Environmental Management

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 689–705 | Cite as

Relations of fish community composition to environmental variables in streams of central Nebraska, USA

  • Steven A. Frenzel
  • Robert B. Swanson
Research

Abstract

Nine sites on streams in the Platte River Basin in central Nebraska were sampled as part of the US Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment Program during 1993–1994. A combination of canonical correspondence analysis and an index of biotic integrity determined from fish community data produced complementary evaluations of water-quality conditions. Results of the canonical correspondence analysis were useful in showing which environmental variables were significant in differentiating fish communities at the nine sites. Five environmental variables were statistically significant in the analysis. Median specific conductance of water samples collected at a site accounted for the largest amount of variability in the species data. Although the percentage of the basin as cropland was not the first variable chosen in a forward selection process, it was the most strongly correlated with the first ordination axis. A rangeland-dominated site was distinguished from all others along that axis. Median orthophosphate concentration of samples collected in the year up to the time of fish sampling was most strongly correlated with the second ordination axis. The index of biotic integrity produced results that could be interpreted in terms of the relative water quality between sites. Sites draining nearly 100% cropland had the lowest scores for two individual metrics of the index of biotic integrity that were related to species tolerance. Effective monitoring of water quality could be achieved by coupling methods that address both the ecological components of fish communities and their statistical relationships to environmental factors.

Key words

Canonical correspondence analysis Fish communities Environmental variables Index of biotic integrity National Water-Quality Assessment Program Nebraska 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological condition.In W. S. Davis, and T. P. Simon (eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  2. Berkman, H. E., C. F. Rabeni, and T. P. Boyle. 1986. Biomonitors of stream quality in agricultural areas: Fish versus invertebrates.Environmental Management 10:413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boohar, J. A., C. G. Hoy, and G. V. Steele. 1994. Water resources data, Nebraska, water year 1993. US Geological Survey Water-Data Report NE-93-1, 403 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, T. K., and G. D. Glysson. 1988. Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-531, 118 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Fausch, K. D., and R. G. Bramblett. 1991. Disturbance and fish communities in intermittent tributaries of a western Great Plains river.Copeia 1991:659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fausch, K. D., J. R. Karr, and P. R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fausch, K. D., J. Lyons, J. R. Karr, and P. L. Angermeier. 1990. Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation.American Fisheries Society Symposium 8:123–144.Google Scholar
  8. Hawkes, C. L., D. L. Miller, and W. G. Layher. 1986. Fish ecoregions of Kansas: Stream fish assemblage patterns and associated environmental correlates.Environmental Biology of Fishes 17:267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirsch, R. M., W. M. Alley, and W. G. Wilber, 1988. Concepts for a National Water-Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Circular 1021, 42 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Huntzinger, T. L., and M. J. Ellis. 1993. Central Nebraska river basins, Nebraska.Water Resources Bulletin 29:533–574.Google Scholar
  11. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.Fisheries (Bethesda) 6(6):21–27.Google Scholar
  12. Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long neglected aspect of water resources management.Ecological Applications 1:66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running water: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No. 5, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Karr, J. R., P. R. Yant, K. D. Fausch, and I. J. Schlosser. 1987. Spatial and temporal variability of the Index of Biotic Integrity in three midwestern streams.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leahy, P. P., J. S. Rosenshein, and D. S. Knopman. 1990. Implementation plan for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Open-File report 90-174, 10 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Lenat, D. R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates.Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matthews, W. J., D. J. Hough, and H. W. Robison. 1992. Similarities in fish distribution and water quality patterns in streams of Arkansas: Congruence of multivariate analyses.Copeia 1992:296–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meador, M. R., T. F. Cuffney, and M. E. Gurtz. 1993a. Methods for sampling fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-104, 40 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Meador, M. R., C. R. Hupp, T. F. Cuffney, and M. E. Gurtz. 1993b. Methods for characterizing stream habitat as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-408, 48 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Menzel, B. W., J. B. Barnum, and L. M. Antosch. 1984. Ecological alterations of Iowa prairie streams.Iowa State Journal of Research 59:5–30.Google Scholar
  21. Moyle, P. B. 1994. Biodiversity, Biomonitoring, and the Structure of stream fish communities.In: S. L. Loeb and A. Spacie (eds.), Biological monitoring of aquatic systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  22. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control. 1991. Nebraska stream classification study. Surface Water Section, Water Quality Division, Lincoln, Nebraska, 342 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/444/4-89-001.Google Scholar
  24. Poff, N. L., and J. D. Allan. 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability.Ecology 76:606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poff, N. L., and J. V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: A regional analysis of streamflow patterns.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1805–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Resh, V. H., and J. K. Jackson. 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates.In D. M. Rosenberg, and V. H. Resh (eds.), Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, S. R. Reice, A. L. Sheldon, J. B. Wallace, and R. C. Wissmar. 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology.Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richards, Carl, G. E. Host, and J. W. Arthur. 1993. Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment.Freshwater Biology 29:285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rohm, C. M., J. W. Giese, and C. C. Bennett, 1987. Evaluation of an aquatic ecoregion classification of streams in Arkansas.Journal of Freshwater Ecology 4:127–140.Google Scholar
  30. Ross, S. T., W. J. Matthews, and A. A. Echelle. 1985. Persistence of stream fish assemblages: Effects of environmental change.American Naturalist 126:24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruhl, P. M. 1994. Surface-water-quality assessment of the upper Illinois River basin in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin: Analysis of relations between fish-community structure and environmental conditions in the Fox, Des Plaines, and Du Page river basins in Illinois, 1982–84. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4094, 50 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Schlosser, I. J. 1985. Flow regime, juvenile abundance, and the assemblage structure of stream fishes.Ecology 66:1484–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlosser, I. J. 1990. Environmental variation, life history attributes, and community structure in stream fishes: Implications for environmental management and assessment.Environmental Management 14:621–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shelton, L. R. 1994. Field guide for collecting and processing stream-water samples for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-455, 65 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Sousa, W. P. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15:353–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ter Braak, C. J. F. 1985. Weighted averaging of species indictor values: Its efficiency in environmental calibration.Biometrics 41:859–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ter Braak, C. J. F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: A new eigenvector method for multivariate direct gradient analysis.Ecology 67:1167–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ter Braak, C. J. F. 1988. CANOCO—A FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination by [partial] [detrended] [canonical] correspondence analysis, principal components analysis and redundancy analysis (version 2.1). Agricultural Mathematics Group, The Netherlands, Technical Report LWA-88-02, 95 pp.Google Scholar
  39. US Geological Survey. 1986. Land use and land cover digital data from 1:250,000- and 1:1,000,000-scale maps: Data users guide. Reston, Virginia, 36 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Wells, F. C., W. J. Gibbons, and M. E. Dorsey, 1990. Guidelines for collection and field analysis of water-quality samples from streams in Texas. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-127, 79 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Whittier, T. R., R. M. Hughes, and D. P. Larsen, 1988. Correspondence between ecoregions and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1264–1278.Google Scholar
  42. Wright, J. F., D. Moss, P. D. Armitage, and M. T. Furse. 1984. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data.Freshwater Biology 14:221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 718 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven A. Frenzel
    • 1
  • Robert B. Swanson
    • 1
  1. 1.US Geological SurveyLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations