Effects of Tributary Spatial Position, Urbanization, and Multiple Low‐Head Dams on Warmwater Fish Community Structure in a Midwestern Stream

Slawski, Thomas M.; Veraldi, Francis M.; Pescitelli, Stephen M.; Pauers, Michael J.

doi:10.1577/m06-186.1

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…; Slawski et al. ). Further investigation into the effects of fragmentation on black bass populations is warranted, but the paucity of pre‐dam occurrence records for many forms, together with poorly‐documented historic stocking activities, will make it difficult to confidently draw conclusions from such assessments.…”

Section: Conservation Challengesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Conservation of Black Bass Diversity: An Emerging Management Paradigm

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Black bass Micropterus spp. are quintessential North American sportfishes that support economically valuable fisheries and act as keystone predators within aquatic ecosystems. Despite their prominence among North American fish fauna, a number of taxonomic designations are unresolved and novel forms continue to be identified within drainages of the southeastern USA. We review the current understanding of black bass diversity, including distributions, evolutionary histories, and phylogenetic relationships. We also provide a brief overview of the major paradigms that have been applied to black bass management and highlight an emerging focus on the conservation of black bass diversity. Black bass diversity is threatened by anthropogenic land and water use, fragmentation of fluvial habitats, historic and contemporary stocking of non‐native congeners, and climate change. Successful conservation of black bass diversity requires that management agencies prioritize the protection of native species, forms, and lineages within and across jurisdictional boundaries. Collaboration among scientists and resource managers is needed to develop practical ways to ameliorate current problems created by past and present anthropogenic alterations, while also preparing for future challenges like global climate change.

show abstract

Section: Conservation Challengesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Conservation of Black Bass Diversity: An Emerging Management Paradigm

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For eurytopic and rheophilic species, the availability of sheltered diversified habitats with a diverse food supply is essential as nursery and feeding grounds (Karr & Dudley, 1981). A decrease of natural river systems or habitat diversity will therefore be reflected by an impoverished fish diversity (Brooks et al, 2004;Sindilariu et al, 2006;Lester & Boulton, 2008) or native species richness (Koel, 2004;Tales & Berrebi, 2007) often related to the decline of rheophilic species (Kruk, 2007;Maloney et al, 2008;Slawski et al, 2008). The presence of these structures is therefore crucial in homogenous reaches but structures are different and vary markedly Fig.…”

Section: Xmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of habitat diversity on the sampling effort required for the assessment of river fish communities and IBI

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spatial variation in the fish communities of four small Belgian rivers with variable habitat diversity was investigated by electric fishing to define the minimum sampling distance required for optimal fish stock assessment and determination of the Index of Biotic Integrity. This study shows that the standardised sampling distance of 100 m was not always sufficient to collect most species present. The required minimum sampling distance seems to be correlated with habitat diversity. In homogeneous streams, a mean sample distance of 282, 452 and 572 m is necessary to capture 80, 90 and 95% of all species present, respectively. In heterogeneous streams, these sample distances decrease to 217, 380 and 503 m. Hence, at least 300 m should be sampled to catch most species present with a single-pass sampling method. However, our results show that a 100 m sampling distance as presently used in the Flemish monitoring programs is sufficient to accurately describe the ecological quality since differences in IBI evaluation between adjacent stretches could at least for some rivers be explained by differences in habitat heterogeneity

show abstract

“…Such habitats are mainly dominated by ubiquitous species with no specific current preference(Mueller et al, 2011;Slawski, Veraldi, Pescitelli, & Pauers, 2008). The upstream sides of low head hydropower plants usually provide deeper habitats with less flow current speed compared to the downstream sites.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal and diurnal variation of downstream fish movement at four small‐scale hydropower plants

Knott

Mueller

Pander

et al. 2019

Ecology of Freshwater Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydropower structures hinder the movement and migration of fishes, impairing their life cycles. Additionally, downstream moving fish are often at risk of being injured during turbine passage. To improve hydropower production towards more fish‐friendly techniques and management, knowledge on timing and extent of natural patterns of fish downstream movement is necessary. So far, migration behaviour of long‐distance migrators such as eel or salmon has been well studied, but little is known about seasonal and diurnal movement patterns of nonmigratory species or medium‐distance migrators. In this study, movement patterns of 39 fish species captured by stownets while transiting hydropower facilities in four impounded rivers were assessed and compared with the fish community composition directly upstream of the hydropower plants assessed by electrofishing. Strong differences between the fish community composition inhabiting the upstream sides of the dams and the fish detected in downstream passage were evident. In each study river, the downstream moving fish community composition differed significantly between spring and autumn. On average, significantly more fish were caught during the night (2.9 fish/hr) than during the day (1.3 fish/hr). Topmouth gudgeon, European grayling and pike‐perch mostly moved downstream during the night, whereas roach, spirlin and bleak were the most frequent downstream moving fish during daytime. Downstream fish movement was positively related with turbidity, water temperature and discharge. The strong differences in seasonal and diurnal fish movement patterns suggest that fish damage can be strongly reduced by adaptive turbine and corridor management, for example by shutting down turbines at peak movements.

show abstract

Effects of Tributary Spatial Position, Urbanization, and Multiple Low‐Head Dams on Warmwater Fish Community Structure in a Midwestern Stream

Cited by 38 publications

References 36 publications

Conservation of Black Bass Diversity: An Emerging Management Paradigm

Conservation of Black Bass Diversity: An Emerging Management Paradigm

Impact of habitat diversity on the sampling effort required for the assessment of river fish communities and IBI

Seasonal and diurnal variation of downstream fish movement at four small‐scale hydropower plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About