Predicting aquatic vertebrate assemblages from environmental variables at three multistate geographic extents of the western USA

Hughes, Robert M.; Herlihy, Alan T.; Sifneos, Jean C.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.044

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 67 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1C). Fish composition can be affected by habitat characteristics at local (e.g., flow regimes, substrate sizes; Hughes et al 2015, Pease et al 2015 and mesohabitat scales (Hitchman et al, in press). Specifically, if a stronger dam-fish effect occurs at dams with greater alterations in habitat, then habitat modification is one mechanism for the ecological differences that result from alternate approaches.…”

Section: Specific Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The blind men and the elephant examine biodiversity at low‐head dams: Are we all dealing with the same dam reality?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Fencl, J. S., M. E. Mather, J. M. Smith, and S. M. Hitchman. 2017. The blind men and the elephant examine biodiversity at low-head dams: Are we all dealing with the same dam reality? Ecosphere 8(11):e01973. 10. 1002/ecs2.1973 Abstract. Dams are ubiquitous environmental impacts that threaten aquatic ecosystems. The ability to compare across research studies is essential to conserve the native biodiversity that is impacted by the millions of low-head dams that currently fragment streams and rivers. Here, we identify a previously unaddressed obstacle that impedes this generalization. Specifically, divergent spatial and taxonomic approaches that result from different conceptualizations of the dam-biodiversity problem can produce conflicting sciencebased conclusions about the same dam impact. In this research, using the same dammed and undammed sites, we evaluated the scientific generality of different conceptualizations of the dam-biodiversity problem. We compared two different but commonly used spatial approaches-(1) above dam-below dam vs.(2) undammed-dammed comparisons-and 11 different, commonly used taxonomic approaches (three assemblage summaries, eight guilds). Sites above the dam structure had less diverse fish assemblages than sites below dams, whereas sites below the dam structure were similar to undammed sites. Thus, spatial approach 1 detected a large dam effect and spatial approach 2 detected a small dam effect. Similarly, some taxonomic responses (species richness, diversity, abundance, and number of guilds) detected large dam effects; other responses detected small (riffle specialist guild) or no dam effects (pool generalists). In summary, our results showed that how the problem was framed altered scientific conclusions and created different dam realities. The metaphor of how individual blind men disagree about the structure of an elephant, based on examinations of different body parts, reinforces the need for a coordinated, holistic perspective on dam research. Although no single approach is adequate for all problems, identifying the form, consequences of, and relationships among different research conceptualizations will set the stage for future syntheses of dam-biodiversity research to advance science-based conservation.

show abstract

Section: Specific Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fish composition can be affected by habitat characteristics at local (e.g., flow regimes, substrate sizes; Hughes et al. , Pease et al. ) and mesohabitat scales (Hitchman et al., in press ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The blind men and the elephant examine biodiversity at low‐head dams: Are we all dealing with the same dam reality?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our two fish datasets (abundance and occurrence) responded unimodally to environmental gradients (SD > 2), so we used CCA. We then used variance partitioning with partial CCA to partition total variation in each fish dataset (abundance and occurrence) into components explained by land use/cover (land use), site (site), and pure spatial (spatial) predictors (Anderson & Gribble, 1998;Hughes et al, 2015). For this, we ran twelve CCAs for each fish dataset (Table 2) to partition total variation in eight components: i) pure land use, ii) pure spatial, iii) pure site, iv) shared land use and spatial variation, v) shared land use and site variation, vi) shared spatial and site variation, vii) variation between all three components, and viii) unexplained variation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bouchard & Boisclair, 2007), including papers describing both catchment-and sitescale conditions with similar importance (e.g. Hughes et al, 2015). In addition, studies regarding the influence of environmental factors at different spatial scales on Neotropical stream biota are still scant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of environmental variables on stream fish fauna at multiple spatial scales

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of environmental variables at different spatial scales on freshwater fish assemblages are relatively unexplored in Neotropical ecosystems. However, those influences are important for developing management strategies to conserve fish diversity and water resources. We evaluated the influences of site-(in-stream) and catchment-scale (land use and cover) environmental variables on the abundance and occurrence of fish species in streams of the Upper Araguari River basin through use of variance partitioning with partial CCA. We sampled 38 1 st to 3 rd order stream sites in September 2009. We quantified site variables to calculate 11 physical habitat metrics and mapped catchment land use/cover. Site and catchment variables explained > 50% of the total variation in fish species. Site variables (fish abundance: 25.31%; occurrence: 24.51%) explained slightly more variation in fish species than catchment land use/cover (abundance: 22.69%; occurrence: 18.90%), indicating that factors at both scales are important. Because anthropogenic pressures at site and catchment scales both affect stream fish in the Upper Araguari River basin, both must be considered jointly to apply conservation strategies in an efficient manner.Os efeitos das variáveis ambientais em diferentes escalas espaciais sobre as assembleias de peixes de água doce ainda é um tema pouco explorado na região Neotropical. Entretanto é um assunto de extrema relevância, pois gera subsídios para definições de estratégias de manejo e conservação de ictiofauna e dos recursos hídricos. Nós avaliamos a influência de variáveis ambientais em escalas local (dentro do rio) e da paisagem (uso e cobertura do solo) na abundância e ocorrência das espécies de peixes de riachos da bacia do alto rio Araguari através da partição da variância usando CCA parcial. Um total de 38 riachos de até 3ª ordem foi amostrado em setembro de 2009. Nós quantificamos variáveis locais para calcular 11 métricas de hábitats físicos e mapeamos o uso e cobertura do solo. O conjunto de dados (variáveis locais e da paisagem) explicou mais de 50% da variação total nas espécies de peixes. Variáveis em escala local (abundância: 25,31%; ocorrência: 24,51%) explicaram levemente uma maior variação nas assembleias de peixes do que o uso e cobertura do solo (abundância: 22,69%; ocorrência: 18,90%), indicando que os fatores em ambas as escalas de estudo são importantes. Uma vez que a influência antrópica em diferentes escalas afeta as espécies de peixes em riachos da bacia do alto rio Araguari, ambas devem ser consideradas juntamente para a adoção de estratégias de conservação de uma forma racional. Keywords IntroductionStreams are hierarchically organized and spatially nested systems (Frissell et al., 1986 in which conditions at smaller spatial scales are constrained by processes at larger spatial scales (O'Neill et al., 1989). In other words, site conditions are influenced by regional conditions (Hildrew & Giller, 1994), and different variables may act at different scales (Willis & Whittaker, 2002). Some...

show abstract

“…For stream fishes, several studies examined the roles of within stream (e.g., depth, substrate composition), landscape level (i.e., land use) and spatial factors on community structure. They generally found the paramount importance of environmental factors (niche based species sorting) over spatial constraints, although the explained variance fractions varied widely (see e.g., Peres-Neto and Cumming 2010, Sály et al 2011, Kautza and Sullivan 2012, Hughes et al 2015. Heino et al (2015) pointed out that the relative importance of the community structuring mechanisms can depend on the studied spatial scale.…”

Section: The Importance Of Niche and Dispersal Processes In Metacommumentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling fish metacommunities in stream networks: synthesis and future research avenues

Erős

2017

Community Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The metacommunity perspective has substantially advanced our understanding of how local (within community) and dispersal (between community) processes influence the assembly of communities. The increased recognition of dispersal processes makes it necessary to re-evaluate former views on community organization in different ecological systems and for specific organisms. Stream systems have long been considered from a linear perspective, in which local community organization was examined along the longitudinal profile, from source to mouth. However, the hierarchically branching (i.e. dendritic) structure of stream networks also significantly affects both local and regional scale community organization, which has just only recently been fully recognized by ecologists. In this review, I examine how the shift from a strictly linear to a dendritic network perspective influenced the thinking about the organization of fish metacommunities in stream networks. I argue that while longitudinal patterns in the structure of fish communities are relatively well known, knowledge is still limited about how the structure of the stream network ultimately affects the spatial and temporal dynamics of metacommunities. I suggest that scaling metapopulation models up to the metacommunity level can be useful to further our understanding of the spatial structure of metacommunities. However, this requires the delineation of local communities and the quantification of the contribution of dispersal to local community dynamics. Exploring patterns in diversity, spatial distribution and temporal dynamics of metacommunities is not easily feasible in continuous stream habitats, where some parts of the habitat network are exceptionally hard to sample representatively. Combination of detailed field studies with modelling of dispersal is necessary for a better understanding of metacommunity dynamics in stream networks. Since most metacommunity level processes are likely to happen at the stream network level, further research on the effects of stream network structure is needed. Overall, separation of the effect of dispersal processes from local scale community dynamics may yield a more mechanistic understanding of the assembly of fish communities in stream networks, which may also enhance the effectiveness of restoration efforts.

show abstract

Predicting aquatic vertebrate assemblages from environmental variables at three multistate geographic extents of the western USA

Cited by 14 publications

References 67 publications

The blind men and the elephant examine biodiversity at low‐head dams: Are we all dealing with the same dam reality?

The blind men and the elephant examine biodiversity at low‐head dams: Are we all dealing with the same dam reality?

Influence of environmental variables on stream fish fauna at multiple spatial scales

Scaling fish metacommunities in stream networks: synthesis and future research avenues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About