Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 322–335 | Cite as

A Spatially Explicit Resource-Based Approach for Managing Stream Fishes in Riverscapes

  • Céline Le PichonEmail author
  • Guillaume Gorges
  • Philippe Boët
  • Jacques Baudry
  • François Goreaud
  • Thierry Faure


The article describes a riverscape approach based on landscape ecology concepts, which aims at studying the multiscale relationships between the spatial pattern of stream fish habitat patches and processes depending on fish movements. A review of the literature shows that few operational methods are available to study this relationship due to multiple methodological and practical challenges inherent to underwater environments. We illustrated the approach with literature data on a cyprinid species (Barbus barbus) and an actual riverscape of the Seine River, France. We represented the underwater environment of fishes for different discharges using two-dimensional geographic information system-based maps of the resource habitat patches, defined according to activities (feeding, resting, and spawning). To quantify spatial patterns at nested levels (resource habitat patch, daily activities area, subpopulation area), we calculated their composition, configuration, complementation, and connectivity with multiple spatial analysis methods: patch metrics, moving-window analysis, and least cost modeling. The proximity index allowed us to evaluate habitat patches of relatively great value, depending on their spatial context, which contributes to the setting of preservation policies. The methods presented to delimit potential daily activities areas and subpopulation areas showed the potential gaps in the biological connectivity of the reach. These methods provided some space for action in restoration schemes.


Landscape ecology Stream fishes Barbus barbus Resource habitat mapping Fragmentation Complementation Spatial pattern analysis Restoration  



Discussions with members of the different fish teams of the Cemagref (Antony, Lyon, Aix) and with members of IALE provided fruitful ideas to build this approach. We are grateful to Evelyne Talès, Steve Ormerod, Isabelle Poudevigne, and Pierre Joly for their interest in this study and for their comments, which improved the manuscript. We thank W. L. Fischer and two anonymous reviewers for their enthusiasm and very constructive comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This work was supported by the Environmental Service of Ile-de-France (DIREN) to restore the biological connectivity of the Seine River for fishes and the CNRS scientific program “Piren-Seine.”

Literature Cited

  1. Adriaensen F., J. P. Chardon, G. De Blust, E. Swinnen, S. Villalba, H. Gulinck, E. Matthysen. 2003. The application of “least-cost” modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan J. D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 35:257–284Google Scholar
  3. Amoros C., G. Bornette. 2002. Connectivity and biocomplexity in waterbodies of riverine floodplains. Freshwater Biology 47:761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baguette M., G. Mennechez. 2004. Resource and habitat patches, landscape ecology and metapopulation biology: A consensual viewpoint. Oikos 106:399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baras E. 1992. A study of time and space utilisation strategies in the common barbel Barbus barbus (L.). Cahiers d’Ethologie 12:125–142.Google Scholar
  6. Baras E. 1997. Environmental determinants of residence area selection by Barbus barbus in the river Ourthe. Aquatic Living Resources 10:195–206Google Scholar
  7. Baras E., H. Lambert, J. C. Philippart. 1994. A comprehensive assessment of the failure of Barbus barbus spawning migrations through a fish pass in the canalized river Meuse (Belgium). Aquatic Living Resources 7:181–189Google Scholar
  8. Baudry, J., H. Boussard, and N. Schermann 2005. CHLOÉ 3.0: Freeware of multi-scales analyses on ASCII raster files. Rennes, INRA, SAD-Armorique. Available from ( )
  9. Bayley P. B., H. W. Li. 1992. Riverine fishes. In: P. Calow, G. E. Petts (eds.). The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles. Blackwell, Oxford. pp: 251–281Google Scholar
  10. Baxter C. V. 2002. Fish movement and assemblage dynamics in a Pacific northwest riverscape. PhD dissertation, Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  11. Boët P., J. Belliard, R. Berrebi dit Thomas, E. Tales. 1999. Multiple human impacts by the city of Paris on fish communities in the Seine river basin, France. Hydrobiologia 410:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bretschko G. 1995. River/land ecotones: scales and patterns. Hydrobiologia 303:83–91Google Scholar
  13. Casselman J. M., C. A. Lewis. 1996. Habitat requirements of northern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowx, I. G., and R. L. Welcomme. 1998. Rehabilitation of rivers for fish. Fishing News BooksGoogle Scholar
  15. Dauble D. D., R. L. Johnson, A. P. Garcia. 1999. Fall Chinook salmon spawning in the tailraces of Lower Snake River hydroelectric projects. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:672–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennis R. L. H., T. G. Shreeve, H. Van Dyck. 2003. Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Detenbeck N. E., P. W. DeVore, G. J. Niemi, A. Lima. 1992. Recovery of temperate-stream fish communities from disturbance: A review of case studies and synthesis of theory. Environmental Management 16:33–53Google Scholar
  18. Dunning J. B., B. J. Danielson, H. R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175Google Scholar
  19. Fausch K. D., C. E. Torgensen, C. V. Baxter, H. W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience 52:483–498Google Scholar
  20. Fisher W. L., F. J. Rahel. 2004. Geographic information systems applications in stream and river fisheries. In: W. L. Fisher, F. J. Rahel (eds.). Geographic information systems in fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp: 49–84Google Scholar
  21. Freeman M. C. 1993. Effects of habitat availability on dispersion of a stream cyprinid. Environmental Biology of Fishes 37:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frissell C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, M. D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerking S. D. 1959. The restricted movement of fish populations. Biological Review 34:221–242Google Scholar
  24. Gowan C., K. D. Fausch. 1996. Mobile brook trout in two high-elevation Colorado streams: Re-evaluating the concept of restricted movement. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:1370–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gustafson E. J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156Google Scholar
  26. Gustafson E. J., G. R. Parker. 1994. Using an index of habitat patch proximity for landscape design. Landscape and Urban Planning 29:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanski I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151–162Google Scholar
  28. Harris G., A. L. Heathwaite. 2005. Inadmissible evidence: Knowledge and prediction in land and riverscapes. Journal of Hydrology 304:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hawkins C. P., J. L. Kershner, P. A. Bisson, M. D. Bryant, L. M. Decker, S. V. Gregory, D. A. Mccullough, C. K. Overton, G. H. Reeves, R. J. Steedman, M. K. Young. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features. Fisheries 18:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. He H. S., B. E. DeZonia, D. J. Mladenoff. 2000. An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilderbrand R. H., A. D. Lemly, C. A. Dolloff. 1999. Habitat sequencing and the importance of discharge in inferences. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:198–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hirzel A., A. Guisan. 2002. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling. Ecological Modelling 157:331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huber M., A. Kirchhofer. 1998. Radio telemetry as a tool to study habitat use of nase (Chondrostoma nasus L.) in medium-sized rivers. Hydrobiologia 372:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jochem R., B. J. H. Koolstra, J. P. Chardon. 2002. LARCH: An ecological application of GIS in river studies. In: R. S. E. W. Leuven, I. Poudevigne, R. M. Teew (eds.). Application of geographic information systems and remote sensing in river studies. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. pp: 63–74Google Scholar
  35. Johnson L. B., S. H. Gage. 1997. Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 37:113–132Google Scholar
  36. Johnston C. E. 2000. Movement patterns of imperiled blue shiners (Pisces : Cyprinidae) among habitat patches. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Joly P., C. Morand, A. Cohas. 2003. Habitat fragmentation and amphibian conservation: Building a tool for assessing landscape matrix connectivity. Comptes Rendus Biologies 326:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelly N. M., D. Field, F. A. Cross, R. Emmet. 1998. Remote sensing of forest-clearing effects on essential fish habitat of Pacific salmon. In: L. R. Benaka (eds.). Fish habitat: Essential Fish. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp: 252–267Google Scholar
  39. Knaapen J. P., M. Scheffer, B. Harms. 1992. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 23:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kocik J. F., C. P. Ferreri. 1998. Juvenile production variation in salmonids: Population dynamics, habitat, and the role of spatial relationships. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kotliar N. B., J. A. Wiens. 1990. Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: A hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:25–260.Google Scholar
  42. Leuven R. S. E. W., I. Poudevigne. 2002. Riverine landscape dynamics and ecological risk assessment. Freshwater Biology 47:845–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leuven R. S. E. W., I. Poudevigne, R. M. Teeuw. 2002. Remote sensing and geographic information systems as emerging tools for riverine habitat and landscape evaluation: From concepts to models. In: R. S. E. W. Leuven, I. Poudevigne, R. M. Teew (eds.). Application of geographic information systems and remote sensing in river studies. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. pp: 63–74Google Scholar
  44. Lonzarich D. G., M. L. Warren, M. R. E. Lonzarich. 1998. Effects of habitat isolation on the recovery of fish assemblages in experimentally defaunated stream pools in Arkansas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science 55:2141–2149Google Scholar
  45. Lowe W. H. 2002. Landscape-scale spatial population dynamics in human-impacted stream systems. Environmental Management 30:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lucas M. C., E. Baras. 2001. Migration of freshwater fishes. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Lucas M. C., E. Batley. 1996. Seasonal movements and behaviour of adult barbel Barbus barbus, a riverine cyprinid fish: Implications for river management. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1345–1358Google Scholar
  48. MacGarigal, K., and B. J. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-351, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  49. Meaden G. J. 2004. Challenges of using geographic information systems in aquatic environments. In: W. L. Fisher, F. J. Rahel (eds.). Geographic information systems in fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp: 13–48Google Scholar
  50. Mertes L. A. K. 2002. Remote sensing of riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:799–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Metzger J.-P., H. Décamps. 1997. The structural connectivity threshold: An hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecologica 18:1–12Google Scholar
  52. Morita K., S. Yamamoto. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation by damming on the persistence of stream-dwelling charr populations. Conservation Biology 16:1318–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Muller E. 1997. Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: Old concepts and new methods. Aquatic Botany 58:411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Neill R. V., J. R. Krummel, R. H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D. L. DeAngelis, B. T. Milne, M. G. Turner, B. Zygmunt, S. W. Christensen, V. H. Dale, R. L. Graham. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1:153–162Google Scholar
  55. Pain, G., J. Baudry, and F. Burel. 2000. LandPop: Un outil d’étude de la structure spatiale des populations animales fragmentées. Géomatique 10:89–106Google Scholar
  56. Pedroli B., G. de Blust, K. van Looy, S. van Rooij. 2002. Setting targets in strategies for river restoration. Landscape Ecology 17:5–18Google Scholar
  57. Petts G. E., C. Amoros. 1996. Fluvial hydrosystems. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Plotnick R. E., R. H. Gardner, R. V. O’Neill. 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Poizat G., D. Pont. 1996. Multi-scale approach to species-habitat relationships: Juvenile fish in a large river section. Freshwater Biology 36:611–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poole G. C. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: Addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater Biology 47:641–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pretty J. L., S. S. C. Harrison, D. J. Shepherd, C. Smith, A. G. Hildrew, R. D. Hey. 2003. River rehabilitation and fish populations: Assessing the benefit of instream structures. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:251–265Google Scholar
  62. Pringle C. M., R. J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J. R. Karr, M. W. Oswood, J. R. Webster, R. L. Welcomme, M. J. Winterbourn. 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: The stream as a mosaic. Journal of North American Benthological Society 7:503–524Google Scholar
  63. Puestow T. M., A. Simms, K. Butler. 2001. Mapping of salmon habitat parameters using airborne imagery and digital ancillary data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 67:309–317Google Scholar
  64. Rabeni C. F., R. B. Jacobson. 1993. The importance of fluvial hydraulics to fish-habitat restoration in low-gradient alluvial streams. Freshwater Biology 29:211–220Google Scholar
  65. Rabeni C. F., S. P. Sowa. 2002. A landscape approach to managing the biota of streams and rivers. In: J. Liu, W. W. Taylor (eds.). Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp: 114–142Google Scholar
  66. Ray N., A. Lehmann, P. Joly. 2002. Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: A GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:2143–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Richards K., J. Brasington, F. Hughes. 2002. Geomorphic dynamics of floodplains: ecological implications and a potential modelling strategy. Freshwater Biology 47:559–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rubec P. J., M. S. Coyne, R. H. McMichael Jr., M. E. Monaco. 1998. Spatial methods being developed in Florida to determine essential fish habitat. Fisheries 23:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rushton S. P., P. W. W. Lurz, R. Fuller, P. J. Garson. 1997. Modelling the distribution of the red and grey squirrel at the landscape scale: a combined GIS and population dynamics approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1137–1154Google Scholar
  70. Saad Y., M. Sosonkina. 1999. Distributed schur complement techniques for general sparse linear systems. Journal of Science Computing 21:1337–1356Google Scholar
  71. Schermann N., J. Baudry. 2002. Analyse descriptive multi-échelle de la structure d’un paysage: Application à la mosaïque d’occupation du sol d’un territoire agricole dans le bocage breton. Géomatique 12:169–186Google Scholar
  72. Schiemer F., H. Waidbacher. 1992. Strategies for conservation of a danubian fish fauna. In: P. J. Boon, P. Calow, G. E. Petts (eds.). River conservation and management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. pp: 363–382Google Scholar
  73. Schiemer F., M. Zalewski, J. E. Thorpe. 1995. Land/inland water ecotones: Intermediate habitats critical for conservation and management. Hydrobiologia 303:259–264Google Scholar
  74. Schilling K. E., C. F. Wolter. 2000. Application of GPS and GIS to map channel features in Walnut Creek, Iowa. Journal of American Water Resources Association 36:1423–1434Google Scholar
  75. Schlosser I. J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: A landscape perspective. BioScience 41:704–712Google Scholar
  76. Schlosser I. J. 1995. Critical landscape attributes that influence fish population dyamics in headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 303:71–81Google Scholar
  77. Schneider D. C. 2001. The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. BioScience 51: 545-553Google Scholar
  78. Smith C. 1991. Social behaviour, homing and migration. In: I. J. Winfield, J. S. Nelson (eds.). Cyprinid fishes: Systematics, biology and exploitation. Chapman & Hall, London. pp: 509–529Google Scholar
  79. Smithson E. B., C. E. Johnston. 1999. Movement patterns of stream fishes in a Ouachita Highlands stream: An examination of the restricted movement paradigm. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:847–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Spruell P., B. E. Rieman, K. L. Knudsen, F. M. Utter, F. W. Allendorf. 1999. Genetic population structure within streams: Microsatellite analysis of bull trout populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8:114–121Google Scholar
  81. Srivastava S. K., U. K. Sarkar, A. G. Ponniah. 2001. Arrangement of habitat information on a GIS platform to identify optimum and degraded areas of golden mahseer (Tor putitora, Hamilton) habitat. In: T. Nishida, P. J. Kailola, C. E. Hollingworth (eds.). Proceeding of the first international symposium on geographic information systems (GIS) in FISHERY SCIENCE. Fishery GIS Research Group, Saitama, Japan. pp: 302–314Google Scholar
  82. Suarez-Seoane S., J. Baudry. 2002. Scale dependence of spatial patterns and cartography on the detection of landscape change: relationships with species’ perception. Ecography 25:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tiffan K. F., R. D. Garland, D. W. Rondorf. 2002. Quantifying flow-dependent changes in subyearling fall chinook salmon rearing habitat using two-dimensional spatially explicit modeling. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:713–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Toepfer C. S., W. L. Fischer, W. D. Warde. 2000. A multistage approach to estimate fish abundance in streams using geographic information systems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:634–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Torgersen, C. E. 2002. A geographical framework for assessing longitudinal patterns in stream habitat and fish distribution. PhD, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  86. Townsend C. R. 1989. The patch dynamics concept of stream community ecology. Journal of North American Benthological Society 8:36–50Google Scholar
  87. Vos C. C., J. Verboom, P. F. M. Opdam, C. J. F. TerBraak. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157:24–41Google Scholar
  88. Vuilleumier S., R. Prelaz-Droux. 2002. Map of ecological networks for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ward J. V. 1998. Riverine landscapes: Biodiversity patterns, disturbance regimes, and aquatic conservation. Biological Conservation 83:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ward J. V., J. A. Stanford. 1995. The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to floodplain rivers. Regulated River: Research and Management 10:159–168Google Scholar
  91. Ward J. V., F. Malard, K. Tockner. 2002. Landscape ecology: a framework for integrating pattern and process in river corridors. Landscape Ecology 17:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Watzin M. C., A. W. McIntosh. 1999. Aquatic ecosystems in agricultural landscapes: A review of ecological indicators and achievable ecological outcomes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:636–644Google Scholar
  93. Whited D., J. A. Stanford, J. S. Kimball. 2002. Application of airborne multispectral digital imagery to quantify riverine habitats at different base flows. River Research and Applications 18:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wiens J. A. 2002. Riverine landscapes: Taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshwater Biology 47:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wu J. G., O. L. Loucks. 1995. From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology 70:439–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Céline Le Pichon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Guillaume Gorges
    • 1
  • Philippe Boët
    • 1
  • Jacques Baudry
    • 2
  • François Goreaud
    • 3
  • Thierry Faure
    • 3
  1. 1.Aquatic EcologyCemagref–HBANFrance
  2. 2.INRA SAD–Armorique France
  3. 3.Cemagref–LISCFrance

Personalised recommendations