Cited by 79Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyHydrology and Watershed Management Studies

How Much Is Enough? Minimal Responses of Water Quality and Stream Biota to Partial Retrofit Stormwater Management in a Suburban Neighborhood

Open access
Roy, Allison H., Rhea, Lee K., Mayer, Audrey L., Shuster, William D., Beaulieu, Jake J., Hopton, Matthew E., Morrison, Matthew A., St. Amand, Ann·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Decentralized stormwater management approaches (e.g., biofiltration swales, pervious pavement, green roofs, rain gardens) that capture, detain, infiltrate, and filter runoff are now commonly used to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces on aquatic ecosystems. However, there is little research on the effectiveness of retrofit, parcel-scale stormwater management practices for improving downstream aquatic ecosystem health. A reverse auction was used to encourage homeowners to mitigate stormwater on their property within the suburban, 1.8 km(2) Shepherd Creek catchment in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA). In 2007-2008, 165 rain barrels and 81 rain gardens were installed on 30% of the properties in four experimental (treatment) subcatchments, and two additional subcatchments were maintained as controls. At the base of the subcatchments, we sampled monthly baseflow water quality, and seasonal (5×/year) physical habitat, periphyton assemblages, and macroinvertebrate assemblages in the streams for the three years before and after treatment implementation. Given the minor reductions in directly connected impervious area from the rain barrel installations (11.6% to 10.4% in the most impaired subcatchment) and high total impervious levels (13.1% to 19.9% in experimental subcatchments), we expected minor or no responses of water quality and biota to stormwater management. There were trends of increased conductivity, iron, and sulfate for control sites, but no such contemporaneous trends for experimental sites. The minor effects of treatment on streamflow volume and water quality did not translate into changes in biotic health, and the few periphyton and macroinvertebrate responses could be explained by factors not associated with the treatment (e.g., vegetation clearing, drought conditions). Improvement of overall stream health is unlikely without additional treatment of major impervious surfaces (including roads, apartment buildings, and parking lots). Further research is needed to define the minimum effect threshold and restoration trajectories for retrofitting catchments to improve the health of stream ecosystems.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0085011

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • No significant ecological improvements occurred over the six to seven years of post-installation monitoring.

    “No significant ecological improvements occurred over the six to seven years of post-installation monitoring, which suggested that additional treatment was necessary (Roy et al. 2014) but may also reflect the generally poor understanding of ecological response to any restoration activity (Bernhardt et al. 2005;Palmer et al. 2005;Bernhardt and Palmer 2007).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Roy et al. 2014

    The Results report no significant treatment effect on periphyton and few significant macroinvertebrate effects, supporting the finding of little ecological improvement. But the Discussion says there were three years of monitoring after the initial installations and only two years after all installations were complete; seven years refers to the whole study, not post-installation monitoring. The paper also suggests that further improvements may be needed. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. [2]Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, et al (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319: 756– 760. 18258902
  2. [10]Konrad CP, Booth DB (2005) Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47: 157– 177.
  3. [14]Ando AW, Freitas LPC (2011) Consumer demand for green stormwater management technology in an urban setting: the case of Chicago rain barrels. Water Resour Res 47: W12501 10.1029/2011WR011070 · DOI
  4. [15]Ahiablame LM, Engel BA, Chaubey I (2012) Effectiveness of low impact development practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water Air Soil Pollut 223: 4253– 4273.
  5. [17]Urbonas B, Stahre P (1993) Stormwater best management practices and detention for water quality, drainage, and CSO management. New Jersey: PTR Prentice Hall. 449 p.
  6. [18]Dietz ME (2007) Low impact development practices: a review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water Air Soil Pollut 186: 351– 363.
  7. [26]Roy AH, Wenger SJ, Fletcher TD, Walsh CJ, Ladson AR, et al (2008) Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States. Environ Manage 42: 344– 359. 18446406
  8. [27]Fletcher TD, Walsh CJ, Bos D, Nemes V, RossRakesh S, et al (2011) Restoration of stormwater retention capacity at the allotment-scale through a novel economic instrument. Water Sci Technol 64: 494– 502. 22097025
  9. [33]Green RH (1979) Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. Chichester: Wiley. 257 p.
  10. [43]Rice EW, Baird RB, Eaton AD, Clesceri LS (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 21st Edition. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation. Available: http://www.standardmethods.org/. Accessed 18 April 2013.
  11. [51]Hatt BE, Fletcher TD, Deletic A (2009) Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems at the field scale. J Hydrol 365: 310– 321. 19403970
  12. [59]Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Burns MJ (2012) Urban stormwater runoff: a new class of environmental flow problem. PLOS ONE 7: e45814 10.1371/journal.pone.0045814 23029257 PMC3446928 · DOI
  13. [60]Arnscheidt J, Jordan P, Li S, McCormick S, McFaul R, et al (2007) Defining sources of low-flow phosphorus transfers in complex catchments. Sci Total Environ 382: 1– 13. 17512972
  14. [62]Rosen BH (1995) Use of periphyton in the development of biocriteria. In: Davis WS, Simon TP, editors. Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. pp. 209–215.
  15. [64]Jackson JK, Fureder L (2006) Long-term studies of freshwater macroinvertebrates: a review of the frequency, duration, and ecological significance. Freshwater Biol 51: 591– 603.
  16. [65]Meals DW, Dressing SA, Davenport TE (2010) Lag time in water quality response to best management practices: a review. J Environ Qual 39: 85– 96. 20048296
  17. [67]Louhi P, Mykra H, Paavola R, Huusko A, Vehanen T, et al (2011) Twenty years of stream restoration in Finland: little response by benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol Appl 21: 1950– 1961. 21939036

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roy, A. H., Rhea, L. K., Mayer, A. L., Shuster, W. D., Beaulieu, J. J., Hopton, M. E., Morrison, M. A., & St. Amand, A.
Affiliations
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Michigan Technological University (US)
  • Saudi Arabia Basic Industries (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Roy, Allison H.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-01-17
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e85011
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989614903
Cited by
79
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
6.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (Michigan Technological University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Office of Research and Development
  • Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Keywords
stormwater management, decentralized stormwater management, rain gardens, rain barrels, suburban streams, stream water quality, periphyton, macroinvertebrates, physical habitat, impervious surfaces, baseflow, reverse auctions, stream ecosystem health
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Filtration, Geography, Invertebrates, Ohio, Rain, Residence Characteristics, Suburban Population, Water Movements, Biomass, Rivers, Biota, Water Quality

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