The introduction of nonnative species is one of the most critical problems facing freshwater systems today. The rivers of the Great Basin (USA) have been particularly imperilled by nonnative species introductions and represent a valuable location to study the dietary trends of native and nonnative fishes in isolated, endorheic systems. We collected fish from 23 sites, spanning three Great Basin watersheds (Carson, Humboldt and Bear Rivers) and two elevation categories (upland and lowland). Only a single species (speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus) occurred in both elevation zones. Diet item analyses of over 500 fish stomachs indicated significant dietary overlaps between native and nonnative fishes and detailed dietary selectivity for all species. This finding, along with the low species diversity observed in the region, suggests low dietary niche diversity, which could have the potential to amplify the competitive impacts of nonnatives on native species. In upland sites, nonnative trouts were the dominant invaders, while in lowland sites warm-water nonnatives were prevalent. The management implications we recommend based on our results urge for continued monitoring of water temperature and species occurrences to predict if dietary overlaps observed in this study are likely to change in the future. Significance Statement: The Great Basin is an ideal endorheic region to study dietary trends in native and nonnative fishes. These trends are important in predicting competitive interactions among fishes. By looking at the diets of fishes within this region we were able to identify multiple significant overlaps among native and nonnative fishes. These results represent a baseline for future studies in the region as well as being comparable to other regions with similar invasive/native overlaps.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
We examined how communities of macroinvertebrates occurring in functional process zones (FPZs) are affected by the location of FPZs in the river continuum. We delineated FPZs for three rivers displaying significant disparities in elevation, annual precipitation, valley shape, and other valley-scale hydrogeomorphic variables. We extracted corresponding macroinvertebrate community data from the US National Water Quality Monitoring Council database and matched it to the stream order (SO) and FPZ delineations. We examined community structure in the three rivers by partitioning the variances associated with the FPZ and SO delineations. Then, we examined community variation as patterns of beta-diversity for communities of FPZs in different SOs. In total, 23 FPZ-SO configurations were examined. SO and FPZ delineations contributed similarly to the variance in the structure of macroinvertebrate communities. Taxa turnover accounted for the majority of the compositional change in communities of FPZs along the river continuum, while the functional composition showed primarily a nested structure. Pairwise comparison of communities for each FPZ along the river continuum showed that significant differences in community composition occurred at high SO in the three examined rivers. In this manuscript, we show that communities of FPZs are only partially comparable along the river continuum as significant compositional changes occur when comparing communities of FPZs in distant SOs. We bring, therefore, new elements to improve the interpretation of the River Ecosystem Synthesis concept that can have wider implications for understanding the biocomplexity of hydrogeomorphic patchiness in river networks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.