Correspondence between spatial patterns in fish assemblages in ohio streams and aquatic ecoregions

Abstract

/ Land classification systems can be useful for assessing aquatic ecosystems if relationships among them exist. Because the character of an aquatic ecosystem depends to a large extent upon the character of the landscape it drains, spatial patterns in aquatic ecosystems should correspond to patterns in the landscape. To test this hypothesis, the US state of Ohio was divided into four aquatic ecoregions based on an analysis of spatial patterns in the combination of land-surface form, land use, potential natural vegetation, and soil parent material. During the period July-October 1983, fish assemblages were sampled in 46 streams that were representative of the ecoregions, and that had watersheds relatively undisturbed by human activities. Spatial patterns of the fish assemblages were examined relative to the ecoregions; distinct regional differences were identified. The assemblages differed most between the Huron/Erie Lake Plain region and the Western Allegheny Plateau region; assemblages in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains and the Erie/Ontario Lake Plain-Interior Plateau regions were intermediate. This pattern also reflects the gradient in landscape character as one moves from the northwest to the southeast of Ohio.The US Environmental Protection Agency's revised Water Quality Standards Regulation (Federal Register 1983) reflects a change in the fundamental direction of federal and state water quality programs. For the past decade, these programs had a "water pollution control" focus aimed at reduction of pollution discharges, especially through the national effort to build wastewater treatment plants and to attain a zero discharge of toxic materials. This approach did not assess whether and to what extent receiving systems would benefit. The new direction is toward "attainable water quality" with greater emphasis on assessing the quality of receiving systems and what is realistically attainable.Although the basic elements of the new approach have an apparently sound scientific basis, the specific scientific knowledge and techniques required for implementation have not been fully developed. One major need is to clarify the regional patterns of attainable quality and uses. We suggest doing this by characterizing minimally disturbed streams that are representative of a region as a measure of what might be

Factors influencing the spatial distribution patterns of the bullhead (Cottus gobio L., Teleostei Cottidae): a multi-scale study

“…While increasing interest has been taken in the study of habitat and spatial distribution of freshwater fish (e.g. Larsen et al 1986;Newall and Magnuson 1999), most studies focused on one perception scale, i.e., a region, a stream, or the suitable microhabitats (Pusey et al 1993;Rathert et al 1999;Roussel and Bardonnet 2002). Beyond the quantitative information that it yielded (thus documenting the habitat preferences of the bullhead at various spatial scales), our work clearly emphasized the importance of examining species-habitat relationships at different spatial scales, e.g.…”

Patterns in the species composition of fish assemblages among Wisconsin streams

“…Such datasets are lacking for most parts of North America, so state-and province-wide multivariate studies are uncommon. For streams and rivers, only Ontario (Eadie et al 1986), Arkansas (Rohm et al 1987, Matthews & Robison 1988, Matthews et al 1992, Kansas (Smith & Fisher 1970, Hawkes et al 1986), Missouri (Pflieger 1971, Pflieger et al 1981, Ohio (Larsen et al 1986), Oregon (Hughes et al 1987, Whittier et al 1988, and Washington (Beecher et al 1988) have been adequately covered, and the Ontario and Washington studies dealt only with patterns of fish species richness, not species composition.…”

Factors related to the distribution and abundance of brown and rainbow trout in New Zealand clear‐water rivers

“…Discriminant models have been used to demonstrate the link between benthic aquatic invertebrate communities and various water quality variables (Wright et al 1984), and fish assemblages with habitat variables (Tonn et al 1983), catchment characteristics (Larsen et al 1986), or both (Hayes et al 1989). Bowlby & Roff (1986) classified 30 stream sites in Ontario according to trout biomass and derived discriminant functions using five variables selected from a set of 27 physical variables and six.…”