Free Access
Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.
Volume 47, Number 3, 2011
Page(s) 199 - 209
Published online 09 August 2011
  • Abell R., 2002. Conservation biology for the biodiversity crisis: a freshwater follow-up. Conserv. Biol., 16, 1435–1437. [Google Scholar]
  • Abell R., Allan J.D. and Lehner B., 2007. Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwater. Biol. Conserv., 134, 48–63. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Allan J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 257–284. [Google Scholar]
  • Brotons L., Thuiller W., Arau'jo M.B. and Hirzel A.H., 2004. Presence-absence versus presence-only methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography, 27, 437–448. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Collares-Pereira M.J. and Cowx I.G., 2004. The role of catchment scale environmental management in freshwater fish conservation. Fisheries Manag. Ecol., 11, 303–312. [Google Scholar]
  • Dudgeon D., Arthington A.H., Gessner M.O., Kawabat Z.I., Knowler D.J., Lévêque C., Naiman R.J., Prieur-Richard A.-H., Soto D., Stiassny M.L.J. and Sullivan C.A., 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81, 163–182. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Elith J., Graham C.H., Anderson R.P., Dudík M., Ferrier S., Guisan A., Hijmans R.J., Huettmann F., Leathwick J.R., Lehmann A., Li J., Lohmann L.G., Loiselle B.A., Manion G., Moritz C., Nakamura M., Nakazawa Y., Overton J., Peterson A.T., Phillips S.J., Richardson K.S., Scachetti-Pereira R., Schapire R.E., Soberón J., Williams S., Wisz M.S. and Zimmermann N.E., 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29, 129–151. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Elith J., Leathwick J.R. and Hastie T., 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol., 77, 802–813. [Google Scholar]
  • Environmental System Research Institute, 2006. ArcGIS/ArcInfo for Windows XP Version 9.2.0, Environmental System Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  • Filipe A.F., Marques T.A., Seabra S., Tiago P., Ribeiro F., Moreria Da Costa L., Cowx I.G. and Collares-Pereira M.J., 2004. Selection of priority areas for fish conservation in Guadiana River basin, Iberian Peninsula. Conserv. Biol., 18, 189–200. [Google Scholar]
  • Guisan A. and Thuiller W., 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett., 8, 993–1009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hirzel A. and Guisan A., 2002. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modeling. Ecol. Model., 157, 331–341. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hopkins R.L.II, 2009. Use of landscape pattern metrics and multiple spatial scales in aquatic species distribution models. Landscape Ecol., 24, 943–955. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hopkins R.L.II and Burr B.M., 2009. Modeling freshwater fish distributions using multiscale landscape data: a case study of six narrow range endemics. Ecol. Model., 220, 2024–2034. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hopkins R.L.II, Burns M.D., Burr B.M. and Hopman L.J., 2009. Building a centralized database for Kentucky fishes: progress and future applications. J. Kentucky Acad. Sci., 69, 73–78. [Google Scholar]
  • Jones E.B.D.III, Helfman G.S., Harper J.O. and Boltstad P.V., 1999. Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian streams. Conserv. Biol., 13, 1454–1465. [Google Scholar]
  • Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed online 2 May 2010, [Google Scholar]
  • Linke S., Pressey R.L., Bailey R.C. and Norris R.H., 2007. Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re-visited. Freshwater Biol., 52, 918–938. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Master L.L., Flack S.R. and Stein B.A., 1998. Rivers of life: critical watersheds for protecting freshwater biodiversity, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, MA, 71 p. [Google Scholar]
  • McGarigal K. and Marks B.J., 1995. FRAGSTATS. Spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. [Google Scholar]
  • McRae S.E., Allan J.D. and Burch J.B., 2004. Reach and catchment-scale determinants of the distribution of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in southeastern Michigan (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biol., 49, 127–142. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Moilanen A., Leathwick J. and Elith J., 2008. A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshwater Biol., 53, 577–592. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Moyle P.B. and Yoshiyama R.M., 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: a five- tiered approach. Fisheries, 19, 6–17. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Naeem S. and Wright J.P., 2003. Disentangling biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: deriving solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems. Ecol. Lett., 6, 567–579. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Neves R.J., Bogan A.E., Williams J.D., Ahlstedt S.A. and Hartfield P.W., 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. In: Benz G.W. and Collins D.E. (eds.), Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, 43–85. [Google Scholar]
  • Poff N.L. and Allan J.D., 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic variability. Ecology, 76, 606–627. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Poole K.E. and Downing J.A., 2004. Relationship of declining mussel biodiversity to stream-reach and watershed characteristics in an agricultural landscape. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 23, 114–125. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • R Development Core Team, 2006. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. [Google Scholar]
  • Rahel F.J., 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across the United States. Science, 288, 854–856. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ricciardi A. and Rasmussen J.B., 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv. Biol., 13, 1220–1222. [Google Scholar]
  • Ridgeway G., 2006. Generalized boosted regression models. Accessed online 16 May 2009, [Google Scholar]
  • Roth N.E., Allan J.D. and Erickson D.L., 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol., 11, 141–156. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Saunders D.L., Meeuwig J.J. and Vincent A.C.J., 2002. Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conserv. Biol., 16, 30–41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Scott M.C., Helfman G.S., McTammany T.E., Benfield E.F. and Boltstad P.V., 2002. Multiscale influences on physical and chemical stream conditions across Blue Ridge landscape. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 38, 1379–1392. [Google Scholar]
  • Singkran N. and Meixler M.S., 2008. Influences of habitat and land cover on fish distributions along a tributary to Lake Ontario, New York. Landscape Ecol., 23, 539–551. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Srivastava D.S. and Vellend M., 2005. Biodiversity-ecosystem function research: is it relevant to conservation? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 36, 267–294. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Strayer D.L., 2006. Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 25, 271–287. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tilman D., 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80, 1455–1474. [Google Scholar]
  • Wang L.J., Lyons J., Kanehl P. and Gatti R., 1997. Influence of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22, 6–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Warren M.L.Jr, Angermeier P.L., Burr B.M. and Haag W.R., 1997. Decline of a diverse fish fauna: patterns of imperilment and protection in the southeastern United States. In: Benz G.W. and Collins D.E. (eds.), Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, 105–164. [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.