Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Methods Applied for Measurement and Visualization of Changes in Biodiversity Cover

Methods Applied for Measurement and Visualization of Changes in Biodiversity

Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S
Volume 21 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)
By: Grzegorz Łagód,  Mariola Chomczyńska,  Agnieszka Montusiewicz,  Jacek Malicki and  David Stransky  
Open Access
|Feb 2015

References

  1. [1] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. [2] Andrzejewski R, Weigle A. Różnorodność biologiczna Polski (Biological diversity of Poland). Warszawa: Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska; 2003.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. [3] Curds CR. A theoretical study of factors influencing the microbial population dynamics of the activated sludge process - I The effects of diurnal variations of sewage and carnivorous ciliated protozoa. Water Res. 1973;7(9):1269-1284. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(73)90004-3.10.1016/0043-1354(73)90004-3
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. [4] Al-Shahwani SM, Horan NJ. The use of protozoa to indicate changes in the performance of activated sludge plants. Water Res. 1991;25(6):633-638. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(91)90038-R.10.1016/0043-1354(91)90038-R
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. [5] Forney LJ, Liu WT, Guckert JB, Kumagai Y, Namkung E, Nishihara T, et al. Structure of microbial communities in activated sludge: Potential implications for assessing the biodegradability of chemicals. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety. 2001;49(1):40-53. DOI: 10.1006/eesa.2001.2034.10.1006/eesa.2001.2034
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. [6] De Gregorio C, Caravelli AH, Zaritzky NE. Application of biological indices and a mathematical model for the detection of metal coagulant overload in a laboratory scale activated sludge reactor with phosphate simultaneous precipitation. Chem Eng J. 2011;172(1):52-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2011.05.063.10.1016/j.cej.2011.05.063
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. [7] Babko R, Łagód G, Jaromin-Gleń KM. Abundance and structure of ciliated protozoa community at the particular devices of “Hajdów” WWTP. Ann Set Environ Protect. 2012;14:56-68.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. [8] O'Reilly N, Novotny V. Water quality, ecological and flood risks to receiving waters due to urban runoff and urbanization. Technical report No. 2. Institute for Urban Environmental Risk Management, Marquette University; 1999.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. [9] The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) Stream Corridor Restoration -Principles, Processes and Practices, by the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. [10] Ogbeibu AE, Orihabor BJ. Ecological impact of river impoundment using benthic macro-invertebrates as indicators. Water Res. 2002;36(10):2427-2436. DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00489-4.10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00489-4
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. [11] Borchardt D, Richter S. Identification of significant pressures and impacts upon receiving waters. Water Sci Technol. 2003;48(10):33-38.10.2166/wst.2003.0532
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. [12] Stastna G, Kabelkova I, Stransky D. Interaction of river dam and system sewer (in Czech). Stavebni obzor. 2008;17(1):16-20.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. [13] Whitaker RH. Evolutional measurements of species diversity. Taxon. 1972;21(2/3):213-251.10.2307/1218190
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. [14] Shannon CE, Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago, 1949, reprint 1998.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. [15] Woodiwiss FS. The biological system of stream classification used by Trent River Board. Chem Industry. 1964;11:443-447.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. [16] Washington HG. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res. 1984;18(6):653-694. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(84)90164-7.10.1016/0043-1354(84)90164-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. [17] Brower JE, Zar JH, Von Ende CN. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. New York: WCB McGraw-Hill 1998.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. [18] Madoni P. A sludge biotic index (SBI) for evaluation of activated sludge plants based on the microfauna analysis. Water Res. 1994;28(1):67-75. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(94)90120-1.10.1016/0043-1354(94)90120-1
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. [19] Knoben RAE, Roos C, van Oirschot MCM. Biological assessment methods for watercourses. UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring & Assessment, Lelystad; 1995.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. [20] Ravera O. A comparison between diversity, similarity and biotic indices applied to the macroinvertebrate community of a small stream: the Ravella river (Como Province, Northern Italy). Aquat Ecol. 2001;35:97-107.10.1023/A:1011433813309
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. [21] Gorzel M, Kornijów R. Biologiczne metody oceny jakości wód rzecznych. Kosmos. 2004;53(2):183-191.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. [22] Kokes J, Zahradkova S, Nemejcova D, Hodovsky J, Jarkovsky J, Soldan T. The PERLA system in the Czech Republic: a multivariate approach for assessing the ecological status of running waters. Hydrobiologia. 2006;566(1):343-354. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-006-0085-4.10.1007/s10750-006-0085-4
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. [23] Rożej A, Cydzik-Kwiatkowska A, Kowalska B, Kowalski D. Structure and microbial diversity of biofilms on different pipe materials of a model drinking water distribution systems. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014:1-11. DOI: 10.1007/s11274-014-1761-6.10.1007/s11274-014-1761-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. [24] Gotelli NJ, Entsminger GL. EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Version 7.0, Jericho: Ackuiret Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear, USA, 2006.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. [25] Błędzki LA. Method for comparing species richness and species diversity (in Polish). Part I. Bioskop. 2007;1:18-22.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. [26] Błędzki LA. Method for comparing species richness and species diversity (in Polish). Part II. Bioskop. 2007;2:20-23.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. [27] Łagód G, Chomczyńska M, Montusiewicz A, Malicki J, Bieganowski A. Proposal of measurement and visualization methods for dominance structures in the saprobe communities. Ecol Chem Eng S. 2009;16(3):369-377.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. [28] Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Lin SY, Mao CX, Chazdon RL, et al. Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J Plant Ecol. 2012;5(1):3-21. DOI: 10.1093/jpe/rtr044.10.1093/jpe/rtr044
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. [29] MacArthur RH. Patterns of species diversity. Biol Rev. 1965;40(4):510-533. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1965.tb00815.x.10.1111/j.1469-185X.1965.tb00815.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. [30] Hulbert SH. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology. 1971;52(4):577-586. DOI: 10.2307/1934145.10.2307/1934145
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. [31] Magurran A. Ecological Diversity and its Measurements. London, Sydney, Croom Helm; 1988.10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. [32] Gove IH, Patil GP, Swindel BF, Taille C. Ecological Diversity and Forest Management. Handbook of Statistic 12, Patil GP, Rao CR, editors. Amsterdam, London, New York, Tokyo: Elsevier Science; 1994;12:409-462. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-7161(05)80014-8.10.1016/S0169-7161(05)80014-8
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. [33] Krebs CJ. Ecology. The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Harper-Collins College Publishers; New York; 1994.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. [34] Lamb EG, Bayne E, Holloway G, Schieck J, Boutin S, Herbers J, et al. Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others? Ecol Indicators. 2009;9(3):432-444. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.001.10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.001
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. [35] Patil GP, Taillie C. An overview of diversity. In: Ecological Diversity in Theory and Practice. Grassle JF, Patil GP, Smith W, Taillie C, editors. Fairland, MD: International Co-operative Publishing House; 1979: 23-48.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. [36] Patil GP, Taillie C. Diversity as a concept and its measurement. J Amer Statist Assoc. 1982;77(379):548-567. DOI: 10.2307/2287709.10.2307/2287709
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. [37] Patil GP, Taillie C. A study of diversity profiles and orderings for a bird community in the vicinity of Colstrip, Montana. In: Patil GP, Rosenzweig ML, editors. Contemporary Quantitative Ecology and Related Econometrics. Fairland, MD: International Co-operative Publishing House; 1979: 23-48.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. [38] Swindel BF, Lloyd R, Patil GP, Taillie C, Conde L. U.S. National Forest Management Act, forest ecosystems diversity and diversity profiles. Conenoses. 1987;2(1):1-8.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. [39] Ten Brink BJE, Hosper SH, Colijn F. A quantitative method for description and assessment of ecosystems: the AMOEBA - approach. Marine Pollut Bull. 1991;23:265-270. DOI: 10.1016/0025-326X(91)90685-L.10.1016/0025-326X(91)90685-L
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. [40] Lane WEM, Peters JS. Ecological objectives for management purposes: applying the amoeba approach. J Aquatic Ecos Health. 1993;2:277-286.10.1007/BF00044031
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. [41] Wefering FM, Danielson LE, White NM. Using the AMOEBA approach to measure progress toward ecosystem sustainability within a shellfish restoration project in North Carolina. Ecol Modelling. 2000;130(1-3):157-166. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00205-2.10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00205-2
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. [42] Collie JS, Gislason H, Vinther M. Using AMOEBAs to display multispecies, multifleet fisheries advice. ICES J Marine Sci. 2003;60(4):709-720. DOI: 10.1016/S1054-3139(03)00042-0.10.1016/S1054-3139(03)00042-0
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. [43] Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Hsieh TC, Sander EL, Ma KH, Colwell RK, et al. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol Monographs 2014;84(1):45-67. DOI: 10.1890/13-0133.1.10.1890/13-0133.1
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eces-2014-0042 | Journal eISSN: 2084-4549 | Journal ISSN: 1898-6196
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 593 - 604
Published on: Feb 2, 2015
Published by: Society of Ecological Chemistry and Engineering
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
biodiversity,
Shannon's index,
rarefaction curves,
profile method
Related subjects:
Chemistry,
Sustainable and green chemistry,
Engineering,
Electrical engineering,
Energy engineering,
Life sciences,
Ecology

© 2015 Grzegorz Łagód, Mariola Chomczyńska, Agnieszka Montusiewicz, Jacek Malicki, David Stransky, published by Society of Ecological Chemistry and Engineering
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 21 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)Next article