Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33527185›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2021

Modeling estrogenic activity in streams throughout the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay watersheds.

Stephanie Gordon, Daniel K Jones, Vicki S Blazer, Luke Iwanowicz, Brianna Williams, Kelly Smalling

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 52% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephanie GordonU.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV, USA. sgordon@usgs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6292-2612
Daniel K JonesU.S. Geological Survey Utah Water Science Center, West Valley City, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0724-8001
Vicki S BlazerU.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Fish Health Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6647-9614
Luke IwanowiczU.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Fish Health Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1197-6178
Brianna WilliamsU.S. Geological Survey New Jersey Water Science Center, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3389-8251
Kelly SmallingU.S. Geological Survey New Jersey Water Science Center, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1214-4920
United States Geological Survey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), specifically estrogenic endocrine-disrupting compounds, vary in concentration and composition in surface waters under the influence of different landscape sources and landcover gradients. Estrogenic activity in surface waters may lead to adverse effects in aquatic species at both individual and population levels, often observed through the presence of intersex and vitellogenin induction in male fish. In the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, located on the mid-Atlantic coast of the USA, intersex has been observed in several sub-watersheds where previous studies have identified specific landscape sources of EDCs in tandem with observed fish health effects. Previous work in the Potomac River Watershed (PRW), the largest basin within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, was leveraged to build random forest regression models to predict estrogenic activity at unsampled reaches in both the Potomac River and larger Chesapeake Bay Watersheds (CBW). Model outputs including important variables, partial dependence plots, and predicted values of estrogenic activity at unsampled reaches provide insight into drivers of estrogenic activity at different seasons and scales. Using the US Environmental Protection Agency effects-based threshold of 1.0 ng/L 17 β-estradiol equivalents, catchments predicted to exceed this value were categorized as at risk for adverse effects from exposure to estrogenic compounds and evaluated relative to healthy watersheds and recreation access locations throughout the PRW. Results show immediate catchment scale models are more reliable than upstream models, and the best predictive variables differ by season and scale. A small percentage of healthy watersheds (< 13%) and public access sites were classified as at risk using the "Total" (annual) model in the CBW. This study is the first Potomac River Watershed assessment of estrogenic activity, providing a new foundation for future risk assessment and management design efforts, with additional context provided for the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Indexed as

Endocrine DisruptorsWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnimalsBaysEnvironmental MonitoringEstrogensMaleRiversEndocrine DisruptorsEstrogensWater Pollutants, ChemicalChesapeake Bay WatershedEndocrine-disrupting compoundsEstrogenic activityRandom forest regressionSpatial modeling

Identifiers

PMID33527185
OpenAlexW3127268669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.