↓ Skip to main content

Volcanic mercury in Pinus canariensis

Overview of attention for article published in Naturwissenschaften, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Volcanic mercury in Pinus canariensis
Published in
Naturwissenschaften, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00114-013-1070-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

José Antonio Rodríguez Martín, Nikos Nanos, José Carlos Miranda, Gregoria Carbonell, Luis Gil

Abstract

Mercury (Hg) is a toxic element that is emitted to the atmosphere by both human activities and natural processes. Volcanic emissions are considered a natural source of mercury in the environment. In some cases, tree ring records taken close to volcanoes and their relation to volcanic activity over time are contradictory. In 1949, the Hoyo Negro volcano (La Palma-Canary Islands) produced significant pyroclastic flows that damaged the nearby stand of Pinus canariensis. Recently, 60 years after the eruption, we assessed mercury concentrations in the stem of a pine which survived volcano formation, located at a distance of 50 m from the crater. We show that Hg content in a wound caused by pyroclastic impacts (22.3 μg kg(-1)) is an order of magnitude higher than the Hg concentrations measured in the xylem before and after the eruption (2.3 μg kg(-1)). Thus, mercury emissions originating from the eruption remained only as a mark-in pyroclastic wounds-and can be considered a sporadic and very high mercury input that did not affect the overall Hg input in the xylem. In addition, mercury contents recorded in the phloem (9.5 μg kg(-1)) and bark (6.0 μg kg(-1)) suggest that mercury shifts towards non-living tissues of the pine, an aspect that can be related to detoxification in volcanism-adapted species.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Other 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 31%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 3 9%

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 17 July 2013.
All research outputs
#7,820,352
of 12,462,651 outputs
Outputs from Naturwissenschaften
#1,165
of 1,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,987
of 121,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Naturwissenschaften
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,462,651 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 121,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.