The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A preliminary classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain based on macro‐invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data
Abstract
SUMMARY. 1. Macro‐invertebrate species lists were obtained for 268 sites on forty‐one river systems throughout Great Britain by qualitative sampling in spring, summer and autumn. Information on twenty‐eight environmental variables was also collated for each site. The sites were ordinated on the basis of their species content using detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) and classified by two‐way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN). Correlation coefficients between ordination scores and single environmental variables indicated that Axis 1 distinguished between types of rivers and Axis 2 reflected variation along the length of rivers. A preliminary classification of sites into sixteen groups has been proposed, together with a key which allows new sites to be classified. Information on the species and environmental features which characterize each group is also presented. 2. Multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) was employed to predict the group membership of the 268 sites using the twenty‐eight environmental variables. 76.1% of sites were classified correctly. An independent assessment of predictive ability using forty test sites yielded a 50% success rate. Predictive ability was higher for the classification presented in this paper than in fifteen additional classifications produced using data from single seasons and/or different taxonomic treatments. 3. TWINSPAN and MDA were found to be useful approaches to the classification of running‐water sites by their macro‐invertebrate fauna and the prediction of community type (as indicated by the occurrence of species in the sites comprising the group) using environmental variables. Extension of the scope of the classification, coupled with the use of additional environmental variables to increase predictive ability, is now in progress.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Haase, P., Pauls, S. U., Schindehütte, K., & Sundermann, A. (2010) · Journal of the North American Benthological Society · doi:10.1899/09-183.1 · Cited by 119
Pauls, S. U., Graf, W., Haase, P., Lumbsch, H. T., & Waringer, J. (2008) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2007.11.003 · Cited by 92
“Biological monitoring of water quality depends heavily on caddisflies, especially in North America, Europe and Australia ( Wright et al., 1984, 2000; Smith et al., 1999; Barbour and Yoder, 2000; Graf et al., 2002; Hering et al., 2006).”
BackgroundA Waterbody Typology Derived from Catchment Controls Using Self-Organising Maps
Heasley, E. L., Millington, J. D. A., Clifford, N. J., & Chadwick, M. A. (2019) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12010078 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- WRIGHT, J. F., MOSS, D., ARMITAGE, P. D., & FURSE, M. T.
- Venue
- Freshwater Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1984-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 221-256
- ISSN
- 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2427
- OpenAlex
- W1989978633
- Cited by
- 567
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A preliminary classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain based on macro‐invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1984.tb00039.x
- The paper
- WRIGHT, J. F., MOSS, D., ARMITAGE, P. D., & FURSE, M. T. (1984). A preliminary classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain based on macro‐invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1984.tb00039.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.