Non‐native, Asian carps bighead Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and silver Hypophthalmichthys molitrix have been present in the Illinois River since the early 1990s. The Long‐Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) has been collecting bighead and silver carps in routine monitoring of the La Grange Reach, Illinois River, since 1995 and 1998, respectively. Despite variable recruitment, Asian carps abundance and biomass have increased since 2000, as evidenced by commercial landings, and Asian carps now dominate the fish community on La Grange Reach. Previous research suggests dietary overlap among bighead and silver carps and two native Illinois River fishes, gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum and bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus. Total length and mass data from c. 5000 fishes were used to test for changes in gizzard shad and bigmouth buffalo body condition after Asian carps establishment and investigate potential competitive interactions and changes in fitness. Analyses revealed significant declines in body condition of gizzard shad (−7%) and bigmouth buffalo (−5%) following the Asian carps invasion from 2000 to 2006. Segmented regression analyses showed no significant change in the rate of decline in gizzard shad condition after 2000, whereas the rate of decline in bigmouth buffalo condition increased significantly after 2000. Statistically significant differences in gizzard shad condition after Asian carps establishment (2000–2006) was observed, whereas condition of bigmouth buffalo was significantly lower in all years following Asian carps establishment as compared to 2000. Declines in gizzard shad and bigmouth buffalo condition were significantly correlated with increased commercial harvest of Asian carps and poorly correlated with other abiotic and biotic factors (e.g. temperature, chlorophyll a and discharge) that may influence fish body condition. These results may suggest that Asian carps are influencing native planktivore body condition, and future research should focus on determining whether food is limited in the Illinois River for native planktivores and other fish species.

Flooded rice fields are important foraging habitats for waterfowl in the lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV). Waste rice previously was abundant in late autumn (140–492 kg/ha), but early planting and harvest dates in recent years may have increased losses of waste rice during autumn before waterfowl arrive. Research in Mississippi rice fields revealed waste‐rice abundance decreased 79–99% during autumns 1995–1996 (Manley et al. 2004). To determine if this trend existed throughout the MAV, we used multistage sampling (MSS) to estimate waste‐rice abundance during September–December 2000–2002. Averaged over years, mean abundance of waste rice decreased 71 % between harvest (x̄ = 271.0 kg/ha, CV= 13% n = 3 years) and late autumn (x̄ = 78.4 kg/ha, CV= 15% n = 3). Among 15 models formulated to explain variation in rice abundance among fields and across years, the best model indicated abundance of waste rice in late autumn differed between harvester types (i.e., conventional > stripper header) and was positively related to initial waste‐rice abundance after harvest. Because abundance of waste rice in late autumn was less than previous estimates in all 3 years, we concluded that waterfowl conservationists have overestimated carrying capacity of rice fields for wintering waterfowl by 52–83% and recommend 325 duck‐use days/ha (DUDs) as a revised estimate. We suggest monitoring advances in rice harvest dates to determine when new surveys are warranted and recommend increased management of moist‐soil wetlands to compensate for decreased rice abundance.

The habitat concept in inland fisheries has been less studied than wildlife ecology. Since 1950, the cumulative number of publications about “freshwater or inland habitat and fisheries management” has been 60%–95% less than those considering “habitat and wildlife management.” The number of publications about “marine, river, and stream habitat and fisheries management” has also generally exceeded those for “lake habitat and fisheries management.” We provide a perspective comparing inland fish and wildlife habitat management systems and highlight lessons from wildlife ecology that could benefit inland fisheries. We reason that wildlife habitat management has become widespread and accepted because humans share habitats with wildlife and positive/negative responses to habitat restorations/loss are directly observable. We recommend that inland fisheries habitat studies and restorations include opportunities for humans to directly observe the ecological benefits of such practices. To support aquatic habitat management efforts, we suggest that dedicated funding solutions be considered to mitigate aquatic habitat loss. In theory, such a system would provide benefits to inland fish populations that parallel those provided to wildlife through state and federal stamps. Although aquatic habitat conservation and restoration may not solve management issues as rapidly, it will promote long‐term sustainability and resiliency of diverse inland fish populations.