View source for Drift and Food Availability Studies


__NOTOC__  __NOEDITSECTION__
<!-- 

------------------------------Banner across top of page------------------------------>
{| style="width:100%; background:#fcfcfc; margin-top:1.2em; border:1px solid #ccc;"
|style="width:25%; color:#000"| <!-- 

--------------------->
<table class=MsoTableGrid border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
 style='border-collapse:collapse;mso-yfti-tbllook:480;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes'>
  <td width=40% valign=bottom align=left style='width:2.05in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
  <p class=MsoNormal></p>
  </td>
  </tr>
</table>


<!--

------------Portal list on righthand side---------->
|style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"|


|}<!--

----------Strapline immediately below banner---------->
{| style="width:100%; height:50px" border=1px solid #ccc; background:#cedff2
! style="width=33%; background:#cedff2;" | -- <br> 
! style="width=33%; background:#cedff2;" | -- <br> 
! style="width=33%; background:#cedff2;" | -- <br> 
|}

{|style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px; background:none;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"|
{|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Updates </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

==[http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/6/60/Miller_and_Judson-2013-DriftAndHydropeaking.pdf Miller and Judson 2014 ]==
*Drift at the control site was relatively constant and did not exhibit strong diel fluctuations. Drift at the impact sites appeared to respond to daily discharge fluctuations.
*Changes in discharge may have a greater impact on macroinvertebrate drift than absolute flow levels.
*Mean daily drift biomass was significantly higher during double-peaking.
*Drift increases were sustained for approximately 2 hours and only for 30–60 days despite ongoing hydropeaking. Modeling suggest that both drift increases and the ephemeral nature of increases were related to patterns in vegetative export and not changes in the density or distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates. The rate of vegetative export likely declined through time because of natural seasonal senescing initiated by decreased light levels and cooler temperatures at the onset of double-peaking in October.
*Drift increases were proportional to peak magnitude, with drift biomass peaking during the rising limb of the hydrograph. For every increase of 10 m3·s−1, biomass was predicted to increase by 0.81 mg. Drift biomass increased 400% relative to pre-experimental conditions during the experimental increase of peak flow. 
*Both within- and among-day drift hysteresis appeared related to patterns in vegetative export.
*Increases in macroinvertebrate drift were not associated with detectable reductions in benthic densities, while inconsistent and modest taxa richness reductions were observed.
*Gut fullness for both brown and rainbow trout increased significantly following periods of hydropeaking. There was no significant differences in the relative abundance of diet composition between flow regimes.

==[https://www.gcmrc.gov/about/foodbase/Kennedy%20et%20al.%20FWB%20proofs.pdf Kennedy et al. 2013]==
Twofold daily variation in discharge resulted in:
*a >10-fold increase in drift concentrations of benthic invertebrates associated with pools and detritus (i.e. Gammarus lacustris and Potamopyrgus antipodarum). 
*In contrast, drift concentrations of sessile blackfly larvae (Simuliium arcticum), which are associated with high-velocity cobble microhabitats, decreased by over 80% as discharge doubled.
*Drift concentrations of Chironomidae increased proportional to discharge.

Drift of all four taxa was positively related to benthic density. 
*Drift concentrations of Gammarus, Potamopyrgus and Chironomidae were proportional to benthic density. 
*Drift concentrations of Simulium were positively related to benthic density, but the benthic–drift relation was less than proportional (i.e. a doubling of benthic density only led to a 40% increase in drift concentrations).

Twofold daily variation in discharge associated with hydropeaking was the primary control on within-day variation in invertebrate drift concentrations. In contrast, benthic density, which varied 10- to 1000-fold among sampling dates, depending on the taxa, was the primary control on invertebrate drift concentrations over longer timescales (weeks to months).

==[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Finch%20RRA%20HBC%20Growth%20NSE.pdf Finch et al. 2014]==
Our results are counterintuitive and show that more natural steady flows reduced growth rates of juvenile humpback
chub compared with fluctuating flows when both treatments occurred within the same year. Daily growth rates during steady flows of 2009 and
2010 were 0.05 and 0.07 mm/day slower, respectively, than fluctuating flows those same years, despite similar water temperatures. Juvenile
humpback chub also grew more slowly during steady flows that occurred in the same season. During the summer, juvenile humpback chub grew
0.12 and 0.16 mm/day in fluctuating flow regimes in 2009 and 2010, respectively, and only 0.07 mm/day in the experimental steady flow
regime in 2011, despite higher water temperatures.
===Comparisons:===
*2009: Fluctuating summer, steady fall
*2010: Fluctuating summer, steady fall
*2011: Steady flows summer and fall (equalization)
===Findings:===
*Seasonal mean daily growth rates of juvenile humpback chub in the Colorado River were lower during steady flows than fluctuating flows.
*Mean daily growth rates were also lower when steady flows followed fluctuating flows within the same year.
*Growth was faster during fall (0.14mm/day) compared with summer (0.07mm/day) when flow conditions were steady in both summer and fall.
*Growth during summer 2011 was lower than during the two previous years when fluctuating hydropeaking flows occurred even though temperatures were higher.  

|}


<!--

--------------------------------ADDITIONAL------------------------------->
|class="MainPageBG" style="width:45%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top;"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;"
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Links</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*[https://www.gcmrc.gov/research_areas/food_base/invertebrate_drift.aspx GCMRC foodbase page]
*[http://www.usu.edu/buglab USU Buglab]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Projects</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*[https://www.gcmrc.gov/research_areas/food_base/invertebrate_drift.aspx Invertebrate Drift below Glen Canyon Dam ]
*[http://www.usu.edu/buglab/Projects/CurrentProjects/#item=33 Responses of macroinvertebrate drift, benthic assemblages and trout foraging to hydropeaking below Flaming Gorge Dam]
*[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Near_Shore_Ecology_(NSE)_Study Near Shore Ecology (NSE) Study]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Presentations and Papers</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

*[http://gcdamp.com/images_gcdamp_com/6/60/Miller_and_Judson-2013-DriftAndHydropeaking.pdf Miller, S.W., and S. Judson. 2014. Response of macroinvertebrate drift, benthic assemblages and trout foraging to hydropeaking.  Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71: 675–687 ]
*[https://www.gcmrc.gov/about/foodbase/Kennedy%20et%20al.%20FWB%20proofs.pdf Kennedy et al., 2013.  The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic densities, in a large regulated river.  Freshwater Biology]
*[https://www.gcmrc.gov/about/foodbase/Cross%20et%20al.%202011_EA.pdf Cross et al., 2011.  Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive management: food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon.  Ecological Applications 21: 2016-2033. doi:10.1890/10-1719.1]
*[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Finch%20RRA%20HBC%20Growth%20NSE.pdf Finch, C., W. E. Pine, III, K. E. Limburg. 2014. Do hydropeaking flows alter juvenile fish growth rates? A test with juvenile humpback chub in the Colorado River. River Research and Applications. DOI 10.1002/rra.2725]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Other Stuff</h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|



|}


<Span></Span>