↓ Skip to main content

The Role of River Morphodynamic Disturbance and Groundwater Hydrology As Driving Factors of Riparian Landscape Patterns in Mediterranean Rivers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Role of River Morphodynamic Disturbance and Groundwater Hydrology As Driving Factors of Riparian Landscape Patterns in Mediterranean Rivers
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.01612
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rui Rivaes, António N. Pinheiro, Gregory Egger, Teresa Ferreira

Abstract

Fluvial disturbances, especially floods and droughts, are the main drivers of the successional patterns of riparian vegetation. Those disturbances control the riparian landscape dynamics through the direct interaction between flow and vegetation. The main aim of this work is to investigate the specific paths by which fluvial disturbances, distributed by its components of groundwater hydrology (grndh) and morphodynamic disturbance (mrphd), drive riparian landscape patterns as characterized by the location (position in the river corridor) and shape (physical form of the patch) of vegetation patches in Mediterranean rivers. Specifically, this work assesses how the different components of fluvial disturbances affect these features in general and particularly in each succession phase of riparian vegetation. grndh and mrphd were defined by time and intensity weighted indexes calculated, respectively, from the mean annual water table elevations and the annual maximum instantaneous discharge shear stresses of the previous decade. The interactions between riparian landscape features and fluvial disturbances were assessed by confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling. Two hypothetical models for patch location and shape were conceptualized and tested against empirical data collected from 220 patches at four different study sites. Both models were successfully fitted, meaning that they adequately depicted the relationships between the variables. Furthermore, the models achieved a good adjustment for the observed data, based on the evaluation of several approximate fit indexes. The patch location model explained approximately 80% of the patch location variability, demonstrating that the location of the riparian patches is primarily driven by grndh, while the mrphd had very little effect on this feature. In a multigroup analysis regarding the succession phases of riparian vegetation, the fitted model explained more than 68% of the variance of the data, confirming the results of the general model. The patch shape model explained nearly 13% of the patch shape variability, in which the disturbances came to have less influence on driving this feature. However, grndh continues to be the primary driver of riparian vegetation between the two disturbance factors, despite the proportional increase of the mrphd effect to approximately a third of the grndh effect.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 8 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 20%
Engineering 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#13,964
of 20,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,228
of 318,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#352
of 477 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,502 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 318,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 477 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.