Landscape Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 141–156 | Cite as

Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales

  • Nancy E. Roth
  • J. David Allan
  • Donna L. Erickson


The biological integrity of stream ecosystems depends critically on human activities that affect land use/cover along stream margins and possibly throughout the catchment. We evaluated stream condition using an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and a habitat index (HI), and compared these measures to landscape and riparian conditions assessed at different spatial scales in a largely agricultural Midwestern watershed. Our goal was to determine whether land use/cover was an effective predictor of stream integrity, and if so, at what spatial scale. Twenty-three sites in first-through third-order headwater streams were surveyed by electrofishing and site IBIs were calculated based on ten metrics of the fish collection. Habitat features were characterized through field observation, and site HIs calculated from nine instream and bank metrics. Field surveys, aerial photograph interpretation, and geographic information system (GIS) analyses provided assessments of forested land and other vegetation covers at the local, reach, and regional (catchment) scales.

The range of conditions among the 23 sites varied from poor to very good based on IBI and HI scores, and habitat and fish assemblage measures were highly correlated. Stream biotic integrity and habitat quality were negatively correlated with the extent of agriculture and positively correlated with extent of wetlands and forest. Correlations were strongest at the catchment scale (IBI with % area as agriculture, r2=0.50, HI with agriculture, r2=0.76), and tended to become weak and non-significant at local scales. Local riparian vegetation was a weak secondary predictor of stream integrity. In this watershed, regional land use is the primary determinant of stream conditions, able to overwhelm the ability of local site vegetation to support high-quality habitat and biotic communities.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J.R., Harvey, E.H., Roach, J.T. and Whitman, R.E. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, D.R., Taylor, W.D. and Biette, R.M. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt 5: 364–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  4. Berkman, H.E. and Rabeni, C.F. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Envir. Biol. Fishes 18: 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delong, M.D. and Brusven, M.A. 1993. Storage and decomposition of particulate organic matter along the longitudinal gradient of an agriculturally-impacted stream. Hydrobiol. 262: 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delong, M.D. and Brusven, M.A. 1991. Classification and spatial mapping of riparian habitat with applications toward management of streams impacted by nonpoint source pollution. Environ. Mgmt. 15: 565–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Detenbeck, N.E., DeVore, P.W., Niemi, G.J. and Lima, A. 1992. Recovery of temperate-stream fish communities from disturbance: a review of case studies and synthesis of theory. Environ. Mgmt. 16: 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fausch, K.D., Lyons J., Karr, J.R. and Angermeier, P.L. 1990. Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation.In: S.M. Adams (ed.), Biological indicators of stress in fish. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 8: 123–144.Google Scholar
  9. Fausch, K.D. and Northcote, T.G. 1992. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small coastal British Columbia stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frissell, C.A., Liss, W.J., Warren, C.E. and Hurley, M.D. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ. Mgmt. 10: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gatz, A.J. Jr. and Harig, A.L. 1993. Decline in the Index of Biotic Integrity of Delaware Run, Ohio, over 50 years. Ohio J. Sci. 93: 95–100.Google Scholar
  12. Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A. and Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: Focus on links between land and water. BioScience 41: 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Appl. 1: 66–84.Google Scholar
  14. Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R. and Schlosser, I.J. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. 28 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Karr, J.R. and Schlosser, I.J. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science 201: 229–234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Karr, J.R., Toth, L.A. and Dudley, D.R. 1985. Fish communities of Midwestern rivers: a history of degradation. BioScience 35: 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowrance, R., Todd, R., Fail J. Jr., Hendrickson, O. Jr., Leonard, R. and Asmussen, L. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34: 374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsh, P.C. and Luey, J.E. 1982. Oases for aquatic life within agricultural watersheds. Fisheries 7(6): 16–19, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matthews, W.J. 1987. Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.Google Scholar
  20. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1991. Qualitative biological and habitat survey protocols for wadable streams and rivers. GLEAS procedure No. 51. Michigan DNR, Surface Water Quality Division, Great Lakes Environmental Assessment Section.Google Scholar
  21. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1990. Current use inventory: Data collection procedures and definitions. Michigan Resources Inventory Program, Michigan DNR, Land and Water Management Division.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, R.R., Williams, J.D. and Williams, J.E. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14(6):22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Petersen, R.C., Cushing, C.E., Bruns, D.A., Sedell, J.R. and Vannote, R.L. 1985. Developments in stream ecosystem theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 1045–1055.Google Scholar
  24. Naiman, R.J. (ed.). 1992. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Naiman, R.J., Decamps, H. and Pollock, M. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3: 209–212.Google Scholar
  26. O'Neill, R.V., Johnson, A.R. and King, A.W. 1989. A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landscape Ecology 3: 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ohio E.P.A. 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume III. Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assesing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  28. Omernik, J.M., Abernathy, A.R. and Male, L.M. 1981. Stream nutrient levels and proximity of agricultural and forest land to streams: some relationships. J. of Soil and Water Conservation 36: 227–231.Google Scholar
  29. Osborne, L.L. and Kovacic, D.A. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwat. Biol. 29: 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osborne, L.L. and Wiley, M.J. 1988. Empirical relationships between land use/cover and stream water quality in an agricultural watershed. J. Envir. Mgmt. 26: 9–27.Google Scholar
  31. Peterjohn, W.T. and Correll, D.L. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecol. 65: 1466–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petersen, R.C. Jr. 1992. The RCE: a riparian, channel and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshwat. Biol. 27: 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petersen, R.C. Jr., Madsen, B.L., Wilzbach, M.A., Magadza, C.H.D., Paarlberg, A., Kullberg, A. and Cummins, K.W. 1987. Stream management: emerging global similarities. Ambio 16: 166–179.Google Scholar
  34. Platts, W.S., Megahan, W.F. and Minshall, G.W. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-138.Google Scholar
  35. Roth, N.E. 1994. Land use, riparian vegetation, and stream ecosystem integrity in an agricultural watershed. M.S. thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  36. Schlosser, I.J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. BioScience 41: 704–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlosser, I.J. 1982. Fish community structure and function along two habitat gradients in a headwater stream. Ecol. Monogr. 52: 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scott, W.B. and Crossman, E.J. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. 966 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Sedell, J.R., Reeves, G.H., Hauer, F.R., Stanford, J.A. and Hawkins, C.P. 1990. Role of refugia in recovery from disturbances: modern fragmented and disconnected river systems. Environ. Mgmt. 14: 711–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, G.R., Taylor, J.N. and Grimshaw, T.W. 1981. Ecological survey of fishes in the Raisin River drainage, Michigan. Michigan Academician 13: 275–305.Google Scholar
  41. Steedman, R.J., 1988. Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in southern Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 492–501.Google Scholar
  42. Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 38(6):913–920.Google Scholar
  43. Sweeney, B.W. 1992. Streamside forest and the physical, chemical, and trophic characteristics of Piedmont streams in eastern North America. Water Sci. Tech. 26: 2653–2673.Google Scholar
  44. Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. 782 pp.Google Scholar
  45. Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R. and Cushing, C.E. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Hughes, R.M., Rohm, C.M., Gallant, A.L. and Omernik, J.M. 1987. The Ohio stream regionalization project: a compendium of results. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-87/025. 66 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Yant, P. and Humphries, J. 1980 manuscript. Fish faunal changes in the Huron River, southeastern Michigan, 1938–1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy E. Roth
    • 1
  • J. David Allan
    • 1
  • Donna L. Erickson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations