Advertisement

Aquatic Sciences

, 81:15 | Cite as

Gradients in fish feeding guilds along a reservoir cascade

  • L. E. MirandaEmail author
  • Rafaela V. Granzotti
  • Daniel J. Dembkowski
Research Article

Abstract

The river continuum concept predicts a longitudinal gradient in the structure and functioning of rivers. Impoundments potentially change this continuum by reorganizing nutrient transport and storage in the system. To determine if predictions made by the river continuum concept relative to fish assemblage trophic structure hold for a temperate river transformed into a reservoir cascade, we examined longitudinal trends in the distribution of biomass among feeding guilds over 30 reservoirs of the Tennessee River (USA). Fish assemblages were sampled over a 12-year period, and fishes were classified as detritivores, herbivores, invertivores, piscivores, or planktivores. Biomass of all feeding guilds increased with catchment area (i.e., in a downstream direction). However, representation of herbivores and planktivores within the fish assemblage, as indexed by percent biomass composition, increased with catchment area, whereas representation of detritivores, invertivores, and piscivores decreased. In general, the predictions made by the river continuum concept apply to the Tennessee River reservoir cascade despite the major environmental transformation caused by the series of impoundments. However, transformation of lotic into lentic systems promotes autochthonous primary production and proliferation of herbivores and planktivores that reduces relative representation of other guilds.

Keywords

Tennessee River Reservoir cascade Fish assemblage structure Feeding resources River continuum Impounded river Longitudinal gradient 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank T. Baker and D. Lowery for facilitating access to the TVA electrofishing data set, and K. Pope for a constructive review. RVG thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico for the graduate student scholarship and the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture at Mississippi State University for additional financial support. The Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is a cooperative effort of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks; Mississippi State University; and US Geological Survey. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

References

  1. Aarts BGW, Nienhuis PH (2003) Fish zonations and guilds as the basis for assessment of ecological integrity of large rivers. Hydrobiologia 500:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarts BGW, Van Den Brink FWB, Nienhuis PH (2004) Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: the transversal floodplain gradient. River Res Appl 20:3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams SM, Kimmel BL, Ploskey GR (1983) Organic matter sources for reservoir fish production: a trophic-dynamic analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:1480–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agostinho AA, Miranda LE, Bini LM, Gomes LC, Thomaz SM, Suzuki HI (1999) Patterns of colonization in neotropical reservoirs, and prognoses on aging. In: Tundisi JG, Straškraba M (eds) Theoretical reservoir ecology and its applications. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 227–265Google Scholar
  5. Angermeier PL, Karr JR (1983) Fish communities along environmental gradient in a system of tropical streams. Environ Biol Fish 9:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bachmann RW, Jones B, Fox DD, Hoyer M, Bull LA, Canfield DE (1996) Relations between trophic state indicators and fish in Florida (USA) lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:842–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa FAR, Padisak J, Espíndola ELG, Borics G, Rocha O (1999) The cascading reservoir continuum concept (CRCC) and its application to the River Tietê basin, São Paulo State, Brazil. In: Tundisi JG, Straškraba M (eds) Theoretical reservoir ecology and its applications. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 425–437Google Scholar
  8. Bonar SA, Hubert WA, Willis DW (2009) Standard sampling methods for North American freshwater fishes. Am Fish Soc, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandt SA (2000) Classification of geomorphological effects downstream of dams. Catena 40:375–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002} Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507Google Scholar
  11. Cahn AR (1937) The fisheries program in the Tennessee Valley. Trans Am Fish Soc 66:398–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeVries DR, Stein RA (1992) Complex interactions between fish and zooplankton: quantifying the role of an open-water planktivore. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:1216–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etnier DA, Starnes WC (1993) The fishes of Tennessee. Univ Tenn, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  14. Fried G, Wüest A (2002) Disrupting biogeochemical cycles: consequences of damming. Aquat Sci 64:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godinho FN, Ferreira MT, Castro MIP (1998) Fish assemblage composition in relation to environmental gradients in Portuguese reservoirs. Aquat Living Resour 11:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstein RM, Meador MR (2004) Comparisons of fish species traits from small streams to large rivers. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:971–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldstein RM, Simon TP (1999) Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. In: Simon TP (ed) Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 123–202Google Scholar
  18. Gore JA, Bryant RM (1986) Changes in fish and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages along the impounded Arkansas River. J Freshw Ecol 3:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hickman GD, McDonough TA (1996) Assessing the reservoir fish assemblage index: a potential measure of reservoir quality. Am Fish Soc Symp 16:85–97Google Scholar
  20. Holz JC, Hoagland KD, Spawn RL, Popp A, Andersen JL (1997) Phytoplankton community response to reservoir aging, 1968–1992. Hydrobiologia 346:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ibanez C, Oberdorff T, Teugels G, Mamononekene V, Lavoué S, Fermon Y, Paugy D, Toham AK (2007) Fish assemblages structure and function along environmental gradients in rivers of Gabon (Africa). Ecol Freshw Fish 16:315–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ibanez C, Belliard J, Hughes RM, Pascal I, Kamdem-Toham A, Lamouroux N, Tedesco PA, Oberdorff T (2009) Convergence of temperate and tropical stream fish assemblages. Ecography 32:658–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeppesen E, Jensen JP, Søndergaard M, Lauridsen T, Landkildehus F (2000) Trophic structure, species richness and biodiversity in Danish lakes: changes along a phosphorus gradient. Freshw Biol 45:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson BL, Richardson WB, Naimo TJ (1995) Past, present, and future concepts in large river ecology: how rivers function and how human activities influence river processes. Bioscience 45:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaster JL, Jacobi GZ (1978) Benthic macroinvertebrates of a fluctuating reservoir. Freshw Biol 8:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kautz ES (1980) Effects of eutrophication on the fish communities of Florida lakes. Proc Annual Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 34:67–80Google Scholar
  27. Kennedy RH, Walker WW (1990) Reservoir nutrient dynamics. In: Thornton KW, Kimmel BL, Payne FE (eds) Reservoir limnology: ecological perspectives. Wiley, New York, pp 109–131Google Scholar
  28. Kimmel BL, Groeger AW (1986) Limnological and ecological changes associated with reservoir aging. In: Hall GE, Van Den Avyle MJ (eds) Reservoir fisheries management: strategies for the 80 s. Am Fish Soc, Bethesda, pp 103–109Google Scholar
  29. Koch RW, Guelda DL, Bukavekas PA (2004) Phytoplankton growth in the Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee Rivers, USA: intersite differences in light and nutrient limitation. Aquat Ecol 38:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lotrich VA (1973) Growth, production, and community composition of fishes inhabiting a first-, second-, and third-order stream of eastern Kentucky. Ecol Monogr 43:377–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGarvey DJ, Hughes RM (2008) Longitudinal zonation of Pacific Northwest (U.S.A.) fish assemblages and the species-discharge relationship. Copeia 2:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miranda LE (2017) Reservoir fish habitat management. Lightning Press, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  34. Miranda LE, Dembkowski DJ (2016) Evidence for serial discontinuity in the fish community of a heavily impounded river. Riv Res Appl 32:1087–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miranda LE, Krogman RM (2015) Functional age as an indicator of reservoir senescence. Fisheries 40:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miranda LE, Habrat MD, Miyazono S (2008) Longitudinal gradients along a reservoir cascade. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:1851–1865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monsen NE, Cloern JE, Lucas LV, Monismith SG (2002) The use of flushing time, residence time, and age as transport time scales. Limnol Oceanogr 47:1545–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montgomery DR (1999) Process domains and the river continuum. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35:397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oberdorff T, Porcher JP (1992) Fish assemblage structure in Brittany streams (France). Aquat Living Resour 5:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oberdorff T, Guilbert E, Lucchetta JC (1993) Patterns of fish species richness in the Seine River basin, France. Hydrobiologia 259:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pegg MA, Bettoli PW, Layzer JB (1997) Movement of saugers in the lower Tennessee River determined by radio telemetry, and implications for management. N Am J Fish Manag 17:763–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pegg MA, Pope KL, Powell LA, Turek KC, Spurgeon JJ, Stewart NT, Hogberg N, Porath MT (2015) Reservoir rehabilitations: seeking the fountain of youth. Fisheries 40:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Persson L, Diehl S, Johansson L, Andersson G (1991) Shifts in fish communities along the productivity gradient of temperate lakes: patterns and the importance of size-structured interactions. J Fish Biol 38:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds JB (1996) Electrofishing. In: Murphy BR, Willis DW (eds) Fisheries techniques, 2nd edn. Am Fish Soc, Bethesda, pp 221–252Google Scholar
  47. Rodríguez-Iturbe I, Rinaldo A (1997) Fractal river basins: chance and self-organization. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Santucci VJ, Gephard SR, Pescitelli SM (2005) Effects of multiple low-head dams on fish, macroinvertebrates, habitat, and water quality in the Fox River, Illinois. N Am J Fish Manag 25:975–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SAS Institute (2017) Base SAS® 9.4 procedures guide. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  50. Sedell JR, Richey JE, Swanson FJ (1989) The river continuum concept: a basis for the expected behavior of very large rivers? In: Dodge DP (ed) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium, Canadian Special Publications in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 106, pp 49–55Google Scholar
  51. Smith TA, Kraft CE (2005) Stream fish assemblages in relation to landscape position and local habitat variables. Trans Am Fish Soc 134:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tripp S, Brooks R, Herzog D, Garvey J (2014) Patterns of fish passage in the Upper Mississippi River. River Res Appl 30:1056–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vanni MJ, Arend KK, Bremigan MT, Bunnell DB, Garvey JE, Gonzalez MJ, Renwick WH, Soranno PA, Stein RA (2005) Linking landscapes and food webs: effects of omnivorous fish and watersheds on reservoir ecosystems. Bioscience 55:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Voshell JR, Simmons GM (1984) Colonization and succession of benthic macroinvertebrates in a new reservoir. Hydrobiologia 112:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ward JV, Stanford JA (1983) Serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. In: Fontaine TD, Bartell SM (eds) Dynamics of lotic systems. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, pp 29–42Google Scholar
  57. Ward JV, Stanford JA (1995) Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regul Riv Res Manage 2:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. White DS (2014) The benthic macroinvertebrates of Kentucky Lake, a mainstem reservoir on the Tennessee River, U.S.A. Trans Am Entomol Soc 140:83–99Google Scholar
  59. Wohl E, Bledsoe BP, Jacobson RB, Poff NL, Rathburn SL, Walters DM, Wilcox AC (2015) The natural sediment regime in rivers: broadening the foundation for ecosystem management. Bioscience 65:358–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolff LL, Carniatto N, Hahn NS (2013) Longitudinal use of feeding resources and distribution of fish trophic guilds in a coastal Atlantic stream, southern Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol 11:375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yurk JJ, Ney JJ (1989) Phosphorous-fish community biomass relationships in southern Appalachian reservoirs: can lakes be too clean for fish? Lake Reserv Manag 5:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Geological Survey, Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.Programa de Pós Graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos ContinentaisUniversidade Estadual de MaringáMaringáBrazil
  3. 3.Fisheries Analysis Center, Wisconsin Cooperative Fishery Research UnitUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens PointStevens PointUSA

Personalised recommendations