↓ Skip to main content

Dietary mercury exposure to endangered California Clapper Rails in San Francisco Bay

Overview of attention for article published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Dietary mercury exposure to endangered California Clapper Rails in San Francisco Bay
Published in
Marine Pollution Bulletin, September 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.07.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael L. Casazza, Mark A. Ricca, Cory T. Overton, John Y. Takekawa, Angela M. Merritt, Joshua T. Ackerman

Abstract

California Clapper Rails (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) are an endangered waterbird that forage in tidal-marsh habitats that pose risks from mercury exposure. We analyzed total mercury (Hg) in six macro-invertebrate and one fish species representing Clapper Rail diets from four tidal-marshes in San Francisco Bay, California. Mercury concentrations among individual taxa ranged from lowest at Colma Creek (mean range: 0.09-0.2μg/gdw) to highest at Cogswell (0.2-0.7), Laumeister (0.2-0.9) and Arrowhead Marshes (0.3-1.9). These spatial patterns for Hg matched patterns reported previously in Clapper Rail blood from the same four marshes. Over 25% of eastern mudsnails (Ilyanassa obsolete) and staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) exceeded dietary Hg concentrations (ww) often associated with avian reproductive impairment. Our results indicate that Hg concentrations vary considerably among tidal-marshes and diet taxa, and Hg concentrations of prey may provide an appropriate proxy for relative exposure risk for Clapper Rails.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 20%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 45%
Unspecified 5 25%
Environmental Science 3 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%

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 15 August 2014.
All research outputs
#6,449,838
of 12,018,697 outputs
Outputs from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#1,872
of 4,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,787
of 195,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#38
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,018,697 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 195,415 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 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.