Patterns of Fish Assemblage Structure and Habitat Use among Main‐ and Side‐Channel Environments in the Lower Kootenai River, Idaho

Watkins, Carson J.; Stevens, Bryan S.; Quist, Michael C.; Shepard, Bradley B.; Ireland, Susan C.

doi:10.1080/00028487.2015.1069756

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considerable effort has been expended studying fish habitat use of side channels, especially in large rivers (e.g., Barko & Herzog, 2003;Gurtin et al, 2003;Watkins et al, 2015). The ecological importance of side channels to fish varies seasonally with river stage (e.g., Copp, 1989Copp, , 1997Martens & Connolly, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conclusion that side channels are important to large-river fishes is tentative because it is largely based on research conducted in rivers with mainstem impoundments, channelisation, expansive clearing of floodplain vegetation, extensive floodplain development or some combination thereof (e.g., Barko & Herzog, 2003;Gurtin et al, 2003;Watkins et al, 2015). The effects of these anthropogenic influences include side-channel loss and reductions in surface water area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative use of side and main channels by small‐bodied fish in a large, unimpounded river

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Ecological theory and field studies suggest that lateral floodplain connectivity and habitat heterogeneity provided by side channels impart favourable habitat conditions for lotic fishes, especially fluvial fishes dependent on large patches of shallow, slow velocity habitats for some portion of their life cycle. However, anthropogenic modification of large, temperate floodplain rivers has led to extensive channel simplification and side‐channel loss. Highly modified rivers consist of simplified channels in contracted, less dynamic floodplains. Most research examining the seasonal importance of side channels for fish assemblages in large rivers has been carried out in heavily modified rivers, where side‐channel extents are substantially reduced from pre‐settlement times, and has often overlooked small‐bodied fishes. Inferences about the ecological importance of side channels for small‐bodied fishes in large rivers can be ascertained only from investigations of large rivers with largely intact floodplains. The Yellowstone River, our study area, is a rare example of one such river. We targeted small‐bodied fishes and compared their habitat use in side and main channels in two geomorphically distinct types of river bends during early and late snowmelt runoff, and autumn base flow. Species compositions of side and main channels differed throughout hydroperiods concurrent with the seasonal redistribution of the availability of shallow, slow current‐velocity habitats. More species of fish used side channels than main channels during runoff. Additionally, catch rates of small fishes were generally greater in side channels than in main channels and quantitative assemblage compositions differed between channel types during runoff, but not during base flow. Presence of and access to diverse habitats facilitated the development and persistence of diverse fish assemblages in our study area. Physical dissimilarities between side and main channels may have differentially structured the side‐ and main‐channel fish assemblages during runoff. Patches of shallow, slow current‐velocity (SSCV) habitats in side channels were larger and had slightly slower water velocities than SSCV habitat patches in main channels during runoff, but not during base flow. Our findings establish a baseline importance of side channels to riverine fishes in a large, temperate river without heavy anthropogenic modification. Establishing this baseline contributes to basic fluvial ecology and provides empirical justification for restoration efforts that reconnect large rivers with their floodplains.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative use of side and main channels by small‐bodied fish in a large, unimpounded river

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Watkins et al. ). Thus, it is important to identify restoration actions that benefit native fishes even in the presence of nonnative fishes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Use of Natural and Added Cover Types by Game and Nongame Fishes in a Great Plains River

Dugan

Rahel

2019

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rivers in the western Great Plains of the United States are characterized by low gradients, sandy substrates, and a relative scarcity of structural habitat. Habitat improvement projects in these systems often involve the addition of large wood and rock riprap to increase habitat for nonnative game fishes, such as piscivorous Brown Trout Salmo trutta. However, little is known about the use of added habitats by the small‐bodied nongame fishes that historically dominated the fish assemblages in these systems. We evaluated habitat availability and fish habitat use in the Laramie River (Wyoming, USA) at four sites that contained natural and added habitats. We calculated habitat selection for three natural cover types (natural wood, macrophytes, and undercut bank), two added cover types (added wood and rock riprap), and open water. Open‐water habitat dominated all sites (87–94% of the stream area), but all species except Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum showed negative selection for this cover type. Most species showed positive selection for both natural and added cover types but showed greater selectivity for natural wood compared to added wood. Native, small‐bodied fishes in the Laramie River used added cover types intended to benefit populations of Brown Trout. Thus, features that enhance habitat for Brown Trout also should benefit native species in Great Plains rivers that have limited natural structural habitat.

show abstract

“…Despite the aforementioned relationships with streamflow and substrate, the occurrence and relative abundance of fishes were related to SSCV habitats that were characterized by a variety of substrates. Fine substrates are relatively scarce throughout the braided section of the Kootenai River but can be found in off‐channel units (i.e., side channels; Watkins, Stevens, Quist, Shepard, & Ireland, ). In channel habitats, the relative abundance of Age‐0 Largescale Sucker was positively related to fine substrate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fish assemblage of Kootenai River has been evaluated at multiple spatial and temporal scales to assess the effect of habitat rehabilitation on the entire fish assemblage and population abundance of a few targeted fish species. Previous evaluations of the Kootenai River have established that fish assemblages differed among geomorphic sections (Smith et al, ) and among main‐ and side‐channels (Watkins et al, ). Our study further suggests that fish assemblages differ between backwater and channel habitats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microhabitat use of native fishes in the Kootenai River: A fine‐scale evaluation of large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts

Branigan

Quist

Shepard

et al. 2018

River Research & Apps

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish and microhabitat data were collected at 542 prepositioned electrofishing sites (surface area of each site = 4 m2) in the Kootenai River, Idaho, during 2014 and 2015 to evaluate small‐scale habitat use by fishes, as it relates to large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts. Samples were collected from a 12‐km braided segment of river that had received localized habitat rehabilitation treatments since 2011. Fish and microhabitat data were collected to investigate habitat drivers related to the occurrence and relative abundance of fishes. Each sampling location was selected at random and characterized as “treated” (i.e., rehabilitated) or “untreated” based on proximity to habitat treatments. Fishes sampled from backwaters composed 71% of the overall catch and 84% of the catch from locally untreated areas of the river. Species‐specific regression models suggested that water depth and current velocity influenced the occurrence and abundance of fishes. In particular, shallow habitats with low current velocities were important for small‐bodied native fishes and likely serve as important rearing areas for juvenile fish. These habitat conditions typically characterize backwater and channel‐margin habitats that are vulnerable to anthropogenic perturbation. Prioritizing process‐based rehabilitation of these areas in large, regulated rivers would allow natural channel‐forming processes for the benefit of native fishes.

show abstract

Patterns of Fish Assemblage Structure and Habitat Use among Main‐ and Side‐Channel Environments in the Lower Kootenai River, Idaho

Cited by 13 publications

References 72 publications

Comparative use of side and main channels by small‐bodied fish in a large, unimpounded river

Comparative use of side and main channels by small‐bodied fish in a large, unimpounded river

Use of Natural and Added Cover Types by Game and Nongame Fishes in a Great Plains River

Microhabitat use of native fishes in the Kootenai River: A fine‐scale evaluation of large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About