Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33098718›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2021

Resistance and resilience of pelagic and littoral fishes to drought in the San Francisco Estuary.

Brian Mahardja, Vanessa Tobias, Shruti Khanna, Lara Mitchell, Peggy Lehman, Ted Sommer, Larry Brown, Steve Culberson, J Louise Conrad

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Resistance and resilience of pelagic and littoral fishes to drought in the San Francisco Estuary.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2021
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Brian MahardjaUnited States Bureau of Reclamation, 801 I Street, Suite 140, Sacramento, California, 95814, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0695-3745
Vanessa TobiasUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service, 850 South Guild Avenue, Lodi, California, 95240, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4872-1643
Shruti KhannaCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2109 Arch-Airport Road, Stockton, California, 95206, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1724-248X
Lara MitchellUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service, 850 South Guild Avenue, Lodi, California, 95240, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8439-8508
Peggy LehmanCalifornia Department of Water Resources, 3500 Industrial Boulevard, West Sacramento, California, 95691, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9556-0542
Ted SommerCalifornia Department of Water Resources, 3500 Industrial Boulevard, West Sacramento, California, 95691, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6395-9831
Larry BrownUnited States Geological Survey, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, California, 95819, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6702-4531
Steve CulbersonDelta Stewardship Council, 980 9th Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0865-3674
J Louise ConradDelta Stewardship Council, 980 9th Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1145-7503
California Department of Fish and Wildlife · USMarine Stewardship Council · GBUnited States Bureau of Reclamation · USUnited States Geological Survey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many estuarine ecosystems and the fish communities that inhabit them have undergone substantial changes in the past several decades, largely due to multiple interacting stressors that are often of anthropogenic origin. Few are more impactful than droughts, which are predicted to increase in both frequency and severity with climate change. In this study, we examined over five decades of fish monitoring data from the San Francisco Estuary, California, USA, to evaluate the resistance and resilience of fish communities to disturbance from prolonged drought events. High resistance was defined by the lack of decline in species occurrence from a wet to a subsequent drought period, while high resilience was defined by the increase in species occurrence from a drought to a subsequent wet period. We found some unifying themes connecting the multiple drought events over the 50-yr period. Pelagic fishes consistently declined during droughts (low resistance), but exhibit a considerable amount of resiliency and often rebound in the subsequent wet years. However, full recovery does not occur in all wet years following droughts, leading to permanently lower baseline numbers for some pelagic fishes over time. In contrast, littoral fishes seem to be more resistant to drought and may even increase in occurrence during dry years. Based on the consistent detrimental effects of drought on pelagic fishes within the San Francisco Estuary and the inability of these fish populations to recover in some years, we conclude that freshwater flow remains a crucial but not sufficient management tool for the conservation of estuarine biodiversity.

Indexed as

DroughtsEstuariesAnimalsEcosystemFishesSan FranciscoChinook salmonclimate variabilitydelta smeltdroughtestuaryextreme eventsfishlargemouth bassresilienceresistance

Identifiers

PMID33098718
PMCPMC7988542
OpenAlexW3044848135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.