Open Access
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 415, 2014
Article Number 08
Number of page(s) 16
Published online 24 December 2014
  • Bain J.T. andProctor M.C.F., 1980. The requirement of aquatic bryophytes for free CO2 as an inorganic carbon source: Some experimental evidence. New Phytol., 86, 393–400. [CrossRef]
  • Barko J.W. andSmart R.M., 1986. Sediment-related mechanisms of growth limitation in submerged macrophytes. Ecology, 67, 1328–1340. [CrossRef]
  • Bärlocher F., 1999. Biostatistik. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, p. 206.
  • Błachuta J. and Pasztaleniec A., 2011. Study area. In: Soszka H. (ed.), Ecological status assessment of the waters in the Wel river catchment. Guidelines for integrated assessment of ecological status of rivers and lakes to support river basin management plans. Institute of Inland Fisheries, Olsztyn [in Polish with English summary], pp. 9–34.
  • Blindow I., 1992. Decline of charophytes during eutrophication: comparison with angiosperms. Freshw. Biol., 28, 9–14. [CrossRef]
  • Braun-Blanquet J., 1964. Pflanzensoziologie. Wien, New York, Springer.
  • Carbiener R., Tremolieres M., Mercier J.L. andOrtscheit A., 1990. Aquatic macrophyte communities as bioindicators of eutrophication in calcareous oligosaprobe stream waters (Upper Rhine plain, Alsace). Vegetatio, 86, 71–88. [CrossRef]
  • Cattaneo A. andFortin L., 2000. Moss distribution in streams of the Quebec Laurentian Mountains. Can. J. Botany, 78, 748–752.
  • Chambers P.A. andPrepas E.E., 1990. Competition and coexistence in submerged aquatic plant communities: the effect of species interactions versus abiotic factors. Freshw. Biol., 23, 541–550. [CrossRef]
  • Cheruvelil K.S. andSorano P.A., 2008. Relationships between lake macrophyte cover and landscape features. Aquat. Bot., 88, 219–227. [CrossRef]
  • Ciecierska H. andKolada A., 2014. ESMI: a macrophyte index for assessing the ecological status of lakes. Environ. Monit. Assess., 186, 5501–5517. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Clayton J. andEdwards T., 2006: Aquatic plants as environmental indicators of ecological condition in New Zealand lakes. Hydrobiologia, 570, 147–151. [CrossRef]
  • Dawson H.F., 1988. Water flow and the vegetation of running waters. In: Symoens J.J. (ed.), Handbook of vegetation Sciences, Series 15: Vegetation of Inland Waters, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordtrecht, 283–309.
  • Dawson H.F. andSzoszkiewicz K., 1999. Relationships of some ecological factors with the associations of vegetation in British rivers. Hydrobiologia, 515, 117–122. [CrossRef]
  • Demars B.O.L. andEdwards A.C., 2009. Distribution of aquatic macrophytes in contrasting river systems: A critique of compositional-based assessment of water quality. Sci. Tot. Env. 407, 975–990. [CrossRef]
  • Duarte C.M. andKalff J., 1986. Littoral slope as a predictor of the maximum biomass soft submerged macrophyte communities. Limnol. Oceanogr., 31, 1072–1080. [CrossRef]
  • Eloranta P. andKwadrans J., 2004. Indicator value of freshwater red algae in running waters for water quality assessment. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St., 33, 47–54.
  • Elster H.J., 1962: Seetypen, Fließgewässertypen und Saprobiensystem. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 47, 211–218. [CrossRef]
  • Environment Agency, 2003. River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland. Field Survey Guidance Manual, p. 137.
  • Essington T.E. andCarpenter S.R., 2000. Nutrient cycling in lakes and streams: Insights from a comparative analysis. Ecosystems, 3, 131–143. [CrossRef]
  • EU, 2000. 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 J. L 327, 2000/12/22.
  • Fabris M., Schneider S. andMelzer A., 2009. Macrophyte-based bioindication in rivers – A comparative evaluation of the reference index (RI) and the trophic index of macrophytes (TIM). Limnologica, 39, 40–55. [CrossRef]
  • French T.D. andChambers P.A., 1996. Habitat partitioning in riverine macrophyte communities. Freshw. Biol., 36, 509–520. [CrossRef]
  • Fritz K.M., Glime J.M., Hribljan J. andGreenwood J.L., 2009. Can bryophytes be used to characterize hydrologic permanence in forested headwater streams? Ecol. Ind., 9, 681–692. [CrossRef]
  • Haury J., Peltre M.-C., Trémolières M., Barbe J., Thiébaut G., Bernez I., Daniel H., Chatenet P., Haan-Archipof G., Muller S., Dutartre A., Laplace-Treyture C., Cazaubon A. andLambert-Servien E., 2006. A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution – the Macrophytes Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different types of river and pollution. Hydrobiologia, 570, 153–158. [CrossRef]
  • Hill M.O., 1979. TWINSPAN – a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
  • Horne A.J. and Goldman C.R., 1994. Limnology 2nd edn., McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
  • Janauer G.A., Hale P. and Sweeting R., 2003. Macrophyte inventory of the River Danube: A pilot study. Arch. Hydrobiol., Suppl., 147, Large Rivers 14, 9–16.
  • Jensen S., 1977. An objective method for sampling the macrophyte vegetation in lakes. Vegetatio, 33, 107–118. [CrossRef]
  • Jeppesen E., Jensen J.P., Søndergaard M., Lauridsen T. andLandkildehus F., 2000. Trophic structure, species richness and biodiversity in Danish lakes. Changes along a phosphorus gradient. Freshw. Biol., 45, 201–218. [CrossRef]
  • Johnson L.B., Richards C., Host G. andArthur J.W., 1997. Landscape influence on water chemistry in Midwestern stream ecosystems. Freshw. Biol., 37, 193–208. [CrossRef]
  • Kelly M.G. andWhitton B.A., 1998. Biological monitoring of eutrophication in rivers. Hydrobiologia, 384, 55–67. [CrossRef]
  • Lacoul P. andFreedman B., 2006. Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 14, 89–136. [CrossRef]
  • Mazej Z. andGerm M., 2008. Competitive advantages of Najas marina L. in a process of litoral colonization in the lake Velenjsko jezero (Slovenija). Acta Biol. Slov., 51, 13–20.
  • Middelboe A.L. andMarkager S., 1997. Depth limits and minimum light requirements of freshwater macrophytes. Freshw. Biol., 37, 553–568. [CrossRef]
  • Nicols H.W., 1965. Culture and development of Hidenbrandia rivularis from Denmark and North America. Am. J. .Bot., 52, 9–15. [CrossRef]
  • Ohle W., 1955. Beiträge zur Produktionsbiologie der Gewässer. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Supplement 23, 456–479.
  • Passauer B., Meilinger P., Melzer A. andSchneider S., 2002. Does the structural quality of running waters affect the occurrence of macrophytes? Acta Hydroch. Hydrob., 30, 197–206. [CrossRef]
  • Pielou E.C., 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J. Theor. Biol., 13, 131–144. [CrossRef]
  • Raven P.J., Holmes N.T.H., Dawson F.H., Fox P.J.A., Everard M., Fozzard I.R. and Rouen K.J. 1998. River Habitat Quality: the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man. Environment Agency, Bristol.
  • Robach F., Thiebaut G., Tremolieres M. andMuller S., 1996. A reference system for continental running waters: plant communities as bioindicators of increasing eutrophication in alkaline and acidic waters in north-east France. Hydrobiologia, 340, 67–76. [CrossRef]
  • Rowan J.S., Carwardine J., Duck R.W., Black A.R., Cutler M.E.J., Soutar I. andBoon P.J., 2006. Development of a technique for Lake Habitat Survey (LHS) with applications for the European Union Water Framework Directive. Aquat. Conserv., 16, 627–657. [CrossRef]
  • Schneider S. andMelzer A., 2003. The Trophic Index of Macrophytes (TIM) – a new tool for indicating the trophic state of running waters. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol., 88, 49–67. [CrossRef]
  • Schneider S., Krumpholz T. andMelzer A., 2000. Trophieindikation in Fließgewässern mit Hilfe des TIM (Trophie-Index Makrophyten) – Erprobung eines neu entwickelten Index im Inninger Bach (Assessment of river trophic status – implementation of the trophic index of macrophytes (TIM) in the Inninger Bach river). Acta Hydroch. Hydrob. 28, 241–249. [CrossRef]
  • Schneider S.C., 2007. Macrophyte trophic indicator values from a European perspective. Limnologica, 37, 281–289. [CrossRef]
  • Schneider S.C., Ławniczak A.E., Piciñska-Faltynowicz J. andSzoszkiewicz K., 2012. Do macrophytes, diatoms and non-diatom benthic algae give redundant information? Results from a case study in Poland. Limnologica, 42, 204-211. [CrossRef]
  • Shannon C.E. and Weaver W., 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
  • Soszka H. (ed.), 2011. Ecological status assessment of the waters in the Wel River catchment. Guidelines for integrated assessment of ecological status of rivers and lakes to support river basin management plans. Institute of Inland Fisheries, Olsztyn [in Polish with English summary], 320.
  • Spence D.H.N. 1982. The zonation of plants in freshwater lakes. Adv. Ecol. Res., 12, 37–125. [CrossRef]
  • Squires M.M., Lesack L.F.W. andHuebert D., 2002. The influence of water transparency on the distribution and abundance of macrophytes among lakes of the Mackenzie Delta, Western Canadian Arctic. Freshw. Biol., 47, 2123–2135. [CrossRef]
  • Srivastava D.S., Staicer C.A. andFreedman B., 1995. Aquatic vegetation of Nova Scotian lakes differing in acidity and trophic status. Aquat. Bot., 51, 181–196. [CrossRef]
  • Stace C., 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Stahel W.A., 1995. Statistische Datenanalyse – Eine Einführung für Naturwissenschaftler. Braunschweig, Vieweg Verlag, Wiesbaden.
  • StatSoft, Inc., 2005. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7.1.
  • Stendera S. andJohnson R.K., 2006. Multiscale drivers of water chemistry of boreal lakes and streams. Environ. Management, 38, 760–770. [CrossRef]
  • Szoszkiewicz K., Zbierska J., Jusik Sz. and Zgoła T., 2010a. Macrophyte Method for River Assessment – manual for the assessment and classification of ecological status of running waters based on water plants. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań [in Polish], 81.
  • Szoszkiewicz K., Jusik Sz., Ławniczak A.E. andZgoła T., 2010b. Macrophyte development in unimpacted lowland rivers in Poland. Hydrobiologia, 656, 117–131. [CrossRef]
  • ter Braak C.J.F. and Šmilauer P., 2002. CANOCO Reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, USA.
  • Toivonen H. andHuttunen P., 1995. Aquatic macrophytes and ecological gradients in 57 small lakes in southern Finland. Aquat. Bot., 51, 197–221. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [MathSciNet] [PubMed]
  • van der Maarel E., 1979. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio, 39, 97–114. [CrossRef]
  • Vestergaard O. andSand-Jensen K., 2000. Alkalinity and trophic state regulate aquatic plant distribution in Danish lakes. Aquat. Bot., 67, 85–107. [CrossRef]
  • Westlake D.F., 1975. Macrophytes. In: Whitton B.A. (ed.), River ecology. Berkeley, University of California Press, California, 106–128.
  • Zbierska J., Ławniczak A.E., Jusik Sz., 2011. Supporting physico-chemical elements. In: Soszka H. (ed.), Ecological status assessment of the waters in the Wel river catchment. Guidelines for integrated assessment of ecological status of rivers and lakes to support river basin management plans, Institute of Inland Fisheries, Olsztyn [in Polish with English summary], 115–124.

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.