↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a combined macrophyte–epiphyte bioassay for assessing nutrient enrichment in the Portneuf River, Idaho, USA

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of a combined macrophyte–epiphyte bioassay for assessing nutrient enrichment in the Portneuf River, Idaho, USA
Published in
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10661-014-3682-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M. Ray, Christopher A. Mebane, Flint Raben, Kathryn M. Irvine, Amy M. Marcarelli

Abstract

We describe and evaluate a laboratory bioassay that uses Lemna minor L. and attached epiphytes to characterize the status of ambient and nutrient-enriched water from the Portneuf River, Idaho. Specifically, we measured morphological (number of fronds, longest surface axis, and root length) and population-level (number of plants and dry mass) responses of L. minor and community-level (ash-free dry mass [AFDM] and chlorophyll a [Chl a]) responses of epiphytes to nutrient enrichment. Overall, measures of macrophyte biomass and abundance increased with increasing concentrations of dissolved phosphorus (P) and responded more predictably to nutrient enrichment than morphological measures. Epiphyte AFDM and Chl a were also greatest in P-enriched water; enrichments of N alone produced no measurable epiphytic response. The epiphyte biomass response did not directly mirror macrophyte biomass responses, illustrating the value of a combined macrophyte-epiphyte assay to more fully evaluate nutrient management strategies. Finally, the most P-enriched waters not only supported greater standing stocks of macrophyte and epiphytes but also had significantly higher water column dissolved oxygen and dissolved organic carbon concentrations and a lower pH. Advantages of this macrophyte-epiphyte bioassay over more traditional single-species assays include the use of a more realistic level of biological organization, a relatively short assay schedule (~10 days), and the inclusion of multiple biological response and water-quality measures.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 16 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 42%
Environmental Science 4 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
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 08 March 2014.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#1,865
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,762
of 227,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 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 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 227,650 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.