Despite the common view that conditions in winter strongly influence survival and population size of fish, the ecology of salmonids has not been as extensively studied in winter as in other seasons. In this paper, we review the latest studies on salmonid winter survival, habitat use, movement and biotic interactions as they relate to the prevailing physical and habitat conditions in rivers and streams. The majority of research conducted on the winter ecology of salmonids has been carried out in small rivers and streams, where temperatures are above zero and where there is no ice. Investigations in large rivers, regulated and dredged rivers, and under conditions of different ice formations are almost totally lacking, presumably related to sampling difficulties with these systems. The studies-at-hand indicate that a multitude of physical and biological factors affect the survival, behavior, and habitat use of salmonids in winter. The general concept that winter functions as a critical period for the survival of young salmonids is not well supported by the literature. Instead, overwinter survival of juvenile fish appears to be context-dependent, related to specific habitat characteristics and ice regimes of streams. In general, over wintering salmonids prefer sheltered, low velocity microhabitats, are mainly nocturnal, and interact relatively little with conspecifics or interspecifics. Specific descriptions of microhabitat preferences of salmonids are difficult to make due to highly disparate results from the literature. We suggest that future research should be directed towards (1) being able to predict the dynamics of freezing and ice processes at different scales, especially at the local scale, (2) studying fish behavior, habitat use and preference under partial and full ice cover, (3) evaluating the impacts of man-induced environmental modifications (e. g. flow regulation, land-use activities) on the ecology of salmonids in winter, and (4) identifying methods to model and assess winter habitat conditions for salmonids.

Process-based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and Society 11(2): 5.

The primary focus of many in-stream restoration projects is to enhance habitat diversity for salmonid fishes, yet the lack of properly designed monitoring studies, particularly ones with pre-restoration data, limits any attempts to assess whether restoration has succeeded in improving salmonid habitat. Even less is known about the impacts of fisheries-related restoration on other, non-target biota. We examined how restoration aiming at the enhancement of juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) affects benthic macroinvertebrates, using two separate data sets: (1) a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design with three years before and three after restoration in differently restored and control reaches of six streams; and (2) a space-time substitution design including channelized, restored, and near-natural streams with an almost 20-year perspective on the recovery of invertebrate communities. In the BACI design, total macroinvertebrate density differed significantly from before to after restoration. Following restoration, densities decreased in all treatments, but less so in the controls than in restored sections. Taxonomic richness also decreased from before to after restoration, but this happened similarly in all treatments. In the long-term comparative study, macroinvertebrate species richness showed no difference between the channel types. Community composition differed significantly between the restored and natural streams, but not between restored and channelized streams. Overall, the in-stream restoration measures used increased stream habitat diversity but did not enhance benthic biodiversity. While many macroinvertebrates may be dispersal limited, our study sites should not have been too distant to reach within almost two decades. A key explanation for the weak responses by macroinvertebrate communities may have been historical. When Fennoscandian streams were channelized for log floating, the loss of habitat heterogeneity was only partial. Therefore, habitat may not have been limiting the macroinvertebrate communities to begin with. Stream restoration to support trout fisheries has strong public acceptance in Finland and will likely continue to increase in the near future. Therefore, more effort should be placed on assessing restoration success from a biodiversity perspective using multiple organism groups in both stream and riparian ecosystems.

1. Many natural ecosystems are heterogeneous at scales ranging from microhabitats to landscapes. Running waters are no exception in this regard, and their environmental heterogeneity is reflected in the distribution and abundance of stream organisms across multiple spatial scales. 2. We studied patchiness in benthic macroinvertebrate abundance and functional feeding group (FFG) composition at three spatial scales in a boreal river system. Our sampling design incorporated a set of fully nested scales, with three tributaries, two stream sections (orders) within each tributary, three riffles within each section and ten benthic samples in each riffle. 3. According to nested AN OV A AN OV As, most of the variation in total macroinvertebrate abundance, abundances of FFGs, and number of taxa was accounted for by the amongriffle and among-sample scales. Such small-scale variability reflected similar patterns of variation in in-stream variables (moss cover, particle size, current velocity and depth). Scraper abundance, however, varied most at the scale of stream sections, probably mirroring variation in canopy cover. 4. Tributaries and stream sections within tributaries differed significantly in the structure and FFG composition of the macroinvertebrate assemblages. Furthermore, riffles in headwater (second order) sections were more variable than those in higher order (third order) sections. 5. Stream biomonitoring programs should consider this kind of scale-dependent variability in assemblage characteristics because: (i) small-scale variability in abundance suggests that a few replicate samples are not enough to capture macroinvertebrate assemblage variability present at a site, and (ii) riffles from the same stream may support widely differing benthic assemblages.

Generalized habitat criteria for spawning sites of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) using depth, water velocity and substrate size were created based on published information. In addition, information on critical intragravel conditions for egg development was summarized. Salmon spawned mostly in relatively deep, swift-velocity habitats (20-50 cm, 35-65 cm s À1 ), whereas trout selected slightly shallower and slower flowing spawning sites (15-45 cm, 20-55 cm s À1). Salmon and trout preferred pebbles (16-64 mm) for spawning. The minimum oxygen concentration for successful incubation of eggs varies with the developmental stage of eggs, and supply of it may be reduced by deposited fine sediment. Habitat criteria for spawning sites are narrower than those for small juveniles; therefore the use of separate criteria is recommended. In addition to the traditional habitat criteria variables (depth, water velocity, substrate), the critical intragravel factors affecting egg survival should be incorporated in biologically meaningful criteria for spawning habitat modelling.