Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EFFECTS OF STREAM RESTORATION ON DENITRIFICATION IN AN URBANIZING WATERSHED

Open access
Kaushal, Sujay S., Groffman, Peter M., Mayer, Paul M., Striz, Elise, Gold, Arthur J.·2008·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Increased delivery of nitrogen due to urbanization and stream ecosystem degradation is contributing to eutrophication in coastal regions of the eastern United States. We tested whether geomorphic restoration involving hydrologic "reconnection" of a stream to its floodplain could increase rates of denitrification at the riparian-zone-stream interface of an urban stream in Baltimore, Maryland. Rates of denitrification measured using in situ 15N tracer additions were spatially variable across sites and years and ranged from undetectable to >200 microg N x (kg sediment)(-1) x d(-1). Mean rates of denitrification were significantly greater in the restored reach of the stream at 77.4 +/- 12.6 microg N x kg(-1) x d(-1) (mean +/- SE) as compared to the unrestored reach at 34.8 +/- 8.0 microg N x kg(-1) x d(-1). Concentrations of nitrate-N in groundwater and stream water in the restored reach were also significantly lower than in the unrestored reach, but this may have also been associated with differences in sources and hydrologic flow paths. Riparian areas with low, hydrologically "connected" streambanks designed to promote flooding and dissipation of erosive force for storm water management had substantially higher rates of denitrification than restored high "nonconnected" banks and both unrestored low and high banks. Coupled measurements of hyporheic groundwater flow and in situ denitrification rates indicated that up to 1.16 mg NO3(-)-N could be removed per liter of groundwater flow through one cubic meter of sediment at the riparian-zone-stream interface over a mean residence time of 4.97 d in the unrestored reach, and estimates of mass removal of nitrate-N in the restored reach were also considerable. Mass removal of nitrate-N appeared to be strongly influenced by hydrologic residence time in unrestored and restored reaches. Our results suggest that stream restoration designed to "reconnect" stream channels with floodplains can increase denitrification rates, that there can be substantial variability in the efficacy of stream restoration designs, and that more work is necessary to elucidate which designs can be effective in conjunction with watershed strategies to reduce nitrate-N sources to streams.

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 · 10.1890/07-1159.1

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Kaushal, S. S., Groffman, P. M., Mayer, P. M., Striz, E., & Gold, A. J.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
789-804
ISSN
1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097943277
Cited by
272
References
2
FWCI
12.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: EFFECTS OF STREAM RESTORATION ON DENITRIFICATION IN AN URBANIZING WATERSHED. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/07-1159.1
The paper
Kaushal, S. S., Groffman, P. M., Mayer, P. M., Striz, E., & Gold, A. J. (2008). EFFECTS OF STREAM RESTORATION ON DENITRIFICATION IN AN URBANIZING WATERSHED. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1159.1

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.