2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.03.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Bayesian assessment of the mercury and PCB temporal trends in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and walleye (Sander vitreus) from lake Ontario, Ontario, Canada

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…deviance =2loglikelihoodfalse) with uncertainty of the year‐specific estimates of the stochastic nodes (such as regression coefficients, rates of change, fish biomass corrected for the TP variability) as well as the error terms. Specifically, we selected the discount factor that resulted in the highest model performance, while ensuring the highest degree of identification, as expressed by the coefficient‐of‐variation values of the dynamic model parameters (Visha, Gandhi, Bhavsar, & Arhonditsis, ). A discount factor of 0.95 stipulates that the precision of each stochastic node within a given year is reduced by 5% relative to the precision assigned to the same parameter for the previous time step.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…deviance =2loglikelihoodfalse) with uncertainty of the year‐specific estimates of the stochastic nodes (such as regression coefficients, rates of change, fish biomass corrected for the TP variability) as well as the error terms. Specifically, we selected the discount factor that resulted in the highest model performance, while ensuring the highest degree of identification, as expressed by the coefficient‐of‐variation values of the dynamic model parameters (Visha, Gandhi, Bhavsar, & Arhonditsis, ). A discount factor of 0.95 stipulates that the precision of each stochastic node within a given year is reduced by 5% relative to the precision assigned to the same parameter for the previous time step.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although lipid concentration tends to show a positive correlation with PCB concentration, lipid concentration does not control PCB accumulation in fish [35–39]. Rather, food consumption controls PCB accumulation in fish.…”
Section: Sex Difference In Pcb Concentrationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to this guidance (European Commission ), the comparability of data across member states within the European Union would be achieved by adjusting the biota‐monitoring results to a standard TL, that is, TL 4 for continental water bodies, and to a standard lipid content (5% or 0.05) or a standard dry weight (dw) content (26% or 0.26), by use of the following equations: true[CadjTL,normtrue]=true[Cmeastrue]×TMF(4normalTnormalL(x))×0.05/lipid true[CadjTL,normtrue]=true[Cmeastrue]×TMF(4normalTnormalL(x))×0.26/dw where C adj−TL,norm is the contaminant concentration adjusted to TL and lipid content (Equation ) (μg/kg‐lipid) or dry weight (Equation ) (μg/kg‐dw) basis, C meas is the measured, nonnormalized contaminant concentration (μg/kg‐ww), and TL , lipid , and dw are the TL (based on expert knowledge, available databases, or stable isotope data [see below]), lipid content, and dry mass of the monitored species, respectively. The Equation variant is proposed for contaminants for which accumulation is not influenced by the organism's lipid content, such as PFOS (Jones et al ) or Hg (Visha et al ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%