The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Historical Land Use: Impact on Water Quality and Diatom Communities
Abstract
Stratigraphic records preserved in the sediments of the mesohaline Chesapeake Bay were used to reconstruct a 2000‐yr history of sedimentation, eutrophication, anoxia, and diatom community structure over time. Diatoms, pollen, total and organic carbon (TOC), total and organic nitrogen, total sulfur, acid‐soluble iron, an estimate of the degree of pyritization of iron (DOP), and biogenic silica (BSi) were used as paleoecological indicators in four cores collected from a transect across the Chesapeake Bay from the Choptank River to Plum Point, Maryland. This paper covers results for diatoms, pollen, and BSi. Sediments were dated using radiocarbon and pollen techniques, and sedimentation rates were determined (0.2‐5.8 mm/yr) using pollen methods. Geochemical indicators were measured and diatom species identified at subsampled intervals within each core. More than 400 diatom species, primarily marine and estuarine taxa, were identified in the sediments, some for the first time. Analysis of the data indicates that sedimentation rates, eutrophication, turbidity, and anoxia have increased in the Chesapeake Bay since the time of European settlement of the watershed. There is also evidence that freshwater input to the mesohaline Chesapeake Bay has increased. Changes in diatom community structure and geochemical indicators reflect major changes in land use patterns of the watershed and increasing population. Diatom community diversity exhibits a continuing decline, while centric/pennate ratios rise dramatically in most recent sediments.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas
Lotze, H. K., Lenihan, H. S., Bourque, B. J., Bradbury, R. H., Cooke, R. G., Kay, M. C., Kidwell, S. M., Kirby, M. X., Peterson, C. H., & Jackson, J. B. C. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1128035 · Cited by 3,402
Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions.
Kemp, W., Boynton, W., Adolf, J., Boesch, D., Boicourt, W., Brush, G., Cornwell, J., Fisher, T., Glibert, P., Hagy, J., et al. (2005) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps303001 · Cited by 1,468
Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, A.K.A. “The Dead Zone.”
Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E., & Wiseman, W. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150513 · Cited by 1,330
Challenges and opportunities for science in reducing nutrient over-enrichment of coastal ecosystems
Boesch, D. F. (2002) · Estuaries · doi:10.1007/bf02804914 · Cited by 381
A review of phytoplankton composition within Chesapeake Bay and its tidal estuaries
Marshall, H. G., Burchardt, L., & Lacouture, R. (2005) · Journal of Plankton Research · doi:10.1093/plankt/fbi079 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, S. R.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-08
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 703-723
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5582
- OpenAlex
- W2009676627
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.33
- 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: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Historical Land Use: Impact on Water Quality and Diatom Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1941979
- The paper
- Cooper, S. R. (1995). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Historical Land Use: Impact on Water Quality and Diatom Communities. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941979
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.