EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues No 415 (2014) Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst., 415 (2014) 04 References
Open Access
Issue
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 415, 2014
Article Number 04
Number of page(s) 17
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2014028
Published online 20 October 2014
  • Andersson E., Nilsson C. and Johansson M.E., 2000. Effects of river fragmentation on plant dispersal and riparian flora. Regul. Rivers Res. Manage., 16, 83–89. [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]
  • Basaguren A. and Orive E., 1990. The relationship between water quality and caddisfly assemblage structure in fast-running rivers. The river Cadagua Basin. Environ. Monit. Assess., 15, 35–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bitušík P., Svitok M. and Dragúňová M., 2006. The actual longitudinal zonation of the river Hron (Slovakia) based on chironomid assemblages (Diptera, Chironomidae). Acta Univ. Carol. Biol., 50, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  • Borcard D., Legendre P. and Drapeau P., 1992. Partialling out the spatial components of ecological variation. Ecology, 73, 1045–1055. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bretschko G., 1995. River/land ecotones: scales and patterns. Hydrobiologia, 303, 83–91. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bruns D.A. and Minshall G.W., 1985. River continuum relationships in an 8th-order river reach: Analyses of polar ordination, functional groups, and organic matter parameters. Hydrobiologia, 217, 277–285. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bruns D.A., Minshall G.W., Cushing C.E., Cummins K.W., Brock J.T. and Wannote R.C., 1984. Tributaries as modifiers of the river continuum concept: Analysis by polar ordination and regression models. Arch. Hydrobiol., 99, 208–220. [Google Scholar]
  • Brussock P.P. and Brown A.V., 1991. Riffle-pool geomorphology disrupts longitudinal patterns of stream benthos. Hydrobiologia, 220, 109–117. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bulánková E., 2006. Hodnotenie riečnej morfologie Hrona pomocou metódy River Habitat Survey. Acta Fac. Ecologiae 14, 39–45. (in Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  • Cummins K.W., 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience, 24, 631–641. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dohet A., 2002. Are caddisflies an ideal group for the biological assessment of water quality in streams? Proceedings of the 10th Internat. Symp. on Trichoptera. Nova Suppl. Entomol., 15, 507–520. [Google Scholar]
  • Dudich E., 1958. Die grundlagen der fauna eines Karpaten Flusses. Acta Zool. Hung., 3, 179–201. [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]
  • Frost S., Huni A. and Kershaw W.E., 1971. Evaluation of kicking technique for sampling stream bottom fauna. Can. J. Zool., 49, 167–173. [Google Scholar]
  • Gerritsen J., Barbour M.T. and King K., 2000. Apples, oranges, and ecoregions: On determining pattern in aquatic assemblages. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 487–496. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gombeer S.C., Knapen D. and Bervoets L., 2011. The influence of different spatial-scale variables on caddisfly assemblages in Flemish lowland streams. Ecol. Entomol., 36, 355–368. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Heino J., 2009. Biodiversity of aquatic insects: spatial gradients and environmental correlates of assemblage-level measures at large scales. Freshw. Rev., 2, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  • Heino J., Parviainen J., Paavola R., Jehle M., Louhi P. and Muotka T., 2005. Characterizing macroinvertebrate assemblage structure in relation to stream size and tributary position. Hydrobiologia, 539, 121–130. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Highler L.W.G. and Tolkamp H.H., 1983. Hydropsychidae as Bio-Indicators. Environ. Monit. Assess., 3, 331–341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Holm S., 1979. A simple sequential rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat., 6, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  • Huryn A.D. and Wallace J.B., 2000. Life history and production of stream insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 45, 83–110. [Google Scholar]
  • Hynes H.B.N., 1970. The ecology of running waters, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, 555 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Hynes H.B.N., 1975. The stream and its valley. Vehr. Int. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • Illéšová D., Halgoš J. and Krno I., 2008. Blackfly assemblages (Diptera, Simuliidae) of the Carpathian river: habitat characteristics, longitudinal zonation and eutrophication. Hydrobiologia, 598, 163–174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Illies J. and Botosaneanu L., 1963. Problémes et methodes de la classification et de la zonation écologique des eaux courantes considerées surtout du point de vue faunistique. Mitt. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 12, 1–57. [Google Scholar]
  • Kiraly I.A., Coghlan Jr. S.M., Zydlewski J. and Hayes D., 2014. An assessment of fish assemblage structure in a large river. River Res. Appl. DOI: 10.1002/rra.2738. [Google Scholar]
  • Krno I., 1983. Trofické skupiny makrozoobentosu v povodí rieky L’upčianky. Biologia, 38, 145–148 (in Slovak). [Google Scholar]
  • Krno I., 1987. Classification of Streams of the Upper Váh River Basin (West Carpathians). Acta Fac. Rerum Nat. Univ. Comenianae Zool., 29, 33–52. [Google Scholar]
  • Krno I., 1992. Potočníky (Trichoptera) povodia Žitavy. Rosalia, 8, 135–146 (in Slovak). [Google Scholar]
  • Krno I., 2006. Caddisflies (Trichoptera) and alderflies (Megaloptera) of lower course of the Hron river. Acta Fac. Ecologiae, 14, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  • Krno I., 2007. Impact of Human Activities on Stonefly Ecological Metrics in the Hron River. Biologia, 62, 446–457. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Krno I., Šporka F., Tirjaková E., Bulánková E., Deván P., Degma P., Bitušík P., Kodada J., Pomichal R. and Hullová D., 1996. Limnology of the Turiec river basin (West Carpathians, Slovakia). Biologia, Bratislava, 51, 122. [Google Scholar]
  • Legendre P., 2001. Program K-means user’s guide, Département de sciences biologiques, Université de Montréal, 11 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Legendre P. and Legendre L., 1998. Numerical ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 853 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Lenat D.R., 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 7, 22–233. [Google Scholar]
  • Lepš J. and Šmilauer P., 2003. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 269 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Lukáš J. and Chvojka P., 2011. New faunistic records of Trichoptera from Slovakia. Klapalekiana, 47, 115–117. [Google Scholar]
  • Macan T.T., 1961. A review of running waters. Vehr. Int. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 14, 587–602. [Google Scholar]
  • Malmqvist B. and Rundle S., 2002. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ. Conserv., 29, 134–153. [Google Scholar]
  • McCune B. and Grace J.B., 2002. Analysis of ecological communities, MjM Software Design, Oregon, 300 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Minshall G.W., Petersen R.C., Cummins K.W., Bott T.L., Sedell J.R., Cushing C.E. and Vannote R.L., 1983. Interbiome comparison of stream ecosystem dynamics. Ecol. Monogr., 53, 1–25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W., Peterson B.J., Cushing C.E., Bruns D.A., Sedell J.R. and Vannote R.L., 1985. Developments in stream ecosystem theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 42, 1045–1055. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Novikmec M., 2005. Caddisfly (Insecta, Trichoptera) communities of selected tributaries of the Hron River. Acta Fac. Ecologiae, 13, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  • Palmer M.A. and Poff N.L., 1997. The influence of environmental heterogeneity on patterns and processes in streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 16, 169–173. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Perry J.A. and Schaeffer D.J., 1987. The longitudinal distribution of riverine benthos: a river discontinuum? Hydrobiologia, 148, 257–268. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pitsch T., 1993. Zur Larvaltaxonomie, Faunistik und Ökologie mitteleuropäischer Fliesswasser Köcherfliegen (Insecta: Trichoptera), Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung – Schriftenreihe des Fachbereichs Landschaftsentwicklung – Sonderheft S8, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, 316 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Raven P.J., Fox P.J.A., Everard M., Holmes N.T.H. and Dawson F.H., 1997. River Habitat Survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In: Boon P.J. and Howell D.L. (eds.), Freshwater Quality: Defining the indefinable? The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, 215–234. [Google Scholar]
  • Renöfält B.M., Jansson R. and Nilsson C., 2010. Effects of hydropower generation and opportunities for environmental flow management in Swedish riverine ecosystems. Freshw. Biol., 55, 49–67. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rosenberg D.M. and Resh V.H., 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macro-invertebrates, Chapman & Hall, NY, London, 487 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Rozkošný R. (ed.), 1980. Klíč vodních larev hmyzu, Academia, Praha, 521 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Ruiz-García A., Márquez-Rodríguez J. and Ferreras-Romero M., 2012. Implications of anthropogenic disturbance factors on the Trichoptera assemblage in a Mediterranean fluvial system: Are Trichoptera useful for identifying land-use alterations? Ecol. Indic., 14, 114–123. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Savić A., Ranđelović V., Ðorđević M., Karadžić B., Ðokić M. and Krpo-Ćetković J., 2013. The influence of environmental factors on the structure of caddisfly (Trichoptera) assemblage in the Nišava River (Central Balkan Peninsula). Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst., 409, 03. [Google Scholar]
  • Schmitz W., 1955. Physiographische Aspeckte der Limnologischen Fliessgewassertypen. Arch. Hydrobiol., 22, 510–523. [Google Scholar]
  • Solà C. and Prat N., 2006. Monitoring metal and metalloid bioaccumulation in Hydropsyche (Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae) to evaluate metal pollution in a mining river. Whole body versus tissue content. Sci. Total Environ., 359, 221–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stanford J.A., Ward J.V., Liss W.J., Frissell C.A., Williams R.N., Lichatowich J.A. and Coutant C.C., 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regul. Rivers Res. Manage., 12, 391–413. [Google Scholar]
  • Statzner B. and Higler B., 1985. Questions and comments on the river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 42, 1038–1044. [Google Scholar]
  • Statzner B., Bis B. and Usseglio-Polatera P., 2001. Perspectives for biomonitoring at larger spatial scales: a unified measure for the functional composition of invertebrate communities in European running waters. Basic Appl. Ecol., 1, 73–85. [Google Scholar]
  • Stoneburner D.L., 1977. Preliminary observations of the aquatic insects of the smoky mountains: altitudinal zonation in the spring. Hydrobiologia, 56, 137–143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Svitok M., 2006. Structure and spatial variability of mayfly (Ephemeroptera) communities in the upper Hron River basin. Biologia, 61, 547–554. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sweeny B.W., 1984. Factors influencing life history patterns of aquatic insects. In: Resh V.H. and Rosenberg D.M. (eds.), The ecology of aquatic insects, Praeger Publisher, New York, 56–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 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, NY, 500 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Vannote R.L., Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W., Sedell J.R. and Cushing C.E., 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 37, 130–137. [Google Scholar]
  • Verdonschot P.F.M., Real M. and Schor J.A., 1992. Chironomids and regional water types. Neth. J. Aquat. Ecol., 26, 513–520. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wallace J.B. and Webster J.R., 1996. The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem function. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 41, 115–139. [Google Scholar]
  • Ward J.W., 1980. Abundance and altitudinal distribution of Ephemeroptera in a Rocky mountain stream. In: Flannagan J.F. (ed.), Advances in Ephemeroptera Biology, Plenum press, New York, London, 169–177. [Google Scholar]
  • Ward J.V. and Stanford J.A., 1983a. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic systems. In: Fontaine T.D. and Bartell S.M. (eds.), Dynamics of lotic ecosystems, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  • Ward J.V. and Stanford J.A., 1983b. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: an explanation for biotic diversity patterns in lotic systems. In: Fontaine T.D. and Bartell S.M. (eds.), Dynamics of lotic ecosystems, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 347–356. [Google Scholar]
  • Ward J.V. and Stanford J.A., 1987. The ecology of regulated streams: Past accomplishments and directions for future research. In: Craig J.F. and Kemper J.B. (eds.), Regulated streams advances in ecology, Plenum Press, New York, 391–409. [Google Scholar]
  • Ward J.V., Robinson C.T. and Tockner K., 2002. Applicability of ecological theory to riverine ecosystems. Vehr. Int. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 28, 443–450. [Google Scholar]
  • Waringer J. and Graf W., 2011. Atlas der mitteleuropäischen Köcherfliegenlarven, Erik Mauch Verlag, Dinkelscherben, 468 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Wiberg-Larsen P., Brodersen K.P., Birkholm S., Grøn P.N. and Skriver J., 2000. Species richness and assemblage structure of Trichoptera in Danish streams. Freshw. Biol., 43, 633–647. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wright J.F., Armitage P.D., Furse M.T. and Moss D., 1984. The classification of sites on British rivers using macroinvertebrates. Vehr. Int. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol., 22, 1939–1943. [Google Scholar]
  • Zat’ovičová Z. and Novikmec M., 2003. Trichoptera. Autekologické charakteristiky. In: Šporka F. (ed.), Vodné bezstavovce (makroevertebráta) Slovenska, súpis druhov a autekologické charakteristiky, Slovenský hydrometeorologický ústav, Bratislava, 431–466 (in Slovak). [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.