ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2013
Assessment of animal impacts on bacterial water quality in a South Carolina, USA tidal creek system.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Removal of fecal indicator bacteria and antibiotic resistant genes in constructed wetlands.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fecal pollution may adversely impact water quality in coastal ecosystems. The goal of this study was to determine whether cattle were a source of fecal pollution in a South Carolina watershed. Surface water samples were collected in June 2002 and February through March 2003 in closed shellfish harvesting waters of Toogoodoo Creek in Charleston County, SC. Fecal coliform concentrations in 70 % of the water samples taken for this study exceeded shellfish harvesting water standards. Ribotyping was performed in order to identify animal sources contributing to elevated fecal coliform levels. Escherichia coli isolates (n = 253) from surface water samples were ribotyped and compared to a ribotype library developed from known sources of fecal material. Ribotypes from water samples that matched library ribotypes with 90 % maximum similarity or better were assigned to that source. Less than half of the unknown isolates (38 %) matched with library isolates. About half (53 %) of the matched ribotypes were assigned to cattle isolates and 43 % to raccoon. Ribotyping almost exclusively identified animal sources. While these results indicate that runoff from cattle farms was a likely source of fecal pollution in the watershed, wildlife also contributed. Given the small size of the library, ribotyping was moderately useful for determining the impact of adjacent cattle farms on Toogoodoo Creek. Increasing the number and diversity of the wildlife sources from the area would likely increase the usefulness of the method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23435851What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.