Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs.
By J. Simpson, R. Norris, J. Wright, D. Sutcliffe, M. Furse. 2000
229 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4ba71e5dd2cd46c37748004f3195f2a4201916e3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
Citations in the corpus
- Taxonomic Resolution and Quantification of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Samples from an Australian Dryland River: The Benefits and Costs of Using Species Abundance Data (2006, background): “However, many monitoring programmes identify specimens to the resolution of family rather than species (e.g. Wright, 1995; Reynoldson et al., 1997; Simpson & Norris, 2000) and some biotic indices (e.g. EPT) utilise macroinvertebrate data at the order level (Resh et al., 1995).”
- Addressing the removal of rare species in multivariate bioassessments: The impact of methodological choices (2012, methodology): “Several national bioassessment rograms are based on multivariate measures, including those in he United Kingdom (e.g., RIPVACS; Wright et al., 2000) Australia AUSRIVAS; Simpson and Norris, 2000), Canada (Reynoldson et al., 001), as well as elsewhere (Bailey et al., 2004; Van Sickle et al., 007).”
- Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups (2005, methodology): “Variations of the RIVPACS approach are employed across Australia (Davies 2000; Simpson & Norris 2000), Canada (Rosenberg et al. 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…”
- Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. (2006, methodology): “, misclassification in a wrong quality class) using multivariate approaches varies across a range from 0 to 66% (X) (34, 125).”