| Title |
Body burdens of heavy metals in Lake Michigan wetland turtles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10661-016-5118-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dayna L. Smith, Matthew J. Cooper, Jessica M. Kosiara, Gary A. Lamberti |
| Abstract |
Tissue heavy metal concentrations in painted (Chrysemys picta) and snapping (Chelydra serpentina) turtles from Lake Michigan coastal wetlands were analyzed to determine (1) whether turtles accumulated heavy metals, (2) if tissue metal concentrations were related to environmental metal concentrations, and (3) the potential for non-lethal sampling techniques to be used for monitoring heavy metal body burdens in freshwater turtles. Muscle, liver, shell, and claw samples were collected from painted and snapping turtles and analyzed for cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, and zinc. Turtle tissues had measurable quantities of all eight metals analyzed. Statistically significant correlations between tissue metal concentrations and sediment metal concentrations were found for a subset of metals. Metals were generally found in higher concentrations in the larger snapping turtles than in painted turtles. In addition, non-lethal samples of shell and claw were found to be possible alternatives to lethal liver and muscle samples for some metals. Human consumption of snapping turtles presents potential health risks if turtles are harvested from contaminated areas. Overall, our results suggest that turtles could be a valuable component of contaminant monitoring programs for wetland ecosystems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 9 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 25 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 13 June 2016.
All research outputs
#477,568
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#14
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,296
of 402,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#1
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 402,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.