Open Access
Issue
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 416, 2015
Article Number 19
Number of page(s) 22
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2015015
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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • Dodds W.K. and Gudder D.A., 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. J. Phycol., 28, 415–427. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • EN 14184: 2014. Water quality. Guidance Standard for the Surveying of Aquatic Macrophytes in Running Waters. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 14 p. [Google Scholar]
  • European Environmental Agency, 2000. Coordination of Information on the Environment – Land Cover 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • Franklin P., Dunbar M. and Whitehead P., 2008. Flow controls on lowland river macropyhtes: A review. Sci. Total Environ., 40, 369–378. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • Haslam S.M., 2006. River Plants (revised second edition). Forrest Text, Ceredigion, 438 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • Kelly M., 2013. Data rich, information poor? Phytobenthos assessment and the Water Framework Directive, Eur. J. Phycol., 48/4, 437–450. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • Lacoul P. and Freedman B., 2006. Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 14, 89–136. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • Marhold K. and Hindák F., 1998. Checklist of non-vascular and vascular plants of Slovakia. Veda, Bratislava, 688 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic. 2011. Water Plan of the Slovak Republic – Abbreviated version, 124 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • NV SR 269/2010 Z. z., v znení neskorších predpisov. Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky, ktorým ktorým sa ustanovujú požiadavky na dosiahnutie dobrého stavu vôd. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2014.941032. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • StatSoft Inc. 2011. STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program Manual] Tulsa, OK: StatSoft Inc., 2300 Tulsa, http://www. stat. soft.com [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • Ward J.V., Tockner K., Arscott D.B. and Claret C., 2002. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshwater Biol., 47, 517–539. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Willby N., Pitt J.A. and Phillips G., 2009. The Ecological Classification of UK Rivers Using Aquatic Macrophytes. Environment Agency, Science Report. [Google Scholar]
  • 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] [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.