Seasonal Patterns of Fish Abundance in Two Mountain Creeks of the Little Missouri River Drainage, Arkansas

Pezold, Frank; Crump, Betty G.; Flaherty, Wheeler

doi:10.1080/02705060.1997.9663508

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The peak biomass in autumn was attributed to the recruitment of age-0 fish. Conversely, Pezold et al (1997) found that abundance was highest in the spring and early summer in two headwater streams of the Little Missouri River, Arkansas. They attributed the temporal patterns in fish abundance to water level variation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Spatial and temporal variation in habitat and fish community characteristics in a Kansas Flint Hills stream

Tripe

Guy

1999

Ecology of Freshwater Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four locations (i.e., mouth, lower midreach, upper midreach, and headwater) were sampled bimonthly for two years in a Kansas, Flint Hills stream. Principal components 1 (PCI; depth, width, substrate) and 2 (PC2; velocity, water temperature, conductivity) accounted for 70% of the variation in habitat variables. Principal component 1 varied more spatially than temporally, and PC2 exhibited the opposite pattern. Species diversity varied spatially with the highest values at the upper midreach and mouth and lowest in the headwaters. Species diversity also varied temporally with highest values in summer months and lowest in late fall and early spring. Catch per unit effort (C/o varied temporally and spatially by trophic guilds and species. In general, C/f values were highest in late fall and early spring and were lowest in early and mid summer. Fixed spatial variation (i.e., spatial difference independent of temporal factors) was higher than ephemeral spatial variation (i.e., spatial variation that varies temporally) for species with specialized feeding habits. Conversely, ephemeral spatial variation was highest for fish species with generalized feeding habits. These data indicate that standardizing reaches and dates are important if habitat, species diversity, and C/f data will be used in managing stream ecosystems.Un resumen en espaiiol se incluye detras del texto principal de este articulo.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Spatial and temporal variation in habitat and fish community characteristics in a Kansas Flint Hills stream

Tripe

Guy

1999

Ecology of Freshwater Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies by Pezold et al (1997) and Butler and Fairchild (2005) concluded that creek chub were year-round residents of small temperate streams, and Skalski and Gilliam (2000) found that creek chub do not display directional bias of movement during spring and summer months. The results of these studies coincide with our findings: marked creek chub were repeatedly captured at their station of original marking during the spring, summer, and autumn sampling periods; for creek chub displaying movement between sites, the numbers of upstream (three fish) and downstream (four fish) movements were comparable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish Passage in a Western Iowa Stream Modified by Grade Control Structures

Litvan

Pierce

Stewart

et al. 2008

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grade control structures (GCSs) are commonly used in streams of western Iowa to control bank erosion and channel headcutting but may be barriers to fish passage. From May 2002 to May 2006, we used mark-recapture methods to evaluate fish passage over a total of five GCSs, ranging in slope (run : rise) from 13:1 to 18:1 in Turkey Creek, Cass County, Iowa. Three structures, over which limited fish movement was documented from 2002 to 2004, were modified in the winter of [2004][2005] to facilitate fish passage. Before modification, the majority of recaptured fish were recaptured at the station where they were originally marked; only 1% displayed movement between sites and either upstream or downstream over a GCS. After modification fish passage improved, 14% of recaptured fish displayed movement either upstream or downstream over a GCS. Individuals of four target species-channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis, black bullhead A. melas, and creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus-passed over at least one modified structure. The majority of documented movements over GCSs were in the upstream direction and occurred in late spring and early summer, when streamflow was relatively high. Although we documented low numbers of fish passing both upstream and downstream over GCSs, these structures are probably barriers to fish movement during periods of low flow and when there is a structural failure, such as in-channel movement of riprap. Grade control structures are pervasive in western Iowa streams; nearly every low-order stream contains at least one instream structure. To sustain fish populations, management efforts should focus on constructing or modifying GCSs to allow fish passage. RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is e...

show abstract

“…Studies by Pezold et al (1997) and Butler and Fairchild (2005) concluded that creek chub were year-round residents of small temperate streams, and Skalski and Gilliam (2000) found that creek chub do not display directional bias of movement during spring and summer months. These studies coincide with our findings; marked creek chub were repeatedly captured at their station of original marking during spring, summer, and autumn sampling periods, and for creek chub displaying movement between sites, there was a comparable number of upstream (three fish) and downstream (four fish) movements.…”

Section: Fish Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of fish passage and fish and macroinvertebrate communities in southwest Iowa streams modified by grade control structures

Litvan¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seasonal Patterns of Fish Abundance in Two Mountain Creeks of the Little Missouri River Drainage, Arkansas

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

Spatial and temporal variation in habitat and fish community characteristics in a Kansas Flint Hills stream

Spatial and temporal variation in habitat and fish community characteristics in a Kansas Flint Hills stream

Fish Passage in a Western Iowa Stream Modified by Grade Control Structures

Evaluation of fish passage and fish and macroinvertebrate communities in southwest Iowa streams modified by grade control structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About