↓ Skip to main content

Patterns of Host-Associated Fecal Indicators Driven by Hydrology, Precipitation, and Land Use Attributes in Great Lakes Watersheds

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science & Technology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Patterns of Host-Associated Fecal Indicators Driven by Hydrology, Precipitation, and Land Use Attributes in Great Lakes Watersheds
Published in
Environmental Science & Technology, September 2018
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.8b01945
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah K. Dila, Steven R. Corsi, Peter L. Lenaker, Austin K. Baldwin, Melinda J. Bootsma, Sandra L. McLellan

Abstract

Fecal contamination from sewage and agricultural runoff is a pervasive problem in Great Lakes watersheds. Most work examining fecal pollution loads rely on discrete samples of fecal indicators and modeling land use. In this study, we made empirical measurements of human and ruminant-associated fecal indicator bacteria and combined these with hydrological measurements in eight watersheds ranging from predominantly forested to highly urbanized. Flow composited river samples were collected over low-flow ( n = 89) and rainfall or snowmelt runoff events ( n = 130). Approximately 90% of samples had evidence of human fecal pollution, with highest loads from urban watersheds. Ruminant indicators were found in ∼60-100% of runoff-event samples in agricultural watersheds, with concentrations and loads related to cattle density. Rain depth, season, agricultural tile drainage, and human or cattle density explained variability in daily flux of human or ruminant indicators. Mapping host-associated indicator loads to watershed discharge points sheds light on the type, level, and possible health risk from fecal pollution entering the Great Lakes and can inform total maximum daily load implementation and other management practices to target specific fecal pollution sources.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 43%
Unspecified 10 33%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 13 43%
Environmental Science 11 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%

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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#10,798,608
of 13,568,727 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#11,918
of 13,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,419
of 265,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#190
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,568,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 265,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.