Aquatic Sciences

, Volume 77, Issue 3, pp 465–480 | Cite as

Fish community dynamics following dam removal in a fragmented agricultural stream

  • Matthew S. KornisEmail author
  • Brian C. Weidel
  • Stephen M. Powers
  • Matthew W. Diebel
  • Timothy J. Cline
  • Justin M. Fox
  • James F. Kitchell
Research Article


Habitat fragmentation impedes dispersal of aquatic fauna, and barrier removal is increasingly used to increase stream network connectivity and facilitate fish dispersal. Improved understanding of fish community response to barrier removal is needed, especially in fragmented agricultural streams where numerous antiquated dams are likely destined for removal. We examined post-removal responses in two distinct fish communities formerly separated by a small aging mill dam. The dam was removed midway through the 6 year study, enabling passage for downstream fishes affiliated with a connected reservoir into previously inaccessible habitat, thus creating the potential for taxonomic homogenization between upstream and downstream communities. Both communities changed substantially post-removal. Two previously excluded species (white sucker, yellow perch) established substantial populations upstream of the former dam, contributing to a doubling of total fish biomass. Meanwhile, numerical density of pre-existing upstream fishes declined. Downstream, largemouth bass density was inversely correlated with prey fish density throughout the study, while post-removal declines in bluegill density coincided with cooler water temperature and increased suspended and benthic fine sediment. Upstream and downstream fish communities became more similar post-removal, represented by a shift in Bray-Curtis index from 14 to 41 % similarity. Our findings emphasize that barrier removal in highly fragmented stream networks can facilitate the unintended and possibly undesirable spread of species into headwater streams, including dispersal of species from remaining reservoirs. We suggest that knowledge of dispersal patterns for key piscivore and competitor species in both the target system and neighboring systems may help predict community outcomes following barrier removal.


Dam removal Fish communities Fragmented streams Homogenization Species interactions Connectivity 



We extend our gratitude to Bill Ginsler, Mark Knudsen, and Larry Hamele for providing access to the study site and background information on the stream history and fish community. We also thank Emily Stanley, Helen Sarakinos, and the River Alliance of Wisconsin for support throughout the study, Christopher Patrick for input on community similarity analysis, and several anonymous reviewers for helpful critiques. We appreciate field and laboratory assistance provided by Olaf Jensen, Jereme Gaeta, Stephen Klobucar, Lee Zinn, Kyle Amend, Chase Brossard, James Hardy, Robert Johnson, Page Mieritz, Aliya Rubinstein, and Gabrielle Lehrer-Brey. We also thank USGS-Water Sciences for loaned equipment. This project was funded by an NSF RAPID grant to James Kitchell (grant number DEB-0935710), and by the University of Wisconsin Center for Limnology CAPEX program. Mention of trade names is for descriptive purpose only and does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of their use by the U.S. government. This study is contribution number 1890 to the USGS, Great Lakes Science Center.

Supplementary material

27_2014_391_MOESM1_ESM.doc (275 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 275 kb)


  1. Akritas MG (1990) The rank transform method in some two-factor designs. J Am Stat Assoc 85:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association (APHA) (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Angermeir PL, Winston MR (1998) Local and regional influences on local diversity in stream fish communities of Virginia. Ecology 70:1450–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Murakami M, Chapman PH (2004) Fish invasion restructures stream and forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 85:2656–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bednarek AT (2001) Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manage 27:803–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benke AC, Huryn AD, Smock LA, Wallace JB (1999) Length-mass relationships for freshwater macroinvertebrates in North America with particular reference to the southeastern US. J N Am Benthol Soc 18:308–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burroughs BA, Hayes DB, Klomp KD, Hansen JF, Mistak J (2010) The effects of the Stronach dam removal on fish in the Pine River, Manistee County, Michigan. T Am Fish Soc 139:1595–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bushaw-Newton KL, Hart DD, Pizzuto JE, Thomson JR, Egan J, Ashley JT et al (2002) An integrative approach towards understanding ecological responses to dam removal: the Manatawny Creek study. J Am Water Resour As 38:1581–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Catalano MJ, Bozek MA, Pellett TD (2007) Effects of dam removal on fish assemblage structure and spatial distributions in the Baraboo River, Wisconsin. N Am J Fish Manage 27:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clavero M, Garcia-Berthou E (2006) Homogenization dynamics and introduction routes of invasive freshwater fish in the Iberian Peninsula. Ecol Appl 16:2313–2324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conover WJ, Iman RL (1981) Rank transformation as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 35:124–133Google Scholar
  12. Cumming GS (2004) The impact of low-head dams on fish species richness in Wisconsin, USA. Ecol Appl 14:1495–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dames & Moore Group Company (2000) Interim report: aquatic resources study of Big Spring Creek, Adams County, Wisconsin. Prepared for Perrier Group of America. URS-Dames & Moore Project No. 36665-004-133Google Scholar
  14. Diebel M, Fedora M, Cogswell S (2010) Prioritizing road crossing improvement to restore stream connectivity for stream-resident fish. In: Wagner PJ, Nelson D, Murray E (Eds) Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 647–660Google Scholar
  15. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Harbor JM (2003) Towards policies and decision-making for dam removal. Environ Manage 31:453–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Orr CH, Selle AR, Sethi SA, Harbor JM (2005) Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: lessons from the heartland. Geomorphology 71:227–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Havlick DG, Kaiser MJ, Steinbach G, Graf WL et al (2008) Aging infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. Science 319:286–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C et al (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fassbender RL (1968) Stream survey—Big Springs Creek, Adams County. Report filed with the Wisconsin Conservation Department, Madison, Wisconsin, 53701Google Scholar
  20. Fausch KD, Rieman BE, Dunham JB, Young MK, Peterson DP (2009) Invasion versus isolation: trade-offs in managing native salmonids with barriers to upstream movement. Conserv Biol 23:859–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flecker AS, Townsend CR (1994) Community-wide consequences of trout introduction in New Zealand streams. Ecol Apply 4:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF, Alkins-Koo M (1993) Structure of a tropical stream fish community: a role for biotic interactions. Ecology 74:1856–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen JF, Hayes DB (2012) Long-term implications of dam removal for macroinvertebrate communities in Michigan and Wisconsin Rivers, United States. River Res Appl 28:1540–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hart DD, Johnson TE, Bushaw-Newton KL, Horwitz RJ, Bednarek AT, Charles DF et al (2002) Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. BioScience 52:669–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henley WF, Patterson MA, Neves RJ, Lemly D (2000) Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on lotic food webs: a concise review for natural resource managers. Rev Fish Sci 8:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hitt NP, Eyler S, Wofford JEB (2012) Dam removal increases American eel abundance in distant headwater streams. Trans Am Fish Soc 141:1171–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson DA, Peres-Neto PR, Olden JD (2001) What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities—the roles of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factors. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:157–170Google Scholar
  29. Julian JP, Seegart SE, Powers SM, Stanley EH, Doyle MW (2011) Light as a first-order control on ecosystem structure in a temperate stream. Ecohydrology 4:422–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kibler KM, Tullos DD, Kondolf GM (2011) Learning from dam removal monitoring: challenges to selecting experimental design and establishing significance of outcomes. River Res Appl 27:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kornis MS, Vander Zanden MJ (2010) Forecasting the distribution of the invasive round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) in Wisconsin tributaries to Lake Michigan. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67:553–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lake PS, Bond N, Reich P (2007) Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biol 52:597–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyons J, Weigel BM, Paine LK, Undersander DJ (2000) Influence of intensive rotational grazing on bank erosion, fish habitat quality, and fish communities in southwestern Wisconsin trout streams. J Soil Water Conserv 55:271–276Google Scholar
  34. Lyons J, Zorn T, Stewart J, Seelbach P, Wehrly K, Wang L (2009) Defining and characterizing coolwater streams and their fish assemblages in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA. N Am J Fish Manage 29:1130–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maloney KO, Dodd HR, Butler SE, Wahl DH (2008) Changes in macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages in a medium-sized river following a breach of a low-head dam. Freshwater Biol 53:1055–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marchetti MP, Light T, Feliciano J, Armstrong T, Hogan Z, Viers J et al (2001) Homogenization of California’s fish fauna through abiotic change. In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization. Springer, USA, pp 259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newcombe CP, MacDonald DD (1991) Effects of suspended sediment on aquatic ecosystems. N Am J Fish Manage 11:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oksanen, J (2010) Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. Accessed 23 December 2013
  39. Olden JD, Poff NL (2003) Toward a mechanistic understanding and prediction of biotic homogenization. Am Nat 162:442–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olden JD, Rooney TP (2006) On defining and quantifying biotic homogenization. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patrick CJ, Swan CM (2011) Reconstructing the assembly of a stream-insect metacommunity. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perkin JS, Gido KB (2012) Fragmentation alters stream fish community structure in dendritic ecological networks. Ecol Appl 22:2176–2187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pess GR, Quinn TP, Gephard SR, Saunders R (2014) Re-colonization of Atlantic and Pacific rivers by anadromous fishes: linkages between lif history and the benefits of barrier removal. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24:881–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poff NL, Olden JD, Merritt DM, Pepin DM (2007) Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5732–5737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potvin C, Roff DA (1993) Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology 74:1617–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Powers SM, Julian JP, Doyle MW, Stanley EH (2013) Retention and transport of nutrients in a mature agricultural impoundment. J Geophys Res: Biogeosci 118:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pringle C (2003) What is hydrologic connectivity and why is it ecologically important? Hydrol Process 17:2685–2689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rabeni CF, Smale MA (1995) Effects of siltation on stream fishes and the potential mitigating role of the buffering riparian zone. Hydrobiologia 303:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rahel FJ (2002) Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 33:291–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahel FJ (2007) Biogeographic barriers, connectivity and homogenization of freshwater faunas: it’s a small world after all. Freshwater Biol 52:696–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rahel FJ (2013) Intentional fragmentation as a management strategy in aquatic systems. BioScience 63:362–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rolls RJ (2011) The role of life-history and location of barriers to migration in the spatial distribution and conservation of fish assemblages in a coastal river system. Biol Conserv 144:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saint-Jacques N, Harvey HH, Jackson DA (2000) Selective foraging in the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Can J Zool 78:1320–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sawaske SR, Freyberg DL (2012) A comparison of past small dam removals in highly sediment-impacted systems in the US. Geomorphology 151:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott WB, Crossman EJ (1973) Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 184, Department of the Environment, Ottawa, ONGoogle Scholar
  56. Shurin JB, Cottenie K, Hillebrand H (2009) Spatial autocorrelation and dispersal limitation in freshwater organisms. Oecologia 159:151–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simons RL, Simons DB (1991) Sediment problems associated with dam removal—Muskegon River, Michigan. In: Hydraulic engineering, Proceedings of the 1991 National Conference of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Nashville, Tennessee, pp 680–685Google Scholar
  58. Smith SV, Renwick WH, Bartley JD, Buddemeir RW (2002) Distribution and significance of small, artificial water bodies across the United States landscape. Sci Total Environ 299:21–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smock LA (1980) Relationships between body size and biomass of aquatic insects. Fr Bio 10:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stanley EH, Doyle MW (2003) Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Front Ecol Environ 1:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stanley EH, Luebke MA, Doyle MW, Marshall DW (2002) Short-term changes in channel form and macroinvertebrate communities following low-head dam removal. J N Am Benthol Soc 21:172–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stanley EH, Catalano MJ, Mercado-Silva N, Orr CH (2007) Effects of dam removal on brook trout in a Wisconsin stream. River Res Appl 23:792–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tremblay S, Magnan P (1991) Interactions between two distantly related species, brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:857–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trimble SW (1994) Erosional effects of cattle on streambanks in Tennessee, U.S.A. Earth Surf Proc Land 19:451–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tullos D, Jennings G (2011) Dam removal. In: Trimble SW, Stewart BA, Howell TA (eds) Encyclopedia of Water Science, 2nd edn. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  66. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2013) National inventory of dams.
  67. Vinyard GL, O’Brien WJ (1976) Effects of light and turbidity on the reactive distance of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). J Fish Res Board Can 33:2845–2849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P et al (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walling DE (1990) Linking the field to the river: sediment delivery from agricultural land. In: Boardman J, Foster IDL, Dearing JA (eds) Soil erosion on agricultural land. Wiley, Chichester, pp 129–152Google Scholar
  70. Walters RC, Merritts DJ (2008) Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered mills. Science 319:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang L, Infante D, Lyons J, Steward J, Cooper A (2011) Effects of dams in river networks on fish assemblages in non-impoundment sections of rivers in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA. River Res Appl 27:473–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Warrick JA, Duda JJ, Magirl CS, Curran CA (2012) River turbidity and sediment loads during dam removal. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 93:425–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilcox AC, O’Conner JE, Major JJ (2014) Rapid reservoir erosion, hyperconcentrated flow, and downstream deposition triggered by breaching of 38 m tall Condit Dam, White Salmon River, Washington. J Geophys Res - Earth 119:1376–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wildman L (2013) Dam removal: a history of decision points. In: De Graff JV, Evans JE (ed) the challenges of dam removal and river restoration. vol 21, Geol Soc Am, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  75. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (2009) Wisconsin dams and hydrography databases. Dams database available at; hydrography database at
  76. Wood PJ, Armitage PD (1997) Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ Manage 21:203–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xi H, Kitchell JF (1990) Direct and indirect effects of predation on a fish community: a whole- lake experiment. T Am Fish Soc 119:825–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zaimes GN, Schultz RC, Isenhart TM (2004) Stream bank erosion adjacent to riparian forest buffers, row-crop fields, and continuously-grazed pastures along Bear Creek in central Iowa. J Soil Water Conserv 59:19–27Google Scholar
  79. Zheng PQ, Hobbs BF, Koonce JF (2009) Optimizing multiple dam removals under multiple objectives: linking tributary habitat and the Lake Erie ecosystem. Water Resour Res 25:W12417. doi: 10.1029/2008WR007589 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew S. Kornis
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Brian C. Weidel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Stephen M. Powers
    • 1
    • 4
  • Matthew W. Diebel
    • 1
    • 5
  • Timothy J. Cline
    • 1
    • 6
  • Justin M. Fox
    • 1
  • James F. Kitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for LimnologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.US Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Bay Fish and Wildlife Conservation OfficeNew FrankenUSA
  3. 3.United States Geological Survey, Lake Ontario Biological StationOswegoUSA
  4. 4.University of Notre Dame, Environmental Change InitiativeSouth BendUSA
  5. 5.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesBureau of Science ServicesMadisonUSA
  6. 6.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations