Fish communities in coastal freshwater ecosystems: the role of the physical and chemical setting

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Kristin K Arend¹  Mark B Bain² 

[1] Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

[2] Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Others  :  1087012
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6785-8-23

 received in 2008-08-04, accepted in 2008-12-29,  发布年份 2008

【 摘 要 】

Background

We explored how embayment watershed inputs, morphometry, and hydrology influence fish community structure among eight embayments located along the southeastern shoreline of Lake Ontario, New York, USA. Embayments differed in surface area and depth, varied in their connections to Lake Ontario and their watersheds, and drained watersheds representing a gradient of agricultural to forested land use.

Results

We related various physicochemical factors, including total phosphorus load, embayment area, and submerged vegetation, to differences in fish species diversity and community relative abundance, biomass, and size structure both among and within embayments. Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and centrarchids numerically dominated most embayment fish communities. Biomass was dominated by piscivorous fishes including brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), bowfin (Amia calva), and northern pike (Esox lucius). Phosphorus loading influenced relative biomass, but not species diversity or relative abundance. Fish relative abundance differed among embayments; within embayments, fish abundance at individual sampling stations increased significantly with submerged vegetative cover. Relative biomass differed among embayments and was positively related to total phophorus loading and embayment area. Fish community size structure, based on size spectra analysis, differed among embayments, with the frequency of smaller-bodied fishes positively related to percent vegetation.

Conclusion

The importance of total phosphorus loading and vegetation in structuring fish communities has implications for anthropogenic impacts to embayment fish communities through activities such as farming and residential development, reduction of cultural eutrophication, and shoreline development and maintenance.

【 授权许可】

   
2008 Arend and Bain; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Randall RG, Minns CK, Cairns VW, Moore JE: The relationship between an index of fish production and submerged aquatic macrophytes and other habitat features at three littoral areas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1996, 53(Suppl 1):35-44.
• [2]Breneman D, Richards C, Lozano S: Environmental influences on benthic community structure in a Great Lakes embayment. J Gt Lakes Res 2000, 26(3):287-304.
• [3]Höök TO, Eagan NM, Webb PW: Habitat and human influences on larval fish assemblages in northern Lake Huron coastal marsh bays. Wetlands 2001, 21(2):281-291.
• [4]Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z: How are diversity and productivity related? In Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Edited by Ricklefs RE, Schluter D. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press; 1993:52-65.
• [5]Bachmann RW, Jones BL, Fox DD, Hoyer M, Bull LA, Canfield DE: Relations between trophic state indicators and fish in Florida (USA) lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1996, 53(4):842-855.
• [6]Holmgren K, Appelberg M: Size structure of benthic freshwater fish communities in relation to environmental gradients. Journal of Fish Biology 2000, 57(5):1312-1330.
• [7]Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD: Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: The dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1997, 28:289-316.
• [8]Vanni MJ: Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2002, 33:341-370.
• [9]Vanni MJ, Arend KK, Bremigan MT, Bunnell DB, Garvey JE, Gonzalez MJ, Renwick WH, Soranno PA, Stein RA: Linking landscapes and food webs: Effects of omnivorous fish and watersheds on reservoir ecosystems. Bioscience 2005, 55(2):155-167.
• [10]Carpenter SR, Cole JJ, Hodgson JR, Kitchell JF, Pace ML, Bade D, Cottingham KL, Essington TE, Houser JN, Schindler DE: Trophic cascades, nutrients, and lake productivity: whole-lake experiments. Ecological Monographs 2001, 71(2):163-186.
• [11]Lougheed VL, Theysmeyer TS, Smith T, Chow-Fraser P: Carp exclusion, food-web interactions, and the restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh. J Gt Lakes Res 2004, 30(1):44-57.
• [12]Jude DJ, Pappas J: Fish utilization of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J Gt Lakes Res 1992, 18:651-672.
• [13]Uzarski DG, Burton TM, Cooper MJ, Ingram JW, Timmermans STA: Fish habitat use within and across wetland classes in coastal wetlands of the five Great Lakes: Development of a fish-based index of biotic integrity. J Gt Lakes Res 2005, 31(Suppl 1):171-187.
• [14]Brazner JC, Beals EW: Patterns in fish assemblages from coastal wetland and beach habitats in Green Bay, Lake Michigan: a multivariate analysis of abiotic and biotic forcing factors. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1997, 54(8):1743-1761.
• [15]Klumb RA, Rudstam LG, Mills EL, Schneider CP, Sawyko PM: Importance of Lake Ontario embayments and nearshore habitats as nurseries for larval fishes with emphasis on alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). J Gt Lakes Res 2003, 29(1):181-198.
• [16]Mackey SD, Goforth RR: Great Lakes nearshore habitat science – Foreword. J Gt Lakes Res 2005, 31(Suppl 1):1-5.
• [17]Keough JR, Thompson TA, Guntenspergen GR, Wilcox DA: Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 1999, 19(4):821-834.
• [18]Hall SR, Pauliukonis NK, Mills EL, Rudstam LG, Schneider CP, Lary SJ, Arrhenius F: A comparison of total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and zooplankton in embayment, nearshore, and offshore habitats of Lake Ontario. J Gt Lakes Res 2003, 29(1):54-69.
• [19]Trebitz AS, Morrice JA, Cotter AM: Relative role of lake and tributary in hydrology of Lake Superior coastal wetlands. J Gt Lakes Res 2002, 28(2):212-227.
• [20]Trebitz AS, Morrice JA, Taylor DL, Anderson RL, West CW, Kelly JR: Hydromorphic determinants of aquatic habitat variability in Lake Superior coastal wetlands. Wetlands 2005, 25(3):505-519.
• [21]Oglesby RT: Relationships of fish yield to lake phytoplankton standing crop, production, and morphoedaphic factors. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 1977, 34:2255-2270.
• [22]Ney JJ: Oligotrophication and its discontents: effects of reduced nutrient loading on reservoir fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1996, 16:285-295.
• [23]Ludsin SA, Kershner MW, Blocksom KA, Knight RL, Stein RA: Life after death in Lake Erie: Nutrient controls drive fish species richness, rehabilitation. Ecological Applications 2001, 11(3):731-746.
• [24]Eadie JM, Keast A: Resource heterogeneity and fish species-diversity in lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 1984, 62(9):1689-1695.
• [25]Pierce RB, Tomcko CM: Density and biomass of native northern pike populations in relation to basin-scale characteristics of north-central Minnesota lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 2005, 134(1):231-241.
• [26]Zambrano L, Perrow MR, Sayer CD, Tomlinson ML, Davidson TA: Relationships between fish feeding guild and trophic structure in English lowland shallow lakes subject to anthropogenic influence: implications for lake restoration. Aquatic Ecology 2006, 40(3):391-405.
• [27]Olive JA, Miranda LE, Hubbard WD: Centrarchid assemblages in Mississippi state-operated fishing lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2005, 25(1):7-15.
• [28]Maidment DR: ArcHydro: GIS for Water Resources. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press; 2002.
• [29]Cole GA: Textbook of Limnology. 4th edition. Long Grove (IL): Waveland Press, Inc; 1994.
• [30]ESRI: Arcview. 3.x edition. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2001.
• [31]Stiling PD: Ecology: Theories and Applications. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1999.
• [32]Duplisea DE, Castonguay M: Comparison and utility of different size-based metrics of fish communities for detecting fishery impacts. [http:/ / rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/ rparticle/ AbstractTemplateServlet?calyLang=en g&journal=cjfas&volume=63&year=0&is sue=4&msno=f05-261] webciteCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2006, 63(4):810-820.
• [33]Kimmel DG, Roman MR, Zhang XS: Spatial and temporal variability in factors affecting mesozooplankton dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: Evidence from biomass size spectra. Limnology and Oceanography 2006, 51(1):131-141.
• [34]Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD: SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary (NC): SAS Institute, Inc; 1996.
• [35]Wagner T, Hayes DB, Bremigan MT: Accounting for multilevel data structures in fisheries data using mixed models. Fisheries 2006, 31(4):180-187.
• [36]Minns CK, Wichert GA: A framework for defining fish habitat domains in Lake Ontario and its drainage. J Gt Lakes Res 2005, 31(Suppl 1):6-27.
• [37]Niemi GJ, Kelly JR, Danz NP: Environmental Indicators for the Coastal Region of the North American Great Lakes: Introduction and Prospectus. J Gt Lakes Res 2007, 33(Suppl 3):1-12.
• [38]McQueen DJ, Post JR, Mills EL: Trophic relationships in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1986, 43:1572-1581.
• [39]Scheffer M: Multiplicity of stable states in fresh-water systems. Hydrobiologia 1990, 200:475-486.
• [40]Arend KK: The role of environmental characteristics on fish community structure and food web interactions in Lake Ontario embayments. In Dissertation. Ithaca: Cornell University; 2008.