↓ Skip to main content

A Large-Scale, Multiagency Approach to Defining a Reference Network for Pacific Northwest Streams

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
A Large-Scale, Multiagency Approach to Defining a Reference Network for Pacific Northwest Streams
Published in
Environmental Management, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0739-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Miller, Peter Eldred, Ariel Muldoon, Kara Anlauf-Dunn, Charlie Stein, Shannon Hubler, Lesley Merrick, Nick Haxton, Chad Larson, Andrew Rehn, Peter Ode, Jake Vander Laan

Abstract

Aquatic monitoring programs vary widely in objectives and design. However, each program faces the unifying challenge of assessing conditions and quantifying reasonable expectations for measured indicators. A common approach for setting resource expectations is to define reference conditions that represent areas of least human disturbance or most natural state of a resource characterized by the range of natural variability across a region of interest. Identification of reference sites often relies heavily on professional judgment, resulting in varying and unrepeatable methods. Standardized methods for data collection, site characterization, and reference site selection facilitate greater cooperation among assessment programs and development of assessment tools that are readily shareable and comparable. We illustrate an example that can serve the broader global monitoring community on how to create a consistent and transparent reference network for multiple stream resource agencies. We provide a case study that offers a simple example of how reference sites can be used, at the landscape level, to link upslope management practices to a specific in-channel response. We found management practices, particularly areas with high road densities, have more fine sediments than areas with fewer roads. While this example uses data from only one of the partner agencies, if data were collected in a similar manner they can be combined and create a larger, more robust dataset. We hope that this starts a dialog regarding more standardized ways through inter-agency collaborations to evaluate data. Creating more consistency in physical and biological field protocols will increase the ability to share data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Other 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 32%
Environmental Science 6 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,653
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,811
of 330,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#22
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.