Environmental Management

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 181–194 | Cite as

Modeling the Relations Between Flow Regime Components, Species Traits, and Spawning Success of Fishes in Warmwater Streams

  • Scott W. Craven
  • James T. PetersonEmail author
  • Mary C. Freeman
  • Thomas J. Kwak
  • Elise Irwin


Modifications to stream hydrologic regimes can have a profound influence on the dynamics of their fish populations. Using hierarchical linear models, we examined the relations between flow regime and young-of-year fish density using fish sampling and discharge data from three different warmwater streams in Illinois, Alabama, and Georgia. We used an information theoretic approach to evaluate the relative support for models describing hypothesized influences of five flow regime components representing: short-term high and low flows; short-term flow stability; and long-term mean flows and flow stability on fish reproductive success during fish spawning and rearing periods. We also evaluated the influence of ten fish species traits on fish reproductive success. Species traits included spawning duration, reproductive strategy, egg incubation rate, swimming locomotion morphology, general habitat preference, and food habits. Model selection results indicated that young-of-year fish density was positively related to short-term high flows during the spawning period and negatively related to flow variability during the rearing period. However, the effect of the flow regime components varied substantially among species, but was related to species traits. The effect of short-term high flows on the reproductive success was lower for species that broadcast their eggs during spawning. Species with cruiser swimming locomotion morphologies (e.g., Micropterus) also were more vulnerable to variable flows during the rearing period. Our models provide insight into the conditions and timing of flows that influence the reproductive success of warmwater stream fishes and may guide decisions related to stream regulation and management.


Hierarchical models Information theoretic Flow management 



A number of people were instrumental in providing assistance with this project. We are particularly indebted to the many technicians, volunteers, and graduate students who conducted the field portions of this study including: T.M. Skelly, the late M.J. Sule, and C.Shea. Funding for this analysis was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey through the National Park Service Science Support Program. The manuscript was improved with suggestions from C.R. Jackson, J. Long and anonymous reviewers. The use of trade, product, industry or firm names or products is for informative purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Government or the U.S. Geological Survey. The Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the University of Georgia, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina State University, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Auburn University, and the Wildlife Management Institute.


  1. Aadland LP (1993) Stream habitat types: their fish assemblages and relationship to flow. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:790–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  3. Auld AH, Schubel JR (1976) Effects of suspended sediment on fish eggs and larvae: a laboratory assessment. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Sciences 6:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bain MB, Finn JT, Booke HE (1985) A quantitative method for sampling riverine microhabitats by electrofishing. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bain MB, Hearne JT, Booke HE (1988) Stream regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 69:382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayley PB, Austen DJ (2002) Capture efficiency of a boat electrofisher. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:435–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayley PB, Dowling DC (1990) Gear efficiency calibrations for stream and river sampling. Illinois Natural History Survey Aquatic Ecology Technical Report 90/8, Champaign, 48 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Bayley PB, Dowling DC (1993) The effects of habitat in biasing fish abundance and species richness estimates when using various sampling methods in streams. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii 40:5–14Google Scholar
  9. Beschta RL, Jackson WL (1979) The intrusion of fine sediments into a stable gravel bed. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:207–210Google Scholar
  10. Booth DB, Jackson CR (1997) Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33:1077–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boschung HT Jr, Mayden RL (2004) Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington, DC, 736 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, 485 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, 353 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Conroy MJ, Peterson JT (2009) Integrating management, research, and monitoring: leveling the 3-legged stool. In: Cederbaum S, Faircloth B, Terhune T, Thompson J, Carroll J (eds) Gamebird 2006: Quail VI and Perdix XII. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, pp 11–19Google Scholar
  15. Cushman RM (1985) Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fausch KD, Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience 52:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman MC, Marcinek PA (2006) Fish assemblage responses to water withdrawals and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams. Environmental Management 38:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman MC, Bowen ZH, Bovee KD, Irwin ER (2001) Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecological Applications 11:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuller WA (1987) Measurement error models. Wiley, New York, 440 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Gauch HG (1982) Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 298 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldstein RM, Meador MR (2004) Comparisons of fish species traits from small streams to large rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:971–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon ND, McMahon TA, Finlayson BL (1992) Stream hydrology: an introduction for ecologists. Wiley, New York, 526 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Grover NC, Harrington AW (1966) Stream flow measurements, records and their uses. Dover Publications, New York, 363 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Harvey BC (1987) Susceptibility of young-of-the-year fishes to downstream displacement by flooding. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:851–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatcher CC, Nester RT, Muth KM (1991) Using larval fish abundance in the St Claire and Detroit rivers to predict year-class strength of forage fishes in Lake Huron and Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 17:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hines J (2006) Program presence, version 20. http://wwwmbr-pwrcusgsgov/software/doc/presence/presencehtml. Accessed October 6, 2006
  27. Huang X, Garcia MH (2000) Pollution of gravel spawning grounds by deposition of suspended sediment. Journal of Environmental Engineering 126:963–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hurvich CM, Tsai C (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Irwin ER, Freeman MC (2002) Proposal for adaptive management to conserve biotic integrity in a regulated segment of the Tallapoosa River, Alabama, USA. Conservation Biology 16:1212–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson PN (1989) Prediction of regulation effects on natural biological rhythms in south-central African freshwater fish. Regulated Rivers 3:205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106:110–127Google Scholar
  32. Keller EA, Swanson FJ (1979) Effects of large organic material on channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 4:351–380Google Scholar
  33. Kinsolving AD, Bain MB (1993) Fish assemblage recovery along a riverine disturbance gradient. Ecological Applications 3:531–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kope RG, Botsford LW (1988) Detection of environmental influence on recruitment using abundance data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 45:1448–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larimore RW (1975) Visual and tactile orientation in smallmouth bass fry under floodwater conditions. In: Stroud RH, Clepper H (eds) Black bass biology and management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC, pp 323–332Google Scholar
  36. Latterell JJ, Naiman RJ (2007) Sources and dynamics of large logs in a temperate floodplain river. Ecological Applications 17:1127–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Littell RC, Miliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, 656 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Marcy BC, Fletcher DE, Martin FD, Paller MH, Reichert M (2005) Fishes of the middle Savannah River Basin. University of Georgia, Athens, 462 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. McCargo JW, Peterson JT (2010) An evaluation of the influence of seasonal base flow and geomorphic stream characteristics on Coastal Plain stream fish assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mettee MF, O’Neil PE, Pierson JM (1996) Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, 820 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Olden JD, Poff NL, Bestgen KR (2006) Life-history strategies predict fish invasions and extirpations in the Colorado River basin. Ecological Monographs 76:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson JT (1996) The evaluation of hydraulic unit based classification system. PhD Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 256 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterson JT, Kwak TJ (1999) Modeling the effects of land use and climate change on riverine smallmouth bass. Ecological Applications 9:1391–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peterson JT, Rabeni CF (1995) Optimizing sampling effort for sampling warmwater stream fish communities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:528–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petts GE (1986) Water quality characteristics of regulated rivers. Progress in Physical Geography 10:492–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pflieger WL (1997) The fishes of Missouri. Conservation Commission of Missouri, Jefferson City, 347 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Poff NL, Allan JD (1995) Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic variability. Ecology 76:606–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poff NL, Olden JD, Vieira NKM, Finn DS, Simmons MP, Kondratieff BC (2006) Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: trait-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25:730–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, Henriksen J, Jacobsen RB, Kennen JG, Merritt DM, O’Keefe JH, Olden JD, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology 55:147–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Puckridge JT, Sheldon F, Walker KF, Boulton AJ (1998) Flow variability and the ecology of large rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research 49:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP (1996) A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10:1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robison HW, Buchanan TM (1989) Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, 536 ppGoogle Scholar
  55. Roy AH, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ, Wenger SJ, Ensign WE, Meyer JL (2005) Investigating hydrologic alteration as a mechanism of fish assemblage shifts in urbanizing streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:656–678Google Scholar
  56. Royle JA, Nichols JD (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence–absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. SAS Institute (2001) SAS/STAT user’s guide, release 802. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  58. Shea CP, Peterson JT (2007) An evaluation of the relative influence of habitat complexity and habitat stability on fish assemblage structure in unregulated and regulated reaches of a large southeastern warmwater stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:943–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor CA, Knouft JH, Hiland TM (2001) Consequences of stream impoundment on fish communities in a small North American drainage. Regulated Rivers-Research and Management 17:687–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tharme RE (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and Applications 19:397–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson SK, Seber GAF (1994) Detectability in conventional and adaptive sampling. Biometrics 50(3):712–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tockner K, Malard F, Ward JV (2000) An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrological Processes 14:2861–2883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Torralva MDM, Puig MA, Fernandez-Delgado C (1997) Effect of river regulation on the life history patterns of Barbus sclateri in the Segura River Basin (south-east Spain). Journal of Fish Biology 51:300–311Google Scholar
  64. Welcomme RL (1979) The fisheries ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman, London, 317 ppGoogle Scholar
  65. Welcomme RL, Winemiller KO, Cowx IG (2006) Fish environmental guilds as a tool for assessment of ecological conditions of rivers. River Research and Applications 22:377–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weyers RS, Jennings CA, Freeman MC (2003) Effects of pulsed, high-velocity water on larval robust redhorse and V-lip redhorse. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Willams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego, 817 ppGoogle Scholar
  68. Wootton RJ (1998) Ecology of teleost fishes, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Norwell, 386 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott W. Craven
    • 1
  • James T. Peterson
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mary C. Freeman
    • 3
  • Thomas J. Kwak
    • 4
  • Elise Irwin
    • 5
  1. 1.Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Geological Survey, North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of BiologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Geological Survey, Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations