Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb;67(2):291-307.
doi: 10.1007/s00267-020-01413-2. Epub 2021 Jan 9.

Incorporating Network Connectivity into Stream Classification Frameworks

Affiliations

Incorporating Network Connectivity into Stream Classification Frameworks

Colby D Denison et al. Environ Manage. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Stream classification frameworks are important tools for conserving aquatic resources. Yet despite their utility, most classification frameworks have not incorporated network connectivity. We developed and compared three biologically informed stream classification frameworks considering the effects of variables indexing local habitat and/or connectivity on stream fish communities. The first framework classified streams according to local environmental variables largely following the precedent set by previous stream classifications. The second framework classified streams according solely to network connectivity variables, while the third framework considered both local and connectivity variables. Using fish community data from 291 wadeable streams in South Carolina, USA, we used conditional inference tree analyses to identify either seven or eight discrete types of wadeable streams within each framework. Classifications were evaluated on their ability to describe community composition at a subset of sites not used in model training, and canonical correspondence analysis suggested that each framework performed similarly in describing overall community variation, with about 19% of variation explained. After accounting for the effects of biogeography and land use in our analytical approach, each classification explained a substantially higher amount of community variation with 46% of variation explained by our connectivity-informed classification and 42% explained by our locally informed classification. Classifications differed in their ability to describe elements of community structure; a classification incorporating connectivity predicted species richness better than the one that did not. This study ultimately addresses an important knowledge gap in the classification literature while providing broader implications for the conservation of aquatic organisms and their habitats.

Keywords: Dispersal; Fish; Habitat; Metacommunity; Network topology; Rivers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284
    1. Angermeier PL (1995) Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of Virginia. Conserv Biol 9:143–158
    1. Benda L, Poff NL, Miller D et al. (2004) The network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience 54:413
    1. Brenden TO, Wang L, Seelbach PW (2008) A river valley segment classification of Michigan streams based on fish and physical attributes. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:1621–1636
    1. Brown BL, Swan CM (2010) Dendritic network structure constrains metacommunity properties in riverine ecosystems. J Anim Ecol 79:571–580

LinkOut - more resources