Aug 11, 1994 - Calapooia sites, A= Luckiamute/Marys sites, X = Southern sites. (Amazon creek, Spoon ..... Percopsis traflsmOfltana. Western brook lamprey.
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Randall William Colvin for the degree of Master of Science in Fisheries Science presented on May 4, 2005. Title: Fish and Amphibian Use of Intermittent Streams within the Upper Willamette Basin, Oregon.
Abstract approved:
Redacted for privacy Guillermo R. Giannico
In the fall through spring of 2002/03 and 2003/04, the composition of
fish and amphibian communities were examined in intermittent streams in the upper Willamette river basin in western Oregon. I recorded standard aquatic habitat variables and water nutrient concentrations (nitrate and phosphate) and correlated them with fish and amphibian communities
present. Fish and amphibian communities were also compared between seasons (winter and spring), capture method (minnowtrap and backpack electrofishing) and channel morphology (incised and gently sloping
channels). Fish were tagged with visual implant elastomer to assess movement and distribution. Fourteen species of fish and five species of amphibians were present in these habitats over two field seasons. Fish and
amphibian species composition and abundance was correlated with characteristics of the upper Willamette basin. The regional characteristics
associated with the differences were a) the amount of the watershed covered in forest and b) upstream slope; whereas mean maximum water velocity
separated fish dominated communities from amphibian dominated
communities. Approximately 99% of fish and amphibian species caught were native to the Willamette river basin and the number of fish species
decreased as the sampling distance from perennial water increased. Significant differences were found in fish and amphibian community
composition between winter and spring and between capture methods. Surface/mid-water feeding fish were more abundant in gently sloping channels than benthic feeding fishes. Only 2.6% of the 498 tagged fish were
recaptured between December and April. In the fall through spring 2003/04, the composition of fish
communities and their invertebrate diets were compared between 12 sites on four intermittent streams. The distance between consecutive sites was approximately 900 to 1500-rn. Two intermittent streams had incised
channels, confining high flows to a narrow channel. The remaining two streams had gently sloping channels, where flood waters had access to the
floodplain. Two hundred and thirty individual diets were sampled from cutthroat trout, northern pikeminnow, redside shiner, sculpin, speckled dace, threespine stickleback in both winter and spring. About 60% of the stomach samples contained invertebrates and approximately 90% of them
were aquatic species. There was a significant difference in the numbers of invertebrates consumed by redside shiners, sculpins and speckled dace. These three fish species fed most often on benthic invertebrates compared to
surf ace/midwater invertebrates, but only sculpins and redside shiners were
significantly different. However, the proportions of benthic and surface/midwater invertebrates in the diet of these fish species were not significantly different between seasons or channel types.
This thesis inventories fish and amphibian species found in
intermittent stream habitats of the upper Willamette basin, and identifies the main habitat features that influence the distribution of those species. It also examines the diet composition of a subset of widely distributed fish species.
The findings of this study can be used to understand how land uses, such as grass seed agriculture, affect intermittent streams, and to design future studies on the effectiveness of habitat enhancement conservation practices
(such as grassed waterways, residue management, filter strips, streambank protection, etc.) to improve and/or protect these important seasonal habitats in the upper Willamette basin.
Fish and Amphibian Use of Intermittent Streams Within the Upper Willamette Basin, Oregon by Randall William Colvin
A THESIS
submitted to Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
Presented May 4, 2005 Commencement June 2006
Master of Science thesis of Randall William Colvin presented on May 4, 2005.
APPROVED:
Redacted for privacy Major Professor, representing Fisheries Science
Redacted for privacy the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Redacted for privacy Dean of the G'a.'"e School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request.
Redacted for privacy Randall William Colvin, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Guillermo Giannico and Dr. Judith Li, for
being supportive and providing crucial motivation in this endeavor. Guillermo and Judy were always available to discuss problems and ideas with my research as they tirelessly edited my thesis to produce a coherent
document. I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students in the Stream Team Lab as the discussions and dialogue provided new insights which helped me finish this project. I would also like to give a special
thanks to all of my friends and student workers who volunteered to help me in the field and in the lab. (Steve Borrego, Abel Brumo, Alan Bruner,
Brandon Eliason, Charles Frady, Lyndsay Frady, Gene Hoilman, Seth Jones, Sue Reithel, Jeremy Romer, Jessica Rubado, Matthew Schuman, David Tarries, Kate Wright and certainly not last for least: Lance Wyss)
This research was supported by various sources including funds provided to Guillermo Giannico by the Oregon State University Fish and Wildlife Department, and grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Agricultural Research Service, and
the Oregon Seed Council. The author would also like to thank Bill Gerth, Kathy Boyer, Jeff Steiner, Bill Gavin, and Jim Wigington who have served as
field assistants and advisors for this research project and without their guidance this work would not have been possible. Thanks to Machelle
Nelson and her lab for analyzing our water samples. The author is especially grateful to the grass seed farmers and land owners: Jim Buckovic, Art Carmean, Davis Farms, Darrel, Dennis, Brian and Ryan Glaser, Louis
Hamilton, Hayworth Farms, Tom Hunton, John Kennel, Kizer Farms, Edgar
Lafayette, Patrick Manning, Roger Olsen, Harry Stalford, Dean Schrock,
Don Wirth and Norm Younger; who allowed access to their land and who provide important habitat for aquatic species.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
I
Goals and Objectives
4
Study Area
5
CHAPTER 2. FISH AND AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO HABITAT FEATURES IN INTERMITTENT STREAMS IN THE UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OR
13
Introduction
13
Methods
15
Results
33
Discussion
50
CHAPTER 3. DIET OF FISH IN INTERMITTENT STREAMS WITHIN THE UPPER WILLAMETTE BASIN, OR
57
Introduction
57
Methods
60
Results....
66
Discussion
74
CHAP'! ER 4. CONCLUSIONS
Management Implications
79 ..
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
82
APPENDIX
91
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 The six sub-watersheds of the upper Willamette basin. (Department of Geography, University of Oregon) 1.2
2.1
Page
9
A. Hydrographs, created by pressure transducer data, indicating the stage of two intermittent streams: (Lake creek in 2002/03) and (Plainview creek in 2003/04) in the Calapooia river basin over two years. B. Hydrographs indicating the discharge of Pudding creek a perennial stream in the upper Willamette Valley in (2002/03)and (2003/04) (USGS water resources).
12
Maps showing the Willamette River basin within Oregon, USA, and the upper Willamette River basin within the Willamette Valley
16
2.2 Map showing the upper Willamette river basin, and its tributary sub-watersheds. Highlighted ovals represent the 22 study sites in 2002/03
17
2.3 Map showing two sub-watersheds: Luckiamute and Calapooia rivers. Highlighted sections represent the 12 study sites in 2003/04
18
2.4 Top view indicating transects and sampling points taken for local habitat characteristics in 2002/03. The dashed line indicates the transect used for habitat measurements in 2003/04
23
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 2.5 Fish species richness for each site, with increasing distance from perennial water (A, B, C) in intermittent streams in
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2003/04
34
Joint plots (r = 0.2) of physical habitat characteristics and the fish and amphibian species data separated by A. region: A = Calapooia sites, A= Luckiamute/Marys sites, X = Southern sites (Amazon creek, Spoon Creek). B. season: = Winter samples, = Spring samples
0
39
Overlays of the abundance of selected species and their distribution in the upper Willamette basin. A. Reticulate sculpin. B. Threespine stickleback. A= Càlapooia sites, A= Luckiamute/Marys sites, X = Southern sites (Amazon creek, Spoon Creek)
40
Overlays of the abundance of selected species and their distribution related to season. A. Salamander/newt larvae B. Redside Shiner. = Winter sample units, 0 = Spring sample units
41
Joint plot (r = .2) of physical habitat characteristics and the fish and amphibian species data separated by season:S = Winter sample units, = Spring sample units
42
0
2.10 Overlays of the abundance of selected fish and amphibian species. A. Pacific Treefrog. B. Redside Shiner. = Winter sample units, = Spring sample units
0
2.11
2.12
44
The abundance of benthic and surface/mid-water feeding fish in 1. gently sloping channels and 2. incised channels
48
Size-frequency histogram of threespine stickleback found in intermittent streams in the Calapooia river drainage, which is split apart by season in 2003/04. *Note the spike of YOY (young of year) in spring
49
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure 3.1 The six sub-watersheds of the upper Willamette basin. (Department of Geography, University of Oregon) 3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Page
60
Map showing the two study sub-basins (Luckiamute and Calapooia). Highlighted sections represent the 12 sampling sites. Tributary to Butte Creek and Plainview Creek are gently sloping streams and Tributary to Luckiamute and Ridge Road Creek are incised
62
A. Schematic representation of an incised channel (no access to floodplain during elevated flow) and; B. Gently sloping channel (flood waters have access to floodplain)
63
Relative proportions of invertebrates in the diet of (A) Redside shiner, (B) Sculpin (C) Speckled Dace and (D) Threespine stickleback. The "Combined" category, in A, includes (Aquatic Beetles and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in B, includes (Snails, Terrestrial Inverts and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in C, includes (Aquatic Beetles, Snails, Terrestrial Inverts, Trichoptera and Unidentified Inverts). (D) Represents three dissected threespine stickleback stomachs. (N) Represents the number of stomachs sampled
66
Proportion of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates found in the stomachs of (A) redside shiner (B) sculpin and (C) speckled dace in intermittent streams in 2003/04. N represents the number of fish with invertebrates in their stomachs
68
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 3.6 Proportion of cyclopoid copepods found in the stomach contents of fish in all drainages in 2003/04. (1) Trib to Butte and (2) Plainview Creek are gently sloping channels, while (3) Ridge Road Creek and (4) Trib to Luckiamute are incised channels 69 3.7
3.8
Relative abundance of invertebrate categories found in different channel types and season in the stomachs of (A) redside shiner and (B) sculpin and (C) dace in intermittent streams in 2003/04. N represents the number of fish. (1)Trib to Butte and (2) Plainview Creek have gently sloping channels, while (3) Trib to Luckiamute and (4) Ridge Road Creek are incised. = Benthic invertebrates, = Surface/Midwater invertebrates
70
Invertebrate abundance, in 2003/04, in the diet of (A) redside shiner, (B) sculpin and (C) speckled dace in different channel types and seasons. "N" represents number of fish in each category. (1)Trib to Butte and (2) Plainview Creek are gently sloping channels, while (3) Trib to Luckiamute and (4) Ridge Road Creek are incised channels. 6 = All Stomachs, = Only Stomachs with Invertebrates
72
LIST OF TABLES Tables 1.1 Amphibian species found in the Willamette valley (The USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center) 1.2
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
6
Fish species found in the Willamette valley (Hulse et al. 2002)
2.1
Page
7
Fifty one surveyed sites grouped using cluster analysis (Sorenson's similarity; group average linkage). B. Sub-set of 30 "Grass sites" from initial set of 41 sites (those with WS area < 1km2 and > 10% urban land-use were deleted) grouped using cluster analysis (Sorenson's similarity; group average linkage). All factors listed were used in cluster analysis
19
Local and broadscale habitat variables measured in the upper Willamette basin. Asterisk denotes measurement taken only in field season 2002/03. Double asterisk denotes measurement only taken in 2003/04. 1A number one denotes variables used in Multiple Linear Regression
22
Fish and amphibian species captured in intermittent streams during 2002/03 and 2003/04, ordered by decreasing relative abundance
34
Top ten competing models for the AICc analysis for both species richness and abundance of fish and amphibians in intermittent streams
36
NMS ordination criteria before and after adjusting for the loss of 23 sample units and using data transformations. The initial and adjusted raw data represent the scores without transforming the data
38
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Tables 2.6 Pearson correlation coefficients for individual fish and amphibian taxa and environmental variables (log x+1
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
Page
transformed data and relativization by species totals). Variables with the highest correlations (r> 0.5) are highlighted. Axes 1 and 3 explain 47% and 34% of the variation of community dissimilarity, respectively
39
NMS ordination criteria after adjusting to the loss of 2 sample units and using data transformations
42
Pearson correlation coefficients for individual fish and amphibian taxa and environmental variables (log x+1 transformed data). Variables with the highest correlations (r> 0.4) are highlighted. Axes 1 and 2 explain 48.2% and 42.7% of the variation of assemblage dissimilarity, respectively
43
Multi-response permutation procedure analysis that compared fish and amphibian communities in 2002/03 and 2003/04 between A. Season and B. Capture Method
45
Indicator species analysis for species caught in winter or spring A. field season 2002/03 and B. field season 2003/04. Highlighted p-values represent species that are significant (p-value .6-m) to be effective. In May, backpack electrofishing
was used at each location to determine trap efficiency (Price, 1981; Bayley
and Peterson, 2001). Backpack electrofishing consisted of one pass through the 100-rn reach during which all fish and amphibians were collected and identified by species (Bayley and Peterson, 2001).
Food Availability To assess the availability of prey items for fish, I examined drift and
benthic invertebrate samples once at each of the study streams in field season 2002/03. Invertebrate drift was collected using drift nets with a 30 cm x 30 cm x 61 cm long conical bag with a 250tm mesh. Three of these
nets were placed next to each other across the channel. Deeper sites required nets to be stacked on top of each other to sample the entire water
column. Drift invertebrate density was measured at 15 minute intervals,
and drift nets were staggered randomly through the sampling reach. I also collected benthic invertebrates using surber samplers (0.1m2) at four
random locations within each reach. These were taken after drift samples,
to avoid dislodging invertebrates from the substrate. Invertebrate samples were processed through a 250tim sieve and stored in 95% ethanol. All samples from each site were combined and sub-sampled. At least 500 organisms were counted for each site (Vinson and Hawkins,
1998). All invertebrates in each sub-sample were identified and counted
65
using a dissecting microscope. Most invertebrates were identified to the genus level, except for chironomid and ceratopogonid midges that were identified to subfamily or tribe and blackflies that were identified to
family. Invertebrates that were too immature or damaged from sampling to be identified to genus (or subfamily/tribe) were identified to the finest
degree possible. Non-insects were identified to varying levels of taxonomic resolution, from phylum to family depending on the taxon. Densities were calculated for each species at each site for both benthic and
drift samples. To generalize invertebrate availability appropriate to habitat in these intermittent streams, I classified each of the invertebrates
according to where in the water column the organisms were found a) surface/mid-water and b) benthos.
Statistical Analysis Stomach contents A single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for
differences in abundance and type of invertebrates in the diet of each selected fish species between the two seasons and two channel morphologies (S-Plus version 6.1; Insightful Corp.)
Food Availability A single factor ANOVA was used to test for differences in the
benthic and drift densities of organisms found in gently sloping channels compared to incised channels.
66
RESULTS A total of 230 fish were sampled for stomach contents from January to April 2004. Approximately 38% (73) of the stomachs did not contain any
invertebrates. The dominant taxa in the sampled stomachs included macrocrustaceans (amphipods and isopods) microcrustaceans (copepods, ostracods and plankton), midges (chironomids and blackflies) and worms (oligochaetes and leeches) (Figure 3.4.) A.
N = 49
B. Colteerbole
U
Macrocrustaceans Microcrustaceans
LI
Mdges
if
Terrestrial Insects
N = 44 Aquatic Beeties Collembole Macrocrustaceans
Snails
.iI.'
Trichoptera
Worms
Combined
Combined
c.
zzZ: N=22 Collern bole
Macrocrustaceans Microcrostaceans
jj
Macrocrustaceans Microcruslaceens M,dges
Worms Combined
Figure 3.4 Relative proportions of invertebrates in the diet of (A) Redside shiner, (B) Sculpin (C) Speckled Dace and (D) Threespine stickleback. The "Combined" category, in A, includes (Aquatic Beetles and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in B, includes (Snails, Terrestrial Inverts and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in C, includes (Aquatic Beetles, Snails, Terrestrial Inverts, Trichoptera and Unidentified Inverts). (D) Represents three dissected threespine stickleback stomachs. (N) Represents the number of stomachs sampled.
67
Terrestrial invertebrates The number of aquatic invertebrates was greater than the number of terrestrial invertebrates in the diet of sampled fish. Of the 1209 invertebrates obtained from fish stomachs, only 43 were of terrestrial
origin. In the analysis of the individual fish species, redside shiners, sculpins, and speckled dace all had significantly higher proportions of aquatic invertebrates in their diets (Figure 3.5). Terrestrial invertebrates
included: water surface dwelling collembolans, adult aquatic invertebrates (Dipterans), and adult terrestrial invertebrates (Homoptera, Hymenoptera); the aquatic portion included: microcrustaceans (copepods and ostracods), macrocrustaceans (isopods and amphipods), larval midges (chironomidae and simuliidae) and worms (oligochaetes and leeches).
Stomach Contents Stomach contents revealed that fish ate more invertebrates were
consumed in the spring (35%) and in the intermittent streams that had gently sloping banks (47%) (Table 3.1). However, these differences were
not statistically significant. One of the intermittent streams (Tributary to Butte creek) was causing most of the variability. The fish found in this
intermittent stream consumed more invertebrates and they were threequarters copepods in contrast to the other streams (Figure 3.6)
68
A.1.00
N = 50
0.80
0.60
..
-o
0.40
0.20
0.00
B.i.00
.E
0
N =54
0.60
0.40 0.20
0. ._
0.00
0. C too a)
N = 25
> 0.80
a) 0.60
0.40 0.20
0.00
Terrestrial Aquatic Figure 3.5. Proportions of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates found in the stomachs of (A) redside shiner (B) sculpin and (C) speckled dace in intermittent streams in 2003/04. (N) represents the number of fish with invertebrates in their stomachs. Table 3.1. A summary of invertebrate abundance in the diet of fish sampled. Drainages TribtoButte Plainview Ridge Road
Trib to Luckiamute TOTALS
# Inverts in Stomach 795 122 89 203 1209
# Spring
716 74 67 98 955
# Winter 79
48 22 105 254
Incised NO NO
YES YES
69
N=40
N=48
N=22
N=67
Other invertebrates
100%
Cyclopoid copepods
80%
a 60%0 I..
a.
VP
40%-
a)
a 20%0%
.4 1
2
3
4
Figure 3.6. Proportion of cyclopoid copepods found in the stomach contents of fish in all streams in 2003/04. (1) Trib to Butte and (2) Plainview Creek are gently sloping channels, while (3) Ridge Road Creek and (4) Trib to Luckiamute are incised channels. The proportion of benthic organisms found in the diet of redside shiners, sculpins and speckled dace was higher than surface/mid-water organisms at the alpha = .10 level (p-value: 0.09, F1,88 = 2.84; p-value < 0.05, Fi,
69
= 30.7 and p-value: 0.06, Fi, 50 = 3.59, respectively) (Figure 3.7). The
benthic organisms that were consumed by these species included chironomid midges, oligochaete worms, and macrocrustaceans.
Microcrustaceans, collembolans and adult dipterans were consumed as
surface/midwater taxa. The relative abundance of benthic and surface/mid-water organisms consumed by redside shiners did not change between channel types or seasons (Figure 3.7; Table 3.2). However, the
relative abundance of benthic organisms in the diet of sculpin was higher in incised channels than gently sloping channels, but did not significantly differ between seasons (Figure 3.7; Table 3.2). The relative abundance of
benthic and mid-water organisms in the diet of speckled dace was highly variable and did not change between channel types and season (Figure 3.7; Table 3.2).
70
A.
too
A
1.00
0.80 000
0.60
+
0.40
(5
I0 0)
0.20
(5 (5
0,00
N.10
N.l9
N.17
8.5 0.00
4.00
B.
.
N-14
N .37
1.00
B 0.80
6) C)
>
0.60
0
0.40
C)
U
0.20
(5
0
0,00
(5 6)
NS13
N.23
8.25
N.6
0.00
c
4.00
4.00
0,00-
0.80
0,60'
0.60
040
0.40
020
020'
0.00
N3
N4 2
8=10
85
3
4
+
N 22
0.00
Winter
Spring
Figure 3.7. Relative abundance of prey found in different channel types and season in the stomachs of (A) redside shiner and (B) sculpin and (C) dace in intermittent streams in 2003/04. N represents the number of fish. (1)Trib to Butte and (2) Plainview Creek have gently sloping channels, while (3) Trib to Luckiamute and (4) Ridge Road Creek are incised. = Benthic invertebrates, K = Surface/Midwater invertebrates.
71
Table 3.2. A summary of the ANOVA comparisons between season and channel type of the proportion of benthic compared to surface/midwater prey found in the diet of selected fish species. * significantly more benthic prey A.
Fish
Season
F-Value
p-value
Winter Redside Shiner
Fi.
= 0.12
0.72
Fi
= 0.55
0.45
Ft.24 = 0.14
0.39
F-Value
p-value
Spring
Winter Sculpin Spring
Winter Speckled Dace Spring
B.
Fish
Channel Type Incised
Redside Shiner
F149 = 0.76
0.38
Fi,s = 6.75
0.01
F,.24 = 0.16
0.69
Gently Sloping Incised Sculpin
Gently Sloping Incised
Speckled Dace Gently Sloping
The numbers and composition of invertebrates in the diet of the three fish species (redside shiner, sculpin and speckled dace) were significantly different (Figure 3.8). However, differences in invertebrate abundance in the diet were not significant between seasons for any fish
species. Though, the number of prey did not significantly change between the channel types for redside shiners or sculpin (Figure 3.8; Table 3.3).,
speckled dace had significantly more invertebrates in their diet in gently sloping channels than in incised channels (Figure 3.8; Table 3.3).
72
A.
C)
2.40
N=12
N=18
N=20
A.
P4=7
2.00
1.00
1.60
0.80
1.20 -
0.60
N=39
N=18
0.40
:::h1
C.)
0.20
C
N29 N=12
P4=27
P4=13
P4=27
N=24
N= 10
N=5
2.00
-0B
N = 55
1.40
N=42
N =38
N=2
1.20
0.80
(1)
1.20
0.00
1.00
-tU)
.1.60
C
1.20
0.60 0.80
0.40
+
x
-j0
4
0.40
N=14
N=15
N=32
N=6
+
0.20
0.00
0.00
C 2.40-
=3
P4=5
N=10
N=8
C.
1.20
2.00
1.00
1.60
0.80
1.20
0.60
0.80
0.40
040 000
N=16 N=1O
N=51
N=17
4
0.20
N=3
N
P4=9
10
N = 35
1
2
3
4
0.00
N=15
Winter
N=43
Spring
Figure 3.8. Invertebrate abundance, in 2003/04, in the diet of (A) redside shiner, (B) sculpin and (C) speckled dace in different channel types and seasons. "N" represents number of fish in each category. (1)Trib to Butte and (2) Plainview Creek are gently sloping channels, while (3) Trib to Luckiamute and (4) Ridge Road Creek are incised channels. 4 = All Stomachs, K = Only Stomachs with Invertebrates.
73
Table 3.3. A summary of the ANOVA comparisons between season and channel type of the amount of prey in the diet of selected fish species. * significantly more prey
A.
Fish
Season
F-Value
p-value
Winter Redside Shiner
F1,91 = 0.80
0.373
Fi,ee = 0.04
0.597
F1.55 = 0.28
0.832
Spring
Winter Sculpin Spring
Winter Speckled Dace Spring
Fish
Channel Type
F-Value p-value
Incised
Redside Shiner
Fi,gi = 3.33
0.07
Fi.=0.11
0.741
F155 = 6.66
0.01
Gently Sloping Incised Sculpin
Gently Sloping Incised
Speckled Dace Gently Sloping*
Food Availability Invertebrate densities varied widely between sites, with significantly more invertebrates in the Tributary to Butte Creek and
Plainview Creek benthos than Ridge Road Creek and Tributary to Luckiamute (p-value 0.03, Fi, 65=0.77) (Table 3.4). Tributary to Butte and
Plainview Creek have gently sloping channel morphologies while Ridge
Road Creek and Tributary to Luckiamute are incised. Drift invertebrate density was highly variable and did not significantly differ between incised and gently sloping channels (p-value 0.90, Fi, 95 = 0.01).
74
Table 3.4. Invertebrate densities of four sites in spring 2002. CHANNEL TYPE
Gently Sloping Channel Incised Channel
Drainage
Trib to Butte Creek (Calapooia) Plainview Creek (Calapooia) Ridge Road Creek (Calapooia) Tnb to Luckiamute River
Invertebrate
Benthic Invertebrate
Drift Density (#1m3)
Density (mm2)
3813.53 14.83 124.34 25.53
13847.43 1503.70 212.96 1251.61
DISCUSSION As in previous studies of intermittent streams, my results reveal
that fish found in intermittent streams in the agricultural lowlands between early winter and spring feed on a variety of invertebrate species (Ribiero et aL, 2004; Sommer et al., 2001; McMahon and Hartman, 1988).
The fish in these upper Willamette intermittent streams are consuming a higher proportion of aquatic invertebrates than terrestrial invertebrates. Similarly, Sommer et al., (2001b) found that juvenile chinook salmon in
California did not consume high proportion of terrestrial invertebrates in floodplain connected systems. This is not what would be expected
according to the floodplain literature. An important tenant of the "Flood Pulse Concept" is that extensive interactions of fish with the terrestrial ecosystem results in a high incidence of terrestrial food items in their diet (Junk et al., 1989; Tockner et al., 2000). In upper Willamette floodplains,
intermittent stream habitats function somewhat differently; tributaries interact with the terrestrial ecosystem much like perennial streams. The terrestrial interaction may be limited to only a few flooding events.
However, terrestrial invertebrates in the drift demonstrated their potential as food for fish in these intermittent habitats. In Ridge Road Creek, 85% of
the drift consisted of surface-dwelling collembolans (terrestrial
75
invertebrates), but fish did not consume these small terrestrial invertebrates. Varying degrees of planktonic microcrustaceans (copepods, ostracods) were consumed, which are roughly the same size, thus prey size was most likely not a limitation.
In my study an overall higher proportion of benthic invertebrates compared to surface/midwater organisms were eaten by redside shiners, sculpin and speckled dace regardless of season or channel morphology. Sculpin morphology and benthic feeding habits may explain the differences in diet between those two channel types (Bateman and Li, 2001; Bond 1973). Plankton, adult aquatic and terrestrial dipterans
(surf ace/midwater) are generally low in caloric content compared to
chironomid larvae, oligochaetes and isopods (benthos) (Sommer et al. 2001). Higher caloric benthic food in the winter diet of fish utilizing
floodplain habitats has also been documented in studies from California.
That particular study reported that juvenile chinook residing in floodplain inundated systems consumed more chironomid larvae than in the associated stream residing chinook, which ate more copepods (Sommer et al., 2001b). Similarly fish residing in upper Willamette floodplain habitats are feeding on a higher proportion of benthic invertebrates (high caloric content) compared to surf ace/midwater invertebrates (low caloric content).
Furthermore, a small experiment done in an artificial stream aquarium,
involving the use of redside shiners from my study sites, documented that they rarely fed on the surface and fed more often on the bottom (Jed Kaul, Cohn Reardon, Carina Rosterolla and Lance Wyss, 2004, Personal
Communication).
In my research the number of invertebrates in the diet was significantly different between redside shiners, sculpins and speckled dace.
76
Each fish species has specific feeding behaviors that may explain the
differences in stomach contents. Sculpins and dace generally feed off the
substrate and emergent vegetation while past research suggests redside shiners typically feed on the drift (Bateman and Li, 2001; Coad et al. 1995;
Reeves et al. 1987). Prey availability may also influence fish diets. The
numbers of invertebrates in the diet of redside shiner and sculpins did not significantly change between seasons or channel morphology. However, speckled dace had significantly more invertebrates in their stomachs in gently sloping channels than incised channels. This may be due to a function of low sample size, as only three speckled dace stomachs were
analyzed in tributary to Butte Creek. The food availability data suggests that gently sloping channels had significantly more benthic invertebrates than incised channels and those three speckled dace stomachs had over 100 organisms in them. The number of invertebrates in the stomachs of fish may not be related to channel morphology or season but may be due to other factors, such as length of time invertebrates were in the stomachs of
fish. Some invertebrate are digested quicker than others and this is directly related to water temperature and the type of invertebrate. Compared to the relatively constant numbers of invertebrates found
in the diet of fish, the numbers and type of invertebrates found in upper Willamette basin intermittent habitats were highly variable. In Tributary to Butte Creek, the invertebrate densities were higher in the drift and
significantly higher in the benthos than in the other streams. Further examination of tributary to Butte creek showed that a sewage treatment
pond was present upstream adjacent to the channel. It is possible that invertebrates from that pond entered the stream during high flow events; this could explain the abundance of microcrustaceans (copepods) in the
77
drift and in fish diet at this site. This was a unique result that explains the overall differences in invertebrate composition and diet between this site
and others. However, this result also suggests the functions stagnant water in floodplains provide to intermittent streams. Stagnant water is particularly good rearing habitat for microcrustaceans that were fairly common in most diets of fish from intermittent streams. In field
observations, stagnant water in roadside ditches that fed directly into intermittent streams was teeming with microcrustaceans (copepods and ostracods). It is possible that these organisms may be an important portion of the diet for fish species that were not intensively sampled. For example, over 300 cyclopoid copepods were found in only three stickleback
stomachs. The importance of these invertebrates were corroborated by Ribiero et al. (2004), and Sommer et al. (2001b), who found that chinook
salmon juveniles feed on copepods in streams adjacent to floodplain
habitats in the winter. Seasonally flooded agricultural lands and their intermittent stream networks provide stagnant water habitat for these planktonic microcrustaceans. Agricultural practices and manipulation of drainage networks by adjacent grass seed fields may impact their availability to fish in intermittent streams.
Other factors that could explain the high variability in invertebrate
abundances, in these streams, are flow duration and temperature. Timing is very important to invertebrate production on floodplains; temperature and light cycles can vary throughout periods of inundation (Junk et al.
1989). Past studies concluded that flow patterns and temperature can dictate the abundance and diversity of invertebrate assemblages in intermittent habitats (Armitage et aL, 2001; Gladden and Smock, 1990).
These studies concluded that the longer the duration of these intermittent
78
habitats, the more abundant and diverse the invertebrate assemblages became.
This investigation focused on factors that influence abundance and
type of invertebrates in intermittent streams and how they relate to fish
diet. Aquatic invertebrate prey constitute an important food base for fish in the intermittent streams of the upper Willamette basin, as shown by their predominance in fish diets compared to terrestrial invertebrates. Thus, these intermittent streams provide not only an extension of available habitat but invertebrate resources for fish in the winter and spring.
79
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS
This thesis investigated a diverse array of physical and biological characteristics of intermittent streams to better describe fish and
amphibian communities found in the upper Willamette basin. Specifically, I examined: a) the response of aquatic vertebrates to local and broadscale physical habitat, b) fish distribution, c) invertebrate availability and d) fish diet.
Diversity and abundance of native fish and amphibian species in these seasonal habitats varied predictably among sub-watersheds of the
upper Willamette basin. Fundamentally fish use of intermittent stream habitats was limited by how far tributaries were from perennial water.
Intermittent stream habitats provided invertebrate food resources to fish
which reside there during winter and spring. Aquatic benthic invertebrates were the prey of choice by redside shiners, sculpins and speckled dace; however, surface/mid-water prey (copepods) were shown to be important to threespine stickleback. Unlike some perennial stream systems, the low numbers of terrestrial invertebrates found in the diet of these fish suggest that terrestrial prey were not an important food resource. The combination of food resources and available habitat in
intermittent streams were shown to provide conditions that were conducive to growth and reproduction for a few fish and amphibian species. This thesis has demonstrated that intermittent stream systems provide food and habitat for fish and amphibians in the agricultural lowlands of the upper Willamette basin.
80
Management implications The upper Willamette basin is primarily managed for grass seed
production because of the predominately high winter precipitation patterns combined with poorly drained soil conditions. These attributes are not conducive to supporting other crops. Providing a biotic inventory and documenting the food resources in the seasonal habitats in these agricultural areas is important when identifying potential impacts from grass seed agriculture, though grass seed yields from these seasonally flooded areas can be low. Federal conservation programs are currently
used to pay farmers to initiate restoration for wetlands. The intermittent streams and their associated floodplains discussed in this thesis are not
considered wetlands and are often farmed. I believe these areas potentially could be considered for conservation programs. Conservation programs have not been widely available or used by western Oregon grass seed farmers until recent inclusion of the Conservation Title in the 2002 USDA
Farm Bill. Oregon grass seed producers could use the information presented in this thesis as a basis that would increase their participation in farm conservation programs, if farmers want to take seasonally flooded
parts of their fields out of production. Scant information has been available describing the costs of implementing conservation practices and their subsequent effects on fish and amphibian communities specific to
grass seed production. The establishment of "beside the field" conservation practices such as buffer strips and vegetated waterways may provide direct habitat benefits for certain species of fish and amphibians. A signing incentive payment by conservation reserve programs (CRP's) of $100 to $150 per acre for riparian buffers, filter strips and grassed
waterways, makes these conservation practices attractive. Under the
81
earlier forms of the USDA Farm Bill, estimates of income losses from fields
utilizing conservation reserve program payments were based on average seed yields, and made participation uneconomical (H. Gordon, 1999,
unpublished data). More recent calculations project seed yields from winter-flooded field areas ranging from 30 to 50%, compared to better-
drained field areas (Schroeder, 2002 personal communication). The new provisions of the USDA Farm Bill conservation program and accurate yield
estimates from monitor data may provide needed incentive towards conservation payments instead of farming seasonally flooded areas (J. Steiner, 2005, Personal Communication). These patterns discussed in this
thesis of fish and amphibian use of these intermittent streams and their
floodplains will not only apply to the western Oregon seed industry, but also extend to the entire Pacific Northwest. Grass seed farms in the upper Willamette basin represent approximately 90% of the grass seed industry, but these seasonally flooded areas occur across the entire region. The close coordination of activities among researchers, extension and conservation service agencies make this an effective and efficient project that provides
useful information that can be directly used by grass seed farmers to choose the best ways to manage their on-farm resources. This research shows farmers what habitat is available for native aquatic species; thus it serves as the basis for farmers to qualify for
program participation. Although adapting some conservation practices tends to cost farmers more, there are also economic benefits from other practices resulting in savings in production costs. Detailing the effects of agricultural conservation practices on aquatic vertebrate species in these
intermittent streams can also help shape our understanding of these systems, and could help protect these species in the future.
82
BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen., J. E., M. Burns, and S. Sargent. 1986. Cataclysms on the Columbia. Timber Press. Portland, OR. 221 pgs.
American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18th edition, Method 2540D, 1992.
Amoros, C. and Roux, A.L. 1988. Interactions between water bodies within the floodplains of large rivers: functions and development of connectivity, in Schreiber, K.-F., Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Muenstersche Geographischen Arbeiten., 29, Münster, Germany, 125-130.
Armitage PD, Lattmann K, Kneebone N, Harris 1.2001. Bank profile and structure as determinants of macroinvertebrate assemblages, seasonal changes and management. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17:543-556 Baldwin, E., E. Orr, and W. Orr. 1992. Geology of Oregon. Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Bateman, D.S. and H.W. Li. 2001. Nest site selection by reticulate sculpin in two streams of different geologies in the central coast range of Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:823-832. Bayley, P.B. and J.T. Peterson. 2001. Species presence for zero observations: an approach and an application to estimate probability of occurrence of fish species and species richness. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 130: 620-633.
Bell, M.A., and S.A. Foster. 1994. Introduction to the evolutionary biology of the Threespine Stickleback. Pg 1-26. In M.A. Bell and S.A. Foster, eds. The evolutionary biology of the Threespine Stickleback. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford. Benner, P. A., and J. R. Sedell. 1997. Upper Willamette River landscape: a historical perspective. Lewis Publishers, New York, NY.
83
Boag, P.G., 1992. Environment and Experience: Settlement Culture in Nineteenth Century Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Bond, C.E., Rexstad, E., and Hughes, R.M. 1988. Habitat use of twenty-five common species of Oregon freshwater fishes. Northwest Science 62:223-232.
Brown, T.G. and G.F. Hartman. 1988. Contribution of seasonally flooded lands and minnow tributaries to the production of coho salmon in Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:546-551. Bruner, H. 1998. Assessment of Willamette Valley land use I land cover map accuracy for portions of seven counties, Willamette Valley, Oregon. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 1998. Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. 353 pp.
Bustard, D. R., and D. W. Narver. 1975a. Aspects of the winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 32:667-680. Bustard, D. R., and D. W. Narver. 1975b. Preferences of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) relative to simulated alteration of winter habitat. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 32:681-687.
Cederhoim, C. J. and D. J. Martin. 1983. Habitat requirements and life history for salmon and trout. Pgs 88-102. in Proceeding of the Salmon and Trout Conference. March 11 and 12 at Seattle University. Clarke, K.R. 1993, Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure: Australian Journal of Ecology. 18 117-143.
84
Coad, B.W., H. Waszczuk, and I. Labignan. 1995. Encyclopedia of Canadian fishes. Canadian Museum of Nature and Canadian Sport Fishing Productions Inc., Ottawa, Ontario.
Davis, T. M. and K. E. Ovaska. 1998. Marking Plethodon vehiculum and Hyla regila with toe-clipping and fluorescent elastomers. USGS report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD, USA 20708-4038. Dufrene, M., and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible assymetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345-366. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Frissell, C.A., W.J. 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(2): 199-214.
Giannico, G. R. and S.G. Hinch. 2003. The effects of wood and temperature on juvenile coho salmon winter movement, growth, density and survival in side-channels. River Research and Applications 19:219231.
Gohlke, T., S.M. Griffith, and J.J. Steiner. 1999. Effects of crop rotation and no-till crop establishment on grass seed production systems in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. USDA, NRCS Technical Notes No. 30, November, 1999.
Greenburg J. and K. F. Welch. 1998. Hydrologic process identification for western Oregon. Hydrologic Services Company. Griffith, S.M., J.J. Steiner, and M.E. Mellbye. 2000. Riparian zones, grass seed crops, and water quality. p. 51-52. In W.C. Young III (ed.) Seed Production Research at Oregon State University, USDA-ARS Cooperating. Corvallis, OR. (technical bulletin)
85
Hamlet, A.F. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 1999. Effects of climate change on hydrology and water resources in the Columbia river basin, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35(6):1597-1623 Hartman, G. F., and T. G. Brown. 1987. Use of small, temporary, floodplain tributaries by juvenile salmonids in a west coast rainforest drainage basin, Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:262-270. He, X. and D. M. Lodge. 1990. Using minnow traps to estimate fish population size: the importance of spatial distribution and relative species abundance. Hydrobiologia 190:9-14.
Hewlett, J.D. and A.R. Hibbert. 1967. Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to precipitation in humid areas, pp. 275 290. In: W.S. Sopper and H.W. Lull, eds., International Symposium on Forest Hydrology, Pergamon Press, NY. Hulse, D. W., S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Baker. editors. 2002. Willamette River basin: trajectories of environmental and ecological change. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Insightful, Inc., 2001. S-Plus Version 6.0.1 Release 1, for Windows. Seattle, Washington. Junk,W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS), ed. by D. P. Dodge, pp. 110-127. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Ottawa, Canada.
Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science 201 :229-234.
Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29:1-27. Lachat Instruments, QuikChem Method 10-107-04-1-A., 6645 West Mill Road, Milwaukee, WI 53218, USA. Revised by Karin Wendt on 11 August 1994.
86
Lachat Instruments, QuikChem Method 10-115-01-1-A., 6645 West Mill Road, Milwaukee, WI 53218, USA. Revised by Wm. R. Prokopy on 24 April 1994.
Lake P. S. 2000. Disturbance, patchiness, and diversity in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(4):573-592. Leips J., M.G. McManus and J. Travis. 2000. Response of treefrog larvae to drying ponds: comparing temporary and permanent pond breeders. Ecology 81:2997-3008
Leonard P.M. and D.J. Orth. 1988. Use of habitat guilds of fishes to determine instream flow requirements. North American Journal Fish Management. 8:399-409. Li, H.W., C.B. Schreck, C.E. Bond, and E. Rexstad. 1987. Factors influencing changes in fish assemblages of Pacific Northwest streams. Pages 193-202 In W.J. matthews and D.C. Hems, editors. Community and evolutionary ecology North American stream fishes. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Mather, P.M. 1976. Computational methods of multivariate analysis in physical geography. J. Wiley & Sons. London. Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1978. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA. McCune, B., and M. J. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD for Windows. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, OR.
McCune, B. 1994. Improving community analysis with the Beals smoothing function. Ecoscience 1:82-86.
87
Meador, M.R., J. P. McIntyre and K. H. Pollock. 2003. Assessing the efficacy of single-pass backpack electrofishing to characterize fish community structure. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:39-46 Meehan, W. R., and R. A. Miller. 1978. Stomach flushing: effectiveness and influence on survival and condition of juvenile salmonids. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 35:1359-1363. Mielke, P. W., Jr. 1984. Meteorological applications of permutation techniques based on distance functions. Pages 813-830 in P. R. Krishnaiah and P. K. Sen, editors. Handbook of statistics. Volume 4. Elsevier Science, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Minchin, P.R. 1987, An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination: Vegetation 69:89-107. Nickelson, T.E., J.D. Rodgers, S.L. Johnson, and M.F. Solazzi. 1992a. Seasonal changes in habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:783-789. Nickelson, T.E., M.F. Solazzi, S.L. Johnson, and J.D. Rodgers. 1992b. Effectiveness of selected stream improvement techniques to create
suitable summer and winter rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:790-794. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, 1994. Oregon's 1994 Water Quality Status Assessment Report (305(b) Report). Portland, Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 1993. Demographic and Economic Forecasts 1990 - 2030. Policy Section, Salem, Oregon. Portland State University Center for Population Research and Census (PSUCPRC) . Provisional Projections of the Population of Oregon and its Counties. July 1993. Portland, Oregon.
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. 1997. Natural Resource Status Annual Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
88
Poff, N.L., and J.V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamfiow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: a regional analysis of streamfiow patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 46:1805-1818.
Price, D. G. 1981. A fishery resource sampling methodology for small streams. Proceedings of the Symposium on Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Inventory Information. N. B. Armantrout. Portland, Oregon. October 28-30, 1981. Western Division of the American Fisheries Society:54-61. Rathert, D., D. White, J. C. Sifneos and R. M. Hughes, 1999. Environmental correlates of species richness for native freshwater fish in Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Biogeography 26:257-273. Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest, and J.D. Hall. 1987. Interactions between the redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) and the steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: the effect of water temperature. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:1603-1613.
Ribeiro, F., P.K. Cram, and P. B. Moyle. 2004. Variation in Condition Factor and Growth in Young-of-Year Fishes in Floodplain and Riverine Habitats of the Cosumnes River, California. Hydrobiologia 527:77-84
Rhea S., 1993. Geomorphic observations of rivers in the Oregon Coast Range from a regional reconnaissance perspective: Geomorphology, 6:135-150.
Robinson, R.A., J.D. Wilson and H.Q.P. Crick. 2001. The importance of arable habitat for farmland birds in grassland landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:1059-1069.
Roni, P., and T.P. Quinn. 2001. Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response to placement of large woody debris in western Oregon and Washington streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:282-292.
89
Sedell, J.R. and J.L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: the isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A. from its floodplain by snagging and streamside forest removal. International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology, 22:1828-34.
Slack, J.R., A.M. Lumb and J.M. Landwehr. 1993. Hydro-climatic data network (HCDN): Streamfiow data set, 1874-1988: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4076, 85 pp. Sommer, T. R., M. L. Nobriga, W. C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W. J. Kimmerer. 2001b. Floodplain rearing of juvenile chinook salmon: evidence of enchanced growth and survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:325-333.
Steiner, J., S. Griffith, G. Mueller-Warrant, G. Whittaker and G. Banowetz. 2002. Economic & Environmental Impacts of Non-bum Practices on Western Oregon Perennial Grass Seed Production. In: Seed Production Research, ed. W. Young, III, Oregon State University Extension and USDA-ARS, Corvallis, OR, Ext/Crs. Steiner, J.J., S.M. Griffith, and M.E. Mellbye. 2000. Conservation practices that help reduce runoff. pg 49-51. In W.C. Young III (ed.) Seed Production Research at Oregon State University, USDA-ARS Cooperating. Corvallis, OR. (technical bulletin)
Tattersall F.H., D.W. Macdonald, B.J. Hart, P. Johnson, W. Manley and R. Feber. 2002. Is habitat linearity important for small mammal communities on farmland? Journal of Applied Ecology 39:643-652. Tockner, K., F. Malard, and J.V. Ward. 2000. An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrological Processes 14:2861-2883.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Water Webserver Team. URL: http:/Iwater.usgs.gov/. U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. Wetland management for amphibians in the Willamette valley. URL: http:f/fresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs2004-3039.pdf.
90
U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, December 31, 1999, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12.
Vinyard, G. L., A. C. Yuan 1996. Effects of turbidity on feeding rates of Lahontan Cutthrout trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) and Lahontan redside shiner (Richardsonius egregius). Great Basin Naturalist 56: 157-161.
91
APPENDICES
92
Appendix 1. A cluster dendrogram of the 22 sites in 2002/03. Cluster Den drogram of 2002/03 sites 0
100
9
EW
Distance (Objective Function) 1.2E+00
23E+00
35E+O0
4.6E+00
25
0
Information Remaining (%) 75
50
Season
12 7
(
61 4d
93
Appendix 2. GIS Analysis of a sampling site. A. Stream Network B. Land Use C. Elevation (Slope) B.
A.
N
w
E
2
2 MS
4 Mi.
C.
Ml..
94
Appendix 3. Relative proportions of invertebrates in the diet of (A) Redside shiner, (B) Sculpin (C) Speckled Dace in 1. Winter and 2. Spring. The "Combined" category, in A), includes (Aquatic Beetles and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in B), includes (Snails, Terrestrial Inverts and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in C), includes (Aquatic Beetles, Snails, Terrestrial Inverts, Trichoptera and Unidentified Inverts). (N) represents the number of stomachs sampled.
Coltembola
Macrocrustaceans Microcrustaceans
LI 11111
Midges Snails
Terrestrial Insects
I-. I..
Trichoptera Worms
Combined
uuu? Aquatic Beetles Coilembolu
/
U
Macrocrustaceans Microcrustaceans
LI
Midges
Trichoptera
I.. I..
Worms
Combined
AIi,...
Collembola -
iiiiiiiii!h1 .............,
U
-
/AA
Macrocrustace500 Microcrustaceans
LI.. i..
iu..uue'
Midges Worms Combined
'p
I
2
95
Appendix 4. Relative proportions of invertebrates in the diet of (A) Redside shiner, (B) Sculpin (C) Speckled Dace in 1. Gently Sloping and 2. Incised drainages. The "Combined" category, in A), includes (Aquatic Beetles and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in B), includes (Snails, Terrestrial Inverts and Unidentified Inverts). The "Combined" category, in C), includes (Aquatic Beetles, Snails, Terrestrial Inverts, Trichoptera and Unidentified Inverts). (N) represents the number of stomachs sampled. N=27
N=22 4U.u..u.u.0
Collembota
Macrocnjstaceans Microcrustaceans Midges
!JjI!JiiHiiJ,i
'I'll
Snarls
Terrestrial Insects
.i UI,
Trichoptera Worsen
Combined
N
N = 23
21
4UUUI. UUUUUCUI,.. i,'.
Aqiratic Beetles Collembola
iUUUUUUUI
Macrocruslaceans
--a...u...:.
Micmocrustaceans
Midges
Terrestrial Insects Tnchoptera
I.' Worms
U.'
Combined
allUj:
N=8
N = 14 Collembola
uuuu.#
Macmocrustaceans
Microcrustaceans
UUILI
'I
I......m...p iuuuuu.uu. i........-- /
V I.'
.i .'
Midges
Worms Combined
Appendix 5. Captures of fish and amphibians at all sites for two sampling years. Catch Totals 2002/03
Electrofishin
Species Fish RedskleShiner
Retcute scuin Speckled daoa
Thme-ined stickbeck
YOYSwin
Abundance 336 155 112 92
Species (Amphibian)
Abundance
Minnowtra p Species (Fish)
Abundance
SalamanderlNewt Lavae
505
Three-spned stickback
255
Plfc Treefrog Larvae
131
Roughskin Newt Adult Redlegged Frog
11
Redside shiner Speckled dace
4
Reticulate scipin
188 117 103
Cutthroat trout Northern plceminnow
12
Northern piceninnow
43 40
Larsca sucker
15
Cutthroat trout Mosquitofish Rainbow trout Goldfish Chinook salnon
16*
Latescale sucker Oiinook salrron
5 2
9 5 3 3
Species (Amphibian) Abundance Roughskri newt Long-toed salamander Buifrog tat pole Padflc treefrog Redlegged frog
87 50 13 8 5
11
Rarnbowtrout B.regrll
Riffle scuin
Riffle Scul pin Bluegill
Totals: 18 species 5 amphibian specIes: 4 Native species l3fish species: 10 Nativespecies 2356 indtvlduas * some caught in hoopnet
Catch Totals 2003/04 Electrofishing Species (Fish)
Minnowtrap Species (Fish)
Species (Amphibian)
Abundance
67 64
Salararder1Newt Larva Frc9 Larva
70
Three-spine Sfiddebadc
21
Rougis kin Newt
28 24
12 6
PaificTreefrog
Threespine sticldeback
Redside iner Speckled Dace Reticulate Sculpin Northern Pikeminncw
Nczlha-n pik,innDw
2
Yellow Bullheai*
2
Reddde stifler Largescale sucker eclded cbce
Riculato sculpin
Abundance
Gutthroat trout
Totals: 15 specIes 5 amphibian species: 4 Native species 10 fish species: 9 Nativespecies 1418 individuals * Exotic species ** nothing caught in hoopnet
Bid lfrog*
6 3
Largescale Sinker Clinook Salmon Rainbow Trout Cutthroat Trout
Abundance 273 119 118
73 22 11
3
2
Species (Amphibian) Abundance Rajghskint'Jewt Padf Ic Tredrog Long-Toad Salamander
Red-egd Frc Bullfrog*
466 11
10
2
Appendix 6. Full suite of multiple linear regression models for species richness. Model
Model: RICHNESS - mean IIow+asqrt WS Forest+aaqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS G raas+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean Ilow+asqrt WS Grass+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean IIow+aaqrt WS Forest+ aaqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+mean flow+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS -mean depth+mean lIow+asqrt WS Forest
Model: RICHNESS -aaqrtvegsub+meanflow+asqrt WSForest Model: RICHNESS - asqrtWS Forest+asqrt Upatream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrt WS Forest4asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg aub+asqrt WS Foresti-asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean flow+asqrtWS Forest Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+mean flow+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrt WS Fcrest+asqrtWS Grass Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+mean flowi-mean depth Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - asqrtveg sub+asqrt WSForest+ asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - asqrtveg sub+mean flowl-asqrtUpstwam SOpe Model: RICHNESS - mean flow+asqrt Upstream SOpe Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+dtance to perenni water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Grass+dtstance to pewanial water Model: RICHNESS - mean flow+aaqrt W S Forest+distance to perervilal water Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+wetted width+asqrl Upstream Sbpe Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrtWS Grass+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WSGrass+asqrt Upstream Sops Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+mean depth+asqrt WS Forest
AJCtoAlCc
K
IJike
ArC
AXCc
Delta AICc
e(-DAICc/2)
3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75
5 5 5 5
-32.56 -33.08 .33.26 -33.58 -33.80 -33.96 -33.97 -35.88 -34.17 -34.22
75.13 76.17 76.53 77.15 77.60 77.89 77.95 79,66 78.34 78.44
78.88 79.92 80.28 80.90 81.35 81.64 81.70
0.00 1.04 1.40 2.02 2.48 2,77 2.82 3.14
1.00 0.59 0.50 0,36
321
020
3,31
-36,31 -34.61
80.61 79.22 79,24 79.55 81,14
0.19 0.13 0.13 0.13
5
5 5
4 5 5
4 5
5 5
4 5 5
4 5 5 5 5 5
4 5
-34.62 -34.78 -36.57 -34.93 -35,16 -36,86 -35.20 -35.64 -35.69 .35.80 .35,81 -37.57 -35.91
79.85 80,32 81.73 80,40 81,09 81,38 81.60 81,61 83.15 81.83
82.01
82.09 82.19 82.96 82.97 82.99 83.30 83.50 83.60 84.07 84.08 84.15 84.84 85.13 85.35 85.36 85.50 85,58
4.09 4.10 4.11
4.43 4.62 4.72
520 521
527 5.96
626 6.48 6.48 6.63 6,70
029 0.25
024 0.21
0,11
0.10 0.09 0.07 0.07 0,07 0,05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
W1
Evidence Ratios
0.18
1.00
0.11
1.68 2.02 2.75 3.45 3.99 4.10 4.80 4.99 5.23
0.09 0.07 0.05 0,05 0,04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0,02 0,02 0.02 0.02 0,02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0,01 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
7,72 7.76 7.82 9.14 10.07
10.82 13.45 13,50 13.98 19.69 22.83
25.49 25.59 27.47 28,51
Model Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Grass+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrt WS Forest Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+asprt WS Forest Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+wetted wldtli+asqrt WS Forest Model: RICHNESS '-mean flow+dlstarrce to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+mean flow+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - mean flow+asqrt WS Forest+WS Ares Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+WS Area+ssqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+asqrt WS Forest+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+ssqrt WS Forest+d6tance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+distance to perennI water Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+mean flo+asqrt WS Forest Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrt WS Forest+ distance to pererw,ial water
Model: RICHNESS '-mean (I+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - aaqrt WS Grasssdistance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean fl+WS Area+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS '-wetted width+mean fI+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - wetted widthi-asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Glass Model: RICHNESS '-mean dopth+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Grass+WS Ares Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+mean depth+ssqrt Upstream SOpe Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+wetted width+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS '-wetted width+asqrt WS Grass+asqrt Upstream Slope
Model: RICHNESS-mean depth+mean fi+wetted width
JCtoAlCc
375 2.35 2.35 1.33 3,75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 2.35 3,75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75
K
Ulke
AIC
AICc
5 4 4
-35.93 -37,63 -37,67
81.86
85,61 85.61
3 5
-39.31
5
-36.23 -38.30 -36.32 -36.73 -36,78 -36.83 -36.83 -38.57 36.97 -36.97 -38.81 -37,11 -37.20 -37.34 -37.47
4
-3929
5 5 5 5 5
-37.63 -37,74 -37,76 -38,02 -38.04
5 5
5 5 5
5
4 5 5
4 5 5 5
8326 83.35 84.63 82.46 82.60 82.64 83.47 83,56 83.65 83.66 85.14 83.94 83.94 85.62
8423 84.40 84,67 84.95 86.59 85.26 85.48 85.51 86.04 86.08
85,70 85.98 86.21
86.35 86.39 87. 87,31
87.40 87.41 87.49 87.69 87,69 87.97 87.98 88,15 88.42 88.70 88.94 89,01 89.23 89,26 89.79 89.83
Wj
belta AICc e(-bAICc/2) 6.73 6.74 6.82 7.09 7.34 7,47 7.51
8.34 8.43 8.53 8.54 8.61 8.81
8,82 9.09 9.10
927 9,54 9.82 10.07 10.14 10.35 10.39 10.92 10.95
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0,02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0,01 0,01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0,01 0.00 0.00
E.rce
0.01 0.01
28.93 29.05
0.01 0.01
30.31
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34.56 39.17 41.98 42,82 64.71 67,80 71.10 71.48 74.22 82.06 82.11 94.34 94.75 103.02 118.18 135.68 153.44 158.80 176,82 180,09 234.67 239,03
tio
Model Model: RICHNESS - aaqrt veg sub+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asgrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean llow#asqrt WS Grass+distance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+mean depth+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+distance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+wetted width+mean flow Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS- wetted width+asqrt WS Forest Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Forest+WS Area Model: RICHNESS - mean flow+mean depth Model: RICHNESS- distance to perennial water*asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrtveg sub+wetted wldth+ asqrtWS Forest Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrt WS Focest+ WS Area Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+dlstance to perennial water4asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - aaqrt WS Grass+WS Area4asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub*asqrt WS Forest+ WS Area
Model: RlCHNESS-asqrtvegsub'meanfIow Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+mean flow+dlstance to perennial water
Model:RICHNESS-meandepttr+asqitWSGrass Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+mean flow+asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS- mean deptli+rnean flow+ditance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Grass+distance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS- asqrtveg sub+wettedwidttr+mean depth Model: RICHNESS - wetted wldth+asqrt WS Forest+distance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+wetted wIdth
AJC to AICc
K
Luke
4]
AICc
2.35 1.33 3.75 3.75
4
-39.76 -41.27 -36.37 -38.42
87.53 88,55 66.74 86.84 87,03 87.03 88.55
89.88 89,88 90.49 90.59 90.78 90.78 90.90
8871
91.07 91.07 91,08 91,09 91.16 91.21 91.43 91.46 91.71 92.40 92,44
3
5
3.75 3.75
5 5 5
2-35
4
2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75
4
-38.51 -38.51
5
-40.27 -40.36 -40.36 -40.37 -40.37 -38,70 -38.73 -38.84 -38.86 -36.98 -41.02 -39.34 -41.13 -39.43 -39.51 -39.56
3.75,
5
3.75 2.35
-t9.58
5
-39.60 -41,30
4 4 4 5
5 5 5 5
4 5 4 5 5
4
88.72 88.73 88,74 87,41
87.46 87.68 87.71
87,96 90.04 88.69 90.26 88.87 89.03 89.12 89.15 89.20 90,50
92.61
92.62 92.78 92.87 92.90 92.95 92.95
Delta AICc e(-DAXCG/2) 11.00 11.00 11.61 11.71 11.90 11.90 12.02 12.19 12.20 12,21 12.22 12.28 12.34 12.55 12.59 12.83 13.52 13,56 13.73 13,74 13,90 14,00 14.03 14.07 14.08
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
W,
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Evidence Ratios 244.93 245.13 331.99 349.62 383.56 384.25 408.24 443.89 445.33 447.53 449.31 464.36 477.02 531.42 541.15 610.60 862.32 880.06 959.08 954,10 1043.56 1095.50 1112.31 1137.08
1140.48
Model Model: RICHNESS - asqrtWS Forest+WS Area+dlstance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS- asqrt WS Grass Model: RICHNESS - mean fiow4asqrt WS Grass+WS Area Model: RICHNESS- wetted width+distance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+wetted width+distance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrt WS Grass+dlstance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+wetted width+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrtWS Grass+ distance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+WS Area+asqrt Upstream Slope
ModeI:RlCHNESS-asqrtvegsubwettedwidth+asqrtWS Grass Model: RICHNESS- asqrtveg sub+WSArea4asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - WS Area+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS- wetted width+distance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS- wetted wldth+asqrtWS Forest+WS Area Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+mean flow+asqrt WS Area Model: RICHNESS - mean flow+distance to perennial water Model:RICHNESS-wettedwidth+asqrtWSGrass Model: RICI-INESS-asqrtvegsub+meandepth Model: RICHNESS - asqrtveg sub+mean depth+distance to perennial water
Model: RICHNESS-meanflw Model: RICHNESS - WS Area+distance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+wetted width's-mean depth-s-mean flow+esqrt WS Forest's Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Grass+WS Area Model: RICHNESS - asqrtveg sub+distance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+asqrt WS Grass-s-distance to perennial water
AJC to AICc
K
Luke
,41C
AICc
3.75
5 3 5
-39.79 -43.00 -39.83 -42.08 -40.39 -40.43 -40.48
89.58 92,00 89.66 92.16 90.79 90.86 90.96 92.61 91.43 91.73 91.81 93.32 92.30 92.86 93.10 94.65 94.68 94.92 93.58 96.10 93.78 71.36 94.16 96.71 95.38
93.33 93.33
1.33
3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 2.35 2.35 3.75 1.33 3.75 26.40 3.75 2.35 3.75
4 5 5 5
4 5 5 5
4 5 5 5
4 4
4 5 3 5 11 5
4 5
-42.31 -40.71
-40.87 -40.90 -42.66 -41.15 -41.43 -41.55 -43.32 -43.34 -43.46 -41.79 -45.05 -41.89 -24.68 -42.08 -44.35 -42.69
93.41 94.51 94,54 94.61 94.71 94.96 95.18 95.48 95.56 96.68
96.06 96.61 96.85 97.00 97.04 97.27 97.33 97.44 97.53 97.78 97.91
99.06 99.13
Delta AXCc e(-DAICc/2) 14.45 14.46 14.54 15.64 15,66 15.74 15.84 16,09 16.30 16.61 16.68 16.80 17.18 17.73 17.97 18.13 18.16 18.40 18.45 18.56 18.65 18.89 19.04 20.18 20.26
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
W,
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Evideprcc Ratios 1375.72 1377.14 1434.22 2487.70 2517.24 2613,81 2749.71 3114.71 3466.72 4038.20 4187.84 4444.91 5365.16 7086.91 7990.79 8631.39 8774.81 9873.85 10167.08 10721.93 11224.85 12634.36 13606.94 24154.13 25022.98
Model Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg aub+mean flow+WS Area Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+asqrt WS Graas+WSArea Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Grass+ WS Area Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+dialance 10 perennial water Model: RICHNESS - mean depth Model: RICHNESS - mean flow+wetted width Model: RICH NESS - mean depth+wetted width+W S Area Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg sub Model: RICHNESS- wetted width+WS Areadistance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+mean ftowdistance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS distance to perennial waler Model: RICHNESS - asqrt WS Graas+WS Areal-distance to perennial waler Model: RICHNESS - mean flowl-WS Area Model: RICH NESS - mean flow+WS Area+distance to perennial Water Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+asqrtWs Graaa+WS Area Model: RICHNESS asqrt veg sub+wetted width+diatance to perennial Water Model: RICHNESS - aaqrt veg sub+mean depth+WS Area Model: RICHNESS asqrt veg sub+wetted width Model: RICHNESS - wetted wldth+mean fIow+WS Ama Model: RICHNESS - aaqrt veg aub+WS Area +diatance to perennlalwater Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+aaqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+WS Area Model: RICHNESS - mean depth+WS Area+diatance to perennial water Model: RICHNESS - aaqrt veg sub+WS Area Model: RICHNESS - wetted width Model: RICHNESS - WSArea+dtstanceto perennial water Model: RICHNESS - WSAraa Model: RICHNESS - asqrt veg subwetted width+WS Area Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+WS Area+aaqrt Upstream Slope Model: RICHNESS - wetted width+W5 Area
AIC to AICç
375 3.75 2.35 2.35 1.33 2,35 3.75 1.33 3.75 3.75 1.33 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35
3.75 3.75 2.35 2.35 3.75 2.35 1.33 2.35 1.33 3.75 3.75 2.35
K
Ulke
AIC
AICc
belta AICc
ei-DAXCc/2)
5 $
-42.74 .42.75 -44.63 -44.66 -46.32 -44.86 -43,20 -46.59 -43.46 -43,53 -47.17 -44.00 -46.53
95,47 96.50 97.26 97.32 98.63 97.72 96.39 99.17 96.92 97.07 100,34 97.99 101.07 99.85 99.87 100.25 100,40 102.48 102.20
99.22 99.25 99.61 99.68 99.97 100.07 100,14
20.35 20.37 20.73 20.80 21,09 21.20 21.26 21.83 21.79 21.94 22.79 22.87 24.54 24.73
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00
4 4 3
4 5 3 5 5 3 5
4
4
44,93 -44.94 -45.13 -45,20 -47.24
5
46.10
5
-46.11 -47.91 -48,03 -46,43 -48.27 -50.04 -48.93
5 5 S
5
4 4 5
4 3
4 3 5
5 4
-51.05 -48,90 -49.64 -51.70
102.21 103.81
104.06 102,86 104,56 106.08 105,87 108.10 107.80 109.29 111.40
100.51
100.67 100,82 101.67 101.74 103.42 103.60 103.62 104.00 104.15 104,83 105,95 105,96 106,16 108.42 106.61 106,90 107.41
108,22 109,43 111.55 113,04 113.76
2475 25,12 25.27 25.95 27.07 27.08 27.29 27.54 27,74 28.02 28.53 29.34 30,55 32,87 34.16 34.88
Wi
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Evidence Ratios 26187.70 26487.42 31790.59 32853.73 37981.39 40083.72 41448.00 49775,42 53993.29 58085,71 89051.19 92436.30 213666.27 234090.95 238529.92 285588.43 307506.04 431952.36 755813.55 760780.38 842029.72 955911.47 1054893.11 1218356.64 1569184.58 2354221.34 4310078.46 12447744.50 26202096,90 37532605,32
Appendix 7. Full suite of multiple linear regression mode's for species abundance. Model Model: Log Abund - mean depth+mean flow+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean tiow+asqrt WS Foreat+aaqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean flow+aaqrt WS Grass +aaqrt Upstream Slope
Model: Log Abund - mean depth+mesnflow4asqrtWSGrass Model: Log Abund - mean depth+mean flow+asqrt WS Foreat Model: Log Abund - mean flow+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean fiow+mean depth Model: Log Abund - mean tlowi-asqrtWS Forest+ asqrtWSGrase Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Grass+asqrt Upsiream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean flow+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean flow+asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean ftow+mean depth Model: Log Abund - mean flow+asqrt W S Grass Model: Log Abund - mean depth+mean flow+wetted width Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Forest+aaqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean flow+asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund - mean depth+asqrt WS Forest+ asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean flow+asqrt WS Gress Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Forest+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean depth+asqrt WS Forest+asqil Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean flow Model: Log Abund - mean flowdistance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg subasqrt WS Forest+ asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund asqrt WS Grass+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean deplh+mean flowsdistance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - mean depth+wetted width+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Grass+aaqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean depth+mean ftow+asqrt WS Area Model: Log Abund - mean flow+WS Ares+asqrt Upstream Slope
AIC to AICc
3.75
3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 2.35 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 1.33 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75
LIlke
K
5
-25.40 -25.93 -26.00 -26.06 -26.38 -28.08 -28.10 -26.44 -26.95 -26.95 .28,83 .27.14 -29.10 -27.64
4
-29.61
5
-27.97 -28,09 -29.87 -28,21 -28,22 -28.25 -31.50 -28.50 -28.56 -30,29 -28.63 -28.63 -28,64 -28.74 -28.75
5 5
5
5 5
4 4 5 5 5
4 5
4
5
4 5 5 5
3 5 5
4 5 5 5 5 5
AIC 60.79 61.86 62.00 62.13 62.76 64.16 64.21
62,87 63.89 63,90 65.67
6427 66.20 65.29 67.21 65.94 66.19 67.74 66,42 66.45 66,51 69,00 67.01 67.12 68.58 67.25 67.26 67,27 67,48 67,51
AICc 64.54 65.61
65.75 65,88 66.51 66.52
66.56 66.62 67.64 67.65 68.02 68.02 68.55 69.04 69.56 69.69 69.94 70,10 70,17 70.20 70.26 70.33 70.76 70,87 70.93 71.00 71,01 71,02 71.23
7126
Delta AXCc 0.00 1.07 1.21
1.33 1.97 1.97 2.01 2.08 3.10 3.10 3.48
3.48 4.01 4.50 5.02 5.15 5.39 5.55 5.63 5.66 5.71
5.79 6.21 6.33 6.39 6.46 6.47 6.48 6.68 6.72
e(-DAICc/2) 1.00 0.59 0.55 0.51 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.21 0.21
0.18 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04 0;04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03
W
0.15 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0,01 0.01
Evidence Rotlo 1.00 1.71
1.83 1.95
2.67 2.68 2.74 2.83 4.71 4.71
5.68 5.69 7.43 9.47 12.30 13.12 14.82 16.06 16.68 16,91
17.38 18.08 22.35 23.65 24.39 25.23 25.38 25.52 28.23 28.72
Model Model: Log Abund -mean depth+asqrt WS Grass+ asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund -wetted width+mean flow+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: LogAbund -asqrtveg sub+mean flow Model: Log Abund - mean depth+wetted width+asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund -mean flow+asqrt WS Forest+dlstancetoperennialwater Model: Log Abund -asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund -asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean depth+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund -mean flow+asqrt WS Grass+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean depth+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: LogAbund -mean depth+asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund -mean depth+wettedwkfth Model: Log Abund - mean depth+wetted width+asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund - mean ffow+asqrt WS Foiest+WS Area Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+mean flow+asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+wetted width+mean depth Model: Log Abund - wetted width+rnean flow+asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Forest+distance to perennial eter+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Grass+dlstance to perennial water Model: Log Abund '-mean flow+distance to perennial water
Model: LogAbund -asqrtvegsub+meandepth+asqrtWSForest Model: Log Abund -mean flow+asqrt WS Grass+WS Area Model: Log Abund -mean depth+asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund - mean flow+wetted wIdth Model: Log Abund -asqrtWS Grass Model: LogAbund -asqrt WS Grass+distanceto perennial water+asqrt UpstreamSlope Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+wetted width+mean flow Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mearr flow+dlstance to perennial water
AJC to AICc
l(
LUke
3.75 3.75
5
235
4
3.75 2.35 3.75
5
1.33 1.33 2.35 3.75
3.75 2.35 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 2.35 2.35 1.33 3.75 3.75 3.75
5 3 3
-28,76 -28.83 -30.57 -29.04 -30.82 -29.28 -32.50 -32.52
4
-31 .02
5
5 5 5
-29.45 -29.45 -31.19 -31.20 -29.55 -29.60 -29.66
4
-31 .40
5 5 5
-29.76 -29.85 -29.91 -29,99 -31.77 -30.10 .30.18 -31.92 -31.96 -33.47 .30.48 -30.82 -30.85
5
4
5
4 4
5
4 5
5
4 4 3 5
5 5
AIC 67.51
67.66 69.15 68.09 69.64 68,57 71.01
71.03 70.04 68,90 68.90 70.37 70.40 69.10 69.19 69.32 70.79 69.51 69.70 69.81 69.98 71.53 70.19 70.36 71.83 71.91 72.94 70.98 71.23 71.69
sUCc
71.26 71.41 71.50 71.84 71.99 72.32 72.34 72.36 72.39 72.65 72.65 72.72 72.75 72.85 72.94 73.07 73.14 73.26 73.45 73.56 73.73 73.89 73.94 74.11 74.18 74.26 74.28 74.71 74,98 75.44
belto AICC e(-bAICcIZ) 6.72 8.86 6.96 7.29 7.45 7.77 7.80 7.82 7.85 8.10 8.11 8.18 8.21 8.31
8.40 8.53 8.60 8.72 8.91 9.02 9.18 9.34 9.40
9.57 9.64 9.72 9.73 10.17 10.44 10.90
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0,01 0.01 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.00
W1
Evidence Ratios
0.01
28.77
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30.91
32.39 38.31
41.39 48.72 49.35 49.90 50.60 57.51
57.62 59,74 60.62 63.61
66.69 71 .03
73.67 78.21
86.04 90.77 98 86 106.87 109.82 119.58 123.93 128.98 129.89 161.51
184.59 232.40
Model
Model:LogAbund-asqrtvegsub+asqrtWSGrass Model: Log Abu nd - wetted width+asqrt WS Forest+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean depth+asqrt WS Giss Model: Log Abund - distan to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope
Model:LogAbund-meandepth Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+distance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - wetted wklth+asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Giass Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Fossst+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund -mean flow+WS Area Model: Log Abund - mean depth+distance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Foiast+WS kea+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - wetted width+asqrt WS Giass+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Aburid - asqrt WS Forest+asqrt WS Grass+WS Area Model: Log Abund mean depth+asqxt WS Forest+ distance to perennial water
Model:LogAbund-asqrtvegsub+meandepth Model: Log Abund - mean depth4wetted width+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+WSAlaa+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - aaqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Forest+d'atance to perennial water Model: Log Aburtd - asqrt veg sub4wetted width+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund asqrt WS Grass+ distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub Model: Log Abund - mean depth+asqit WS Grass+dlstance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean fiow+WS Area Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Grass+WS Area+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+asqrt WS Forest Model: Log Abund - wetted width+mean flow+distanceto perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Forest+WS kea Model: Log Abund - mean depth+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Forest+ WS Area
AIC to AICC
235 375 3.75 2.35 1.33 3.75 3.75 2.35 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75
3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 1.33 3.75
thke
l( 4 5 5
4 3
5 5
4
4 5 5 5 5 5
4 5 5 5 5 4 3
5
3.75
5
2.35 3.75 2.35
4 5
4
3.75
5
2.35 2.35 3.75
4 4 5
-32.57 -30.93 -31.00 -32.72 -34.25 -31.11 -31.12 -32.85 -32.90 -31.25 -31.28 .31.41 -31.52 -31.52 -33.36 .31.69 -31.74 -31.74 -31.83 -33.62 -35.20 .32.05 -32.05 -33.78 -32.12 -33.86 -32.35 -34.17 -34.35 -32.66
AIC 73,13 71 .85
71,99 73.44 74.51 72.22 72.25 73.69 73.79 72.51 72.57 72.83 73.04 73.05 74.72 73.37 73.47 73.48 73.66 75.25 76.40 74.10 74.10 75.55 74.25 75.72 74.71 76.34 76.70 75.33
AICc 75.48 75.60 75.74 75.80 75.84 75.97 76.00 76.05 76.14 78.26
76.32 76.58 76.79 76.80 77.07 77.12 77.22 77.23 77.41
77.60 77.73 77.85 77.85 77.90 78.00 78.07 78.46 78.70 79.06 79.06
t)elta AICc e(-bAICc/2) 10.94 11.06 11.20 11.25 11.29 11.42 11.45 11,50 11.60 11.72 11.77 12.03 12.24 12.25 12.53 12.58 12.68 12.69 12.87 13.05 13.19 13.31 13.31 13.36 13.45 13.53 13.92 14.15 14.51 14.53
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
W1
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Evidence Ratios 237.43 251.79 270.12 277.61 283.44 302.33 307.20 314.30 330.10 349.89 360.22 410.28 455.56 458.17 525.07 538.82 566.68 568.93 622.63 683.68 730.55 775,37 776.13 795.87 833.26 864.85 1051.08 1182.93 1417.55 1432.17
Model Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg aub+wetted wldth+ asqrt WS Forest
Model:LogAbund-WSArea+asqrtupstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrtveg sub+asqrt WS Grass+diatance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - wetted width+mean flow+WS Area Model: Log Abund - distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund - mean depth+asqrt WS Forest+ WS Area
Model:LogAbund- meandepth+WSArea+asqrtUpstreamSlope Model: Log Abund - mean flow+WS Area+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - mean depth+wetted width+WS Area Model: Log Abund - asqrtveg sub+dlstanceto perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean depth+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asgrt veg sub+wetted width+asqrt WS Grass Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Grass+WS Area
Model:LogAbund-meandepth+asqrtWSGrass+WSArea Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+distance to perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+asqrt WS Forest+distance to perennial water
Model: LogAbund-wetted wIdth Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+asqrt WS Grass+WS Area Model: Log Abund - asqrt WS Fosest+WS Area+dlstance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - WSArea+distanceto perennial water+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - mean depth+WS Area Model: Log Abund - wetted width+asqrtWS Grass+diatance to perennial waler Model: Log A.bund - asqrtveg sub9wetted wIdth
Model:LogAbund-WSAres Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+mean depth+WS Area Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+asqrtWS Forest+WS Area Model: Log Abund - wetted wldth+distance to perennial water
Model:LogAbund-asqrtvegsub+WSArea Model: Log Abund - wetted width+WS Area+asqrt Upstream Slope Model: Log Abund - asqrtWS Grass+WS Area+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+wetted width+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+wetted wldth+mean depth+mean tlow+asqrl WS Forest+as Model: Log Abund - WS Area+distance to perennial water
Model: LogAbund- meandepth+WSAuea+distancetoperennialwater Model: Log Abund -wetted width+asqrtWS Grasa+WSArea Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+WS Area+distance to perennial water Model: Log Abund - wetted width+WS Area Model: Log Abund - asqrt veg sub+wetted widlh+WS Area Model: Log Abund - wetted width+WS Area+distance to perennial water
AIC to AICc
3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 1.33 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 1.33 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 2.35 1.33 3.75 3.75 2.35 2.35 3.75 3.75 3.75 26.40 2.35 3.15 3.75 3.75 2.35 3.75 3.75
Ulke
K
5
4 5 5 3
4 5 5 5
5
4 5
5
4 5 5 5 3 5 5
5 4 5
4 3
5 5
4 4 5 5
5 11 4 5 5 5 4 5 5
-32.67 -34.38 -32.70 -32.79 -36.01 -34.58 -32.89 -32.91 -33.25 -33.32 -35.11 -33.44 -33.60 -35.48 -33.95 -33.95 -34.16 -37.40 -34.50 -34.56 -34,63 -36.40 -34.73 -36.46 -38.27
-3545 -35.54 -37.28 -37.32 -35.63 -35,68 -36.33 -19.14 -38.19 -36.51 -36.55 -37.23 -39.55 -38.55 -39.45
AIC 75.35 76.76 75.40 75.57 78.02 77.15 76.78 75.82 78.49 76.64 78.21
76.89 77.21 78.96 77.89 77.90 78.33 80.80 78.99 79.12 79.26 80.80 79.46 80.92 82.54 80.90 81.07 82.56 82.63 81.26 81.32 82.66 60.27 84,39 83.01 83.11
84.46 87.11 87.11
88.89
AICc 79.10 79.11 79.15 79.32 79.36 79.50 79.53 79.57 80.24 80.39 80.57 80.64 80.96 81.32 81.64 81.55 82.08 82.13 82.74 82.87 83.01 83.15 83.20 83.27 83.87 84.65 84.82 84.91 .84.98 85.01 85.07 86.41 86.67 86.74 86.76 86.86 88.21 89.46 90.86 92.64
bcta AICc e(-bAICc/2) 14.55 14.57 14.60 14.78 14.81 14.96 14.98 15.02 15.70 15.85 16.02 16.10 16.41 16.77 17.10 17,11 17.53 17.59 18.20 18.33 18.47 18.60 18.86 18.72 19.33 20.11
20.28 20.37 20.44 20.46 20.53 21.87 22.13 22.19 22.22 22.31 23.67 24.91 26.32 28.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
W1
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Evidence Ratios 1446.19 1455.54 1482.41
1619.69 1644.83 1771.26 1791.42 1829.97 2560.65 2763.85 3012.33 3126.53 3655.14 4382.90 5158.52 5181.37 6413.08 8591.73 8953.37 9538.20 10233.99 10962.44 11249.34 11836,25 15740.02 23254.29 25309.24 26492.99 27448.33 27788.01 28659.06 56040.78 63813.50 65964.41 66889.98 70040.23 137978.75 257034.50 517963.47 1283637.47
Appendix 8. Breakdown of trap efficiencies for incised channells for each species at each site in 2004.
Incised Channels M inn owtrap 0-2A
Electrofishing 4122/2004
Roughskin Newt Retiojiate Sculpin Speckled Dace Bullfrog Redsids Shiner
2 0
0
I 0
3
TOTAL 0-2B
4/22/2004
0-2C 69A
4/22/2004 4/27/2004
69B
4/2712004
Roughskln Newt TOTAL NONE Roughskin Newt Redside Shiner Bullfrog Speckled Dace Cutthroat Trout Largescale Sucker Reticulate S culpin
TOTAL Roughskin Newt Padfic Treefrog Northern Pikeminnow Reticulate Sculpin Speckled Dace
13
13 23 1
0
34 0 0
9
67 51
2 4 1
59
TOTAL 69C
4/27/2004
Roughskin Newt Padfic Treefrog
TOTAL
Roughskin Newt Reticulate Sculpin Speckled Dace Bullfrog Redside Shiner
TOTAL Roughskin Newt Padfic Treef rag Northern Plkeminnow Reticulate Sculpin Speckled Dace
4
20
2 2 11
18 0
14.3 100.0
100.0
0 7
76.7
5
16.7 0.0
1
94.4 0.0 0.0 56.3
2 1
I
24
73.6 98.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
0 0 0 0
TOTAL
TOTAL
50.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0
1
TOTAL Roughskin Newt TOTAL NONE Roughskin Newt Reds ide Shiner Bullfrog Speckled Dace Cutthroat Trout Largescale Sucker Reticulate Sculpin
Roughskin Newt Padfic Treefrog
16
Trap Effeciency 2
98.3
1
61.5 50.0
10
4
14
58.8
Appendix 9. Breakdown of trap efficiencies for floodplain channels for each species at each site in 2004.
Floodplain Access Minnowfrap Site laA
Date 4/15/2004
Species
Abundance
Roughskin Newt Reticulate Sculpin Redside Shiner Largescale Sucker Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace Northern Pikeminnow Yellav Bullhead
10
138
4/15/2004
Roughskin Newt Redside Shiner Threespine Stickieback Speckled Dace
4/15/2004
Roughskin Newt Reds ide Shiner Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace
0 2 2
21
Roughskin Newt
2
Redside Shiner Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace
2 1
418/2004
Roughskin Newt Redside Shiner Threespine StIckleback Speckled Dace Largescale Sucker Northern Pikeminnow Reticulate Sculpin
4/8/2004
Roughskin Newt Reticulate Sculpn Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace
4/15/2004
Roughskin Newt Pacific Treefrog TOTAL
100.0 71.4 3.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
2 30 59 0 17
0 0
108 0 0
I Roughskin Newt
0
Redslde Shiner Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace
140 4
147 3 1
12
3 2 1
0
22 20
3 2
29 8 1
9
1
Redside Shiner Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace L.argescale Sucker Northern Pikeminnow Reticulate Sculpin
4
87.5 75.0 20.0 80.0 100.0 33.3 100.0 0.0
3 0
4 0 1
13
TOTAL
0
62.9 100.0 80.0
1
0
100.0 100.0
0
TOTAL
TOTAL
85.7
21
TOTAL
Roughskin Newt Pacific Treefrog
16.3 100.0 100.0 66.7 100.0
75.0 0.0 97.9 100.0
17 3
Roughskin Newt
Roughskin Newt Reticulate Scuipin Threespine Stickle back Speckled Dace
4
TOTAL
14C
Trap Efficiency
0
6 3
TOTAL
148
Abundance
TOTAL
1
TOTAL
14A
Redside Shiner Largescale Sucicer Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace Northern Pikeminnow Yellow Bullhead
0
TOTAL
13C
Roughskin Newt Reticulate Sculpin
5
TOTAL
Electrofishing Species
96.7
1
80.0 33.3
2
2
4
69.2
Appendix 10. Breakdown of stomach contents for incised channels for each species at each site in 2004.
Incised Channels Site
Species
0-2A
RedsideShiner Retiajiate Sculpin Speckled Dace Rainbow Trout
8
6
8
0
4 9 2
3
3
1
8
1
Bullfrog
0-2B O-2C
69A
69B
69C
# IndMduals # With Stomach Contents
# Spring # Winter # Organisms in Diet 17 21 14
0
8 2
2
2 2
2
0
10
TOTAL Retiajlate Sculpin
25
21
14
11
69
1
1
1
0
19
TOTAL Retia.jlate Sculpin
1
1
1
0
19
1
1
1
0
1
TOTAL Redside Shiner Retiajlate Sculpin Northern Pikerninnow Speckled Dace
1
1
1
0
1
8 22
5
3
17
18
7
1
1
1
5 4 0
24
8
23
1
TOTAL Redside Shiner Retiaj late Sculpin Northern Pikeminnow Speckled Dace
59
35
49
10
99
11
9
0
11
9
7
2
7
4
3
1
3
3
2
2
1
29 39 5 2
TOTAL
27
21
5
22
Reds ide Shiner
8 2
7
0 0
8
Retiailate Sculpin Northern Pikeminnow Speckled Dace Cutthroat Trout
TOTAL
1
1
1
2 0
3
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
15
10
1
14
1
5
70 4 20
75 17 6 3
0 3
29
Appendix 11. Breakdown of stomach contents for gently sloping channels for each species at each site in 2004.
Floodplain Access # Individuals # With Stomach Contents
Site
Species
13A
Redside Shiner Reticulate Sculpin Speckled Dace
12 13
13B
13C
14A
14B
14C
7
# Spring # Winter # Organisms in Diet
2
12 2
5 8 2
7 5 0
58 71
143
TOTAL
27
21
15
12
RedsideShiner
5
0
5
0
0
TOTAL Redside Shiner Reticulate Sculpin Threespine Stickleback Speckled Dace
5
0
5
0
0
9 2 3
4 2 3
9
0
1
1
9 14
3
1
1
0 0
499
1
TOTAL Redside Shiner Reticulate Sculpin Northern Pikeminnow Speckled Dace
15
10
14
1
523
1
3
0
7
1
1
0
5
7 0 2
4
1
TOTAL Redside Shiner Northern Pikeminnow Reticulate Sculpin Speckled Dace
17
10
15
2
39
12 2 6 5
7
1
11
13
1
1
1
1
5 3
6
0
32
2
1
12
3 8 1
272
1
1
33 0 5
TOTAL
25
16
10
13
58
Redside Shiner
12
10
0
12
24
Reticulate Sculpin
1
1
0
1
TOTAL
13
11
0
13
1
25
110
Appendix 12. Taxonomy of invertebrates found in the benthos of intermittent streams in March 2003.
Taxa Acan lumkuuuwuu)
.Genus
Order
Eamily
Class
Arachmda Aetheopoda Mahcostraca Artheopoda Arthiopoda Inaicta Insecta Axthropoda Malacoutraca Arthsopoda maceta Arthsopoda Masitlopoda Aflhtopuda Inuecta Arthropoda louecta Arthoopoda inuecta Aettutopoda lnuecta Arthropoda Inuecta Arthropoda Insecta Arthropoda insects Artheopoda Arthropoda maceta Insects Arthropoda Insects Arthropoda Branchiopoda Arth,opoda Insects Artluopoda Malacoulraca Arthrupoda Inuecta Artheopoda Maxillopoda Aetheopoda Branchiopoda Arthoopoda
up up.
up. up.
Aectopora Baetidae op. Caecidotea Caeniu
Aectopora
Caecidotea Cairns
Linrnephilidae Boetidue Aoellidae Caenidae
Amphipoda Trichoptera Ephememptera luopoda Ephemeroptera
Calanoida Cecidomyiidae larvae Centroptfium Ceratopogonidae adult Ceratopogonmae Chelifera Chironwnidae adults Ch.ronom,dae larvae Chironomidae pupae
op.
up.
Colausoida
up.
Cecidomyiidar Baetidae Ceratopogonidae Ceeatopogonidae Empididae Chirono,rndae Clmonomidae Cbironomidae Chironon.idae Cheyuomeltdae Chydondae Dytiscidar
Diptera Bpheme.optera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diplera Diptera Coleoptera Diplosloaca Coleoptera Decapoda Culeoptera Cydopoida Diplostraca Homoptera Inoecta lnuecta Diptera Diptera Insects Inuecta Diptera Collembola lasecta Branchiopoda thploutraca Arhynchobdellida Hirudinea Hymenoptera Inuecta Anuphipoda Malacostraca Trichoptera Inuecta Harpactaccuida Mauillopoda
Amphipodasp.
Ouironouniusi
Chryuomelidae adult Osydoridae Colymbetes/Rbantuu Crayfish Curcuilionidae adults Cydopoida Daphniidae Delphacsdae Dicranota IT)olichopodidae larvae En.pididae adults Entomobryidae Ephippia Erpobdellidae Pormicidae Gammarus Granuunotauliuu
Harpartacoida Hrmiptera joy Heuperophylau Higher Dipteea adults
HigherDipteralarvae Higher Diptera pupae Homoptera juv Hyallela Hybomilea Hydraena Hydroida Hypogaslrwidae llyocryptuu luopoda up. luotomidae Lrpidoptera larvae Lepidoplera pupae l.rpidostocua
up.
Centroptilurn up. up.
Chelifera up. up.
up. up. up. up.
Colymbetes/Rhantus up.
up. up. up.
up.
Dicranota up.
up. up. up. up. up.
up. Curcuulionidae up.
Daphniidae Delphacidae Tipulidae Doiichopodidae Empididae Entomobryidae up.
Gammaruu Grammotauliuu
Erpobdellidae Formicidae Gammaridse Limnephilidae
up. up.
up. up.
l-iesperopluylax
l.irnnephilidae
up. up. up. up.
up. up. up. up.
Hyallela Hybomitra Hydeaena
Hyallelidae Tabanidae Hydraenidae
up. up.
up.
ilyocryptuu up. up. up. up.
Lepidoutoma
Hypogautrwtdae Maaothxictdae Auellidae lsotonuidae up. up.
Lepidostomatidae
up.
Vhyhim
Aquatidrerrestrial T A A
A A A
A
T A
T A A
T A A A
T A A
A T A A
Artluropoda
T
Artluopoda Artheopoda Artbropoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Annelida Arthropoda Arthropoda Artheopoda Arthropoda
A
T
A
T T A A
T A A A
Heusuiptesa
Icusecta
Astluopruda
Trichoplera Diptera Diptera Diptera Homoptera Amphipoda Diptera Coleoptera Hydroida Collembola Diploutraca luopoda Collembola Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Tnchoptera
insecta Inuecta
Arthrupoda Arthropoda Arthuopoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Artluopoda Artheopoda Arthoopoda Cnidaria Axthropoda
A
Artluropoda
A A
Icuuecta
inSects Insecta Matacoutraca
inrcts lussecta
Hydrozua h.soCta
Branchiupoda Malacostraca Inoecla lusecta Insects Insects
Arthropoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Arlhropoda Artheopoda
T T T T A
A A
T T
T T T A
111
l.ibetlulidae
op.
Limnephilidae larvae Limnephilodae pupae
op.
timnephilus Limnophila
Limnephilus Lininophila
Lymnaeidae Macrothñcidae Malenka
op. up.
Motophilus Mycetophilidae adults
Molophilus
MycetophilidaeiSciandae larvae Mycetophilidae/Sciaridae pupae
up.
op.
Tipulidae Mycetphilidae Mycetophitidae/Sciaridae MycntophilidaelSciavidae
Nenoatocera adults
op.
op.
Nematocera pupae Nematoda Nemotelus
up.
Nemoura Oligochaeta Orabatid mite O,thocladiinae Ostracerca adult Oslracerca/Fodmosta Ostracoda Faraleptophlebia Fed icia
Penconsa/Telmatoscopus Fhysidae
Libellolidae Umnephitidae Limnephilidae Limnephilidae Tipulidae
Intecta
Arthropoda
Thchopten
lnecta
Trichoptera Trichoptera Diptera Basommatophora Diploslraca Plecoptera
Inoecta lnoecta Inoecta Gasloopoda
Aothropoda Arthrapoda
lnsecta Insects Insecta Insecta Insects Inoecta
ArthropOda
A
Aithropoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Alibropoda
T T
Op.
Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera
op.
op.
op.
op.
Nematoda
Nensotelus Nemosira
Stratiomyidae Nemouridae
Diptera
Arthropoda Arthropoda
op.
op.
op.
op.
op.
Sarcoptiformeo
Inoecta Insects Oligochaeta Axachnida
up. Ostracerca adult OstracercaiPodmesta op.
Chironomidae Nemouridae Nemoundae
Diptera
Op.
op.
Paraleptophtebia Pedicia PericomalTelmatoscopuo
Leptophlebiidae Tipulidae
op.
Malenka op.
op.
Lymnaeidae Macrothricidae Nemoundac
Poychodidae Phyoidae
Plecopteea
Plecoptera Plecoptera
pherneroptera
Diptera Diptera
Arthropuda Arthropoda Mollusca Branehiopoda Arthropoda l,osecta Arthropoda
Inoecta Insects Insecta Ostracoda maceta Inoecta Insecta Gastropoda
Fisidiidae Planorbidae
op.
op.
Pioidiidae l'lanorbidae
Flecoptera nymphs Polyxenida Pseudoctoeon Pulmonata
up.
Op.
op.
op.
Pseudodoeon
Baetidae
OP.
up.
Basommatophora Venesoida BaSommatophora Plecoptera Polyxenida Ephemeroptera Basommatophora
Rotifer
op.
op.
up.
op.
Sciaridae adults Sciomyzidae
Op.
Dipteea
Sialis Simuliidae slug Sminthuridae Spider Symphylan Tanypodinae Tanytarsini
Sialis
Sciaridae Sciomyridae Sialidae
Op.
Simuliidae
Op.
up.
op. up.
Sminthuridae
Diptera Megaloptera Diptera Stylommatophora Colleinbola
Inuecta Insecta lnoecta Inoecta Gastropoda Inoecta
up.
sp.
Arachnida
SF.
up.
op.
op. Op.
Chironoinidae Chimnomidae
Diptera Diptera
SI,.
Sp.
Thysarooptera
Synophyta Inuecta Inoecla Insecta
Tipula Op.
Tipulidae Tipulidae
Diptera Diptera
Inoecta lnoecta
op.
op.
sp.
Turbellana
Op.
op.
Sp.
op. Coesoagrionidae
Coleoptera Coleoptera Odonata
Insecla Insecta Insecta
thrips Tipula Tipulidaesp. Turbellaria unknown beetle adult unknown beetle larvae Zoniagrion
A A A A
Odonata
op.
Zoniagrion
Bivalvia Gastropoda Inoecta
Diplopoda Insecta Gastropoda
Anneida Arthropoda Aithropoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Asthropoda Arthropoda Aithropoda Mollusca Mollusca Mollusca Arthropoda Arthropoda Arthropoda Mollusca Rotifera Astloropoda Aathropoda
Artloropoda Axthropoda Molluoca
Arthropoda Arthropoda Asthropoda Arthropoda Azthropoda Artheopoda Arthropoda Arthropoda
liatyhelmintheo Arthropoda Arthropoda A,thropoda
A
A A A
T
T T A A A
A T A T A A A A A A
A A A
T A A
A T
A A A T T T T A
A T A A
A T T A
112
Appendix 13. Taxonomy of invertebrates found in the drift of intermittent streams in March 2003. Aquatic
NonInsect
Acari
U
Yes
Agabus Ameletus Aphididae Arachnida Baetidae sp. Bosmina Caecidotea Calanoida Cecidomyiidae adults Cecidomyiidae larvae Centipede Ceratopogonidae adults Ceratopogoninae Chaoborus Chironomid pupae Chironomidae adults Chironomini Chrysopidae Chydoridae Cicadellidae Coleoptera sp. Colymbetes/Rhantus Corisella Corixidae Cydopoida Daphniidae Delphacidae Dixella Dolichopodidae larvae Dytiscidae adults Dytiscidae larva sp. Entomobryidae Ephippia Formicidae Gammarus Grammotaulius Harpactacoida Hemiptera juv Higher Dipteiu adults Higher Diptera larvae Higher Diptera pupae Homoptera juv Hyallela Hydraena Hydroida Hydroporinae larvae Hydroporus Hymenoptera adult (wasp)
A
No No No Yes No
Taxa
A
T T A
A A A T
Yes Yes Yes
I
No No
T
Yes
U A A A
No No No No No No No
A
A T A T U A A
A A A
T A U
A A T A T A A A U U U U
T A A A A A
T
Yes
No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No
No No Yes No Yes
No Yes
No No No No No Yes
No Yes
No No No
113
Hypogastruridae Ilyocryptus lsotomidae Laccobius Leiodidae Lepidoptera larva Lepidostoma Leptophlebiidae sp. Limnephilidae sp. Limnephilus Limnephilus/Grammotaulius Litnonia Lymnaeidae Macrothrjcjdae Molophilus Mycetophilidae adult Mycetophilidae/Sciaridae larvae Nematocera adult sp. Nematoda Nemouridae sp. Oligochaeta Ormosia/Molophilus Orthocladjjnae Ostracerca/Podmosta Ostracoda Paraleptophiebia Peltodytes adult Perlid/Perlodid Physidae Planorbidae Polyxenidae Procloeon/Centroptilum Pseudoscorpiones Psocoptera Rotifers Sanfilipodytes Sciaridae adults Simuliidae slug Sminthuridae Staphylinidae Tabanidae larvae Tanypodinae Tanytarsini thrips Trichoceridae larvae Turbellaria Twinnia/Gymnopais unknown heads Unknown insects
T
No
A
Yes
T
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
A
T T A
A A A A A A A A
T U U U A U A A A A A
A A
A A
T
Yes No
No No Yes
No No No Yes Yes Yes
A
No
T T
Yes
A A U A
Yes
T T
Yes
U A A A
T U A A U
U
No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No
114
Appendix 14. Taxonomy of invertebrates found in the diet of fish in intermittent streams in January through May 2004. Taxa Acari Algae
Amphipoda Arachnidae Capniidae Chironomidae Chironomidae Adult Chironomidae pupae Coleoptera Collembola Cyclopoida Diptera Diptera adult Dyticidae adult Dyticidae larva Harpacticoida Hirudinidae Homoptera Hydraenidae Hymenoptera Isopoda Isopoda larva Limnephilidae Lymnaidae Oligochaeta Orthocladiinae Ostracoda Planorbidae Plecoptera Simuliidae Simuliidae pupae Thysanoptera Tipulidae Trichoptera Turbellaria Unidentified
Aquatic/Terrestrial
Benthic/Drift
A A A T A A
B
I
0 B
D B B
D
A A T A A T T A A A T A T A A A A A A A A A A A
B
T
D
A A A
B
0
0
D D D B
D D D D B
D B
D B B
B B B B
D B
B B B
B B
