Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity

Hill, B. H., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R., Stevenson, R. J., McCormick, F. H., Johnson, C. Burch·2000·Journal of the North American Benthological Society

Abstract

Periphyton assemblage data collected from 233 stream site-visits (49 in 1993, 56 in 1994, and 128 in 1995) throughout the Mid-Appalachian region were used to develop a periphyton index of biotic integrity (PIBI) based on 1) algal genera richness; 2) the relative abundances of diatoms, Cyanobacteria, dominant diatom genus, acidophilic diatoms, eutraphentic diatoms, and motile diatoms; 3) chlorophyll and biomass (ash-free dry mass) standing crops; and 4) alkaline phosphatase activity. Thirty-seven diatom genera and 38 non-diatom genera were collected. The relative richness and relative abundance (RA) of these genera were used to calculate the RA metrics of the PIBI. PIBI scores ranged from 48.0 to 85.1 among the 233 site-visits with an overall regional mean (±1 SE) of 66.1 ± 0.5. The 10 metrics and the PIBI were correlated with 27 chemical, 12 physical habitat, and 3 landscape variables. Overall, PIBI was inversely correlated with stream depth, stream water color, and Fe. Component metrics were significantly correlated with several chemical (Al, acid neutralizing capacity, Cl, Fe, Mn, N, Na, P, pH, Si, SO4, total suspended solids), physical habitat (channel embeddedness, riparian disturbances, stream depth, stream width, substrate composition), and landscape (% of the watershed in forest, agriculture, and urban land uses) variables. Canonical correlation analysis revealed significant correlations between the 10 PIBI metrics and 4 significant environmental gradients related to general human disturbances (stream acidity, stream substrate composition, and stream and riparian habitat). Analysis of variance revealed significant differences in PIBI scores for lowland vs highland streams, and among stream orders. Annual differences were explained by differences in the proportions of sampling sites in lowland streams in each year. The univariate distribution of PIBI scores was used to set threshold PIBI values for the assessment of ecological condition in Mid-Appalachian streams.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1468281

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Hill, B. H., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R., Stevenson, R. J., McCormick, F. H., & Johnson, C. B.
Venue
Journal of the North American Benthological Society
Published
2000-03
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
50-67
ISSN
  • 0887-3593 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-237X
OpenAlex
W2008290634
Cited by
317
References
43
FWCI
15.22
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: Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1468281
The paper
Hill, B. H., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R., Stevenson, R. J., McCormick, F. H., & Johnson, C. B. (2000). Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468281

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.