Export 145 results:[ Author] Title Type Year
Filters: Author is Peter B. Moyle [Clear All Filters]
Loss of Biodiversity in Aquatic Ecosystems: Evidence from Fish Faunas. (Fiedler, P. L., & Jain S. K., Ed.).Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and Management. 128-169.(1992).
Status of the Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps, Pisces: Catostomidae). Cal-Neva Wildlife. 1974, 35–38.(1974).
Predicting Invasion Success: Freshwater Fishes in California as a Model. BioScience. 56(6), 515-524.(2006).
Applications of indices of biotic integrity to California streams and watersheds. (Simon, T. P., & Hughes R., Ed.).Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. 367–380.(1999).
America's carp. Natural History. 93(9), 42-51.(1984).
The Frankenstein effect: impact of introduced fishes on native fishes in North America. (Stroud, R. H., Ed.).Fish culture in fisheries management. 415–426.(1986).
The Future of Fish in Response to Large-Scale Change in the San Francisco Estuary, California. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 64,(2008).
Review of E. K. Balon (Editor), Charrs, salmonid fishes of the Genus Salvelinus. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society . 110, 313-316.(1981).
Comparative Behavior of Young Brook Trout of Domestic and Wild Origin. The Progressive Fish-Culturist. 31(1), 51-56.(1969).
Serpentine haiku. California Coast and Ocean. 24(2), 40.(2008).
Biotic integrity of watersheds. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress Vol. II, assessments, commissioned reports, and background information. 2, 975-985.(1996).
Delta Smelt and the Politics of Water in California. Fisheries. 43,(2018).
Channelization (p. 121) and Dams, effects of (p. 170). (Calow, P., Ed.).Encyclopedia of Ecology and Environmental Management. 121, 170.(1998).
Protection of Aquatic Biodiversity in California: A Five-tiered Approach. Fisheries. 19(2), 6-18.(1994).
Some effects of channelization on the fishes and invertebrates of Rush Creek, Modoc County, California. California Fish and Game. 62, 179–186.(1976).
Where the Wild Things Aren’t Making the Delta a Better Place for Native Species. Public Policy Institute of California.(2012).
Introduction to fish imagery in art. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 31(1), 5-23.(1991).
Recent changes in the fish fauna of the San Joaquin River system. Cal-Neva Wildlife. 1973, 60–63.(1973).
Review of An entirely synthetic fish: how rainbow trout beguiled America and overran the world by Anders Halverson. Quarterly Review of Biology . 87(168),(2012).
Persistence and Structure of the Fish Assemblage in a Small California Stream. Ecology. 66(1), 1-13.(1985).
Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A status assessment. Biological Conservation. 144(10),(2011).
Stillwaters west. Rod and Reel Magazine . Part I, September/October; Part II, November/December, Part I pp20-26; Part II pp22-27.(1979).
Review of Candiru: life and legend of bloodsucking catfishes by Stephen Spotte. Fisheries . 28(1),(2003).
A Review. (Moyle, P. B., Ed.).Distribution and Ecology of Stream Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage System, California. Publications in Zoology . 115, 255-256.(1982).
Fish health and diversity: Justifying flows for a California stream. Fisheries. 23(7), 6-15.(1998).
Nuisance essay: good report but should go much farther. Fisheries. 19, 22-23.(1994).
Life History and Status of Delta Smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 121(1), 67-77.(1992).
Biology of the Modoc Sucker, Catostomus microps, in Northeastern California. Copeia. 1975(3), 556-560.(1975).
Homogenous rivers, homogenous faunas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(14), 5711-5712.(2007).
Freshwater fishes of the Central California Coast. (Chiariello, N., & Dasmann R. F., Ed.).Symposium on biodiversity of the Central California Coast. 17-22.(1998).
Review of W. N. Eschmeyer and E. S. Herald, A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes of North America from the Gulf of Alaska to Baja California. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 59, p. 85.(1984).
Life-history patterns and community structure in stream fishes of western North America: Comparisons with eastern North America and Europe. (Matthew, W. J., & Heins D. C., Ed.).Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes. 25-32.(1987).
Patterns In The Use Of A Restored California Floodplain By Native And Alien Fishes. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. 5(3),(2007).
Wildlife conservation in Sri Lanka: a Buddhist dilemma.. Tigerpaper. 9(4), 1-4.(1982).
Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a freshwater environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science. 35, 82–85.(1969).
Protecting migration routes. Issues in Science and Technology. 24 (summer)(4),(2008).
Potential aquatic diversity management areas. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress Vol. II, assessments, commissioned reports, and background information. 2, 1493-1503.(1996).
Responses of Fish Populations in the North Fork of the Feather River, California, to Treatments with Fish Toxicants. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 3(1), 48-60.(1983).
Connecting the land to the sea: anadromous fishes. (Abell, R. A., & 10 others., Ed.).Freshwater Ecoregions of North America: a Conservation Assessment. 46-47.(2000).
Biodiversity, biomonitoring, and the structure of stream fish communities. (Loeb, S., & Spacie A., Ed.).Biological monitoring of aquatic systems. 171–186.(1994).
In defense of sculpins. Fisheries . 2(1), 20-23.(1977).
Fishes. Ecology, Conservation, and Restoration of Tidal Marshes: The San Francisco Estuary. 161-173.(2012).