Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 238

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dam removal: Listening in

Open access
Foley, M. M., Bellmore, J. R., O'Connor, J. E., Duda, J. J., East, A. E., Grant, G. E., Anderson, C. W., Bountry, J. A., Collins, M. J., Connolly, P. J., Craig, L. S., Evans, J. E., Greene, S. L., Magilligan, F. J., Magirl, C. S., Major, J. J., Pess, G. R., Randle, T. J., Shafroth, P. B., Torgersen, C. E., Tullos, D., Wilcox, A. C.·2017·Water Resources Research

Abstract

Dam removal is widely used as an approach for river restoration in the United States. The increase in dam removals—particularly large dams—and associated dam‐removal studies over the last few decades motivated a working group at the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis to review and synthesize available studies of dam removals and their findings. Based on dam removals thus far, some general conclusions have emerged: (1) physical responses are typically fast, with the rate of sediment erosion largely dependent on sediment characteristics and dam‐removal strategy; (2) ecological responses to dam removal differ among the affected upstream, downstream, and reservoir reaches; (3) dam removal tends to quickly reestablish connectivity, restoring the movement of material and organisms between upstream and downstream river reaches; (4) geographic context, river history, and land use significantly influence river restoration trajectories and recovery potential because they control broader physical and ecological processes and conditions; and (5) quantitative modeling capability is improving, particularly for physical and broad‐scale ecological effects, and gives managers information needed to understand and predict long‐term effects of dam removal on riverine ecosystems. Although these studies collectively enhance our understanding of how riverine ecosystems respond to dam removal, knowledge gaps remain because most studies have been short (< 5 years) and do not adequately represent the diversity of dam types, watershed conditions, and dam‐removal methods in the U.S.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2017wr020457

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 238

Metadata

Authors
Foley, M. M., Bellmore, J. R., O'Connor, J. E., Duda, J. J., East, A. E., Grant, G. E., Anderson, C. W., Bountry, J. A., Collins, M. J., Connolly, P. J., Craig, L. S., Evans, J. E., Greene, S. L., Magilligan, F. J., Magirl, C. S., Major, J. J., Pess, G. R., Randle, T. J., Shafroth, P. B., Torgersen, C. E., Tullos, D., & Wilcox, A. C.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
2017-07
Volume
53
Issue
7
Pages
5229-5246
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W2734987828
Cited by
238
References
6
FWCI
17.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dam removal: Listening in. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2017wr020457
The paper
Foley, M. M., Bellmore, J. R., O'Connor, J. E., Duda, J. J., East, A. E., Grant, G. E., Anderson, C. W., Bountry, J. A., Collins, M. J., Connolly, P. J., Craig, L. S., Evans, J. E., Greene, S. L., Magilligan, F. J., Magirl, C. S., Major, J. J., Pess, G. R., Randle, T. J., Shafroth, P. B., . . . Wilcox, A. C. (2017). Dam removal: Listening in. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017wr020457

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.