Premium
Test of an environmental flow release in a British Columbia river: does more water mean more fish?
Author(s) -
BRADFORD MICHAEL J.,
HIGGINS PAUL S.,
KORMAN JOSH,
SNEEP JEFF
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
freshwater biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.297
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1365-2427
pISSN - 0046-5070
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02633.x
Subject(s) - environmental science , habitat , productivity , abundance (ecology) , channel (broadcasting) , ecosystem , river ecosystem , streamflow , environmental flow , aquatic ecosystem , flow conditions , ecology , oncorhynchus , streams , flow (mathematics) , hydrology (agriculture) , fishery , drainage basin , fish <actinopterygii> , geography , biology , geotechnical engineering , geology , mathematics , macroeconomics , computer network , computer science , engineering , geometry , climatology , cartography , electrical engineering , economics
Summary 1. Water managers must make difficult decisions about the allocation of streamflows between out‐of‐channel human uses and environmental flows for aquatic resources. However, the effects environmental flows on stream ecosystems are infrequently evaluated. 2. We used a 13‐year experiment in the regulated Bridge River, British Columbia, Canada, to determine whether an environmental flow release designed to increase salmonid productivity was successful. A hierarchical Bayesian model was used to compare juvenile Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus spp.) abundance before and after the flow release. 3. We found that the total number of salmonids did increase after the release, but most of the gains could be attributed to the rewatering of a previously dry channel located immediately below the dam. In reaches that had flowing water during the baseline period, the response of individual salmon species to the increase in flow was variable, and there was little change in total abundance after the flow release. Our results were inconsistent with both habitat modelling, which predicted a decrease in habitat quality with increasing flow, and holistic instream flow approaches, which imply greater benefits with larger flows. 4. We question whether biotic responses to flow changes can be predicted reliably with currently available methods and suggest that adaptive management or the use of decision tools that account for the uncertainty in the biotic response is required for instream flow decisions when the competing demands for water are great.