EP23A-0621

Multiscale impacts of the fragmentation and spatial structure of habitats on

freshwater fish distribution: Integrating riverscape and landscape ecology
Céline Le Pichon, Jérôme Belliard, Evelyne Talès, Guillaume Gorges and Fabienne Clément
Hydro-ecology, Cemagref, Parc de Tourvoie BP44, 92163 Antony, France. celine.le-pichon@cemagref.fr
1- Background. 4- Application on a rural watershed in France
The European Water Framework Directive River is an homogeneous River is connected to 4.1-Study site Seine River basin
(2000) has goals of preservation and restoration patch in the landscape landscape by flux through the What is your view on rivers and that of fish
ecotones We test the relative roles of spatial
of ecological connectivity of river networks which ? arrangement of fish habitats and the presence
is a key element for fish populations. These of physical barriers in explaining fish spatial
distributions in a small rural watershed
goals require the identification of natural and (106 km², Fig.6). We have recorded about 100 FRANCE
anthropological factors which influence the physical barriers, on average one every 330
spatial distribution of species. The spatially meters; most artificial barriers were road pipe
River is a dynamic landscape River is an underwater culverts, falls associated with ponds and sluice
continuous analysis of fish–habitat relationships

Environmental variables
itself, the riverscape riverscape for fish gates. Contrasted fish communities and 0 100 200 300 400 km Orgeval catchment N

GIS-based habita
becomes a key element for successful densities were observed in the different areas
Rivers
Rognon river

of the watershed, related to various land use 0 2 4 km
Figure 6 - The Seine River
rehabilitations of degraded rivers.
Natural land use

(riparian forest or agriculture). basin and the Orgeval

Agriculture and urban land use
Physical barriers
catchment
4.2-Methods
Local variables are collected in the field, spatial variables are computed on
Figure 1 – Different perceptions of rivers, from GIS-based maps (Fig.7). We have selected a set of conceptually meaningful !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(

that of terrestrial observer to that of freshwater

!( !(
!(!(

spatial variables, such as fragmentation and spatial organisation metrics. We

!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!( (!!(
!(!(!(!(

fish used a spatially continuous sampling scheme based on a large number of small
!( !(!(!(
(!!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(
!( (!!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(

sampling units (SU)(Fig.8). The extent and resolution provide the opportunity to
!( (!!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!( !(
!( !( !(

evaluate species-habitat relationships at both small and large scale, from

!( !(
!( !(

2- The riverscape approach. • GIS-based habitat mapping on large extent with high resolution meters to kilometers. We used generalized linear modelling (GLMs) to explore
• Spatial analysis of habitat patterns and relationships using metrics and methods the contribution and role of the environmental variables and spatial metrics in (!!(

Using the organism point of view

!(!(
!(
!(!(
(!

explaining fish presence and abundance. At the scale of SU, we modelled the
!(!(
!(!(
!(!( !(!(
!(
adapted to particularities of rivers: linear, irregularly shaped and dominated by (!!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( (! (!
!(!( !(!(
!(!( !(
!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(
!(
(Pringle et al., 1988), we have developed a
!(!(
!(!(

most probable abundance of bullhead and stone loach using a negative

!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
water flow
!(
!(!(
!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( (! !(!(!(
!( !( !( !(!( !(
!(
!( !( !( !(!(!( (!(!

riverscape (Ward et al. 2002) approach for binomial distribution of the data and logistic regression model for trout. !(!(!(!(!(
!(!( !(
!(

!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
(!!( !( !(

fishes (Fig. 1), based on the integration

!(
Figure 3 – Flowchart of the riverscape approach with process steps from
!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(
(!!( !(!(
!( !(
!(!( !(!(
!(
!(!(

environmental variables mapping to spatial analysismetrics and methods

!(!(

of concepts from different disciplines (Fig. 2).

!(
!(!( (! !(
!(
!(!(!(
!( !( !(
!(!(!( !(
!(!(
!(!(!( !(

It aims at assessing the multiscale relationships

!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!
(!(
!(
!(
!(

between the spatial pattern of fish habitats and processes depending on fish movements. The river is conceptualized as a 2-D
!( (
!
(
! !(
!(
!( !( !( !(

geomorphic
spatially continuous mosaïc of dynamic underwater environments; fish habitats are represented using a GIS-based habitat Figure 8 – Fish sampling on the Rognon river and
longitudinal trout abundance (Salmo trutta fario).
mapping. Metrics and spatial analysis methods have been adapted to the particularities of rivers: linear and irregularly shaped
and dominated by unidirectional water flow. They were chosen for their relevance to quantify fragmentation, spatial relationships
and connectivity of fish vital habitats (Fig.3)

long
Figure 2 – Integrating concepts from the fields of fish ecology, stream ecology and

channel unit
landscape ecology

3-Spatial analysis methods: examples.

na represents the number
of possible combinations
for couples of habitats
Pq is the proportion of the
variables habitat
•One map analysis:
Spatial metrics were proposed to quantify the composition and fragmentation of fish habitats.
Global map analysis were also used to provide information of the biological connectivity of
networks, entire segments or reaches.
Habitat proportion
Heterogeneity window size
11m
qth couple of habitat

combination
Figure 7 – Multiscale measurement and calculation of variables.
Figure 9 – Longitudinal distribution of stone loach
mosaïc m

6
•Two maps analysis: Heterogeneity
For large rivers with connected waterbodies and for riverine fishes moving longitudinally and High: 1.88 4.3-Results (Barbatula barbatula)
Complementary habitats
laterally, computing 2-D oriented hydrographic distances seems more appropriate to evaluate Low:0
The longitudinal densities are discontinuous for trout, stone loach (Fig.8 and Fig.9) and bullhead. Both trout and stone loach
hydraulic connectedness and biological connectivity (Fig.4). Moving window analysis was
chosen as a global map analysis, useful to evaluate both area and distance based metrics such
pool
riffle
chute

0 5 10 20 metres
Percentage
densities are impacted by the presence of many barriers associated with ponds. Trout is clearly absent at the upstream part of
the reach. Stone loach is absent in the reach sector dominated by barriers composed of woody debris. For this species, the
as heterogeneity (Fig.5) physical obstacle significant variables selected by AIC procedure confirms this effect with the negative effect of riparian cover and distances far
100
riparian cover
lotic channel from woody debris (Table 1). For these species the negative influence of ponds in the landscape around the SU is also
lentic channel
significant. Local environmental variables are more important for bullhead but also the proximity of a chute and the presence of
Habitats map Pool proportion Heterogeneity Complementary habitats grassland in the landscape.

5
Table 1- Results of the AIC-based
d hydro = RCM(A, B) = min ∫ R(x)dx
Figure 5 – Moving window analysis computed using Chloe 3.1 software (Baudry et al. 2006)


About spatial variables selection of explanatory variables
possible ways we could noticed the 0
vital habi
positive influence of
heterogeneity which
5-Conclusion and perspectives integrates, for trout
We emphasized the usefulness of GIS-based habitat mapping associated with a and stone loach

map
the proximity (nearest
functional analysis of riverscape/landscape composition and configuration to Hydrographic distances
to pool and also to riffle
understand fish spatial distributions. We also pointed out the importance of the

fish number
or chute.

4
Globally nearest
d biol = RCM(A, B) = min ∫ R(x)dx spatial context to explain fish presence and abundance. In particular, the role of hydrographic distances
possible ways
localized elements such physical barriers and that of spatial habitat relationships in to an habitat are
more relevant than area
Integrating riverscape composition between
patches using minimal cumulative resistance the riverscape. percentage of the
(MCR) from Knaapen et al. (1992). habitat around the SU.

Hydraulicshelters
connectedness
The riverscape approach allows the identification of fish habitat configurations with Natural landuses also

Salmo
Figure 4 – Estimation of hydraulic connectedness and biological connectivity with the
calculation of hydrographic and biological distances computed using Anaqualand 2.0 (Le great value that contributes to setting preservation and restoration priorities. All the Influence all three

vital hab
species.
Pichon et al. 2006) AIC selection of monovariable models (AIC<AIC of nul model -2), significant model are indicated with their influence.
spatial analysis methods could be used to simulate different scenarios of

3
Stepwise procedure for significant monovariable models; in yellow, selected significant variables

Baudry J., Schermann N., Boussard H.(2006) 'Chloe 3.1 : freeware of multi-scales analysis'. INRA, SAD-Paysage."
Knaapen, J. P., M. Scheffer and B. Harms. 1992. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 23: 1-16.
Le Pichon, C., Gorges, G., Boët, P., Baudry, J., Goreaud, F., and Faure, T. 2006. A spatially explicit resource-based approach for managing stream
fishes in riverscapes. Environmental management 37(3): 322 - 335.
restoration. The consequences of the addition of a habitat patch at a specific
location could be quantified and visualised using the proposed indexes and maps. Local
Conclusion. The spatially continuous analysis of fish–habitat relationships with the integration of spatial variables
provides a more accurate longitudinal view of fish centres of abundance, the potential impact of barriers, riverscape
habitats and landuse. It also reveal the importance of habitat spatial relationships such as the proximity to different
0
B ma
Pringle, C. M., R. J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J. R. Karr, M. W. Oswood, J. R. Webster, R. L. Welcomme and M. J. Winterbourn. 1988. Patch dynamics
in lotic systems : the stream as a mosaic. Journal of North American Benthological Society 7: 503-524.
Ward, J. V., F. Malard and K. Tockner. 2002. Landscape ecology: a framework for integrating pattern and process in river corridors. Landscape AGU Fall Meeting 2009, 14-18 december, San Francisco.
habitats (complementary habitats) measured with nearest hydrographic distances or the heterogeneity map. 1-2
Ecology 17: 35-45.