Climate Change Effects on North American Inland Fish Populations and Assemblages

Lynch, Abigail J.; Myers, Bonnie J. E.; Chu, Cindy; Eby, Lisa A.; Falke, Jeffrey A.; Kovach, Ryan P.; Krabbenhoft, Trevor J.; Kwak, Thomas J.; Lyons, John D.; Paukert, Craig P.; Whitney, James E.

doi:10.1080/03632415.2016.1186016

Cited by 223 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 118 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An important difference between these ecosystems is that lotic and marine fishes have the ability to disperse to new or alternative adequate habitats in response to changing conditions, whereas inland lake fishes have limited dispersal potential (Lynch et al 2016). An important difference between these ecosystems is that lotic and marine fishes have the ability to disperse to new or alternative adequate habitats in response to changing conditions, whereas inland lake fishes have limited dispersal potential (Lynch et al 2016).…”

Section: Lotic and Marine Fisheries Habitat Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inland Fisheries Habitat Management: Lessons Learned from Wildlife Ecology and a Proposal for Change

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Lotic and Marine Fisheries Habitat Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inland Fisheries Habitat Management: Lessons Learned from Wildlife Ecology and a Proposal for Change

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Climate change in particular is rapidly changing the fisheries ecology of lakes in Wisconsin and elsewhere (Lynch et al 2016;Winfield et al 2016;Hansen et al 2017). The dynamics of fish populations and communities are strongly regulated by temperature; thus, climate change is rapidly re-organizing fisheries (Tonn 1990;Lyons et al 2010;Magee et al 2018;Myers et al 2018;Rypel et al 2018).…”

Section: Cool -Clearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Classification of Wisconsin Lakes for Improved Fisheries Conservation and Management

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful fisheries management practices developed for one ecosystem can often be used in similar ecosystems. We developed a flexible lake classification framework in collaboration with ~100 fisheries biologists for improved fisheries conservation management in Wisconsin, USA. In total, 5,950 lakes were classified into 15 lake classes using a two‐tiered approach. In tier‐one, lakes were clustered into “simple” and “complex” sportfish assemblages. In tier‐two, lakes were further clustered using accumulated degree days, water clarity, and special cases. We focus on temperature and clarity because these factors often drive fisheries change over time—thus a lake's class can change over time. Lake class assignments were refined through a vetting process where fisheries biologists with expert knowledge provided feedback. Relative abundance, size‐structure, and growth rates of fishes varied significantly across classes. Biologists are encouraged to utilize class interquartile ranges in fisheries metrics to make improved fisheries assessments. We highlight hard‐won lessons from our effort including: (1) the importance of co‐developing classification frameworks alongside fisheries biologists; and (2) encouraging frameworks where lakes can shift classes and fisheries expectations over time due to factors like climate change and eutrophication.

show abstract

“…Fish and Wildlife Service (89 million acres), National Park Service (80 million acres), and Department of Defense (11 million acres; Vincent et al 2017). These public lands will play an increasingly important role in maintaining aquatic biodiversity given the accelerating development of privately owned rural lands (Martinuzzi et al 2014), mounting political pressures to limit protection of species on private lands (Epstein 2014), and the projected effects of climate change (Lynch et al 2016). ch.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation of Aquatic Biodiversity in the Context of Multiple‐Use Management on National Forest System Lands

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) manages 193 million acres of public lands across 43 states and Puerto Rico. The original intent behind reserving lands managed by the USFS was to improve and protect forests, secure favorable conditions for water flows, and furnish a continuous supply of timber for the nation. Through time national forests have evolved, so they are managed for a broad array of uses. Differing expectations have led to conflicts between aquatic conservation and other aspects of the USFS’ mandate. In the 1990s, these conflicting goals came to a head with the listing of the northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina and the need to better protect streams that fostered populations of anadromous salmonids. To better balance these conflicting uses, the agency placed additional emphasis on conserving and restoring aquatic systems by integrating conservation concepts into the forest planning process. If the USFS is to succeed in protecting and restoring aquatic biodiversity, it must continue to address traditional challenges such as minimizing the effects of timber harvest, roads, grazing, and mining on aquatic systems while improving policies and practices regarding contemporary challenges such as climate change and invasive species.

show abstract

Climate Change Effects on North American Inland Fish Populations and Assemblages

Cited by 223 publications

References 118 publications

Inland Fisheries Habitat Management: Lessons Learned from Wildlife Ecology and a Proposal for Change

Inland Fisheries Habitat Management: Lessons Learned from Wildlife Ecology and a Proposal for Change

Flexible Classification of Wisconsin Lakes for Improved Fisheries Conservation and Management

Conservation of Aquatic Biodiversity in the Context of Multiple‐Use Management on National Forest System Lands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About