Identifying keystone habitats with a mosaic approach can improve biodiversity conservation in disturbed ecosystems.

Conserving native biodiversity in the face of human- and climate-related impacts is a challenging and globally important ecological problem that requires an understanding of spatially connected, organismal-habitat relationships. Globally, a suite of disturbances (e.g., agriculture, urbanization, climate change) degrades habitats and threatens biodiversity. A mosaic approach (in which connected, interacting collections of juxtaposed habitat patches are examined) provides a scientific foundation for addressing many disturbance-related, ecologically based conservation problems. For example, if specific habitat types disproportionately increase biodiversity, these keystones should be incorporated into research and management plans. Our sampling of fish biodiversity and aquatic habitat along ten 3-km sites within the Upper Neosho River subdrainage, KS, from June-August 2013 yielded three generalizable ecological insights. First, specific types of mesohabitat patches (i.e., pool, riffle, run, and glide) were physically distinct and created unique mosaics of mesohabitats that varied across sites. Second, species richness was higher in riffle mesohabitats when mesohabitat size reflected field availability. Furthermore, habitat mosaics that included more riffles had greater habitat diversity and more fish species. Thus, riffles (<5% of sampled area) acted as keystone habitats. Third, additional conceptual development, which we initiate here, can broaden the identification of keystone habitats across ecosystems and further operationalize this concept for research and conservation. Thus, adopting a mosaic approach can increase scientific understanding of organismal-habitat relationships, maintain natural biodiversity, advance spatial ecology, and facilitate effective conservation of native biodiversity in human-altered ecosystems.

Habitat mosaics and path analysis can improve biological conservation of aquatic biodiversity in ecosystems with low-head dams.

Conserving native biodiversity depends on restoring functional habitats in the face of human-induced disturbances. Low-head dams are a ubiquitous human impact that degrades aquatic ecosystems worldwide. To improve our understanding of how low-head dams impact habitat and associated biodiversity, our research examined complex interactions among three spheres of the total environment. i.e., how low-head dams (anthroposphere) affect aquatic habitat (hydrosphere), and native biodiversity (biosphere) in streams and rivers. Creation of lake-like habitats upstream of low-head dams is a well-documented major impact of dams. Alterations downstream of low head dams also have important consequences, but these downstream dam effects are more challenging to detect. In a multidisciplinary field study at five dammed and five undammed sites within the Neosho River basin, KS, we tested hypotheses about two types of habitat sampling (transect and mosaic) and two types of statistical analyses (analysis of covariance and path analysis). We used fish as our example of biodiversity alteration. Our research provided three insights that can aid environmental professionals who seek to conserve and restore fish biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems threatened by human modifications. First, a mosaic approach identified habitat alterations below low-head dams (e.g. increased proportion of riffles) that were not detected using the more commonly-used transect sampling approach. Second, the habitat mosaic approach illustrated how low-head dams reduced natural variation in stream habitat. Third, path analysis, a statistical approach that tests indirect effects, showed how dams, habitat, and fish biodiversity interact. Specifically, path analysis revealed that low-head dams increased the proportion of riffle habitat below dams, and, as a result, indirectly increased fish species richness. Furthermore, the pool habitat that was created above low-head dams dramatically decreased fish species richness. As we show here, mosaic habitat sampling and path analysis can help conservation practitioners improve science-based management plans for disturbed aquatic systems worldwide.

How Big of an Effect Do Small Dams Have? Using Geomorphological Footprints to Quantify Spatial Impact of Low-Head Dams and Identify Patterns of Across-Dam Variation.

Longitudinal connectivity is a fundamental characteristic of rivers that can be disrupted by natural and anthropogenic processes. Dams are significant disruptions to streams. Over 2,000,000 low-head dams (<7.6 m high) fragment United States rivers. Despite potential adverse impacts of these ubiquitous disturbances, the spatial impacts of low-head dams on geomorphology and ecology are largely untested. Progress for research and conservation is impaired by not knowing the magnitude of low-head dam impacts. Based on the geomorphic literature, we refined a methodology that allowed us to quantify the spatial extent of low-head dam impacts (herein dam footprint), assessed variation in dam footprints across low-head dams within a river network, and identified select aspects of the context of this variation. Wetted width, depth, and substrate size distributions upstream and downstream of six low-head dams within the Upper Neosho River, Kansas, United States of America were measured. Total dam footprints averaged 7.9 km (3.0-15.3 km) or 287 wetted widths (136-437 wetted widths). Estimates included both upstream (mean: 6.7 km or 243 wetted widths) and downstream footprints (mean: 1.2 km or 44 wetted widths). Altogether the six low-head dams impacted 47.3 km (about 17%) of the mainstem in the river network. Despite differences in age, size, location, and primary function, the sizes of geomorphic footprints of individual low-head dams in the Upper Neosho river network were relatively similar. The number of upstream dams and distance to upstream dams, but not dam height, affected the spatial extent of dam footprints. In summary, ubiquitous low-head dams individually and cumulatively altered lotic ecosystems. Both characteristics of individual dams and the context of neighboring dams affected low-head dam impacts within the river network. For these reasons, low-head dams require a different, more integrative, approach for research and management than the individualistic approach that has been applied to larger dams.