Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30879267›Full record

ReviewAmbio2019

Effects of lead from ammunition on birds and other wildlife: A review and update.

Deborah J Pain, Rafael Mateo, Rhys E Green

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ecotoxicological effects of lead in ducks and geese.Veterinary research communications · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Deborah J PainDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK. pain.debbie@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8142-9017
Rafael MateoToxicología de Fauna Silvestre, Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC), CSIC-UCLM-JCCM, Ronda de Toledo 12, 13005, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Rhys E GreenDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Poisoning of wild birds following ingestion of lead from ammunition has long been recognised and considerable recent research has focused on terrestrial birds, including raptors and scavengers. This paper builds upon previous reviews and finds that both the number of taxa affected and geographical spread of cases has increased. Some lead may also be absorbed from embedded ammunition fragments in injured birds which risk sub-lethal and welfare effects. Some papers suggest inter-specific differences in sensitivity to lead, although it is difficult to disentangle these from other factors that influence effect severity. Sub-lethal effects have been found at lower blood lead concentrations than previously reported, suggesting that previous effect-level 'thresholds' should be abandoned or revised. Lead poisoning is estimated to kill a million wildfowl a year in Europe and cause sub-lethal poisoning in another ≥ 3 million. Modelling and correlative studies have supported the potential for population-level effects of lead poisoning in wildfowl, terrestrial birds, raptors and scavengers.

Indexed as

LeadLead PoisoningAnimalsAnimals, WildBirdsEuropeLeadBirdsBulletsGunshotLeadPoisoningReview

Identifiers

PMID30879267
PMCPMC6675766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.