2013
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-013-1591-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sampling techniques and inter-surveyor variability as sources of uncertainty in Polish macrophyte metric for lake ecological status assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A wide range of metrics derived from ecological surveys are used and, while most are robust, a proportion have been shown to be susceptible to error caused by inter-operator variation (e.g. Kelly 1997; Clarke and Hering 2006;Hasse et al 2010;Staniszewski et al 2006;Kahlert et al 2012;Thackeray et al 2013;Kolada et al 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A wide range of metrics derived from ecological surveys are used and, while most are robust, a proportion have been shown to be susceptible to error caused by inter-operator variation (e.g. Kelly 1997; Clarke and Hering 2006;Hasse et al 2010;Staniszewski et al 2006;Kahlert et al 2012;Thackeray et al 2013;Kolada et al 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under the influence of the prevailing environmental conditions changes occur in the structure, quality and number of macrophyte communities (Sender, 2012;Kolada et al, 2014). The vegetation can reduce its range of occurrence as well as change its composition and spatial distribution as a result of water quality deterioration , which was constantly observed in Raczyń skie Lake over the years.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The obtained results were used to calculate the Ecological State Macrophyte Index (ESMI) according to the formula given by Kolada et al (2014). The surface of the lake was calculated on the basis of the shoreline appointed by the range of occurrence of macrophyte vegetation (94.9 ha).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As follows from the above review, the number of macrophyte communities is not related to water trophy but rather to different abiotic conditions in the littoral zone. The area occupied by particular phytolittoral communities (especially belonging to charophytes and elodeids) is much more important than the number of communities (Kolada et al, ). As it was reported from several restored lakes, the return of large amounts of macrophytes does not coincide with highest macrophyte richness (Bakker et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%