↓ Skip to main content

Caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) Used for Evaluating Water Quality of Large European Rivers

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, February 1999
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) Used for Evaluating Water Quality of Large European Rivers
Published in
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, February 1999
DOI 10.1007/s002449900459
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. C. Stuijfzand, S. Engels, E. van Ammelrooy, M. Jonker

Abstract

In many European rivers, biodiversity has declined dramatically, and especially riverine insects have disappeared during the past decades. It remains unclear whether poor water quality or deteriorated habitats are limiting the distribution of sensitive aquatic insects in these rivers. The aim of this study, therefore, was to find out if water quality alone is limiting the distribution of these insects in rivers that have suffered from anthropogenic disturbances. To this purpose, caddisflies of the genus Hydropsyche, which are representative riverine insect species, were incubated in two large European rivers, the Rhine and the Meuse. Survival of caddisflies in the River Rhine was fairly high, while there was almost no survival in the River Meuse in three out of five field experiments. The incubations of Hydropsyche in the River Meuse provide evidence that even adequate structural habitat would be insufficient for the reestablishment of Hydropsyche species. The factors limiting the distribution of Hydropsyche species change with the changing constitution of the water; there is not one (group of) compound(s) responsible for the poor water quality. Besides chemical factors, physical factors (like oxygen and current velocity) may be limiting in the River Meuse for Hydropsyche species.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
Portugal 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 5 10%
Professor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 43%
Environmental Science 11 22%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 June 2008.
All research outputs
#8,521,581
of 25,389,520 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#655
of 2,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,295
of 100,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,389,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 100,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.