↓ Skip to main content

Reprint of: Overview of avian toxicity studies for the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Ecotoxicology & Environmental Safety, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Reprint of: Overview of avian toxicity studies for the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment
Published in
Ecotoxicology & Environmental Safety, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.05.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

S.J. Bursian, C.R. Alexander, D. Cacela, F.L. Cunningham, K.M. Dean, B.S. Dorr, C.K. Ellis, C.A. Godard-Codding, C.G. Guglielmo, K.C. Hanson-Dorr, K.E. Harr, K.A. Healy, M.J. Hooper, K.E. Horak, J.P. Isanhart, L.V. Kennedy, J.E. Link, I. Maggini, J.K. Moye, C.R. Perez, C.A. Pritsos, S.A. Shriner, K.A. Trust, P.L. Tuttle

Abstract

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 establishes liability for injuries to natural resources because of the release or threat of release of oil. Assessment of injury to natural resources resulting from an oil spill and development and implementation of a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of natural resources to compensate for those injuries is accomplished through the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. The NRDA process began within a week of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which occurred on April 20, 2010. During the spill, more than 8500 dead and impaired birds representing at least 93 avian species were collected. In addition, there were more than 3500 birds observed to be visibly oiled. While information in the literature at the time helped to identify some of the effects of oil on birds, it was not sufficient to fully characterize the nature and extent of the injuries to the thousands of live oiled birds, or to quantify those injuries in terms of effects on bird viability. As a result, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed various assessment activities to inform NRDA injury determination and quantification analyses associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including avian toxicity studies. The goal of these studies was to evaluate the effects of oral exposure to 1-20ml of artificially weathered Mississippi Canyon 252 oil kg bw(-1) day(-1) from one to 28 days or one to five applications of oil to 20% of the bird's surface area. It was thought that these exposure levels would not result in immediate or short-term mortality but might result in physiological effects that ultimately could affect avian survival, reproduction and health. These studies included oral dosing studies, an external dosing study, metabolic and flight performance studies and field-based flight studies. Results of these studies indicated changes in hematologic endpoints including formation of Heinz bodies and changes in cell counts. There were also effects on multiple organ systems, cardiac function and oxidative status. External oiling affected flight patterns and time spent during flight tasks indicating that migration may be affected by short-term repeated exposure to oil. Feather damage also resulted in increased heat loss and energetic demands. The papers in this special issue indicate that the combined effects of oil toxicity and feather effects in avian species, even in the case of relatively light oiling, can significantly affect the overall health of birds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 27%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 12 36%
Environmental Science 8 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 24%
Engineering 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#9,761,162
of 12,211,783 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology & Environmental Safety
#1,284
of 2,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,867
of 270,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology & Environmental Safety
#36
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,211,783 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,756 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 270,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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 53% of its contemporaries.