Abundance, cover use, and clustering of brown trout spawning redds during stream habitat rehabilitation

Abstract

Abundance, placement beneath cover and clustering of brown trout spawning redds were monitored throughout five spawning seasons (2016–2020) in a 4.8‐km reach of a Minnesota coldwater stream to assess the potential impacts of concurrent stream habitat rehabilitation projects. We anticipated that redd abundance (redds/100 m stream segments) and placement beneath cover (e.g. logs and branches, boulders, overhanging bank vegetation, aquatic macrophytes) would increase and redd clustering (placement within 1.5 m of other redds) would decline as stream sections were rehabilitated. Repeated redd counts were conducted for the entire stream reach during each of the five spawning seasons, and redd cover and clustering were documented. Before‐after comparison of impact (BACI) tests were used to compare redd abundances in control versus rehabilitated stream sections, and before‐after distributional tests compared redd placement beneath cover and redd clustering within rehabilitated sections. In total, 1895 brown trout spawning redds were documented within the study reach during the five spawning seasons combined. Redd abundance increased nearly fivefold throughout the 5‐year study period (from 3.5 to 15.5 redds/100 m), but no significant difference was detected in redd abundances between rehabilitated versus control stream sections. Redd placement beneath cover (63% beneath cover in total) also increased throughout the study, but at a rate nine to 45 times greater in stream sections rehabilitated during the study than in control or previously rehabilitated sections. Redd clustering remained unchanged (5‐year means = 35 to 46% of all redds clustered) in rehabilitated sections, but increased significantly through time (0% to 35%) in the control section. Stream habitat rehabilitation did not increase spawning redd abundance or reduce redd clustering in rehabilitated stream sections, but redd placement beneath cover increased after rehabilitation to levels present in other stream sections.

Condition, Reproductive Fitness, and Fluctuating Asymmetry in Brook Stickleback: Responses to Anthropogenic Runoff

“…No screening of PCPPs in Garvin Brook has been conducted, although two nearby trout streams tested positive only for bisphenol A [16]. Several recent studies conducted on these two streams [3,[17][18][19][20][21][22] further suggest that the SFWR has much poorer water quality than Garvin Brook.…”