Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38332337›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2024

Prioritizing river basins for nutrient studies.

Anthony J Tesoriero, Dale M Robertson, Christopher T Green, J K Böhlke, Judson W Harvey, Sharon L Qi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anthony J TesorieroU.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR, USA. tesorier@usgs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-7364
Dale M RobertsonU.S. Geological Survey, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6799-0596
Christopher T GreenU.S. Geological Survey, Moffett Field, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6480-8194
J K BöhlkeU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5693-6455
Judson W HarveyU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2654-9873
Sharon L QiU.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7278-4498
United States Geological Survey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increases in fluxes of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in the environment have led to negative impacts affecting drinking water, eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Because of the importance, scale, and complexity of these issues, it may be useful to consider methods for prioritizing nutrient research in representative drainage basins within a regional or national context. Two systematic, quantitative approaches were developed to (1) identify basins that geospatial data suggest are most impacted by nutrients and (2) identify basins that have the most variability in factors affecting nutrient sources and transport in order to prioritize basins for studies that seek to understand the key drivers of nutrient impacts. The "impact" approach relied on geospatial variables representing surface-water and groundwater nutrient concentrations, sources of N and P, and potential impacts on receptors (i.e., ecosystems and human health). The "variability" approach relied on geospatial variables representing surface-water nutrient concentrations, factors affecting sources and transport of nutrients, model accuracy, and potential receptor impacts. One hundred and sixty-three drainage basins throughout the contiguous United States were ranked nationally and within 18 hydrologic regions. Nationally, the top-ranked basins from the impact approach were concentrated in the Midwest, while those from the variability approach were dispersed across the nation. Regionally, the top-ranked basin selected by the two approaches differed in 15 of the 18 regions, with top-ranked basins selected by the variability approach having lower minimum concentrations and larger ranges in concentrations than top-ranked basins selected by the impact approach. The highest ranked basins identified using the variability approach may have advantages for exploring how landscape factors affect surface-water quality and how surface-water quality may affect ecosystems. In contrast, the impact approach prioritized basins in terms of human development and nutrient concentrations in both surface water and groundwater, thereby targeting areas where actions to reduce nutrient concentrations could have the largest effect on improving water availability and reducing ecosystem impacts.

Indexed as

EcosystemRiversEnvironmental MonitoringEutrophicationHarmful Algal BloomHumansNitrogenNutrientsPhosphorusNitrogenNutrientsPhosphorusBasin selectionFederal researchHydrologyMonitoring designNutrientsWater quality

Identifiers

PMID38332337
PMCPMC10853301
OpenAlexW4391690830

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.