Lakeshore and Littoral Physical Habitat Structure in a National Lakes Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lake and Reservoir Management ISSN: 1040-2381 (Print) 2151-5530 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulrm20 Lakeshore and littoral physical habitat structure in a national lakes assessment Philip R. Kaufmann, David V. Peck, Steven G. Paulsen, Curt W. Seeliger, Robert M. Hughes, Thomas R. Whittier & Neil C. Kamman To cite this article: Philip R. Kaufmann, David V. Peck, Steven G. Paulsen, Curt W. Seeliger, Robert M. Hughes, Thomas R. Whittier & Neil C. Kamman (2014) Lakeshore and littoral physical habitat structure in a national lakes assessment, Lake and Reservoir Management, 30:2, 192-215, DOI: 10.1080/10402381.2014.906524 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2014.906524 Published online: 02 May 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 436 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulrm20 Download by: [University of Wisconsin] Date: 03 April 2017, At: 11:49 Lake and Reservoir Management, 30:192–215, 2014 C Copyright by the North American Lake Management Society 2014 ISSN: 1040-2381 print / 2151-5530 online DOI: 10.1080/10402381.2014.906524 Lakeshore and littoral physical habitat structure in a national lakes assessment Philip R. Kaufmann,1,∗ David V. Peck,1 Steven G. Paulsen,1 Curt W. Seeliger,2 Robert M. Hughes,3 Thomas R. Whittier,4 and Neil C. Kamman5 1US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, 200 SW 35th St, Corvallis, OR 97333 2Raytheon Information Services, c/o USEPA, 200 SW 35th St, Corvallis, OR 97333 3Amnis Opes Institute and Oregon State University Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, 200 SW 35th St, Corvallis, OR 97333 4Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 5Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division, Monitoring, Assessment and Planning Program, 103 S Main 10N, Waterbury, VT 05671 Abstract Kaufmann PR, Peck DV, Paulsen SG, Seeliger CW, Hughes RM, Whittier TR, Kamman NC. 2014. Lakeshore and littoral physical habitat structure in a national lakes assessment. Lake Reserv Manage. 30:192–215. Near-shore physical habitat is crucial for supporting biota and ecological processes in lakes. We used data from a statistical sample of 1101 lakes and reservoirs from the 2007 US Environmental Protection Agency National Lakes Assessment (NLA) to develop 4 indices of physical habitat condition: (1) Lakeshore Anthropogenic Disturbance, (2) Riparian Vegetation Cover Complexity, (3) Littoral Cover Complexity, and (4) Littoral–Riparian Habitat Com- plexity. We compared lake index values with distributions from least-disturbed lakes. Our results form the first US national assessment of lake physical habitat, inferring the condition (with known confidence) of the 49,500 lakes and reservoirs in the conterminous United States with surface areas >4 ha and depths >1 m. Among the physical and chemical characteristics examined by the NLA, near-shore physical habitat was the most extensively altered relative to least-disturbed condition. Riparian Vegetation Cover Complexity was good in 46% (±3%), fair in 18% (±2%), and poor in 36% (±2%) of lakes. Littoral–Riparian Habitat Complexity was good in 47% (±3%), fair in 20% (±2%), and poor in 32% (±2%) of lakes. In every ecoregion, habitat condition was negatively related to anthropogenic pressures. Gradients of increased anthropogenic disturbance were accompanied by progressive simplification of littoral and riparian physical habitat. Nationwide, the proportion of lakes with degraded near-shore physical habitat was equal to or greater than that for excess nutrients and much greater than that for acidic conditions. In addition to better management of lake basins, we suggest an increased focus on protecting littoral and riparian physical habitat through better management of near-shore anthropogenic disturbance. Key words: habitat complexity, hydromorphology, riparian disturbance, lake ecology, lake habitat, littoral habitat, monitoring, physical habitat structure, reference condition Near-shore physical habitat structure has only recently been near-shore lake habitat conditions are needed because these addressed in regional lake monitoring, even though an- areas are both ecologically important and especially vulnera- thropogenic activities and aquatic and riparian biota are ble to anthropogenic perturbation (Schindler and Scheuerell concentrated in these areas. Monitoring and assessment of 2002, Strayer and Findlay 2010, Hampton et al. 2011). Lit- toral and riparian zones are positioned at the land–water in- terface and tend to be more structurally complex and biolog- ∗Corresponding author: [email protected] ically diverse than either pelagic areas or upland terrestrial Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be environments (Polis et al. 1997, Strayer and Findlay 2010). found online at www.tandfonline.com/ulrm. This complexity promotes interchange of water, nutrients, 192 National lake physical habitat assessment and biota between the aquatic and terrestrial compartments ciated 4 key physical habitat condition indices with anthro- of lake ecosystems (Benson and Magnuson 1992, Polis et al. pogenic disturbances. We summarize key findings concern- 1997, Palmer et al. 2000, Zohary and Ostrovsky 2011). ing the extent of lake physical habitat alteration across the United States and discuss the potential risks of physical habi- Riparian vegetation and wetlands surrounding lakes increase tat alteration to lake biota. This paper also describes how to near-shore physical habitat complexity (e.g., Christensen calculate the NLA’s physical habitat indices and derive phys- et al. 1996, Francis and Schindler 2006) and buffer lakes ical habitat condition thresholds relative to least-disturbed from the influence of upland land use activities (Carpenter conditions. and Cottingham 1997, Strayer and Findlay 2010). Anthro- pogenic activities on or near lakeshores can directly or in- directly degrade littoral and riparian habitat (Francis and Methods Schindler 2006). Increased sedimentation, loss of native plant growth, alteration of native plant communities, loss Analytical framework for assessing physical of physical habitat structure, and changes in littoral cover habitat condition and substrate are all commonly associated with lakeshore human activities (Christensen et al. 1996, Engel and Peder- We took the following 7 steps to assess physical habitat son 1998, Whittier et al. 2002, Francis and Schindler 2006, condition in US lakes at national and regional levels: Merrell et al. 2009). Such reductions in physical habitat structural complexity can deleteriously affect fish (Wagner 1. surveyed littoral and riparian physical habitat structure et al. 2006, Taillon and Fox 2004, Whittier et al. 1997, 2002, and near-shore anthropogenic activities on a national Halliwell 2007, Jennings et al. 1999, Wagner et al. 2006), probability sample of lakes and reservoirs; aquatic macroinvertebrates (Brauns et al. 2007), and birds 2. defined ecoregions and classified lakes according to lake (Kaufmann et al. 2014b). type and level of anthropogenic disturbance; 3. calculated a set of physical habitat metrics; Despite the growing recognition that protection of near- 4. calculated multimetric indices of physical habitat condi- shore physical habitat structural complexity is essential to tion; conserve biological condition in lakes, the lack of practical, 5. estimated region-specific expected values for physical standardized approaches has hindered its quantification and habitat condition indices; evaluation in large-scale regional and national lake assess- 6. set criteria for expected physical habitat condition based ments. We therefore developed rapid field methods to quan- on least-disturbed lakes; and tify physical habitat structure and near-shore anthropogenic 7. estimated percentages and confidence bounds for the disturbances (Kaufmann and Whittier 1997, USEPA 2007a) number of lakes with physical habitat in good, fair, and for application in national surveys. Based on data from these poor condition in the United States and its ecoregions. field methods, we calculated habitat indices that quantify the variety, structural complexity, and magnitude of areal cover from physical habitat elements within the near shore zones National survey of lakes (Step 1) of lakes. Similar indices have been applied both in lakes Study area and site selection (Kaufmann et al. 2014a) and streams (Hughes et al. 2010, Kaufmann and Faustini 2012). The structural complexity The NLA field sampling effort targeted all lakes and reser- and variety of habitat quantified by these indices provide voirs in the conterminous United States with surface areas diverse opportunities for supporting assemblages of aquatic >4 ha and depths >1 m. Field crews visited 1152 lakes organisms (Strayer and Finlay 2010, Kovalenko et al. 2012) and reservoirs (Fig. 1A) between May and October 2007. and foster the interchange of water, nutrients, and organisms Of these, 1028 had been selected as a probability sample between compartments within lake ecosystems (Schindler from the US Geological Survey (USGS)-USEPA National and Scheuerell 2002, Stayer and Findlay 2010). Hydrography Dataset (NHD) with a spatially balanced, ran- domized systematic design that