EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues No 408 (2013) Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst., 408 (2013) 06 References
Open Access
Issue
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 408, 2013
Article Number 06
Number of page(s) 16
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2013041
Published online 18 April 2013
  • A.F.N.O.R., 1992. Essai des eaux. Determination de l’Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). Association Française de Normalisation – norme homologuée T90-350:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • Allan J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The Influence of Land Use on Stream Ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 257–284. [Google Scholar]
  • Arnaiz O.L., Wilson A.L., Watts R.J. and Stevens M.M., 2011. Influence of riparian condition on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in an agricultural catchment in south-eastern Australia. Ecol. Res., 26, 123–131. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Astorga A., Heino J., Luoto M. and Muotka T., 2011. Freshwater biodiversity at regional extent: determinants of macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness in headwater streams. Ecography, 34, 705–713. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bougon N. and Ferréol M., 2011. Physico-chimie soutenant la biologie. Typologie chimique nationale des cours d’eau. Rapport d’action 10, domaine QME. Pôle hydroécologie des cours d’eau Cemagref/Onema. [Google Scholar]
  • Bowes M.J., Ings N.L., McCall S.J., Warwick A., Barrett C., Wickham H.D., Harman S.A., Armstrong L.K., Scarlett P.M., Roberts C., Lehmann K. and Singer A.C. 2012 Nutrient and light limitation of periphyton in the River Thames: implications for catchment management. Sci. Total Envir., 434, 201–212. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Broadmeadow S.B., Jones J.G., Langford T.E.L., Shaw P.J. and Nisbet T.R., 2011. The influence of riparian shade on lowland stream water temperatures in southern England and their viability for brown trout. River Res. Appl., 27, 226–237. [Google Scholar]
  • Brooks S.S. and Lake P.S., 2007. River Restoration in Victoria, Australia: Change is in the Wind, and None too Soon. Restor. Ecol., 15, 584–591. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brunke M., 2008. Hydromorphological indicators for the ecological status of fish inhabitating the lower trout region in streams in the North-German lowlands. Hydrologie Und Wasserbewirtschaftung, 52, 234–244. [Google Scholar]
  • Cade B.S. and Noon B.R., 2003. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Front. Ecol. Environ., 1, 412–420. [Google Scholar]
  • Chandesris A., Mengin N., Malavoi J.R., Wasson J.G. and Souchon Y., 2008. SYRAH-CE: Système Relationnel d’Audit de l’Hydromorphologie des Cours d’Eau A relational, multi-scale system for auditing the hydro-morphology of running waters: diagnostic tool to help the WFD implementation in France. Page 4 in 4th international conference on river restoration, Venice, ITA. [Google Scholar]
  • Curie F., Ducharne A., Bendjoudi H. and Billen G., 2011. Spatialization of denitrification by river corridors in regional-scale watersheds: Case study of the Seine river basin. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 36, 530–538. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Death R.G. and Collier K.J., 2010. Measuring stream macroinvertebrate responses to gradients of vegetation cover: when is enough enough? Freshw. Biol., 55, 1447–1464. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dodds W. and Oakes R., 2006. Controls on Nutrients Across a Prairie Stream Watershed: Land Use and Riparian Cover Effects. Environ. Manage., 37, 634–646. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dodds W. and Oakes R., 2008. Headwater Influences on Downstream Water Quality. Environ. Manage., 41, 367–377. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Elosegi A., Diez J. and Mutz M., 2010. Effects of hydromorphological integrity on biodiversity and functioning of river ecosystems. Hydrobiologia, 657, 199–215. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • European Commission, 2007. Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action. Green Paper, COM(2007) 354 final. [Google Scholar]
  • Gauroy C. and Carluer N. (2011) Interpretation of data on pesticide residues in surface water in France, by grouping data within homogeneous spatial units. Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst., 400, 04. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Ghermandi, A., Vandenberghe V., Benedetti L., Bauwens W., Vanrolleghem P.A., (2009) Model-based assessment of shading effect by riparian vegetation on river water quality, Ecol. Eng., 35, 92–104. [Google Scholar]
  • Gregory S.V., Swanson F.J., McKee W.A. and Cummins K.W., 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience, 41, 540–551. [Google Scholar]
  • Hopkins R.L. and Whiles M.R., 2011. The importance of land use/land cover data in fish and mussel conservation planning. Ann. de Limnol. Int. J. Lim., 47, 199–209. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Hutchins M.G., Johnson A.C., Deflandre-Vlandas A., Comber S., Posen P. & Boorman D. (2010) Which offers more scope to suppress river phytoplankton blooms: Reducing nutrient pollution or riparian shading? Science of The Total Environment, 408, 5065–5077. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Koenker R., 2010. Quantreg: Quantile Regression. R package version 4.50. [Google Scholar]
  • Leopold, L. B. 1994. A View of the River, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Lowrance R., Todd R., Fail J., Hendrickson O., Leonard R. and Asmussen L., 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience, 34, 374–377. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lowrance R., Altier L.S., Newbold J.D., Schnabel R.R., Groffman P.M., Denver J.M., Correll D.L., Gilliam J.W., Robinson J.L., Brinsfield R.B., Staver K.W., Lucas W., Todd A.H., 1997. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake bay watersheds. Environ. Manage., 21, 687–712. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mayer P.M., Reynolds S.K., McCutchen M.D. and Canfield T.J., 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. J. Environ. Qual., 36, 1172–1180. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Meador M.R. and Goldstein R.M., 2003. Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: Relations among land use, water physicochemistry, riparian condition, and fish community structure. Environ. Manage., 31, 504–517. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Montreuil O., Merot P. and Marmonier P., 2010. Estimation of nitrate removal by riparian wetlands and streams in agricultural catchments: effect of discharge and stream order. Freshw. Biol., 55, 2305−2318. [Google Scholar]
  • Newbold J.D., Herbert S., Sweeney B.W., Kiry P. and Alberts S.J., 2010. Water Quality Functions of a 15-Year-Old Riparian Forest Buffer System1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 46, 299–310. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • NOR, 2010. Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique, de l’état chimique et du potentiel écologique des eaux de surface pris en application des articles R. 212-10, R. 212-11 et R. 212-18 du code de l’environnement. NOR: DEVO1001032A. [Google Scholar]
  • Oberdorff T., Pont D., Hugueny B. and Porcher J.P., 2002. Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment of ‘river health’ in France. Freshw. Biol., 47, 1720–1734. [Google Scholar]
  • Palmer M., Allan J.D., Meyer J. and Bernhardt E.S., 2007. River Restoration in the Twenty-First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts. Restor. Ecol., 15, 472–481. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Palmer M.A., Menninger H.L. and Bernhardt E.S., 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshw. Biol., 55, 205–222. [Google Scholar]
  • Parkyn S.M., Davies-Colley R.J., Halliday N.J., Costley K.J. and Croker G.F., 2003. Planted Riparian Buffer Zones in New Zealand: Do They Live Up to Expectations? Restor. Ecol., 11, 436–447. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rios S. and Bailey R., 2006. Relationship between Riparian Vegetation and Stream Benthic Communities at Three Spatial Scales. Hydrobiologia, 553, 153–160. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sandin L. and Solimini A.G., 2009. Freshwater ecosystem structure-function relationships: From theory to application. Freshw. Biol., 54, 2017–2024. [Google Scholar]
  • Santoul F., Cayrou J., Mastrorillo S. and Céréghino R., 2005. Spatial patterns of the biological traits of freshwater fish communities in south-west France. J. Fish Biol., 66, 301–314. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sauquet E. and Catalogne C. (2011) Comparison of catchment grouping methods for flow duration curve estimation at ungauged sites in France. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 2421–2435. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Snelder T.H., Lamouroux N., Leathwick J.R., Pella H., Sauquet E. and Shankar U. (2009) Predictive mapping of the natural flow regimes of France. J. Hydrol., 373, 57–67. [Google Scholar]
  • Statsoft, 2010. STATISTICA data analysis software system, version 10 Tulsa: Statsoft Inc. [Google Scholar]
  • Stewart J.S., Wang L.Z., Lyons J., Horwatich J.A. and Bannerman R., 2001. Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37, 1475–1487. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Storey R.G. and Cowley D.R., 1997. Recovery of three New Zealand rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Hydrobiologia, 353, 63–76. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Suren A.M. and McMurtrie S., 2005. Assessing the effectiveness of enhancement activities in urban streams: II. Responses of invertebrate communities. River Res. Appl., 21, 439–453. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tornblom J., Degerman E. and Angelstam P., 2011. Forest proportion as indicator of ecological integrity in streams using Plecoptera as a proxy. Ecological Indicators, 11, 1366–1374. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Van Looy K., Meire P. and Wasson J.G., 2008. Including Riparian Vegetation in the Definition of Morphologic Reference Conditions for Large Rivers: A Case Study for Europe’s Western Plains. Environ. Manage., 41, 625–639. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wallace J.B., Eggert S.L., Meyer J.L. and Webster J.R., 1997. Multiple Trophic Levels of a Forest Stream Linked to Terrestrial Litter Inputs. Science, 277, 102–104. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang X., Wang Q., Yang S., Zheng D., Wu C. and Mannaerts C.M., 2011. Evaluating nitrogen removal by vegetation uptake using satellite image time series in riparian catchments. Science of The Total Environment, 409, 2567–2576. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wasson J.G., Chandesris A., Pella H., Blanc L., 2002. Typology and reference conditions for surface water bodies in France: the hydro-ecoregion approach. TemaNord, 566, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  • Wasson J.G., Villeneuve B., Ital A., Murray-Bligh J., Dobiasova M., Bacikova S., Timm H., Pella H., Mengin N. and Chandesris A., 2010. Large-scale relationships between basin and riparian land cover and the ecological status of European rivers. Freshw. Biol., 55, 1465–1482. [Google Scholar]
  • Weller D., Baker M.E. and Jordan T.E., 2012. Effects of riparian buffers on nitrate concentrations in watershed discharges: new models and management implications. Ecological Applications, in press. [Google Scholar]
  • Wenger S., 1999. Review of Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation. Office of Public Service & Outreach Institute of Ecology University of Georgia. [Google Scholar]
  • Wilson H.F. and Xenopoulos M.A., 2008. Landscape influences on stream fish assemblages across spatial scales in a northern Great Plains ecoregion. Can. J. Fish. Aqua. Sci., 65, 245–257. [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.