Open Access
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 417, 2016
Article Number 23
Number of page(s) 5
Published online 13 April 2016
  • Álvarez-Cabria M., Barquín J. and Juanes J.A., 2010. Spatial and seasonal variability of macroinvertebrate metrics: Do macroinvertebrate communities track river health? Ecol. Indic., 10, 370–379. [CrossRef]
  • Bärlocher F. 2005. Leaf mass loss estimated by litter bag technique. In: Graça M., Bärlocher F. and Gessner M. (eds.), Methods to study litter decomposition: A practical guide, Springer, Berlin, 37–42.
  • Brooks A.J., Haeusler T., Reinfelds I. and Williams S., 2005. Hydraulic microhabitats and the distribution of macroinvertebrate assemblages in riffles. Freshwater Biol., 50, 331–344. [CrossRef]
  • Ferreira V., Castagneyrol B., Koricheva J., Gulis V., Chauvet E. and Graça M.A.S., 2015. A meta-analysis of the effects of nutrient enrichment on litter decomposition in streams. Biol. Rev., 90, 669–688. [CrossRef]
  • Flores L., Díez J.R., Larrañaga A., Pascoal C. and Elosegi A., 2013. Effects of retention site on breakdown of organic matter in a mountain stream. Freshwater Biol., 58, 1267–1278. [CrossRef]
  • Hoover T.M., Marczak L.B., Richardson J.S. and Yonemitsu N. 2010. Transport and settlement of organic matter in small streams. Freshwater Biol, 55, 436–449. [CrossRef]
  • Kobayashi S., Amano K. and Nakanishi S., 2013. Riffle topography and water flow support high invertebrate biomass in a gravel-bed river. Freshwater Sci., 32, 706–718. [CrossRef]
  • Malmqvist B. and Rundle S., 2002. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ. Conserv., 29, 134–153.
  • Martínez A., Larrañaga A., Pérez J., Descals E., Basaguren A. and Pozo J., 2013. Effects of pine plantations on structural and functional attributes of forested streams. Forest Ecol. Manag., 310, 147–155. [CrossRef]
  • Mendoza–Lera C., Larrañaga A., Pérez J., Descals E., Martínez A., Moya O., Arostegui I. and Pozo J., 2012. Headwater reservoirs weaken terrestrial-aquatic linkage by slowing leaf-litter processing in downstream regulated reaches. River Res. Appl., 28, 13–22. [CrossRef]
  • Meybeck M., 2003 Global analysis of river systems: from Earth system controls to Anthropocene syndromes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 358, 1935–1955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Petersen R.C. and Cummins K.W., 1974. Leaf processing in a woodland stream. Freshwater Biol., 4, 343–368. [CrossRef]
  • R Development Core Team, 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Available from:
  • Rapport D.J., Costanza R. and McMichael A.J., 1998. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13, 397–402. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Serra S.R.Q., Calapez A.R., Pérez-Bilbao A. and Feio M.J., 2015. Adjusting the effect of seasonal variability in the bioassessment of streams. Environ. Monit. Assess., 187, 4107. [CrossRef]
  • Solagaistua L., Arroita M., Aristi I., Larrañaga A. and Elosegi A., 2015. Changes in discharge preferentially affects surface more than subsurface breakdown of organic matter in a mountain stream. Mar. Freshwater Res., DOI: 10.1071/MF14408.
  • Tachet H., Richoux P., Bournaud M. and Usseglio-Polatera P., 2002. Invertébrés d’eau douce: systématique, biologie et écologie, CNRS, Paris, 587 p.
  • Tank J.L., Rosi-Marshall E.J., Griffiths N.A., Entrekin S.A. and Stephen M.L., 2010. A review of allochthonous organic matter dynamics and metabolism. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 29, 118–146. [CrossRef]
  • Webster J.R., Benfield E.F., Hutchens J.J., Tank J.L., Golladay S.W. and Adams J.C. 2001. Do leaf breakdown rates actually measure leaf disappearance from streams? Int. Rev. Hydrobiol., 86, 417–427. [CrossRef]
  • Yuan L.L. and Norton S.B., 2003. Comparing responses of macroinvertebrate metrics to increasing stress. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 22, 308–322. [CrossRef]
  • Young R.G., Matthaei C.D. and Townsend C.R., 2008. Organic matter breakdown and ecosystem metabolism: functional indicators for assessing river ecosystem health. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 605–625. [CrossRef]

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.