The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of Global Mercury Deposition through Litterfall
Abstract
There is a large uncertainty in the estimate of global dry deposition of atmospheric mercury (Hg). Hg deposition through litterfall represents an important input to terrestrial forest ecosystems via cumulative uptake of atmospheric Hg (most Hg(0)) to foliage. In this study, we estimate the quantity of global Hg deposition through litterfall using statistical modeling (Monte Carlo simulation) of published data sets of litterfall biomass production, tree density, and Hg concentration in litter samples. On the basis of the model results, the global annual Hg deposition through litterfall is estimated to be 1180 ± 710 Mg yr(-1), more than two times greater than the estimate by GEOS-Chem. Spatial distribution of Hg deposition through litterfall suggests that deposition flux decreases spatially from tropical to temperate and boreal regions. Approximately 70% of global Hg(0) dry deposition occurs in the tropical and subtropical regions. A major source of uncertainty in this study is the heterogeneous geospatial distribution of available data. More observational data in regions (Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America) where few data sets exist will greatly improve the accuracy of the current estimate. Given that the quantity of global Hg deposition via litterfall is typically 2-6 times higher than Hg(0) evasion from forest floor, global forest ecosystems represent a strong Hg(0) sink.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., Phillips, O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S. L., Canadell, J. G., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1201609 · Cited by 8,458
Controls on Mercury and Methylmercury Deposition for Two Watersheds in Acadia National Park, Maine
Johnson, K. B., Haines, T. A., Kahl, J. S., Norton, S. A., Amirbahman, A., & Sheehan, K. D. (2007) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-006-9331-5 · Cited by 41
Cited by
Updated Global and Oceanic Mercury Budgets for the United Nations Global Mercury Assessment 2018
Outridge, P. M., Mason, R. P., Wang, F., Guerrero, S., & Heimbürger-Boavida, L. E. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b01246 · Cited by 438
A vegetation control on seasonal variations in global atmospheric mercury concentrations
Jiskra, M., Sonke, J. E., Obrist, D., Bieser, J., Ebinghaus, R., Myhre, C. L., Pfaffhuber, K. A., Wängberg, I., Kyllönen, K., Worthy, D., et al. (2018) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0078-8 · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, X., Bao, Z., Lin, C.-J., Yuan, W., & Feng, X.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2016-07-28
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 8548-8557
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2467558491
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.