Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33365126›Full record

ArticleWIREs. Water2020

River ecosystem conceptual models and non-perennial rivers: A critical review.

Daniel C Allen, Thibault Datry, Kate S Boersma, Michael T Bogan, Andrew J Boulton, Daniel Bruno, Michelle H Busch, Katie H Costigan, Walter K Dodds, Ken M Fritz and 15 more

Open access · greenAbstract 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Warming climate and water withdrawals threaten river flow connectivity in China.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Ecological relevance of non-perennial rivers for the conservation of terrestrial and aquatic communities.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

25 authors at 20 institutions in 8 countries.

Daniel C AllenDepartment of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Thibault DatryINRAE, UR-RIVERLY, Centre de Lyon-Villeurbanne, Villeurbanne, CEDEX France.
Kate S BoersmaDepartment of Biology, University of San Diego, San Diego, California.
Michael T BoganSchool of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Andrew J BoultonSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Daniel BrunoDepartment of Biodiversity and Restoration, Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (IPE-CSIC), Zaragoza, Spain.
Michelle H BuschDepartment of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Katie H CostiganSchool of Geosciences, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana.
Walter K DoddsDivision of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
Ken M FritzOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sarah E GodseyDepartment of Geosciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.
Jeremy B JonesInstitute of Arctic Biology and Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Tatiana KaletovaDepartment of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia.
Stephanie K KampfDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Meryl C MimsDepartment of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Thomas M NeesonDepartment of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Julian D OldenSchool of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Amandine V PastorCE3C, Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
N LeRoy PoffDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Benjamin L RuddellSchool of Informatics Computing and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Albert RuhiDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Gabriel SingerLeibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany.
Paolo VezzaDepartment of Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
Adam S WardO'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Margaret ZimmerEarth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
University of Oklahoma · USColorado State University · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · USGriffith University · AUIdaho State University · USIndiana University Bloomington · USInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · FRInstituto Pirenaico de Ecología · ESKansas State University · USLeibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries · DENorthern Arizona University · USPolitecnico di Torino · ITSlovak University of Agriculture in Nitra · SKUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks · USUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of California, Santa Cruz · USUniversity of Canberra · AUUniversity of Lisbon · PTUniversity of Louisiana at Lafayette · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conceptual models underpin river ecosystem research. However, current models focus on continuously flowing rivers and few explicitly address characteristics such as flow cessation and drying. The applicability of existing conceptual models to nonperennial rivers that cease to flow (intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams, IRES) has not been evaluated. We reviewed 18 models, finding that they collectively describe main drivers of biogeochemical and ecological patterns and processes longitudinally (upstream-downstream), laterally (channel-riparian-floodplain), vertically (surface water-groundwater), and temporally across local and landscape scales. However, perennial rivers are longitudinally continuous while IRES are longitudinally discontinuous. Whereas perennial rivers have bidirectional lateral connections between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, in IRES, this connection is unidirectional for much of the time, from terrestrial-to-aquatic only. Vertical connectivity between surface and subsurface water occurs bidirectionally and is temporally consistent in perennial rivers. However, in IRES, this exchange is temporally variable, and can become unidirectional during drying or rewetting phases. Finally, drying adds another dimension of flow variation to be considered across temporal and spatial scales in IRES, much as flooding is considered as a temporally and spatially dynamic process in perennial rivers. Here, we focus on ways in which existing models could be modified to accommodate drying as a fundamental process that can alter these patterns and processes across spatial and temporal dimensions in streams. This perspective is needed to support river science and management in our era of rapid global change, including increasing duration, frequency, and occurrence of drying.

Identifiers

PMID33365126
PMCPMC7751680
OpenAlexW3082987636

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.