Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 143–162 | Cite as

Alien Fishes in Natural Streams: Fish Distribution, Assemblage Structure, and Conservation in the Cosumnes River, California, U.S.A.

  • Peter B. Moyle
  • Patrick K. Crain
  • Keith Whitener
  • Jeffrey F. Mount


The Cosumnes River is the largest stream without a major dam on its mainstem in the Sacramento–San Joaquin drainage, central California, U.S.A. We studied its fishes over a 3-year period to answer the following questions: (1) Was the native fish fauna still present? (2) Why were alien fishes so abundant in a river system with a 'natural' flow regime, which elsewhere has been shown to favor native fishes? (3) Were there assemblages of fishes that reflected environmental differences created by the underlying geology? (4) Were there features of the watershed that consistently favored native fishes or that could be managed to favor native fishes? Of the 25 species collected, 17 were alien species; 14 species (five native) were abundant or widely distributed enough to use in detailed analyses. Of the native species, only rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, still occupied much of its native range in headwater streams. Other native species have been extirpated or persisted mainly above barriers to alien invasions. The most widely distributed alien species was redeye bass, Micropterus coosae, previously unknown from the river, whose abundance was associated with low-numbers of native species. Other aliens were found primarily in low-land habitats on the valley floor or foothills. Canonical Correspondence Analysis indicated that both native and alien species located on environmental gradients determined largely by elevation, temperature, flow, and emergent vegetation, but the associations with these variables were not strong. While most alien fishes were found in lowland sections of river flowing through agricultural regions, the general relationships between species abundance and landscape-level variables were weak. Assemblages of fishes were poorly defined mixtures of native and alien species. The strikingly distinct geological regions of the basin no longer supported distinct fish assemblages. Species distributions were highly individualistic, reflecting dynamic patterns of introductions, invasions, and local extinctions, as well as physiological tolerances and life history patterns. Most native fishes are likely to persist in the Cosumnes River only if summer flows are increased and if populations above natural barriers are protected from further invasions by alien species, especially redeye bass. General conclusions from this study include: (1) altered habitats can support native species under some circumstances; (2) new fish assemblages with characteristics of 'natural' communities are likely to develop in invaded systems; (3) restoring flow regimes to favor native fishes may require restoring minimum summer flows as well as high channel-forming flows. However, reversing or even reducing, the impact of the predatory redeye bass, pre-adapted for California streams, is probably not possible.

introduced species natural flow regime redeye bass assemblage structure Central Valley Sierra Nevada 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aparico, E., M.J. Vargas, J.M. Olmo & A. de Sostoa. 2000. Decline of native freshwater fishes in a Mediterranean watershed on the Iberian peninsula: A quantitative assessment. Env. Biol. Fish. 59: 11–19.Google Scholar
  2. Bain, M.B., J.T. Finn & H.E. Brooke. 1988. Stream flow regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 69: 382–392.Google Scholar
  3. Baltz, D.M. & P.B. Moyle. 1993. Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of California stream fishes. Ecol. Appl. 3: 246–255.Google Scholar
  4. Baltz, D.M., P.B. Moyle & N.J. Knight. 1982. Competitive interactions between benthic stream fishes, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, and speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39: 1502–1511.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, L.R. 2000. Fish communities and their associations with environmental variables, lower San Joaquin River drainage, California. Env. Biol. Fish. 57: 251–269.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, L.R. & T. Ford. 2002. Effects of flow on the fish communities of a regulated California river: Implications for managing native fishes. River Res. Applic. 18: 331–342.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, L.R. & P.B. Moyle. 1993. Distribution, ecology, and status of the fishes of the San Joaquin River drainage, California. Calif. Fish. Game 79: 96–114Google Scholar
  8. Brown, L.R. & P.B. Moyle. 1997. Invading species in the Eel River, California: Successes, failures, and relationships with resident species. Env. Biol. Fish. 49: 271–291.Google Scholar
  9. Constantine, C.R., 2001. The effects of substrate variability and incision on the downstream fining pattern in the Cosumnes River, Central Valley, California. MS thesis, University of California, Davis, 140 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Constantine, C.R., J.F. Mount & J.L. Florsheim. 2003. The effects of longitudinal differences in gravel mobility on the downstream-fining pattern in the Cosumnes River, California: J. Geology (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgersen, C.C. Baxter & H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. Bioscience 52: 483–498.Google Scholar
  12. Fleckenstein, J.H., Suzuki, E. & Fogg, G.E. 2001. Options for conjunctivewater management to restore fall flowin the Cosumnes River basin, California. pp. 175–182. In: M.A. Mariño & S.A. Simonovic (ed.) Integrated Water Resources Management. Int. Assoc. Hydrol. Sci. Publ. 272, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Godinho, F.N. & M.T. Ferreira. 2000. Composition of endemic fish assemblages in relation to exotic species and river regulation in a temperate stream. Biol. Invasions 2: 231–244.Google Scholar
  14. Grossman, G.D., R.E. Ratajczak, Jr., M., M. Crawford & M.C. Freeman. 1998. Assemblage organization in stream fishes: Effects of environmental variation and interspecific interactions. Ecol. Monogr. 63: 395–420.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, W.J. 2001. DNA sequence divergence and speciation in two California minnows (Cyprinidae: Lavinia exilicauda and L. (=Hesperoleucus) symmetricus). Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. 153 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Lamouroux, N., N.L. Poff & P.L. Angermeier. 2002. Intercontinental convergence of stream fish community traits along geomorphic and hydraulic gradients. Ecology 53: 1792–1807.Google Scholar
  17. Marchetti, M.P. & P.B. Moyle. 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecol. Appl. 11: 530–539.Google Scholar
  18. Marsh-Matthews, E. & W.J. Matthews. 2000. Spatial variation in relative abundance of a widespread, numerically dominant fish species and its effect on fish assemblage structure. Oecologia 125: 283–292.Google Scholar
  19. Matthews, W.J. 1998. Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology, Chapman & Hall, New York. 756 pp.Google Scholar
  20. May, J.T. & L.R. Brown. 2002. Fish communities of the Sacramento River Basin: Implications for conservation of native fishes in the Central Valley, California. Env. Biol. Fish. 63: 373–388.Google Scholar
  21. Mount, J.F. 1995. California Rivers and Streams: The Conflict Between Fluvial Process and Land Use, University of California Press, Berkeley. 359 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Mount, J.F., G.E. Fogg, L. Kavvas, J.H., Fleckenstein, M. Anderson, Z. Chen & E. Suzuki. 2001. Linked surface water-groundwater model for the Cosumnes RiverWatershed: Hydrologic evaluation of management options to restore fall flows. Final Report, USFWS, Cooperative Agreement No. 11332–8-J264.Google Scholar
  23. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, Revised and Expanded, University of California Press, Berkeley. 504 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Moyle, P.B. & R.A. Leidy. 1992. Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: Evidence from fish faunas. pp. 128–169. In: P.L. Fiedler & S.A. Jain (ed.) Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and Management, Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Moyle, P.B. & R.D. Nichols. 1973. Ecology of some native and introduced fishes of the Sierra Nevada foothills in central California. Copeia 1973: 478–490.Google Scholar
  26. Oberdoff, T., B. Hugueny, A. Compin & D. Belkessam. 1998. Non-interactive fish communities in the coastal streams of north-western France. J. Anim. Ecol. 67: 472–484.Google Scholar
  27. Poff, N.L. 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: Towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J. N. Amer. Benth. Soc. 16: 391–409.Google Scholar
  28. Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks & J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flowregime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47: 769–784.Google Scholar
  29. Pusey, B.J. & M.J. Kennard. 1996. Species richness and geographical variation in assemblage structure of the freshwater fish fauna of the wet tropics region of northern Queensland. Mar. Freshw. Res. 47: 563–573.Google Scholar
  30. Richards, C., L.B. Johnson & G.E. Host. 1996. Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53(Suppl. 1): 295–311.Google Scholar
  31. Ross, R.M., W.A. Lellis, R.M. Bennett & C.S. Johnson. 2002. Landscape determinants of nonindigenous fish invasions. Biol. Invas. 3: 347–361.Google Scholar
  32. Schlosser, I.J. 1995. Critical landscape factors that influence fish population dynamics in headwater streams. Hydrobiology 303: 71–81.Google Scholar
  33. Strange, E.M., P.B. Moyle & T.C. Foin. 1992. Interactions between stochastic and deterministic processes in stream fish community assembly. Env. Biol. Fish. 36: 1–15.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, C.M. 1996. Abundance and distribution within a guild of benthic stream fishes: Local processes and regional patterns. Freshw. Biol. 36: 385–396.Google Scholar
  35. ter Braak, C.J.F. & P. Smilauer. 1998. CANOCO for Windows Version 4.0. Center for Biometry, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 474 pp.Google Scholar
  36. ter Braak, C.J.F. & P.F.M. Verdonschot. 1995. Canonical correspondence analysis and related methods in aquatic ecology. Aquat. Sci. 57: 255–289.Google Scholar
  37. Waite, I.R. & K.D. Carpenter. 2000. Associations among fish assemblage structure and environmental variables in Willamette basin streams. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 129: 754–770.Google Scholar
  38. Ward, J.V. & J.A. Stanford. 1983. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. pp. 29–42 In: T.D. Fontaine & S.M. Bartell (ed.) Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems, Ann Arbor Science Pubs., Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  39. Ward, J.V., K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger & F. Malard. 2001. Understanding natural patterns and processes in river corridors and the basis for effective river restoration. Regul. Rivers. Res. Mgmt. 17: 311–323.Google Scholar
  40. Wasler, C.A. & H.L. Bart, Jr. 1999. Influence of agriculture on in-stream habitat and fish community structure in Piedmont watersheds of the Chattahoochee River System. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 8: 237–246.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. Moyle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patrick K. Crain
    • 1
    • 2
  • Keith Whitener
    • 3
    • 2
  • Jeffrey F. Mount
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisU.S.A.
  2. 2.Center for Integrated Watershed Sciences and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaDavisU.S.A
  3. 3.The Nature Conservancy, Cosumnes River PreserveGaltU.S.A.
  4. 4.Department of GeologyUniversity of CaliforniaU.S.A.; Center for Integrated Watershed Sciences and Management, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A

Personalised recommendations