The importance of land use/land cover data in fish and mussel conservation planning

Abstract

-Freshwater fish and mussel diversity is declining at an alarming rate across North America. Human land uses and disturbances within watersheds have been implicated as the primary cause of declines. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of land use/land cover (LULC) variables in species distribution modeling and conservation planning using a straightforward multiscale approach for prioritizing freshwater fish and mussel conservation areas in the upper Green River catchment (Ohio River basin, USA). We developed distribution and species richness models for 10 uncommon fishes and 14 rare mussels using multiscale landscape data and boosted regression tree (BRT) analyses based on LULC composition and pattern, geology composition, and soil composition data. We then used probability of occurrence, endemicity, prevalence, trend and range of individual species to estimate the conservation value of each stream reach. Conservation areas were defined for three spatial scales nested within the catchment management zone (focal areas, riparian management buffer and subcatchment management zone) using a simple optimization technique. Priority conservation areas were located primarily in the eastern (upper Green River) and southern (upper Barren River) portions of the catchment. We found that focal species richness is explained most by soil composition in the subcatchment. However, nested within the subcatchment scale focal species richness responded positively to percent forest and negatively to patch density of developed/exposed land in the reach buffer. For both the reach and riparian buffers, retaining forested tracts of land and limiting the level of development and fragmentation would benefit the focal species.

Modeling changes in freshwater mussel diversity in an agriculturally dominated landscape

“…Within a habitat, substrate size, shear stress, and near-riverbed turbulence are important factors to explain mussel patchiness (Strayer 1999, Brim Box et al 2002, Steuer et al 2008, Fulton et al 2010. At a spatial scale between these 2, such as the watershed, changes in mussel assemblages have been related to land use (Arbuckle and Downing 2002, Diamond et al 2002, McRae et al 2004, Poole and Downing 2004, Brown et al 2010, Hopkins and Whiles 2011, Atkinson et al 2012, channel morphology (Gangloff andFeminella 2007, Brainwood et al 2008), stream-flow stability (McRae et al 2004, Morales et al 2006), water quality, and overloading of fine sediments (see reviews by Strayer et al 2004, Downing et al 2010. However, unlike most other aquatic species, freshwater mussels also depend strongly on a separate group of animals, fishes, for recruitment and dispersal (Haag and Warren 1998, McNichols et al 2011, Schwalb et al 2011.…”

Land Cover, Land Use, and Climate Change Impacts on Endemic Cichlid Habitats in Northern Tanzania

“…Fragstats 4.1 was used to calculate patch and class level statistics [74]. Evidence suggests that reporting solely the total area of natural vegetation in a catchment is insufficient and that the spatial configuration and quality of the patches of natural vegetation are also important considerations [30,[75][76][77]. At the patch level, we analyzed the distribution of the number of natural vegetation fragments for each period as a proxy for measuring landscape composition and configuration.…”

Integrating catchment properties in small scale species distribution models of stream macroinvertebrates

“…Domisch et al, 2013a,b;Sauer et al, 2011), while only very few studies have used the SCS approach. For example, Hopkins and Burr (2009), as well as Hopkins and Whiles (2011), incorporated the cumulative effect of environmental predictors from the upstream contributing area, but for stream segments 3000 m long. In this study, only these two spatial approaches were chosen, as they are easily defined, can be readily replicated and are frequently used in studies alike.…”

“…Some studies applying SDMs use the catchment as the modelling extent (e.g. Bond et al, 2011), while only few studies have included predictors that consider the upper subcatchment (Joy and Death, 2004;Hopkins and Burr, 2009;Hopkins and Whiles, 2011). Moreover, catchments are well suited as management units for the conservation of freshwater as a resource and as an ecosystem (Palmer et al, 2008;Saunders et al, 2002).…”