↓ Skip to main content

ANOMALOUS BIOACCUMULATION OF LEAD IN THE EARTHWORM EISENOIDES LONNBERGI (MICHAELSEN)

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
2 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
ANOMALOUS BIOACCUMULATION OF LEAD IN THE EARTHWORM EISENOIDES LONNBERGI (MICHAELSEN)
Published in
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/etc.4031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beyer, W. Nelson, Codling, Eton E., Rutzke, Michael A., W. Nelson Beyer, Eton E. Codling, Michael A. Rutzke

Abstract

Lead concentrations in soil organisms are usually well below those in the associated soil and tend to decrease with each higher trophic level in a food chain. Earthworms of the species Eisenoides lonnbergi provide an exception to this observation, accumulating very high concentrations of lead from acidic soils. Earthworms belonging to this species were collected from strongly to extremely acidic soils at 16 sites on a wildlife refuge in Maryland, USA. A lead concentration as high as 766 mg/kg, dry weight, was detected in depurated E. lonnbergi collected from soil containing only 17 mg/kg of lead. Concentration factors (ratio of lead concentration in earthworms to lead concentration in soil, dry weights) were highly variable at the sites, from 1.0 to 83. As suggested previously by M. Ireland and J. Morgan, lead absorption by earthworms is enhanced in low calcium soils. The anomalously high concentrations of lead found in E. lonnbergi are more closely correlated with the uptake of calcium from acidic soils than with bioaccessibility of soil lead. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 50%
Student > Master 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,152,101
of 12,680,099 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry
#2,310
of 3,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,801
of 315,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry
#40
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,680,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,710 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 315,053 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.