↓ Skip to main content

Plastic ingestion by Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes): Implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 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
Plastic ingestion by Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes): Implications for fledgling body condition and the accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals
Published in
Environmental Pollution, April 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L. Lavers, Alexander L. Bond, Ian Hutton

Abstract

To provide much needed quantitative data on the lethal and sublethal effects of plastic pollution on marine wildlife, we sampled breast feathers and stomach contents from Flesh-footed Shearwater (Puffinus carneipes) fledglings in eastern Australia. Birds with high levels of ingested plastic exhibited reduced body condition and increased contaminant load (p < 0.05). More than 60% of fledglings exceed international targets for plastic ingestion by seabirds, with 16% of fledglings failing these targets after a single feeding (range: 0.13-3.21 g of plastic/feeding). As top predators, seabirds are considered sentinels of the marine environment. The amount of plastic ingested and corresponding damage to Flesh-footed Shearwater fledglings is the highest reported for any marine vertebrate, suggesting the condition of the Australian marine environment is poor. These findings help explain the ongoing decline of this species and are worrying in light of increasing levels of plastic pollution in our oceans.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Chile 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 211 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 20%
Student > Master 44 20%
Student > Bachelor 44 20%
Unspecified 25 11%
Researcher 25 11%
Other 41 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 34%
Environmental Science 74 33%
Unspecified 34 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Other 21 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 03 November 2018.
All research outputs
#254,158
of 13,351,241 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Pollution
#84
of 5,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,677
of 243,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Pollution
#2
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,351,241 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 5,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 243,724 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 98% 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 96% of its contemporaries.