Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796862›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Simulation of encounter rates between zooplankton organisms and microplastics in a tropical estuary.

Laura Sanvicente-Añorve, Miguel Alatorre-Mendieta, Mitzi Sánchez-Campos, Guadalupe Ponce-Vélez, Elia Lemus-Santana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura Sanvicente-AñorveLaboratorio de Ecología de Sistemas Pelágicos, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-0951-4564
Miguel Alatorre-MendietaLaboratorio de Oceanografía Física, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Mitzi Sánchez-CamposPosgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Guadalupe Ponce-VélezLaboratorio de Contaminación Marina, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Elia Lemus-SantanaPosgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coastal estuarine systems may hold a large number of microplastic particles, which predators often mistake for prey. This study estimated the encounter rates between microplastics (alleged prey) and zooplankton having different feeding modes, trophic positions, swimming velocities, and perception distances, under calm and turbulent conditions, and during two seasons. Surface water samples were taken at 10/12 sites of the Sontecomapan lagoon, southern Gulf of Mexico, to quantify microplastic concentration. Zooplankton organisms considered were copepods, chaetognaths, and luciferids, common organisms in the lagoon. In June, at surface waters and during calm conditions, mean encounter rates were 1.5, 2450, and 980 particles per individual per hour, that is, for copepods, chaetognaths, and luciferids, respectively. When the wind blows (0.8 m s-1) encounter rates were 1.2, 1.4, and 2.6 times higher than in calm conditions. In October, mean encounter rates under calm conditions were 0.2, 355, and 142 particles per individual per hour, for copepods, chaetognaths, and luciferids; these values increase 1.3, 1.6, and 3.3 times when the wind blows (1.12 m s-1). The major number of encounters in June was due to a higher concentration of microplastics, despite the lower turbulent velocity. Regarding their trophic position, we propose that secondary consumers (chaetognaths and luciferids) are more affected because they could eat microplastics via contaminated prey or accidentally ingest them owing to confusion in the motion signals, especially under turbulent conditions. Another consequence of encounters could be the entanglement of microplastics in the body of the animals, especially in those with complex morphology, such as crustaceans. Encounters between zooplankton and microplastics do not always result in ingestion or entanglement, but the encounters are the first step in the case of occurrence.

Indexed as

CopepodaWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnimalsEnvironmental MonitoringEstuariesMicroplasticsPlasticsZooplanktonMicroplasticsPlasticsWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID37796862
PMCPMC10553305
OpenAlexW4387362969

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.