Fragmentation alters stream fish community structure in dendritic ecological networks

Perkin, Joshuah S.; Gido, Keith B.

doi:10.1890/12-0318.1

Cited by 194 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Still, we found barrier removals associated with maximum gains in the DCI (caused by removal of small barriers) were also associated with the greatest potential for increasing the distributions of small-bodied pelagophilic or lithopelagophilic guilds because the removal of such barriers would reconnect fragments with low probability of occurrence to fragments that have high probability of occurrence. These findings support previous conclusions that the DCI represents a useful tool for approximating potential responses in functional connectivity based on adjustments in structural connectivity (Bourne et al 2011, Perkin and Gido 2012, Perkin et al 2013a.…”

Section: Figsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…8 This measure incorporates mainstem and tributary habitats of stream networks occurring between barriers and constitutes an informative measure of fish habitat availability (Cote et al 2009, Perkin andGido 2012). To summarize broad-scale patterns in fragmentation, we constructed frequency histograms of fragment network lengths for each basin.…”

Section: Patterns Of Stream Fragmentation and Desiccationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fishes with greater dispersal affinities or fishes that require various habitats distributed throughout networks are most affected by fragmentation (Fagan 2002, Dunham et al 2003, Perkin et al 2013a). Thus, fragmentation alters stream fish community structure in DENs by isolating communities within stream segments and thereby disrupting (meta)population and (meta)-community dynamics (Perkin and Gido 2012). Removal of the mobile (dispersing) component of populations via fragmentation reduces diversity, especially in variable habitats in which populations are dependent upon source-sink or rescue-effect dynamics (Rodrı´guez 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

Perkin

Gido

Cooper

et al. 2015

Ecological Monographs

Self Cite

171

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Biodiversity in stream networks is threatened globally by interactions between habitat fragmentation and altered hydrologic regimes. In the Great Plains of North America, stream networks are fragmented by .19 000 anthropogenic barriers, and flow regimes are altered by surface water retention and groundwater extraction. We documented the distribution of anthropogenic barriers and dry stream segments in five basins covering the central Great Plains to assess effects of broad-scale environmental change on stream fish community structure and distribution of reproductive guilds. We used an informationtheoretic approach to rank competing models in which fragmentation, discharge magnitude, and percentage of time streams had zero flow (a measure of desiccation) were included to predict effects of environmental alterations on the distribution of fishes belonging to different reproductive guilds. Fragmentation caused by anthropogenic barriers was most common in the eastern Great Plains, but stream desiccation became more common to the west, where rivers are underlain by the depleted (i.e., extraction . recharge) High Plains Aquifer. Longitudinal gradients in fragmentation and desiccation contributed to spatial shifts in community structure from taxonomically and functionally diverse communities dominated by pelagic reproductive guilds where fragmentation and desiccation were least, to homogenized communities dominated by benthic guilds where fragmentation and desiccation were common. Modeling results revealed these shifts were primarily associated with decline of pelagic reproductive guilds, notably small-bodied pelagophilic and lithopelagophilic fishes that declined in association with decreased fragment length and increased number of days with zero flow. Graph theory combined with a barrier prioritization approach revealed specific fragments that could be reconnected to allow fishes within these guilds to colonize currently unoccupied fragments with the mitigation or removal of small dams (,10 m height). These findings are useful for natural resource managers charged with halting or reversing the prevailing pattern of declining fish diversity in the Great Plains. Our study represents one of the most comprehensive assessments of fish diversity responses to broad-scale environmental change in the Great Plains and provides a conservation strategy for addressing the simultaneous contributions of fragmentation and flow alteration to the global freshwater biodiversity crisis.

show abstract

Section: Figsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Patterns Of Stream Fragmentation and Desiccationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

Perkin

Gido

Cooper

et al. 2015

Ecological Monographs

Self Cite

171

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If anthropogenic fragmentation is severe, biotic interactions may have little impact on diversity. In an assessment of streams in Kansas, USA, segment fragmentation by roads yielded lower alpha fish species diversity and higher beta fish species diversity compared with segments maintaining high connectivity, regardless of hydrologic stability [115].…”

Section: Barriers To Dispersal and Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interplay Between Landscape Structure and Biotic Interactions

Zarnetske

Baiser

Strecker

et al. 2017

Curr Landscape Ecol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape structure and biotic interactions are closely linked. We identify five aspects of landscape structure that contribute to the co-occurrence of species and restrict or enable different types of biotic interactions: patch size and habitat amount, isolation of patches, barriers to dispersal and movement, persistence of landscape structure, and landscape complexity. In addition, these aspects of landscape structure influence the strength and outcome of biotic interactions. Whereas most research focuses on the effects of the abiotic environment on species and their biotic interactions, research on foundation species and ecosystem engineers demonstrates the important influence of biotic interactions on landscape structure itself, including effects on landscape complexity, extent of habitat, and the structure of landscape features. In this review, we describe ecological theories that lay the foundation for interplay between landscape structure and biotic interactions, and summarize these connections across an array of interacting species in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial systems. We end with suggestions for integrating the fields of landscape ecology and community ecology to better understand the connections between landscape structure and biotic interactions and better predict their dynamics in light of global change.

show abstract

“…In an elongated river basin, Czeglédi et al (2016) showed that spatial position of parallel tributaries along the river influenced community structure in the tributaries. Another example of dispersal effects comes from Perkin and Gido (2012) who proved that fragmentation of stream segments by road crossing caused significant changes in fish community structure. Isolated (i.e., fragmented) stream segments had reduced alpha diversity and increased beta diversity (greater dissimilarity) compared to communities that maintained connectivity with relatively natural (unfragmented) segments of the stream network.…”

Section: Patterns In Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling fish metacommunities in stream networks: synthesis and future research avenues

Erős

2017

Community Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The metacommunity perspective has substantially advanced our understanding of how local (within community) and dispersal (between community) processes influence the assembly of communities. The increased recognition of dispersal processes makes it necessary to re-evaluate former views on community organization in different ecological systems and for specific organisms. Stream systems have long been considered from a linear perspective, in which local community organization was examined along the longitudinal profile, from source to mouth. However, the hierarchically branching (i.e. dendritic) structure of stream networks also significantly affects both local and regional scale community organization, which has just only recently been fully recognized by ecologists. In this review, I examine how the shift from a strictly linear to a dendritic network perspective influenced the thinking about the organization of fish metacommunities in stream networks. I argue that while longitudinal patterns in the structure of fish communities are relatively well known, knowledge is still limited about how the structure of the stream network ultimately affects the spatial and temporal dynamics of metacommunities. I suggest that scaling metapopulation models up to the metacommunity level can be useful to further our understanding of the spatial structure of metacommunities. However, this requires the delineation of local communities and the quantification of the contribution of dispersal to local community dynamics. Exploring patterns in diversity, spatial distribution and temporal dynamics of metacommunities is not easily feasible in continuous stream habitats, where some parts of the habitat network are exceptionally hard to sample representatively. Combination of detailed field studies with modelling of dispersal is necessary for a better understanding of metacommunity dynamics in stream networks. Since most metacommunity level processes are likely to happen at the stream network level, further research on the effects of stream network structure is needed. Overall, separation of the effect of dispersal processes from local scale community dynamics may yield a more mechanistic understanding of the assembly of fish communities in stream networks, which may also enhance the effectiveness of restoration efforts.

show abstract

Fragmentation alters stream fish community structure in dendritic ecological networks

Cited by 194 publications

References 64 publications

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities

The Interplay Between Landscape Structure and Biotic Interactions

Scaling fish metacommunities in stream networks: synthesis and future research avenues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About