Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

한국수산과학회 (The Korean Society of Fisheries and Aquatic Science)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Conservation potential of North American large rivers: the Wabash River compared with the Ohio and Illinois rivers

  • Pyron, Mark (Department of Biology, Ball State University) ;
  • Muenich, Rebecca Logsdon (School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University) ;
  • Casper, Andrew F. (Illinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey, A Division of the Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois)
  • 투고 : 2020.03.13
  • 심사 : 2020.04.26
  • 발행 : 2020.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: Large rivers are ecological treasures with high human value, but most have experienced decades of degradation from industrial and municipal sewage, row-crop agricultural practices, and hydrologic alteration. We reviewed published analyses of long-term fish diversity publications from three intensively managed large river ecosystems to demonstrate the conservation potential of large river ecosystems. Results: We show how the incorporation of recent advances in river concepts will allow a better understanding of river ecosystem functioning and conservation. Lastly, we focus on the Wabash River ecosystem based on high conservation value and provide a list of actions to maintain and support the ecosystem. In the Wabash River, there were originally 66 species of freshwater mussels, but now only 30 species with reproducing populations remain. Although there were multiple stressors over the last century, the largest change in Wabash River fish biodiversity was associated with rapid increases in municipal nutrient loading and invasive bigheaded carps. Conclusions: Like similarly neglected large river systems worldwide, the Wabash River has a surprising amount of ecological resilience and recovery. For instance, of the 151 native fish species found in the 1800s, only three species have experienced local extinctions, making the modern assemblage more intact than many comparable rivers in the Mississippi River basin. However, not all the changes are positive or support the idea of recovery. Primary production underpins the productivity of these ecosystems, and the Wabash River phytoplankton assemblages shifted from high-quality green algae in the 1970s to lower less nutritional blue-green algae as nutrient and invasive species have recently increased. Our recommendations for the Wabash River and other altered rivers include the restoration of natural hydrology for the mainstem and tributaries, nutrient reductions, mechanisms to restore historical hydrologic patterns, additional sediment controls, and improved local hydraulics.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Angradi TR, Bolgrien DW, Jicha TM, Pearson MS, Taylor DL, Moffett MF, Blocksom KA, Walters DM, Elonen CM, Anderson LE, Lazorchak JM, Reavie ED, Kireta AR, Hill BH. An assessment of stressor extent and biological condition in the North American mid-continent great rivers (USA). River Syst. 2011;19:143-63. https://doi.org/10.1127/1868-5749/2011/019-0029
  2. Babbar-Sebens M, Barr RC, Tedesco LP, Anderson M. Spatial identification and optimization of upland wetlands in agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng. 2013;52:130-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.085
  3. Bacula TD, Daugherty DJ, Sutton TM, Kennedy AJ. Blue sucker stock characteristics in the Wabash River, Indiana-Illinois, USA. Fish Manag Ecol. 2009;16:21-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00619.x
  4. Baranya S, Fleit G, Jozsa J, Szaloky Z, Toth B, Czegledi I, Eros T. Habitat mapping of riverine fish by means of hydromorphological tools. Ecohydrology. 2018;11:e2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2009
  5. Bayley PB. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. Bioscience. 1995;45:153-8. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312554
  6. Benke AC, Cushing CE. Rivers of North America. New York: Elsevier; 2005.
  7. Beugly J, Pyron M. Temporal and spatial variation in the long-term functional organization of fish assemblages in a large river. Hydrobiologia. 2010;654:215-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0387-4
  8. Bhowmik NG, Demissie M. Sedimentation in the Illinois River valley and backwater lakes. J Hydrol. 1989;105:187-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(89)90103-0
  9. Blann KL, Anderson JL, Sands GR, Vondracek B. Effects of agricultural drainage on aquatic ecosystems: a review. Crit Rev Envir Sci Technology. 2009;39:909-1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380801977966
  10. Bowes RE. Temporal analysis of river food webs. Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence; 2016.
  11. Box JB, Mossa J. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and problems. J N Am Benth Soc 1999;18:99-117. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468011
  12. Broadway KJ, Pyron M, Gammon JR, Murry BA. Shift in a large river fish assemblage: body-size and trophic structure dynamics. PlosOne. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124954.
  13. Carson RT, Mitchell RC. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Wat Res Research. 1993;29:2445-54. https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR00495
  14. Cosens BA, Stow CA. Resilience and water governance. In: Garmestani AS, Allen CR, editors. Social-ecological Resilience and Law. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014. p. 142-75.
  15. Coulter DP, MacNamara R, Glover DC, Garvey JE. Possible unintended effects of management at an invasion front: reduced prevalence corresponds with high condition of invasive bigheaded carps. Biol Conserv. 2018;221:118-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.02.020
  16. Counihan TD, Waite IR, Casper AF, Ward DL, Sauer JS, Irwin ER, Chapman CG, Ickes BS, Paukert CP, Kosovich JJ, Bayer JM. Can data from disparate long-term fish monitoring programs be used to increase our understanding of regional and continental trends in large river assemblages? PLoS One. 2018;13:e0191472. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191472
  17. Crawford S, Whelan G, Infante DM, Blackhar, K, Daniel WM, Fuller PL, Birdsong T, Wieferich DJ, McClees-Funinan R, Stedman SM, Herreman K, Ruhl P. Through a Fish's Eye: The Status of Fish Habitats in the United States 2015. National Fish Habitat Partnership. 2016. http://assessment.fishhabitat.org/.
  18. Cummings KS, Meyer CA, Page LM. Survey of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Wabash River drainage. Final Report to the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Indianapolis: Division of Fish & Wildlife, IDNR; 1992. p. 201.
  19. DeBoer JA, Anderson AM, Casper AF. Multi-trophic response to invasive silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in a large floodplain river. Freshw Biol. 2018;63:597-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13097
  20. DeBoer JA, Thoms MC, Casper AF and MD Delong. The response of fish diversity in a highly modified large river system to multiple anthropogenic stressors. J Geophys Res: Biogeo 2019;DOI:10.1029/2018JG004930.
  21. Delong MD. Upper Mississippi River basin. New York: Elsevier; 2005. p. 327-74.
  22. Dodds WK, Robinson CT, Gaiser EE, Hansen GJA, Powell H, Smith JM, Morse NB, Johnson SL, Gregory SV, Bell T, Kratz TK, McDowell WH. Surprises and insights from long-term aquatic data sets and experiments. Bioscience. 2012;62:709-21. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.4
  23. Eros T, Kuehne L, Dolezsai A, Sommerwerk N, Wolter C. A systematic review of assessment and conservation management in large floodplain rivers-actions postponed. Ecol Indic. 2019;98:453-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.026
  24. Fausch KD, Torgerson CE, Baxter CV, Li HW. Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. Bioscience. 2002;52:483-98. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0483:LTRBTG]2.0.CO;2
  25. Fisher BE. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana. Proc Indiana Acad Sci. 2006;115:103-9.
  26. Gammon JR. The Wabash River Ecosystem. Bloomington:Indiana University Press;1998.
  27. Garvey J, Ickes B, Zigler S. Challenges in merging fisheries research and management: the Upper Mississippi River experience. Hydrobiologia. 210;640:125-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-0061-x
  28. Gibson-Reinemer DK, Sparks RE, Parker JL, DeBoer JA, Fritts MW, McClelland MA, Chick JH, Casper AF. Ecological recovery of a river fish assemblage following the implementation of the Clean Water Act. Bioscience. 2017;67:957-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix110
  29. Gore JA, Shields FD Jr. Can large rivers be restored? Bioscience. 1995;45:142-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312553
  30. Graf WL. Dam nation: a geographic census of American dams and their largescale hydrologic impacts. Wat Resources Res. 1999;35:1305-11. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900016
  31. Harding JS, Benfield EF, Bolstad PV, Helfman GS, Jones EBD. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1998;95:14843-7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843
  32. Horne AC, O'Donnell EL, Acreman M, McClain ME, Poff NL, Webb JA, Stewardson MJ, Bond NR, Richter B, Arthington AH, Tharme RE, Garrick DE, Daniell KA, Conalin JC, Thomas GA, Hart BT. Moving forward: the implantation challenge for environmental water management. In: Horne AC, Webb JA, Sewardson MJ, Richter B, Acreman, editors. Water for the Environment: from policy and science to implementation and management. London: Academic Press; 2017.
  33. Jacobson RB, Galat DL. Flow and form in rehabilitation of large-river ecosystems: an example from the Lower Missouri River. Geomorphology. 2006;77:249-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.01.014
  34. Jacquemin SF, Pyron M. Impacts of past glaciation events on contemporary fish assemblages of the Ohio River basin. J Biogeogr. 2011;38:982-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02457.x
  35. Johnson BL, Richardson WB, Naimo TJ. Past, present, and future concepts in large river ecology. Bioscience. 1995;45:134-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312552
  36. Jordan DS. Report of explorations made during the summer and autumn of 1888, in the Alleghany region of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee, and in Western Indiana, with an account of the fishes found in the river basins of those regions. Bull US Fish Comm 1888, 1890;8:97-173.
  37. Kennedy AJ, Daugherty DJ, Sutton TM, Fisher BE. Population characteristic of shovelnose sturgeon in the Upper Wabash River, Indiana. North Amer J Fish Manage. 2007;27:52-62. https://doi.org/10.1577/m06-038.1
  38. Knox JC. Sensitivity of modern and Holocene floods to climate change. Quat Sci Rev. 2000;19:439-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00074-8
  39. Knox JC. Floodplain sedimentation in the Upper Mississippi Valley: natural versus human accelerated. Geomorphology. 2006;79:286-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.031
  40. Konrad CP, Olden JD, Lytle DA, Melis TS, Schmidt JC, Bray EN, Freeman MC, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Kennard MJ, McMullen LE, Mims MC, Pyron M, Robinson CT, Williams JG. Large-scale flow experiments for managing river systems. Bioscience. 2011;61:948-59. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.5
  41. Kuchler AW. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. New York: American Geographic Society; 1966.
  42. Lamouroux N, Gore JA, Lepori F. Statzner B. The ecological restoration of large rivers needs science-based, predictive tools meeting public expectations: an overview of the Rhone project. Freshw Biol 2015;60:1069-1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12553
  43. Lemke MJ, Walk JW, Lemke AM, Sparks RE, Blodgett KD. Introduction: the ecology of a river floodplain and the Emiquon preserve. Hydrobiologia. 2017;804:1-17 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3335-8.
  44. Lian Y, You J-Y, Sparks R, Demissie M. Impact of human activities to hydrologic alterations on the Illinois River. J Hydrol Eng. 2012;17:537-46. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000465
  45. Love SA, Lederman NJ, Haun RL, DeBoer JA, Casper AF. Does aquatic invasive species removal benefit native fish? The response of gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) to commercial harvest of bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) and silver carp (H. molitrix). Hydrobiologia. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3439-1.
  46. Magilligan FJ, Nislow KH. Changes in hydrologic regime by dams. Geomorphology. 2005;71:61-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.08.017
  47. Mahl RH, Tank JL, Roley SS, Davis RT. Two-state ditch floodplains enhance Nremoval capacity and reduce turbidity and dissolved P in agricultural streams. J Amer Wat Res Assoc. 2015;51:923-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12340
  48. McClelland MA, Sass GC, Cook TR, Irons KS, Michaels NN, O'Hara TM, Smith CS. The long-term Illinois River fish population monitoring program. Fisheries. 2012;37:340-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2012.704815
  49. McCluney KE, Poff NL, Palmer MA, Thorp JH, Poole GC, Williams BS, Williams MR, Baron JS. River macrosystems ecology: sensitivity, resistance, and resilience of whole river basins with human alterations. Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12:48-58. https://doi.org/10.1890/120367
  50. Minder M, Pyron M. Dietary overlap and selectivity among silver carp and two native filter feeders in the Wabash River. Ecol Freshw Fish. 2017;27:506-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12365
  51. Mitsch WJ, Day JW, Gilliam JW, Groffman PM, Hey DL, Randall GW, Wang N. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin: strategies to counter a persistent ecological problem: ecotechnology-the use of natural ecosystems to solve environmental problems-should be a part of efforts to shrink the zone of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Bioscience. 2001;51:373-88. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0373:RNLTTG]2.0.CO;2
  52. Muenich RL, Chaubey I, Pyron M. Evaluating potential water quality drivers of a fish regime shift in the Wabash River using SWAT. Ecol Model. 2016;340:116-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.09.010
  53. Newson MD, Large ARG. 'Natural' rivers, 'hydromorphological quality' and river restoration: a challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surf Proc Landforms. 2006;31:1606-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1430
  54. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world's large river systems. Science. 2005;308:405-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107887
  55. Nilsson C, Riis T, Sarneel JM, Svavarsdottir K. Ecological restoration as a means of managing inland flood hazards. Bioscience. 2018;68:89-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix148
  56. Odgaard AJ. Streambank erosion along two rivers in Iowa. Wat Res Research. 1987;23:1225-36. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR023i007p01225
  57. Olden JD, Konrad CP, Melis TS, Kennard MJ, Freeman MC, Mims MC, Bray EN, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Lytle DA, McMullen LE, Pyron M, Robinson CT, Schmidt JC, Williams JG. Are large-scale flow experiments informing the science and management of freshwater ecosystems? Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12:176-85. https://doi.org/10.1890/130076
  58. Page LM, Pyron M, Cummings KS. Impacts of fragmentation on midwestern aquatic organisms. In: Schwartz MW, editor. Conservation in Highly Fragmented Landscapes. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1997.
  59. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shah J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O'Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol. 2005;42:208-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x
  60. Pendleton RM, Schwinghamer C, Solomon LE, Casper AF. Competition among river planktivores: are native planktivores still fewer and skinnier in response to the silver carp invasion? Environ Biol Fish. 2017;100:1213-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0637-7
  61. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MD, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter B, Sparks R, Stromberg J. The natural flow regime. Bioscience. 1997;47:769-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313099
  62. Powers SM, Bruulsema TW, Burt TP, Chan NI, Elser JJ, Haygarth PM, Howden NJ, Jarvie HP, Lyu Y, Peterson HM, Sharpley AN. Long-term accumulation and transport of anthropogenic phosphorus in three river basins. Nat Geosci. 2016;9:353-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2693
  63. Pracheil BM, McIntyre PB, Lyons JD. Enhancing conservation of large-river biodiversity by accounting for tributaries. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11:124-8. https://doi.org/10.1890/120179
  64. Pyron, M, Lauer TE. Hydrological variation and fish assemblage structure in teh middle Wabash River. Hydrobiologia. 2004;525:203-14. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000038867.28271.45
  65. Pyron M, Becker JC, Broadway KJ, Etchison L, Minder M, Decolibus D, Chezem M, Wyatt KH, Murry BA. Are long-term fish assemblage changes in a large US river related to the Asian Carp invasion? Test of the hostile take-over and opportunistic dispersal hypothesis. Aquat Sci. 2017;79:631-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017-0525-4
  66. Pyron M, Beugly JS, Pritchett JM, Jacquemin SJ, Lauer TE, Gammon JR. Long-term fish assemblages of inner bends in a large river. River Res Appl. 2010;27:684-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1383
  67. Pyron M, Lauer T, Gammon JR. Stability of the Wabash River fish assemblage from 1974 to 1998. Freshw Biol. 2006;51:1789-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01609.x
  68. Pyron M, Lauer TE, Leblanc D, Weitzel D, Gammon JR. Temporal and spatial variation in an index of biotic integrity for the middle Wabash River, Indiana. Hydrobiologia. 2008;600:205-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9232-9
  69. Pyron M, Minder MM, Shields RC, Chodkowski N, Artz CC, Mims MC. Long-term fish assemblages of the Ohio River: altered trophic and life history strategies with hydrologic alterations and landuse modifications. PLOS ONE. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211848.
  70. Pyron M, Neumann K. Hydrologic alterations in the Wabash River watershed. River Res Appl. 2008;24:1175-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1155
  71. Rahman S, Bowling L. Streamflow impacts of management and environmental change in the upper Wabash River basin. J Hydrol Eng. 2018;24:05018034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001750
  72. Richter B, Thomas GA. Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam operations. Ecol Soc. 2007;12:12. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art12/.
  73. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol. 1996;10:1163-74. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041163.x
  74. Richter BD, Mathews R, Harrison DL, Wigington R. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecol Appl. 2003;13:206-24. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0206:ESWMMR]2.0.CO;2
  75. Sass GG, Cook TR, Irons KS, McClelland MA, Michaels NN, O'Hara TM, Stroub MR. A mark-recapture population estimate for invasive silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in the La Grange Reach, Illinois River. Biol Invasions. 2010;12:433-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9462-z
  76. Schneider DW, Ellis CD, Cummings KS. A transportation model assessment of the risk to native mussel communities from zebra mussel spread. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:788-800. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.97042.x
  77. Sekely AC, Mulla DJ, Bauer DW. Streambank slumping and its contribution to the phosphorus and suspended sediment loads of the Blue Earth River, Minnesota. J Soil Water Conserv. 2002;57:243-50.
  78. Simon TP. Biodiversity of fishes in the Wabash River: status, indicators, and threats. Proc Indiana Acad Sci. 2006;115:136-48.
  79. Solomon LE, Pendleton RM, Chick JH, Casper AF. Long-term changes in fish community structure in relation to the establishment of Asian carps in a large floodplain river. Biol Invasions. 2016;18:2883-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1180-8
  80. Sparks RE. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. Bioscience. 1995;45:168-82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312556
  81. Stoeckel JA, Schneider DW, Soeken LA, Blodgett KD, Sparks RE. Larval dynamics of a riverine metapopulation: implications for zebra mussel recruitment, dispersal, and control in a large-river system. J N Am Benthol Soc. 1997;16:586-601. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468146
  82. Strayer D, Cole JJ, Findlay SEG, Fischer DT, Gephart JA, Malcom HM, Pace ML, Rosi-Marshall EJ. Decadal-scale change in a large-river ecosystem. Bioscience. 2014;64:496-510. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu061
  83. Stuck JG, Porreca AP, Wahl DH, Colombo RE. Contrasting population demographics of invasive silver carp between an impounded and freeflowing river. N Am J Fish Manag. 2015;35:114-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2014.986343
  84. Tayyebi A, Pijanowski BC, Pekin BK. Land use legacies of the Ohio River Basin: using a spatially explicit land use change model to assess past and future impacts on aquatic resources. Appl Geogr. 2014;57:100-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.020
  85. Thomas JA, Emery EB, McCormick FH. Detection of temporal trends in Ohio River fish assemblages based on lock chamber surveys (1957-2001). Am Fish Soc Symp. 2005;45:431-50.
  86. Thornton JL, Vaskar Nepal KC, Frankland LD, Jansen CR, Hirst J, Colombo RE. Monitoring demographics of a commercially exploited population of shovelnose sturgeon in the Wabash River, Illinois/Indiana, USA. J Appl Ichthy 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.13749.
  87. Thorp JH, Flotermersch JE, Delong MD, Casper AF, Thoms MC, Ballantyne F, Williams BS, O'Neill BJ, Haase CS. Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation, and river hydrogeomorphology. Bioscience. 2010;60:67-74. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.1.11
  88. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, Delong MD. The riverine ecosystem synthesis: biocomplexity in river networks across space and time. River Res Appl. 2006;22:123-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.901
  89. Trautman MB. The fishes of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press; 1981.
  90. US Army Corps of Engineers. Wabash River Watershed Section 729 Initial Watershed Assessment. 2011. www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/CWProjects/WabashStudy.pdf.
  91. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1980;37:130-7. https://doi.org/10.1139/f80-017
  92. Ward JV, Tockner K, Schiemer F. Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity1. Reg Riv Res Manage. 1999;15:125-39.
  93. Watters GT, Flaute CJM. Dams, zebras, and settlements: the historical loss of freshwater mussels in the Ohio River mainstem. Am Malacol Bull. 2010;28:1-12. https://doi.org/10.4003/006.028.0201
  94. Wheater H, Evans E. Land use, water management and future flood risk. Land Use Policy. 2009;265:S251-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.019
  95. Williams BS, D'Amico E, Kastens JH, Thorp JH, Flotemersch JE, Thoms MC. Automated riverine landscape characterization: GIS-based tools for watershed-scale research, assessment, and management. Environ Monit Assess. 2013;185:7485-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3114-6