Open Access
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 416, 2015
Article Number 19
Number of page(s) 22
Published online 12 August 2015
  • Baattrup-Pedersen A., Szoszkiewicz K., Nijboer R., O’Hare M.O. and Ferreira T., 2006. Macrophyte communities in unimpacted European streams: variability in assemblage patterns, abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia, 566, 179–196. [CrossRef]
  • Baláži P. and Tóthová L., 2010a. Ecological status based on aquatic macrophytes in selected water bodies in the Danube catchment area (Slovakia). Zborník Východoslov. Múzea. Natura Carpatica (Košice), 51, 7–17.
  • Baláži P. and Tóthová L., 2010b. Využitie IBMR (Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers) pre hodnotenie ekologického stavu vodných útvarov podl’a vodných makrofytov. Acta Envir. Univ. Comenianae (Bratislava), 18/2, 47–62.
  • Baláži P., Mišíková K. and Tóthová L., 2010. Machorasty ako súčasti spoločenstva vodných makrofytov na vybraných monitorovaných lokalitách tečúcich vôd Slovenska. Acta Envir. Univ. Comenianae (Bratislava), 18/2, 63–78.
  • Baláži P., Tóthová L., Ot’ahel’ová H., Hrivnák R. and Mišíková K., 2011. Checklist of taxa examined at localities monitored in the Slovak surface water bodies – macrophytes. Acta Envir. Univ. Comenianae (Bratislava), 19/1, 5–89.
  • Baláži P., Hrivnák R. and Ot’ahel’ová H., 2014. The relationship between macrophyte assemblages and selected environmental variables in reservoirs of Slovakia examined for the purpose of ecological assessment. Pol. J. Ecol., 62, 541–558. [CrossRef]
  • Birk S. and Willby N., 2010. Towards harmonization of ecological quality classification: establishing common grounds in European macrophyte assessment for rivers. Hydrobiologia, 652, 149–163. [CrossRef]
  • Ceschin S., Aleffi M., Bisceglie S., Savo V. and Zuccarello V., 2012. Aquatic bryophytes as ecological indicators of the water quality status in the Tiber River basin (Italy). Ecol. Indic., 14, 74–81. [CrossRef]
  • Dawson F.H., Newman J.R., Gravelle M.J., Rouen K.J. and Henville P., 1999. Assessment of the Trophic Status of Rivers using Macrophytes: Evaluation of the Mean Trophic Rank. R&D Technical Report E39, Environment Agency of England & Wales, Bristol, UK.
  • Dodds W.K. and Gudder D.A., 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. J. Phycol., 28, 415–427. [CrossRef]
  • Dodkins I., Rippey B. and Hale P., 2005. An application of canonical correspondence analysis for developing ecological quality assessment metrics for river macrophytes. Freshwater Biol., 50, 891–904. [CrossRef]
  • Downes B.J., Entwisle T.J. and Reich P., 2003. Effects of flow regulation on disturbance frequencies and in-channel bryophytes and macroalgae in some upland streams. River Res. Appl., 19, 27–42. [CrossRef]
  • EN 14184: 2014. Water quality. Guidance Standard for the Surveying of Aquatic Macrophytes in Running Waters. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 14 p.
  • European Environmental Agency, 2000. Coordination of Information on the Environment – Land Cover 2000.
  • 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. Official Journal of the European Communities. L 327/1. 22.12.2000, 1–72.
  • Ferreira M.T. and Moreira I.S., 1999. River plants from an Iberian basin and environmental factors influencing their distribution. Hydrobiologia, 415, 101–107. [CrossRef]
  • Franklin P., Dunbar M. and Whitehead P., 2008. Flow controls on lowland river macropyhtes: A review. Sci. Total Environ., 40, 369–378. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Gecheva G., Cheshmedjiev S., Dimitrova-Dyulgerova I., Belkinova D. and Mladenov R., 2010. Implementation and adaptation of macrophyte indication system: assessment of ecological status of rivers in Bulgaria according to the Water Framework Directive. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 24, 171–180. [CrossRef]
  • Haslam S.M., 2006. River Plants (revised second edition). Forrest Text, Ceredigion, 438 p.
  • Haury J., Peltre M.C., Termolieres M., Barbe J., Thiebaut G., Bernez I., Daniel H., Chatenet P., Haan-Archipof G., Muller S., Dutartre A., Laplace-Treyture C., Cazaubon A. and Lambert-Servien E., 2006. A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution: the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR) its application to different types of river and pollution. Hydrobiologia, 570, 153–158. [CrossRef]
  • Hrivnák R., Valachovič M. and Ripka J., 2003. Relation between macrophyte vegetation and environmental condition in the Ipel’ River (Slovakia) – case study. Arch. Hydrobiol., Suppl. 147/1–2, 117–127.
  • Hrivnák R., Ot’ahel’ová H. and Valachovič M., 2007. The relationship between macrophyte vegetation and habitat factors along a middle-size European river. Pol. J. Ecol., 55, 717–729.
  • Hrivnák R., Ot’ahel’ová H., Valachovič M., Pal’ove-Balang P. and Kubinská A. 2010. Effect of environmental variables on the aquatic macrophyte composition pattern in streams: a case study from Slovakia. Fundam. Appl. Limnol., Suppl. 177/2, 115–124. [CrossRef]
  • Hrivnák R., Ot’ahel’ová H., Kochjarová J. and Pal’ove-Balang P., 2013. Effect of environmental conditions on species composition of macrophytes – study from two distinct biogeographical regions of Central Europe. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst., 411, 09 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
  • Janauer G.A., 2003. Methods. In: Janauer G.A., Hale P. and Sweeting R. (eds.), Macrophyte inventory of the river Danube: A pilot study, Arch. Hydrobiol., 14, 9–16.
  • Janauer G.A. and Dokulil M., 2006. Macrophytes and Algae in Running Waters. In: Ziglio G., Siligardi M. and Flaim G. (eds.), Biological Monitoring of Rivers. John Wiley & Sons, 89–109.
  • Kelly M., 2013. Data rich, information poor? Phytobenthos assessment and the Water Framework Directive, Eur. J. Phycol., 48/4, 437–450. [CrossRef]
  • Kuhar U., Germ M., Gaberščik A. and Urbanič G., 2011. Development of a River Macropyhte Index (RMI) for assessing river ecological status. Limnologica, 41, 235–243. [CrossRef]
  • Lacoul P. and Freedman B., 2006. Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 14, 89–136. [CrossRef]
  • Leyssen A., Adriaens P., Denys L., Packet J., Schneiders A., Van Looy K. and Vanhecke L., 2005. Toepassing van verschillende biologische beoordelingssystemen op Vlaamse potentiële interkalibratielocaties overeenkomstig de Europese kaderrichtlijn water: partim ’Macrofyten’. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, Brussel, 178 p.
  • Luis L., Bergamini A. and Sim-Sim M., 2015. Which environmental factors best explain variation of species richness and composition of stream bryophytes? A case study from mountainous streams in Medeira Island. Aquat. Bot., 123, 37–46. [CrossRef]
  • Manolaki P. and Papastergiadou E., 2015. Environmental Factors Influencing Macrophytes Assemblages in a Middle-Sized Mediterranean Stream. River Res. Appl., DOI: 10.1002/rra.2878.
  • Marhold K. and Hindák F., 1998. Checklist of non-vascular and vascular plants of Slovakia. Veda, Bratislava, 688 p.
  • Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic. 2011. Water Plan of the Slovak Republic – Abbreviated version, 124 p.
  • NF T90-395: 2003. Water quality. Determination of the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR). Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), Saint Denis La Plaine, 28 p.
  • NV SR 269/2010 Z. z., v znení neskorších predpisov. Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky, ktorým ktorým sa ustanovujú požiadavky na dosiahnutie dobrého stavu vôd.
  • Ot’ahel’ová H., Hrivnák R., Valachovič M. and Janaur G.A., 2007a. Temporal changes of aquatic macrophyte vegetation in a lowland groundwater feed eutrophic course (Klátovské rameno, Slovakia). Acta Soc. Bot. Poloniae, 76, 141–150. [CrossRef]
  • Ot’ahel’ová H., Valachovič M. and Hrivnák R., 2007b. The impact of environmental factors on the distribution pattern of aquatic plants along the Danube River corridor (Slovakia). Limnologica, 37, 290–302. [CrossRef]
  • Papastergiadou E., Stefanidis K., Dorflinger G., Giannouris E., Kostrata K. and Manolaki P., 2015. Exploring biodiversity in riparian corridors of a Mediterranean island: Plant communities and environmental parameters in Cyprus. Plant Biosyst. (in press),
  • Schneider S.C., Lawniczak A.E., Piciñska-Faltynowicz J. and Szoszkiewicz K., 2012. Do macropyhtes, diatoms and non-diatom benthic algae give redundant information? Results from a case study in Poland. Limnologica, 42, 204–211. [CrossRef]
  • StatSoft Inc. 2011. STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program Manual] Tulsa, OK: StatSoft Inc., 2300 Tulsa, http://www. stat.
  • Szoszkiewicz K., Ferreira T., Korte T., Baatrup-Pedersen A., Davy-Bowker J. and O‘Hare M., 2006. European river plant communities: the importance of organic pollution and the usefulness of existing macrophyte metrics. Hydrobiologia, 566, 21–234.
  • Szoszkiewicz K., Kayzer D., Staniszewski R. and Dawson H.F., 2010. Measures of central tendency of aquatic habitat parameters: Application to river macrophyte communities. Pol. J. Ecol., 58, 693–706.
  • Szoszkiewicz K., Ciecierska H., Kolada A., Schneider S.C., Szwabinska M. and Ruszczynska J., 2014. Parameters structuring macrophyte communities in rivers and lakes – results from a case study in North-Central Poland. Knowl. Manag. Aquatic Ecosyst., 415, 08 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
  • ter Braak C.J.F. and Šmilauer P., 2012. CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination (version 5.0), Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, 496 p.
  • Ward J.V., Tockner K., Arscott D.B. and Claret C., 2002. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biol., 47, 517–539. [CrossRef]
  • Willby N., Pitt J.A. and Phillips G., 2009. The Ecological Classification of UK Rivers Using Aquatic Macrophytes. Environment Agency, Science Report.
  • Žuna Pfeiffer T., Mihaljević M., Špoljarić D., Stević F. and Plenković-Moraj A., 2015. The disturbance-driven changes of periphytic algal communities in a Danubian floodplain lake. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst., 416, 02. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]

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.