Long-term implications of dam removal for macroinvertebrate communities in Michigan and Wisconsin Rivers, United States

River Research and Applications

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1540-1550

  Hansen, Jonathan F ^a,b   Hayes, Daniel B ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Dam removal; Long term; Macroinvertebrates; Michigan; Wisconsin

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY DYNAMICS; COMMUNITY RESPONSE; DAM REMOVAL; HABITAT RESTORATION; MACROINVERTEBRATE; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPECIES RICHNESS;

MICHIGAN; UNITED STATES; WISCONSIN;

HEXAPODA;

EID: 84868002692     PISSN: 15351459     EISSN: 15351467     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rra.1540     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. American Rivers. 2007. http://www.americanrivers.org/ [accessed on 27 May 2009].
2. Anderson RO. 1959. A modified flotation technique for sorting bottom fauna samples. Limnology and Oceanogrophy 4: 223-225.
3. Baxter RM. 1977. Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8: 255-283.
4. Bednarek AT. 2001. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management 27: 803-814.
5. Born SM, Genskow KD, Filbert TF, Hernandez-Mora N, Keefer ML, White KA. 1998. Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: the Wisconsin experience. Environmental Management 22: 359-370.
6. Bouchard Jr. RW. 2004. Guide to Aquatic Invertebrates of the Upper Midwest. University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN.
7. Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 46: 327-354.
8. Burroughs BA, Hayes DB, Klomp KD, Hansen JF, Mistak J. 2009. Effects of Stronach Dam removal on fluvial geomorphology in the Pine River, Michigan, United States. Geomorphology. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.03.019.
9. Burroughs BA, Hayes DB, Klomp KD, Hansen JF, Mistak J. 2010. The effects of the Stronach Dam removal on fish in the Pine River, Manistee County, Michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139: 1595-1613.
10. Bushaw-Newton KL, Hart DD, Pizzuto JE, Thomson JR, Egan J, Ashley JT, Johnson TE, Horwitz RJ, Keeley M, Lawrence J, Charles D, Gatenby C, Kreeger DA, Nightengale T, Thomas RL, Velinsky DJ. 2002. An integrative approach towards understanding ecological responses to dam removal: the Manatawny Creek Study. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38: 1581-1599.
11. Carter JL, Resh VH, Hannaford MJ, Myers MJ. 2006. Macroinvertebrates as biotic indicators of environmental quality. In Methods in Stream Ecology, Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds). Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands; 877pp.; 805-834.
12. Casper AF, Thorp JH, Davies SP, Courtemanch DL. 2006. Ecological responses of zoobenthos to dam removal in the Kennebec River, Maine, USA. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie. Supplemental: Large rivers 16: 541-555.
13. Cattalano MJ, Bozek MA, Pellett TD. 2007. Effects of dam removal on fish assemblage structure and spatial distributions in the Baraboo River, Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 519-530.
14. Clarke KR, Warwick RM. 1994. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory: Plymouth.
15. Cummins KW. 1962. An evaluation of some techniques for the collection and analysis of benthic samples with special emphasis on lotic waters. American Midland Naturalist 67: 477-504.
16. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Harbor JM. 2003. Channel adjustments following two dam removals in Wisconsin. Water Resources Research 39: 1-15.
17. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Orr CH, Selle AR, Sethi SA, Harbor JM. 2005. Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: lessons from the heartland. Geomorphology 71: 227-244.
18. Google Inc. 2010. Google Earth (Version 6.0.1.2032 (beta)). Mountain View, CA. http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. Accessed 5 April, 2011.
19. Hanshue S. 2006. Michigan Dam Removal Case Studies. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Habitat Management Unit: Lansing, Michigan, USA.
20. Harding JS, Benfield EF, Bolstand PV, Helfman GS, Jones III EBD. 1998. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 14843-14847.
21. Hart DH, Johnson TE, Bushaw-Newton KL, Horwitz RJ, Bednarek AT, Charles DF, Kreeger DL, Velinsky DJ. 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. Bioscience 52: 669-681.
22. Heinz Center, The. 2002. Dam removal: science and decision making, ed. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment: Washington, D.C.
23. Hicks BJ, Watson NRN. 1985. Seasonal changes in abundance of brown trout and rainbow trout assessed by drift diving in the Rangitkei River, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 19: 1-10.
24. Kanehl PD, Lyons J, Nelson JE. 1997. Changes in the habitat and fish community of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 387-400.
25. Ligon FK, Dietrich WE. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams. Bioscience 45: 183-192.
26. Merritt RW, Cummins KW. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, Third Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, IA.
27. Merritt RW, Cummins KW. 2006. Trophic relations of aquatic invertebrates. In Methods in Stream Ecology, Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (eds). Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands; 877pp.; pp. 585-609.
28. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, ed. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
29. Orr CH, Stanley EH. 2006. Vegetation development and restoration potential of drained reservoirs following dam removal in Wisconsin. River Research and Applications 22: 281-295.
30. Orr CH, Kroiss SJ, Rogers KL, Stanley EH. 2008. Downstream benthic responses to small dam removal in a coldwater stream. River Research and Applications 24: 804-822.
31. Pickett STA. 1989. Space-for-time substitution as an alternative to long-term studies. In Long-Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives, Likens GE (ed.). Spring-Verlag: New York; 110-135.
32. Pollard AI, Reed T. 2004. Benthic invertebrate assemblage change following dam removal in a Wisconsin stream. Hydrobiologia 513: 51-58.
33. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org.
34. River Alliance of Wisconsin. 2005. List of Wisconsin dams intentionally removed since 1950. www.wisconsinrivers.org [accessed on 20 November 2006].
35. River Alliance of Wisconsin and Trout Unlimited. 2000. A citizen's guide to restoring rivers.
36. Stanley EH, Doyle MW. 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 15-22.
37. Stanley EH, Luebke MA, Doyle MW, Marshall DW. 2002. Short-term changes in channel form and macroinvertebrate communities following low-head dam removal. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 172-187.
38. Thomson JR, Hart DD, Charles DF, Nightengale TL, Winter DM. 2005. Effects of removal of a small dam on downstream macroinvertebrate and algal assemblages in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 192-207.
39. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1998. United States Army Corps of Engineers: National Inventory of Dams. http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/nid.cfm [accessed on 14 November 2006].
40. Venables WN, Ripley BD. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth edition. Springer: New York, New York, USA; 175-176.
41. Wallace JB. 1990. Recovery of lotic macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance. Environmental Management 14: 605-620.
42. Ward JV, Stanford JA. 1983. The serial continuity concept of lotic ecosystems. In Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems, Fontain TD, Bartell SM (eds). Ann Arbor Science: Ann Arbor, MI; 29-42.