English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Improving habitat quality is the stated goal of many restorations, but actually assessing and measuring habitat quality is very difficult. We investigated how well three different metrics of habitat selection reflected assumed changes in habitat quality. We quantified brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and sculpin (Cottus spp.) densities, turnover rates, and immigration rates as three potential metrics of habitat selection. We then assessed patterns of fish habitat selection through time in a manipulated site, where the streambed was manipulated through the removal of sand and its re-aggradation and in comparison with neighboring reference sites. We then determined which metric best tracked manipulated changes in small-scale fluvial habitat quality within each site. In the manipulated site, the removal of sand transformed the site from a sand covered state with high mean embeddedness (98 ± 7% embedded, mean ± sd) to a rocky state with exposed large substrates (58 ± 37% embeddedness). The following year, the site returned to a sandy state (95% ± 10 embeddedness). Embeddedness was high and relatively unchanged in downstream and upstream reference sites over the three year period. Among the three alternative metrics of habitat selection, fish immigration rates best reflected the assumed changes in habitat quality. Patterns in fish density and turnover rates over time and across sites did not accurately reflect these assumed changes in habitat quality. The material in this chapter is planned for submission.

ESTIMATING FISH HABITAT SELECTION AND MONITORING STREAM HABITAT QUALITY REQUIRES MORE THAN SIMPLY COUNTING FISH