Open Access
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 415, 2014
Article Number 03
Number of page(s) 10
Published online 15 September 2014
  • Acuña V., Giorgi A., Munõz I., Sabater F. andSabater S., 2007. Meterological and riparian influences on organic matter dynamics in a forested Mediterranean stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 26, 54–69. [CrossRef]
  • Baker M.E. andKing R.S., 2010. A new method for detecting and interpreting biodiversity and ecological community thresholds. Method Ecol. Evol., 1, 25–37. [CrossRef]
  • Breiman L., 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn., 45, 5–32. [CrossRef]
  • Brown L.R., Cuffney T.F., Coles J.F., Fitzpatrick F., McMahon G., Steuer J., Bell A.H. andMay J.T., 2009. Urban streams across the USA: lessons learned from studies in 9 metropolitan areas. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 28, 1051–1069. [CrossRef]
  • Cao Y., Hawkins C.P., Olson J. andKosterman M.A., 2007. Modelling natural environmental gradients improves the accuracy and precision of diatom-based indicators. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 26, 566–585. [CrossRef]
  • Carlisle D.M., Hawkins C.P., Meador M.R., Potapova M. andFalcone J., 2008. Biological assessments of Appalachian streams based on predictive models for fish, macroinvertebrates, and diatom assemblages. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 16–37. [CrossRef]
  • Clapcott J., Young R., Goodwin E., Leathwick J. andKelly D., 2011. Relationships between multiple land-use pressures and individual and combined indicators of stream ecological integrity. DOC Res. Dev., 326, 57.
  • Clapcott J.E., Collier K.J., Death R.G., Goodwin E.O., Harding J.S., Kelly D.J., Leathwick J.R. andYoung R.G., 2012. Quantifying the relationships between land-use gradients and structural and functional indicators of stream ecological integrity. Freshwater Biol., 57, 74–902. [CrossRef]
  • Collier K.J., 2008. Average score per metric: an alternative metric aggregation method for assessing wadeable stream health. New Zeal. J. Mar. Fresh., 42, 367–378. [CrossRef]
  • Elith J., Leathwick J.R. andHastie T., 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol., 77, 802–813. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • European Union, 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, 73 p.
  • Fore L.S., Karr J.R. andWisseman R.W., 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15, 212–231. [CrossRef]
  • Hill B.H., Herlihy A.T., Kaufman P.R., Stevenson R.J., McCormick F.H. andJohnson C.B., 2000. Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 50–67. [CrossRef]
  • Hughes R.M., Kaufmann P.R., Herlihy A.T., Kincaid T.M., Reynolds L. andLarsen D.P., 1998. A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 55, 1618–1631. [CrossRef]
  • Joy M.K. andDeath R.G., 2004. Application of the index of biotic integrity methodology to New Zealand freshwater fish communities. Environ. Manage., 34, 415–428. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Karr J.R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, 6, 21–27. [CrossRef]
  • Leathwick J. and Julian K., 2007. Production of pressure estimates for New Zealand river catchments. NIWA client report: HAM2007-027, National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd, Hamilton.
  • Leathwick J.R., Snelder T., Chadderton W.L., Elith J., Julian K. andFerrier S., 2011. Use of generalised dissimilarity modelling to improve the biological discrimination of river and stream classifications. Freshwater Biol., 56, 21–38. [CrossRef]
  • Maxted J.R., Barbour M.T., Gerritsen J., Poretti V., Primrose N., Silvia A., Penrose D. andRenfrow R., 2000. Assessment framework for mid-Atlantic coastal plain streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 128–144. [CrossRef]
  • Pont D., Hugueny B., Beier U., Goffaux D., Melcher A., Noble R., Rogers C., Roset N. andSchmutz S., 2006. Assessing river biotic condition at a continental scale: a European approach using functional metrics and fish assemblages. J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 70–80. [CrossRef]
  • Schallenberg M., Kelly D., Clapcott J., Death R., MacNeil C., Young R., Sorrell B. andScarsbrook M., 2011. Approaches to assessing ecological integrity of New Zealand freshwaters. Sci.Cons., 307, 84.
  • Stark J.D., 1985. A macroinvertebrate community index of water quality for stony streams. Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, Wellington, 53 p.
  • Stoddard J.L., Larsen D.P., Hawkins C.P., Johnson R.K. andNorris R.H., 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: The concept of reference condition. Ecol. Appl., 16, 1267−1276. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Stoddard J.L., Herlihy A.T., Peck D.V., Hughes R.M., Whittier T.R. andTarquinio E., 2008. A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 878–891. [CrossRef]
  • Uehlinger U., 2000. Resistance and resilience of metabolism in a flood prone river system. Freshwater Biol., 45, 319–332. [CrossRef]
  • Vlek H.E., Verdonschot P.F.M. andNijboer R.C., 2004. Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic invertebrates. Hydrobiologia, 516, 173–189. [CrossRef]
  • Waite I., 2014. Agricultural disturbance response models for invertebrate and algal metrics from streams at two spatial scales within the U.S. Hydrobiologia, 726, 285–303. [CrossRef]
  • Woods R., Elliot S., Shankar U., Bidwell V., Harris S., Wheeler D., Clothier B., Green S., Hewitt A., Gibb R. and Parfitt R., 2006. The CLUES project: Predicting the effects of land-use on water quality – Stage II. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd, Hamilton, 109 p.

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.