NABS Home | What's new? | Search | Contact

  
  email password   Forgot your login information?

About NABS

Membership application

Taxonomic certification

Classified Ads

Students & Postdocs

Publications

Education & Outreach

• Annual meeting

Meeting information

Abstract Submission

Online Registration

Future Meetings

2007 Columbia

2006 Anchorage

2005 New Orleans

2004 Vancouver

• 2003 Athens

Registration

• Programme schedule

Electronic presentations

Authors index

Search abstracts

Plenary session

Special sessions

Special activities

GRC Festivities

Workshops

Travel information

About the conference site

Accommodations

2002 Pittsburgh

2001 La Crosse

2000 Keystone

Earlier meetings

Journal (J-NABS)

Society Business

Members only

NABSWeb Admin

 
 

Ecosystem Function in Bioassessment: Comparisons and Opportunities II

Session 26 (Special)
Friday, May 30, 10:15 AM-12:15 PM, Athena E
Moderator: Paul



10:15  (173) Structural and functional measurements indicate subtle changes in ecosystem health along a New Zealand river.
R.G. Young and K.A. Shearer. Cawthron Institute, Private Bag 2, Nelson, New Zealand

10:30  (174) Linking ecosystem processes and functional group composition to assess urban impacts on Maryland streams.
A.A. Moore and M.A. Palmer. Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA 20742

10:45  (175) Ecological consequences of secondary salinisation: comparison of benthic metabolism and macroinvertebrate community structure .
P.M. Davies. Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, The University of Western Australia, Albany, Western Australia, 6330

11:00  (176) Reference site selection for ecosystem process-based stream bioassessment: how well do biological classifications scale to direct measures of ecosystem function?
T. Simmons and C.P. Hawkins. Department of Aquatic, Watershed and Earth Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322

11:15  (177) Assessing recovery of streams from agriculture using biological structure and ecosystem function.
M.E. McTammany and E.F. Benfield. Biology Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA 24061

11:30  (178) Use of ecosystem functional measures in monitoring restoration: premise and promise .
M.J. Paul. Tetra Tech, Inc., 10045 Red Run Blvd., Ste. 110, Owings Mills, MD 21117

11:45  (179) Developing tools for a functional assessment of lotic ecosystem response to restoration: Kissimmee River, South Florida.
J.T. Brock1, K.W. Cummins2, R.W. Merritt3, and T.V. Belanger4. 1Divisions of Hydrology and Earth-Ecosystem Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, 89512, 2California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521, 3Departments of Entomology and Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 , 4Department of Marine and Environmental Systems, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901

12:00  (180) The cost of including measures of ecological processes in routine monitoring programs: an example from southeast Queensland, Australia.
M.J. Smith and S.E. Bunn. Centre for Catchment and In-stream Research, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia 4111