Impacts of Channelization on Stream Habitats and Associated Fish Assemblages in East Central Indiana

Lau, Jamie K.; Lauer, Thomas E.; Weinman, Michelle L.

doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2006)156[319:iocosh]2.0.co;2

Cited by 91 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pool development and depth are among the most significant habitat attributes affecting stream fishes (Schlosser, 1982;Platts et al, 1983). Pools in general support more and larger fish than runs or riffles (Gillette et al, 2005;Sharma and Jackson, 2007;McGarvey and Hughes, 2008), but a pool's proxymity to runs or riffles determines habitat suitability for certain stream fishes (Quist et al, 2006) by contributing to habitat heterogeneity (Lau et al, 2006). Stream systems are complex, and associations between fishes and habitat features vary considerably over spatial and temporal scales (Angermeier, 1987;Closs et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Physical habitat commonly influences fish assemblages in lotic systems at various spatial scales (Angermeier, 1987;Lau et al, 2006). For instance, large woody debris stabilizes sinuous streams and increases local habitat diversity (Hunter, 1991;Flosi et al, 1998) and complexity (Angermeier and Karr, 1984); submerged aquatic vegetation also creates local structural complexity in aquatic systems (Brazner and Beals, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Substrate size influences CPUE because it is a primary component of habitat formation and alteration in flowing waters (Hunter, 1991;Gillette et al, 2005;Lau et al, 2006). It often dictates fish assemblage structure, especially in lotic systems (Talmage et al, 2002;Lau et al, 2006;Sharma and Jackson, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It often dictates fish assemblage structure, especially in lotic systems (Talmage et al, 2002;Lau et al, 2006;Sharma and Jackson, 2007). Substrate size also can alter the effectiveness of certain gear types (Gillette et al, 2005;Van Snik Gray et al, 2005;Sharma and Jackson, 2007) which, due to high seining efficiency, may be why CPUE was positively associated with sandy substrate in the upper JCW sub-watershed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Woody debris typically influences CPUE (Talmage et al, 2002;Powers et al, 2003;Lau et al, 2006) by diminishing the effectiveness of sampling, especially seining (Murphy and Willis, 1996;Flosi et al, 1998;Powers et al, 2003). However, large woody debris often provides optimal fish habitat in streams (Angermeier and Karr, 1984;Flosi et al, 1998), especially for young fishes (Trautman, 1981;Gregory and Bisson, 1997;Flosi et al, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

Using a process‐based catchment‐scale model for enhancing field‐based stream assessments and predicting stream fish assemblages

Kautza

Sullivan

2012

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Catchment-modelling techniques, although not yet widely used in biological contexts, may be a valuable tool in the management and conservation of stream fishes. This study was undertaken to evaluate the potential of a catchment-scale hydrologic model, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), to explain characteristics of stream fish assemblages and to enhance current field-based stream assessments.2. Stream fish assemblages, instream habitat, geomorphology, and water quality were surveyed in 16 study catchments in Ohio, USA. Subsequently, SWAT was used to model stream discharge, sediment flux and concentration, and nitrogen and phosphorus yields for each catchment.3. Principal component analysis (PCA) and multiple linear regression were used to explore potential relationships between environmental factors (both reach-level measurements and SWAT-modelled catchment-scale processes) and fish assemblage descriptors assessed within the framework of an Ohio fish-based Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI).4. Reach-level factors contributed to three of the four significant regression models, explaining 12% to 14% of the variation in fish species richness, the number of darter (Etheostoma) species, and the number of sensitive/intolerant species. SWAT-modelled parameters including minimum and mean annual flow and sediment yields explained significant variation in total IBI scores (57%), species richness (63%), the number of darter species (60%), and the number of sensitive/intolerant species (61%).5. The results support the utility of SWAT as a complement to field-based surveys. It is proposed that process-based catchment-modelling techniques such as SWAT could improve stream fish management and conservation efforts when used as a screening tool to target streams and catchments for subsequent field surveys and as a method to model potential impacts to stream ecosystems and fish assemblages in highly sensitive areas and/or inaccessible catchments.

show abstract

The local responses of aquatic ecosystems to adjacent grassland conservation: Can streams of dreams exist in a degraded riverscape?

Schumann

Graeb

Pfrimmer

et al. 2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape homogenization and the removal of riparian areas have altered stream ecosystems worldwide. Numerous conservation programmes attempt to improve water quality and increase instream habitat heterogeneity to elicit desired biological responses. However, the effectiveness of many conservation efforts on isolated stream fragments remains unknown, especially in grassland regions. The effects of grassland conservation practices and the re‐establishment of riparian corridors in the James River basin, South Dakota (USA) on stream water quality, habitat availability and aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages were studied in an agriculturally dominated prairie landscape. Grassland conservation efforts may have repaired riparian condition, reduced turbidity and created more diverse instream habitat complexes at conservation sites based on comparisons with paired reference reaches. Reference sites were relatively homogeneous, with prevalent siltation, bank erosion and disturbances to the riparian vegetation. Owing to significant riparian vegetation development, overhanging and aquatic vegetation, benthic detritus and woody materials were significantly more common at conservation reaches. Restoration efforts that assume ‘if you (re‐)build it, they will come’ (i.e. the ‘field of dreams’ hypothesis) underestimate other important barriers to biodiversity restoration in dynamic, grassland riverscapes. Although aquatic organisms in grassland ecosystems are adapted to rapidly inhabit available habitats, the development of niche space at conservation reaches did not directly result in colonization by aquatic life. Grassland management actions did not address stream connectivity issues or overcome land use influences elsewhere in the riverscape that may govern the responses of aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish. Stream fragmentation and continuing, damaging land use patterns seemed to exceed the positive effects of restoring isolated stream reaches in these heavily degraded catchments. Catchment‐scale management strategies that combine reach‐level restoration actions with efforts to improve connectivity are likely to be more successful in degraded riverscapes.

show abstract

Impacts of Channelization on Stream Habitats and Associated Fish Assemblages in East Central Indiana

Cited by 91 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Using a process‐based catchment‐scale model for enhancing field‐based stream assessments and predicting stream fish assemblages

The local responses of aquatic ecosystems to adjacent grassland conservation: Can streams of dreams exist in a degraded riverscape?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About