Hydrobiologia

, Volume 500, Issue 1–3, pp 157–178 | Cite as

Fish zonations and guilds as the basis for assessment of ecological integrity of large rivers

  • Bram G.W. Aarts
  • Piet H. Nienhuis
Article

Abstract

Longitudinal zonation concepts describe the downstream changes in chemico-physical and biological properties of rivers. Including information on ecological fish guilds can enhance the usefulness of fish zonation concepts, in a way that they can be used as tools for assessment and management of the ecological integrity of large rivers. We present an ecological characterization of fish zones and fish communities in near-natural and in regulated large rivers in Europe (the River Doubs in France and the Rivers Rhine and Meuse in the Netherlands), using guild classifications of several life-history traits of fish and national Red Lists of threatened species. The Doubs data set was also analyzed using indices of the sensitivity of fish species to environmental degradation and indices for eurytopy. In these rivers, the number of ecological guilds per zone increases downstream, and there are clear shifts in the structure of the guilds. Flow preference and reproduction ecology of river fish are closely linked. The proportion of rheophilic species in the fish community decreases downstream, and the proportions of limnophilic and eurytopic species increase. Lithophilic and psammophilic spawners are dominant in the upper zones, whereas the lower zones are dominated by phytophilic and phytolithophilic spawners. The proportion of zoobenthivorous and periphytivorous species decreases downstream, and the proportion of zooplanktivorous and phytivorous species increases. However, because the European fish fauna mainly consists of feeding generalists, the discriminative abilities of simplistic feeding guild classifications are not very high. Guilds of sensitive, stenoecious species that share life history strategies that are highly adapted to specific riverine conditions (rheophils and limnophils) have declined far more than generalist species that can survive in a wide range of habitats that are not characteristic of natural river ecosystems. Because of the subsequent over-abundance of the eurytopic species the original longitudinal fish zonations are hardly recognizable anymore in heavily impacted large rivers such as the River Rhine. Hence these rivers do not meet the criteria for ecological integrity. Within a specific fish region, a suitable way of analyzing and monitoring the impact of human disturbance on the structure of the fish community is by comparing the guild structure of the present state of a fish zone with that of the reference situation.

ecological integrity longitudinal zonation fish guilds Red Lists large rivers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarts, B. G. W. & P. H. Nienhuis, 1999. Ecological sustainability and biodiversity. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 6: 89–102.Google Scholar
  2. Aarts, B. G. W., F.W. B. van den Brink & P. H. Nienhuis (in press). Habitat loss as the main cause of the stagnating recovery of the fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: the transversal floodplain gradient. River Res. Appl.Google Scholar
  3. Admiraal, W., G. van der Velde, H. Smit & W. G. Cazemier, 1993. The rivers Rhine and Meuse in The Netherlands: present state and signs of ecological recovery. Hydrobiologia 265: 97–128.Google Scholar
  4. Allan, J. D., 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Water. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Bain, M. B., J. T. Finn & H. E. Booke, 1988. Streamflow regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 69: 382–392.Google Scholar
  6. Balon, E. K., 1975a. Reproductive guilds of fishes: a proposal and definition. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32: 821–864.Google Scholar
  7. Balon, E. K., 1975b. Ecological guilds of fishes: a short summary of the concept and its application. Verh. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 19: 2430–2439.Google Scholar
  8. Balon, E. K., 1981. Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Environ. Biol. Fish. 6: 377–389.Google Scholar
  9. Bayley, P. B. & H.W. Li, 1992. Riverine fishes. In Calow, P. & G. E. Petts (eds), The Rivers Handbook: Hydrological and Ecological Principles. Vol. 1. Blackwell, Oxford: 251–281.Google Scholar
  10. Bergers, P. J. M., 1991. Voedselecologie van vissen in de Nederlandse Rijntakken. Publications and Reports of the Project Ecological Rehabilitation of the River Rhine 28: 1–119 (in Dutch, summary in English).Google Scholar
  11. Berrebi dit Thomas, R., J. Belliard & P. Boët, 1998. Caractéristiques des peuplements piscicoles sensibles aux altérations du milieu dans les cours d'eau du bassin de la Seine. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic. 348: 47–64.Google Scholar
  12. Buijse, A. D., H. Coops, M. Staras, L. H. Jans, G. J. van Geest, R. E. Grift, B.W. Ibelings, W. Oosterberg & F. C. J. M. Roozen, 2002. Restoration strategies for river floodplains along large lowland rivers in Europe. Freshwat. Biol. 47: 889–907.Google Scholar
  13. Chovanec, A., P. Jäger, M. Jungwirth, V. Koller-Kreimel, O. Moog, S. Muhar & S. Schmutz, 2000. The Austrian way of assessing the ecological integrity of running waters: a contribution to the EU Water Framework Directive. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 445–452.Google Scholar
  14. Copp, G. H., 1989. The habitat diversity and fish reproductive function of floodplain ecosystems. Environ. Biol. Fish. 26: 1–27.Google Scholar
  15. Copp, G. H., J.-M. Olivier, M. Pe¡náz & A. L. Roux, 1991. Juvenile fishes as functional describers of fluvial ecosystem dynamics: applications on the River Rhône, France. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 6: 135–145.Google Scholar
  16. De Groot, S. J., 2002. A review of the past and present status of anadromous fish species in the Netherlands: is restocking the Rhine feasible? Hydrobiologia 478/Developments in Hydrobiology 166: 205–218.Google Scholar
  17. De Nie, H. W., 1996. Atlas van de Nederlandse Zoetwatervissen. Media Publishing, Doetinchem (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  18. De Nie, H. W., 1997. Bedreigde en Kwetsbare Zoetwatervissen in Nederland, Voorstel voor een Rode Lijst. Stichting Atlas Verspreiding Nederlandse Zoetwatervissen, Nieuwegein (in Dutch, summary in English).Google Scholar
  19. De Nie, H. W., 1998. Beoordeling van de waterkwaliteit met vissen. In Anonymous (ed.), Cursus Waterkwaliteit. RUG Afdeling Biologie, Groningen: 132–150 (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  20. De Nie, H. W. & G. Van Ommering, 1998. Bedreigde en Kwetsbare Zoetwatervissen in Nederland, Toelichting op de Rode Lijst. Informatie-en KennisCentrum Natuurbeheer, Wageningen (in Dutch, summary in English).Google Scholar
  21. Dynesius, M. & C. Nilsson, 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266: 753–762.Google Scholar
  22. EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000 P 0001. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/main/2000/en_2000L006 0_index.html (4 March 2003)Google Scholar
  23. EC-DG XI, 2003 The EU Water Framework Directive-integrated river basin management for Europe. http://europa.eu.int/comm/ environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html (4 March 2003).Google Scholar
  24. Goldstein, R. M. & T. P. Simon, 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. In Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton: 123–202.Google Scholar
  25. Grandmottet, J. P., 1983. Principales exigences des téléostéens vis-à-vis de l'habitat aquatique. Annales Scientifiques de l'Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, Biologie Animale, 4ème série, fasc. 4: 3–32.Google Scholar
  26. Grift, R. E., 2001. How Fish Benefit from Floodplain Restoration along the Lower River Rhine. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  27. Grift, R. E., A. D. Buijse, W. L. T. van Densen & J. G. P. Klein Breteler, 2000. Restoration of the river-floodplain interaction: benefits for the fish community in the River Rhine. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 135, Large Rivers 12: 1–13.Google Scholar
  28. Hawkes, H. A., 1975. River zonation and classification. In Whitton, B. A. (ed.), River Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford: 312–374.Google Scholar
  29. Hengeveld, R., 1996. Measuring ecological diversity. Biodivers. Lett. 3: 58–65.Google Scholar
  30. Holčík, J. (ed.), 1989. The Freshwater Fishes of Europe. Vol. 1, Part II. AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  31. Horwitz, R. J., 1978. Temporal variability patterns and the distributional patterns of stream fishes. Ecol. Monogr. 48: 307–321.Google Scholar
  32. Huet, M., 1949. Aperçu des relations entre la pente et les populations piscicoles des eaux courantes. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 11: 333–351.Google Scholar
  33. Huet, M., 1959. Profiles and biology of Western European streams as related to fish management. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 88: 155–163.Google Scholar
  34. Huet, M., 1962. Influence du courant sur la distribution des poissons dans les eaux courantes. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 24: 413–432.Google Scholar
  35. Illies, J. & L. Botosaneanu, 1963. Problèmes et méthodes de la classification et de la zonation écologique des eaux courantes, considerées surtout du point de vue faunistique. Verh. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 12: 1–57.Google Scholar
  36. Jungwirth, M., S. Muhar & S. Schmutz, 1995. The effects of recreated instream and ecotone structures on the fish fauna of an epipotamal river. Hydrobiologia 303: 195–206.Google Scholar
  37. Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.Google Scholar
  38. Karr, J. R., 1995. Using biological criteria to protect ecological health. In Rapport, D. J., C. L. Gaudet & P. Calow (eds), Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems. NATO ASI Series, Vol. I 28. Springer-Verlag, Berlin: 137–152.Google Scholar
  39. Keith, P., 1994. Poissons. InMaurin, H. (ed.), Inventaire de la Faune Menacée en France. Le Livre Rouge. Editions Nathan/Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle/WWF-France, Paris: 100–119.Google Scholar
  40. Kirchhofer, A. & D. Hefti (eds), 1996. Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fish in Europe. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.Google Scholar
  41. Lelek, A., 1987. The Freshwater Fishes of Europe. Vol. 9: Threatened Fishes of Europe. AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  42. Lelek, A., 1991. The predator–prey relationship in the fish community of the River Rhine. Verh. Int. Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 24: 2455–2460.Google Scholar
  43. Lelek, A. & G. Buhse, 1992. Fische des Rheins: Früher und Heute. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  44. Lelek, A. & C. Köhler, 1989. Zustandanalyse der Fischartengemeinschaften im Rhein (1987–1988). Fischökologie 1: 47–64.Google Scholar
  45. Lenders, H. J. R., B. G.W. Aarts, H. Strijbosch & G. van der Velde, 1998. The role of reference and target images in ecological recovery of river systems: lines of thought in the Netherlands. In Nienhuis P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven & A. M. J. Ragas (eds), New Concepts for Sustainable Management of River Basins. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 35–52.Google Scholar
  46. Lenders, H. J. R., M. A. J. Huijbregts, B. G. W. Aarts & C. A. M. van Turnhout, 1999. Assessing the degree of preservation of landscape, natural and cultural-historical values in river dike reinforcement planning in The Netherlands. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 15: 325–337.Google Scholar
  47. Leuven, R. S. E. W., Y. Gerig, I. Poudevigne, G. W. Geerling, L. K. Kooistra & B. G. W. Aarts, 2002. Cumulative impact assessment of ecological rehabilitation and infrastructure facilities in floodplains along the middle reach of the River Waal. In Leuven, R. S. E. W., I. Poudevigne & R. M. Teeuw (eds), Application of Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing in River Studies. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 201–216.Google Scholar
  48. Lorenz C.M., G.M. van Dijk, A. G. M. van Hattum, W. P. Cofino, 1997. Concepts in river ecology: implications for indicator development. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 13: 501–516.Google Scholar
  49. Morin, R. & R. J. Naiman, 1990. The relation of stream order to fish community dynamics in boreal forest watersheds. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 37: 135–150.Google Scholar
  50. Nienhuis P. H., A. D. Buijse, R. S. E. W. Leuven, A. J. M. Smits, R. J. W. De Nooij, E. M. Samborska, 2002. Ecological rehab-178 ilitation of the lowland basin of the river Rhine (NW Europe). Hydrobiologia 478/Developments in Hydrobiology 166: 53–72.Google Scholar
  51. Nienhuis, P. H. & R. S. E. W. Leuven, 2001. River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergism? Hydrobiologia 444: 85–99.Google Scholar
  52. Oberdorff, T. & R. M. Hughes, 1992. Modification of an index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages to characterize rivers of the Seine Basin, France. Hydrobiologia 228: 117–130.Google Scholar
  53. Pe?áz, M. & P. Jurajda, 1993. Fish assemblages of the Morava River – Longitudinal zonation and protection. Folia Zool. 42: 317–328.Google Scholar
  54. Quak, J., 1994. De visstand in stromende wateren. In Raat, A. J. P. (ed.), Vismigratie, Visgeleiding en Vispassages in Nederland. Organisation for the Improvement of Inland Fisheries, Nieuwegein: 59–84 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  55. Raat A. J. P., 2001. Ecological rehabilitation of the Dutch part of the River Rhine with special attention to the fish. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 17: 131–144.Google Scholar
  56. Redeke, H. C., 1941. Fauna van Nederland X (Pisces). Sijthoff's, Leiden (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  57. Schiemer, F., 1988. Gefärdete Cypriniden – Indikatoren für die ökologische Intaktheit von Flußsystemen. Natur und Landschaft 63: 370–373.Google Scholar
  58. Schiemer, F. & T. Spindler, 1989. Endangered fish species of the Danube River in Austria. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. 4: 397–407.Google Scholar
  59. Schiemer, F. & H. Waidbacher, 1992. Strategies for conservation of a Danubian fish fauna. In Boon, P. J., P. Calow & G. E. Petts (eds), River Conservation and Management. Wiley, Chichester: 363–382.Google Scholar
  60. Schmutz, S., B. Kaufmann, B. Vogel, M. Jungwirth & S. Muhar, 2000. A multi-level concept for fish-based, river-type-specific assessment of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 279–289.Google Scholar
  61. Schöll, F. & A. Haybach, 2000. Der Potamon-Typie-Index – ein indikatives Verfahren zur ökologischen Bewertung großer Fließgewässer. Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung 44: 32–33.Google Scholar
  62. Schouten, W. J. & J. Quak, 1994. De Visstand in de Stromende Rijkswateren. RIZA/OVB VO 1993–01. Organisation for the Improvement of Inland Fisheries, Nieuwegein/Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, Lelystad (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  63. Siepel, H., R. J. Knijn, F. J. J. Niewold & H. J. L Heessen, 1993. De Internationale Betekenis van Nederland voor de Fauna; 2. De Aquatische Fauna. IBN-DLO, Wageningen (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  64. Simberloff, D. & T. Dayan, 1991. The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22: 115–143.Google Scholar
  65. Simon, T. P. (ed), 1999. Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
  66. Tittizer, T. & F. Krebs (eds), 1996. Ökosystemforschung: Der Rhein und seine Auen – Eine Bilanz. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  67. Van den Brink, F. W. B., 1994. Impact of Hydrology on Floodplain Lake Ecosystems along the Lower Rhine and Meuse. PhD Thesis. University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  68. Van den Brink, F. W. B., G. van der Velde, A. D. Buijse & A. G. Klink, 1996. Biodiversity in the Lower Rhine and Meuse river-floodplains: its significance for ecological management. Neth. J. Aquat. Ecol. 30: 129–149.Google Scholar
  69. Van der Velde, G. & F. W. B. van den Brink, 1994. Does the Rhine still have characteristics of a river ecosystem? The longitudinal distribution of macroinvertebrates. Water Sci. Technol. 29: 1–8.Google Scholar
  70. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130–137.Google Scholar
  71. Verneaux, J., 1973. Cours d'Eau de Franche-Comté (Massif du Jura). Recherches Écologiques sur le Réseau Hydrographique du Doubs. Essai de Biotypologie. Thesis, University of Besançon.Google Scholar
  72. Verneaux, J., 1981. Les poissons et la qualité des cours d'eau. Annales Scientifiques de l'Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, Biologie Animale, 4ème série, fasc. 2: 33–41.Google Scholar
  73. Verneaux, J., A. Schmitt, V. Verneaux & C. Prouteau, 2003. Benthic insects and fish of the Doubs River system: typological traits and the development of a species continuum in a theoretically extrapolated watercourse. Hydrobiologia 490: 63–74.Google Scholar
  74. Volz, J. & W. G. Cazemier, 1991. Die Fischfauna im niederländischen Rhein – eine aktuelle Bestandsaufname. Fischökologie 5: 3–18.Google Scholar
  75. Vriese, F. T., S. Semmekrot & A. J. P. Raat, 1994. Assessment of spawning and nursery areas in the river Meuse. Water Sci. Technol. 29: 297–299.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bram G.W. Aarts
    • 1
  • Piet H. Nienhuis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations