| Title |
Nutrient Mitigation Efficiency in Agricultural Drainage Ditches: An Influence of Landscape Management
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00128-016-1783-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oluwayinka O. Iseyemi, Jerry L. Farris, Matthew T. Moore, Seo-eun Choi |
| Abstract |
Drainage systems are integral parts of agricultural landscapes and have the ability to intercept nutrient loading from runoff to surface water. This study investigated nutrient removal efficiency within replicated experimental agricultural drainage ditches during a simulated summer runoff event. Study objectives were to examine the influence of routine mowing of vegetated ditches on nutrient mitigation and to assess spatial transformation of nutrients along ditch length. Both mowed and unmowed ditch treatments decreased NO3 (-)-N by 79 % and 94 % and PO4 (3-) by 95 % and 98 %, respectively, with no significant difference in reduction capacities between the two treatments. This suggests occasional ditch mowing as a management practice would not undermine nutrient mitigation capacity of vegetated drainage ditches. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 12 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,105,592
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2,360
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,176
of 305,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#3
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,112 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.