Open Access
Issue
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 420, 2019
Article Number 11
Number of page(s) 14
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2019003
Published online 21 February 2019
  • AQEM Consortium. 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM system: a comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0, February 2002, 202 р. [Google Scholar]
  • Arbačiauskas K, Semenchenko V, Grabowski M, Leuven RSEW, Paunović M, Son MO, Csányi B, Gumuliauskaitė S, Konopacka A, Nehring S, van der Velde G, Vezhnovetz V, Panov VE. 2008. Assessment of biocontamination of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in European inland waterways. Aquat Invasions 3: 211–230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Arbačiauskas K, Višinskienė G, Smilgevičienė S. 2011. Non-indigenous macroinvertebrate species in Lithuanian fresh waters, Part 2: macroinvertebrate assemblage deviation from naturalness in lotic systems and the consequent potential impacts on ecological quality assessment. Knowl Manag Aquatic Ecosyst 402: 1–13. [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. [Google Scholar]
  • Arndt E, Fiedler S, Böhme D. 2009. Effects of invasive benthic macroinvertebrates on assessment methods of the EU Water Framework Directive. Hydrobiologia 635: 309–320. [Google Scholar]
  • Bernauer D, Jansen W. 2006. Recent invasions of alien macroinvertebrates and loss of native species in the upper Rhine River, Germany. Aquat Invasions 1: 55–71. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bij de Vaate A. 2003 Degradation and recovery of the freshwater fauna in the lower sections of the rivers Rhine and Meuse. Doctoral thesis, University of Wageningen, 200 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Bij de Vaate A, Jazdzewski K, Ketelaars HAM, Gollasch S, van der Velde G. 2002. Geographical patterns in range extensions of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59: 1159–1174. [Google Scholar]
  • Bij de Vaate A, Breukel R, van der Velde G. 2006. Long-term developments in ecological rehabilitation of the main distributaries in the Rhine delta: fish and macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 565: 229–242. [Google Scholar]
  • Birk S, Bonne W, Borja A, Brucet S, Courrat A, Poikane S, Solimini A, van de Bund W, Zampoukas N, Hering D. 2012. Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: an almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecol Indic 18: 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  • Boets P, Lock K, Goethals PLM. 2011. Using long-term monitoring to investigate the changes in species composition in the harbour of Ghent (Belgium). Hydrobiologia 663: 155–166. [Google Scholar]
  • Cardoso AC, Free G. 2008. Incorporating invasive alien species into ecological assessment in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Aquat Invasions 3: 361–366. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Devin S, Beisel J-N, Usseglio-Polatera P, Moreteau J-C. 2005. Changes in functional biodiversity in an invaded freshwater ecosystem: the Moselle River. Hydrobiologia 542: 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  • Dick JTA, Platvoet D, Kelly DW. 2002. Predatory impact of the freshwater invader Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59: 1078–1084. [Google Scholar]
  • Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Hutchison MA, Ewers RM, Gemmell NJ. 2005. Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change? Trends Ecol Evol 20: 470–474. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Elliott M. 2003. Biological pollutants and biological pollution: an increasing cause for concern. Mar Pollut Bull 46: 275–280. [Google Scholar]
  • EEA. 2012. European waters: assessment of status and pressures. European Environment Agency. [Google Scholar]
  • Friberg N, Sandin L, furse M. Larsen SE, Clarke RT, Haase P. 2006. Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods in Europe. Hydrobiologia 566: 365–378. [Google Scholar]
  • Friedrich G, Herbst V. 2004. Eine erneute Revision des Saprobiensystems − weshalb und wozu? Acta Hydroch Hydrob 32: 61–74. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gabriels W, Goethals PLM, De Pauw N. 2005. Implications of taxonomic modifications and alien species on biological water quality assessment as exemplified by the Belgian Biotic Index method. Hydrobiologia 542: 137–150. [Google Scholar]
  • Ghetti PF. 1997. I macroinvertebrati nel controllo della qualità di ambienti di acque correnti. Indice Biotico Esteso (I.B.E.). Manuale di applicazione. Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Trento, Italy, 222 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Haas G, Brunke M, Streit B. 2002. Fast turnover in dominance of exotic species in the Rhine River determines biodiversity and ecosystem function: an affair between amphipods and mussels. In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S, eds. Invasive aquatic species of Europe: distribution, impacts and management. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 426–432. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Havel JE, Lee CE, Vander Zanden MJ. 2005. Do reservoirs facilitate invasions into landscapes. Bioscience 55: 518–525. [Google Scholar]
  • Hellmann C, Schöll F, Worischka S, Becker J, Winkelmann C. 2017. River-specific effects of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda) on benthic communities. Biol Invasions 19: 381–398 [Google Scholar]
  • Hering D, Meier C, Rawer-Jost C, Feld CK, Biss R, Zenker A, Sundermann A, Lohse S, Böhmer J. 2004. Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: selection of candidate metrics. Limnologica 34: 398–415. [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 for the European AQEM and STER projects and related initiatives. Hydrobiologia 566: 311–324. [Google Scholar]
  • Illies J. 1978. Limnofauna Europaea. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 532 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Jazdzewski K. 1980. Range extension of some gammaridean species in European inland waters caused by human activity. Crustaceana 6: 84–107. [Google Scholar]
  • Jazdzewski K, Konopacka A, Grabowski M. 2004. Recent drastic changes in the gammarid fauna (Crustacea, Amphipoda) of the Vistula River deltaic system in Poland caused by alien invaders. Divers Distrib 10: 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnson PTJ, Olden JD, van der Zanden MJ. 2008. Dam invaders: impoundments facilitate biological invasions into freshwaters. Front Ecol Environ 6: 359–365. [Google Scholar]
  • Komatina D, Grošelj S. 2015. Transboundary water cooperation for sustainable development of the Sava River Basin. In: Milačič R, Ščančar J, Paunović M, eds. The Sava River. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  • Krisp H, Maier G. 2005. Consumption of macroinvertebrates by invasive and native gammarids: a comparison. J Limnol 64: 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  • Lajtner J, Crnčan P. 2011. Distribution of the invasive bivalve Sinanodonta woodiana (Lea, 1834) in Croatia. Aquat Invasions 6: 119–124. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lajtner J, Marušić Z, Klobučar GIV, Maguire I, Erben R. 2004. Comparative shell morphology of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha in the Drava River (Croatia). Biologia 59: 595–600. [Google Scholar]
  • Lepš J, Šmilauer P. 2003. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 269 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Leuven R, van der Velde G, Baijens I, Snijders J, van der Zwart C, Lenders HJR, de Vaate AB. 2009. The river Rhine: a global highway for dispersal of aquatic invasive species. Biol Invasions 11: 1989–2008. [Google Scholar]
  • Liška I, Wegner F, Slobodkin J. 2008. Joint Danube Survey 2-Final Scientific Report, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River ICPDR), 242 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Liška I, Wagner F, Sengl M, Deutsch K, Slobodnik J. 2015. Joint Danube Survey 3: A Comprehensive Analysis of Danube Water Quality, Final Report, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), Vienna, 369 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M. 2004. 100 of the world's worst invasive alien species: a selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). [Google Scholar]
  • Lucić A, Paunović M, Tomović J, Kovačević S, Zorić K, Simić V, Atanacković A, Marković V, Kračun-Kolarević M, Hudina S, Lajtner J, Gottstein S, Milošević Đ, Anđus S, Žganec K, Jaklič M, Simčič T, Vilenica M. 2015. Aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Sava River. In: Milačič R, Ščančar J, Paunović M, eds. The Sava River. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 335–359. [Google Scholar]
  • MacDougall AS, Turkington R. 2005. Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86: 42–55. [Google Scholar]
  • MacNeil C. 2014. The pump don't work, “Cause the vandals took the handles”: why invasive amphipods threaten accurate freshwater biological water quality monitoring. Manag Biol Invasions 5: 303–307. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • MacNeil C, Briffa M. 2009. Replacement of a native freshwater macroinvertebrate species by an invader: implications for biological water quality monitoring. Hydrobiologia 635: 321–327. [Google Scholar]
  • MacNeil C, Prenter J, Briffa M, Fielding NJ, Dick JTA, Riddell GE, Hatcher MJ, Dunn A. 2004. The replacement of a native freshwater amphipod by an invader: roles for environmental degradation and intraguild predation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61: 1627–1635. [Google Scholar]
  • MacNeil C, Dick JTA, Gell FR, Selman R, Lenartowicz P, Hynes HBN. 2009. A long-term study (1949– 2005) of experimental introductions to an Island: freshwater amphipods (Crustacea) in the Isla of Man (British Isles). Divers Distrib 15: 232–241. [Google Scholar]
  • MacNeil C, Platvoet D, Dick JTA, Fielding N, Constable A, Hall N, Aldridge D, Renals T, Diamont M. 2010. The Ponto-Caspian “killer-schrimp”, Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894), invades the British Isles. Aquat Invasions 5: 441–445. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • MacNeil C, Boets P, Platvoet D. 2012. “Killer shrimps”, dangerous experiments and misguided introductions: how freshwater shrimp (Crustacea: Amphipoda) invasions threaten biological water quality monitoring in the British Isles. Freshw Rev 5: 21–35. [Google Scholar]
  • Maguire I, Jelić M, Klobučar GIV. 2011. Update on the distribution of freshwater crayfish in Croatia. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 401: 31. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Maguire I, Klobučar G, Žganec K, Jelić M, Lucić A, Hudina S. 2018. Recent changes in distribution pattern of freshwater crayfish in Croatia: threats and perspectives. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 419: 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • Matoničkin I, Pavletić Z, Habdija I, Stilinović B. 1975. A contribution to the valorisation of waters of the ecosystem of river Sava. Sveučilišna naklada Liber, Zagreb, 96 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Meštrov M, Dešković I, Tavčar V. 1978. Pollution of the river Sava: according to several years of ecological research. Ekologija 13: 61–79. [Google Scholar]
  • Meštrov M, Habdija I, Stilinović B, Maloseja Ž, Tavčar V, Kerovec M, Primc B, Futač N. 1989. Biološko-ekološka valorizacija kvalitete vode rijeke Save. In: Meštrov M, ed. Rijeka Sava: zaštita i korištenje voda, Vol. 14. Zagreb: JAZU, pp. 290–308. [Google Scholar]
  • Nienhuis PH, Buijse AD, Leuven RSEW, Smits AJM, de Nooij RJW, Samborska EM. 2002. Ecological rehabilitation of the lowland basin of the Rhine (NW Europe). Hydrobiologia 478: 53–72. [Google Scholar]
  • Nunes AL, Tricarico E, Panov VE, Cardoso AC, Katsanevakis S. 2015. Pathways and gateways of freshwater invasions in Europe. Aquat Invasions 10: 359–370. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • , Official Gazette. 2013. Regulation on Water Quality Standard, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia No. 73/13, 151/14, 78/15, 61/16, 80/18. [Google Scholar]
  • Olenin S, Minchin D, Daunys D. 2007. Assessment of biological pollution in aquatic ecosystems. Mar Pollut Bull 55: 379–394. [Google Scholar]
  • Orendt C, Schmitt C, van Liefferinge C, Wolfram G, de Deckere E. 2010. Include or exclude? A review on the role and suitability of aquatic invertebrate neozoa as indicators in biological assessment with special respect to fresh and brackish European waters. Biol Invasions 12: 265–283. [Google Scholar]
  • Panov VE, Alexandrov B, Arbačiauskas K, Binimelis R, Copp GH, Grabowski M, Lucy F, Leuven RSEW, Nehring S, Paunović M, Semenchenko V, Son MO. 2009. Assessing the risks of aquatic species invasions via European inland waterways: from concepts to environmental indicators. Integr Environ Asses 5: 110–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pantle R, Buck H. 1955. Die biologische Überwachung der Gewasser die Darstellung der Ergebnisse, GWF 96. [Google Scholar]
  • Paunović MM, Jakovčev-Todorović DG, Šimić VM, Stojanović BD, Cakić PD. 2007. Macroinvertebrates along the Serbian section of the Danube River (stream km 1429–925). Biologia 62: 214–221. [Google Scholar]
  • Paunović M, Tomović J, Kovačević S, Zorić K, Žganec K, Simić V, Atanacković A, Marković V, Kračun M, Hudina S, Lajtner J, Gottstein S, Lucić A. 2012. Macroinvertebrates of the natural substrate of the Sava River: preliminary results. Water Res Manag 2: 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  • Petts GE, Möller H, Roux AL, eds. 1993. Historical change in large alluvial rivers: Western Europe. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 355 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Quinn GP, Lake PS, Schreiber SG. 1998. A comparative study of colonization by benthos in a lake and its outflowing stream. Freshwater Biol 39: 623–635. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Richards DC, Cazier LD, Lester GT. 2001. Spatial distribution of three snails, including the invader Potamopyrgus antipodarum, in freshwater spring. West N Am Nat 61: 375–380. [Google Scholar]
  • Sommerwerk N, Hein T, Schneider-Jacoby M, Baumgartner C, Ostojić A, Siber R, Bloesch J, Paunović M, Tockner K. 2009. The Danube River Basin. In: Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Robinson CT, eds. Rivers of Europe. London: Academic Press, pp. 59–112. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Strayer DL. 2010. Alien species in fresh waters: ecological effects, interactions with other stressors, and prospects for the future. Freshw Biol 55: 152–174. [Google Scholar]
  • Strayer DL, Cole JJ, Findlay SEG, Fischer DT, Gephart JA, Malcom HM, Pace ML, Rosi-Marshall EJ. 2014. Decadal-scale change in a large-river ecosystem. Bioscience 64: 496–510. [Google Scholar]
  • Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P. 2012. Canoco reference manual and user's guide: software for ordination, version 5.0. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, 496 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Robinson CT, eds. 2009. Rivers of Europe. London: Academic Press, 728 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Van den Brink FWB, van der Velde G, Cazemier WG. 1990. The faunistic composition of the freshwater section of the River Rhine in The Netherlands: present state and changes since 1900. In: Kinzelbach R, Friedrich G, eds. Biologie des Rheins. Limnol aktuell 1: 191–216 [Google Scholar]
  • Žganec K, Gottstein S, Hudina S. 2009. Ponto-Caspian amphipods in Croatian large rivers. Aquat Invasions 4: 327–335. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Žganec K, Ćuk R, Dekić S. 2015. New records of the invasive amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus (Stebbing, 1899) in Croatia. Nat Croat 24: 247–254. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Žganec K, Ćuk R, Tomović J, Lajtner J, Gottstein S, Kovačević S, Hudina S, Lucić A, Mirt M, Simić V, Simčič T, Paunović M. 2018. The longitudinal pattern of crustacean (Peracarida, Malacostraca) assemblages in a large south European river: bank reinforcement structures as stepping stones of invasion. Ann Limnol – Int J Lim 54: 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2018008 [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.