↓ Skip to main content

Challenges to Oil Spill Assessment for Seabirds in the Deep Ocean

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, July 2017
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 (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Challenges to Oil Spill Assessment for Seabirds in the Deep Ocean
Published in
Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00244-016-0355-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Christopher Haney, Patrick G. R. Jodice, William A. Montevecchi, David C. Evers

Abstract

We synthesize impediments for evaluating effects to seabirds from open ocean hydrocarbon releases. Effects on seabirds from ship discharges, spills, and well blowouts often are poorly detected and monitored far from land. Regulatory regimes for ocean spills can result in monitoring efforts that are not entirely transparent. We illustrate how interdisciplinary technologies address deficits that hamper individual or population level assessments for seabirds, and we demonstrate where emerging technologies might be engaged to bridge gaps in oil spill monitoring. Although acute mortality from direct oil exposure poses the greatest risk to seabirds, other hazards from light-attraction, flaring, collisions, chronic pollution, and hydrocarbon inhalation around oil infrastructure also may induce bird mortality in the deep ocean.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Professor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 39%
Environmental Science 12 24%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,876,112
of 11,472,317 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#101
of 1,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,172
of 260,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#7
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,472,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 260,122 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.