Editor's Choice
Free Access
Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.
Volume 50, Number 4, 2014
Page(s) 269 - 278
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2014020
Published online 10 October 2014
  • Aguiar F.C.F. and Ferreira M.T., 2013. Plant invasions in the rivers of the Iberian Peninsula, south-western Europe: a review. Plant Biosyst., 147, 1107–1119. [Google Scholar]
  • Akaike H., 1973. Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov B.N. and Csaki F. (eds.), Second International Symposium on Information Theory, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 267–281. [Google Scholar]
  • Armitage P.D., Szoszkiewicz K., Blackburn J.H. and Nesbitt I., 2003. Ditch communities: a major contributor to floodplain biodiversity. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst., 13, 165–185. [Google Scholar]
  • Baattrup-Pedersen A., Szoszkiewicz K., Nijboer R., O´Hare M. and Ferreira T., 2006. Macrophyte communities in unimpacted European streams: variability in assemblage patterns, abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia, 566, 179–196. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Baláž D., Marhold K., Urban P., 2001. Červený zoznam rastlín a živočíchov Slovenska. Ochr. Prír., 20 (Suppl.), 1–160. [Google Scholar]
  • Baláži P., Tóthová L., Oťaheľová H., Hrivnák R. and Mišíková K., 2011. Zoznam zistených taxónov na monitorovaných lokalitách vodných útvarov povrchových vôd Slovenska. Časť 3 vodné makrofyty. Acta Environ. Univ. Comenianae, 19, 5–89. [Google Scholar]
  • Biggs J., Williams P., Whitfield M., Nicolet P. and Weatherby A., 2005. 15 years of ponds assessment in Britain: results and lessons learned from the work of Pond Conservation. Aquat. Conserv., 15, 693–714. [Google Scholar]
  • Bornette G. and Puijalon S., 2011. Response of aquatic plants to abiotic factors: a review. Aquat. Sci., 73, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • Ceschin S., Bisceglie S. and Aleffi M., 2012. Contribution to the knowledge of the bryoflora of running waters of Central Italy. Plant Biosyst., 146, 622–627. [Google Scholar]
  • Chambers P.A., Lacoul P., Murphy K.J. and Thomaz S.M., 2008. Global diversity of aquatic macrophytes in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595, 9–26. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chappuis E., Ballesteros E. and Gacia E., 2012. Distribution and richness of aquatic plants across Europe and Mediterranean countries: patterns, environmental driving factors and comparison with total plant richness. J. Veg. Sci., 23, 985–997. [Google Scholar]
  • Chatterjee S., Hardi A.S. and Price B., 2000. Regression Analysis by Example, Willey, New York, 384 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Davies B., Biggs J., Williams P., Whitfield M., Nicolet P., Sear D., Bray S. and Maund S., 2008. Comparative biodiversity of aquatic habitats in the European agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 125, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • Dorotovičová C., 2013. Man-made canals as a hotspot of aquatic macrophyte biodiversity in Slovakia. Limnologica, 43, 277–287. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dudgeon D., Arthington A.H., Gessner M.O., Kawabata Z-I., Knowler D.J., Lévêque C., Naiman R.J., Prieur-Richard -H., Soto D., Stiassny M.L.J. and Sullivan C.A., 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev., 81, 163–182. [Google Scholar]
  • Futák J., 1972. Fytogeografický prehľad Slovenska. In: Lukniš M. (ed.), Slovensko 2, Príroda, Obzor, Bratislava, 431–482. [Google Scholar]
  • Guisan A. and Zimmermann N.E., 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Model., 135, 147–186. [Google Scholar]
  • Hejda M., Pyšek P. and Jarošík V., 2009. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J. Ecol., 97, 393–403. [Google Scholar]
  • Hrivnák R., Oťaheľová H. and Valachovič M., 2007. Vodná a močiarna vegetácia na Slovensku – súčasné výsledky výskumu a pohľad späť. Zpr. Čs. Bot. Společ., 42, Materiály 22, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
  • Hrivnák R., Oťaheľová H., Valachovič M., Paľove-Balang P. and Kubinská A., 2010. Effect of environmental variables on the aquatic macrophyte composition pattern in streams: a case study from Slovakia. Fundam. Appl. Limnol., 177, 115–124. [Google Scholar]
  • Hrivnák R., Oťaheľová H., Kochjarová J. and Paľove-Balang P., 2013. Effect of environmental conditions on species composition of macrophytes in two distinct biogeographical regions of Central Europe. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst., 09, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • Janauer G.A., 2003. Methods. In: Janauer G.A., Hale P. and Sweeting R. (eds.), Macrophyte Inventory of the River Danube: A Pilot Study. Arch. Hydrobiol., 147 (Suppl.), Large Rivers, 14, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  • Janauer G.A. and Dokulil M., 2006. Macrophytes and algae in running waters. In: Ziglio G., Siligardi M. and Flaim G. (eds.), Biological Monitoring of Rivers, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 89–109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Johnson J.B. and Omland K.S., 2004. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  • Lacoul P. and Freedman B., 2006. Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 14, 89–136. [Google Scholar]
  • Lambdon P.W., Pyšek P., Basnou C., Hejda M., Arianoutsou M., Essl F., Jarošík V., Pergl J., Winter M., Anastasiu P., Andriopoulos P., Bazos I., Brundu G., Celesti-Grapow L., Chassot P., Delipetrou P., Josefsson M., Kark S., Klotz S., Kokkoris Y., Kühn I., Marchante H., Perglová I., Pino J., Vila M., Zikos A., Roy D. and Hulme P.E., 2008. Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia, 80, 101–149. [Google Scholar]
  • Linton S. and Goulder R., 2000. Botanical conservation value related to origin and management of ponds. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst., 10, 77–91. [Google Scholar]
  • Marhold K. and Hindák F. (eds.), 1998. Checklist of Non-vascular and Vascular Plants of Slovakia, Veda, Bratislava, 688 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Mari E., Santi E., Piazzini S., Renzi M. and Maccherini S., 2010. Development of biological diversity in farmland ponds. J. Freshwat. Biol., 25, 95–105. [Google Scholar]
  • Markwell K.A. and Fellows C.S., 2008. Habitat and biodiversity of on-farm water storages: a case study in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Environ. Manag., 41, 234–249. [Google Scholar]
  • McCullagh P. and Nelder P., 1989. Generalized Linear Models, Chapman and Hall, London, 532 p. [Google Scholar]
  • O′Hare J.M., O′Hare M.T., Gurnell A.M., Dunbar M.J., Scarlett P.M. and Laize C., 2011. Physical constraints on the distribution of macrophytes linked with flow and sediment dynamics in British rivers. River Res. Appl., 27, 671–683. [Google Scholar]
  • Oťaheľová H., Valachovič M. and Hrivnák R., 2007. The impact of environmental factors on the distribution pattern of aquatic plants along the Danube River corridor (Slovakia). Limnologica, 37, 290–302. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Polunin N.V.C. (ed.), 2008. Aquatic Ecosystems. Trend and Global Prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 482 p. [Google Scholar]
  • R Development Core Team, 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 3551 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Rodriguez J.B., Self J.R. and Soltanpour P.N., 1994. Optimal conditions for phosphorus analysis by the ascorbic acid-molybdenum blue method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 58, 866–870. [Google Scholar]
  • Sipos V.K., Kohler A., Köder M. and Janauer G.A., 2003. Macropyhte vegetation of Danube canals in Kiskunság (Hungary). Arch. Hydrobiol., 147 (Suppl. 1–2), Large Rivers 14(1–2), 143–166. [Google Scholar]
  • StatSoft, 2001. STATISTICA. System Reference, StatSoft Inc., Tulsa. [Google Scholar]
  • Willby N.J., Pygott J.R. and Eaton J.W., 2001. Inter-relationships between standing crop, biodiversity and trait attributes of hydrophytic vegetation in artificial waterways. Freshwat. Biol., 46, 883–902. [Google Scholar]
  • Williams P., Whitfield M., Biggs J., Bray S., Fox G., Nicolet P. and Sear D., 2004. Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biol. Conserv., 115, 329–341. [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.