Evaluating the ecological status of rivers using an index of ecological distance: An application to diatom communities

Ecological Indicators

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 285-291

  Tison, J ^a   Giraudel, J L ^b   Coste, M ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

Author keywords

Diatoms; Ecological distance; Rivers ecological status; Water framework directive

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; FISH; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WATER POLLUTION; WATERSHEDS;

ECOLOGICAL DISTANCE; ECOLOGICAL STATUS; WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES;

RIVERS;

BIOINDICATOR; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; DIATOM; ECOREGION; ECOSYSTEM HEALTH; RIVER POLLUTION; WATERSHED;

BACILLARIOPHYTA; INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 37249045533     PISSN: 1470160X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. AFNOR 2000. Norme Française NFT 90-354. Détermination de l'Indice Biologique Diatomées (IBD) (Juin 2000) 63
2. Biggs B.J.F. The contribution of flood disturbance, catchment geology and land use to the habitat template of periphyton in stream ecosystems. Freshwater Biol. 33 (1995) 419-438
3. Charles D.F., Acker F.W., Hart D.D.C.W.R., and Cotter P.B. Large-scale regional variation in diatom-water chemistry relatioships: rivers of the eastern United States. Hydrobiologia 561 (2006) 27-57
4. Coste in Cemagref Etude des méthodes biologiques d'appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux, Rapport Q.E. Lyon-A.F. Bassin Rhône-Méditeranée-Corse, 1982, p. 218.
5. European Parliament, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. O.J.L327, p. 72.
6. Fore L.S., and et Grafe C. Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biol. 47 (2002) 2015-2037
7. Gerritsen J. Additive biological indices for resource management. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 14 (1995) 451-457
8. Hill B., Herlihy A., Kauffman P., DeCelles S., and Vander Borgh M. Assessment of streams of the eastern United States using a periphyton index of biotic integrity. Ecol. Ind. 54 (2002) 1-14
9. Izsak C., and Price A.R.G. Measuring β-diversity using a taxonomic similarity index, and its relation to spatial scale. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 215 (2001) 69-77
10. Krammer, K., Lange-Bertalot, H., 1985-1991. Bacillariophyceae (1) Teil:Naviculaceae. p. 876; (2) Teil:Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. p. 596; (3) Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. p. 576; (4) Teil: Achnanthaceae. Kritische Ergänzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema. p. 437. In: Ettl, H., Gerloff, J., Heynig, H., Mollenhauer D. (Eds.), Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/1-4. G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.
11. Lamberti G.A. The role of periphyton in benthic food webs. In: Stevenson R.J., Bothwell M., and Lowe R.L. (Eds). Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (1996), Academic Press, San Diego, CA 533-572
12. Pan Y., Stevenson R.J., Hill B.H., and Herlihy A.T. Ecoregions and benthic diatom assemblages in Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams, USA. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19 (2000) 518-540
13. Park Y.-S., Gevrey M., Lek S., and Giraudel J.L. Evaluation of relevant species in communities: development of structuring indices for the classification of communities using a self-organizing map. In: Lek S., Scardi M., Park Y.S., Jorgensen S.E., and Verdonschot P. (Eds). Modelling Community Structure in Freshwater Ecosystems (2005), Springer 369-380
14. Passy S.I., and Bode R.W. Diatom model affinity (DMA), a new index for water quality assessment. Hydrobiologia 524 (2004) 241-251
15. Peterson C.G., and Stevenson R.J. Post-spate development of epilithic algal communities in different current environments. Can. J. Bot. 68 (1990) 2092-2102
16. Potapova M., and Charles D. Diatom metrics for monitoring eutrophication in rivers of the United States. Ecol. Ind. 7 1 (2007) 48-70
17. Prygiel J., Coste M., and Bukowska J. Review of the major diatom-based techniques for the quality assessment in rivers-State of the art in Europe. In: Prygiel J., Whitton B.A., and Bukowska J. (Eds). Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers III (1999), Agence de l'Eau Artois-Picardie. 2-9502083-5-5
18. REFCOND Working Group 2.3, 2003. Guidance on establishing reference conditions for inland surface water. Final version, 30 October, 2003.
19. Stevenson R. Scale-dependent determinants and consequences on benthic algal heterogeneity. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 16 (1997) 248-262
20. Tison J., Park Y.S., Coste M., Wasson J.G., Ector L., Rimet F., and Delmas F. Typology of diatom communities and the influence of hydro-ecoregions: a study on the French hydrosystem scale. Water Res. 39 (2005) 3177-3188
21. van Dam H., Mertens A., and Sinkeldaù J. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from The Netherlands. Neth. J. Aqut. Ecol. 28 (1994) 117-133
22. Warwick R.M., and Clarke K.R. New "biodiversity" measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 129 (1995) 301-305
23. Washington H.G. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res. 18 6 (1984) 653-694