Fish assemblage responses to forest cover.

Chris L Burcher, Matthew E McTammany, E Fred Benfield, Gene S Helfman
Author Information
  1. Chris L Burcher: Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406, USA. cburcher@vt.edu

Abstract

We investigated whether fish assemblage structure in southern Appalachian streams differed with historical and contemporary forest cover. We compared fish assemblages in 2(nd)-4(th) order streams draining watersheds that had increased forest cover between 1950 and 1993 (i.e., reforesting watersheds). We sampled fish in 50 m reaches during August 2001 and calculated catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) by taxonomic, distributional, trophic, reproductive, and thermal metrics. We assigned streams to reforestation categories based on cluster analysis of years 1950 and 1993 near-stream forest cover. The relationship between forest cover and assemblage structure was assessed using analysis of variance to identify differences in fish CPUE in five forest cover categories. Streams contained 23 fish species representing six families, and taxa richness ranged from 1 to 13 at 30 stream sites. Streams with relatively low near-stream forest cover were different from streams having moderate to high near-stream forest cover in 1950 and 1993. Fish assemblages in streams having the lowest amount of forest cover (53-75%) were characterized by higher cosmopolitan, brood hider, detritivore/herbivore, intermediate habitat breadths, run-pool dweller, and warm water tolerant fish CPUE compared to streams with higher riparian forest cover. Our results suggest that fish assemblage's structural and functional diversity and/or richness may be lower in streams having lower recent or past riparian forest cover compared to assemblages in streams having a high degree of near-stream forest cover.

References

  1. Environ Manage. 2001 Jul;28(1):87-99 [PMID: 11437003]
  2. Ecology. 2007 Jan;88(1):228-42 [PMID: 17489471]
  3. J Environ Manage. 2004 Feb;70(2):165-80 [PMID: 15160742]
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Dec 8;95(25):14843-7 [PMID: 9843977]
  5. Environ Manage. 2003 Apr;31(4):504-17 [PMID: 12677296]
  6. Science. 1997 Jul 25;277(5325):504-9 [PMID: 20662149]
  7. Environ Monit Assess. 2003 Nov;89(1):95-127 [PMID: 14609276]
  8. Environ Manage. 2001 Aug;28(2):255-66 [PMID: 11443388]

MeSH Term

Animals
Cluster Analysis
Fishes
Trees

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0forestcoverstreamsfishnear-streamassemblagecomparedassemblages19501993CPUEstructurewatershedscategoriesanalysisStreamsrichnesshighFishhigherriparianlowerinvestigatedwhethersouthernAppalachiandifferedhistoricalcontemporary2nd-4thorderdrainingincreasediereforestingsampled50mreachesAugust2001calculatedcatch-per-unit-efforttaxonomicdistributionaltrophicreproductivethermalmetricsassignedreforestationbasedclusteryearsrelationshipassessedusingvarianceidentifydifferencesfivecontained23speciesrepresentingsixfamiliestaxaranged11330streamsitesrelativelylowdifferentmoderatelowestamount53-75%characterizedcosmopolitanbroodhiderdetritivore/herbivoreintermediatehabitatbreadthsrun-pooldwellerwarmwatertolerantresultssuggestassemblage'sstructuralfunctionaldiversityand/ormayrecentpastdegreeresponses

Similar Articles

Cited By