Does the scale of our observational window affect our conclusions about correlations between endangered salmon populations and their habitat?

Landscape Ecology

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 727-743

  Feist, Blake E ^a   Steel, E Ashley ^b   Jensen, David W ^c   Sather, Damon N D ^d  

^a ALASKA FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^b PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^c Independent Statistical Consultant   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation; Habitat; Land use; Multiple spatial scales; Pacific salmon; Restoration; Spatial analysis; Spatial extent

Indexed keywords

CATCHMENT; ENDANGERED SPECIES; GIS; HABITAT CONSERVATION; LAND USE; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SALMONID; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

COLUMBIA BASIN;

ANIMALIA; ONCORHYNCHUS;

EID: 77952745640     PISSN: 09212973     EISSN: 15729761     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-010-9458-1     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35: 257-284.
2. Allen TFH, Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: perspectives in ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
3. Ames J, Orrell R, Deschamps G, Fiscus H, Allen D, Bergh A (1974) Report on the Salmon escapement in the State of Washington, 1971. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia.
4. Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Wiley, New York.
5. Boys CA, Thoms MC (2006) A large-scale, hierarchical approach for assessing habitat associations of fish assemblages in large dryland rivers. Hydrobiologia 572: 11-31.
6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information theoretic approach. Springer, New York.
7. Cook RD (1977) Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics 19: 15-18.
8. Daly C, Neilson RP, Phillips DL (1994) A statistical topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. J Appl Meteorol 33: 140-158.
9. Davies NM, Norris RH, Thomas MC (2000) Prediction and assessment of local stream habitat features using large-scale catchment characteristics. Freshw Biol 45: 343-369.
10. De Boer DH (1992) Hierarchies and spatial scale in process geomorphology: A review. Geomorphology 4: 303-318.
11. Everest FH, Chapman DW (1972) Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. J Fish Res Board Can 29: 91-100.
12. Fast DE, Hubble JD, Scribner TB, Johnston MV, Sharp WR (1989) Yakima/Klickitat natural production and enhancement program, annual report FY. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland.
13. Fast D, Hubble J, Kohn M, Watson B (1991) Yakima River spring Chinook enhancement study. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland.
14. Fausch KD, Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. Bioscience 52: 483-498.
15. Feist BE, Steel EA, Pess GR, Bilby RE (2003) The influence of scale on salmon habitat restoration priorities. Anim Conserv 6: 271-282.
16. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986) A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification-viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ Manage 10: 199-214.
17. Gilbert CH (1912) Age at maturity of Pacific coast salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bull US Fish Comm 32: 57-70.
18. Gray M (1995) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) unpublished John Day District files.
19. Harrell FE Jr (2001) Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Springer, New York.
20. Hays SG, Peven CM (1990) Spring and summer Chinook spawning ground surveys on the Wenatchee River basin. Chelan County Public Utility District, Chelan.
21. Heindl AL, Beaty RE (1989) Escapement monitoring of some naturally spawning Columbia River Basin Chinook salmon stocks, 1987. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland.
22. Horner N, Bjornn TC (1979) Status of upper Columbia River fall Chinook salmon (excluding Snake River populations). Idaho Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow.
23. Howell P, Jones K, Scarnecchia D, LaVoy L, Kendra W, Ortmann D (1985) Steelhead stock summaries stock transfer guidelines-information needs. In: Stock assessment of Columbia River anadromous salmonids, vol. II. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, p 1032.
24. ICBEMP (1999) Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project spatial data. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. Available from http://www. icbemp. gov/. Accessed August 2000.
25. Imhof JG, Fitzgibbon J, Annable WK (1996) A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53: 312-326.
26. Infante DM, Allan JD, Linke S, Norris RH (2009) Relationship of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages to environmental factors: implications for community concordance. Hydrobiologia 623: 87-103.
27. Jenerette GD, Wu J (2000) On the definitions of scale. Bull Ecol Soc Am 81: 104-105.
28. Johnson DH, O'Neil TA (2001) Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.
29. Johnson OW, Waples RS, Wainwright TC, Neely KG, Waknitz FW, Parker LT (1994) Status review for Oregon's Umpqua River Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout. US Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-VWFSC-15.
30. Johnson RK, Furse MT, Hering D, Sandin L (2007) Ecological relationships between stream communities and spatial scale: implications for designing catchment-level monitoring programmes. Freshw Biol 52: 939-958.
31. Knighton D (1984) Fluvial forms and processes. Edward Arnold, London.
32. Lam NS-N, Quattrochi DA (1992) On the issues of scale, resolution, and fractal analysis in the mapping sciences. Prof Geogr 44: 88-98.
33. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967.
34. Lindsay RB, Knox WJ, Flesher MW, Smith BJ, Olsen EA, Lutz LS (1986) Study of wild spring Chinook salmon in the John Day River system, final report 1985. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland.
35. ® system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc, Cary 633 pp.
36. Martin DJ, Benda LE (2001) Patterns of instream wood recruitment and transport at the watershed scale. Trans Am Fish Soc 130: 940-958.
37. Moerke AH, Lamberti GA (2006) Scale-dependent influences on water quality, habitat, and fish communities in streams of the Kalamazoo River Basin, Michigan (USA). Aquat Sci 68: 193-205.
38. Montgomery DR (1999) Process domains and the river continuum. J AmWater Resour Assoc 35: 397-410.
39. Morley SA, Karr JR (2002) Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. Conserv Biol 16: 1498-1509.
40. Myers JM et al (1998) Status review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
41. NHI (2000) Northwest Habitat Institute spatial data. Northwest Habitat Institute. Eugene, OR: Available from http://www. nwhi. org/. Accessed August 2000.
42. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) (1997) Endangered and threatened species: listing of several evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of west coast steelhead. Fed Regis 62(159): 43937-43954 [Docket No. 960730210-7193-02, 18 August 1997].
43. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) (2003) Draft report of updated status of listed ESUs of Salmon and steelhead. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. Available from http://www. nwfsc. noaa. gov/cbd/trt/brt/brtrpt. html/. Accessed December 2003.
44. Olden JD, Poff NL, Blesdoe BP (2006) Incorporating ecological knowledge into ecoinformatics: an example of modeling hierarchical structured aquatic communities with neural networks. Ecol Inform 1: 33-42.
45. Olsen EA, Beamesderfer PMP, McLean ML, Tinus ES (1994) Salmon and steelhead stock summaries for the John Day River basin: an interim report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland.
46. Paavola R, Muotka T, Virtanen R, Heino J, Jackson D, Maki-Petays A (2006) Spatial scale affects community concordance among fishes, benthic macroinvertebrates, and bryophytes in streams. Ecol Appl 16: 368-379.
47. Pess GR, Montgomery DR, Steel EA, Bilby RE, Feist BE, Greenberg HM (2002) Landscape characteristics, land use, and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) abundance, Snohomish River, Washington, USA. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59: 613-623.
48. Peven CM, Mosey TR (1995) Spring and summer Chinook spawning ground surveys on the Wenatchee River basin. Chelan County Public Utility District, 1996.
49. Poff NL (1997) Landscape filters and species traits: towards a mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J North Am Benthol Soc 16: 391-409.
50. Quinn TP (2005) The behavior and ecology of pacific Salmon and Trout, 1st edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda.
51. Rastetter EB, Aber JD, Peters DP, Ojima DS, Burke IC (2003) Using mechanistic models to scale ecological processes across space and time. Bioscience 53: 68-76.
52. Resetarits WJ (2005) Habitat selection behaviour links local and regional scales in aquatic systems. Ecol Lett 8: 480-486.
53. Richards C, Johnson LB, Host GE (1996) Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53: 295-311.
54. Schneider DC (2001) The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. Bioscience 51: 545-553.
55. Schwartzberg M, Roger PB (1986) An annotated compendium of spawning ground surveys in the Columbia River basin above Bonneville Dam, 1960-1984. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland.
56. Snyder CD, Young JA, Villella R, Lemarie DP (2003) Influences of upland and riparian land use patterns on stream biotic integrity. Landscape Ecol 18: 647-664.
57. Steel EA et al (2004) Landscape models to understand steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distribution and help prioritize barrier removals in the Willamette basin, Oregon, USA. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61: 999-1011.
58. StreamNet (2002) Current anadromous Chinook salmon and steelhead distribution at a 1: 100, 000 scale. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Newport, OR. Available from http://www. streamnet. org/. Accessed August 2000.
59. Thornton PE, Running SW, White MA (1997) Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain. J Hydrol 190: 214-251.
60. Torgersen CE, Close DA (2004) Influence of habitat heterogeneity on the distribution of larval Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate) at two spatial scales. Freshw Biol 49: 614-630.
61. Unterwagner T (1999) Electronic data submission. summary of Spring Chinook spawning density, John day District, 1959-1999. Electronically submitted. Unpublished. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
62. Unterwegner T, Gray M (1999) Annual report: John Day Fish District, Northeast region, 1997. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, John Day, Oregon.
63. Urban DL (2005) Modeling ecological processes across scales. Ecology 86: 1996-2006.
64. van Sickle J (2003) Analyzing correlations between stream and watershed attributes. J AmWater Resour Assoc 39: 717-726.
65. Wang LZ et al (2003) Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion, USA. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60: 491-505.
66. Ward JV (1998) Riverine landscapes: biodiversity patterns, disturbance regimes, and aquatic conservation. Elsevier Sci Ltd, Oxford, pp 269-278.
67. WDFW (1993) 1992 Washington state salmon and steelhead stock inventory, Appendix three, Columbia River stocks. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
68. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3: 385-397.
69. Wiens JA (2002) Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshw Biol 47: 501-515.
70. Wiens JA, van Horne B, Noon BR (2002) Integrating landscape structure and scale into natural resource management. In: Liu J, Taylor WW (eds) Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23-67.
71. Wiley MJ, Kohler SL, Seelbach PW (1997) Reconciling landscape and local views of aquatic communities: lessons from Michigan trout streams. Freshw Biol 37: 133-148.