Influential Environmental Gradients and Spatiotemporal Patterns of Fish Assemblages in the Unimpounded Upper Mississippi River

Barko, Valerie A.; Palmer, Michael W.; Herzog, David P.; Ickes, Brian S.

doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2004)152[0369:iegasp]2.0.co;2

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, it is clear that other factors we did not monitor effect Macrhybopsis chub species composition and abundance relative to CMS in lower Missouri River. The explainable variation in species-environment relationships we report is within a range typically reported in other ecological studies (20-50%; Borcard et al, 1992;Rodríguez and Magnan, 1995;Marchetti and Moyle, 2001;Økland, 2003;Barko et al, 2004b). However, it leads us to re-examine our approach to identify other factors that may be important to chub conservation given we cannot test the influence of long-term factors with our single-year dataset.…”

Section: Implications Of Macrhybopsis Chub Habitat Use For River Manasupporting

confidence: 76%

Habitat used by Macrhybopsis chubs associated with channel modifying structures in a large regulated river: implications for river modification

Ridenour

Starostka

Doyle

et al. 2009

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined use of channel modifying structures (CMS; e.g., engineered rock dikes, channel sandbars) and their associated smaller spatial-scale habitats (SSH) on lower Missouri River, USA, by speckled chub (Macrhybopsis aestivalis), sicklefin chub (M. meeki) and sturgeon chub (M. gelida) from June through October, 2006 to identify important habitat characteristics that could aid conservation. We sampled chubs primarily in six CMS types: L-dikes, wing-dikes, kicker dikes, rootless dikes, channel sandbars and bank-lines. Ninety-three per cent of chubs were collected from L-dikes, wing-dikes and channel sandbars. Unidentifiable Macrhybopsis chubs (UHY) were less than 35-mm TL, were collected early in the sampling season and were most associated with L-dikes where mean bottom current velocity was slow (0.07 m/s). Chubs large enough to be identified to species were associated with large channel sandbars where mean bottom current velocity was faster (0.34 m/s). Chubs from wing-dikes were more abundant in shallow water (<1.2 m deep) adjacent to bars than in deeper (>1.2 m deep), open-water areas ( p ¼ 0.007). Month accounted for 54% and CMS with SSH 18% of explained variation in chub species distribution and abundance. Our results demonstrate that CMS in the contemporary lower Missouri River channel provide multiple habitats for multiple life-stages of Macrhybopsis chubs (e.g., nursery and post-nursery habitats). L-and wing-dikes may provide surrogate nursery habitats for chubs where in-channel slow-velocity areas were lost after river channelization. Managing CMS to address life history stages and an ecologically appropriate proportion and distribution of dike to channel sandbar habitats may be critical for conservation of native Macrhybopsis chubs in lower

show abstract

Section: Implications Of Macrhybopsis Chub Habitat Use For River Manasupporting

confidence: 76%

Habitat used by Macrhybopsis chubs associated with channel modifying structures in a large regulated river: implications for river modification

Ridenour

Starostka

Doyle

et al. 2009

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results indicated that taxonomic abundances were influenced strongest by stream size (i.e., depth, width, Table 1 for life history guild nomenclature and axis loadings drainage area) while ecological category abundances were a product of local habitat variation (i.e., substrate, riffle run, channel structure, depth) and gradient. This provides additional support for strong relationships of assemblages and environmental variation (Gorman & Karr, 1978;Grossman et al, 1982;Taylor et al, 1993;Barko et al, 2004). The presence of environmental variation and habitat complexity appears necessary to support diverse fish communities (Smogor & Angermeier, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The trend toward biotic homogenization of aquatic assemblages that tends to result in generalist taxa has become apparent (Quinn & Kwak, 2003;. Assemblages dominated by tolerant and generalist taxa indicate degraded waterways and decreased habitat complexity (Kinsolving & Bain, 1993;Barko et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fishes of Indiana streams: current and historic assemblage structure

Jacquemin

Pyron

2011

Hydrobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined Indiana fish assemblages using taxonomy and ecological categories to assess temporal shifts in community structure and recent environmental relationships. Historic (1945Historic ( ) and recent (1996Historic ( -2007 presence/absence data were compiled by subbasin and analyzed with Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling (NMS) ordination and by species richness. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was used to test taxonomic identity and ecological category abundance data for explanation with recent (1996-2007) environmental variables. We found a decrease in assemblage heterogeneity for recent assemblages and an increase in the number of tolerant species per subbasin. Recent Indiana streams are dominated by tolerant fishes with generalist life history strategies and low functional variation. The use of ecological categories resulted in weaker relationships with environmental variables than analyses with taxonomic identities. Analyses using taxonomy resulted in strong assemblage explanation from stream size and flow variation, while analyses using ecological categories resulted in strong assemblage explanation from habitat variation in silt substrates and flow. Analyses of recent assemblage structure using ecological categories resulted in decreased assemblage variation among subbasins than in analyses using taxonomic identities. We found that fish assemblages of Indiana streams are structured primarily by habitat complexity and have been altered during the past 50 years through multiple disturbances including fragmentation, siltation, and species introductions.

show abstract

“…In addition, Van Holt et al (2006) reported that no single model predicted fish assemblages well but that high statistical variability in a model predicted fish diversity and that there was a negative relationship between available cover and the number of intolerant species predicted (both as percentages). Others reported that fish assemblage composition is influenced by local habitat complexity (Gorman andKarr, 1978, Schlosser, 1982;Barko et al, 2004). Microhabitat specialization created through adaptive or opportunistic use of available habitats by stream fishes is probably a key component of a species' success (Barko et al, 2004;Rippe, 2005), which likely limits the predictive power of MLR models.…”

Section: Habitat Modeling Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others reported that fish assemblage composition is influenced by local habitat complexity (Gorman andKarr, 1978, Schlosser, 1982;Barko et al, 2004). Microhabitat specialization created through adaptive or opportunistic use of available habitats by stream fishes is probably a key component of a species' success (Barko et al, 2004;Rippe, 2005), which likely limits the predictive power of MLR models. Of the 39 fish species analyzed in this study, 67% are habitat generalists (Wells, 2009), presenting a substantial challenge to identifying statistically significant associations with specific habitat variables.…”

Section: Habitat Modeling Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish-habitat relationships in the Tonawanda and Johnson Creek Watersheds of Western New York State, USA

Wells¹,

Haynes

2013

J. Ecol. Nat. Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Warm water stream fish assemblages (2005) and habitat variables (2004 and 2005) were examined fromMay to September at 108 sites in the Tonawanda and Johnson Creek Watersheds of Western New York. Seventy species and > 27,500 fishes were identified; ~98% were from Families Cyprinidae, Centrarchidae, Catostomidae and Percidae. Data were analyzed at 16 spatial scales using best subsets and backward stepwise multiple linear regression to explore associations between individual fish species ≥9% of total catch and fish assemblage variables [catch per unit effort (CPUE), species richness, Simpson's diversity] with six habitat variables (pool type, maximum depth, substrate size, instream wood, bank cover, aquatic vegetation). CPUE was the only fish assemblage variable related to habitat variables, especially aquatic vegetation and pool type. Only two species (johnny darter, Etheostoma nigrum; round goby, Neogobius melanostomus) were significantly associated with habitat variables. The results reflected inherent difficulties understanding the complexities of habitat use by warm water stream fishes and their assemblages and how to manage them on a broad scale.

show abstract

Influential Environmental Gradients and Spatiotemporal Patterns of Fish Assemblages in the Unimpounded Upper Mississippi River

Cited by 26 publications

References 35 publications

Habitat used by Macrhybopsis chubs associated with channel modifying structures in a large regulated river: implications for river modification

Habitat used by Macrhybopsis chubs associated with channel modifying structures in a large regulated river: implications for river modification

Fishes of Indiana streams: current and historic assemblage structure

Fish-habitat relationships in the Tonawanda and Johnson Creek Watersheds of Western New York State, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About