Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 771, Issue 1, pp 45–65 | Cite as

Dispersal limitations on fish community recovery following long-term water quality remediation

  • Ryan A. McManamay
  • Robert T. Jett
  • Michael G. Ryon
  • Scott M. Gregory
  • Sally H. Stratton
  • Mark J. Peterson
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

In-stream barriers may impose constraints on the ecological effectiveness of restoration strategies by limiting colonization. We assessed the importance of dispersal limitations to fish community recovery following long-term pollution abatement, water quality remediation, and species introductions within the White Oak Creek watershed near Oak Ridge, Tennessee (USA). Long-term (26 years) responses in fish species richness, biomass, and community composition to water quality remediation were evaluated in light of physical barriers (culverts and weirs). We found that barriers to dispersal were potentially limiting fish community recovery by preventing colonization by introduced species and seasonal migrants. Changes in richness were negatively related to barrier index, a measure of the degree of isolation by barriers. Following introductions, upstream passage for six fish species above non-passable barriers was not observed. Highly isolated sites were dominated by a few equilibrium species, whereas less isolated sites showed more variation in life history strategies with increasing periodic and opportunistic strategists. The importance of barriers on community dynamics decreased over time—an indication of increasing community stability, homogenization of fauna, and improved water quality. However, isolating the role of dispersal limitation was complicated by multiple interacting stressors, such as the compounding effects of barriers and pervasive water quality conditions.

Keywords

Stream fragmentation Restoration ecology Culvert Fish passage Habitat patches Connectivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by the ORNL Environmental Protection Services Division’s Water Quality Programs. This paper has been authored by employees of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. Accordingly, the United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for the United States Government’s purposes. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan). Special thanks to John Smith and two anonymous reviewers for providing comments and editorial suggestions that improved this manuscript. We are also grateful to Diedre Tharpe for providing access to surface water monitoring data.

Supplementary material

10750_2015_2612_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (250 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 249 kb)
10750_2015_2612_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (220 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 220 kb)
10750_2015_2612_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (130 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 129 kb)
10750_2015_2612_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (285 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 285 kb)
10750_2015_2612_MOESM5_ESM.tif (1.3 mb)
Appendix 1. Species occurrence per site. Open circles represent non-detection, half-filled circles represent sites where species were detected <50% of the time, and filled circles represent sites where species were detected >50% of the time. Goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus) and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) were detected rarely in low numbers; thus, were excluded. (TIFF 1351 kb)

References

  1. Albanese, B., P. L. Angermeier & J. T. Peterson, 2009. Does mobility explain variation in colonisation and population recovery among stream fishes? Freshwater Biology 54: 1444–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, D., M. Maechler, B. Bolker, S. Walker, R. H. B. Christensen, H. Singmann & B. Dai, 2015. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. CRAN R package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html. Accessed 17 March 2015.
  3. Bednarek, A. T. & D. D. Hart, 2005. Modifying dam operations to restore rivers: ecological responses to Tennessee River dam mitigation. Ecological Applications 15: 997–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beisner, B. E., D. T. Haydon & K. Cuddington, 2003. Alternate stable states in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borcard, D. & P. Legendre, 2002. All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecological Modelling 153: 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brederveld, R. J., S. C. Jähnig, A. W. Lorenz, S. Brunzel & M. B. Soons, 2011. Dispersal as a limiting factor in the colonization of restored mountain streams by plants and macroinvertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1241–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brudvig, L. A., C. M. Mabry & L. M. Mott, 2010. Dispersal, not understory light competition, limits restoration of Iowa woodland understory herbs. Restoration Ecology 19: 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carle, F. L. & M. R. Strub, 1978. A new method for estimating population size from removal data. Biometrics 34: 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cote, D., D. G. Kehler, C. Bourne & Y. F. Wiersma, 2009. A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landscape Ecology 24: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dixon, J. D., M. K. Oli, M. C. Wooten, T. H. Eason, J. W. McCown & D. Paetkau, 2006. Effectiveness of a regional corridor in connecting two Florida black bear populations. Conservation Biology 20: 155–162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Etnier, D. A. & W. C. Starnes, 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  12. Erős, T., P. Takács, I. Czeglédi, P. Sály & A. Specziár, 2015. Taxonomic and trait based recolonization dynamics of a riverine fish assemblage following a large scale human induced disturbance: the red mud disaster in Hungary. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-015-2262-9.Google Scholar
  13. Favaro, C., J. W. Moore, J. D. Reynolds & M. P. Beakes, 2014. Potential loss and rehabilitation of stream longitudinal connectivity: fish populations in urban streams with culverts. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71: 1805–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ficke, A. D., C. A. Myrick & N. Jud, 2011. The swimming and jumping ability of three small great plains fishes: implications for fishway design. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140: 1521–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fraser, D. J., P. V. Debes, L. Bernatchez & J. A. Hutchings, 2014. Population size, habitat fragmentation, and the nature of adaptive variation in a stream fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20140370. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0370.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Goslee, S. & D. Urban, 2015. ecodist: Dissimilarity-based functions for ecological analysis. CRAN R package. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/ecodist/index.html. Accessed 17 March 2015.
  17. Han, M., M. Fukushima, S. Kameyama, T. Fukushima & B. Matsushita, 2008. How do dams affect freshwater fish distributions in Japan? Statistical analysis of native and nonnative species with various life histories. Ecological Research 23: 735–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herkert, J. R., 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4: 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hitt, N. P. & P. L. Angermeier, 2011. Fish community and bioassessment responses to stream network position. Journal of the North American Benthological Soceity 30: 296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hitt, N. P., S. Eyler & J. E. B. Wofford, 2012. Dam removal increases American eel abundance in distant headwater streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141: 1171–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, D. A., 1993. Stopping rules in principal components-analysis–a comparison of heuristic and statistical approaches. Ecology 74: 2204–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keller, D., M. J. Van Strien & R. Holderegger, 2012. Do landscape barriers affect functional connectivity of populations of an endangered damselfly? Freshwater Biology 57: 1373–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiffney, P. M., G. R. Pess, J. H. Anderson, P. Faulds, K. Burton & S. C. Riley, 2009. Changes in fish communities following recolonization of the Cedar River, WA, by Pacific salmon after 103 years of local extirpation. River Research and Applications 25: 438–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kocovsky, P. M., R. M. Ross, D. S. Dropkin & J. M. Campbell, 2008. Linking landscapes and habitat suitability scores for diadromous fish restoration in the Susquehanna River Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 906–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krumholz, L. A. 1954. An ecological survey of White Oak Creek, 1950–1953. ORO‐587. Vol 1. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information, Oak Ridge.Google Scholar
  26. Kubach, K. M., M. C. Scott & J. S. Bulak, 2011. Recovery of a temperate riverine fish assemblage from a major diesel oil spill. Freshwater Biology 56: 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuby, M. J., W. F. Fagan, C. S. ReVelle & W. L. Graf, 2005. A multiobjective optimization model for dam removal: an example trading off salmon passage with hydropower and water storage in the Willamette basin. Advances in Water Resources 28: 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lepori, F., D. Palm, E. Brannas & B. Malmqvist, 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15: 2060–2071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahlum, S., D. Cote, Y. F. Wiersma, D. Kehler & K. D. Clarke, 2014a. Evaluating the barrier assessment technique derived from FishXing software and the upstream movement of brook trout through road culverts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143: 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahlum, S., D. Kehler, D. Cote, Y. F. Wiersma & L. Stanfield, 2014b. Assessing the biological relevance of aquatic connectivity to stream fish communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71: 1852–1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marzluff, J. M. & K. Ewing, 2001. Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: a general framework and recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9: 280–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McManamay, R. A. & E. A. Frimpong, 2015. Hydrologic filtering of fish life history strategies across the United States: implications for stream flow alteration. Ecological Applications 25: 243–263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McManamay, R. A., D. J. Orth, C. A. Dolloff & D. M. Matthews, 2013. Case study: application of the ELOHA framework to regulated rivers in the Upper Tennessee River basin. Environ Management 51: 1210–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meixler, M. S., M. B. Bain & M. T. Walter, 2009. Predicting barrier passage and habitat suitability for migratory fish species. Ecological Modeling 220: 2782–2791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, J. R. & R. J. Hobbs, 2007. Habitat restoration: do we know what we’re doing? Restoration Ecology 15: 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mims, M. C., J. D. Olden, Z. R. Shattuck & N. L. Poff, 2010. Life history trait diversity of native freshwater fishes in North America. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19: 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newton, T. J., D. A. Woolnough, D. L. Strayer Teresa J. Newton, Daelyn A. Woolnough & David L. Strayer, 2008. Using landscape ecology to understand and manage freshwater mussel populations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 424–439.Google Scholar
  38. Oksanen, J., F. G.Blanchet, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, P. R. Minchin, R. B. O’Hara, G. L. Simpson, P. Solymos, M. H. H. Stevens & H. Wagner, 2011, vegan: Community Ecology Package. CRAN R package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html. Accessed 17 March 2015.
  39. Pépino, M., M. A. Rodríguez & P. Magnan, 2012. Fish dispersal in fragmented landscapes: a modeling framework for quantifying the permeability of structural barriers. Ecological Applications 22: 1435–1445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Perkin, J. S. & K. B. Gido, 2012. Fragmentation alters stream fish community structure in dendritic ecological networks. Ecological Applications 22: 2176–2187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Perkin, J. S., K. B. Gido, A. R. Cooper, T. F. Turner, M. J. Osborne, E. R. Johnson & K. B. Mayes, 2015. Fragmentation and dewatering transform great plains stream fish communities. Ecological Monographs 85: 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson, M. J., 2011. Introduction to the biological monitoring and abatement program. Environmental Management 47: 1005–1009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Railsback, S.F., B. D. Holcomb & M. G. Ryon, 1989. A computer program for estimating fish population sizes and annual production rates. ORNL/TM-11061. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge: p 62.Google Scholar
  44. Roni, P., K. Hanson & T. Beechie, 2008. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 856–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryon, M. G., 2011. Recovery of fish communities in a warm water stream following pollution abatement. Environmental Management 47: 1096–1111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryon, M. G. & J. M. Loar, 1988. Checklist of fishes on the department of energy Oak Ridge reservation. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Sciences 63: 97–102.Google Scholar
  47. Schrott, G. R., K. A. With & A. W. King, 2005. Demographic limitations of the ability of habitat restoration to rescue declining populations. Conservation Biology 19: 1181–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sherwood, C. B. & J. M. Loar, 1987 Environmental data for the WHITE Oak Creek/White Oak Lake Watershed. ORNL/TM-10062. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar
  49. Skalski, G. T., J. B. Landis, M. J. Grose & S. P. Hudman, 2008. Genetic structure of Creek Chub, a headwater minnow, in an impounded river system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 962–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, J. G., C. C. Brandt & S. W. Christensen, 2011. Long-term benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring to assess pollution abatement effectiveness. Environmental Management 47: 1077–1095.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Southworth, G. R., M. J. Peterson, W. K. Roy & T. J. Mathews, 2011. Monitoring fish contaminant responses to abatement actions: factors that affect recovery. Environmental Management 47: 1064–1076.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sudduth, E. B., J. L. Meyer & E. S. Bernhardt, 2007. Stream restoration practices in the Southeastern United States. Restoration Ecology 15: 573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Templ, M., K. Hron & P. Filzmoser. 2015. Cran R Package ‘robCompositions’. Robust Estimation for Compositional Data. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/robCompositions/index.html. Accessed 26 September 2015.
  54. UCOR (URS | CH2 M Oak Ridge LLC). 2011. 2011 Cleanup Progress: Annual report to the Oak Ridge Community. Department of Energy Report DOE/ORO/2399: p 56. http://www.ucor.com/_docs/CleanProg2011.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2015.
  55. Warren, M. L. & M. G. Pardew, 1998. Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winemiller, K. O., 2005. Life history strategies, population regulation, and implications for fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 872–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winemiller, K. O. & K. A. Rose, 1992. Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: implication for population regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 2196–2218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Worthington, T. A., S. K. Brewer, T. B. Grabowski & J. Mueller, 2014. Backcasting the decline of a vulnerable Great Plains reproductive ecotype: identifying threats and conservation priorities. Global Change Biology 20: 89–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA)  2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan A. McManamay
    • 1
  • Robert T. Jett
    • 1
  • Michael G. Ryon
    • 1
  • Scott M. Gregory
    • 1
  • Sally H. Stratton
    • 1
  • Mark J. Peterson
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations