. 2015 Nov 5;10(11):e0141210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141210

Table 3. Dam size and river network context relative to other dams in the river network (number of upstream dams, distance to nearest upstream dam, height of 1^st upstream dam, and drainage area).

Input variables for univariate regressions were standardized to multiples of mean width, except for drainage area, for the Upper Neosho and Lower Cottonwood rivers, respectively.

River	Dam name	Dam height (No. widths (km))	No. upstream dams	Distance to nearest upstream dam (No. widths (km))	Height of 1st upstream dam (No. widths (km))	Drainage area (km²)
Upper Neosho	Riverwalk	0.05 (1.2)	1	131.82 (2.9)	1.33 (29.3)	682
	Correll	0.10 (2.3)	2	1,918.18 (42.2)	0.05 (1.2)	1,550
	Ruggles	0.11 (2.4)	3	613.64 (13.5)	0.10 (2.3)	1,600
	Emporia	0.14 (3)	4	459.09 (10.1)	0.11 (2.4)	1,616
Lower Cottonwood	Cottonwood Falls	0.09 (3)	2	1857.14 (65.0)	0.09 (3)	3,539
	Soden	0.09 (3)	3	1971.43 (69.0)	0.09 (3)	4,748

Table 3. Dam size and river network context relative to other dams in the river network (number of upstream dams, distance to nearest upstream dam, height of 1st upstream dam, and drainage area).

Table 3. Dam size and river network context relative to other dams in the river network (number of upstream dams, distance to nearest upstream dam, height of 1^st upstream dam, and drainage area).