Freshwater mussel assemblage structure in a regulated river in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Basin,USA

• 1. This paper documents a diverse, reproducing freshwater mussel community (20 species) in Lower Lake — an impounded, regulated portion of the Little Tallahatchie River below Sardis Dam in Panola Co., Mississippi, USA.
• 2. Despite being regulated and impounded, the lake has a heterogeneous array of habitats that differ markedly in mussel community attributes. Four distinct habitat types were identified based on current velocity and substrate characteristics, representing a gradient from habitats having lotic characteristics to lentic habitats. All four habitat types supported mussels, but habitats most resembling unimpounded, lotic situations (relatively higher current velocity and coarser substrate) had the highest mussel abundance and species density (10.1 mussels m^?2, 1.8 species m^?2, respectively). Lentic habitats (no flow, fine substrate) were characterized by lower abundance and species density (2.0 mussels m^?2, 0.8 species m^?2, respectively), but supported mussel assemblages distinctive from lotic habitats.
• 3. Evidence of strong recent recruitment was observed for most species in the lake and was observed in all four habitat types.
• 4. Although impounded and regulated, Lower Lake represents one of the few areas of stable large‐stream habitat in the region. The presence of a diverse, healthy mussel community in this highly modified habitat suggests that a large component of the regional mussel fauna is relatively resilient and adaptable and is limited primarily by the absence of stable river reaches. Management actions that increase stream stability are likely to result in expansion of the mussel fauna and restoration of a valuable component of ecosystem function in this region.

Published in 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Movements by wild brown trout in a boreal river: response to habitat and flow contrasts

Abstract  Radio transmitters were implanted in wild brown trout, Salmo trutta L., in the River Måna at low summer water flows ( n  = 18), higher flow in summer ( n  =   20), and variable, peaking flows in autumn ( n  =   20), and tracked two to four times day and night for 4–5 weeks. Individuals were caught and released in a 4-km uniformly channelised section, and in a 4-km natural diverse river section. Substantial individual variation in home range and total movement (924–85 818 m² and 295–7014 m) suggested flexibility to adapt to local environmental conditions. Fish were stationary most of the time (median movement 0 m), but some individuals undertook few and apparently sporadic longer movements, sometimes involving shifts in home range. No consistent diurnal pattern in movements was found. Trout in the uniform habitat section appeared to have larger home ranges and moved more than trout in the natural section. Differences were, however, not statistically significant in most comparisons, due to large individual variation. Similarly, larger home ranges and movements between trials related to higher flow were found, but differences were generally not significant. No consistent effects of sudden, extreme peaking flows on area use or movements by the brown trout were observed.     

Model uncertainty in the ecosystem approach to fisheries

Fisheries scientists habitually consider uncertainty in parameter values, but often neglect uncertainty about model structure, an issue of increasing importance as ecosystem models are devised to support the move to an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). This paper sets out pragmatic approaches with which to account for uncertainties in model structure and we review current ways of dealing with this issue in fisheries and other disciplines. All involve considering a set of alternative models representing different structural assumptions, but differ in how those models are used. The models can be asked to identify bounds on possible outcomes, find management actions that will perform adequately irrespective of the true model, find management actions that best achieve one or more objectives given weights assigned to each model, or formalize hypotheses for evaluation through experimentation. Data availability is likely to limit the use of approaches that involve weighting alternative models in an ecosystem setting, and the cost of experimentation is likely to limit its use. Practical implementation of an EAF should therefore be based on management approaches that acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in model predictions and are robust to it. Model results must be presented in ways that represent the risks and trade‐offs associated with alternative actions and the degree of uncertainty in predictions. This presentation should not disguise the fact that, in many cases, estimates of model uncertainty may be based on subjective criteria. The problem of model uncertainty is far from unique to fisheries, and a dialogue among fisheries modellers and modellers from other scientific communities will therefore be helpful.