Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 344

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The river as a chemostat: fresh perspectives on dissolved organic matter flowing down the river continuum

Creed, Irena F., McKnight, Diane M., Pellerin, Brian A., Green, Mark B., Bergamaschi, Brian A., Aiken, George R., Burns, Douglas A., Findlay, Stuart E.G., Shanley, Jamie B., Striegl, Rob G., Aulenbach, Brent T., Clow, David W., Laudon, Hjalmar, McGlynn, Brian L., McGuire, Kevin J., Smith, Richard A., Stackpoole, Sarah M.·2015·Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Abstract

A better understanding is needed of how hydrological and biogeochemical processes control dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations and dissolved organic matter (DOM) composition from headwaters downstream to large rivers. We examined a large DOM dataset from the National Water Information System of the US Geological Survey, which represents approximately 100 000 measurements of DOC concentration and DOM composition at many sites along rivers across the United States. Application of quantile regression revealed a tendency towards downstream spatial and temporal homogenization of DOC concentrations and a shift from dominance of aromatic DOM in headwaters to more aliphatic DOM downstream. The DOC concentration–discharge (C-Q) relationships at each site revealed a downstream tendency towards a slope of zero. We propose that despite complexities in river networks that have driven many revisions to the River Continuum Concept, rivers show a tendency towards chemostasis (C-Q slope of zero) because of a downstream shift from a dominance of hydrologic drivers that connect terrestrial DOM sources to streams in the headwaters towards a dominance of instream and near-stream biogeochemical processes that result in preferential losses of aromatic DOM and preferential gains of aliphatic DOM.

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 · 10.1139/cjfas-2014-0400

Cites

70 of 70 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 70 references

Cited by

See all 344

Metadata

Authors
Creed, I. F., McKnight, D. M., Pellerin, B. A., Green, M. B., Bergamaschi, B. A., Aiken, G. R., Burns, D. A., Findlay, S. E. G., Shanley, J. B., Striegl, R. G., Aulenbach, B. T., Clow, D. W., Laudon, H., McGlynn, B. L., McGuire, K. J., Smith, R. A., & Stackpoole, S. M.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Published
2015-08
Volume
72
Issue
8
Pages
1272-1285
ISSN
  • 0706-652X (ISSN-L)
  • 1205-7533
OpenAlex
W2168373789
Cited by
344
References
70
FWCI
16.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: The river as a chemostat: fresh perspectives on dissolved organic matter flowing down the river continuum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0400
The paper
Creed, I. F., McKnight, D. M., Pellerin, B. A., Green, M. B., Bergamaschi, B. A., Aiken, G. R., Burns, D. A., Findlay, S. E. G., Shanley, J. B., Striegl, R. G., Aulenbach, B. T., Clow, D. W., Laudon, H., McGlynn, B. L., McGuire, K. J., Smith, R. A., & Stackpoole, S. M. (2015). The river as a chemostat: fresh perspectives on dissolved organic matter flowing down the river continuum. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2014-0400

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.