ArticleNature communications2023
Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coupled and decoupled carbon-mercury dynamics across forest ecosystem continua.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Storage and Export of Atmospheric Hg, Pb, Al, and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) from Forest Trees.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Uptake of Gaseous Elemental Mercury by a Rainforest: Insights from a Tropical Glasshouse Used as a Dynamic Flux Chamber.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Leaves and Tree Rings as Biomonitoring Archives of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition: An Ecophysiological Perspective.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Quantifying soil accumulation of atmospheric mercury using fallout radionuclide chronometry.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sources of neurotoxic mercury in forests are dominated by atmospheric gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) deposition, but a dearth of direct GEM exchange measurements causes major uncertainties about processes that determine GEM sinks. Here we present three years of forest-level GEM deposition measurements in a coniferous forest and a deciduous forest in northeastern USA, along with flux partitioning into canopy and forest floor contributions. Annual GEM deposition is 13.4 ± 0.80 μg m
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.