Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 93, Issue 1–3, pp 139–156

Relation of Environmental Characteristics to Fish Assemblages in the Upper French Broad River Basin, North Carolina

  • Brenda Rashleigh
Article

Abstract

Fish assemblages at 16 sites in the upper French Broad River basin, North Carolina were related to environmental characteristics using detrended correspondence analysis, principal components analysis, and linear regression. The primary gradient affecting sites in this basin was related to agricultural influence, characterized by high levels of agricultural land cover, nitrate plus nitrite, sulfate, specific conductance, and sediment. Agricultural influence on the fish assemblage was represented as a trophic shift from specialized insectivores to generalized insectivores and an herbivore. A secondary influence on variation among sites was related to urban land cover, population density, increased concentrations of metals, and soil erodibility. This primarily urban gradient was characterized by an increase in the number of native and introduced fish species, particularly sunfish and omnivores species, and a decline in the percent of piscivores. These results support the identification of indicators for different environmental influences, which can improve the ability of resource managers to diagnose impairment in this basin and in similar basins.

detrended correspondence analysis fish assemblage metrics water quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan, J. D.: 1995, Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, Chapman & Hall, London, 388 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Angermeier, P. L. and Schlosser, I. J.: 1987, 'Assessing biotic integrity of the fish community in a small Illinois stream', N. Amer. J. Fish.Manage. 7, 331–338.Google Scholar
  3. Angermeier, P. L. and Winston, M. R.: 1999, 'Characterizing fish community diversity across Virginia landscapes: Prerequisite for conservation', Ecol. Appl. 9, 335–349.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bryce, S. A., Larsen, D. P., Hughes, R. M. and Kaufmann, P. R.: 1999, 'Assessing relative risks to aquatic ecosystems: A mid-Appalachian case study', J. Amer. Water Res. Assoc. 35, 23–36.Google Scholar
  6. Changeux, T. and Pont, D.: 1995, 'Ichthyogeographic regions and watershed size in the French river Rhone network', Hydrobiologia 300-301, 355–363.Google Scholar
  7. Edds, D. R.: 1993, 'Fish assemblage structure and environmental correlates in Nepal's Gandaki River', Copeia 1993, 48–60.Google Scholar
  8. Etnier, D. A. and Starnes, W. C.: 1993, Fishes of Tennessee, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee, 681 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Fausch, K. D., Lyons, J., Karr, J. R. and Angermeier, P. L.: 1990. 'Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation', Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 8, 123–144.Google Scholar
  10. Gauch Jr., H. G.: 1982, Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 298 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Gerritsen, J.: 1995, 'Additive biological indices for resource management', J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 13, 451–457.Google Scholar
  12. Glantz, S. A. and Slinker, B. K.: 1990, Primer of Applied Regression and Analysis of Variance, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 777 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, R. M., Stauffer, J. C., Larsen, P. R. and Lorenz, D. L.: 1996, Relation of Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Streams to Fish Communities in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota and North Dakota, 1993-1995, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4227, Mounds View, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  14. Hall Jr., L. W., Scott, M. C., Killen Jr., W. D. and Anderson, R. D.: 1996, 'The effects of land-use characteristics and acid sensitivity on the ecological status of Maryland coastal plain streams', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15, 384–394.Google Scholar
  15. Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S. and Jones III, E. B. D.: 1998, 'Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past', Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 95, 14843–14847.Google Scholar
  16. Harned, W. D.: 1979, A Quantitative Survey of Fish and Macroinvertebrates of French Broad River and Selected Tributaries: June-August 1977, Tennessee Valley Authority Technical Note B35, Division of Water Resources, Office of Natural Resources, Norris, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  17. Holling, C. S.: 1992, 'Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems', Ecol. Mon. 62, 447–502.Google Scholar
  18. Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R., Herlihy, A. T., Kincaid, T. M., Reynolds, L. and Larsen, D. P.: 1998, 'A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity', Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 1618–1631.Google Scholar
  19. Hynes, H. B. N.: 1970, The Ecology of Running Waters, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, 555 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Ibarra, M. and Stewart, D. J.: 1989, 'Longitudinal zonation of sandy beach fishes in the Napo River basin, eastern Ecuador', Copeia 1989, 364–381.Google Scholar
  21. Karr, J. R.: 1981, 'Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities', Fisheries 6, 21–27.Google Scholar
  22. Karr, J. R. and Chu, E. W.: 1999, Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, Island Press, Washington D.C., 206 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Kerans, B. L. and Karr, J. R.: 1994, 'A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley', Ecol. Appl. 4, 768–785.Google Scholar
  24. Lenat, D. R.: 1993, 'A biotic index for the southeastern United States: Derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings', J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 12, 279–290.Google Scholar
  25. Lenat, D. R. and Crawford, J. K.: 1994, 'Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biotic of three North Carolina Piedmont streams', Hydrobiologia 294, 185–199.Google Scholar
  26. Leonard, P.M. and Orth, D. J.: 1986, 'Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in small, coolwater streams', Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 115, 401–414.Google Scholar
  27. Lyons, J.: 1996, 'Patterns in the species composition of fish assemblages among Wisconsin streams', Env. Biol. Fish. 45, 329–341.Google Scholar
  28. Lyons, J., Wang, L. and Simonson, T. D.: 1996, 'Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin', N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 16, 241–256.Google Scholar
  29. Maret, T. R., Robinson, C. T. and Minshall, G. W.: 1997, 'Fish assemblages and environmental correlates in least-disturbed streams of the Upper Snake River basin', Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 126, 200–216.Google Scholar
  30. Matthews, W. J.: 1998, Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology, Chapman & Hall, New York, 757 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Matthews, W. J. and Robison, H.W.: 1988, 'The distribution of the fishes of Arkansas: A multivariate analysis', Copeia 1988, 358–374.Google Scholar
  32. Matthews, W. J., Stewart, A. J. and Power, M. E.: 1987, 'Grazing Fishes as Components of North American Stream Ecosystems: Effects of Campostoma anomalum', in W. J. Matthews and D. C. Heins (eds), Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, pp. 128–135.Google Scholar
  33. Mayden, R. L.: 1987, 'Historical Ecology and North American Highland Fishes: A Research Program in Community Ecology', in W. J. Matthews and D. C. Heins (eds), Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, pp. 210–222.Google Scholar
  34. McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J.: 1999, PC-ORDMultivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4, MjM Software Design, Glenden Beach, Oregon, 237 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Meador, M. R., Cuffney, T. F. and Gurtz,M. E.: 1993, Methods for Characterizing Fish Communities as Part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-104, Raleigh, North Carolina, 40 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, D. L., Leonard, P. M., Hughes, R. M., Karr, R., Moyle, P. B., Schrader, L. H., Thompson, B. A., Daniles, R. A., Fausch, K. D., Ftizhugh, G. A., Gammon, J. R., Halliwell, D. B., Angermieier, P. L. and Orth, D. J.: 1988, 'Regional application of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource management', Fisheries 13, 12–20.Google Scholar
  37. Norris, R. H.: 1995, 'Biological monitoring: The dilemma of data analysis', J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 14, 440–450.Google Scholar
  38. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: 1998, Basinwide Assessment Report: French Broad River Basin, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina, 203 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Norton, S. B., Cormier, S. M., Smith, M. and Jones, R. C.: 2000, 'Can biological assessment discriminate among types of stress? A case study from the Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19, 1113–1119.Google Scholar
  40. Omernick, J. M.: 1987, 'Ecoregions of the conterminous United States', Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geograph. 77, 118–125.Google Scholar
  41. Richards, C. and Host, G.: 1994, 'Examining land use influences on stream habitat and macroinvertebrates: A GIS approach', Water Resour. Bull. 30, 729–38.Google Scholar
  42. SAS Institute, Inc.: 1988, SAS/STAT user's guide, Release 6.03 Edition, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, 1028 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Saylor, C. and Scott Jr., E. M.: 1987, Application of the Index of Biotic Integrity to Existing TVA Data, Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Air and Water Resources, TVA/ONRED/ AWR 87/32, Norris, Tennessee, 25 pp.Google Scholar
  44. Serveiss, V. B.: 2002, 'Applying ecological risk principles to watershed assessment and management', Env. Manag. 29, 145–154.Google Scholar
  45. Shelton, L. R.: 1994, Field Guide for Collecting and Processing Stream-water Samples for the National Water-Quality Program, Open File Report 94-455, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 42 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Tennessee Valley Authority: 1945, Studies of the Pollution of the Tennessee River System III. French Broad System, Tennessee Valley Authority, Health and Safety Department, Knoxville, Tennessee, 62 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Ter Braak, C. J. F. and Smilauer, P.: 1998, CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4), Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York, 351 pp.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 2001, Protecting and Restoring America's Watersheds, EPA 840-R-00-001, 56 pp.Google Scholar
  49. U.S. Geological Survey: 1979, Water Quality of the French Broad River, North Carolina, Water Resource Investigations 79-87, Raleigh, North Carolina, 53 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Waite, I. R. and Carpenter, K. D.: 2000, 'Fish communities in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, and their relationships to stream habitat and water quality: a multivariate statistical approach', Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 129, 754–770.Google Scholar
  51. Whittier, T. R., Hughes, R. M. and Larsen, D. P.: 1988, 'Correspondence between ecoregions and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon', Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45, 1264–1278.Google Scholar
  52. Wood, P. J. and Armitage, P. D.: 1997, 'Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment', Environ. Manage. 21, 203–217.Google Scholar
  53. Zampella, R. A. and Bunnell, J. F.: 1998, 'Use of reference-site fish assemblages to assess aquatic degradation in pinelands streams', Ecol. Appl. 8, 645–658.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brenda Rashleigh
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and DevelopmentNational Exposure Research LaboratoryAthensU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations