Drift and Food Availability Studies - Revision history

Cellsworth at 21:18, 22 August 2018

2018-08-22T21:18:42Z

Cellsworth at 19:55, 11 July 2018

2018-07-11T19:55:23Z

Cellsworth at 19:35, 11 July 2018

2018-07-11T19:35:17Z

Cellsworth at 17:13, 11 July 2018

2018-07-11T17:13:13Z

Cellsworth at 17:10, 11 July 2018

2018-07-11T17:10:58Z

Cellsworth at 15:30, 25 May 2018

2018-05-25T15:30:11Z

Cellsworth at 22:00, 24 May 2018

2018-05-24T22:00:22Z

Cellsworth at 21:59, 24 May 2018

2018-05-24T21:59:24Z

Cellsworth at 21:56, 24 May 2018

2018-05-24T21:56:53Z

Cellsworth: Created page with " NOTOC NOEDITSECTION {| style="width:100%; background:#fcfcfc; margin-to..."

2018-03-21T16:32:43Z

Created page with " __NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__  {| style="width:100%; background:#fcfcfc; margin-to..."

New page

__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__

{| 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>


|style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"|

|}
{| 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;"> [http://www.usu.edu/buglab/Projects/CurrentProjects/#item=33 Affects of fluctuating flows on macroinvertebrated drift at Flaming Gorge Dam] </h2>
|-
|style="color:#000;"|

|}


|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;"|

|-
! <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]

|-
! <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;"|

|-
! <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;"|

*15 mayfly genera, five Plecoptera (stonefly) genera, and three Trichoptera (caddisfly) genera were believed to have been extirpated from the river reach between the dam and Red Creek after the construction of Flaming Gorge Dam (Vinson 2001).
*Twenty years after the installation of the selective water device, the number of aquatic insect taxa routinely collected upstream of Red Creek was as low as or lower than before partial thermal restoration. Gammarus lacustris was the only taxon that initially appeared to benefit from partial thermal restoration resulting from the addition of the selective water device in 1978.
*Between 1993 and 1999, the tailwater macroinvertebrate community consisted of amphipods (61%), dipterans (32%), mayflies (4%), and Coleoptera (coleopterans or beetles) (3%).

|}

<Span></Span>

@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 |-
-! <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>
+! <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 Publications </h2>
 |-
 |style="color:#000;"|
+*[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02705060.2016.1193064?scroll=top&needAccess=true& Timusk et al. 2016. An experimental test of sub-hourly changes in macroinvertebrate drift density associated with hydropeaking in a regulated river. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. ]
 |}

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 *Growth during summer 2011 was lower than during the two previous years when fluctuating hydropeaking flows occurred even though temperatures were higher.
 *Growth of juvenile humpback chub in the Little Colorado River was relatively high in 2010 (0.22mm/day) and did not decline in September and October as it had in previous years. This may be related to the active monsoon season in 2010.
+*Flow conditions more strongly influence growth than water temperature across the range of flow treatments and temperatures observed during 2009–2011.
 |}

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 *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.
 |}

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 *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.

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 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).
 |}
@@ Line 84: / Line 102: @@
 *[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]
 |-
@@ Line 93: / Line 112: @@
 *[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]
 |-

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 25 May 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	\|style="color:#000;"\|		\|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).

	\|}		\|}

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 |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;"> [http://www.usu.edu/buglab/Projects/CurrentProjects/#item=33 Affects of fluctuating flows on macroinvertebrated drift at Flaming Gorge Dam] </h2>
+! <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;"|
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 |style="color:#000;"|
-*15 mayfly genera, five Plecoptera (stonefly) genera, and three Trichoptera (caddisfly) genera were believed to have been extirpated from the river reach between the dam and Red Creek after the construction of Flaming Gorge Dam (Vinson 2001).
-*Twenty years after the installation of the selective water device, the number of aquatic insect taxa routinely collected upstream of Red Creek was as low as or lower than before partial thermal restoration. Gammarus lacustris was the only taxon that initially appeared to benefit from partial thermal restoration resulting from the addition of the selective water device in 1978.
-*Between 1993 and 1999, the tailwater macroinvertebrate community consisted of amphipods (61%), dipterans (32%), mayflies (4%), and Coleoptera (coleopterans or beetles) (3%).
 |}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 24 May 2018
Line 53:		Line 53:
	\|style="color:#000;"\|		\|style="color:#000;"\|

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

	\|-		\|-

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:56, 24 May 2018
Line 67:		Line 67:
	\|style="color:#000;"\|		\|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]

	\|-		\|-