↓ Skip to main content

Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
29 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
392 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier
Published in
Nature Communications, June 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-04421-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brice Loose, Alberto C. Naveira Garabato, Peter Schlosser, William J. Jenkins, David Vaughan, Karen J. Heywood

Abstract

Tectonic landforms reveal that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) lies atop a major volcanic rift system. However, identifying subglacial volcanism is challenging. Here we show geochemical evidence of a volcanic heat source upstream of the fast-melting Pine Island Ice Shelf, documented by seawater helium isotope ratios at the front of the Ice Shelf cavity. The localization of mantle helium to glacial meltwater reveals that volcanic heat induces melt beneath the grounded glacier and feeds the subglacial hydrological network crossing the grounding line. The observed transport of mantle helium out of the Ice Shelf cavity indicates that volcanic heat is supplied to the grounded glacier at a rate of ~ 2500 ± 1700 MW, which is ca. half as large as the active Grimsvötn volcano on Iceland. Our finding of a substantial volcanic heat source beneath a major WAIS glacier highlights the need to understand subglacial volcanism, its hydrologic interaction with the marine margins, and its potential role in the future stability of the WAIS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 392 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Other 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 18 58%
Unspecified 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 514. 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 17 May 2019.
All research outputs
#14,374
of 12,987,043 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#229
of 22,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#801
of 268,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#4
of 601 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,987,043 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 268,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 601 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.