Temporal trends of mercury in Arctic biota: 10 more years of progress in Arctic monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal trend analysis of (total) mercury (THg) concentrations in Arctic biota were assessed as part of the 2021 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Mercury Assessment. A mixed model including an evaluation of non-linear trends was applied to 110 time series of THg concentrations from Arctic and Subarctic biota. Temporal trends were calculated for full time series (6-46 years) and evaluated with a particular focus on recent trends over the last 20 years. Three policy-relevant questions were addressed: (1) What time series for THg concentrations in Arctic biota are currently available? (2) Are THg concentrations changing over time in biota from the Arctic? (3) Are there spatial patterns in THg trends in biota from the Arctic? Few geographical patterns of recent trends in THg concentrations were observed; however, those in marine mammals tended to be increasing at more easterly longitudes, and those of seabirds tended to be increasing in the Northeast Atlantic; these should be interpreted with caution as geographic coverage remains variable. Trends of THg in freshwater fish were equally increasing and decreasing or non-significant while those in marine fish and mussels were non-significant or increasing. The statistical power to detect trends was greatly improved compared to the 2011 AMAP Mercury Assessment; 70% of the time series could detect a 5% annual change at the 5% significance level with power ≥ 80%, while in 2011 only 19% met these criteria. Extending existing time series, and availability of new, powerful time series contributed to these improvements, highlighting the need for annual monitoring, particularly given the spatial and temporal information needed to support initiatives such as the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Collecting the same species/tissues across different locations is recommended. Extended time series from Alaska and new data from Russia are also needed to better establish circumarctic patterns of temporal trends.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".