Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 391–416 | Cite as

Relation of urbanization to stream fish assemblages and species traits in nine metropolitan areas of the United States

  • Larry R. Brown
  • M. Brian Gregory
  • Jason T. May


We examined associations of fish assemblages and fish traits with urbanization and selected environmental variables in nine major United States metropolitan areas. The strongest relations between fishes and urbanization occurred in the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Georgia; Birmingham, Alabama; Boston, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. In these areas, environmental variables with strong associations (rs ≥ 0.70) with fish assemblages and fish traits tended to have strong associations with urbanization. Relations of urbanization with fish assemblages and fish traits were weaker in Denver, Colorado; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; Milwaukee-Green Bay, Wisconsin; and Raleigh, North Carolina. Environmental variables associated with fishes varied among the metropolitan areas. The metropolitan areas with poor relations may have had a limited range of possible response because of previous landscape disturbances. Given the complexities of urban landscapes in different metropolitan areas, our results indicate that caution is warranted when generalizing about biological responses to urbanization.


Urbanization Urban streams Fish assemblages Land use Fish traits 


  1. Alberti M, Booth D, Hill K, Coburn B, Avolio C, Coe S, Spirandelli D (2007) The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: an empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landsc Urban Plan 80:345–361 doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilton DT, Freeland JR, Okamura F (2001) Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:159–181 doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanck A, Tedesco PA, Lamouroux N (2007) Relationships between life-history strategies of European freshwater fish species and their habitat preferences. Freshw Biol 52:843–859 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01736.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown LR, Hughes RM, Gray R, Meador MR (eds) (2005) Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. Symposium 47, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant WL, Goodbred SL, Leiker TL, Inouye L, Johnson BT (2007) Use of chemical analysis and assays of semipermeable membrane devices extracts to assess the response of bioavailable organic pollutants in streams to urbanization in six metropolitan areas of the United States. Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5113. Available from http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007–5113
  6. Carlisle DM, Hawkins CP, Meador MR, Potapova M, Falcone J (2008) Biological assessments of Appalachian streams based on predictive models for fish, macroinvertebrate, and diatom assemblages. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:16–37 doi:10.1899/06-081.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: User manual/tutorial. Primer-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  8. Coles JF, Cuffney TF, McMahon G (2004) The effects of urbanization on the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of coastal New England streams. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1695. Available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1695/pp1695_report_new.pdf
  9. Couch CA, Hamilton PA (2002) Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 042–02Google Scholar
  10. Cuffney TF, Brightbill RA (2008) Methods for processing and summarizing time-series temperature data collected as a part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program studies on the effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report Series 2008–330Google Scholar
  11. Cuffney TF, Falcone JF (2008) Derivation of nationally consistent indices representing urban intensity within and across nine metropolitan areas of the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5095Google Scholar
  12. Cuffney TF, Zappia H, Giddings EMP, Coles JF (2005) Effects of urbanization on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in contrasting environmental settings: Boston, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salt Lake City, Utah. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:361–407Google Scholar
  13. Dunham J, Rieman B (1999) Metapopulation structure of bull trout: influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics. Ecol Appl 9:642–655 doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0642:MSOBTI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagan W (2002) Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology 83:3243–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falcone JF, Stewart J, Sobieszcyk S, Dupree J, McMahon G, Buell G (2007) A comparison of natural and urban characteristics and the development of urban intensity indices across six geographic settings. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5123. Available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5123/
  16. Fausch KD, Bestgen KR (1997) Ecology of fishes indigenous to the central and southwestern Great Plains. In: Knopf FL, Samson FB (eds) Ecology and conservation of Great Plains vertebrates. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, pp 131–166Google Scholar
  17. Fausch KD, Karr JR, Yant PR (1984) Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. Trans Am Fish Soc 113:39–55 doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1984)113<39:RAOAIO>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fausch KD, Lyons J, Karr JR, Angermeier PL (1990) Fish communities as indicator of environmental degradation. Am Fish Soc Symp 8:123–144Google Scholar
  19. Fitzpatrick FA, Waite IA, D'Arconte PJ, Meador MR, Maupin MA, Gurtz ME (1998) Revised methods for characterizing stream habitat in the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 98–4052. Available from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/WRI98-4052/
  20. Fitzpatrick FA, Diebel MW, Harris MA, Arnold TL, Lutz MA, Richards KD (2005) Effects of urbanization on the geomorphology, habitat, hydrology, and fish index of biotic integrity of streams in the Chicago area, Illinois and Wisconsin. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:87–115Google Scholar
  21. Giddings E, Brown LR, Short TM, Meador MR (2006) Relation of fish communities to environmental conditions in urban streams of the Wasatch Front, Utah. West N Am Nat 66:155–168 doi:10.3398/1527-0904(2006)66[155:ROFCTE]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein RM, Meador MR (2004) Comparisons of fish species traits from small streams to large rivers. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:971–983 doi:10.1577/T03-080.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldstein RM, Meador MR (2005) Multilevel assessment of fish species traits to evaluate habitat degradation in streams of the upper Midwest. N Am J Fish Manage 25:180–194 doi:10.1577/M04-042.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gotelli N, Taylor C (1999) Testing metapopulation models with stream-fish assemblages. Evol Ecol Res 1:835–845Google Scholar
  25. Gregory MB, Calhoun DL (2007) Physical, chemical, and biological responses of streams to increasing watershed urbanization in the Piedmont Ecoregion of Georgia and Alabama, Chapter B of Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems in six metropolitan areas of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5101-B. Available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5101B
  26. Gurnell A, Lee M, Souch C (2007) Urban rivers: hydrology, geomorphology, ecology and opportunities for change. Geogr Compass 1:1–20 doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2006.00002.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harding JS, Benfield EF, Bolstad PV, Helfman GS, Jones EBD III (1998) Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:14843–14847 doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heimlich RE, Anderson WD (2001) Development at the urban fringe and beyond: impacts on agriculture and rural land. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  29. Helms BS, Feminella JW, Pan S (2005) Detection of biotic responses to urbanization using fish assemblages from small streams of western Georgia, USA. Urban Ecosyst 8:39–57 doi:10.1007/s11252-005-1418-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoeinghaus DJ, Winemiller KO, Birnbaum JS (2007) Local and regional determinants of stream fish assemblage structure: inferences based on taxonomic vs. functional groups. J Biogeogr 34:324–338 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01587.x Google Scholar
  31. Irz P, Michonneau F, Oberdorff T, Whittier T, Lamouroux N, Mouillot D, Argillier C (2007) Fish community comparisons along environmental gradients in lakes of France and north-east USA. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:350–366 doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00290.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karr JR, Fausch KD, Angermeir PL, Yant PR, Schlosser IJ (1986) Assessment of biological integrity in running water: a method and its rational. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication, No. 5, Champaign, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennen JG, Ayers MA (2002) Relation of environmental characteristics to the composition of aquatic assemblages along a gradient of urban land use in New Jersey, 1996–98. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4069, Trenton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  34. Kennen JG, Chang M, Tracy BH (2005) Effects of landscape change on fish assemblage structure in a rapidly growing metropolitan area in North Carolina, USA. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:39–52Google Scholar
  35. Light T, Marchetti MP (2007) Distinguishing between invasions and habitat changes as drivers of diversity loss among California’s freshwater fishes. Conserv Biol 21:434–446 doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00643.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linam GW, Kleinsasser LJ, Mayes KB (2002) Regionalization of the index of biotic integrity for Texas streams. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Resource Protection Division, River Studies Report No. 17, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyons J (1992) Using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to measure environmental quality in warmwater streams of Wisconsin. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-149, St. Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  38. Maret TR, Mebane CA (2005) Historical and current perspectives on fish assemblages of the Snake River, Idaho and Wyoming. Am Fish Soc Symp 45:41–59Google Scholar
  39. Matthews WJ (1986) Physicochemical tolerance and selectivity of stream fishes as related to their geographic ranges and local distributions. In: Matthews WJ, Heins DC (eds) Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, pp 111–120Google Scholar
  40. McMahon G, Cuffney TF (2000) Quantifying urban intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecological conditions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:1247–1261 doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb05724.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McMahon G, Bales JD, Coles JF, Giddings EMP, Zappia H (2003) Use of stage data to characterize hydrologic conditions in an urbanizing environment. J Am Water Resour Assoc 39:1529–1546 doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb04437.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meador MR, Coles JF, Zappia H (2005) Fish assemblage response to urban intensity gradients in contrasting metropolitan areas: Birmingham, Alabama and Boston, Massachusetts. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:409–423Google Scholar
  43. Moring JB, Mabe JA (2008) The Effects of urbanization on small Blackland Prairie streams in the Trinity River Basin, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2006–5101-DGoogle Scholar
  44. Morley SA, Karr JR (2002) Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound Basin. Conserv Biol 16:1448–1509 doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01067.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moulton SR II, Kennen JG, Goldstein RM, Hambrook JA (2002) Revised protocols for sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-150. Available from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR02-150/OFR02-150.pdf
  46. Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00149.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paller MH, Reichert MH, Dean JM, Seigle JC (2000) Use of fish community data to evaluate restoration success of a riparian stream. Ecol Eng 15:S171–S187 doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(99)00082-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patton TM, Hubert WA, Rahel FJ, Gerow KG (2000) Effort needed to estimate species richness in small streams on the Great Plains in Wyoming. N Am J Fish Manage 20:394–398 doi:10.1577/1548-8675(2000)020<0394:ENTESR>2.3.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365 doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poff NL, Olden JD, Vieira NKM, Finn DS, Simmons MP, Kondratieff BC (2006) Functional trait niches of North American insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:730–755 doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2006)025[0730:FTNONA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pont D, Hugueny B, Beier U, Goffaux D, Melcher A, Noble R, Rogers C, Roset N, Schmutz S (2006) Assessing river biotic condition at a continental scale: a European approach using functional metrics and fish assemblages. J Appl Ecol 43:70–80 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01126.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richards KD, Scudder BC, Fitzpatrick FA, Steuer JJ, Bell AH, Peppler MC, Stewart JS, Harris MA (2008) Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems in western Lake Michigan drainages, Wisconsin, 2004. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2006–5101-CGoogle Scholar
  53. Roy AH, Freeman BJ, Freeman MC (2007) Riparian influences on stream fish assemblage structure in urbanizing stream. Landscape Ecol 22:385–402 doi:10.1007/s10980-006-9034-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schick RS, Lindley ST (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. J Appl Ecol 44:1116–1126 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01383.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shelton LR (1994) Field guide for collecting and processing stream-water samples for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-455. Available from http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr94455
  56. Short TM, Giddings E, Zappia H, Coles JF (2005) Urbanization effects on stream habitat characteristics in Boston, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salt Lake City, Utah. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:317–332Google Scholar
  57. Simonson TD, Lyons J (1995) Comparison of catch per effort and removal procedures for sampling stream fish assemblages. N Am J Fish Manage 15:419–427 doi:10.1577/1548-8675(1995)015<0419:COCPEA>2.3.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sprague LA, Nowell LH (2008) Comparison of pesticide concentrations in streams at low flow is six metropolitan areas of the United States. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:288–298 doi:10.1897/07-276R.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sprague LA, Zuellig RE, Dupree JA (2006) Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems in the South Platte River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming, chap. A of Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems in six metropolitan areas of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5101-A. Available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5101A/
  60. Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP, Johnson RK, Norris RH (2006) Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecol Appl 16:1267–1276 doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1267:SEFTEC]2.0.CO;2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tate CM, Cuffney TF, McMahon G, Giddings EMP, Coles JF, Zappia H (2005) Use of an urban intensity index to assess urban effects on streams in three contrasting environmental settings. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:291–315Google Scholar
  62. Trebitz AS, Hill BH, McCormick FH (2003) Sensitivity of indices of biotic integrity to simulated fish assemblage changes. Environ Manag 32:499–515 doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0061-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tronstad LM, Tronstad BP, Benke AC (2007) Aerial colonization and growth: rapid invertebrate responses to temporary aquatic habitats in a river floodplain. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:460–471 doi:10.1899/06-057.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. U.S. Geological Survey (2000) National elevation dataset. U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://gisdata.usgs.gov/ned
  65. U.S. Geological Survey (2009) Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/urban/
  66. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Protecting water resources with smart growth. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Eastern Research Group of the Development, Community, and Environmental Division, U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, EPA 231-R-04-002 Washington, D.C. Availanle from http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/waterresources_with_sg.pdf
  67. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Urban Watershed Management Research. http://www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/index.htm
  68. Vila-Gispert A, Alcaraz C, Garcia-Berthou E (2005) Life-history traits of invasive fish in small Mediterranean streams. Biol Invasions 7:107–106 doi:10.1007/s10530-004-9640-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waite IA, Sobieszczyk S, Carpenter KD, Arnsberg AJ, Johnson HM, Hughes CA, Sarantou MJ, Rinella FA (2008) Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, Oregon and Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2006–5101-EGoogle Scholar
  70. Walsh SJ, Meador MR (1998) Guidelines for quality assurance and quality control of fish taxonomic data collected as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4239. Available from http://cars.er.usgs.gov/FishQAQC2.pdf
  71. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM et al (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723Google Scholar
  72. Walters DM, Leigh DS, Bearden AB (2003) Urbanization, sedimentation, and the homogenization of fish assemblages in the Etowah River Basin, USA. Hydrobiologia 494:5–10 doi:10.1023/A:1025412804074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walters DM, Freeman MC, Leigh DS, Freeman BJ, Pringle CM (2005) Urbanization effects on fishes and habitat quality in a southern Piedmont river basin. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:69–85Google Scholar
  74. Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Bannerman R (2001) Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environ Manag 28:255–266 doi:10.1007/s0026702409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Whittier TR, Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Herlihy AT (2007) Selecting reference sites for stream biological assessments: best professional judgment or objective criteria. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:349–360 doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[349:SRSFSB]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry R. Brown
    • 1
  • M. Brian Gregory
    • 2
  • Jason T. May
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Geological Survey, Placer HallSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations