Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 245–254

The Importance of Ecoregion Versus Drainage Area on Fish Distributions in the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin Tributaries

  • Peter R. Newall
  • John J. Magnuson
Article

Abstract

Aquatic ecoregions, based on regional landscape features, have been proposed as a model for aquatic resource management. The model assumes the existence of a typical biota associated with a given ecoregion and serves as the basis for biological assessment, reference site designation, and determination of stream potential, based on this biotic assemblage. Contrasting models for predicting stream ecosystem structure focus on the importance of local site conditions, including the regular and predictable changes that occur as a function of area draining to a site. In this study, a classification of 429 stream sites over an area of approximately 20 000 km2 in the St. Croix River basin delineated three major species groups: redhorse/spotfin shiner; brook charr/sculpin; and mixed species. Numerical analyses revealed no relationship between the species communities and ecoregions. In contrast, there was a strong association between the species communities and the area draining to the site. Our study highlights the importance of accommodating the inherent structure associated with site drainage area when imposing a regionally-based ecological classification upon stream ecosystems. This structure is expressed in the systematic changes to the physical habitat that occur with increasing drainage area and are reflected by the species community at the site. Management models that currently incorporate ecoregions in the classification or prediction of stream ecosystem structure would benefit from the inclusion of specific components that incorporate drainage area measurements.

fish communities stream size environmental gradients classification river continuum concept landscape features 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Becker, G. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Crowley, J. 1967. Biogeography. Canadian Geographer 11: 312-326.Google Scholar
  3. Hole, F. 1976. Soils of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 223 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Huet, M. 1959. Profiles and biology of western European streams as related to fish management. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 88: 155-163.Google Scholar
  5. Hughes, R., D. Larsen & J. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potentials. Env. Manag. 10: 629-635.Google Scholar
  6. Hughes, R., T. Whittier, C. Rohm & D. Larsen. 1990. A regional framework for establishing recovery criteria. Env. Manag. 14: 673-683.Google Scholar
  7. Larsen, D., J. Omernik, R. Hughes, C. Rohm, T. Whittier, A. Kinney, A. Gallant & D. Dudley. 1987. Correspondence between spatial patterns in fish assemblages in Ohio streams and aquatic ecoregions. Env. Manag. 10: 815-828.Google Scholar
  8. Leopold, L. & T. Maddock. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications. Professional Paper 252, United States Geological Survey. 57 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Leopold, L., M. Wolman & J. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 522 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Lyons, J. 1996. Patterns in the species composition of fish assemblages among Wisconsin streams. Env. Biol. Fish. 45: 329-341.Google Scholar
  11. Omernik, J. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geographers 77: 118-125.Google Scholar
  12. Rohm, C., J Giese & C. Bennett. 1987. Evaluation of an aquatic ecoregion classification of streams in Arkansas. J. Freshw. Ecol. 4: 127-140.Google Scholar
  13. Sheldon, A.L. 1968. Species diversity and longitudinal succession in stream fishes. Ecology 49: 193-198.Google Scholar
  14. Threinen, C. & R. Poff. 1963. The geography of Wisconsin's trout streams. Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. Arts. Lett. 52: 57-75.Google Scholar
  15. Tonn, W., J. Magnuson, M. Rask & J. Toivonen. 1990. Intercontinental comparison of small-lake fish assemblages: the balance between local and regional processes. Amer. Nat. 136: 345-375.Google Scholar
  16. Vannote R., G. Minshall, K. Cummins, J. Sedell & C. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.Google Scholar
  17. Waters, T.F. 1977. The streams and rivers of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 373 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Winterbourn, M., J. Rounick & B. Cowie. 1981. Are New Zealand stream ecosystems really different? New Zealand J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 15: 321-328.Google Scholar
  19. Wright, J.F., M.T. Furse & P.D. Armitage. 1993. RIVPACS — a technique for evaluating the biological quality of rivers in the U.K. European Water Pollution Control 3: 15-25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter R. Newall
    • 1
  • John J. Magnuson
    • 2
  1. 1.Geography DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison (MelbourneAustralia) (e-mail
  2. 2.Center for LimnologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonU.S.A

Personalised recommendations