↓ Skip to main content

A Pilot Study Testing a Natural and a Synthetic Molluscicide for Controlling Invasive Apple Snails (Pomacea maculata)

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
A Pilot Study Testing a Natural and a Synthetic Molluscicide for Controlling Invasive Apple Snails (Pomacea maculata)
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00128-015-1709-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather M. Olivier, Jill A. Jenkins, Mark Berhow, Jacoby Carter

Abstract

Pomacea maculata (formerly P. insularum), an apple snail native to South America, was discovered in Louisiana in 2008. These snails strip vegetation, reproduce at tremendous rates, and have reduced rice production and caused ecosystem changes in Asia. In this pilot study snails were exposed to two molluscicides, a tea (Camellia sinensis) seed derivative (TSD) or niclosamide monohydrate (Pestanal(®), 2',5-dichloro-4'-nitrosalicylanilide, CAS #73360-56-2). Mortality was recorded after exposure to high or low concentrations (0.03 and 0.015 g/L for TSD, 1.3 and 0.13 mg/L for niclosamide). The TSD induced 100 % mortality at both concentrations. Niclosamide caused 100 % and 17 % mortality at high and low concentrations respectively. These molluscicides were also tested on potential biocontrol agents, the red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) and redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus). No crayfish mortalities occurred at either concentration for either chemical, but sunfish experienced 100 % mortality with TSD (0.03 g/L), and 21 % mortality with niclosamide (0.13 mg/L).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 26%
Student > Master 5 19%
Other 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 15%
Environmental Science 3 11%
Computer Science 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 26%

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 01 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,828,550
of 19,030,380 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#2,879
of 3,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#319,241
of 385,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#22
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,030,380 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 3,901 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. 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 385,413 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 58 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.