Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:895-907, 1997 © Copyright by ihe American Fisheries Society 1997 Factors Influencing Stream Fish Recovery Following a Large-Scale Disturbance WILLIAM E. ENSIGN' and KEVIN N. LEFTwiCH2 Department Fisheriesof Wildlifeand Sciences, Virginia Tech Blackshitrg, Virginia 24061-0321, USA PAUL L. ANGERMEIER U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,* Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0321.USA . ANDREC W DOLLOFF U.S. Forest Sen'ice, Southern Research Station, Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0321. USA Abstract.—We examined fish distribution and abundance in erosional habitat units in South Fork Roanoke River, Virginia, following a fish kill by using a reachwide sampling approach for 3 species and a representative-reach sampling approach for 10 species. Qualitative (presence-absence) and quantitative (relative abundance) estimate f distributioso abundancd nan e provided consistent mea- sure f fiso s h specie 3 reachwide recover f th o speciet 0 2 a s1 r f yfo o e srepre 8 e scal ath d t an e- sentative-reach scale. Combining results across scales and estimator types showed that distributions and abundance f 1o 1 5 specie reace f so th hn i s affecte kile th l y werdb e simila thoso rt e observed in unaffected upstrea downstread man m reaches 8-11 months following the perturbation. Differ- ence distribution i s abundancd an n e betwee e affectenth d reac unaffected han d reaches indicate f tha1o 1 t full4 tspecie no yd recovereha s d durin same gth e time period; results were equivocal fo othe2 r r species attribute W . e difference recovern si y rates between thes groupo tw e difo t s - ferences in parental investment in offspring. Species exhibiting rapid recovery either engage in extensive spawning site preparatio r guarno e spawnindth g site followin g depositioeg g d nan fertilization; species that had not recovered in the year following the kill show limited spawning site preparation and do not guard the spawning site. Stream fisexposee har boto dt h - naturatemplatan d an l e determinin range gth liff eo e history traits thropogenic disturbances thaalten ca t r population founa strea n i dm fish assemblage (Res t ale h . distribution and abundance. We need to understand 1988). At a given site, local factors such as dis- the factors that influence population recovery fol- tance to source populations of potential colonists lowing disturbance orden si effectivelo rt y manag occurrencd an e f barriero e movemeno t s e imar t- stream fish resources (Cairns et al. 1971; Hughes portant (Cairns et al. 1971; Gore and Milner 1990; . 1990eal t ; Detenbec . 1992)al t e k . Factor - de Detenbecs . 1992)al t ke . Finally, life history traits termining recovery rates can be viewed in a hi- defining potential rates of population increase erarchical fashion (Detenbeck et al. 1992). Re- (e.g., Winemiller and Rose 1992) and vagility of gional variations in climate, geomorphology, and individuals should determine differential recovery hydrologic regime provide the large-scale habitat rates in a given assemblage. Most studie fisf so h population recovery follow- ———— ing large-scale natural or anthropogenic distur- 1 Present address: Department of Biological and Phys- bance come from second fourth-ordeo t - r streams ical Sciences, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain that have fish assemblages thae well-adaptear t d Road, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144, USA. to periodic disturbance (Niemi et al. 1990; Schlos- 2 Present address: U.S. Forest Service, Center for Ser 1990; Detenbeck et al. 1992). Response vari- Aquatic Technology Transfer, Southern Research Sta- ables m frequently limited to either qualitative lion. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0321, (presence_absence) or ^quantitative (relative Unie jointl3s Th i t y sponsore Biologicae th y db - abundanceRe l ) data fro ma limite d numbe f "repo r - sources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Vir- resentative" sites (Niemi et al. 1990). Data on pop- ginia Departmen Gamf t o Inlan d ean d Fisheries, Virginia ulation densit d spatiayan l distribution durind gan Tech, and the Wildlife Management Institute. after recovery from a variety of regions and stream 895 896 ENSIG. AL T NE size needee sar develoo dt pcomprehensivea , pre- ginia. Predominant land use in the watershed is dictive theory of fish population recovery follow- agricultural, with the majority of the area in pas- in ga disturbance . Furthermore, additional infor- ture or woodland. The riparian zone is largely veg- matioutilite th sensitivitd n yan no f qualitativyo e etated, with willows Salix spp., American hack- and quantitative response variables across spatial berry Celtis occidentalis, and sycamore Platanus sampling scales (i.e., from both representative- occidentalis dominane th s a t woody riparian spe- reacd reacan h h wide approaches; Hankid an n cies. Total watershed area above a gauging station Reeves 1988; Dolloff et al. 1993) is needed to in the middle of the study reach (Figure 1) is 285 facilitate design and implementation of effective km2; mean daily flow for the period of record is recovery monitoring programs. Although manip- 3.14 nvVs, and stream gradient is 1.7 m/km. Hy- ulative studie providn ca s e insight into recoloni- drologic records indicate thae studth t y reach zation following small-scale defaunations (Meffe maintained continuou perioe s th flo r f recdwo fo - and Sheldon 1990; Peterse d Baylean n y 1993), ord (more than 40 years). Average stream width dat large-scalr afo e studie usualle sar y obtainey db is 16.7 m; average pool depth is 52 cm; and max- treating anthropogenic disturbance s experia s - imum pool depth is usually less than 1.5 m, al- ments (Spark . 1990)al t se . though some pools exceed 3 m. Although there are On 15 October 1991, a dairy farm in Riner, Vir- perennial streams entering South Fork Roanoke ginia, accidentally released 100,000 gallons of liq- upstrea downstread man m fro affectee mth d reach, uid manure into Elliott Creek. In all, 22 km of the only tributaries entering the affected reach are stream were affected, 13 km of Elliott Creek and smal intermittentd an l . 9 km of South Fork Roanoke River downstream For the reachwide component of the study, we of its confluence with Elliott Creek. The Virginia studR divideSF y e areth d a into three separate Water Control Board estimated that over 190,000 reaches, an upstream (US) control reach, a down- fish were killed. Qualitative streamside observa- stream (DS) control kila reac d l (KLhan ) reach. tion immediateld s 3 ove e rth y followin spile gth l The US reach included a 3-km stretch of SFR be- believo t lea s du e thae ichthyofaunth t s vir-wa a ginning near the mouth of Elliott Creek and ex- tually eliminate- af e th df o fro uppee m mth k 6 r tending upstream reacS D d he an begaTh .m k n9 fected reac Soutn ho h Fork Roanoke e terth - n I . downstreaendem k 3 1 d moute th f mf Ellioto ho t minolog f Bendey o . (1984 al t Gord e rd an ) ean Creek, and the KL reach included the 6 km of SFR Milner (1990) manure th , e classifieeb spiln ca l d immediately downstrea e moutth f f mEllioto ho t level-a s a 2 pulse disturbance, which indicates that Creek (Figure 1). Fish were collected from seven upstrea downstread man m source colonistf so - sex sites for the representative-reach portion of the isted followin spile thad causae gth an th lt l agent study downstreamo tw , upstreamo tw , thred an , e t altedidno r physical habitat availabl potentiao et l withi affectee nth d reach (Figur. 1) e recolonizers. Although the spill is regrettable, it We determined reachwide distributio abund nan - d providdi n opportunita e o refint y r underou e - danc f threeo e species, Roanoke logperch Percina standin factore th f go s that influence fish recolon- rex, Roanoke darte . roanoka,P r blacd an k jump- ization following perturbation. rock Scartomyzon (=Moxostoma) cervinus. Distri- We present the results of a 2-year study that butio abundancd nan species—whit0 e 1 dat r afo e assessed fish recolonizatio affectee th n ni d reach. shiner Luxilus albeolus, crescent shiner L. cerasi- The four major objectives of the study were (1) to nus, bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus, central determin e distributioth e d abundancnan - se f o e stoneroller Campostoma anomalum, torrent sucker lected riffle-dwelling fish species in the study Thobumia (—Moxoslonia) rhothoeca, black jump- reach during summer 199 asses1993d o t 2an ) (2 ,s rock, margined mad torn Noturus insignis, fan tail the utilit f reachwido y representative-reacd an e h darter Etheostoma flabellare, river weed darter £. approaches for determining recovery, (3) to assess podostemone, and Roanoke darter—were obtained e utilitth f qualitativo y e (presence-absenced an ) from the seven representative-reach sites. Juve- quantitative (relative abundance) measures for de- niles and adults of all 11 species are commonly termining asseso t recovery ) role f (4 th s eo d an , difference lifn i se history characteristic detern si - found in erosional, riffle-run habitat from the time mining recovery rates. they spaw latn ni e spring until water temperatures dro earln pi y winter, when they move into deep, Study Area and Study Species slow-moving pools (Matthews 1990; Jenkind an s South Fork Roanoke (SFR) is a fifth-order Burkhead 1994; Ensign 1995). They are all either streae Valleth Ridgd mn i yan e Provinc f Vireo - benthi water co r column insectivores- , ex wit e hth FISH RECOVERY AFTER DISTURBANCE 897 Roanoke River Elliott Creek FIGURE I.—The South Fork Roanoke River study area.