Environmental Management

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 815–828 | Cite as

Correspondence between spatial patterns in fish assemblages in ohio streams and aquatic ecoregions

  • David P. Larsen
  • James M. Omernik
  • Robert M. Hughes
  • Christina M. Rohm
  • Thomas R. Whittier
  • Andrew J. Kinney
  • Alisa L. Gallant
  • Daniel R. Dudley
Research

Abstract

Land classification systems can be useful for assessing aquatic ecosystems if relationships among them exist. Because the character of an aquatic ecosystem depends to a large extent upon the character of the landscape it drains, spatial patterns in aquatic ecosystems should correspond to patterns in the landscape. To test this hypothesis, the US state of Ohio was divided into four aquatic ecoregions based on an analysis of spatial patterns in the combination of land-surface form, land use, potential natural vegetation, and soil parent material. During the period July–October 1983, fish assemblages were sampled in 46 streams that were representative of the ecoregions, and that had watersheds relatively undisturbed by human activities. Spatial patterns of the fish assemblages were examined relative to the ecoregions; distinct regional differences were identified. The assemblages differed most between the Huron/Erie Lake Plain region and the Western Allegheny Plateau region; assemblages in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains and the Erie/Ontario Lake Plain-Interior Plateau regions were intermediate. This pattern also reflects the gradient in landscape character as one moves from the northwest to the southeast of Ohio.

Key words

Ecological regions Ecoregions Fish assemblages Streams Ohio regional geography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Anderson, J. R. 1970. Major land-uses. Pages 157–160in A. C. Gerlach (ed.), The national atlas of the United States. US Geological Survey. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States: map (scale 1∶7,500,000). USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, R. G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions.Environmental Management 7:365–373.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, R. G. 1984. Testing an ecosystem regionalization.Journal of Environmental Management 19:239–248.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1052 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, vol. 1. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 752 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Carlander, K. D. 1977. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, vol. 2. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 431 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Crowley, J. M. 1967. Biogeography.Canadian Geographer 11:312–326.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Federal Register. 1983. Water quality standards regulation. 48:51399–51413.Google Scholar
  11. Fenneman, N. W. 1928. Physiographic divisions of the United States.Annals of the Association of American Geographers 18:261–353.Google Scholar
  12. Fenneman, N. M. 1946. Physical divisions of the United States: map. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  13. Gauch, H., Jr. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, 298 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Hammond, E. H. 1964. Classes of land-surface form in the forty-eight states, U.S.A.Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54:map suppl. 4.Google Scholar
  15. 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 (in press).Google Scholar
  16. Hill, M. O. 1979.Decorana: aFortran program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Hynes, H. B. N. 1975. The stream and its valley.Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie 19:1–15.Google Scholar
  18. Jarman, R. 1984. The development of aquatic ecoregions in Oklahoma. PhD thesis, University of Oklahoma, 196 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.Fisheries 6:21–27.Google Scholar
  20. Karr, J. R., and I. J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface.Science 201:229–234.Google Scholar
  21. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, 854 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Legendre, L., and V. Legendre. 1984. Postglacial dispersal of freshwater fishes in the Quebec Peninsula.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:1781–1802.Google Scholar
  24. Likens, G. E., and F. H. Bormann. 1974. Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.Bioscience 21:447–456.Google Scholar
  25. Neter, J., and W. Wasserman. 1974. Applied linear statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, 842 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1973. Know Ohio's soil regions. Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  27. Olson, R. J., K. D. Kumar, and R. L. Burgess. 1982. Analysis of ecoregions utilizing the geoecology data base. Pages 149–156in T. B. Brann, L. O. House IV, and H. G. Lund (eds.), In-place resource inventories: principles and practices—proceedings of a national workshop. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  28. Pflieger, W. L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes.Museum of Natural History University of Kansas Publications 20:225–570.Google Scholar
  29. Pflieger, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 343 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Pflieger, W. L., M. A. Schene, and P.S. Haverland. 1981. Techniques for the classification of stream habitats, with examples of their application in defining the stream habitats of Missouri. Pages 367–368in N. B. Armantrout (ed.), Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information: proceedings of a symposium. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  31. Platts, W. S. 1979. Including the fishery system in land planning. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-60. Ogden, Utah, 37 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Reckhow, K. H. 1980. Techniques for exploring and presenting data applied to lake phosphorous concentration.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:290–294.Google Scholar
  33. Rowe, J. S., and J. W. Sheard. 1981. Ecological land classification: a survey approach.Environmental Management 5:451–464.Google Scholar
  34. SAS Institute, Inc. 1982. SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, 584 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Shirazi, M. A. 1984. Land classification used to select abandoned hazardous waste study sites.Environmental Management 8:281–286.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 314 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 633 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, 683 pp.Google Scholar
  39. US Department of Agriculture. 1981. Land and resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States. Agriculture handbook 296. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  40. Warren, C. E. 1979. Toward classification and rationale for watershed management and stream protection. EPA-600/3-79-059. US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, 143 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • David P. Larsen
    • 1
  • James M. Omernik
    • 1
  • Robert M. Hughes
    • 2
  • Christina M. Rohm
    • 2
  • Thomas R. Whittier
    • 2
  • Andrew J. Kinney
    • 2
  • Alisa L. Gallant
    • 2
  • Daniel R. Dudley
    • 3
  1. 1.Corvallis Environmental Research LaboratoryUS Environmental Protection AgencyCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Northrop ServicesCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations