Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32802326›Full record

ArticleWIREs. Water2020

Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero-flow stream gage readings.

Margaret A Zimmer, Kendra E Kaiser, Joanna R Blaszczak, Samuel C Zipper, John C Hammond, Ken M Fritz, Katie H Costigan, Jacob Hosen, Sarah E Godsey, George H Allen and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in WIREs. Water, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Detecting Streamflow in Dryland Rivers Using CubeSats.Geophysical research letters · 2022
    Article
  6. The terrestrial and semi-aquatic invertebrates of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Margaret A ZimmerDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Kendra E KaiserDepartment of Geosciences, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.
Joanna R BlaszczakDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
Samuel C ZipperKansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
John C HammondU.S. Geological Survey, MD-DE-DC Water Science Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ken M FritzOffice of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Katie H CostiganSchool of Geosciences, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana.
Jacob HosenDepartment of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Sarah E GodseyDepartment of Geosciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.
George H AllenDepartment of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Stephanie KampfDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ryan M BurrowsAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Corey A KrabbenhoftCollege of Arts and Sciences and Research and Education in Energy, Environment and Water (RENEW) Institute, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Walter DoddsDivision of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
Rebecca HaleDepartment of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.
Julian D OldenSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Margaret ShanafieldCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Amanda G DelVecchiaFlathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana.
Adam S WardO'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Meryl C MimsDepartment of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Thibault DatryINRAE, UR Riverly, Centre de Lyon-Villeurbanne, Villeurbanne, Cedex, France.
Michael T BoganSchool of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Kate S BoersmaDepartment of Biology, University of San Diego, San Diego, California.
Michelle H BuschDepartment of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
C Nathan JonesDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Amy J BurginUniversity of Kansas and Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas.
Daniel C AllenDepartment of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Streamflow observations can be used to understand, predict, and contextualize hydrologic, ecological, and biogeochemical processes and conditions in streams. Stream gages are point measurements along rivers where streamflow is measured, and are often used to infer upstream watershed-scale processes. When stream gages read zero, this may indicate that the stream has fully dried; however, zero-flow readings can also be caused by a wide range of other factors. Our ability to identify whether or not a zero-flow gage reading indicates a dry fluvial system has far reaching environmental implications. Incorrect identification and interpretation by the data user can lead to hydrologic, ecological, and/or biogeochemical predictions from models and analyses. Here, we describe several causes of zero-flow gage readings: frozen surface water, flow reversals, instrument error, and natural or human-driven upstream source losses or bypass flow. For these examples, we discuss the implications of zero-flow interpretations. We also highlight additional methodss for determining flow presence, including direct observations, statistical methods, and hydrologic models, which can be applied to interpret causes of zero-flow gage readings and implications for reach- and watershed-scale dynamics. Such efforts are necessary to improve our ability to understand and predict surface flow activation, cessation, and connectivity across river networks. Developing this integrated understanding of the wide range of possible meanings of zero-flows will only attain greater importance in a more variable and changing hydrologic climate.

Indexed as

aquatic networknon-perennialstreamflowstream gageszero flow

Identifiers

PMID32802326
PMCPMC7425737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.