| Title |
Survey of Beaver-related Restoration Practices in Rangeland Streams of the Western USA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-017-0957-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David S. Pilliod, Ashley T. Rohde, Susan Charnley, Rachael R. Davee, Jason B. Dunham, Hannah Gosnell, Gordon E. Grant, Mark B. Hausner, Justin L. Huntington, Caroline Nash |
| Abstract |
Poor condition of many streams and concerns about future droughts in the arid and semi-arid western USA have motivated novel restoration strategies aimed at accelerating recovery and increasing water resources. Translocation of beavers into formerly occupied habitats, restoration activities encouraging beaver recolonization, and instream structures mimicking the effects of beaver dams are restoration alternatives that have recently gained popularity because of their potential socioeconomic and ecological benefits. However, beaver dams and dam-like structures also harbor a history of social conflict. Hence, we identified a need to assess the use of beaver-related restoration projects in western rangelands to increase awareness and accountability, and identify gaps in scientific knowledge. We inventoried 97 projects implemented by 32 organizations, most in the last 10 years. We found that beaver-related stream restoration projects undertaken mostly involved the relocation of nuisance beavers. The most common goal was to store water, either with beaver dams or artificial structures. Beavers were often moved without regard to genetics, disease, or potential conflicts with nearby landowners. Few projects included post-implementation monitoring or planned for longer term issues, such as what happens when beavers abandon a site or when beaver dams or structures breach. Human dimensions were rarely considered and water rights and other issues were mostly unresolved or addressed through ad-hoc agreements. We conclude that the practice and implementation of beaver-related restoration has outpaced research on its efficacy and best practices. Further scientific research is necessary, especially research that informs the establishment of clear guidelines for best practices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 56% |
| Czechia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 189 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 22% |
| Researcher | 34 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 12% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 70 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 19% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 15 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Engineering | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 44 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 November 2023.
All research outputs
#3,690,424
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#255
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,887
of 445,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 445,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 66% of its contemporaries.