DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR MEASURING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF STREAMS

By Charles P. Hawkins, R. Norris, J. Hogue, John Feminella. 2000

459 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/095d4d42fbf0c17b954370290bfd8662e1304195

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. F. Jones
2. J. Heino
3. Charles P. Hawkins
4. T. Erős
5. B. Chessman
6. J. Soininen
7. Simon Williams
8. C. Besley

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. F. Jones
2. J. Heino
3. T. Erős
4. Charles P. Hawkins
5. B. Chessman
6. Simon Williams
7. J. Soininen
8. C. Besley

Citations in the corpus

• Rare species in multivariate analysis for bioassessment: some considerations (2001, background): “However, if most rare species positively respond to impact, as described by Hawkins et al. (2000), the inclusion of rare species may improve both precision and sensitivity.”
• Evaluating Subsampling Approaches and Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Resolution for Wetland Bioassessment (2002, background): “Similarly, Hawkins et al. (2000) concluded that family-level predictive models were not sufficient to detect biological impairment in streams of California.”
• Validation Tests of Predictive Models of Butterfly Occurrence Based on Environmental Variables (2003, background): “The process of generating and testing model predictions increases our understanding of relationships between organisms and environmental variables and contributes to the scientific foundation for regional conservation planning (Mac Nally & Bennett 1997; Hawkins et al. 2000; Mac Nally et al. 2000).”
• The effect of taxonomic resolution on the assessment of ecological water quality classes (2004, background): “Studies concentrating on this issue showed that higher taxonomic levels increase the possibility of ‘misevaluating’ sampling sites (Hawkins et al., 2000; Lenat & Resh 2001; King & Richardson, 2002).”
• Taxonomic Resolution and Quantification of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Samples from an Australian Dryland River: The Benefits and Costs of Using Species Abundance Data (2006, background): “…assemblages are well represented by family level assemblages (Furse et al., 1984; Marchant et al., 1995; Wright et al., 1995; Growns & Growns, 1997; Hewlett, 2000), although this is not universally the case (Marchant, 1990; Bowman & Bailey, 1998; Hawkins et al., 2000; Metzeling et al., 2002).”
• Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models (2004, methodology): “Similar models have been applied in Australia (Simpson and Norris 2000), the United States (Hawkins et al. 2000), and Indonesia (Sudaryanti et al.”
• Use of terrestrial invertebrates for biodiversity monitoring in Australian rangelands, with particular reference to ants (2004, methodology): “Invertebrates provide the cornerstone of biological monitoring in aquatic systems, where there are welldeveloped procedures for using them to assess biological integrity (Norris & Norris 1995; Harig & Bain 1998; Hawkins et al . 2000 ).”
• Taxonomic sufficiency: The influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates (2008, background): “Similarly, Hawkins et al. (2000) reported using ‘‘near-species-level’’ data: aquatic insects were identified to species, but the detail of identifications for non-insect fauna ranged from ‘‘species to class, depending on the group’’.”
• Sampling effort affects multivariate comparisons of stream assemblages (2002, methodology): “This process simulated how composite samples are collected in many bioassessment studies (Wright et al. 1984, Hawkins et al. 2000b, Waite et al. 2000, Carter and Resh 2001).”
• Selecting discriminant function models for predicting the expected richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates (2006, methodology): “(Wright, Furse & Armitage, 1993; Parsons & Norris, 1996; Hawkins et al., 2000).”
• The Causes and Consequences of Compensatory Dynamics in Ecological Communities (2009, background): “Hawkins et al. (2000) found that although disturbed sites differed from reference sites in the abundance of the taxa and composition of the communities, on average, little difference existed in total densities or in assemblage dominance diversity relationships.”
• Rapid Bioassessment Protocols using benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: evaluation of taxonomic sufficiency (2010, background): “Species-based models were able to detect subtle impacts of nonpoint-source effects of logging in streams in California that family-based models were unable to detect (Hawkins et al. 2000).”
• Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups (2005, methodology): “2000), the USA (Hawkins et al. 2000; Reynoldson et al. 2000), New Zealand and in many European countries (AlbaTercedor & Pujante 2000; Johnson & Goedkoop 2000; Verdonschot & Nijboer 2000).”
• Integrating dispersal proxies in ecological and environmental research in the freshwater realm (2017, methodology): “For example, current bioassessment approaches infer effects 509 of environmental changes using the responses of bioindicators to environmental factors 510 (Hawkins et al. 2000a; Friberg et al. 2011).”
• Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. (2001, background): “, 1997), but that smaller differences in resources condition require identification to the level of genus or species for most insects (Hawkins & Norris, 2000; Hawkins et al., 2000).”