Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Simon (2020)
Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities
Jeff Bash, C. Ryan (2002)
Stream Restoration and Enhancement Projects: Is Anyone Monitoring?Environmental Management, 29
Ashley Moerke, G. Lamberti (2003)
Responses in Fish Community Structure to Restoration of Two Indiana StreamsNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23
C. Smith, C. Powell (1971)
The summer fish communities of Brier Creek, Marshall County, Oklahoma. American Museum novitates ; no. 2458
D. Snyder (1996)
Summary of state biological assessment programs for streams and rivers
David Miller, R. Hughes, J. Karr, Paul Leonard, P. Moyle, Lynn Schrader, B. Thompson, R. Daniels, K. Fausch, Gary Fitzhugh, J. Gammon, David Halliwell, P. Angermeier, D. Orth (1988)
Regional Applications of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Use in Water Resource ManagementFisheries, 13
T. Simon (2002)
Using Biological Criteria for Establishing Restoration and Ecological Recovery Endpoints
T. Simon (2002)
Biological Response Signatures : Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities
D. Heimbuch, H. Wilson, S. Weisberg, Jon Voslash, Lstad, P. Kazyak (1997)
Estimating Fish Abundance in Stream Surveys by Using Double‐Pass Removal SamplingTransactions of The American Fisheries Society, 126
W. Tonn (1990)
Climate Change and Fish Communities: A Conceptual FrameworkTransactions of The American Fisheries Society, 119
Olivier Champoux, P. Biron, A. Roy (2003)
The Long-Term Effectiveness of Fish Habitat Restoration Practices: Lawrence Creek, WisconsinAnnals of the Association of American Geographers, 93
J. Cairns (1974)
Indicator species vs. the concept of community structure as an index of pollutionWater Resour. Bull., 10
N. Roth, M. Southerland, J. Chaillou, R. Klauda, P. Kazyak, S. Stranko, S. Weisberg, L. Hall, R. Morgan II (1998)
Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Department of a fish index of biological integrityEnviron. Monit. Assess., 51
J. F. Wright, M. T. Furse, P. D. Armitage (1993)
RIVPACS: A technique for evaluating the biological quality of rivers in the UKEur. Water Pollut. Control, 3
J. Karr, E. Chu (2000)
Sustaining living riversHydrobiologia, 422-423
(1994)
Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters
G. Suter (1993)
A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexesEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 12
H. J. Stinefelt, S. E. Rivers, C. R. Gougeon, D. E. Woronecki (1985)
Final Report for Federal Aid Project F-36-R: Survey, Inventory, and Management of Maryland’s Cold Water Fishery Resource
O. Champoux, P. M. Biron, A. G. Roy (2003)
The long-term effectiveness of fish habitat restoration practices: Lawrence CreekWis. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers, 93
C. L. Smith, C. R. Powell (1971)
The summer fish communities of Brier Creek, Marshall County, OklahomaAm. Mus. Novit, 2458
N. Hitt (2004)
Biological Response SignaturesTransactions of The American Fisheries Society, 133
N. Roth, M. Southerland, J. Chaillou, R. Klauda, P. Kazyak, S. Stranko, S. Weisberg, L. Hall, R. Morgan (1998)
Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Development of a Fish Index of Biotic IntegrityEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 51
K. Fausch, R. White (1981)
Competition Between Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) for Positions in a Michigan StreamCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38
P. F. Kazyak (2000)
Maryland Biological Stream Survey Sampling Manual
T. P. Simon, J. Lyons (1995)
Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making
D. Wiley, R. Morgan, R. Hilderbrand, R. Raesly, D. Shumway (2004)
Relations between Physical Habitat and American Eel Abundance in Five River Basins in MarylandTransactions of The American Fisheries Society, 133
W. Courtenay, J. Stauffer (1984)
Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishesCopeia, 1984
P. Roni, T. Beechie, R. Bilby, Frank Leonetti, M. Pollock, G. Pess (2002)
A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest WatershedsNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22
J. Cairns (1974)
INDICATOR SPECIES VS. THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AS AN INDEX OF POLLUTIONJournal of The American Water Resources Association, 10
Donald Jackson, P. Peres‐Neto, J. Olden (2001)
What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities the roles of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factorsCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58
J. Lyons, Lizhu Wang, T. Simonson (1996)
Development and Validation of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Coldwater Streams in WisconsinNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16
O. L. Nyman (1970)
Ecological interaction of brown trout, Salmo trutta L., and brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill), in a streamCan. Field Nat., 84
B. Feist, E. Steel, G. Pess, R. Bilby (2003)
The influence of scale on salmon habitat restoration prioritiesAnimal Conservation, 6
J. Karr (1981)
Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish CommunitiesFisheries, 6
R. Claudi, J. H. Leach (2000)
Nonindigenous Freshwater Organisms
In this report, predictions of the species that were expected to occur at stream sites were generated and probable stressors to fish species that were predicted to occur but were absent were diagnosed. Predictions were generated based on the hierarchical screening method of Smith and Powell (1971, Am. Mus. Novit. 2458, 1–30), using fish abundance in conjunction with 25 environmental variables at 895 sites. The sites were sampled throughout Maryland and represent the entire range of environmental quality from severely degraded to minimally degraded. Stressor variable values that exceeded tolerance thresholds for species that were expected to occur, but were absent, were considered to be probable stressors. This method was tested for efficacy in stream site assessments and stressor diagnosis using an independent data set. Sites that were classified as degraded according to the IBI and to non-biological criteria had fewer predicted species present compared to minimally influenced sites, indicating that the proportion of predicted species present accurately represents the biological integrity of a stream site. The nine stressors that were applied to the test data set accounted for species absences in 43.7% of degraded sites. Impervious land cover was the most common stressor identified. In addition to assessing stream biological integrity and identifying stressors to fish species, this approach also provides tolerance thresholds for predicted fish species that are useful endpoints necessary to plan effective restoration of fish species in Maryland.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 1, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.