Scalable Spatial Stream Network (S3N) Models

Jessica P. Kunke; Julian D. Olden; Tyler H. McCormick

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 8 references

S3N models make regional-scale river network statistics feasible on a laptop

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:38 UTC pith:YYFD3G6M

load-bearing objection Solid engineering plus a real practical leap: S3N makes stream-network spatial models feasible at regional scale, with honest limitations around validation and neighbor choice. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.12398 v2 pith:YYFD3G6M submitted 2025-12-13 stat.ME stat.CO

Scalable Spatial Stream Network (S3N) Models

Jessica P. Kunke , Julian D. Olden , Tyler H. McCormick This is my paper

classification stat.ME stat.CO MSC 62M3062F4062-08

keywords spatial stream networknearest-neighbor Gaussian processtail-up covariancestream distancescalabilityfish distributionOhio River Basincomputational statistics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces S3N, a class of spatial stream network models that replaces the full Gaussian process with a nearest-neighbor approximation where 'nearest' means closest by stream distance rather than Euclidean distance. This swaps O(n³) estimation cost for O(n), while preserving ecologically meaningful flow-connected covariance via tail-up components. The authors argue, and demonstrate by simulation, that parameters are recovered as accurately as with full SSN models, sometimes more so. The payoff is a demonstration: estimating distributions and population sizes for 285 fish species across the ~170,000-reach Ohio River Basin, with preprocessing in minutes and estimation in seconds per species, on a laptop.

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that nearest-neighbor Gaussian processes, originally defined for Euclidean distances, remain a valid and accurate approximation when neighbor sets and covariance functions are redefined using stream distance and the tail-up construction. This yields a genuine stochastic process (not just an approximate likelihood), so prediction at arbitrary network locations is coherent. Benchmarks show estimation scaling roughly linearly rather than cubically, and validation on networks of 284 to 7,146 reaches shows S3N recovers simulated SSN parameters—including the stream covariance range and variance—with comparable or lower bias and variance than full SSN fits.

What carries the argument

The engine is the nearest-neighbor Gaussian process (NNGP): each observation conditions on at most m earlier points, chosen here as the m nearest by stream distance, turning the dense covariance inverse into a sparse Cholesky factor (O(nm³) flops, O(nm²) storage). The stream-aware covariance is the tail-up moving-average construction with confluence weighting, which is positive definite by construction. Efficient preprocessing replaces nested loops and pairwise distance computation with an edge-list adjacency built from reach endpoints.

Load-bearing premise

The approximation's accuracy rests on the assumption that, on a branching network, the m nearest points by stream distance carry essentially all the spatial information needed for each observation—an assumption validated only on three simulated networks and not supported by a theory of the approximation error.

What would settle it

Simulate a full SSN on a network with many confluences, fit S3N with m neighbors chosen by stream distance, and compare recovered λ and σ² to the truth as the number of confluences grows; if bias increases systematically, the stream-distance neighbor choice is discarding flow-connected information. Alternatively, fit two S3N variants—one with stream-distance neighbors, one adding flow-connected neighbors beyond the nearest m—and check whether covariance parameter estimates diverge on a real network.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

If S3N holds, regional and national stream-network analyses that previously required days of computation or crashed become routine: the paper demonstrates a full basin (169,092 reaches, ~9,000 observations) fit on a laptop.
The O(n) estimation scaling means the bottleneck shifts to pairwise distance computation, which is embarrassingly parallel and can be accelerated further.
The NNGP-as-process property means prediction intervals and regional aggregates (e.g., total population sizes) are coherent, not just point predictions.
Since preprocessing dominates, sharing preprocessed network objects across many response variables (e.g., 285 species) amortizes cost; only estimation repeats per species.
Because S3N is built on the same covariance machinery as SSNs, existing ecological interpretations (tail-up = downstream flow) carry over unchanged.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The method likely transfers to other dendritic systems (e.g., groundwater, road networks, blood vessels) where a directed flow metric matters more than Euclidean distance.
If neighbor choice by pure stream distance misses flow-connected points at confluences (nearest may be flow-unconnected, giving zero tail-up covariance), recovered range parameters could be biased on real, heavily braided networks; a hybrid neighbor set mixing stream and Euclidean distances—which the authors mention as future work—would be a natural test.
The case study's Gaussian likelihood admits negative densities; the paper's truncation to zero is pragmatic, and a non-Gaussian extension (Poisson/negative binomial) would likely change both estimates and the claimed speed-ups.
The validation's strongest evidence is on simulated networks; a direct check against full SSNs on real survey data with known mark-recapture abundances would operationalize the accuracy claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

Solid engineering plus a real practical leap: S3N makes stream-network spatial models feasible at regional scale, with honest limitations around validation and neighbor choice.

read the letter

Briefly: this is a genuinely useful paper. It extends nearest-neighbor Gaussian processes to stream networks by choosing neighbors via stream distance and using tail-up covariance, and it shows the resulting S3N model fits and predicts on scales that previously would have been hopeless. The Ohio River Basin analysis (285 species, ~9,000 sites, ~170k reaches, run mostly on a laptop) is a concrete demonstration that changes what people can do. The simulation validation against full SSN data on three networks is honest and supports the accuracy claims.

The preprocessing work is also a real contribution. The authors identify that existing SSN tooling crudely builds network adjacency (O(r^2) or worse), implement it in near-linear time, and benchmark against SSNbler and STARS. Their point that SSNbler crashed on the largest network while S3N ran is telling.

Where it is softer: the case study's 'model performance' is in-sample correlation between fitted and observed densities at the same sites. That is a weak form of evidence and should be supplemented with cross-validation or held-out predictions. Population estimates are reported without uncertainty propagation; the bootstrap gives parameter intervals, but the totals are point estimates. The Gaussian response is acknowledged to produce a small share of negative densities (0.17%), which they zero out; fine, but a truncated or count model would be more natural, and they note that as future work.

The neighbor-selection question is the most substantive. Choosing the m nearest points by stream distance can put flow-unconnected points across a confluence into the conditioning set; under tail-up covariance those pairs have zero direct covariance, so the approximation might be throwing away informative flow-connected neighbors. The authors do not quantify how often this happens, and they defer ordering questions to future work. That said, their simulations cover three networks and show good recovery of sigma^2 and lambda, so the concern hasn't materialized as a serious bias in the settings tested. Still, it deserves scrutiny in review.

Overall: if you work in spatial statistics or freshwater ecology, this is worth a careful read. The code is available, the benchmarks are reproducible, and the limitations are stated openly rather than hidden. It is not a theoretical breakthrough, but it is a solid, well-executed step that makes regional-scale stream modeling feasible. I would send it to peer review, with the expectation that the authors will need to add out-of-sample validation and address the neighbor-selection issue before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Scalable Spatial Stream Network (S3N) models, which adapt nearest-neighbor Gaussian processes (NNGPs) to river networks by selecting neighbor sets using stream distance and incorporating stream-network covariance components (tail-up, with tail-down/Euclidean deferred). The central claims are: (i) S3N estimation scales linearly in the number of observations, while preprocessing is more efficient than existing SSN implementations; (ii) simulation studies show accurate recovery of spatial and covariance parameters, often with lower bias/variance than full SSNs; and (iii) the method enables a 285-species fish density and population-size analysis over the Ohio River Basin on a laptop. The paper includes benchmarking against SSNbler/STARS and a real-data case study, with public code for the method and reproducibility.

Significance. If the claims hold, S3N would be a practically important contribution: it extends a well-studied scalable approximation (NNGP) to a setting where full SSN models are computationally prohibitive, and the Ohio River Basin application is a genuine demonstration of scale. Strengths include the simulation study that generates data from a full SSN (so parameter recovery is not circular), concrete benchmarking with attached timings and replication counts, and public R packages for both the method and paper reproduction. The case study also makes falsifiable predictions about species distributions and environmental drivers. However, the paper currently falls short of fully supporting the applied claims because the case-study 'model performance' is based on in-sample correlations, population estimates are reported without uncertainty propagation, and the neighbor-selection rule—on which the accuracy claim rests—receives only aggregate validation.

major comments (4)

[§2.2, Eq. (2); §5] The neighbor set M(s_i) is defined as the m nearest points by stream distance among earlier points in the Vecchia ordering. Under the tail-up covariance used throughout (Eq. 10), flow-unconnected pairs have zero direct covariance by construction. At confluences, points that are close by stream distance may be flow-unconnected, and could occupy slots that would otherwise hold flow-connected neighbors carrying the strongest tail-up dependence. The paper validates only aggregate parameter recovery on three simulated networks (Section 3.3) and does not report how often the selected neighbor sets contain flow-connected points, nor compare against a flow-connected-aware neighbor rule. Section 5 explicitly defers 'different orderings' to future work, conceding sensitivity to ordering and neighbor choice. This is a correctness risk for the headline accuracy claim: if stream-distance neighbors sy
[§4.5, Figure 5] The 'model performance was strong' claim rests on correlations between predicted and observed densities at the same sites. These are in-sample fitted-value correlations, not predictive performance at unobserved locations. Since the paper's motivation includes mapping fish abundance across the network (where prediction is the goal), in-sample correlation is not sufficient evidence. The community-level correlations (Figure 5b) also mix species, many of which are zero-inflated, which can inflate aggregate correlations. Please add spatial or k-fold cross-validation (e.g., hold out sites or reaches) and report predictive metrics such as RMSE or coverage at held-out locations. Without this, the case study's predictive claims are not supported.
[§4.3–4.5; Eq. (8)] Regional population-size estimates are computed by summing reach-level predictive means. The paper reports bootstrap confidence intervals for model parameters but does not propagate uncertainty through the aggregation step. The predictive distribution in Eq. (7)–(8) has a covariance Q that is ignored when summing, and parameter uncertainty from the bootstrap is also not propagated. As a result, the reported population estimates carry no measure of uncertainty, which is a key output for management. Please provide interval estimates for total population sizes (e.g., by sampling from the predictive distribution and/or the bootstrap distribution of parameters) and discuss how spatial correlation among reaches affects the variance of the sums.
[§4.5; §5] The Gaussian model for densities is acknowledged to produce negative predictions, which are then truncated to zero before computing population estimates. The proportion of negative segments is small (0.17%), but the truncation is a deterministic post-processing step that is not reflected in any uncertainty quantification, and for rare species the aggregated sums could be affected. Please report the impact of truncation on the population estimates (e.g., compare sums with and without truncation, or restrict to species where the proportion is non-negligible). This is secondary to the points above but relevant to the applied conclusions.

minor comments (4)

[§1; throughout] There are many typographical/OCR-style errors: 'eﬀiciency' for 'efficiency', 'Eﬀiciency' in headings, 'Quad-Code' for 'Quad-Core', and inconsistent use of 'SSNs' vs 'SSN'. A careful proofread is needed.
[§2.2] The text says 'as n grows beyond 104', which likely means 10^4. Please fix the superscript formatting.
[Table 2] The row 'Inference, average per species per rep' is unclear; clarify that this is time per bootstrap replication. Also state how many bootstrap reps are used in the reported total time (20 is mentioned later, but not in the table caption).
[§3.1, Table 1] The sentence 'For observation locations, we drew a random sample of the prediction points' is repeated nearly verbatim in the table caption. Please streamline.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Core S3N derivation and simulation benchmark are externally validated, but the Ohio River case study reports in-sample fitted-value correlations as predictive performance.

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4 (prediction step) and Section 4.5 / Figure 5 (performance claim)]
"For each species, we computed the predictive mean fish density per 100-m stream length at the midpoint of each stream reach, multiplied this by the length of the stream reach ... The ratio of predicted to observed counts ranged from 0.2 to 1.02 at COMIDs where the species in question was observed ... These results offer support that model predictions were broadly consistent with the observed data."

Observations are located on stream reaches/COMIDs, and predictions are made at the midpoint of every reach using the same fitted model; no held-out sites are referenced. The reported predicted-to-observed ratios at COMIDs where the species was observed therefore compare fitted values to the data that were used for MLE and for neighbor-conditional prediction. This is an in-sample goodness-of-fit statistic, not an out-of-sample prediction, so presenting it as evidence that 'model predictions were broadly consistent with the observed data' re-labels fitted inputs as predictive validation. It does not affect the central simulation-based parameter-recovery benchmark, which is external to the fitted values.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular. Equation (2) is a standard Vecchia/NNGP conditional construction with stream-distance neighbor sets and a stream covariance from the established tail-up moving-average construction; it defines a new approximating process rather than importing the target result. Parameter recovery is tested on data simulated from a full SSN model (Eq. 9), so S3N's accuracy claim is benchmarked against the exact model it approximates, and no fitted parameter is silently renamed as an independent prediction in that validation. Preprocessing claims are direct implementation benchmarks against SSNbler/STARS and are not circular. The only circularity-adjacent step is the Ohio River case study, where the reported correlations and predicted-to-observed ratios are computed at the same reach midpoints used to fit the model; these are in-sample fit statistics, not predictive validation. The acknowledged limitation in Section 5 that NNGP approximation quality depends on the ordering and neighbor set is a correctness risk, not circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The S3N model rests on standard SSN covariance constructions and NNGP theory, plus two paper-specific assumptions: stream-distance neighbor sets and the Gaussian/density-conversion model in the case study. All covariance parameters are estimated by MLE rather than set by hand.

free parameters (4)

sigma_u^2 (tail-up spatial variance) = estimated per species/simulation (e.g., simulation truth 5)
Covariance parameter estimated by MLE in every model fit; central to the claim that S3N recovers covariance parameters.
lambda_u (tail-up range) = estimated per species/simulation (simulation truth 0.1)
Range parameter of exponential tail-up covariance; estimated by MLE.
tau^2 (nugget) = estimated per species/simulation (simulation truth 5)
Independent error variance; estimated by MLE.
beta (fixed effects) = estimated per species; p=9 covariates in case study
Regression coefficients estimated by MLE; not the focus of the scalability claim.

axioms (6)

domain assumption Tail-up exponential covariance with stream-distance weights pi_ij is positive definite on stream networks (Ver Hoef & Peterson 2010)
Borrowed from SSN literature; S3N relies on this covariance being valid.
standard math NNGP with any positive-definite covariance and DAG neighbor sets defines a valid Gaussian process (Datta et al. 2016a)
Basis for approximating the full GP; used to define the S3N likelihood.
ad hoc to paper Neighbor sets chosen by stream distance among earlier points retain the accuracy of the NNGP approximation
The paper's key methodological novelty; only empirically validated on three small simulated networks, no theory.
domain assumption Fish densities at reach level are adequately modeled by a Gaussian distribution after covariate adjustment
Count data are non-negative with many zeros; 0.17% negative predictions are set to zero (Section 4.3, 4.5).
ad hoc to paper Sampled reach length is 20x mean bankfull width, truncated to 100-1000 m (Section 4.1)
Used to convert counts to densities; a strong assumption that scales all population estimates. Cited to standard protocols but not verified for each dataset.
domain assumption Spatial weights pi_ij computed via additive function correctly represent proportional influence of confluent segments
Standard SSN definition (Ver Hoef et al. 2019); S3N uses pi_ij in the tail-up covariance.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21098 in / 13905 out tokens · 135337 ms · 2026-08-03T16:38:15.751241+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Understanding how habitats shape species distributions and abundances across river networks remains a longstanding and fundamental challenge in ecology, with direct implications for effective biodiversity management and conservation. We introduce a scalable spatial stream network (S3N) model that enables estimation, inference, and prediction with greater computational efficiency than previously possible. S3Ns extend nearest-neighbor Gaussian processes (NNGPs) to include ecologically salient stream network dependence structure. Additionally, S3Ns implement more efficient preprocessing than SSNs; while the computational cost of estimation is a function of the number of observation points and not of the number of reaches, the preprocessing is a function of both. We demonstrate that S3Ns accurately recover spatial and covariance parameters 2-3 orders of magnitude faster than existing spatial stream network models. We then apply S3Ns to estimate the population sizes and geographic distributions of 285 fish species in the entire Ohio River Basin (>4,000 river km, approximately 170,000 reaches and 9,000 observation points) on a laptop. These results indicate the promise of S3Ns for mapping freshwater variables and quantifying the influence of environmental drivers across extensive, complex river networks with many observation points.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.12398 by Jessica P. Kunke, Julian D. Olden, Tyler H. McCormick.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The six subnetworks of the Ohio River Basin used for benchmarking. Network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Benchmarking results for S3N and SSN preprocessing. Note that for the largest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Model validation on Network 3. The solid black line indicates the true parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Correlations between predicted and observed densities (a) for each species across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Maps of predictive mean fish density (fish per 100-m stream length), and estimates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Validation results on Networks 1-2. ance parameters. We are not sure yet whether this is due to less precision error or more regularization. 39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

(2013), ‘Diversity in riverine metacommunities: a network perspective’, Aquatic Ecology 47(3), 365–377

Altermatt, F. (2013), ‘Diversity in riverine metacommunities: a network perspective’, Aquatic Ecology 47(3), 365–377. Antonov, M., Csárdi, G., Horvát, S., Müller, K., Nepusz, T., Noom, D., Salmon, M., Traag, V., Welles, B. F. & Zanini, F. (2023), ‘igraph enables fast and robust network analysis across programming languages’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.1026...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[18]

M., Peterson, E

Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. E. & Isaak, D. J. (2019), Spatial statistical models for stream networks, in A. E. Gelfand, M. Fuentes, J. A. Hoeting & R. L. Smith, eds, ‘Handbook of Environmental and Ecological Statistics’, Chapman and Hall/CRC, pp. 421–444. Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. & Theobald, D. (2006), ‘Spatial statistical models that use flow and ...

2019
[215]

R., Kennen, J., Goldstein, R

Moulton II, S. R., Kennen, J., Goldstein, R. M. & Hambrook, J. A. (2002), Revised pro- tocols for sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the national water-quality assessment program, Technical report, Geological Survey (US). Nagel, D., Wollrab, S., Parkes-Payne, S., Peterson, E., Isaak, D. & Ver Hoef, J. (2017), Na- tional Stream I...

2002
[450]

R., Simonson, K., McManamay, R

Morrison, R. R., Simonson, K., McManamay, R. A. & Carver, D. (2023), ‘Degradation of floodplain integrity within the contiguous United States’, Communications Earth & Environment 4(1),

2023
[483]

O., Datta, A

Finley, A. O., Datta, A. & Banerjee, S. (2022), ‘spnngp r package for nearest neighbor gaussian process models’, Journal of Statistical Software 103, 1–40. Ganio, L. M., Torgersen, C. E. & Gresswell, R. E. (2005), ‘A geostatistical approach for describing spatial pattern in stream networks’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(3), 138–144. Giam, X....

2022
[1043]

H., Lowe, W

Campbell Grant, E. H., Lowe, W. H. & Fagan, W. F. (2007), ‘Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks’, Ecology Letters 10(2), 165–175. Chen, K., Midway, S. R., Peoples, B. K., Wang, B. & Olden, J. D. (2023), ‘Shifting taxo- nomic and functional community composition of rivers under land use change’, Ecology...

2007
[1695]

& Salmon, M

Csárdi, G., Nepusz, T., Traag, V., Horvát, S., Zanini, F., Noom, D., Müller, K., Schoch, D. & Salmon, M. (2025), igraph: Network Analysis and Visualization in R . R package version 2.2.1. Darwall, W., Bremerich, V., De Wever, A., Dell, A. I., Freyhof, J., Gessner, M. O., Grossart, H.-P., Harrison, I., Irvine, K., Jähnig, S. C., Jeschke, J. M., Lee, J. J.,...

2025
[6389]

D., Schick, R

Erős, T., Olden, J. D., Schick, R. S., Schmera, D. & Fortin, M.-J. (2012), ‘Characterizing connectivity relationships in freshwaters using patch-based graphs’, Landscape ecology 27(2), 303–317. Fausch, K. D., Torgersen, C. E., Baxter, C. V. & Li, H. W. (2002), ‘Landscapes to river- scapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishe...

2012

[1] [1]

(2013), ‘Diversity in riverine metacommunities: a network perspective’, Aquatic Ecology 47(3), 365–377

Altermatt, F. (2013), ‘Diversity in riverine metacommunities: a network perspective’, Aquatic Ecology 47(3), 365–377. Antonov, M., Csárdi, G., Horvát, S., Müller, K., Nepusz, T., Noom, D., Salmon, M., Traag, V., Welles, B. F. & Zanini, F. (2023), ‘igraph enables fast and robust network analysis across programming languages’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.1026...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

[2] [18]

M., Peterson, E

Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. E. & Isaak, D. J. (2019), Spatial statistical models for stream networks, in A. E. Gelfand, M. Fuentes, J. A. Hoeting & R. L. Smith, eds, ‘Handbook of Environmental and Ecological Statistics’, Chapman and Hall/CRC, pp. 421–444. Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. & Theobald, D. (2006), ‘Spatial statistical models that use flow and ...

2019

[3] [215]

R., Kennen, J., Goldstein, R

Moulton II, S. R., Kennen, J., Goldstein, R. M. & Hambrook, J. A. (2002), Revised pro- tocols for sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the national water-quality assessment program, Technical report, Geological Survey (US). Nagel, D., Wollrab, S., Parkes-Payne, S., Peterson, E., Isaak, D. & Ver Hoef, J. (2017), Na- tional Stream I...

2002

[4] [450]

R., Simonson, K., McManamay, R

Morrison, R. R., Simonson, K., McManamay, R. A. & Carver, D. (2023), ‘Degradation of floodplain integrity within the contiguous United States’, Communications Earth & Environment 4(1),

2023

[5] [483]

O., Datta, A

Finley, A. O., Datta, A. & Banerjee, S. (2022), ‘spnngp r package for nearest neighbor gaussian process models’, Journal of Statistical Software 103, 1–40. Ganio, L. M., Torgersen, C. E. & Gresswell, R. E. (2005), ‘A geostatistical approach for describing spatial pattern in stream networks’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(3), 138–144. Giam, X....

2022

[6] [1043]

H., Lowe, W

Campbell Grant, E. H., Lowe, W. H. & Fagan, W. F. (2007), ‘Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks’, Ecology Letters 10(2), 165–175. Chen, K., Midway, S. R., Peoples, B. K., Wang, B. & Olden, J. D. (2023), ‘Shifting taxo- nomic and functional community composition of rivers under land use change’, Ecology...

2007

[7] [1695]

& Salmon, M

Csárdi, G., Nepusz, T., Traag, V., Horvát, S., Zanini, F., Noom, D., Müller, K., Schoch, D. & Salmon, M. (2025), igraph: Network Analysis and Visualization in R . R package version 2.2.1. Darwall, W., Bremerich, V., De Wever, A., Dell, A. I., Freyhof, J., Gessner, M. O., Grossart, H.-P., Harrison, I., Irvine, K., Jähnig, S. C., Jeschke, J. M., Lee, J. J.,...

2025

[8] [6389]

D., Schick, R

Erős, T., Olden, J. D., Schick, R. S., Schmera, D. & Fortin, M.-J. (2012), ‘Characterizing connectivity relationships in freshwaters using patch-based graphs’, Landscape ecology 27(2), 303–317. Fausch, K. D., Torgersen, C. E., Baxter, C. V. & Li, H. W. (2002), ‘Landscapes to river- scapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishe...

2012