↓ Skip to main content

How Much Is Enough? Minimal Responses of Water Quality and Stream Biota to Partial Retrofit Stormwater Management in a Suburban Neighborhood

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Much Is Enough? Minimal Responses of Water Quality and Stream Biota to Partial Retrofit Stormwater Management in a Suburban Neighborhood
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0085011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allison H. Roy, Lee K. Rhea, Audrey L. Mayer, William D. Shuster, Jake J. Beaulieu, Matthew E. Hopton, Matthew A. Morrison, Ann St. Amand

Abstract

Decentralized stormwater management approaches (e.g., biofiltration swales, pervious pavement, green roofs, rain gardens) that capture, detain, infiltrate, and filter runoff are now commonly used to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces on aquatic ecosystems. However, there is little research on the effectiveness of retrofit, parcel-scale stormwater management practices for improving downstream aquatic ecosystem health. A reverse auction was used to encourage homeowners to mitigate stormwater on their property within the suburban, 1.8 km(2) Shepherd Creek catchment in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA). In 2007-2008, 165 rain barrels and 81 rain gardens were installed on 30% of the properties in four experimental (treatment) subcatchments, and two additional subcatchments were maintained as controls. At the base of the subcatchments, we sampled monthly baseflow water quality, and seasonal (5×/year) physical habitat, periphyton assemblages, and macroinvertebrate assemblages in the streams for the three years before and after treatment implementation. Given the minor reductions in directly connected impervious area from the rain barrel installations (11.6% to 10.4% in the most impaired subcatchment) and high total impervious levels (13.1% to 19.9% in experimental subcatchments), we expected minor or no responses of water quality and biota to stormwater management. There were trends of increased conductivity, iron, and sulfate for control sites, but no such contemporaneous trends for experimental sites. The minor effects of treatment on streamflow volume and water quality did not translate into changes in biotic health, and the few periphyton and macroinvertebrate responses could be explained by factors not associated with the treatment (e.g., vegetation clearing, drought conditions). Improvement of overall stream health is unlikely without additional treatment of major impervious surfaces (including roads, apartment buildings, and parking lots). Further research is needed to define the minimum effect threshold and restoration trajectories for retrofitting catchments to improve the health of stream ecosystems.

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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 122 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 23%
Student > Master 28 22%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 29 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 32 25%
Engineering 21 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 38 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 February 2023.
All research outputs
#6,515,635
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#79,282
of 197,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,680
of 306,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,886
of 5,557 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 306,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,557 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.