↓ Skip to main content

Mercury in the Great Lakes region: bioaccumulation, spatiotemporal patterns, ecological risks, and policy

Overview of attention for article published in Ecotoxicology, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Mercury in the Great Lakes region: bioaccumulation, spatiotemporal patterns, ecological risks, and policy
Published in
Ecotoxicology, September 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10646-011-0784-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

David C. Evers, James G. Wiener, Niladri Basu, R. A. Bodaly, Heather A. Morrison, Kathryn A. Williams

Abstract

This special issue examines bioaccumulation and risks of methylmercury in food webs, fish and wildlife in the Laurentian Great Lakes region of North America, and explores mercury policy in the region and elsewhere in the United States and Canada. A total of 35 papers emanated from a bi-national synthesis of multi-media data from monitoring programs and research investigations on mercury in aquatic and terrestrial biota, a 3-year effort involving more than 170 scientists and decision-makers from 55 different universities, non-governmental organizations, and governmental agencies. Over 290,000 fish mercury data points were compiled from monitoring programs and research investigations. The findings from this scientific synthesis indicate that (1) mercury remains a pollutant of major concern in the Great Lakes region, (2) that the scope and intensity of the problem is greater than previously recognized and (3) that after decades of declining mercury levels in fish and wildlife concentrations are now increasing in some species and areas. While the reasons behind these shifting trends require further study, they also underscore the need to identify information gaps and expand monitoring efforts to better track progress. This will be particularly important as new pollution prevention measures are implemented, as global sources increase, and as the region faces changing environmental conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 6%
Canada 2 2%
Russia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 105 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 37 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 24%
Chemistry 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 19 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2011.
All research outputs
#13,355,173
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#482
of 1,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,891
of 125,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,469 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 125,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.