↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a Non-lethal Biopsy Punch Monitoring Program for Mercury in Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieu Lacepède, from the Eleven Point River, Missouri

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Implementation of a Non-lethal Biopsy Punch Monitoring Program for Mercury in Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieu Lacepède, from the Eleven Point River, Missouri
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00128-013-1145-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. R. Ackerson, M. J. McKee, C. J. Schmitt, W. G. Brumbaugh

Abstract

A non-lethal biopsy method for monitoring mercury (Hg) concentrations in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu; smallmouth) from the Eleven Point River in southern Missouri USA was evaluated. A biopsy punch was used to remove a muscle tissue plug from the area immediately below the anterior dorsal fin of 31 smallmouth. An additional 35 smallmouth (controls) were held identically except that no tissue plug was removed. After sampling, all fish were held in a concrete hatchery raceway for 6 weeks. Mean survival at the end of the holding period was 97 % for both groups. Smallmouth length, weight and Fulton's condition factor at the end of the holding period were also similar between plugged and non-plugged controls, indicating that the biopsy procedure had minimal impact on growth under these conditions. Tissue plug Hg concentrations were similar to smallmouth Hg data obtained in previous years by removing the entire fillet for analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 47%
Environmental Science 5 33%
Unspecified 2 13%
Chemistry 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 January 2014.
All research outputs
#6,411,700
of 12,226,546 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#1,390
of 2,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,246
of 146,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,226,546 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,551 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 146,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.