Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 130, Issue 1–3, pp 437–454 | Cite as

A Multilevel Modeling Approach to Assessing Regional and Local Landscape Features for Lake Classification and Assessment of Fish Growth Rates

  • Tyler WagnerEmail author
  • Mary T. Bremigan
  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
  • Patricia A. Soranno
  • Nancy A. Nate
  • James E. Breck


The ecoregion and watershed frameworks are landscape-based classifications that have been used to group waterbodies with respect to measures of community structure; however, they have yet to be evaluated for grouping lakes for demographic characteristics of fish populations. We used a multilevel modeling approach to determine if variability in mean fish length at age could be partitioned by ecoregions and watersheds. For the ecoregions analysis, we then examined if within-ecoregion variability could be explained by local water quality and lake morphometry characteristics. We used data from agency surveys conducted during 1974–1984 for age 2 and 3 fish of seven common warm and coolwater fish species. Variance in mean length at age between ecoregions for all species was not significant, and between-watershed variance estimates were only significant in 3 out of 14 analyses; however, the total amount of variation between watersheds was very small (ranging from 1.8% to 3.7% of the total variance), indicating that ecoregions and watersheds were ineffective in partitioning variability in mean length at age. Within ecoregions, water quality and lake morphometric characteristics accounted for 2%–23% of the variation in mean length at age. Measures of lake productivity were the most common significant covariates, with mean length at age increasing with increasing lake productivity. Much of the variability in mean length at age was not accounted for, suggesting that other local factors such as biotic interactions, fish density, and exploitation are important. The results indicate that the development of an effective regional framework for managing inland lakes will require a substantial effort to understand sources of demographic variability and that managers should not rely solely on ecoregions or watersheds for grouping lakes with similar growth rates.


Ecoregion Watershed Classification Fish growth Mean length at age Water quality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albert, D. A. (1995). Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A working map and classification. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report (NC-178). Retrieved from
  2. Bailey, R. G. (1983). Delineations of ecosystem regions. Environmental Management, 7, 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour, C. D., & Brown, J. H. (1974). Fish species diversity in lakes. American Naturalist, 108, 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, R. S., & Marshall, K. (1996). Ecosystem management in state governments. Ecological Applications, 6, 721–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casselman, J. M., & Lewis, C. A. (1996). Habitat requirements of northern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheruvelil, K. S. (2004). Examining lakes at multiple spatial scales: Predicting fish growth, macrophyte cover and lake physio-chemical variables. PhD thesis, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  7. Diehl, S., & Eklöv, P. (1995). Effects of piscivore-mediated habitat use on resources, diet, and growth of perch. Ecology, 76, 1712–1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodson, S. (1992). Predicting crustacean zooplankton species richness. Limnology and Oceanography, 37, 848–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drake, M. T., Claussen, J. E., Philipp, D. P., & Pereira, D. L. (1997). A comparison of bluegill reproductive strategies and growth among lakes with different fishing intensities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17, 496–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eklöv, P., & Hamrin, S. F. (1989). Predatory efficiency and prey selection: Interactions between pike Esox lucius, perch Perca fluviatilis, and rudd Scardinus erythropthalmus. Oikos, 56, 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerritsen, J., Barbour, M. T., & King, K. (2000). Apples, oranges, and ecoregions: On determining pattern in aquatic assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, J. C., & Maceina, M. J. (2000). Influence of trophic state on spotted bass and largemouth bass spawning time and age-0 population characteristics in Alabama reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen, M. J., Boisclair, D., Brandt, S. B., Hewett, S. W., Kitchell, J. F., Lucas, M. C., et al. (1993). Applications of bioenergetics models to fish ecology and management: Where do we go from here? Transactions of American Fisheries Society, 122, 1019–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins, C. P., & Vinson, M. R. (2000). Weak correspondence between landscape classification and stream invertebrate assemblages: Implications for bioassessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, D., Baker, E., Bednarz, R., Borgeson, D. Jr., Braunscheidel, J., Breck, J., et al. (2003). Developing a standardized sampling program: The Michigan experience. Fisheries, 28, 18–25.Google Scholar
  16. Huckins, C. J. F. (1997). Functional linkages among morphology, feeding performance, diet, and competitive ability in molluscivorous sunfish. Ecology, 78, 2401–2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson, D. A., Peres-Neto, P. R., & Olden, J. D. (2001). What controls who is where in freshwater fish communities – The roles of biotic, abiotic, and spatial factors. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenerette, G. D., Lee, J., Waller, D. W., & Carlson, R. E. (2002). Multivariate analysis of the ecoregion delineation for aquatic systems. Environmental Management, 29, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, R. K. (2000). Spatial congruence between ecoregions and littoral macroinvertebrate assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitchell, J. F., Stewart, D. J., & Weininger, K. (1977). Applications of a bioenergetics model to yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 34, 1922–1935.Google Scholar
  21. Kratz, T. K., Webster, K. E., Bowser, C. J., Magnuson, J. J., & Benson, B. J. (1997). The influence of landscape position on lakes in northern Wisconsin. Freshwater Biology, 37, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCauley, R. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (1990). Effect of air temperature on growth of largemouth bass in North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 119, 276–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCormick, F. H., Peck, D. V., & Larsen, D. P. (2000). Comparison of geographic classification schemes for Mid-Atlantic stream fish assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2003). Digital water atlas version 1. Institute for Fisheries Research, GIS Working Group. Michigan: Ann Arbor, 48104.Google Scholar
  25. Mittelbach, G. G. (1988). Competition among refuging sunfishes and effects of fish density on littoral zone invertebrates. Ecology, 69, 614–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mittelbach, G. G., & Chesson, P. L. (1987). Predation risk: Indirect effects on fish populations. In W. C. Kerfoot, & A. Sih (Eds.), Predation: Direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities (pp. 315–332). Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  27. Mittlebach, G. G., & Osenberg, C. W. (1992). Stage-structured interactions in bluegill: Consequences of adult resource variation. Ecology, 74, 2381–2394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newall, P. R., & Magnuson, J. J. (1999). The importance of ecoregion versus drainage area on fish distributions in the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin tributaries. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 55, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Omernik, J. M. (1987). Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Omernik, J. M. (2003). The misuse of hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, reporting, and ecosystem management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39, 563–573.Google Scholar
  31. Omernik, J. M., & Bailey, R. G. (1997). Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33, 935–949.Google Scholar
  32. Omernik, J. M., & Kinney, A. J. (1983). An improved technique for estimating mean depth of lakes. Water Research, 17, 1603–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pan, Y., Stevenson, R. J., Hill, B. H., & Herlihy, A. T. (2000). Ecoregions and benthic diatom assemblages in the Mid-Atlantic highlands streams, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 518–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pazzia, I., Trudel, M., Ridgway, M., & Rasmussen, J. B. (2002). Influence of food web structure on the growth and bioenergetics of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1593–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Persson, L., Andersson, J., Wahlström, E., & Eklöv, P. (1996). Size-specific interactions in lake systems: Predator gape limitation and prey growth rate and mortality. Ecology, 77, 900–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peters, R. H., Armesto, J. J., Boeken, B., Cole, J. J., Driscoll, C. T., Duarte, C. M., et al. (1991). On the relevance of comparative ecology to the larger field of ecology. In J. Cole, G. Lovett, & S. Findlay (Eds.), Comparative analyses of ecosystems: Patterns, mechanisms, and theories. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Pierce, R. B., Tomcko, C. M., & Margenau, T. L. (2003). Density dependence in growth and size structure of northern pike populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Power, M. R., & van den Heuvel, M. R. (1999). Age-0 yellow perch growth and its relationship to temperature. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 128, 687–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Ricker, W. E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 191, 382.Google Scholar
  41. Riera, J. L., Magnuson, J. J., Kratz, T. K., & Webster, K. E. (2000). A geomorphic template for the analysis of lake districts applied to the Northern Highland Lake District, Wisconsin, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology, 43, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth, N. E., Allan, J. D., & Erickson, D. L. (1996). Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology, 11, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sandin, L., & Johnson, R. K. (2000). Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 462–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Santoul, F., Soulard, A., Figuerola, J., Céréghino, R., & Mastrorillo, S. (2004). Environmental factors influencing local fish species richness and differences between hydroecoregions in south-western France. International Review of Hydrobiology, 89, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SAS Institute Inc. (2000). SAS/STAT user’s guide. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Seaber, P. R., Kapinos, F. P., & Knapp, G. L. (1987). Hydrologic Unit Map, USGS Water-Supply Paper 2294.Google Scholar
  47. Shuter, B. J., Jones, M. L., Korver, R. M., & Lester, N. P. (1998). A general, life history based model for regional management of fish stocks: the inland lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) fisheries in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55, 2161–2177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tomcko, C. M., & Pierce, R. B. (2001). The relationship of bluegill growth, lake morphometry, and water quality in Minnesota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130, 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Sickle, J., & Hughes, R. M. (2000). Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19, 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Steiner, C. F., Mittelbach, G., Gough, L., Dodson, S. I., et al. (1999). The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 257–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weatherley, A. H. (1972). Growth and ecology of fish populations. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  52. Werner, E. E., & Hall, D. J. (1977). Competition and habitat shift in two sunfishes (Centrarchidae). Ecology, 58, 869–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology lake and river ecosystems (3rd ed.) San Diego, California 92101: Academic.Google Scholar
  54. Zweifel, R. D., Hayward, R. S., & Rabeni, C. F. (1999). Bioenergetics insight into black bass distribution shifts in Ozark border region streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 19, 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler Wagner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary T. Bremigan
    • 1
  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patricia A. Soranno
    • 1
  • Nancy A. Nate
    • 3
  • James E. Breck
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Lyman Briggs School of ScienceEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesBureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat ProtectionMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Fisheries ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations