↓ Skip to main content

Potential Stream Density in Mid-Atlantic U.S. Watersheds

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Potential Stream Density in Mid-Atlantic U.S. Watersheds
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0074819
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J. Elmore, Jason P. Julian, Steven M. Guinn, Matthew C. Fitzpatrick

Abstract

Stream network density exerts a strong influence on ecohydrologic processes in watersheds, yet existing stream maps fail to capture most headwater streams and therefore underestimate stream density. Furthermore, discrepancies between mapped and actual stream length vary between watersheds, confounding efforts to understand the impacts of land use on stream ecosystems. Here we report on research that predicts stream presence from coupled field observations of headwater stream channels and terrain variables that were calculated both locally and as an average across the watershed upstream of any location on the landscape. Our approach used maximum entropy modeling (MaxEnt), a robust method commonly implemented to model species distributions that requires information only on the presence of the entity of interest. In validation, the method correctly predicts the presence of 86% of all 10-m stream segments and errors are low (<1%) for catchments larger than 10 ha. We apply this model to the entire Potomac River watershed (37,800 km(2)) and several adjacent watersheds to map stream density and compare our results with the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). We find that NHD underestimates stream density by up to 250%, with errors being greatest in the densely urbanized cities of Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD and in regions where the NHD has never been updated from its original, coarse-grain mapping. This work is the most ambitious attempt yet to map stream networks over a large region and will have lasting implications for modeling and conservation efforts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Professor 4 6%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 4 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 27 38%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Engineering 6 8%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 10 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 October 2013.
All research outputs
#1,670,548
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#21,650
of 193,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,607
of 199,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#560
of 4,937 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 199,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,937 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.