• 1
    Newman MC. 2008. “What exactly are you inferring?” A closer look at hypothesis testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 27: 10131019.
  • 2
    Environment Canada. 2005. Pulp and paper environmental effects monitoring guidance document. EEM/2005/1. National Environmental Effects Monitoring Office, Environment Canada, Gatineau, QC.
  • 3
    Mapstone BD. 1995. Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: Effect size, type I, and type II errors. Ecol Appl 5: 401410.
  • 4
    Oris JT, Roberts AP. 2007. Statistical analysis of cytochrome P4501A biomarker measurements in fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 26: 17421750.
  • 5
    van der Oost R, Beyer J, Vermeulen NPE. 2003. Fish bioaccumulation and biomarkers in environmental risk assessment: A review. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 13: 57149.
  • 6
    Kidd KA, Blanchfield PJ, Mills KH, Palace VP, Evans RE. 2007. Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 88978901.
  • 7
    Carls MG, Heintz RA, Marty GD, Rice SD. 2005. Cytochrome P4501A induction in oil-exposed pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha embryos predicts reduced survival potential. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 301: 253265.
  • 8
    Osenberg CW, Schmitt RJ, Holbrook SJ, Abu-Saba KE, Flegal AR. 1994. Detection of environmental impacts: Natural variability, effect size, and power analysis. Ecol Appl 4: 1630.
  • 9
    Downes BJ, Barmuta LA, Fairweather PG, Faith DP, Keough MJ, Lake PS, Mapstone BD, Quinn GP. 2002. Monitoring Ecological Impacts Concepts and Practice in Flowing Waters. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
  • 10
    Underwood AJ, Chapman MG. 2003. Power, precaution, type II error and sampling design in assessment of environmental impacts. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 296: 4970.
  • 11
    Elliott M, De Jonge VN. 1996. The need for monitoring the monitors and their monitoring. Mar Pollut Bull 32: 248249.
  • 12
    Field SA, O'Connor PJ, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP. 2007. Making monitoring meaningful. Aust J Ecol 32: 485491.
  • 13
    Keough MJ, Mapstone BD. 1997. Designing environmental monitoring for pulp mills in Australia. Water Sci Technol 35: 397404.
  • 14
    Lincoln-Smith MP, Pitt KA, Bell JD, Mapstone BD. 2006. Using impact assessment methods to determine the effects of a marine reserve on abundances and sizes of valuable tropical invertebrates. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63: 12511266.
  • 15
    Lowell RB. 1997. Discussion paper on critical effect size guidelines for EEM using benthic invertebrate communities. EEM/1997/8. National Environmental Effects Monitoring Office, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON.
  • 16
    Green RH. 1989. Power analysis and practical strategies for environmental monitoring. Environ Res 50: 195205.
  • 17
    Peterman RM. 1990. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47: 215.
  • 18
    Fairweather PG. 1991. Statistical power and design requirements for environmental monitoring. Aust J Mar Freshw Res 42: 555567.
  • 19
    Underwood AJ. 1995. Detection and measurement of environmental impacts. In UnderwoodAJ, ChapmanMG, eds, Coastal Marine Ecology of Temperate Australia. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, pp 311324.
  • 20
    Fox DR. 2006. Statistical issues in ecological risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12: 120129.
  • 21
    Ortiz M. 2002. Optimum sample size to detect perturbation effects: the importance of statistical power analysis—A critique. Mar Ecol 23: 19.
  • 22
    Clarke KR, Green RH. 1988. Statistical design and analysis for a 'biological effects' study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 46: 213226.
  • 23
    Underwood AJ. 1994. On beyond BACI: Sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecol Appl 4: 315.
  • 24
    Benedetti-Cecchi L. 2001. Beyond BACI: optimization of environmental sampling designs through monitoring and simulation. Ecol Appl 11: 783799.
  • 25
    Cabral HN, Murta AG. 2004. Effect of sampling design on abundance estimates of benthic invertebrates in environmental monitoring studies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 276: 1924.
  • 26
    Field SA, Tyre AJ, Jonzen N, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP. 2004. Minimizing the cost of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds. Ecol Lett 7: 669675.
  • 27
    Dekkers S, de Heer C, Rennen MAJ. 2001. Critical effect sizes in toxicological risk assessment: A comprehensive and critical evaluation. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 10: 3352.
  • 28
    Dekkers S, Telman J, Rennen MAJ, Appel MJ, de Heer C. 2006. Within-animal variation as an indication of the minimal magnitude of the critical effect size for continuous toxicological parameters applicable in the benchmark does approach. Risk Anal 26: 867880.
  • 29
    Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NY, USA
  • 30
    Munkittrick KR, Portt CB, Van der Kraak G, Smith IR, Rokosh DA. 1991. Impact of bleached kraft mill effluent on population characteristics, liver MFO activity, and serum steroid levels of a Lake Superior white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48: 13711380.
  • 31
    Munkittrick KR, Sandström O. 2003. Ecological assessments of pulp mill impacts: Issues, concerns, myths and research needs. In Stuthridge T, van den Heuvel M, Marvin N, Slade A, Clifford J, eds, Environmental Impacts of Pulp and Paper Waste Streams. Proceedings, Third International Conference on Environmental Fate and Effects of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents, Rotorua, New Zealand, pp 352362.
  • 32
    Larsson Å, Förlin L, Grahn O, Landner L, Lindesjöö E, Sandström O. 2000. Guidelines for interpretation and biological evaluation of biochemical, physiological and pathological alterations in fish exposed to industrial effluents. SSVL Miljö 2000, Report 5. Supplement 2. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.
  • 33
    Sandström O, Larsson A, Andersson J, Appelberg M, Bignert A, Ek H, Forlin L, Olsson M. 2005. Three decades of Swedish experience demonstrates the need for integrated long-term monitoring of fish in marine coastal areas. Water Qual Res J Can 40: 233250.
  • 34
    Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 1997. Environmental impacts of pulp and paper mill effluents: A strategy for future environmental risk assessments. Report 4785. Stockholm, Sweden.
  • 35
    Walker SL, Hedley K, Porter E. 2002. Pulp and paper environmental effects monitoring in Canada: An overview. Water Qual Res J Can 37: 719.
  • 36
    Paine M. 1997. Detailed variability analyses for cycle 1 results. In Environment Canada, Fish Survey Expert Working Group: Review of EEM Cycle 1. Final Report, Cycle 1 Analysis. Evaluation and Interpretation Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp 5593.
  • 37
    Lowell RB, Ring B, Pastershank G, Walker S, Trudel L, Hedley K. 2005. National assessment of pulp and paper Environmental Effects Monitoring data: Findings from cycles 1 through 3. National Water Research Institute, Scientific Assessment Report Series 5. Environment Canada, Burlington, ON.
  • 38
    Sandström O, Thoresson G. 1988. Mortality in perch populations in a Baltic pulp mill effluent area. Mar Pollut Bull 19: 564567.
  • 39
    Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP, Johnson RK, Norris RH. 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: The concept of reference condition. Ecol Appl 16: 12671276.
  • 40
    Balk L, Larsson A, Forlin L. 1996. Baseline studies of biomarkers in the feral female perch (Perca fluviatilis) as tools in biological monitoring of anthropogenic substances. Mar Environ Res 42: 203208.
  • 41
    Sandström O, Neuman E. 2003. Long-term development in a Baltic fish community exposed to bleached pulp mill effluent. Aquat Ecol 37: 267276.
  • 42
    Sandström O, Larsson A, Andersson J, Appelberg M, Bignert A, Ek H, Forlin L, Olsson M. 2005. Three decades of Swedish experience demonstrates the need for integrated long-term monitoring of fish in marine coastal areas. Water Qual Res J Can 40: 233250.
  • 43
    Munkittrick KR, McMaster ME, Van der Kraak G, Portt C, Gibbons WN, Farwell A, Gray M. 2000. Development of Methods for Effects-Driven Cumulative Effects Assessment Using Fish Populations: Moose River Project. SETAC Technical Publications Series. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA.
  • 44
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Vol II—User's manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Document 0046e/0013e. Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • 45
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Vol I—The role of biological data in water quality assessment. Document 0055e/0015e. Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • 46
    Bailey RC, Norris RH, Reynoldson TB. 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems: Using the Reference Condition Approach. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  • 47
    Galloway BJ, Munkittrick KR, Currie S, Gray MA, Curry RA, Wood CS. 2003. Examination of the responses of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) collected on the Saint John River (Canada) downstream of pulp mill, paper mill, and sewage discharges. Environ Toxicol Chem 22: 28982907.
  • 48
    Kilgour BW, Somers KM, Matthews DE. 1998. Using the normal range as a criterion for biological significance in environmental monitoring and assessment. Ecoscience 5: 542550.
  • 49
    Lowell RB, Ribey SC, Ellis IK, Porter EL, Culp JM, Grapentine LC, McMaster ME, Munkittrick KR, Scroggins RP. 2003. National assessment of the pulp and paper environmental effects monitoring data. National Water Research Institute Contribution 03–521. Environment Canada, Gatineau, QC.
  • 50
    Meador MR, Whittier TR, Goldstein RM, Hughes RM, Peck DV. 2008. Evaluation of an Index of Biotic Integrity approach used to assess biological condition in western U.S. streams and rivers at varying spatial scales. Trans Am Fish Soc 137: 1322.
  • 51
    Applegate JM, Baumann PC, Emery EB, Wooten MS. 2007. First steps in developing a multimetric macroinvertebrate index for the Ohio River. River Res Appl 23: 683697.
  • 52
    Lyons J. 2006. A fish-based index of biotic integrity to assess intermittent headwater streams in Wisconsin, USA. Environ Monit Assess 122: 239258.
  • 53
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual—Rivers and Streams. EPA-822-B-00–002. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
  • 54
    Roset N, Grenouillet G, Goffaux D. 2007. A review of existing fish assemblage indicators and methodologies. Fish Manag Ecol 14: 393405.
  • 55
    Hughes RM, Oberdorff T. 1999. Applications of IBI concepts and metrics to waters outside the United States and Canada. In SimonTP, ed, Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources using Fish Communities. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 7983.
  • 56
    Angermeier PL, Smogor RA, Stauffer JR. 2000. Regional frameworks and candidate metrics for assessing biotic integrity in mid-Atlantic highland streams. Trans Am Fish Soc 129: 962981.
  • 57
    Scardi M, Tancioni L, Cautaudella S. 2006. Monitoring methods based on fish. In ZiglioG, SiligardiM, FlaimG, eds, Biological Monitoring of Rivers. John Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 135154.
  • 58
    Herbst D, Silldorff E. 2006. Comparison of the performance of different bioassessment methods: Similar evaluations of biotic integrity from separate programs and procedures. J North Am Benthol Soc 25: 513530.
  • 59
    Schmutz S, Cowx IG, Haidvogl G, Pont D. 2007. Fish-based methods for assessing European running waters: A synthesis. Fish Manag Ecol 14: 369380.
  • 60
    Yeom D-H, Adams SM. 2007. Assessing effects of stress across levels of biological organization using an aquatic ecosystem health index. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 67: 286295.
  • 61
    Pinto BCT, Araujo FG, Hughes RM. 2006. Effects of landscape and riparian condition on a fish index of biotic integrity in a large southeastern Brazil river. Hydrobiologia 556: 6983.
  • 62
    Rodríguez-Olarte D, Amaro A, Coronel J, Taphorn BDC. 2006. Integrity of fluvial fish communities is subject to environmental gradients in mountain streams, Sierra de Aroa, north Caribbean coast, Venezuela. Neotropical Ichthyology 4: 319328.
  • 63
    Karr JR. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 2127.
  • 64
    Mayon N, Bertrand A, Leroy D, Malbrouck C, Mandiki SNM, Silvestre F, Goffart A, Thomé J-P, Kestemont P. 2006. Multiscale approach of fish responses to different types of environmental contaminations: A case study. Sci Total Environ 367: 715731.
  • 65
    Davies SP, Jackson SK. 2006. The Biological Condition Gradient: A descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16: 12511266.
  • 66
    Chapman PM. 2007. Do not disregard the benthos in sediment quality assessments! Mar Pollut Bull 54: 633635.
  • 67
    Chapman PM, Hollert H. 2006. Should the Sediment Quality Triad become a tetrad, a pentad, or possibly even a hexad? Journal of Soils and Sediments 6: 48.
  • 68
    Chapman PM. 1996. Presentation and interpretation of Sediment Quality Triad data. Ecotoxicology 5: 327339.
  • 69
    Alden RW, Hall LW, Dauer DM, Burton DT. 2005. An integrated case study for evaluating the impacts of an oil refinery effluent on aquatic biota in the Delaware River: Integration and analysis of study components. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 11: 879936.
  • 70
    Iannuzzi TJ, Armstrong TN, Long ER, Iannuzzi J, Ludwig DF. 2008. Sediment quality triad assessment of an industrialized estuary of the northeastern USA. Environ Monit Assess 139: 257275.
  • 71
    Hall LW, Dauer DM, Alden RW, Uhler AD, DiLorenzo J, Burton DT, Anderson RD. 2005. An integrated case study for evaluating the impacts of an oil refinery effluent on aquatic biota in the Delaware River: Sediment Quality Triad studies. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 11: 657770.
  • 72
    Munkittrick KR, McGeachy SA, McMaster ME, Courtenay SC. 2002. Overview of freshwater fish studies from pulp and paper environmental effects monitoring program. Water Qual Res J Can 37: 4977.
  • 73
    Kilgour BW, Munkittrick KR, Portt C, Hedley K, Culp JM, Dixit S, Pastershank G. 2005. Biological criteria for municipal waste-water effluent monitoring programs. Water Qual Res J Can 40: 374387.
  • 74
    Crump KS. 1984. A new method for determining allowable daily intakes. Fundam Appl Toxicol 4: 854871.
  • 75
    Beliaeff B, Burgeot T. 2002. Integrated biomarker response: A useful tool for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 21: 13161322.
  • 76
    Tejerina-Garro FL, de Mérona B, Oberdorff T, Hugueny B. 2006. A fish-based index of large river quality for French Guiana (South America): Method and preliminary results. Aquat Living Resour 19: 3146.
  • 77
    Bailer AJ, Oris JT, See K, Hughes MR, Schaefer R. 2003. Defining and evaluating impact in environmental toxicology. Environmetrics 14: 235243.
  • 78
    Somerfield PJ, Clarke KR, Olsgard F. 2002. A comparison of the power of categorical and correlational tests applied to community ecology data from gradient studies. J Anim Ecol 71: 581593.
  • 79
    Reynoldson TB. 2001. Comparison of models predicting invertebrate assemblages for biomonitoring in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58: 13951410.
  • 80
    Bailey RC, Kennedy MG, Dervish MZ, Taylor RM. 1998. Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: Comparing predicted and actual benthic in-vertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshw Biol 39: 765774.
  • 81
    Bailey RC, Reynoldson TB, Yates AG, Bailey J. 2007. Integrating stream bioassessment and landscape ecology as a tool for land use planning. Freshw Biol 52: 908917.
  • 82
    Reynoldson TB, Norris RH, Resh VH, Day KE, Rosenberg DM. 1997. The reference condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 16: 833852.
  • 83
    Tonn WM, Paszkowski CA, Scrimgeour GJ, Aku PM, Lange M, Prepas EE, Westcott K. 2003. Effects of forest harvesting and fire on fish assemblages in boreal plains lakes: A reference condition approach. Trans Am Fish Soc 132: 514523.
  • 84
    Pont D, Hugueny B, Rogers C. 2007. Development of a fish-based index for the assessment of river health in Europe: The European Fish Index. Fish Manag Ecol 14: 427439.
  • 85
    Schmutz S, Melcher A, Frangez C, Haidvogl G, Beier U. 2007. Spatially based methods to assess the ecological status of riverine fish assemblages in European ecoregions. Fish Manag Ecol 14: 441452.
  • 86
    Ellison AM. 1996. An introduction to Bayesian inference for ecological research and environmental decision-making. Ecol Appl 6: 10361046.
  • 87
    Punt AE, Hilborn R. 1997. Fisheries stock assessment and decision analysis: The Bayesian approach. Rev Fish Biol Fish 7: 3563.
  • 88
    Wade PR. 2000. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 14: 13081316.
  • 89
    Peterman RM, Anderson JL. 1999. Decision analysis: A method for taking uncertainties into account in risk-based decision making. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5: 231244.
  • 90
    Underwood AJ. 1997. Experiments in Ecology: Their Logical Design and Interpretation Using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • 91
    Underwood AJ. 1996. Detection, interpretation, prediction and management of environmental disturbances: Some roles for experimental marine ecology. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 200: 127.
  • 92
    Underwood AJ. 2000. Trying to detect impacts in marine habitats: Comparisons with suitable reference areas. In SparksT, ed, Statistics in Ecotoxicology. John Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 279308.
  • 93
    Gray JS. 1999. Using science for better protection of the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 39: 310.