, Volume 728, Issue 1, pp 23–39 | Cite as

Downstream fish assemblage response to river impoundment varies with degree of hydrologic alteration

  • Jason M. Taylor
  • Titus S. Seilheimer
  • William L. Fisher
Primary Research Paper


River impoundments can fundamentally restructure downstream fish assemblages by altering flow regimes. However, the degree of alteration and associated ecological change may depend on pre-existing hydrologic regimes. We used long-term datasets to compare downstream hydrological and fish assemblage responses to impoundment in two catchments classified as having intermittent and perennial-flashy natural hydrologic regimes. We observed significant shifts in fish assemblage structure at both sites after stream impoundment. The historically intermittent stream shifted to a stable perennial flow regime. Changes in fish assemblage structure covaried with changes in five different components of the flow regime; most species that increased in abundance require fluvial habitats and likely benefited from increased flows during historically low flow seasons. Shifts in fish assemblage structure were also observed in the perennial stream, despite minimal flow alteration after impoundment; however, most species shifts were associated with lentic environments, and were more likely related to proximity of reservoirs in the drainage system rather than changes in stream flow. Findings from this study confirm that downstream fish assemblage response to river impoundment can be associated with high levels of hydrologic alteration, but other factors including expansion of lentic species into lotic environments also influence shifts in assemblage structure.


Flow alteration Flow regimes Dams Impoundments Fish assemblages Fluvial specialists 



We thank Ellen Tejan of Enogex, LCC for providing us with complied fish records for the State of Oklahoma. Ryan A. McManamay, David Hoeinghaus, and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments that improved this paper. Support for this study was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Science Support Partnership Program and the Oklahoma and New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units. The New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Geological Survey, Cornell University, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10750_2013_1797_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. Arthington, A. H., S. E. Bunn, N. L. Poff & R. J. Naiman, 2006. The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16: 1311–1318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain, M. B. & J. T. Finn, 1988. Streamflow regulation and fish community structure. Ecology 69: 382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonner, T. H. & G. R. Wilde, 2002. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption by prairie stream fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer, S. K., D. M. Papoulias & C. F. Rabeni, 2006. Spawning habitat associations and selection by fishes in a flow-regulated prairie river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: 763–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlisle, D. M., D. M. Wolock & M. R. Meador, 2011. Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecological consequences: a multiregional assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, K. R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral Ecology 18: 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewson, Z. S., A. B. W. James & R. G. Death, 2007. A review of the consequences of decreased flow for instream habitat and macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26: 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodds, W. K., K. Gido, M. R. Whiles, K. M. Fritz & W. J. Matthews, 2004. Life on the edge: the ecology of Great Plains prairie streams. Bioscience 54: 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Leveque, R. J. Naiman, A. H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. Stiassny & C. A. Sullivan, 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 81: 163–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dufrêne, M. & P. Legendre, 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67: 345–366.Google Scholar
  11. Faith, D. P. & R. H. Norris, 1989. Correlation of environmental variables with patterns of distribution and abundance of common and rare freshwater macroinvertebrates. Biological Conservation 50: 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falke, J. A. & K. B. Gido, 2006. Effects of reservoir connectivity on stream fish assemblages in the Great Plains. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 480–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galbraith, H. S. & C. C. Vaughn, 2011. Effects of reservoir management on abundance, condition, parasitism and reproductive traits of downstream mussels. River Research and Applications 27: 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galbraith, H. S., D. E. Spooner & C. C. Vaughn, 2010. Synergistic effects of regional climate patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities. Biological Conservation 143: 1175–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gido, K., J. F. Schaefer & J. Pigg, 2004. Patterns of fish invasions in the Great Plains of North America. Biological Conservation 118: 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gido, K. B., W. K. Dodds & M. E. Eberle, 2010. Retrospective analysis of fish community change during a half-century of landuse and streamflow changes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 970–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gomez, R. & H. L. Lindsay, 1972. Occurence of the Mississippi silversides, Menidia audens (Hay), in Keystone Reservoir and the Arkansas River. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 52: 16–18.Google Scholar
  18. Gotelli, N. J. & C. M. Taylor, 1999a. Testing metapopulation models with stream-fish assemblages. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1: 835–845.Google Scholar
  19. Gotelli, N. J. & C. M. Taylor, 1999b. Testing macrecology models with stream-fish assemblages. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1: 847–858.Google Scholar
  20. Hoeinghaus, D. J., K. O. Winemiller & J. S. Birnbaum, 2007. Local and regional determinants of stream fish assemblage structure: inferences based on taxonomic vs. functional groups. Journal of Biogeography 34: 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kennard, M. J., S. J. Mackay, B. J. Pusey, J. D. Olden & N. Marsh, 2010a. Quantifying uncertainty in estimation of hydrologic metrics for ecohydrological studies. River Research and Applications 26: 137–156.Google Scholar
  22. Kennard, M. J., B. J. Pusey, J. D. Olden, S. J. Mackay, J. L. Stein & N. Marsh, 2010b. Classification of natural flow regimes in Australia to support environmental flow management. Freshwater Biology 55: 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennen, J. G., J. A. Hendriksen & S. P. Nieswand, 2007. Development of the Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process for Determining Environmental Flows for New Jersey Streams. Vol 2007-5206. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report.Google Scholar
  24. Kennen, J. G., J. A. Hendriksen, J. Heasley, B. S. Cade & J. W. Terrell, 2009. Application of the Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process for Missouri Streams., vol 2009-1138. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report.Google Scholar
  25. Konrad, C. P., A. M. D. Brasher & J. T. May, 2008. Assessing streamflow characteristics as limiting factors on benthic invertebrate assemblages in streams across the western United States. Freshwater Biology 53: 1983–1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Labbe, T. R. & K. D. Fausch, 2000. Dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate persistence of a threatened fish at multiple scales. Ecological Applications 10: 1774–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Long, J. M. & W. L. Fisher, 2005. Distribution and abundance of black bass in Skiatook Lake, Oklahoma, after introduction of smallmouth bass and a liberalized harvest regulation on spotted bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magilligan, F. J. & K. H. Nislow, 2001. Long-term changes in regional hydrologic regime following impoundment in a humid-climate watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37: 1551–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magilligan, F. J. & K. H. Nislow, 2005. Changes in hydrologic regime by dams. Geomorphology 71: 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marchetti, M. P. & P. B. Moyle, 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications 11: 530–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthews, W. J., 1987. Geographic variation in Cyprinella lutrensis (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in the United States, with notes on Cyprinella lepida. Copeia 1987: 616–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthews, W. J., 1988. North American prairie streams as systems for ecological study. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matthews, W. J. & E. Marsh-Matthews, 2003. Effects of drought on fish across axes of space, time and ecological complexity. Freshwater Biology 48: 1232–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthews, W. J. & E. Marsh-Matthews, 2011. An invasive fish species within its native range: community effects and population dynamics of Gambusia affinis in the central United States. Freshwater Biology 56: 2609–2619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCormas, S. R. & R. W. Drenner, 1982. Species replacement in a reservoir fish community: silverside feeding mechanisms and competition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 815–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCune, B. & J. B. Grace, 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR.Google Scholar
  37. McManamay, R. A., D. J. Orth, C. A. Dolloff & E. A. Frimpong, 2011. A regional classification of unregulated stream flows: spatial resolution and hierarchical frameworks. River Research and Applications 28: 1019–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McManamay, R. A., D. J. Orth & C. A. Dolloff, 2012. Revisiting the homogenization of dammed rivers in the southeastern US. Journal of Hydrology 424–425: 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minchin, P. R., 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69: 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mueller, R. & M. Pyron, 2009. Substrate and current velocity preferences of spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) and sand shiner (Notropis stramineus) in artificial streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24: 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oksansen, J., R. Kindt, P. Legendre, B. O’Hara, G. L. Simpson, M. H. H. Stevens & H. Wagner, 2013. Vegan. Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.0-6. (http://vegan.r-forge.r-project.org).
  42. Olden, J. D. & R. J. Naiman, 2010. Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity. Freshwater Biology 55: 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Opperman, J. J., R. Luster, B. A. McKenney, M. Roberts & A. W. Meadows, 2010. Ecologically functional floodplains: connectivity, flow regime, and scale. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perkin, J. S. & T. H. Bonner, 2011. Long-term changes in flow regime and fish assemblage composition in the Guadalupe and San Marcos rivers of Texas. River Research and Applications 27: 566–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peterson, J. T., J. M. Wisniewski, C. P. Shea & C. R. Jackson, 2011. Estimation of mussel population response to hydrologic alteration in a southeastern U.S. stream. Environmental Management 48: 109–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Poff, N. L., 1996. A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and an examination of scale-dependence in some hydrological descriptors. Freshwater Biology 36: 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poff, N. L. & J. D. Allan, 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76: 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poff, N. L. & J. V. Ward, 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1805–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poff, N. L. & J. K. H. Zimmerman, 2010. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55: 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Presegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks & J. C. Stromberg, 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47: 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poff, N. L., J. D. Olden, D. M. Pepin & B. P. Bledsoe, 2006. Placing global stream flow variability in geographic and geomorphic contexts. River Research and Applications 22: 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Poff, N. L., J. D. Olden, D. M. Merritt & D. M. Pepin, 2007. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 5732–5737.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poff, N. L., M. I. Pyne, B. P. Bledsoe, C. C. Cuhaciyan & D. M. Carlisle, 2010a. Developing linkages between species traits and multiscaled environmental variation to explore vulnerability of stream benthic communities to climate change. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1441–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Poff, N. L., B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, S. E. Bunn, R. J. Naiman, E. Kendy, M. Acreman, C. Apse, B. P. Bledsoe, M. C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R. B. Jacobson, J. G. Kennen, D. M. Merritt, J. H. O’Keeffe, J. D. Olden, K. Rogers, R. E. Tharme & A. Warner, 2010b. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology 55: 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pyron, M. & K. Neumann, 2008. Hydrologic alterations in the Wabash River watershed, USA. River Research and Applications 24: 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pyron, M., C. C. Vaughn, M. R. Winston & J. Pigg, 1998. Fish assemblage structure from 20 years of collections in the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist 43: 336–343.Google Scholar
  57. Quist, M. C., W. A. Hubert & F. J. Rahel, 2005. Fish assemblage structure following impoundment of a Great Plains river. Western North American Naturalist 65: 53–63.Google Scholar
  58. R Core Development Team, 2011. R (version 2.11.2): A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  59. Reidy Liermann, C. A., J. D. Olden, T. J. Beechie, M. J. Kennard, P. B. Skidmore, C. P. Konrad & H. Imaki, 2011. Hydrogeomorphic classification of Washington State rivers to support emerging environmental flow management strategies. River Research and Applications 28: 1340–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell & D. P. Braun, 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington & D. P. Braun, 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Richter, B. D., R. Mathews, D. L. Harrison & R. Wigington, 2003. Ecological sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13: 206–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenberg, D. M., P. McCully & C. M. Pringle, 2000. Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction. Bioscience 50: 746–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spooner, D. E. & C. C. Vaughn, 2008. A trait-based approach to species’ roles in stream ecosystems: climate change, community structure, and material cycling. Oecologia 158: 307–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spranza, J. J. & E. H. Stanley, 2000. Condition, growth, and reproductive styles of fishes exposed to different environmental regimes in a prarie drainage. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Turton, D., W. L. Fisher, T. S. Seilheimer & R. Esralew, 2008. An Assessment of Environmental Flows for Oklahoma. Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute, Oklahoma State University.Google Scholar
  67. Vaughn, C. C., 2010. Biodiversity losses and ecosystem function in freshwaters: emerging conclusions and research directions. Bioscience 60: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vorosmarty, C. J., P. B. McIntyre, M. O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A. Prusevich, P. Green, S. Glidden, S. E. Bunn, C. A. Sullivan, C. R. Liermann & P. M. Davies, 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Winemiller, K. O. & K. A. Rose, 1992. Patterns of life-history diversification in North American fishes: implications for population regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 2196–2218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason M. Taylor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Titus S. Seilheimer
    • 1
    • 3
  • William L. Fisher
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural ResourcesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceNational Sedimentation Laboratory, Water Quality and Ecology Research UnitOxfordUSA
  3. 3.University of Wisconsin-Sea Grant, UW-ManitowocManitowocUSA
  4. 4.College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens PointStevens PointUSA

Personalised recommendations