↓ Skip to main content

Vegetation response to invasive Tamarix control in southwestern U.S. rivers: a collaborative study including 416 sites

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Vegetation response to invasive Tamarix control in southwestern U.S. rivers: a collaborative study including 416 sites
Published in
Ecological Applications, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/eap.1566
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo González, Anna A. Sher, Robert M. Anderson, Robin F. Bay, Daniel W. Bean, Gabriel J. Bissonnete, Bérenger Bourgeois, David J. Cooper, Kara Dohrenwend, Kim D. Eichhorst, Hisham El Waer, Deborah K. Kennard, Rebecca Harms-Weissinger, Annie L. Henry, Lori J. Makarick, Steven M. Ostoja, Lindsay V. Reynolds, W. Wright Robinson, Patrick B. Shafroth

Abstract

Most studies assessing vegetation response following control of invasive Tamarix trees along southwestern U.S. rivers have been small in scale (e.g., river reach), or at a regional scale but with poor spatial-temporal replication, and most have not included testing the effects of a now widely-used biological control. We monitored plant composition following Tamarix control along hydrologic, soil and climatic gradients in 244 treated and 172 reference sites across six U.S. States. This represents the largest comprehensive assessment to date on the vegetation response to the four most common Tamarix control treatments. Biocontrol by a defoliating beetle (treatment #1) reduced the abundance of Tamarix less than active removal by mechanically using hand and chain-saws (#2), heavy machinery (#3) or burning (#4). Tamarix abundance also decreased with lower temperatures, higher precipitation, and follow-up treatments for Tamarix resprouting. Native cover generally increased over time in active Tamarix removal sites, however, the increases observed were small and was not consistently increased by active revegetation. Overall, native cover was correlated to permanent stream flow, lower grazing pressure, lower soil salinity and temperatures, and higher precipitation. Species diversity also increased where Tamarix was removed. However, Tamarix treatments, especially those generating the highest disturbance (burning and heavy machinery), also often promoted secondary invasions of exotic forbs. The abundance of hydrophytic species was much lower in treated than in reference sites, suggesting that management of southwestern U.S. rivers has focused too much on weed control, overlooking restoration of fluvial processes that provide habitat for hydrophytic and floodplain vegetation. These results can help inform future management of Tamarix-infested rivers to restore hydrogeomorphic processes, increase native biodiversity and reduce abundance of noxious species. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Unspecified 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 40%
Environmental Science 13 30%
Unspecified 10 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,011,891
of 12,960,324 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#1,480
of 2,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,924
of 261,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#41
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,960,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 261,622 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.