Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Maž, eika Sullivan, M. Watzin, W. Hession (2004)
Understanding Stream Geomorphic State in Relation to Ecological Integrity: Evidence Using Habitat Assessments and MacroinvertebratesEnvironmental Management, 34
J. Negishi, S. Nagayama, Manabu Kume, Shiro Sagawa, Y. Kayaba, Yasuhiro Yamanaka (2013)
Unionoid mussels as an indicator of fish communities : A conceptual framework and empirical evidenceEcological Indicators, 24
C. Baxter, F. Hauer (2000)
Geomorphology, hyporheic exchange, and selection of spawning habitat by bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57
D. Walters, A. Roy, D. Leigh (2009)
Environmental indicators of macroinvertebrate and fish assemblage integrity in urbanizing watershedsEcological Indicators, 9
O. Gorman, J. Karr (1978)
Habitat Structure and Stream Fish CommunitiesEcology, 59
K. Ozaki, M. Isono, T. Kawahara, S. Iida, T. Kudo, K. Fukuyama (2006)
A Mechanistic Approach to Evaluation of Umbrella Species as Conservation SurrogatesConservation Biology, 20
E. Jones, G. Helfman, J. Harper, P. Bolstad (1999)
Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian StreamsConservation Biology, 13
D. Strayer, J. Ralley (1993)
Microhabitat Use by an Assemblage of Stream-Dwelling Unionaceans (Bivalvia), including Two Rare Species of AlasmidontaJournal of the North American Benthological Society, 12
Robert Miller, M. Trautman (1958)
FISHES OF OHIOJournal of Wildlife Management, 22
James Williams, Melvin Warren, Kevin Cummings, John Harris, Richard Neves (1993)
Conservation Status of Freshwater Mussels of the United States and CanadaFisheries, 18
Brian Nerbonne, B. Vondracek (2001)
Effects of Local Land Use on Physical Habitat, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USAEnvironmental Management, 28
M. Fukushima (2001)
SALMONID HABITAT–GEOMORPHOLOGY RELATIONSHIPS IN LOW-GRADIENT STREAMSEcology, 82
M. Österling, B. Arvidsson, L. Greenberg (2010)
Habitat degradation and the decline of the threatened mussel Margaritifera margaritifera: influence of turbidity and sedimentation on the mussel and its host.Journal of Applied Ecology, 47
Adam Kautza, S. Sulliván (2012)
Relative effects of local- and landscape-scale environmental factors on stream fish assemblages: Evidence from Idaho and Ohio, USAFundamental and Applied Limnology, 180
D. Osmundson, R. Ryel, V. Lamarra, J. Pitlick (2002)
FLOW–SEDIMENT–BIOTA RELATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RIVER REGULATION EFFECTS ON NATIVE FISH ABUNDANCEEcological Applications, 12
Stefano Larsen, I. Vaughan, S. Ormerod (2009)
Scale-dependent effects of fine sediments on temperate headwater invertebratesFreshwater Biology, 54
C. Lydeard, R. Cowie, W. Ponder, A. Bogan, P. Bouchet, S. Clark, K. Cummings, T. Frest, O. Gargominy, D. Herbert, R. Hershler, Kathryn Perez, B. Roth, M. Seddon, E. Strong, F. Thompson (2004)
The Global Decline of Nonmarine Mollusks, 54
L. Casatti, Cristiane Ferreira, F. Carvalho (2009)
Grass-dominated stream sites exhibit low fish species diversity and dominance by guppies: an assessment of two tropical pasture river basinsHydrobiologia, 632
Paul Johnson, K. Brown (2000)
The importance of microhabitat factors and habitat stability to the threatened Louisiana pearl shell, Margaritifera hembeli (Conrad)Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78
A. Rencher (1995)
Methods of multivariate analysis
K. Wright, Judith Li (2002)
From continua to patches: examining stream community structure over large environmental gradientsCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59
T. Waters (1995)
Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control
Young‐Seuk Park, G. Grenouillet, Benjamin Esperance, S. Lek (2006)
Stream fish assemblages and basin land cover in a river network.The Science of the total environment, 365 1-3
D. Dudgeon, A. Arthington, M. Gessner, Z. Kawabata, D. Knowler, C. Lévêque, R. Naiman, A. Prieur‐Richard, D. Soto, M. Stiassny, C. Sullivan (2006)
Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challengesBiological Reviews, 81
W. Haag (2009)
Past and future patterns of freshwater mussel extinctions in North America during the Holocene
S. Sullivan, M. Watzin, W. Hession (2006)
Influence of stream geomorphic condition on fish communities in Vermont, U.S.A.Freshwater Biology, 51
D. Lindenmayer, A. Manning, Peter Smith, Hugh Possingham, Joern Fischer, Ian Oliver, Michael McCarthy (2002)
The Focal‐Species Approach and Landscape Restoration: a CritiqueConservation Biology, 16
F. Langeani, L. Casatti, Helena Gameiro, André Carmo, D. Rossa-Feres (2005)
Riffle and pool fish communities in a large stream of southeastern BrazilNeotropical Ichthyology, 3
S. Cooksley, M. Brewer, D. Donnelly, L. Spezia, A. Tree (2012)
Impacts of artificial structures on the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera in the River Dee, ScotlandAquatic Conservation-marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22
M. Gangloff, J. Feminella (2007)
Stream channel geomorphology influences mussel abundance in southern Appalachian streams, U.S.A.Freshwater Biology, 52
Elizabeth Osier, S. Welsh (2007)
Habitat Use of Etheostoma maculatum (Spotted Darter) in Elk River, West Virginia, 14
N. Friberg, L. Sandin, M. Pedersen (2009)
Assessing the Effects of Hydromorphological Degradation on Macroinvertebrate Indicators in Rivers: Examples, Constraints, and Outlook, 5
J. Layzer, L. Madison (1995)
Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and recommendations for determining their instream flow needsRegulated Rivers-research & Management, 10
C. Cianfrani, S. Sullivan, W. Hession, M. Watzin (2009)
Mixed stream channel morphologies: implications for fish community diversityAquatic Conservation-marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19
W. Haag, M. Warren (1998)
Role of ecological factors and reproductive strategies in structuring freshwater mussel communitiesCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55
G. Watters (1992)
Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curveJournal of Biogeography, 19
L. Hastie, P. Boon, M. Young (2000)
Physical microhabitat requirements of freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (L.)Hydrobiologia, 429
G. Watters (1994)
Form and function of unionoidean shell sculpture and shapeAmerican Malacological Bulletin, 11
C. Atkinson, J. Julian, C. Vaughn (2012)
Scale‐dependent longitudinal patterns in mussel communitiesFreshwater Biology, 57
P. Esselman, J. Allan (2010)
Relative influences of catchment‐ and reach‐scale abiotic factors on freshwater fish communities in rivers of northeastern MesoamericaEcology of Freshwater Fish, 19
Hilary Berkman, C. Rabení (1987)
Effect of siltation on stream fish communitiesEnvironmental Biology of Fishes, 18
S. Sulliván (2012)
Geomorphic‐Ecological Relationships Highly Variable between Headwater and Network Mountain Streams of Northern Idaho, United States 1JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 48
Drennen Drennen (2003)
The urban life of dartersEndangered Species Bulletin, 28
Edward McGinley, R. Raesly, W. Seddon (2013)
The Effects of Embeddedness on the Seasonal Feeding of Mottled Sculpin, 170
D. Strayer, J. Downing, W. Haag, T. King, J. Layzer, T. Newton, Jerrine Nichols (2004)
Changing Perspectives on Pearly Mussels, North America's Most Imperiled Animals, 54
C. Vaughn, Christopher Taylor (2000)
Macroecology of a host‐parasite relationshipEcography, 23
S. Lane, K. Richards (1997)
Linking River Channel Form and Process: Time, Space and Causality RevisitedEarth Surface Processes and Landforms, 22
Jon Kochersberger, G. Burton, Kevin Custer (2012)
Short‐term macroinvertebrate recruitment and sediment accumulation: A novel field chamber approachEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31
W. Matthews, H. Robison (1998)
Influence of Drainage Connectivity, Drainage Area and Regional Species Richness on Fishes of the Interior Highlands in Arkansas, 139
I. Vaughan, M. Diamond, A. Gurnell, K. Hall, A. Jenkins, N. Milner, L. Naylor, D. Sear, G. Woodward, S. Ormerod (2009)
Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and managementAquatic Conservation-marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19
J. Pizzuto, W. Hession, M. McBride (2000)
Comparing gravel-bed rivers in paired urban and rural catchments of southeastern PennsylvaniaGeology, 28
M. Wolman (1954)
A method of sampling coarse river‐bed materialEos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 35
Jerry Miller, G. Mackin (2013)
Concentrations, Sources, and Potential Ecological Impacts of Selected Trace Metals on Aquatic Biota within the Little Tennessee River Basin, North CarolinaWater, Air, & Soil Pollution, 224
G. Poole (2010)
Stream hydrogeomorphology as a physical science basis for advances in stream ecology, 29
P. Newall, J. Magnuson (1999)
The Importance of Ecoregion Versus Drainage Area on Fish Distributions in the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin TributariesEnvironmental Biology of Fishes, 55
J. Harding, A. Burky, C. Way (1998)
HABITAT PREFERENCES OF THE RAINBOW DARTER, ETHEOSTOMA CAERULEUM, WITH REGARD TO MICROHABITAT VELOCITY SHELTERSCopeia, 1998
D. Walters, D. Leigh, M. Freeman, Byron Freeman, C. Pringle (2003)
Geomorphology and fish assemblages in a Piedmont river basin, U.S.AFreshwater Biology, 48
S. Chipps, W. Perry, S. Perry (1994)
Patterns of microhabitat use among four species of darters in three Appalachian streamsAmerican Midland Naturalist, 131
S. Sullivan, M. Watzin (2008)
Relating stream physical habitat condition and concordance of biotic productivity across multiple taxaCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65
F. Shields, S. Knight, C. Cooper (1994)
Effects of channel incision on base flow stream habitats and fishesEnvironmental Management, 18
I. Waite, K. Carpenter (2000)
Associations among Fish Assemblage Structure and Environmental Variables in Willamette Basin Streams, OregonTransactions of The American Fisheries Society, 129
Michael Weston, Ronald Johnson, A. Christian (2010)
Niche Partitioning of the Sympatric Yellowcheek Darter Etheostoma moorei and Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum in the Little Red River, Arkansas, 164
T. Newton, D. Woolnough, D. Strayer (2008)
Using landscape ecology to understand and manage freshwater mussel populations, 27
Jackie Heinricher, J. Layzer (1999)
Reproduction by Individuals of a Nonreproducing Population of Megalonaias nervosa (Mollusca: Unionidae) Following Translocation, 141
W. Haag (2012)
North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation
W. Matthews (1985)
Critical current speeds and microhabitats of the benthic fishes Percina roanoka and Etheostoma flabellareEnvironmental Biology of Fishes, 12
(2008)
Freshwater mussel ecology : a multifactor approach to distribution and abundance
L. Hastie, S. Cooksley, F. Scougall, M. Young, P. Boon, M. Gaywood (2003)
Characterization of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) riverine habitat using River Habitat Survey dataAquatic Conservation-marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13
Watters Watters (1994)
Form and function of unionoidean shell sculpture and shape (Bivalvia)American Malacological Bulletin, 11
D. Allen, C. Vaughn (2010)
Complex hydraulic and substrate variables limit freshwater mussel species richness and abundance, 29
D. Strayer, David Smith (2003)
A guide to sampling freshwater mussel populations
Understanding linkages among fluvial geomorphology, habitat, and aquatic biota is critical for effective stream ecosystem conservation. However, composite effects of hydrogeomorphic adjustment and condition, which collectively represent channel stability, on freshwater mussel and stream fish assemblages remain unresolved. Associations between stream hydrogeomorphic characteristics (channel geometry, substrate composition, stream flow) and mussel and stream fish assemblages were explored at 20 study reaches characterized by riffle–pool interfaces (RPIs) in Ohio, USA. At a coarse resolution using categorical classifications of equilibrium (i.e. stable) vs. adjusting (i.e. unstable) RPIs, overall fish and darter density was greater at adjusting RPIs (P = 0.048 and P = 0.024, respectively). Conversely, fish species richness was 1.2× greater at equilibrium than adjusting RPIs (P = 0.047). Analysis of quantitative hydrogeomorphic data collected with fine‐resolution surveys showed that hydrogeomorphic parameters explained from 20% (darter assemblage evenness) to 55% (density of mussels known to use darters as hosts) of the variation observed in all assemblages. Drainage area was significant in most models with variable influence: R2 = 0.10 for darter species richness to R2 = 0.41 for Simpson's diversity index of mussels with darter hosts. Other important predictor variables included embeddedness, velocity, shear stress, roughness, channel dimensions, and sediment size. Whereas coarse‐level fluvial geomorphic classifications may be meaningful for fish, they appear less so for mussels. Fine‐resolution quantitative hydrogeomorphic variables provided substantially more information for both assemblages, although hydrogeomorphology–fish and hydrogeomorphology–mussel relationships were not consistent. Some of the strongest relationships related to mussels that use darters as hosts, suggesting that these species are particularly sensitive to hydrogeomorphic conditions. Collectively, these results indicate that fluvial geomorphic condition and characteristics can simultaneously influence co‐dependent stream biota. Stream conservation and management plans that include explicit hydrogeomorphic surveys may appreciably benefit cohabitating freshwater fish and mussel assemblages. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems – Wiley
Published: Aug 1, 2015
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.