Fish Populations Associated with Habitat-Modified Piers and Natural Woody Debris in Piedmont Carolina Reservoirs

Abstract

A primary concern associated with reservoir shoreline residential development is reduction of littoral habitat complexity and diversity. One potential approach to compensate for this is the deployment of artificial‐habitat modules under existing piers, but the benefit of this practice has not been demonstrated. To evaluate the effect of pier habitat modifications on fish populations in two Piedmont Carolina reservoirs, we studied 77 piers located on forty‐seven, 100‐m transects that were modified using plastic “fish hab” modules augmented with brush (brushed habs), hab modules alone (habs), or left unaltered for reference purposes. We sampled fish from all piers and transects during April, July, and October 2001 using a boat‐mounted electrofisher. With few exceptions, catch rates were higher at brushed‐hab piers and piers with habs than at reference piers during all seasons. Similarly, during spring and summer, fish abundance was generally higher on transects containing natural woody debris, brushed habs, and habs than on reference‐developed transects; however, during fall, there were exceptions. Therefore, fish abundance associated with shorelines in these reservoirs appears to be related to the structural complexity of available habitat rather than structure composition. One year after installation, 92% of pier owners responding to a mail survey expressed satisfaction with pier modifications. Supplementing piers with habitat structures is recommended to enhance littoral habitat complexity for fishes in residentially developed reservoirs.

Coarse woody debris in temperate littoral zones: implications for biodiversity, food webs and lake management

“…Newbrey et al, 2005;Helmus & Sass, 2008;Schneider & Winemiller, 2008). Many fish species such as Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis L.), roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) (Lewin et al, 2004), yellow perch (Perca flavescens Mitchill), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides Lacepède) (Sass et al, 2006a;Helmus & Sass, 2008;Ahrenstorff et al, 2009;Lawson et al, 2011;Gaeta et al, 2014), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque) (Barwick et al, 2004) and brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis Mitchill) (Biro et al, 2008) are associated with CWD in the littoral zone. They seek refuge in wood structures (Lewin et al, 2004;Sass et al, 2006a, b;Biro et al, 2008;Helmus & Sass, 2008) and food resources (Sass et al, 2006a(Sass et al, , 2012.…”

Ecology of freshwater shore zones

“…Comparisons of different kinds of shore zones usually show that density (Jenkins and Wheatley 1998;Barwick 2004;Barwick et al 2004;Toft et al 2007), biomass (Barwick 2004;Lewin et al 2004), body size (Madjeczak et al 1998), or species richness (Jenkins and Wheatley 1998;Jennings et al 1999;Barwick 2004) of fishes is greater in structurally complex habitats than in simple habitats (Fig. 3).…”

New England Range Extension of American Brook Lamprey (Lethenteron appendix), as Confirmed by Genetic Analysis

“…Use of structures by fish is variable and can depend on proximity and density of existing natural structure (Wilbur 1978;Rogers and Bergersen 1999;Wills et al 2004), depth of structure placement (Walters et al 1991;Johnson and Lynch 1992), presence of other fish species (Johnson et al 1988), water clarity (Johnson et al 1988), season (Johnson and Lynch 1992;Moring and Nicholson 1994;Rogers and Bergersen 1999;Barwick et al 2004), fish life stage or size (Johnson and Lynch 1992;Moring and Nicholson 1994), fish species (Johnson et al 1988;Walters et al 1991;Moring and Nicholson 1994;Richards 1997;Barwick et al 2004;Wills et al 2004), and type of structure used (Johnson and Lynch 1992;Moring and Nicholson 1994;Richards 1997;Rogers and Bergersen 1999;Wills et al 2004). Additionally, density of natural littoral structure can depend on level of residential lakeshore development (Christensen et al 1996).…”

“…Angling data may be compared between control and treatment areas (Richards 1997). Comparisons may be made for biological data collected before and after habitat structures have been placed, although fish population responses to habitat enhancement can be difficult to detect (Tugend et al 2002;Allen et al 2003), especially at a large scale such as an entire water body (Barwick et al 2004).…”

“…Structures have been suggested to increase recruitment by providing spawning cover (Vogele and Rainwater 1975; and can also act to increase nest success Wills et al 2004), quality of spawning habitat , spawning nest density (Wills et al 2004), and juvenile habitat (Jackson et al 2000;Allen et al 2003;Barwick et al 2004). Studies have also shown that fish abundance often increases or becomes concentrated in areas modified with structures (Johnson et al 1988;Johnson and Lynch 1992;Moring and Nicholson 1994;Richards 1997;Rogers and Bergersen 1999;Barwick et al 2004) and that angler catch rates are often higher in modified areas (Wickham et al 1973;Wilbur 1978;Richards 1997;Johnson and Lynch 1992;Rogers and Bergersen 1999). Additionally, habitat improvements provide additional structure for aquatic invertebrates to colonize (Angermeier and Karr 1984;Moring and Nicholson 1994) Ne w Ha mp s h i r e ' s b l a c k b a s s f i s h p o p u l a t i o n s a r e h i g h l y u t i l i z e d b y a n g l e r s , wi t h s ma l l mo u t h (Micropterus dolomieui) and largemouth bass (M. salmoides) ranking among the top four species fished for by anglers (Responsive Management 1996 and2004).…”