1990
DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675-10.3.362
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Questions on Habitat Preference

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The derivation of habitat suitability criteria has been the subject of numerous studies and there is no clear consensus on a single method of determination (e.g., Bartholow et al 1990). Beecher (1995) compared habitat use and preference frequency curves in a computer model and concluded that preference curves were superior to habitat use curves, but noted the difficulty in defining depth and velocity preferences independently when the two variables are often correlated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The derivation of habitat suitability criteria has been the subject of numerous studies and there is no clear consensus on a single method of determination (e.g., Bartholow et al 1990). Beecher (1995) compared habitat use and preference frequency curves in a computer model and concluded that preference curves were superior to habitat use curves, but noted the difficulty in defining depth and velocity preferences independently when the two variables are often correlated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This issue has received considerable attention in the literature (e.g. Baker and Coon, 1997;Baldridge and Amos, 1981;Bartholow and Slauson, 1990;Beecher, 1995;DeGraff and Bain, 1986;Groshens andOrth, 1994, Jowett, 2002;Mäki-Petäys et al, 2002;Parsons and Hubert, 1988;Thomas and Bovee, 1993). Other workers have argued that, since many of the factors influencing fish habitat vary locally, site-specific HSIs are required to representatively model habitat in a stream (Heggenes, 1990;Moyle and Baltz, 1985;Nestler et al, 1989).…”
Section: Habitat Suitability Indicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These adjusted the utilization data (above) according to the availability of the respective depth and velocity classes in the streams. The availability of depths and velocities was quantified using a total of 612 random point measurements (Girnock Burn, n ¼ 210; Clunie Water, n ¼ 187; Burn of Sheeoch, n ¼ 215) at locations over spawning-calibre sediment (following Bartholow and Slauson, 1990). These data were collected over the same period that depths and velocities were measured at redd locations and therefore captured the range of hydrological (and thus hydraulic) conditions under which spawning occurred.…”
Section: Habitat Suitability Indicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measurements were taken immediately upstream of the redd pot over undisturbed sediment within 24 hours of redd completion (data were omitted where flows changed between the time of redd completion and measurement). The availability of depths and velocities was quantified using a total of 488 random point measurements at locations with suitable spawning sediment (following Bartholow and Slauson, 1990). Water velocity and depth data were used to construct electivity indices (Vanderploeg and Scavia, 1979).…”
Section: Phabsimmentioning
confidence: 99%