CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322Microplastics and Plastic PollutionMarine animal studies overviewEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Marine plastic debris emits a keystone infochemical for olfactory foraging seabirds

Open access
Savoca, Matthew S., Wohlfeil, Martha E., Ebeler, Susan E., Nevitt, Gabrielle A.·2016·Science Advances
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1600395PMC PMC5569953
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An infochemical found on marine plastic debris elucidates a novel mechanism for plastic ingestion by marine wildlife.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/sciadv.1600395

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 DMS concentration in plastic debris headspace. (A) DMS was not detected on any of the virgin plastic samples tested (n = 10 samples each for HDPE, LDPE, and PP, N = 30 total). (B) DMS was detected on every plastic sample after marine exposure (n = 12 bags of each plastic type; each bag subsampled five times). Box plots illustrate DMS concentrations on marine-seasoned plastic of each plastic type across sites (HPDE = 8.31 ± 2.25 μg of DMS per gram of plastic; LDPE = 8.90 ± 1.34 μg of DMS per gram of plastic; PP = 9.56 ± 2.33 μg of DMS per gram of plastic). Points represent each bag’s average DMS quantification; the error bars represent the SE of the five subsamples of each bag. Site averages by plastic type are as follows: for BML, x̄HDPE = 13.45 ± 2.41 μg g−1, x̄LDPE = 11.76 ± 1.65 μg g−1, and x̄PP = 4.99 ± 0.98 μg g−1; for HMS, x̄HDPE = 3.16 ± 1.07 μg g−1, x̄LDPE = 6.05 ± 1.39 μg g−1, and x̄PP = 14.13 ± 2.33 μg g−1.
Fig. 1 DMS concentration in plastic debris headspace. (A) DMS was not detected on any of the virgin plastic samples tested (n = 10 samples each for HDPE, LDPE, and PP, N = 30 total). (B) DMS was detected on every plastic sample after marine exposure (n = 12 bags of each plastic type; each bag subsampled five times). Box plots illustrate DMS concentrations on marine-seasoned plastic of each plastic type across sites (HPDE = 8.31 ± 2.25 μg of DMS per gram of plastic; LDPE = 8.90 ± 1.34 μg of DMS per gram of plastic; PP = 9.56 ± 2.33 μg of DMS per gram of plastic). Points represent each bag’s average DMS quantification; the error bars represent the SE of the five subsamples of each bag. Site averages by plastic type are as follows: for BML, x̄HDPE = 13.45 ± 2.41 μg g−1, x̄LDPE = 11.76 ± 1.65 μg g−1, and x̄PP = 4.99 ± 0.98 μg g−1; for HMS, x̄HDPE = 3.16 ± 1.07 μg g−1, x̄LDPE = 6.05 ± 1.39 μg g−1, and x̄PP = 14.13 ± 2.33 μg g−1.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Effects of DMS responsiveness and nesting behavior on plastic ingestion in procellariiform seabirds. (A) Maximum likelihood estimate (±SEM) of the DMS-responsive and non–DMS-responsive species groups, illustrating a significantly higher frequency of plastic debris ingestion in DMS-responsive species (binomial GLMM, P < 0.0001). (B) Maximum likelihood estimate (±SEM) of burrow- and surface-nesting species groups, illustrating a significantly higher frequency of plastic ingestion in burrow-nesting species (binomial GLMM, P < 0.05). Burrow-nesting behavior is used here as a proxy for DMS responsiveness.
Fig. 2 Effects of DMS responsiveness and nesting behavior on plastic ingestion in procellariiform seabirds. (A) Maximum likelihood estimate (±SEM) of the DMS-responsive and non–DMS-responsive species groups, illustrating a significantly higher frequency of plastic debris ingestion in DMS-responsive species (binomial GLMM, P < 0.0001). (B) Maximum likelihood estimate (±SEM) of burrow- and surface-nesting species groups, illustrating a significantly higher frequency of plastic ingestion in burrow-nesting species (binomial GLMM, P < 0.05). Burrow-nesting behavior is used here as a proxy for DMS responsiveness.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Plastic ingestion and DMS responsiveness among procellariiform seabirds. Colored circles and horizontal lines represent the mean and 95% CIs for each species’ model-predicted plastic ingestion prevalence. Vertical dashed lines are model-predicted mean plastic ingestion frequency for each group (DMS-responsive and non–DMS-responsive). Vertical dotted lines represent the 95% CIs of the plastic ingestion frequency for each group.
Fig. 3 Plastic ingestion and DMS responsiveness among procellariiform seabirds. Colored circles and horizontal lines represent the mean and 95% CIs for each species’ model-predicted plastic ingestion prevalence. Vertical dashed lines are model-predicted mean plastic ingestion frequency for each group (DMS-responsive and non–DMS-responsive). Vertical dotted lines represent the 95% CIs of the plastic ingestion frequency for each group.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Relationship of plastic ingestion and nesting behavior. Colored circles and horizontal lines represent the mean and 95% CIs for each species’ model-predicted plastic ingestion frequency. Vertical dashed lines are model-predicted mean plastic ingestion frequency for each group (burrow- and surface-nesting). Vertical dotted lines represent the 95% CIs of the plastic ingestion frequency for each group.
Fig. 4 Relationship of plastic ingestion and nesting behavior. Colored circles and horizontal lines represent the mean and 95% CIs for each species’ model-predicted plastic ingestion frequency. Vertical dashed lines are model-predicted mean plastic ingestion frequency for each group (burrow- and surface-nesting). Vertical dotted lines represent the 95% CIs of the plastic ingestion frequency for each group.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. R. McElreath Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (Chapman and Hall/CRC Press 2016).
  2. G. A. Nevitt, G. L. Hunt, Olfactory sensitivities of foraging procellariid seabirds in the Aleutian Islands. Chem. Senses 21, 649–650 (1996).
  3. R. Kohavi in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95) Montreal Quebec 20 to 25 August 1995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 322

Related

Metadata

Authors
Savoca, M. S., Wohlfeil, M. E., Ebeler, S. E., & Nevitt, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Department of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Corresponding author
  • Savoca, Matthew S.
  • Nevitt, Gabrielle A.
ORCID
Venue
Science Advances
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2016-11-04
Volume
2
Issue
11
Pages
e1600395-e1600395
ISSN
2375-2548 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1126/sciadv.1600395
PMC
PMC5569953
OpenAlex
W2549620114
Cited by
322
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 1
FWCI
11.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Science Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (ID0EH3CI12129, 1148897, ID0EALDI12130, 1142084)
  • University of California, Davis (ID0ETSDI12131, CA-D-NPB-3509-H)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microplastics and Plastic Pollution
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
marine plastic debris, microplastics, dimethyl sulfide, seabirds, procellariiform seabirds, plastic ingestion, semiochemicals, marine food webs
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Dimethyl Sulfoxide, Feeding Behavior, Plastics, Water Pollutants, Olfactory Perception

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