Wesley M. Daniel — Page 3

USGS2019

Protected areas lacking for many common fluvial fishes of the conterminous USA

Aim To assess the effectiveness of protected areas in two catchment scales (local and network) in conserving regionally common fluvial fishes using modelled species distributions. Location Conterminous United States. Methods A total of 150 species were selected that were geographically widespread, abundant, non‐habitat specialists and native within nine large ecoregions. Species distribution models were developed using boosted regression trees, and modelled distributions were assessed for protection status under two alternatives: lands strictly managed for biodiversity (Highly Restricted Use) and those allowing multiple uses (Multiple Use), with protection target levels (i.e., the amount of protected area required for protection) for local and network catchments being developed from ecoregion‐based urban and agricultural land use thresholds from fish responses. Results Overall, less than 2% of fluvial catchments in the conterminous USA are meeting both local and network catchment protection target levels under the Highly Restricted Use alternative, whereas 16% of catchments met protection levels for the Multiple Use alternative, with protection largely concentrated in the western USA. For common native species distributions within ecoregions, only one species had >10% of streams meeting combined local and network catchment protection target levels under the Highly Restricted Use alternative, whereas 50 distributions (~14% of species distribution models) met this level under the Multiple Use alternative. Main conclusions Even for fishes considered widespread and abundant, protection levels are lacking, particularly when considering only lands that are actively managed for biodiversity. Given the increasing intensification of anthropogenic activities and substantial uncertainty associated with climate change, considering the conservation status for all species, including those currently considered common, is warranted.

Diversity and Distributions↗

USGS2016

Through a fish's eye: The status of fish habitats in the United States 2015

This report updates and revises the 2010 “ Status of Fish Habitats in the United States” that summarized initial results of a comprehensive national assessment of aquatic habitats at an unprecedented scale and level of detail. This 2015 report provides even greater detail and improves our knowledge of the condition of fish habitat in the United States. The 2010 inland streams assessment characterized fish habitat condition using stream fish data from more than 26,000 stream reaches, while the 2015 assessment was based on fish data from more than 39,000 stream reaches nationally. To increase accuracy, the 2015 inland stream assessment incorporated 12 additional human disturbance variables into the fish analysis when compared to the 2010 assessment. Associations between all human disturbance variables summarized in both catchments as well as stream buffers were tested against stream fish metrics to develop assessment scores. Additional variables incorporated into the 2015 assessment and their summary within catchments and buffers allowed for more explicit characterization of the diverse set of disturbances to stream fish habitats occurring across the Nation than what occurred in 2010, and this was made possible due in part to advances in available GIS layers. With the incorporation of these additional disturbances, managers and decision makers can use assessment results to more explicitly identify limits to stream fish habitats. Even with the additional disturbances incorporated into 2015 assessment, results may overestimate fish habitat condition, as localized and regionally-specific disturbances are still not available in some cases.

Report↗