Nearshore Habitat and Fish Assemblages along a Gradient of Shoreline Development

Abstract

Littoral habitat is a critical component of lake ecosystems. Expansion of residential development along lakeshores has led to habitat modification, which may alter lentic fish communities. Previous studies have linked lakeshore development to reductions in abundance of aquatic vegetation and coarse woody structure (CWS), and many have quantified the influence of the density of docks on aquatic habitat structure and individual fish species. However, few studies have quantified fish assemblages relative to the effect of density or pattern of development. Using docks as a proxy for development, we calculated dock density, cumulative dock area, and estimates of the proportion of shoreline that was developed, affected by development, or left in large undeveloped segments for 28 Minnesota lakes. We assessed nearshore structural habitat (aquatic vegetation, CWS, and riparian features), a lake‐wide fish index of biotic integrity (IBI), and nearshore components of the fish IBI relative to the development measures derived from docks. The nearshore IBI metrics were community composition metrics based on the proportion of intolerant, small benthic‐dwelling, and vegetation‐dwelling species caught in nearshore sampling, which we also evaluated individually and summed as a nearshore IBI. All measures of development were correlated and performed similarly in our models. Emergent vegetation and CWS declined with increasing development. Nearshore fish IBI declined with increasing development, but the lake‐wide IBI did not change significantly with development. The decline of the nearshore fish IBI appeared to have been driven by a decline in vegetation‐dwelling species. Received June 9, 2016; accepted January 6, 2017 Published online March 15, 2017

Annual winter water‐level drawdowns influence physical habitat structure and macrophytes in Massachusetts, USA, lakes

“…As with coarse wood, macrophytes are directly removed (Asplund andCook 1997, Radomski andGoeman 2001) via management strategies (e.g., hand-pulling, herbicide, suction and mechanical harvesting, benthic barriers) to facilitate recreational activities, particularly in front of active lakefront property (Payton and Fulton 2004). Submergent taxa were the dominant growth form and we detected emergent and floating-leaf taxa in only 5% and 17% of our sampling quadrats, as seen in previous studies (Radomski and Goeman 2001, Jennings et al 2003, Dustin and Vondracek 2017. Despite the dominance of submerged taxa, we found lower macrophyte biovolume along developed vs. forested shorelines, supporting previous observations of macrophyte cover (Merrell et al 2009).…”

“…In addition to winter drawdown magnitude, lakeshore development contributed to explaining littoral habitat variability. Along lakeshore development, our observed patterns of reduced and less complex coarse wood (Christensen et al 1996, Jennings et al 2003, Francis and Schindler 2006, Merrell et al 2009), reduced sediment organic matter (Francis et al 2007), and reduced macrophyte abundance and altered macrophyte composition (Radomski and Goeman 2001, Jennings et al 2003, Merrell et al 2009, Dustin and Vondracek 2017) has been well documented. Decreases of coarse wood recruitment is a function of lake riparian deforestation and direct removal of coarse wood within a lake (Francis and Schindler 2006).…”

No lake left behind: How well do U.S. protected areas meet lake conservation targets?

“…For example, increasing lakeshore development has been shown to reduce abundance of aquatic plants, macroinvertebrates, and fish in littoral areas by reducing coarse woody debris, nutrient cycling, and habitat diversity (Brauns et al . Dustin and Vondracek ). However, previous studies have shown mismatches between protected waterbodies and protected catchments.…”

Status of aquatic and riparian biodiversity in artificial lake ecosystems with and without management for recreational fisheries: implications for conservation

“…This can be due to 36 two reasons. First, surveys among both the general population (Meyerhoff et In light of previous work, we expected lakes managed by anglers to be heavily modified along the 48 shoreline to accommodate angling sites and access to anglers (Dustin & Vondracek, 2017 ; O'Toole et 49 al., 2009). Although we did record higher accessibility in angler-managed lakes (in particular the 50 extension of trials), at the lake-level the degree of aquatic and riparian vegetation was found to be 51 significantly larger in angler-managed systems compared to unmanaged lakes.…”