Open Access
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 408, 2013
Article Number 02
Number of page(s) 20
Published online 08 March 2013
  • Arscott D.B., Jackson J.K. and Kratzer E.B., 2006. Role of rarity and taxonomic resolution in regional and spatial analysis of stream macroinvertebrates. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 25, 977–997. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bailey R.C., Norris R.H. and Reynoldson T.B., 2001. Taxonomic resolution of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in bioassessments. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 20, 280–286. [Google Scholar]
  • Bonada N., Zamora-Munoz C., Rieradevall M. and Prat N., 2005. Ecological and historical filters constraining spatial caddisfly distribution in Mediterranean rivers. Freshwater Biol., 50, 781–797. [Google Scholar]
  • Cao Y., Bark A.W. and Williams W.P., 1996. Measuring the response of macroinvertebrate communities to water pollution: a comparison of multivariate approaches, biotic and diversity indices. Hydrobiologia, 341, 1–19. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Daly C., Gibson W.P., Taylor G.H., Johnson G.L. and Pasteris P., 2002. A knowledge-based approach to the statistical mapping of climate. Climate Res., 22, 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  • Dufrêne M. and Legendre P., 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr., 67, 345–366. [Google Scholar]
  • Furse M.T., Moss D., Wright J.F. and Armitage P.D., 1984. The influence of seasonal and taxonomic factors on the ordination and classification of running-water sites in Great Britain and on the prediction of their macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biol., 14, 257–280. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Furse M.T., Hering D., Moog O., Verdonschot P., Johnson R.K., Brabec K., Gritzalis K., Buffagni A., Pinto P., Friberg N., Murray-Bligh J., Kokes J., Alber R., Usseglio-Polatera P., Haase P., Sweeting R., Bis B., Szoszkiewicz K., Soszka H., Springe G., Sporka F. and Krno I., 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia, 566, 3–29. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hawkins C.P. and Vinson M.R., 2000. Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 501–517. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hawkins C.P., Norris R.H., Gerritsen J., Hughes R.M., Jackson S.K., Johnson R.K. and Stevenson R.J., 2000a. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 541–556. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hawkins C.P., Norris R.H., Hogue J.N. and Feminella J.W., 2000b. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecol. Appl., 10, 1456–1477. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Heino J., Muotka T., Myrkä H., Paavola R., Haemaelaeinen H. and Koskenniemi E., 2003. Defining macroinvertebrate assemblage types of headwater streams: Implications for bioassessment and conservation. Ecol. Appl., 13, 842–852. [Google Scholar]
  • Heino J., Myrkä H., Kotanen J. and Muotka T., 2007. Ecological filters and variability in stream macroinvertebrate communities: do taxonomic and functional structure follow the same path? Ecography, 30, 217–230. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • Herlihy A.T., Larsen D.P., Paulsen S.G., Urquhart N.S. and Rosenbaum B.J., 2000. Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: the EMAP mid-Atlantic pilot study. Environ. Monitoring Assess., 63, 95–113. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Herlihy A.T., Hughes R.M. and Sifneos J.C., 2006. Landscape clusters based on fish assemblages in the conterminous USA and their relationship to existing landscape classifications. In: Hughes, R.M., Wang L. and Seelbach P.W. (eds.), Landscape Influences on Stream Habitats and Biological Assemblages. Symposium 48. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 87–112. [Google Scholar]
  • Herlihy A.T., Paulsen S.G., Van Sickle J., Stoddard J.L., Hawkins C.P. and Yuan L.L., 2008. Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 860–877. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hoeinghaus D.J., Winemiller K.O. and Bimbaum J.S., 2007. Local and regional determinants of stream fish assemblage structure: inferences based on taxonomic vs. functional groups. J. Biogeogr., 34, 324–338. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Johnson R.K., Furse M.T., Hering D. and Sandin L., 2007. Ecological relationships between stream communities and spatial scale: implications for designing catchment-level monitoring programmes. Freshwater Biol., 52, 939–958. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Klemm D.J., Blocksom K.A., Fulk F.A., Herlihy A.T., Hughes R.M., Kaufmann P.R., Peck D.V., Stoddard J.L. and Thoeny W.T. 2003. Development and evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index (MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environ. Manage. 31, 656–669. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kruskal J.B. and Wish M., 1978. Multidimensional scaling, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. [Google Scholar]
  • Lamouroux N., Poff N.L. and Angermeier P.L., 2002. Intercontinental convergence of stream fish community traits along geomorphic and hydraulic gradients. Ecology, 83, 1792–1807. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lenat D.R. and Resh V.H., 2001. Taxonomy and stream ecology – the benefits of genus- and species-level identifications. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 20, 297–298. [Google Scholar]
  • Lorenz A., Feld C.K. and Hering D., 2004. Typology of streams in Germany based on benthic invertebrates: ecoregions, zonation, geology and substrate. Limnologica, 34, 379–389. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Malmqvist B, 2002. Aquatic invertebrates in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biol., 47, 679–694. [Google Scholar]
  • Marchant R., Hirst A., Norris R. and Metzeling L., 1999. Classification of macroinvertebrate communities across drainage basins in Victoria, Australia: Consequences of sampling on a broad spatial scale for predictive modelling. Freshwater Biol., 41, 253–268. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • McCune B, 1994. Improving community analysis with the Beals smoothing function. Ecoscience, 1, 82–86. [Google Scholar]
  • McCune B. and Grace J.B., 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities, MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon. [Google Scholar]
  • Merritt R.W., Cummins K.W. and Berg M.B., 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 4th edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa. [Google Scholar]
  • Nijboer R.C., Johnson R.K, Verdonschot P.F.M., Sommerhäuser M. and Buffagni A., 2004. Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia, 516, 91–105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Peck D.V., Herlihy A.T., Hill B.H., Hughes R.M., Kaufmann P.R., Klemm D.J., Lazorchak J.M., McCormick F.H., Peterson S.A., Ringold P.L., Magee T. and Cappaert M.R., 2006. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program – Surface Waters Western Pilot Study: field operations manual for wadeable streams, EPA 620/R-06/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • Poff N.L., 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: Towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 16, 391–409. [Google Scholar]
  • Poff N.L., Olden J.D., Vieira N.K.M., Finn D.S., Simmons M.P. and Kondratieff B.C., 2006. Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 25, 730–755. [Google Scholar]
  • Ramsey F.I. and Schafer D.W., 2002. The Statistical Sleuth, Duxbury Press, Belmont, California. [Google Scholar]
  • Randolph R.P., 2002. Atlas and Biogeographic Review of the North American Mayflies (Ephemeroptera), Purdue University, Ann Arbor, MI. [Google Scholar]
  • Sandin L. and Johnson R.K., 2000. Ecoregions and macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 462–474. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sandin L. and Johnson R.K., 2004. Local, landscape and regional factors structuring benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Swedish streams. Land. Ecol., 19, 501–514. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Smith M.J., Kay W.R., Edward D.H.D., Papas P.J., Richardson K.S.J., Simpson J.C., Pinder A.M., Cale D.J., Horwitz P.H.J., Davis J.A., Yung F.H., Norris R.H. and Halse S.A., 1999. AusRivAs: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshwater Biol., 41, 269–282. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Stevens D.L. and Olsen A.R., 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 99, 262–278. [Google Scholar]
  • Stewart K.W. and Stark B.P., 2002. Biogeography of nearctic Plecoptera. In: Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera), 2nd edition, The Caddis Press, Columbus, Ohio, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  • Stoddard J.L., Peck D.V., Paulsen S.G., Van Sickle J., Hawkins C.P., Herlihy A.T., Hughes R.M., Kaufmann P.R., Larsen D.P., Lomnicky G., Olsen A.R., Peterson S.A., Ringold P.L. and Whittier T.R., 2005. An ecological assessment of western streams and rivers, EPA 620/R-05/005, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • Stribling J.B., Pavlik K.L., Holdsworth S.M. and Leppo E.W., 2008. Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 906–919. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Thorp J.H. and Covich A.P., 2001. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates, 2nd edition, Academic Press, New York. [Google Scholar]
  • Turak E., Flack L.K., Norris R.N., Simpson J. and Waddell N., 1999. Assessment of river condition at a large spatial scale using predictive models. Freshwater Biol., 41, 283–298. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Verdonschot, P.F.M., 2006a. Data composition and taxonomic resolution in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia, 566, 59–74. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Verdonschot P.F.M., 2006b. Evaluation of the use of Water Framework Directive typology descriptors, reference sites and spatial scale in macroinvertebrate stream typology. Hydrobiologia, 566, 39–58. [CrossRef] [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]
  • Waite I.R., Herlihy A.T., Larsen D.P. and Klemm D.J., 2000. Comparing strengths of geographic and nongeographic classifications of stream benthic macroinvertebrates in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, USA. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 429–441. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Whittier T. R., Stoddard J.L., Larsen D.P. and Herlihy A.T., 2007. Selecting reference sites for stream biological assessments: best professional judgment or objective criteria. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 26, 349–360. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wright J.F., Moss D., Armitage P.D. and Furse M.T., 1984. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biol., 14, 221–256. [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.