↓ Skip to main content

Can data from disparate long-term fish monitoring programs be used to increase our understanding of regional and continental trends in large river assemblages?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Can data from disparate long-term fish monitoring programs be used to increase our understanding of regional and continental trends in large river assemblages?
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0191472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy D. Counihan, Ian R. Waite, Andrew F. Casper, David L. Ward, Jennifer S. Sauer, Elise R. Irwin, Colin G. Chapman, Brian S. Ickes, Craig P. Paukert, John J. Kosovich, Jennifer M. Bayer

Abstract

Understanding trends in the diverse resources provided by large rivers will help balance tradeoffs among stakeholders and inform strategies to mitigate the effects of landscape scale stressors such as climate change and invasive species. Absent a cohesive coordinated effort to assess trends in important large river resources, a logical starting point is to assess our ability to draw inferences from existing efforts. In this paper, we use a common analytical framework to analyze data from five disparate fish monitoring programs to better understand the nature of spatial and temporal trends in large river fish assemblages. We evaluated data from programs that monitor fishes in the Colorado, Columbia, Illinois, Mississippi, and Tallapoosa rivers using non-metric dimensional scaling ordinations and associated tests to evaluate trends in fish assemblage structure and native fish biodiversity. Our results indicate that fish assemblages exhibited significant spatial and temporal trends in all five of the rivers. We also document native species diversity trends that were variable within and between rivers and generally more evident in rivers with higher species richness and programs of longer duration. We discuss shared and basin-specific landscape level stressors. Having a basic understanding of the nature and extent of trends in fish assemblages is a necessary first step towards understanding factors affecting biodiversity and fisheries in large rivers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 37%
Environmental Science 9 18%
Engineering 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,717,431
of 20,582,425 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#114,785
of 177,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,830
of 393,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,904
of 4,689 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,582,425 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 177,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 393,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,689 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.