Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accurately Defining the Reference Condition for Summary Biotic Metrics: A Comparison of Four Approaches

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Protocols for bioassessment often relate changes in summary metrics that describe aspects of biotic assemblage structure and function to environmental stress. Biotic assessment using multimetric indices now forms the basis for setting regulatory standards for stream quality and a range of other goals related to water resource management in the USA and elsewhere. Biotic metrics are typically interpreted with reference to the expected natural state to evaluate whether a site is degraded. It is critical that natural variation in biotic metrics along environmental gradients is adequately accounted for, in order to quantify human disturbance-induced change. A common approach used in the IBI is to examine scatter plots of variation in a given metric along a single stream size surrogate and a fit a line (drawn by eye) to form the upper bound, and hence define the maximum likely value of a given metric in a site of a given environmental characteristic (termed the ‘maximum species richness line’ – MSRL). In this paper we examine whether the use of a single environmental descriptor and the MSRL is appropriate for defining the reference condition for a biotic metric (fish species richness) and for detecting human disturbance gradients in rivers of south-eastern Queensland, Australia. We compare the accuracy and precision of the MSRL approach based on single environmental predictors, with three regression-based prediction methods (Simple Linear Regression, Generalised Linear Modelling and Regression Tree modelling) that use (either singly or in combination) a set of landscape and local scale environmental variables as predictors of species richness. We compared the frequency of classification errors from each method against set biocriteria and contrast the ability of each method to accurately reflect human disturbance gradients at a large set of test sites. The results of this study suggest that the MSRL based upon variation in a single environmental descriptor could not accurately predict species richness at minimally disturbed sites when compared with SLR’s based on equivalent environmental variables. Regression-based modelling incorporating multiple environmental variables as predictors more accurately explained natural variation in species richness than did simple models using single environmental predictors. Prediction error arising from the MSRL was substantially higher than for the regression methods and led to an increased frequency of Type I errors (incorrectly classing a site as disturbed). We suggest that problems with the MSRL arise from the inherent scoring procedure used and that it is limited to predicting variation in the dependent variable along a single environmental gradient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akamoto, Y., M. Ishiguro & G. Kitagawa, 1986. Akaike Information Criterion Statistics, D. Reidel Publishing Company

  • Allan J. D., Erikson D. L. and Fay J. (1997). The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37: 149–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew N. L. and Mapstone B. D. (1987). Sampling and the description of spatial pattern in marine ecology. Oceanography, Marine Biology. Annual Review 25: 39–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier P. L. and Smogor R. A. (1995). Estimating number of species and relative abundances in stream-fish communities: effects of sampling effort and discontinuous spatial distributions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 936–949

    Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier P. L. and Winston M. A. (1998). Local vs. regional influences on local diversity in stream fish communities of Virginia. Ecology 79: 911–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Angermeier P. L. and Davideanu G. (2004). Using fish communities to assess streams in Romania: initial development of an index of biotic integrity. Hydrobiologia 511: 65–75

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey R. C., Kennedy M. G., Dervish M. Z. and Taylor R. M. (1998). Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshwater Biology 39: 765–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour M. T. and Yoder C. O. (2000). The multimetric approach to bioassessment, as used in the United States of America. In: Wright, J. F.,, Sutcliffe, D. W. and Furse, M. T. (eds) Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques, pp 281–292. Freshwater Biological Association and Environment Agency, U.K

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour M. T., Stribling J. B. and Karr J. R. (1995). Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological condition. In: Davis, W. S. and Simon, T. P. (eds) Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, pp 63–77. Lewis Publishing, Boca Raton, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour M. T., Gerritsen J., Griffith G. E., Frydenborg R., McCarron E., White J. S. and Bastian M. L. (1999). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour M. T., Gerritsen J., Griffith G. E., Frydenborg R., McCarron E., White J. S. and Bastian M. L. (1996). A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 185–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Belliard J., Boet P. and Tales E. (1997). Regional and longitudinal patterns of fish community structure in the Seine River basin, France. Environmental Biology of Fishes 50: 133–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Belpaire C., Smolders R., Vanden Auweele I., Ercken D., Breine J. and Ollevier F. (2000). An Index of Biotic Integrity characterizing fish populations and the ecological quality of Flandrian water bodies. Hydrobiologia 434: 17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramblett R. G. and Fausch K. D. (1991). Variable fish communities and the Index of Biotic Integrity in a Western Great Plains River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 752–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L., Friedman J. H., Olshen R. A. and Stone C. J. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Breine J., Simoens I., Goethals P., Quataert P., Ercken D. and Belpaire C. (2004). A fish-based index of biotic integrity for upstream brooks in Flanders (Belgium). Hydrobiologia 522: 133–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn S. E. (1995). Biological monitoring of water quality in Australia: Workshop summary and future directions. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 220–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Cade B. S. and Noon B. R. (2003). A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 412–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayton P. K. (1998). Reversal of the burden of proof in fisheries management. Science 279: 821–822

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies P. E. (1989). Relationships between habitat characteristics and population abundance for brown trout, Salmo trutta L. and blackfish, Gadopsis marmoratus Rich., in Tasmanian streams. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 341–359

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • W. S. Davis & T. P. Simon (eds), 1995. Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishing

  • De’ath G. and Fabricus K. E. (2000). Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81: 3178–3192

    Google Scholar 

  • DeShon J. E. (1995). Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). In: W. S., Davis and Simon, T. P. (eds) Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, pp 217–244. Lewis Publishing, Boca Raton, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather P. G. (1991). Statistical power and design requirements for environmental monitoring. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 555–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausch K. D., Karr J. R. and Yant P. R. (1984). Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 39–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausch K. D., Leons J., Karr J. R. and Angermeier P. L. (1990). Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 8: 123–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Fore L. S., Karr J. R. and Wisseman R. W. (1996). Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 212–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Frissell C. A., Liss W. A., Warren C. E. and Hurley M. D. (1986). A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10: 199–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganasan V. and Hughes R. M. (1998). Application of an index of biotic integrity (IBI) to fish assemblages of the rivers Khan and Kshipra (Madhya Pradesh), India. Freshwater Biology 40: 367–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke P. C. and Harris J. H. (2000). Large-scale patterns in species richness and composition of temperate riverine fish communities, south-eastern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 165–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerritsen J. (1995). Additive biological indices for resource management. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14: 451–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman O. T. (1986). Assemblage organization of stream fishes: the effect of rivers on adventitious streams. The American Naturalist 128: 611–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman O. T. and Karr J. R. (1978). Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59: 507–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Green R. H. (1979). Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannaford M. J. and Resh V. H. (1995). Variability in macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and habitat assessments in a northern California stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14: 430–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J. H. (1995). The use of fish in ecological assessments. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 65–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J. H. and Silveira R. (1999). Large-scale assessments of river health using an Index of Biotic Integrity with low-diversity fish communities. Freshwater Biology 41: 235–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay C. J., Zyl B. J. Van and Steyn G. J. (1996). A quantitative assessment of the biotic integrity of the Okavango River, Namibia, based on fish. Water SA 22: 263–284

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes R. M. (1995). Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In: Davis, W. S. and Simon , T. P. (eds) Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, pp 31–48. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes R. M. and Oberdorff T. (1999). Applications of IBI concepts and metrics to waters outside the United States and Canada. In: Simon, T. P. (eds) Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, pp 79–83. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes R. M., Kaufmann P. R., Herlihy A. T., Kincaid T. M., Reynolds L. and Larsen D. P. (1998). A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1618–1631

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugueny B., Camara S., Samoura B. and Magassouba M. (1996). Applying an index of biotic integrity based on fish communities in a west African river. Hydrobiologia 331: 71–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson D. A. and Harvey H. H. (1989). Biogeographic associations in fish assemblages: local vs. regional processes. Ecology 70: 1472–1484

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr J. R. (1981). Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr J. R. and Chu E. W. (1999). Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr J. R., Fausch K. D., Angermeier P. L., Yant P. R. and Schlosser I. J. (1986). Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication, 5, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennard M. J., Arthington Pusey A. H. B. J. and Harch B. D. (2005a). Are alien fish a reliable indicator of river health?. Freshwater Biology 50: 174–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennard, M. J., B. J. Pusey, A. H. Arthington, B. D. Harch, & S. J. Mackay, 2005b. Utility of a multivariate modelling method for prediction of freshwater fish assemblages and evaluation of river health. Hydrobiologia (in press)

  • Kesminas V. and Virbickas T. (2000). Application of an adapted index of biotic integrity to rivers of Lithuania. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 257–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake P. S. (1982). The relationships between freshwater fish distribution, stream drainage area and stream length in some streams of south-east Australia. Australian Society for Limnology Bulletin 8: 31–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard P. M. and Orth D. J. (1986). Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in small, cool-water streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 401–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang S. H. and Menzel B. W. (1997). A new method to establish scoring criteria of the Index of Biotic Integrity. Zoological Studies 36: 240–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Linke S., Bailey R. C. and Schwindt J. (1999). Temporal variability of stream bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biology 42: 575–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J. S. (1992). The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when species richness is estimated. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 198–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J. S., Navarro-Perez P. A., Cochran E., Santana C. and Guzman-Arroyo M. (1995). Index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages for the conservation of streams and rivers in west-central Mexico. Conservation Biology 9: 569–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Meffe G. K. and Sheldon A. L. (1988). The influence of habitat structure on fish assemblage composition in southeastern blackwater streams. American Midland Naturalist 120: 225–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen J., Schimel D. S., Friedl M. A., Davis F. N. and Dubayah R. C. (1994). Regression tree analysis of satellite and terrain data to guide vegetation sampling and surveys. Journal of Vegetation Science 5: 673–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Minns C. K., Cairns V. W., Randall R. G. and Moore J. E. (1994). An index of biotic integrity (IBI) for fish assemblages in the littoral zone of the Great Lakes areas of concern. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 1804–1822

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbury R. W. and Gaboury M. C. (1993). Stream Analysis and Fish Habitat Design: A Field Manual. Newbury Hydraulics Ltd., Gibson

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris R. H. (1995). Biological monitoring: the dilemma of data analysis. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14: 440–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris R. H. and Georges A. (1993). Analysis and interpretation of benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. In: Rosenberg, D. M. and Resh , V. H. (eds) Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, pp 234–286. Chapman, Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorff T. and Hughes R. M. (1992). Modification of an index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages to characterize rivers of the Seine-Normandie basin, France. Hydrobiologia 228: 635–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorff T., Guilbert E. and Lucchetta J. C. (1993). Patterns of fish species richness in the Seine River basin, France. Hydrobiologia 259: 157–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorff T., Pont D., Hugueny B. and Chessel D. (2001). A probabilistic model characterizing fish assemblages of French rivers: a framework for environmental assessment. Freshwater Biology 46: 399–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorff T., Pont D., Hugueny B. and Porcher J. (2002). Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment of ‘river health’ in France. Freshwater Biology 47: 1720–1734

    Google Scholar 

  • Olden J. D. and Jackson D. A. (2000). Torturing the data for the sake of generality: How valid are our regression models?. Ecoscience 7: 501–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne L. L. and Wiley M. J. (1992). Influence of tributary position on the structure of warmwater fish communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 671–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne L. L., Kohler S. L., Bayley P. B., Day D. M., Bertrand W. A., Wiley M. J. and Sauer R. (1992). Influence of stream location in a drainage network on the Index of Biotic Integrity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 635–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Paller M. H. (1995). Relationships among number of fish species sampled, reach length surveyed and sampling effort in South Carolina coastal plain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 110–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterman R. M. (1990). Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 2–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Poff N. L. (1997). Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 391–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Poff N. L. and Ward J. V. (1990). The physical habitat template of lotic systems: recovery in the context of historical pattern of spatio-temporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management 14: 629–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Poff N. L. and Allan J. D. (1995). Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic variability. Ecology 76: 606–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusey B. J. and Kennard M. J. (1996). Species richness and geographical variation in assemblage structure of the freshwater fish fauna of the Wet Tropics region of northern Queensland. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 563–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusey B. J., Arthington A. H. and Read M. G. (1993). Spatial and temporal variation in fish assemblage structure in the Mary River, south-eastern Queensland: the influence of habitat structure. Environmental Biology of Fishes 37: 355–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusey B. J., Arthington A. H. and Read M. G. (1995). Species richness and spatial variation in fish assemblage structure in two rivers of the Wet Tropics of north Queensland. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42: 181–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusey B. J., Kennard M. J., Arthur J. M. and Arthington A. H. (1998). Quantitative sampling of stream fish assemblages: single- versus multiple-pass electrofishing. Australian Journal of Ecology 23: 365–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusey B. J., Kennard M. J. and Arthington A. H. (2000). Discharge variability and the development of predictive models relating stream fish assemblage structure to habitat in north-eastern Australia. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9: 30–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusey B. J., Kennard M. J. and Arthington A. H. (2004). Freshwater Fishes of North-Eastern Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn G. P. and Keough M. J. (2002). Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rankin E. T. and Yoder C. O. (1999). Methods for deriving maximum species richness lines and other threshold relationships in biological field data. In: Simon, T. P. (eds) Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, pp 611–624. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport D. J., Costanza R. and McMichael A. J. (1998). Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 397–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Rathert D., White D., Sifneos J. C. and Hughes R. M. (1999). Environmental correlates of species richness for native freshwater fish in Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Biogeography 26: 257–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynoldson T. B., Norris R. H., Resh V. H., Day K. E. and Rosenberg D. M. (1997). The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 833–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth N. E., Allan J. D. and Erikson D. E. (1996). Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11: 141–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser I. J. (1982). Fish community structure and function along two habitat gradients in a headwater stream. Ecological Monographs 52: 395–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser I. J. (1985). Flow regime, juvenile abundance and the assemblage structure of stream fishes. Ecology 66: 1484–1490

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser I. J. (1991). Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. BioScience 41: 704–712

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser I. J. (1995). Critical landscape attributes that influence fish population dynamics in headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 303: 71–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser I. J. and Angermeier P. L. (1995). Spatial variation in demographic processes of lotic fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence and implications for conservation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17: 392–401

    Google Scholar 

  • (1999). Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon T. P. and Emery E. B. (1995). Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify water resource quality in Great Rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 11: 283–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon T. P. and Lyons J. (1995). Application of the Index of Biotic Integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. In: Davis, W. S. and Simon , T. P. (eds) Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, pp 245–262. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • (2001). Design and Implementation of Baseline Monitoring (DIBM3): Developing an Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program for Rivers and Streams in Southeast Queensland. Report to the South-East Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy, Brisbane, 416

    Google Scholar 

  • Smogor R. A. and Angermeier P. L. (1999a). Relations between fish metrics and measures of anthropogenic disturbance in three IBI regions in Virginia. In: Simon, T. P. (eds) Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, pp 585–610. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Smogor R. A. and Angermeier P. L. (1999b). Effects of drainage basin and anthropogenic disturbance on relations between stream size and IBI metrics in Virginia. In: Simon, T. P. (eds) Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, pp 249–272. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Smogor R. A. and Angermeier P. L. (2001). Determining a regional framework for assessing biotic integrity of Virginia streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 18–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Smogor R. A., Glayford P. L and Angermeier C. K. (1995). Distribution and abundance of American eels in Virginia streams: tests of null models across spatial scales. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 789–803

    Google Scholar 

  • (1999). S-PLUS, version 2000 for Windows. Mathsoft Inc, Seattle, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer J. C., Goldstein R. M. and Newman R. M. (2000). Relationship of wooded riparian zones and runoff potential to fish community composition in agricultural streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 307–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman R. J. (1988). Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 492–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter G. W. (1993). A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12: 1533–1539

    Google Scholar 

  • Therneau, T. M., E. J. Atkinson, 1997. An introduction to recursive partitioning using RPART routines. Technical Report, MAYO Foundation [available as a postscript file at http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/Swin]

  • Toft C. A. and Shea P. J. (1983). Detecting community-wide patterns: estimating power strengthens statistical inference. American Naturalist 122: 618–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Toham A. K. and Teugels G. G. (1999). First data on an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) based on fish assemblages for the assessment of the impact of deforestation in a tropical West African river system. Hydrobiologia 397: 29–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Unmack P. J. (2001). Biogeography of Australian freshwater fishes. Journal of Biogeography 28: 1053–1089

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables W. N. and Ripley B. D. (1999). Modern Applied Statistics with S-PLUS. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley M. J., Seelbach P. W., Wehrly K. and Martin J. S. (2003). Regional ecological normalization using linear models: a meta-method for scaling stream assessment indicators. In: Simon, T. P. (eds) Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities, pp 201–223. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder C. O. and Rankin E. T. (1995). Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio. In: Davis, W. S. and Simon , T. P. (eds) Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, pp 109–145. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cooperative Research Centres for Freshwater Ecology and Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management, Centre for Riverine Landscapes, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University, 4111, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

    M. J. Kennard, B. J. Pusey & A. H. Arthington

  2. CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences, PO Box 120, 4163, Cleveland, Queensland, Australia

    B. D. Harch

Authors
  1. M. J. Kennard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. D. Harch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. J. Pusey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. H. Arthington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. Kennard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kennard, M.J., Harch, B.D., Pusey, B.J. et al. Accurately Defining the Reference Condition for Summary Biotic Metrics: A Comparison of Four Approaches. Hydrobiologia 572, 151–170 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0998-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0998-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation