Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:19:50.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of a dam on wintering waterbirds’ habitat use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

QING ZENG Open the ORCID record for QING ZENG [Opens in a new window] ,
CAI LU ,
GANG LI ,
ZHI-BIAO GUO ,
LI WEN  and
GUANG-CHUN LEI
QING ZENG
Affiliation:
School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University. Beijing 100083, China
CAI LU
Affiliation:
School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University. Beijing 100083, China
GANG LI
Affiliation:
School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University. Beijing 100083, China
ZHI-BIAO GUO
Affiliation:
Taoyuan County Forestry Bureau, Hunan 415700, China
LI WEN
Affiliation:
Science Division, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia
GUANG-CHUN LEI*
Affiliation:
School of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University. Beijing 100083, China
*
*Correspondence: Guang-Chun Lei email: guangchun8099@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The degradation, alteration and depletion of riparian habitats caused by river regulation are among critical conservation concerns. Aquatic and riparian habitats support not only river-dwelling biota such as macroinvertebrates and fish, but also waterbirds, the top predators in the aquatic food web. Despite the intimate relationships between fish and waterbirds, the two groups are often investigated separately. Using an integrative approach, we examined the effects of dams on fish and scaly-sided merganser (Mergus squamatus), an endangered, iconic riverine species, where the lack of knowledge about habitat preferences greatly hampers long-term conservation efforts. Our analysis quantified three causal links: (1) water depth had direct, comparable, negative effects on both fish and waterbirds, and the path coefficients for fish and birds are –0.31 and –0.46, respectively; (2) river landscape heterogeneity directly and positively affected fish and waterbirds, and the path coefficients for fish and birds are 0.63 and 0.19, respectively; and (3) depth and river landscape also exerted indirect effects on waterbirds through their impacts on fish abundance, and the path coefficients for fish and birds are –0.15 and 0.28, respectively. Our findings could contribute to the rational spatial planning and sustainable operation of dams in that maintaining instream habitat availability and heterogeneity would benefit the whole riverine ecosystem.

Keywords

damriver ecosystemwaterbirdhabitatscaly-sided merganser
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 307 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahmadi‐Nedushan, B., St‐Hilaire, A., Bérubé, M., Robichaud, É., Thiémonge, N. & Bobée, B. (2006) A review of statistical methods for the evaluation of aquatic habitat suitability for instream flow assessment. River Research and Applications 22: 503–523.Google Scholar
Barter, M., Zhuang, X., Wang, X., Cao, L., Lei, J., Solovyeva, D. et al. (2014) Abundance and distribution of wintering scaly-sided mergansers Mergus squamatus in China: where are the missing birds? Bird Conservation International 24: 406–415.Google Scholar
Bednarek, A.T. (2001) Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management 27: 803–814.Google Scholar
Brotons, L., Thuiller, W., Araújo, M.B. & Hirzel, A.H. (2004) Presence–absence versus presence‐only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27: 437–448.Google Scholar
Burnham, K.P. & Anderson, D.R. (2004) Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33: 261–304.Google Scholar
Caro, T. & O'Doherty, G. (1999) On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13: 805–814.Google Scholar
Croll, D.A., Gaston, A.J., Burger, A.E. & Konnoff, D. (1992) Foraging behavior and physiological adaptation for diving in thick-billed murres. Ecology 73: 344–356.Google Scholar
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z.I., Knowler, D.J., Lévêque, C. et al. (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.Google Scholar
EAAFW (2015) Scaly-sided merganser [www document]. URL http://www.eaaflyway.net/our-activities/task-forces/scaly-sided-merganserGoogle Scholar
Eekhout, J.P., Hoitink, A.J., de Brouwer, J.H. & Verdonschot, P.F. (2015) Morphological assessment of reconstructed lowland streams in The Netherlands. Advances in Water Resources 81: 161–171.Google Scholar
Elmberg, J., Dessborn, L. & Englund, G. (2010) Presence of fish affects lake use and breeding success in ducks. Hydrobiologia 641: 215–223.Google Scholar
Emmrich, M., Helland, I.P., Busch, S., Schiller, S. & Mehner, T. (2010) Hydroacoustic estimates of fish densities in comparison with stratified pelagic trawl sampling in two deep, coregonid-dominated lakes. Fisheries Research 105: 178–186.Google Scholar
Enstipp, M.R., Grémillet, D. & Jones, D.R. (2007) Investigating the functional link between prey abundance and seabird predatory performance. Marine Ecology Progress Series 331: 267–279.Google Scholar
Erskine, A. (1972) Buffleheads. Canadian Wildlife Service Monograph Series, no. 4. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service Ottawa.Google Scholar
Fang, D., Zhang, Z., Wang, A., Luo, Z. & Jie, Z. (2009) Preliminary study on overwintering behavior of Mergus squamatus. Hubei Agricultural Sciences 48: 2215–2218.Google Scholar
Finger, T.R. (1982) Fish community–habitat relations in a central New York stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 1: 343–352.Google Scholar
Gordon, E. & Meentemeyer, R.K. (2006) Effects of dam operation and land use on stream channel morphology and riparian vegetation. Geomorphology 82: 412–429.Google Scholar
Grace, J.B. (2006) Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grace, J.B., Schoolmaster, D.R. Jr, Guntenspergen, G.R., Little, A.M., Mitchell, B.R., Miller, K.M. et al. (2012) Guidelines for a graph-theoretic implementation of structural equation modeling. Ecosphere 3: art73.Google Scholar
Graf, W.L. (2006) Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on American rivers. Geomorphology 79: 336– 360.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. (1975) Prey availability and the food of predators. Ecology 56: 1209–1214.Google Scholar
Guida, R.J., Swanson, T.L., Remo, J.W. & Kiss, T. (2015) Strategic floodplain reconnection for the Lower Tisza River, Hungary: opportunities for flood-height reduction and floodplain–wetland reconnection. Journal of Hydrology 521: 274–285.Google Scholar
Hebert, C.E., Norstrom, R.J. & Weseloh, D.C. (2000) A quarter century of environmental surveillance: the Canadian Wildlife Service's Great Lakes herring gull monitoring program. Environmental Reviews 7: 147–166.Google Scholar
Katano, O., Nakamura, T., Abe, S., Yamamoto, S. & Baba, Y. (2006) Comparison of fish communities between above‐ and below‐dam sections of small streams; barrier effect to diadromous fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 68: 767–782.Google Scholar
Kemp, P. & O'Hanley, J. (2010) Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: a synthesis. Fisheries Management and Ecology 17: 297–322.Google Scholar
Klein, M.L. (1993) Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 31–39.Google Scholar
Krebs, J.R. & Davies, N.B. (2009) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 4th edition. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lehner, B., Liermann, C.R., Revenga, C., Vörösmarty, C., Fekete, B., Crouzet, P. et al. (2011) High-resolution mapping of the world's reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 494–502.Google Scholar
Liermann, C.R., Nilsson, C., Robertson, J. & Ng, R.Y. (2012) Implications of dam obstruction for global freshwater fish diversity. BioScience 62: 539–548.Google Scholar
Ligon, F.K., Dietrich, W.E. & Trush, W.J. (1995) Downstream ecological effects of dams. BioScience 45: 183–192.Google Scholar
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S., Neel, M. & Ene, E. (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps [www document]. URL http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.htmlGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, L. (1972) Habitat selection, food choice, and feeding habits of diving ducks in coastal waters of south Sweden during the non-breeding season. Ornis Scandinavica 3: 55–78.Google Scholar
Poff, N., Allan, J., Bain, M., Karr, J., Pres-tegaard, K., Richter, B. et al. (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769–784.Google Scholar
Poff, N.L. & Zimmerman, J.K. (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology 55: 194–205.Google Scholar
Poff, N.L., Olden, J.D., Merritt, D.M. & Pepin, D.M. (2007) Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 5732–5737.Google Scholar
Pringle, C.M., Freeman, M.C. & Freeman, B.J. (2000) Regional effects of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota in the New World: tropical–temperate comparisons. BioScience 50: 807– 823.Google Scholar
Ren, Y., Chen, D., Liu, S., Duan, X., Li, S., Wang, S. et al. (2012) Spatio-temporal distribution of fish in the Pengxi River arm of the Three Gorges Reservoir. Acta Ecologica Sinca 32: 1734–1744.Google Scholar
Robinson, C., Tockner, K. & Ward, J. (2002) The fauna of dynamic riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47: 661–677.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 48: 1–36.Google Scholar
Schummer, M.L., Petrie, S.A. & Bailey, R.C. (2008) Interaction between macroinvertebrate abundance and habitat use by diving ducks during winter on northeastern Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 34: 54–71.Google Scholar
Sjöberg, K. (1987) Food selection, food-seeking patterns and hunting success of captive goosanders Mergus merganser and red-breasted mergansers M. serrator in relation to the behaviour of their prey. IBIS 130: 79–93.Google Scholar
Stanley, E.H. & Doyle, M.W. (2003) Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 15–22.Google Scholar
Steinmetz, J., Kohler, S.L. & Soluk, D.A. (2003) Birds are overlooked top predators in aquatic food webs. Ecology 84: 1324–1328.Google Scholar
Van Looy, K., Tormos, T. & Souchon, Y. (2014) Disentangling dam impacts in river networks. Ecological Indicators 37: 10–20.Google Scholar
Van Zyll de Jong, M.C., Cowx, I. & Scruton, D.A. (1997) An evaluation of instream habitat restoration techniques on salmonid populations in a Newfoundland stream. Regulated Rivers – Research and Management 13: 603–614.Google Scholar
Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P. et al. (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467: 555–561.Google Scholar
WCD (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-making. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
Wohl, E.E. (2004) Disconnected Rivers: Linking Rivers to Landscapes. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, C. & Hand, C. (1985) Food-searching behaviour of the common merganser (Mergus merganser) I: functional responses to prey and predator density. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 1260–1270.Google Scholar
Zeng, Q., Shi, L., Wen, L., Chen, J., Duo, H. & Lei, G. (2015a) Gravel bars can be critical for biodiversity conservation: a case study on scaly-sided merganser in south China. PLoS ONE 10: e0127387.Google Scholar
Zeng, Q., Zhang, Y., Sun, G., Duo, H., Wen, L. & Lei, G. (2015b) Using species distribution model to estimate the wintering population size of the endangered scaly-sided merganser in China. PLoS ONE 10: e0117307.Google Scholar