Free Access
Issue
Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.
Volume 47, Number 3, 2011
Page(s) 199 - 209
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2011026
Published online 09 August 2011
  • Abell R., 2002. Conservation biology for the biodiversity crisis: a freshwater follow-up. Conserv. Biol., 16, 1435–1437. [CrossRef]
  • Abell R., Allan J.D. and Lehner B., 2007. Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwater. Biol. Conserv., 134, 48–63. [CrossRef]
  • Allan J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 257–284. [CrossRef]
  • 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. [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [MathSciNet] [PubMed]
  • 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. [CrossRef]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Elith J., Leathwick J.R. and Hastie T., 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol., 77, 802–813. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Environmental System Research Institute, 2006. ArcGIS/ArcInfo for Windows XP Version 9.2.0, Environmental System Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA. [CrossRef]
  • 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. [CrossRef]
  • Guisan A. and Thuiller W., 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett., 8, 993–1009. [CrossRef]
  • Hirzel A. and Guisan A., 2002. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modeling. Ecol. Model., 157, 331–341. [CrossRef]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
  • 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. [CrossRef]
  • Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed online 2 May 2010, http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg.
  • 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]
  • 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.
  • McGarigal K. and Marks B.J., 1995. FRAGSTATS. Spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351.
  • 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]
  • Moilanen A., Leathwick J. and Elith J., 2008. A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshwater Biol., 53, 577–592. [CrossRef]
  • Moyle P.B. and Yoshiyama R.M., 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: a five- tiered approach. Fisheries, 19, 6–17. [CrossRef]
  • 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]
  • 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.
  • Poff N.L. and Allan J.D., 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic variability. Ecology, 76, 606–627. [CrossRef]
  • 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]
  • R Development Core Team, 2006. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. [CrossRef]
  • Rahel F.J., 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across the United States. Science, 288, 854–856. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Ricciardi A. and Rasmussen J.B., 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv. Biol., 13, 1220–1222. [CrossRef]
  • Ridgeway G., 2006. Generalized boosted regression models. Accessed online 16 May 2009, ftp://ftp.auckland.ac.nz/pub/software/CRAN/doc/packages/gbm.pdf.
  • 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]
  • Saunders D.L., Meeuwig J.J. and Vincent A.C.J., 2002. Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conserv. Biol., 16, 30–41. [CrossRef]
  • 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. [CrossRef]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Strayer D.L., 2006. Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 25, 271–287. [CrossRef]
  • Tilman D., 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80, 1455–1474.
  • 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]
  • 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.

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.