Effects of hydrologic infrastructure on flow regimes of california's central valley rivers: Implications for fish populationsy

River Research and Applications

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 751-765

  Brown, Larry R ^a   Bauer, Marissa L ^a  

^a U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alien fishes; California; Dams; Flow regime; Hydrologic infrastructure; Native fishes; Water management

Indexed keywords

DAM; FISH; HYDROLOGICAL REGIME; HYDROLOGICAL RESPONSE; INTRODUCED SPECIES; RIVER DISCHARGE; RIVER MANAGEMENT; RUNOFF; STREAMFLOW; WATER MANAGEMENT;

CALIFORNIA; CENTRAL VALLEY [CALIFORNIA]; SACRAMENTO RIVER; SAN JOAQUIN RIVER; UNITED STATES;

PISCES;

EID: 77954479406     PISSN: 15351459     EISSN: 15351467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rra.1293     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Annear T, Chisholm I, Beecher H, Locke A, Aarrestad P, Coomer C, Estes C, Hunt J, Jacobson R, Jobsis G, Kauffman J, Marshall J, Mayes K, Smith G, Wentworth R, Stalnaker C. 2004. Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship (revised edition). Instream Flow Council: Cheyenne, WY.
2. Arthington A, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman J. 2006. The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16: 1311-1318.
3. Arthington AH, King JM, O'Keefe JH, Bunn SE, Day JA, Pusey BJ, Bluhdorn DR, Tharme R. 1992. Development of an holistic approach for assessing environmental flow requirements of riverine ecosystems. In Proceedings of an International Seminar and Workshop on Water Allocation for the Environment, Pigram JJ, Hooper BP (eds). Centre for Water Policy Research: University of New England; 69-76.
4. Baltz DM, Moyle PB. 1993. Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of California stream fishes. Ecological Applications 3: 246-255.
5. Barnett TP, Pierce DW, Hidalgo HG, Bonfils C, Santer BD, Das T, Bala G, Wood AW, Nozawa T, Mirin AA, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD. 2008. Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States. Science 319: 1080-1083.
6. Brown LR. 2000. Fish communities and their associations with environmental variables, lower San Joaquin River drainage, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 57: 251-269.
7. Brown LR, Brasher A. 1995. Effects of predation by Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis) on habitat choice of California roach (Lavinia symmetricus) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in artificial streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 1639-1646.
8. Brown LR, Ford TJ. 2002. Effects of flow on the fish communities of a regulated California river: implications for managing native fishes. River Research and Applications 18: 331-342.
9. Brown LR, Moyle PB. 1991. Changes in habitat and microhabitat use of an assemblage of stream fishes in response to predation by Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 849-856.
10. Brown LR, Moyle PB. 1993. Distribution, ecology, and status of the fishes of the San Joaquin River drainage, California. California Fish and Game 79: 96-114.
11. Brown LR, Moyle PB. 2005. Native fish communities of the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed, California: a history of decline. In Fish Communities of Large Rivers of the United States, Rinne F, Hughes R, Calamusso R (eds). American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, Maryland; 75-98.
12. Bunn SE, Arthington AH. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30: 492-507.
13. CALFED. 2007. 2007 CALFED Annual Report. CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Sacramento.
14. Dettinger MD, Cayan DR. 2003. Interseasonal covariability of Sierra Nevada streamflow and San Francisco Bay salinity. Journal of Hydrology 277: 164-181.
15. Gard M. 2004. Interactions between an introduced piscivore and a native piscivore in a California stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes 71: 287-295.
16. Goldstein RM, Meador MR. 2004. Comparisons of fish species traits from small streams to large rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 971-983.
17. Gordon LJ, Petersen GD, Bennett EM. 2008. Agricultural modifications of hydrological flows create ecological surprises. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 211-219.
18. Jackson RB, Carpenter SR, Dahm CN, McKnight DM, Naiman RJ, Postel SL, Running SW. 2001. Water in a changing world. Ecological Applications 11: 1027-1045.
19. Kennen JG, Kauffman LJ, Ayers MA, Wolock DM, Bolarullo SJ. 2008. Use of an integrated flow model to estimate ecologically relevant hydrologic characteristics at stream biomonitoring sites. Ecological Modeling 211: 57-76.
20. Kondolf GM, Boulton AJ, O'Daniel S, Poole GC, Rahel FJ, Stanley EH, Wohl E, Bang A, Carlstrom J, Cristoni C, Huber H, Koljonen S, Louhi P, Nakamura K. 2007. Process-based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and Society 11(2): 5. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art5/
21. Konrad CP, Brasher AMD, May JT. 2008. Assessing streamflow characteristics as limiting factors on benthic invertebrate assemblages in streams across the western United States. Freshwater Biology 53: 1983-1998.
22. Knowles N, Cayan DR. 2004. Elevational dependence of projected hydrologic changes in the San Francisco Estuary and watershed. Climatic
23. Change 62: 319-336
24. Knowles N, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19: 4545-4559.
25. Light T, Marchetti MP. 2007. Distinguishing between invasions and habitat changes as drivers of diversity loss among California's freshwater fishes. Conservation Biology 21: 434-446.
26. Lund J, Hanak E, Fleenor W, Howitt R, Mount J, Moyle P. 2007. Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Public Policy Institute of California: San Francisco.
27. Lytle DH, Poff NL. 2004. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 94-100.
28. Mathews R, Richter BD. 2007. Application of the indicators of hydrologic alteration software in environmental flow setting. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(5): 1-14.
29. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB. 2000. Spatial and temporal ecology of native and introduced fish larvae in lower Putah Creek, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58: 75-87.
30. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB. 2001. Keeping alien fishes at bay: effects of flow regime and habitat structure on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications 11: 75-87.
31. May JT, Brown LR. 2002. Fish communities of the Sacramento River Basin: implications for conservation of native fishes in the Central Valley, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63: 373-388.
32. Mount JF. 1995. California Rivers and Streams: The Conflict Between Fluvial Process and Land Use. University of California Press: Berkeley. Moyle PB. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. (revised and expanded). University of California Press: Berkeley.
33. Moyle B, Mount JF. 2007. Homogenous rivers, homogenous faunas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 5711-5712.
34. Moyle PB, Crain PK, Whitener K, Mount JF. 2003. Alien fishes in natural streams: fish distribution, assemblage structure, and conservation in the Cosumnes River, California, U.S.A. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68: 143-162.
35. Murchie KJ, Hair KPE, Pullen CE, Redpath TD, Stephens HR, Cooke SJ. 2008. Fish response to modified flow regimes in regulated rivers: research methods, effects, and opportunities. River Research and Applications 24: 197-217.
36. Palmer MA, Reidy Liermann CA, Nilsson C, Flörke M, Alcamo J, Lake PS, Bond N. 2008. Climate change and the world's river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6(2): 81-89.
37. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47: 769-784.
38. Poff NL, Bledsoe BP, Cuhaciyan CO. 2006a. Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79: 264-285.
39. Poff NL, Olden JD, Pepin DM, Bledsoe BP. 2006b. Placing global stream flow variability in geographic and geomorphic contexts. River Research and Applications 22: 149-166.
40. Poff NL, Olden JD, Merritt DM, Pepin DM. 2007. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 5732-5737.
41. Postel SL. 1996. Dividing the Waters: Food Security, Ecosystem Health, and the New Politics Of Scarcity. Worldwatch Institute: Washington, D.C.
42. Postel SL. 2000. Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead. Ecological Applications 10: 941-948.
43. Postel SL, Richter B. 2003. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
44. Pringle CM, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota in the New World: tropical-temperate comparisons. Bioscience 50: 807-823.
45. Propst DL, Gido KB, Stefferud JA. 2008. Natural flow regimes, nonnative fishes, and native fish persistence in arid-land river systems. Ecological Applications 18: 1236-1252.
46. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1-12.
47. Richter BD, Matthews R, Harrison DL, Wigington R. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13: 206-224.
48. Richter BD, Thomas GA. 2007. Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam operations. Ecology and Society 12: 12. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art12/
49. Schick RS, Lindley ST. 2007. Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 1116-1126.
50. Seesholtz A, Cavallo BJ, Kindopp J, Kurth R. 2004. Juvenile fishes of the lower Feather River: distribution, emigration patterns, and associations with environmental variables. In Early Life History of Fishes in the San Francisco Estuary and Watershed, Feyrer F, Brown LR, Brown RL, Orsi JJ (eds). American Fisheries Society: Symposium 39: Bethesda, Maryland; 141-166.
51. Singer MB. 2007. The influence of major dams on hydrology through the drainage network of the Sacramento River basin, California. River Research and Applications 23: 55-72.
52. Sommer T, Armor C, Baxter R, Breuer R, Brown L, Chotkowski M, Culberson S, Feyrer F, Gingras M, Herbold B, Kimmerer W, Mueller-Solger A, Nobriga M, Souza K. 2007. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Fisheries 32(6): 270-277.
53. Souchon Y, Sabaton C, Deibel R, Reiser D, Kershner J, Gard M, Katapodis C, Leonard P, Poff NL, Miller WJ, Lamb BL. 2008. Detecting biological responses to flow management: missed opportunities; future directions. River Research and Applications 24: 506-518.
54. Sparks RE. 1995. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience 45: 169-182.
55. Stillwater Sciences. 2008. The Merced River Alliance Project Final Report. Volume II: Biological Monitoring and Assessment Report. Stillwater Sciences: Berkeley, California.
56. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2007. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Version 7 User's Manual. The Nature Conservancy: Charlottesville,Virginia.
57. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins California Comprehensive Study Interim Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Sacramento District. Available at: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/projects/civil/compstudy/reports.html
58. Walker KF, Sheldon F, Puckridge JT. 1995. A perspective on dryland river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers 11: 85-104.
59. Webb RH, Wegner DL, Andrews ED, Valdez RA, Patten DT. 1999. Downstream effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon-a review. In The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Webb RH, Schmidt JC, Marzolf GR, Valdez RA (eds). AGU Monograph 110: Washington, D.C; 1-21.
60. Williams JD, Warren Jr. ML, Cummings KS, Harris JL, Neves RJ. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22
61. Yoshiyama RM, Gerstung ER, Fisher FW, Moyle PB. 2001. Historical and present distribution of chinook salmon in the Central Valley drainage of California. In Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids, Brown R (ed). Fishery Bulletin 179: California Department of Fish and Game: Sacramento, California; 71-176.