Open Access
| Issue |
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 418, 2017
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 16 | |
| Number of page(s) | 9 | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2017007 | |
| Published online | 04 April 2017 | |
- Allen B, Kon M, Bar‐Yam Y. 2009. A new phylogenetic diversity measure generalizing the Shannon index and its application to phyllostomid bats. Am Nat 174: 236–243. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Armitage PD, Moss D, Wright JF, Furse MT. 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running – water sites. Water Res 17: 333–347. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bailey RC, Norris RH, Reynoldson TB. 2004. Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems. USA: Springer, 170 p. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bertrand Y, Pleijel F, Rouse GW. 2006. Taxonomic surrogacy in biodiversity assessments, and the meaning of Linnaean ranks. Syst Biodivers 4: 149–159. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bis B, Mikulec A. 2013. Przewodnik do oceny stanu ekologicznego rzek na podstawie makrobezkręgowców bentosowych (The guide to ecological status assessment of the rivers on the basis of benthic macro-invertebrates). Warszawa: Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska (in Polish). [Google Scholar]
- Carew ME, Miller AD, Hoffmann AA. 2011. Phylogenetic signals and ecotoxicological responses: potential implications for aquatic biomonitoring. Ecotoxicology 20: 595–606. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Clarke KR, Warwick RM. 1999. The taxonomic distinctness measure of biodiversity: weighting of step lengths between hierarchical level. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 184: 21–29. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Crozier RH, Dunnett LJ, Agapow PM. 2005. Phylogenetic biodiversity assessment based on systematic nomenclature. Evol Bioinform 1: 11–36. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Encyclopaedia of Life. 2011. http://eol.org/. [Google Scholar]
- Faith DP. 2015. Phylogenetic diversity, functional trait diversity and extinction: avoiding tipping points and worst-case losses. Philos Trans R Soc B 370: 0–11. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2014.0011. [Google Scholar]
- Faith DP, Baker AM. 2006. Phylogenetic diversity (PD) and biodiversity conservation: some bioinformatics challenges. Evol Bioinform Online 2: 121–128. [Google Scholar]
- Faith DP, Lozupone CA, Nipperess D, Knight R. 2009. The cladistic basis for the phylogenetic diversity (PD) measure links evolutionary features to environmental gradients and supports broad applications of microbial ecology's “phylogenetic beta diversity” framework. Int J Mol Sci 10: 4723–4741. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Furse, M, Hering D, Moog O, et al. 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Gallardo B, Gascón S, Quintana X, Comín FA. 2011. How to choose a biodiversity indicator – redundancy and complementarity of biodiversity metrics in a freshwater ecosystem. Ecol Indic 11: 1177–1184. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Heino J, Soininen J. 2007. Are higher taxa adequate surrogates for species-level assemblage patterns and species richness in stream organisms? Biol Conserv 137: 78–89. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Heino J, Mykrӓ H, Hӓmӓlainen H, Aroviita J, Muotka T. 2007. Responses of taxonomic distinctness and species diversity indices to anthropogenic impacts and natural environmental gradients in stream macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biol 52: 1846–1861. [Google Scholar]
- Hering D, Feld CK, Moog O, Ofenböck T. 2006. Cook book for the development of a multimetric index for biological condition of aquatic ecosystems: experiences from the European AQEM and STAR projects and related initiatives. Hydrobiologia 566: 311–324. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Hilsenhoff WL. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J North Am Benthol Soc 7: 65–68. [Google Scholar]
- Jones FC. 2008. Taxonomic sufficiency: the influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Environ Rev 16: 45–69. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Koperski P. 2010. Diversity of macrobenthos in lowland streams: ecological determinants and taxonomic specificity. J Limnol 69: 88–101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Koperski P. 2011. Diversity of freshwater macrobenthos and its use in biological assessment: a critical review of current applications. Environ Rev 19: 16–31. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lepori F, Hjerdt N. 2006. Disturbance and aquatic biodiversity: reconciling contrasting views. Bioscience 56: 809–818. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lewin I, Jusik S, Szoszkiewicz K, Czerniawska-Kusza I, Ławniczak AE. 2014. Application of the new multimetric MMI_PL index for biological water quality assessment in reference and human-impacted streams (Poland, the Slovak Republic). Limnologica 49: 42–51. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lydy MJ, Crawford CG, Frey JW. 2000. A comparison of selected diversity, similarity, and biotic indices for detecting changes in benthic-invertebrate community structure and stream quality. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39: 469–479. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Magurran AE. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 256 p. [Google Scholar]
- NCBI Taxonomy. November 2014. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy. [Google Scholar]
- Pielou EC. 1975. Ecological diversity. New York: Wiley, 165 p. [Google Scholar]
- Roque FO, Guimarães EA, Ribeiro MC, Escarpinati SC, Suriano MT, Siqueira T. 2014. The taxonomic distinctness of macroinvertebrate communities of Atlantic Forest streams cannot be predicted by landscape and climate variables, but traditional biodiversity indices can. Braz J Biol 74: 991–999. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Saito VS, Siqueira T, Fonseca-Gessner AA. 2015. Should phylogenetic and functional diversity metrics compose macroinvertebrate multimetric indices for stream biomonitoring? Hydrobiologia 745: 167–179. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Schweiger O, Klotz S, Durka W, Kühn I. 2008. A comparative test of phylogenetic diversity indices. Oecologia 157: 485–495. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Šiling R, Urbanič G. 2016. Do lake littoral benthic invertebrates respond differently to eutrophication, hydromorphological alteration, land use and fish stocking? Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 417: 35. [Google Scholar]
- Tree of Life. 1995–2005. http://tolweb.org/tree/. [Google Scholar]
- Usseglio-Polatera P, Bournaud M, Richoux P, Tachet H. 2000. Biological and ecological traits of benthic freshwater macroinvertebrates: relationships and definition of groups with similar traits. Freshwater Biol 43: 175–205. [Google Scholar]
- Vamosi JC, Vamosi SM. 2007. Body size, rarity, and phylogenetic community structure: insights from diving beetle assemblages of Alberta. Divers Distrib 13: 1–10. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Warwick RM, Clarke KR. 1995. New ‘biodiversity’ measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 129: 301–305. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Water Framework Directive. 2000. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/60/EC Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy, 1997/0067(COD), C5-0347/2000, LEX 224, PE-CONS 3639/1/00, REV1. [Google Scholar]
- Webb CO. 2000. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. Am Nat 156: 145–155. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wikispecies. August 2014. https://species.wikimedia.org. [Google Scholar]
- Winter M, Devictor V, Schweiger O. 2013. Phylogenetic diversity and nature conservation: where are we? Trends Ecol Evol 28: 199–204. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16: 446–453. [CrossRef] [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.