4.1 Article

Turbidity tolerances of great lakes coastal wetland fishes

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1577/M05-219.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite recent interest in assessing the condition of fish assemblages in Great Lakes coastal wetlands and a concern for increasing turbidity as a major stressor pathway influencing these ecosystems, there is little information on fish tolerance or intolerance to turbidity on which to base wetland assessment metrics. Existing studies have borrowed tolerance designations from the stream literature, but they have not confirmed that the designations apply to Great Lakes wetlands or that designations based on tolerance to degradation in general apply to turbidity in particular. We used a published graphical method to determine turbidity tolerances of Great Lakes fishes based on their pattern of occurrence and relative abundance across coastal wetlands spanning a turbidity gradient. Fish composition data were obtained from fyke-net and electrofishing surveys of 75 wetlands along the U.S. shoreline of the Laurentian Great Lakes, representing a turbidity range of approximately 0-110 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Turbidity levels of 10, 25, and 50 NTU (corresponding to the thresholds in use for state water quality criteria) were used to separate fish into tolerance classes. We found that the turbidity tolerances of many species in Great Lakes wetlands differed from the published tolerances to general degradation in streams. Also, the tolerance levels for many species were unclear owing to the species' infrequent occurrence. Although many of the wetlands sampled had quite low urbidity, a large proportion of the fish species were tolerant or moderately tolerant to turbidity and very few were intolerant, suggesting that enumerating intolerant species may not be a useful metric or that the metric should be expanded to include moderately intolerant species. Our study lays the foundation for additional turbidity indicator development efforts for Great Lakes coastal wetlands.

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

4.1
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