Habitat effects on depth and velocity frequency distributions: Implications for modeling hydraulic variation and fish habitat suitability in streams

Abstract Describing the velocity and depth attributes of stream channels is a basic goal of theoretical and applied hydrology and is also essential for modeling biological processes in streams. We applied frequency distributions (gamma probability functions fit to point velocity and depth data) to evaluate their ability to describe variation in hydraulic conditions at the channel unit scale among contrasting habitat types (pools, glides, riffles, and runs) at different flows in a small trout stream. Velocity and depth distributions differed systematically between habitat types, with linear regression explaining 65 and 72%, respectively, of variation in gamma distribution parameters related to skewness and kurtosis; however, distribution parameters were not significantly related to discharge. Relative depth explained 68–79% of the variation in slopes of at-a-station hydraulic geometry relationships between different habitat types. Differentiation of habitat types in a velocity–depth phase space was reduced at high flows, and differences in hydraulic geometry exponents were consistent with flow convergence at high discharge . Modeling variance in velocity and depth using locally derived gamma distributions, in conjunction with simple hydraulic geometry, provided accurate estimates of reach average habitat suitability for trout. Frequency distributions derived from a set of New Zealand streams provided much poorer estimates of habitat suitability. Frequency distributions are useful as an heuristic tool for understanding and modeling drivers of spatial variation in hydraulics, and provide a simple method to model hydraulic conditions in streams. However, general transferability of frequency distributions between streams would be improved by validating and refining existing relationships between distribution parameters and easily measured stream characteristics, like habitat type, channel size, gradient, and substrate caliber.

[1]  T. Hardy,et al.  Prediction of fisheries physical habitat values based on hydraulic geometry and frequency distributions of depth and velocity , 2009 .

[2]  A. Rao,et al.  Estimation of Instream Flow Requirements for Fish , 1992 .

[3]  Evaluating the Physical Characteristics of Channel Units in an Ozark Stream , 2001 .

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

[5]  R. Jan Stevenson,et al.  RESISTANCE AND RESILIENCE OF LOTIC ALGAL COMMUNITIES: IMPORTANCE OF DISTURBANCE TIMING AND CURRENT' , 1992 .

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

[7]  M. Madej.  Temporal and spatial variability in thalweg profiles of a gravel‐bed river , 1999 .

[8]  Nicolas Lamouroux,et al.  Depth Probability Distributions in Stream Reaches , 1998 .

[9]  E. J. Hickin,et al.  Low-flow hydraulic geometry of small, steep mountain streams in southwest British Columbia , 2010 .

[10]  James E. Pizzuto,et al.  A Numerical Model for Calculating the Distributions of Velocity and Boundary Shear Stress Across Irregular Straight Open Channels , 1991 .

[11]  K. Snelgrove,et al.  Implications of Pool and Riffle Sequences for Water Quality Modeling , 2005 .

[12]  T. McMahon,et al.  A stochastic model of hydraulic variations within stream channels , 2002 .

[13]  Eric A. Parkinson,et al.  Habitat factors affecting the abundance and distribution of juvenile cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) , 2000 .

[14]  D. Knighton.  Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective , 1998 .

[15]  David M. Harper,et al.  Use of ‘functional habitats’ to link ecology with morphology and hydrology in river rehabilitation , 1999 .

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

[17]  I. Jowett,et al.  INSTREAM FLOW METHODS: A COMPARISON OF APPROACHES , 1997 .

[18]  S. Lawrence Dingman,et al.  Probability distribution of velocity in natural channel cross sections , 1989 .

[19]  K. Richards.  Channel and flow geometry , 1977 .

[20]  S. Gregory,et al.  Summer Habitat Utilization and Ecology of Cutthroat Trout Fry (Salmo clarki) in Cascade Mountain Streams , 1988 .

[21]  M. Bradford,et al.  Using thalweg profiling to assess and monitor juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) habitat in small streams , 2006 .

[22]  R. Raleigh.  Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout , 1984 .

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

[24]  P. Reichert,et al.  Predicting joint frequency distributions of depth and velocity for instream habitat assessment , 2007 .

[25]  E. Keller.  Areal Sorting of Bed-Load Material: The Hypothesis of Velocity Reversal , 1971 .

[26]  E. Wohl,et al.  Large woody debris and flow resistance in step-pool channels, Cascade Range, Washington , 2003 .

[27]  J. Gore,et al.  Hydraulic Stream Ecology: Observed Patterns and Potential Applications , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[28]  Michael Church,et al.  Hydraulic Geometry in Small, Coastal Streams: Progress Toward Quantification of Salmonid Habitat , 1989 .

[29]  J. Post,et al.  Hydraulic geometry as a physical template for the River Continuum: application to optimal flows and longitudinal trends in salmonid habitat , 2007 .

[30]  Yves Souchon,et al.  Predicting Velocity Frequency Distributions in Stream Reaches , 1995 .

[31]  E. Wohl,et al.  Controls on at‐a‐station hydraulic geometry in steep headwater streams, Colorado, USA , 2010 .

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

[33]  J. Rosenfeld,et al.  Fitness consequences of habitat use for juvenile cutthroat trout: energetic costs and benefits in pools and riffles , 2001 .

[34]  Piotr Parasiewicz,et al.  Physical habitat modelling for fish - a developing approach , 2001 .

[35]  I. Jowett.  Hydraulic geometry of New Zealand rivers and its use as a preliminary method of habitat assessment , 1998 .

[36]  Dilip Mathur,et al.  A critique of the instream flow incremental methodology , 1985 .

[37]  P. Reichert,et al.  Predicting the morphological and hydraulic consequences of river rehabilitation , 2007 .