↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying Differences in Responses of Aquatic Insects to Trace Metal Exposure in Field Studies and Short-Term Stream Mesocosm Experiments

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science & Technology, March 2018
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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Quantifying Differences in Responses of Aquatic Insects to Trace Metal Exposure in Field Studies and Short-Term Stream Mesocosm Experiments
Published in
Environmental Science & Technology, March 2018
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.7b06628
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuichi Iwasaki, Travis S. Schmidt, William H. Clements

Abstract

Characterizing macroinvertebrate taxa as either sensitive or tolerant is of critical importance for investigating impacts of anthropogenic stressors in aquatic ecosystems and for inferring causality. However, our understanding of relative sensitivity of aquatic insects to metals in the field and under controlled conditions in the laboratory or mesocosm experiments is limited. In this study, we compared the response of 16 lotic macroinvertebrate families to metals in short-term (10-day) stream mesocosm experiments and in a spatially extensive field study of 154 Colorado streams. Comparisons of field and mesocosm-derived EC20 (effect concentration of 20%) values showed that aquatic insects were generally more sensitive to metals in the field. Although the ranked sensitivity to metals was similar for many families, we observed large differences between field and mesocosm responses for some groups (e.g., Baetidae and Heptageniidae). These differences most likely resulted from the inability of short-term experiments to account for factors such as dietary exposure to metals, rapid recolonization in the field, and effects of metals on sensitive life stages. Understanding mechanisms responsible for differences among field, mesocosm, and laboratory approaches would improve our ability to predict contaminant effects and establish ecologically meaningful water-quality criteria.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Researcher 5 17%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 14 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 28%
Chemistry 2 7%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,276,787
of 21,172,126 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#4,037
of 17,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,205
of 298,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#103
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,172,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 298,098 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.