Cited by 26Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyEcology and biodiversity studies

The influence of substrate type on macroinvertebrate assemblages within agricultural drainage ditches

Open access
Gething, Kieran J., Ripley, Matthew C., Mathers, Kate L., Chadd, Richard P., Wood, Paul J.·2020·Hydrobiologia

Abstract

Artificial drainage ditches are common features in lowland agricultural catchments that support a wide range of ecosystem services at the landscape scale. Current paradigms in river management suggest activities that increase habitat heterogeneity and complexity resulting in more diverse floral and faunal assemblages; however, it is not known if the same principles apply to artificial drainage ditch systems. We examined the effects of four artificial substrates, representing increasing habitat complexity and heterogeneity (bricks, gravel, netting and vegetation), on macroinvertebrate community structure within artificial drainage ditches. Each substrate type supported a distinct macroinvertebrate community highlighting the importance of habitat heterogeneity in maintaining macroinvertebrate assemblages. Each substrate type also displayed differing degrees of community heterogeneity, with gravel communities being most variable and artificial vegetation being the least. In addition, several macroinvertebrate diversity metrics increased along the gradient of artificial substrate complexity, although these differences were not statistically significant. We conclude that habitat management practices that increase habitat complexity are likely to enhance macroinvertebrate community heterogeneity within artificial drainage channels regardless of previous management activities.

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 · 10.1007/s10750-020-04416-6

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ditch hydrological connectivity with surrounding terrestrial environments, and thus biogeochemical exchange, depends primarily on their local geography and geomorphology, i.e., position within the landscape, length, width, presence and density of subsurface drainage, and channel substrate.

    “Similar to natural streams, ditch hydrological connectivity with surrounding terrestrial environments, and thus biogeochemical exchange, depends primarily on their local geography and geomorphology, i.e., position within the landscape, length, width, presence and density of subsurface drainage, and channel substrate which may be permeable (sand, loam, peat, Fig. 1C, D, F, H) or impermeable (clay,”

    From Lines in the landscape (2025) · cites this paper as [106]

  • Ditches can support a high biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates, waterbirds, amphibians, macrophytes and fish.

    “and can support a high biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates 106,187 ), waterbirds 188,189 , amphibians 190 , macrophytes 191,192 and fish 193,194 .”

    From Lines in the landscape (2025) · cites this paper as [106]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gething, K. J., Ripley, M. C., Mathers, K. L., Chadd, R. P., & Wood, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (CH)
  • Environment Agency (GB)
Corresponding author
Wood, Paul J.
Venue
Hydrobiologia
Published
2020-10-06
Volume
847
Issue
20
Pages
4273-4284
ISSN
  • 0018-8158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-5117
OpenAlex
W3092095977
Cited by
26
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hydrobiologia (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Loughborough University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
macroinvertebrate communities, substrate type, habitat complexity, habitat heterogeneity, agricultural drainage, community heterogeneity, gravel substrate, artificial vegetation, ecosystem services, habitat management

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