MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163276687 · doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0528-7

Utilizing the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in ecological risk assessments of bioaccumulative contaminants

2008· article· en· W2163276687 on OpenAlexaff
Rita M. Seston, Matthew J. Zwiernik, Timothy B. Fredricks, Sarah J. Coefield, Dustin L. Tazelaar, David Wayne Hamman, John D. Paulson, John P. Giesy

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMichigan State UniversityDow Chemical Company
KeywordsForagingArdeaBiologyPopulationBiomonitoringEcologyBioaccumulationEcotoxicologyHeronZoologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selection of an appropriate species is a key element of effective ecological risk assessments (ERA), especially when site-specific field studies are to be employed. Great blue herons (GBH) possess several ideal characteristics of a receptor species for the assessment of bioaccumulative compounds in the environment, such as ease of study, high potential for exposure, widespread distribution, and territorial foraging behavior. Methodologies for assessing exposure and population health are described herein. As outlined, the collection of GBH eggs, GBH nestling blood, and adult GBH blood allows for the determination of contaminant concentrations in various GBH tissues, a top-down assessment, which can be done in conjunction with predicted dietary exposure, a bottom-up assessment, to support a multiple lines of evidence approach. Additionally, population parameters, such as productivity and survival, can also be measured to elucidate if the contaminant exposure may be causing population level effects. Over the course of two years, three GBH rookeries were monitored for productivity and nestling exposure. Nests were monitored from blinds and individually accessed at multiple time points to obtain measures of nestling health, band nestlings, and collect eggs and nestling plasma. Multiple nests could frequently be accessed by climbing one tree, resulting in minimal effort to obtain the necessary sample size. Additionally, 51 adult GBH, captured in their foraging areas, were banded, and provided a blood sample. With these samples, a statistical difference in tissue based exposure was identified between the reference and target area. Statistically significant differences were also identified between the upper and lower reaches of the target area, thereby identifying a range of doses geographically which could be correlated to specific measurement endpoints. The ability to identify a dose response greatly increases the ability of the dataset to determine causation, a key goal of such studies. Overall, the use of the described methods allowed for the collection of a statistically sufficient and ecologically relevant dataset with reasonable effort and minimal impact on GBH.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Monitoring and AssessmentSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207