Delineation and Validation of River Network Spatial Scales for Water Resources and Fisheries Management

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Lizhu Wang (12) wangl@windsor.ijc.org
  Travis Brenden (3)
  Yong Cao (4)
  Paul Seelbach (15)
• 关键词：River segment &#8211 ; Classification &#8211 ; Validation &#8211 ; Fish assemblage &#8211 ; Spatial scale &#8211 ; River network
• 刊名：Environmental Management
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：November 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：50
• 期：5
• 页码：875-887
• 全文大小：497.2 KB
• 参考文献：1. Anderson MJ (2001a) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32–46
  2. Anderson MJ (2001b) Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:626–639
  3. Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525
  4. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. Primer-E, Ltd., Plymouth
  5. Baker EA (2006) A landscape-based ecological classification system for river valley segments in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 2085, Ann Arbor. Available www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/Research/reports/2085rr.pdf, January 2008
  6. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish, 2nd edn. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, DC
  7. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2011) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-41. Available http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4, October 2011
  8. Ben-Dor A, Shamir R, Yahkini Z (1999) Clustering gene expression patterns. Journal of Computational Biology 6:281–297
  9. Bray RJ, Curtis IT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of south Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:325–349
  10. Brenden TO, Clark RD, Cooper AR, Seelbach PW, Wang L, Aichele SS, Bissell EG, Stewart JS (2006) A GIS framework for collecting, managing, and analyzing multi-scale landscape variables across large regions for river conservation and management. In: Hughes RM, Wang L, Seelbach PW (eds) Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 48, Bethesda
  11. Brenden TO, Wang L, Seelbach PW, Clark RD, Wiley MJ, Sparks-Jackson BL (2008a) A spatially-constrained clustering program for river valley segment delineation from GIS digital river networks. Environmental Modeling and Software 23:638–649
  12. Brenden TO, Wang L, Seelbach PW (2008b) A river valley segment classification of Michigan streams based on fish and physical attributes. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 137:1621–1636
  13. Cao Y, Epifanio J (2010) Quantifying the responses of macroinvertebrate assemblages to simulated stress: are more accurate similarity indices less useful? Methods in Ecological Evolution 1:380–388
  14. Cao Y, Larsen DP, Hughes R (2001) Evaluating sampling sufficiency in fish surveys: a similarity-based approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1782–1793
  15. Cao Y, Hawkins CP, Olsen J, Nelson M (2007) Modelling natural environmental gradients improves the accuracy and precision of diatom-based indicators for Idaho streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:566–585
  16. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth
  17. De’ath G (2002) Multivariate regression trees: a new technique for modeling species-environment relationships. Ecology 83:1105–1117
  18. ESRI (2002) PC ARC/GIS version 8.2. Environmental System Research Institute, Redlands
  19. Faith DO, Minchin PR, Belbin L (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:53–68
  20. 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
  21. Fayram AH, Miller MA, Colby AC (2005) Effects of stream order and ecoregion on variability in coldwater fish index of biotic integrity scores within streams in Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 20:17–25
  22. Ferguson RI, Cudden JR, Hoey TB, Rice SP (2006) River system discontinuities due to lateral inputs: generic styles and controls. Erath Surface Processes and Landforms 31:1149–1166
  23. Fitzmaurice GM, Lipsitz SR, Ibrahim JG (2007) A note on permutation tests for variance components in generalized linear mixed models. Biometrics 63:942–946
  24. Frissell CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD (1986) A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10:199–214
  25. Hamilton DA, Seelbach PW (2011) Michigan’s water withdrawal assessment process and internet screening tool. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 55, Ann Arbor
  26. Hawkins CP, Norris RH, Gerritsen J, Hughes RM, Jackson SK, Johnson RK, Stevenson RJ (2000) Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:541–556
  27. Hayes D, Baker DE, Bednarz R, Borgeson D, Braunscheidel J, Breck J, Bremigan M, Harrington A, Hay R, Lockwood R, Nuhfer A, Schneider J, Seelbach P, Waybrant J, Zorn T (2003) Developing a standardized sampling program: the Michigan experience. Fisheries 28(7):18–24
  28. Higgins JV, Duigan C (2009) So much to do, so little time: identifying properties for freshwater biodiversity conservation in the United States and Britain, Chap 4. In: Boon PJ, Pringle CM (eds) Assessing the conservation value of freshwaters. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 61–90
  29. Higgins J, Lammert M, Bryer M, DePhilip M, Grossman D (1998) Freshwater conservation in the Great Lakes Basin: development and application of an aquatic community classification framework. The Nature Conservancy, Chicago
  30. Higgins JV, Bryer MT, Khoury ML, Fitzhugh TW (2005) A freshwater classification approach for biodiversity conservation planning. Conservation Biology 19:432–445
  31. Hitt NP, Angermeier PL (2008) Evidence for fish dispersal from spatial analysis of stream network topology. Journal of North American Benthological Society 27:304–320
  32. Hynes HBN (1975) The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen der International Vereiniggung F眉r Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 19:1–15
  33. Karr JR, Chu EW (1999) Restoring life in running waters, better biological monitoring. Island Press, Covelo
  34. Kilgour BW, Stanfield LW (2006) Hindcasting reference conditions in streams. In: Hughes RM, Wang L, Seelbach PW (eds) Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 48, Bethesda
  35. Knispel S, Castella E (2003) Disruption of a longitudinal pattern in environmental factors and benthic fauna by a glacial tributary. Freshwater Biology 48:604–618
  36. Leathwick J, Snelder T, Chadderton W, Elith J, Julian K, Ferrier S (2011) Use of generalized dissimilarity modeling to improve the biological discrimination of river and stream classifications. Freshwater Biology 56:21–38
  37. Lyons J (1992) The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when fish species richness is estimated. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:198–203
  38. Lyons J, Wang L, Simonson TD (1996) Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for cold-water streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:241–256
  39. Lyons J, Zorn T, Stewart J, Seelbach PW, Wehrly K, Wang L (2009) Defining and characterizing coolwater streams and their fish assemblages in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:1130–1151
  40. Maxwell JR, Edwards CJ, Jensen ME, Paustian SJ, Parrott H, and Hill DM (1995) A hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological units in North America (Nearctic Zone). General Technical Report NC-176. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
  41. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297
  42. McCulloch CE, Searle SR (2001) Generalized, linear, and mixed models. Wiley, New York
  43. McKenna JE Jr, Steen PJ, Lyons J, Stewart J (2009) Applications of a broad-spectrum tool for conservation and fisheries analysis: aquatic gap analysis. GAP Analysis Bulletin 16:44–51
  44. Miller S, Higgins J, Perot J (1998) The classification of aquatic communities in the Illinois River watershed and their use in conservation planning. The Nature Conservancy of Illinois, Champaign
  45. Montgomery DR (1999) Process domains and the river continuum. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:397–410
  46. Pearson MS, Angradia TR, Bolgriena DW, Jichaa TM, Taylora DL, Moffetta MF, Hill BH (2011) Multimetric fish indices for midcontinent (USA) great rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140:1547–1564
  47. Poff NL (1997) Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:391–409
  48. Poole GC (2002) Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater Biology 47:641–660
  49. Pyne MI, Rader RB, Christensen WF (2007) Predicting local biological characteristics in streams: a comparison of landscape classifications. Freshwater Biology 52:1302–1321
  50. Rhoads BL (1987) Longitudinal variations in the size and sorting of bed material along six arid-region mountain streams. Catena Supplement 14:87–105
  51. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org
  52. Rice SP, Greenwood MT, Joyce CB (2001) Tributaries, sediment sources, and the longitudinal organization of macroinvertebrate fauna along river system. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:824–840
  53. Richards KS (1980) A note on changes in channel geometry at tributary junctions. Water Resources Research 16:241–244
  54. Seelbach PW, Wiley JM (1997) Overview of the Michigan rivers inventory project. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fish Division Technical Report 97-3, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available: www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/technical/reports/97-3tr.pdf
  55. Seelbach PW, Wiley MJ, Kotanchik JC, Baker ME (1997) A landscape-based ecological classification system for river valley segments in lower Michigan (MI-VSEC version 1.0). Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 2036, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  56. Seelbach PW, Lockwood RN, Ryckman JR (1994) Efficiency of sampling river fishes with rotenone. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Research Report 2009, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  57. Seelbach PW, Wiley MJ, Baker ME, Wehrly KE (2006) Initial classification of river valley segments across Michigan’s lower peninsula. In: Hughes RM, Wang L, Seelbach PW (eds) Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 48, Bethesda
  58. Seelbach PW, Hinz LC, Wiley MJ, Cooper AR (2010) Using multiple linear regression to estimate flow regimes for all rivers across, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Technical Report 2095, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  59. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf M, Shields FD, Rhoads B, McPhillips M (2007) Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated “natural channel design” methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:1117–1131
  60. Simon A, Doyle M, Kondolf M, Shields FD, Rhoads B, McPhillips M (2008) Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated ‘natural channel design’ methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel responses: reply to discussion. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44:793–802
  61. Snelder TH, Hughey KFD (2005) The use of an ecologic classification to improve water resource planning in New Zealand. Environmental Management 36:741–776
  62. Snelder T, Ortiz JB, Booker D, Lamouroux N, Pella H, Shankar U (2012) Can bottom-up procedures improve the performance of stream classifications? Aquatic Sciences 74:45–59
  63. Sowa SP, Annis G, Morey ME, Diamond DD (2007) A gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri. Ecological Monographs 77:301–334
  64. Stanford JA, Hauer FR, Ward JV (1988) Serial discontinuity in a large river system. Verhandlungen der International Vereiniggung F眉r Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 23:1114–1118
  65. Townsend CR (1989) The patch dynamics concept of stream community ecology. Journal of North America Benthological Society 8:36–50
  66. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37:130–137
  67. Wang L, Lyons J, Rasmussen P, Kanehl P, Seelbach PW, Simon T, Wiley M, Baker E, Niemela S, Stewart M (2003) Influences of landscape- and reach-scale habitat on stream fish communities in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60:491–505
  68. Wang L, Seelbach PW, Hughes RM (2006) Introduction to landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. In: Hughes RM, Wang L, Seelbach PW (eds) Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 48, Bethesda
  69. Wang L, Brenden TO, Seelbach PW, Cooper A, Allan D, Clark R, Wiley M (2008) Landscape based identification of human disturbance gradients and references for streams in Michigan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 141:1–17
  70. Wang L, Wehrly K, Breck J, Kraft LS (2010) Landscape based assessment of human disturbance for Michigan lakes. Environmental Management 46:471–483
  71. Wang L, Infante D, Esselman P, Cooper A, Wu D, Taylor W, Beard D, Whelan G, Ostroff A (2011) A hierarchical spatial framework and database for the national river fish habitat condition assessment. Fisheries 36:436–449
  72. Ward JV, Stanford JA (1983) The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. In: Fontaine TD, Bartell SM (eds) Dynamics of lotic ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc, Ann Arbor
  73. Ward JV, Stanford JA (1995) The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to floodplain rivers. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 10:159–168
  74. Warner SS, Fischer RU, Holtrop AM, Hinz LC, Novak JM (2010) Evaluating the Illinois stream valley segment model as an effective management tool. Environmental Management 46:761–770
  75. Wehrly KE, Wiley MJ, Seelbach PW (2003) Classifying regional variation in thermal regime based on stream fish community patterns. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:18–38
  76. Wehrly KE, Wiley MJ, Seelbach PW (2006) Influence of landscape features on summer water temperatures in lower Michigan streams. Pages 113–128 in Hughes RM, Wang L, Seelbach PW (eds) Influences of landscapes on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society 131, pp 70–85
  77. Wehrly KE, Brenden TO, Wang L (2009) A comparison of statistical approaches for predicting stream temperatures across heterogeneous landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45:986–997
  78. Zorn TG, Seelbach PW, Wiley MJ (2011) Developing user-friendly habitat suitability tools from regional stream fish survey data. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31:1–41
• 作者单位：1. Institute for Fisheries Research, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, 1109N University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA2. Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission, 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor, Windsor, ON N9A 6T3, Canada3. Quantitative Fisheries Center, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 153 Giltner Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1101, USA4. Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, 1816 S Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA5. Great Lakes Science Center, US Geological Survey, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA
• ISSN：1432-1009

文摘

Identifying appropriate spatial scales is critically important for assessing health, attributing data, and guiding management actions for rivers. We describe a process for identifying a three-level hierarchy of spatial scales for Michigan rivers. Additionally, we conduct a variance decomposition of fish occurrence, abundance, and assemblage metric data to evaluate how much observed variability can be explained by the three spatial scales as a gage of their utility for water resources and fisheries management. The process involved the development of geographic information system programs, statistical models, modification by experienced biologists, and simplification to meet the needs of policy makers. Altogether, 28,889 reaches, 6,198 multiple-reach segments, and 11 segment classes were identified from Michigan river networks. The segment scale explained the greatest amount of variation in fish abundance and occurrence, followed by segment class, and reach. Segment scale also explained the greatest amount of variation in 13 of the 19 analyzed fish assemblage metrics, with segment class explaining the greatest amount of variation in the other six fish metrics. Segments appear to be a useful spatial scale/unit for measuring and synthesizing information for managing rivers and streams. Additionally, segment classes provide a useful typology for summarizing the numerous segments into a few categories. Reaches are the foundation for the identification of segments and segment classes and thus are integral elements of the overall spatial scale hierarchy despite reaches not explaining significant variation in fish assemblage data.