:: Volume 7, Issue 3 (Autumn 98 2019) ::
JAIR 2019, 7(3): 17-30 Back to browse issues page
Influence of Stream channel morphology and in-stream habitats on fish community in Golestan province Streams
Abdolazim Fazel Mr *, Rasul Ghorbani Dr, Abdolreza Bahremand Dr, Abdolrasul Salman mahini Dr
Abstract:   (685 Views)
Four streams with different sizes were selected for studying the effects of environmental factors on fish assemblages using indirect (Detrended Correspondence Analysis, DCA) and direct (Redundancy Analysis, RDA) gradient analysis in Golestan province. DCA of presence-absence and relative abundance data showed well gradient and linear model of species variability. In the within-site RDA, environmental factors explained 74.8 % variability for presence–absence data and 77.5% for the relative abundance data. Evaluation of two first axis of RDA showed that first axis has a high correlation with habitat characteristics and second axis correlated with channel morphology attributes. Based on RDA diagrams, Paracobitis malapterura and Capoeta capoeta gracilis presented in Zaringol and Tilabad Streams and had a high correlation with percent of in-stream vegetation and percent of cobble in first axis and low flow mean depth and low flow width in second axis. While Alburnoides bipunctatus and Neogobius fluviatilis had high correlation with percent of snag, pool and sand within streams. It should be stated that factors such as the size of the catchment, hydrographical and geomorphological characteristics, and land use change the morphology and stream habitats, and ultimately lead to the removal of some species in adjacent streams.
Keywords: channel morphology characteristics, habitat attributes, detrended correspondence analysis, redundancy analysis
Full-Text [PDF 321 kb]   (118 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2017/08/29 | Accepted: 2019/08/26 | Published: 2019/10/12
1. Bagenal T.B., Tesch F.W. 1978. Age and growth. In; Bagenal TB (Eds.). Methods for assessment of fish production in freshwater. Third edition. Blackwell scientific publication, London, UK, pp: 101-136.
2. Baker J.A., Ross S.T. 1981. Spatial and temporal resource utilization by southeastern cyprinids. Copeia, 1: 178-189.
3. Gorman O.T., Karr J.R. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology, 59: 507-515.
4. Growns I., Gehrke P.C., Astles K.L., Pollard D.A. 2003. A comparison of fish assemblages associated with different riparian vegetation types in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 10: 209-220.
5. Guisan A., Thuiller W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters, 8: 993-1009.
6. Humpl M., Pivnicka K. 2006. Fish assemblages as influenced by environmental factors in streams in protected areas of the Czech Republic. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 15: 96-103.
7. Infante D.M. 2001. The effect of channel shape on fish assemblage structure. MSc Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
8. Infante D.M., Wiley M.J., Seelbach P.W. 2006. Relationships among channel shape, catchment characteristics, and fish in Lower Michigan streams. In American Fisheries Society Symposium, 48: 339-357.
9. Jutagate S., De Silva S., Matton N. 2003. Production, growth and Mortality of Clupeichtys aearnensis in Sirinthorn Reservoirs. Thailand Journal of Fisheries Management and Ecology, 10: 221-231.
10. Karr J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1: 66-84.
11. Kennard M.J., Pusey J.B., Arthington A.H., Harch B.D., Mackay S.J. 2006. Development and application of a predictive model of freshwater fish composition to evaluate river health in eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia, 572: 33-57.
12. Lamouroux N., Cattane´o F. 2006. Fish assemblages and Stream hydraulics: consistent relations across spatial scales and regions. River Research and Applications, 22: 727-737.
13. Lappaleinen J., Soininen J. 2006. Latitudinal gradients in Niche bread than deposition–regional patterns in freshwater fish. The Science of Nature, 93: 246-250.
14. Marchetti M.P., Moyle P.B. 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications, 11: 530-539.
15. Maridet L., Wasson J.G., Philippe M., Amoros C., Naiman R.J. 1998. Trophic structure of three streams with contrasting riparian vegetation and geomorphology. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 144(1): 61-85.
16. Matthews W.J., Hough D.J., Robison H.W. 1992. Similarities in fish distribution and water quality patterns in streams of Arkansas: congruence of multivariate analyses. Copeia, 2: 296-305.
17. Meffe G.K., Sheldon A.L. 1988. The influence of habitat structure on fish assemblage composition in southeastern black water streams. American Midland Naturalist, 120: 225-240.
18. Mendelson J. 1975. Feeding relationships among species of Notropis (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in a Wisconsin stream. Ecological Monographs, 45: 199-230.
19. Oberdorff T., Pont D., Hugueny B., Chessel D. 2001. A probabilistic model characterizing fish assemblages of French rivers: a framework for environmental assessment. Freshwater Biology, 46: 399-415.
20. Rakocinski C. 1988. Population structure of stream-dwelling darters: correspondence with habitat structure. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 23: 215-224.
21. Schlosser I.J. 1985. Flow regime, juvenile abundance, and the assemblage structure of stream fishes. Ecology, 66: 1484-1490.
22. Schlosser I.J., Ebel K.K. 1989. Effects of flow regime and cyprinid predation on a headwater stream. Ecological Monographs, 59: 41-57.
23. Simonson T.D., Lyons J., Kanehl P.D. 1994. Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin streams. General Technical Report NC-164, U.S. Forest Service, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. 40P.
24. Taylor C.M., Winston M.R., Matthews W.J. 1993. Fish species-environment and abundance relationship sina Great Plains river system. Echography, 16: 16-23.

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Volume 7, Issue 3 (Autumn 98 2019) Back to browse issues page