A Test of Factors Hypothesized to Influence Biomass of Salmonids in Rocky Mountain Streams

Stichert, Neil; Hubert, Wayne A.; Skinner, Quentin D.

doi:10.1080/02705060.2001.9663840

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greater pool habitat has been linked to greater fish abundance and larger fish in various stream systems (Stichert et al 2001;Binns 2004;Harvey et al 2005;Young et al 2005). Our results are consistent with these studies as evidenced by the importance of total pool area in the top models from the model selection exercise, and the results from the regression comparisons.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…For stream pH, numerous lab studies (Ingersoll et al 1990;Mount et al 1990;Cleveland et al 1991;Jagoe and Haines 1997) and field bioassay studies (Gagen et al 1993;Simonin et al 1993;Baker et al 1996;Van Sickle et al 1996;Baldigo and Murdoch 1997;Lachance et al 2000) increase our confidence that low pH and associated dissolution of monomeric aluminum (Al +3 ) influence fish biomass in headwater streams. As noted above, the association of pool habitat with fish biomass has been documented in other correlative studies (Stichert et al 2001;Binns 2004;Harvey et al 2005;Young et al 2005). In addition, studies that manipulate streams to change the amount of pool area and cover have often documented changes in fish biomass (Gowan and Fausch 1996;Jones et al 1996;Riley and Fausch 1995;Solazzi et al 2000;Binns 2004), yet whether such changes are directly attributable to increased productivity or simply increased aggregation or increased immigration is unclear (Gowan and Fausch 1996;Riley and Fausch 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…For example, in poorly buffered streams, episodic and chronic acidification are well established chemical perturbations that can limit the abundance and diversity of fish in headwaters (Sharpe et al 1987). Alternatively, in well buffered streams, physical habitat features such as pools are more closely associated with fish biomass (Stichert et al 2001). In environments that are affected by both acid deposition and habitat modifications such as the streams in eastern North America and northern Europe, measurements of acidification in conjunction with measurements of habitat may be the most effective overall method to account for variability in the biomass of fish in headwater systems (Baldigo and Lawrence 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Relating fish biomass to habitat and chemistry in headwater streams of the northeastern United States

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stream pH and stream habitat have both been identified as important environmental features influencing total fish biomass in streams, but few studies have evaluated the relative influence of habitat and pH together. We measured total fish biomass, stream habitat, and stream pH in sixteen sites from three tributary systems in the northeastern United States. The habitat metrics included total pool area, a cover score, large wood frequency, and stream temperature. We created and compared nine linear models relating total fish biomass in summer to stream pH and stream habitat using Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) analysis. The best (most parsimonious) models included pool area and stream pH. These results and a separate comparison of three regressions (low-flow pH, pool area, and these two metrics together versus total fish biomass) suggest that both habitat and stream buffering capacity affect the total biomass of fish in northeastern US headwater streams. When stream pH is adequate (low-flow pH greater than at least 5.7), physical habitat is likely to be more important, but under lower pH conditions, habitat is likely to be less effective in accounting for the total biomass of fish in these streams. This work demonstrates the continued effects of stream acidification in the northeastern US and more generally, it illustrates the importance of considering both physical and chemical conditions of a stream when evaluating the factors influencing fish communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relating fish biomass to habitat and chemistry in headwater streams of the northeastern United States

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Riffle Stability Index (RSI) has been used as a sediment metric and is based on the percentage of substrate particles that are smaller than the largest particles entrained in channel‐forming flows (Kappeser, 2002). Riffle stability is important as riffle degradation results in detrimental impacts on the pools used as refugia by many aquatic species (Lisle, 1982; Kruzic et al , 2001; Stitchert et al , 2001). The stability of riffles is also a potentially significant factor in redd scour and the concomitant loss of incubating progeny during high flows, although some work has reported behavioural changes whereby salmonids deposit their eggs below the scour depth or avoid spawning during the periods of increased risk of river bed scour (Montgomery et al , 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment targets for informing river catchment management: international experience and prospects

Collins

Naden

Sear

et al. 2011

Hydrological Processes

121

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Sediment plays a pivotal role in determining the physical, chemical and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems. A range of factors influences the impacts of sediment pressures on aquatic biota, including concentration, duration of exposure, composition and particle size. In recognition of the need to assess environmental status for sediment and mitigate excessive sediment pressures on aquatic habitats, both water column and river substrate metrics have been proposed as river sediment targets. Water column metrics include light penetration, turbidity, sediment concentration summary statistics and sediment regimes. Substrate metrics include embeddedness, the fredle index and riffle stability. Identification of meaningful numeric targets along these lines has, however, been undermined by various issues including the uncertainty associated with toxicological dose-response profiles and the impracticalities of deploying statistically robust sampling strategies capable of supporting catchment-scale targets. Many of the thresholds reported are based on correlative relationships that fail to capture the specific mechanisms controlling sediment impacts on aquatic habitats and are stationary in nature. Temporal windows represented by the key life stages of specific species must be given greater emphasis. Given such issues and the need to support the revision of sediment targets for river catchment management, it is proposed that greater emphasis should be placed on developing generic modelling toolkits with the functionality for coupling current or future projected sediment regimes with biological response for a range of biota. Such tools should permit the identification of river catchment-specific targets within a national context, based on biological effect and incorporate sufficient flexibility for utilizing updated physical, chemical, biological and catchment attribute data. Confidence will continue to be required in compliance screening to ensure cost-effective management programmes for avoiding disproportionate investment in impacted river catchments.

show abstract

“…Because some species may show an affinity to particular geologic units or elevation ranges, differences in trout biomass across geologic types can be confounded with species composition. For example, Stichert et al (2001) found that brook trout were notably abundant in limestone-derived high-elevation meadow systems in Wyoming. Furthermore, different species may demonstrate different associations with habitat attributes and grazing impacts.…”

Section: Lurking Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Ignoring Geologic Variation in Evaluating Grazing Impacts

Long¹,

Medina²

2006

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The geologic diversity of landforms in the Southwest complicates efforts to evaluate impacts of land uses such as livestock grazing. We examined a research study that evaluated relationships between trout biomass and stream habitat in the White Mountains of east-central Arizona. That study interpreted results of stepwise regressions and a nonparametric test of ''grazed and ungrazed meadow reaches'' as evidence that livestock grazing was the most important factor to consider in the recovery of the Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache Miller). That study had assumed that geologic variation was insignificant in the study area. However, lithologic and topographic differences between the felsic slopes of Mount Baldy and adjacent mafic plateaus influence many attributes of trout habitat. We tested the robustness of the earlier study by using its dataset and its method of stepwise regression, but with the addition of a variable representing geologic variation. The results suggested that geology was a highly significant predictor of trout biomass (P , 0.0001), whereas bank damage by ungulates was not a useful predictor of residual variation in trout biomass after accounting for geology (r 2 ¼ 0.015, P ¼ 0.290). However, the associations between natural variation and land use impacts in this spatial dataset confound attempts to make inferences concerning effects of livestock grazing upon trout. Despite fundamental problems in the analysis, the results of the earlier study were repeatedly cited in scientific literature and debates about grazing management. To fairly decipher relationships between ecological production and livestock grazing in diverse landscapes requires temporal studies with reliable methodologies and proper controls for landscape variation. Ignoring geologic variation has the potential to mislead conservation policies by inappropriately implicating land use, by undervaluing inherently favorable habitats, and by inflating expectations for inherently less favorable habitats. ResumenLa diversidad geoló gica de los paisajes del Sudoeste Americano complica los esfuerzos para evaluar los impactos de los usos del suelo, como el apacentamiento del ganado. Examinamos una investigació n que evaluó las relaciones entre la biomasa de truchas y su há bitat ribereñ o en las White Mountains, de la region este-central de Arizona. Ese estudio interpretó resultados de regresió n gradual y una prueba no paramétrica de ''praderas apacentadas y no apacentadas,'' como evidencia de que el apacentamiento del ganado era el factor más importante a considerar en la recuperació n de la trucha ''Apache'' (Oncorhynchus apache Miller). Ese estudio había asumido que la variació n geoló gica era insignificante en el á rea del estudio. Sin embargo, las diferencias litoló gicas y topográ ficas entre las pendientes félsicas del Mount Baldy y las mesetas má ficas adyacentes influencian muchos atributos del há bitat de la trucha. Probamos la robustez del estudio anterior usando sus datos y su método de regresió n gradual, pero con la ad...

show abstract

A Test of Factors Hypothesized to Influence Biomass of Salmonids in Rocky Mountain Streams

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

Relating fish biomass to habitat and chemistry in headwater streams of the northeastern United States

Relating fish biomass to habitat and chemistry in headwater streams of the northeastern United States

Sediment targets for informing river catchment management: international experience and prospects

Consequences of Ignoring Geologic Variation in Evaluating Grazing Impacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About