| Title |
The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep00570 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Atsuki Hiyama, Chiyo Nohara, Seira Kinjo, Wataru Taira, Shinichi Gima, Akira Tanahara, Joji M. Otaki |
| Abstract |
The collapse of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant caused a massive release of radioactive materials to the environment. A prompt and reliable system for evaluating the biological impacts of this accident on animals has not been available. Here we show that the accident caused physiological and genetic damage to the pale grass blue Zizeeria maha, a common lycaenid butterfly in Japan. We collected the first-voltine adults in the Fukushima area in May 2011, some of which showed relatively mild abnormalities. The F₁ offspring from the first-voltine females showed more severe abnormalities, which were inherited by the F₂ generation. Adult butterflies collected in September 2011 showed more severe abnormalities than those collected in May. Similar abnormalities were experimentally reproduced in individuals from a non-contaminated area by external and internal low-dose exposures. We conclude that artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused physiological and genetic damage to this species. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,968 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 659 | 33% |
| United States | 89 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 18 | <1% |
| France | 16 | <1% |
| Canada | 14 | <1% |
| Germany | 14 | <1% |
| Australia | 12 | <1% |
| Italy | 9 | <1% |
| China | 9 | <1% |
| Other | 131 | 7% |
| Unknown | 997 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1870 | 95% |
| Scientists | 62 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 19 | <1% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | <1% |
| Unknown | 4 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 321 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 8 | 2% |
| France | 4 | 1% |
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| Hungary | 3 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 1% |
| Unknown | 291 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 73 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 47 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 45 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 61 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 127 | 40% |
| Environmental Science | 45 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 7% |
| Engineering | 14 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 54 | 17% |
| Unknown | 48 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1943. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2023.
All research outputs
#4,942
of 25,791,949 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#73
of 143,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9
of 185,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 143,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 185,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.