A patch perspective on summer habitat use by brown trout <i>Salmo trutta</i> in a high plains stream in Wyoming, USA

O'Connor, Rolland R.; Rahel, Frank J.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0633.2009.00364.x

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For upstream and downstream reach boundaries, vertices were collected along a straight line that connected the two streambanks. The vertices were averaged to approximate the true location of habitat patch and reach perimeters (O'Connor and Rahel ). Two patches of the same cover type <2 m apart were mapped as one patch (Belica and Rahel ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only habitat patches with surface areas >2 m 2 were recorded as individual polygons to minimize mapping bias of small habitat patches (Dauwalter and Rahel ). After differential correction, average positional accuracy was at least ±0.41 m (O'Connor and Rahel ). ArcGIS software was used to calculate the surface areas of each reach and all habitat patches within each reach.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of Natural and Added Cover Types by Game and Nongame Fishes in a Great Plains River

Dugan

Rahel

2019

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rivers in the western Great Plains of the United States are characterized by low gradients, sandy substrates, and a relative scarcity of structural habitat. Habitat improvement projects in these systems often involve the addition of large wood and rock riprap to increase habitat for nonnative game fishes, such as piscivorous Brown Trout Salmo trutta. However, little is known about the use of added habitats by the small‐bodied nongame fishes that historically dominated the fish assemblages in these systems. We evaluated habitat availability and fish habitat use in the Laramie River (Wyoming, USA) at four sites that contained natural and added habitats. We calculated habitat selection for three natural cover types (natural wood, macrophytes, and undercut bank), two added cover types (added wood and rock riprap), and open water. Open‐water habitat dominated all sites (87–94% of the stream area), but all species except Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum showed negative selection for this cover type. Most species showed positive selection for both natural and added cover types but showed greater selectivity for natural wood compared to added wood. Native, small‐bodied fishes in the Laramie River used added cover types intended to benefit populations of Brown Trout. Thus, features that enhance habitat for Brown Trout also should benefit native species in Great Plains rivers that have limited natural structural habitat.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Natural and Added Cover Types by Game and Nongame Fishes in a Great Plains River

Dugan

Rahel

2019

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, GPS has been used to map freshwater habitats (Jeffrey and Edds 1997;O'Connor and Rahel 2009;Valley et al 2005), marine habitats (Smith and Greenhawk 1998), terrestrial wildlife habitats (Hulbert and French 2001), and terrestrial vegetation patches (Webster and Cardina 1997). Once habitat patches are mapped using GPS, their size, geographic location, proximity to other habitat patches, and change in size and location over time can be measured in a geographic information system (GIS; Baxter 2002;Dauwalter et al 2006;Le Pichon et al 2006;Torgersen et al 2004;Webster and Cardina 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We explored how the amount of error was related to habitat size and shape. We focused on discrete patches consisting of macrophyte beds or wood accumulations that are important to fishes in riverine habitats (Belica and Rahel 2008;O'Connor and Rahel 2009). Determining how GPS error affects measurement of discrete two-dimensional habitats will help to identify the size and shape of habitats that can be reliably measured, and the magnitude of habitat change that can be detected, when habitats are mapped with a GPS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patch size and shape influence the accuracy of mapping small habitat patches with a global positioning system

Dauwalter

Rahel

2010

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global positioning systems (GPS) are increasingly being used for habitat mapping because they provide spatially referenced data that can be used to characterize habitat structure across the landscape and document habitat change over time. We evaluated the accuracy of using a GPS for determining the size and location of habitat patches in a riverine environment. We simulated error attributable to a mapping-grade GPS receiver capable of achieving sub-meter accuracy onto discrete macrophyte bed and wood habitat patches (2 to 177 m(2)) that were digitized from an aerial photograph of the Laramie River, Wyoming, USA in a way that emulated field mapping. Patches with simulated error were compared to the original digitized patches. The accuracy in measuring habitat patches was affected most by patch size and less by patch shape and complexity. Perimeter length was consistently overestimated but was less biased for large, elongate patches with complex shapes. Patch area was slightly overestimated for small patches but was unbiased for large patches. Precision of area estimates was highest for large (>100 m(2)), elongate patches. Percent spatial overlap, a measure of the spatial accuracy of patch location, was low and variable for the smallest patches (2 to 5 m(2)). Mean percent spatial overlap was not related to patch shape but the precision of overlap was lower for small, elongate, and complex patches. Mapping habitat patches with a mapping-grade GPS can yield useful data, but research objectives will determine the acceptable amount of error and the smallest habitats that can be reliably measured.

show abstract

“…Studies of temporal shifts in microhabitat preferences are biased towards salmonids and other large, conspicuous fish species that can be observed directly or monitored using radio-telemetry (Fraser et al, 1993;Heggenes et al, 1993;Roussel et al, 1999;Jakober et al, 2000;David and Closs, 2003;O'Connor and Rahel, 2009) and while quantitative electrofishing has provided insight into the diel movements and microhabitat use of some smaller, less conspicuous fish, mainly young-of-the-year cyprinids (Baras and Nindaba, 1999;Copp and Jurajda, 1999;Copp et al, 2005), the extent of temporal changes in microhabitat preferences remain unknown for many fishes, particularly small, benthic species (Copp et al, 2005;Crow et al, 2010). Moreover, comparing day and night microhabitat preferences can successfully identify diel microhabitat shifts (Polacek and James, 2003;Copp et al, 2005) but may overlook changes in niche width or fail to detect subtle changes in microhabitat preferences unless habitat availability is also taken into account (Kwak et al, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diel variation in stream fish habitat suitability criteria: implications for instream flow assessment

Davey

Booker

Kelly

2011

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. Habitat suitability criteria that fail to incorporate temporal variability in habitat preferences of stream fish may mis-represent critical habitat requirements and lead to setting of inappropriate flow targets when used in instream flow assessments. Developing suitability criteria from daytime observations alone relies on the assumption that habitat preferences are constant over the diel cycle. Few studies have tested these assumptions, particularly for small-bodied, cryptic, benthic species.2. During summer in two gravel-bed rivers, bluegill bullies (Gobiomorphus hubbsi), torrentfish (Cheimarrichthys fosteri) and upland bullies (Gobiomorphus breviceps) exhibited strong preferences with respect to water depth, velocity and substratum size. All three species underwent a diel shift in microhabitat preference for at least two of these variables.3. Microhabitat preferences were generally weaker when fish were active at night; bluegill bullies, upland bullies and especially torrentfish were observed over a broader range of depths, velocities and substratum sizes at night than during the day. Observations of fish in a stream simulator confirmed that bluegill bullies and torrentfish showed a preference for runs at dusk and return to riffles before dawn, but habitat preferences of upland bullies remained static across the diel cycle.4. Diel microhabitat shifts affected the assessment of flow requirements. Instream habitat analysis of the Waipara River using separate day and night suitability criteria predicted differing amounts of habitat available at a given flow, and the relationships between fish abundance, fish density and flow. The presence of diel microhabitat shifts in stream fishes suggests that instream habitat analyses will produce more effective and defensible flow recommendations when patterns of nocturnal microhabitat preferences are known and critical habitat bottlenecks can be identified.

show abstract

A patch perspective on summer habitat use by brown trout Salmo trutta in a high plains stream in Wyoming, USA

Cited by 12 publications

References 35 publications

Use of Natural and Added Cover Types by Game and Nongame Fishes in a Great Plains River

Use of Natural and Added Cover Types by Game and Nongame Fishes in a Great Plains River

Patch size and shape influence the accuracy of mapping small habitat patches with a global positioning system

Diel variation in stream fish habitat suitability criteria: implications for instream flow assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About