Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:56:17.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of land use/land cover data in fish and mussel conservation planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2011

Robert L. Hopkins II  and
Matt R. Whiles
Robert L. Hopkins II*
Affiliation:
School of Sciences, University of Rio Grande, Rio Grande, OH 45674, USA
Matt R. Whiles
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Freshwater fish and mussel diversity is declining at an alarming rate across North America. Human land uses and disturbances within watersheds have been implicated as the primary cause of declines. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of land use/land cover (LULC) variables in species distribution modeling and conservation planning using a straightforward multiscale approach for prioritizing freshwater fish and mussel conservation areas in the upper Green River catchment (Ohio River basin, USA). We developed distribution and species richness models for 10 uncommon fishes and 14 rare mussels using multiscale landscape data and boosted regression tree (BRT) analyses based on LULC composition and pattern, geology composition, and soil composition data. We then used probability of occurrence, endemicity, prevalence, trend and range of individual species to estimate the conservation value of each stream reach. Conservation areas were defined for three spatial scales nested within the catchment management zone (focal areas, riparian management buffer and subcatchment management zone) using a simple optimization technique. Priority conservation areas were located primarily in the eastern (upper Green River) and southern (upper Barren River) portions of the catchment. We found that focal species richness is explained most by soil composition in the subcatchment. However, nested within the subcatchment scale focal species richness responded positively to percent forest and negatively to patch density of developed/exposed land in the reach buffer. For both the reach and riparian buffers, retaining forested tracts of land and limiting the level of development and fragmentation would benefit the focal species.

Keywords

Landscapeaquatic biodiversityreserve selectionspecies distribution models
Type
Research Article
Information
Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , 2011 , pp. 199 - 209
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abell, R., 2002. Conservation biology for the biodiversity crisis: a freshwater follow-up. Conserv. Biol., 16, 1435–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abell, R., Allan, J.D. and Lehner, B., 2007. Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwater. Biol. Conserv., 134, 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brotons, L., Thuiller, W., Arau'jo, M.B. and Hirzel, A.H., 2004. Presence-absence versus presence-only methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography, 27, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collares-Pereira, M.J. and Cowx, I.G., 2004. The role of catchment scale environmental management in freshwater fish conservation. Fisheries Manag. Ecol., 11, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabat, Z.I., Knowler, D.J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R.J., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.L.J. and Sullivan, C.A., 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elith, J., Graham, C.H., Anderson, R.P., Dudík, M., Ferrier, S., Guisan, A., Hijmans, R.J., Huettmann, F., Leathwick, J.R., Lehmann, A., Li, J., Lohmann, L.G., Loiselle, B.A., Manion, G., Moritz, C., Nakamura, M., Nakazawa, Y., Overton, J., Peterson, A.T., Phillips, S.J., Richardson, K.S., Scachetti-Pereira, R., Schapire, R.E., Soberón, J., Williams, S., Wisz, M.S. and Zimmermann, N.E., 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R. and Hastie, T., 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol., 77, 802–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Environmental System Research Institute, 2006. ArcGIS/ArcInfo for Windows XP Version 9.2.0, Environmental System Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA.
Filipe, A.F., Marques, T.A., Seabra, S., Tiago, P., Ribeiro, F., Moreria Da Costa, L., Cowx, I.G. and Collares-Pereira, M.J., 2004. Selection of priority areas for fish conservation in Guadiana River basin, Iberian Peninsula. Conserv. Biol., 18, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W., 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett., 8, 993–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirzel, A. and Guisan, A., 2002. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modeling. Ecol. Model., 157, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, R.L. II, 2009. Use of landscape pattern metrics and multiple spatial scales in aquatic species distribution models. Landscape Ecol., 24, 943–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, R.L. II and Burr, B.M., 2009. Modeling freshwater fish distributions using multiscale landscape data: a case study of six narrow range endemics. Ecol. Model., 220, 2024–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, R.L. II, Burns, M.D., Burr, B.M. and Hopman, L.J., 2009. Building a centralized database for Kentucky fishes: progress and future applications. J. Kentucky Acad. Sci., 69, 73–78.Google Scholar
Jones, E.B.D. III, Helfman, G.S., Harper, J.O. and Boltstad, P.V., 1999. Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian streams. Conserv. Biol., 13, 1454–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed online 2 May 2010, http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg.
Linke, S., Pressey, R.L., Bailey, R.C. and Norris, R.H., 2007. Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re-visited. Freshwater Biol., 52, 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Master, L.L., Flack, S.R. and Stein, B.A., 1998. Rivers of life: critical watersheds for protecting freshwater biodiversity, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, MA, 71 p.Google Scholar
McGarigal, K. and Marks, B.J., 1995. FRAGSTATS. Spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351.
McRae, S.E., Allan, J.D. and Burch, J.B., 2004. Reach and catchment-scale determinants of the distribution of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in southeastern Michigan (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biol., 49, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A., Leathwick, J. and Elith, J., 2008. A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshwater Biol., 53, 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyle, P.B. and Yoshiyama, R.M., 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: a five- tiered approach. Fisheries, 19, 6–17.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, S. and Wright, J.P., 2003. Disentangling biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: deriving solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems. Ecol. Lett., 6, 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neves, R.J., Bogan, A.E., Williams, J.D., Ahlstedt, S.A. and Hartfield, P.W., 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. In: Benz, G.W. and Collins, D.E. (eds.), Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, 43–85.Google Scholar
Poff, N.L. and Allan, J.D., 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic variability. Ecology, 76, 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K.E. and Downing, J.A., 2004. Relationship of declining mussel biodiversity to stream-reach and watershed characteristics in an agricultural landscape. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 23, 114–125.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team, 2006. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Rahel, F.J., 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across the United States. Science, 288, 854–856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricciardi, A. and Rasmussen, J.B., 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv. Biol., 13, 1220–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, G., 2006. Generalized boosted regression models. Accessed online 16 May 2009, ftp://ftp.auckland.ac.nz/pub/software/CRAN/doc/packages/gbm.pdf.
Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D. and Erickson, D.L., 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol., 11, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. and Vincent, A.C.J., 2002. Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conserv. Biol., 16, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M.C., Helfman, G.S., McTammany, T.E., Benfield, E.F. and Boltstad, P.V., 2002. Multiscale influences on physical and chemical stream conditions across Blue Ridge landscape. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 38, 1379–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singkran, N. and Meixler, M.S., 2008. Influences of habitat and land cover on fish distributions along a tributary to Lake Ontario, New York. Landscape Ecol., 23, 539–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, D.S. and Vellend, M., 2005. Biodiversity-ecosystem function research: is it relevant to conservation? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 36, 267–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strayer, D.L., 2006. Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 25, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80, 1455–1474.Google Scholar
Wang, L.J., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P. and Gatti, R., 1997. Influence of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries, 22, 6–12.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M.L. Jr, Angermeier, P.L., Burr, B.M. and Haag, W.R., 1997. Decline of a diverse fish fauna: patterns of imperilment and protection in the southeastern United States. In: Benz, G.W. and Collins, D.E. (eds.), Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, 105–164.Google Scholar