Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

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

Stream restoration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads

Craig, Laura S, Palmer, Margaret A, Richardson, David C, Filoso, Solange, Bernhardt, Emily S, Bledsoe, Brian P, Doyle, Martin W, Groffman, Peter M, Hassett, Brooke A, Kaushal, Sujay S, Mayer, Paul M, Smith, Sean M, Wilcock, Peter R·2008·Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Abstract

Despite decades of work on implementing best management practices to reduce the movement of excess nitrogen (N) to aquatic ecosystems, the amount of N in streams and rivers remains high in many watersheds. Stream restoration has become increasingly popular, yet efforts to quantify N‐removal benefits are only just beginning. Natural resource managers are asking scientists to provide advice for reducing the downstream flux of N. Here, we propose a framework for prioritizing restoration sites that involves identifying where potential N loads are large due to sizeable sources and efficient delivery to streams, and when the majority of N is exported. Small streams (1st–3rd order) with considerable loads delivered during low to moderate flows offer the greatest opportunities for N removal. We suggest approaches that increase in‐stream carbon availability, contact between the water and benthos, and connections between streams and adjacent terrestrial environments. Because of uncertainties concerning the magnitude of N reduction possible, potential approaches should be tested in various landscape contexts; until more is known, stream restoration alone is not appropriate for compensatory mitigation and should be seen as complementary to land‐based best management practices.

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 · 10.1890/070080

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 312

Metadata

Authors
Craig, L. S., Palmer, M. A., Richardson, D. C., Filoso, S., Bernhardt, E. S., Bledsoe, B. P., Doyle, M. W., Groffman, P. M., Hassett, B. A., Kaushal, S. S., Mayer, P. M., Smith, S. M., & Wilcock, P. R.
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
529-538
ISSN
  • 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9309
OpenAlex
W2089624966
Cited by
312
References
2
FWCI
14.03
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: Stream restoration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/070080
The paper
Craig, L. S., Palmer, M. A., Richardson, D. C., Filoso, S., Bernhardt, E. S., Bledsoe, B. P., Doyle, M. W., Groffman, P. M., Hassett, B. A., Kaushal, S. S., Mayer, P. M., Smith, S. M., & Wilcock, P. R. (2008). Stream restoration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1890/070080

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.