Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Long-Term Trends in Fish Distributions at Multiple Scales Decreases Uncertainty Associated with Historical Datasets

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring long-term changes in aquatic biodiversity requires the effective use of historical data that were collected with different methods and varying levels of effort. Aggregating data into different spatial scales can control for such differences and provide a robust framework for monitoring distribution trends. We used a quantitative, multi-scale assessment to evaluate the potential drivers of distribution change for 60 fish species at three spatial scales, using 503 unique sampling events conducted between 1931 and 2019 in a stream biodiversity hotspot (French Creek, Pennsylvania, U.S.A). Trends delineated at multiple scales demonstrated that only one cyprinid species consistently declined through time. In contrast, several species, particularly centrarchids (bass and sunfish), appeared to increase with time. However, evidence for species’ increases varied among the different spatial scales, and our observations suggest that differences in effort and detection across time periods may contribute to patterns of species increases. There was agreement among scales that agricultural land use, non-native brown trout (Salmo trutta), and anthropogenic barriers did not explain patterns in biodiversity change from the distribution trends in this study. The lack of species declines is likely due to the limited levels of historical impacts in the watershed compared with other locations in the region that experienced more acute pollution bottlenecks. Species increases were most prevalent for sportfish and baitfish species, suggesting that distribution increases were human mediated. Similar multi-scale assessments should provide more robust insight into patterns of biodiversity loss and distribution changes by maximizing the use of historical data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alofs KM, Jackson DA, Lester NP (2014) Ontario freshwater fishes demonstrate differing range-boundary shifts in a warming climate. Divers Distrib 20:123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson AA, Hubbs C, Winemiller K, Edwards RJ (1995) Texas freshwater fish assemblages following three decades of environmental change. Southwest Nat 40:314–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Argent DG, Carline RF, Stauffer JR (1997) Historical and contemporary distribution of fishes in Pennsylvania. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, RWO 47, University Park, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Argent DG, Carline RF, Stauffer JR (1998) Changes in the distribution of Pennsylvania fishes: the last 100 years. J Pa Acad Sci 72:32–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Argent DG, Carline RF (2004) Fish assemblage change in relation to watershed landuse disturbance. Aquat Ecosyst Health 7:101–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, macroinvertebrates and fish, 2nd edn. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 841-B-99-002, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierschenk AM, Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J (2019) Impact of catchment land use on fish community composition in the headwater areas of Elbe, Danube and Main. Sci Total Environ 652:66–74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buckwalter JD, Frimpong EA, Angermeier PL, Barney JN (2018) Seventy years of stream-fish collections reveal invasions and native range contractions in an Appalachian (USA) watershed. Divers Distrib 24:219–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson DM, Daniels RA (2004) Status of fishes in New York: increases, declines, and homogenization of watersheds. Am Midl Nat 152:104–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Comte L, Grenouillet G (2013) Species distribution modelling and imperfect detection: comparing occupancy versus consensus methods. Divers Distrib 19:996–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Diana M, Allan JD, Infante D (2006) The influence of physical habitat and land use on stream fish assemblages in southeastern Michigan. Am Fish Soc Symp 48:359–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, Knowler DJ, Levequie C, Naiman RU, Prieur-Richard A, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan WF, Kennedy CM, Unmack PJ (2005) Quantifying rarity, losses, and risks for native fishes of the lower Colorado River basin: implications for conservation listing. Conserv Biol 19:1872–1882

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Reinemer DK, Sparks RE, Parker JL, DeBoer JA, Fritts MW, McClelland MA, Chick JH, Casper AF (2017) Ecological recovery of a river fish assemblage following the implementation of the Clean Water Act. Bioscience 67:957–970

    Google Scholar 

  • Gido KB, Dodds WK, Eberle ME (2010) Retrospective analysis of fish community change during a half-century of landuse and streamflow changes. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:970–987

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillette DP, Fortner AM, Franssen NR, Cartwright S, Tobler CM, Wesner JS, Reneau PC, Reneau FH, Schlupp I, Marsh-Matthews EC, Matthews WJ, Broughton RE, Lee CW (2012) Patterns of change over time in darter (Teleostei: Percidae) assemblages of the Arkansas River basin, northeastern Oklahoma, USA. Ecography 35:855–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimstead JP, Krynak EM, Yates AG (2018) Scale-specific land cover thresholds for conservation of stream invertebrate communities in agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 33:2239–2252

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding J, Benfield E, Bolstad P, Helfman G, Jones E (1998) Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Pro Natl Acad Sci USA 95:14843–14847

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt NP, Angermeier PL (2008) River-stream connectivity affects fish bioassessment performance. Environ Manag 42:132–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr JR, Toth LA, Dudley DR (1985) Fish communities of Midwestern rivers: a history of degradation. Bioscience 35:90–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk MA, Wissinger SA (2019) Accounting for non-native Brown Trout in biological assessments: implications for selecting reference conditions. Freshw Sci 38:790–801

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk MA, Rosswog AN, Ressel KN, Wissinger SA (2018) Evaluating the trade-offs between invasion and isolation for native brook trout and non-native brown trout in Pennsylvania streams. Trans Am Fish Soc 147:806–817

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk MA, Wissinger SA, Goeller BC, Rieck LO (2017) Co-varying impacts of land use and non-native brown trout on fish communities in small streams. Freshw Biol 62:600–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston CE, Maceina MJ (2009) Fish assemblage shifts and species declines in Alabama, USA stream. Ecol Fresh Fish 18:33–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Labay B, Cohen AE, Sissel B, Hendrickson DA, Douglas Martin F, Sarkar S (2011) Addressing historical fish community composition using surveys, historical collection data, and species distribution models. PLoS ONE 6:e25145

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Labay BJ, Hendrickson DA, Cohen AE, Bonner TH, King RS, Kleinsasser LJ, Linam GW, Winemiller KO (2015) Can species distribution models aid bioassessment when reference sites are lacking? Tests based on freshwater fish. Environ Manag 56:835–846

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauer T, Allen PJ, McComish TS (2004) Changes in mottled sculpin and johnny darter trawl catches after the appearance of round gobies in the Indiana waters of Lake Michigan. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:185–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, Comte L, Olden JD (2017) Heads you win, tails you lose: life-history traits predict invasion and extinction risk of the world’s freshwater fishes. Aquat Conserv 27:773–779

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovullo TJ, Stauffer JR (1993) The retail bait-fish industry in Pennsylvania: source of introduced species. J Pa Acad Sci 67:13–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE, Baillie SR, Buckland ST, Dick JM, Elston DA, Scott EM, Smith RI, Somerfield PJ, Watt AD (2010) Long-term datasets in biodiversity research and monitoring: assessing change in ecological communities through time. Trends Ecol Evol 25:574–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Meador MR, Carlisle DM (2007) Quantifying tolerance indicator values for common stream fish species of the United States. Ecol Indic 7:329–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Meador MR (2020) Historical changes in fish communities in urban streams of the south-eastern United States and the relative importance of water-quality stressors. Ecol Freshw Fish 20:156–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Midway SR, Wagner T, Tracy BH, Hogue GM, Starnes WC (2015) Evaluating changes in stream fish species richness over a 50-year time-period within a landscape context. Environ Biol Fishes 98:1295–1309

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller S, Wisor J, Stauffer JR, Bradshaw-Wilson C (2017) Expansion of the invasive round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) into Allegheny River tributaries: LeBoeuf and French Creeks in Pennsylvania. J Pa Acad Sci 91:105–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J (2018) Comprehensive analysis of > 30 years of data on stream fish population trends and conservation status in Bavaria, Germany. Biol Conserv 226:311–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller M, Bierschenk AM, Bierschenk BM, Pander J, Geist J (2020) Effects of multiple stressors on the distribution of fish communities in 203 headwater streams of Rhine, Elbe and Danube. Sci Total Environ 703:134523

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nerbonne BA, Vondracek B (2001) Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environ Manag 28:87–99

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ostroff A, Wieferich D, Cooper AA, Infante D (2013) 2012 National Anthropogenic Barrier Dataset (NABD). U.S. Geological Survey, Aquatic GAP Program, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton TM, Rahel FJ, Hubert WA (1998) Using historical data to assess changes in Wyoming’s fish fauna. Cons Biol 12:1120–1128

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkin JS, Bonner TH (2016) Historical changes in fish assemblage composition following water quality improvement in the mainstem trinity river of Texas. River Res Appl 32:85–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkin JS, Knorp NE, Boersig TC, Gebhard AE, Hix LA, Johnson TC (2017) Life history theory predictions long-term fish assemblage response to stream impoundment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 74:228–239

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poos M, Dextrase AJ, Schwalb AN, Ackerman JD (2010) Secondary invasion of the round goby into high diversity Great Lakes tributaries and species at risk hotspots: potential new concerns for endanger freshwater species. Biol Cons 12:1269–1284

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JW, Kwak TJ (2003) Fish assemblage changes in an Ozark River after impoundment: a long-term perspective. Trans Am Fish Soc 132:110–119

    Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team, 3.4.2 (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, 3.4.2, https://doi.org/http://www.R-project.org

  • Senecal AC, Walters AW, Hubert WA (2015) Historical data reveal fish assemblage shifts in an unregulated prairie river. Ecosphere 6:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer HB, Fisher RN, Davidson C (1998) The role of natural history collections in documenting species declines. Trends Ecol Evol 13:27–30

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith KL, Jones ML (2007) When are historical data sufficient for making watershed-level stream fish management and conservation decisions? Environ Monit Assess 135:291–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer JR, Criswell RW, Fischer DP (2016) The Fishes of Pennsylvania. Cichlid Press, El Paso, Texas

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland AB, Meyer JL, Gardiner EP (2002) Effects of land cover on sediment regime and fish assemblage structure in four southern Appalachian streams. Freshw Biol 47:1791–1805

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornbrugh DJ, Gido KB (2010) Influence of spatial position within stream networks on fish assemblage structure in the Kansas River basin, USA. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67:143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Tingley MW, Beissinger SR (2009) Detecting range shifts from historical species occurrences: new perspectives on old data. Cell 24:625–633

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehrly KE, Wiley MJ, Seelbach PW (2003) Classifying regional variation in thermal regime based on stream fish community patterns. Trans Am Fish Soc 132:18–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger SJ, Peterson JT, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ, David Homans D (2008) Stream fish occurrence in response to impervious cover, historic land use, and hydrogeomorphic factors. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1250–1264

    Google Scholar 

  • Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project (WPC and FCP) (2002) French Creek watershed conservation plan. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Union City, Pennsylvania, p 272

  • Whitney GG, DeCant JP (2003) Physical and historical determinants of the pre-and post-settlement forests of northwestern Pennsylvania. Can J For Res 33:1683–1697

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder CO, Rankin ET, Gordon VL, Hersha LE, Boucher CE (2019) Degradation and recovery of the Scioto River (Ohio-USA) fish assemblage from pre-settlement thru post-industrial to present-day conditions. In: Krueger CC, Waylor W, Youn S (eds) From catastrophe to recovery: stories of fish management success. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, p 233–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to S.A.W., who passed away during earlier revisions. S.A.W. was a wonderful mentor, teacher, scientist, colleague, and friend who inspired a countless number of scientists. He was loved by many and he will be sorely missed. We would like to thank the following Allegheny College students for their assistance in fish surveys: Elizabeth Goetz, Brandon Goeller, Ashley Seitz, Lynette Gardner, Anna Zimmerman, Kirsten Ressel, Anna Rosswog, Katie Robbins, Maggie McClain, Kaitlyn Campbell, Logan Billet, Scott Kirk, Jared Balik, Susan Washko, Megan Hazlett, Brian Capron, Cody Nageotte, and Tom Cannon. We are grateful to Chris Shaffer and Leslie Rieck for assistance with the collection of GIS data, and for the GIS coding of historical data. Bryan Maitland, Jason Taylor, and two unknown reviewers provided constructive comments on earlier drafts that helped improve the manuscript.

Author Contributions

M.A.K. and S.A.W. conceived the manuscript idea, and collected the fish community data for the 292 contemporary surveys. M.A.K. collated the data, performed the analyses, and wrote the paper. M.A.K. and S.A.W. critically revised the manuscript, and approved it for submission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA

    Mark A. Kirk

  2. Departments of Biology and Environmental Science and Sustainability, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA, 16335, USA

    Mark A. Kirk & Scott A. Wissinger

Authors
  1. Mark A. Kirk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott A. Wissinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark A. Kirk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kirk, M.A., Wissinger, S.A. Assessment of Long-Term Trends in Fish Distributions at Multiple Scales Decreases Uncertainty Associated with Historical Datasets. Environmental Management 66, 136–148 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01298-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01298-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation