Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon

By J. V. Van Sickle, R. Hughes. Journal of The North American Benthological Society, 2000

177 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.

Apples, oranges, and ecoregions: on determining pattern in aquatic assemblages (2000, methodology): “Classification strength (CS) 5 W̄ 2 B̄ (Van Sickle 1997).”
Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment (2000, methodology): “Our primary objective was to compare the classification strengths (sensu Van Sickle 1997, Van Sickle and Hughes 2000) of 5 different a priori classification systems (ecoregions, life zones, and small, medium, and large catchments) with an a posteriori classification (Hawkins and Norris 2000a).”
Biogeography of Iberian freshwater fishes revisited: the roles of historical versus contemporary constraints (2009, background): “Stickle & Hughes, 2000; Arau ´ jo et al., 2004) allowed us to incorporate the spatial structure of the data and avoid the well-documented statistical problems that occur when using standard statistical tests on spatially autocorrelated data (see Legendre, 1993).”
Benthic diatom communities in boreal streams: community structure in relation to environmental and spatial gradients (2004, methodology): “Johnson 2000, Hawkins and Vinson 2000, Sandin and Johnson 2000, Heino et al. 2002) and fish ( Van Sickle and Hughes 2000, McCormick et al. 2000, Oswood et al. 2000).”