Evaluating changes in stream fish species richness over a 50-year time-period within a landscape context


Worldwide, streams and rivers are facing a suite of pressures that alter water quality and degrade physical habitat, both of which can lead to changes in the composition and richness of fish populations. These potential changes are of particular importance in the Southeast USA, home to one of the richest stream fish assemblages in North America. Using data from 83 stream sites in North Carolina sampled in the 1960’s and the past decade, we used hierarchical Bayesian models to evaluate relationships between species richness and catchment land use and land cover (e.g., agriculture and forest cover). In addition, we examined how the rate of change in species richness over 50 years was related to catchment land use and land cover. We found a negative and positive correlation between forest land cover and agricultural land use and average species richness, respectively. After controlling for introduced species, most (66 %) stream sites showed an increase in native fish species richness, and the magnitude of the rate of increase was positively correlated to the amount of forested land cover in the catchment. Site-specific trends in species richness were not positive, on average, until the percentage forest cover in the network catchment exceeded about 55 %. These results suggest that streams with catchments that have moderate to high (>55 %) levels of forested land in upstream network catchments may be better able to increase the number of native species at a faster rate compared to less-forested catchments.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8


  1. 1.

    data available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ess/bau/nativefish


  1. Alig RJ, Kline JD, Lichtenstein M (2004) Urbanization on the US landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 69(2):219–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson AA, Hubbs C, Winemiller K, Edwards RJ (1995) Texas freshwater fish assemblages following three decades of environmental change. Southwest Nat 40(3):314–321

    Google Scholar 

  4. Angermeier PL (1995) Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of virginia. Conserv Biol 9(1):143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Argent DG, Carline RF (2004) Fish assemblage changes in relation to watershed landuse disturbance. Aquat Ecosyst Health & Manag 7(1):101–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bailey R, Avers P, King T, McNab W (1994) Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map). 1:7,500,000. Tech. rep., USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA

  7. Beecher HA, Dott ER, Fernau RF (1988) Fish species richness and stream order in Washington State streams. Environ Biol Fish 22(3):193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blevins Z, Effert E, Wahl D, Suski C (2013) Land use drives the physiological properties of a stream fish. Ecol Indic 24:224–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooks DR, Mayden RL, McLennan DA (1992) Phylogeny and biodiversity: conserving our evolutionary legacy. Trends Ecol & Evol 7(2):55–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bryce SA, Omernik JM, Larsen DP (1999) Ecoregions: a geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem management. Environ Pract 1(3):141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Burkhead NM (2012) Extinction rates in North American freshwater fishes, 1900–2010. Bioscience 62(11):933–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burns C, Peoples C, Fields M, Barnett A (2012) Protecting North Carolina’s freshwater systems: a state-wide assessment of biodiversity, condition and opportunity. Technical report, The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina, USA

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Vander Zanden MJ (2011) State of the worlds freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical, and biological changes. Ann Rev Env Resour 36:75–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dobbins D, Cailteux R, Midway S, Leone E (2012) Longterm impacts of introduced Flathead Catfish on native ictalurids in a north Florida, USA, river. Fish Manag Ecol 19(5):434–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z -I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard A -H, Soto D, Stiassny ML et al (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81(2):163–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunham JB, Young MK, Gresswell RE, Rieman BE (2003) Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. Forest Ecol Manag 178(1):183–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Etnier DA, Starnes WC (1993) The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press

  18. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gelman A (2004) Parameterization and Bayesian modeling. J Am Stat Assoc 99(466):537–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Griffith GE, Omernik JM, Comstock J, Schafale M, McNab W, Lenat D, MacPherson T (2002) Ecoregions of North Carolina.Western Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency

  21. Gu W, Swihart RK (2004) Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlifehabitat models. Biol Conserv 116(2):195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Harding J, Benfield E, Bolstad P, Helfman G, Jones E (1998) Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95(25):14843–14847

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hewitt AH, Kwak TJ, Cope WG, Pollock KH (2009) Population density and instream habitat suitability of the endangered Cape Fear Shiner. Trans Am Fish Soc 138(6):1439– 1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Coan M, Hossain N, Larson C, Herold N, McKerrow A, VanDriel JN, Wickham J (2007) Completion of the 2001 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 73(4):337–341

    Google Scholar 

  25. Howells D (1990) Quest for clean streams in North Carolina: An historical account of stream pollution control in North Carolina: Report no. 258. Tech. rep., Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

  26. Jelks HL, Walsh SJ, Burkhead NM, Contreras-Balderas S, Diaz-Pardo E, Hendrickson DA, Lyons J, Mandrak NE, McCormick F, Nelson JS et al (2008) Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jenkins RE, Burkhead NM (1994) Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society

  28. Johnston C, Maceina M (2009) Fish assemblage shifts and species declines in Alabama, USA streams. Ecol Freshw Fish 18(1):33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaeser A, Bonvechio T, Harrison D, Weller R (2011) Population dynamics of introduced Flathead Catfish in rivers of southern Georgia. In: Michaletz P, VH T (eds) American Fisheries Society Symposium, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, USA, 77, pp 405422

  30. Kéry M (2010) Introduction to WinBUGS for Ecologists: A Bayesian Approach to Regression, ANOVA and Related Analyses. Academic Press

  31. Lapointe NW, Thorson JT, Angermeier PL (2012) Relative roles of natural and anthropogenic drivers of watershed invasibility in riverine ecosystems. Biol Invasions 14(9):1931–1945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Meador MR, Coles JF, Zappia H (2005) Fish assemblage responses to urban intensity gradients in contrasting metropolitan areas: Birmingham, Alabama and Boston, Massachusetts. In: American Fisheries Society Symposium 47, vol 47, pp 409423

  33. NCDENR (2006) Standard operating procedure for stream fish communities. Tech. rep., North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

  34. NCFS (2010) North Carolinas forest resources assessment: A statewide analysis of the past, current, and projected future conditions of North Carolinas forest resources. Tech. rep., North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

  35. NOAA (2010) Development sprawl impacts on the terrestrial carbon dynamics of the United States: data download. Tech. rep., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

  36. Paller MH (1995) Relationships among number of fish species sampled, reach length surveyed, and sampling effort in South Carolina Coastal Plain streams. N Am J Fish Manag 15(1):110–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Patton TM, Rahel FJ, Hubert WA (1998) Using historical data to assess changes in Wyomings fish fauna. Conserv Biol 12(5):1120–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Plummer M (2013) rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net

  39. R Core Team. R (2013) A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  40. Scott MC (2006) Winners and losers among stream fishes in relation to land use legacies and urban development in the southeastern US. Biol Conserv 127(3):301– 309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Scott MC, Helfman GS (2001) Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity of fish assemblages. Fisheries 26(11):6–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Starnes WC, Hogue GM (2011) Curation and databasing of voucher collections from the North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission 1960s statewide surveys of fishes. Tech. rep., North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

  43. Sullivan SMP, Watzin MC, Hession WC (2006) Influence of stream geomorphic condition on fish communities in Vermont, USA. Freshw Biol 51(10):1811– 1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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(9):1791–1805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thomas ME (1993) Monitoring the effects of introduced Flathead Catfish on sport fish populations in the Altamaha River, Georgia. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, vol 47, pp 531538

  46. Tracy BH, Jenkins RE, Starnes WC (2013) History of fish investigations in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage of North Carolina and Virginia with an analysis of non indigenous species and invasion dynamics of three speciesof suckers (Catostomidae). J N C Acad Sci 129(3):82– 106

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tyre AJ, Tenhumberg B, Field SA, Niejalke D, Parris K, Possingham HP (2003) Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates. Ecol Appl 13(6):1790–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. USEPA (2009) National water quality inventory: Report to congress, 2004 reporting cycle. Tech. Rep. EPA-841-R- 08-00., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC, USA

  49. Wagner T, Hayes DB, Bremigan MT (2006) Accounting for multilevel data structures in fisheries data using mixed models. Fisheries 31(4):180–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Warren ML, Burr BM, Walsh SJ, Bart Jr HL, Cashner RC, Etnier DA, Freeman BJ, Kuhajda BR, Mayden RL, Robison HW et al (2000) Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Weinstein MP, Davis RW (1980) Collection efficiency of seine and rotenone samples from tidal creeks, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Estuaries 3(2):98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Winemiller KO, Rose KA (1992) Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: implications for population regulation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49(10):2196–2218

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Dana Infante and her lab at Michigan State University for preparing the land use data. The authors would like to thank the Staff of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, for assisting B.H. Tracy in the collection of the fish community data. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen R. Midway.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Midway, S.R., Wagner, T., Tracy, B.H. et al. Evaluating changes in stream fish species richness over a 50-year time-period within a landscape context. Environ Biol Fish 98, 1295–1309 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-014-0359-z

Download citation


  • Stream fish
  • Species richness
  • Hierarchical Bayesian
  • Land use
  • Forest cover