4.6 Article

Dispersal limitations on fish community recovery following long-term water quality remediation

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 771, 期 1, 页码 45-65

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-015-2612-7

关键词

Stream fragmentation; Restoration ecology; Culvert; Fish passage; Habitat patches; Connectivity

资金

  1. ORNL Environmental Protection Services Division's Water Quality Programs
  2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, UT-Battelle, LLC [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  3. Department of Energy
  4. DOE Public Access Plan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In-stream barriers may impose constraints on the ecological effectiveness of restoration strategies by limiting colonization. We assessed the importance of dispersal limitations to fish community recovery following long-term pollution abatement, water quality remediation, and species introductions within the White Oak Creek watershed near Oak Ridge, Tennessee (USA). Long-term (26 years) responses in fish species richness, biomass, and community composition to water quality remediation were evaluated in light of physical barriers (culverts and weirs). We found that barriers to dispersal were potentially limiting fish community recovery by preventing colonization by introduced species and seasonal migrants. Changes in richness were negatively related to barrier index, a measure of the degree of isolation by barriers. Following introductions, upstream passage for six fish species above non-passable barriers was not observed. Highly isolated sites were dominated by a few equilibrium species, whereas less isolated sites showed more variation in life history strategies with increasing periodic and opportunistic strategists. The importance of barriers on community dynamics decreased over time-an indication of increasing community stability, homogenization of fauna, and improved water quality. However, isolating the role of dispersal limitation was complicated by multiple interacting stressors, such as the compounding effects of barriers and pervasive water quality conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据