Back to all available

Assessment of heavy metal accumulation in raptors: A dual approach using empirical data and meta-analysis

conservation-biology
environmental-sciences
zoology
ecotoxicology
environmental-contamination-and-remediation

Abstract

Background. Heavy metal accumulation in raptors is a crucial indicator of environmental pollution, influenced by multiple environmental and physiological factors.

Methods. This study investigates the concentrations of lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), selenium (Se), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and arsenic (As) in the liver, kidney, heart, and bone tissues of raptors from the Van-Hakkari region, Türkiye, to assess contamination levels and potential ecological risks. A total of 13 samples from 10 raptor species were analyzed through systematic sampling and chemical analysis. Despite a limited sample size due to logistical and ethical constraints associated with accessing tissue samples from protected and rare raptor species, the study incorporates a comparative assessment with findings from previous studies examining similar tissues and species. This comparative approach enhances the scientific value of the dataset by situating the results within a broader ecological and geographical context.

Results. The results revealed significant Pb accumulation, particularly in bone tissues, with Accipiter nisus showing severe contamination (91.03 µg.g⁻¹) and Bubo bubo exhibiting clinical toxicity levels (8.13 µg.g⁻¹). Pearson correlation analysis indicated strong inter-organ relationships, such as a positive correlation between Pb levels in the liver and heart (r = 0.88, p < 0.001), suggesting systemic metal transport. Selenium levels also showed high correlations between the heart, kidney, and liver, implying homeostatic regulation.

Discussion. Comparative analysis with European studies highlighted regional disparities in Pb accumulation, reflecting differences in environmental regulations. Pb levels in the liver of A. nisus were lower than in Poland and Spain but higher than in Denmark, where lead ammunition is banned. While Zn and Cu remained within acceptable thresholds, elevated Pb levels in bone tissues raise concerns about bioaccumulation and its ecological consequences. These findings emphasize the need for stricter regulations on lead ammunition and pollution control to mitigate risks.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].