Recent historical and projected regional trends of trout in the southeastern United States /

Flebbe, Patricia A.; Cost, Noel D.; Hoekstra, Thomas W.; Forest, Rocky Mountain; Station, Range Experiment

doi:10.5962/bhl.title.99554

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, spatial patterns of habitat loss predicted by our reach models suggest that a warming climate will increase stream network fragmentation and isolation of brook trout populations. At the watershed scale, brook trout habitat is already highly fragmented throughout much of the historical range due to deforestation, water pollution, and the paucity of connected cold‐water mainstems (Flebbe et al 1988, , Stranko et al 2008). Our results suggest that additional fragmentation within headwater streams may become increasingly important over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for groundwater in stream fish thermal habitat responses to climate change

Snyder

Hitt

Young

2015

Ecological Applications

148

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forecasting climate change effects on aquatic fauna and their habitat requires an understanding of how water temperature responds to changing air temperature (i.e., thermal sensitivity). Previous efforts to forecast climate effects on brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) habitat have generally assumed uniform air-water temperature relationships over large areas that cannot account for groundwater inputs and other processes that operate at finer spatial scales. We developed regression models that accounted for groundwater influences on thermal sensitivity from measured air-water temperature relationships within forested watersheds in eastern North America (Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, USA, 78 sites in nine watersheds). We used these reach-scale models to forecast climate change effects on stream temperature and brook trout thermal habitat, and compared our results to previous forecasts based upon large-scale models. Observed stream temperatures were generally less sensitive to air temperature than previously assumed, and we attribute this to the moderating effect of shallow groundwater inputs. Predicted groundwater temperatures from air-water regression models corresponded well to observed groundwater temperatures elsewhere in the study area. Predictions of brook trout future habitat loss derived from our fine-grained models. were far less pessimistic than those from prior models developed at coarser spatial resolutions. However, our models also revealed spatial variation in thermal sensitivity within and among catchments resulting in a patchy distribution of thermally suitable habitat. Habitat fragmentation due to thermal barriers therefore may have an increasingly important role for trout population viability in headwater streams. Our results demonstrate that simple adjustments to air-water temperature regression models can provide a powerful and cost-effective approach for predicting future stream temperatures while accounting for effects of groundwater.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for groundwater in stream fish thermal habitat responses to climate change

Snyder

Hitt

Young

2015

Ecological Applications

148

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This wild trout range was known to include many streams that do not actually have trout. Wild trout predominantly occur in southern Appalachian streams within forested watersheds rather than in streams associated with agricultural and developed human land uses (Flebbe et al 1988;Harding et al 1998). We used the 1992 National Land Cover Data Set of USGS and EPA (MLCD Consortium 2001) to identify the following areas within the wild trout boundary map that were considered to be unsuitable for trout because surrounding land cover was not forested: developed (classes 21-23); barren (31-33); orchards, vineyards, etc.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most models of trout distribution in a warmer climate are based on the analysis of trout range in an area (Meisner 1990;Keleher and Rahel 1996;Clark et al 2001), assuming that this range is homogeneously suitable trout habitat. However, trout habitat is associated with mature forest and not with human-dominated land cover (Flebbe et al 1988), and fragmentation of suitable land cover on the landscape will probably exacerbate effects of climate change (Opdam and Wascher 2004). Land cover (herein, we use ''land cover'' in place of ''land cover and land use'') information can be combined with trout distribution range information to map trout habitat in the region to more accurately assess how trout habitat would shrink in a warmer climate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Spatial Modeling to Project Southern Appalachian Trout Distribution in a Warmer Climate

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.-In the southern Appalachian Mountains, the distributions of native brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis and introduced rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and brown trout Salmo trutta are presently limited by temperature and are expected to be limited further by a warmer climate. To estimate trout habitat in a future, warmer climate, we produced a regional map of wild trout habitat based on information from stream samples, expert knowledge, and suitable land cover. We then developed a quantile regression model of the elevation-latitude boundary for the present distribution of trout; this constitutes a more direct, spatially explicit approach to modeling trout distribution than the use of thermal limits. In combination with a lapse rate model, the boundary model was used to project future wild trout distributions over a range of higher temperatures. If the predictions of the Hadley Centre global circulation model (GCM) are assumed, about 53% of trout habitat would be lost; if the more extreme Canadian Centre GCM is used, 97% would be lost. With increasing temperature, fragmentation would increase, leaving populations in small, isolated patches vulnerable to extirpation because of the decreased likelihood of recolonization. The regional trout habitat map and the models produced here were useful for making these predictions, and the map could be used for assessing the impacts of other regional stressors.

show abstract

“…However, studies have been conducted on a limited geographic area in and near the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of North Carolina and Tennessee (e.g., Moore et al 1983Moore et al , 1986Bivens et al 1985;Larson and Moore 1985) and were not designed to consider patterns over the full range of latitudinal and elevational gradients in the region. Yet, the southern Appalachian region, from northern Virginia to northern Georgia, extends 700 km over 5° of latitude and includes thousands of kilometers of trout stream (Flebbe et al 1988). Other studies have shown brook trout to be widely distributed and abundant in the Shenandoah National Park of Virginia (500 km north of Great Smoky Mountains National Park), where rainbow trout are rare and of limited distribution (Lennon 1961).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Regional View of the Margin: Salmonid Abundance and Distribution in the Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia

Flebbe

1994

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

in the southern Appalachian Mountains, native brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis and introduced rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and brown trout Salmo trutta are at the southern extremes of their distributions, an often overlooked kind of marginal habitat. At a regional scale composed of the states of Virginia and North Carolina, species were found to be distributed along latitudinal and elevational gradients. Native brook trout remain most common and abundant, decreasing both from north to south and from high to low elevations. Sympatry increases to the south, where rainbow and brown trout become more successful. For the region as a whole and within major drainages, allopatric and sympatric brook trout were generally found at higher elevations and rainbow and brown trout at lower elevations. Among drainages, elevations at which allopatric brook trout and rainbow trout are found generally increased to the south. A measure of effective elevation, which adjusts elevation for latitude, most clearly separated allopatric and sympatric brook trout from allopatric rainbow and brown trout.

show abstract

Recent historical and projected regional trends of trout in the southeastern United States /

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Accounting for groundwater in stream fish thermal habitat responses to climate change

Accounting for groundwater in stream fish thermal habitat responses to climate change

Spatial Modeling to Project Southern Appalachian Trout Distribution in a Warmer Climate

A Regional View of the Margin: Salmonid Abundance and Distribution in the Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About