A biologically relevant habitat condition index for streams in northern Portugal

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 189-210

  Oliveira, S V ^a   Cortes, R M V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRÁS OS MONTES AND ALTO DOURO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Catchments; Ecological status; Environmental indicators; Habitat assessment; Invertebrates; Stream condition

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; HABITAT QUALITY; INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY; RIPARIAN ZONE;

DOURO BASIN; EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; PORTUGAL; SOUTHERN EUROPE; WORLD;

EID: 15944362273     PISSN: 10527613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.671     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Griffith GE, Frydenborg R, McCarron E, White JS, Bastian ML. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 185-211.
2. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 2nd ed., EPA 841-B-99-002.
3. Bisson PA, Bilby RE. 1998. Organic matter and trophic dynamics. In River Ecology and Management, Naiman RJ, Bilby RE (eds). Springer: New York; 373-391.
4. Bowlby JN, Roff JN. 1986. Trout biomass and habitat relationships in southern Ontario streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 503-514.
5. Clarke KR, Gorley RN. 2001. PRIMER v5: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E Plymouth.
6. Corkum LD. 1989. Patterns of benthic invertebrate assemblages in rivers of northwestern North America. Freshwater Biology 21: 191-205.
7. Cresser MS, Smart R, Billett MF, Soulsby G, Neal C, Wade A, Langan S, Edwards AC. 2000. Modelling water chemistry for a major Scottish river from catchment attributes. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 171-184.
8. Davis NM, Norris RH, Thoms MC. 2000. Prediction and assessment of local stream habitat features using large-scale catchment characteristics. Freshwater Biology 45: 343-369.
9. De'ath G. 1999. Principal curves: a new technique for indirect and direct gradient analysis. Ecology 80: 2237-2253.
10. Downs PW, Brooks A. 1994. Developing a standard geomorphological approach for the appraisal of river projects. In Integrated River Basin Development, Kirby C, White WR (eds). John Wiley: Chichester; 299-310.
11. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in the watershed concept. Environmental Management 10: 199-214.
12. Gergel SE, Turner MG, Miller JR, Melack JM, Stanley EH. 2002. Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquatic Science 64: 118-128.
13. Hannaford MJ, Resh VH. 1995. Variability in macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and habitat assessments in a northern California stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14: 430-439.
14. Hughes RM, Larsen DP, Mathews DJ, Yoder CO. 1994. Use of ecoregions in biological monitoring. In Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Ecosystems, Loeb SL, Law FM (eds). Lewis: Florida; 125-151.
15. Imhof JG, Fitzgibbon J, Annable WK. 1996. A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(Supplement 1): 312-326.
16. Jaworski A. 1993. The application of the ecotone concept in defining nutrient management requirements for the upper Potomac River basin. Hydrobiologia 251: 341-349.
17. Johnson LB, Richards C, Host GE, Arthur JW. 1997. Landscape influence on water chemistry in Midwestern stream ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 37: 193-218.
18. Jongman RHG, ter Braak CFJ, van Tongeren OFR (eds). 1987. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc: Wageningen.
19. Ladson AR, White LJ, Doolan JA, Finlaysons BL, Hart BT, Lake PS, Tilleard JW. 1998. Development and testing of an index of stream condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 453-468.
20. Maddock I. 1999. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 373-391.
21. McIver J, Starr L. 2001. Restoration of degraded lands in the interior of Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 153: 15-28.
22. McMahon G, Harned DA. 1998. Effect of environmental setting on sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in Albermarle-Pamlico drainage basin, North Carolina and Virginia, USA. Environmental Management 22: 887-903.
23. Milhous RT, Wegner DL, Waddle T. 1984. Users guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM). Instream Information Paper 11. US Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-81/13.
24. Milner NJ, Hemsworth RJ, Jones BE. 1985. Habitat evaluation as a fisheries management tool. Journal of Fish Biology 27: 85-180.
25. Milner NJ, Wyatt RJ, Broad K. 1998. HABSCORE - applications and future developments of related habitat models. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 633-644.
26. Moyle PB, Marchetti MP. 1999. Applications of indices of biotic integrity to California streams and watersheds. In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, Simon TP (ed.). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL; 367-380.
27. Moyle PB, Randall PJ. 1998. Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in Sierra Nevada, California. Conservation Biology 12: 1318-1326.
28. Munné A, Solà C, Prat N. 1998. QBR: un indice rápido para la evaluación de la calidad de los ecosistemas de ribera. Tecnologia del Agua 175: 20-37.
29. Naiman RJ. 1992. Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag: New York.
30. Oberdorff T, Pont D, Hugueny B, Chessel D. 2001. A probabilistic model characterizing fish assemblages of French rivers: a framework for environmental assessment. Freshwater Biology 46: 399-415.
31. Oberdorff T, Pont D, Hugueny B, Porchers JP. 2002. Development and validation of a fish-based index for assessment of "river-health" in France. Freshwater Biology 47: 1720-1734.
32. Plafkin JL, Barbour MT, Porter KD, Gross SK, Hughes RM. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates & fish. US Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington, DC. EPA/440/4-89/001.
33. Rabeni CF, Smale MA. 1995. Effects of siltation on stream fishes and the potential mitigation role of the buffering riparian zone. Hydrobiologia 303: 211-219.
34. Raven PJ, Fox P, Everard M, Holmes NTH, Dawson FH. 1997. River Habitat Survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable?, Boon PJ, Howell DL (eds). The Stationery Office: Edinburgh; 215-234.
35. Reeves GH, Hohler DB, Hansen BE, Everest FH, Sedell JR, Hickman TL, Shively D. 1997. Fish habitat restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Fish Creek of Oregon. In Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices, Williams JE, Wood CA, Dombeck MP (eds). American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD; 335-359.
36. Reynoldson TN, Norris RH, Resh VH, Day KE, Rosenberg DM. 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric approaches to assess water quality impairment using benthic invertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 833-852.
37. Roth NE, Allan JD, Erickson DL. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11: 141-156.
38. Schumm SA. 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in Badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geological Society of America Bulletin 67: 597-646.
39. Scott MC, Hall LW. 1997. Fish assemblage as indicators of environmental degradation in Maryland coastal plain streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126: 349-360.
40. Sliva L, Williams DD. 2001. Buffer zone versus whole catchment approaches in studying landuse on river water quality. Water Research 35: 3462-3472.
41. Snyder BD, Stribling JB, Barbour MT, Missimer CL. 1999. Integrating assessments of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages and physical habitat condition in Pennsylvania. In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, Simon T (ed.). CRC Press: Boca Raton; 639-652.
42. Sponseller RA, Benfield EF, Valett HM. 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 46: 1409-1424.
43. StatSoft. 2001. STATISTICA for Windows (Computer Program Manual). StatSoft, Inc.: Tulsa, OK.
44. Sweeney BW. 1992. Streamside forest and the physical, chemical and trophic characteristics of piedmont streams in eastern North America. Water Science and Technology 26: 2653-2673.
45. Ter Braak CJF. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167-1179.
46. Ter Braak CJF, Prentice IC. 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. Advances in Ecological Research 18: 271-317.
47. Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P. 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power: Ithaca, NY.
48. Vølstad JH, Roth NE, Mercurio G, Southerland MT, Strebel DE. 2003. Using environmental stressor information to predict the ecological status of Maryland non-tidal streams as measured by biological indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 84: 219-242.
49. Ward JV, Tockner K, Uehlinger U, Malard F. 2001. Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 311-323.
50. Wright JF. 1995. Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate fauna in flowing waters. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 181-197.