Estuaries

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 776–785

Fish community ecology in an Altered River delta: Spatial patterns in species composition, life history strategies, and biomass

  • Matthew L. Nobriga
  • Frederick Feyrer
  • Randall D. Baxter
  • Michael Chotkowski
Article

Abstract

We sampled nearshore fishes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, United States, during 2001 and 2003 with beach seines and gill nets. We addressed three questions. How and why did fish assemblages vary, and what local habitat features best explained the variation? Did spatial variation in assemblages reflect greater success of particular life history strategies? Did fish biomass vary among years or, across habitats? Nonmetric multidimensional scaling showed that habitat variables had more influence on fish assemblages than temporal variables. Results from both gear types indicated fish assemblages varied between Sacramento and San Joaquin River sampling sites. Results from gill net sampling were less pronounced than those from beach seine sampling. The Sacramento and San Joaquin river sites differed most notably in terms of water clarity and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), suggesting a link between these habitat characteristics and fish relative abundance. Among-site differences in the relative abundance of periodic and equilibrium strategist species suggested a gradient in the importance of abiotic versus biotic community structuring mechanisms. Fish biomass varied among years, but was generally higher in SAV-dominated habitats than the turbid, open habitats in which we found highest abundances of striped bassMorone saxatilis and special-status native fishes such as delta smeltHypomesus transpacificus, Chinook salmonOncorhyncus tschawytscha, and splittailPogonichthys macrolepidotus. The low abundance of special-status fishes in the comparatively productive SAV-dominated habitats suggests these species would benefit more from large-scale restoration actions that result in abiotic variability that mirrors natural river-estuary habitat than from actions that emphasize local (site-specific) productivity.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Arthur, J. F., M. D. Ball, andM. Y. Baughman. 1996. Summary of federal and state water project environmental impacts in the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, California, p. 445–495.In J. T. Hollibaugh (ed.), San Francisco Bay: The Ecosystem. Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. A., W. J. Kimmerer, andJ. R. Burau. 2002. Plasticity in vertical migration by native and exotic estuarine fishes in a dynamic low-salinity zone.Limnology and Ocenaography 47:1496–1507.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, W. A. andP. B. Moyle. 1996. Where have all the fishes gone? Interactive factors producing fish declines in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, p. 519–542.In J. T. Hollibaugh (ed.), San Francisco Bay: The Ecoseystem, Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  4. Borg, I. andP. Groenen. 1997. Modern Multidimensional Scaling. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, L. R. 2003. Will tidal wetland restoration enhance populations of native fishes?San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol1/iss1/art2.Google Scholar
  6. Bulger, A. J., B. P. Hayden, M. E. Monaco, D. M. Nelson, andM. G. McCormick-Ray. 1993. Biologically-based estuarine salinity zones derived from a multivariate analysis.Estuaries 16:311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, K. R. andR. N. Gorley. 2001. Primer v5: User Manual/Tutorial. Primer-E Ltd. Plymouth, U.K.Google Scholar
  8. Dauvin, J.-C. andJ. J. Dodson. 1990. Relationship between feeding incidence and vertical and longitudinal distribution of rainbow smelt larvae (Osmerus mordax) in a turbid well-mixed estuary.Marine Ecology Progress Series 60:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day, Jr.,J. W., D. Pont, P. F. Hensel, andC. Ibañez. 1995. Impacts of sea-level rise on deltas in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean: The importance of pulsing events to sustainability.Estuaries 18:636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feyrer, F. andM. P. Healey. 2003. Fish community structure and environmental correlates in the highly altered southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.Environmental Biology of Fishes 66:123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feyrer, F., B. Herbold, S. A. Matern, andP. B. Moyle. 2003. Dietary shifts in a stressed fish assemblage: Consequences of a bivalve invasion in the San Francisco Estuary.Environmental Biology of Fishes 67:277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregory, R. S. andC. D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific salmon.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grimaldo, L. F., R. E. Miller, C. M. Peregrin, and Z. P. Hymanson. 2004. Spatial and temporal distributio of native and alien ichthyoplankton in three habitat types of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, p. 81–96.In F. Feyrer, L. R. Brown, R. L. Brown, and J. J. Orsi (eds.), Early life history of fishes in the San Francisco Estuary and watershed. American Fisheries Society Symposium 39, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  14. Henderson, P. A. andM. Corps. 1997. The role of temperature and cannibalism in interannual recruitment variation of bass in British waters.Journal of Fish Biology 50:280–295.Google Scholar
  15. Houde, E. D. andE. S. Rutherford. 1993. Recent trends in estuarine fisheries: Predictions of fish production and yield.Estuaries 16:161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurst, T. P., K. A. McKown, andD. O. Conover. 2004. Interannual and long-term variation in the nearshore fish community of the mesohaline Hudson River Estuary.Estuaries 27:659–669.Google Scholar
  17. Jassby, A. D., J. E. Cloern, andB. E. Cole. 2002. Annual primary production: Patterns and mechanisms of change in a nutrient-rich tidal ecosystem.Limnology and Oceanography 47:698–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jassby, A. D., W. J. Kimmerer, S. G. Monismith, C. Armor, J. E. Cloern, T. M. Powell, J. R. Schubel, andT. J. Vedlinski. 1995. Isohaline position as a habitat indicator for estuarine populations.Ecological Applications 5:272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kimmerer, W. J. 2002. Physical, biological, and management responses to variable freshwater flow into the San Francisco Estuary.Estuaries 25:1275–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimmerer, W., S. R. Avent, S. M. Bollens, F. Feyrer, L. F. Grimaldo, P. B. Moyle, M. Nobriga, andT. Visintainer. 2005. Variability of length-weight relationships used to estimate biomass of estuariee fishes from survey data.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kimmerer, W. J. andJ. J. Orsi. 1996. Changes in the zooplankton of the San Francisco Bay Estuary since the introduction of the clamPotamocorbula amurensis, p. 403–424.In J. T. Hollibaugh (ed.), San Francisco Bay: The Ecosystem. Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  22. Labbe, T. R. andK. D. Fausch. 2000. Dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate persistence of a threatened fish at multiple scales.Ecological Applications 10:1774–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, Jr.,W. M. 1978. Comparison of temporal and spatial variation in the zooplankton of a lake by means of variance components.Limnology of Oceanography 59:666–671.Google Scholar
  24. Livingston, R. J., X. Niu, F. G. Lewis III, andG. C. Woodsum. 1997. Freshwater input to a gulf estuary: Long-term control of trophic organization.Ecological Applications 7:277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lucas, L. V., J. E. Cloern, J. K. Thompson, andN. E. Monsen. 2002. Functional variability of habitats within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Restoration implications.Ecological Applications 12:1528–1547.Google Scholar
  26. Matern, S. A., P. B. Moyle, andL. C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: Twenty-one years of changing assemblages.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:797–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California: Revised and Expanded. The University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  28. Nash, C. H., J. S. Richardson, andS. G. Hinch. 1999. Spatial autocorrelation and fish production in freshwaters: A comment on Randall et al. (1995).Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1696–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nichols, F., J. Cloern, S. Luoma, andD. Peterson. 1986. The modification of an estuary.Science 231:567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nobriga, M. L., F. Feyrer, and R. D. Baxter. 2005. Aspects of Sacramento pikeminnow biology in nearshore habitats of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.Western North American Naturalist 64: In press.Google Scholar
  31. O'Connell, M. T., R. C. Cashner, andC. S. Schieble. 2004. Fish assemblage stability over fifty years in the Lake Ponchartrain estuary: Comparisons among habitats using canonical correspondence analysis.Estuaries 27:807–817.Google Scholar
  32. Peterson, M. S. 2003. A conceptual view, of environment-habitat-production linkages in tidal river estuaries.Reviews in Fisheries Science 11:291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pringle, C. M., M. C. Freeman, andB. J. Freeman. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota in the New World: Tropical-temperate comparisons.BioScience 50: 807–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodriguez, M. A. andW. M. Lewis, Jr. 1994. Regulation and stability in fish asseblages of neotropical floodplain lakes.Oecologia 99:166–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rose, K. A. 2000. Why are quantitative relationships between environmental quality and fish populations so elusive?Ecological Applications 10:367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sommer, T., B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, andL. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture.Fisheries 26:6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vila-Gispert, A., R. Moreno-Amich, andE. Garcia-Berthou. 2002. Gradients of life-history variation: An intercontinental comparison of fishes.Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12:417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagner, C. M. 1999. Expression of the estuarine species minimum in littoral fish assemblages of the lower Chesapeake Bay tributaries.Estuaries 22:304–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitfield, A. K. andM. Elliott. 2002. Fishes as indicators of environmental and ecological changes within estuaries: A review of progress and some suggestions for the future.Journal of Fish Biology 61:229–250.Google Scholar
  40. Winemiller, K. O. andK. A. Rose. 1992. Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: Implications for population regulation.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:2196–2218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wright, S. A. and D. H. Schoellhamer. 2004. Trends in the sediment yield of the Sacramento River, California, 1957–2001.San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science http://repositories/cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol2/iss2/art2.Google Scholar

Source of Unpublished Materials

  1. California Department of Fish and Game. Central Valley Ray-Delta Brach, 4001 North Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205.Google Scholar
  2. Nobriga, M. and M. Chotkowski. 2000. Recent historical evidence of centrarchid increases and tule perch decrease in the delta. 13:23–27. Interagency Ecological Program Newsletter. Available at http://iep.water.ca.gov/report/newsletter/Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew L. Nobriga
    • 1
  • Frederick Feyrer
    • 1
  • Randall D. Baxter
    • 2
  • Michael Chotkowski
    • 3
  1. 1.Ecological Studies BranchCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesSacramento
  2. 2.California Department of Fish and GameCentral Valley Bay-Delta BranchStockton
  3. 3.U.S. Bureau of ReclamationSacramento

Personalised recommendations