A systematic review of published evidence linking wetland plants to water regime components
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Evidence-based assessment of literature allowed a much larger proportion of the body of evidence to be considered than would a quantitative meta-analysis.
“Like others have reported (Greet et al. 2011, Norris et al. 2012, Webb et al. 2012), evidence-based assessment of literature allowed a much larger proportion of the body of evidence to be considered than would a quantitative meta-analysis.”
From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Webb et al. 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 136 · Cited by 119
- Authors
- Webb, J. A., Wallis, E. M., & Stewardson, M. J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Webb, J. Angus
- Venue
- Aquatic Botany
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 103
- Pages
- 1-14
- ISSN
- 0304-3770 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2045141290
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 136
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Aquatic Botany (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to water stress
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
- Keywords
- aquatic plants, water regime, inundation depth, waterlogging, flood frequency, flood timing, plant establishment, plant growth, plant reproduction, plant diversity, water requirements, environmental flows, regulated rivers, wetland restoration
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
