Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
2009 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 8(1):23–36
Infl uence of Small Impoundments on Habitat and Fish
Communities in Headwater Streams
Michael T. Kashiwagi1 and Leandro E. Miranda1,*
Abstract - We surveyed the habitat and fish assemblages of four impounded and three
unimpounded neighboring headwater streams, separated longitudinally into multiple
upstream and downstream reaches. Instream habitat characteristics were similar between
reaches of unimpounded streams and reaches above impoundments, and differed
significantly from reaches below impoundments that included deeper water and more
stable fl ows. Species richness was similar above and below impoundments, and between
impounded and unimpounded streams, but fish assemblage composition and
structure differed. Stream reaches above impoundments supported higher percentages
of centrarchids compared to upper reaches of unimpounded streams, which had more
obligate stream cyprinids. Reaches below impoundments supported mainly centrarchid
species whereas lower reaches of unimpounded streams supported a balanced mix of
cyprinids and centrarchids. Percina maculata (Blackside Darter) occurred throughout
the study area except in upper reaches of impounded streams, illustrating how stream
fragmentation can lead to localized extirpations. Changes to the fish assemblages in
reaches above impoundments were due to the loss of downstream connectivity, and
changes to the fish assemblages below impoundments were due to alterations of instream
habitat caused by the impoundments. Small impoundments can have important
effects on fish faunas of small geographical areas, but also potentially large cumulative
effects if distribution of impoundments is not administered strategically at the scale
of the river basin. We caution that continual population increase, recent droughts, and
projected changes in climate patterns are prompting a renewed interest in impoundment
construction, and urge close regulatory oversight over such projects.
Low-order (order 1–2) headwater streams account for the majority of
watercourses traversing terrestrial landscapes, and provide essential habitat
for lotic fish communities. In the United States, low-order streams represent
about 85% of all streams (Leopold et al. 1964). Relative to the more hydrologically
stable high-order streams, low-order streams generally have fl ashy
fl ows and may dry up seasonally. The fish communities in headwater streams
refl ect this environmental variability (Meffe and Berra 1988, Schlosser
1995), supporting simple fish assemblages with few species (Horwitz 1978,
Schlosser 1987). Nevertheless, the large number of streams combines with
spatial habitat heterogeneity to sustain high gamma diversity and overall
ecosystem biodiversity (Gomi et al. 2002).
According to the National Inventory of Dams (2007), there are over
20,000 impoundments ranging between 10 and 200 ha in the United States.
1Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, US Geological Survey,
PO Box 9691, Mississippi State, MS 39762. *Corresponding author - smiranda@
24 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 8, No. 1
These small impoundments have generally been constructed on low-order
headwater streams. Proliferation of these small impoundments has generally
received little or no scrutiny by regulatory agencies, which have focused
mainly on large impoundments that dam higher order streams and large volumes
of water. Large impoundments are usually more visible and interrupt
the movement of large migratory fish that attract public attention because of
their commercial, recreational, or cultural value.
Nevertheless, small impoundments fragment headwater streams and can
also disrupt fish communities. Distresses occur both upstream and downstream
of impoundments, through several mechanisms including isolation
of upstream tributaries from their downstream reaches, alteration of seasonal
fl ow patterns below the impoundment, and modification of habitat
characteristics both above and below the impoundment (Yeager 1993). These
environmental changes can affect fish communities upstream by preventing
recolonization after droughts, resulting in the extirpation of species unable
to find refuge in the impoundment (Reyes-Gavilan et al. 1996, Winston et al.
1991), by changing fish abundances (Erman 1973), and by shifting assemblage
composition (Pyron et al. 1998), reportedly from fl uvial specialists to
macrohabitat generalists (Herbert and Gelwick 2003). Downstream effects
on fish communities include reduced species richness and diversity (Edwards
1978), increased species richness and habitat alteration (Taylor et al. 2001),
and the establishment of reservoir-adapted species (Swink and Jacobs 1983).
We surveyed the fish assemblages of several impounded and unimpounded
headwater streams. We predicted that some fish species would
be extirpated from streams above impoundments due to the loss of downstream
connectivity, that fish species richness would be reduced, and that
fish assemblages would be altered. We also predicted that in reaches below
impoundments, the stream would regain their original richness and natural
fish assemblage. To test these predictions, we surveyed four impounded and
three unimpounded reference headwater streams situated within a confined
170-km2 geographical area within the same drainage, separated the streams
longitudinally into upstream and downstream reaches, and compared fish
assemblages among reaches to reveal the potential effects of the dams. We
included surveys and analyses of selected physical habitat conditions to
account for infl uences they might have that could potentially obscure the
effects of the impoundments.
Study streams were located either in or adjacent to the Tombigbee National
Forest in northeast Mississippi (Fig. 1). Streams were classified into
impounded and unimpounded. Four impounded streams were considered,
including Redland (11 km long, 28 km2 drainage area), Mill (7 km, 14 km2),
Goodfood (8 km, 22 km2), and Owl (7 km, 13 km2) creeks, each with a single
impoundment with surface area of 70, 25, 33, and 40 ha, respectively. These
impoundments have variable surface-release discharge that allow relatively
2009 M.T. Kashiwagi and L.E. Miranda 25
stable releases throughout the year, and were built in the mid-1960s for fl ood
control. Unimpounded streams included Dicks (12 km long, 27 km2 drainage
area), Cane (9 km, 13 km2), and Soctahoma (14 km, 48 km2) creeks. The
watersheds for these streams included a mixture of forests, pastures, and
agricultural lands in descending order of prevalence.
Sampling reaches were established in the upper and lower sections of
each stream. In the impounded streams, the upper and lower sections were
separated by the impoundments. In the unimpounded streams, the length
of the stream was separated into approximately equal thirds, and sampling
conducted in the upper and lower thirds. Either two or three 100-m long
reaches, each reach length representing roughly 20 times the mean wetted
width, were sampled in the upper and in the lower sections of each stream to
characterize instream habitat and the fish community. In all, 39 reaches were
sampled from the seven study streams.
Habitat measurements were based on the methods of Gorman and Karr
(1978) with minor modifications. Stream wetted width, bankful width, depth,
Figure 1. Location
of the impoundments,
and the upper
(U) and lower
(L) sections of
26 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 8, No. 1
and current velocity were measured along horizontal transects. Four transects
spaced at 25-m intervals were included in each 100-m stream reach. Measurements
of depth and current velocity at 0.6 times the depth were obtained every
1 m along each transect. Water velocity measurements were made using a
Flow-Mate® Model 2000 digital fl ow meter (Marsh-McBirney Inc., Frederick,
MD). Transect measurements were averaged to determine mean habitat characteristics
for each 100-m stream reach. All instream habitat measurements
were made in August–September 2003 and 2004.
Selected measurements were taken within the 25-m stream sections between
each transect. Percentage composition of channel type was estimated
according to three categories of depth and velocity (Aadland 1993, Gorman
and Karr 1978), including riffl es (2–20 cm deep, high velocity), runs (2–50 cm
deep, medium velocity), and pools (>50 cm deep, low velocity). Instream cover
was considered as any permanent (stumps, root wads, large woody debris)
and semi-permanent (debris dams, small woody debris) structure. Measurement
of structure length and width were made to determine total cover area for
each 25-m stream section. Also, the deepest point in a section was determined
by walking the section to identify and record maximum depth. Measurements
taken in each section were averaged to characterize a reach.
The sampling protocol was designed to quantitatively assess fish community
composition with electrofishing, which has been effectively used
to collect fish in wadeable streams (Reynolds 1996, Wiley and Tsai 1983).
Each 100-m stream reach was blocked at both ends with a 6-mm mesh seine
and electrofished with a single pass using a Smith-Root Model 15-D backpack
electrofisher (Smith-Root, Inc., Vancouver, WA). A standard setting of
110 Hz pulsed DC and 4–6 A was used in water that ranged in conductivity
from 40 to 60 μS/cm. Captured fish were identified to species before returning
them to the water. Any fish that could not be identified in the field was
preserved in 10% formalin and identified in the laboratory with the aid of
taxonomic keys (Page and Burr 1991, Ross 2001). Fish were collected in
May–September 2003 and May–September 2004.
Mean values were calculated for each stream reach to create a habitat (n = 9
habitat variables) by reach (n = 39 reaches) matrix. We compared single habitat
variables with analysis of similarities (ANOSIM; Clarke and Gorley 2006),
a permutation-based nonparametric procedure, equivalent to analysis of variance,
that analyzes variability among ranked similarity coefficients. Unlike
analysis of variance, ANOSIM makes no assumptions about the distribution of
the data. Similarity coefficients between every pair of reaches were calculated
with the Euclidean distance coefficient, to create a triangular similarity matrix
from the original rectangular habitat-by-reach matrix for each habitat variable.
This analysis involved multiple two-way ANOSIMs, with location (i.e., upper
and lower) and impoundment status (i.e., impounded and unimpounded) as
factors, and the ranked similarity coefficient as the test variable. Pairwise tests
were conducted among all factor groups by the ANOSIM procedure.
2009 M.T. Kashiwagi and L.E. Miranda 27
We graphically explored the multivariate among-reaches habitat similarity
with non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMS; Clarke and Gorley
2006). The NMS procedure represents the reaches as points in two- or threedimensional
space such that the relative distances separating all points in the
plot are in the same rank order as the similarity coefficients in the similarity
matrix (i.e., reaches that have greater similarity considering all nine habitat
variables were plotted closer in the graph than reaches that are more dissimilar).
Euclidean distance similarities were computed based on all nine habitat
characteristics combined to create the among-reach habitat similarity matrix.
The large number of variables (i.e., species) in the fish dataset precluded
single species comparisons, and thus analyses included only fish assemblage
comparisons. A matrix of species densities (average number of fish of each
species/100-m reach) by stream reach (n = 39) was constructed. All cells in
the matrix were loge transformed to reduce the infl uence of abundant species.
Similarity between every pair of reaches was calculated with the Bray-Curtis
similarity coefficient to create an among-reaches similarity matrix, to which
the NMS procedure was applied.
After visually examining the NMS plots of habitat and fish similarities,
we tested for statistical differences among sets of reaches with ANOSIM.
Firstly, similarities among the upper and lower reaches of the three unimpounded
streams were contrasted to test if differences, possibly refl ecting
natural gradients, existed. This comparison required a two-way design with
location as treatment (i.e., upper and lower), stream as block (three unimpounded
streams), and the ranked similarities among habitat measures or
among species densities taken in multiple reaches in each stream as replicates.
Secondly, the upper reaches of the impounded streams were compared
to the upper reaches of the unimpounded streams to test for potential effects
of impoundments on the upper reaches. Correspondingly, the lower reaches
of the impounded streams were compared to the lower reaches of the unimpounded
streams to test for potential effects of impoundments on the stream
below the dam. Both of these comparisons also required a two-way design
with impoundment as treatment (i.e., impounded and unimpounded), stream
as block (seven streams), and the habitat or species ranked similarities
among multiple reaches in each stream as replicates.
Additionally, the fish communities were described in terms of species
richness, defined as the number of species collected in a reach. A two-way
ANOSIM design was also applied to this analysis, repeating the interreaches
comparisons listed in the previous paragraph. As for the habitat data
set, the among-reaches similarity matrix was constructed using Euclidean
distance, and the ANOSIM analysis applied to the ranked similarity matrix.
Headwater streams in the study area were generally small and relatively
homogeneous across this confined geographical area. Bankful width and wet
width averaged 7.4 m and 4.5 m, respectively. Mean depth and deepest points
28 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 8, No. 1
averaged 0.17 m and 0.38 m, respectively. Current velocity at 0.6 times the
depth averaged 0.07 m/s. Percentage composition of channel type within a
reach in terms of riffl e, run, and pool averaged 10, 81, and 8%, respectively.
Percentage cover within a reach averaged 10%. Seven of the nine habitat variables
showed statistical differences among the test reaches (Table 1).
Lower reaches of impounded streams were grouped in the left-central
areas of the NMS plot (i.e., low axis 1 scores and low-intermediate axis
2 scores), whereas the remaining reaches were mixed throughout the upper
two-thirds of axis 1 and all of axis 2 (Fig. 2). This pattern suggested a
greater similarity among sites in the lower reaches of impounded streams,
but no differences among the other sites that were associated with a broad
range of habitat conditions. The ANOSIM procedure showed that habitats in
the lower reaches of impounded streams were indeed different from habitats
in other reaches (P < 0.01), but that the other three groups of reaches did
not differ among themselves (P > 0.43). A cursory examination of Table 1
indicated that lower reaches in impounded streams contained deeper habitat
than upper reaches in impounded streams, or than in reaches in unimpounded
streams. Lower reaches in impounded streams had greater average depth
(0.24 vs. 0.13 m), mean deepest point (0.49 vs. 0.32 m), and percentage pool
(15 vs. 6%) than other reaches.
In all, 8440 fish representing 28 species in nine families were collected.
All species were native to the drainage. Cyprinids accounted for 41% of the
collection, with Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque) (Fathead Minnow), Semotilus
atromaculatus (Mitchill) (Creek Chub) 8%, and Lythrurus bellus (Hay)
(Pretty Shiner) representing 21, 8, and 7% of the collection respectively.
Centrarchids represented 48% of fishes caught, with Lepomis macrochirus
Rafinesque (Bluegill) and L. cyanellus Rafinesque (Green Sunfish) representing
23% and 21% respectively. The remaining 23 species combined
represented 11% of all the fish collected and included the families Clupeidae
(n =1 species), Cyprinidae (n = 3), Catostomidae (n = 2), Ictaluridae (n = 3),
Table 1. Mean values of habitat variables in upper and lower reaches of impounded (n =4)
and unimpounded (n =3) streams. Two-way analyses of similarities (ANOSIM) indicated two
variables did not differ among reaches (P > 0.1). Pairwise tests identified various differences
among the means of variables that did show differences (means in the same row and followed
by the same letter are not significantly different, P < 0.05).
Impounded Unimpounded ANOSIM
Lower Upper Lower Upper P
Bankful width (m) 7.2a 6.7a 9.1b 6.7a <0.01
Wet width (m) 4.8a 4.3b 4.0b 4.1b 0.04
Current velocity (m/s) 0.01a 0.09b 0.07b 0.05b 0.02
Depth (m) 0.24a 0.15b 0.14b 0.12b <0.01
Deepest (m) 0.49a 0.38b 0.38b 0.31b <0.01
Cover (m²) 11.9a 10.1a 9.4a 6.6a 0.73
Percent pool (%) 15.2a 6.8b 7.4b 1.3b 0.01
Percent riffl e (%) 4.0a 10.7b 13.6b 15.6b 0.02
Percent run (%) 80.8a 82.5a 78.9a 83.1a 0.21
2009 M.T. Kashiwagi and L.E. Miranda 29
Aphredoderidae (n = 1), Fundulidae (n = 2), Poeciliidae (n = 1), Centrarchidae
(n = 6), and Percidae (n = 4).
Certain species were either missing from, or were unique to, impounded
streams. The Blackside Darter was found in upper and lower unimpounded
reaches and lower reaches of impounded streams, but was not collected
in upper reaches of impounded streams. Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur)
(Gizzard Shad) were collected only below impoundments. Ameiurus natalis
(Lesueur) (Yellow Bullhead), which was completely absent from
unimpounded streams, was collected from all upper and lower reaches of
Examination of family composition over different stream types and locations
showed shifts in community assemblages (Fig. 3). In reaches above
impoundments, centrarchids comprised 50% of the fish collected, whereas
in reaches of unimpounded streams, they accounted for less than 25%,
with cyprinids becoming dominant. Similarly, lower reaches in impounded
streams were dominated by centrarchids that made up over 75% of the community,
whereas in lower reaches of unimpounded streams, cyprinids and
centrarchids abundances were more balanced, with these two groups being
about equally abundant.
Species composition showed strong organization relative to position
of the reach (Fig. 4). Two significant ordination axes were identified
by NMS, with a stress value of 0.09 (scale = 0–1, with 0 representing
an absolute fit, and values <0.1 representing a good fit). Lower reaches
Figure 2. Fish
axis scores) in
the 39 study
reaches classified according
to presence or
absence of impoundments
in the stream.
together in ordination
that are more
similar than do
those that are
30 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 8, No. 1
of impounded streams had high scores on axis 1 and 2, whereas upper
reaches of impounded streams had intermediate-high scores on axis 2 and
low scores on axis 1. Scores of unimpounded streams were generally low
on axis 1 and axis 2. While overlapping, scores of lower reaches of unimpounded
streams were higher on axis 1 and 2 than those of upper reaches
in unimpounded streams.
The ANOSIM procedure supported the informal examination of the
NMS plot. Ranked similarity coefficients of upper reaches relative to lower
reaches in the unimpounded streams did not differ significantly (P = 0.34),
suggesting that community compositions were similar. However, differences
in similarity coefficients existed between the impounded and unimpounded
streams, suggesting dissimilar fish communities. Ranked similarity coeffi-
cients differed significantly between upper reaches (P = 0.04) of impounded
and unimpounded streams, and between lower reaches (P < 0.01) of impounded
and unimpounded streams.
Figure 3. Relative abundance of fish families in the study streams. The four pie charts
represent means for the two stream types (impounded and unimpounded) and reach
locations (upper and lower).
2009 M.T. Kashiwagi and L.E. Miranda 31
Despite differences in community composition, species richness was not
different among stream reaches. Richness averaged 11.5 species in the upper
reaches of unimpounded streams and 12.0 species in lower reaches, and
did not differ significantly between the two (P = 0.66). In the upper reaches,
richness averaged 12.0 species in impounded streams and 11.5 species in
unimpounded streams, and these also did not differ significantly (P = 0.54).
Likewise, in the lower reaches, richness averaged 10.4 species in impounded
streams and 12.0 species in unimpounded streams, and did not differ signifi-
cantly between the two (P = 0.26).
Droughts are major disturbance events in stream environments (Horwitz
1978, Schlosser 1982). During periods of drought, headwater streams
experience severely reduced surface fl ows and may dry up. Following a
drought disturbance, the stream is recolonized by individuals from the downstream
community (Larimore et al. 1959). Experimental and observational
studies have demonstrated that fish can rapidly colonize these areas if they
have unrestricted access (Lonzarich et al. 1998, Peterson and Bayley 1993).
Gauging stations were not available within the study area, but contacts with
landowners and conservation officers suggested that surface fl ows stopped
approximately 1–3 times per decade. Given these reported drought events,
impoundments were expected to hamper species richness. Yet, richness was
Figure 4. Fish
a s s e m b l a g e
s i m i l a r i t i e s
the 39 study
reaches classified according
to presence or
absence of impoundments
in the stream.
space have fish
that are more
similar than do
those that are
32 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 8, No. 1
similar above and below impoundments, and between impounded and unimpounded
streams. Although counterintuitive, a constant or an increase in
species richness may not be uncommon. Indeed, Guenther and Spacie (2006)
reported that part-time use of upstream reaches by reservoir species actually
boosted estimates of species richness.
Fish assemblage composition differed among stream reaches. Fragmented
stream reaches above impoundments supported higher percentages
of centrarchids compared to unfragmented upper reaches of unimpounded
streams, which had higher percentages of obligate stream cyprinids. The
reduced cyprinids assemblages occupying reaches above impoundments
were represented by tolerant, generalist species, such as Fathead Minnow
and Creek Chub, capable of surviving severe environmental conditions in
streams, and unfavorable conditions in upper reaches of impoundments
(Smogor and Angermeier 1998). Similarly, Herbert and Gelwick (2003)
and Guenther and Spacie (2006) reported a decline of fluvial specialists
and an increase in macrohabitat generalists in streams fragmented by impoundments.
During drought periods when stream flows are reduced in the
study streams, fish in reaches above impoundments are apparently forced
downstream to seek shelter in the impoundment, or survive in wetland
areas that provide temporary refuge. After resumption of normal stream
flows, reaches above impoundments are recolonized by tolerant cyprinids
and centrarchid species from the impoundments. In contrast, following
droughts in unimpounded streams, the recolonizers of the upper reaches are
mainly cyprinid species representative of the downstream fish community.
Despite annual fluctuations, fish communities of unimpounded headwater
streams can remain fairly stable over time (Moyle and Vondracek 1985,
Ross et al. 1985), but require connectivity with the downstream community
to preserve their integrity.
The absence of Blackside Darter in upper reaches of impounded
streams illustrates how localized extirpation might occur due to the loss
of downstream connectivity. Blackside Darter is a common species with a
widespread distribution throughout Mississippi (Ross 2001). Although collected
in unimpounded and lower impounded reaches, the species was absent
from upper impounded reaches. Localized extirpation of this species from
streams above impoundments most likely results from the species’ inability
to survive in the stream or in the adjacent impoundments during drought
periods, or from predation by pool-dwelling fish or reptiles. Following resumption
of fl ow, the upstream movement of recolonizers is blocked by the
impoundments, effectively preventing reestablishment of populations in upper
reaches of impounded streams. By comparison, in unimpounded streams,
recolonizers were apparently able to reestablish populations of this species
along the entire length of the streams. Similar extirpations caused by the
construction of small impoundments have been reported for several minnow
species in Oklahoma by Winston et al. (1991), and for Notropis topeka (Gilbert)
(Topeka Shiner) in Kansas by Schrank et al. (2001). Local extirpations
have also been reported in larger streams with major reservoirs (e.g., Guenther
and Spacie 2006, Luttrel et al. 1999), but such losses are less common
2009 M.T. Kashiwagi and L.E. Miranda 33
(e.g., Herbert and Gelwick 2003). The fish assemblages in reaches below
impoundments were shaped by the alterations to the instream habitat caused
by the impoundments. These reaches were deeper and contained a higher
percentage of pool habitat, alterations resulting from changes to stream
hydrology caused by the impoundments. The natural hydrology marked by
periods of extreme high fl ows is restrained by the storage capacity of fl oodcontrol
impoundments, by reducing the short- and long-term fl ow variability
of downstream reaches (Petts 1984). The four impoundments were designed
to gradually release the stored water, resulting in moderately elevated discharge
levels over longer periods of time. This release mode likely reduced
short-term bankful-width and out-of-bank fl ows, but prolonged wet-width
fl ows as suggested by our results. Moreover, reaches below the dam showed
physical signs of incision, which, according to Grams et al. (2007), produce
narrower and deeper channels. The overall result is an increase in water levels
above historic basefl ow conditions, producing the deeper water and pool
conditions observed in reaches below impoundments.
The fish assemblages recorded in reaches below impoundments refl ect the
changes in habitat conditions. These reaches supported mainly centrarchid
species whereas lower reaches of unimpounded streams supported a more
balanced mix of cyprinids and centrarchids. Stream centrarchids are often associated
with increasing average depth (Aadland 1993). Deep pools provide
areas of refuge and environments with greater temporal stability (Schlosser
1987). Also, the increased volume of the deeper habitat provides more
physical space, and therefore supports larger fish (Harvey and Stewart 1991).
Thus, besides centrarchids, the pools in reaches below impoundments supported
large-sized species such as Moxostoma poecilurum (Jordan) (Blacktail
Redhorse) and Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque) (Channel Catfish), which,
while not collected in large numbers, were found primarily in these belowimpoundment
reaches. Other species present in pools below impoundments
may be escapees from the impoundments, such as Gizzard Shad and Yellow
Bullhead that may be able to survive in the deeper habitat conditions provided
by pools below impoundments but not in shallower unimpounded streams.
However, informal observations indicated that the infl uence of impoundments
on downstream habitats extended no more than 5–10 km, after which habitat
conditions seemed to return to their natural state.
Construction of impoundments in the United States has slowed signifi-
cantly since the 1970s, owing to escalating construction costs, scarcity of
suitable sites, and increased concern over environmental effects (Miranda
1996). Although the intensity of construction observed in the twentieth century
is not likely to return, continued population increase, recent droughts,
and projected changes in climate patterns are prompting a renewed interest
on impoundment construction. Global warming scenarios predict a possible
decrease in precipitation and increase in evaporation (Jacobs et al. 2000),
which together with sediment accumulations in our aging reservoirs is likely
to propel new constructions. This trend is most visible in large southern
metropolitan regions such as Atlanta and Dallas, where water development
boards are actively considering new reservoirs (Sabine River Authority
34 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 8, No. 1
1999, Sutherland 2003), although new constructions are being considered
and pursued throughout the Southeastern region. Our results indicate that
small impoundments can have important effects on the fish faunas of small
geographical areas, but potentially large cumulative effects if distribution
of impoundments is not administered strategically at the scale of the river
basin. Thus, there is a need for increased environmental analysis and close
regulatory oversight of such projects. Impoundments should be avoided in
streams with headwaters having particularly diverse habitats and/or rich
faunas, or that include species of special concern.
Aadland, L.P. 1993. Stream habitat types: Their fish assemblages and relationship to
fl ow. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:790–806.
Clarke, K.R., and R.N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER version 6: Users manual/tutorial.
PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK. 145 pp.
Edwards, R.J. 1978. The effect of hypolimnion reservoir release on fish distribution
and species diversity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Erman, D.C. 1973. Upstream changes in fish populations following impoundment
of Sagehen Creek, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream
linkages of headwater systems. BioScience 52:905–916.
Gorman, O.T., and J.R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities.
Grams, P.E., J.C. Schmidt, and D.J. Topping. 2007. The rate and pattern of bed incision
and bank adjustment on the Colorado River in Glen Canyon downstream
from Glen Canyon Dam, 1956–2000. Geological Society of America Bulletin
Guenther, C.B., and A. Spacie. 2006. Changes in fish assemblage structure upstream
of impoundments within the Upper Wabash River Basin. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 135:570–583.
Harvey, B.C., and A.J. Stewart. 1991. Fish size and habitat depth relationship in
headwater stream. Oecologia 87:336–342.
Herbert, M.E., and F.P. Gelwick. 2003. Spatial variation of headwater fish assemblages
explained by hydrologic variability and upstream effects of impoundment.
Horwitz, R.J. 1978. Temporal variability patterns and the distributional patterns of
stream fishes. Ecological Monographs 48:307–321.
Jacobs, K., D. Adams, and P. Gleick. 2000. Potential consequences of climate variability
and changes for the water resources of the United States. Report by the
National Assessment and Synthesis Team, US Global Change Research. Available
online at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/14Water.
pdf. Accessed January 15, 2007.
Larimore, R.W., W.F. Childers, and C. Heckrotte. 1959. Destruction and re-establishment
of stream fish and invertebrates affected by drought. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 88:26–285.
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology.
Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 522pp.
2009 M.T. Kashiwagi and L.E. Miranda 35
Lonzarich, D.G., M.L. Warren, Jr., and M.R.E. Lonzarich. 1998. Effects of habitat
isolation on the recovery of fish assemblages in experimentally defaunated
stream pools in Arkansas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
Luttrell, G.R., A.A. Echelle, W.L. Fisher, and D.J. Eisenhour. 1999. Declining status
of two species of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex (Teleostei:Cyprinidae) in
the Arkansas River basin and related effects of reservoirs as barriers to dispersal.
Meffe, G.K., and T.M. Berra. 1988. Temporal characteristics of fish assemblage
structure in an Ohio stream. Copeia 1988:684–690.
Miranda, L.E. 1996. Development of reservoir fisheries management paradigms
in the twentieth century. Pp. 3–11, In L.E. Miranda and D.R. DeVries (Eds.).
Multidimensional Approaches to Reservoir Fisheries Management. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 16, Bethesda, MD. 463 pp.
Moyle, P.B., and B. Vondracek. 1985. Persistence and structure of the fish assemblage
in a small California stream. Ecology 66:1–13.
National Inventory of Dams. 2007. National Inventory of Dams. Engineer Research
and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers. Available online at
http://www.crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm. Accessed December
Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton
Miffl in, New York, NY. 432 pp.
Peterson, J.T., and P.B. Bayley. 1993. Colonization rates of fishes in experimentally
defaunated warmwater streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Petts, G.E. 1984. Impounded rivers: Perspectives for ecological management. Wiley,
New York, NY. 326 pp.
Pyron, M., C.C. Vaughn, M.R. Winston, and J. Pigg. 1998. Fish assemblage structure
from 20 years of collections in the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Southwestern
Reyes-Gavilan, F.G., R. Garrido, A G. Nicieza, M.M. Toledo, and F. Brana. 1996.
Fish community variation along physical gradients in short streams of northern
Spain and the disruptive effect of dams. Hydrobiologia 321:155–163.
Reynolds, J.B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pp. 238–240, In B.R. Murphy, and D.W. Willis
(Eds). Fisheries Techniques, 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
MD. 732 pp.
Ross, S.T. 2001. Inland fishes of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries, and Parks, Jackson, MS. 548 pp.
Ross, S.T., W.J. Matthews, and A.A. Echelle. 1985. Persistence of stream fish assemblages:
Effects of environmental change. The American Naturalist 126:24–40.
Sabine River Authority. 1999. Comprehensive Sabine watershed management plan.
Prepared by Freese and Nichols, Inc. for the Sabine River Authority of Texas
in Conjunction with the Texas Water Development Board. Available online at
Accessed December 11, 2007.
Schlosser, I.J. 1982. Fish community structure and function along two habitat gradients
in a headwater stream. Ecological Monographs 52:395–414.
Schlosser, I.J. 1987. A conceptual framework for fish communities in small warmwater
streams. Pp. 17–24, In W.J. Matthews and D.C. Heins (Eds.). Community
and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman, OK. 310 pp.
36 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 8, No. 1
Schlosser, I.J. 1995. Critical landscape attributes that infl uence fish population dynamics
in headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 303:71–81.
Schrank, S.J., C.S. Guy, M.R. Whiles, and B.L. Brock. 2001. Infl uence of instream
and landscape-level factors on the distribution of Topeka Shiners Notropis topeka
in Kansas streams. Copeia 2001:413–421.
Smogor, R.A., and P.L. Angermeier. 1998. Effects of drainage basin and anthropogenic
disturbances on relations between stream size and IBI metrics in Virginia.
Pp. 257–260, In T.P., Simon, editor. Assessing the Sustainability and Biological
Integrity of Water Resources using Fish Communities. CRC Press, New York,
NY. 671 pp.
Sutherland, E. 2003. Water supply reservoirs in Georgia: An update on Henry County’s
proposed Tussahaw Creek reservoir and the importance of thorough environmental
impacts analyses.Pp. 318–320, In K.J. Hatcher (Ed). Proceedings of the
Georgia Water Resources Conference, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Swink W.D., and K.E. Jacobs. 1983. Infl uence of a Kentucky fl ood-control reservoir
on the tailwater and headwater fish populations. North American Journal of Fisheries
Taylor, C.A., J.H. Knouft, and T.M. Hiland. 2001. Consequences of stream impoundment
on fish communities in a small North American drainage. Regulated
Rivers:Research and Management 17:687–698.
Wiley, M.L., and C.F. Tsai. 1983. The relative efficiencies of electrofishing vs. seines
in piedmont streams of Maryland. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Winston, M.R., C.M. Taylor, and J. Pigg. 1991. Upstream extirpation of four minnow
species due to damming of a prairie stream. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 120:98–105.
Yeager, B.L. 1993. Dams. Pp. 57–113, In C.F. Bryan, and D.A. Rutherford (Eds).
Impacts on Warmwater Streams: Guidelines for Evaluation. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD. 285 pp.