Fish species‐environment and abundance relationships in a Great Plains river system
Abstract
Fish assemblages in the upper Red River system of southwestern Oklahoma (USA) were predictable along measured environmental gradients Conductivity was the most important variable predicting structure of fish assemblages followed by stream size, alkalinity woody debris and water clarity Classification of abundance data identified four groups each of species and sites Species groups were separated on a habitat template indicating similar environmental responses within groups However, site groups showed considerable overlap on the template Correlations among species environmental preferences were significantly associated with correlations of species abundances Likewise, site correlations on the basis of measured environmental variables and on the basis of species abundances were significantly similar We tested abundance and distribution data for agreement with the hierarchical model of Kolasa Several testable predictions of the model described our data well specialist species outnumbered generalist species and were less abundant on average, than generalist species Average abundance of species was highly correlated with their ecological ranges and species were clumped along both ecological range and abundance axes
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Current velocity, water depth and substratum type have been related to stream fish community patterns in many studies.
“These parameters have been related to stream fish community patterns in many studies (Pusey, Arthington & Read, 1993;Taylor, Winston & Matthews, 1993;Kamdem Toham & Teugels, 1998)”
From Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams (2002) · cites this paper as Taylor, Winston & Matthews, 1993
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams
Bojsen, B. H., & Barriga, R. (2002) · Freshwater Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00956.x · Cited by 180 · see citing works
- Authors
- Taylor, C. M., Winston, M. R., & Matthews, W. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-23
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W1965437242
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ecography (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish biology, ecology, and behavior
- Keywords
- fish assemblages, species-environment relationships, species abundance, conductivity, stream size, alkalinity, woody debris, water transparency, habitat template, generalist and specialist species, ecological range, species distribution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review