Classification schemes for phytoplankton: a local validation of a functional approach to the analysis of species temporal replacement

215 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

A morphological classification capturing functional variation in phytoplankton (2010, unknown): “Statistical analyses have been used to recognise and label such clusters of species (Kruk et al., 2002; Tolotti et al., 2005).”
Phytoplankton community composition can be predicted best in terms of morphological groups (2011, result): “This is in line with a range of earlier findings (Carpenter et al. 1993; Kruk et al. 2002; Salmaso and Padisák 2007).”
Invited Review - Fight on Plankton! or, Phytoplankton Shape and Size as Adaptive Tools to Get Ahead in the Struggle for Life (2011, methodology): “This functional classification was later enlarged by Reynolds et al. (2002) and statistical analyses have been used to recognize, validate and label the coda (Kruk et al., 2002; Tolotti et al., 2005).”
The concepts of ‘plant functional types’ and ‘functional diversity’ in lake phytoplankton – a new understanding of phytoplankton ecology? (2003, methodology): “dence analysis (CCA) or principal coordination analysis (PCoA) (e.g. Jaksić & Medel, 1990; Leishman & Westoby, 1992; Pillar, 1999; Usseglio-Polatera et al., 2000; Kruk et al., 2002).”