↓ Skip to main content

Fatal Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning in Kittlitz's Murrelet ( Brachyramphus brevirostris ) Nestlings, Alaska, USA

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Wildlife Diseases, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Fatal Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning in Kittlitz's Murrelet ( Brachyramphus brevirostris ) Nestlings, Alaska, USA
Published in
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, October 2014
DOI 10.7589/2013-11-296
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Shearn-Bochsler, Ellen W. Lance, Robin Corcoran, John Piatt, Barbara Bodenstein, Elizabeth Frame, James Lawonn

Abstract

Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is an acute toxic illness in humans resulting from ingestion of shellfish contaminated with a suite of neurotoxins (saxitoxins) produced by marine dinoflagellates, most commonly in the genus Alexandrium. Poisoning also has been sporadically suspected and, less often, documented in marine wildlife, often in association with an outbreak in humans. Kittlitz's Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) is a small, rare seabird of the Northern Pacific with a declining population. From 2008 to 2012, as part of a breeding ecology study, multiple Kittlitz's Murrelet nests on Kodiak Island, Alaska, were monitored by remote cameras. During the 2011 and 2012 breeding seasons, nestlings from several sites died during mild weather conditions. Remote camera observations revealed that the nestlings died shortly after consuming sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), a fish species known to biomagnify saxitoxin. High levels of saxitoxin were subsequently documented in crop content in 87% of nestling carcasses. Marine bird deaths from PSP may be underreported.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 31%
Other 11 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 31%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Environmental Science 5 10%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 6 13%

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 05 January 2015.
All research outputs
#13,929,669
of 15,794,406 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#385
of 414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,080
of 305,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,794,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 414 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 305,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.