IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v28y2001i1d10.1007_s002670010209.html

Effects of Local Land Use on Physical Habitat, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA

Author

Listed:
  • BRIAN A. NERBONNE

    (Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA)

  • BRUCE VONDRACEK

    (Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA)

Abstract

Best management practices (BMPs) have been developed to address soil loss and the resulting sedimentation of streams, but information is lacking regarding their benefits to stream biota. We compared instream physical habitat and invertebrate and fish assemblages from farms with BMP to those from farms with conventional agricultural practices within the Whitewater River watershed of southeastern Minnesota, USA, in 1996 and 1997. Invertebrate assemblages were assessed using the US EPA's rapid bioassessment protocol (RBP), and fish assemblages were assessed with two indices of biotic integrity (IBIs). Sites were classified by upland land use (BMP or conventional practices) and riparian management (grass, grazed, or wooded buffer). Physical habitat characteristics differed across buffer types, but not upland land use, using an analysis of covariance, with buffer width and stream as covariates. Percent fines and embeddedness were negatively correlated with buffer width. Stream sites along grass buffers generally had significantly lower percent fines, embeddedness, and exposed streambank soil, but higher percent cover and overhanging vegetation when compared with sites that had grazed or wooded buffers. RBP and IBI scores were not significantly different across upland land use or riparian buffer type but did show several correlations with instream physical habitat variables. RBP and IBI scores were both negatively correlated with percent fines and embeddedness and positively correlated with width-to-depth ratio. The lack of difference in RBP or IBI scores across buffer types suggests that biotic indicators may not respond to local changes, that other factors not measured may be important, or that greater improvements in watershed condition are necessary for changes in biota to be apparent. Grass buffers may be a viable alternative for riparian management, especially if sedimentation and streambank stability are primary concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian A. Nerbonne & Bruce Vondracek, 2001. "Effects of Local Land Use on Physical Habitat, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 87-99, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:28:y:2001:i:1:d:10.1007_s002670010209
    DOI: 10.1007/s002670010209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s002670010209
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s002670010209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:28:y:2001:i:1:d:10.1007_s002670010209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.