Free Access
Issue
Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.
Volume 47, 2011
River ecosystem health assessment: the value in the management and restoration
Page(s) S107 - S116
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2011023
Published online 08 July 2011
  • Allan J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 257–284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Anbumozhi V., Radhakrishnan J. and Yamaji E., 2005. Impact of riparian buffer zones on water quality and associated management considerations. Ecol. Eng., 24, 517–523. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Arienzo M., Adamo P., Bianco M.R. and Violante P., 2001. Impact of land use and urban runoff on the contamination of the Sarno River basin in Southwestern Italy. Water Air Soil Pollut., 131, 349–366. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Baker A., 2003. Land use and water quality. Hydrol. Process., 17, 2499–2501. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ban S. and Oh C.H., 2010. A development of landscape ecological model for priority setting gereen space on riparian zone. Proc. Korean Environ. Ecol. Conf., 20, 113–117 (in Korean). [Google Scholar]
  • Beyene A., Addis T., Kifle D., Legesse W., Kloos H. and Triest L., 2009. Comparative study of benthic diatom and macroinvertebrates as indicators of severe water pollution: case study of the Kebena and Akaki Rivers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ecol. Ind., 9, 381–392. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bolstad P.V. and Swank W.T., 1997. Cumulative impacts of land use on water quality in a southern Appalachian watershed. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc., 33, 519–533. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Burt T.P., Matchett L.S., Goulding K.W.T., Webster C.P. and Haycock N.E., 1999. Denitrification in riparian buffer zones: the role of floodplain hydrology. Hydrol. Process., 13, 1451–1463. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cooper A.B., 1993. Coupling wetland treatment to land treatment: an innovative method for nitrogen stripping. Water Sci. Tech., 29, 141–149. [Google Scholar]
  • Davies P.E. and Nelson M., 1994. Relationship between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition, and fish abundance. Aust. J. Marine Freshwater Res., 45, 1289–1305. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Frissell C.A., Liss W.J., Warren C.E. and Hurley M.D., 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ. Manage., 10, 199–214. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gardi C., 2001. Land use, agronomic management and water quality in a small Northern Italian watershed. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 87, 1–12. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [MathSciNet] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gburek W.J. and Folmar G.J., 1999. Flow and chemical contributions to stream flow in an upland watershed: a baseflow survey. J. Hydrol., 217, 1–18. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gilliam J.W., 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. J. Environ. Qual., 23, 896–900. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gilliam J.W., Parsons J.E. and Mikkelsen R.L., 1997. Nitrogen dynamics and buffer zones. In: Haycock N.E., Burt T.P., Goulding K.W.T. and Pinay G. (eds.), Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potential in Water Protection, Quest Environmental, Harpenden, 54–61. [Google Scholar]
  • Hill A.R., 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. J. Environ. Qual., 25, 743–755. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jung K.W., Lee S.W., Hwang H.S. and Jang J.H., 2008. The effects of spatial variability of land use on stream water quality in a coastal watershed. Paddy Water Environ., 6, 275–284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lammert M. and Allan J.D., 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. J. Environ. Manage., 23, 257–270. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lee S.W., Hwang S.J., Lee J.K., Jung D.I., Park Y.J. and Kim J.T., 2011. Overview and application of the National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program (NAEMP) in Korea. Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Limnol., 47, S3–S14. [Google Scholar]
  • Lenat D.R. and Crawford J.K., 1994. Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia, 294, 185–199. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Liu A.J., Tong S.T.Y. and Goodrich J.A., 2000. Land use as a mitigation strategy for the water-quality impacts of global warming: a scenario analysis on two watersheds in the Ohio River Basin. Environ. Eng. Policy, 2, 65–76. [Google Scholar]
  • MacCauslanda A. and McTammany M.E., 2007. The impact of episodic coal mine drainage pollution on benthic macroinvertebrates in streams in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania. Environ. Pollut., 149, 216–226. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Maddock I., 1999. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biol., 41, 373–391. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Meador M.R., Coles J.F. and Zappia H., 2005. Fish responses to urban intensity gradients in contrasting metropolitan areas: Birmingham, Alabama and Boston, Massachusetts. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp., 47, 409–423. [Google Scholar]
  • MOE/NIER, 2008. Survey and evaluation of aquatic ecosystem health in Korea, The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea (in Korean). [Google Scholar]
  • Moore A.A. and Palmer M.A., 2005. Invertebrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban headwater streams: implications for conservation and management. Ecol. Appl., 15, 1169–1177. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Morin S., Duonga T.T., Dabrin A., Coynel A., Herloryb O., Baudrimont M., Delmas F., Durrieu G., Schäfer J., Winterton P., Blanc G. and Coste M., 2008. Long–term survey of heavy–metal pollution, biofilm contamination and benthic diatom community structure in the Riou Mort watershed, south–west France. Environ. Pollut., 151, 532–542. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Naiman R.J. and Decamps H., 1990. The Ecology and Management of Aquatic–Terrestrial Ecotones, Parthenon Press, UNESCO, Paris. [Google Scholar]
  • Nakamura K., Nakayama H., Hideshma Y., Ishida T., Ogikibo J. and Moriwaki S., 2001. Drainage flows in grass and forest slope lands. In: Proceedings of the JSIRDE Annual Meeting, 44–45. [Google Scholar]
  • Nygoye E. and Machiwa J.F., 2004. The influence of land–use patterns in the Ruvu River watershed on water quality in the river system. Phys. Chem. Earth Sci., 29, 1161–1166. [Google Scholar]
  • Omernik J.M., Abernathy A.R. and Male L.M., 1981. Stream nutrient levels and proximity of agricultural and forest land to streams: some relationships. J. Soil Water, 36, 227–231. [Google Scholar]
  • Osborne L.L. and Kovacic D.A., 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water–quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biol., 9, 243–258. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Poff N.L. and Ward J.V., 1990. The physical habitat template of lotic systems: Recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatio-temporal heterogeneity. Environ. Manage., 14, 629–646. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rankin E.T., 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index: (QHEI); Rationale, Methods, and Application, Environmental Protection Agency. [Google Scholar]
  • Ren W., Zhong Y., Meligrana J., Anderson B., Watt W.E., Chen J. and Leung H., 2003. Urbanization, land use, and water quality in Shanghai 1947–1996. Environ. Int., 29, 649–659. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Rosenberg D.M. and Resh V.H., 1993. Introduction to Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, New York, 194 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Sharma R.C. and Rawat J.S., 2009. Monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates as bioindicators for assessing the health of wetlands: a case study in the Central Himalayas, India. Ecol. Ind., 9, 118–128. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sliva L. and Willams D.D., 2001. Buffer zone versus whole catchment approaches to studying land use impact on river water quality. Water Res., 35, 3462–3472. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Steffy L.Y. and Kilham S.S., 2006. Effects of urbanization and land use on fish communities in Valley Creek watershed, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Urban Ecosyst., 9, 119–133. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tkatcheva V., Hyvärinen H., Kukkonen J., Ryzhkov L.P. and Holopainen I.J., 2004. Toxic effects of mining effluents on fish gills in a subarctic lake system in NW Russia. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety, 57, 278–289. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tong S. and Chen W., 2002. Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. J. Environ. Manage., 66, 377–393. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Utz R.M., Hilderbrand R.H. and Raesly R.L., 2010. Regional differences in patterns of fish species loss with changing land use. Biol. Conserv., 143, 688–699. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wallace J.B., Eggert S.L., Meyer J.L. and Webster J.R., 1997. Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science, 277, 102–104. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang L., Lyons J., Kanehl P. and Gatti R., 1997. Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22, 6–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang L., Lyons J., Kanehl P. and Bannerman R., 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environ. Manage., 28, 255–266. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Weaver A.L. and Garman G., 1994. Urbanization of a watershed and historical changes in a stream fish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 123, 162–172. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wenger S., 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation, Office of Public Service & Outreach Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. [Google Scholar]
  • Woli K.R., Nagumo T., Kuramochi K. and Hatano R., 2004. Evaluating river water quality through land use analysis and N budget approaches in livestock farming areas. Sci. Total Environ., 329, 61–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [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.