420 



Himiiin Influences— Old Livinii Resources 



Table. Bird species studies that eitlier did (yes) or did not (no) yield evidence that acidic deposi- 

 tion affected the birds (modified from Longcore el af 1943). 



Ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris) 

 Easlern kingbird {Tyranr\us tyrannus) 

 Tree swallow ( Tachycinela bicolor) 



'Beneficial effect 



"Evidence of both an effect and no effect 



For further information: 



R. Kent Schreiber 



National Biological Service 



Leetown Science Center 



IVOOLeetown Rd. 

 Keameysville. WV 25430 



require both aquatic and terrestrial environ- 

 ments, are perhaps most at risk. For example, in 

 the acid-sensitive areas of eastern Canada, 16 of 

 the 17 amphibian species have more than 50% 

 of their ranges affected by acidic deposition 

 (Clark 1992). Monitoring amphibian popula- 

 tions could provide a biological indication of 

 changes in acid deposition (Freda et al. 1991 ). 



Forest damage attributed to acid deposition, 

 such as the maple diehack. can change the bio- 

 mass of invertebrates available to birds. Species 

 such as the red-eyed vireo {Vireo olivaceiis) and 

 least flycatcher (Empkionax nilniniiis). which 

 forage in the overstory. may have fewer prey 

 because of habitat loss. Other species, though, 

 including the wood thrush (Hylocichki 

 mustelina.) and ovenbird (Seiunis aurocapilliis), 

 which are associated with shrubs and ground- 

 feeding, may benefit from an increased biomass 

 of invertebrates in their foraging areas 

 (DesGranges 1987). Such effects could result in 

 changes in the ecosystem; however, little direct 

 evidence of population-level changes is avail- 

 able. 



Future Conditions 



Legislation to reduce emissions that form 

 acid rain has been enacted in both the United 

 States and Canada. There is evidence that acidic 

 deposition in some areas has started to decline 

 and that water quality has improved (Gunn and 

 Keller 1990). Monitoring over a decade at 81 

 selected sites in the Northeast and upper 

 Midwest has shown that most of the lakes and 

 streams there have decreased in sulfate levels, 

 coinciding with the general decrease (about 

 11%) in national einissions of sulfur dioxides 

 (NAPAP 1993). Results from modeling the 

 effects of 30 years of emission controls (i.e., 

 1980 to 2010) on 2,500 affected lakes in the 

 Adirondacks suggest improvements will occur 

 in water chemistry and tlsh habitat in up to 150 

 lakes (Rubin et al. 1992). 



Control measures take time to implement, 

 and it is too early to determine their overall eco- 

 logical effects. Episodes of acidification contin- 

 ue to adversely affect fish populations and 

 invertebrates. To prevent loss of fisheries and 

 aquatic biota in some severely affected locali- 

 ties, limestone, a neutralizing agent, is being 

 applied to reduce acidity levels fOlem 1991 ). It 

 is important to continue monitoring the status of 

 species and populations in sensitive areas to 

 evaluate the effect of emission controls and to 

 ensure healthy ecosystems. 



References 



Baker. J. P.. W.J. Warren-Hicks, J. Gallagher, and S.W. 

 Christensen. 1993. Fish population losses from 

 Adirondack lakes: the role of surface water acidity and 

 acidification. Water Resour. Res. 29:861-874. 



Carline. R.F., W.E. Sharpe. and C.J. Gagen. 1992. Changes 

 in fish communities and trout management in response to 

 acidification of streams in Pennsylvania. Fisheries 17:33- 

 38. 



Clark. K.L. 1992. Monitonng the effects of acidic deposi- 

 tion on amphibian populations in Canada. Occasional 

 Papers of the Canadian Wildlife Service 76:63-66. 



Cosby. B.J., PF Ryan, JR. Webb, G.M. Homberger. and 

 J.N. Galloway. 1991. Mountains of western Virginia. 

 Pages 297-318 in D.E. Charles, ed. Acidic deposition and 

 aquatic ecosystems. Springer- Verlag. New York. 



DesGranges. J.-L. 1987. Forest birds as biological indica- 

 tors of the progression of maple dieback in Quebec. 

 Pages 249-257 in A.W. Diamond and FC. Fillion, eds. 

 The value of birds. International Council for Bird 

 Preservation Tech. Publ. 6. Cambndge. England. 



Driscoll. C.T., R.M. Newton, C.P Gubala. J.P Baker, and 

 S.W. Christensen. 1991. Adirondack Mountains. Pages 

 133-202 in D.E. Charles, ed. Acidic deposition and 

 aquatic ecosystems. Springer- Veriag. New York. 



Freda. J.. W.J. Sadinski. and W.A. Dunson. 1991. Long- 

 term monitoring of amphibian populations with respect 

 to the effects of acidic deposition. Water. Air. and Soil 

 Pollution 55:445-462 



Gunn. J.M.. and W. Keller. 1990. Biological recovery of an 

 acid lake after reductions in industrial emissions of sul- 

 phur. Nature 345:431-433. 



Irving. P.M.. ed. 1991. Acidic deposition: state of science 

 and technology. National Acid Precipitation Assessment 

 Program. Washington. DC. 265 pp. 



Longcore. J.R.. H. B^oyd. R.T Brooks, G.M. Haramis. D.K. 

 McNicol, J.R. Newman. K.A. Smith, and F. Steams. 

 1993. Acidic depositions: effects on wildlife and habitats. 

 Wildlife Society Tech. Rev. 93-1. 42 pp. 



NAPAP 1993. 1992 report to Congress. National Acid 

 Precipitation Assessment Program. Office of the 

 Director. Washington. DC. 130 pp. 



Olem. H. 1991. Liming acidic surface waters. Lewis 

 Publishers. Chelsea, MI. 331 pp. 



Rubin, E.S., M.J. Small, C.N. Bloyd, and M. Henrion. 1992. 

 Integrated assessment of acid-deposition effects on lake 

 acidification. Journal of Environmental Engineering 

 118:120-134. 



Schreiber. R.K.. and J.R. Newman. 1988. Acid precipitation 

 effects on forest habitats: implications for wildlife. 

 Conservation Biology 2:249-259. 



