FISH HABITAT - American Fisheries Society

Transcription

Fisheries
Vol 35 no 4
APRIL 2010
American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org
Fish News
Legislative Update
Journal Highlights
Calendar
Job Center
A Novel Technique
for Mapping Habitat
in Navigable Streams Using
Low-cost Side Scan Sonar
Fish Habitat Degradation
in U.S. Reservoirs
Fisheries • vol 35 no 4 • april 2010 • www.fisheries.org
157
158
Fisheries
VoL 35 No 4
APRIL 2010
163
AMERiCAn FiShERiES SOCiETY • www.FiShERiES.ORG
EDIToRIAL / SUBSCRIPTIoN / CIRCULATIoN oFFICES
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199
301/897-8616 • fax 301/897-8096 • main@fisheries.org
The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870,
is the oldest and largest professional society representing
fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and
enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum
use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages
comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and
continuing on-the-job training.
AFS oFFICERS
FISHERIES STAFF
175
EDITORS
SENIoR EDIToR
SCIENCE EDIToRS
Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Madeleine Hall-Arber
Ken Ashley
DIRECToR oF
Doug Beard
PRESIDENT ELECT
PUBLICATIoNS
Wayne A. Hubert
Ken Currens
Aaron Lerner
William E. Kelso
FIRST
Deirdre M. Kimball
MAnAGinG
EDiTOR
VICE PRESIDENT
Dennis Lassuy
Beth Beard
William L. Fisher
Allen Rutherford
Jack Williams
PRoDUCTIoN EDIToR
SECoND
Cherie Worth
VICE PRESIDENT
BOOK REViEw
John Boreman
EDIToRS
Francis Juanes
PAST PRESIDENT
Ben Letcher
Keith Nislow
William G. Franzin
Contents
PRESIDENT
Donald C. Jackson
EXECUTIVE DIRECToR
Ghassan“Gus” N.Rassam
ABSTRACT TRANSLATIoN
Pablo del Monte Luna
Dues and fees for 2010 are:
$80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members,
$20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members,
and $40 ($50) retired members.
Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.
Nonmember and library subscription rates are $132 ($127).
Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember.
Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the
American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane,
Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2010.
Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at
an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for
Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website,
www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with
your request. Republication or systematic or multiple
reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only
under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society.
Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American
Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda,
MD 20814-2199.
Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer
recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.
Advertising Index
COLUMN:
160 PRESIDENT’S HOOK
From water Strider to Diving Beetle:
Challenges and opportunities
for Global Professionalism
For those who feel like they are skimming
through a career as a fisheries professional,
international work opportunities offer a chance
to dive deeply into other cultures and learn the
value of fisheries around the world.
Donald C. Jackson
News:
161 FISHERIES
UPDAte:
162 LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Elden Hawkes, Jr.
FeAtURe:
163 FISH HABITAT
A Novel Technique for Mapping
Habitat in Navigable Streams Using
Low-cost Side Scan Sonar
Mapping underwater habitat at the landscape
scale is challenging in turbid, non-wadeable
systems. We describe a rapid and effective
approach within the reach of many natural
resource professionals.
Adam J. Kaeser and Thomas L. Litts
Advanced Telemetry Systems . . . . 207
American Public University . . . . . 161
Floy Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Frigid Units, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Halltech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. . . . 207
Lotek Wireless. . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Oregon RFID . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
O.S. Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
RJL Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Sonotronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
FeAtURe:
175 FISH HABITAT
Fish habitat Degradation in u.S.
Reservoirs
Siltation, structural habitat, eutrophication,
water regime, and aquatic plants were major
habitat degradation factors in reservoirs of the
U.S., although their relative importance varied
regionally.
L. E. Miranda, M. Spickard, T. Dunn, K.
M. Webb, J. N. Aycock, and K. Hunt
COLUMN:
185 DIRECTOR’S LINE
No Habitat…No Fish
A recent Congressional briefing brought
attention to the critical issue of fish habitat
conservation, along with a potential solution
through the National Fish Habitat Action Plan.
Gus Rassam
News:
186 AFS UNITS
COLUMN:
188 STUDENTS’ ANGLE
Reflections on Student Involvement
in the Genetics Section, the Parent
Society, and Beyond
Yen Duong and Jamie Roberts
CALeNDAR:
190 FISHERIES EVENTS
JOURNAL HigHLigHts:
194 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL
OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
ObitUARy:
195 JAMES R. WHITLEY
water Quality Expert
PUbLiCAtiONs:
198 BOOK REVIEW
Charles Darwin: The Beagle Letters
AMeRiCAN FisHeRies sOCiety
200 MEETING UPDATE
ANNOUNCeMeNts:
204 JOB CENTER
State of the Salmon 2010 Conference . 180
YSI Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Tell advertisers you found them through
Fisheries!
CoVER: Aerial image of an Ichawaynochaway Creek reach with the survey boat track, sonar
image map layer, and digitized substrate boundaries added (left panel). Classified
substrate polygons and large woody debris interpreted from sonar imagery are
displayed for the same reach (right panel).
CREDIT: Adam Kaeser
159
COLUMN:
PRESIDENT’S HOOK
Donald C. Jackson
AFS President Jackson
may be contacted at:
DJackson@CFR.MsState.edu.
From Water Strider to Diving Beetle:
Challenges and Opportunities
for Global Professionalism
In our quieter moments, questions emerge from the pools of
our careers. The songs, as well as
the tears, of humanity—and of the
earth—set us on edge, rob us of
sleep, and fill our swirling minds
with thoughts and convictions for
a purposeful life. Although it can
take many forms, one particularly
haunting question from those pools
is the extent to which we are water
striders and the extent to which we
are diving beetles. Are we darting about on the surface, or are
we plunging deeply? We hear the
clock ticking. It can, at times, be
awesomely loud. We are reminded
that our careers are time-limited.
We also know that our careers, as
well as the science we conduct, are
framed in something much, much
larger. As Ernest Hemmingway so
eloquently framed human passages, we truly are “Islands in the
Stream.”
Let’s take a brief journey
together. As referenced above,
human passages need a framework
or backdrop. So, for purposes of
our journey, we’ll use excerpts from
a story I wrote a few years ago
(Jackson 2006: 81-83), with a backdrop of Southeast Asia. If you wish,
transcend the setting, drift into
your own ethereal dimensions—
the treasures of your own story
and its setting—and reengage the
core elements that pulled you onto
the path that you are following as
a professional addressing natural
resources. Those core elements
probably are not something you
can measure or count, but they are
very real nevertheless. Some may
be in the form of memories. Some
may be in the form of dreams.
160
Some may be in the form of an
incredible swelling of energy desperately searching for expression.
Come, sit with me now…just for
a few moments. Let us merge our
currents.
The old man’s eyes shone
in the soft glow of the lantern. Beyond the thin walls
of the hut, the jungle was
pulsing with sound. There
was a ceaseless, resonating
whine of insects that merged
with the shrill calls of tree
frogs. Night birds whooped
and tonked from deep amid
the shadows. Yet with all the
noise, all the vibrant pulsing
of life oozing from the forest,
there was a sense of quiet
that enveloped us as the old
man spoke of his days and
adventures as a fisherman on
Malaysia’s Pahang River….
As the night deepened, he
spoke of boat building and
of capture techniques and of
the wild places where people
rarely went.…The old fisherman spoke the languages that
were our common bonds, the
verbal Malay and the songs of
the river. He’d been hesitant
at first to speak, not knowing how well I understood
these languages. Through the
ages river people around the
world have learned that most
people cannot understand
what they’re trying to say.
On this night full of mystery and
enchantment, the old fisherman
shared his stories, and I translated
the Malay into English for the
graduate student accompany-
ing me on this trip. We were in
Malaysia to enhance an exchange
program between Mississippi
State University and the Malaysian
Science University (Universiti Sains
Malaysia). Part of our mission was
to conduct surveys of regional
fisheries, and particularly river fisheries, in order to ascertain opportunities for collaborative graduate
thesis research. It was, however, a
chapter in a much larger story.
As a young U.S. Peace Corps volunteer 25 years earlier, I’d learned
to speak Malay in order to teach
my zoology courses at the National
University of Malaysia. The gift of
that venture into Southeast Asia
as a Peace Corps volunteer, and
the language that came with it,
has reverberated thereafter in my
career, in my life, and into the lives
of my many students. Through that
initiation into international arenas, I learned that I actually could
learn and use another language. I
discovered that there were indeed
demands for persons with biology
degrees (in a time of deep recession in the United States), and that
the dreams of a young scientist
from the hills of north Arkansas—a
young scientist who wanted to
become immersed in the world’s
currents—could actually come true.
From my childhood I’d read the
stories of explorers and adventurers. And, as a young man in
college, I was very, very scared.
I was afraid that I’d have to be
content with living vicariously
through someone else’s words
and images. I had the courage of
youth, but I wasn’t sure how to
Continued on page 192
News:
Fisheries
Beefy rainbow trout
A University of Rhode Island scientist’s efforts to develop
transgenic rainbow trout with enhanced muscle growth has
yielded more muscular fish that could provide a boost to
the commercial aquaculture industry. Terry Bradley said his
research into the inhibition of myostatin, a protein that slows
muscle growth, has obtained “stunning results” in the last
two years, with trout growing 15 to 20% more muscle mass
than standard fish.
“Belgian blue cattle have a natural mutation in myostatin causing a 20 to 25% increase in muscle mass, and mice
overexpressing myostatin exhibit a two-fold increase in skeletal
muscle mass. But fish have a very different mechanism of
muscle growth than mammals, so we weren’t certain it was
going to work,” Bradley said.
Bradley and a team of graduate students spent 500 hours
injecting 20,000 rainbow trout eggs with various DNA types
designed to inhibit myostatin. Of the eggs that hatched, 300
carried the gene that led to increased muscle growth. After
two years, most exhibited increased musculature throughout,
including a prominent dorsal hump that made them look like
they had muscular shoulders. The first generation of transgenic trout were subsequently spawned, and offspring carrying the gene in all of their muscle cells have been produced.
Studies are under way to determine if the fish grow at a faster
rate as well.
In the United States, some 1,000 trout farms produce
approximately $80 million of trout annually. Assuming
Bradley’s transgenic fish meet with regulatory approval, aquaculturists potentially could grow larger fish without increasing
the amount of food the fish are fed. While the transgenic
trout may look like bodybuilders, Bradley said they exhibit
normal behaviors.
No LoNger The
besT kepT secreT.
American public University is proud to be the 2009 recipient of the sloan
Consortium’s Ralph E. Gomory Award for Quality Online Education. This award
recognizes a school’s commitment to quality in online education best practices.
Not all online schools are the same – come find out why we’re different.
b.s. in environmental studies
concentrations available in:
• environmental Technology and Management
• Fish and Wildlife Management
• regional and community environmental planning
M.s. in environmental policy and Management
concentrations available in:
• environmental planning
• environmental sustainability
• global environmental Management
www.apu.apus.edu/environmental-studies or 877.777.9081
161
UPDAte:
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
AFS briefing on National Fish
Habitat Conservation Act
On 16 March, the American Fisheries
Society in cooperation with the National
Fish Habitat Board held a Congressional
briefing in support of H.R. 2562, the
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-lA)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-wi)
162
Elden Hawkes, Jr.
AFS Policy Coordinator Hawkes
can be contacted at
ehawkes@fisheries.org.
National Fish Habitat Conservation Act.
AFS President Don Jackson bookended
a host of speakers who expressed their
support for the legislation. Many of
the speakers illustrated how principles
of the act are already being used to
protect and revitalize fish habitats across
the country. Speakers included bill cosponsors Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Rep.
Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Doug Austen of the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission,
Jeff Hastings of Trout Unlimited, and
Gordon Robertson of the American
Sportfishing Association. Following the
briefing, Don Jackson, Doug Austen,
and AFS Policy Coordinator Elden
Hawkes visited with various representatives and their staffs to discuss
the act. Visited representatives and
staff included Rep. Bennie Thompson
(D-MS), Rep. Jake Kuhns (D-PA), and
Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS).
Consortium for oceans Leadership
public policy forum
On 10 March, the Consortium for
Oceans Leadership held its annual
public policy forum. The forum
included speakers from a wide variety
of stakeholders in the realm of ocean
policy. The forum was highlighted by
comments from Senators Sheldon
Whitehouse (D-RI) and Mark Begich
(D-AK). Whitehouse commented on
major issues that affect oceans. These
issues include sea level rise, which will
have drastic effects on coastal states
and island nations. He also stated
that 30-plus military instillations are
in danger of being submerged under
water due to this rise. Whitehouse
expressed concern that climate change
is changing water temperatures and the
composition of ocean water, which can
and will severely affect species. In closing, he stressed that ocean acidification
may prove to be worse for species than
the actual climate change and if we do
nothing we are voluntarily accepting
this risk.
Sen. Begich added that acidification
and warming of water are having an
impact on Alaskan fisheries and could
potentially harm these fisheries dramatically, especially since 62% of the
seafood harvests of the United States
come out of Alaska. He further stated
that Arctic temperatures are warming
at twice the global rate and that in 30
years there will be ice-free summers
in Alaska. He closed by calling for the
ratification of the Law of the Sea by the
United States, stating that the United
States is at a disadvantage by not being
a part of that treaty.
Bluefin Tuna ban rejected at CITES
The US-supported proposal to ban
all international commercial trade of
Atlantic bluefin tuna was rejected at
the meeting of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora
(CITES) held 13-25 March 2010 in
Doha, Qatar. The ban was overwhelmingly rejected, mostly due to the concerns of poorer fishing nations about
the potential damage to their fishing
communities and their fears that the
stock’s collapse was overstated, and
the concerns of Japan, which imports a
majority of the world’s tuna.
Of the nations represented at CITES,
only the United States, Norway, and
Kenya supported the proposal outright.
The European Union asked that its
implementation be delayed until May
2011 to give authorities time to respond
to concerns about overfishing.
Feature:
FISH HABITAT
A Novel Technique for Mapping Habitat
in Navigable Streams Using Low-cost Side Scan Sonar
ABSTRACT: An inexpensive and rapid technique for mapping
instream habitat of navigable rivers is needed by natural resource
professionals. Unlike more expensive side scan sonar devices,
the Humminbird Side Imaging system employs a boat-mounted
transducer enabling the survey of shallow, rocky streams. This device
can be used to obtain high resolution, georeferenced images of
underwater habitat. We developed a technique employing geographic
information systems (GIS) to transform raw sonar images to fit the
configuration of a stream channel. The end product is a GIS layer that
can be interpreted to map instream habitat. We demonstrated this
approach by mapping substrate and large woody debris in a southwest
Georgia stream, and evaluated the technique through a comprehensive
accuracy assessment. An overall classification accuracy of 77% was
observed for substrate mapping and sonar estimates of large woody
debris were correlated (r2 = 0.79) with actual wood abundance. Sonar
mapping generated estimates of reach and substrate area comparable
to a traditional field approach, and reduced the time investment by
90%. Applications for high resolution habitat maps are widespread
and numerous; the ability to produce these maps at low cost is now
within the grasp of researchers and managers alike.
Nueva técnica para mapeo de
hábitat en ríos navegables mediante
escáner sonar de bajo costo
Resumen: Los estudiosos de los recursos naturales requieren de una
técnica rápida y económica para mapear hábitats en ríos navegables. A
diferencia de la mayoría de los escáneres sonares, el sistema de imágenes
Humminbird® emplea un transductor montable en una embarcación
que permite hacer sondeos en ríos rocosos y someros. Este dispositivo
puede utilizarse para obtener imágenes subacuáticas del hábitat, de alta
resolución y geo-referenciadas. Se desarrolló una técnica que emplea
información de los Sistemas de Información Geográfica (SIG) para
transformar las imágenes originales de sonar de forma tal que se ajusten
a la configuración de los canales fluviales. El producto final es una capa
de SIG que puede ser interpretada para mapear hábitats en los ríos.
Este enfoque se demuestra mediante el mapeo del sustrato y escombros
de madera en un río del suroeste de Georgia, y también se evaluó su
precisión. En cuanto al mapeo del sustrato se observó una precisión del
77% y la estimación realizada mediante el sonar de la abundancia de
los escombros de madera se correlacionó con la abundancia real de la
madera (r2= 0.79). Los mapeos con sonar generaron estimaciones tanto
de alcance como de área de sustrato, comparables con los obtenidos con
los enfoques tradicionales, y redujeron el tiempo de las operaciones en
un 90%. Las aplicaciones de mapas de hábitat de alta resolución son
variadas y numerosas; la habilidad de producir estos mapas a un bajo
costo se encuentra en este momento al alcance tanto de investigadores
como de manejadores.
Kaeser demonstrates
the execution of
a 1-person sonar
survey from a small
watercraft on a
small stream in
southwest Georgia.
Adam J. Kaeser, and
Thomas L. Litts
Kaeser is an aquatic ecologist and Litts is a GIS specialist
with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Wildlife Resources Division. Kaeser can be contacted at
adam.kaeser@dnr.state.ga.us.
INTRODUCTION
Fish habitat encompasses the variety of physical, biological,
and chemical features of the environment that sustain individuals, populations, and assemblages (Hubert and Bergersen 1999).
Fishes relate to habitat across a variety of spatial and temporal
scales, from the microhabitat patch of an individual brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis) redd to the stream network inhabited by an
entire population. The health and biotic potential of fish populations are intimately linked to the integrity of their habitat across
these scales (Barbour and Stribling 1991; Roth et al. 1996). The
loss, degradation, and fragmentation of aquatic habitats have
widely imperiled fishes (Leidy and Moyle 1998; Dudgeon et al.
2006; Jelks et al. 2008), and there is an urgent need to identify, protect, restore, and enhance fish habitat throughout the
United States. This need is exemplified in the core mission of the
National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP), a contemporary
initiative focusing on fish and habitat conservation efforts nationwide (www.fishhabitat.org).
The research and management of stream fish habitat across
landscapes poses a number of challenges. Traditionally, stream
ecologists have focused on smaller, wadeable systems and finer
spatial scales (e.g., the stream reach), extrapolating site-specific
information to a broader context (Fisher and Rahel 2004; Marcus
and Fonstad 2008). At coarse scales, and in larger and more turbid systems, traditional approaches can become costly and may
not provide a continuous perspective of the riverine landscape.
Though terrestrial landscape ecology has flourished using spatial
technologies to reveal patterns and processes at broad scales, the
investigation of riverine landscapes has lagged behind (Wiens
2002), perhaps for want of analogous tools and techniques. To
enable ecological investigations at scales relevant to the life history of stream fishes (Fausch et al. 2002; Lowe et al. 2006), and to
support the nationwide conservation of fish habitat, a multiscale,
riverscape perspective is necessary, as are the tools, methods, and
training to facilitate this approach.
163
Over the past two decades spatial technologies such as global positioning systems (GPS), geographic information systems (GIS), and
remote sensing have become pervasive tools used to map land cover
(Frissell et al. 1986; Poole 2002; Meyer et al. 2005), channel geomorphology (Gilvear and Bryant 2003; Mollot and Bilby 2008), and
other features that directly or indirectly influence fish habitat (Fisher
and Rahel 2004; Laba et al. 2008). Imagery captured with space and
airborne, passive sensor systems (e.g., Ikonos, aerial photography) are
frequently used as the principal input, or foundation for such studies
at a wide range of resolutions (~30 cm to 1 km) and map scales (large
to small).
For aquatic environments, low-altitude deployment of both passive and active sensor systems is increasing as advanced remote sensing
technology enables the detection and visualization of underwater habitat. Recent demonstrations include bathymetric lidar (Charlton et al.
2003), radar measurement of discharge (Costa et al. 2000), thermal
infrared mapping of stream temperature (Torgersen et al. 2001), and
the mapping of geomorphic channel structure and large woody debris
using hyperspectral imagery (Marcus et al. 2003; Jones et al. 2007;
Marcus and Fonstad 2008). However, these approaches are generally
expensive, demand rigorous logistical planning, require highly specialized technical personnel, and can be hindered by environmental factors such as canopy cover, water depth, and turbidity (Legleiter et al.
2004; Marcus and Fonstad 2008). Financial considerations aside, such
limitations preclude the widespread use of these technologies in a vast
number of turbid and deep stream systems.
Waterborne hydroacoustic technology provides an alternative
to aerial remote sensing of habitat in a host of aquatic systems. For
example, side scan sonar (SSS) has been used for decades to detect
and map benthic features of marine and deep freshwater systems
(Newton and Stefanon 1975; Fish and Carr 1990, 2001; Prada et al.
2008). Traditional SSS is, however, expensive and typically involves
towing an underwater sensor (i.e., towfish), limiting its use in relatively
shallow freshwater systems. Examples of freshwater applications include
Edsall et al. (1989), Anima et al. (2007), Laustrup et al. (2007), and
Manley and Singer (2008).
In 2005 Humminbird® released the 900-series Side Imaging (SI)
system, an inexpensive (~$2,000) side scan sonar device. The SI system employs a small, boat-mounted transducer that enables surveys in
shallow, rocky streams. This device is capable of producing very high
resolution (<10 cm) imagery revealing substrate, large woody debris,
and depth—all critical components of instream habitat. Recognizing
the potential of the SI system, we have worked to develop rapid, flexible, and cost-effective techniques to acquire and geoprocess sonar
imagery for use in the production of large-scale, classified habitat and
image maps in riverine landscapes.
In this study our objectives were (1) to demonstrate a technique
that uses the Humminbird® SI system to map and classify habitat
(substrate, LWD, depth) in a small navigable stream, (2) to evaluate
the technique through a comprehensive map accuracy assessment,
and (3) to compare the results and time investments of sonar-based
vs. traditional approaches to instream habitat assessment.
low flows typically experienced during summer permit wading and
snorkeling for ground truth surveys. Ichawaynochaway Creek is comprised of sandy runs, rocky shoals, and portions of channel incised
into, and flanked by, Ocala limestone outcrops and dense tree canopies. Additional geographic and hydrologic descriptions for this system
may be found in Palik et al. (1998), Golladay and Battle (2002), and
Golladay et al. (2004).
Procedures for data acquisition, map production, and assessment
(a) Sonar data acquisition
We employed a Humminbird® 981c SI system to obtain sonar
data during a high discharge event. High flows were targeted in order
to image habitat within the bankfull channel. The sonar survey was
completed in 3.5 hours on 8 April 2008. The SI system was connected
to a WAAS-enabled Garmin GPSMAP® 76 GPS to provide coordinate information for image capture locations. The sonar transducer
was positioned in front of a small johnboat via a custom mount and
set at an operating frequency of 455 kHz. The side beam range was
set to 24.4 m (80 ft.) per side. The GPS antenna was also positioned
near the transducer to maximize image capture location accuracy.
Consecutive, overlapping sonar images and associated coordinate data
were recorded to the SI system while navigating downstream at ~8.0
km/h (5 mph) and maintaining a mid-channel position. Additional
Figure 1. Location of study area in southwest Georgia. Dashed line
points to upstream head of mapped reach.
METHODS
Study area
In this study we examined Ichawaynochaway Creek, a low gradient
(<0.001% slope) tributary to the lower Flint River on the Gulf Coastal
Plain of southwestern Georgia (Figure 1). This stream was selected
because high flows during winter and spring permit navigation, and
164
Table 1. Classification scheme and associated definitions developed for the Ichawaynochaway Creek substrate map.
Substrate Class
Acronym Definition
Sandy
S
_ 75% of area composed of particles < 2 mm diameter (sand, silt, clay or fine organic detritus).
>
Rocky fine
Rf
> 25% of area composed of rocks > 2 mm, but < 500 mm diameter across the longest axis.
Rocky boulder
Rb
An area >
_ MMU that includes >
_ 3 boulders, each >
_ 500 mm diameter across longest axis, each boulder within 1.5
meters of the next adjacent boulder. Any area meeting these criteria, regardless of underlying substrate, is classified Rb.
Limerock fine
Lf
_> 75% of area composed of limestone as bedrock or an outcropping with relatively smooth texture (not fractured
into blocks >
_ 500 mm diameter).
Limerock boulder
Lb
_ 75% of area composed of limestone fractured into blocks >
>
_ 500 mm diameter across longest axis and meeting the
spatial arrangement criteria of Rb.
Unsure sandy
US
Any area of the sonar map difficult to classify due to poor image resolution, but suspected to be predominantly
sandy due to stream channel context.
Unsure rocky
UR
Any area of the sonar map difficult to classify due to poor image resolution, but suspected to be predominantly rocky
due to stream channel context.
geographic coordinates and stream depth data were recorded to the
GPS device at 3-s intervals.
(b) Sonar data processing
inspection of sonar images in portions of Ichawaynochaway Creek
upstream of the mapped area, prior to map production. We identified
a MMU of 28 m2, an area equal to a circle with a 3-m radius. The classification scheme included five predominant, surficial substrate classes:
sandy (S), rocky fine (Rf), rocky boulder (Rb), limerock fine (Lf), and
limerock boulder (Lb; Table 1). To ensure mutual exclusivity of the
classification scheme, areas containing < 75% limerock in combination with other rocky substrates defaulted to either Rf or Rb according to class definitions. The classification scheme was also hierarchical
by design. For example, Lf could be combined with Rf to constitute a
single, fine-textured rock class, and Lb could be combined with Rb to
constitute a single, coarse-textured rock class. An additional unsure
class was established to account for areas of the SIM that were poorly
resolved. Unsure areas were presumptively assigned a predominantly
sandy (US) or predominantly rocky (UR) classification based on their
stream channel context.
Rectified sonar imagery was rendered in ArcGIS 9.2 at the
raster resolution scale (~1:375) to digitize stream banks and
substrate class boundaries. During digitization, areas of uniform
sonar signature _> MMU were uniquely delineated (Figure 2).
We employed Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI)
GIS software and the IrfanView graphic viewer to transform raw sonar
images into sonar image maps (SIMs) with real world coordinates
(e.g., Universal Transverse Mercator [UTM]). ArcView 3.2 (ESRI)
and IrfanView were used to process the raw sonar images, a step that
involved image collar removal, image cropping at user identified image
overlap points, and the generation of raw sonar image mosaics. The
resultant mosaics consisted of 10–12 individual images, each representing ~400–500 m of stream reach. Mosaics were saved as raw JPEG
(.jpg) images.
Field-collected GPS waypoint and track data were imported into
ArcView 3.2, reviewed, and saved as ESRI shapefiles. These shapefiles were processed using custom algorithms written in the Avenue
scripting language to derive robust image-to-ground control point networks for each raw image mosaic. Each image mosaic control network
contained between 300 and 360 control points and was stored as a
space-delimited text file (.txt) for use in image
transformation.
Figure 2. Raw sonar image from Ichawaynochaway Creek annotated to identify key habitat
Transformation of raw image mosaics to SIMs features. Image width is 150 feet. The water column appears as a dark area in the center of the
was completed using the georeferencing tools image. Yellow lines have been drawn to illustrate the apparent boundaries between the following
available in ESRI’s ArcGIS 9.2 (ArcView level) substrate classes: S = sandy, Rb = rocky boulder, and Rf = rocky fine areas. Stream banks are
software. Image mosaics were opened in ArcGIS revealed as abrupt margins within the image.
and their corresponding control point network
files were loaded as link tables. A SPLINE transformation was applied to the link table, which
consistently resulted in a solution with a low total
root mean square error (RMSE) of +
_0.01 m or
less due to the nature of the transformation type
(ESRI 2008). The rectify command was used to
transform raw image mosaics into SIM files using
the SPLINE transformation solution, cubic convolution resampling, and an output ground pixel
resolution of 10 cm. The SIM files were saved as
JPEG (.jpg) images with corresponding world files
registered to UTM Zone 16 and cast on the North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
(c) Habitat map production
A minimum map unit (MMU) and classification scheme were defined during on-site
165
Slant range correction was not performed on raw sonar imagery
to correct distortion near the image center (Fish and Carr 1990),
therefore substrates observed adjacent to the water column were
interpreted as extending to the center of the image. All areas
bound by digitized lines were converted to polygons and assigned
a substrate class (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Evolution of a sonar-based habitat map. Panel 1 displays an aerial infrared image of Ichawaynochaway Creek with transformed sonar
imagery added as a layer. In Panel 2 substrate boundaries and large woody debris layers have been added. Panel 3 displays only the classified
substrate polygons. Legend acronyms refer to the following substrate classes: Rb = rocky boulder, Rf = rocky fine, Lb = limerock boulder, Lf
= limerock fine, S = sandy, UR = unsure rocky, and US = unsure sandy. Bridge photograph shows the irregular foundation that appears in the
adjacent sonar image, and some of the rocky boulder substrate mapped in this area. Layer transparency reveals the proper position of the bridge
above the sonar image foundation. Aerial infrared imagery provided courtesy of the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center at Ichauway.
166
In Kaeser and Litts (2008) we assessed large woody
debris (LWD) using raw (i.e., untransformed) sonar imagery
obtained in Ichawaynochaway Creek. To compare our ability to map and quantify LWD from transformed sonar imagery generated during this study, we digitized and enumerated
wood in segments on the SIMs that matched our former study
reaches (Figure 3).
(d) Map accuracy assessment
Several methods were employed to evaluate the habitat map and validate the mapping technique. To assess the
dimensional accuracy of transformed imagery, we identified a
set of fixed objects in the SIMs to locate and measure in the
field. This set included 21 logs and the abutments of 3 unique
bridges. Logs were typically oriented parallel to the stream
channel (evaluating image y-dimension), and bridge abutments were oriented perpendicularly to the channel (evaluating image x-dimension). Actual log lengths were measured
in the field with a tape and bridge spans were measured with a
Nikon ProStaff Laser 440 rangefinder and compared to measurements made from SIMs with the ArcMap ruler tool.
To evaluate the overall classification or thematic accuracy
of the substrate map, a sample of reference sites was selected.
We randomly assigned points (n = 492) to substrate polygons
(71 points per class, except UR which received 66 points)
using the Random Point Generator, v. 1.3 extension for
ArcView 3.x to serve as reference data collection sites (www.
jennessent.com/arcview/random_points.htm). Sample points
were randomly placed within reference polygons at a mini-
mum distance of 3 m from polygon edges to reduce the risk
of incorrectly locating a point in an adjacent polygon due to
combined GPS and map position error.
Reference sites were visited 16–20 June 2008 with a field
crew of three persons operating two boats, each equipped
with a GPS device. One device was a WAAS-enabled Trimble
Recon unit (Transplant CF GPS receiver, 2– 5 m accuracy)
(TransplantComputing 2002), and the other a LandMark
Systems component GPS system that included a TDS Nomad
data logger and WAAS-enabled, Hemisphere GPS Crescent
antenna capable of achieving < 2 m accuracy under canopy
cover (Hemisphere GPS 2007). Use of two boats enabled the
crew to operate independently to confirm point locations.
Once located, snorkeling was conducted to inspect and classify the substrate within a 3-m radius around the point (i.e.,
the sample site). Some points (n = 11) were skipped because
they were too deep to survey without a dive team; 5 points
could not be located due to poor satellite reception during
the ground truth survey. Map classification data were not in
hand during reference data collection.
Error matrices and conventional classification accuracy
statistics were computed using reference data (Congalton
and Green 1999). The standard error matrix was normalized,
an iterative proportional fitting procedure that allows individual cell values within the matrix to be directly compared
regardless of differences in sample size, and Kappa analysis
performed using MARGFIT (Congalton 1991). Reference
data for unsure areas were analyzed separately. Areal map
accuracy was estimated as the total area of all map polygons
Preparing to dive and inspect a reference site during the Ichawaynochaway Creek map accuracy assessment.
167
that included a correctly classified reference site, divided by
the total area of all map polygons visited during reference
data collection.
Our ability to assess classification accuracy was potentially
confounded by the positional (i.e., horizontal) accuracy of the
source SIMs and the GPS accuracy experienced during reference site location. To assess horizontal accuracy of the SIMs
according to National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy
guidelines (FGDC 1998), we calculated root mean square
error (RMSEr) using the coordinates of 18 fixed objects (logs
and bridges) measured from the SIMs against their “true”
locations recorded in the field with the Nomad GPS.
sandy, rocky fine, or limerock fine classes were represented in
this category.
Mean depth of Ichawaynochaway Creek during the sonar
survey was 3.05 m (SD = 1.13, range 0.6–8.6 m, n = 3,307).
Recommended transducer altitude (i.e., height above the substrate) during surveys is typically 10–20% of the range setting
(Fish and Carr 1990). Mean altitude of the sonar transducer
during our survey was 12.5% of the range setting. In this
study we did not conduct additional analyses of the depth
records obtained, but these data might be used to geographically model and map the distribution of channel geomorphic
units (riffle, run, pool) throughout the study system.
(e) Comparison of habitat assessment approaches
Map Accuracy
To determine whether sonar mapping yielded estimates of
substrate composition and LWD comparable to a traditional,
transect-based approach, we sampled 7 randomly selected
reaches, each ~500 m long, during low water periods in summer 2007 (Kaeser and Litts 2008). Transects perpendicular to
the stream channel were established at 20-m intervals within
each reach. Along each transect, bankfull channel width and
the length covered by either sandy or rocky substrate were
visually assessed by snorkeling and recorded. We classified
the predominant surficial substrate according to the scheme
employed during sonar map production. Reach area was calculated from transect data as the mean bankfull channel
width multiplied by reach length. For each reach, the total
transect length covered by each substrate class was summarized, converted to a proportion of the total length assessed,
and multiplied by reach area to yield an estimate of substrate
class area.
Reach and substrate class areas corresponding to field survey reaches were subset from the completed substrate map and
summarized in ArcGIS. The total sandy area in each reach =
S + US classes, and total rocky area = Rf + Rb + Lf + Lb +
UR classes. The two assessment methods (sonar and transect)
were compared following the method described by Bland and
Altman (1986). Large woody debris was sampled and the data
analyzed as described in Kaeser and Litts (2008).
To compare the overall efficiency of sonar mapping with
the transect-based approach, we maintained a detailed record
of time invested during each step in the project.
Results and Discussion
Map Statistics
Twenty-seven kilometers of lower Ichawaynochaway Creek
were mapped. Four substrate classes constituted 89% of the
mapped area: sandy (40%), rocky fine (22%), rocky boulder
(15%), and limerock fine (12%). The least common substrate
was limerock boulder (4%). Unsure areas constituted 7% of
the total map area (US = 5%, UR = 2%).
The 101-ha map exhibited a high level of detail and heterogeneity. The map consisted of 1,199 substrate polygons
ranging in area from 28 m 2 to 33,000 m2. The majority of
polygons (83%) were small (<1,000 m 2); all substrate classes
were represented in this area category. Few polygons (n = 12)
exceeded one hectare (> 10,000 m2) in size; only contiguous
168
Several types of error potentially affect the overall accuracy of a completed habitat map. Dimensional, or geometric,
errors may have been introduced during the transformation of
raw sonar image mosaics into SIMs. The dimensions of fixed
objects in the field were, however, similar to SIM dimensions; the mean difference between measurements was 0.87
m (SD = 0.78; Figure 4). These results and the high degree
of fit of transformed imagery to the apparent stream channel
provided ample evidence that the processing techniques we
employed effectively corrected image dimensionality.
Overall classification accuracy for the Ichawaynochaway
Creek map was 77% (Table 2). This statistic represents the
proportion of correctly classified sites visited during reference
data collection (Congalton and Green 1999). Normalized
accuracy of the map was 76%, similar to overall accuracy
because roughly equal numbers of reference sites were visited
in each class (Table 3). Producer’s accuracy, a statistic that
represents the map maker’s ability to correctly identify substrates appearing in the map, ranged from 69–83%. Producer’s
accuracy was lowest for the rocky fine class and highest for
sandy areas. User’s accuracy, a statistic that describes the proportion of classified areas on the map that are correct in the
field, ranged from 61–90%. User’s accuracy was highest for
sandy areas, the most abundant substrate mapped in lower
Ichawaynochaway Creek, and lowest for limerock boulder,
the least abundant substrate class. Kappa analysis on the error
matrix yielded a KHAT statistic of 0.71 (Variance = 0.0008)
and Z statistic of 25.0 indicating the map classification was
significantly better than random.
A large proportion of misclassifications were the result
of confusion between rocky boulder and limerock boulder,
and rocky fine and limerock fine classes. Such mistakes were
anticipated and difficult to avoid given that these substrate
pairs exhibited similar appearance in the sonar imagery. One
way to handle this confusion is to collapse the substrate
pairs into a single fine-textured rocky class, and a single
coarse-textured rocky class. Doing so increases the overall
Ichawaynochaway Creek map accuracy to 86%.
Another source of misclassification was the confusion of
limerock boulder and limerock fine, and rocky fine and rocky
boulder classes. A review of the sonar image map revealed
that some of these mistakes could have been avoided by paying closer attention to (1) the manner in which discrete
boundaries were imposed in zones of transition between the
classes, and (2) the effect of image compression in areas near
the center of the image (Fish and Carr 1990). Issues related
to classification in areas of continuous transition are inherent to map accuracy assessments (Congalton and Green
1999; Meyer and White 2007). Slant range correction, an
additional processing step that effectively removes the water
column appearing in raw sonar imagery, might facilitate discrimination of substrates in the near-field portion of imagery,
yet our results demonstrate high accuracy without undertaking this step.
Another noteworthy source of misclassification in the map
was the confusion of sandy and rocky fine areas. Several areas
classified as sandy in the map were actually covered by gravel
substrate (i.e., Rf; particle diameter ~5–15 mm). These particles were below the stated transverse resolution (63.5 mm)
of the SI system (Humminbird® 2005). Transverse resolution
is the ability to discriminate two objects in close proximity
that are aligned parallel to the path of the boat (Fish and
Carr 1990). In effect, gravel and sand exhibited similar signature in the SIMs, a phenomenon that was likely accentuated in both the near-field and far-field portions of the sonar
image. At broader perspectives, however, sandy areas often
exhibited rippled or dune-like patterns (e.g., Kendall et al.
2005), features that helped to discriminate sand from fine
rocky substrate in many instances. We recommend that particular attention be devoted to reducing/resolving this confusion if the project goal is to identify fine rocky areas such as
gravel beds.
Unsure areas were primarily mapped as narrow polygons
Table 2. Standard error matrix and associated statistics for the Ichawaynochaway Creek
extending along the margins of the
substrate map classification.
stream, where sonar shadows or farfield distortion affected the quality
Reference site data (field data)
of sonar data. The majority of these
Row total
User’s accuracy
Classified data
S
Rf
Rb
Lf
Lb
areas were classified unsure sandy
S
60
6
1
0
0
67
90%
(US) in the Ichawaynochaway
Rf
8
54
2
5
0
69
78%
Creek map. User’s accuracy for US
Rb
0
8
59
1
3
71
83%
areas was 85%, indicating this class
Lf
4
7
1
51
8
71
72%
could be lumped with S, thereby
Lb
0
3
16
8
42
69
61%
reducing the total unsure area in
Column total
72
78
79
65
53
347
the map. On the other hand, only
56% of unsure rocky (UR) areas
Producer’s accuracy 83% 69% 75% 79% 79%
Overall accuracy 77%
were confirmed rocky during referThe gray, diagonal elements of the matrix contain the correct classification for each substrate type.
ence data collection. We attribute
the misclassification of many UR
areas to a false impression of rocky
texture produced by groups of cypress knees and submerged
woody debris often encountered in these parts of the stream
Table 3. Normalized error matrix for the Ichawaynochaway
channel. For practical purposes, special attention could be
Creek substrate map classification.
devoted to unsure areas during ground truth work to fill in
such data gaps if deemed important.
Reference site data (field data)
Given the potential for sediment redistribution, an imporClassified data
S
Rf
Rb
Lf
Lb
tant consideration when planning and executing a mapping
study is the period of time that elapses between sonar and
S
0.849 0.096 0.025 0.013 0.017
ground truth surveys. We do not believe that sediment redisRf
0.107 0.718 0.038 0.123 0.015
tribution was a major factor affecting the classification accuRb
0.005 0.097 0.780 0.029 0.090
racy results of this study, however, as the sonar survey was
Lf
0.036 0.063 0.014 0.728 0.160
conducted during the last high flow event of spring 2008,
Lb
0.004 0.026 0.143 0.108 0.719
and no additional high flow events occurred during the brief,
Normalized accuracy = 76%
two-month period between sonar and ground truth surveys.
The gray, diagonal elements of the matrix contain the correct
Qualitative, yet extensive comparisons of mapped to actual
classification percentages for each substrate type.
Figure 4. Length of objects measured in sonar imagery versus actual
length of these same objects located in the field. Dashed line (y = x)
represents equality between measurements.
169
sediment distribution patterns in Ichawaynochaway Creek
indicated that little change had occurred between surveys in
this low gradient system.
The positional, or horizontal error (RMSEr) of the source
_ 5.95 m. This result has important
SIMs was estimated at +
implications for the classification accuracy of the substrate
map and suggests that buffering reference data sites at 3 m
from polygon edges was insufficient to safeguard against GPS
error in this study. Some reference data sites may have been
incorrectly co-registered with their corresponding map locations thereby conservatively biasing (i.e., depressing) the
classification accuracy estimate (Foody 2008). In future studies, we recommend that both the internal polygon buffer distance used to safeguard against co-registration errors and the
radius used to define the MMU are greater than or equal to
the least stated accuracy of the GPS equipment used (e.g., in
this study- 5 m).
The overall classification accuracy statistic provides one
perspective on map accuracy. During assessment, an equivalent number of reference sites were examined from each
substrate class, yet some classes were represented by small
polygons comprising a small proportion of the total area
mapped (e.g., Lb). Thus, the overall classification accuracy
statistic does not represent the total area of the map that is
correctly classified. By examining accuracy in terms of polygon area, we estimated areal map accuracy at 86% (Table
4). Collapsing Rf and Lf into a single fine-textured rocky
class, and Rb and Lb into a single coarse-textured rocky class
increases areal map accuracy to 92%. This analysis assumes
that the area of an entire polygon was classified correctly
if the reference site was deemed correct, and vice versa for
incorrectly classified sites. We believe this is a reasonable
assumption given that substrates were delineated by a single
interpreter and assigned a class according to image signature
similarities.
Comparison of methods
Sonar habitat mapping generated estimates of physical
habitat similar to the traditional, transect-based approach.
Sonar map estimates of bankfull channel area were comparable and ~10–15% greater than field estimates (Figure 5). We
attribute these differences to the conduct of the sonar survey
during a discharge that exceeded what we identified in the
field as bankfull channel width. Sonar estimates of sandy and
rocky substrate were typically within 30% of estimates generated by the transect-based method, although the relationship was more variable than that of bankfull channel area.
Additional variation in these estimates was expected given
that the transect method sampled only a fraction of the substrate present in a reach. In addition, some sediment redistribution may have occurred between the transect surveys
(summer 2007) and the sonar survey (spring 2008) thereby
increasing variation among estimates.
Estimates of LWD from 2008 SIMs were more accurate
than estimates made from raw sonar imagery (obtained 2007)
in all Ichawaynochaway Creek study reaches (Kaeser and
Litts 2008); however, we were still unable to identify all of
the wood present within a stream reach by sonar inspection
(Figure 6). We believe more wood was visible in imagery
obtained during the 2008 survey because we relocated the
sonar transducer to the front of the boat, thus eliminating
distortion caused by propeller turbulence. We do not believe
that redistribution of LWD was a factor affecting these results,
as few high flows and no flood events occurred between field
ground truth and sonar surveys. SIM estimates of wood were
correlated (r 2 = 0.79) with actual Ichawaynochaway Creek
wood counts obtained during ground truth surveys. These
results indicate that transformed sonar imagery (SIMs) may
also serve as a reliable source of information on wood distribution and abundance (Kaeser and Litts 2008).
Sonar habitat mapping required substantially less time
(~3 h/km) to complete than the traditional, transect-based
approach (~30 h/km) (Table 5). Although accuracy assessment requires additional time, this investment could be
greatly reduced in future efforts by eliminating some elements
(e.g., fixed object measurement), and by assigning reference
sites to areas of the map near access points instead of throughout an entire study area. Image preparation time (10 min/km)
was significantly reduced in this study by the use of custom
software and the program IrfanView relative to investments
(63 min/km) described in Kaeser and Litts (2008).
Conclusion
The technique demonstrated here represents a rapid,
inexpensive, and accurate method of creating high resolution, spatially detailed maps of continuous, instream habitat
Table 4. Areal accuracy of classified polygons examined during the field assessment study.
Polygon class Total polygons visited Area of polygons visited (ha) Area classified correctly1 (ha)
% Area classified correctly
S
59
19.0
18.6
98%
Rf
63
10.8
8.7
81%
Rb
71
9.4
9.1
97%
Lf
58
7.2
5.2
72%
Lb
62
3.8
2.2
58%
UR
64
1.6
0.9
54%
US
65
2.0
1.6
81%
Total
442*
53.7
46.3
Areal map accuracy (46.3/53.7) = 86%
1
This statistic assumes that the entire area enclosed within a polygon was classified correctly if the actual substrate within a 3-m radius examined
matched the assigned classification, and likewise assumes that the entire area of the polygon was incorrect if the examined area did not match the
classification.
*Fewer polygons were visited than reference sites because some large polygons contained more than 1 reference site.
170
Figure 5. Reach and substrate area estimated from the sonar image
map and from transect data obtained in the field. Dashed line (y = x)
represents equality between measurements (n = 7 reaches).
Figure 6. Sonar estimates of large woody debris (LWD) versus actual
counts obtained from field surveys in Ichawaynochaway Creek. Open
circles represent counts made from sonar image maps (front-mounted
transducer), and black diamonds represent counts made from raw,
untransformed imagery (rear-mounted transducer). Dashed line (y = x)
represents equality between counts of LWD.
across broad aquatic landscapes. Sonar mapping provides a
comparable and effective substitute for the labor intensive,
traditional field assessment of several key habitat variables.
Sonar mapping is not only more efficient, but the information generated is geospatially referenced at a level of detail
that is difficult, if not impossible to achieve with traditional
methods. By providing a means to visualize whole-channel,
underwater features, sonar mapping overcomes limitations of
traditional approaches in deep, turbid, and/or non-wadeable
systems characteristic of the Southeast Coastal Plain and
elsewhere. From a practical standpoint, this technique can be
performed using software readily available to researchers and
managers with a limited amount of training and expertise.
Within the GIS environment, information contained in
these maps can be integrated with a wide variety of data layers providing new ways to examine patterns and processes
occurring in aquatic landscapes. Applications of sonar habitat maps include studies of habitat-organism relationships,
the identification or prediction of critical habitat, the association of land cover and instream habitat, and the monitoring of change over time.
Like all assessment techniques, sonar mapping is not
applicable to some types of ecological investigation and
aquatic systems. In this study we identified several limitations of the technique such as the loss of data due to sonar
shadowing and range resolution effects, and potential difficulties associated with discriminating between substrate
types. The quality of sonar data is directly related to careful mission planning, proper execution, and the conditions experienced both during the survey and those fixed
by stream morphology (e.g., gradient, sinuosity, channel
confinement). The quality of the habitat map will, in turn,
depend on the quality of the sonar data and the experience
of the person developing the map.
This study represents a critical first step towards evaluating a technique for using low-cost side scan sonar to map
habitat. This flexible technique can be adapted to map shoreline or benthic habitat in a variety of lentic or large lotic
systems, and we are currently leading investigations in larger
rivers. Although we used both ArcView 3.2 and ArcGIS 9.2
to process imagery in this study, we recently
developed tools that function exclusively
Table 5. Time invested during steps of the sonar habitat mapping process (accuracy
within the ArcGIS 9.2+ platform. These new
assessment not included*).
tools have greatly reduced the processing time
Sonar mapping step Details
Time invested (min/km)
investment from 51 min/km (this study) to 12
Sonar data capture
Boat survey
11
min/km. We hope that this research and the
Data processing
Image preparation
10
availability of these tools encourage researchGeoreferencing/geotransformation
41
ers and managers to consider mapping, moniMap production
Substrate boundary digitization
43
toring, and assessing aquatic habitat with
Substrate classification and review
20
low-cost side scan sonar. Future research
Large woody debris digitization
30
should evaluate sonar mapping in a variety of
Total
155
systems to explore the effective boundaries of
*Comprehensive map accuracy assessment (2 persons examined ~500 reference sites, each
this promising remote sensing technique.
28 m2, plus fixed object measurement) required an additional 275 min/km to complete.
171
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Bobby Bass, Jean Brock, Brent Howze,
Tara Muenz, Sean Sterrett, Rebecca Thomas, and Wes Tracy
for field assistance, the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research
Center at Ichauway for project support, and Marguerite
Madden and Thomas Jordan at the Center for Remote
Sensing and Mapping Science at the University of Georgia for
technical assistance. This research was funded and approved
by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife
Resources Division.
REFERENCES
Anima, R., F. L. Wong, D. Hogg, and P. Galanis. 2007. Sidescan sonar imaging of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1216, Reston,
Virginia. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1216/.
Barbour, M. T., and J. B. Stribling. 1991. Use of habitat assessment in evaluating the biological integrity of stream communities. Pages 25-38 in Biological criteria: research and
regulation. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Report 440/5-91-005, Washington, D. C.
Bland, J. M., and D. G. Altman. 1986. Statistical methods for
assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, i, 307-310.
Charlton, M. E., A. R. G. Large, and I. C. Fuller. 2003.
Application of airborne LiDAR in river environments: the
River Coquet, Northumberland, UK. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 28(3):299-306.
Congalton, R. G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy
of classification of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing
Environment 37:35-46.
Congalton, R. G., and K. Green. 1999. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. Lewis
Publishers, New York.
Costa, J. E., K. R. Spicer, R. T. Cheng, F. P. Haeni, N. B.
Melcher, M. E. Thurman, W. J. Plant, and W. C. Keller.
172
2000. Measuring stream discharge by non-contact methods:
a proof of concept experiment. Geophysical Research Letters
27(4):553-556.
Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. Zawabata,
D. J. Knowler, C. L. Leveque, R. J. Naiman, A. PrieurRichard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny, and C. A. Sullivan.
2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status
and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81(2):163182.
Edsall, T. A., T. P. Poe, R. T. Nester, and C. L. Brown.
1989. Side-scan sonar mapping of lake trout spawning habitat in northern Lake Michigan. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 9:269-279.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2008.
Georeferencing a raster dataset (release 9.2). ESRI, Redlands,
California. Available at: http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName-Georeferencing_a_raster_
dataset. Accessed 14 January 2010.
Fausch, K. D., C. E. Torgersen, C. V. Baxter, and H. W. Li.
2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between
research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience
52:483-498.
FDGC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 1998.
Geospatial positioning accuracy standards, parts 1 and 3.
FDGC, Reston, Virginia. Available at: www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/accuracy/log/view.
Accessed 9 January 2009.
Fish, J. P., and H. A. Carr. 1990. Sound underwater images.
Lower Cape Publishing, Orleans, Massachusetts.
_____. 2001. Sound reflections. Lower Cape Publishing,
Orleans, Massachusetts.
Fisher, W. L., and F. J. Rahel. 2004. Geographic information
systems applications in stream and river fisheries. Pages 49-84
in W. L. Fisher and F. J. Rahel, eds. Geographic information
systems in fisheries. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Foody, G. M. 2008. Harshness in image classification accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing
29(11):3137-3158.
Frissell, C. A., W. L. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley.
1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental
Management 10:199-214.
Gilvear, D. J., and R. Bryant. 2003. Analysis of aerial photography and other remotely sensed data. Pages 133-168 in G.
M. Kondolf, and H. Piegay, eds. Tools in fluvial geomorphology. Wiley, London.
Golladay, S. W., and J. Battle. 2002. Effects of flooding and
drought on water quality in Gulf Coastal Plain streams in
Georgia. Journal of Environmental Quality 31(4):12661272.
Golladay, S. W., P. Gagnon, M. Kearns, J. M. Battle, and
D. W. Hicks. 2004. Response of freshwater mussel assemblages (Bivalvia:Unionidae) to a record drought in the Gulf
Coastal Plain of southwestern Georgia. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 23:494-506.
Hemisphere GPS. 2007. A100 Smart Antenna specifications
sheet. Hemisphere GPS LLC, Calgary, Alberta. Available
at:
www.hemispheregps.com/Portals/2/literature/A100_
Data_Sheet_WEB.pdf. Accessed 27 January 2009.
Hubert, W. A., and E. P. Bergersen. 1999. Approaches
to habitat analysis. Pages 7-10 in M. B. Bain and N. J.
Stevensen, eds. Aquatic habitat assessment: common methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Humminbird®. 2005. 981c/987c SI Combo, installation and
operations manual. Eufaula, Alabama.
Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. ContrerasBalderas, E. Diaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N.
E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania,
B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B.
Taylor, and M. L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of
imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes.
Fisheries 33(8):372-407.
Jones, A. F., P. A. Brewer, E. Johnstone, and M. G. Macklin.
2007. High-resolution interpretative geomorphological mapping of river valley environments using airborne LiDAR data.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32(10):1574-1592.
Kaeser, A. J., and T. L. Litts. 2008. An assessment of deadhead
logs and large woody debris using side scan sonar and field
surveys in stream of southwest Georgia. Fisheries 33(12):589597.
Kendall, M. S., O. P. Jensen, C. Alexander, D. Field, G. McFall,
R. Bohne, and M. E. Monaco. 2005. Benthic mapping using
sonar, video transects, and an innovative approach to accuracy assessment: a characterization of bottom features in
the Georgia Bight. Journal of Coastal Research 21(6):11541165.
Laba, M., R. Downs, S. Smith, S. Welsh, C. Neider, S. White,
M. Richmond, W. Philpot, and P. Baveye. 2008. Mapping
invasive wetland plants in the Hudson River National
Estuarine Research Reserve using quickbird satellite imagery.
Remote Sensing of Environment 112:286-300.
Laustrup, M. S., R. B. Jacobson, and D. G. Simpkins. 2007.
Distribution of potential spawning habitat for sturgeon in
the lower Missouri River, 2003-06. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2007-1192, Reston, Virginia. Available at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1192/.
Legleiter, C. J., D. A. Roberts, W. A. Marcus, and M. A.
Fonstad. 2004. Passive optical remote sensing of river channel morphology and in-stream habitat: physical basis and
feasibility. Remote Sensing of Environment 93:493-510.
Leidy, R. A., and P. B. Moyle. 1998. Conservation status of the
world’s fish fauna: an overview. Pages 187-227 in P. L. Fiedler
and P. M. Kareiva, eds. Conservation biology. Chapman and
Hall, New York.
Lowe, J. W., G. E. Likens, and M. E. Power. 2006. Linking
scales in stream ecology. BioScience 56:591-597.
Manley, P. L., and J. K. Singer. 2008. Assessment of sedimentation processes determined from side-scan sonar surveys in
173
the Buffalo River, New York, USA. Environmental Geology
55:1587-1599.
Marcus, W. A., and M. A. Fonstad. 2008. Optical remote mapping of rivers at sub-meter resolutions and watershed extents.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 33:4-24.
Marcus, W. A., C. J. Legleiter, R. J. Aspinall, J. W. Boardman,
and R. L. Crabtree. 2003. High spatial resolution hyperspectral mapping of in-stream habitats, depths, and woody debris
in mountain streams. Geomorphology 55:363-380.
Meyer, J. D., and S. M. White. 2007. Lava morphology mapping by expert system classification of high-resolution sidescan sonar imagery from the East Pacific Rise, 9 o-10oN.
Marine Geophysical Researches 28(2):81-93.
Meyer, J. L., K. L. Jones, G. C. Poole, C. R. Jackson, J. E.
Kundell, B. L. Rivenbark, E. L. Kramer, and W. Bumback.
2005. Implications of changes in riparian buffer protection for Georgia’s trout streams. River Basin Center, The
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Mollot, L. A., and R. E. Bilby. 2008. The use of geographic
information systems, remote sensing, and suitability modeling to identify conifer restoration sites with high biological
potential for anadromous fish at the Cedar River municipal watershed in Western Washington, U.S.A. Restoration
Ecology 16(2):336-347.
Newton, R. S., and A. Stefanon. 1975. Application of sidescan sonar in marine biology. Marine Biology 31:287-291.
174
Palik, B., S. W. Golladay, P. C. Goebel, and B. W. Taylor.
1998. Geomorphic variation in riparian tree mortality and
stream coarse woody debris recruitment from record flooding
in a coastal plain stream. Ecoscience 5(4):551-560.
Poole, G. C. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing
uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshwater
Biology 47(4): 641-660.
Prada, M. C., R. S. Appeldoorn, and J. A. Rivera. 2008. The
effects of minimum map unit in coral reefs maps generated
from high resolution side scan sonar mosaics. Coral Reefs
27:297-310.
Roth, N. E., J. D. Allan, and D. L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape
influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11(3):141-156.
Torgersen, C. E., R. N. Faux, B. A. McIntosh, N. J. Poage,
and D. J. Norton. 2001. Airborne thermal remote sensing for water temperature assessment in rivers and streams.
Remote Sensing of Environment 76:386-398.
TransplantComputing. 2002. Transplant CF GPS receiver
card (WAAS version) specifications. TransplantComputing,
Byron, Minnesota. Available at www.123farmworks.com/
transplantcf.htm. Accessed 14 January 2010.
Wiens, J. A. 2002. Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshwater Biology 47:501-515.
Feature:
FISH HABITAT
Fish Habitat Degradation in U.S. Reservoirs
ABSTRACT: As the median age of the thousands of large reservoirs (> 200 ha) in the
United States tops 50, many are showing various signs of fish habitat degradation. Our goal
was to identify major factors degrading fish habitat in reservoirs across the country, and to
explore regional degradation patterns. An online survey including 14 metrics was scored
on a 0 (no degradation) to 5 (high degradation) point scale by 221 fisheries scientists (92%
response rate) to describe degradation in 482 reservoirs randomly distributed throughout the
continental United States. The highest scored sources of degradation were lack of aquatic
macrophytes (41% of the reservoirs scored as 4–5), lack or loss of woody debris (35% scored
4–5), mistimed water level fluctuations (34% scored 4–5), and sedimentation (31% scored
4–5). Factor analysis identified five primary degradation factors that accounted for most
of the variability in the 14 degradation metrics. The factors reflected siltation, structural
habitat, eutrophication, water regime, and aquatic plants. Three degradation factors were
driven principally by in-reservoir processes, whereas the other two were driven by inputs
from the watershed. A comparison across U.S. regions indicated significant geographical
differences in degradation relative to the factors emphasized by each region. Reservoirs
sometimes have been dismissed as unnatural and disruptive, but they are a product of public
policy, a critical feature of landscapes, and they cannot be overlooked if managers are to
effectively conserve river systems. Protection and restoration of reservoir habitats may be
enhanced with a broader perspective that includes watershed management, in addition to
in reservoir activities.
Degradación del hábitat para peces
en reservorios de EEUU
Resumen: A medida que la edad media de cientos de grandes reservorios (> 200 ha) en
los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica (EEUU) alcanza los 50 años, muchos de ellos ya están
presentando signos de degradación de hábitat para los peces. Nuestro objetivo fue identificar
los principales factores que degradan el hábitat para los peces en los reservorios a lo largo del
país, y explorar los patrones de degradación regional. Se realizó un sondeo en línea que incluye
14 medidas en una escala de 0 (sin degradación) a 5 (altamente degradado) a 221 científicos
pesqueros (tasa de respuesta del 92%) para describir el grado de degradación de 482 reservorios
distribuidos al azar a través de los EEUU. Las fuentes de degradación más destacables fueron la
falta de macrofítas acuáticas (41% de los reservorios fueron calificados de 4 a 5), falta o pérdida
de escombros de madera (35% se consideraron entre 4 y 5), fluctuaciones asincrónicas en el
nivel del agua (34% fueron calificadas entre 4 y 5), y sedimentación (31% se calificaron de 4
a 5). Mediante un análisis factorial se identificaron cinco factores principales que explicaron
la mayor parte de la variabilidad de las 14 medidas de degradación. Los factores incluyeron
la sedimentación, hábitat estructural, eutroficación, régimen de aguas y plantas acuáticas.
Tres factores de degradación estuvieron controlados mayormente por procesos sucedidos al
interior de los reservorios mientras que los otros obedecieron a los influjos provenientes de
los parte-aguas. En una comparación a lo largo de las regiones de EEUU, se encontró que
existen diferencias geográficas significativas en cuanto a la degradación en función a factores
particulares para cada región. Los reservorios se han considerado como innaturales y fuentes
de perturbación, pero son producto de las políticas públicas, son un rasgo críticos del paisaje y,
en caso que los manejadores pretendan conservar de manera efectiva los sistemas fluviales, no
pueden ser ignorados. La protección y restauración de los hábitats en los reservorios pueden
mejorarse con una perspectiva más amplia que contempla el manejo de cuencas y actividades
realizadas al interior de estos cuerpos de agua.
L. E. Miranda,
M. Spickard,
T. Dunn,
K. M. Webb,
J. N. Aycock, and
K. Hunt
This survey was a project
of the 2008 Management
of Impounded River
Basins class at Mississippi
State University. Miranda
(smiranda@usgs.gov) was the
instructor and is assistant
unit leader and professor at
the U.S. Geological Survey,
Mississippi Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit in
the Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Spickard, Dunn, Webb, and
Aycock were students in the
class. Hunt is an associate
professor in the Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
There are thousands of large
reservoirs (> 200 ha) in the United
States, nearly all constructed during the twentieth century, particularly during the mid-century
decades (NID 2008). The rate of
large-reservoir construction has
since declined almost to a halt as
suitable construction sites have
already been developed and as
society’s environmental sensitivities have shifted. While reservoirs
are designed to address specific
water-control needs, they also
provide habitat for fish, plants,
and wildlife as well as recreational
opportunities. More than 21 million anglers fish in reservoirs
175
across the country with an economic impact exceeding $15 billion
in direct expenditures (USFWS and USDOC 2007). Reservoirs are
also important to other recreational uses (e.g., boating, swimming),
and the areas surrounding reservoirs realize economic benefits from
tourism, enhanced residential property values, and water supply for
agricultural and industrial enterprises. While reservoirs may have
historically been dismissed as unnatural, ephemeral, and disruptive,
they are a product of public policy and a critical feature in our river
basins. So long as society prizes their existence, they cannot be
ignored if we are to effectively conserve the river basin’s biota.
Reservoirs have distinct habitat characteristics and degradation
patterns due to their terrestrial origin and strong linkage to watersheds (Wetzel 1990). Unlike natural lakes, reservoirs tend to have
large watersheds and large tributaries because they were engineered
to capture as much water as possible to serve flood control, water
supply, navigation, or other purposes. This origin is manifested
by relatively large inputs of inorganic and organic loads, nutrients, and even contaminants. Depositional filling has effectively
resulted in surface area and volume reductions, backwater isolation, habitat fragmentation, and loss of depth (Patton and Lyday
2008). Unnatural water level fluctuations and wave action degrade
shorelines that were once uplands and are now unable to withstand
continued flooding, promoting erosion and ultimately homogenization of once diverse littoral habitats. Well-established riparian
zones and wetlands that provide key ecological services to natural
lakes and the original river are missing in reservoirs. Lack of woody
debris deposition in the littoral zone, limited access to backwaters
and wetlands, and lack of seed banks and stable water levels to
promote native aquatic vegetation (although in some cases there
is excessive growth of nonnative aquatic vegetation) characterize
barren littoral habitats in many reservoirs (Miranda 2008).
As the median age of U.S. reservoirs is surpassing 50 years,
their fish habitats are showing various levels of degradation. The
intensity of habitat degradation varies among reservoirs due to climate, physiography, land use patterns, and a multiplicity of local
conditions. The extent of such problems has not been previously
documented over broad geographical scales such as the entire continental United States. This knowledge would not only be useful to
better understand the interaction among habitat problems, but can
also serve to guide research, habitat restoration, and enhancement
programs. Thus, our goals were to identify major factors degrading fish habitat in reservoirs of the United States and to explore
regional degradation patterns.
the survey to clarify their answers, and to provide other relevant
feedback.
Reservoirs were selected according to state within the contiguous United States. The existing National Inventory on Dams
database (NID 2008) was used to identify public reservoirs > 200
ha. Smaller reservoirs and private reservoirs were excluded because
they generally receive less management attention by resource agencies, and therefore key information may be less accessible. On a
state-by-state basis, roughly 15–20% of the reservoirs identified
were randomly selected for the survey. Natural lakes regulated with
a dam were excluded. Reservoirs comprising the border of two or
more states were assigned to one of the states at random.
The questionnaire was completed by reservoir fishery scientists
familiar with the reservoir. The list of randomly selected reservoirs
was sent to each state’s fishery agency leader or designated contact.
These agents were asked to provide contact information for the
fishery scientist most familiar with each reservoir. With this information, an introductory letter explaining the purpose of the survey
was e-mailed to each fishery scientist, along with the names of the
reservoirs selected within their jurisdiction and an Internet link
to the survey. The Internet-based survey host QuestionPro (www.
questionpro.com) was used for survey design and data collection.
The survey link was sent to 240 agency fishery scientists solicited
to report on 589 reservoirs distributed throughout the continental
United States. On average, each scientist was asked to respond for
2.4 reservoirs, ranging from 1 to 12 reservoirs per scientist. After an
introductory section outlining the purpose of the survey, and the
voluntary nature and confidentiality of responses, the scientist was
asked to score the extent of degradation that each of the 14 metrics exercised on a reservoir’s fish habitat. A six-point Likert-type
scale was used with ratings from zero to five incremented by one:
zero denoted no degradation, 1 low degradation, 3 moderate degradation, and 5 high degradation. A “Don’t Know” option was also
included along with the six-point scale. After rating each of the
14 degradation metrics according to this scale, respondents were
given the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback as described
above. Once each survey was completed, responses were recorded
into a spreadsheet hosted by QuestionPro. Three weeks after the
initial contact a reminder e-mail was sent to those who had not yet
completed the survey. The survey was concluded three weeks after
the reminder.
Data Collection
Data were organized to describe the frequency distribution of
ratings according to degradation metric, identify key degradation
factors, and summarize broad geographical patterns in habitat degradation. Factor analysis (factor procedure; SAS Institute 2008)
was applied to the 14 degradation metrics to identify primary degradation factors. Before factor analysis, the individual ordinal-scale
scores for each metric were monotonically transformed (prinqual
procedure; SAS Institute 2008) to meet the assumptions of factor analysis. Factor analysis constructed degradation gradients by
reducing the 14 metrics into a few latent constructs that reflected
most of the variability in responses. A varimax rotation was applied
to the factor analysis solution to facilitate interpretation of each
factor (Khattree and Khattree 1999). Only the primary factors (i.e.,
eigenvalue > 1) were interpreted.
The primary factors scores for each reservoir were used to estimate regional averages and test for regional differences. The 48
We developed an online survey to canvass fisheries scientists
about fish habitat degradation in reservoirs. An extensive list of
potential sources of degradation was compiled based on a priori
knowledge and a literature review focusing on lake and reservoir
habitat degradation. Degradation sources were ranked in order
of perceived importance, and then the list was reduced to retain
only the principal degradation sources. A major motivation for
streamlining the list was limiting the time required to complete the
survey to enhance the response rate. The list was further refined
through reviews provided by reservoir specialists who were asked to
comment on key omissions and presentation format. After several
iterations, 14 degradation metrics were retained for inclusion in the
questionnaire. Additional open-ended questions allowed respondents to list local sources of degradation not directly identified in
176
Data Analyses
states were separated into 5 broad geographical regions including the West, Southwest, Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast
regions, and factor means estimated for each region. We applied
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; glm procedure, SAS
Institute 2008) to test if regions differed relative to the factors. The
MANOVA used a Wilk’s lambda statistics to test if there was a
difference among regions in at least one factor. If a difference was
detected by MANOVA, we applied univariate analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine on which factor(s) the regions differed.
SuRVey HIGHLIGHTS
Responses were received from 221 respondents (92% response
rate) totaling 494 waterbodies (84% of original sample). Twelve
waterbodies were excluded because they were identified by respondents as once being natural lakes that were later retrofitted with a
water control structure, and therefore their fish habitat likely differed from an impounded river bottom. Thus, 482 reservoirs ranging in area from 202 to 131,000 ha (mean = 4,570) were included
in these analyses (Figure 1). A total of 129 surveys had 1 to 6 (mean
= 1.5) missing values (or responses marked as “Don’t Know”). The
missing values were estimated through multiple imputation, a procedure that replaces missing values with random values selected
from a set of plausible values conditional on observed values of the
other variables (MI procedure; SAS Institute 2008). The complete
data set including the estimated missing values was used in the factor analysis.
Responses to the open-ended questions did not reveal other
major degradation sources omitted in the survey. Minor degradation sources recurring in the open-ended responses included excessive drawdowns (6% of reservoirs), water-edge development (3%),
and heated wastewater (2%). Water-edge development and heated
wastewater were part of the original expanded list of potential degradation sources, but were excluded from the survey because they
were perceived to be infrequent. Considering that factors others
than those listed did not exceed 6% of the write-in responses, we
suggest that the survey focused on the most widespread aspects of
reservoir habitat degradation.
Respondents attributed varying importance to habitat degradation metrics (Table 1). The highest scored source was lack of
aquatic macrophytes, with 41% of the reservoirs scored as 4–5.
Next in order of importance were lack or loss of woody debris (35%
scored 4–5), mistimed water level fluctuations (34% scored 4–5),
and sedimentation (31% scored 4–5). The least important sources
identified by the respondents were excessive aquatic macrophytes
with 79% of the reservoirs scored as 0–1. Degradation metrics generally considered to have minor importance included disconnectivity from backwaters (72% scored 0–1), point-source pollution
(70% scored 0–1), and contaminants (56% scored 0–1). Twelve of
the 14 habitat degradation metrics were assigned a high percentage
of “none” or “low” ratings (Table 1), suggesting that habitat degradation in reservoirs is proportionately not a widespread problem.
Yet, in terms of absolute numbers there are a considerable number
of reservoirs requiring attention.
Figure 1. Geographic distribution of the 482 study reservoirs in the contiguous United States. The reservoirs ranged in area from 202 to 131,000 ha.
177
Degradation Factors
Factor analysis identified 5 primary degradation factors
that accounted for 74% of the variability in the data cloud
formed by the values assigned to the 14 degradation metrics
(Table 2). Factor 1 reflected siltation and accounted for 27%
of the variability among reservoirs with positive loadings on
suspended sediments or inorganic turbidity, sedimentation,
and shoreline erosion. Factor 2 reflected structural habitat
and accounted for 16% of the variation with positive loadings on lack of aquatic macrophytes and lack or loss of woody
debris. Factor 3 reflected eutrophication and accounted for
12% of the variation with positive loadings on excessive
nutrients, point-source pollution, contaminants, and oxygen or temperature stratification. Factor 4 reflected water
regime and accounted for 10% of the variation with positive loadings on mistimed water level fluctuations and insufficient water storage. Factor 5 reflected aquatic plants and
accounted for 9% of the variation with positive loadings on
excessive aquatic macrophytes, invasive plant species, and
disconnectivity from backwaters. In a nutshell, fish habitat
degradation in U.S. reservoirs was indicated in five key factors including siltation, structural habitat, eutrophication,
water regime, and aquatic plants.
Table 1. Percentage distribution of ratings assigned to 14 degradation metrics included in the online survey of 482 reservoirs across the
conterminous United States. A six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (no degradation) to 5 (high degradation) was used to score
degradation metrics.
Habitat degradation source
Suspended sediments or inorganic turbidity
Sedimentation
Shoreline erosion
Excessive nutrients
Point-source pollution
Contaminants Oxygen or temperature stratification
Mistimed water level fluctuations
Insufficient water storage
Excessive aquatic macrophytes
Lack of aquatic macrophytes
Lack or loss of woody debris
Disconnectivity with backwaters
Invasive plant species
0
None
4.6
3.2
4.1
12.0
20.2
11.8
8.6
8.2
16.4
41.9
12.2
7.6
38.9
17.5
1
2
Low
35.2
16.8
25.9
21.3
28.8
22.9
36.0
20.2
50.3
15.6
44.0
18.7
31.8
20.4
27.5
14.3
38.4
12.8
36.6
8.4
16.2
9.1
21.3
11.8
33.3
10.3
27.8
16.2
3
4
Moderate
23.4
9.5
18.7
17.0
24.6
12.2
15.4
9.9
8.6
3.4
13.3
8.6
20.0
11.0
15.6
13.3
13.1
8.6
5.5
3.4
21.5
17.1
23.7
20.2
8.0
6.3
16.2
9.5
5
High
10.5
13.9
7.4
6.5
1.9
3.6
8.2
21.1
10.7
4.2
23.9
15.4
3.2
12.8
Table 2. Pearson correlations between 14 habitat degradation metrics and five latent constructs derived from factor analysis. Bolded values
identify the highest correlations and thus most influential impairment metrics linked to each factor. Values in parentheses represent the
eigenvalue associated with each factor and the percentage of the variability in the 14 metrics accounted for by each factor, respectively.
Habitat impairment metric
Suspended sediments or inorganic turbidity
Sedimentation
Shoreline erosion
Excessive nutrients
Point-source pollution
Contaminants
Oxygen or temperature stratification
Mistimed water level fluctuations
Insufficient water storage
Excessive aquatic macrophytes
Lack of aquatic macrophytes
Lack or loss of woody debris
Disconnectivity from backwaters
Invasive plant species
178
1
2
‘siltation’
‘structural habitat’
(3.8, 27)
(2.3, 16)
0.90
0.00
0.88
0.01
0.67
0.28
0.49
-0.05
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.02
0.03
0.22
0.12
-0.03
0.03
-0.51
0.15
0.80
0.02
0.83
0.22
0.36
0.06
-0.14
Factor
3
4
5
‘eutrophication’ ‘water regime’ ‘aquatic plants’
(1.7, 12)
(1.4, 10)
(1.2, 9)
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.16
0.10
0.08
0.25
0.05
0.03
0.61
0.04
0.18
0.67
0.10
0.29
0.63
0.46
0.02
0.77
-0.08
-0.01
0.10
0.78
-0.01
0.01
0.87
0.02
0.25
-0.06
0.63
-0.05
0.25
-0.22
0.19
-0.03
0.11
0.01
0.18
0.66
0.10
-0.06
0.74
Degradation by Region
The number of reservoirs included in the among-region comparisons ranged from 45 to 153 per region. The MANOVA indicated there were differences across regions relative to one or more
factors (Wilk’s lambda = 0.73; P < 0.01). The ANOVAs applied
to individual factors confirmed that differences existed in the siltation (F = 11.9; P < 0.01), structural habitat (F = 11.9; P < 0.01),
eutrophication (F = 2.7; P = 0.03), water regime (F = 8.3; P <
0.01), and aquatic plants (F = 2.9; P = 0.02) factors. Siltation scores
were high in reservoirs of the Midwest region, low in the West, and
near average in other regions (Figure 1) . Structural habitat scores
were low in Western and Northeastern reservoirs, and higher in
Midwestern and Southeastern reservoirs. Reservoir eutrophication
scores were lowest in the Southwest region, and higher but similar
among reservoirs in the other regions. Water regime scores exhibited a longitudinal pattern generally decreasing from west to east,
with the highest scores in the West region and the lowest in the
Northeast region. Scores of the aquatic plant factor were lowest in
the Northeast and Southwest regions, and highest in the Southeast
region.
Survey Reliability
There are always uncertainties associated with relying on
people’s judgment. Survey respondents likely differed in familiarity with reservoir habitats and perception of degradation, possibly
leading to unequal scoring for reservoirs with essentially equal
degradation status. Also, degradation metrics were scored by reservoir fisheries biologists who may view habitat quality different
than other resource professionals. These types of limitations are
rampant through opinion surveys. Nevertheless, while perceptions might influence scoring, the scoring reflects perceptions and
thus the respondents’ view of rehabilitation needs. Upgrading this
subjective scoring system with an objective on-site quantitative
system may increase the exactitude of habitat degradation scoring
Figure 2. Mean scores for 5 fish habitat degradation factors across geographical regions of the United States. The whiskers represent one standard
error. Regions and number of reservoirs sampled in each region are identified in the U.S. map.
179
and improve the capacity to evaluate sources of degradation, but
likely at a substantial rise in cost without corresponding increases
in evaluation accuracy.
pROTeCTING AND ReSTORING ReSeRVOIR
HABITATS
Our survey identified five major factors representative of
fish habitat degradation in reservoirs. The relevance of the five
factors varied regionally across the United States, likely reflecting different climatic conditions, landscape composition, and
watershed disturbances associated with land-use practices.
These factors and their geographical distribution reveal the
current state and spread of existing reservoir degradation, as
well as the potential distribution of future degradation foci.
The structural habitat, water regime, and aquatic plants factors
are driven principally by in-reservoir processes, whereas the
siltation and eutrophication factors are driven by inputs from
the watershed. Protection and restoration of reservoir habitats
may be enhanced by managers taking a broader perspective
through the inclusion of watershed management, in addition
to in reservoir activities.
In-reservoir activities
Reservoir managers have developed an extensive set of tools
for managing reservoir fish habitat (Summerfelt 1999). Many
of these tools produce only small and focused tweaking to reservoir environments, when large and broad-scope changes are
2010
needed most. Thus, there is a need for expanding in-reservoir
activities, focusing on those that can bring large changes to
reservoir environments.
Structural habitat was a major factor identified by our survey,
particularly in Midwest and Southeast reservoirs. Submerged
woody debris, rocky outcrops, drop-offs, and other submerged
structures that provide aquatic habitat diversity have been
linked to increased species richness and desirable fish population traits (Barwick 2004; Sass et al. 2006). Commonly, fish
management agencies devote substantial resources to introducing brush shelters and other structures into otherwise barren
littoral zones (Tugend et al. 2002). However, it seems unlikely
that an activity that affects only a limited number of reservoir
sites can have major repercussions throughout the reservoir’s
fish community, unless the scale is substantially increased, possibly causing costs to become prohibitive.
Inability to influence large reservoir spans with brush
piles has prompted investigations into the feasibility of growing annual terrestrial grasses, woody vegetation, and native
aquatic plants. Seeding grasses in littoral zones exposed to
seasonal drawdowns curtails erosion and introduces structure
that benefit fish when water levels go back up, but so far benefits have been transitory as the types of grasses seeded do not
persist for long after they are inundated (Strange et al. 1982).
Investigators have also considered the feasibility of establishing pioneer riparian tree species (Strakosh et al. 2005), but
the same environmental hurdles limiting herbaceous vegetation reestablishment (e.g., periods of desiccation and freezing followed by periods of inundation) can limit saplings or
C ONFERENCE
May 4-7, 2010
Hilton, Portland, Oregon
Join us for the first international effort to explore
the scale and magnitude of the ecological effects
of hatcheries, identify important gaps in our
knowledge and work towards resolving key issues.
Ecological intEractions
between Wild
& Hatchery Salmon
Learn more at www.stateofthesalmon.org.
180
seedlings in reservoir littoral zones. Establishment of native
aquatic plants has received attention as a more functional
alternative (Smart et al. 1996). Ongoing efforts seek to define
reservoirs, habitats, and water level fluctuation regimes where
native aquatic plants might have a good chance of colonizing
reservoir littoral zones (Smart et al. 2005). Some plants have
shown promise even when exposed to drawdowns (Owens et
al. 2008). Seeding aquatic macrophytes has the potential to
have huge effects on reservoir habitats, but in many reservoirs
establishing aquatic plants just may not be possible.
The relevance of water regime shifted regionally across
the United States, increasing more or less east to west. This
pattern is attributable to differences in water availability and
water use that interact to dictate patterns in water storage and
operational goals (Kennedy 1999). Reservoir operation usually follows a pre-established rule curve, defined as the daily
water level targeted by the agency controlling the reservoir’s
hydrograph although departures from the rule curve are common given year-to-year differences in precipitation patterns.
Substitution of a natural flooding pattern by a standardized
one, and loss of variable wet-dry cycles, produces barren slopes
and mudflats in the regulated zone (Figure 3). Thus, enhance-
ment of the regulated zone to recreate a natural floodplain is
central to reservoir habitat management. Rule curves produce
regulated zones devoid of vegetation and of limited ecological
value to the floodplain species that colonize reservoirs, and
they do not provide the year-to-year variety of floods needed
to maintain a diverse fish assemblage (Miranda and Lowery
2007). Also desirable are periodic extreme events that have
a rejuvenating function by flooding areas that have not been
flooded for several years (reviewed by Ploskey 1986), and by
connecting the reservoir to distant backwaters. Most positive
effects of water level fluctuations in reservoirs result from substantial rises and extensive flooding after periods of low water,
but timing is critical because most species have evolved reproductive strategies reliant upon natural annual patterns of temperature, photoperiod, and rainfall (Matthews 1998).
The survey revealed the need for more collaboration
between fish managers and water managers. Managed floods
within the regulated zone of a reservoir have great potential
to produce large changes in fish communities (Ploskey 1986).
However, reservoir rule curves are frequently not conducive to
maintaining the vegetative cover in the littoral zone that makes
floods valuable. Many rule curves were established decades ago
Figure 3. Barren littoral zones often prompt management agencies to add natural and constructed structures to increase habitat diversity.
Photograph courtesy of J. Negus, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.
181
and remain unchanged, or are rarely tweaked, even though
public perceptions on water management have evolved. An
exception is hydropower reservoirs that operate under licenses
issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Those
licenses are periodically reviewed, although some are licensed
or relicensed for up to 50 years. Much more can be done to
improve management of reservoir water regimes. Reservoirs
could benefit from periodic reviews of the operation of all
dams to find flexibility in rule curves that might allow habitat improvement. In fact, given existing and developing technologies, rule curves may become obsolete. Water in some
multipurpose reservoirs around the country is managed with
computer models that simulate releases to identify economical hydropower generation schedules, while controlling floods
and maintaining navigable depths (e.g., RiverWare; Zagona et
al. 2001). Such models monitor real-time precipitation in the
basin to optimize storage and releases, and can likely be made
flexible enough to take into account not only the power economics of the hydro system, but also demands placed on the
system by fish habitat needs. Meaningful movement in such
direction can occur when fish managers, water managers, and
other stakeholders collaborate to find latitude within which
compromise is possible.
The aquatic vegetation impairment factor was the least
widespread of the five factors and had its highest scores in the
Southeast. Management of aquatic plants has been debated for
decades and the responses of reservoir ecosystems to vegetation
colonization and vegetation control are broadly understood
(Dibble et al. 1996). Most biologists agree that some aquatic
vegetation is desirable because studies have demonstrated that
sport fish production is maximized at moderate levels of vegetation (Wiley et al. 1984). Nevertheless, controversies over
vegetation management routinely besiege fisheries professionals as different stakeholders have different opinions regarding what constitutes desirable levels of vegetation (Wilde et
al. 1992; Henderson 1996). The likelihood for conflict rises
when reservoirs are colonized by nonnative species that often
achieve nuisance levels.
Watershed activities
Typically watersheds experience various levels of deforestation, agricultural development, industrial growth, urban
expansion, and other alterations that destabilize runoff and
enhance downstream movement of sediments and nutrients
that are ultimately trapped by reservoirs. In our survey, siltation was most prevalent in reservoirs of the Midwest, the
region with the greatest land disturbances linked to intensive
agriculture development (Heitke et al. 2006). Sediments are
a major watershed export into reservoirs that affect turbidity
before settling, and after settling via resuspension by various mechanisms (Bruton 1985). Mean total suspended solids
in 135 Midwestern reservoirs (Jones and Knowlton 2005)
ranged from 1–47 mg/L and were positively related with
the proportion of cropland in their watershed, negatively
related to forest cover, and weakly related to grassland cover.
Settling of suspended sediments often results in replacement
of diverse substrates with fine uniform particles that blanket existing habitats, filling interstitial spaces and burying
existing structure (James et al. 1987; Patton and Lyday 2008).
182
Siltation rates in reservoirs show major swings in relation to
shifts in agricultural land management (e.g., McIntyre and
Naney 1990).
Nutrient inputs from the watershed are a leading cause of
eutrophication (Carpenter et al. 1998). The study reservoirs
showed limited regional variability in eutrophication scores,
although the lowest scores were recorded in the Southwest
where precipitation is modest and agriculture is less intensive than in the Midwest. Nutrient levels in aquatic systems
are reportedly directly related to the fraction of cropland and
inversely related to the fraction of forest cover, and nutrient exports from croplands are several folds that of grassland
and forest (Beaulac and Reckhow 1982). Nutrient input from
urban watersheds often equals or exceeds that from agriculture, per unit land area, as impervious surfaces enhance runoff (Beaulac and Reckhow 1982). These relationships among
watershed composition, sediments, and nutrients suggest that
agricultural watersheds should score high in both the siltation and eutrophication factor. However, these two factors
were not correlated (factor analysis creates orthogonal, i.e.,
uncorrelated factors) suggesting low correspondence between
the variables that make up the siltation (suspended sediments
or inorganic turbidity, sedimentation, shoreline erosion) and
eutrophication (excessive nutrients, point-source pollution,
contaminants, oxygen or temperature stratification) factors.
This counterintuitive result is most evident for Midwest reservoirs that scored high in the siltation factor but near average in the eutrophication factor. We speculate that while rate
of nutrient accumulation may be high in agricultural areas,
it might not have manifested as a major degradation factor
because it was either eclipsed by siltation in the mind of the
respondents, or the effects of eutrophication are lessened by
turbidity that discouraged plant production.
The goal of watershed management is to facilitate selfsustaining natural processes and linkages among terrestrial,
riparian, and reservoir environments. It involves controlling
the makeup of runoff flowing into the reservoir or tributaries from the surrounding terrain. The first and most critical
step is halting anthropogenic practices causing degradation
by making a wide range of adjustments to human activities
(Poppe et al. 1997). It may involve increasing widths of buffer strips around fields, altering livestock grazing strategies to
minimize effects, moving tillage operations in fields farther
away from riparian systems and water, changing tillage methods and timing, and stopping the release of industrial waste
that cause water pollution. Involvement of fishery managers in watershed activities to protect and restore lakes and
reservoirs is particularly evident in the Midwest, the region
identified by our survey to have the highest siltation ratings. In Iowa, many natural and constructed lakes have been
degraded by siltation. Over the years, restoration emphasis was placed on renovating fish assemblages, resulting in
temporarily improved fisheries that often collapsed because
the underlying problems of heavy sedimentation, excessive
nutrients, and ensuing poor water quality were not addressed
(J. Larscheid, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, pers.
comm.). Agencies in this region are taking the lead on placing more emphasis on watershed activities and collaboration.
Fisheries managers in Iowa work within partnerships composed of government agencies, landowners, and nongov-
ernment organizations and invest 25–30% of their time on
watershed work associated with lake and stream projects (C.
Dolan, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm.).
Experience has shown that watershed restorations can be
expensive and require years to complete, but they are longterm investments on aquatic natural resources.
Agencies that have historically focused on reservoir-specific fish population dynamics might find it worthwhile to
extend their involvement into watershed activities. Extending
the scale of involvement can enhance the manager’s ability
to impact reservoir fish populations and communities, and
can also increase the effectiveness of traditional in-reservoir
management measures. Given a potentially overwhelming
expansion in management activities, there is a need to also
expand the level of human resources involved in reservoir
management by partnering with other state and federal agencies, local governments, universities, non-government organizations, corporations, and the public (Graf et al. 1999).
These partnerships can provide the organization needed to
plan, fund, and complete restoration work, and may give
reservoir managers the influence they may not have outside
the reservoir. Over the last two decades watershed management organizations of local and basinwide scopes have shown
unprecedented growth across the United States. As partners
in these organizations, managers may be askled to show the
linkage between the reservoir and the landscape, and show
how specific watershed actions may affect reservoir habitats
and fish communities. Within this environment, the traditional control exerted by reservoir managers is diminished,
but the potential to bring big, long-lasting changes to reservoir environments and biota is increased.
Reservoir Habitat Strategy
Our survey pointed to a broad guiding principle for developing strategy to enhance, maintain, or restore reservoir fish
habitats. Specifically, this principle affirms that reservoir fish
habitats are degraded by events inside and outside the reservoir. Thus, appropriate management actions would address
the causes of habitat degradation throughout a reservoir’s
watershed, not just within the reservoir. Within this framework, habitat management is not only the responsibility of
fishery managers and their agencies, but rather a collaborative effort among various authorities and interests responsible for the watershed that ends in the reservoir. Without
inclusive stakeholder participation, meaningful habitat management may be difficult.
Our results also indicate that the reservoir health and
management would benefit from new policy aimed at the protection, restoration, and enhancement of reservoir habitats
within the context of five factors—siltation, structural habitat, eutrophication, water regime, and aquatic plants. These
factors sum up the bulk of fish habitat problems experienced
by reservoirs in the United States. Undeniably there are
additional habitat issues that may have small or large effects
at local or regional levels (e.g., heated effluents, acid mine
drainage). However, our data suggest that national efforts
to engage habitat woes by developing policy for assessment
methodology, rating and classification of degradation, and
management of habitat degradation in U.S. reservoirs could
justifiably focus on these five factors.
Acknowledgments
We thank the 221 respondents for taking time to provide the data for these analyses, and the many contacts who
helped us track down qualified respondents. M. Allen, J.
Conroy, L. Gomes, S. Hale, J. Taylor, and an anonymous referee provided constructive reviews. D. Dembkowski helped
draft the figures. This research was conducted under approval
by Mississippi State University’s Institutional Review Board/
Human Subjects. The use of trade, product, industry or firm
names or products or software or models, whether commercially available or not, is for informative purposes only and
does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Government,
U.S. Geological Survey, or Mississippi State University.
Acoustic Micro Transmitters
= 1mm 2
JSATS AMT-1
Less than ½ gram
JSATS* compatible
JSATS AMT-2
www.lotek.com/jsats-amt
*Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System
183
References
Barwick, D. H. 2004. Species richness and centrarchid abundance in
littoral habitats of three southern U.S. reservoirs. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 24:76-81.
Beaulac, M. N. , and R. H. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of nutrient export relationships. Water Research Bulletin 18:1013-1024.
Bruton, M. N. 1985. Effects of suspensoids on fish. Hydrobiologia
125:221–241.
Carpenter, S. R. , N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A.
N. Sharpley, and V. H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface
waters with phosphorous and nitrogen. Ecological Applications
8:559-568.
Dibble, E. D. , K. J. Killgore, and S. L. Harrel. 1996. Assessment
of fish-plant interactions. American Fisheries Society Symposium
16:357-372.
Graf, W. L. , and 14 coauthors. 1999. New strategies for America’s
watersheds. National Research Council, Water Science and
Technology Board, Committee on Watershed Management.
National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
Henderson, J. E. 1996. Management of nonnative aquatic vegetation
in large impoundments: balancing preferences and economic values of angling and nonangling groups. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 16:373-381.
Heitke, J. D. , C. L. Pierce, G. T. Gelwicks, G. A. Simmons, and
G. L. Siegwarth. 2006. Habitat, land use, and fish assemblage relationships in Iowa streams: preliminary assessment in an agricultural
landscape. American Fisheries Society Symposium 48:287-303.
James, W. F. , R. H. Kennedy, and R. H. Montgomery. 1987. Seasonal
and longitudinal variations in apparent deposition rates within an
Arkansas reservoir. Limnology and Oceanography 32:1169-l 176.
Jones, J. R. , and M. F. Knowlton. 2005. Suspended solids in Missouri
reservoirs in relation to catchment features and internal processes.
Water Research 39:3629-3635.
Kennedy, R. 1999. Reservoir design and operation: limnological constraints and management opportunities. Pages 1-28 in J. G. Tundisi,
and M. Straskraba, eds. Theoretical reservoir and its applications.
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Khattree, R. , and D. Khattree. 1999. Applied multivariate statistics
with SAS software, 2nd edition. SAS Institute Inc. , Cary, North
Carolina.
Matthews, W. J. 1998. Patterns in freshwater fish ecology. Chapman
and Hall, New York.
McIntyre, S. C. , and J. W. Naney. 1990. Siltation of reservoirs in
agricultural watersheds determined using radioisotope techniques.
Pages 465-474 in Proceedings of the international symposium on
tropical hydrology and fourth Caribbean islands water resources
congress. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Miranda, L. E. 2008. Extending the scale of reservoir management.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 62:75-102.
Miranda, L. E. , and D. R. Lowery. 2007. Juvenile densities relative to
water regime in mainstem reservoirs of the Tennessee River. Lakes
and Reservoirs: Research and Management 12:89-98.
NID (National Inventory on Dams). 2008. National inventory
on dams. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia.
Available from: http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/webpages/
nid.cfm (accessed 23 February 2009).
Owens, C. S. , R. M. Smart, and G. O. Dick. 2008. Effects of water
level fluctuation on Vallisneria americana Michx growth. Journal of
Aquatic Plant Management 46:117-119.
184
Patton, T. , and C. Lyday. 2008. Ecological succession and fragmentation in a reservoir: effects of sedimentation on habitats and fish
communities. American Fisheries Society Symposium 62:147-167.
Ploskey, G. R. 1986. Effects of water-level changes on reservoir ecosystems with implications for fisheries management. Pages 86-97 in
G. E. Hall, and M. J. Van Den Avyle, eds. Reservoir fisheries management: strategies for the 80’s. Reservoir Committee, Southern
Division American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Poppe, W. , R. Hurst, and B. Burks. 1997. Bringing in partners and
dollars: TVA’s River Action Teams share their strategies. Water
Environment and Technology 9(9):67-72.
SAS Institute. 2008. SAS/STAT user’s guide. SAS Institute, Cary,
North Carolina.
Sass, G. G. , J. F. Kitchell, S. R. Carpenter, T. R. Hrabik, A. E.
Marburg, and M. G. Turner. 2006. Fish community and food
web responses to a whole-lake removal of coarse woody habitat.
Fisheries 31(7):321-330.
Smart, R. M. , G. O. Dick, and J. R. Snow, Jr. 2005. Update to
the propagation and establishment of aquatic plants handbook.
Environmental Laboratory Technical Report 05-4, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Smart, R. M. , R. D. Doyle, J. D. Madsen, and G. O. Dick. 1996.
Establishing native submersed aquatic plant communities for fish
habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 16:347-356.
Strange, R. J. , W. B. Kittrell, and T. D. Broadbent. 1982. Effects
of seeding reservoir fluctuation zones on young-of-the-year black
bass and associated species. North American Journal of Fisheries
Strakosh, T. R. , J. L. Eitzmann, K. B. Gido, and C. S. Guy. 2005.
The response of water willow Justicia americana to different water
inundation and desiccation regimes. North American Journal of
Summerfelt, R. C. 1999. Lake and reservoir habitat management.
Pages 285-320 in C. C. Kohler, and W. A. Hubert, eds. Inland
fisheries management in North America, 2nd edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Tugend, K. I. , M. S. Allen, and M. Webb. 2002. Use of artificial
habitat structures in U. S. lakes and reservoirs: a survey from the
Southern Division AFS Reservoir Committee. Fisheries 27(5):2226.
USFWS and USDOC (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Department of Commerce). 2007. 2006 national survey of fishing,
hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Wetzel, R. G. 1990. Reservoir ecosystems: conclusions and speculations. Pages 227–238 in K. W. Thornton, B. L. Kimmel, and F. E.
Payne, eds. Reservoir limnology: ecological perspectives. Wiley,
New York.
Wilde, G. R. , R. K. Reichers, and J. Johnson. 1992. Angler attitudes
towards control of freshwater vegetation. Journal of Aquatic Plant
Wiley, M. J. , R. W. Gorden, S. W. Waite, and T. Powless. 1984. The
relationship between aquatic macrophytes and sport fish production in Illinois ponds: a simple model. North American Journal of
Zagona, E. , T. Fulp, R. Shane, T. Magee, and H. Goranflo. 2001.
RiverWare: a generalized tool for complex reservoir systems modeling. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:913929.
Column:
Director’s line
Gus Rassam
AFS Executive Director
Rassam can be contacted
at grassam@fisheries.org.
No Habitat…No Fish
that for it to succeed,
AFS’s briefing on
the action plan has to
the Hill was designed
have adequate fundto highlight the act
ing. But given the
but more importantly
demands on the U.S.
to tell the story about
federal budgets, fundthe already considering on a national scale
able achievements
was unlikely to reach
of NFHAP, done with
meaningful levels soon.
minimal funding but
The solution was soon
with maximum enthuembedded in the very
siasm and collaboracore of the action plan:
tion. Introduced by
stakeholder partnerships
current AFS President
of industry, tribes, conDon Jackson
Don Jackson, the
servation organizations,
briefing included short
and local communities
talks by Doug Austen
with state and federal agencies, and
(Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission),
a voluntary, non-regulatory structure
Jeff Hastings (TU), Gordon Robertson
based on local, quickly visible incen(ASA), and two U.S. Representatives, Bill
tives. Such a structure, with the help
Cassidy, Republican from Louisiana, and
of a modest grant program from the
Ron Kind, Democrat from Wisconsin.
federal government, could rapidly
Both congressmen emphasized that while
achieve a sustainable healthy environhabitat restoration and conservation is a
ment for fish in many U.S. waterways.
no-brainer, and the grant monies sought
The National Fish Habitat
are a trickle, it is essential that the act
Conservation Act introduced in both
receive the support of as many congresshouses of the 111th Congress provides
men and senators as possible and from
a formal framework for the action plan
both sides of the aisle. After all, a fish is
to do just that. The act establishes a
neither a donkey nor an elephant.
$75 million grant program through
AFS members, together with their
the Department of Interior and creates
partners, are already implementing the
the official partnership structure that
action plan on the ground and some of
includes the U.S. Geological Survey,
the results are impressive. For some of
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
that information, check www.fishhabitat.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
org. And watch for the briefing itself
Administration, among other agencies.
soon on www.fisheries.org.
Beth Beard
It seems such a simple thing. If we
choke a stream with pollutants, if we
divert its course, straighten it out, control
its flow through dams and other impediments, fish and other creatures inhabiting
that stream will suffer and eventually, if
the stresses are severe, will die out. So
if you want your aquatic biota to thrive,
you make sure that the water they live in
is clean and flowing. A simple equation
but easily forgotten sometimes in the
rush to stock a particular reservoir or a
stream.
A few years ago, a group of organizations including AFS, American
Sportfishing Association (ASA) ,
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(it was “international” at that time),
Trout Unlimited (TU), and Teaming with
Wildlife, among others, got together to
examine ways to “move the needle,” in
Jim Martin’s inspired phraseology, when
it comes to conserving and restoring the
habitat in which fish live. Thus was born
what later became known the National
Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP).
Among the early proselytizers for
NFHAP were AFS members and leaders
Doug Austen and Stan Moberly, as well as
Jim Martin of course. Stan now serves as
AFS representative on the NFHAP board
and Doug was one of the prime movers
behind AFS’s briefing on the action plan at
the U.S. Congress on 16 March.
Even during those early discussions
on NFHAP, there was a realization
Beth Beard
185
NEWS:
AFS UNITS
The 2008/2009 Alaska Chapter Executive Committee:
Vice President Audra Brase, President Elect Lisa Stuby, Treasurer Lee Ann Gardner, Past President Bert Lewis, President Hamachan Hamazaki.
Not pictured: Secretary Karla Bush
Alaska Chapter
Holds meeting in Fairbanks
The Alaska Chapter successfully held its 36th annual
Chapter meeting in Fairbanks during 3–5 November 2009,
with the theme “Celebrating Professional Diversity in Alaska
Fisheries.” The preceding day we hosted three popular
continuing education courses: “Genetics Basics for Alaska
Fishery Professionals,” “Power-based Standardization in
Electrofishing,” and “Cross-cultural Communication and
Alaska Native Perspectives on Fishery Resources.” In keeping
with the Chapter name, a good “diversity” of sessions were
offered, including “Pacific Lampreys,” “Habitat Restoration
in Interior Alaska,” “Management of Whitefishes in Alaska,”
“Fisheries Enforcement and Fish Sustainability,” “Alaskan
Coastal Waters: Biology, Ecology, and Ecosystem Services,”
“Genetics and the Management of Fisheries Resources in
Alaska,” “Evolution of Fish Diversity,” “Allocation Among
Fisheries Users,” “Size Trends of Alaskan Salmon Stocks,”
“Quantitative Methods in Alaskan Fisheries Research and
Management,” and “Fisheries Distributions, Migration, and
Management.” These sessions were in addition to a daylong Contributed Papers Session, Poster Session, and Plenary
Session. At this year’s Plenary Session, Jennifer Nielsen, who
served at the president of AFS during 2006–2007, was our
keynote speaker and gave the talk, “Diversity in Alaska’s
Fisheries—Did You Choose the Fish or Did the Fish Choose
You?” Her talk was a personal discussion of her years working as a fisheries biologist and changes she has witnessed as
the field has expanded both in breath and composition of
professionals, and overall was a celebration of the diversity
that one finds today in the field of fisheries.
We enjoyed several yummy lunches, socials, and this year’s
banquet was included in the cost of registration. Continuing
186
a tradition that began at last year’s meeting in Anchorage,
the AK Chapter in conjunction with the AK Chapter Student
Subunit hosted the student-mentor luncheon where students
could meet and talk with working professionals.
Several awards were presented at this meeting including
the Wally Noerenberg Award for Fishery Excellence. This is
the highest award bestowed by the Alaska Chapter. It honors
an individual’s life-long achievements in a career affecting
Alaska’s fisheries. Terrence J. Quinn II, a professor of fisheries
population and biometry at the University of Alaska, was this
year’s award recipient. In addition, we funded two Cultural
Diversity Awardees to attend the AK Chapter meeting in
Fairbanks. The recipients were Jessica Davila from Ketchikan
and Alissa Joseph from Bethel. Lastly, the Best Student Paper
Award at this year’s meeting went to Jason R. Neuswanger
for “Improved 3-D Analysis for Underwater Video, with
Applications to Wild Juvenile Chinook Salmon Foraging
behavior.” The Best Student Poster Award went to David A.
Roon for “Ecological Effects of Introduced Bird Cherry on
Salmonid Food Webs in Anchorage Streams.”
At the annual AK Chapter Business meeting, reports from
our 14 active committees were given and a resolution passed
which will allow a lifetime membership to the AK Chapter for
those who already have parent Society AFS lifetime memberships. The gavel was passed from the 2008/2009 Chapter
President Hamachan Hamazaki to President Elect Lisa Stuby.
The 2010 Annual Alaska Chapter Conference will be held
in Juneau. Dates for the meeting have not yet been settled.
For information or if you would like to be involved, please
contact Audra Brase, audra.brase@alaska.gov.
—Lisa Stuby
Virginia Chapter
Holds 20th annual meeting
The 20th annual meeting
of the Virginia Chapter was
held at the W. E. Skelton 4-H
The Virginia Chapter Excom members;
Educational Conference Center
Bill Kittrell, Adrienne Averett, Eric Brittle,
at Smith Mountain Lake on 3–
Steve Owens, and Bob Greenlee during
the excom business meeting.
5 February 2010. The meeting
was held in conjunction with
The annual business meeting was held
the Virginia Chapter of The
on Thursday evening, with President Eric
Wildlife Society’s annual meeting. A total
Brittle presiding and 41 in attendance.
of 86 fisheries and wildlife professionBrian Murphy (Southern Division repals and 28 students attended the joint
resentative) gave a brief status report
meeting. Two workshops were conon the Southern Division AFS. The
ducted on February 3rd at no additional
Robert Ross Graduate Scholarship was
cost to meeting participants. The first
workshop, “Baseline Analysis of Virginia’s awarded to Daniel S. Stich of Virginia
Tech. The Robert Jenkins Undergraduate
Landscapes,” was conducted by Chris
Scholarship was awarded to Shannon
Burkett and Jim Husband (both from the
White of Randolph-Macon College. Both
Virginia Department of Game and Inland
scholarships were awarded at the full
Fisheries [VDGIF]) with 28 participants
$500 level. The Best Student Paper for
in attendance. The second workshop,
an undergraduate student was shared
“Stream Access Issues,” was comprised
by Josh Harris and Shannon White at
of three presentations from Larry Mohn
Randolph-Macon College. The Best
(VDGIF), John Kauffman (VDGIF) and
Student Paper for a graduate student
Leon Szeptycki (University of Virginia)
went to Brad Trumbo of James Madison
with 52 participants involved. Both workUniversity. Awards for the Natural
shops were very interactive, and attendResource Conservationist and the Eugene
ees had ample opportunity for questions
W. Surber Professional Fisheries Biologist
to be answered by the presenters. A
were not given this year. Adrienne
social hosted by The Wildlife Society was
Averett was installed as president, and
held Wednesday evening.
Eric Brittle will now serve as past presiThe technical sessions began on
dent. Bill Kittrell continues to serve as
Thursday, and an informative panel
Chapter secretary. Although unable
discussion entitled “Balancing Local
to attend the meeting, Bob Andrews
Land Use Planning and Natural
and Morgan McHugh were installed as
Resources Management: Challenges
president elect and treasurer, respectively.
and Opportunities” was held midRobert Humston continues to serve as
morning. Panelists included Chris
newsletter editor.
Burkett, Paul Lancaster, Tom Martin,
The joint AFS/TWS meeting effectively
and Tammy Stephenson, with
ended on Thursday evening; however,
Adrienne Averett serving as moderathere was a social and fundraising raffle
tor. An interactive break-out session
held after supper. The raffle was hosted
concluded the panel discussions just
by the Virginia Chapter AFS and was
before lunch. Concurrent sessions of
emceed by Bill Kittrell and Paul Bugas. It
fisheries and wildlife-oriented presenwas a huge success with funds genertations followed lunch. Anticipated
ated for student scholarships and other
severe weather wreaked havoc on the
originally scheduled program with all of worthy endeavors. The majority of meetFriday’s presentations being moved into ing participants vacated the 4-H Center
Thursday evening before the winter
Thursday using creative planning. By
weather. However, a few hardy indiThursday evening, a total of 22 technividuals stayed until Friday morning and
cal presentations had been given, and
awoke to the arrival of heavy snow.
an additional 8 posters were presented
—William B. Kittrell, Jr.
during the Thursday social.
Virginia Tech student, Dan S. Stich,
receives the Robert Ross Graduate
Scholarship award from Bob Greenlee.
James Madison University student Brad
Trumbo receives the Best Graduate Student
Presentation Award from Bob Greenlee.
The official “passing of the gavel”
from Past President Eric Brittle
to President Adrienne Averett
during the business meeting.
187
Column:
Students’ Angle
Reflections on Student Involvement
in the Genetics Section, the Parent Society,
and Beyond
Introduction
Yen Duong and Jamie Roberts
Based on the newly adopted strategic plan of the American Fisheries
Society, the Society’s goals are to: (1)
become a global leader in the sustainability and conservation of fisheries
resources, (2) facilitate life-long learning through world-class educational
resources at all academic levels and
training for practicing professionals in
all branches of fisheries and aquatic
sciences, and (3) serve its members
and fisheries-related constituencies.
We believe that to meet these goals,
AFS will need the participation and
contribution of students from a wide
variety of disciplinary and cultural
backgrounds. The purpose of this is to
encourage students to become more
involved with AFS at the Society level,
as well as to describe our own experiences with AFS involvement and connections of our work to the Genetics
Section. We were invited to compose
this article by the Genetics Section,
which awarded us each with the James
E. Wright Graduate Travel Award at
the Nashville AFS Annual Meeting in
September 2009.
The American Fisheries Society
encourages and provides opportunities
for student involvement at various levels (e.g., Chapters, Divisions, Sections,
and Committees). The Genetics Section,
for example, is a great place for
students whose work and/or interests
are centered on genetics or geneticrelated areas in fisheries to engage. The
Section is comprised of professionals
with a broad range of research interests, including population genetics and
genomics, molecular ecology, quantitative genetics, phylogenetic systematics,
and aquacultural genetics. Student
members of this Section can expand
their knowledge base and develop
professional relationships that foster
Duong is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Ecology,
Evolutionary Biology and Behavior Program at Michigan State University. She
can be contacted at duongthuyen@gmail.com. Roberts is a Ph.D. student in the
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, where he is vice president of the Virginia Tech Chapter of AFS.
188
the exchange of information regarding
the application of genetic techniques to
address a variety of issues in the aquatic
sciences. Additionally, the Section
annually administers a travel award,
in honor of James Wright, one of the
founders of fish genetics research and
education in North America. The award
is intended to recognize excellence in
graduate-level work in fisheries genetics
and to assist graduate students with
travel to the Annual Meeting.
The Role of Students in AFS
We think that most, if not all, fisheries students would acknowledge the
benefits of active involvement with the
American Fisheries Society. So, then,
why aren’t more students involved
with AFS, and why aren’t they more
involved above the Chapter or Student
Subunit level? In our opinion, two key
misunderstandings perpetuate the lack
of student involvement. The first is
that a student’s “job” is to complete
his or her thesis and coursework, and
that involvement with “extracurricular” activities such as AFS functions
is a resume-booster and volunteer
opportunity at best, and a distraction
at worst. Perhaps this view is carried
over from students’ past experiences
with high school or undergraduate
clubs and civic organizations, but this
view is not applicable to a professional
society like AFS. In fact, AFS is part of
the scientific and educational fabric of
the fisheries field, and therefore is not
extracurricular to a student’s research or
coursework. Graduate school marks a
transition from student to professional,
and it is essential that students begin
to immerse themselves in key issues,
the people involved with them, and
the broader fisheries discipline. Further,
we have found that some of our most
valuable experiences, ideas, relationships, and even research products have
come from “beyond the thesis.” Don’t
shortchange your graduate experience
(or future employability) by focusing
too narrowly!
Second, we suspect that many
students believe that their contributions
are not needed, and perhaps not valued, at higher levels of AFS. To be sure,
most students are at an early point in
their careers, and do not yet possess
as much broad technical expertise,
background knowledge, or “wisdom
of experience” as would an established fisheries professional. However,
students can bring enthusiasm, fresh
ideas, diverse backgrounds, and particular technical skill sets to any issue
at any level of AFS. With the exception
of a few upper-level leadership positions, most facets of AFS are open to
student involvement and would benefit
from greater student involvement.
Unfortunately, most AFS entities do not
do a very good job of inviting students
to be involved—the onus often is on
the students themselves to take the
first step. Yet times may be changing, if
the Genetics Section is any indication.
At the Nashville Annual Meeting, the
Genetics Section put into motion several measures explicitly
aimed to increase student involvement with the Section and
with AFS, including the composition of this article. Other
measures include offering free Section membership to students, allowing students to serve on the Section’s Executive
Committee, directly contacting fisheries faculty to encourage
them to get their students involved, and posting Genetics
Section activities on the Student Subsection’s listserv. We
encourage other AFS Units to make a similar commitment to
increasing student participation!
About the Authors
The two of us approached the Genetics Section with different backgrounds and from different countries of origin,
but with similar interests in fisheries genetics. In the narrative
that follows, we provide additional information about our
respective backgrounds and research interests and how we
see AFS as part of our professional future.
Yen Duong comes from Vietnam, where aquaculture is an
important sector in national economics. The rapid development of aquaculture and over-exploitation of aquatic natural
resources leads to her concerns about the future viability of
aquatic natural resources in her country and other countries
with emerging economies relying extensively on exploitation
of natural resources. Yen is also interested in interdisciplinary
efforts contributed by fisheries professionals from across the
spectrum of AFS Sections that can work to minimize negative effects of aquaculture on natural populations. Yen was
employed as an instructor teaching aquaculture students
at Cantho University. A Vietnamese Government Research
Fellow, for her Ph.D. studies, she set goals of gaining professional skills and knowledge of population genetic theory,
including applications of molecular genetic tools to address
issues in aquaculture, aquatic resources management, and
conservation. She will bring her skills and knowledge in these
fields to fisheries professionals in Vietnam, where applied
genetics in fisheries conservation and management is still
lacking. She also wants to share her AFS member experiences
with her Vietnamese colleagues and draw their attention to
the resource and networking benefits of the parent organization and Genetics Section. In her dissertation research, Yen is
using genetic markers to estimate the reproductive contributions of individuals to population recruitment. For long-lived
species with small population sizes, individual contributions
could be important for long-term viability of a population.
She is interested in lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), a
threatened species that has been the target of many conservation programs. She is using microsatellite DNA data from
lake sturgeon and likelihood-based estimates of parentage
analysis to examine effects of parental phenotypes, spawning
behavior, and environmental factors on reproductive success,
larval mortality, and dispersal of lake sturgeon at the individual level. Her work helps us understand adult reproductive ecology and the roles of parental behavior (timing and
location of spawning) and interactions with environmental
factors on dispersal and survival of lake sturgeon at critical
early life-stages. The information is also useful for restoration
programs for the species.
Like Yen, Jamie Roberts entered the genetics realm
relatively recently, coming from a background in more
traditional fisheries conservation and management. During
his master’s research on stream fish movement, he recognized that molecular population genetics techniques could
provide better understanding of large-scale questions about
fish dispersal, demographics, and population viability. Thus,
his Ph.D. research focuses on using molecular tools to: (1)
increase our biological knowledge of and management
effectiveness for Roanoke logperch, an endangered darter,
(2) estimate the form and magnitude of the effects of dams
on gene flow for fishes of the Tennessee River basin, and (3)
augment our basic understanding of metapopulation dynamics in stream networks. Accomplishment of these objectives
will result in part from culmination of involvement with AFS
in general and the Genetics Section in particular. His leadership and membership roles at various levels of AFS, including
the Student Subunit, Chapter, Division, and Society levels,
have given him numerous opportunities to: (1) attend meetings at a reduced or no cost, (2) lead and be led by other
fisheries workers, including peers, mentors, and mentees, (3)
increase his professional network, and (d) acquire and hone
knowledge, skills, and abilities that will serve him throughout
his career. At the Nashville Annual Meeting, for example, he
and other Genetics Section members convened a symposium
on the conservation genetics of non-game species, which
gave him an opportunity to present some of his graduate research and to interact with professionals with similar
research interests.
Concluding Thoughts
Our hope is that this article will encourage some student
out there to seek new AFS experiences beyond the local
Chapter. Opportunities for AFS involvement at the Society or
Division level are far too numerous to list here. A good starting point would be to discuss your desires with your faculty
advisor, or with someone at your institution who is actively
involved with AFS. Then go get involved, and proceed with
confidence—we students are a vital component of the current fisheries field and vanguards to future of AFS!
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Genetics Section for the opportunity to attend the AFS Annual Meeting on a Wright Travel
Award, and to the Genetics Section and Student Subsection
for the chance to reflect on our experiences in this article.
Eric Hallerman, Kim Scribner, and Kristal Schneider provided
helpful revisions to the manuscript.
189
F
cALENDAR: FISHERIES EVENTS
To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS Web site Calendar, send event name, dates, city,
state/province, web address, and contact information to cworth@fisheries.org.
(If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)
More events listed at www.fisheries.org
Apr 8-9
AFS-The Wildlife Society Species Introductions
and Re-introductions Symposium
Starkville, Mississippi
www.cfr.msstate.edu/wildlife/symposium
Apr 10
Oregon Council for the Social Studies Spring
Conference: Journey on the Columbia River:
Past, Present, and Future
Rainier, Oregon
www.oregonsocialstudies.org
Apr 22-23
Electrofishing Class
Vancouver, Washington
www.smith-root.com
Apr 25-27
Northeastern Division,
joint with Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference
Newton, Massachusetts
www.neafwa.org
Apr 26-30
16th Western Groundfish Conference
Juneau, Alaska
https://tundra.iphc.washington.edu
May 4-8
State of the Salmon: Ecological Interactions
between Wild and Hatchery Salmon
Portland, Oregon
www.stateofthesalmon.org/
May 5-6
17th Annual Conference on the Great Lakes /
St. Lawrence River Ecosystem: Protecting
and Restoring Aquatic Ecosystems through
Government and Community Action
Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
http://riverinstitute.ca/mailman/listinfo/
conferencenews_riverinstitute.ca
May 23-26
Australasian Aquaculture International
Conference and Trade Show
Hobart, Tasmania
www.australian-aquacultureportal.com
May 30Jun 3
AFS Early Life History Section’s 34th Annual
Larval Fish Conference
Santa Fe, New Mexico
www.larvalfishcon.org
Jun 16-18
Offshore Mariculture Conference
Dubrovnik, Croatia
www.mercatormedia.com
Jun 20-22
Second International Catfish Symposium
sponsored by AFS North Central and
Southern Divisions
St. Louis, Missouri
www.catfish2010.org
Jun 21-24
International Symposium on Genetic Biocontrol
of Invasive Fish
Minneapolis, Minnesota
www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/biocontrol
Jul 7-12
Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists
Providence, Rhode Island
www.dce.ksu.edu/conf/jointmeeting
Jul 24-28
Second International Sclerochronology
Conference
Mainz, Germany
www.scleroconferences.de
Jul 25-30
Fisheries Society of the British Isles Conference:
Climate Change and Fish
Belfast, Northern Ireland
www.fsbi.org.uk/events.htm.
Aug 1-6
95th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society
of America
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
www.esa.org/pittsburgh
Aug 15-20
Second International Conference on the Effects
of Noise on Aquatic Animals
Cork, Ireland
www.aquaticnoise.org
190
Aug 31-
Third Annual Conference of the North American Chico Spring, Montana
Chapter of World Sturgeon Conservation Society
www.wscs.info
Sep 8-11
Fish Sampling with Active Methods Meeting
Ceske Budejovice, Czech
Republic
www.fsam2010.wz.cz
Sep 12-16
American Fisheries Society 140th Annual
Meeting
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
www.fisheries.org/afs10/
Sep 22
World Ocean Council: Sustainable Ocean Summit Honolulu, Hawaii
www.oceancouncil.org
Sep 22-23
Electrofishing Class
Vancouver, Washington
www.smith-root.com
Ssep 20-24
ICES Annual Science Conference 2010
Cite des Congres, Nantes,
France
www.ices.dk/iceswork/asc/2010/index.asp
Sep 27-28
Fourth International Natural Channel Systems
Conference: Stream Corridors: Restoring Our
Natural Infastructure
Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada
www.naturalchannels.ca
Sep 28-30
Wild Trout Symposium
West Yellowstone, Montana www.wildtroutsymposium.com
Oct 3-8
Aquatic Resources Education Association Biennial Omaha, Nebraska
Conference
www.areanet.org
Oct 10-14
Integrating Biogeochemistry and Ecosystems in a
Changing Ocean: Regional Comparisons
Crete, Greece
http://imbizo-2010.confmanager.com
Nov 8-11
Alaska Sea Grant Meeting: Ecosystems 2010
Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium:Global
Progress on Ecosystem-based Fisheries
Management
Anchorage, Alaska
http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2010/
wakefield-ecosystemb/index.php
Dec 10-13
Fifth Shanghai International Fisheries and
Seafood Exposition—The Best Opportunity fo
Explore Chinese Market
Shanghai, China
www.sifse.com
Dec 12- 15
North Central Division,
joint with Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference
Minneapolis
www.midwest2010.org
Jul 6-11
Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists
Minneapolis, Minnesota
www.dce.ksu.edu/conf/jointmeeting/future.
shtml
Aug 1-4
Sixth World Recreational Fishing Conference
Berlin, Germany
www.worldrecfish.org
Sep 2
2011
191
COLUMN:
PRESIDENT’S HOOK
Continued from page 160
recognize opportunity. The pivotal
point, the first step, came late
on a Thanksgiving night, whenI
received a telephone call from
the Peace Corps asking me if I
thought I could learn to speak
Malay and if I thought I could use
that language to teach zoology at
a university level. Somehow I realized that this was it. This was the
open door. I had to take a step,
to say “yes”…and I did. And that
has made all the difference.
That step opened the world to
me. Since that step I’ve learned
other languages and I’ve had
the privilege of professional
assignments on every continent
except Antarctica. I’ve discovered
common denominators that link
humankind regardless of culture,
language, religion, or social or
economic status. The currents of
our shared humanity are deep.
In the framework of my profession, I’ve climbed among the
tallest mountains, ventured on
extended journeys into vast and
lonely desert landscapes and into
the world’s oldest forests, traveled on fabulous rivers from arctic
to equatorial zones, stood on the
bucking decks of vessels traversing many seas, shared adventures and accomplishments with
wonderful people, and somehow
(thankfully!) have been able to
weave my way safely through the
trials and uncertainties of civil
unrest and wars. I began over
time to see fisheries as an instrument of peace and the professions of fisheries as the means of
reaching out to the world with
a positive touch. In the grand
scheme of things, I gained understanding in no uncertain terms
that people who dedicate their
lives to the sciences and management of natural resources are givers, not takers.
192
Obviously (or so we may
think) members of the American
Fisheries Society cannot rise up in
mass to form a legion of fisheries professionals to go out into
the world to serve, to give—or
can we—or have we already done
so? Isn’t that what we do every
day? Although we each may be
engaged at different levels of spatial, temporal, or discipline-related
resolution, and with different
suites of responsibilities, operating
from within our specific corners of
the world, we’re all out there on
the world’s front lines, dedicated
warriors in a legion of fisheries
professionals. We know that we
are inextricably interconnected
with issues and colleagues from
around the globe, and that the
products of our endeavors are not,
nor should they be, geographically confined. So, where are the
borders of our professions? Do
borders even exist? I think not.
Yet even in a borderless world, a
world of global interconnectedness, there are some within our
ranks for whom the nagging
question remains: “Am I a water
strider or a diving beetle?” The
question does not necessarily suggest international orientations, but
oftentimes that’s exactly what it
is all about. If the question is sufficiently unsettling, well, let’s do
something about that.
AFS is there to assist you as a
catalyst and conduit for action.
We are an international organization with deep ties to other
fisheries organizations around the
globe. Through our membership
networks, we reach out to virtually every corner of the world.
We are a founding and actively
participating member of the World
Council of Fisheries Societies.
We are particularly engaged with
the Japanese Society of Fisheries
Science, Australian Society for
Fish Biology, and the Fisheries
Society of the British Isles. We are
perpetually involved in international communications, programs,
symposia, and congresses. Our
new strategic plan specifically
advances global engagement. The
AFS International Fisheries Section
is extremely active.
Additionally, many nations
have international volunteer
organizations for their citizens
(e.g., the U.S. Peace Corps). AFS
is replete with former volunteers,
particularly from North America,
who can help aspiring volunteers
with perspectives and application
processes. There are various plans
and programs within these organizations. They do not all require
long-term, multi-year commitments. Retired professionals are
actively recruited. Assignments can
be short chapters in our careers or
launch us on career paths beyond
our wildest imaginations. Beyond
volunteer organizations, there are
international opportunities for professionals in fisheries and aquatic
sciences through the United
Nations, regional development
banks, federal agencies, sciencebased international organizations,
and Fulbright Scholarships. In this
last regard, remember that there
are Fulbright Scholarships for
students as well as for established
professionals. Linking with these
opportunities may require lateral
moves and a bit of creativity, but
as captains of our ships we can
navigate the seas of opportunities
with a compass bearing of “creating the niche to fit the person.” It
is amazing what can evolve. Isn’t
this the way that most careers are
established, built, and maintained?
What about languages, you
might ask. Well, what about
them? Most of us cannot speak
or write correct English (at least
not according to journal editors
and major professors) so why do
we think that we somehow need
to be able to write poetry in order
to be functional in another language? Just learn the structure and
plunge on in. The vocabulary will
come. For persons with average
intelligence, you’ll have headaches
for a few weeks (in my case it
tends to be months) as you sort
things out, but then one day you’ll
discover that you are dreaming in
the new language, and what you
want to say really can’t be said in
English. Just get in there and do it.
And, for those of you who are in
academic environments, take the
beginning freshman-level course
in a language. This is the best
chance you’ll ever have to pick up
a new language. From my experience, that single first semester of
a freshman-level language course
is all you need if you will get out
there and start using the language.
And here’s another trick: keep the
radio turned on so that you are
constantly swimming in the rhythm
of the language. Also stuff a small
dictionary into your pocket, briefcase, or backpack. One day you’ll
forget to take it with you and then
it doesn’t matter.
Let me assure you that there’s
a world out there that needs you.
Engaging that world requires
being prepared, nurturing your
creativity, mustering courage, and
(with a deep breath) taking that
all important first step. You are
certainly needed, but it is not that
there aren’t other professionals in
the field already out there where
you’re heading (or want to head).
In almost every case, there will be
someone there to welcome you
onboard. However, bear in mind
that all professionalism is reflected
through personalities and you will
“troop the colors” in a style all
your own. It is the mix that counts
and, even more importantly, the
synergism that blossoms from that
mix.
The American Fisheries Society
is the epicenter for this synergism.
It is your professional network.
Use it. Contribute to it. Merge
your currents with the mainstream.
And remember this: diving beetles
experience a world unimaginable to
water striders.
Reference
Jackson, D.C. 2006. Tracks. University
Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
193
Journal Highlights:
TRANSACTIONS OF THE
AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
Volume 139 Issue 2
March 2010
To subscribe to AFS journals go to www.fisheries.org
and click on Publications/Journals.
Habitat Suitability of the Carolina Madtom, an Imperiled,
Endemic Stream Fish. Stephen R. Midway, Thomas J. Kwak, and D.
Derek Aday, pages 325-338.
Isotopic Correlation (δ18O versus δ13C) of Otoliths in Identification
of Groundfish Stocks. Yongwen Gao, David L. Dettman, Kevin R.
Piner, and Farron R. Wallace, pages 491-501.
Comparison of Growth and Stress in Resident Redband Trout
Held in Laboratory Simulations of Montane and Desert Summer
Temperature Cycles. John D. Cassinelli and Christine M. Moffitt, pages
339-352.
Changes to Rainbow Trout Abundance and Salmonid Biomass
in a Washington Watershed as Related to Hatchery Salmon
Supplementation. Todd N. Pearsons and Gabriel M. Temple, pages
502-520.
Sensitivity of Lake Sturgeon Population Dynamics and Genetics
Effects of Turbidity and Cover on Prey Selectivity of Adult
Smallmouth Bass. Mark W. Carter, Daniel E. Shoup, John M. Dettmers, to Demographic Parameters. Amy M. Schueller and Daniel B. Hayes,
pages 521-534.
and David H. Wahl, pages 353-361.
Impact of the Potholes Reservoir Caspian Tern Breeding Colony
on Out-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids in the Mid-Columbia River.
Christina J. Maranto, Thomas P. Good, Francis K. Wiese, and Julia K.
Parrish, pages 362-381.
Reconstructing Juvenile Chinook Salmon Life History in the
Salmon River Estuary, Oregon, Using Otolith Microchemistry
and Microstructure. Eric C. Volk, Daniel L. Bottom, Kim K. Jones, and
Charles A. Simenstad, pages 535-549.
The Evolutionarily Significant Unit Concept and the Role of
Translocated Populations in Preserving the Genetic Legacy of
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Mary M. Peacock, Morgan L. Robinson,
Timothy Walters, Heather A. Mathewson, and Ray Perkins, pages 382395.
Growth and Methylmercury Accumulation in Juvenile Chinook
Salmon in the Sacramento River and Its Floodplain, the Yolo
Bypass. Rene E. Henery, Ted R. Sommer, and Charles R. Goldman,
pages 550-563.
Predicting Future Changes in Muskegon River Watershed Game
Fish Distributions under Future Land Cover Alteration and
Climate Change Scenarios. Paul J. Steen, Michael J. Wiley, and Jeffrey
S. Schaeffer, pages 396-412.
[Note] A Method to Quantitatively Sample Nekton in Salt-Marsh
Ditches and Small Tidal Creeks. Mary-Jane James-Pirri, Charles T.
Roman, and Jeffrey L. Swanson, pages 413-419.
Examining the Conflict between Smolting and Precocious Male
Maturation in Spring (Stream-Type) Chinook Salmon. Donald A.
Larsen, Brian R. Beckman, and Kathleen A. Cooper, pages 564-578.
[Note] Revisiting Trends in the Evolution of Egg Size in HatcheryEnhanced Populations of Chinook Salmon from British Columbia.
Terry D. Beacham, pages 579-585.
[Note] Effect of Brood Reduction on Nest Abandonment of
Smallmouth Bass. Brianne D. Lunn and Geoffrey B. Steinhart, pages
586-592.
In Situ Swimming Behavior of Lake Trout Observed Using
Integrated Multibeam Acoustics and Biotelemetry. Erin S. Dunlop, [Note] An Inexpensive, Low-Maintenance, Precision Amplifier,
Scott W. Milne, Mark S. Ridgway, Jeff Condiotty, and Ian Higginbottom, Dissolved Oxygen Sensor, and Miniature Data Logger System
pages 420-432.
Designed for Long-Term Deployment in Riverine Systems.
Lawrence W. Keenan and Steven J. Miller, pages 593-597.
Swimming Performance and Fishway Model Passage Success of
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. Kevin R. Bestgen, Brent Mefford, Jay M. The Spawning Run of Blueback Herring in the St. Johns River,
Bundy, Cameron D. Walford, and Robert I. Compton, pages 433-448.
Florida. Richard S. McBride, Julianne E. Harris, A. Reid Hyle, and Jay C.
Variable Responses of Fish Assemblages, Habitat, and Stability
to Natural-Channel-Design Restoration in Catskill Mountain
Streams. Barry P. Baldigo, Anne G. Ernst, Dana R. Warren, and Sarah J.
Miller, pages 449-467.
Holder, pages 598-609.
Coastal Estuaries as Habitat for a Freshwater Fish Species:
Exploring Population-Level Effects of Salinity on Largemouth
Bass. Alicia J. Norris, Dennis R. DeVries, and Russell A. Wright, pages
610-625.
Effects of Natural-Channel-Design Restoration on Habitat Quality
in Catskill Mountain Streams, New York. Anne G. Ernst, Barry P.
Exploring Population-Level Effects of Fishery Closures during
Baldigo, Christiane I. Mulvihill, and Mark Vian, pages 468-482.
Spawning: An Example Using Largemouth Bass. Daniel C. Gwinn
and Micheal S. Allen, pages 626-634.
Horizontal and Vertical Odor Plume Trapping of Red King Crabs
Explains the Different Efficiency of Top- and Side-Entrance Pot
[Book Review] Shark Nursery Grounds of the Gulf of Mexico and
Designs. Stian Stiansen, Anders Fernö, Dag Furevik, Terje Jørgensen,
the East Coast Waters of the United States. Edited by Camilla T.
and Svein Løkkeborg, pages 483-490.
McCandless, Nancy E. Kohler, and Harold L. Pratt, Jr., pages 635-639.
194
Obituary:
JAMES R. Whitley
Water Quality Expert
James R. Whitley, 88, passed away
on 17 December 2009 at his home
in Columbia, Missouri, after a long,
courageous battle with cancer. Whitley
retired from the Missouri Department
of Conservation in 1990 after 28 years
of service. He was assistant fisheries
division chief in charge of the Fisheries
Research Section.
Whitley was born in Jamesport,
Missouri, in 1921, but later moved
to Trenton, Missouri. After 2 years at
Trenton Junior College, he transferred
to the University of Missouri. His
education was interrupted by a stint
in the U.S. Navy during World War II.
Following his military service, he completed A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in
agricultural biochemistry by 1952.
He then worked in the family popcorn and farming businesses
until October 1962 when he started
with the Missouri Department of
Conservation as a chemist in the
Fisheries Research Section. Two years
later, he was promoted to supervisor of the water quality branch of the
Fisheries Research Section, a newly created unit to address the water pollution
problems in the state. This was the era
of the environmental movement and
the Environmental Protection Agency
had just been formed. The department realized the importance of good
water quality to the fish and wildlife
resources of the state and put their best
employee in charge of their efforts.
Whitley responded quickly by leading the effort to establish water quality
standards for the state’s streams, rivers,
reservoirs, and ponds and lakes. In
many instances, he was the only one
to present good solid scientific data to
back up his demand for high standards.
And, even though industry and mining interests were strong in Missouri
and fought hard for low standards,
Whitley’s testimony prevailed. The
former Trans World Airlines, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, was the
only entity to assign a spokesman to
work with him in favor of high standards. Together, they won and the limits that were adopted were those that
occur naturally in streams and lakes.
Whitley soon became widely know
for his expertise in matters relating to
water quality and his advice was sought
after from many sources. Because of
his knowledge of and passion for the
subject, he was often called on to offer
expert testimony in many state and
national enforcement cases.
He was a gifted speaker and made
many presentations locally, nationally,
and even internationally regarding his
work. He authored numerous technical and popular articles, but was most
proud of his book, Water Plants for
Missouri Ponds. This was the culmination of years of research on the control
of aquatic vegetation. He felt that “all
things were created to be loved” and
thus if you plant the “right” plants,
they will keep many of the undesirable
ones from invading
your pond.
Whitley was
active in the
American Fisheries
Society at the
local level, serving as president
of the Missouri
Chapter in 1985.
He was also full
member of Sigma
Xi and a fellow
of the American
Association for
Advancement of
Science. Other
honors included
the Water
Conservationist
Award from the
Jim Whitley
Conservation Federation of Missouri
and National Wildlife Society, American
Motors Conservation Award, an
Environmental Award from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Award of Excellence from the Missouri
Chapter of the American Fisheries
Society, Blazing Star Award from the
Hawthorn Chapter of the Missouri
Native Plant Society, and a Plant
Stewardship Award from the Missouri
Native Plant Society.
Although, Whitley in his quiet ways
and unassuming manner went unnoticed and un-glorified, he is an unsung
hero of Missouri’s waterways. If it had
not been for him, Missouri would not
have the quality of water it has today.
—Joe G. Dillard and
Lee C. Redmond
195
196
Pacific Salmon
Ecology and Management of Western
Alaska’s Populations
Edited by
Charles Krueger
and
Christian
Zimmerman
1,235 pages, index, hardcover
List price: $69.00
AFS Member price: $48.00
Item Number: 540.70C
Published December 2009
TO ORDER:
Online: www.afsbooks.org
American Fisheries Society
c/o Books International
P.O. Box 605
Herndon, VA 20172
Phone: 703-661-1570
Fax: 703-996-1010
T
his timely book examines the sustainability of salmon fisheries in the
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK) region of Alaska. With more than fifty
chapters, the book assesses the ecological processes that cause change
in salmon populations; describes the effects of varying salmon runs on
rural communities; reviews state, Federal, and international management
of salmon fisheries in the region; and examines emerging themes at the
nexus of salmon ecology and management in the AYK region.
Topics covered include marine and freshwater ecology; subsistence, commercial, and sport fisheries; and economics, governance, and cultural issues.
197
PUBLICATIONS:
BOOK REVIEW
Charles Darwin: The Beagle Letters
Edited by F. Burkhardt,
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2008,
470 pages. $32.00
Prior to becoming forever
attached to the theory of evolution
by natural selection, Darwin was
best known for his account of the
around-the-world voyage he took
on the HMS Beagle between 1831
and 1836. As the Darwin anniversary year came to a close, I had
the pleasure of reading the letters
Darwin wrote and received while
he was voyaging on the Beagle
in Burkhardt’s wonderful edited
collection.
Although Darwin did not
formulate a theory of evolution
during his five-year sojourn, the
observations made and specimens
collected were crucial toward the
theory Darwin would develop in
the first few years after he arrived
back in England. The letters in the
Burkhardt collection, which begin
a few months before the departure of the Beagle and end with
his return, allow us to peer into
Darwin’s mind as these experiences are occurring. While reading these letters in chronological
order, I could see Darwin’s growth
as a naturalist and correspondent.
William Darwin Fox, Darwin’s
second cousin and close friend,
wrote to Darwin noting what he
considered Darwin’s major character flaw:
I allude to your great dislike
to writing & keeping a daily
methodical account of passing events (p. 135).
198
Clearly, Darwin more than overcame that flaw!
Indeed it is Darwin’s observations that make this collection
compelling. In one letter early in
the voyage, Darwin related to his
mentor John Henslow his excitement finding an octopus that
changes color. He remarked that
this species
possessed a most marvellous power of changing its
colours; equalling of any
chamaelion, & evidently
accommodating the changes
to the colour of the ground
which it passed over, - yellowish green, dark brown
& red were the prevailing
colours: this fact appears to
be new, as far as I can find
out (p. 127)
(I’ve left intact Darwin’s original spelling and punctuation.)
Henslow would later reply that
the fact isn’t new and that he had
seen such color change himself.
Not to dampen Darwin’s enthusiasm, Henslow tells Darwin that
his description was superior and
stresses the importance of fresh
observation.
Darwin’s letters make clear that
as much as he was enthralled
by natural history, his first love
was geology. After describing his
various collecting activities to Fox,
Darwin replies,
but Geology carries the
day; it is like the pleasure
of gambling, speculating on
first arriving what the rocks
may be; I often mentally cry
out 3 to one Tertiary against
primitive; but the latter have
hitherto won all the bets (p.
122-123).
Darwin also spent time explaining to his sister Caroline the major
principles of geology including the
need to examine of equally aged
rocks at different locations.
Other insights from these letters
include Darwin’s marveling at the
Fuegrians and his visceral disgust
of slavery, and his candid impressions of Captain FitzRoy: driven,
constantly in motion, competent
but on the edge of unraveling,
especially toward the end of the
voyage. Letters to Darwin, especially those by his doting sisters,
paint a picture of life in 1830s
England.
This volume will be of interest
not only to the Darwin enthusiast, but to any who wish to view
the world from the perspective
of a young nineteenth century
naturalist experiencing strange
new worlds. The volume is much
enhanced by an introduction by
Janet Browne (renowned Darwin
historian), illustrations by Conrad
Martens (artist who was on the
Beagle), footnotes after each
letter, and a brief description of
each of the important people in
Darwin’s life.
—Norman A. Johnson
Department of Plant, Soil,
and Insect Sciences;
Department of Natural
Resources Conservation,
and Graduate Program in
Organismic
and Evolutionary Biology;
University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
140th AFS Annual Meeting & Trade Show
September 12–16, 2010, Pittsburgh, PA
We invite you to join us in Pittsburgh for the 140th Annual Meeting of the
American Fisheries Society in Pittsburgh, PA, September 12–16, 2010.
• More than 2,000 fisheries scientists, administrators,
educators, consultants and agency directors attend our
meetings.
• Past exhibitors include federal and state fisheries agencies
and companies providing aeration systems, aquaculture
supplies, consultant services, computer and software
applications, digital fish-measuring equipment, fish tagging
and tracking equipment, hydroacoustic systems, water quality
monitoring and filtration systems, and many more.
• This dynamic event will attract fisheries professionals from
around the world.
Visit www.fisheries.org/afs10
for complete details on attending,
sponsoring, or exhibiting at
Pittsburgh 2010.
Reserve Your Booth Today!
2010 AFS TRADE SHOW
BOOTHS
Company Name____________________________
Address___________________________________
City _____________________________________
State __________________ Zip _______________
Contact_____________________Phone_________
Email ____________________________________
BOOTH FEES AND SELECTION
AFS Member firm*: $1,400.00 per 8 × 10 booth
Non-Member firm: $1,550.00 per 8 × 10 booth
Craft Vendors: $550.00 per 8 × 10 booth
* To qualify
exhibiting
hold.aorg
Fisheries
• for
volMember
35 no rate
4 •the
april
2010 company
• www.must
fisheries
Sustaining, Official, or Associate Membership with AFS.
Photo by VisitPittsburgh
Amount enclosed: $_________________________
Check
Visa
MasterCard
Amex
_________________________________________
Name as it appears on card
________________________________________
Card Number
Exp. Date
_________________________________________
Signature
Please send completed form to Shawn Johnston,
AFS Trade Show Coordinator, at sjohnston@fisheries.org
199
301-897-8616 x230, Fax 301-897-8096
P it t s bur gh’s t h r ee r i ve r s
S
tephen Manukas spends his
summer nights not easing back
in an armchair, but launching
bluegills skyward. Subtle his hobby is
not.
Long after dark, when the only
thing cutting the inky blackness is the
reflected moon or the lights of some
riverside buildings, he reaches into his
livewell for a chunky ‘gill. He sticks a
7/0 circle hook
through its tail,
opens the bail on
the double-fistsized big game
reel attached to
a long, thick rod
that resembles
nothing so much
as a broom handle with guides, and
sends the bluegill flying.
The broad fish—and the 3-ounce
sinker attached to the 60-pound test
line—splash down in the Ohio River
with a kerplunk, like a stone that
didn’t skip.
Then, the
fun starts. The
clicker on his
Reborn Steel City
Offers Dynamic Fishing in
Sophisticated Urban Setting
By Bob Frye
Bob Frye is outdoors
editor for the
Pittsburgh TribuneReview and author
of four books,
including “Deer
Wars,” “Best Hikes
Near Pittsburgh,”
“Best Easy Day Hikes:
Pittsburgh,” and the
upcoming “Paddle
Pennsylvania.”
200
Bob FryE
Stephen
Manukas holds
a 16-pound
flathead catfish
caught on a live
bluegill from the
Ohio River.
reel will begin chattering, signaling
Manukas to grab his rod, take up
the slack, and hold on. Another big
flathead has taken the bait.
“Oftentimes, you can tell when
you’re about to get a hit because
you’ll see the rod jump a couple of
times as the bluegill tries to run away.
You can tell it’s nervous,” Manukas
said.
“That’s because flatheads just
crush them. They’re just so aggressive. When you get the bluegill back,
it looks like it’s been hit by a car.”
Indeed, flatheads—the biggest
catfish in Pennsylvania, and as delicate as angry linebackers—are alpha
predators that will eat anything they
can swallow.
“They might be prey for bass
and even other catfish when they’re
little, but once they get big, they’re
pretty much the dominant species,” said Leroy Young, director
of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
visitpittsburgh.com
1 2 – 1 6 S ep t. w w w. fi s h er i es . o rg
American Fisheries Society
140th Annual Meeting
Most boats and fishing
licenses in state
It’s no wonder then that surrounding Allegheny County registers
Matt Cox holds a smallmouth bass
pulled from the Allegheny River.
Smallmouths are the dominant bass
species in Pittsburgh’s three rivers,
though largemouths and spotted bass
can also be caught.
more boats and sells more fishing
licenses than any other county in the
state. The opportunities to get on
the rivers and have fun—detailed at
sites like fishandboat.com or boatpittsburgh.com—are as diverse as
being able to float the Allegheny to
PNC Park or Heinz Field to watch a
Pirates or Steelers game; tie up at
brightly lit Station Square on the
Monongahela to shop, eat in one
of the many nightspots, or ride the
inclines for a ridgetop view of the
city’s so-called Golden Triangle; or
find a quiet spot like the area around
Dashields Dam on the Ohio to fish.
And fish you’ll find. You want
bass, mostly smallmouths with a
few largemouths and spots, too?
The rivers have them in numbers
good enough to have hosted the
Bassmaster Classic and Forrest Wood
Cup.
“These rivers are full of little bass,
so when I was here in practice I tried
to figure out the easiest way just
to catch keepers,” said Louisiana
pro Greg Hackney, who won the
Cup by fishing the Allegheny with a
1/4-ounce golden shiner Strike King
spinnerbait. “And if you catch keepers, the big ones will come along.”
Featured on national show
“City Limits Fishing”
The city made enough of an
impression that Versus TV’s “City
Limits Fishing with Mike Iaconelli”
filmed an episode here last fall.
“There are a lot of cities around
the country vying to host the show,
Bob FryE
Commission’s Bureau of Fisheries.
“And they do get big.”
Especially in the three rivers
around Pittsburgh. The Allegheny
and Monongahela—which come
together to form the Ohio at the city’s
Point—produce more big flatheads
than anywhere in the state. The Ohio
gave up the then-state record 47-lb.
flathead in 2006, and researchers
captured a 50-lb. flathead there that
same year. In fact, 17 of the top 25
flatheads recorded caught in the state
between 2005 and 2009 came from
Pittsburgh’s rivers.
That’s why many, including Wayne
Lykens, a longtime river guru and
owner of Island Firearms, a bait shop
on Neville Island, expect the ‘Burgh to
again set the flathead mark, and soon.
“There’s no doubt about it in my
mind,” Lykens said. “The only question is where in the rivers it’s going
to come from.”
The fact that Pittsburgh is home
to such good fishing—heck, any
fishing—might surprise some. Its
reputation was long that of being a
filthy place, and deservedly so. Heavy
industry, most famously steel manufacturing, made many fortunes here,
but the environmental consequences
were stark.
“Pittsburgh,” wrote nineteenth
century author Willard Glazer after
a visit, “is a smoky, dismal city at her
best. At her worst, nothing darker,
dingier, or more dispiriting can be
imagined…the smoke from her
dwellings, stores, factories, foundries,
and steamboats, uniting, settles in a
cloud over the narrow valley in which
she is built, until the very sun looks
coppery through the sooty haze.”
Boston writer James Parton was
even more succinct in 1868. He
called the city “hell with the lid off.”
Fortunately for those who love
the outdoors, things have changed
dramatically. Pittsburgh is cleaner
today than it’s been in nearly 200
years.
so the fact that we chose to come
here says a lot about Pittsburgh and
its fishing,” said the television show’s
producer, Doug Buzbe.
“I love Pittsburgh,” Iaconelli
agreed. “It’s more of a smallmouth
bass fishery than anything, but the
fish are there, and they act like bass
anywhere, holding to cover. It’s just
that instead of wood and weeds and
docks, the cover is industrial, like
barges and bridges and pipes. It’s a
great challenge.”
Don’t forget about walleyes
either. Ten of the 25 biggest
recorded caught in the state over
the last five years—some 32 inches
long and topping 14 lbs.—came
from the three rivers. Channel cats
up to nearly 30 lbs. are caught here,
too, as are 50-inch muskies, 20-lb.
striped bass, 2-lb. bluegills, and
citation-sized white bass, sauger,
and drum.
They all just have to avoid the
savage flatheads Manukas targets.
He fights the biggest ones with his
whole body, bending backward as
he reels to gain leverage on fish that
run powerfully enough to make the
drag on even his sturdy gear sing.
“I usually bury the end of the
rod in my hip to help fight them,”
Manukas said. “That’s how you can
tell you had a good night, when
your hip is sore the next morning.”
201
visitpittsburgh.com
Pittsburgh’s Southside Renaissance:
One Funky Neighborhood
and Five Meals a Day
W
visitpittsburgh.com
e’re in the middle of a
mountain, tunnel wind
blowing our hair, and then
we burst out and over the gleaming new emerald city of Pittsburgh.
Golden at the triangle where three
rivers join forces, skyscrapers shine,
and ballparks roar on our left. The
Monongahela flows on our right.
And Gustav Lindenthal’s steel truss
Smithfield Bridge drops us onto
Carson Street on the one and only
south side of the ’Burgh.
Sometimes it’s one word, emblazoned in a yellow stripe on red
fire trucks: Southside. Sometimes,
when the Pittsburgh accent is thick
enough, it’s almost one syllable.
There’s never a “th,” rarely a“d.” It’s
like, “sow’s eye,” only said real fast.
“Sowseye’d.”
Start with a look-see from atop
Mt. Washington. Plunk down
a few bits and ride the incline
tram straight up the mountain.
It’s a hairy 35-degree angle, the
oldest and steepest such public
transit in the country. Up here
we look down upon coal barges
hauling upstream, and the city
glimmers below like a toy town.
Down to the right, Southside
lays flat against the river where
202
glass factories and steel mills once
clanked and screamed. It runs a few
blocks and rises up along what folks
here call “the slopes.”
Heights make us thirsty so on to
Carson Street and we can’t believe
our luck. At one time, this workingman’s neighborhood held title to
more bars per human than any other
city in the world. Ain’t it nice that
in high-tech, twenty-first-century
Pittsburgh, some things haven’t
changed too much.
We wash down Cajun Comfort
wings and a Voodoo Killer burger
with pints of Penn Pilsner at a watering hole called Fathead’s. We dig into
hubcap fries, junkyard nachos, and
jailhouse chili at an old filling station
now dubbed The Double Wide. And
we make room to share a Pittsburgh
footlong at The Pickle Barrel, a
$3-lunch counter that opened the
same year Roberto Clemente was
baseball’s MVP. We behold a skinny
tight-wrapped dog, laden with black
olives and cheddar cheese. “Black
and gold,” says a local in line, who
eyes us eyeing our prize. “Pirates’
and Steelers’ colors. Colors of the
’Burgh,” he swells.
Back on the street, a Southside
lifer named Tim cranks up the
perfect afternoon cooler. He works
an ancient ice shaver like an organ
grinder, and collects cold crystals in
a paper cup. Homemade root beer
syrup soaks the ice and we have a
handmade snow cone that sets us
back a buck and sends us back about
40 years. We ask how’s business and
Tim says, “It cools off ’til it gets hot.”
Southside logic.
It’s five-meals-a-day here, which
we walk off from one end of Carson
to the other. Start where the incline
drops in Station Square. A glorious throwback to the gilded age, a
marble-palace railroad station is now
a four-star tablecloth restaurant. We
slurp Blue Point oysters below the
dazzle of dozens of stained glass
skylights. Our hostess tells us a thick
layer of common shoe polish hid
these gorgeous marvels for decades.
“Black-out from the war,” she
explains. “No one knew how beautiful they were until they took 30 cases
of oven cleaner to it.” We bask in
rainbow light and imagine catching
the cannonball to Erie.
Reverie complete, we head upriver
along Carson and browse oddball
boutiques: vintage clothing, Polish
newspapers, weird lamps and handicrafts from local artisans. Must be a
dozen tattoo parlors, where galleries of ships’ anchors and vines of
wild roses stand ready to wrap
around a bicep. And there’s a
real magic shop, The Cuckoo’s
Nest, where we buy a fake
thumb. We spend the next few
hours attempting to pull a silk
scarf out of it like Mysterioso.
It’s break time over a cold
bottle of Iron City, and one of
Carson Street’s proprietors tells
about his neighborhood. He
Program Update
The scene below intoxicates. We
can see the street where we’ll sleep,
at an inn called The Morning Glory,
with its brick courtyard and featherlight pancakes. Over there is the
back alley of The Pretzel Shop, where
the door by the oven opens near
dawn and we get brown bags of hot
pretzels hand pulled the same way
for generations. And across the river,
downtown towers reflect a hot noon
sun in clear skies, a sight rarely seen
when the steel mills belched smoke
and soot.
Tonight it’s a saloon singer in a
sofa-stuffed cocktail lounge. But
only after briny olives and grilled
calamari at a Sicilian restaurant only
a Southsider can find. Then it’s up
and at ’em, with
the other side of
Carson to stroll,
giggling discoveries to make, and
the usual Southside
lunchtime toss-up
between gyros,
pierogies, and
pretzel sandwiches.
And perhaps
a tiger’s head
tattoo...
For more
information go to
visitPA.com. Reprinted from Pursuits
Magazine, Pennsylvania Department
of Community and Economic
Development
T
he theme of the 140th Annual Meeting, “Merging our
Deeper Currents,” could not be more appropriate for
Pittsburgh, the city at the confluence of the Allegheny,
Monongahela, and Ohio rivers. We are developing a meeting that will bring together diverse interests
and experiences to enrich participants. The AFS 2010 Planning Committee is pleased to report that at
the time this issue of Fisheries went to press, the following symposium topics will be covered:
Restoration of American Shad and River Herring in Atlantic Coastal Waters (2–3 days)
Working toward Better Fish Habitat and Fishing: A Management Perspective
Influences of Natural Resources Extraction Activities (Coal Mining, Hard Rock Mining, Sand and Gravel
Dredging, and Oil and Gas Development) on Fish Communities
Landscapes and Fish-Habitat Relationships: New Approaches and Applications
Merging Deeper Currents—A Focus on Renewable Energy Development in Our Rivers
Conserving Aquatic Resources in the Ohio Basin: From Planning to Action
The Big Picture of Fish Habitat—How Science Supports Conservation under the National Fish Habitat Action Plan
Hydrokinetic Electricity Generation and Fish: Asking the Right Questions, Getting Useful Answers
Examining the Risk of Aquatic Invasive Species Transfer by Inland Waterway Transportation
Emerging Issues Affecting Functional Connectivity within and among Riverine, Lacustrine, and Marine
Fish Populations
Fish Passage in the Midwest: Challenges of Restoring Warmwater Migratory Pathways
Local Catch—Quality, Marketing, and Consumption
Headwater Streams IV: Merging Understanding at the Watershed Scale
Student Colloquium
Ecosystem Approaches to Marine Fisheries Science and Management
Best Student Paper Presentation
Examining Cutting-edge Aquatic Invasive Species Management Tools
Influencing the Public, Industry and Government to Maintain Environmental Flows
Invertebrates: Biology, Stock Assessment, and Fisheries Management (2 days)
Stock Assessment Methods for Data-poor Situations
203
visitpittsburgh.com
goes by Demo, short for Demetrius.
(His Greek surname would take up
the rest of this page.) Demo worked
the mill in ’79 when the last pig iron
was cast into Pittsburgh steel. “Forty
thousand men worked these mills,”
Demo says. “You could hear the roar
across the river and up the slopes.”
Up the slopes is where we head
next. Back in the day, thousands of
men trudged a cardio commute, up
hundreds of narrow steps from blast
furnaces on the flats to hillside lanes
just wide enough for the iceman’s
cart. We puff and pant, out-of-breath
tourists, and climb past humble
homes with killer views. We imagine
hauling groceries home here and
have to sit a spell to wipe our brow.
Announcements:
Job Center
EMPLOYERS: To list a job opening on the AFS Online Job Center submit a position
description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications,
salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to jobs@fisheries.
org. Online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments. Please
send billing information. Listings are free (150 words or less) for organizations with
Associate, Official, and Sustaining memberships, and for Individual members, who are
faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. If space is available, jobs may also be
printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.
M.S. or Ph.D. Assistantship, Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
Salary: Annual stipend $18,500–21,000 and waiver of
tuition for the duration of the degree.
Closing: 15 April or until filled. Review begins
immediately.
Responsibilities: Assist with research in fisheries
population dynamics and conservation, conduct
population dynamics and stock assessment modeling
on marine fish species, or evaluate rebuilding strategy
on endangered California white abalone or freshwater
endangered mussel species. Work on important, relevant
research with Virginia Tech faculty and research scientists
with the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S.
Geological Survey.
Qualifications: B.S. or M.S. in fisheries, ecology,
statistics, or related field. Strong quantitative interest and
background including multiple courses in both calculus
and statistics.
Contact: E-mail a letter of interest, CV, transcripts, GRE
test scores, and the names of 3 faculty references to
Assistant Professor Yan Jiao, yjiao@vt.edu. See www.
fishwild.vt.edu.
Fisheries Stock Assessment Scientist, Fisheries
Department, Falkland Islands Government Office.
Salary: $29,046–33,492 British pounds plus a 25 percent
gratuity on completion of contract. Benefits include
full medical and dental coverage, 30 days paid annual
vacation, paid annual return airfare to home country,
relocation grant, and an education allowance for children.
Closing: 16 April 2010.
Responsibilities: Apply standard techniques and develop
new approaches for fish and squid stock assessment.
The successful applicant will be expected to contribute
to the development of fishery management policy on the
basis of the assessments. Candidates should be capable
of working as part of a small, dedicated team and be
prepared to fill a flexible role.
Qualifications: Ideally qualified to Ph.D. level in an
appropriate fisheries, mathematical, or biological discipline
with at least two years experience in fisheries stock
assessment or other relevant discipline, such as population
dynamics. A high level of competence with computers
and modern statistical methods is essential.
204
Contact: For further information, a full job description,
and application forms, please contact Recruitment Officer,
Falkland Islands Government Office, Falkland House, 14
Broadway, Westminster, London SW1H 0BH; recruitment@
falklands.gov.fk; telephone 020 7222 2542; fax 020 7222
2375.
Summer Fisheries Field Aid (temporary), University of
Illinois, Natural History Survey.
Salary: $ 9.00–10.00.
Responsibilities: Assist in research projects investigating
trophic links and recruitment dynamics of fish. Help
with field sampling, sample processing, data entry, and
maintenance of field equipment.
Start date: 1 May 2001 or after.
Qualifications: Working towards B.S. in fisheries, or
related field. Familiarity with small boats. Field sampling
and lab experience preferred. May work in unusual
weather, nights, or weekends. Swimming proficiency
desired.
Contact: Electronic applications required with letter of
application, resume, and names, addresses, and telephone
numbers of 3 references to Rebecca Redman, rredman@
illinois.edu. Direct technical questions to Redman or
Sergiusz Czesny, czesny@illinois.edu. See www.inhs.uiuc.
edu/staff/index.php?action=list&user_name=czesny and
www.inhs.uiuc.edu/fieldstations/lmbs/index.html.
Fish Wildlife Biologist, Montana Fish, Wildlife Parks,
Glendive.
Salary: Range is $34,456–43,070 per year depending
upon education and experience.
Responsibilities: Plan, design, conduct, and analyze
results of field investigations to characterize fish
populations and angler use throughout the lowerYellowstone River Drainage.
Qualifications: Must have demonstrated thorough
knowledge of fisheries biology and good understanding
of stream ecology, fish population dynamics, stream
mechanics, hydrology, watershed and riparian
management, and limnology.
Contact: See the complete vacancy announcement and
apply online at www.fwp.mt.gov, choose job openings
on right side of the page. An on-line Montana State
application must be submitted. For information call
406/444-1850.
Post Doctoral Research Associate (4-year term), Great
Lakes Fishery Commission-Hammond Bay Biological Station,
Rogers City and Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Salary: Approximately $45,000.
Responsibilities: Plan, lead, and conduct behavioral
ecology project on lake trout in Lake Huron. Coordinate
with state, federal, and tribal agencies to conduct field
work on spawning lake trout using acoustic telemetry near
Drummond Island refuge MPA . Incumbent required to
publish in scientific journals. 4-year term position.
Qualifications: Advanced background in ecology,
behavioral science, conservation, or related discipline;
interest in native species restoration and fishery
management; field experience with boats; excellent
communication skills. SCUBA preferred. Statistical
background essential.
Contact: E-mail application letter and C.V. to Charles C.
Krueger, Science Director, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
2100 Commonwealth Boulevard, Suite 100 Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48105-1563; ckrueger@glfc.org. See www.glfc.
org.
Ph.D. Graduate Assistantship, University of Maine,
School of Marine Sciences or Biology and Ecology.
Salary: $18,750 per year, 3 years, $1,100 health, tuition
waiver.
Closing: 1 May 2010.
Responsibilities: Develop a doctoral dissertation
surrounding the degree of demographic connectivity,
immigration and emigration, and correspondence similarity
or uniqueness of demographic parameters among coastal
populations of sturgeon in Maine. Work will include
conducting and coordinating projects on mark-recapture
and acoustic telemetry of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon,
development and implementation of novel approaches
e.g., DIDSON enumeration, elemental assays to provide
an integrative assessment of population biology and
conservation status.
Qualifications: M.S. in biology, fisheries, or equivalent.
Experience with boat operation, gillnetting, acoustic
telemetry, or mark-recapture desirable. Must have excellent
communication and quantitative skills. GPA of 3.0 and GRE
of 1100 verbal and quantitative .
Contact: Send CV, transcripts, GRE scores, and information
for three professional references to gayle_zydlewski@umit.
maine.edu and michael.kinnison@umit.maine.edu.
Ph.D. Graduate Research Assistantship, Mississippi
State University.
Salary: Stipend, plus tuition and health insurance fee
waivers.
Responsibilities: Conduct research examining the
environmental physiology and ecology of southeastern
fishes, such as paddlefish, euryhaline, or marine species.
Qualifications: Masters degree in fisheries, comparative
physiology, ecology, biology, or related field with
competitive GPA and GRE scores. Research experience
utilizing laboratory and field techniques as well as a
demonstrated publication record are preferred.
Expected start date: 1 August 2010.
Contact: Send a letter of interest to below e-mail, a
current CV/resume, GPA, GRE scores, names and contact
information for three references, and photocopies/scans of
transcripts to Assistant Professor Peter J. Allen, Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mississippi State
University; pallen@cfr.msstate.edu
Internship, Illinois Natural History Survey, Ridge Lake,
Charleston, Kaskaskia, Sullivan, and Sam Parr Biological
Stations, Kinmundy.
Salary: $1000 per month for 3 months, on-site housing
provided if needed. Internship can also be used to earn
university credits.
Responsibilities: Work summer or year round. Work
in the areas of aquatic ecology, fisheries management,
and aquaculture. Assist with field sampling, laboratory
experiments, and data processing and analysis. Internships
can be tailored to individual interests.
Qualifications: Candidates should be working toward
B.S. degree in fisheries, natural resources, biology, zoology,
or related fields. Individuals interested in continuing on
towards M.S. degrees or state or federal employment are
encouraged to apply.
Contact: Matt Diana, Ridge Lake and Kaskaskia Biological
Stations; mattd@illinois.edu; 217/728-4851. Or Michael
205
Nannini, Sam Parr Biological Station, mnannini@illinois.
edu, 618/245-6348.
M.S. or Ph.D. Graduate Assistantship, State University
of New York, College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology.
Salary: $18,000 per year, tuition waiver, housing available
during field season.
Closing: 31 May 2010 or until filled.
Responsibilities: Perform independent research on
coolwater fish habitat in the St. Lawrence River. Research
will involve an intense field and analytical effort, reporting
results in written reports and peer-reviewed publications,
and oral presentations at professional meetings.
Qualifications: B.S./M.S. in fisheries, aquatic sciences,
or related discipline. Quantitative fisheries or related
field and spatial database and survey skills are preferred.
Highly qualified individuals with strong GPA and GRE and
experience are encouraged to apply. Highly motivated
with demonstrated ability to work well in a team
environment.
Contact: Send application to John M. Farrell, Office of
Instruction Graduate Studies, SUNY-ESF One Forestry
Drive, 227 Bray Hall, Syracuse, NY 13210. See www.esf.
edu/graduate/admission.htm.
4
206
APRIL
F in din g S ol uti ons. D el i ver i n g Re sults.
Fish stock assessment and
It’s What You Can’t See That Can Make
movement patterns
the Difference.
Tracking systems designed by ATS play a key role assisting
environmental research professionals to gather accurate
and reliable aquatic research. To learn more about how
our systems will benefit your next project, contact an ATS
representative today.
TRAN S M IT TE R S
R ECE IVE R S
G P S SYSTE M S
ANTE N NAS
C ODE D I D SYSTE M S
C ON S U LTI NG
WWW.ATSTRACK.COM
MINNESOTA. 763-444-9267
SALES@ATSTRACK.COM
Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc.
207
208

FISH HABITAT - American Fisheries Society

Transcription

Similar documents

Fishful Thinking: Rhetoric, Reality, and the Sea Before Us

Issue 3 - June 7, 2008

BioREGIO Carpathians Work package 4: DEVELOPMENT

Eagle Product Catalogue 2008

Restaurering av Testeboån för vandrande fiskarter

7 th Conference, Vina del Mar, Chile, 2013

my. camera di commercio italia myanmar

Bleeding the Oceans Dry

Fall 2009 The Official Publication of the California Deer Association

crab fisheries in cambodia and the development of crab banks

Photoinhibition – a historical perspective

Designing a Rabbit Habitat

the Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River

Complexing Agents

2015 Master Plan - Escambia County