Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35991318›Full record

ArticleEcological indicators2022

Physical habitat in conterminous US streams and Rivers, part 2: A quantitative assessment of habitat condition.

Philip R Kaufmann, Robert M Hughes, Steven G Paulsen, David V Peck, Curt W Seeliger, Tom Kincaid, Richard M Mitchell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological indicators, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Philip R KaufmannU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA.
Robert M HughesDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
Steven G PaulsenU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA.
David V PeckU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA.
Curt W SeeligerGDIT, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA.
Tom KincaidU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA.
Richard M MitchellU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USCorvallis Environmental Center · USOregon State University · US

Funding

EPA HHSN316201200013WIntramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rigorous assessments of the ecological condition of water resources and the effect of human activities on those waters require quantitative physical, chemical, and biological data. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's river and stream surveys quantify river and stream bed particle size and stability, instream habitat complexity and cover, riparian vegetation cover and structure, and anthropogenic disturbance activities. Physical habitat is strongly controlled by natural geoclimatic factors that co-vary with human activities. We expressed the anthropogenic alteration of physical habitat as O/E ratios of observed habitat metric values divided by values expected under least-disturbed reference conditions, where site-specific expected values vary given their geoclimatic and geomorphic context. We set criteria for good, fair, and poor condition based on the distribution of O/E values in regional least-disturbed reference sites. Poor conditions existed in 22-24% of the 1.2 million km of streams and rivers in the conterminous U.S. for riparian human disturbance, streambed sediment and riparian vegetation cover, versus 14% for instream habitat complexity. Based on the same four indicators, the percentage of stream length in poor condition within 9 separate U.S. ecoregions ranged from 4% to 42%. Associations of our physical habitat indices with anthropogenic pressures demonstrate the scope of anthropogenic habitat alteration; habitat condition was negatively related to the level of anthropogenic disturbance nationally and in nearly all ecoregions. Relative risk estimates showed that streams and rivers with poor sediment, riparian cover complexity, or instream habitat cover conditions were 1.4 to 2.6 times as likely to also have fish or macroinvertebrate assemblages in poor condition. Our physical habitat condition indicators help explain deviations in biological conditions from those observed among least-disturbed sites and inform management actions for rehabilitating impaired waters and mitigating further ecological degradation.

Indexed as

Ecological assessmentHydro-morphologyInstream fine sedimentsRelative riskRiparian disturbanceRiparian vegetationStreambed stabilityStream habitat complexity

Identifiers

PMID35991318
PMCPMC9389467
OpenAlexW4283736015

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.