↓ Skip to main content

Dealing With Uncertainty When Assessing Fish Passage Through Culvert Road Crossings

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Dealing With Uncertainty When Assessing Fish Passage Through Culvert Road Crossings
Published in
Environmental Management, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9886-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory B. Anderson, Mary C. Freeman, Byron J. Freeman, Carrie A. Straight, Megan M. Hagler, James T. Peterson

Abstract

Assessing the passage of aquatic organisms through culvert road crossings has become increasingly common in efforts to restore stream habitat. Several federal and state agencies and local stakeholders have adopted assessment approaches based on literature-derived criteria for culvert impassability. However, criteria differ and are typically specific to larger-bodied fishes. In an analysis to prioritize culverts for remediation to benefit imperiled, small-bodied fishes in the Upper Coosa River system in the southeastern United States, we assessed the sensitivity of prioritization to the use of differing but plausible criteria for culvert impassability. Using measurements at 256 road crossings, we assessed culvert impassability using four alternative criteria sets represented in Bayesian belief networks. Two criteria sets scored culverts as either passable or impassable based on alternative thresholds of culvert characteristics (outlet elevation, baseflow water velocity). Two additional criteria sets incorporated uncertainty concerning ability of small-bodied fishes to pass through culverts and estimated a probability of culvert impassability. To prioritize culverts for remediation, we combined estimated culvert impassability with culvert position in the stream network relative to other barriers to compute prospective gain in connected stream habitat for the target fish species. Although four culverts ranked highly for remediation regardless of which criteria were used to assess impassability, other culverts differed widely in priority depending on criteria. Our results emphasize the value of explicitly incorporating uncertainty into criteria underlying remediation decisions. Comparing outcomes among alternative, plausible criteria may also help to identify research most needed to narrow management uncertainty.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 105 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Other 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 34 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 27%
Engineering 10 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 28 25%
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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,960,052
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#667
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,494
of 177,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 177,482 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 61% of its contemporaries.