Fish habitat modelling in large rivers: combining expert opinion and hydrodynamic modelling to inform river management

References

• Arnold J. 2020. resamplr: Resampling methods. R package version 0.0.1.
   Google Scholar
• Barry S, Elith J. 2006. Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J Appl Ecology. 43(3):413–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaupré J, Boudreault J, Bergeron NE, St-Hilaire A. 2020. Inclusion of water temperature in a fuzzy logic Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr habitat model. J Therm Biol. 87:102471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belletti B, Rinaldi M, Bussettini M, Comiti F, Gurnell AM, Mao L, Nardi L, Vezza P. 2017. Characterising physical habitats and fluvial hydromorphology: A new system for the survey and classification of river geomorphic units. Geomorphol. 283:143–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best J. 2019. Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nature Geosci. 12(1):7–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bizzi S, Demarchi L, Grabowski RC, Weissteiner CJ, Van de Bund W. 2016. The use of remote sensing to characterise hydromorphological properties of European rivers. Aquat Sci. 78(1):57–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsányi P, Alfredsen K, Harby A, Ugedal O, Kraxner C. 2004. A Meso-scale habitat classification method for production modelling of Atlantic salmon in Norway. Hydroécologie Appliquée. 14:119–138. https://doi.org/10.1051/hydro:2004008
   Google Scholar
• Bovee KD. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology (Instream Flow Information Paper 12). Fort Collins (CO): US Fish and Wildlife Service.
   Google Scholar
• Cáceres MD, Legendre P. 2009. Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology. 90(12):3566–3574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castleberry DT, Cech JJ, Jr., Erman DC, Hankin D, Healey M, Kondolf GM, Mangel M, Mohr M, Moyle PB, Nielsen J, et al. 1996. Uncertainty and instream flow standards. Fisheries. 21:20–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunjak RA. 1996. Winter habitat of selected stream fishes and potential impacts from land-use activity. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 53(S1):267–282.
   Google Scholar
• Curry RA, Yamazaki G, Linnansaari T, Monk W, Samways KM, Dolson R, 524 Munkittrick KR, Bielecki A. 2020. Large dam renewals and removals—Part 1: 525 Building a science framework to support a decision-making process. River Research and 526 Applications. 36:1460–1471. doi:10.1002/rra.3680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davey AJH, Booker DJ, Kelly DJ. 2011. Diel variation in stream fish habitat suitability criteria: Implications for instream flow assessment. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 21(2):132–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deltares 2013. Delft3D-FLOW user manual: Hydro-morphodynamics. 3.15 ed. Deltares, p. 677. p.
   Google Scholar
• Dugdale SJ, Hannah DM, Malcolm IA. 2017. River temperature modelling: A review of process-based approaches and future directions. Earth Sci Rev. 175:97–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunbar MJ, Alfredsen K, Harby A. 2012. Hydraulic-habitat modelling for setting environmental river flow needs for salmonids. Fish Manag Ecol. 19(6):500–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farò D, Zolezzi G, Vezza P, Baumgartner K, Klar R, Andreaoli A. 2018. Testing 2D hydraulic modeling of mesoscale fish habitats in the Mareit/Mareta River (Ne Italy). In: ISE 2018, 12th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics, Tokyo, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Fleischmann A, Paiva R, Collischonn W. 2019. Can regional to continental river hydrodynamic models be locally relevant? A cross-scale comparison. J Hydrol X. 3:100027.
   Google Scholar
• Gautreau M, Wallace B, Linnansaari T. 2015. Mactaquac Aquatic Ecosystem Study Report Series 2015-014 Methods paper: River Transect Sampling of Physical Attributes Downstream of the Mactaquac Generating Station.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwell B, Boehmke B, Cunningham J, & GBM Developers 2020. gbm: Generalized Boosted Regression Models. R package version 2.1.8.
   Google Scholar
• Grenouillet G, Schmidt-Kloiber A. 2006. Fish Indicator Database. Euro-limpacs project, Workpackage 7 – Indicators of ecosystem health, Task 4, [accessed 2019 April 15] www.freshwaterecology.info, version 7.0.
   Google Scholar
• Gwet KL. 2019. irrCAC: Computing Chance-Corrected Agreement Coefficients (CAC). R package version 1.0.
   Google Scholar
• Gwinn DC, Beesley LS, Close P, Gawne B, Davies PM. 2016. Imperfect detection and the determination of environmental flows for fish: Challenges, implications and solutions. Freshw Biol. 61(1):172–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habersack H, Tritthart M, Liedermann M, Hauer C. 2014. Efficiency and uncertainties in micro- and mesoscale habitat modelling in large rivers. Hydrobiologia. 729(1):33–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauer C, Mandlburger G, Habersack H. 2009. Hydraulically related hydro-morphological units: description based on a new conceptual mesohabitat evaluation model (MEM) using LiDAR data as geometric input. River Res Applic. 25(1):29–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helminen J, Linnansaari T, Bruce M, Dolson-Edge R, Curry RA. 2019. Accuracy and precision of low-cost echosounder and automated data processing software for habitat mapping in a large river. Diversity. 11(7):116.
   Google Scholar
• Hugue F, Lapointe M, Eaton BC, Lepoutre A. 2016. Satellite-based remote sensing of running water habitats at large riverscape scales: Tools to analyze habitat heterogeneity for river ecosystem management. Geomorph. 253:353–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legleiter CJ, Goodchild MF. 2005. Alternative representations of in-stream habitat: Classification using remote sensing, hydraulic modeling, and fuzzy logic. Int J Geograph Inform Sci. 19(1):29–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linnansaari T, Monk WA, Baird DJ, Curry RA. 2013. Review of approaches and methods to assess environmental flows across Canada and internationally. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretary Research Document 2012/039. p. vii–+ v74. p.
   Google Scholar
• Linnansaari T, Yamazaki G, Curry RA. 2016. Conceptual considerations for fish passage for the Mactaquac Project. Mactaquac Aquatic Ecosystem Study Report Series 2016-034. Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick. p. vi–+ 40. pp.
   Google Scholar
• Lusardi RA, Jeffres CA, Moyle PB. 2018. Stream macrophytes increase invertebrate production and fish habitat utilization in a California stream. River Res Applic. 34(8):1003–1012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melcher A, Hauer C, Zeiringer B. 2018. Aquatic habitat modeling in running waters. In S. Schmutz & J. Sendzimir (eds), Riverine ecosystem management. Springer International Publishing: p. 129–149.
   Google Scholar
• Mocq J, St-Hilaire A, Cunjak RA. 2013. Assessment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) habitat quality and its uncertainty using a multiple-expert fuzzy model applied to the Romaine River (Canada). Ecol Modell. 265:14–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mocq J, St-Hilaire A, Cunjak RA. 2015. Influences of experts’ personal experiences in fuzzy logic modeling of Atlantic salmon habitat. North Am J Fish Manage. 35(2):271–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monk WA, Compson ZG, Armanini DG, Idigoras Chaumel A. 2018. Proposed holistic environmental flows framework for the Saint John River with a focus on operations at the Mactaquac Generating Station. Mactaquac Aquatic Ecosystem Report Series 2017-035. Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick. 115 p.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz-Mas R, Papadaki C, Martínez-Capel F, Zogaris S, Ntoanidis L, Dimitriou E. 2016. Generalized additive and fuzzy models in environmental flow assessment: A comparison employing the West Balkan trout (Salmo farioides; Karaman, 1938). Ecol Eng. 91:365–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NATECH Environmental Services Inc. 2015. Hydrodynamic and Morphologic Model Setup for the Saint John River at Mactaquac. 74. p.
   Google Scholar
• Navico Inc. 2014. BioBase User Reference Guide. 37. p.
   Google Scholar
• Ndong M, Haralampides K, Yamazaki G, Curry RA. unpublished. Modelled Scenarios and Interpretations of Flow, Water Quality and Sediment Flux for the Options of the Mactaquac Project. Mactaquac Aquatic Ecosystem Study Report Series 2019-038. Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick.
   Google Scholar
• Nestler JM, Milhous RT, Payne TR, Smith DL. 2019. History and review of the habitat suitability criteria curve in applied aquatic ecology. River Res Applic. 35(8):1155–1180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noack M, Schneider M, Wieprecht S. 2013. CASiMiR: A multivariate fuzzy approach and its applications. In Maddock, I., A. Harby, P. Kemp, & P. J. Wood (eds), Ecohydraulics: An integrated approach. Chichester (UK): Wiley-Blackwell, p. 75–91.
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan AM, Wegscheider B, Helminen J, Cormier JG, Linnansaari T, Wilson DA, Curry RA. 2021. Riverscape-scale, high resolution, hydraulic habitat models. J Ecohydraul. 6(1):53–16.
   Google Scholar
• Parasiewicz P, Walker JD. 2007. Comparison of MesoHABSIM with two microhabitat models (PHABSIM and HARPHA). River Res Applic. 23(8):904–923.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parasiewicz P. 2008. Habitat time series analysis to define flow augmentation strategy for the Quinebaug River, Connecticut and Massachusetts, USA. River Res Applic. 24(4):439–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pegg MA, Behmer AT, Parasaweicz P, Rogers JN. 2014. Application of mesohabitat fish use information to identify guilds for lotic systems. J Appl Ichthyol. 30(5):1065–1068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poff NL, Olden JD. 2017. Can dams be designed for sustainability? Science. 358(6368):1252–1253.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C, Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, et al. 2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biol. 55(1):147–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Radinger J, Kail J, Wolter C. 2017. Differences among expert judgments of fish habitat suitability and implications for river management. River Res Applic. 33(4):538–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Railsback SF. 2016. Why it is time to put PHABSIM out to pasture. Fisheries. 41(12):720–725.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruedin D. 2016. agrmt: Calculate Agreement or Consensus in Ordered Rating Scales. R package version 1.40.4.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, J., 2016. Use of ecohydraulic-based mesohabitat classification and fish species traits for stream restoration design. Water. 8:520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smokorowski KE, Pratt TC. 2007. Effect of a change in physical structure and cover on fish and fish habitat in freshwater ecosystems – A review and meta-analysis. Environ Rev. 15(NA):15–41.
   Google Scholar
• Spurgeon J, Pegg M, Parasiewicz P, Rogers J. 2019. River-wide habitat availability for fish habitat guilds: implications for in-stream flow protection. Water. 11(6):1132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamou A, Polydera A, Papadonikolaki G, Martínez-Capel F, Muñoz-Mas R, Papadaki C, Zogaris S, Bui MD, Rutschmann P, Dimitriou E. 2018. Determination of environmental flows in rivers using an integrated hydrological-hydrodynamic-habitat modelling approach. J Environ Manage. 209:273–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas DM, Benson MA. 1975. Generalization of streamflow characteristics from drainage-basin characteristics. In Geological Water Supply Paper: Vol. Water-Supp., p. v–+ 55. pp.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend CR, Hildrew AG. 1994. Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biol. 31(3):265–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vadas RL, Vadas RL, Orth DJ. 2000. Habitat use of fish communities in a Virginia stream system. Environ Biol Fishes . 59(3):253–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser H, de Nijs T. 2006. The map comparison kit. Environ Model Software. 21(3):346–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace B, Gautreau M. 2015. Methods paper: Downstream Bathymetry and BioBase Analyses of substrate and macrophytes. Mactaquac Aquatic Ecosystem Study Report Series 2015-006. Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick, p. 5p.
   Google Scholar
• Wallis C, Maddock I, Visser F, Acreman M. 2012. A framework for evaluating the spatial configuration and temporal dynamics of hydraulic patches. River Res Applic. 28(5):585–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegscheider B, Linnansaari T, Curry RA. 2020. Mesohabitat modelling in fish ecology: A global synthesis. Fish. 21(5):927–913.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegscheider B, Linnansaari T, Monk WA, Curry RA. 2020. Linking fish assemblages to hydro‐morphological units in a large regulated river. Ecohydrology. 13(7):1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegscheider B, Linnansaari T, Wall CC, Gautreau MD, Monk WA, Dolson‐Edge R, Samways KM, Curry RA. 2020. Diel patterns in spatial distribution of fish assemblages in lentic and lotic habitat in a regulated river. River Res Applic. 36(7):1014–1010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheaton JM, Fryirs KA, Brierley G, Bangen SG, Bouwes N, O'Brien G. 2015. Geomorphic mapping and taxonomy of fluvial landforms. Geomorphol. 248:273–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilbur N, Curry RA, MacQuarrie KTB, Linnansaari T, O'Sullivan A. 2020. Characterizing riverine thermal refugia for Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). River Res Applic. 2020:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L, Fluet-Chouinard E, Giarrizzo T, Nam S, Baird IG, Darwall W, Lujan NK, Harrison I, et al. 2016. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science. 351(6269):128–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood SN. 2011. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J Royal Stat Soc. 73(1):3–36.
   Google Scholar
• Wyrick JR, Pasternack GB. 2014. Geospatial organization of fluvial landforms in a gravel-cobble river: Beyond the riffle-pool couplet. Geomorphol. 213:48–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyrick JR, Senter AE, Pasternack GB. 2014. Revealing the natural complexity of fluvial morphology through 2D hydrodynamic delineation of river landforms. Geomorphol. 210:14–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajicek P, Wolter C. 2018. The gain of additional sampling methods for the fish-based assessment of large rivers. Fish Res. 197:15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar