Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41201251›Full record

ArticleGround water

Navigating the Growing Prospects and Growing Pains of Managed Aquifer Recharge.

Dave Owen, Helen E Dahlke, Andrew T Fisher, Ellen Bruno, Michael Kiparsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ground water. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Helen E DahlkeDepartment of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8757-6982
Andrew T FisherDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2102-8320
Ellen BrunoDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Michael KiparskyCenter for Law, Energy & the Environment, UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA.

Funding

California Department of Conservation 3023-4000Center for Coastal Climate Resilience at the University of California, Santa Cruz 19916-443748Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 9964National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2021-67019-33595Natural Resources Conservation Service RCPP-1726Office of the President, University of California R02CP7145U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 84046301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing water demands and declining groundwater levels have led to rising interest in managed aquifer recharge. That interest is growing in the United States-the focus of this article-and elsewhere. Increasing interest makes sense; managed aquifer recharge can reduce water-supply challenges and provide environmental benefits, sometimes with lower costs than alternative water-management approaches. But managed aquifer recharge also faces growing pains, which will make it difficult for projects to scale up and may limit the benefits provided by those projects that do go forward. Some of the problems arise from the challenges of finding physically suitable locations for managed aquifer recharge; many derive from economics, public policy, and law; and some derive from ways in which managed aquifer recharge could exacerbate traditional equity challenges of water management. But as we explain, there also are potential solutions to these challenges, and the future success of managed aquifer recharge will likely depend on the extent to which these solutions are adopted.

Indexed as

Conservation of Water ResourcesGroundwaterWater SupplyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41201251
PMCPMC12652287

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.