Geology topics

Philip R. Branigan

Publications and source records attributed to Philip R. Branigan.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Resource selection and species interactions between native and non-native fishes in a simulated stream system

Effective fishery management necessitates understanding of resource partitioning by fishes that inhabit complex systems composed of biotic and abiotic features. Evaluations of non-native species introductions have continually demonstrated adverse effects associated with abundance and distribution of native fishes. Therefore, understanding resource selection and interactions between native and non-native species is important for recovery efforts. Habitat use by two native fish species (largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus [Girard] and mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni [Girard]) and one non-native fish species (pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus [Linnaeus]) of the Kootenai River, Idaho, were evaluated in a laboratory stream system. Trials were conducted in allopatry and in sympatry with and without the presence of wood to describe habitat selection in the context of on-going habitat rehabilitation efforts. Interactions were evident between native largescale sucker and non-native pumpkinseed concerning use of a woody structure and current velocity. Mountain whitefish used low-velocity habitats and selected locations that were further from wood when in sympatry with pumpkinseed. Our research suggests that habitat use of native, large-river fishes may be influenced by the presence of a non-native species, and that considering such interactions is critical when designing and implementing habitat rehabilitation efforts in river ecosystems.

Fisheries Management and Ecology↗

USGS2018

Microhabitat use of native fishes in the Kootenai River: A fine‐scale evaluation of large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts

Fish and microhabitat data were collected at 542 prepositioned electrofishing sites (surface area of each site = 4 m 2 ) in the Kootenai River, Idaho, during 2014 and 2015 to evaluate small‐scale habitat use by fishes, as it relates to large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts. Samples were collected from a 12‐km braided segment of river that had received localized habitat rehabilitation treatments since 2011. Fish and microhabitat data were collected to investigate habitat drivers related to the occurrence and relative abundance of fishes. Each sampling location was selected at random and characterized as “treated” (i.e., rehabilitated) or “untreated” based on proximity to habitat treatments. Fishes sampled from backwaters composed 71% of the overall catch and 84% of the catch from locally untreated areas of the river. Species‐specific regression models suggested that water depth and current velocity influenced the occurrence and abundance of fishes. In particular, shallow habitats with low current velocities were important for small‐bodied native fishes and likely serve as important rearing areas for juvenile fish. These habitat conditions typically characterize backwater and channel‐margin habitats that are vulnerable to anthropogenic perturbation. Prioritizing process‐based rehabilitation of these areas in large, regulated rivers would allow natural channel‐forming processes for the benefit of native fishes.

Idaho↗

USGS2018

Comparison of a prepositioned areal electrofishing device and fixed underwater videography for sampling riverine fishes

Prepositioned areal electrofishing devices (PAEDs) are used to evaluate microhabitat use by fishes because they minimize fright biases associated with traditional electrofishing techniques (e.g., boat electrofishing). Similarly, fixed underwater videography (FUV) is commonly used to minimize the effect of observers on fish behavior. The specific objectives of this research were to evaluate estimates of taxonomic occurrence and diversity between PAEDs and FUV and determine an appropriate time interval between positioning and electrifying of a PAED to reduce effects of PAED positioning on fish occurrence. Video cameras were positioned instream at 28 locations on the Kootenai River, Idaho, prior to PAED deployment such that the entire immobilization zone of the PAED was captured on camera. Following a 4-min acclimation period, cameras recorded fish behavior approximately 15 min prior to and 20 min following PAED deployment. Electrical current was applied to the PAEDs for 20 s immediately following the FUV procedure, and immobilized fishes were collected and processed. Video footage was subsampled in the laboratory, and fishes in the video were identified and enumerated in 5-s or 20-s intervals. Fixed underwater videography sampled more taxa than PAEDs at any given site. However, fishes sampled with FUV were difficult to identify, and most individuals were classified as “unidentifiable.” Consequently, direct comparisons between FUV and PAEDs are limited. Our results indicate that PAEDs should remain undisturbed for a minimum of 12 min before the equipment is electrified. Both PAEDs and FUV provide an estimate of taxonomic occurrence, but logistical and financial constraints along with project objectives must be considered when selecting between these 2 gear types. Results from this study provide information on the effectiveness of each gear type as it relates to the characterization of riverine fish assemblages at a small spatial scale.

Western North American Naturalist↗