Geology topics

Sean M. Hitchman

Publications and source records attributed to Sean M. Hitchman.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Empirical assessments of the type and strength of stream fish habitat associations can advance understanding of functional diversity and promote effective conservation.

The ability to accurately quantify biodiversity is fundamental to understanding ecological trends, identifying drivers of declines, and selecting effective conservation options. Scientists and resource managers have grappled with what metrics best show relevant biodiversity patterns and are still practical enough to aid on-the-ground resource conservation. Our purpose is to construct empirically derived, functional habitat guilds for prairie stream fish, then recommend future directions for constructing and using diversity metrics that aid field-based conservation. Working in the Upper Neosho River, KS, USA, we used univariate methods, cluster analysis, non-metric multi-dimensional scaling, and an analysis of similarity to functionally group stream fish taxa. The 11 most abundant fish species grouped into seven ecological guilds: riffle specialist, pool specialist, riffle generalist, pool generalist, riffle–run generalist, pool–run generalist, and generalist. Combining the habitat type and strength of association added ecological accuracy to our species groups. Employing multiple statistical methods increased confidence and generality in our grouping results. Moving forward will require a coordinated, coalition-driven, conservation-related strategy on which researchers and practitioners collaborate to synthesize diverse empirical results, organize general principles of structure and function, and balance accuracy with practicality.

Kansas↗

USGS2021

Merging scientific silos: Integrating specialized approaches for thinking about and using spatial data that can provide new directions for persistent fisheries problems

By merging our specialization silos, fisheries professionals can expand the options that are available to them to address difficult fisheries and aquatic conservation problems, which require an understanding of spatial patterns in geographically large systems. Our purpose is to start a profession-wide conversation about additional ways to think about and use spatial data. We use case studies to illustrate how identifying and merging multiple specialized approaches (e.g., fish tracking, fish surveys, geomorphology, social science, jurisdictional viewpoints) can create an ensemble that has advantages over the use of any single approach alone. Thus, our perspective is not about solving a specific technical problem with a new tool, but about the benefits of identifying gaps in data from one specialized approach, and filling those gaps with data from other specialized approaches. If multiple approaches are coordinated through a larger, problem-specific planning strategy, the result can be better outcomes for difficult problems through creative integration. We encourage others to add constructive ideas to the views initiated here.

Fisheries Magazine↗

USGS2021

Does type, quantity, and location of habitat matter for fish diversity in a Great Plains riverscape?

Fisheries professionals frequently measure habitat type and amount, but less often measure the importance of where those habitats are located and in what combinations. We address this challenge by testing whether the individual and combined type, quantity, and location of habitat affects fish diversity in the upper Neosho River basin, Kansas, as a different approach to measuring habitat heterogeneity. Habitat type mattered in that species richness increased in areas of higher riffle density. Furthermore, variation within habitat type also influenced fish diversity; specifically, slower, shallower riffles had more species of fish. The spatial arrangement (i.e., impact of neighbor habitats) influenced fish diversity patterns in that riffle–run and riffle–glide pairings altered riffle habitat characteristics. The study illustrates a useful approach by measuring the type, amount, and arrangement of habitats to assess fish populations and could be adapted to other stream ecosystems.

Kansas↗

USGS2018

Habitat mosaics and path analysis can improve biological conservation of aquatic biodiversity in ecosystems with low-head dams

Conserving native biodiversity depends on restoring functional habitats in the face of human-induced disturbances. Low-head dams are a ubiquitous human impact that degrades aquatic ecosystems worldwide. To improve our understanding of how low-head dams impact habitat and associated biodiversity, our research examined complex interactions among three spheres of the total environment. i.e., how low-head dams ( anthroposphere ) affect aquatic habitat ( hydrosphere ), and native biodiversity ( biosphere ) in streams and rivers. Creation of lake-like habitats upstream of low-head dams is a well-documented major impact of dams. Alterations downstream of low head dams also have important consequences, but these downstream dam effects are more challenging to detect. In a multidisciplinary field study at five dammed and five undammed sites within the Neosho River basin, KS, we tested hypotheses about two types of habitat sampling (transect and mosaic) and two types of statistical analyses (analysis of covariance and path analysis). We used fish as our example of biodiversity alteration. Our research provided three insights that can aid environmental professionals who seek to conserve and restore fish biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems threatened by human modifications. First, a mosaic approach identified habitat alterations below low-head dams (e.g. increased proportion of riffles) that were not detected using the more commonly-used transect sampling approach. Second, the habitat mosaic approach illustrated how low-head dams reduced natural variation in stream habitat. Third, path analysis, a statistical approach that tests indirect effects, showed how dams, habitat, and fish biodiversity interact. Specifically, path analysis revealed that low-head dams increased the proportion of riffle habitat below dams, and, as a result, indirectly increased fish species richness . Furthermore, the pool habitat that was created above low-head dams dramatically decreased fish species richness. As we show here, mosaic habitat sampling and path analysis can help conservation practitioners improve science-based management plans for disturbed aquatic systems worldwide.

Kansas↗

USGS2017

The blind men meet the elephant at the dam: Alternative spatial and taxonomic components reveal different insights about how low-head dams impact fish biodiversity

Dams are ubiquitous environmental impacts that threaten aquatic ecosystems. The ability to compare across research studies is essential to conserve the native biodiversity that is impacted by the millions of low‐head dams that currently fragment streams and rivers. Here, we identify a previously unaddressed obstacle that impedes this generalization. Specifically, divergent spatial and taxonomic approaches that result from different conceptualizations of the dam‐biodiversity problem can produce conflicting science‐based conclusions about the same dam impact. In this research, using the same dammed and undammed sites, we evaluated the scientific generality of different conceptualizations of the dam‐biodiversity problem. We compared two different but commonly used spatial approaches—(1) above dam–below dam vs. (2) undammed–dammed comparisons—and 11 different, commonly used taxonomic approaches (three assemblage summaries, eight guilds). Sites above the dam structure had less diverse fish assemblages than sites below dams, whereas sites below the dam structure were similar to undammed sites. Thus, spatial approach 1 detected a large dam effect and spatial approach 2 detected a small dam effect. Similarly, some taxonomic responses (species richness, diversity, abundance, and number of guilds) detected large dam effects; other responses detected small (riffle specialist guild) or no dam effects (pool generalists). In summary, our results showed that how the problem was framed altered scientific conclusions and created different dam realities. The metaphor of how individual blind men disagree about the structure of an elephant, based on examinations of different body parts, reinforces the need for a coordinated, holistic perspective on dam research. Although no single approach is adequate for all problems, identifying the form, consequences of, and relationships among different research conceptualizations will set the stage for future syntheses of dam‐biodiversity research to advance science‐based conservation.

Ecosphere↗

USGS2017

A mosaic-based approach is needed to conserve biodiversity in disturbed freshwater ecosystems

Conserving native biodiversity in the face of human‐ and climate‐related impacts is a challenging and globally important ecological problem that requires an understanding of spatially connected, organismal‐habitat relationships. Globally, a suite of disturbances (e.g., agriculture, urbanization, climate change) degrades habitats and threatens biodiversity. A mosaic approach (in which connected, interacting collections of juxtaposed habitat patches are examined) provides a scientific foundation for addressing many disturbance‐related, ecologically based conservation problems. For example, if specific habitat types disproportionately increase biodiversity, these keystones should be incorporated into research and management plans. Our sampling of fish biodiversity and aquatic habitat along ten 3‐km sites within the Upper Neosho River subdrainage, KS, from June‐August 2013 yielded three generalizable ecological insights. First, specific types of mesohabitat patches (i.e., pool, riffle, run, and glide) were physically distinct and created unique mosaics of mesohabitats that varied across sites. Second, species richness was higher in riffle mesohabitats when mesohabitat size reflected field availability. Furthermore, habitat mosaics that included more riffles had greater habitat diversity and more fish species. Thus, riffles (<5% of sampled area) acted as keystone habitats. Third, additional conceptual development, which we initiate here, can broaden the identification of keystone habitats across ecosystems and further operationalize this concept for research and conservation. Thus, adopting a mosaic approach can increase scientific understanding of organismal‐habitat relationships, maintain natural biodiversity, advance spatial ecology, and facilitate effective conservation of native biodiversity in human‐altered ecosystems.

Kansas↗