Dam removal increases American Rel abundance in distant headwater streams

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

Volumn 141, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1171-1179

  Hitt, Nathaniel P ^a   Eyler, Sheila ^b   Wofford, John E B ^c  

^a LEETOWN SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^b U S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE   (United States)

^c NATIONAL PARK SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; CONNECTIVITY; DAM REMOVAL; EEL; FECUNDITY; HEADWATER; MIGRATORY POPULATION; POPULATION DECLINE; POPULATION GROWTH; STREAMWATER;

SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK; UNITED STATES; VIRGINIA;

ANGUILLA; ANGUILLA ROSTRATA;

EID: 84868110948     PISSN: 00028487     EISSN: 15488659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2012.675918     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. ASMFC(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2000. Interstate fishery management plan for American eel (Anguilla rostrata). ASMFC, Fisheries Management Report 36, Washington, D.C.
2. Atkinson, J. B. 2002. Shenandoah National Park fisheries: monitoring protocol. Shenandoah National Park, Luray, Virginia.
3. Bain, M. B., and N. J. Stevenson, editors. 1999. Aquatic habitat assessment: common methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
4. Barbin, G. P., and J. D.McCleave. 1997. Fecundity of the American eel Anguilla rostrata at 45 N in Maine, U.S.A. Journal of Fish Biology 51:840-847.
5. Bednarek, A. T. 2001. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management 27:803-814.
6. Box, G. E. P., G. M. Jenkins, and G. C. Reinsel. 2008. Time series analysis: forecasting and control, 4th edition. Wiley, New York.
7. Busch, W. D. N., S. J. Lary, and C. M. Castiglione. 1998. Evaluating stream habitat for diadromous fish in Atlantic coast watersheds: a preliminary assessment. Habitat Hotline Atlantic (November):1-3.
8. Catalano, M. J., M. A. Bozek, and T. D. Pellett. 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.
9. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of EndangeredWildlife in Canada). 2006. Assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada. COSEWIC, Ottawa.
10. Domingos, I., J. L. Costa, and M. J. Costa. 2006. Factors determining length distribution and abundance of the European eel, Anguilla anguilla, in the River Mondego (Portugal). Freshwater Biology 51:2265-2281.
11. Fausch, K. D., B. E. Rieman, J. B. Dunham, M. K. Young, and D. P. Peterson. 2009. Invasion versus isolation: trade-offs in managing native salmonids with barriers to upstream movement. Conservation Biology 23:859-870.
12. Feeney, B. 2004. Embrey Dam removal opens 100s of miles of river to fish. Chesapeake Bay Journal 14(2):5.
13. Fenske, K. H., M. J. Wilberg, D. H. Secor, and M. C. Fabrizio. 2011. An ageand sex-structured assessment model of American eels (Anguilla rostrata) in the Potomac River, Maryland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:1024-1037.
14. Goodwin, K. R., and P. L. Angermeier. 2003. Demographic characteristics of American eel in the Potomac River drainage, Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:524-535.
15. Goodwin, K. R., P. L. Angermeier, and D. J. Orth. 1999. Assessing impacts of hydropower dams on upstream migration of American eel. Final Report to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia.
16. Haro, A., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W. D. Busch, S. Lary, T. Brush, and D. Dixon. 2000. Population decline of the American eel: implications for research and management. Fisheries 25(9):7-16.
17. Hart, D. D., T. E. Johnson, K. L. Bushaw-Newton, R. J. Horowitz, A. T. Bednarek, D. F. Charles, D. A. Kreeger, and D. J. Velinsky. 2002. Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. BioScience 52:669-681.
18. Hill, M. J., E. A. Long, and S. Hardin. 1996. Effects of a dam removal on Dead Lake, Chipola River, Florida. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 48(1994): 512-523.
19. Hitt, N. P., and P. L. Angermeier. 2008. Evidence for fish dispersal from spatial analysis of stream network topology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:304-320.
20. Hitt, N. P., and P. L. Angermeier. 2011. Fish community and bioassessment responses to stream network position. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30:296-309.
21. Jenkins, R. E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
22. Jessop, B. M. 2010. Geographic effects on American eel (Anguilla rostrata) life history characteristics and strategies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:326-346.
23. Kendall, M. G. 1975. Rank correlation methods. Griffin Publishers, London.
24. Kiffney, P. M., G. R. Pess, J. H. Anderson, P. Faulds, K. Burton, and S. C. Riley. 2009. Changes in fish communities following recolonization of the Cedar River,WA, USA by Pacific salmon after 103 years of local extirpation. River Research and Applications 25:438-452.
25. Koutroumanidis, T., L. S. Iiadis, and G. K. Sylaios. 2006. Time-series modeling of fishery landings using ARIMA models and fuzzy expected intervals software. Environmental Modelling and Software 21:1711-1721.
26. Krueger, W. H., and K. Oliveira. 1999. Evidence for environmental sex determination in the American eel, Anguilla rostrata. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55:381-398.
27. Lookabaugh, P. S., and P. L. Angermeier. 1992. Diet patterns of American eel, Anguilla rostrata, in the James River drainage,Virginia. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7:425-431.
28. Machut, L. S., K. E. Limburg, R. E. Schmidt, and D. Dittman. 2007. Anthropogenic impacts on American eel demographics in Hudson River tributaries, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1699-1713.
29. Mann, H. B. 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13:245-259.
30. MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). 2010. Maryland biological stream survey, sampling manual: field protocols. MDNR, Report 12-2162007-19, Annapolis.
31. Ogden, J. C. 1970. Relative abundance, food habits, and age of the American eel, Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur), in certain New Jersey streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:54-59.
32. Oliveira, K. 1999. Life history characteristics and strategies of the American eel, Anguilla rostrata. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:795-802.
33. Poff, N. L., and D. D. Hart. 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience 52:659-668.
34. Power, M. E., W. J. Matthews, and A. J. Stewart. 1985. Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and stream algae: dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecology 66:1448-1456.
35. Pringle, C. M. 1997. Exploring how disturbance is transmitted upstream: going against the flow. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:425-438.
36. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available: www.R-project.org/. (October 2011).
37. Reed, E. B., and G. Bear. 1966. Benthic animals and foods eaten by brook trout in Archuleta Creek, Colorado. Hydrobiologia 27:227-237.
38. Shmida, A., and M. V. Wilson. 1985. Biological determinants of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography 12:1-20.
39. Smith,M.W., and J.W. Saunders. 1955. The American eel in certain freshwaters of the maritime provinces of Canada. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 12:238-269.
40. Smogor, R. A., P. L. Angermeier, and C. K. Gaylord. 1995. Distribution and abundance of American eels in Virginia streams: tests of null models across spatial scales. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:789-803.
41. Stanley, E. H., and M. W. Doyle. 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:15-22.
42. Tuckey, T. D., andM. C. Fabrizio. 2010. Estimating relative juvenile abundance of ecologically important finfish in the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay. Annual Report to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Project F-104-R-14, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point.
43. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the American eel as threatened. Federal Register 76:189(29 September 2011):60431-60444.
44. Watters, G. T. 1996. Small dams as barriers to freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Unionoida) and their hosts. Biological Conservation 75:79-85.
45. Wentworth, C. K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments.Journal of Geology 30:377-392.
46. Wiley, D. J., R. P. Morgan II, R. H. Hilderbrand, R. L. Raesly, and D. L. Shumway. 2004. Relations between physical habitat and American eel abundance in five river basins inMaryland. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 133:515-526.
47. Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
48. Winston, M. R., C. M. Taylor, and J. Pigg. 1991. Upstream extirpation of four minnow species due to damming of a prairie stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:98-105.
49. Yue, S., and C. Wang. 2004. The Mann-Kendall test modified by effective sample size to detect trend in serially correlated hydrological series. Water Resources Management 18:201-218.
50. Zhang, G. P. 2003. Time series forecasting using a hybrid ARIMA and neural network model. Neurocomputing 50:159-175.