Open Access
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 403, 2011
Article Number 01
Number of page(s) 19
Published online 02 September 2011
  • Agence de l’Eau Rhin-Meuse, 2005. Qualité du milieu physique du Muhlbach de Gertsheim - campagne 2004–2005. 24 p. + annexes. [Google Scholar]
  • Agence de l’Eau Rhin-Meuse, 2006. Outil d’évaluation de la qualité du milieu physique. Metz. [Google Scholar]
  • Allan J.D., 2004a. Influence of land use and landscape setting on the ecological status of rivers. Limnetica, 23, 187–198. [Google Scholar]
  • Allan J.D., 2004b. Landscape and riverscapes: The influence of land use in stream ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ecol Evol. S., 35, 257–284. [Google Scholar]
  • Allan J.D., Erickson D.L. and Fay J., 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biol., 37, 149–161. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Buffagni A., Casalegno C. and Erba S., 2009. Hydromorphology and land use at different spatial scales: expectations in a changing climate scenario for medium-sized rivers of the Western Italian Alps. Fund. Appl. Limnol., 174, 7–25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Breiman L., 2001a. Random Forests. Mach. Learn., 45, 5–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Breiman L., 2001b. Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Stat. Sci., 16, 199–215. [Google Scholar]
  • Carlisle D.W., Skalski J.R., Batker J.E., Thomas J.M. and Cullinan V.I., 1989. Determination of ecological scale. Landscape Ecol., 2, 203–213. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Carlisle D.M., Falcone J. and Meador M.R., 2009. Predicting the biological conditions of streams: use of geospatial indicators of natural and anthropogenic characteristics of watersheds. Environ. Monit. Assess., 151, 143–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cutler D.R., Edwards T.C.K., Beard H, Cutler A. and Hess K.T., 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology source. Ecology, 88, 2783–2792. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • De’ath, G., 2007. Boosted trees for ecological modeling and prediction. Ecology, 88, 243–251. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Delacoste M., Baran P., Lek S. and Lascaux J.M., 1995. Classification et clé de détermination des faciès d’écoulement en rivières de montagne. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic., 337-339, 149–156. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Ecogea and Geodiga, 2007. Recensement des cours d’eau et des milieux aquatiques à “caratère patrimonial” sur le basin Adour-Garonne. Cours d’eau remarquables. Rapport final novembre 2007. Agence de l’Eau Adour-Garonne. 12 p. + annexes. [Google Scholar]
  • Environment Agency, 2003. River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland. Field survey guidance manual: version 2003. 136 p. [Google Scholar]
  • European Community. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official journal of the European Communities 2000; L 327, 22.12.2000: 1–72. [Google Scholar]
  • Feld C.K., 2004. Identification and measure of hydromorphological degradation in Central European lowland streams. Hydrobiologia, 516, 69–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Frissell C.A., Liss W.J., Warren C.E. and Hurley M.D., 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ. Manage., 10, 199–214. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gergel S.E., Turner M.G., Miller J.R., Melack J.M. and Stanley E.H., 2002. Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquat. Sci., 64, 118–128. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Goldstein R.M., Carlisle D.M., Meador M.R. and Short T.M., 2007. Can basin land use effects on physical characteristics of streams be determined at broad geographic scale? Environ. Monit. Assess., 130, 495–510. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hamza M. and Larocque D., 2005. An empirical comparison of ensemble methods based on classification trees. J. Stat. Comput. Sim., 75, 629–643. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Harvey D.W., 1967. Pattern, process, and the scale problem in geographical research. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 45, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
  • Hawkins C.J., Kerschner J.L., Bisson P.A., Bryant M.D., Decker L.M., Gregory S.V., McCoullough D.A., Overton C.K., Reeves G.H., Steedman R.J. and Young M.K., 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features. Fisheries, 18, 3–11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hitt N.P. and Broberg L.E., 2002. A river integrity assessment for the western Montana. Final report. [Google Scholar]
  • Hürlimann J., Elber F. and Niederberg K., 1999. Use of algae for monitoring rivers: an overview of the current situation and recent developments in Switzerland. In: Prygiel J., Witton B.A., Bukowska J. (eds.), Use of Algae for monitoring rivers III, Agence de l’Eau Artois- Picardie, Douai, France, 39–56. [Google Scholar]
  • Hynes H.B.N., 1975. The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte. Limnologie, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnson L.B., Richards C., Host G.E. and Arthur J.W., 1997. Landscape influences on water chemistry in Midwestern stream ecosystems. Freshwater Biol., 37, 193–208. [Google Scholar]
  • Kail J., Jahnig S.C. and Hering D., 2009. Relation between floodplain land use and river hydromorphology on different spatial scales - a case study from two lower-mountain catchments in Germany. Fund. Appl. Limnol., 174, 63–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kohavi R., 1995. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for estimation and model selection. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1137–1143. [Google Scholar]
  • Lammert M. and Allan J.D., 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover on habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environ. Manage., 23, 257–270. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Leopold L.B. and Wolman M.G., 1957. River Patterns: Braided, Meandering and Straight. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B, 51 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Levin S., 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73 1943–1967. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liaw A. and Wiener M., 2002. Classification and regression by Random Forests. R News. 2/3:18–22. [online] URL http:// Little EL. 1971. Atlas of United States trees. [Google Scholar]
  • Malavoi J.R. and Souchon Y., 2002. Description standardisée des principaux faciès d’écoulement observables en rivière : clé de détermination qualitative et mesures physiques. Notes techniques. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic., 365, 366, 357–372. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Mielke P.W. and Berry K.L., 1976. Multiresponse permutation procedures for a priori classifications. Communications in Statistics, A5, 1409–1424. [Google Scholar]
  • Molnar P., Burlando P. and Ruf W., 2002. Integrated catchment assessment of riverine landscape dynamics. Aquat. Sci., 64, 129–140. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Olden J.D. and Jackson D.A., 2000. Torturing data for the sake of generality: how valid are our regression models? Ecoscience, 7, 501–510. [Google Scholar]
  • Orr H.G., Large A.R.G., Newson M.D. and Walsh C.L., 2008. A predictive typology for characterising hydromorphology. Geomorphology, 100, 32–40. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Penning-Rowsell E.C. and Townshend J.R.G., 1978. The influence of scale on the factors affecting stream channel slope. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., New Series, 3, 395–415. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Peters J., De Baets B., Verhoest N.E.C., Samson R., Degroeve S., De Becker P. and Huybrechts W., 2007. Random Forests as a tool for ecohydrological distribution modeling. Ecol. Model., 304–318. [Google Scholar]
  • Pinto B.C.T., Araujo F.G. and Hughes R.M., 2006. Effects of landscape and riparian condition on a fish index of biotic integrity in a large southeastern Brazil river. Hydrobiologia, 556, 69–83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pollard K. and van der Laan M., 2002. A method to identify significant clusters in gene expression data. In Sixth World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 318–325. [Google Scholar]
  • Poulain P., 2000. Le volet “poissons migrateurs du SDAGE Adour-Garonne”. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic., 357/358: 311–322. [Google Scholar]
  • R Development Core Team. R, 2004. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  • Roth N.E., Allan J.D. and Erickson D.E., 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol., 11, 141–156. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sandin L., 2009. The relationship between land-use, hydromorphology and river biota at different spatial and temporal scales: a synthesis of seven case studies. Fund. Appl. Limnol., 174, 1–5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sandin L. and Verdonschot P., 2006. Stream and river typologies-major results and conclusion from the STAR project. Hydrobiologia, 566, 33–37. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Strahler A.N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. In: Ven Te Chow (ed.), Section 4-2, Mc Graw-Hill, New York. [Google Scholar]
  • Tison J., Giraudel J.L., Coste M., Delmas F. and Park Y-S., 2004. Use of the unsupervised neural network for ecoregional zoning of hydrosystems through diatom communities: case study of Adour-Garonne watershed (France). Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 159, 409–422. [Google Scholar]
  • Vaughan I.P., Diamond M., Gurnell A.M., Hall K.A., Jenkins A., Milner N.J., Naylor L.A., Sear D.A., Woddward G. and Ormerod S.J., 2009. Integrating ecology with hydromophology: a priority for river science and management. Aquat. Conserv., 19, 113–125. [Google Scholar]
  • Verdonschot P.F.M. and Nijboer R.C., 2004. Testing the European stream typology of the Water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia, 516, 35–54. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vondracek B., Blann B., Cox C. B., Nerbonne J.F., Mumford K.F., Nerbonne B.A., Sovell L.A. and Zimmermann J.K.H., 2005. Land use, spatial scale, and stream systems: lessons from an agricultural region. Environ. Manage., 36, 775–791. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wasson J.-G., Chandesris A., Pella H. and Souchon Y., 2001. Definition of the French hydroecoregions. Methodology for determining reference conditions according to the Framework Directive for water management (Définition des hydroécorégions françaises. Méthodologie de détermination des conditions de référence au sens de la Directive cadre pour la gestion des eaux). Rapport de phase 1. Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement, Cemagref, France. [Google Scholar]
  • Wasson J.-G., Chandesris A., Pella H. and Blanc L., 2002. Les Hydro-écorégions de France métropolitaine. Approche régionale de la typologie des eaux courantes et éléments pour la définition des peuplements de référence d’invertébrés. Cemagref, Lyon, France. [Google Scholar]
  • Wiens J.A., 2002. Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshwater Biol., 47, 501–515. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.