Table 2 Candidate simple models to explain the influence of instream and riparian habitat variables on fish IBI and benthic IBI scores at 22 sites on the South Fork Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA based on Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc)
From: Aquatic community structure and stream habitat in a karst agricultural landscape
Models | K | AICc | ∆AICc | wi | r2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fish IBI | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 % fish cover ( +), buffer width ( +), % bank forbs ( +), % bank rocks ( +) | 6 | 179.152 | 0.000 | 0.438 | 0.876 |
 % fish cover ( +), buffer width ( +), % bank rocks ( +) | 5 | 179.437 |  | 0.285 | 0.380 (1.15 X) |
 % fish cover ( +), buffer width ( +), % bank forbs ( +), % bank rocks ( +), % pool ( +) | 7 | 181.757 | 2.605 | 0.119 (3.68 X) |  |
Benthic IBI | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 % bank grass (−), % fish cover (−), % pool (−), % run (−) | 6 | 157.369 | 0.000 | 0.335 | 0.604 |
 % bank grass (−), % fish cover (−) | 4 | 158.457 | 1.088 | 0.194 (1.73 X) |  |
 % bank grass (−) | 3 | 158.620 | 1.251 | 0.179 (1.87 X) |  |
 % bank grass (−), % fish cover (−), % pool (−) | 5 | 159.137 | 1.768 | 0.138 (2.43 X) |  |
 % bank grass (−), % fish cover (−), % pool (−), % run (−), mean current velocity ( +) | 7 | 159.247 | 1.878 | 0.131 (2.56 X) |  |