Limits...
A Modelling Framework to Assess the Effect of Pressures on River Abiotic Habitat Conditions and Biota.

Kail J, Guse B, Radinger J, Schröder M, Kiesel J, Kleinhans M, Schuurman F, Fohrer N, Hering D, Wolter C - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Moreover, these approaches do not consider long-term morphological changes that affect habitat conditions.Technically, it was possible to link the different models, but future applications would benefit from the development of open source software for all modelling steps to enable fully automated model runs.The modelling framework is flexible and allows for including additional models and investigating different research and management questions, e.g., in climate impact research as well as river restoration and management.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute for Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany; Department of Aquatic Ecology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

ABSTRACT
River biota are affected by global reach-scale pressures, but most approaches for predicting biota of rivers focus on river reach or segment scale processes and habitats. Moreover, these approaches do not consider long-term morphological changes that affect habitat conditions. In this study, a modelling framework was further developed and tested to assess the effect of pressures at different spatial scales on reach-scale habitat conditions and biota. Ecohydrological and 1D hydrodynamic models were used to predict discharge and water quality at the catchment scale and the resulting water level at the downstream end of a study reach. Long-term reach morphology was modelled using empirical regime equations, meander migration and 2D morphodynamic models. The respective flow and substrate conditions in the study reach were predicted using a 2D hydrodynamic model, and the suitability of these habitats was assessed with novel habitat models. In addition, dispersal models for fish and macroinvertebrates were developed to assess the re-colonization potential and to finally compare habitat suitability and the availability/ability of species to colonize these habitats. Applicability was tested and model performance was assessed by comparing observed and predicted conditions in the lowland Treene River in northern Germany. Technically, it was possible to link the different models, but future applications would benefit from the development of open source software for all modelling steps to enable fully automated model runs. Future research needs concern the physical modelling of long-term morphodynamics, feedback of biota (e.g., macrophytes) on abiotic habitat conditions, species interactions, and empirical data on the hydraulic habitat suitability and dispersal abilities of macroinvertebrates. The modelling framework is flexible and allows for including additional models and investigating different research and management questions, e.g., in climate impact research as well as river restoration and management.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison of the relative habitat suitability for fish and (A) movement distance and (B) re-colonization potential.Relative habitat suitability = WUA related to bankfull wetted area (median and range of 12 monthly values are given). Movement distance = mean and 95% confidence interval of the regression model for the mobile component in Radinger and Wolter [68]. Re-colonization potential = percentage of the river network that is reachable (95% confidence interval is given in addition). Co Cobitis taenia, Ga Gasterosteus aculeatus, Go Gobio, Le Leuciscus leuciscus, Pe Perca fluviatilis, Ph Phoxinus phoxinus, Pu Pungitius pungitius, Ru Rutilus rutilus.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482704&req=5

pone.0130228.g005: Comparison of the relative habitat suitability for fish and (A) movement distance and (B) re-colonization potential.Relative habitat suitability = WUA related to bankfull wetted area (median and range of 12 monthly values are given). Movement distance = mean and 95% confidence interval of the regression model for the mobile component in Radinger and Wolter [68]. Re-colonization potential = percentage of the river network that is reachable (95% confidence interval is given in addition). Co Cobitis taenia, Ga Gasterosteus aculeatus, Go Gobio, Le Leuciscus leuciscus, Pe Perca fluviatilis, Ph Phoxinus phoxinus, Pu Pungitius pungitius, Ru Rutilus rutilus.

Mentions: For the final assessment, results on habitat suitability and re-colonization potential were compared. Habitat suitability of the present hydraulic habitat conditions in the study reach (baseline scenario) did not differ much between fish species (x-axis of Fig 5A and 5B). Relative habitat suitability ranged from 41% to 64% for the 8 modelled fish species (median value for all 12 months), similar to the minimum monthly value, which ranged from 31% to 43%. In contrast, fish species markedly differed in respect to their dispersal abilities and re-colonization potential. The model results reflected the different dispersal abilities, and the mean movement distance (the mean given by the regression model of the mobile component reported in Radinger and Wolter [68]) was markedly higher for good dispersers such as roach compared to less mobile species such as gudgeon (the y-axis of Fig 5A). However, fish species showed a different ranking with respect to the re-colonization potential, for which the number and location of source populations were considered in addition to species-specific dispersal abilities (y-axis of Fig 5B). Even species with a low dispersal ability such as gudgeon were predicted to reach a high share of the river network because they were widespread compared to species that are better dispersers but rare (e.g., roach).


A Modelling Framework to Assess the Effect of Pressures on River Abiotic Habitat Conditions and Biota.

Kail J, Guse B, Radinger J, Schröder M, Kiesel J, Kleinhans M, Schuurman F, Fohrer N, Hering D, Wolter C - PLoS ONE (2015)

Comparison of the relative habitat suitability for fish and (A) movement distance and (B) re-colonization potential.Relative habitat suitability = WUA related to bankfull wetted area (median and range of 12 monthly values are given). Movement distance = mean and 95% confidence interval of the regression model for the mobile component in Radinger and Wolter [68]. Re-colonization potential = percentage of the river network that is reachable (95% confidence interval is given in addition). Co Cobitis taenia, Ga Gasterosteus aculeatus, Go Gobio, Le Leuciscus leuciscus, Pe Perca fluviatilis, Ph Phoxinus phoxinus, Pu Pungitius pungitius, Ru Rutilus rutilus.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482704&req=5

pone.0130228.g005: Comparison of the relative habitat suitability for fish and (A) movement distance and (B) re-colonization potential.Relative habitat suitability = WUA related to bankfull wetted area (median and range of 12 monthly values are given). Movement distance = mean and 95% confidence interval of the regression model for the mobile component in Radinger and Wolter [68]. Re-colonization potential = percentage of the river network that is reachable (95% confidence interval is given in addition). Co Cobitis taenia, Ga Gasterosteus aculeatus, Go Gobio, Le Leuciscus leuciscus, Pe Perca fluviatilis, Ph Phoxinus phoxinus, Pu Pungitius pungitius, Ru Rutilus rutilus.
Mentions: For the final assessment, results on habitat suitability and re-colonization potential were compared. Habitat suitability of the present hydraulic habitat conditions in the study reach (baseline scenario) did not differ much between fish species (x-axis of Fig 5A and 5B). Relative habitat suitability ranged from 41% to 64% for the 8 modelled fish species (median value for all 12 months), similar to the minimum monthly value, which ranged from 31% to 43%. In contrast, fish species markedly differed in respect to their dispersal abilities and re-colonization potential. The model results reflected the different dispersal abilities, and the mean movement distance (the mean given by the regression model of the mobile component reported in Radinger and Wolter [68]) was markedly higher for good dispersers such as roach compared to less mobile species such as gudgeon (the y-axis of Fig 5A). However, fish species showed a different ranking with respect to the re-colonization potential, for which the number and location of source populations were considered in addition to species-specific dispersal abilities (y-axis of Fig 5B). Even species with a low dispersal ability such as gudgeon were predicted to reach a high share of the river network because they were widespread compared to species that are better dispersers but rare (e.g., roach).

Bottom Line: Moreover, these approaches do not consider long-term morphological changes that affect habitat conditions.Technically, it was possible to link the different models, but future applications would benefit from the development of open source software for all modelling steps to enable fully automated model runs.The modelling framework is flexible and allows for including additional models and investigating different research and management questions, e.g., in climate impact research as well as river restoration and management.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute for Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany; Department of Aquatic Ecology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

ABSTRACT
River biota are affected by global reach-scale pressures, but most approaches for predicting biota of rivers focus on river reach or segment scale processes and habitats. Moreover, these approaches do not consider long-term morphological changes that affect habitat conditions. In this study, a modelling framework was further developed and tested to assess the effect of pressures at different spatial scales on reach-scale habitat conditions and biota. Ecohydrological and 1D hydrodynamic models were used to predict discharge and water quality at the catchment scale and the resulting water level at the downstream end of a study reach. Long-term reach morphology was modelled using empirical regime equations, meander migration and 2D morphodynamic models. The respective flow and substrate conditions in the study reach were predicted using a 2D hydrodynamic model, and the suitability of these habitats was assessed with novel habitat models. In addition, dispersal models for fish and macroinvertebrates were developed to assess the re-colonization potential and to finally compare habitat suitability and the availability/ability of species to colonize these habitats. Applicability was tested and model performance was assessed by comparing observed and predicted conditions in the lowland Treene River in northern Germany. Technically, it was possible to link the different models, but future applications would benefit from the development of open source software for all modelling steps to enable fully automated model runs. Future research needs concern the physical modelling of long-term morphodynamics, feedback of biota (e.g., macrophytes) on abiotic habitat conditions, species interactions, and empirical data on the hydraulic habitat suitability and dispersal abilities of macroinvertebrates. The modelling framework is flexible and allows for including additional models and investigating different research and management questions, e.g., in climate impact research as well as river restoration and management.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus