Fort Collins Science Center
Science Features ::

Research: Understanding Biophysical Relationships—Biological Response Variables

Whooping cranes. Photo © Michael Forsberg. Used with permission.
Whooping cranes. Photo © Michael Forsberg. Used with permission.

Effective river management depends on understanding the relations between variables—both the expected responses to alternative management actions and the management actions required to produce a desired objective. Describing and quantifying these relations improve the foundation on which river management decisions are made.

An important long-term focus of riverine science at FORT is on connections between physical and biological factors, processes, and effects. In recent work, FORT scientists have expanded the range of biological response variables beyond fish physical habitat to consideration of diatoms, fish populations, riparian vegetation, birds, small mammals, and other biota. The following publications exhibit the range of variables addressed:

Andersen, D.C., K.R. Wilson, M.S. Miller, and M. Falck. 2000. Movement patterns of riparian small mammals during predictable floodplain inundation. Journal of Mammalogy 81(4): 1087-1099.

Auble, G.T., M.L. Scott, and J.M. Friedman.  2005. Use of individualistic streamflow-vegetation relations to assess impacts of flow alteration on wetland and riparian areas. Wetlands 25(1): 143-154.

Bartholow, J., J. Heasley, B. Hanna, J. Sandelin, M. Flug, S. Campbell, J. Henriksen, and A. Douglas. 2005. Evaluating water management strategies with the Systems Impact Assessment Model: SIAM Version 4 (Revised October 2005). U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center Open-File Report 03–82 [Revised]. 122 p.

Bartholow, J.M., J.L. Laake, C.B Stalnaker, and S. Williamson. 1993. A salmonid population model with emphasis on habitat limitations. Rivers 4(4): 265-279.

Breck, S.W., K.R. Wilson, and D.C. Andersen. 2001. The demographic response of bank-dwelling beavers to flow regulation: A comparison on the Green and Yampa rivers. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1957-1964.

Cade, B.S., J.W. Terrell, and R.L. Schroeder. 1999. Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. Ecology 80(1): 311-3.

Farmer, A.H., B.S. Cade, J.W. Terrell, J.H. Henriksen and J.T. Runge. 2005. Evaluation of models and data for assessing Whooping Crane habitat in the central Platte River, Nebraska. Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5123. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center. 64 p.

Hanna, R.B., and S.G. Campbell. 2000. Water quality modeling in the Systems Impact Assessment Model for the Klamath River Basin – Keno, Oregon to Seiad Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-113. 82 p.

Hanson, L., S.C. Williamson, T.J. Waddle, C. Talbert, and J.E. Heasley. 2008. Smart River GIS for improved decision making. USGS Web resource.

Kumar, S., S.A. Spaulding, T.J. Stohlgren, K. Hermann, T. Schmidt, and L. Bahls. In Press. Potential habitat distribution for the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia geminata in the continental US.  Frontiers in Ecology and Environment.

Scott, M.L., S.K. Skagen, and M.F. Merigliano. 2003. Relating geomorphic change and grazing to avian communities in riparian forests. Conservation Biology 17(1): 284-296.

Sedgwick, J.A., and F.L. Knopf. 1987. Breeding bird response to cattle grazing of a cottonwood bottomland. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(1): 230-237.

Sedgwick, J.A., and F.L. Knopf. 1990. Habitat relationships and nest site characteristics of cavity-nesting birds in cottonwood floodplains. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1): 112-124.

Sedgwick, J.A., and F.L. Knopf. 1992. Describing Willow Flycatcher habitats: Scale perspectives and gender differences. The Condor 94(3): 720-733.

Skagen, S.K., R. Hazlewood, and M.L. Scott. 2005. The importance and future condition of western riparian ecosystems as migratory bird habitat. In: C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich (eds.). Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight conference, Volume 2, March 20-24, 2002, Asilomar, California. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. p. 525-527.

Spaulding, S.A., K.A. Hermann, and T. Keller. 2008. Confirmed distribution of Didymosphenia germinata (Lyngbe) Schmidt in North America. In : M.L. Bothwell and S.A. Spaulding (eds.). Proceedings of the 2007 International Workshop on Didymosphenia geminata. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2795. p. 26-27.

Terrell, J.W., B.S. Cade, J. Carpenter, and J.M. Thompson. 1996. Modeling stream fish habitat limitations from wedge-shaped patterns of variation in standing stock. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125(1): 104-1.

Voelz, N.J., R.E. Zuellig, S. Shieh, and J.V. Ward. 2005. The effects of urban areas on benthic macroinvertebrates in two Colorado plains rivers. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101: 175-202.

Zuellig, R. E., B. C. Kondratieff, and H. A. Rhodes. 2002. Benthos recovery after an episodic sediment release into a Colorado Rocky Mountain river. Western North American Naturalist 62(1): 59-72.

Staff

Andersen, Doug (riparian vegetation, streamflow)

Cade, Brian (statistics, modeling/DSS)

Campbell, Sharon (modeling/DSS, limnology)

Hanson, Leanne (aquatic ecology, modeling/DSS)

Scott, Mike (riparian vegetation, dam removal, riparian monitoring protocols, avian conservation)

Skagen, Susan (migratory birds, habitat, climate change)

Spaulding, Sarah (diatoms, water quality, Didymosphenia geninata)

Terrell, Jim (RETIRED; engineered river channels; fish body condition, habitat, and disease)

Williamson, Sam (modeling/DSS, SALMOD)

Zuellig, Robert (aquatic insects, aquatic communities, water quality)

Current Studies

 Click HERE for all current riverine studies at FORT

Top of Page