Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41816555›Full record

ArticleWetlands ecology and management2025

Linking wetlands to relatively permanent flowing waters: a conterminous United States geospatial analysis.

C R Lane, E D'Amico, J R Christensen, K M Fritz, H E Golden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wetlands ecology and management, 2025. 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.

C R LaneU.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Ecosystem Processes Division, Athens, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0066-8919
E D'AmicoPegasus Technical Services, Ltd., c/o U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3248-1000
J R ChristensenU.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4961-6132
K M FritzU.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3831-2531
H E GoldenU.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5501-9444

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clean Water Act (CWA) coverage extends to certain wetlands, including those with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent tributaries. However, limited information is available to estimate the national extent of wetlands potentially afforded CWA coverage. To address this data gap, we identified conterminous US (CONUS) palustrine wetlands connected by an exploratory 150 m buffer to a high-resolution CONUS-wide stream network hydrography dataset, a reasonable and defensible proxy for a continuous surface connection between wetlands and relatively permanent waters. Nationally, 79% (23.1 Mha) or 66% (19.3 Mha) of the nation's CONUS freshwater palustrine wetlands are potentially connected to the stream network, depending on whether a more inclusive or exclusive flow permanence network is analyzed. Conversely, 21% (6.1 Mha, roughly the area of West Virginia) or 34% (9.9 Mha, greater area than Indiana) of CONUS wetlands may be outside this buffer. Results for individual states varied widely based on stream and wetland density. States with a low relatively permanent stream density had fewer buffer-connected wetland resources (e.g., 21% in North Dakota). Similarly, wetlands in southwestern states and other states with abundant ephemerally flowing streams were also not connected via the applied buffer. Geospatial data limitations and assumptions (e.g., omission errors, presumed presence of a surface connection) suggest the estimated extent of wetlands with potential continuous surface connections to federally covered waters are likely to be substantially smaller than reported here. Nonetheless, the analyses herein provide insights for local, state, and tribal stakeholders to consider in managing their wetland resources.

Indexed as

buffersephemeralgeographically isolated wetlands (GIW)intermittentlocalNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)NHD (National Hydrography Dataset)non-floodplain wetlands (NFW)perennialrelatively permanent watersstatetribal wetland management

Identifiers

PMID41816555
PMCPMC12973069

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.