Developing an index of biotic integrity (IBI) for warmwater wadeable streams in Virginia

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSmogor, Roy A.en
dc.contributor.committeechairAngermeier, Paul L.en
dc.contributor.committeememberDolloff, C. Andrewen
dc.contributor.committeememberOrth, Donald J.en
dc.contributor.committeememberSmith, Eric P.en
dc.contributor.departmentFisheries and Wildlife Sciencesen
dc.coverage.countryUnited Statesen
dc.coverage.stateVirginiaen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T21:48:44Zen
dc.date.adate2008-11-01en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T21:48:44Zen
dc.date.issued1996en
dc.date.rdate2008-11-01en
dc.date.sdate2008-11-01en
dc.description.abstractThe index of biotic integrity (IBI) comprises several fish-assemblage attributes, called metrics, that reflect how a site differs from least-disturbed (by anthropogenic influences) conditions. Understanding how metrics at least-disturbed sites vary across landscape classes (e.g., physiographies, ecoregions) and stream sizes helps one determine appropriate regions and stream-size ranges in which to develop and use the IBI. The IBI’s utility depends on how accurately and reliably each metric reflects disturbance. I make recommendations for developing the IBI for use in Virginia. I examined metric variation across landscape classes: physiographies, ecoregions, and drainage groups; and across stream sizes. I examined intra-region relations between metrics and disturbance measures and whether relations met conventional IBI assumptions. Taxonomic metrics (e.g., number of native minnow species) and reproductive metrics (e.g., proportion of individuals as lithophils) varied more across physiographies than across ecoregions or drainages. Trophic metrics (e.g., proportion as invertivores) varied least across landscape classes and most with stream size. For Virginia, I recommend three regions: Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountain, in which to develop and use distinct versions of the IBI. In Coastal Plain, disturbance-vs-metric relations were mostly contrary to IBI assumptions. In Piedmont, trophic and tolerance metrics best reflected disturbance and met IBI assumptions; in Mountain, reproductive metrics did so. Disturbance measures accounted for about 20% of the variance in metrics, suggesting that my data incompletely represented disturbance effects on fish. Until further validation, I recommend that each regional IBI retain at least two taxonomic, two trophic, two reproductive, and one tolerance metric.en
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
dc.format.extentxii, 126 leavesen
dc.format.mediumBTDen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.otheretd-11012008-063525en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11012008-063525/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/45414en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartLD5655.V855_1996.S664.pdfen
dc.relation.isformatofOCLC# 35358735en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectIBIen
dc.subjectstream fishen
dc.subjectVirginiaen
dc.subjectphysiographyen
dc.subjectcanonical analysisen
dc.subject.lccLD5655.V855 1996.S664en
dc.titleDeveloping an index of biotic integrity (IBI) for warmwater wadeable streams in Virginiaen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
thesis.degree.disciplineFisheries and Wildlife Sciencesen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LD5655.V855_1996.S664.pdf
Size:
7.15 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Masters Theses