↓ Skip to main content

Mercury bioaccumulation in estuarine wetland fishes: Evaluating habitats and risk to coastal wildlife

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Pollution, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mercury bioaccumulation in estuarine wetland fishes: Evaluating habitats and risk to coastal wildlife
Published in
Environmental Pollution, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Collin A. Eagles-Smith, Joshua T. Ackerman

Abstract

Estuaries are globally important areas for methylmercury bioaccumulation because of high methylmercury production rates and use by fish and wildlife. We measured total mercury (THg) concentrations in ten fish species from 32 wetland and open bay sites in San Francisco Bay Estuary (2005-2008). Fish THg concentrations (μg/g dry weight ± standard error) differed by up to 7.4× among estuary habitats. Concentrations were lowest in open bay (0.17 ± 0.02) and tidal wetlands (0.42 ± 0.02), and highest in managed seasonal saline wetlands (1.27 ± 0.05) and decommissioned high salinity salt ponds (1.14 ± 0.07). Mercury also differed among fishes, with Mississippi silversides (0.87 ± 0.03) having the highest and longjaw mudsuckers (0.37 ± 0.01) the lowest concentrations. Overall, 26% and 12% of fish exceeded toxicity benchmarks for fish (0.20 μg/g wet weight) and piscivorous bird (0.30 μg/g wet weight) health, respectively. Our results suggest that despite managed wetlands' limited abundance within estuaries, they may be disproportionately important habitats of Hg risk to coastal wildlife.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 24 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 28%
Chemistry 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 May 2021.
All research outputs
#5,527,395
of 25,663,438 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Pollution
#2,130
of 13,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,403
of 241,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Pollution
#12
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,663,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 241,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.