Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70189654

Fishes of Missouri River, chute, and flood plain habitats: Chapter 4 in Initial biotic survey of Lisbon Bottom, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

Abstract

The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is approximately 2,200 acres and is the first complete unit of the Refuge. Primary objectives of the Refuge are to create and restore diverse riverine aquatic habitats and reconnect the Missouri River to its flood plain where feasible. Management seeks to accomplish these objectives by encouraging natural processes of erosion, deposition, and succession to the greatest extent possible. One of the most salient aquatic features of the Lisbon Bottom Unit is a newly created 2-mile-long free-flowing chute, or side channel (Fig. 1). This chute began forming as a levee breech scour hole during the Great Flood of 1993. The chute continued to develop during the 1995 flood and finally cut through to a flowing side channel during the 1996 flood. Extensive erosion and bank sluffing continued during 1997 due to sustained high flows that occurred throughout most of the year. The chute has progressively become wider and deeper with a developing meander pattern and channel bars have begun to form. Lisbon Bottom also contains several seasonal and permanent wetlands and is subject to periodic flooding at high Missouri River stages. Eight studies have been completed or are ongoing to evaluate Missouri River fishes associated with various habitat components of Lisbon Bottom and adjacent Missouri River reaches (Table 1). Several are part of much larger investigations to evaluate fish use of flood-created habitat features, basinwide fish assessment, and endangered or candidate species concerns. At the Lisbon Bottom Unit or in the Missouri River adjacent to the unit 54 fish species were collected (Table 2). Eight of these species have either a protected status under State or Federal laws or biologists consider them to potentially qualify for protected status. The status of the following fish is listed in Table 2: pallid sturgeon x shovelnose sturgeon hybrid, paddlefish, northern pike, sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, ghost shiner, western silvery minnow, plains minnow, and blue sucker. Equally important to note are fish species that were not collected. The flathead chub, currently listed as State endangered and proposed for Federal listing, were not collected in any of the studies. Common fish species, collected in all seven sampling studies, included gizzard shad, common carp, river carpsucker, and freshwater drum. Paddlefish, skipjack herring, silver carp, white sucker, redfin shiner, western silvery minnow, bullhead minnow, and black bullhead were each collected in only one of the seven studies. Pflieger (1971) developed a guild system for the fishes of Missouri based on distribution patterns and centers of abundance. Fish were assigned to one of four primary faunal groups: Ozark, Big River, Lowland, and Prairie. Two secondary groups (Ozark-prairie and Ozark-lowland) were defined for species equally abundant and distributed in two of the primary areas. Two Ozark-prairie species, shorthead redhorse and white sucker, were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Big River species are found primarily in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The environmental factors controlling fish distribution in these rivers appear to be substrate, current velocity, and turbidity. On or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit 18 Big River species were collected (Table 2). Lowland species are intolerant of siltation and high turbidity. They inhabit standing or slow-moving water with sand, fine gravel, and organic debris substrates. Two Lowland species, bullhead minnow and mosquitofish, were collected in connected scours on the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Prairie species have broader ecological tolerances than the Ozark and Lowland species. They are largely absent in high gradient streams and cool, clear waters. Prairie species make up a significant proportion of Missouri and Mississippi River fishes. Seven Prairie species were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit (Table 2). The last group, Wide-ranging, was defined as the species more widespread than the other faunal groups with broader environmental tolerances. Most Wide-ranging species occur at least occasionally in all sections of the state. Nineteen Wide-ranging species were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit (Table 2). Kubisiak (1997) found that isolated scours in the Lower Missouri River were dominated by Wide-ranging species. Connected scours also held Wideranging species but they contained Prairie species and were dominated by Big River species. Faunal group diversity and species richness were compared between isolated (Study l) and connected (Studies 4, 5, 7, and 8) scours of the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Species richness was similar with 22 species collected in isolated scours and an average of 24.8 species collected in connected scours. Isolated scour fish catches were dominated by Wide-ranging fish (59%) with 14% Big River fishes and 14% Prairie fishes. Connected scours had a larger percentage of Big River fish (32%) and fewer Wide-ranging (36%) and Prairie (13%) species than the isolated scours. In the combined studies, Wide-ranging fish dominated the connected scours. A similar comparison was made of fish from chute habitats and the Missouri River. Chute habitats include the Lisbon Bottom Chute, the chute between the right bank and island located at river mile 219, and a shallow channel running between a large sandbar complex and the channel border adjacent to Lisbon Bottom. Species richness in the chutes (35 species) was greater than that of the adjacent river (23 species). Big River species (40%) dominated the chute samples, followed by Wide-ranging at 31% Cand Prairie Cut 14%. The river samples contained equal numbers of Wide-ranging species (35%) and Big River species (35%) with 17% Prairie species. Differences in fish guild diversity and species richness may be due to numerous factors including sampling effort and sampling season. River samples were collected only in Study 3 in October; chute samples were collected in July, August, and October. Fish may have been using the chute in July and August to spawn, feed, or escape high river levels. The Lisbon Bottom Chute is a truly unique feature of the Lower Missouri River. It is the first naturally created side channel to develop since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tamed the river. The Corps eliminated 89% of the islands in the Missouri River between 1879 and 1954 (Funk and Robinson 1974). The chutes between the islands and the shore were shallower with less current than the main channel. These areas provided diversity to the Missouri River fish habitat, serving as nursery and feeding areas. The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge will continue to be studied in an effort to understand the complex role these areas play in river systems.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.08263919551914° to 39.143774425328424° latitude; -92.95600891113281° to -92.89438247680664° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joanne Grady, Jim Milligan, Duane Chapman, Ellen A. Ehrhardt, Douglas J. Dieterman, David L. Galat, John Hooker, John Kubisiak, Aaron DeLonay, Edward E. Little, Jack Robinson, John Tibbs. 1999. Fishes of Missouri River, chute, and flood plain habitats: Chapter 4 in Initial biotic survey of Lisbon Bottom, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70189654

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Waterfowl migration on Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges 1953-2001

The Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) complex, located in northeastern California and southern Oregon, is situated on a major Pacific Flyway migration corridor connecting waterfowl breeding grounds in the north with major wintering grounds in California and Mexico. The complex comprises five waterfowl refuges including Lower Klamath NWR, Tule Lake NWR, Upper Klamath NWR, Klamath Marsh NWR, and Clear Lake NWR, and one bald eagle refuge, Bear Valley NWR. Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs are the largest refuges in the complex; historically, they supported some of the greatest autumn and spring concentrations of migrating waterfowl in North America. Starting in 1953, standardized waterfowl surveys from small aircraft have been conducted in autumn through spring. This report summarizes waterfowl migration activity (i.e., abundance, species composition, distribution on refuges, and chronology) over four time periods—the long-term (1953-2001), early (1953-76), recent (1977-2001), and the most recent (1998-2001)—to describe changing patterns of migration on Klamath Basin refuges from autumn 1953 to spring 2001. Over the long term, waterfowl abundance (birds per day) on the refuge complex averaged about 1.0 million in autumn and about 360,000 in spring. A record peak count of 5.8 million waterfowl was recorded September 24-25, 1958. Average abundance of autumn staging waterfowl for the refuge complex, after reaching record levels in the 1950s and early 1960s, began a decline that lasted until the 1980s. A gradual recovery occurred during the 1990s, but autumn abundance has not recovered to pre-1970 levels. In contrast to autumn, average spring abundance was generally lower in the early decades but has gradually increased through the 1990s, particularly on Lower Klamath NWR. Dabbling ducks represented an average of 68% of all waterfowl in autumn and 55% in spring for the long term. Northern pintail ( Anas acuta ) was dominant, representing 62% of all dabblers in autumn and 51% in spring. A significant decline in pintail abundance starting in the late 1950s altered waterfowl composition on Klamath Basin refuges. As pintail declined, other species such as mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and green-winged teal ( Anas crecca ) increased in abundance. Although Arctic nesting geese, including white-fronted ( Anser albifrons ), cackling Canada ( Branta canadensis minima ), white geese (lesser snow [ Chen caerulescens caerulescens ], and Ross’s [ Chen rossii ]) have become less prominent in recent decades, they reached an historically high abundance during autumn in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly on Tule Lake NWR. Tule Lake NWR supported the highest average autumn waterfowl populations until surpassed by Lower Klamath NWR around 1980. During the recent period (1977-2001), Lower Klamath NWR accounted for 60% of all waterfowl using the refuge complex in autumn and 61% in spring. Habitat diversity and wetland productivity contributed to its greater waterfowl abundance. Tule Lake NWR supported the most geese over the long term, 79% in autumn and 66% in spring; however, total waterfowl abundance on this refuge in autumn has been in decline, likely because of reduced diversity and productivity of sumps in the refuge. Upper Klamath, Klamath Marsh, and Clear Lake NWRs accounted for less than 8% of total waterfowl use in autumn and spring but provided diverse habitats for migrants. Waterfowl use-days on Klamath Basin refuges typically peaked in mid-autumn, decreased as migrants passed through the basin, and then reached a lesser peak during spring passage. Waterfowl abundance reached a pronounced peak in autumn during the early period (1953-76), but spring peak buildup was much less pronounced. For the recent period the autumn peak was more subdued. Waterfowl abundance, species composition, and distribution on Klamath Basin refuges have fluctuated over the decades and have been influenced by events such as productivity on breeding grounds and habitat conditions on wintering grounds that cause shifts in migration patterns. A major challenge for the future appears to be the availability of adequate water for wetland management on Klamath Basin refuges.

California, Oregon↗

Coefficients of productivity for Yellowstone's grizzly bear habitat

This report describes methods for calculating coefficients used to depict habitat productivity for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Calculations based on these coefficients are used in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects Model to map the distribution of habitat productivity and account for the impacts of human facilities. The coefficients of habitat productivity incorporate detailed information that was collected over a 20-year period (1977-96) on the foraging behavior of Yellowstone's bears and include records of what bears were feeding on, when and where they fed, the extent of that feeding activity, and relative measures of the quantity consumed. The coefficients also incorporate information, collected primarily from 1986 to 1992, on the nutrient content of foods that were consumed, their digestibility, characteristic bite sizes, and the energy required to extract and handle each food. Coefficients were calculated for different time periods and different habitat types, specific to different parts of the Yellowstone ecosystem. Stratifications included four seasons of bear activity (spring, estrus, early hyperphagia, late hyperphagia), years when ungulate carrion and whitebark pine seed crops were abundant versus not, areas adjacent to (< 100 m) or far away from forest/nonforest edges, and areas inside or outside of ungulate winter ranges. Densities of bear activity in each region, habitat type, and time period were incorporated into calculations, controlling for the effects of proximity to human facilities. The coefficients described in this report and associated estimates of grizzly bear habitat productivity are unique among many efforts to model the conditions of bear habitat because calculations include information on energetics derived from the observed behavior of radio-marked bears.

Biological Science Report↗

A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands

A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contractees was completed to obtain information about Abstract environmental and social effects of the program on participants, farms, and communities. Of interest were observations concerning wildlife, attitudes about long-term management of program lands, and effectiveness of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assistance in relation to these issues. Surveys were delivered to 2,189 CRP participants with a resultant response rate of 64.5%. Retired farmers represented the largest category of respondents (52%). Enhanced control of soil erosion was the leading benefit of the CRP reported. Over 73% of respondents observed increased numbers of wildlife associated with lands enrolled in the program. The majority of respondents reported CRP benefits, including increased quality of surface and ground waters, improved air quality, control of drifting snow, and elevated opportunities to hunt or simply observe wildlife as part of daily activities. Income stability, improved scenic quality of farms and landscapes, and potential increases in property values and future incomes also were seen as program benefits. Negative aspects, reported by a smaller number of respondents, included seeing the CRP as a source of weeds, fire hazard, and attracting unwanted requests for trespass. Over 75% of respondents believed CRP benefits to wildlife were important. A majority of respondents (82%) believed the amount of assistance furnished by USDA related to planning and maintaining wildlife habitat associated with CRP lands was appropriate. Nearly 51% of respondents would accept incorporation of periodic management of vegetation into long-term management of CRP lands to maintain quality of wildlife habitats. Provision of funds to address additional costs and changes in CRP regulations would be required to maximize long-term management of program lands. Additional, on-ground assistance related to management of CRP, and other agricultural lands, to maintain wildlife habitats was commonly identified as a need by survey respondents.

Biological Science Report↗