Biomonitoring is a common method to monitor environmental change in river ecosystems, a key advantage of biomonitoring over snap-shot physicochemical monitoring is that it provides a more stable, long-term insight into change that is also effects-based. In New Zealand, the main biomonitoring method is a macroinvertebrate sensitivity scoring index, with little established methods available for biomonitoring of fish. This study models the contemporary distribution of common freshwater fish and then uses those models to predict freshwater fish assemblages for each river reach under reference conditions. Comparison of current fish assemblages with those predicted in reference conditions (as observed/expected (O/E) ratios) may provide a suitable option for freshwater fish biomonitoring. Most of the fish communities throughout the central North Island and lower reaches show substantial deviation from the modelled reference community. Most of this deviation is explained by nutrient enrichment, followed by downstream barriers (i.e. dams) and loss of riparian vegetation. The presence of modelled introduced species had relatively little impact on the presence of the modelled native fish. The maps of O/E fish assemblage may provide a rapid way to identify potential restoration sites.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,945,164
of 25,130,202 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#5,547
of 14,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,019
of 337,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#261
of 591 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,130,202 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 591 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
