applied

to

F o r e s t Type

Metal
Jack

pine

Aspen

Oak

Pine

Ha r d wo o d

Cd

0.63

0.28

0.42

0.36

0.08

Cr

1.69

1.81

0.85

0.36

0.58

Cu

4,76

5.68

6.13

4.22

10.8

Mi

0.54'

0.42 '

0.31

0.35

0.21

Zn

10.9

12.3

9.25

7.61

8.60

*dry

the

weight

31

Table 3,
Forage sp e c ie s
each f o r e s t type.

Jack

pine

Oak

Aspen

brambles
CR u b u s )

for metal

Pine

analysis

from

H a r d wo o d

wild straw red maple' r e d maple
s u g a r maple
berry
( Acer rubrum)
( A. s a c c h a r i u m )
(Fragaria
virginiana)

orange
orange
ha wk we e d
h a wk we e d
CH i e r a c i u m
aurantiacum
panic grass panic
( Panicum
vi rgaturn)

grass

bracken
sedge
fern
(Carex)
( Pterdium
aq u i l i n u m )
w h i t e oak
( Quercus
rubra)

red oak
bigtooth
rubra)
aspen
( Populus
gradidentata)

sedge

jack pine
( Pinus
bankslana)
cherries
(Prunus)

collected

bracken
fern

pin cherry
(P .pensylvanica)
trem bling aspen
CP.* t r e m u l o i d e s )

american
beech
( Fagus
americana)

bracken
fern

white ash
( Fraxinus
americana)

red

hophornbeam
CO s t r v a
virginiana)

oak

32

populations
were to o

infrequent

included.
obtained

from a l l
of

■identified
analysis.

ately.

for

statistical

plots

oats,

fat

via

Livers,

kidneys,

Composite samples
for

the

individuals

1980,

baited

future,

metal

and m u s c l e s of

tissues

the

species,

the

Napaeozapus
While

g enus P e r om y sc u s were n o t

through c ra n ia l
species

immedi­

from 3 i n d i v i d u a l s

and P e r om y sc u s l e u c o p u s .
of

with

S p e c i m e n s were

60° C and a n a l y z e d

examination,

all

leucopus.

t h e Wexford Co u n t y s i t e ,

a 6x6 m a t r i x
each su b p lo t

depths;
cm.

for

were

Sampling
For

into

the

at

of

collected

examined were of

humeri,

smaller

to sp e c ie s

( T a b l e 4)

extract.

numbers

were not

Sherman l i v e - t r a p s

dried

i n s i g n i a . Zapus h u s o n i u s

Soil

species

and a n i s e

were removed,

identified

analysis

w i t h a n u mb e r a n d f r o z e n

were r e q u i r e d

all

S p e c i e s whose i n d i v i d u a l

Adequately abundant

a mixture

hindlegs

were h i g h e s t .

0-5cm,

o f 36 s u b p l o t s

e a c h p l o t wa s d i v i d e d
(550 m ) .

In October

wa s s a m p l e d w i t h a b u c k e t a u g e r a t

5-10cm,

Samples were d r i e d

t h r o u g h a 2 mm s i e v e

10-15cm,
at

before

15-30cm,

105° C f o r
analyzing.

7

30-60cm and 60-90

24 h o u r s

and p a s s e d

Sampling

was

T a b l e 4.
S m a l l mammal s p e c i e s
from each f o r e s t t y p e .

F o r e s t Type

-

aspen

pine

for

metal

analysis

sam ples/ year*
T r e a t m e n t ____________________
1
2
3

white-footed
mo u s e
(Peromyscus
leucopus)

control
sludge

(6)
(6)

(8)
(8)

(3)
(3)

1 3 - l i n e d ground
squirrel
(Citellus
tridecem lineatus)

control
sludge

(5)
(5)

(5)
(5)

(3)
(3)

meadow j u m p i n g
mo u s e
( Zapus
hudsonius )

control
sludge

(-)
(-)

( 2)
(3)

(-)
(-)

1 3 - l i n e d ground
squirrel

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(6)
(6)
(6)

1 1 1

jack

Species

collected

(-)
(-)
(-)

e a s t e r n meadow v o l e
(Microtus
Dennsylvanicus)

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(6)
(6)
(6)

(6)
(3)
(3)

(5)
(6)
(6)

e a s t e r n chipmunk
(Tamias s t r l a t u s )

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(4)
(4)
(4)

(-)
(-)
(-)

(-)
(-)
(-)

34

Table 4 cont.
control
t r a i l s only
sludge

<3)
(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)
(3)

(3)
(4)
(4)

white-footed

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(6)
(6)
(6)

(6)
(6)
(6)

(9)
(9)
(9)

eastern

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(-)
(-)
(-)

(5)
(4)
(4)

C-)
C-)
(-)

white-footed
mo u s e

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(-)
(-)
(-)

(-)
(-)
(-)

(4)
(4)
(3)

white-footed
mo u s e

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(4)
(6)
(6)

(6)
(6)

(10)
(10)
(10)

eastern

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

(6)
(6)
(6)

(6)
(6)
(6)

(4)
(3)
(4)

woodland jumping
mo u s e
(Napaeozapus i n s i a n i s )

oak

. pine

hardwoods

chipmunk ,

chipmunk

W

♦ n u m b e r o f s a m p l e s p e r t r e a t m e n t p e r y e a r ; 1* 2 a n d 3 a r e
1 9 8 0 , 81 a n d 82 f o r t h e j a c k p i n e , 1 9 8 2 , 83 a n d 84 f o r a l l
study areas.

35

restricted

to 6 su b p lo ts

Metal c o n c e n tr a ti o n s
obtained

schemes,

Collection

of

University.

as described

but

parallel

plot

in

fall

the

Forestry

Their

with

those

employed

deer

does were c o l l e c t e d

area,

1982.

kidneys,

No v e mb e r

small

Livers,

m us c l e were c o l l e c t e d
a r e most l i k e l y

or

to

and s t o r e d

for

the

by h u m a n s
deer

in

while

the aspen study
hearts,

and

metal analy ses,

to c o n cen trate

be c o n s u m e d

mammal t i s s u e s ,

collection

were

o f Deer S ampl es

plots,

metals

at

f o r Wexford C o u n t y .

sludge-treated

tissues

1982,

were

Department

(1984),

f e e d i n g a mong t h e

skeletal

198 1 a n d

s a m p li n g and a n a l y t i c a l

by Ng u y e n a n d H a r t

Three w h i t e - t a i l e d

in

of

i n Montmorency County s o i l s

from c o o p e r a t o r s

Michigan S t a te

varied

per

as

potentially

(Underwood

toxic

1977).

s a m p l e s were f r o z e n

before

drying

at

matter

wa s b r o k e n

these

Like

upon

6 0 ° C.

A nalytical Procedures
Th e d r i e d

organic

by w e t d i g e s t i o n
minimize l o s s e s
and G r e w e l i n g

with n i t r i c

and

perchloric

from v o l a t i l i z a t i o n

1979).

DC-argon plasma a to m i c

S a m p l e s were
emission

down i n a l l
acids

and r e t e n t i o n
then analyzed

spectrometer

samples

to
( Au c h mo d y
with a

(Spectramet-

36

rics,

Inc.,

Andover,

To a s s u r e
conducted

for

MA) f o r

quality
at

control,

least

10% o f

s a m p l e s were n o t w i t h i n
time,

the a n aly sis

series.

of

10% o f

samples

To m o n i t o r

t h e number o f s a m p l e s )

analysis

with

containing

the

Cu,

for

first
all

and Zn.

tests

samples.

yielding

for

Ni,

duplicate

the

s a m p l e s 90% o f
samples

spurious

were s u b j e c t e d

were

When d u p l i c a t e

contamination,

spectrometer.

contaminated

Cr,

the

was r e p e a t e d

In a d d i t i o n ,

were r e t e s t e d .

Cd,

of

the

that

results

blanks

(5-10%

to d ig e s tio n

and

Samples of a s e r i e s

b l a n k s were r e a n a l y z e d .

Data A n a ly sis
T h e p o we r o f

the methods a v a i l a b l e

assumption

violations

Since

numbers were r e s t r i c t e d

the

plot

resulting

testing

statistical

all

data

one-way a n a l y s i s
cance

level

by p l o t
for

were s u b j e c t e d

of

variance

wa s u s e d f o r

all

test

3 samples,

size

sizes.

demands,

hypothesis
1981).

to nonparametrie
a randomization

a Kruskal-Wallis

wa s c o m p l e t e d .
tests.

for

sample

( S o k a l and Rohlf

For 2 sample c a s e s ,

In c a s e s
of

to small

were s u s p e c t

tests

sets

analyses.

was u s e d .

sensitive

sizes

with param etric

Therefore,

test

sample

is

to

A 0.1

signifi­

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Soils
The a p p l i c a t i o n
did

not

litter
after

result
layer.

sludge

evidence
first

1982.

Samples c o l l e c t e d
application

only

5).

metals

to

the

All

soil

at

0.5,

forest

taken

results

below th e

1.5 and 2 . 5

floor

the

clearcut

soil

provided
column.

yielded

no
In

the

significantly

from t h e

sludge-treat­

were o b t a i n e d
are

years

in

presented

1981
in

(Appendix).
the

sludge-borne

Sludges

applied

have d e m o n s tra te d

b e l o w a 5 cm d e p t h

agricultural

soil

pine

of m etals

metal co n cen tratio n

was e x p e c t e d .

studies

in

Similar

No a c c u m u l a t i o n o f

other

the jack

2 o f 30 c o m p a r i s o n s

(Table

27-31

profile

to

accumulation

concentrations

ed p l o t s

Tables

the

sludge

o f m e t a l movement t h r o u g h

year,

greater

and

in

of

lands

for

(Chang e t

at

little

forests

in

similar

influence
(Brockway

a l . 1984).
37

metals

the

soil

rates

in

on s o i l
1979)

Only a f t e r

or

sludge

38

Table
5. S o i l
ce ( 0 . 1 l e v e l )
clearcut.

depths demonstrating a s i g n i f ic a n t
i n m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e J a c k

ug s - 1
Year

Metal

-

1981

1982

(dry wt.)

S o i l Depth
c#*

1980

differen­
pine

S

Cd

5-10

0.38

0 .66^

Cu

10-15

0.94

0.66

15-30

0.15

0.09

Ni

15-30

0.00

0.23

Zn

10-15

2,44

1.37

Cd

0-5

0.42

0.77

Cr

5-10

3.13

3.67

Cu

0-5

2.03

2.67

Zn

15-30

1.97

0.89

Cd

0-5

0.37

0.77

Zn

0-5

15.6

11.1

10-15

9.77

3.56

* v a l u e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( 0 . 1 l e v e l ) from
controls.
**0 and S a r e c o n t r o l and s l u d g e v a l u e s ,
respectively
* * C, T, S a r e c o n t r o l ,
t r a i l s o n l y , and
sludge, respectively.

39

wa s r e p e a t e d l y a p p l i e d
t o move t h r o u g h
1976,

Ch a n g e t

soils
al.

at

high r a t e s

(Hinesly

et

have m e t a l s

al.

1972,

appeared

Lu n d e t

al.

1984).

Forages
While
their

the

metal

plant

content,

species
the

. we r e g e n e r a l l y

sim iliar

Concentrations

of

ranges

found in

Pendias

(1984)

After
cut,

plant

borne m e ta ls.

as

year

first

year,

to

the

grass,

of m e ta ls

of

O r a n g e h a wk we e d c o n t a i n e d

the g re a te s t

and e x h i b i t e d

the

largest

increase

than observed

for

controls

sludge-treated

forages

6).

concentrations

observed

sludge
metal

on c o n t r o l s .

to

sludgeh a wk we e d

over

the
the

consistantly

recorded

1.5

clear-

During

s u mme r 1 9 8 2 ) .

contained

pine

and o r a n g e

(Table

as a r e s u l t

in

th e normal

to accumulate

accumulators

forages

ranges.

jack

Cd a n d Cr w e r e t h e m e t a l s m o s t
the

study

States.

following ap p lica tio n

in

this

in

by K a b a t a - P e n d i a s a n d

species appeared
panic

varied

to metal

were w i t h i n

of s lu d g e

Brambles,

parts

examined in

reported

the United

most c o n s i s t e n t

first

increased

5 metals

plants
for

5 sites

with.respect

the a d d itio n

several

were t h e

the

and p l a n t

concentrations
(2.5x

mo r e Cu

Generally,

2x t h e

By t h e

recycling.

metal

s umme r

the

40

Table
6. Forage s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e ( 0 . 1 l e v e l ) i n m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e
pine c l e a r c u t .

Year

Season

Metal

ug 8 ~ 1 ( d r y

Forage

control
1980

s ummer

w t.)

sludge

Cd

Brambles
jack pine needles
o r a n g e h a wk we e d

0.68
0.43
0.73

1,07
0.33
1.59

Cr

cherry twigs
cherry leaves
jack pine needles
o r a n g e h a wk we e d
panic grass

1.04
1.08
0.72
2.28
0.47

0.74
1.74
1.20
5.84
0.76

Cu

brambles
o r a n g e h a wk we e d
panic grass

2.30
3.82
0.97

2.99
9.63
2.27

Ni

cherry twigs
o r a n g e h a wk we e d
panic grass

1.15
3.74
0.69

1.53
5.44
1.26

Zn

brambles
panic grass

53.2
14.8

65.6
31.0

Cd

cherry twigs
jack pine needles
brambles

0,25
0.24
0.83

0.51
0.45
1.26

Cr

brambles

1.45

2.29

Cu

brambles

1.78

3.19

Ni

jack pine
brambles

1.72
0.98

2.31
2,43

Zn

brambles

56.7

78.3

-

winter

jack

twigs

41

table

6 cont.

1981

spring

Cd

cherry leaves
jack pine twigs
jack pine needles
o r a n g e hawkweed

0.50
0.91
0.35
0.61

0.88
1.34
0.60
1.09

Cr

cherry twigs
jack pine twigs
o r a n g e hawkweed
panic grass

2.45
1.74
1.96
1.14

3.25
2.57
2.91
1.78

Cu

brambles
o r a n g e ha wkwe ed

1.88
3.82

2.66
6.77

Ni

panic grass

0.44

0.77

Cd

cherry

0.51

0.29

Cr

brambles

1.14

1.52

Ni

jack

1.18

1.90

winter

Cd

brambles
cherry twigs

0.81
0.45

0.99
0.25

spring

Ni

jack pine

0.45

1.46

summer

Ni

o r a n g e ha wkwe ed

2 .'45

4.87

winter

Cu

jack

2.04

3.34

summer

982

* value is
controls

significantly

leaves

pine

pine

twigs

needles

twigs

different

(0,1

level)

from

42

of

1981

(14 months a f t e r

following
longer

increased

apparent.

collected
32-36

year,

off

application)

the

apparent
greater
a rare

metal concentrations

All metal

concentrations

jack

clearcut

pine

metal

concentrations

concentrations

occurence during

the

T h e m o r e common t h a n

recycling

sludge

on t h e s e

Wo o d y a r d
forages

1985).

reported

forages

in Tables

Two o f

the

clearcut

The m e t a l

forages,

were a l s o

content

in

h a wk we e d n o r

groups

total

production

burden

nutrients

of m etals.

applied

to

However,

grass,

the
study

were s i m i l a r

and t h e a s p e n s i t e ,

jack
area.

on b o t h

a s were t h e
neither

grass accumulated metals

of

wa s g r e a t

on t h e a s p e n

plants

and

in

Expansion

h a wk we e d a n d p a n i c

from s l u d g e

sites.

(Tables

(Haufler

metal

plots.

were

However,

annual

availability

monitored

by b o t h

panic

increased

the

plants

by c h a n c e .

understory

orange

control

pine c le a r c u t
received

expected

any i n c r e a s e d

Significantly

of m onitoring

sludge-borne

which accumulated m e t a l s

sludges

forages were.never

sludge-amended

on s l u d g e - t r e a t e d

from t h e

enough to d i l u t e

jack

in

3 years

Consequently,

wa s g r e a t e r

biomass

in

sites

by b o t h woody a n d h e r b a c e o u s

the

are

the

w e r e no

found i n

on t h e M o n t m o r e n c y C o u n t y s i t e s .
metal

7-10).

pine

throughout

(Appendix).
Increased

plant

and

orange

on t h e a s p e n

43

Table
7, F o r a g e s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e (0.1 l e v e l ) in m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n on the
st ud y area.

aspen

(tig g _1 ( d r y w t . )
Year

1982

Season

spring

summer
1983

spring

summer
1984

winter

Metal

Forage

c*#

T

S

Cd

wild strawberry
panic grass
bracken fern

1.19a*
0 . 25a
0.25a

2.32b
0.12b
0.12b

1 .76b
0 . 26a
0 . 26a

Cu

bracken fern

2.42a

2.23a

3.71b

Zn

trem bling aspen

79.3a

38.8b

97.5a

Cd

panic grass
bracken fern

0.28a
0 . 28a

0 . 26ab
0 . 26ab

0.12b
0 . 12b

Cd

panic grass

0 . 18a

0.36b

0 . 21ab

Cu

panic grass
bracken fern

0.73ab
3 . 17ab

1.31b
2.93a

0.95a
2.36b

Ni

o r a n g e ha wkweed

1 .68a

1 . 80a b

2.86b

Ni

big

1 .23a

2.42b

1 .89ab

14 7 a

69,7b

Zn

tooth aspen
pin cherry

—

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r ow w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e n o t s i g n i f i ­
can tly d i f f e r e n t (0.1 le v e l)
** C , T , S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , a n d s l u d g e , r e s p e c t i v e l y

44

Table
8. F o r a g e s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e ( 0.1 l e v e l ) i n m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n t h e
study area.

ug g _1 ( d r y
Year

Season

spring

s u mme r
1983

spring

s ummer

1984

winter

wt. )

Forage

Metal

c**
1982

oak

T

S

Cr

red

oak

0 . 64a*

0.70a

1 .29b

Cu

red

oak

1.61a

1.89a

2.70b

Cr

red

oak

0.72a

0.98a

0.28b

Zn

red

oak

58.6a

6 0 . 2a b

36.0b

Cd

white

1 . 66a

0.83b

0.77b

Cu

red

oak

1.96ab

1.49a

2 . 35b

Zn

red

oak

50.7a

5 1 . 6a b

74. lb

Cr

red maple

1 . 66a

1.13b

1 . 14b

Cu

red

oak

1 .47a

1,8 lab

2.07b

Cu

red

maple

6.11a

4.28b

oak

—

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r ow w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
cantly
d iffe re n t (0.1 le v e l).
** C , T , S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , a n d s l u d g e ,

not

signifi­

respectively

45

Table
9. F o r a g e s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e (0. 1 l e v e l ) i n m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n t h e
p i n e / red pi n e s t u d y area.

ug g _1
Year

Season

1983

s ummer

spring

s ummer

wi n t e r

( d r y ■w t . )

Forage

Metal

c**

1982

jack

T

S

Cu

sedge

3.62a*

3 . 80a

2, 76b

Ni

red

1 .62a

1 .71ab

1 . 18b

Cd

bracken

1.27a

1 .35a

1.61b

Cu

sedge

2 . 96ab

3.41a

2.76b

Zn

red

28.5a

4 0 , 6ab

65.1b

Cd

sedge

0 . 60a

0.89a

1 .64b

Cu

bracken

2.55a

3.80b

3.51b

Ni

sedge

1 .34a

1 . 06ab

1 .00b

Ni

red

0.76a

1 .84ab

1 .29b

oak
fern

oak

oak

fern

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r o w w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
can tly d i f f e r e n t (0.1 le v e l)
** C , T ( S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , a n d s l u d g e ,

not

signifi­

respectively

46

T a b l e 10. F o r a g e s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e ( 0 . 1 l e v e l ) in m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e
h a r d w o o d s study area.

Year

Season

Metal

ug
c**

Forage

g- 1

mixed

(dry w t.)
T

S

19 82

s umme r

Cd

hophornbeam

0.32a*

0.47a

0 . 16b

19 83

spring

Cr

hophornbeam
American beech

0 . 46a
0 . 96a

0 . 66ab
0.60b

0.88b
0.59b

Cu

white ash

6 . 54a

8.96a

12.3b

Zn

white ash

30.4a

42.4b

38.3b

Cd

s u g a r maple

0.75a

0.59b

0.56b

Cu

white ash

7 . 55a b

6.62a

10.8b

Ni

s u g a r maple

1 ,25a

1 . 03ab

0.81b

Zn

hophornbeam

34.7a

77.3b

4 4 . Oab

Cd

American

beech

0.96a

0.22b

0.32b

Ni

American

beech

2.32a

1 ,64b

1 .93b

Cu

American

beech

—

3.76a

6.47b

Cd

white ash
American beech

—

0 . 66a
0 . 34a

0.49b
0.68b

Zn

American

—

70.9a

116b

s ummer

winter

1984

spring
s umme r

beech

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r ow w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
cantly d iffe re n t (0.1 lev el)
** C , T , S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , a n d s l u d g e ,

not

signifi­

respectively

47
site.
off

All

the

37-56

metal

concentrations

4 Montmorency

understory
following
1979,

sludge

Urie e t

returned

to

increased

primary

the

first

ately,

application

al.

1981).

by t h e

forages

reported

collected

in

producers

Tables

to w i l d l i f e

Smith e t
for

the

foliar

year
al.
jack

metals

Consequently,

appears

in

restricted

to

year.
of metal

toxicity,

such as

only

information

obtained

available
for

available

at

this

1 0 0 ppm C r ,

true

1977).

found in

w ildlife

predicting

for

time.

chronic

dose

Diets

response

species.

Unfortun­

laboratory

a potentially

While such

they are

1 0 0 0 ppm N i ,

toxicites

in

toxic

the

may

best

a s h i g h a s 5 ppm
a n d 2 5 0 0 ppm Zn

laboratory

none of

on e i t h e r

mice and

relationships

containing

Consequently,
forages

for

w ildlife,

5 0 0 ppm Cu,

elicited

(Underwood

for

s m a l l ma mma l s .

be c o m p l e t e l y

trations

first

from a c c u m u l a t i o n

of a food c h a i n

for

have not

the

the

as observed

concentrations.

nonexistant

exposure

1979,

growing seaso n ,

are

are

within

during

(Brockway

However,

second

background

Studies
curves,

been o b s e r v e d

metal exposure

the

Cd,

are

in metal co n cen tratio n s

h a s c o mmo n l y

pine c le a r c u t,

not

sites

for

(Appendix).

An i n c r e a s e

rats

County

found

the metal

sludge-treated

rodents
concen­
or

48

control
dose

sites

appeared

to

represent

a potentially

chronic

t o s m a l l ma mma l s .

S m a l l Mammal s
Metal c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
strated
cant

no c o n s i s t e n t

differences

11-15),

collected
57-81

from t h e

contained

metals a t

observed

concentrations

Johnson

of

species,

bone or

in

areas

Signifi­

rare

(Tables
by

s m a l l mammal

are

(1978),

muscle.

reported

below t h e

tissues

in

were

tissues

of a magnitude
As e x p e c t e d

the

greater
relative

w e r e Zn >> Cu > C d , Cr a n d N i ,

found

in

Anderson e t

An e x c e p t i o n
which i n

Furthermore,

for

and k i d n e y

uncontaminated

(1982),

undetectable.

liver

the m etals

bone and m u s c l e

magnitude

5 study

concentrations

concentrations

a l.

and J o h n s o n
Cd i n

in

reported
et

were

found in

in metal a f f i n i t i e s

For a l l

those

treatment.

t h a n was e x p e c t e d

concentrations

evident.

Tissue

to

d e mo n ­

(Appendix).

Differences

to

related

in metal c o n c e n tra tio n s

All metal

tissues

than

trend

s m a l l mammal t i s s u e s

a n d w e r e no mo r e f r e q u e n t

chance.

Tables

in

10 ppm f r e s h

s t u d y were s i m i l a r

s m a l l mammal s by
al.

(1982),

wa s t h e

this

Cd i n

this

study

all

concentration
wa s g e n e r a l l y

tissues

weight

and H u n t e r

value

wa s a
described

of

49

T a b l e 11. S m a l l m a m m a l s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t
difference
(0. 1 l e v e l ) in m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n th e j a c k
pine clearcut.

Year

Metal

Tissue

Species

ug 3 " 1 ( d r y w t . )
S

1980

' 1931

Cd

kidney

Cu

kidney

Cd

kidney

Cu

liver

Cr

liver

Ni

liver

Zn

muscle
kidney

19 82

Cr

liver

Ni

liver

Zn

liver

1 3 - l i n e d ground
squirrel
1 3 - l i n e d ground
squirrel

0.84

0.51*

7.53

4.27

1 3 - l i n e d ‘ ground
squirrel
meadow j u m p i n g
mo u s e
meadow j u m p i n g
mou s e
meadow j u m p i n g
mo us e
whi t e - f o o t e d
mo u s e
meadow j u m p i n g
mo us e

0.60

1.37

3.47

7.04

0.10

0.17

0.62

0.13

9.32

19.7

62.4

91.7

1.26

0.60

0.83

0.34

44.6

78.9

1 3 - l i n e d ground
squirrel
whi t e - f o o t e d
mous e
white-footed

* v a l u e s we r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( 0 . 1 l e v e l ) f r o m
controls.
* * 0 a nd S a r e c o n t r o l a n d s l u d g e v a l u e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y

50

T a b l e 12. S m a l l m a m m a l s p e c i e s d e c o n s t r a t i n s a
difference
( 0 . 1 l e v e l ) in m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n
study area.

significant
on t h e a s p e n

wt. )

(dry
Tear

Metal

Tissue

Species
T

S

0 . 18a*

0.07a

0.64b

0.27a

0.22a

0.83b

2.51a

1.15b

1 . 63ab

0 . 22a

0.64b

0.47c

2 .06a b

5.34b

3 , 95ab

74.0a

35. lb

20.0b

3 8 . 3a

18.7b

3 9 . 6ab

0 . 12a

0.05b

0 . 03b

1.27a

2.31b

1 . 70b

0.34a

0 . 12b

0 . 06b

20.0a

3 9 .lab

67 . 4 b

c**

1982

Cd

Cr
1 9 83

woodland jumping
mo u s e
ki d n ey woodland jumping
mo u s e
m u s c l e e a s t e r n meadow
vole
liver

Cd

liver

Cu

bone

Zn

liver
bone

1984

Cd

liver

Cu

muscle

Ni

liver

Zn

kidney

woodland jumping
mo u s e
woodland j umpi ng
mo u s e
woodland jumping
mo u s e
woodland jumping
mo u s e
e a s t e r n meadow
vole
e a s t e r n meadow
vole
woodland jumping
mo u s e
e a s t e r n meadow
vole

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r o w w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
cantly d if f e r e n t (0.1 lev e l)
** C , T , S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , and s l u d g e ,

not

signifi­

respectively

51

T a b l e 13. S m a l l m a m m a l s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t
difference
( 0.1 l e v e l ) i n m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n on the o a k
stud y area.

ug g
Year

1933

He t a l

Cd

Cr
-

Cu
Zn

Tissue

liver

Species

whi t e - f o o t e d
mo u s e
kidney w hite-fo o ted
mo u s e
kidney w h ite-fo o ted
mo u s e
kidney w hite-footed
mo u s e
kidney w h ite - f o o te d
mo u s e

c*#

(dry
T

v/t. )
S

0 . 1 6a *

0.07b

0 * 14a b

0 . 21ab

0.38b

0.20a

1 . 54a

2.86b

1 .88ab

1 1 . 5a

22.8b

8 . 62a

2 4 . 8a

3 0 . 4ab

47.7b

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r ow w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e n o t s i g n i f i ­
c an tly d if f e r e n t (0.1 le v e l)
****** C , T , S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , a n d s l u d g e , r e s p e c t i v e l y

52

T a b l e 14. S m a l l m a m m a l s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a
difference
( . 1 0 l e v e l ) in m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n
pine/ red pine st ud y area.

Year

Metal

Tissue

Species

ug g~ 1 ( d r y
c**

1983

19 84

significant
on the jac k

■

T

w t.)
S

Cu

bone

eastern

chipmunk

1.41a*

1.80b

1 .62ab

Hi

liver

eastern

chipmunk

0 . 14 a

0.25b

0 . 19ab

Zn

muscle

eastern

chipmunk

12.9a

20.0b

28.9b

Cr

white-footed
mo u s e
kidney w hite-footed
mo u s e

0 . 12a

0.08b

0 . 06b

16.2a

13.8b

10.9c

Cu

bone

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r ow w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
cantly d iffe re n t (0.1 level)
** C , T , S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , a n d s l u d g e ,

not

signifi­

respectively

53

T a b l e 15. S m a l l m a m m a l s p e c i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a
difference
(.10 l evel) in m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n
hardwoods study area.

Metal

Tissue

Species

i
CO
00
a

Year

c##
1982

1983

1 9 84

significant
on the m i x e d

1 (dry

wt. )
S

T

0.79a*

1 .60b

1 . 73ab

kidney w h ite - f o o te d
mo u s e

1.13a

0.69a

8.64b

Cu

liver

eastern

chipmunk

6 . 22a

18.4b

7.39a

Cd

kidney

0 . 22 a

0.42b

0.54b

liver

white-footed
mo u s e
e a s t e r n chipmunk

1.20a

0.70b

0.88b

Cu

kidney

eastern

chipmunk

8.11a

13.9b

6.71a

Ni

liver

eastern

chipmunk

0 . 63a

0.27b

0.13b

Zn

bone

white-footed
mo u s e

33.6a

5 4 . 7b

84.4b

Cd

kidney

Cr

eastern

chipmunk

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a r ow w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
cantly
d i f f e r e n t (0.1 lev e l)
** C , T , S a r e c o n t r o l , t r a i l s o n l y , a n d s l u d g e ,

not

signifi­

respectively

.54

as

evidence

of

probable

The f o o d h a b i t s

Cd c o n t a m i n a t i o n

of

the

found in

factor

small

forest

types

support

significant

mammal s

(e.g.

addressed

populations

Blarina

in

of

brevicauda

research at

mammal s u t i l i z i n g

production

indicates

sludge-treated

or

did

not

small

c i n e r e u s ).

of

their

prey,

commun.).

application
in

this

o f W a s h i n g t o n on
that,

sites,

sludge-borne metals

used

study

and Sorex

accumulating

those

or

ecosystems.

insectivorous

f e e d i n g upon i n v e r t e b r a t e

Project,

species

herbivores

this

insectivores

pers.

the

have d e m o n s tra te d

the U niversity

Pack E x p e r i m e n t a l F o r e s t

West,

this

detritivores.

Current
the

(1982)

in

metal

herbivores

from c onta m ina te d

due t o i n s u f f i c i e n t

invertebrate

All of

mammal s a n d n o t

omnivores accumulate m etals

probably

preventing

numbers were e i t h e r

H u n t e r and J o h n s o n

insectivorous

The u p l a n d

in

s m a l l mammal t i s s u e s .

significant

omnivores.
that

in

1985) .

s m a l l mammal s m o n i t o r e d

s t u d y were p r o b a b l y a major
accumulation

(Eisler

only

of

the

small

the

detritivores

( o n l y Cd t o d a t e )

are
(S.D.

In t h e Pack F o r e s t D e m o n s t r a t io n
rates

study

are

considerably

and a r e

repeated

higher

annually

than
(Ander­

son 1985).
While s e v e r a l

laboratory

studies

h a v e s h o wn m e t a l

55

accumulation
a l.
et

1976,
al.

in animals

Hansen e t

1978a and

1978b,

b e e n no p u b l i s h e d
accumulating
did
in

find
liver

areas

Hinesly

Williams

reports

of

and k i d n e y

metals.

in

this

sludge-treated

tissue,

sludge

at

too

W hite-tailed

site

short

Chaney

there

have

(1982)

increased

for

years)

al.

2 years

the

Cd

on

loading

rate

of

time

metals.
study

for

only

for

spent

the

possibility

Th e m a j o r i t y

sites

on a

of

the

were j u v e n i l e s

2 months;

significant

a duration
metal

pick-up.

Deer
tissues

16).

of

deer

in

mule d e e r

obtained

the

The m e t a l

s t u d y were comparable

a l . 1982),

et

s m a l l mammal s

would a f f e c t

on t h e

to allow

concentrations

white-tailed

1978),

significantly

duration

obviously

and p r e s e n t

ma mma l s ( T a b l e
this

1976,

Anderson e t

l Ox ( b o t h

food h a b i t s ,

By a m a g n i t u d e ,
greater

a_l.

al.

(Furr

study.

s m a l l mammal s p r o d u c e d

possibly

et

whe n e n c l o s e d

s m a l l mammal s a c c u m u l a t i n g

and s u b a d u l t s

et

plants

free-tanging

meadow v o l e s c o n t a i n e d

Along w i t h

of

sludge-grown

1976,

sludge-borne

receiving

applied

al.

fed

to

selected

from d e e r c o n t a i n e d
metals

than

burdens observed
those

reported

for

for

small
deer

other

th e Midwest

(Jenkins

in

( M u n s h o w e r a n d Neuman

t h e Wes t

in

1980 and Woolf e t

56

T a b l e 1 6 , Mean ( + S , E . ) m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s o f
w h i t e - t a i l e d de e r h a r v e s t e d from t h e asp en s t u d y a r e a in
N o v e mb e r 1 9 8 2 .

Metals

ug g“ l

(dry wt.)

Tissue
Cd

Cr

Cu

Ni

Zn

muscle

1.08+0.29 1.26+0.65

9.39+0.89

1.70+0.17

399+26

heart

0.81+0.32 0.43+0.14

19.57+3.53

0.60+0.44

397+63

31.36+1.28 0.85+0.20

21.16+3.88

0.99+0.39

858+184

3.13+0.32 1.59+1.00

473+71.5

1.53+0.27

688+75

kidney
liver

57

1 9 7 9 ) r and

black-tailed

(Andersen 1985).

deer

in

the

Pacific

The e x c e p t i o n s w e r e s l i g h t l y

concentrations

o f Cd a n d Zn i n h e p a t i c

be a r e s u l t

such f a c t o r s

geology

of

(and metal

methods,

Northwest

as

availability),

t h e wide v a r i a t i o n

a mong i n d i v i d u a l

local

animals,

tissues,

which could

differences

differences

of metal

or

greater

in

in

analytical

concentrations

exposure

to

found

sludge-amended

lands.
None o f
metals

the c o n ce n tra tio n s

approached

toxicities

for

muscle

tissue,

humans,

who a r e

respect

t o Cd,

the

nation

which i s

large

abundant

concentrations

than

(Underwood

the s e le c te d

be c o n s u m e d i n
relatively

a d o s e known t o

i n h u ma n s

o f Zn n o n e o f

is

toxic

10 ppm ( f r e s h

and m a g n i t u d e s

(Eisler

1985).

part

probably

observed

weight)
less

considered

than

With

at

the

exception

an a f f i n i t y

of deer

the

Zn,

likely

while

beneficial

(Underwood

to

1977).

concentration

With

was l e s s

of contam i­

2 0 0 ppm f r e s h

life-threatening

to

observed

used as evidence
the

selected

chronic

by h u m a n s .

Zn d e f i c i e n t

the g r e a t e s t

residue)

the only

but

the

demonstrated

in muscle t i s s u e ,

not

for

produce

1977).

metals

quantities

likely

(kidney

recorded

weight

to v e r te b r a t e s

58

Summar y
Results
rates

from t h i s

used,

present

sludge

a metal

vegetation

or

metals a f t e r

groups

for

application,

S m a l l mammal s d i d
the

macrofauna

forest
that

soils

supporting

consume i n v e r t e b r a t e

application

rates.

Hunters

consuming de er

of metals

o r g a n s were n o t consumed.

metals,

mo r e s u i t a b l e

detritivores

study

doses

been

studied.

habitat

further

toxic

to accumulate

sludge-borne

require

potentially

growing

which h a s

the communities

a r e a s would n o t a p p e a r

small

accumulated

appear

earthworms)

sludge-treated

the

background

food c h a i n ,

to

consuming

s m a l l ma mma l -

pathway f o r

component of

does not

second

to

not

insectivorous

as a p o t e n t i a l

wildlife

by t h e

had r e t u r n e d

application

consuming

W h i l e s ome f o r a g e s

tissues

soil

Consequently,

lands

trophic

studied*

was n o t a m a j o r

the

higher

However,

identified

forest

at

to w i l d l i f e

in

detritivorous

to

that

problem

concentrations*
metals*

recycling

sludge

season metals

suggest

toxicity

to

mammal s p e c i e s

study

determine

to

safe

harvested

be e x p o s e d

especially

if

(e.g.

off
to

internal

CONTAMINATION RISKS TO RAPTOR FOODCHAINS
FROM SLUDGE-BORNE METALS

A popular conception
nonecologists
endured

is

greater

that

birds

m ortality

from b i o m a g n i f i c a t i o n of
1975).

The d e g r e e

populations
is

debatable

the

and

prey
poorer

t o which r e p o r t e d

long

species

success

(Cooke

Stickel

1973,

declining

Still,

span,

and

reproductive

raptor

to environmental

1980).

life

ecologists

have h i s t o r i c a l l y

xenobiotics

(Barthalmus

make t h e s e

by b o t h

of

c a n be a t t r i b u t e d

food c h a i n ,

tial

held

their

toxicities
position

and

l ow r e p r o d u c t i v e

susceptable

to environmental

in

poten­

toxicities.
S m a l l ma mma l s ,

which a r e

m o s t h a wk s a n d o w l s ,

an i m p o r t a n t

can resp o n d

to

changes with

significantly

We s t

Greater

concentrations

feeding

on s l u d g e

trate

1986).
raptor

toxicosis
lead

in

w ildlife

poisoning

has

from s h o t

greater

sludge-induced
densities
of prey

ingestion;

with

the

however,

for

habitat

( H a u f l e r and
could

a me n d e d s i t e s .

been r a r e

60

prey item

concen­

Metal
exception
if

land-

of

61

spreading

were t o

borne m etals

b e c o me w i d e s p r e a d ,

could

not

conducive

evaluation
trophic
tory
the
tive

the

groups

study.
field,
of

of

the

of

to

sludge-

characteristic

of

raptors,

be s i g n i f i c a n t .

Low p o p u l a t i o n
are

exposure

densities,

to

field

investigations.

potential
the

raptor

for

metal

attention
field

transfer

food c h a in

To e n h a n c e a p p l i c a b i l i t y
was g i v e n

and r e a l i s t i c

between

required

a labora­

and c o m p a r a b i l i t y

to using
test

Consequently,

species

durations.

to

representa­

OBJECTIVES

The p u r p o s e o f
potential

for

groups

applied

at

Cd,

of a r a p t o r

a rate

that

wa s t o

Cr,

Cu ,

Ni,

levels:

the

producer,

consumer.
soils
the

test

for

to

primary

ground w a ter

concentration

consumer,

w h i c h was b a s e d

sludges.

62

wa s

contamination.
differences
at

(of

3 trophic

and s e c o n d a r y

on p r o d u c e r s
The t h i r d

on a p r o d u c e r

fertilizer.

the

between

c h a i n whe n s l u d g e

were ba sed

different

evaluate

transfer

a mong 3 f o o d c h a i n s

Two f o o d c h a i n s

control,

food

prevents

and Zn)

amended w i t h

commercial

e x p e r i m e n t wa s t o

sludge-borne metals

trophic

The o b j e c t i v e

this

g r o wn on

was

grown w i t h a

METHODS

Sludge

Description

This experiment
obtained

from t h e

used s l u d g e s

facilities.

represent

those

D etroit's

municipality

sludge
tions.
with

used

produced

wa s e x p e c t e d

respect

to

The f a c i l i t y
in

the

field

i n A l p e n a wa s c h o s e n

evaluations.

wa s s e l e c t e d

to

contain

sludges

greater

from t h e

the metals

area.

D etroit's

metal

concentra­

2 cities

selected

Sludge

to

from

as an example of

f r o m a mo r e p o p u l a t e d

However,

1 0 0 0 L)

Al pe na and D e t r o i t Me t ro w a s t e w a t e r

treatment

sludges

(approximately

for

were s i m i l a r

study

(Table

17),

The P r o d u c t i o n of R y e - g r a s s
In a greenhouse

environment,

rye-grass

( Lolium p e r e n n e ) s e e d .

represent

grasses

sludge

amendment

in

general,

(Urie

et

sand s o i l s

R y e - g r a s s wa s c h o s e n

which respond

a_l.

1979,
63

w e r e s e wn w i t h

Wo o d y a r d

to

dramatically
1982,

to

Haufler

64

T a b l e 17. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s (ug g- l ) of t h e s e l e c t e d m e t a l s in
s l u d g e s o b t a i n e d from Alpena and D e t r o i t , Mi chigan and t h e
inorganic f e r t i l i z e r .

Metal
________
(ug g~A dry w t . )

Alpena

Detroit

12-12-12

Cd

7.5

13.0

3.2

Cr

48.8

139

24.0

Cu

1230

527

115

Ni

36.3

9.8

5.6

Zn

1125

1718

401

65

a n d West

1986).

me n d e d f o r e s t
to

receive

Furthermore,

openings

sludge

for

Anderson

planted

to

improving

(1985)

grasses

forage

as

has
the

quality

recom­
best

for

sites

wild­

life.
Before

germination,

were a p p l i e d ,
kg N / h a ,

the

w ith a manual

respectively.

Alpena and D e t r o i t
pump,

In a d d i t i o n ,

grown w i t h a 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 2 a g r i c u l t u r a l
6 0 0 kg N / h a .

at

The g r a s s

leaves

rates

sludges

o f 584 and 739

mo r e r y e - g r a s s

fertilizer

were h a r v e s t e d

wa s

applied
at

at

6-10

weeks.
After
pass

drying a t

6 0 ° C,

the

t h r o u g h a 1 mra s i e v e .

Equal

c o r n meals were combined w i t h
the

total

dry w e i g h t)

dry weight as
before

heating

rye.
and

the

to s im u la te

consumer.

Since

tissue,

wa s n o t

formation.

the

plants

omnivorous

do n o t

necessary

to

of s o y b e a n and

r y e and b e n t o n i t e

t o ma ke a s m a l l

pellet

wa s g r o u n d t o

weights

mammal d i e t

W a t e r wa s t h e n a d d e d

were a dded

it

rye-grass

to

the

The g r a i n
diet

isolate

of

metals

grow t h e

grains

w i t h 55£

mixture
suppliments

the
to

(5% o f

primary
seed

on s l u d g e -

amended s o i l s .

The W h i t e - f o o t e d

Mi c e

The w h i t e - f o o t e d

mouse

( Peromyscus

l e u c o p u s ) wa s

66

selected
field

as th e primary consumer.

sites,

A total

the

experiment.

o f 72 w h i t e - f o o t e d m i c e w e r e

included

in t h i s

selected

f r o m e a c h o f 26 l i t t e r s

T hr ee a d u l t s were randomly
( F ^_5 g e n e r a t i o n s

The m i c e w e r e r e a r e d on a c o m m e r c i a l f e e d

and hou s e d i n i n d i v i d u a l
steel

of

t h e s m a l l mammal r e m a i n s a b u n d a n t f o l l o w i n g

sludge a p p li c a t io n .

mice).

Common t o a l l

plastic

of wild
pellet

cages with s t a i n l e s s

tops.

The R a p t o r s
*

Both g r e a t
tailed
since

ha wk s

h o r n e d owls

( Buteo

( Bubo- v i r g i n i a n u s ) and r e d ­

l a m a i c e n s i s ) were i d e a l

they are abundant

fwidely d i s t r i b u t e d ,

n o n m i g r a t o r y , and f e e d e x t e n s i v e l y
Having t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
borne m etals could
individuals

itated

due t o p r e v i o u s

h e a l t h y and e x h i b i t e d
ingestion

for

both.

Although unable
injuries,

the

consistant,

and e g e s t i o n .

c o n s t a n t w e i g h t on a d i e t
mammal s f o r

on s m a l l ma mma l s .

o f each s p e c i e s were housed

(0.7 x 1 x 1 m).

the study

generally

suggest exposure

be s i g n i f i c a n t

cages

for

to s lu d g e Twelve

in s t a i n l e s s

t o be r e h a b i l ­

b i r d s were o t h e r w i s e

daily

patterns

of

The., b i r d s w e r e m a i n t a i n e d
of l a b o r a t o r y - r e a r e d

14 m o n t h s p r i o r

to the

steel

at

a

small

beginning of the study.

67

T h e Fo o d C h a i n
The w h i t e - f o o t e d
have

1 litterm ate

Over a p e r i o d
ficed

every

represent

5 days.

the

Beyer

majority

of

placed

the

are

T h o ma s 1 9 8 3 ,

on s l u d g e - g r o w n

could a ra p to r

from a d i e t ,

the

Seon 1984),

its

( Wo o d y a r d

By f a r

these

feeding

on s l u d g e
was

provided

for

be

p l a c e d on t h o s e

pellets.

these

be

fed

and hawks f o r

90 d a y s .
vals.

B i r d s were to

The number o f

be d e p e n d e n t
or

both

Metal

containing

owls

be s a c r i f i c e d

birds

on w h e t h e r

diets

to the

and

the

at

set

interval

Ultimately,
up

to

time

inter­

length

were

t h e mice a c c u m u l a t e d m e t a l s
sludge-grown

2

Only d u r i n g

a d d i t i o n a l mice to
mice were t o

the

accumulation

plans

to

whe n s m a l l

has only

vegetation.

original

wa s c h o s e n

in Michigan

On c e a t r e n d o f m e t a l

diets.

g r o u p s were s a c r i ­

and Au gust)

concentrate

so to

3 rye-grass

s m a l l mammal p o p u l a t i o n

this

amended s i t e s .

(July

selected

period

most a b u n d a n t

feed

apparent

2 litterm ate

2 month p e r i o d

1983,

the

The 6 C - d a y t e s t

months to
time

on e a c h o f

o f 60 d a y s ,

mammal p o p u l a t i o n s
1982,

mice were randomly

to

from 1

rye-grass.

Analysis
Th e s a me a n a l y t i c a l

collected

samples

procedures

were c o n d u c t e d

to

employed
determine

for

the

metal

fieldconcen­

68

trations

for

the sludges,

mammal t i s s u e s
hindleg).
breast

(liver,

kidney,

To be i n c l u d e d

muscle)

collected

(except kidney)
sacrifice.

to

the

Biopsy

background metal

rye-grasses,

tissues

from th e

feeding

burdens

for

and s m a l l

h u me r i and m u s c l e fr om t h e

were

techniques

diets,

(liver,

k i d n e y and

o w l s a n d hawks

trial

and a f t e r

were d e v e l o p e d
each

both

prior

their

to

determine

bird.

Data A n a l y s i s
Kruskal-Wallis
to

test

metals)

for

one-way a n a l y s i s

concentration

a mong t h e
in

fed

diet

the

control

were r e g r e s s e d
by t h e

linear

lation

rates

used

to

metal

test

Torrie

metal

over

treatments

and a d i e t
time.

of

represented

256).

within
for

that

selected
diets.

between l i t t e r m a t e s

sludge-grown ry e -g ra ss

Th e s l o p e

the hypothesis

the

wa s u s e d

a n d a mon g t h e

of

the

the

lines

the metal

from bot h s l u d g e - g r o w n d i e t s .

from z e r o

1980:

(in

concentrations

regressions

concentrations

different

differences

rye-grass

The d i f f e r e n c e s

of v a ria n c e

rate

accumu­

Student's

t

was

of change in

s m a l l mammal t i s s u e s

both sludge-grown

obtained

diets

was
(Steel

and

RESULTS

The R y e - g r a s s
Three m e ta ls ,
cantly

greater

treated
(Table

C d , Cr a n d Zn,

concentrations

with the sludges
18).

were found i n

in ry e -g ra ss

than with

signifi­

g r o wn on s o i l s

the inorganic

fertilizer

Cd a n d Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s w e r e 2x g r e a t e r

sludge-treated

grass,

concentrated.

R y e - g r a s s g r o wn on t h e A l p e n a a n d D e t r o i t

s l u d g e s were s i m i l a r

w h i l e Zn was a p p r o x i m a t e l y

in

in resp ec t

Th e m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
g r o wn r y e - g r a s s e s w e r e q u i t e
for

forages collected

within

to metal c o n c e n tra tio n .

observed in
similar

the greenhouse-

to those values

p l a n t s were n e a r l y

for

in the

(forages

s l u d g e was a p p l i e d

greenhouse experiments.

to the

plots

Cd a n d Cr d i f f e r e n c e s

between c o n t r o l and t r e a t e d

after

found

from c o n t r o l and s l u d g e - t r e a t e d

the jack pine c l e a r c u t .

both the f i e l d

1 . 5 x mor e

first

identical

growing season

jack pine c l e a r c u t )

and

Zn d i d n o t e x h i b i t a t r e n d

for

69

70

T a b l e 1 8 , Mean m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n r y e - g r a s s g r o w n on
s l u d g e - t r e a t e d and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d sa nd s o i l s .

Metal
Treatment

Cd

Cr

( u g g- 1

dry w t .)

Cu

Ni

Zn

12-12-12

0.32a

0.47a

3 , 6a

1.1a

44a

Alpena

0.78b

0.91b

3.7a

1. 0 a

73 b

Detroit

0.93b

0.95b

3.0a

1.1a

60b

*

v a l u e s in a c o l u m n w i t h
a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at the

the
0.1

same letter
level).

are

not

signific­

71

accumulation

in

Rye-grass
sludge

the

pellets

contained

grass

trials.

made w i t h r y e g r o w n w i t h A l p e n a

significantly

C d , Cr a n d Zn t h a n
ically

field

fertilized

those
soils

made w i t h
(Table

produced with D e t r o i t

greater

in

tration

(in

dilluted

Cd a n d C r ;
rye-grass)

with

rye-grass

the

field

greater

Zn c o n c e n ­

pellets

Pellets

were

containing

t r e a t m e n t s were not

of

sludge-grown

2-11).

for

rye-grass

did

not

any o f

The m e t a l - t i s s u e

exclusively

laboratory-raised

mice

affinities

were n e a r l y
than

in a s i g n i f i c a n t

the 5 selected

those

elements

observed

in

the

Cd a n d Ni w e r e f o u n d

i n k i d n e y and l i v e r

a n d Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s

to the w hite-footed

result

e x p e r i m e n t s were a g a i n o b v i o u s .

almost

significantly

whe n t h e

2 sludge

made w i t h

Mi c e

of a cc um u latio n

(Figs.

Pellets

s l u d g e were

wa s l o s t

of

grown on i n o r g a n ­

significantly

mice o v e r a 2 month p e r i o d
trend

19).

concentrations

different.

The W h i t e - f o o t e d
Feeding

the

rye

g ra in components.

g r o w n on t h e

significantly

greater

tissue.

2x g r e a t e r
observed

in

for

However,

Cd

the
free-ranging

s m a l l ma mma l s .
Since

the 60-day

trial

provided

no i n d i c a t i o n

of m etal

72

T a b l e 1 9 . Mean m e t a l
fed to
white-footed

concentrations
mice.

Metal
Treatment

Cd

Cr

in

rye-grass

( u g g- 1

pellets

dry w t.)

Cu

Zn

Ni

12-12-12

0.183a

0 . 654a

3.94a

8.98a

39.4a

Alpena

0.425b

0.952b

4 , 34a

9.96a

54.0b

Detroi t

0.471b

0.898b

4.14a

9.75a

4 8 . 2a b

*

v a l u e s in a c o l u m n w i t h
a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at t h e

the
0.1

same letter
level).

are

not

signific­

73

(ppm)

-.009X + .004
Y •*

072X - .000

KIDNEY CADMIUM

DETROIT

30

0
-■Fig,

2,

SO

D if f e r e n c e in kidney'C d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between
mice fed slu d g e - g ro w n (Alpena o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

.3
— .002X - .000
DETROIT

. 020X - . 0 0 0

P.

cu
0

1

«

3
60

Fig.

v

3

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed s l u d g e - g r o w n (Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

74

75
ALPENA

S.t
Q

DETROIT

y -

.1 0 3 X -

.0 0 3

.013X -

.0 0 0

i
o

£
u
w;

§
ST

0
Fig,

4.

30

60

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n '
mice fed s l u d g e - g r o w n (Alpena o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .
ALPENA

• IBIX -

.0 0 4

t

e

DETROIT

a
a.

CC

g
a
-.6

0
Fig.

5.

30

£0

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed s lu d g e - g ro w n (Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

75

10
Q.

2.03X - .391
001

DETROIT
-2 0
30.

Fig

6.

60

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice f e d s l u d g e - g r o w n (A l p en a o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

30

ALPEHA

* “ - ° « 5X- - “ 9

DETROIT Y - 1.39X - -031

IOk

0

-1 5

0
Fig,

7.

30

60

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed s l u d g e - g r o w n (Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

76

fppr)

001

079X - .001

KIDNEY NICKEL

DETROIT

-.3
30

0
'" F ig

S.

60

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y ’ Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed slu d g e - g ro w n (Alpena o r D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

.45
112X + .0 0 2

IDt
X
OS

N.

s
3

w

-.43

0
Fig.

9

30

60

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed slu d g e -g ro w n (Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

77

60

(ppm)

Y ■ -6 .3 2 X + .0 * 0
Y -

6 .6 8 X -

ZINC

DETROIT

*0271

KIDNEY

ar

—6 0

0
' F i g . 10.

60

D i f f e r e n c e i n k i d n e y Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed s lu d g e -g ro w n {Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

45

Alpena
Detroit

-3.82X

+ .096'

-1 .7 0 X + .1 8 0

o
z
N
(E
111

>

-45

F i g . 11.

0

20

40

60

D i f f e r e n c e i n l i v e r Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n
mice fed slu d g e -g ro w n (Alpena or D e t r o i t s l u d g e s )
and i n o r g a n i c a l l y f e r t i l i z e d r y e - g r a s s from
0 t o 60 d a y s .

78

accumulation
without

the

accumulation

in

the

rodents,

inclusion

f o o d c h a i n wa s t e r m i n a t e d

of

the

owls

by 60 d a y s ,

the

length

of

time

to pose a t h r e a t

to

the

metal accumulation

have been u n r e a l i s t i c
f i e l d .)

the

of

the

and hawks.

( W i t h no
required

raptors

food c h a i n o b s e rv e d

in

for

would
the

DISCUSSION

Anderson e t

al.

(1982)

s m a l l ma mma l s a c c u m u l a t e d
sludge-treated
to

freely

field

lands

choose

for

e v e n when f o r a g e s

(first

year

causes

of

tissues

were

individuals
accumulation
tissues;
monitored

results

2)

lack
1)

used

plant

species.

significantly

from t h e

jack

study

sites

habits

of

being allowed

Results

from

the

that

Possible

the m ajority
short

of

to allow
the

for

forage

mammal s p e c i e s

enough n o n c o n ta m in a te d

from t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d

metals

s m a l l mammal

found in

small

the

not accumulate

in

was t o o

from t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
feeding

to

pine c l e a r c u t ) .

2 month d u r a t i o n

the

herbivorous

concentrated

of metal accumulation

the

included

accumulation

2 years while s t i l l

f o u n d s m a l l mammal s d i d

metals

the

that

Cd a n d C u t whe n c o n f i n e d

preferred

experiments

demonstrated

foods

portion

of

to

preclude

their

diet.
Results

indicate

that

a combination of
79

both a s h o r t e n -

80

ed p e r i o d o f e x p o s u r e
half

(2 months)

contaminated m a te ria l

and a d i e t

could prevent

containing

significant

accumulation of sludge-borne metals in ro d en ts,

when

sludge

study.

was a p p l i e d

at

the r a te s

Consequently,

if

is

to f o r e s t

restricted

food c h ain s
ducers

sludge

primarily

raptors

empl oyed i n t h i s

recycling,

at

types

s u p p o r t s m a l l mammal

that

from a c c u m u l a t i o n o f s l u d g e - b o r n e
wo u l d i n c l u d e m o s t w e l l - d r a i n e d
a d e q u a t e m o i s t u r e a nd d e t r i t u s
supporting

significant

detritivores,

t h e employed r a t e s ,

b a s e d on e n e r g y f r o m p r i m a r y

f e e d i n g on s u c h s i t e s

should

elements.

sites

Su c h a r e a s

t h a t do n o t p r o v i d e

b a s e d on s o i l

appear to accumulate metals

( H u n t e r and

J o h n s o n 1 9 8 1 ) a n d may p r e s e n t a p a t h w a y f o r m e t a l s
move t o h i g h e r

trophic

groups.

of

of m a c r o i n v e r t e b r a t e

S m a l l mammal f o o d c h a i n s

macroinvertebrates

pro­

be p r o t e c t e d

production capable

populations

only

to

TRANSFER OF SLUDGE-BORNE METALS THROUGH A
WOODCOCK-EARTHWORM FOOD CHAIN

Earthworms have been i d e n t i f i e d
metals

from s o i l s

and r o a d
(1974)

sides

has demonstrated

trations.

et

al^.

1982,

Of p a r t i c u l a r
(Philohela
species

not

where o v e r

link

in Michigan

1.5 m il l io n

1977),

issue

sludge-borne

1982)

Van Hook

in metal

from

concen­

(Helmke e t

1982,

Pietz

i n many w i l d l i f e
means

for

is

birds

through

are

harvested

to

transfer

a popular

the

h uma n h e a l t h

were t o

81

a l.

American woodcock

but

i n woodcock t i s s u e s .

et

soils.

Wo o d c o c k a r e

Consequently,
metals

the

a l.

food c h a i n s ,

metals

from sl u d g e - a m e n d e d

concern,

(Artaann
if

range

Wade e t a l .

m i n o r ) food c h a i n .
only

of

earthworms have been i d e n t i f i e d

a possible

predators

and J o h n s o n

1973).

of s l u d g e - b o r n e m e t a l s

present

vertebrate

late

with a n a tu ra l

As a n i m p o r t a n t

earthworms

(Hunter

accumulators

earthworms accumulate m etals

In c o n c u r r e n c e ,

Beyer

1984).

to

soils

biomagnifiers

1979,

smelters

(Gish and C h r i s t e n s e n

uncontaminated

as

near

as

game

Eastern U.S.,

each

year

risks

transfer

become an

and accumu­

OBJECTIVES

This
tial

for

experiment's
sludge-borne

p u r p o s e was
metals

to t r a n s f e r

consuming earthworms m a i n t a i n e d
Th e o b j e c t i v e
Cd,

C r , Cu,

levels:

the

was

Ni,

The t h i r d
soil

for

complex,

a sludge-soil

concentration

predator.

detritivorous

Two f o o d c h a i n s

complex of an o r g a n i c
was t h e

treated

in

control,

soil

82

fertilizer.

poten­
after

complex.

differences
at

(of

3 trophic

invertebrate,

were

b a s e d on a

with d i f f e r e n t

w h i c h wa s b a s e d

w i t h an i n o r g a n i c

the

to woodcock,

a n d Zn) a mong 3 f o o d c h a i n s

detritus

and v e r t e b r a t e
detritus

to t e s t

to e v alu ate

sludges.

on a n o r g a n i c

METHODS

Sludge

Description

As i n
sludges

the

raptor

were used

in

food c h a i n
this

mixed w i t h an o r g a n i c
of wet s l u d g e
sludge

of

10 cm,

that

to s o i l .

wa s a p p l i e d

Considering

that

the

portion

earthworms

top

at

experiment.
soil

In th e

field

this

Each s l u d g e

experiments,

a depth of approxim ately

wa s c h o s e n a s

of a sludge-amended

to

A l p e n a and D e t r o i t
was

t o make a 7 : 1 0 c o m b i n a t i o n

woodcock c a n n o t

ratio

study,

forage

7 cm.

below a s o i l

a realistic
forest

wet

floor

depth

scenario

of

providing

species.

Th e E a r t h w o r m s
Ranch-farmed
avoid

earthworms

a gapeworm ( Syngamus

woodcock

(Sikarskie,

wo r ms w e r e

placed

in

pers.

( L u m b r i c i d a e ) were used

tr a c h e i) outbreak
commun.).

each of 3 o rganic
83

to

a mong t h e

Over 3 0 , 0 0 0 e a r t h ­
media f o r

30-90

84

days.
ing

A 1 to

the

time

October,
active

in

near

3 m o n t h e x p o s u r e wa s a p p r o p r i a t e
intervals,

which most earthwo rm s
the

media i n c l u d e d
soil

with

kg/ha

April-June

the

soil
the

surface

are

(Rabe

2 sludge-soil

12-12-12 organic

and l a t e

for

sim ulat­

August-

produced and a r e

1981).

The o r g a n i c

mixtures

and

fertilizer

the

(applied

organic
at

400

o f 5 cm d e e p s o i l ) .

T h e Wo o d c o c k
Wo o d c o c k w e r e c a p t u r e d
Ros c ommon C o u n t y ,
handheld
Rabe
of

nets.

(1977).

1984.

The b i r d s

of

the weight of

in

northeast

spotlights

the area

were c o l l e c t e d

individuals

woodcock t o m a i n t a i n
the

300,000 candle

A description

Several

determine

using

from an o l d f i e l d

is

and

provided

by

during

late

s umme r

were i n i t i a l l y

used

to

earthworms

bodyweight.

required
Twelve

daily

birds

by a

were used i n

foodchain.

Th e Fo od C h a i n
T h r e e woodcock were r and oml y
from each media,
birds

for

a total

were s a c r i f i c e d

another

study

control.

at

selected

of 9 b ird s.

their

initial

Eart hworms were

to

be f e d wor ms

In a d d i t i o n ,

capture
fed

to

3

to c re a te
the

birds

85

for

30 d a y s .

months,

30 d a y s

interval
ent.

While a woodcock can f e e d
(20-25%)

to allow

wa s b e l i e v e d

ranged

consumed a p p r o x i m a t e l y

course

of

the

of

test

trial.

and s t o r e d

kidneys,

hearts,

dried

at

6 0 ° C,

Metal

Analysis
As b e f o r e ,

era p l o y e d

All

for

breast

birds

frozen.
muscles,

and a n a l y z e d

the

for

Cd,

were removed from e ac h
metals.

and

soil

time

at

thus
the
the

end

livers,

femurs were s e p a r a t e d ,

metals.

C r , Cu,

e a r t h w o r m and woodcock t i s s u e s .

selected

were s a c r i f i c e d
Ultimately,

4-5

b e c o me a p p a r ­

1 0 , 0 0 0 wor ms o v e r

s a me a n a l y t i c a l

measuring

to

fr om 2 5 0 - 4 0 0 worms,

each b ird

for

an a p p r o p r i a t e

for metal accumulation

Daily consumption

the

on a n a r e a

procedures

were

Ni a n d Zn i n

Ten s a m p l e s

of

m i x t u r e and a n a l y z e d

The wo r ms w e r e d r i e d

at

the
10 wor ms
for

60°C p r i o r

the
t o we t

digestion.

Data A n a ly s is
Kruskal-Wallis
to

test

metals)
tissues.

for

one-way a n a l y s i s

concentration

a mo ng t h e

soil

differences

mixtures,

of

variance

(in

the

earthworms,

was u s e d

selected
and woodcock

RESULTS

Soil-sludge

and S o i l - i n o r e a n i c

The A l p e n a
greater

soil-sludge

concentrations

inorganic

fertilzer

soil-inorganic

mixture

of a l l

contained

5 metals

media

(Table

20).

fertilizer

media,

the

mixture

included

Cd,

Cu a n d Z n .

Cr,

Mixtures

significantly

wa s s i g n i f i c a n t l y

than

Detroit

soilthe

soil-sludge

concentrations

Cd i n

that

the

Compared t o

greater

In a d d i t i o n ,
greater

than

significantly

the D e tro it

recorded

in

of

mixture

th e Alpena

m ixture.

Ear thworms
Significantly
Zn w e r e o b s e r v e d
soils

in

whe n c o m p a r e d

fertilized
and D e t r o i t

soil

greater

earthworms

g r o wn i n

t o wor ms g r o wn i n

(Table

sludges

concentrations

21).

o f Cd,

the

2,5
86

Cu a n d

sludge-treated

the in o rg a n ic a lly

Earthworms exposed

contained

Cr,

to

t o 5 . Ax g r e a t e r

Alpena
concen-

87

T a b l e 20. M e a n
soil-inorganic

metal concentrations
fertilizer mixtures.

Metal
Cd

12-12-12

1 .63a

Alpena

3.73b

Detroit

A. 5 0 c

Cr

00
•
00
0

Soil
Treatment

in

soil-sludge

(ug g~l

an d

dry w t.)
Ni

Cu

Zn

15.2a

2 0 . 6a

78.0

56.5b

41.6b

24.8b

287b

58.0b

34.4b

1 9 . 5a b

327b

* v a l u e s i n a column w i t h
a n tly d i f f e r e n t (a t the

t h e s a me l e t t e r
.10 l e v e l ) .

are

not

signific­

88

T a b l e 21. M e a n m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
to s l u d g e - t r e a t e d a n d i n o r g a n i c a l l y

Metal
Soil
T r e a t me n t

12-12-12

Cd

Cr

in e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d
f e r t i l i z e d soil.

(ug

g " 1 dry w t .)

Cu

Hi

Zn

5. 0a

16. 5a

9.6a

21.1a

21 . On

Alpena

19.2b

67.4b

37.9b

35.4a

85 . 4 b

Detroit

27.4b

47.7b.

24.9b

19.8a

117b

,!t v a l u e s i n a c o l u m n w i t h t h e
an tly d if f e r e n t ( a t the 0.1

s a me l e t t e r
level).

are

not

signific­

89

trations

of

inorganic
apparent

the

selected

fertilizer.

metals

t h a n wor ms e x p o s e d

No s i g n i f c a n t

to

the

d i f f e r e n c e wa s

b e t w e e n t h e wor ms g r o w n on s o i l s

with

the

2 sludge

treatm ents,
Cd i n

worm t i s s u e s

concentrations
trations

found in

were s i m i l a r

a n d Zn w e r e o b s e r v e d
t h a n worms.
sludge

wa s o v e r

5x g r e a t e r

than

the

mixtures.

Ni c o n c e n ­

between
in

soils

greater

These m etal

and i n o r g a n i c

soil

and worms,

concentrations

trends

were s i m i l a r

fertilizer

the

w hile Cr,
in

for

the
both

Cu

soils
the

treatments.

T h e Wo o d c o c k
After

consuming earthworms

s l u d g e - e x p o s e d wor ms c o n t a i n e d
trations

approximately

(individuals

sacrificed

fed

wor ms e x p o s e d

22).

Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s

muscle,

treatments

or

30 d a y s ,

liver

2x g r e a t e r

birds

a mong t h e

for

to

the

control

respect

birds

a n d 3x g r e a t e r

inorganic

were n o t

with

a n d k i d n e y Cd c o n c e n ­

than

upon c a p t u r e )

woodcock f ed

fertilizer

significantly

than
(Table

different

t o woodcock h e a r t ,

bone t i s s u e s .

Wo o d c o c k C r ,

Cu,

a n d Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s

affected

by d i f f e r e n c e s

23-25).

Th e o n l y

in

were n o t

earthworm contam in atio n

significant

difference

found

for

(Tables
Zn wa s

90

T a b l e 22. M e a n Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in t i s s u e s o f w o o d c o c k
e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d to s l u d g e - t r e a t e d a n d i n o r g a n i c a l l y
f e r t i l i z e d soil.

Tissue

Cd ( u g g - 1

dry w t . )

fe d

Soil
Treatment

Liver

Kidney

Heart

Muscle

Bone

Control

3.12a

17.9a

0.78a

1.25a

0 . 05a

12-12-12

1.81b

12.6b

0.57a

0 . 69a

0.02a

Alpena

7.38c '

3 0 . 4c

0.61a

0.97a

0 . 04a

Detroit

6.21c

36.1c

0.56a

1.12a

0 . 02a

* values
antly

i n a column w i t h
different

(at

the

the

s a me l e t t e r

0.1

level).

are

not

signific­

91

T a b l e 2 3 . Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s I n t i s s u e s o f w o o d c o c k f e d
e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d t o s l u d g e - t r e a t e d and i n o r g a n i c a l l y
fertilized soil.

Tissue
Soil
Treatment

Liver

Kidney

Control

1.31a

0.61a

12-12-12

1.16a

Alpena
Detroit
* values
antly

Cr

(ug g " 1 dry w t .)
%

Heart

Muscle

Bone

0.42a

1.29a

0.50a

0.45a

0.27a

1.84a

0.65a

1.17a ‘

0.65a

0.31a

1.52a

0.43a

1 .27a

0.42a

0 . 26a

1 .42a

0.26a

i n a column w i t h
different

(at

the

the

s a me l e t t e r

0.1

level).

•
are

not

signific­

92

T a b l e 24. M e a n C u c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s o f w o o d c o c k
e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d to s l u d g e - t r e a t e d a n d i n o r g a n i c a l l y
f e r t i l i z e d soil.

Tissue
Soil
T r e a traent

Liver

Kidney

Control

310a

28.7a

12-12-12

328a

24.3a

Alpena

246a .

21.6a

Detroit

347a

35.7a

* values
antly

i n a column w i t h
different

(at

the

Cu ( u g g _1 d r y w t . )
Muscle

Bo ne

12. l a

2 4 . 4a

3.16a

12.9a

17.8a

3.31a

8.46a

2 0 . 2a

2 . 15a

14.5a

2 6, 5a

2 , 65a

Heart

,

fe d

the

s a me l e t t e r

0.1

level).

are

not

signific

93

T a b l e 2 5 . Mean Ml c o n c e n t r a t i o n s I n t i s s u e s o f w o o d c o c k
e art hw or m s exposed to s l u d g e - t r e a t e d and i n o r g a n i c a l l y
fertilized soil.

Tissue

Ni

(ug g-1

fed

dry w t .)

Soil
Treatment

Liver

Kidney

Heart

Muscle

Control

2 . 14a

1.83a

0 . 58a

1.43a

0 . 06a

12-12-12

1.88a

1 .54a

0.97a

1.41a

0.44a

Alpena

2 . 23a

1.14a

1 .09a

1 .74a

0 . 19a

Detroit

2 . 23a

1 . 65 a

1 .26a

1 . 95a

0.64a

* values
antly

i n a column w i t h
different

(at

the

*

t h e s a me l e t t e r
0.1

level).

are

not

Bone

signific­

94

the

lesser

concentration

f e d wor ms e x p o s e d

to

the

present
12-12-12

in

renal

tissues

fertilizer

of

(Table

birds
26).

95

T a b l e 26. M e a n Z n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t i s s u e s o f w o o d c o c k
e a r t h w o r m s e x p o s e d to s l u d g e - t r e a t e d a n d i n o r g a n i c a l l y
f e r t i l i z e d soil.

Tissue
Soil
Treatment

Zn ( u g g * 1 d r y w t , )

Liver

Kidney

Heart

Control

464a

982a

12-12-12

344a

738b

Alpena

537a

1214a

Detroit

756a

1159a

* values
antly

i n a column wit h
different

(at

the

•

Muscle

Bone

273a

390a

200a

306a

322a

125a

331a

276a

298a

386a

345 a

219a

not

signific­

t h e s a me l e t t e r
0.1

fe d

level).

are

DISCUSSION

Results
and k i d n e y
metals

from a n a l y s e s

tissues

macroinvertebrates.
in

the

concentrations.
concentrate

in

demonstrated
prevent

Greater

Johnson

transfer

by Cd i n
metals,

metals

appeared

not only

accumulate

to

tissues.

for

Cr,

but
woodcock

Ni a n d Zn t o

groups.

O n l y Cd

g r o u p s and a c c u m u l a t e .

contaminated

ecosystems,

has been observed

R o b e r ts and Johnson

(1978),

as

by J o h n s o n e t

and H u n t e r

and

(1981).

tissues

but

affinity

no a c c u m u l a t i o n
96

to

dietary

However,

Cu ,

trophic

trophic

Cd d e m o n s t r a t e d a n o b v i o u s
kidney

selected

b a s e d on s o i l

to

between

between

food c h a i n

liver

sludge-borne

in re la tio n

invertebrate

transfer

to oth er

(1978),

of t h e

Cd a p p e a r e d

mobility

compared
al.

to

All

s ome h o m e o s t a s i s

their

appeared

a w ildlife

earthworms

the

whole e ar t h w or m s and

from t h e woodcock i n d i c a t e d

c a n be m o b i l e i n

accumulate

of

for

liver

or c o n c e n tr a ti o n

and
in

97

wo o d c o c k m u s c l e .

The g r e a t e s t

wo o d c o c k t i s s u e s
bird

Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n

( 4 5 ppm d r y w e i g h t i n r e n a l

f e d wor ms e x p o s e d t o D e t r o i t

l Oppm f r e s h w e i g h t
indicate

forest

for verteb rate

Cd c o n t a m i n a t i o n

from t h i s

study suggest

lands

sludge)

(Eisler

if

supporting

kidney

tissue

of r e n a l

y e a rs of c o n t i n u a l
lethal

rate

1 0 - 2 0 ppm/ 30 d a y s ,

a r e n o t k n o wn .

fitness

usually

the i n t e r n a l

however,

are not s i t e s

of le s s

Therefore,

at

b e c o me s

can n o t

be

do n o t a p p e a r

f r o m s l u d g e - b o r n e Cd t r a n s f e r

Muscle t i s s u e s

and h u n t e r s
of

t o human h e a l t h ,

t o woodcock

o f Cd d e p o s i t i o n ,

do n o t c o n s u me s i g n i f i c a n t q u a n t i t i e s

organs

taken

Because p r e d i c t i o n s

f r o m u p l a n d game b i r d s .

can not

a c c e p t a b l e Cd a c c u m u l a t i o n

2

in the p o t e n t i a l l y

c o m p r o m i s e d a n d wo o d c o c k p o p u l a t i o n s h a r m e d ,

tissues.

and

approximately

Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s

w h i c h Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n d o e s i n d i v i d u a l

t o be i n c r e a s e d

to

o f 200 ppm ( f r e s h w e i g h t ) .

from r e n a l

t h a n 200 ppm i n w i l d l i f e

Risks

t h a t may

At t h e o b s e r v e d

o f Cd e x c r e a t i o n ,

kidney c o n c e n tr a ti o n

predicted.

the

s l u d g e s were a p p l i e d

exposure could r e s u l t

Toxic e f f e c t s

of a

good wo o d c o c k f e e d i n g h a b i t a t ,

Cd a c c u m u l a t i o n ,

assuming a c o n s t a n t

in

The r e s u l t s

Cd c o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e i n wo o d c o c k t i s s u e s .
rate

tissue

approached

1985).

similar

recorded

be made w i t h r e g a r d s

i n woodcock p o p u l a t i o n s ,

to

98

avoidence

of contam ination

Macroinvertebrate
chains

a r e most

developed

detritivore

likely

organic

such as
health

-

sites

best

risks

used in

to w i l d l i f e

field

insectivore

to s o ils

which a r e

Consequently,

the

alternative.

vertebrate

containing
the

upland

evaluations

from s l u d g e - b o r n e

food
well

least

by l i m i t i n g

t o mo r e n u t r i e n t - d e f i c i e n t ,

those

mitigated.

the

restricted

layers;

nutrient-deficient.
recycling

is

sludge

forest
of

this

metals

lands,
study,

should

be

RISK ASSESSMENT OF SLUDGE-BORNE CD, CR,

CU, NI AND ZN

TO WILDLIFE FROM RECYCLING SLUDGES UPON FORESTED LAND

Results

from t h i s

sludge-borne metals,
lated

in w ild lif e

application.

forage
less

primarily

forages

During

concentrations

the

return

concentration

than could

capable

investigation

to

second

the f i r s t

background

chronic

year a f t e r

growing s e a s o n ,

for

levels.

metal

T h e maxi mum

e a c h m e t a l was m a g n i t u d e s

p r o v i d e a d o s e Un d e r wo o d

of e l i c i t i n g

s ome

Cd a n d C r , may b e a c c u m u ­

during

recorded

indicated

toxicities

(1977)
in

reported

laboratory

as

and

domestic animals.
There appeared
to

to

sludge

recycling

Us e o f

sludge-treated

associated

sites

wa s g e n e r a l l y

a n d Wo o d y a r d

1984)

greater

with

deer.
by b o t h

and u n g u l a t e s

a n d Campa 1 9 8 4 ) .

Tissues

collected

s m a l l ma mma l s ,
evidence

effects

s m a l l mammal s o r w h i t e - t a i l e d

s m a l l mammal s ( H a u f l e r
(Haufler

be no h e a l t h

for

exposed

from h e r b i v o r o u s
to s l u d g e - tr e a te d

accumulation

of

the
99

and omnivorous
forages,

sludge-borne

s h o w e d no

metals.

10 0

Laboratory

experiments

life

and o t h e r

spans

supported

factors

risks

to

metals

higher

prevent

species

that

Short

include

accumulation

by s m a l l ma mma l s .

trophic

mammal s p r o d u c e d

observation.

such as d i e t s

s o me u n c o n t a m i n a t e d m a t e r i a l s
sludge-borne

this

of

Consequently,

health

from consuming s m a l l

on s l u d g e - t r e a t e d

sites

does not

appear

significant.
The e x c e p t i o n
such as

shrews,

utilize

soil

in

the

type
ing

food

chain,

testing

sludge-borne

potential

organic

metals

in

a rate

after

2 years

this

matter

for

if

to

the

-

not

to

support

sites

this

contain­

of energy.

pathway f o r

vertebrate

laboratory

did

appear as
and

be l i f e - t h r e a t e n i n g

The a p p l i c a b i l i t y
is

a

Wo o d c o c k a c c u m u l a t e d

could

conditions

suggest a conservative

insectivore

Cd t o m o b i l i z e

food c h a i n .

continuous,

field

did

accomplished.

of c o n t i n u a l e x p o s u re .

experiment

that

addressed

as a source

sludge-borne

a w ildlife

that,

study

as a c r i t i c a l

was n o t

in

forests

restricted

macroinvertebrate

pathway

Cd a t

of

which a r e

investigated

concentrate

results

The u p l a n d

insectivores

The s o i l
food c h a i n

consume m a c r o i n v e r t e b r a t e s

evaluations

considerable

Thus,

this

that

s m a l l ma mma l s may be i n s e c t i v o r e s ,

detritus.

field

of

for

unkown,

recycling

but

approach

the
is

of

101

warrented.
Human h e a l t h
w ildlife
Cd,

for

into

the

only metal

w ildlife

k i d n e y and l i v e r

muscular

tissues.

p o s e s no t h r e a t .
probably not
recorded

from h a r v e s t i n g

p r o d u c e d on s l u d g e - t r e a t e d

w h i c h wa s

sludge

risks

tissues,
tissues

Cd w o u l d r e q u i r e

exhibited
that

Consumption of
but a t

( < 5 0 ppm d r y w e i g h t )
years

of

lands appear minimal.

to dem onstrate

Consequently,

be a d v i s e d ,

and consuming

mobility

a definite

excluded

internal
the

affinity

depostion

consuming muscle
organs

greatest

from

in

tissue
should

concentration

s i g n i f i c a n t , human p i c k - u p

daily

intake.

of

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Results
cation

rates

from t h i s
used,

study

sludge

does not

problem

to w i l d l i f e

trophic

groups consuming the

Consequently,
this

without

consuming

upland

investigation,
significant

forest
can

response

environmental
habitat
brate

risks

and p u b l i c

to d e te rm in e

safe

trial

sludges,

trations
to

assess

of m etals

potential

human a n d w i l d l i f e

102

studied.

to w i l d l i f e
sludges

and

supporting

consume i n v e r t e ­
further

In a d d i t i o n ,

chain

or

to ensure

soils

require

for

in

sludge-recycling

higher

need a d d i t i o n a l

food

higher

monitoring

that

rates.

s u c h a s Cd,

for

Forest

earthworms)

with

toxicity

such as a d d re s s e d

recommended

wildlife

application

or to

from m e t a l s

safety.

for

(e.g.

is

the a p p l i ­

mammal s p e c i e s

However,

t o amendment

detritivores

sewage

small

at

present a metal

be r e c o m m e n d e d

health

mo r e s u i t a b l e

that

vegetation

types,

h u ma n s c o n s u m i n g w i l d l i f e .
forest

suggest

study

indus­

concen­
evaluation

hazards.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A n d e r s o n , D. A.
1981.
Response of th e Columbian B lac k ­
t a i l e d deer to f e r t i l i z a t i o n of Douglas f i r f o r e s t s
wi th m u n i c i p a l sewage s l u d g e .
Ph.D. T h e s i s .
U n iv e rsity of Washington, S e a t t l e .
174 p p .
_________ D. A.
1985.
I n f l u e n c e o f sewage s l u d g e f e r t i l i ­
z a t i o n on f o o d h a b i t s o f d e e r i n W e s t e r n W a s h i n g t o n .
J . W i l d l . Manage.
49:91-95.
A n d e r s o n , T . J . , G. W. B a r r e t t , C . S . C l a r k , V . J . E l i a , a n d
V. A. M a j e l i .
1982.
Metal c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in t i s s u e s
o f meadow v o l e s f r o m s e w a g e s l u d g e - t r e a t e d f i e l d s .
J . Environ. Qual.
11:272-277.
A r t m a n n , J.W.
1977.
Wo o d c o c k s t a t u s r e p o r t , 1 9 7 6 .
F i s h and W i l d l . , S p e c . S c i . Rep. W i l d l . 2 0 9 .

U.S.

Au c h mo d y , L . R . a n d T. G r e w e l i n g .
1979.
Problems asso ­
c i a t e d with chemical e s tim a te s of biomass.
Pages
1 9 0 - 2 1 0 i i i I m p a c t s o f i n t e n s i v e h a r v e s t i n g on f o r e s t
nutrient cycling.
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New Y o r k ,
S y r a c u s e , New Y o r k .
421 p p .
B a r t h a l m u s , G. T.
106-134 in
d uction to
York.
484

1980.
T e r r e s t r i a l organisms.
Pages
F . E . G u t h r i e and J . J . P e r r y e d s . I n t r o ­
environmental toxicology.
E l s e v i e r , New
pp.

Beyer,

D.E.
1983.
W i l d l i f e r e s p o n s e to whole t r e e
h a rv e s tin g of aspen.
M. S . T h e s i s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U n i v . , E a s t L ansing 76pp.

Beyer,

W. N . , R . L . C h a n e y , a n d B. M. M u l h e i n .
1982.
He a v y
m e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n e a r t h w o r m s f r o m s o i l amended
w i t h sewage s l u d g e .
J . Environ. Qual.
11:381-385.

103

104

B r o c k w a y , D. G .
1979.
E v a l u a t i o n of n o r t h e r n pine p l a n t a ­
t i o n s a s d i s p o s a l s i t e s f o r m u n ic u p a l and i n d u s t r i a l
s l u d g e . Ph.D. T h e s i s , Michigan S t a t e U n iv ., East
Lansing.
210 pp.
_________ a n d D. H. U r i e .
1983.
Determining sludge f e r t i l i ­
z a t i o n r a t e s f o r f o r e s t s from n i t r a t e - N in l e a c h a t e
and ground w a t e r .
J. Environ. Qual.
12:487-492.
Ca mp a ,

H.
1982.
N u t r i t i o n a l r e s p o n s e of. w i l d l i f e f o r a g e s
to municipal sludge a p p lic a tio n .
M. S. T h e s i s ,
Michigan S t a t e U n iv ., East Lansing.
88 pp.

Chaney,

R . L . , G . S . S t o e w s a n d , C . A. B a c h e , a n d D . J . L i s k .
1 9 7 8 a . Ca dmi um d e p o s i t i o n a n d h e p a t i c m i c r o s o m a l
i n d u c t i o n i n m i c e f e d l e t t u c e g r o w n on s l u d g e amended s o i l .
J . A g r i c , Fo o d Chem.
2 6 : 9 9 2 - 1 ) 4.

_________ G . S . S t o e w s a n d , C . A . B a c h e , a n d D . J . L i s k .
1978b,
Cadmi um d e p o s i t i o n a n d h e p a t i c m i c r o s o m a l i n d u c t i o n
i n g u i n e a p i g s f e d s w i s s c h a r d l e t t u c e g r o wn on
sludge-amended s o i l .
J . A g r i c . Food Chem.
26:
994-997.
Chang,

A . C . , J . E . Warneke, A.L. P a g e , and L . J . Lund.
Ac cu m ula ti on of heavy m e t a l s i n sewage s l u d g e treated so ils.
J, Environ, Qual.
1 3 : 8 7 - ) 1.

Cooke,

A.S.
1973,
S h e l l t h i n n i n g i n a v i a n e g g s by
environmental p o llu ta n ts .
Environ. P o l l u t .
4:85-102.

Corder,

P.G.
1979.
S o i l survey of C la re County, Michigan.
U.S. Dept. A g r . , S o i l Cons. S e r v .
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.
74 p p .

Eisler,

R.
1985.
Ca dmi um h a z a r d s t o f i s h , w i l d l i f e , a n d
in v e r te b r a te s : a synoptic review.
U.S. F is h W il d l .
S e r v . B i o l . Rep.
85:01.2
45 p p .

Furr,

1984.

A.K.,
G . S . S t o e w s a n d , C. A. B a c h e , a nd D . J . L i s k .
1 9 7 6 S t u d y o f g u i n e a p i g s f e d S w i s s c h a r d g r o wn on
municipal sludge-amended s o i l : m u lti-elem en t content
of t i s s u e s .
Arch, E n v iro n . H e alth
3 1 : 8 7 - ) 1.

105

G i g l i o t t i , L.
1983.
Public a t t i t u d e systems concerning
a p p l i c a t i o n of sludge to S t a t e F o r e s t la n d s in
Michigan.
M. S . T h e s i s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v . ,
East Lansing.
312 pp.
Gish,

C . D. a n d R . E . C h r i s t e n s e n .
1973.
Ca d mi u m, n i c k e l ,
l e a d and z i n c i n e a r t h w o r m s from r o a d s i d e s o i l .
E nviron. S c i . Tech.
11:106) - 1 0 6 2 .

Hansen,

G . J . , L. D o r n e r , C . S . B y e r l y , P . T a r a r a , a n d T . D .
Hinesly.
1976,
E f f e c t s of sewage s l u d g e - f e r t i l i z e d
corn fed to growing swine.
Am, J , V e t . R e s .
37:711-714.

Harris,

A. R .
forest
5 pp.

1976.
soil.

S e wa g e e f f l u e n t
USDA F o r . S e r v ,

H a u f l e r , J . B . a n d H. Ca mp a .
1984.
browsing to the a p p l i c a t i o n
upland f o r e s t ty p es, annual
EPA, C h i c a g o I I .

infiltrates
Res. Rept.

frozen
NC-122.

Response of u n g u l a t e
of sewage s l u d g e to
report.
On f i l e U . S .

_________ D. K. W o o d y a r d .
1984.
I n f l u e n c e s on w i l d ­
l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f sewage s l u d g e
to upland f o r e s t types, annual r e p o r t.
On f i l e U . S .
EPA, C h i c a g o , I L .
198 p p .
_________ , J . B . a n d S . D . W e s t ,
1986,
W ildlife responses
f o r e s t a p p l i c a t i o n of sewage s l u d g e .
In p r i n t ,
P r o c . F o r e s t Lands A p p l i c a t i o n Symposium.
Helmke,

to

P . A . , W. P. R o b a r g e , R . L , K o r o t e v , a n d P . J .
Schontberg.
1979.
E f f e c t s of s o i l - a p p l i e d sewage
s l u d g e on c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f e l e m e n t s i n e a r t h w o r m s .
J. Environ Qual. 8:322-327.

H i n e s l y , T . 0 , , R.L. J o n e s , and E.L. Z i e g l e r .
1972.
E f f e c t s on c o r n by a p p l i c a t i o n o f h e a t e d a n a e r o ­
bically digested sludge.
Compost S c i .
13:26-30.
Hunter,

B . A. a n d M. S . J o h n s o n .
1982.
Fo o d c h a i n r e l a t i o n ­
s h i p s o f c o p p e r a n d c a d mi u m i n c o n t a m i n a t e d g r a s s ­
land ecosystems.
Oikos
38:108-117.

10 6

J e n k i n s , D.W.
1980.
B io lo g ic al monitoring of to x ic tra c e
metals
Vo l u me 2 .
T o x i c t r a c e m e t a l s i n p l a n t s and
anim als of the world.
P a r t 1.
U . S . EPA R e p .
600/3-80-090
503 pp.
J o h n s o n , M . S . , R. D. R o b e r t s , M. H u t t o n , a n d M . J . I n s k i p .
1978.
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f l e a d , z i n c a nd cadmium i n
s m a l l mammal s f r o m p o l l u t e d e n v i r o n m e n t s .
Oikos
30:153-159.
K a b a t a - P e n d i a s , A. a n d H. P e n d i a s .
1984.
Trace elements
in s o i l s and p l a n t s .
CRC P r e s s , I n c . , Bo c a R a t o n ,
FL.
315 p p .
L ag e rstro m , T.R.
1983.
Comparison of c i t i z e n r e a c t i o n
a p r o p o s e d s l u d g e d e m o n s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t i n t wo
Michigan c o u n t i e s .
M. S . T h e s i s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e
Univ., East Lansing.
312 p p .

to

‘H u n s h o w e r , F . F . a n d D . R , Ne u ma n,
1979.
Metals in so ft
t i s s u e s o f mule d e e r and a n t e l o p e .
Bull. Environ.
Contam. T o x i c o l .
22:827-832.
N a t i o n a l Oceanic Atmospheric Assn.
1981.
Climatological
d a t a , a n n u a l summary, M i c h i g a n . Vo l . 96 .
_________ 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ,
(by m on th ) ,

Climatological
Vols. 96-99.

data

August

1982-1985

Nguyen,

P.V. and J . H , H a r t .
1984.
Ecological
o f s l u d g e f e r t i l i z a t i o n on s t a t e f o r e s t
N o r t h e r n Lower M i c h i g a n , a n n u a l r e p o r t .
U . S . EPA, C h i c a g o , I L .
192 p p .

Pietz,

R . I . , J . R . P e t e r s o n , J . E . P r a t e r , a n d D. R, Z e n z .
1984.
M e t a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n e a r t h w o r m s from sewage
s l u d g e - a me n d e d s o i l s a t a s t r i p m i n e r e c l a m a t i o n
site.
J. Environ. Qual.
13:651-654.

Rabe,

monitoring
lands in
On f i l e ,

D.L.
1977.
H a b i t a t u t i l i z a t i o n by t h e - A m e r i c a n
woodcock i n N o r t h e r n M i c h i g a n .
M. S . T h e s i s ,
Michigan S t a te U niv., East Lansing.
49 pp.

107

________

198 1.
H a b i t a t and e n e r g e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s of
Ameri can woodcock i n M i c h i g a n .
Ph.D. T h e s i s ,
Michigan S t a t e U n i v . , East L ansin g.
101 p p .

R i o r d a n , C.
1983,
A decade of p r o g r e s s .
P a g e s 1 5 - 2 1 ill
A. L. Page e t a l .
eds.
U t i l i z a t i o n of municipal
w a s t e w a t e r a nd s l u d g e on l a n d .
U n iv e rs ity of
C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e CA.
480 pp.
Seon,

E. M.
1984.
N u t r i t i o n a l , w i l d l i f e , and v e g e t a t i v e
communi t y r e s p o n s e t o m u n i c i p a l s l u d g e a p p l i c a t i o n
on a j a c k p i n e / r e d p i n e f o r e s t .
M. S. T h e s i s ,
Michigan S t a t e U n i v . , E as t Lan s in g .
75 p p .

Smith,

W. H. , D.M. P o s t , a n d F. W.
ma n a g e m e n t t o m a i n t a i n o r
Pages 304-320 i n Impact of
forest nutrient cycling.
421 p p .

Adrian.
1979.
Wa s t e
enhance p r o d u c t i v i t y .
i n t e n s i v e h a r v e s t i n g on
S t a t e U n i v . , New Y o r k .

Sokal,

R. R. and F . J . R o h l f .
1981.
Biometry.
a n d C o . , Sa n F r a n c i s c o .
859 p p .

S t i c k e l , W.H.
1975.
Some e f f e c t s o f
t e r r e s t r i a l ecosystems.
Pages
M c I n t y r e and C.F. M i l l s , e d s .
p res en te d a t the 164th N a tio n a l
American Chemical S o c i e t y .

W.H.

F r e e ma n

p o l l u t a n t s in
2 5 - 7 4 i n A. D.
P r e p r in ts of papers
Meeting of the

Steel,

R . G. D . a n d J . H , T o r r i e .
1980.
P r i n c i p l e s and
p ro c e d u re s of s t a t i s t i c s .
M c G r a w - H i l l C o . , New
York.
633 p p .

T h o ma s ,

A. H.
1983.
F i r s t - y e a r r e s p o n s e s o f w i l d l i f e and
w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t t o sewage s l u d g e a p p l i c a t i o n i n a
n o r t h e r n hardwoods f o r e s t .
M. S. T h e s i s , M i c h i g a n
S ta te Univ., East Lansing.
88 p p .

Underwood, E . J ,
1977.
T r a c e e l e m e n t s i n human a n d a n i m a l
nutrition.
A c a d e m i c P r e s s , . New Y o r k .
545 p p .
Urie,

D . H . , A. R. H a r r i s , a n d J . C . C o o l e y .
1978.
Municipal
and i n d u s t r i a l s l u d g e f e r t i l i z a t i o n o f f o r e s t s and
w ild fire openings.
Annual C o n f . Appl . Re s . and
P r a c t i c e on M u n i c i p a l W a s t e , M a d i s o n , WI, 1 : 2 6 7 - 2 8 4 .

10 8

_________ , J . C . C o o l e y , a n d A . R . H a r r i s .
1981.
Forestlands
f o r t r e a t m e n t of sewage w a s t e .
On f i l e , N o r t h
C e n t r a l F o r . E x p t . S t n . , E a s t L a n s i n g , MI .
21pp.
Van H o o k e , R . I .
1974,
Ca d mi u m, l e a d , a n d z i n c d i s t r i ­
b u t i o n s between e art hw or m s and s o i l s : p o t e n t i a l f o r
biological accumulation.
B u ll. Environ. Contamin.
12:509-512,
Wa de ,

S . E . , C. A. B a c h e , a nd D . J . L i s k .
1982.
Cadmi um
a c c u m u l a t i o n by e a r t h w o r m s i n h a b i t i n g m u n i c i p a l
sludge-amended s o i l .
B u l l . E n v i r o n . Contam,
Toxicol.
28:557-560.

W i l l i a m s , F . H . , J . S . Shenk, and D.E. B a k e r .
1978.
Cadmi um
a c c u m u l a t i o n by mea dow v o l e s f r o m c r o p s g r o w n on
sludge-treated so il.
J. Environ. Qual.
7:450-454.
Woolf,

A . , J . R . S m i t h , a n d L. S m a l l .
1982.
Metals in
l i v e r s of w h i t e - t a i l e d deer in I l l i n o i s .
Bull.
E n v i r o n . Con-tara. T o x i c o l .
28:18) - 1 9 4 .

W o o d y a r d , D. K.
1982.
Response of w i l d l i f e to land
application sludge.
M. S . T h e s i s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U n i v . , E a s t L a n s i n g . 64 p p .
Zasoski, R.J.
1981.
He a v y m e t a l m o b i l i t y i n s l u d g e
amended s o i l s .
P a g e s 67-*-* 2 i i i C . S . B l e d s o e , e d .
Municipal sludge a p p lic a tio n to P a c if ic northwest
forest lands.
U n iv e rs ity of Washington, S e a t t l e .
425 pp.
i

_________ , R . J . , S . G . A r c h i e , W. C. S w a i n a n d J . D . S t e d n i c k .
1977.
Th e i m p a c t o f s e w a g e s l u d g e on d o u g l a s - f i r
s t a n d s n e a r P o r t Gamble, W a s h i n g t o n .
Report to
M un icip ality of M etro p o litan S e a t t l e , M e t r o - S e a t t i e ,
WA.
42pp.

APPENDIX

109
T a b l e 27.
jack pine

M e a n Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
clearcut from 1980-1982.

T r e a t m e n t Year

soils

collected

on

the

S oil depth
( c m)
_______________ ______________________
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-30

30-60

60-90

Control
Sludge

1980

0.50
0.95

0.38
0.66*

0.08
0.14

0.03
0.06

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

Control
Sludge

1981

0.42
0.77*

0.42
0.34

0.16
0.09*

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.00

Control
Sludge

1982

0.37
0.77*

0.46
0.42

0.18
0.14

0.07
0.04

0.01
0.01

0.00 •
■ 0.00

*value

is

significantly

'

different

(.10

level)

from c o n t r o l s

110
T a b l e 28.
jack pine

M e a n Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
clearcut from 1980-1982.

Treatment

Year

Soil

soils

depth

collected

on

the

( c m)

0-5

5-10

10-15

15-30

30-60

60-90

Control
Sludge

1980

4.07
4.08

3.87
3.99

1.48
1.67

0.45
0.46

0.01
0.00

0.00
0.00

Control
Sludge

1981

4.03
3.96

3.13
3 . 67*

1.88
1.88

0.35
0.13

0.02
0.00

0.00
0.00

Control
Sludge

1982

3.34
3.82

3.13
3.86

1.66
1.63

0.47
0.68

0.06
0.00

0.00
0.00

lvalue

is

significantly

different

(.10

level)

from

controls

Ill
T a b l e 29.
jack pine

M e a n Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
clearcut from 1980-1982.

Treatment

Year

soils

collected

on

the

Soil depth
( c m)
_______________________________________
0-5

5-10

10-15

15-30

30-60

60-90

Control
Sludge

1980

2.40
2.64

2.34
2.53

0.94
0.66*

0.15
0.09*

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00

Control
Sludge

1981

2.03
2.67*

2.19
2.30

0.65
0 . 58

0.03
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

Control
Sludge

1982

2.37
2.49

2.13
1.74

0.60
0.53

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

*value

is

significantly

different

(.10

level)

from

controls

112
T a b l e 30.
jack pine

M e a n Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
clearcut from 1980-1982.

Soil

soils

depth

collected

on

the

( c m)

T r e a t m e n t Year
0-5

5-10

10-15

1 5 - 30

30-60

60-90

Control
Sludge

1980

2.46
2.20

2.28
2.46

0.53
1.04

0 . 00
0 . 2 3*

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

Control
Sludge

1981

2.67
2.51

2.33
2.15

0.86
0.79

0 . 05
0 . 16

0,00
0.00

0.00
0.00

Control
_Sludge

1982

2.12
2.39

2.13
2.36

0.95
0.51

0 . 13
0 . 03

0.01
0.00

0.00
0.00

*value

is

significantly

different

(.10

level)

from

controls

113
T a b l e 31.
jack pine

M e a n Z n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
cleorcut from 1980-1982.

soils

Soil

depth

Treatment

Year
0-5

5-10

collected

on

the

( c m)

10-15

1 5 - 30

30-60

60-9 0
Control
Sludge

1980

1A . 0
12.3

13.7
10.9

2.44
1.37*

0.93
1.01

0 . 56
0.61

0.34
0.99

Control
Sludge

1981

2.8
11.3

13.3
13.2

5.27
3 .16

1.97
0.89*

0.94
1.14

0.81
0.95

Control
"Sludge

1982

15.6
11.1*

11.2
14.3

9.77
3.56*

5.60
2.70

1.45
1.20

0.37
0.68

*value

is

significantly

different

(.10

level)

from

controls

114
T a b l e 32. M e a n Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s
the jack pine c l e a r c u t from 1980-1982.

collected

off

Season

Year
_______________________________________
1980
1981
19 82

brambles c o n tro l
sludge

spring

1.08

control
sludge

s umme r

control
sludge

winter

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s u mme r

control
sludge

winter

Species

cherry
twigs

cherry
leaves

jack
pine
twigs

Treatment

control
sludge

1.12

0.91
1.05

0.68
1.07*

0.52
0.67

0.71
0.61

0.83
1.26*

0.81
0.99*

0.61
0.65

0.65
0.75

0 . 68
0.56

0,80
0.62

0.59
0.54

0.69
0.71

0,21
0.29

0.45
0.26*

0.26
0.17

0.50
0 . 88 *

0,66
0.39

0.51
0.29*

0.22
0.21

0.91
1.34*

0.82
0.71

spring

control
sludge

s umme r

0.24
0.18

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s u mme r

0.48
0.55

0.37
0.69

0.39
0.42

control
sludge

winter

0.91
0.74

1.20
1.03

0.96
0.86

115
Table

32.

cont.

control
jack
sludge
pine
needles
control
sludge

spring
s umme r

control
sludge

winter

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s ummer

control
sludge

spring

orange
hawkweed

panic
grass

sedge

0.38
0.50

0,43
0.33*

0.26
0.33

0.50
0.57

0,24
0.45*

0.45
0.31

0.48
0.38

0.61
1.09*

0.86
0.84

—
0.73
1.59*

summer

control
sludge

0.23
0 , 24

0.35
0.60*

—

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s umme r

——

0.90
0.83

0.60
0.39

0.39
0.60

—

_

0.21
0.29

__

-------

0.70
0.90

—

0.78
0.84

0.63
0.43

0,69
0.58

s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d i n 1 9 8 0 i n c l u d e d a l l c h e r r i e s ; 198 1 a n d
1982 s a m p l e s i n c l u d e d o n l y p i n c h e r r y ( P . p e n s y l v a n i c a )
s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d i n 1980 i n c l u d e d a l l b r a m b l e s ; 1981 and
19 82 s a m p l e s i n c l u d e d o n l y r e d r a s p b e r r y ( R . i d a e u s )
*value

is

significantly

different

(.10

level)

from

controls

116
T a b l e 33. M e a n C r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s
the jack pine clearcut from 1980-1982.

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment

brambles

'cherry
twigs

cherry
leaves

jack
pine
twigs

Season
1980

1981

1982

2.26
2.19

2.02
1.89

control
sludge •

spring

—

control
sludge

s umme r

1.47
1.50

1.14
1.52*

1.37
1.75

control
, sludge

winter

2.29
1.45*

2.13
1.86

1.69
1.88

2.45
3.25*

2.69
2.68

control '
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s ummer

1.04
0.74*

0.99
0.91

1.13
1,12

control
sludge

winter

2.17
2.29

2.25
2.34

2.37
2.05

control
sludge

spring

1.93
1.95

2.11
1.84

control
sludge

s ummer

1.59
1.93

0.71
0.95

control
sludge

spring

1.74
2.57*

2.39
2.96

control
sludge

s umme r

0.79
0.91

0.85
0.69

0.91
1.25

control
sludge

winter

1.54
3.37

1.69
1.54

1.85
1.95

----------

1.74
1.08*

“

“

117
Table

33.

cont.

control
jack
sludge
pine
needles
control
sludge

spring
s umme r

0.72
1.20*

0.68
0.51

0.55
0.69

control
sludge

winter

1.63
1.95

1.25
1.71

1.20
1.86

control
sludge

spring

1.96
2.91*

1.42
2.21

control
sludge

s umme r

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s u mme r

con t r o l
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s umme r

orange
hawkwe e d

panic
grass

sedge

1.28
1.42

1.40
1.54

—

—

2.28
5.84*

2.42
3.23

—

—™
1.14
1.78 *

—

0.47
0.76*

1.42
1.03
0.78
0.86

0.54
0.62

------

0.99
0.77

0.41
0.41

0.56
0.42

s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d i n 1 9 8 0 i n c l u d e d a l l c h e r r i e s ; 1981 a n d
1 9 82 s a m p l e s i n c l u d e d o n l y p i n c h e r r y ( F . p e n a y l v a n i c a )
s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d i n 1 9 8 0 i n c l u d e d a l l b r a m b l e s ; 1981 a n d
1982 s a m p l e s i n c l u d e d o n l y r e d r a s p b e r r y ( R . i d a e u s )
*value

is

significantly

different

(.10

level)

from

controls

118
T a b l e 34. M e a n Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s
the jack pine c le a rc u t f r o m 1980-1982.

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment

Season
19 80

1981

1982

1.88
2 . 66*

1.96
1.61

brambles c o n t r o l
sludge

spring

control
sludge

summer

2.33
2.99*

2.59
2.13

2.40
2.64

control
sludge

winter

1,78
3.19*

1.71
1.72

1.95
1.61

control
sludge

spring

3.80
3.13

3.04
2.66

control
sludge

summer

6.44
2.71

4.85
4.31

5.20
4.55

control
sludge

winter

8.29
2.18

5.38
3.51

3.40
3.20

control
sludge

spring

1.25
0.88

1.09
1.03

control
sludge

summer

1.56
1.72

1.69
1.96

control
sludge

spring

1.29
1.94

1.41
1.84

control
sludge

s ummer

1.48
1.66

1.34
1.16

1.65
2.05

control
sludge

winter

2.64
1.79

2.78
2.00

2.04
3.34*

cherry
twigs

cherry
leaves

jack
pine
twigs

1.80
2.20

119
Table

34.

jack
pine

orange
hawk-

panic
grass

sedge

cont.

control
sludge

spring

—
---

1.93
2.84

4.79
2.82

control
sludge

s u mme r

1.63
2.01

1.84
1.51

2.29
1.67

control
sludge

winter

2.64
1.79

2.53
2.03

1.86
2,11

control
sludge

spring

__
---

3.93
6,77*

2,42
4.34

control
sludge

s u mme r

3.82
9.62*

control
sludge ‘

spring

control
sludge

summer

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s ummer

---

3.90
5.86

---

0.74
0.30

0.85
0.54

0.97
2 .27

---

1.08
0.83

---

1.31
1.72

1.73
2.23

3.98
2.51

—

4.75
2.99

s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d I n 1 9 8 0 I n c l u d e d a l l c h e r r i e s ; 19 81 a n d
1982 s a m p l e s I n c l u d e d o n l y p i n c h e r r y ( F . p e n s v l v a n i c a )
s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d i n 1 9 8 0 I n c l u d e d a l l b r a m b l e s ; 1981 a n d
1982 s a m p l e s I n c l u d e d o n l y r e d r a s p b e r r y ( R . i d a e u s )
♦value

is

significantly

different

(.10 level)

from c o n t r o l s

120
T a b l e 35. M e a n N i c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s
the jack pine c l e a r c u t f ro m 1980-1982.

Species Treatment

Season

brambles

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s u mme r

control
sludge

winter

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s umme r

control
sludge

winter

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s u mme r

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s u mme r

control
sludge

winter

cherry
twigs

cherry
leaves

jack
pine
twigs

collected

off

Year
_______________________________________
1980
1981
1982
0,62
0.41

0.39
0.60

1.94
1.94

1.61
1.87

1.34
1.84

0.98
2,43*

1.17
1.64

1.49
1.03

0.90
1.15

1.27
1.07

1.15
1,53*

0.93
1.07

1.31
1.15

2.39
1.28

1.63
1.93

1.64
1.34

1.37
0.69

1.19
0.77

1.66
1.91

1.87
2.00

1.49
1.63

1.51
1.84

1.76
1.81

1.18
1.90*

1.88
1.20

1.72
2.31*

1.68
2.22

1.41
1.86

2.06
1,77

121
Table

35.

cont.

control
jack
sludge
pine
needles
control
sludge

orange
h a wk weed

panic
grass

sedge

spring
—

0.88
0.66

0.45
1.46*

s ummer

1.63
1.76

1.84
1.69

2.08
1.86

control
sludge

winter

1.26
1.55

1.46
1.78

1.11
1.53

control
sludge

spring

2.83
3.54

2.75
3.83

control
sludge

s ummer

3.74
5.44*

4.38
4.66

2.54
4.87*

control
sludge

spring

, —
——

0.44
0.77*

0.41
0.34

control
sludge

s ummer

0.69
1.26*

0.95
0.66

0.85
0.75

control
sludge

spring

—
—

0.68
0.41

0.27
0.63

control
sludge

s unni e r

1. 24
1.50

1.43
1.56

1.86
1.28

samples
1932
samples
1982

c o l l e c t e d i n 198 0 i n c l u d e d a l l c h e r r i e s ; 1981 a n d
samples included only pin ch erry ( P . p e n s y l v a n i c a )
c o l l e c t e d i n 1 980 i n c l u d e d a l l b r a m b l e s ; 1981 a n d
samples included only red r a s p b e r r y ( R .i d a e u s )

*value

is

significantly

different

( .10 l e v e l )

from c o n t r o l s

122
T a b l e 36. M e a n 2 n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s
the ja ck pine c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 .

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment

Season
19 80

brambles

cherry
twigs

cherry
leaves

jack
pine
twigs

1981

1982

34.5
24.8

41.1
28.7

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s u mme r

53.2
65.6

63.8
68.7

69.4
53.9

control
sludge

winter

56.6
78.3*

73.0
70.7

93.7
80.9

control
sludge

spring
--------

74.8
85.7

60.6
70.9

control
sludge

s umme r

48.2
94.0

56.4
42.8

47.3
47.6

control
sludge

winter

51.9
55.9

65.0
53.9

64,2
60.4

control
sludge

spring

——

——

8.11
13.1

7.66
12,8

control
sludge

s umme r

18.6
25.2

17.1
18.6

16.0
18.8

control
sludge

spring

— —

166
185

210
187

control
sludge

s umme r

50,3
56.2

63.4
74.6

53.9
67.3

control
sludge

winter

151
67.8

108
135

114
85.5

123
Table

36.

cent.

jack
control
sludge
pine
needles
control
sludge

orange
hawkwe e d

panic
grass

sedge

spring
—

95.0
77,4

66.0
80.9

s umme r

43.2
45.6

46.1
66,4

49 . 3
53.1

control
sludge

winter

151
67.8

109
103

136
96.4

control
sludge

spring

93.9
73.0

86.3
86.4

control
sludge

s umme r

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s umme r

control
sludge

spring

control
sludge

s ummer

------

115
154

—

—

——

——
14.8
30,1*

132
114

8.83
5.57

11.2.
9.22

M_

----

19.6
18.8

21.7
25.4

26.1
15.2
38.1
51.0

53.0
65.6

s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d i n 1 9 8 0 i n c l u d e d a l l c h e r r i e s ; 1981 a n d
1982 s a m p l e s i n c l u d e d o n l y p i n c h e r r y ( P . p e n s y l v a n i c a )
s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d i n 1 9 8 0 i n c l u d e d a l l b r a m b l e s ; 1981 a n d
1 9 8 2 s a m p l e s i n c l u d e d o n l y r e d r a s p b e r r y ( R. i d a e u s )
*value

is

significantly

different

(.10

level)

from c o n t r o l s

12 4
T a b l e 37.
the a s p e n

M e a n Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s
study area from 1982-1984.

collected

off

Year
Species

wild
straw­
berry

orange
hawkwe e d

panic
grass

b ig to o th
aspen

Treatment

Season
1982

1983

1 9 84

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1 .19a
2.32b
1 .76b

1.64
1.83
1.55

1.46
1.03

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.73
0,82
0.95

0.65
0.48
0.53

0.43
0.45

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.95
0.96
0.73

■1 . 1 3
0.73
1.00

0.65
1.12

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.92
0.69
0.74

0.72
0.69
0,82

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.25a
0 . 12b
0.26a

0 . 18a
0.36b
0. 21ab

0 . 20
0.14

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.28a
0 , 26a b
0 . 12b

0.15
0.26
0.22

0.16
0.12

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.49
0.22
0.41

0.45
0.31
0.41

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.34
0.28
0.39

0.15
0.30
0.15

0.23
0.19

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

0,28
0.39

0.25
0.36

0.32
0.41

_ _

0.58
0.49
_ _

— _

0.47
0.28
__ _

125
Table

37.

tremb­
ling
aspen

pin
cherry
'

bracken
fern

*

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.48
0.48
0.44

0.34
0.39
0.28

0.51
0.33

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.34
0.38
0.39

0.18
0.28
0.29

0.39
0.43

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.26
0.28

0.43
0.15

__
0.41
0.30

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.55
0.36
0.53

0.21
0.36
0.47

0.73
0.40

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.26
0.29
0.32

0.30
0.20
0.22

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

__
0.36
0.39

0.55
0.23

__
0.33
0.54

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.25a
0 . 12b
0.26a

0 . 18a
0.36b
0 . 21ab

0.20
0.14

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.28a
0 . 26a b
0 . 12b

0.15
0.26
0.22

__
0.16
0.12

values within a year and season
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

«« —

with the same l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

_

—

••

0.41
0.26

are

126
T a b l e 38.
the a s p e n

M e a n C r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s
study area from 1982-1984.

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment

wild
straw­
berry

orange
hawkwe e d

panic
grass

bigtooth
aspen

Season
1982

1983

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.54
1.33
1.50

1.27
1.45
1.98

1.67
2.16

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.51
2.06
1.78

1.72
2.27
2.13

_^
1.74
1.93

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.77
i . 54
2.50

1.66
1.62
3.20

1.61
2.32

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.09
2.25
2.15

2.11
1.72
1.65

_
2.84
1.79

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.45
1.27
0.55

0.70
1.36
1.05

0.88
1.41

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.71
0.84
0.72

0.65
0.80
0.69

1 . 13
0.68

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.27
0.61
0.31

0.20
0.34
0.44

0.39
0.45

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.40
0.56
0.36

0.68
0.67
0.45

0.18
0.52

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

_______

•V M

mm m m

2.52
1.53

1.90
1.79

2.86
1.57

12 7
Table

33.

tremb­
ling
aspen

pin
cherry
-

bracken
fern

#

cont.
„

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.48
0.59
0.30

0.49
0.72
0.53

0.69
0,54

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.64
0.42
0.48

0.34
0.63
0.47

0.51
0.66

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.12
1.05

1.31
1.16

1.06
1.32

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.54
1.33
1.50

1.36
1.42
1.35

1.90
3.18

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.28
1.14
1.40

1.80
1.10
1.25

1.11
1.78

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

__
1.54
2.80

_
1.79
1.77

2.34
2.84

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.90
0.86
0.60

0.65
0.42
0.83

0.99
0.82

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.23
0.41
0.44

0.17
0.37
0.32

values within a year and se as on
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

with the same le t t e r
the .10 l e v e l )

* * *

0.60
0.52
are

128
T a b l e 39.
the a sp e n

M e a n C u c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s
study area from 1982-1984.

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment

wild
straw­
berry

orange
hawkwe ed

panic
grass

bigtooth
aspen

Season
1982

1983

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

4.67
2.32
3.66

3.41
3.29
3.34

2.79
3.11

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

3.52
3.43
2.72

2 , 43
3 64
3 17

2.53
2.76

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.97
2.71
1.95

1.75
1.18
3.64

2.12
2.04

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

3.07
3.36
2.65

3.48
2.59
3.95

2.66
2.59

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.30
0.39
0.58

0 . 73ab
1.31b
0.95a

0.54
0.41

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.99
1,03
1.12

1.15
1.33
0.74

1.25
1.31

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.02
1.69
1.84

1.75
1.51
1.87

1.68
1.22

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.53
1.44
1.45

1.86
1.41
1.18

1.43
1.73

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
6,27
4.99

4.82
4.33

2.66
3.10

129
Table

39.

tremb­
ling
aspen

pin
cherry

bracken
fern

*

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.87
1.13
1.95

1.44
1.74
1.48

1.37
1.72

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.60
1.70
1.21

1.45
2.59
1.62

2.27
1.63

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

7.38
8.72

6.97
6.74

5.42
7.40

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.38
1.49
1.15

1.74
1.35
1.66

—
1.46
1.53

control'
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.22
1.51
1.54

1.35
1.35
1.12

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

6.17
8.35

**
5.15
6.42

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.42a
2.23a
3.71b

3 . 1 7ab
2.93a
2.36b

2.27
3.18

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.35
1.97
1.89

2.69
2.13
1.51

2.28
2.70

_

va l u e s w i t h i n a year and se a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

'

_

_

_

_

-

w i t h the s am e l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

1.98
1.72
6.09
6.94
—

^

^

—

are

130
T a b l e 40.
the aspen

M e a n Hi c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s
study area from 1982-1984.

orange
- hawkwe e d

panic
grass

bigtooth
aspen

off

Year
__________________
1982
1983

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.31
1.87
1.90

1.25
1.68
1.74

1.58
1.16

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.42
1.69
0.85

1.45
1.30
1.76

0.95
0.88

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.43
1.49
1.53

1.68a
1 . 8, 0a b
2.86b

1.33
1.92

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

3.31
3.29
2.18

2.24
2.77
2.45

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0,94
0.50
1,02

0.59
0.68
0.75

0.86
0.72

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.93
1.33
0.80

1.06
0.79
0.60

0.91
0.80

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.80
1.79
1.79

1.42
1.55
1.75

1.82
1.49

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.98
1.81
1.56 ,

1,23a
2.42b
1 .89ab

1.76
1.92

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.71
1.41

2.40
2.34

3.11
3.03

Species Treatment

wild
straw­
berry

collected

Season

—__

__

1.39
2.78
^_

131
Table

40.

trembling
aspen

pin
cherry

bracken
fern

*

cont.

1.72
1.04
1.49

1.65
1.27
1.73

1.56
1.24

control
summer
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.00
1.16
1.78

1.67
2.20
1.65

1.86
1.90

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
2.89
2.53

3.17
2.62

2.55
2.95

1.10
1.62
1.47

1.39
1.44
1.23

2.32
1.52

control'
summer
t r a i l s only
sludge

1,15
1.90
1.15

0.86
1.69
1.19

1.45
1.21

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.41
1.73

1.37
1.43

1.96
1.78

1.09
0.85
0.74

0.98
0,71
1.10

0.79
0.66

control
summer 0 . 8 7
t r a i l s only
1.03
sludge
0.77

0.68
0.80
0.39

1.12
0.74

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

spring

spring

spring

values w i t h i n a year and se as on
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w i t h the s a n e l e t t e r
the .10 l e v e l )

ar e

132
T a b l e 41.
the as p e n

M e a n Z n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s
study area from 1982-1984.

collected

off

Year
Species

wild
straw­
berry

orange
‘ hawkweed

panic
grass

big tooth
aspen

Treatment

Season
19 82

19 83

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

66.4
88.1
Cl . 5

92.4
45.2
54, 1

90.9
77.0

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

79.0
66.9
72.8

87.1
67.0
88.0

68.8
44.7

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

151
172
192

112
155
1 58

131
170

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

99.7
121
129

163
115
132

84.5
102

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

22.6
31.6
29.8

46.3
35.2
39.5

23,3
28.0

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

104a
1 24o
156b

142
141
130

__
118
135

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

84.6
74.6
74.6

75.0
72.0
54.8

65.2
57.1

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

40.2
44.3
48.8

35.2
43.8
60.9

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

.

mm—

mmmm

33.2
64.8
mmmm

118
68.2

73.1
78.3

84.1
97.9

133
Table

41.

tremb­
ling
aspen

pin
chery

bracken
fern

*

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

79.3a
38.8b
97.5a

51.2
75.5
72.4

91.1
61.3

control
summer
t r a i l s only
sludge

49.4
42.1
41.0

59.6
35.7
37.4

46.7
56.5

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
81.6
78.1

—
75.2
67.5

61.7
79.5

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

63.8
73.8
74.2

89.2
82.3
59.9

62.9
74.8

control'
summer
t r a i l s only
sludge

44.7
42.6
30.8

40.1
37.3
57.2

55.6
34.6

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
73.8
54,7

—
80.8
77.5

14 7 a
69.7b

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

77.1
62.8
68.0

83.6
58,4
67.6

72.2
57.2

control
summer
t r a i l s only
sludge

105
85.2
112

75.5
83.4
96.3

103
91.1

v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
the .10 l e v e l )

ar e

13 4
T a b l e 42. M e a n C d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
the oak stu dy area from 1982- 19 84 .

forages

collected

off

Year
Species
braclcen
fern

red

oak

white
oak

red
maple

Treatment

Season
1982

1983

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.29
0.35
0.23

0.51
0.25
0.26

0.22
0 . 34

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.26
0.24
0.48

0.35
0.32
0.33

0.43
0.21

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.70
0.72
0.60

1.06
0.60
0.83

0.69
0.96

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.38
0.44
0.51

0 . 5S
0.36
0.58

0.60
0.37

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.51
0.78
0.61

1 . 66a
0.83b
0.77b

1.02
0.88

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.41
0.23
0.24

0.40
0.34
0.64

0.21
0.24

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.34
0.54
0.69

0.32
0.39
0,33

0.65
0.39

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.41
0.43
0.64

0.32
0.36
0.83

0.55
0.67

—_

__
—
mm
control
winter
t r a i l s only
0.20
0.38
0.16
sludge
0.14
0.24
0.19
* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t the .10 l e v e l )

135
T a b l e 43. M e a n C r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
the oak study a r e a from 1982-1984.

forages

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment

Season
1982

bracken
fern

red

oak

white
oak

red
maple

1983

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.35
0.24
0.78

0.25
0.42
0.25

0.30
0.32

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.14
0.25
0.22

0.12
0.26
0.18

0.10
0.05

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.64a
0.70a
1.29b

0.80
0.87
0.72

0.73
1.16

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.72a
0.98a
0.28b

0.68
0.60
0.54

0.86
0.56

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.34
0.51
0.47

0.42
0.37
0.49

0.75
0.52

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.68
0.84
0.88

0.62
0,78
0.71

0.74
1.10

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.47
0.53
0.66

0.40
0.28
0.57

0.41
0.39

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.18
1.37
1.14

1 . 66a
1.13b
1 . 14b

control
winter
0.94
t r a i l s only
sludne
1.21
* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t

—

_

_

^

_

mmmm

1.23
1.33

1.30
1.16
1.37
1.08
w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
the .10 l e v e l )

136
T a b l e 4 4 . M e a n C u c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
the o ak s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 ,

forages

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment
bracken
fern

red

oak

white
oak

red
maple

Season
1 9 84

1982

19 83

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.79
1.88
1.56

1.32
1.83
1.32

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.75
1.86
2.20

2.30
2.01
1.75

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.61a
1.89a
2.70b

1 . 96ab
1.49a
2.35b

__
1 .93
2.23

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.82
1.64
1.47

1.47a
1.Blab
2.07b

1.97
1 ,87

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.93
2.60
2.04

3.22
2 .37
2.86

2.96
2.14

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.43
1.63
1.69

1.50
1.70
1.28

__
1.32
1.29

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.38
2.00
2.27

2.06
2.66
2.38

_n
2.18
1.80

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.63
1.72
1.85

l.O,
1.97
1.77

1.95
1.22

_
control
winter
t r a i l s only
4.45
s l u d ne
3.47
* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
■ not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t

—

1.67
1.62
.

__
1.80
1.46

—

M_
6.58
6.11a
4.28b
6.33
w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
the .10 l e v e l )

137
T a b l e 45. U e a n I.'i c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
the oak stud y a r e a from 1982-1984.

forages

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment
bracken
fern

r e d oak

whit e
oak

red
maple

f*

Season
1982

1983

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.47
0.42
0.74

0.37
0.57
0.72

0.67
0.31

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.12
1.39
1.54

1.09
1.00
1.65

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.26
1.43
1.35

1,56
1.27
1.91

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.53
1.30
1.72

1.25
2.28
1.60

1.57
1.84

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.70
1.54
1.29

1.23
1.42
1.72

1.31
1.77

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.42
1.01
0.94

1.28
1.26
1.59

1.17
1.17

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.11
1.31
1.21

1.74
1.01
1.35

0.96
1.62

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.35
0.70
1.32

1.44
1.13
0.95

—

MH

1.11
1.38
_ _

1.69
1.39
^ mm

__

mmmm

1.29
0.92

control
winter
t r a i l s only
1.04
0.93
1.20
1.54
sludge
2.50
1.14
v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n w i t h t h e s a n e l e t t e r a r e
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t the .10 l e v e l )

138
T a b l e 46* M e a n Z n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n
t h e oolc s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .

forages

collected

off

Year
Species Treatment
bracken
fern

red

oak

white
oak

red
maple

Season
19 82

1933

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

38.2
59.6
20.1

50.2
24.5
38.5

—

33.0
29.8

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

67.5
87.2
43.4

58.8
43.2
77.2

75.2
84.1

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

61.9
65.8
71.8

50.7a
5 1 . 6ab
74.1b

62.8
84.9

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only

58.6a
6 0 . 2ab
36.0b

84.4
85.4
61.7

93.2
102

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

69.5
45.9
97.4

32.9
64.6
68.8

37.8
70.5

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

47.1
54.2
47.2

82.5
102
31.2

79.4
89.6

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

110
80.4
83.6

93.8
78.7
70.9

51. 1
91.2

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

54.1
42.3
50.7

69.5
64.1
89.4

68.8
73.0

.

•M*—

mmmm

__

mmmm.

—_
control
winter
t r a i l s only
145
157
139
sludge
119
62.2
151
* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r a r e
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t the .10 l e v e l )

139
T a b l e 47. M e a n
the jack pine/

Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d
red pine study area from 1982-1984.

Species Treatment

sedge

bracken
fern

Season

r e d oak

Year
_______________________________________
1982
1983
1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

off

0,35
0.51
0.57

0.82
0.69

0.51
0.57
0.55

0 . 60a
0.89a
1 ,64b

0.69
0.71

__

1 .27a
1.35a
1.61b

1.43
1.23

—

—

0 .48
0.79
0.55
—
—
—

0.44
0.71
0.36

0.73
0.30
0.68
0.12
0.17
0 . 24
0.66
0.60
0.46

—

__

0.59
0.66
_

0.52
0.36
_w

0.49
0.84
__

0.34
0.16

0.09
0.29

0.27
0.26

Table

47

red
maple

*

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

0.16
0.34
0.18

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.38
0.40
0.56

0.61
0.74
0.81

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.12
0.18

0.31
0,31

—

__
0.44
0.35
______

0.38
0.69

■*—

va lue s w i t h i n a year and se a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w it h the s a me l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

0.26
0.14
are

141
T a b l e 48. M e a n
the jack pine/

Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d
red pi ne s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .

off

Year
Species Treatment

sedge

bracken
fern

red

oak

Season
1982

1 983

_
1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
---

0,79
0.90
0,75

-0.67
0.68

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.44
0.57
0.36

0.57
0,55
0.37

0.45
0,50

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—
'—

0.97
0,93
1.01

-0.81
0.84

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.55
0,42
0.51

0,44
0.69
0.41

—
0.39
0.49

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—
—

1,20
0.71
0.92

-0.88
1,03

control
s umme r
trails
only
sludge

0.75
0.76
0.91

0.67
0.68
0,37.

0,42
0.82

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.88
1.12

1,08
1.13

1.02
1.10

142
Table

red
maple

48

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

*

—

1.03
1.32
0.82

0.68
0.79
0.59

0.39
0.24
0.40

0.35
0.12

__

__

1.26
1.02

1 . 14
0.83

—
—

0.80
0.94

values within a year and season
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

with the same letter
t h e .10 l e v e l )

—

1.07
1.20
_

_

are

143
T a b l e 49. M e a n
the jack pine/

C u c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d
red pine s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 98 2 - 1 9 8 4 .

off

Year
Species Treatment

Season
1982

sedge

bracken
fern

red

oak

1983

1 9 84

2 . 96ab
3.41a
2.76b

2.69
1.80
2.70
3 . 23

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

^ to
—
—

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

3.62
3.80
2.93

3,34
1.97
3.28

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
——

2.51
2.73
2.06

2.94
1.47

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

3,3*1
3.29
3.92

2.55a
3.80b
3.51b

3.11
4.06

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—

1.27
1.51
1.40

1.26
1.10

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.40
1.79
1.94

1.80
1.97
1.91

2 . 72
1 .65

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

to **

3.50
2.78
2.51

3.72
2.96

3.04
4.27

to

_ _

. to

to .

144
Table

red
maple

49

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

„

—

1.31
0.85
1.17

1.47
0.94

1.63
1.69
1.45

1,88
1.83
1.65

2,03
1.82

7.62
6 . 25

__
6.76
6.98

__
7.65
5.75

* va l u e s within a year and season
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (a t

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
t h e *10 l e v e l )

are

145
T a b l e 50. M e a n
the jac k pine/

Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d
red pine s t u d y a r e a fr om 1 98 2 - 1 9 8 4 .

off

Year
Species

Treatment

Season
1982

sedge

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

bracken
fern

red

oak

—

—

1.12
1 .05
1.12

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

*

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.45
1.63
1.12

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

—
—

—. —
—

—
1 .62a
1.7 la b
1 . 18b
^

* •

1.31
1.69

1 983

1984

1.37
1.15
1.11

1.25
1.34

1 ,34a
1 .06ab
1.00b

_

1.25
0.89

0.80
1.17
1.22

1.32
1.29

1.33
1.67
1.31

1.40
1.26

1.28
1.16
1.03
1.26
1.47
1.40
0 . 76a
1 . 84ab
1.29b

_

—

* * *—

^

—

1. 32
1.42
_

_

1.31
1.65
_

_

1.54
1.37

14 6
Table

red
maple

*

50

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—
—

0.97
1.24
1.05

1.17
1.16
1.93
1.39

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.24
1.28
1,26

1.36
1.69
1.29

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

_—

1.37
1.24
1.63

1.02
1,33

va lue s w i t h i n a year and se a s o n
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (a t

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

—

—*

_ __

1.95
1.38
are

14 7
T a b l e 51. M e a n
the j a c k p i n e /

Z n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d
red pine s t u d y a r e a fr om 1 98 2 - 1 9 8 4 .

off

Year
Species

sedge

bracken
fern
-

red

oak

Treatment

Season
1982

1983

1984

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—■

37.5
26.9
32.7

36, 2
46. 2

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

63.1
73.9
57.8

59.0
77.5
51.1

56.5
66.0
55.3
51. 7

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

---• ----

43.3
45.8
56.4

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

74.0
67.4
99.2

88.0
65.7
52,1

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

_

_

_

_

_

61.2
85.6

28.5a
4 0 . 6a b
65.1b

57,3
43.8

67.3
64.2
69.8

62.1
89.1
84.4

81.2
69.9

297
250

193
270
302

_

w

-------

_

_

_

_

26 5
31 6

148
Table

red
maple

51

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—

—

control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

55.9
40.3
43.3

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

----

221
168

* va lues within a year and seas on
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

18.1a
37.6b
40.7b
58.5
75.2
50.8
207
162
174
with the same le tte r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

—

15.5
25.0
__

67.7
46.9
___

21 4
152
are

149
T a b l e 52.
the m i x e d

M e a n C d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
hardwoods study area from

forages collected
1982-1984.

off

Year
Species Treatment

Season
1983

19 84

0.23
0.17
0.39

0.30
0.47

0.68
0.87
0.57

0.58
0.57
0.72

_<-•
0.66
0.49

— .

0.29
0.48
0.48

•to—
0.58
0.51

0.32a
0.47a
0 . 16b

'0.35
0.59
0 . 37

__

0.20
0.35

——

0.32
0.45
0.20

0.31
0.29
to-—
0.69
0.49

1982
white
ash

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

hophorn- control
spring
t r a i l s only
be am
sludge
control
s ummer
■ t r a i l s only
sludge
sugar
maple

„
—
—

—

•—

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

- -

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.51
0.68
0.50

0.75a
0.59b
0.56b

0.49
0.44

•to—
0.53
0.64

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

—

__

0.62
0.59

150
Table

52

cont.

American c o n t r o l
spring
beech
t r a i l s only
sludge

*

„
—
—

0.45
0.26
0.22

0.53
0.36

control
s ummer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.65
0.78
0.41

0,31
0.65
0.39

0.34
0.68

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

-***

0 . 29
0.35

values within a year and season
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

0.96a
0.22b
0.32b
w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
the ,10 l e v e l )

__

0.19
0.36
are

151
T a b l e 53.
the m i x e d

M e a n C r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
hardwoods study area from

forages collected
1982-1984.

off

Year
Species Treatment

white
ash

hophornbe am

sugar
maple

Season
1982

1983

1984

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

mm-a

—

1.53
1.30
1.32

1.60
1.88

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.79
0.58
0.50

0.71
0.52
0.31

__
0,81
0.90

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

.—
—
—

0 . 46a
0 . 66ab
0.88b

0.86
0.49

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.36
0.71
0.32

0,35
0.31
0.22

0.48
0.47

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

-------

1.05
1.16
0.80

0.98
1.09

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.42
0.62
0.47

0.70
0.57
0.38

0.55
0.51

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

^ mm

1.46
1.37

__
2.00
1.72

2.47
1.31

----

152
Table

53

cont.

American c o n t r o l
spring
beech
t r a i l s only
sludge

*

—
—
—

0.96a
0.60b
0.59b

control
summer
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.28
0.26
0.31

0.55
0.41
0.42

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

M, _

1.17
1.80
1.93

2.70
1.43

va lu es with in a year and season
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
the .10 l e v e l )

—

0.68
0.66
_ _

0.32
0.45
_ _

2.65
2.01
ar e

153

T a b l e 54 . Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f o r a g e s c o l l e c t e d
t h e mi x e d h a r d w o o d s s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 4 .

off

Year
Species Treatment

Season
1982

white
ash

hophornbeant

sugar
maple

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

6.04
5.55
6.67

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

4.91
4.12
5.15

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

—

—
—

—_
—
—

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge

4.11
4.94
4.45

control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

10.6
7.40

1983

19 84

6 . 54a
8.96a
1 2 . 3b

4.99
5.89

7 . 55ab
6 . 62a
10,8b

8.04
5.77

3.58
3.62
3.75

4.18
3.66

4.74
4.72
4.50

5.33
5.09

2.12
3.95
2.03

3.72
2.67

5.39
8.14
5.15

4.28
5 . 27

__

——

__

10.8
6.57

7.58
8,09

15 4
Table

54

cont.

control
spring
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
s u mme r
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

5.16
5.12
3.46

3. 76a
6.47b

5.76
6.39
4.71

6.00
6.32
8.02

7.06
5.94

19.8
12.5

10.6
12.8
9.63

—
—

*■ v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t the .10 l e v e l )

—

__

15.6
13.6
are

155
'able 55.
;he m i x e d

M e a n Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
hardwoods study area from

pecies Treatment

rhite
ash

Season

control
spring
trails
only
sludge
control
trails
sludge

summer
only

:ophorn- c o n t r o l
spring
beam
trails
only
sludge
control
trails
sludge
ugar
maple

summer
only

control
spring
trails
only
sludge

forages collected
1982-1984.

off

Ye a r
______________________________________
1982
1983
1984
—
—
—

0,50
0.52
0.29

0.62
0.53

0.64
0.97
0.88

0.69
0.77
0.93

—
0.81
0.74

0.47
0.45
■ 0.15

0.32
0.38

0.72
0.67
1.04

0.48
0.98
0.74

—
1.36
0.94

—
—
—

0.78
0.63
0.75

—
0.46
0.23

—
—
■—

control
trails
sludge

summer
only

1.16
1.59
0.94

1.25a
1.03ab
0.81b

—
0.95
1.31

control
trails
sludge

winter
only

—
1.13
1.47

0.83
2.12
1.75

1.81
1.24

PLEASE NOTE:
This page n o t included w ith
original m aterial. Film ed as
received.

University M icrofilms International

157
T a b l e 56,
the m i x e d

M e a n Z n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
hardwoods study area from

forages collected
1982-1984.

off

Year
Species Treatment

white
ash

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

Season

spring

control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge
hophorn- co n tro l
spring
be am
t r a i l s only
sludge *
control
s umme r
t r a i l s only
sludge
sugar
maple

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

spring

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

s u mme r

control
t r a i l s only
sludge

winter

1982

1983

19 84

—
—
—

30.4a
42.4b
38.3b

27.6
17.2

74.3
50.0
49.3

61.8
98.6
81.6

53,7
84.0

'—

52.0
71.7
33.2

69.8
59.8

46.2
64.7
65.0

34.7 a
77.3 b
4 4 . 0 ab

50.5
67.7

—
--

20.7
17.2
22.5

41.1
37.6

49.0
41.4
69.5

79.3
63.2
68.7

88.4
59.8

—
148
159

211

196

206
156

158
Table

56

cone.

American c o n t r o l
spring
beech
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
summer
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
winter
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—

69.7
57.2
72.0

63.A
73.5
69.5

81.8
53.4
59.9

164
133

158
128
116

* va lu es w it h i n a year and season
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
the ,10 l e v e l )

41.6
38.7
__

70.9a
116b
__

195
171
ar e

15 9
T a b l e 57.
collected

M e a n Cd
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l
lack pine c l e a r c u t fro m

mammals tissues
1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 . _______

Year
Species

Treatment

whitefooted
mo u s e

control
sludge

*

13-lined
ground
squirrel

meadow
jumping
mo u s e

*

value

is

Tissue

liver

1980

1981

1982

0.17
0.21

0.16
0.25 .

0.26
0.21

control
sludge

kidney

0.28
0.49

0.40
0.39

0 . 24
0.35

control
sludge

muscle

0.03
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

bone

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

liver

0.38
0.39

0.35
0.42

0.45
0.53

control
sludge

kidney

0.84
0.51*

0.41
0.66

0.66
0.45

control
sludge

muscle

0,00
0,00

0.00
0,00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

bone

0.02
0.00

0.01
0.01

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

liver

control
sludge

kidney

control
sludge

muscle

control
sludge

bone

significantly

--------

-------------

_

_

---

different

(.10

0.08
0.04
0.12
0.10

—

—

—
__

0.00
0.00

—

0.00
0.00

—

level)

from

control

16 0
T a b l e 58.
collected

M ea n Cr
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s In s m a l l
lack pine c l e a r c u t fr om

mammals tissues
1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 . _______

Year
Species

Treatment

Tissue
1980

white­
footed
mo u s e

13 - l i n e d
ground
squirrel

meadow
jumping
mo u s e

*

value

Is

1981

1982

control
sludge

liver

0.50
0.35

0.73
0.46

0.44
0.40

control
sludge

kidney

0.73
0.87

0.96
1.29

0.79
0.71

control
sludge

muscle

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

bone
•

0.00
0.01

0.00
0,00

0.00
0.01

control
sludge

liver

0.77
0.88

0.70
0.86

1.26
0.60*

control
sludge

kidney

0.48
0.35

0.40
0.55

0.60
0.51

control
sludge

muscle

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

bone

0.02
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

liver

control
sludge

■

—
---

__

0.10
0.17*

---

kidney

0.23
0.27

-------

control
sludge

muscle

0.00
0.00

----

control
sludge

bone

significantly

different

0.00
0.00
(.10

level)

from

control

161
T a b l e 59.
collected

M e a n Cu
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in sm al l
lack pine c l e a r c u t fr om

mammals tissues
198 0 - 1 9 8 2._______

Year
Species

Treatment

white­
footed
mo u s e

-

1 3 —l i n e d
ground
squirrel

meadow
jumping
mo u s e

*

value

is

Tissue
1980

1981

1902

control
sludge

liver

17.0
8.81

10.5
7.70

8.34
16.4

control
sludge

kidney

2.51
2.74

3.91
1.58

3.98
2.92

control
sludge

muscle

0.95
1.65

1.83
0.79

1.72
1.37

control
sludge

bone

1.63
1.64

2.35
1.90

1.54
1.68

control
sludge

liver

3.56
4.38

7.79
6.90

8.17
3.45

control
sludge

kidney

7.53
4.27*

3.96
6.07

9.48
3.42

control
sludge

muscle

1.36
0.96

0.60
1.37*

1.12
1.69

control
sludge

bone

1.48
1.32

0.98
1.81

1.02
0.92

control
sludge

liver

control
sludge

kidney

control
sludge

muscle

control
sludge

bone

significantly

*

different

----

3.47
7.04*

mmmm
----

“—

2.38
4.27

-------

----

0.79
1.33

----

1.73
1.02
(.10

level)

from

control

162
T a b l e 60.
collected

Species

.

13 - l i n e d
ground
squirrel

meadow
jumping
mo u s e

value

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l
lack pine c l e a r c u t from

Treatment

white­
footed
mo u s e

*

M e a n Mi
o f f the

is

Tissue

mammals tissues
1 9 0 0 - 1 9 5 2._______

Year
__________________
1981
1980

19 82

control
sludge

liver

0.93
0.35

0.56
0.72

control
sludge

kidney

0.30
0.47

•0.67
0.31

0.37
0.22

control
sludge

muscle

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

bone

0,00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

liver

0.32
0.41

0.24
0.64

0.29
0.26

control
sludge

kidney

0.11
0.08

0.15
0.11

0.09
0.19

control
sludge

muscle

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

bone

0.01
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

control
sludge

liver

__

control
sludge

kidney

control
sludge

muscle

control
sludge

bone

significantly

—
—
—

_. n

—
__.
—

different

(.10

0 . 62
0.13*
0.05
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
level)

from

0.83
0.34*

__
—

—
—

—
—

—

control

163
T a b l e 61.
collected

Species

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
lack p i n e c l e a r c u t f r o m 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 2 . _______

Treatment

white­
footed
mous e

-

13 - l i n e d
ground
squirrel

meadow
jumping
mo us e

* value

M e a n Zn
o f f the

is

Tissue

Year
__________________
1980
981

1982

control
sludge

liver

57.6
60.7

57.8
47.0

44.6
78.9*

control
sludge

kidney

69.3
80.5

71.4
67.3

68.8
92.2

control
sludge

muscle

13.0
A . 52

9.32
19.7*

10.7
9.74

control
sludge

bone

50.0
49.3

72.9
75.1

66.0
65.0

control
sludge

liver

62.9
71.1

93.9
104

83.3
59.3

control
sludge

kidney

98.4
93.4

79.9
118

189
78.9

control
sludge

musele

4.60
9.58

8.33
8.61

18.1
6,04

control
sludge

bone

42.5
69.5

29.9
46.8

89.8
59.4

control
sludge

liver
—

48.5
52,0

control
sludge

kidney

control
sludge

muscle

control
sludge

bone

significantly

■

•

—
—

__
—

__.
—

different

(.10

62.4
91.7*
13.3
7.85
52.4
99.1
level)

from

—

—

-------

-------

control

16 4
T a b l e 62.
collected

M e a n Cd
o ff the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 4.

Year
Species

eastern
meadow
vole

13-lined
ground
squirrel

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

19 84

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.08
0.07
0.04

0.05
0.01
0.04

0 . 1 2n
0.05b
0.03b

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.47
0.31
0.31

0.22
0.41
0.42

0.62
0.30
0.26

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.77
0.49
0.64

-------

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.73
0.56
0.99

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.08
0.18
0.21

M

0. 0 0

0.00
0.00
MM

—
—

M—

_ _

-------

----

MM

MM

MM

MM

-

-

—
MM

——

MM

-

—

165
Table

62.

woodland
jumping
mo u s e

eastern
chipmunk

cont.

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.18a
0.07a
0.64b

0.22a
0.64b
0.47c

0.10
0.16
0.20

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.27a
0.22a
0.83b

0.57
0.49
0.30

0.54
0.37
0.39

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0,00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.02
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00
0.01

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.48
0.48
0.61

_ _

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.80
0.46
0.59

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0,00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.04
0.02
0.04

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
not sig n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (a t

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

_

__ ,

—

—

—

—

__
—

—

w i t h t h e s a me l e 1 1 g r o r e
th e .10 l e v e l )

16 6
T a b l e 63.
collected

M e a n Cr
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
aspen study area from 1982-1934.

Year
Species

eastern
meadow
vole
•

13 - l i n e d
ground
squirrel

Treatment

Tissue
19 82

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.34
1.42
1.51

1.75
3.74
1.13

1.24
1,81
1.32

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

10.6
23.3
13.5

16.9
29.8
9.93

21.9
9.83
27.6

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.51a
1.15b
1.63ab

1.76
3.15
1.56

1.18
1.70
2.17

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.54
0.88
0.85

0.36
0.27
1.07

0.60
0.83
0.64

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.22
0.78
0.24

....

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.27
0.48
0.06

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.04
0.00
0.00

__

_M

—

——

—:

-----

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.22
0.05
0.21

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

—
—

_
---------

_
—

-----

—

167
Table

63.

woodland
jumping
mo u s e

eastern
chipmunk

*

cont

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.82
0.44
0.34

0.69
0.73
0.45

0.27
0.20
0.52

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.51
0.72
0.15

0.34
0.67
0.71

0.75
0.33
0.56

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0,00
0.00 .

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.40
0.41
0.90

0.19
0.48
0.65

0.57
0.72
0.27

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.16
0.83
0.27

——
----

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.21
0.90
0.62

----

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.01
0.01
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.04
0.02
0.01

values wit hi n a year and sea s o n
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

—

——

----

——

---_

-------

——

M__

__

---——

---■*“

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

----

are

16 8
T a b l e 64,
collected

M e a n Cu
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 1 9 8 2 - 1 & 4.

Year
Species

eastern
meadow
vole

13 - l i n e d
ground
squirrel

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

17.4
9.55
22.2

23.9
11.3
29.6

7.13
25.1
16.4

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

28.8
12.5
25.5

22.5
33.2
17.2

26.2
30.2
19.7

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.96
0.61
1.67

1.17
0.72
0.80

1.27a
2.31b
1 .70b

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.33
3.46
4.69

3.12
2.70
3.99

2.43
3.87
3.02

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

3.45
7.53
4.27

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

3.96
6.07
9.22

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.30
1.07
1.75

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.88
2.05
1.15

■

-------

----

------•

-------

--------

-------

-------

__
— —

—
-------

wm wm

--------

--------

--------

—

16 9
Table

64.

woodland
jumping
mo u s e

eastern
chipmunk

*

cont.

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

13.1
6.33
19.6

11.7
12.3
15.4

7.42
11.6
21.8

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

10.8
13.4
25.9

15.3
21.5
9.28

29.0
36.2
28.5

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.36
3.60
3.42

5.42
4.97
2.57

5.05
3.71
5.40

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.16
3.57
4.60

2 .06a
5.34b
3 . 95a b

2.76
1.85
2.92

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

6.74
7.39
3.08

__
----

——

-------

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

7.50
8.19
3.96

——
-------

-------

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.44
0.73
0.86

___
----

— —

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.78
3.07
2.76

va l u e s wi t h i n a year and se a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

"
—
----

w i t h the s am e l e t t e r
the .10 l e v el )

mmmm
mm—

are

170
T a b l e 65.
collected

Species

eastern
meadow
vole

13-lined
ground
squirrel

M e a n Hi
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m 198 2-19<-4.

Year
__________________
1982
198 3

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.44
0.22
0.42

0.33
0.29
0.29

0.41
0.31
0.34

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.95
0.51
0.72

0.67
0,89
0.56

0.93
1.15
0.97

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01
0.00

0.00
0,00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.40
0.28
0.30

—
—

----

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.20
0.11
0.06

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.12
0.22

__
—
—

Treatment

Tissue

control
bone
t r a i l s only
* sludge

___

__

—

-------

——

__ ,

—

------_H

-------

171
Table

65.

woodland
jumping
mo u s e

'eastern
chipmunk

cont.

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.08
0.13
0.07

0.11
0.21
0.19

0.34a
0.12b
0.06b

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.13
0.18
0.22

0.18
0.25
0.37

0.30
0.26
0.17

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.02
0.00
0.01

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.01

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.04
0.08
0.15

__

__

—
--

—

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.03
0.13
0.09

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.04
0.00

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t

—

_ _
—

—

—

—
__

——

-----

_„

—_

—

—

w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
t h e . 10 l e v e l )

are

172
T a b l e 66.
collected

M e a n Zn
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s In s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
a s p e n s t u d y a r e a f r o m I S 2 - 1 9 4.

Year
Species

eastern
meadow
vole

13 - l i n e d
ground
squirrel

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

1 9 84

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

41.5
38.9
46.9

25.6
39.4
21.6

43.4
64.0
41.4

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

36.5
57.7
39.4

60.1
47.5
57.0

2 0 . 0a
3 9 . ab
67.4b

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

13.6
6.97
9.94

5.90
13.0
4.57

7.78
4.48
5.12

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

57.7
54,2
64.9

40.7
72.0
63.6

55.3
33.6
65.8

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

78.5
86.3
87.4

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

59.6a
95,9b
14 7 c

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

5.23
17.2
14.5

__

-

—

-

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

21.3
14.1
26.0

—

-

—

----

m m

M—

—

-------

_
_
_
_
_
_

M_

—

-

—

-

—

__

__

173
Table

66,

woodland
jumping
mo u s e

eastern
chipmunk

*

cont.

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

55.1
57.0
53.9

74.0a
35.1b
20.0b

56.2
44.4
24.8

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

40.6
34.9
23.4

43.5
32.4
24.8

30.4
53.2
47.7

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

7.35
14.1
9.84

10.2
13.5
6,49

7.08
6.81
6.97

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

28.7
28,7
23.9

38.3a
18.7b
39. 6ab

37.7
29.5
24.8

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

65.5
27.0
56.0

-----

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

40.5
18.9
90.8

——

_ _

-----

—

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

4.53
9.55
19.3

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

22.7
19.8
35.1

va lu es wi t h i n a year and s e a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

—

—

—

wmmm

-----

wi th the same le tte r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

__, __„

—

—
— .
“ —

are

17 4
T a b l e 67.
collected

M e a n Cd
off the

concentrations
oak stu d y a r e a

in s m a l l m a m m a l s
from 1982-1984.

tissues

Year
Species

white­
footed
mo u s e

*

Treatment

Tissue
19 82

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.13
0.09
0.18

0.16a
0.07b
0 . 14ab

0.12
0.09
0.13

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.16
0.21
0.25

0 . 21ab
0.38b
0.20a

0.16
0.14
0.25

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.02
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.08
0.03
0.03

0.01
0.00
0.01

0.02
0.01
0.01

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n wi t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t t h e . 10 l e v e l )
4

are

175
T a b l e 68.
collected

Mean Cr
o f f the

concentrations
oak study area

in s n a i l m a m m a l s
from 1982-1984,

tissues

Ye a r
Species

white­
footed
mous e

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.75
0,52
1.37

0.72
1.10
0.68

0.61
1.35
0.54

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.32
1.05
6.26

1 ,54a
2.86b
1 . 88ab

1.21
1.42
3.07

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.20
0.06
0.38

0.31
0.15
0.09

0.14
0.10
0.07

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t t h e . 10 l e v e l )

are

176
T a b l e 69.
collected

M e a n .Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
off the oak stu dy a re a

in s m a l l m a m m a l s
from 1982-1984.

tissues

Year
Species

white­
footed
mo u s e

*

Treatment

Tissue
19 82

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

15.4
18.0
12.1

20.0
10.8
17.5

17.0
20.9
11.4

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

10.5
26.0
17.4

11.5a
22.8b
8,62a

22.3
20.6
10.5

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.99
1.38
1.54

1.20
0.95
0.83

1.56
0.79
0.93

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.07
0.72
2.21

2.23
1.07
2.80

1.15
1.28
1.62

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t

w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
t h e . 10 l e v e l )

are

177

T a b l e 70.
collected

Mean Ni c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
o f f t h e oak s t u d y a r e a

i n s m a l l mammal s
from 1982-1984.

tissues

Year
Species

white­
footed
mo u s e

*

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.32
0.07
0.47

0.27
0.11
0.17

0.24
0.15
0.21

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.09
0.12
0.08

0.15
0.11
0.10

0.07
0.16
0.08

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

va l u e s within a year and sea s o n
n ot s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w i t h the s am e l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

are

178

T a b l e 71.
collected

Mean Zn c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
o f f th e oak s t u d y a r e a

i n s m a l l mammal s
f r o m 1982 - 1 9 8 4 .

tissues

Year
Species

white­
footed
mo u s e

*

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

38.A
79.6
44.2

52.5
77.9
64.4

64.8
57.2
57.8

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

35.5
53.0
29.8

24.8a
3 0 . 4ab
47.7b

39.5
34.9
26.6

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

17.4
21.9
13.7

30.9
15.6
19.7

17.7
21.2
18.8

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

78.5
74.3
90.8

77.9
98.4
80.2

68.8
114
85.5

values wi t h i n a year and se a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w i t h the s am e l e t t e r
the .10 l e v e l )

are

179

T a b l e 7 2 , Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
c o l l e c t e d o f f the jock p i n e / red
1982-1984.

i n s m a l l mammal s t i s s u e s
p i n e s t u d y a r e a from

Year
Species

Treatment

Tissue
1982

whitefooted
mo u s e

_ _

—

—

—

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

_ „

___

—

—

—

—

„ _

__

—

— -

—

—

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

*

„

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

eastern
chipmunk

1983

,__
—

—

—

—

_
—
—-

__
—
—

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

_ „

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

_ _

values wi t h i n a year and season
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

—
—

—
—

0,06
0.05
0.12

19 84
0.11
0.18
0.15
0.33
0.56
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—

0.30
0.26
0.41

—

0.01
0.00
0.00

—

0.00
0.00
0.00

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

_ _

-----

_ ^
——

are

18 0

T a b l e 7 3 . Mean Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
c o l l e c t e d o f f the j a c k p i n e / red
1982-1984.

i n s m a l l mammal s t i s s u e s
p in e s t u d y a r e a from

Year
Species

Treatment

Tissue
19 82

whitefooted
mo u s e

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

eastern
chipmunk

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

# values
not

—

—

—

--

—

—

______

—

—

—

—

_

u

„

__

—

—

—

—
—

—

______

—
—

______

—
—

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

within a year and season
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

1983

—

——

—
1.27
1.16
1.41
3.11
1.68
1.90

1984
0.74
0.50
1.21
1.54
1.41
2.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12a
0.08b
0.06b
------

------

0.00
0.00
0.00

——

0.12
0.11
0.08

——

wi th the s a m e l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

------

are

181

T a b l e 7 4 . Mean Cu c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
c o l l e c t e d o f f the jack p i n e / red
1982-1984 •

i n s m a l l mammal s t i s s u e s
p i n e s t u d y a r e a from

Year
Species

Treatment

Tissue
1982

white­
footed
mous e

eastern
chipmunk

„

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

19 83

—
—

—

—

•

——
_„

—

—

—

—
__

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
. sludge

—

—

—

—

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

—

—

—

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

__
—
—

__
—
—

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

* values within a year and season
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

—
— -

—

——

21.2
14.5
30.5
18.0
27.0
12.9

1984
10.8
19.3
17.2
16.2a
13.8b
10.9c
0.54
1.18
0.35
1.04
1.51
1.05
—
-----------

__
—------

0.30
0.76
0.80
1.41a
1.80b
1 . 62ab

w i t h the s a m e l e t t e r
the .10 l e v e l )

——
—“

are

182
T a b l e 75. M e a n Ni
c o l l e c t e d o f f the
1982-1984.

concentrations
j a c k p i n e / red

in s m a 11 m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
pine s t u dy ar ea from

Ye a r
Species

Treatment

Tissue
1982

white­
footed
mous e

*

eastern
chipmunk

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

—;
—

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—
—

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
—
—

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

*c o n tr o l
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

_,_

—

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

—

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

1983

—

—
—
—

—

—

_ _

—
-_„
—

—

1984
0.15
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0. 0. 0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.14a
0.25b
0 , 19a b

--—

0.09
0.15
0.07

M—
—
—

0.00
0.00
0.00

__

0.00
0.00
0.01

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t the .10 l e v e l )

—
—

——
are

18 3
T a b l e 76. M e a n Z n
c o l l e c t e d o ff the
1982-1984.

concentrations
jack pine/ red

in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
pine st u d y area from

Year
Species

Treatment

Tissue
1982

wh i t e footed
mo u s e

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge
control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

eastern
chipmun k

1984

19 83

—

—

—

—

—

—

40.2
30.5
30.8

__
—

— —

—

---

■

39.5a
22.6b
25.2b

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

—
.—

----

22.2
. 17.7
15.4

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

__

_
-----

56.3
30.7
53.4

—
—

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
——

60.0
53.4
36.9

__
-----

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

—
--

49.3
30.9
46.2

-----

__

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

—

1 2 . 9n
21.0b
28.9b

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

__
—
—

68.5
53.9
62.8

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t

w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
t h e . 10 l e v e l )

_

------- ■
are

184

T a b l e 77.
collected

Mean Cd c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s m a l l mammal s t i s s u e s
o f f t h e hardwoods s t u d y a r e a from 1982- 198 4.
Year

Species

white­
footed
mo u s e

eastern
chipmunk

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.27
0.70
0.48

0.30
0.23
0.35

0.29
0.34
0.23

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.13
0.29
0.28

0.22a
0.42b
0.54b

0.45
0.33
0.57

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.01
0.11
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.01
0.01

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.78
1.31
0.73

1.20a
0.70b
0.88b

1.18
0.80
0.96

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.79a
1.60b
1.73b

1.31
1.42
1.10

1.34
0.75
1.39

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0,06
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0,00

0.00
0.00
0.00

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t

w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
th e .10 l e v e l )

are

185
T a b l e 78.
collected

Species

white­
footed
mo u s e

-

eastern
chipmunk

M e a n Cr
o f f th e

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
hardwoods study area from 1982-1984.

Treatment

Tissue

Year
_______________________________
1982
1983
1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.25
0.93
0.69

0.49
0.53
0.59

0.46
0.79
0.30

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.13a
0 . 69a
8 . 6 4b

1.49
0.86
0.80

0.98
0.73
2.33

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.05
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.01
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.16
0.79
0.35

0.34
0.49
0.80

0.36
0.44
0.65

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.49
0.74
0.82

0.60
1 .28
0.47

0.71
0.63

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

1.89
0.58
0.60

1 .53
1.49
0.85

1.15
1.52
0.77

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0,00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

** v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

with the same letter
t h e .10 l e v e l )

are

1 86
T a b l e 79.
collected

M e a n Cu
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
hardwoods study area from 1982-1984.

Year
Species

wh i t e footed
mouse

eastern
chipmunk

Treatment

Tissue
198 2

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

19.4
13.4
7.39

17.0
16.0
9.25

6.53
9.41
15.9

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

15.1
15.0
20.6

12.5
19.2
18.4

7.50
18.4
15.0

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.98
1.04
0.42

0.74
0.93
0.86

1.22
0.51
0.81

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

3.71
1.35
2.01

2.05
3.73
2.41

3.28
3.34
2.59

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

6.22a
18.4b
7.39a

6.95
7.93
12.4

9.72
8.61
10.2

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

4.94
11.2
7.50

8 . 11a
13.9b
6.71a

6.37
7.91
9.17

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.73
0.62
0.30

0.68
1.26
0.51

0.93
0.36
0.45

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

2.64
1.07
0.96

2.22
2.02
1.41

2.67
1.06
1.90

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r and s e a s o n
not s ig n ific a n tly d if f e r e n t (at

w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
t h e .10 l e v e l )

are

187
T a b l e 80.
collected

M e a n Hi
off the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
hardwoods study area from 1982-1904.

Year
Species

white­
footed
mo u s e

eastern
chipmunk

*

Treatment

Tissue
1982

1983

1984

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.17
0.92
0.12

0.28
0.21
0.11

0.33
0.18
0.19

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.33
0.44
0.86

0.49
0.71
0.64

0.50
0.33
0.46

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.93
0.00

0.01
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.05
0.15
0.22

0 . 63a
0.27b
0.13b

0.53
0.46
0.31

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.03
0.11
0.10

0.09
0.34
0.14

0.16
0.26
0.19

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

values w i t h i n a year and se a s o n
not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (at

w i t h the s a me l e t t e r
t h e .1 0 l e v e l )

are

18 8
T a b l e 81.
collected

Me an Zn
o f f the

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in s m a l l m a m m a l s t i s s u e s
hardwoods study area from 1982-1984.

Year
Species

.w h ite ­
footed
mo u s e

*

eastern
chipmunk

Treatment

Tissue
198 2

1983

1934

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

36.5
75.3
38.8

48.2
40.3
45.5

31.3
39.3
35.6

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

57.5
33.6
42.8

61.5
73.3
62.4

60.7
58.0
41.4

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

8.76
14.1
11.8

8.02
16.4
34.6

13.5
31.9
20.0

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

71.3
45.2
49.6

50.7
92.9
30.7

33.6a
54.71
84.4b

control
liver
t r a i l s only
sludge

144
86.9
90.8

74.4
57.8
85.1

56.5
93. 5
77.9

control
kidney
t r a i l s only
sludge

69.6
81.8
52.2

68.8
82. 2
112

89.0
83.4
49.7

control
muscle
t r a i l s only
sludge

10.7
7.84
6.21

4.82
9.81
5.08

7.93
6.76
4.69

control
bone
t r a i l s only
sludge

36.7
27.6
64.2

41.1
19,9
37.7

27.0
45.6
43.8

* v a l u e s w i t h i n a y e a r a n d s e a s o n w i t h t h e s a me l e t t e r
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t t h e . 10 l e v e l )

are