Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Marine and Freshwater Research Marine and Freshwater Research Society
Advances in the aquatic sciences
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > MF > MF03114
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 55(2)

Identifying the influence of channel morphology on physical habitat availability for native fish: application to the two-spined blackfish (Gadopsis bispinosus) in the Cotter River, Australia

Ian Maddock A , Martin Thoms B D , Katarina Jonson B , Fiona Dyer B and Mark Lintermans B C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Department of Applied Sciences, Geography and Archaeology, University College Worcester, Henwick Grove, Worcester, WR2 6AJ, UK

B CRC for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.

C Environment ACT, PO Box 144, Lyneham, ACT 2602, Australia.

D Corresponding author. Email: martin.thoms@canberra.edu.au

Marine and Freshwater Research 55(2) 173-184 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF03114
Submitted: 7 August 2003  Accepted: 30 January 2004   Published: 31 March 2004

Abstract

The impact of channel morphology and flow on physical habitat availability for the two-spined blackfish (Gadopsis bispinosus) was assessed in the Cotter River, ACT, Australia. Physical habitat requirements for three life stages were identified based on previous field sampling in the Cotter River. Two sites were selected with contrasting channel morphology: Spur Hole, with a moderate gradient and runs and glides, and Vanity’s Crossing, with a steeper gradient, rapids, and fast-flowing pools. Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) was used to simulate the flow v. physical habitat availability relationship for each life stage at both sites. Clear differences were apparent between sites, with Spur Hole characterised by increasing habitat with increasing flow and Vanity’s Crossing showing the opposite relationship. The nature of the channel morphology determined this difference, with Spur Hole characterised by marginal zones becoming inundated at higher flows and providing additional suitable physical habitat as discharge increases. Vanity’s Crossing does not contain similar marginal zones. Further analysis demonstrated that high water velocity was the most important factor limiting physical habitat availability at both sites. This approach demonstrates the importance of channel morphology in determining physical habitat availability and an alternative use of PHABSIM to highlight limiting factors for target species.

Extra keywords: channel geomorphic units, hydraulic habitat, upscaling.


Acknowledgments

This project was funded, in part, by the CRC for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra. Fieldwork support was provided by Adam Pugh, Graeme Esselmont and Neil Sims (University of Canberra). Sue Nichols (Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology) provided the base map used to produce Fig. 1. Grateful thanks must also be expressed to Environment ACT, Canberra ActewAGL, Australia for providing appropriate compensation releases during field data collection.


References

Aadland, L. P. (1993). Stream habitat types: their fish assemblages and relationship to flow. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13, 790–806.


ACT State of the Environment Report (1994). ‘ACT State of the Environment Report.’ (Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, Australian Capital Territory: Canberra, Australia.)

Arthington, A. H., and  Zalucki, J. M. (1998). ‘Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods. Land and Water Resource Research and Development Corporation Report, Number 27/98.’ (Land and Water Resource Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia.)

Bovee, K. D. (1982). ‘A Guide to Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program, Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12, FWS/OBS-82–26.’ (US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA.)

Bovee, K. D. (1986). ‘Development and Evaluation of Habitat Suitability Criteria for Use in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 21. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 86 (7).’ (US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA.)

Brookes, A., and  Shields, F. D. Jr (1996). ‘River Channel Restoration.’ (Wiley: Chichester, UK.)

de Waal, L. C., Large, A. R. G., and  Wade, P. M. (1998). ‘Rehabilitation of Rivers: Principles and Implementation.’ (Wiley: Chichester, UK.)

Elliott, C. R. N., Johnson, I. W., Sekulin, A. E., Dunbar, M. J., and  Acreman, M. C. (1996). ‘Guide to the use of the Physical Habitat Simulation System, NRA Release Version. Report undertaken by the Institute of Hydrology for the National Rivers Authority.’ (Institute of Hydrology: Wallingford, UK.)

Fausch, K. D. , Torgersen, C. E. , Baxter, C. D. , and Li, H. W. (2002). Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. Bioscience 52, 483–498.


Frissell, C. A. , Liss, W. J. , Warren, C. E. , and Hurley, M. D. (1986). A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10, 199–214.


Gan, K. C. , and McMahon, T. A. (1990). Variability of results from the use of PHABSIM in estimating habitat area. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 5, 233–239.


Gehrke, P. C. , and Harris, J. H. (2000). Large-scale patterns in species richness and composition of temperate riverine fish communities, south-eastern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 51, 165–182.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Habersack, H. M. (2000). The river-scaling concept (RSC): a basis for ecological assessments. Hydrobiologia 422/423, 49–60.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Hardy, T. B. (1998). The future of habitat modelling and instream flow assessment techniques. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14, 405–420.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Jackson, P. D., Koehn, J. D., Lintermans, M. and  Sanger, A. C. (1996). Family Gadopsidae: freshwater blackfishes. In ‘Freshwater Fishes of South-eastern Australia’, 2nd edn. (Ed R. M. McDowall.)  pp. 186–190. (Reed Books: Sydney, Australia.)

Jowett, I. G. (1997). Instream flow methods: a comparison of approaches. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13, 115–127.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Koehn, J. D. , O’Connor, N. A. , and Jackson, P. D. (1994). Seasonal and size-related variation in microhabitat use by a southern Victorian stream fish assemblage. Marine and Freshwater Research 45, 1353–1366.


Lintermans, M. (1998). ‘The Ecology of the Two-spined Blackfish Gadopsis bispinosus.’ MSc Thesis. (Australian National University: Canberra, Australia)

Lintermans, M., and  Osborne, W. S. (2002). ‘Wet & Wild: a Field Guide to the Freshwater Animals of the Southern Tablelands and High Country of the ACT and NSW.’ (Environment ACT: Canberra, Australia.)

Maddock, I. P. (1999). The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41, 373–391.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Maddock, I. P. , Bickerton, M. A. , Spence, R. , and Pickering, T. (2001). Reallocation of compensation releases to restore river flows and improve instream habitat availability in the Upper Derwent catchment, Derbyshire, UK. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17, 417–441.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Meffe, G. K. , and Sheldon, A. L. (1988). The influence of habitat structure on fish assemblage composition in southeastern blackwater streams. American Midland Naturalist 120, 225–240.


Petts, G. E. (1996). Water allocation to protect river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12, 353–365.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Pusey, B. J. , Arthington, A. H. , and Read, M. G. (1993). Spatial and temporal variation in fish assemblage structure in the Mary River, south-eastern Queensland: the influence of habitat structure. Environmental Biology of Fishes 37, 355–380.


Stalnaker, C. (1979). The use of habitat structure preferenda for establishing flow regimes necessary for maintenance of fish habitat. In ‘The Ecology of Regulated Streams’. (Eds. J. V. Ward and J. A. Stanford)  pp. 321–337. (Plenum Press: New York, USA.)

Townsend, C. R. , and Hildrew, A. G. (1994). Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology 31, 265–275.


Valentin, S. , Lauters, F. , Sabaton, C. , Breil, P. , and Souchon, Y. (1996). Modelling temporal variations of physical habitat for brown trout (Salmo trutta) in hydropeaking conditions. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12, 317–330.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Wentworth, C. K. (1922). A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology 30, 377–392.


Wiens, J. A. (2002). Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshwater Biology 47, 501–515.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |