Relation of Instream Habitat and Physical Conditions to Fish Communities of Agricultural Streams in the Northern Midwest

Abstract

Fish, instream habitat, and physical stream conditions were surveyed in 29 agricultural streams in the Red River of the North basin during summer 1994 and the Minnesota River basin during summer 1997. Our goal was to determine which instream habitat and physical conditions should be considered for stream restoration. Principle components analysis identified six axes that explained 79% of the total variability in instream habitat and physical conditions. Percent run, percent boulder, percent woody debris, percent overhanging vegetation, percent sand, and frequency of erosion were the variables best associated with these axes. Multiple linear regression analysis of the instream habitat and physical conditions explained 14–50% of the variability in fish community composition. Managers of agricultural warmwater streams in the northern Midwest should emphasize these six instream habitat and physical conditions, and the factors that influence them, during stream restoration.

Fish-habitat relationships in the Tonawanda and Johnson Creek Watersheds of Western New York State, USA

“…Talmage et al (2002) reported that local-scale factors, often reflective of past and present watershed disturbances (for example, farming, chan-nelizing), are important to fish communities. Van Holt et al (2006) showed a positive impact of riparian forest on fish assemblages at multiple scales.…”

“…It often dictates fish assemblage structure, especially in lotic systems (Talmage et al, 2002;Lau et al, 2006;Sharma and Jackson, 2007). Substrate size also can alter the effectiveness of certain gear types (Gillette et al, 2005;Van Snik Gray et al, 2005;Sharma and Jackson, 2007) which, due to high seining efficiency, may be why CPUE was positively associated with sandy substrate in the upper JCW sub-watershed.…”

“…Woody debris typically influences CPUE (Talmage et al, 2002;Powers et al, 2003;Lau et al, 2006) by diminishing the effectiveness of sampling, especially seining (Murphy and Willis, 1996;Flosi et al, 1998;Powers et al, 2003). However, large woody debris often provides optimal fish habitat in streams (Angermeier and Karr, 1984;Flosi et al, 1998), especially for young fishes (Trautman, 1981;Gregory and Bisson, 1997;Flosi et al, 1998).…”

“…Bank cover is important for creating microhabitats for stream fishes (Platts et al, 1983;Murphy and Willis, 1996;Talmage et al, 2002), especially as critical rearing habitat for young stream fishes (Trautman, 1981;Hunter, 1991) and a food source via terrestrial drop-ins (Hunter, 1991;Closs et al, 2004). CPUE and bank cover in type 1 pools of the JCW were negatively associated, likely due to poor habitat quality of type 1 pools (channelized, lowest complexity).…”

Habitat associations of fish assemblages in the Cache River, Illinois

“…Agricultural land use, specifically, can have long-term effects on fish assemblages (Harding et al 1998). Local stream habitat, including stream size, width, depth, woody debris and substrate also perform well in explaining fish community structure (Fischer and Paukert 2008;Talmage et al 2002). Stream water quality, including pesticide and phosphorus concentrations, has been linked to fish assemblage structure in the Willamette River basin (Waite and Carpenter 2000).…”