Modelling the habitat preferences of preadult and adult fishes on the shoreline of the large, lowland Elbe River

Summary From the years 1997 to 2000, fish assemblages from 15 groyne fields and training walls (a current guiding dyke, protecting the groyne field) of the Middle Elbe River (Germany) were examined by electrofishing. The aim of the study was to detect abiotic environmental key variables which determine preadult and adult fish assemblage in typical riverbank structures using multivariate ordination techniques (canonical correspondence analysis) and univariate methods (logistic regression analysis). Habitat preferences of preadult and adult stages of selected fish species were also estimated. Fish sampling was carried out at 190 river stretches; a further 1615 samples were taken by the point-abundance sampling method. In total, 21 732 preadult and adult individuals belonging to 30 fish species were caught; perch, eel, ide, roach, chub, gudgeon, bleak and white bream were the most frequent. Eurytopic species clearly dominated the fish assemblage with 72% total abundance, followed by rheophilic species (26%). Limnophilic fish species (rudd, crucian carp, stickleback and tench) were relatively rare (2% of total abundance), with frequencies of occurrence between 1 and 10%. The highest species diversities were estimated in structurally diverse training walls and groyne fields with defective groynes, whereas low species diversity was found to occur in poorly structured, strongly silted groyne fields with intact groynes. Additionally, typical seasonal and annual changes of the fish assemblage were observed. From the mesoscalic point of view, the structure of the preadult and adult fish assemblage was affected by both spatial (type of groyne field, river stretch) and temporal factors (year, season). Regarding the microhabitat, hydromorphological parameters (slope, current velocity, water level, predominant and secondary substrate) followed by physicochemical water values [dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and pH-value] are of significance for the structure of the fish community. Furthermore, hiding places (shelter) are of subordinate but significant importance for the fish assemblage in the poorly structured main channel of the Elbe River. Importance of hydromorphological factors on the microhabitat scale was confirmed by multiple logistic regression in 12 of 14 preference models, conducted for different ontogenetic stages of roach, bream, white bream, bleak, ide, chub, gudgeon, asp, perch and eel. Habitat preferences of adult bleak and preadult roach were first determined by physicochemical water values and seasonal influences. Univariate models were generated to describe specific habitat preferences of different species and age-stages regarding the most important environmental variables (depth, velocity, predominant substrate, slope and shelter). Intraspecific differences were noticed between preadult and adult chub regarding preferences for water velocity, or between preadult and adult perch concerning slope of shore. Interspecific differences were observed, e.g. between adult roach and white bream, with regard to the use of shelters.

[1]  C. Nilsson,et al.  Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of River Systems in the Northern Third of the World , 1994, Science.

[2]  J. Finn,et al.  Streamflow regulation and fish community structure , 1988 .

[3]  F. Molls.  New insights into the migration and habitat use by bream and white bream in the floodplain of the River Rhine , 1999 .

[4]  Robert B. Jacobson,et al.  The importance of fluvial hydraulics to fish-habitat restoration in low-gradient alluvial streams , 1993 .

[5]  N. Lamouroux,et al.  Predicting community characteristics from habitat conditions: fluvial fish and hydraulics , 1999 .

[6]  James R. Karr,et al.  Habitat Structure and Stream Fish Communities , 1978 .

[7]  G. Copp,et al.  Hierarchical analysis of habitat use by 0+ juvenile fish in Hungarian/Slovak flood plain of the Danube River , 1994, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[8]  R. E. Grift.  How fish benefit from floodplain restoration along the lower River Rhine , 2001 .

[9]  Sovan Lek,et al.  Predicting the structure and diversity of young‐of‐the‐year fish assemblages in large rivers , 1999 .

[10]  E. Balon,et al.  Reproductive Guilds of Fishes: A Proposal and Definition , 1975 .

[11]  J. Schwartzkopff,et al.  Schwimmgeschwindigkeiten von Fischen aus stehenden Binnengewässern , 2004, Naturwissenschaften.

[12]  I. Schlosser,et al.  Species-Area Relationship for Stream Fishes , 1989 .

[13]  C. Wolter,et al.  Perch (Perca fluviatilis) as an indicator species for structural degradation in regulated rivers and canals in the lowlands of Germany , 1997 .

[14]  J. Hayes,et al.  Microhabitat Models of Large Drift‐Feeding Brown Trout in Three New Zealand Rivers , 1994 .

[15]  E. Balon.  Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes , 1981, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[16]  Elisabeth Haberlehner.  Comparative Analysis of Feeding and Schooling Behaviour of the Cyprinidae Alburnus alburnus (L., 1758), Rutilus rutilus (L., 1758), and Scardinius erythrophthalmus (L., 1758) in a Backwater of the Danube near Vienna , 1988 .

[17]  C. Braak,et al.  Weighted averaging, logistic regression and the Gaussian response model , 2004, Vegetatio.

[18]  T. Lambert,et al.  Development of habitat suitability criteria for trout in small streams , 1989 .

[19]  Hervé Capra,et al.  Predicting habitat suitability for lotic fish: linking statistical hydraulic models with multivariate habitat use models , 1998 .

[20]  P. Garner.  Microhabitat use and diet of 0+ cyprinid fishes in a lentic, regulated reach of the River Great Ouse, England , 1996 .

[21]  D. Pont,et al.  Multi-scale approach to species–habitat relationships: juvenile fish in a large river section , 1996 .

[22]  G. Copp,et al.  An empirical model for predicting microhabitat of 0+ juvenile fishes in a lowland river catchment , 1992, Oecologia.

[23]  N. Lamouroux,et al.  Fish habitat preferences in large streams of southern France , 1999 .

[24]  C. Braak,et al.  Canonical correspondence analysis and related multivariate methods in aquatic ecology , 1995, Aquatic Sciences.

[25]  R. Thiel,et al.  The modular habitat model (MHM) for the ide, Leuciscus idus (L.) ‐ a new method to predict the suitability of inshore habitats for fish , 2003 .

[26]  Christian Wolter,et al.  Seasonal changes of fish diversity in the main channel of the large lowland River Oder , 2001 .

[27]  S. Saltveit,et al.  Comparison of Three Methods for Studies of Stream Habitat Use by Young Brown Trout and Atlantic Salmon , 1990 .

[28]  I. Schlosser,et al.  The Role of Predation in Age‐ and Size‐Related Habitat Use by Stream Fishes , 1987 .