Geology topics

R.F. Thurow

Publications and source records attributed to R.F. Thurow.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2008

Physical, biotic, and sampling influences on diel habitat use by stream-dwelling bull trout

We used daytime and nighttime underwater observation to assess microhabitat use by bull trout Salvelinus confluentus (N = 213) in streams of the intermountain western USA during the summers of 2001 and 2002. We recorded fish focal points and measured a set of habitat characteristics as well as habitat availability via line transects. Bull trout were benthic and solitary; most (88%) were observed at night. We developed a conditional logistic regression model to account for the effect of fish movement in response to snorkeling, and we fitted 18 candidate models to evaluate the relative influences of biotic and abiotic factors on habitat use. The candidate models were also fitted with a naive logistic regression (i.e., no movement) to evaluate the effects of movement on inferences of microhabitat use. The most plausible model describing bull trout habitat use was the same for the conditional and nai??ve regressions and included depth, velocity, percent rubble substratum, and the day X depth, body size X depth, and body size X day X depth interactions. The presence of brook trout S. fontinalis and the abundance of conspecifics did not strongly influence microhabitat use by bull trout. The relative rankings of the remaining models differed substantially between the conditional and nai??ve models. Relative to the conditional models, the naive models overestimated the importance of diurnal differences in habitat use and overestimated the use of deepwater habitats, particularly during the day. Both model types suggested that all sizes of bull trout were generally found in deeper, low-velocity habitat at night, whereas small bull trout (70-90 mm total length) were found in shallower habitats during the day. We recommend lhat biologists account for fish movement in response to sampling to avoid biasing modeled habitat use patterns by bull trout. ?? Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2008.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management↗

USGS2007

Chinook salmon use of spawning patches: Relative roles of habitat quality, size, and connectivity

Declines in many native fish populations have led to reassessments of management goals and shifted priorities from consumptive uses to species preservation. As management has shifted, relevant environmental characteristics have evolved from traditional metrics that described local habitat quality to characterizations of habitat size and connectivity. Despite the implications this shift has for how habitats may be prioritized for conservation, it has been rare to assess the relative importance of these habitat components. We used an information-theoretic approach to select the best models from sets of logistic regressions that linked habitat quality, size, and connectivity to the occurrence of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) nests. Spawning distributions were censused annually from 1995 to 2004, and data were complemented with field measurements that described habitat quality in 43 suitable spawning patches across a stream network that drained 1150 km 2 in central Idaho. Results indicated that the most plausible models were dominated by measures of habitat size and connectivity, whereas habitat quality was of minor importance. Connectivity was the strongest predictor of nest occurrence, but connectivity interacted with habitat size, which became relatively more important when populations were reduced. Comparison of observed nest distributions to null model predictions confirmed that the habitat size association was driven by a biological mechanism when populations were small, but this association may have been an area-related sampling artifact at higher abundances. The implications for habitat management are that the size and connectivity of existing habitat networks should be maintained whenever possible. In situations where habitat restoration is occurring, expansion of existing areas or creation of new habitats in key areas that increase connectivity may be beneficial. Information about habitat size and connectivity also could be used to strategically prioritize areas for improvement of local habitat quality, with areas not meeting minimum thresholds being deemed inappropriate for pursuit of restoration activities. ?? 2007 by the Ecological Society of America.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2004

An evaluation of multipass electrofishing for estimating the abundance of stream-dwelling salmonids

Failure to estimate capture efficiency, defined as the probability of capturing individual fish, can introduce a systematic error or bias into estimates of fish abundance. We evaluated the efficacy of multipass electrofishing removal methods for estimating fish abundance by comparing estimates of capture efficiency from multipass removal estimates to capture efficiencies measured by the recapture of known numbers of marked individuals for bull trout Salvelinus confluentus and westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi. Electrofishing capture efficiency measured by the recapture of marked fish was greatest for westslope cutthroat trout and for the largest size-classes of both species. Capture efficiency measured by the recapture of marked fish also was low for the first electrofishing pass (mean, 28%) and decreased considerably (mean, 1.71 times lower) with successive passes, which suggested that fish were responding to the electrofishing procedures. On average, the removal methods overestimated three-pass capture efficiency by 39% and under-estimated fish abundance by 88%, across both species and all size-classes. The overestimates of efficiency were positively related to the cross-sectional area of the stream and the amount of undercut banks and negatively related to the number of removal passes for bull trout, whereas for westslope cutthroat trout, the overestimates were positively related to the amount of cobble substrate. Three-pass capture efficiency measured by the recapture of marked fish was related to the same stream habitat characteristics that influenced (biased) the removal estimates and did not appear to be influenced by our sampling procedures, including fish marking. Simulation modeling confirmed our field observations and indicated that underestimates of fish abundance by the removal method were negatively related to first-pass sampling efficiency and the magnitude of the decrease in capture efficiency with successive passes. Our results, and those of other researchers, suggest that most electrofishing-removal-based estimates of fish abundance are likely to be biased and that these biases are related to stream characteristics, fish species, and size. We suggest that biologists regard electrofishing-removal- based estimates as biased indices and encourage them to measure and model the efficiency of their sampling methods to avoid introducing systematic errors into their data.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society↗