Dam Effects on Fish Assemblages in Southeastern Rivers: the Upper Conecuh River versus the Upper Cho

1
Dam Effects on Fish Assemblages in Southeastern
Rivers the Upper Conecuh River versus the Upper
Choctawhatchee River
By Ross Cummings and Paul M. Stewart Department
of Biological and Environmental Sciences Troy
University, Troy, Alabama
2
Introduction

• Conecuh River has two dams Choctawhatchee River
  is free flowing
• Dam effects
• Water chemistry, discharge, and temperature
  downstream
• Loss of stream connectivity
• Alters biotic assemblages
• Little is known about dam effects on upstream
  assemblages

3
History

• Point A Dam was built in 1926
• Gantt Dam was built in 1935

4
Objectives

• Describe and compare water quality between the
  Upper Conecuh River and the Upper Choctawhatchee
  River
• Describe and compare fish assemblage composition
  in the Upper Conecuh and Upper Choctawhatchee
  Rivers
• Compare the number, distribution, and types of
  game fish between the Upper Conecuh and the Upper
  Choctawhatchee River

5
Methods

• Upper Conecuh River
• Six sites selected from Union Springs to the
  Gantt Dam
• 129 km distance from Union Springs, AL to Gantt
  Lake on the Upper Conecuh River
• Upper Choctawhatchee
  River
• Six sites selected in a 129 km segment

6
Seasonal

• Data was collected twice, once in summer (2008)
  and again in the winter
• In the summer, all game fish were counted and
  measured

7
Site Map
8
Field Methods

• Water Quality Hydrolab Quanta Multiprobe
• Dissolved oxygen
• pH
• Specific conductance
• Water temperature
• Turbidity
• Standard Sampling Protocols
• Hardness
• Total Alkalinity

9
Field Methods

• Data collection methods
• Backpack shocking
• Boat shocking
• Seine nets
• Any lesions, tumors, or deformities were recorded
• A reference collection is stored at the Aquatic
  Laboratory at Troy University

10
Results - Water Quality

• There was no significant difference in the water
  quality between the Upper Conecuh and Upper
  Choctawhatchee Rivers.
• Site CH-2 was higher in specific conductance,
  alkalinity, and hardness than all other sites.

11
Results -Fish

• 6,303 individuals were collected and identified
  to species
• 18 Families
• 3,149 individuals were collected in the Conecuh
  River
• 3,154 individuals were collected in the
  Choctawhatchee River

12
Results

• Conecuh River
• Centrarchidae - 42
• Cyprinidae - 36
• Choctawhatchee River
• Centrarchidae - 24
• Cyprinidae - 48

13
Results-Game Fish

• 2,375 game species collected from both watersheds
• Conecuh River
• 1,568 game fish
• Choctawhatchee River
• 807 game fish

14
Results-Conecuh
15
Results-Choctawhatchee
16
Results

• More tolerant and generalist species in the
  Conecuh River
• Centrarchidae
• More intolerant species in the Choctawhatchee
  River
• Percidae

17
Results

• One catadromous and one anadromous species were
  collected in the Choctawhatchee, none in the
  Conecuh
• American eel
• Hogchoker

18
Data Analysis

• A t-test or non-parametric equivalent (a0.05)
  was used to compare the number of game fish,
  sunfish species, tolerant individuals,
  Lepisosteidae species, number of fluvial
  specialist, number of madtoms and darters between
  the two rivers
• Box plots will be used as visual aids to
  demonstrate the distribution of data

19
Number of Game Fish
20
Number of Sunfish
21
Number of Tolerant Individuals
22
Number of Gars
23
Number of Fluvial Specialist
24
Number of Madtom and Darters
25
Similarity (Bray-Curtis)
Sites
26
Conclusions

• Upper Conecuh, we found the following in
  comparison to the Choctawhatchee
• Greater number of game fish
• Greater number of tolerant species
• Fewer numbers of madtoms and darters

27
Acknowledgements

• Jonathan Miller, Jeremy Turner, Dr. Stewarts
  Environmental Assessment Class, Puja Shrestha,
  and Suman Chitrakar.
• Thanks to Pat ONeil (GSA) for fish confirmations
  and to Scott Mettee (GSA) and Frank Parauka (U.S.
  FWS) for access to collection records.

28
Questions