↓ Skip to main content

The Significant Surface-Water Connectivity of “Geographically Isolated Wetlands”

Overview of attention for article published in Wetlands, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
The Significant Surface-Water Connectivity of “Geographically Isolated Wetlands”
Published in
Wetlands, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13157-017-0887-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aram J. K. Calhoun, David M. Mushet, Laurie C. Alexander, Edward S. DeKeyser, Laurie Fowler, Charles R. Lane, Megan W. Lang, Mark C. Rains, Stephen C. Richter, Susan C. Walls

Abstract

We evaluated the current literature, coupled with our collective research expertise, on surface-water connectivity of wetlands considered to be "geographically isolated" (sensu Tiner Wetlands 23:494-516, 2003a) to critically assess the scientific foundation of grouping wetlands based on the singular condition of being surrounded by uplands. The most recent research on wetlands considered to be "geographically isolated" shows the difficulties in grouping an ecological resource that does not reliably indicate lack of surface water connectivity in order to meet legal, regulatory, or scientific needs. Additionally, the practice of identifying "geographically isolated wetlands" based on distance from a stream can result in gross overestimates of the number of wetlands lacking ecologically important surface-water connections. Our findings do not support use of the overly simplistic label of "geographically isolated wetlands". Wetlands surrounded by uplands vary in function and surface-water connections based on wetland landscape setting, context, climate, and geographic region and should be evaluated as such. We found that the "geographically isolated" grouping does not reflect our understanding of the hydrologic variability of these wetlands and hence does not benefit conservation of the Nation's diverse wetland resources. Therefore, we strongly discourage use of categorizations that provide overly simplistic views of surface-water connectivity of wetlands fully embedded in upland landscapes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Professor 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 22 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 15 18%
Engineering 4 5%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 18 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,628,033
of 18,596,150 outputs
Outputs from Wetlands
#93
of 1,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,989
of 270,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Wetlands
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,596,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,165 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 270,095 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 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.