Effects of geomorphology, habitat, and spatial location on fish assemblages in a watershed in Ohio, USA

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Volumn 148, Issue 1-4, 2009, Pages 325-341

  D'Ambrosio, Jessica L ^a   Williams, Lance R ^b   Witter, Jonathan D ^a   Ward, Andy ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER   (United States)

Author keywords

Canonical correspondence analysis; Fish abundance and assemblage; Geomorphology; Habitat; Midwestern streams; Spatial location

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; FISH; GEOMORPHOLOGY; LANDFORMS; MEATS; OCEAN HABITATS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOIL CONSERVATION; SUBSTRATES; WATER ANALYSIS; WATER CONSERVATION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATERSHEDS;

CANONICAL CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS; FISH ABUNDANCE AND ASSEMBLAGE; HABITAT; MIDWESTERN STREAMS; SPATIAL LOCATION;

ECOLOGY;

AMMONIA; NITRATE; NITRITE; NITROGEN; PHOSPHORUS;

ABUNDANCE; ASSESSMENT METHOD; CANONICAL ANALYSIS; DATA SET; GEOMORPHOLOGY; HABITAT TYPE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RIPARIAN ZONE; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; WATER CHEMISTRY; WATERSHED;

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FECAL COLIFORM; FISH; GEOMORPHOLOGY; SCORING SYSTEM; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES HABITAT; STREAM (RIVER); SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER; UNITED STATES; WATER QUALITY; WATER SAMPLING; WATERSHED;

ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FISHES; HUMANS; OHIO; RIVERS; WATER;

NORTH AMERICA; OHIO; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58049177296     PISSN: 01676369     EISSN: 15732959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0163-3     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 35, 257-284.
2. Allan, J. D., Erickson, D. L., & Fay, J. (1997). The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology, 37, 149-161.
3. Anderson, M. J., & Willis, T. J. (2003). Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: A useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology, 84(2), 511-525.
4. Angermeier, P. L., & Winston, M. R. (1998). Local vs. regional influences on local diversity in stream fish communities of Virginia. Ecology, 79, 911-927.
5. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water EPA 841-B-99-002.
6. Borcard, D., Legendre, P., & Drapeau, P. (1992). Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology, 73, 1045-1055.
7. Cooper, S. D., Diehl, S., Kratz, K., & Sarnelle, O. (1998). Implications of scale for patterns and processes in stream ecology. Australian Journal of Ecology, 23, 27-40.
8. Emmerson, M., & Yearsley, J. M. (2004). Weak interactions, omnivory and emergent food-web properties. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 397-405.
9. Frimpong, E. A., Sutton, T. M., Lim, K. J., Hrodey, P. J., Engel, B., Simon, T. P., et al. (2005). Determination of optimal riparian forest buffer dimensions for stream biota-landscape association models using multimetric and multivariate responses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 1-6.
10. Frothingham, K. M., Rhoads, B. L., & Herricks, E. E. (2001). Stream geomorphology and fisheries in channelized and meandering reaches of an agricultural stream. In J. Dorava, J. F. Fitzpatrick, D. Montgomery, & B. Palscak (Eds.) Geomorphic processes and riverine habitat monograph. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.
11. Gangloff, M. M., & Feminella, J. W. (2007). Stream channel geomorphology influences mussel abundance in southern Appalachian streams, USA. Freshwater Biology, 52, 64-74.
12. Griffith, M. B., Kaufman, P. R., Herlihy, A. T., & Hill, B. H. (2001). Analysis of macroinvertebrate assemblages in relation to environmental gradients in rocky mountain streams. Ecological Applications, 11(2), 489-505.
13. Hannaford, M. J., Barbour, M. T., & Resh, V. H. (1997). Training reduces observer variability in visual-based assessments of stream habitat. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 853-860.
14. Harrelson, C. C., Rawlins, C. L., & Potyondy, J. P. (1994). Stream channel reference sites an illustrated guide to field technique. General technical report RM 245, US Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
15. Hauser, T. A. (1999). Descriptive comparison of resident and transient fish communities in headwater streams in East Central Illinois. MS thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.
16. Karr, J. R. (1981). Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, 6, 21-27.
17. Karr, J. R., & Yoder, C. O. (2004). Biological assessment and criteria improve total maximum daily load decision making. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 130(6), 594-604.
18. King, R. S., Baker, M. E., Whigham, D. F., Weller, D. E., Jordan, T. E., Kazyak, P. F., et al. (2005). Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecological Applications, 15, 137-153.
19. Lammert, M., & Allan, J. D. (1999). Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management, 23, 257-270.
20. McArdle, B. H., & Anderson, M. J. (2001). Fitting multivariate models to community data: A comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology, 82(1), 290-297.
21. Nerbonne, B. A., & Vondracek, B. (2001). Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Management, 28(1), 87-99.
22. Ohio EPA. (1987). Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Vols. I-III. Columbus, OH: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section.
23. Ohio EPA. (1995). The role of biological criteria in water quality monitoring, assessment, and regulation. Columbus, OH: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report Series, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section.
24. Ohio EPA. (2002). Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater streams. Columbus, OH: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water.
25. Ohio EPA. (2007). Total maximum daily load for Olentangy river watershed. Columbus, OH: Division of Surface Water.
26. Papanicolaou, A. N., Bdour, A., Evangelopoulos, N., & Tallebeydokhti, N. (2003). Watershed and instream impacts on the fish population in the south fork of the Clearwater River, Idaho. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39, 191-203.
27. Parris, K. M. (2004). Environmental and spatial variables influence the composition of frog assemblages in sub-tropical eastern Australia. Ecography, 27, 392-400.
28. Plafkin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Porter, K. D., Gross, S. K., & Hughes, R. M. (1989). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency EPA 440-4-89-001.
29. Poff, N. L. (1997). Landscape filters and species traits: Towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 391-409.
30. Pusey, B. J., Arthington, A. H., & Read, M. G. (1995). Species richness and spatial variation in fish assemblage structure in two rivers of the wet tropics of northern Queensland, Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 42, 181-199.
31. Rankin, E. T. (1995). The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI). In W. S. Davis, & T. Simon (Eds.) Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for risk-based planning and decision making. Ann Arbor: CRC Press.
32. Rhoads, B. L., & Herricks, E. E. (1996). Naturalization of headwater streams in Illinois. In A. Brookes, & D. F. Shields Jr. (Eds.) River channel restoration (pp. 331-367). UK: Wiley.
33. Richards, C., Johnson, L. B., & Host, G. E. (1996). Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 53, 295-311.
34. Robinson, C. T., & Minshall, G. W. (1994). Biological metrics for regional biomonitoring and assessment of small streams in Idaho. Pocatello: Idaho State University, Stream Ecology Center.
35. Schlosser, I. J. (1991). Stream fish ecology: A landscape perspective. BioScience, 41, 704-712.
36. Snyder, C. D., Young, J. A., Villella, R., & Lemarié, D. P. (2003). Influences of upland and riparian land use patterns on stream biotic integrity. Landscape Ecology, 18(7), 647-664.
37. Strahler, A. N. (1952). Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63, 923-938.
38. Systat Software, Inc. (SSI). (2004). Systat® for Windows®. Richmond, CA.
39. ter Braak, C. J. F. (1996). Unimodal models to relate species to environment. The Netherlands: DLO-Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen.
40. ter Braak, C. J. F., & Smilauer, P. (2002). CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Window's user's guide: Software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power.
41. Trautman, M. B. (1981). The fishes of Ohio. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
42. Urban, M. A., & Rhoads, B. L. (2003). Catastrophic human-induced change in stream-channel planform and geometry in an agricultural watershed, Illinois, USA. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(4), 783-796.
43. US EPA. (2007). The clean water act. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from: http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/cwa.htm.
44. Walters, D. M., Leigh, D. S., Freeman, M. C., & Pringle, C. M. (2003). Geomorphology and fish assemblages in a piedmont river basin, USA. Freshwater Biology, 48, 1950-1970.
45. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Rasmussen, P., Seelback, P., Simon, T., Wiley, M., et al. (2003). Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries And Aquatic Sciences, 60, 491-505.
46. Wang, L., Simonsen, T. D., & Lyons, J. (1996). Accuracy and precision of selected stream habitat estimates. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16, 340-347.
47. Ward, A. D., & Mecklenburg, D. E. (2005). Design discharge procedures in the STREAM spreadsheet tools. Electronic Proceedings, ASCE and EWRI World Water & Environmental Resources Congress Anchorage, Alaska, May 15-19. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/soilandwater/water/ streammorphology/
48. Ward, A. D., & Trimble, S. W. (2003). Environmental hydrology (2nd ed.). CRC Press: Florida.
49. Williams, L. R., Bonner, T. H., Hudson III, J. D., Williams, M. G., Leavy, T. R., & Williams, C. S. (2005). Interactive effects of environmental variability and military training on stream biota of three headwater drainages in western Louisiana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134, 192-206.
50. Williams, L. R., Taylor, C. M., Warren Jr., M. L., & Clingenpeel, J. A. (2003). Environmental variability, historical contingency, and the structure of regional fish and macroinvertebrate faunas in Ouachita Mountain stream systems. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 67, 203-216.
51. Wolman, M. G. (1954). A method of sampling coarse riverbed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 35, 951-956.
52. Yagow, G., Wilson, B., Srivastava, P., & Obropta, C. C. (2006). Use of biological indicators in TMDL assessment and implementation. Transaction of the ASABE, 49(4), 1023-1032.