Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35946319›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

Ecological relevance of non-perennial rivers for the conservation of terrestrial and aquatic communities.

Daniel Bruno, Virgilio Hermoso, María Mar Sánchez-Montoya, Oscar Belmar, Cayetano Gutiérrez-Cánovas, Miguel Cañedo-Argüelles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Non-perennial segments in river networks.Nature reviews. Earth & environment · 2023
    Article
  2. 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
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

6 authors.

Daniel BrunoInstituto Pirenaico de Ecología (IPE), CSIC, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3976-9354
Virgilio HermosoDepartamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3205-5033
María Mar Sánchez-MontoyaDepartment of Ecology and Hydrology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8179-7805
Oscar BelmarDepartment of Ecology and Hydrology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2988-2572
Cayetano Gutiérrez-CánovasDepartment of Integrative Ecology, Doñana Biological Station (EBD - CSIC), Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6785-4049
Miguel Cañedo-ArgüellesInstitute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA - CSIC), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3864-7451

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

River conservation efforts traditionally focus on perennial watercourses (i.e., those that do not dry) and their associated aquatic biodiversity. However, most of the global river network is not perennial and thus supports both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. We assessed the conservation value of nonperennial rivers and streams (NPRS) in one of Europe's driest regions based on aquatic (macroinvertebrates, diatoms) and terrestrial (riparian plants, birds, and carabid beetles) community data. We mapped the distribution of taxa at 90 locations and across wide environmental gradients. Using the systematic planning tool Marxan, we identified priority conservation sites under 2 scenarios: aquatic taxa alone or aquatic and terrestrial taxa together. We explored how environmental factors (runoff, flow intermittence, elevation, salinity, anthropogenic impact) influenced Marxan's site selection frequency. The NPRS were selected more frequently (over 13% on average) than perennial rivers when both aquatic and terrestrial taxa were considered, suggesting that NPRS have a high conservation value at the catchment scale. We detected an underrepresentation of terrestrial taxa (8.4-10.6% terrestrial vs. 0.5-1.1% aquatic taxa were unrepresented in most Marxan solutions) when priority sites were identified based exclusively on aquatic biodiversity, which points to a low surrogacy value of aquatic taxa for terrestrial taxa. Runoff explained site selection when focusing on aquatic taxa (all best-fitting models included runoff, r

Indexed as

EcosystemRiversBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmental Monitoringaquatic macroinvertebratesavesbirdscarabid beetlesdiatomeasdiatomsescarabajos carábidosintermittent riversmacroinvertebrados acuáticosMarxanMediterranean riversnon-perennial riversríos intermitentesríos mediterráneosríos no permanentesriparian vegetationvegetación ribereña

Identifiers

PMID35946319
PMCPMC10092893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.