Testing an environmental flow-based decision support tool: Evaluating the fish model in the Murray Flow Assessment Tool

Abstract Robust environmental decision support tools are critical to maximise the ecological benefit of management decisions. However the models that underpin these rarely undergo rigorous evaluation. Here, we evaluated components of a scenario-based habitat suitability model, the Murray Flow Assessment Tool, by correlating model outputs against fish monitoring data collected since its development. Overall, we detected a low correlation between habitat suitability scores for fish and fish assemblages during low-flow conditions, including when lags in fish response to hydrological inputs were introduced. Scores specific to fish functional groups were also poorly correlated with data for those groups. Finally, model outcomes were highly sensitive to methods used to combine both individual indices and weightings for each component. Thus, we recommend using constant weightings, simple and consistent combination methods and reconsidering the number of fish functional groups as simplifications to this model and in the development of similar habitat suitability models elsewhere.

[1]  G. Perry,et al.  Spatially explicit modeling of habitat dynamics and fish population persistence in an intermittent lowland stream. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[2]  J. Garnier,et al.  Modelling the Transfer and Retention of Nutrients in the Drainage Network of the Danube River , 2002 .

[3]  C. S. Shirvell.  Ability of phabsim to predict chinook salmon spawning habitat , 1989 .

[4]  Z. Paydar,et al.  Uncertainty in river modelling across the Murray-Darling Basin , 2008 .

[5]  J. Lund,et al.  Decision Support System for Water and Environmental Resources in the Connecticut River Basin , 2016 .

[6]  A. Montanari,et al.  Uncertainty in river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis , 2009 .

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

[8]  Gerald R. Allen,et al.  Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia , 2002 .

[9]  M. Chu,et al.  Using watershed‐scale hydrological models to predict the impacts of increasing urbanization on freshwater fish assemblages , 2015 .

[10]  M. Wiley,et al.  Assessment of the water surface profile model: Accuracy of predicted instream fish habitat conditions in low‐gradient, warmwater streams , 1988 .

[11]  A. Arthington,et al.  Predicting the Water Requirements of River Fisheries , 2006 .

[12]  Peter Davies,et al.  The Sustainable Rivers Audit: assessing river ecosystem health in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia , 2010 .

[13]  Daniel Ayllón,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF VARIABLE HABITAT SUITABILITY CRITERIA ON PHABSIM HABITAT INDEX RESULTS , 2012 .

[14]  S. Ormerod,et al.  EDITORIAL: Ecological science for ecosystem services and the stewardship of Natural Capital , 2013 .

[15]  T. McMahon,et al.  Variability of results from the use of PHABSIM in estimating habitat area , 1990 .

[16]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology , 2000 .

[17]  R. Cooke.  Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science , 1991 .

[18]  W. J. Young,et al.  Development of an environmental flows decision support system , 2000, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  Peter Davies,et al.  Imperfect detection and the determination of environmental flows for fish: challenges, implications and solutions , 2016 .

[20]  Ken D. Bovee,et al.  Application and testing of a procedure to evaluate transferability of habitat suitability criteria , 1993 .

[21]  Wayne A. Hubert,et al.  Relations of Physical Habitat to Abundance of Four Nongame Fishes in High-Plains Streams: A Test of Habitat Suitability Index Models , 1989 .

[22]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards , 2007 .

[23]  D. Breshears,et al.  Vegetation Responses to Extreme Hydrological Events: Sequence Matters , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[24]  C. Pollino,et al.  Integrating hydrology and ecology models into flexible and adaptive decision support tools: the IBIS DSS , 2009 .

[25]  Howard B. Stauffer,et al.  WHAT CAN HABITAT PREFERENCE MODELS TELL US? TESTS USING A VIRTUAL TROUT POPULATION , 2003 .

[26]  J. P. Norton,et al.  Sensitivity and structure assessment of a software tool to gauge the ecological impact of flow scenarios , 2006 .

[27]  Kerrie M. Tomkins,et al.  Uncertainty in streamflow rating curves: methods, controls and consequences , 2014 .

[28]  D. Firth.  Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates , 1993 .

[29]  John R. Post,et al.  Instream flow needs in streams and rivers: the importance of understanding ecological dynamics , 2006 .

[30]  Graeme D Ruxton,et al.  Using Biological Insight and Pragmatism When Thinking about Pseudoreplication. , 2018, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  Marten Scheffer,et al.  PISCATOR, an individual-based model to analyze the dynamics of lake fish communities , 2002 .

[32]  Bernard Bobée,et al.  A review of statistical methods for the evaluation of aquatic habitat suitability for instream flow assessment , 2006 .

[33]  P. McIntyre,et al.  Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity , 2010, Nature.

[34]  G. Quinn,et al.  Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists , 2002 .

[35]  P. Fairweather,et al.  Ecosystem states: Creating a data-derived, ecosystem-scale ecological response model that is explicit in space and time , 2011 .

[36]  Ken D. Bovee,et al.  A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. IFIP No. 12 , 1982 .