Prediction of Fundamental Assemblages of Mid-Atlantic Highland Stream Fishes Michael Cyterski, Rajbir Parmar, Craig Barber , Brenda Rashleigh, John Johnston, Kurt Wolfe EPA/ORD/NERL/ERD, Athens, GA EPA Science Forum A software tool, the Stream Fish Assemblage Predictor (SFAP), developed using the USEPA's EMAP stream sampling data in the mid-Atlantic Highlands, can predict stream fish communities using stream and watershed characteristics. Step one in the tool development was a cluster analysis that formed groups (clusters) of streams with similar fish species. Each cluster has a multidimensional mean, or centroid, defined by the biomass of each species in the group. Using an iterative process, streams were added, one by one, to the cluster with the nearest centroid. I specified that each cluster had to have a membership of at least 1 % of the total sample size of 665. Smaller clusters were deleted at the end of each iteration step. In addition, observations could not join a cluster if they were more than a specified Euclidean distance from the cluster centroid. This methodology produced 21 total clusters (see table at top right). Step two was a discriminant analysis, which produced a system of equations to predict a stream's cluster based on characteristics of that stream and its watershed (e.g., stream depth, width, and flow; percent forested area in the watershed; amount of in-stream fine sediments). Using the EMAP dataset, I tested the predictive accuracy of the discriminant equations. Streams were correctly classified approximately 42% of the time (i.e., the actual cluster was the most likely cluster). The actual cluster was one of the three most likely clusters approximately 70% of the time. Randomly, given three choices, one would only have a 3 in 21 chance of picking the correct assemblage (14%). I envision use of this software by a wide diversity of stakeholders, from private landowners and public interest groups to municipal planners and developers to environmental management professionals. One goal would be to predict fish communities in streams for which basic watershed and stream characteristics are known, when actual sampling of the stream is cost prohibitive. Users could also investigate potential impacts of environmental restoration/degradation by altering stream and watershed characteristics, then noting subsequent changes in the predicted fish community. For researchers, this tool's basic fish community information can be passed to more complex, mechanistic fish community models that examine the effects of stressors on stream fish communities. IDENTIFIED FISH ASSEMBLAGES Clusters are ordered by their number ofmember sites, from These numbers represent the average percentage of this cluster's total fish biomass attributable to this particular fMr species. Cluster 6 (si? Cluster 10 5 Cluster 3 5 Cluster 7 46 Cluster 9 40 White Sucker Blacknose Dace Longnose Dace Creek Chub Rock Bass Fallflsh Northern Hog Sucker Cutlips Minnow 5.3 White Sucker 71.5 Northern Hog Sucker 26 .3 Creek Chub 4.6 Rock Bass 16 Blacknose Dace 4.5 White Sucker 6 Rock Bass 1.9 Sma 11m outh Bass 5 Northern Hog Sucker 1.5 Stonerolter 5 Slimy S culpin 1.4 Cre ek Chub 4 .7 Brown Trout 1.3 Bluntnose Minnow 3 Brook Trout 1.2 Longnose Dace 2 6 Rock Bass X. 62.1 Creek Chub 51.6 2 S m a Dm outh B ass C7.&3 Bla cknos e Da ce 23.9 2 White Sucker 5.8 White Sucker 3.9 [ Northern Hog Sucker 5.0 Stoneroller 3.1 0 Bluntnose Minnow 1.6 BlueheadChub 2.4 1 Stoneroller 1.6 Northern Hog Sucker 1.8 Blacknose Dace 1.3 Longnose Dace 1.4 9 Creek Chub 1.2 Black Sculpin 1.2 Sum Cluster 2 Sum 87.9 Sum 69.8 Sum 86.2 Sum 89.4 Cluster 5 31 Cluster 11 30 Cluster 20 28 Cluster 13 26 Creek Chub Blacknose Dace Stoneroller Black Sculp in White Sucker Pumpkhseed Silverjaw Minnow Bluntnose Minnow Blacknose Dace 93 Creek Chub 1 FantailDarter 1 Sm allmouth Bass 0 BlueheadChub 0 Brook Trout 0 Black Sculpin 0 Stoneroller 0 9 Sma 11m outh Bass 34.9 Creek Chub 35.3 BlueheadChub 44.8 Rock Bass 12.9 White Sucker 32.9 Creek Chub 10.2 White Sucker 5.6 Blacknose Dace 12.5 Northern Hog Sucker 6.5 Northern Hog Sucker 5.6 Longnose Dace 1.8 Blacknose Dace 3.4 Stoneroller 3.6 Pumpkinseed 1.6 Mountain Re dbelly Dace 3.0 Walleye 2.6 Mountain Re dbelly Dace .1.3 Green Sunfish 3.0 Large mouth Bass 2.5 Fallflsh 1.2 White Sucker 2.9 Redbreast Sunfish 2,1 Rock Bass 1.0 Cre ek Chubsucker 2.9 Sum 98.6 Sum 98.5 Sum 69.9 Sum 87.7 Sum 76.9 Cluster 16 26 Cluster 12 22 Cluster 14 21 Cluster 19 20 Cluster 4 16 Blacknose Dace 53.8 Northern Hog Sucker 62.1 Torrent Sucker 60.0 Blacknose Dace Creek Chub 16.4 White Sucker 5.6 Blacknose Dace 9.2 Longnose Dace 2 White Sucker 6.7 Rock Bass 5.1 Blue he ad Chub 6.0 Brook Trout Black Sculpin 2.4 River Chub 3.3 FaBfish 4.9 Black Sculp in BlueheadChub 2.1 Sm allmouth Bass 3,2 Brook Trout 2.3 Slimy Sculpin Stoneroller 1.9 Creek Chub 2.5 White Sucker 2.2 White Sucker Mountain Re dbelly Dace 1.6 Blacknose Dace 2.0 Stoneroller 1,3 Stoneroller FantailDarter 1.6 RainbowTrout 1.6 Yellow Bullhead 1.0 Bluntnose Minnow 1 Gizzard Shad 22.3 8 Longnose Gar 15.2 4 Flathead Catfish 12.3 i Large mouth Bass 6.1 5 Silver Redhorse 4.6 Channel Catfish 4.4 Bluegill 4.0 Sma 11mouth Bass 2.8 Sum 86.5 Sum 85.4 Sum 86.8 Sum 88.6 Sum 71.6 Cluster 18 16 Cluster 8 15 Cluster 21 15 Cluster 1 13 Cluster 15 9 Creek Chubsucker 29.3 Brook Trout 87 Chain Pickerel 18.1 Blacknose Dace 5 Falifish 11.7 Black Sculpin 3 White Sucker 7.4 Mottled Sculpin 1 Pumpkhseed 6.2 Longnose Dace 1 Large mouth Bass 2.9 Slimy Sculpin 0 Stoneroller 2.5 FantailDarter 0 Torrent Sucker 1.9 3 Northern Hog Sucker 40 Sma 11m outh Bass 28 River Chub 6 Rock Bass 6 White Sucker 1 Muske llunge 1 Bluntnose Minnow 1 Creek Chub 1 9 Creek Chubsucker 6 5 BlueheadChub 7 White Sucker 3 I Blacknose Dace 5 Large mouth Bass Blue gill 1 Pumpkinseed 1 Gre e n Sunfish 1 .9 BlueheadChub 28.6 0 Roanoke Hogsucker 27.9 3 White Sucker 16.4 3 Black Jumprock 5.7 2 Torrent Sucker 5.5 7 Mountain Re dbelly Dace 3.0 7 Stoneroller 1.7 5 Cre ek Chub 1.6 Sum 80.0 SumQ00.3) Sum 87.8 Sum 89.5 Sum 90.5 / Cluster 17 9 r Gotten Redhorse 34.9 H sum of 100% and a low number of omogeneity in a larger cluster is more table (e.g., Clusters 2 and 5). Sma 11m outh Bass 10 Northern Hog Sucker 6 Silver Redhorse 4 Torrent Sucker 3 Rock Bass 3 Re dbre ast S unfish 3 A low sum indicates that this cluster is very heterogeneous. It takes 33 species to incre ase the summe d cluster biom ass to > 95%. Beyond saying that the presence of Golden Redhorse is likely, it is difficult to predict with accuracy what a fish community in i/'," SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF IDENTIFIED ASSEMBLAGES This tool can be aGGessed from the Canaan Valley Institute's website at www.Ganaanvi.org. A desktop version of the software is also being developed at ERD Athens. When completed, it will be distributed from EPA's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM) website: www.epa.gov/ceampubl/ • Ouster q • Ouster 9 • Ouster 3 Ouster 4 Ouster 5 • Ouster 96 ° Ouster 97 * Ouster 98 Ouster 19 Ouster 20 Ouster 21 • Cluster 6 0 Cluster 7 ® Cluster 8 ° Cluster 9 * Cluster 10 • Ouster 91 ® Ouster 92 • Ouster 13 Ouster 14 Ouster 15 Science and Innovation to Protect Health and the Environment ------- |