Biological monitoring of rivers in Thailand: use and adaptation of the BMWP score

By S. Mustow. Hydrobiologia, 2002

154 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Water Science and Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f93a3c801a8500b2464a3a7a4c9ab1a18c2496d9

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. D. Trigg
2. M. Paisley
3. W. Walley

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. D. Trigg
2. M. Paisley
3. W. Walley

In Water Science and Technology

1. D. Trigg
2. M. Paisley
3. W. Walley

Citations in the corpus

• Comparing modified biological monitoring working party score system and several biological indices based on macroinvertebrates for water-quality assessment (2005, unknown): “Indices developed for a particular geographical region, like the Belgian Biotic Index (BBI) (De Pauw & Vanhooren, 1983) or the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) score system for river pollution surveys in the UK (Armitage, Moss, Wright, & Furse (1983) have been successfully applied in other”
• REVISION OF THE BIOLOGICAL MONITORING WORKING PARTY (BMWP) SCORE SYSTEM: DERIVATION OF PRESENT‐ONLY AND ABUNDANCE‐RELATED SCORES FROM FIELD DATA (2014, methodology): “Because of its advantages modifications of the BMWP score system have been developed for use in a number of other countries including Spain (Zamora-Munoz and Alba-Tercedor, 1996), Argentina (Capítulo et al., 2001), Poland (Kownacki et al., 2004) and Thailand (Mustow, 2002).”