Longitudinal Variation in the Ohio River Fish Community

Abstract

The Ohio River fish community was sampled three times (June, August, and October) in 2005 by electrofishing near 17 power plants encompassing nearly the entire length of the Ohio River (river kilometer 82–1,527). Six 500‐m zones were electrofished at each plant. Using a generalized additive model, we examined this data set of 306 electrofishing samples to determine how the abundance of 31 taxa varied over the length of the river. We also looked for trends in several measures of community health (catch rate, species richness, index of biotic integrity, and modified index of well‐being). Of the 31 taxa examined, all but three showed longitudinal differences over the course of the river. Based on the patterns for the 31 taxa and 5 community measures, we assigned each taxon or measure to one of seven classes. The largest class included 10 taxa that declined steadily in abundance from upriver to downriver. All community measures followed a similar pattern except that each measure increased near the downstream‐most plant. Conversely, only two taxa (Striped Bass Morone saxatilis and River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio) showed the opposite trend (i.e., increasing in a downstream direction). Some taxa were restricted to the upper or lower end of the river or to certain reaches along the river. Species that were restricted to the upper river were primarily stream fishes (certain minnows Notropis spp. and several darters Etheostoma spp.). Conversely, fish species that were restricted to the lower river were primarily large‐river fishes as well as species that were typical of the Mississippi River fauna. Site‐specific differences in water temperature, Secchi depth, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen were generally unimportant in explaining the observed patterns. Substrate type (percent cobble/boulder and percent silt) occasionally was important. The observed longitudinal trends appeared to be primarily in response to natural temperature and habitat differences between the upper and lower sections of the Ohio River. Received March 16, 2012; accepted March 10, 2013

Species‐specific effects of subdaily temperature fluctuations on consumption, growth and stress responses in two physiologically similar fish species

“…Yellow perch and walleye are closely related species (i.e., same family) with similar thermal preferences (Hokanson 1977) that are commonly found in habitats undergoing subdaily thermal changes (White et al 2005;Stepien et al 2009;Seegert et al 2013;Starzynski & Lauer 2014). Yellow perch and walleye are closely related species (i.e., same family) with similar thermal preferences (Hokanson 1977) that are commonly found in habitats undergoing subdaily thermal changes (White et al 2005;Stepien et al 2009;Seegert et al 2013;Starzynski & Lauer 2014).…”

“…We conducted a set of laboratory experiments to determine how juvenile and adult fishes are affected by chronic exposure to repeated subdaily temperature fluctuations. Yellow perch and walleye are closely related species (i.e., same family) with similar thermal preferences (Hokanson 1977) that are commonly found in habitats undergoing subdaily thermal changes (White et al 2005;Stepien et al 2009;Seegert et al 2013;Starzynski & Lauer 2014). We exposed adult yellow perch and juvenile walleye to repeated subdaily thermal fluctuations of two different magnitudes and to the stable mean temperature of the fluctuations for 45 days.…”

Spatial Gradients in Population Characteristics of Ohio River Sauger and Implications for a Length‐Based Regulation

“…; Seegert et al. ), which may influence Sauger growth. Sauger growth rate was faster than growth rates reported in the Mississippi River in all pools (Carter ) but slower (upper and middle pools) or similar (lower pools) to growth rates in the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers (Churchill ).…”

Fisheries Volume 48 Number 6 June 2023

“…The study area encompassed the three generally accepted segments of the river (upper, middle, and lower reaches; Pearson and Pearson 1989 ) as well as all of the recognized ecoregions (Omernik and Gallant 1988 ) along the Ohio River. Covering this broad area allowed examination of how the fi sh community changes spatially over the course of the river as well as temporal changes over the 50-year study period (King et al 2010 ;Seegert et al 2013 ).…”