BIOLOGICAL REPORT 82(10.112)

SEPTEMBER 1985

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS

AND INSTREAM FLOW SUITABILITY

CURVES: GIZZARD SHAD .

t:i~h and Wildlife Service

SK ). Department of the Interior

361

. U54

no . 8 2-

10.112
This is one of the first reports to be published in the new "Biological

Report" series. This technical report series, published by the Research

and Development branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, replaces

the "FWS/OBS" series published from 1976 to September 1984. The Biological Report series is designed for the rapid publication of reports with

an application orientation, and it continues the focus of the FWS/OBS

series on resource management issues and fish and wildlife needs.
MODEL EVALUATION FORM

Habitat models are designed for a wide variety of planning applications where habitat information is an important consideration in the

decision process. However, it is impossible to develop a model that

performs equally well in all situations. Assistance from users and

researchers is an important part of the mode 1 improvement process. Each

model is published individually to facilitate updating and reprinting as

new information becomes available. User feedback on model performance

will assist in improving habitat models for future applications. Please

complete this form following application or review of the model. Feel

free to include additional information that may be of use to either a

model developer or model user. We also would appreciate information on

model testing, modification, and application, as well as copies of modified

models or test results. Please return this form to:

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

or

Instream Flow Group

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2627 Redwing Road, Creekside One

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

Thank you for your assistance.

Species

Geographic

Location

Habitat or Cover Type(s) -----------------------

Type of Application: Impact Analysis Management Action Analysis __ Baseline Other ------------------------

Variables Measured or Evaluated -------------------

Was the species information useful and accurate? Yes No

If not, what corrections or improvements are needed?----------
Were the variables and curves clearly defined and useful? Yes No

If not) how were or could they be improved?

Were the techniques suggested for collection of field data:

Appropriate? Yes No

Clearly defined? Yes No

Easily applied? Yes No

If not) what other data collection techniques are needed?

Were the model equations logical? Yes No

Appropriate? Yes No

How were or could they be improved?

Other suggestions for modification or improvement (attach curves)

equations) graphs) or other appropriate information)

Additional references or information that should be included in the model:

Model Evaluator or Reviewer Date ------------ -------

Agency _

Address ------------------------------

Telephone Number Comm:----------- FTS ----------
Biological Report 82(10.112)

September 1985

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODELS AND INSTREAM FLOW SUITABILITY

CURVES: GIZZARD SHAD

by

Kathryn L. Williamson

Habitat Evaluation Procedures Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Drake Creekside Building One

2627 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

and

Patrick C. Nelson

Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Drake Creekside Building One

2627 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

Western Energy and Land Use Team

Division of Biological Services

Research and Development

Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC 20240
This report should be cited as:

Williamson, K. L., and P. C. Nelson. 1985. Habitat suitability index models

and instream flow suitability curves: Gizzard shad. U.S. Fish Wildl.

Servo 8iol. Rep. 82(10.112). 33 pp.
PREFACE

The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models presented in this publication

aid in identifying important habitat variables. Facts, ideas, and concepts

obtained from the research literature and expert reviews are synthesized and

presented in a format that can be used for impact assessment. Users should

recognize that the models are hypotheses of species-habitat relationships, and

that the degree of veracity of the HSI model, SI graphs, and assumptions is

unknown and wi 11 vary accordi ng to geographi ca 1 area and the extent of the

data base for individual variables. The HSI model building techniques

published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1981), and the general guidelines for modifying HSI models (Terrell et al. 1982) and estimating model

variables (Hamilton and Bergersen 1984) may be useful for simplifying and

applying the models to specific impact assessment problems. Users of the SI

curves for IFIM analyses should be familiar with the guide to stream habitat

analysis (Bovee 1982) and the users guide to the physical habitat simulation

system (Milhous et al. 1984). Simplified models should be tested with

independent data sets, if possible.

Model reliability is likely to vary in different geographical areas and

situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service encourages users to provide

comments, suggestions, and test results that may help us increase the utility

and effectiveness of this habitat-based approach to impact assessment. Please

send comments to:

Habitat Evaluations Procedures Group or

Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group

Western Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2627 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

iii
iv
CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi

HABITAT USE INFORMATION 1

Genera 1 ............................•............................... 1

Age, Growth, and Food 1

Reproduct ion 4

Specifi c Habitat Requi rements 4

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODELS .. 8

Model Applicability 8

Model Logic and Description........................................ 9

Mode 1 Components 10

Lacustri ne Model................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Suitability Index (SI) Graphs for Model Variables. 12

Development of Suitability Index Graphs: Rationale and

Assumptions 15

ADDITIONAL HABITAT MODELS 17

INSTREAM FLOW INCREMENTAL METHODOLOGY (IFIM) 20

Suitability Index Curves as Used in the IFIM 21

Availability of SI Curves for Use in the IFIM 21

REFERENCES 26

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

R. W. Drenner, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, and L. R. Aggus,

Aquatic Ecosystem Analysts, Fayetteville, AR, reviewed an earlier draft of

this document and offered constructive suggestions. However, readers must not

construe these reviews as an endorsement of the publication's content or the

use of sui tabi 1i ty index curves to evaluate habi tat. The ADDITIONAL MODELS

section of the report was written primarily by R. M. Jenkins, and L. R. Aggus,

Aquatic Ecosystem Analysts, Fayetteville, AR. Word processing was done by

E. Graf and P. Gillis, Western Energy and Land Use Team. J. Shoemaker, Western

Energy and Land use Team, di d the cover art. The U. S. Fi sh and Wi 1dl i fe

Service Office of Information Transfer furnished editorial assistance.

vi
GIZZARD SHAD (Dorosoma cepedianum)

HABITAT USE INFORMATION

General

The gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) inhabits fresh and brackish waters

in the United States. Its range extends from southeastern South Dakota and

central Minnesota, throughout the Mississippi and Great Lakes drainages to

about as far north as the St. Lawrence River, near Quebec; from southern New

York (approximately 40° N latitude) along the Atlantic Coast to the Gulf of

Mexico; and west through the Gulf Coast States to the portions of New Mexico

and Colorado east of the Continental Divide (Miller 1960; Bodola 1965; Jester

and Jensen 1972; Megrey 1980). Although most gizzard shad complete their

entire life cycle in fresh water (Miller 1960), some enter brackish bays and

estuaries along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and occasionally enter marine

waters (Gunter 1945; Megrey 1980). Lake and reservoir populations use both

the littoral and limnetic zones (Jester and Jensen 1972). The gizzard shad is

essentially an open water species, living at or near the surface (Becker 1983;

Trautman 1981; Pflieger 1971), however, they have been collected at depths of

up to 33 m (Dendy 1945; Jester 1962). They hybridize with the threadfin shad,

Q. petenense (Minckley and Krumholz 1960; Shelton and Grinstead 1973).

Age, Growth, and Food

Growth rate characteristics of gizzard shad are extremely variable, both

across the entire range of geographic locations and within relatively closely

spaced populations (Table 1). Reproductive maturity normally is reached by

age II or III (Berry 1958; Bodola 1965; Breder and Rosen 1966) at mean total

lengths of 254 to 356 mm (Miller 1960). However, rapid growth rates are

characteristic of some southern populations in shallow, fertile impoundments

with abundant food and long growing seasons. Lengths attained are as much as

152 - 178 mm in 5 months in Georgia reservoirs (Zeller and Wyatt 1967) and

265 mm in 1 year in Florida reservoirs (Berry 1958). The largest gizzard shad

reported in the literature was 521 mm long and weighed 1.56 kg (Trautman

1981).

The life span of gizzard shad is short in some portions of its range; few

fi sh 1i ve past age I II or IV in Lake Newnan, Florida (Berry 1958), or Beaver

Dam Lake, Illinois (Lagler and Van Meter 1951). In general, short life spans

are correlated with rapid growth rates in the first year of life (Table 1).

In other, usually more northern parts of its range, gizzard shad typically

1
Table 1. Mean total lengths (mmJ of gizzard shad from various locations in

the United States at time of annulus formation (from Jester and Jensen 1972).

Age Location I II III IV V VI VII VII I IX X XI

Elephant Butte Lake, NM

(Jester and Jensen 1972) 95 151 183 219 254 273 391 324

Conchas Lake, NM

(Jester 1962) 76 154 225 284 320 343 360 371 379 387 412

Grand Lake, OK

(Jenkins 1953) 100 203 260 318 350 383 395

N Ft. Gibson Reservoir, OK

(Jenkins 1953) 143 258 325

Lake Erie

( BoIoda 1965) 259 366 403 429 467 428

Foots Pond, IN

(Lagler and Applegate 1942) 190 248 265 283 348

Beaver Dam Lake, IL

(Lagler and Van Meter 1951) 240 278 330 375

Lake Wappapello, MO

(Patriarche 1953) 103 170 208 230 245 258 273 293 300 293

Herrington Lake, KY

(Turner 1953) 110 196 259 311 334

Lake Newnan, FL

( Berrv 1955) 254 317 338
live to ages V to VII and may live to ages X or XI (Miller 1960; Jester 1962).

Sexual dimorphism in growth rate, length weight relationship, or external

characteristics, is seldom, if ever, shown (Lagler and Van Meter 1951; Miller

1960; Jester and Jensen 1972); however, females usually are more abundant than

males because of more extensive post-spawning mortality in males (Berry 1958;

Breder and Rosen 1966; Jester and Jensen 1972).

Average fecundity of gizzard shad also is highly variable, and seemingly

declines after peaking at age II or III. In Acton Lake, Ohio, mean fecundity

of age II females (31.2 cm standard length) was 12,500 eggs per individual.

Fecundity peaked at 380,000 eggs per individual (29.1 cm standard length) for

age II gizzard shad from Lake Erie, declining thereafter in successively older

age groups (Bodola 1965). Females older than age IV showed no sign of gonadal

maturation (Pierce 1977). Mean fecundity of 27 age III female gizzard shad

(19.0 cm total length) from Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico, was 40,500

eggs; fecundity declined in older fish (Jester and Jensen 1972).

Total length at hatching is 3.25 to 5 mm (Berry 1958; Miller 1960).

Larval gizzard shad subsist on yolk material for the first few days of life

(Bodola 1965), then begin feeding at 4 to 5 days after hatching; for the first

few weeks they eat mai nly protozoans, rot i fers and entomostracans (Warner

1940; Miller 1960; Bodola 1965). In lakes, young fish « 35 mm total length)

feed almost exclusively on zooplankton (Warner 1940; Kutkuhn 1958; Dalquest

and Peters 1966; Cramer and Marzolf 1970; Barger and Kilambi 1980) while

larger fish consume detritus, phytoplankton, zooplankton and insect larvae and

exuviae (Tiffany 1921a, b; Kutkuhn 1958; Bodola 1965; Baker and Schmitz 1971;

Jester and Jensen 1972; King et al. 1977; Hendricks and Noble 1979; Barger and

Kilambi 1980; Pierce et al. 1981). Jude (1973) found gizzard shad to consume

fingernail clams in a pool of the Mississippi River. In a Kentucky stream,

gizzard shad ate principally tendipedids, oligochaetes, diatoms, and Spirogyra

(Minckley 1963).

Gizzard shad feed in both the limnetic zone and along bottom sediments as

evidenced by the occurrence of both plankton and sand in their digestive

tracts (Kutkuhn 1958; Pierce et al. 1981). In laboratory experiments, Drenner

et al. (l982b) found that gizzard shad collected suspended food items as a

pump filter feeder, capturing particles by a series of rapid suctions. The

feeding selectivity of gizzard shad for plankton is determined by the size of

the plankton relative to the gill raker spaces (Mummert 1983; Drenner et al.

1984) as well as the escape ability of the plankton (Drenner et al. 1978,

1982a). Abundance and diversity of items eaten may vary widely with season

and locality (Bodola 1965) with apparent variability in food preferences among

age groups and populations being the result of capture location or availability

of prey items (Bodola 1965; Jester and Jensen 1972; Pierce 1977). Bodola

(1965) found that digestive tract contents of adult gizzard shad captured in

open waters consisted predominantly of free-floating phytoplankton, whereas

shad captured in littoral vegetation contained Cladocera, Copepoda, Rotifera,

and small aquatic insect larvae and those captured in very turbid waters

contained mostly mud.

3
Reproduction

Gizzard shad spawn in spring and early summer; they have no obvious

spawning migration patterns, except that fish in brackish or salt water return

to fresh water (Breder and Rosen 1966). Spawning occurs principally in low

gradient tributaries or ditches, where large spawning aggregations move upstream as far as water depth will allow, to spawn in shallow water (Trautman

1981; Shelton 1972; Pierce 1977; Becker 1983); spawning aggregations also may

concentrate at the mouths of the main tributary streams of a lake (Jester

1962). Not all eggs ripen simultaneously; consequently spawning is frequently

extended over a period of two weeks (Warner 1940) and sometimes up to two

months (Berry 1958; Taber 1969). Spawning activity may begin as much as two

weeks earlier in the upper end of a reservoir than in the lower end (Netsch

et al. 1971).

Spawning activity has been associated with rapidly r i s inq water levels

and temperature: low water levels and low temperatures during spring and

early summer adversely affect spawning success (Bross 1967; Walburg 1976;

Pierce 1977; Downey and Toetz 1983). Water temperature of about 16°C apparently provides the stimulus for spawning (Warner 1940; Miller 1960; Minckley

1963; Bodola 1965; Taber 1969; Shelton 1972; Shelton and Grinstead 1973;

Pierce 1977; Storck et al. 1978). Pierce (1977) found that the number of days

in May with water temperatures > 15°C accounted for 34~~ of the vari abil ity

associated with year class success. Spawning activity is greatest in the

evening and early night, and declines markedly during daylight hours (Shelton

1972; Bodola 1965; Mayhew 1957). Although gizzard shad usually spawn in

shallow water, less than 1.5 m deep, they have been observed spawning at the

surface of water that is 15 m deep (Jester and Jensen 1972). In reservoi rs

with fluctuating surface elevations, spawning extended farther upstream in

high water years than in low water years; the spawners appeared to prefer

recently inundated habitat when it was available (Storck et al. 1978).

Specific Habitat Requirements

Gizzard shad of all ages are extremely fragile, and handling them or

keeping them in captivity for controlled laboratory testing is difficult even

under the best of circumstances (Shoemaker 1942; Bodola 1965; Reutter and

Herdendorf 1974); consequently, many specific habitat requirements can only be

assumed from field observations, and few or no quantitative data are available

for most habitat variables. Comprehensive life history and habitat information

was given by Bodola (1965), Jester and Jensen (1972), and Miller (1960).

Conditions for gizzard shad populations are optimal in warm, fertile,

shallow bodies of water with soft mud bottoms, high turbidity, and relatively

few predators (Miller 1960; Zeller and Wyatt 1967). In fact, lacustrine

habitats with these characteristics are the most likely to become overpopulated with gizzard shad. Factors contributing to this problem are the gizzard

shad's high reproductive capacity, rapid growth rate, and efficient and direct

use of plankton (Hubbs 1934; Miller 1960; Bodola 1965). Moderate to heavy

predation by large game species, fluctuating water levels, deep clear water,

and steep shorelines (factors that are less than optimal for many species)

tend to be associated with lower gizzard shad populations.

4
GiLzard shad are often abundant in large sluggish rivers, impoundments of

all sizes (especially those connected with large river systems), lakes, swamps,

bayous, and floodwater pools (Gerking 1945; Summerfelt 1967; Boschung 1961;

Carlander 1969; Becker 1983). In smaller rivers they are highly associated

with permanent, deep, sluggish pools with soft sand and silt bottoms (Larimore

and Smith 1963; Pflieger 1971). Intermittent flows upstream and downstream

from reservoirs in New Mexico have limited the gizzard shad1s range and distribution in that state, and Jester and Jensen (1972) suggested that the species

might be absent from New Mexico if reservoirs had not been impounded there.

It seems likely that intermittent flows may limit the distribution of gizzard

shad in the more arid western parts of the country where demands on water are

high.

Gizzard shad have been captured over all types of substrate, including

mud, sand, gravel, bedrock, and inundated vegetation (Pflieger 1971; Jester

and Jensen 1972); however, they are most consistently found over bottoms of

sand, silt, or mud (Hubbs and Lagler 1942; Gerking 1945; Larimore and Smith

1963; Dalquest and Peters 1966; Jester and Jensen 1972; Pierce 1977).

Temperature plays an important role in controlling populations of gizzard

shad (Jester and Jensen 1972; Becker 1983). Accordi ng to Mi 11 er (1957),

gizzard shad populations increase in northern waters during a series of warm

years and then are almost eliminated during cold years. The young-of-the-year

are particularly susceptible to mortality caused by sudden or extreme changes

of temperature, and massive winter kills frequently occur in northern or

high-altitude lakes (Trautman 1981; Jester and Jensen 1972; Miller 1960).

Gizzard shad in Elephant Butte, Caballo, and Conchas Reservoirs, New Mexico,

normally become inactive and move into deeper water in fall as water temperatures dip below 14° C and become active again in spring as temperatures rise

to 14° C or higher (Jester and Jensen 1972). Winter die-offs of gizzard shad

have been observed in these reservoirs when temperatures fell below 3.3° C.

Although the young-of-the-year are the most susceptible to death from these

temperatures, older fish also die within a few days if the temperature is not

abated or if it falls below 2.2° C. Death also occurs at high temperatures

that are within the optimum range, if changes are relatively abrupt. Agersborg

(1930) reported unbalanced movements of gizzard shad when the fish moved from

28 to 24°C water. Miller (1960) hypothesized that winter mortality also could

be caused by sudden rises in temperature after prolonged periods of cold

weather. In South Dakota, ice cover lasting longer than 103 days resulted in

almost complete morta 1ity of overwi nteri ng young shad, but some survi ved an

ice cover of 88-103 days (Walburg 1964). The northern limits of the gizzard

shadvs range is the St. Croix River below Taylor Falls in Minnesota (Becker

1983; Eddy and Underhill 1974); none have been found in Lake Oahe, near the

border of North Dakota and South Dakota (Gasaway 1970), or north of about 400N

latitude in New York (Bodola 1965; Megrey 1980). Although the species has

become firmly established in Lake Michigan (Miller 1960), it is relatively

scarce in upper Lake Huron, (Miller 1960), and virtually absent in Lake

Superior, although one large speciman was reported captured in the southeastern end of the lake in 1961 (Scott and Crossman 1973).

5
Embryo. In lakes, gizzard shad prefer to spawn in protected shallow

water coves and backwaters (Miller 1960), along the shorel-ine (Pierce 1977),

and near the surface in water 0.3 to 1.6 mdeep. The eggs, which are expelled

from the body in ribbon-like masses, sink to the bottom or drift in the current

and readily adhere to submerged vegetation, rocks, or any objects they contact

(Mayhew 1957; Berry 1958; Taber 1969; Walburg 1976). There is no nest building

or parental care. In riverine areas, or tributary streams, spawning aggregations collect in large deep pools, and a female, accompanied by several males,

swims away from these aggregations to spawn in nearby shallow water (Shelton

1972; Minckley 1963). Optimal habitat for survival of the embryo in these

tributary streams is a continuous flow of fresh clear water over shallow,

rocky riffles in which the bottom is covered with periphyton, providing ample

surface area for egg attachment (Pierce 1977).

Depending on local weather conditions, gonads begin to ripen from March

to early April at water temperatures of 7 to 10° C. Initiation of spawning

activity usually begins (in late March to late June) at temperatures of 15.5

to 16.5° C, peaks at 19 to 21° C (Bodola 1965; Jester 1962), and continues at

24 to 25° C (Carlander 1969; Jester and Jensen 1972; Storck et al. 1978).

Maximum reported spawning temperatures for gizzard shad are 27° C (Mayhew

1957) to 29° C (Miller 1960). The recommended maximum temperature suitable

for spawning and embryo development is 26.7° C (Brungs and Jones 1977).

The length of the incubation period is inversely related to temperature;

modal hatching times are 32 hours at 23° C, 73 hours at 18° C, and 106 hours

at 15° C (Shelton and Stephens 1980). Warner (1940) reported an incubation

period of 95 hours at the minimum hatching temperature of 16.7° C and 36 hours

at 26.7° C.

Larvae/fry. Average total length of gizzard shad larvae at hatching is

3.3 to 3.5 mm (Shelton and Stephens 1980; Warner 1940). After one day at

23° C the length is 4.5 to 5.0 mm. The yolk sac is nearly absorbed by the

second or thi rd day. Yolk-sac 1arvae have either a negative geotax i c or a

positive phototaxic response (or both) that causes them to swim to the surface

(Shelton and Stephens 1980). Their active upward swimming and passive downward

sinking has the net effect of concentrating them away from the substrate and

toward the surface. Netsch et al , (1971) found that gizzard shad prolarvae

tended to be concentrated near the surface of Beaver Reservoir, Arkansas until

they were 4 weeks old; they then gradually moved into deeper water.

Water temperature appeared to influence vertical distribution of larval

gizzard shad in Lake Norman, North Carolina, but dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration did not (Lewis and Siler 1980). Netsch et al. (1971) found that

larval shad concentrated closer to the surface in turbid areas of a reservoir

(Secchi disc depth, 0.7 to 1.2 m) than in less turbid areas (Secchi disc depth

2.9 to 4.9 m), where they were at depths of about 5 m. Kashuba and Matthews

(1984) and Matthews (1984) also found larval shad concentrated near the surface

of Lake Texoma during episodes of high turbidity (Secchi disc depth 0.1 to

0.4 m), in contrast to their zooplankton prey, which were deeper in the water

column; they correlated rapid declines in larval shad abundance with high

turbidity and decreased zooplankton abundance. They proposed that turbidity,

6
though not directly lethal to larval shad, could indirectly but severely

reduce thei r abundance, part i cul arly in mai nstem reservoi rs where spri ng and

early summer floods commonly occur during the period of larval development.

Barnes (1977) found that gizzard shad are poor swimmers unti 1 they reach a

length of about 25 mm (corresponding to the transition to the juvenile age

class 1.5 to 2.5 months). Median swimming speeds attained by gizzard shad

< 25 mm long were 2 to 4 cm/s; maximum speed was 10 cm/s under optimum conditions. Juveniles 25 to 50 mm long attained speeds up to 23 cm/s. Barnes

(1977) suggested that the high mortality in larval shad may be closely related

to their reduced swimming ability during the "c ritical period" after yolk

absorption, about 5 to 11 days after hatching. This view is consistent with

that of Pierce (1977), who found that seasonal abundance and timing of peak

densities of zooplankton playa critical role in the survival of young gizzard

shad. That is, young shad with reduced swimming ability cannot actively

forage for food and are therefore dependent on a large population density of

zooplankton at this critical time.

Wa"lburg (1976) correlated abundance of larval gizzard shad taken from

backwater areas and coves of Lewis and Clark Reservoir, a Missouri River

mainstem reservoir, with several environmental variables, including water

temperature, water level fluctuation, water current, and abundance of plankton

and bottom fauna. Three variables were common to areas with the greatest

abundance of gizzard shad larvae: little or no water current « 2.5 cm/s);

water depth> 1 m; and little or no fluctuation in water level. Siltation of

nearshore spawning and nursery areas and associated increased turbidities of

up to 675 mg/l in the upper end of the reservoi r had a negative effect on

these habitats.

Larval abundance in the Lower Mississippi River was higher during highwater years and larvae preferred quiet vegetated areas along the river and

inundated flood plain, rather than open water areas (Gallagher and Conner

1980). Bross (1967) correlated low abundance of young-of-the-year gizzard

shad with low water levels and low water temperatures in the spring.

Adult. Adult gizzard shad frequented areas with temperatures of 22 to

29° C (Gammon 1973); growth was satisfactory at a maximum temperature of 34° C

(Clark 1969; Brungs and Jones 1977). Adults normally do not enter water above

35° C (Hubbs and Lagler 1942; Hart 1952; Gammon 1973), and lethal temperatures

of 36.5° C have been reported, depending on acclimation temperature (Hart

1952; Strawn 1958). Adult gizzard shad have been found in thermal plumes at

temperatures up to 37.5° C (Proffitt and Benda 1971).

Borges (1950), noting that gizzard shad avoided waters of low 00 sandwiched between cold, well-aerated, spring-fed layers, proposed that DO depletion overshadows temperature as a factor in influencing distribution. Indeed,

in Arbuckle Lake, Oklahoma, vertical depth distribution indicated that gizzard

shad were generally absent from water with less than 2 mg/l DO, even though it

compri sed 50 to 60% of the tota 1 1ake volume in some yea rs (Gebhart and

Summerfelt 1978). Jester (1972) captured large and small gizzard shad down to

the oxygen limit in the thermocline during the warm summer months, and Becker

(1983) reported that, if oxygen is adequate, the speci es may descend to a

depth of 33 m.

7
Low temperatures appear to be more influential than high temperatures in

determining gizzard shad distribution (Miller 1960). Velasquez (1939) reported

that the fish hibernate in deep water in winter, and Jester (1972) captured

them in the abyssal zone of Elephant Butte Reservoi r duri ng the coldwater

overturn period. Gizzard shad in Lake McConaughy, Nebraska, overwintered in a

few sheltered coves where spring-fed streams provided thermal refugia from the

nearly freezing temperatures of the open windswept lake (Ellison, D. G.,

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Rural Route 2, Ogallala, NE; pers. comm.).

October beach seine catches of young-of-the-year gizzard shad reported by Pahl

and Willfahrt (1962) dropped to zero when water temperatures had declined to

< 13° C. Jester and Jensen (1972) noted a decline in numbers when temperatures

dropped below 14° C in fall, (activity resumed when temperatures rose to 14° C

in spring). Hart (1952) determined that the lower lethal temperature for

gizzard shad was 11° C for fish acclimated at 25° C. However, it is assumed

that lower acclimation temperatures permit survival at much lower temperatures

than 11° C, because gizzard shad are known to be able to overwinter successfully at temperatures of 4° C (Dalquest and Peters 1966). The lower temperature limit that decimates young-of-the-year gizzard shad and begins to

adversely affect adults is about 3° C in several New Mexico lakes (Jester and

Jensen 1972).

High turbidities do not appear to be detrimental to the well-being of

adult gizzard shad; on the contrary, catch rates in experimental nets are

usually lower in clear water than in more turbid water (Taber 1969; Jester and

Jensen 1972). Adults are commonly captured in areas where Secchi disc depth

is less than 0.5 m (Pahl and Willfahrt 1962; Dalquest and Peters 1966; Jester

and Jensen 1972); however, Bodola (1965) indicated that gizzard shad from the

more turbid areas of Sandusky Bay were smaller and spawned earlier than shad

from less turbid portions of Lake Erie.

Gizzard shad are commonly found in large, brackish water bays along the

Texas coast where salinity varies from 2.0 to 33.7 ppt. The smallest fish

were in the freshest water and the larger ones at the higher salinities (Gunter

1945). Gizzard shad are also remarkably tolerant of high total dissolved

solids (TDS) in inland waters, such as Lake Diversion, Texas, a saline lake

where the TDS range in some years was as high as 1,224 to 3,185 ppm with

sulfate and chloride ions exceeding biocarbonate ions. Shad began dying in

Great Salt Plains Reservoir, Oklahoma, when chloride ion concentration reached

approximately 7,000 ppm; a complete kill occurred when the concentration rose

to approximately 11,000 ppm (Jenkins 1949).

Juvenile. Habitat requirements for juvenile gizzard shad seem to be

similar to those for adults. No differentiation of adult and juvenile

requirements was noted in the literature.

HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) MODELS

Model Applicability

Geographic area. The model is applicable to lakes and reservoirs throughout the United States. Regression models by Aggus and Morais (1979) which are

8
cited in the ADDITIONAL MODELS section, are derived from data sets subdivided

by Administrative Regions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Season. The model is intended for general use throughout the year,

although certain components are structured to handle the potentially limiting

periods of reproduction and summer stratification.

Cover types. The model is app1i cab1e to permanent 1akes and reservoi rs.

Many gizzard shad populations occupy the 1imnetic zone of a lake throughout

the year, but undertake loosely organized spawning migrations to nearshore

areas, mouths of tributary streams, or up tributary streams. Because 1ittle

information is available on riverine spawning requirements, and gizzard shad

can successfully spawn in lakes, a model of riverine reproductive requirements

was not developed. To evaluate reproductive habitat, a definition of useable

spawn i ng habi tat based upon ei ther percent 1i ttora 1 area duri ng spawn i ng

season or access to suitable spawning tributaries is developed.

Water quality. It is assumed that aquatic habitats to which the model is

applied are not contaminated with toxic substances, overloaded with sewage or

particulate matter, or significantly or extensively affected by thermal effluents (to the extent that the normal thermal regime is significantly altered).

Extreme drawdowns, which can induce physiological stress, disease, or death in

crowded populations, also are not considered in the model.

Minimum habitat area. The minimum area required for a self-sustaining

population of gizzard shad is not known. Standing crops as large as 576 kg/ha

have been reported in lakes as small as 6.6 ha (Jenkins 1957), and presumably

many more examples such as this exist; however the model presented here was

based on habitat information from larger lakes (generally> 200 ha) and is

more representative of habi tat requi rements in re 1at i vely 1arge 1akes and

reservoirs.

Veri fi cat ion 1eve1. Thi s model represents the authors I i nterpretati on of

how specific environmental factors combine to determine the ability of a

habitat to support a reproducing population of gizzard shad. It has not been

field tested.

Model Logic and Description

The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) model that follows represents an

attempt to condense the preceding observations into a manageable set of measurable habitat characteristics. The model is structured to produce an index of

gizzard shad habitat quality between 0.0 (unsuitable, shad survival unlikely)

and 1.0 (optimum) for separate components of the entire life cycle. The index

generated by the model is assumed to represent a limit to prespawning populations imposed by model variable values for the previous year, but this

relationship has not been demonstrated. Habitat variables bel ieved to be

important in limiting distribution, abundance, or survival of gizzard shad are

included in the model. An assumed functional relationship between each habitat

variable and habitat suitabil ity is represented in a variable suitabil ity

index (SI) graph. It is assumed that SI ratings for different habitat variables can be compared. This is one of the weakest model assumptions; it is

9
likely to be violated for some ranges of the selected variables because the

responses (e.g. changes in growth, survival, distribution, habitat selection,

or abundance) used to subjectively derive the SIl s are not directly comparable.

However, the model is likely to provide the most accurate description of

habitat imposed population limits when all of the variables have extreme SI

values, that is, either near optimum or near unsuitable. Gizzard shad habitat

quality is represented in this model by three components: Food, Water Quality,

and Reproduction. Variables that are believed to be direct or indirect

measures of the relative ability of a habitat to meet food, water quality, and

reproductive requirements are included in the appropriate component.

Not all habitat-related variables that can potentially affect gizzard

shad populations are included in the model. A vari abl e was not included if

it: (1) was adequately measured by another variable or variables; or

(2) would be difficult to measure quantitatively. Modifications, such as

redefinition of SI curves or inclusion of different or additional variables,

wi 11 probably be necessary before the model can be expected to predi ct or

describe limits to populations imposed by habitat related variables. The

model is structurally simple and can therefore be easily modified.

Model Components

The structure of the 1acustri ne HS1 model for gi zzard shad is presented

graphically in Figure 1.

Food component. Log 1 o TDS (VI) is considered part of the food component

because gizzard shad feed on plankton and detritus which are highly correlated

with the fertility of the lake or reservoir. There are many indices of

fertility; however TDS concentration is easily measured and is a fairly

reliable indicator of fertility.

Water quality component. Temperature (V3 ) and dissolved oxygen (V4 ) seem

to be the two most influential criteria in determining growth and survival of

gizzard shad populations. Long growing seasons (V2 ), in addition to optimum

average summer temperatures, favor high standing crops.

Reproduction component. Water level fluctuation during the spawning

season (Vs ) can be a limiting factor to spawning activity as well as to the

survival of embryo and larval stages. Mean weekly temperature during the

spawning season (V,) is important to initiation of spawning and survival of

the embryo. Quantity of spawning habitat, as indicated by percent 1ittoral

area (V,), can also be a limiting factor to successful reproduction, especially

in smaller reservoirs.

10
Habitat variable

Life requisite

component HSI

VI Log I 0 TDS in epilimnion during----Food ---...,

summer growing season

V2 Average number of frost-free

days in growing season

V3 Mean weekly summer temperature-+---- Water --....,

in the epilimnion Quality f----------HSI

V4 DO in epilimnion during---~

stratification

Vs Water level during spawning

season

VG Mean weekly temperature ------i,---- Reproduction

in tributaries or

upper end of reservoir

during spawning season

V7 Area (~ 2m deep)-------~

Figure 1. Diagram illustrating relationships between key habitat

variables, components and the HSI for gizzard shad in lacustrine

environments.

11
Lacustrine Model

Thi s model attempts to descri be 1i fe requi site requi rements separately,

and consists of three components: Food, Water Quality, and Reproduction.

1)

2)

3)

Water Quality (CWQ)

C

WQ = (lowest of Vl , V4 ) x (V 2 )

Reproduction (C R)

C =---=---- R 3

4) HSI determination

HSI = the lowest of CF, C

WQ' or CR

Suitability Index (SI) Graphs for Model Variables

Sui tabil ity i ndi ces for vari ab1es ina 1acustri ne habitat are descri bed

by the following set of curves. Sources of data and the rationale and assumptions made in developing suitability indices are presented in the next section.

12
Variable Suitability graph

.....

.....

..... 0.4

x 0.8

Q)

-0

C

...... 0.6

1.0

x

Q) 0.8 -0

C

......

0.6 .....

.....

.....

.Q 0.4 to

+.J

.....

Vl 0.2

0.0

0 1 2 3 4

Log 10 total dissolved solids

Growing season (average 1.0

number of days between

last and first frost

annually)

Log 1 o Total Dissolved Solids

(ppm) during summer growing

season.

200 320

Days

o.0 +--------,~-----+

80

35

0.0 "'fCo----r-----+

15

1.0 +---_-'"~_--_+

:;:: 0.4

.Q

to

+.J

.; 0.2 Vl

0.8

-0

C

:. 0.6 +.J

Mean weekly summer

temperature (epilimnion)

(0C)

13
Variable

V.. Maximum available dissolved

oxygen in epilimnion during

summer stratification (ppm)

1.0 I

1

I

x 0.8 ... (I)

"0

C

...... 0.6 .,....

,....

.....

..0 0.4 to

+-l

.,....

V)

=' 0.2

0.0

a 2 4 6 8

ppm

Vs Water level during spawning 1.0 season and embryo development

1 = rising water levels and

inundated vegetation x

QJ 0.8

2 = stable water levels or no "0

c

inundated vegetation ......

3 = decline in water level 0.6

+-l

0.5 m .,....

,....

4 = decline in water 1eve1 .,....

..0 0.4

> 0.5 m to

+-l

.....

V)

=' 0.2

0.0

I •

..

I-

-

.

1 2 3 4

Water Level

Mean weekly temperature in

tributaries or upper end

of lake or reservoir during

spawning season (Oe)

14

1.0

x

(I)

"0 0.8

c

......

0.6 .,....

,....

..0

to 0.4

+-l

.,....

='

V) 0.2

0.0

10
Variable

Area vegetated and $ 2 m

deep during spawning season

A = accessible spawning tributaries

with low gradients

B = spawning tributaries absent

or not accessible

1.0 ... ...... ... x 0.8

(1)

"0

c

...... 0.6 B

, .,.... , r- 0.4 , .,....

..c

m ,

+l 0.2 , .,.... , ::::l

(,/)

0.0

a 15 30

%

Development of Suitabi 1ity Index Gr~_~s~ Rationa~J1_d~~sump-.!ions

The preceding sUitability index graphs should be regarded as the authors l

op i m on s . Modifications based on documentation of the user's experience or

other data bases are encouraged. The prospective user should understand that

the suitability index graphs are not products of extensive laboratory or field

investigations. Rather, they reflect the authors' subjective interpretation

and integration of the literature and reviewers l comments. We here document

some of the thought processes that entered into the construction of each

curve. Some curves are better documented than others. For most, there is

some information about preferred and limiting or unsuitable conditions, but

few data exist from which ratings of intermediate conditions can be based. No

particular significance should be attributed to inflection points unless

specifically noted in the text. The model is offered as a starting point; it

is assumed that refinements will be made as additional information, including

that resulting from tests of the model, becomes available.

LOg 1 D TDS in epilimnion during the summer growing season (VI)' Gizzard

shad are an efficient link in the aquatic food chain (Tiffany 1921a; Hubbs

1934); post yolk sac larvae feed predominantly on zooplankton (Kutkuhn 1958;

Miller 1960; Bodola 1965; Cramer and Marzolf 1970; Matthews 1984) and adults

on phytoplankton (Turner 1953; Kutkuhn 1958; Miller 1960; Bodola 1965) and

organic detritus (Baker and Schmitz 1971; Drenner et al. 1978; Pierce et al.

1981). It is not surprising, then, that most descriptions of optimum or

highly productive gizzard shad habitat include some reference to the fertility

of the lake or reservoir (Kutkuhn 1958; Jenkins 1957; Miller 1960; Zeller and

Wyatt 1967). Fertility and plankton production often are highly correlated

wi th TDS; furthermore, thi s vari ab 1e was among those hi gh ly corre 1ated with

clupeid standing crops in an analysis of 228 reservoirs made by Aggus and

Morais (1979); therefore a positive relationship between TDS and gizzard shad

15
food supply is assumed. Although few 1i terature sources gave specifi c TOS

concentrations or quantified standing crop information, a report by Leidy and

Jenkins (1977) contained this type of information and was a useful aid in the

constructi on of the curve. Impacts of very hi gh TOS 1eve1s are not well

documented. The highest TOS concentrations associated with viable gizzard

shad populations were 3185 ppm (Oalquest and Peters 1966), 5755 ppm (Aggus and

Morais 1979), and an unusually high 15,000 ppm in Great Salt Plains, OK

(Jenkins 1949). Individual gizzard shad can withstand salinities up to

33.7 ppt (Gunter 1945), the approximate salinity of ocean water.

Length of agricultural growing season (V2 ) . Length of agricultural

growing season (average number of days between last spring frost and first

fall frost) appears to be a key variable affecting gizzard shad abundance

(Berry 1958; Zeller and Wyatt 1967; Branson 1967). The northern distribution

of the species is limited by severe winters (Miller 1960; Gasaway 1970; Jester

and Jensen 1972; Becker 1983), ice cover> 103 days (Walburg 1964), or water

temperatures of about 3° C or lower (Jester and Jensen 1972).

The suitability index curve is based largely on length of agricultural

growing season days along the northern limits of the gizzard shad's native

range, and on clupeid standing crop data from U.S. reservoirs (Leidy and

Jenkins 1977; Aggus and Morais 1979).

Mean weekly summer temperature in the epilimnion (V 3 ) . Water temperatures

during the summer growing season affect growth, development, and survival of

of gizzard shad of all ages; however, little information exists on the range

of optimal or unsuitable temperatures for fry, and information on temperatures

affecting juvenile gizzard shad is contradictory. Cvancara et al. (1977)

found an apparent TLs o of 28.5° C for gizzard shad 43 mm long, and the lethal

threshold for underyearlings in experiments by Hart (1952) was 34 to 36.5° C

depending on acclimation temperature. Field temperature preferences of adults

vary widely: 19 to 21° C (Reutter and Herdendorf 1974); 23 to 24° C (Clark

1969); and 22 to 29° C (Gammon 1973). Optimum temperatures for growth have

not been reported, but maximum temperature for growth was reported as 34° C

(Brungs and Jones 1977). The SI curve optimum is 22 to 29° C (mean weekly

water temperatures), and allows maximum temperatures to be somewhat higher for

short periods and still be within the optimum or acceptable range. Field

temperature measurements should be taken in open water away from shore.

DO in epilimnion during stratification (V~). Gebhart and Summerfelt

(1978) found that gizzard shad were generally absent from water with < 2 mg/l

DO, and that this reduction in available habitat was reflected in yearly

variations in the growth rate of fish during the stratified period. Gizzard

shad generally descend as far as the thermocline during the warmest weather if

oxygen is not limiting (Borges 1950; Carter 1967; Jester 1972). Many shallow

windswept lakes have no thermocline during summer; this variable can be omitted

in these 1akes, if oxygen is not a problem.

Water level during the spawning season (Vs ) . Because gizzard shad usually

spawn in water less than 1 m deep and often in water as shallow as 15 em,

they are vulnerable to declining water levels. Storck et al. (1978) reported

16
that annual variations in spawning activity were proportional to increases in

reservoir water level. The first major spawning activity occurred during

rising water levels in high water years; gizzard shad were able to move farther

upstream, and they were especially attracted to recently inundated habitats,

whi ch resul ted in increased 1arva 1 abundance (Storck et a1. 1978; Ga 11 agher

and Conner 1980). High spawning success during years of high water levels

apparently can be partly attributed to the availability of inundated vegetation. Conversely, Walburg (1976) and Bross (1967) attributed low water levels

in spring and early summer to low abundance of larval gizzard.

Mean weekly temperature in tributaries or in the upper end of the lake

or reservoir during spawning season (VI;)' The initial stimulus for spawning

appears to be a water temperature of 15 to 16° C (Warner 1940; Shelton 1972;

Bodola 1965; Miller 1960; Taber 1969; Pierce 1977), and the provisional maximum

temperature for spawning and egg development is 27° C (Brungs and Jones 1977),

although no available data confirm this limit. Temperatures between these two

extremes were selected as optimum on the SI curve. Maximum field temperatures

at which spawning has been observed are 27° C by Mayhew (1957) and 28 and

29° C by Dendy (1945). Higher temperatures are assumed to be unsuitable.

Percent area 2 m deep during the spawning season (V 7 ) . Gizzard shad

spawn in shallow water, either along the shoreline of coves and backwaters of

the reservoir or in small tributary streams (Kersh 1970; Shelton 1972; Pierce

1977). Concentrated spawning activity has been reported at depths of 0.3 to

1.6 m (Miller 1960; Jester and Jensen; 1972), 0.15 to 0.3 m (Langlois 1954),

0.6 to 1.2 m (Bodola 1965), and 0.08 to 0.6 m (Mayhew 1957). Densities of

spawning aggregations are not given, and the amount of spawning habitat needed

per spawning female is unknown. Spawning may occur in tributaries, prov i ded

they have a low gradient (Trautman 1981; Taber 1969; Pflieger 1971; Becker

1983), and large, deep pools (Larimore and Smith 1963; Minckley 1963; Shelton

and Grinstead 1973) in which the fish can congregate before spawning. It is

assumed that the availability of suitable spawning streams lessens the requirement for shallow shoreline spawning habitat. Little information was available

from which to derive optimum values for this curve (i .e. quantitative estimates

of spawning success); it is simply an estimate based on our interpretations of subj~ctive statements in the literature. However, the variable is believed to

be important in determining the success of gizzard shad populations.

ADDITIONAL HABITAT MODELS

Developing empirical models to predict numbers and standing crops of fish

(including gizzard shad) in reservoirs was an important objective of the

former National Reservoir Research Program (NRRP). The following paragraphs

summarize the approach used by NRRP, cite sources of models, and present three

representative (and useable) models from the sources cited.

The NRRP assembled a 1arge volume of i nformat i on on the standi ng crop

(biomass) and abundance of reservoir fishes in large reservoirs. Data were

from cove rotenone samples conducted by state and Federal agencies, primarily

in the central and southern U.S. Correlation and multiple regression analyses

17
were used to identify and quantify relationships between physical or operationa 1 features of reservoi rs and standi ng crops of important fi shes, and to

develop simple equations to predict standing crops of fish in reservoirs.

Multiple regression equations developed by the NRRP are used to relate

important environmental (independent) variables to specific standing crop

(dependent) variables. The environmental variables used in the equations are

described by Leidy and Jenkins (1977) and include parameters that can be

identified early in reservoir design and planning. Variation in environmental

variables is used to explain variation in standing crops of fish. The predictive value of an environmental variable is determined by how well a unit

change in that variable is related to a change in the selected standing crop

variable. It is assumed that the environmental variables that provide the

greatest predictive value are biologically important. Users should be aware,

however, that other environmental variables of lower predictive value, or

environmental variables not included in the analysis, may also have important

biological significance. When applying the equations for habitat evaluation,

the assumption is that higher abundances or standing crops of a species reflect

improved habitat for that species.

The gizzard shad is one of the most ubiquitous fishes in lacustrine

habitats. Therefore, the standing crop (biomass) of the species tends to be

most easily related to broad nutrient characteristics. Jenkins (1968, 1970)

explored relationships between nine physical and operational characteristics

of large reservoirs and average standing crops of fish. He found that total

dissolved solids and water exchange rates (reservoir volume divided by average

annual discharge) were highly correlated with standing crops of clupeids

(mostly gizzard and threadfin shad).

Subsequent analyses by personnel of the NRRP concentrated on improving

predictive equations by grouping data within broad reservoir use and chemical

classifications. Jenkins (1977) divided the National Reservior sample accordi ng to reservoi ruse (hydropower and nonhydropower) and the water exchange

rate (mainstream, water exchange rate 0.165 year; and storage, water exchange > 0.165 year). He further separated reservoirs on the basis of predominant

chemical ions (Ca-Mg or S04-Cl). Aggus and Morais (1979) grouped reservoirs

within Fish and Wildlife Service administrative regions and developed regression equations relating standing crops of gizzard shad and other fish to environmental features. This analysis included development of cumulative frequency

distribution plots for standing crops of gizzard shad in reservoirs. Aggus

and Morais (1979) scaled these plots from zero to one to provide an alternate

definition of an HSI.

Personnel from the NRRP al so developed general regression equations for

gizzard shad that were never published. Ploskey (Ploskey, G. R. Aquatic

Ecosystem Analysts, P.O. Box 4188, Fayetteville, AR; unpublished) explored

relationships between primary nutrient measures (nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a) obtained during the National Eutrophication Survey and standing crops

of shad and other species. He found good correlations between standing crops

of gizzard shad and concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus. The NRRP also

maintained and periodically updated a list of multiple regression equations

for reservoir fishes that included predictions for gizzard shad. These

18
Table 2. Multiple regression formulas developed by the former National

Reservoir Research Program for predicting standing crops (pounds/acre) of

gizzard shad in reservoirs.

In hydropower mainstream reservoirs (hydropower produced, and water exchange

rate 5 0.165 year):

Standing crop of gizzard shad = 48.5143 + 0.4347 (total dissolved

solids in ppm)

N = 52 R2 = 0.58 Prob > F = 0.0001

In hydropower storage reservoirs (hydropower produced, and water exchange

rate> 0.165 year):

Log standing crop of gizzard shad = 0.0872 + 1.0663 (log total

dissolved solids in ppm) - 0.0012 (total dissolved solids in ppm).

N = 49 R2 = 0.31 Prob > F = 0.0002

In 101 reservoirs included in the National Eutrophication Survey:

Standing crop of gizzard shad = 167.7022 + 108.4697 (log total

phosphorus in mg/l) + 74.9173 (total nitrogen in mg/l) + 0.90932

(mean depth in feet).

N = 101 R2 = 0.43

19

Prob > F = 0.0001
formulas were last updated in 1980 (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1981).

Examples of predictive formulas for gizzard shad from these unpublished sources

are presented in Table 2. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently

updating, expanding, and reanalyzing the databases developed by the NRRP.

Information on the status of this updating effort may be obtained from Tom

Edsall, Project Officer, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Fishery

Laboratory, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

Predictive equations relating abundance of different size classes of fish

(including gizzard shad) to short-term changes in reservoir water levels and

surface areas have recently been developed. Ploskey et a1. (1984) present

equations that are derived from information on discrete size-classes and

monthly changes in reservoir surface elevation and area to predict changes in

the abundance of young shad in relation to changes in reservoir surface area

during the period June through August. This preliminary modeling was based on

information from only 11 reservoirs and 65 reservoir-years of record. The

current update of the NRRP fishery databases has yielded about 950 reservoiryears of record wherei n fi sh standi ng crop data are arrayed by di screte

(2.5 cm) size classes. Reanalysis of these data is expected to permit greater

resolution of relationships between short-term changes in reservoir water

levels and standing crops of gizzard shad and other reservoir fishes.

Rabern (1984) presents regression equations for predicting gizzard shad

standing crops in Georgia rivers.

INSTREAM FLOW INCREMENTAL METHODOLOGY

The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) was designed to quantify

changes in the amount of habitat available to different species and life

stages of fish (or macroinvertebrates) under various flow regimes (Bovee

1982). The IFIM can be used to help formulate instream flow recommendations,

to assess the effects of altered streamflow regi mes, habi ta t improvement

projects, mitigation proposals, and fish stocking programs; and to assist in

negotiating releases from existing water storage projects. The IFIM has a

modular design, and consists of several autonomous models that are combined

and linked as needed by the user. One major component of the IFIM is the

Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) model (Milhous et al. 1984). The

output from PHABSIM is a measure of physical microhabitat availability as a

function of discharge and channel structure for each set of habitat suitability

cri teri a entered into the model. The output can be used for severa 1 I FIM

habitat display and interpretation techniques, including:

1. Habitat Time Series. Determination of impact of

species' life stage habitat by imposing project

over baseline flow time series conditions and

difference between the corresponding time series.

a project on a

operation curves

integrating the

2. Effective Habitat Time Series. Calculation of the habitat requirements of each life stage of a single species at a given time by

using habitat ratios (relative spatial requirements of various life

stages).

20
3. Optimization. Determination of flows (daily, weekly, and monthly)

that minimize habitat reductions for the complex of species and life

stages of interest.

Suitability Index Curves as Used in the IFIM

Suitability Index (SI) curves used in PHABSIM describe the instream

suitability of the habitat variables most closely related to stream hydraulics

and channel structure (e.g., velocity, depth, substrate, cover, and temperature) for each major life history stage of a given fish species (e.g.,

spawning, egg incubation, larvae, juvenile, and adult). The FWS's Western

Energy and Land Use Team has designated four categories of curves and standardized the terminology pertaining to the curves (Armour et al. 1984).

Category 1 curves are based on 1iterature sources and professional opinion;

category 2 (utilization) curves, based on frequency analyses of field data,

are fit to frequency histograms; category 3 (preference) curves are utilization

curves from whi ch the envi ronmenta 1 bi as has been removed; and category 4

(conditional preference) curves describe habitat requirements as a function of

interaction among variables. The designation of a curve as belonging to a

particular category does not imply that the quality or accuracy of curves

differs among the four categories. Measurements are presented in Engl ish

units for compatibility with units normally used in hydraulic simulation and

other components of the IFIM.

Availability of S1 Curves for Use in the IFIM

Gizzard shad have no life stages that are obligate riverine. If the

major objective of an IFIM analysis is to protect the indigenous biota in a

given area, the gizzard shad may not be the best candidate for a target

species. The gizzard shad is important as forage in many areas, however, and

investi gators may want to predi ct impacts on forage speci es resulting from

alteration of the flow regime.

The SI curves available for IFIM analyses of gizzard shad habitat are in

category 1, based on professional judgment, literature sources, and interpretation of varying amounts of field data. Users are encouraged to review

the curves and verify them before use.

Spawning and egg incubation. Gizzard shad generally spawn during a 2 to

8 week period between mid-March and mid-August, depending on locale. Egg

incubation requires 1.5 to 7 days, depending on water temperature. Investigators must determine the days and weeks of each year when habitat for spawning

and egg incubation will be required in their study area.

The S1 curves for spawning and egg incubation velocity and depth suitability (Fig. 2) were based on information published by Jester and Jensen

(1972), Scott and Crossman (1973), and Pierce (1977). Gizzard shad apparently

spawn in water with little or no current in a wide range of depths. They

spawn over a variety of substrate types, and the adhesive eggs adhere to

whatever substrate they contact. Vegetation, gravel, and cobble were selected

as the preferred substrate types (Fig. 2) by assuming that the eggs would be

more 1i ke ly to be protected from predation. The SI curve for sui tabi 1i ty of

spawning temperature is the same as Vi from the HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX

MODELS section of this report.

21
1.0

Coordinates x 0.8

(1)

-0

x ----.:t-. s::

...... 0.6 0.0 1.0

0.3 1.0 .~

2.0 0.0 .~

0.4

100.0 0.0 .0

ttj

....,

.~ 0.2 ::3

(/)

0.0

0 1 2

Mean column velocity (ft/s)

1.0

x -y- x

(1) 0.8 0.0 0.0 -0

0.5 0.0 s::

......

1.0 1.0 0.6

5.0 1.0 .~

50.0 0.0 .~

.0 0.4 100.0 0.0 ttj

....,

.~

::::::l 0.2

(/)

0.0

0 5 10

Depth (ft)

- - r--

r--

234 5 6 7 8

Dominant substrate type (coded)

1.0

x

(1) 0.8

-0

s::

...... 0.6

.~

.~ 0.4

.0

ttj

....,

.~

::::::l 0.2

(/)

0.0

x Substrate type and size 1-

1 Vegetation 1.0

2 Mud 0.0

3 Silt « 0.062 mm) 0.2

4 Sand (0.062-2.0 mm) 0.5

5 Gravel (2-64 mm) 1.0

6 Cobble (64-250 mm) 1.0

7 Boulder (250-4000 mm) 0.5

8 Bedrock (solid rock) 0.1

Figure 2. Category 1 S1 curves for gizzard shad spawning and egg

incubation velocity, depth, substrate, and temperature suitability.

22
Coordinates

x

0.0

46.0

50.0

64.0

73.0

86.0

100.0

-y1.0

0.0

0.1

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

x

OJ 0.8

"0

s::

...... 0.6

>-

r-

.~ 0.4 ..Cl

ro

0.2 (/)

0.030 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Temperature (oF)

Figure 2. (concluded).

Fry. Gizzard shad fry are considered here to be fish less than 1.0 inch long,~d require habitat from 2 days after the onset of spawning to about

2.5 months after the end of the spawning period, depending on locale. The 51

curves depicting water velocities and depths suitable for fry (Fig. 3) were

taken from information given by Wa"lburg (1976), who found that gizzard shad

fry were most abundant where current velocities were less than 0.08 ftls and

depths exceeded 3.3 ft. No information was found in the literature to suggest

that fry prefer certain substrate types and no curve was developed. Although

fry are often found over mud and silt, this is probably because these bottom

types occur where water current is slow. There is some indication that fry

use cover, but no quantitative information was available for developing a

curve. The 51 curve for suitabil ity of temperature for fry was taken from the

curve for juveniles and adults (Fig. 4), with the assumption that differences

in relative suitabilities are insignificant.

Juveniles and adults. Juvenile gizzard shad are here considered to be

fish from 1 to 10 inches in total length, and adults are longer than 10 inches.

Habitat is required year-round for both 1ife stages. The 51 curves for

juveniles and adults were combined (Fig. 4), with the assumption that

differences in habitat requirements are not significant.

The S1 curves for suitability of velocity and depth for juvenile and

adult gizzard shad (Fig. 4) were derived from field data and modified by the

use of professional judgment. Moss (1981), who collected data from 11 streams

in Kansas from September 1980 to May 1981, electroshocked 118 gizzard shad 3.8

to 8.7 inches long and measured mean water velocity and water depth at each

collection point. He collected 79 (6n~) of the fish in the Neosho River,

All en and Lyon counties, in Apri 1 1981 when water temperatures were 62 to

85° F. Widths of the Neosho River at the study site were 40 to 100 ft, depths

were 0.0 to 2.4 ft, velocities were 0.0 to 2.7 ft/s, substrate was predominantly gravel and silt, and the most numerous fish species included white bass

(Morone chrysops) and red shiner (Notropis lutrensis). The depth curve was

modified on the basis of information given by Becker (1983), who found gizzard

shad at depths greater than 100 ft.

23
Coordinates

;:: 0.4

..Cl

m

0.2

V>

0.6

1.O+--t-------L.....................---+

x 0.8

s=

......

.~

-y1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

x

-----0:0

0.1

0.5

100.0

o.O+-.......----...,....J~---_+

0.0 0.5 1.0

Mean column velocity (ft/s)

:;: 0.4 ..Cl

m

-iJ

.~ 0.2

V>

0.6

1.0 -+---'--_........_~_......--+-

x 0.8

Q)

-0

s=

......

.~

-y0.0

1.0

1.0

x

-----0:0

3.3

100.0

2 3 4 5

Depth (ft)

o.0 ~.......-__-r--.-..,.........~--+

o

x

-----0:0

37.0

45.0

57.0

72.0

84.0

93.0

97.0

100.0

-y0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

1.0

1.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

x

Q)

-0

s=

......

.~

r0.8 ...;

0.6

0.4

0.2

o.0 ;.-.......-ttt=-...........,---r-r"""""""""T""'".......

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 o

Temperature ( F)

Figure 3. Category 1 51 curves for gizzard shad fry, velocity, depth,

and temperature suitability.

24
1.0

x

(1J 0.8

Coordinates -0

s::

......

0.6

x y

---0:0 T:l) 'rr0.7 1.0 'r- 0.4

..0

1.0 0.9 n::l

+.l

1.5 0.7 0.2

2.0 0.4 (/)

2.8 0.1 0.0 4.0 0.0 0 2 3 4 100.0 0.0

Mean column velocity (ft/s)

1.0

x y x 0.8 (1J

----aT 0:0- -0

s::

1.0 0.1 ...... 0.6

3.0 0.2

4.0 1.0 'rr- 0.4 100.0 1.0 ..0

n::l

+.l

'r- 0.2 (/)

0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5

Depth (ft)

1.0

x 0.8

x -y- (1J

-----ol) -0 0.0 s::

...... 37.0 0.0 0.6

39.0 0.1 >,

+.l

52.0 0.4 'rr- 0.4 57.0 0.5 'r-

..0

72.0 1.0 n::l

+-'

84.0 1.0 0.2

93.0 0.7 (/)

97.0 0.0 0.0

100.0 0.0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Temperature (OF)

Figure 4. Category 1 51 curves for gizzard shad juvenile and

adult velocity, depth, and temperature suitability.

25
No curve was developed for substrate, on the basis of the assumption that

substrate is not an important variable for gizzard shad. No quantitative

i nformat i on was found for deve 1opi ng a curve for cover; users may wi sh to

develop their own. The SI curve for temperature was based on information

given by Hart (1952), Pahl and Willfahrt (1962), Dahlquest and Peters (1966),

Jester and Jensen (1972), Gammon (1973), and Brungs and Jones (1977).

All SI curves for IFIM analyses of gizzard shad habitat should be carefully reviewed before they are used. If any of the curves are believed not to

be representative of local conditions or situations, modifications will be

required. Field verification of all the curves is recommended.

REFERENCES

Agersborg, H. P. K. 1930. The influence of temperature on fish. Ecol.

11:136-144.

Aggus, L. R., and D. 1. Morais. 1979. Habitat suitability index equations

for reservoirs based on standing crop of fish. Natl. Reservoir Res.

Prog. Rep. to U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Western Energy and Land Use Team.

Fort Co11 ins, CO. 120 pp.

Armour, C. L., R. J. Fisher, and J. W. Terrell. 1984. Comparison of the use

of the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and the Instream Flow

Incremental Methodology (IFIM) in aquatic analyses. U.S. Fish Wildl.

Serv. FWS/OBS-841l1. 30 pp.

Baker, C. D., and E. H. Schmitz. 1971. Food habitats of adult gizzard and

threadfin shad in two Ozark reservoirs. Pages 3-11 in G. E. Hall, ed.

Reservoir fisheries and limnology. Am. Fish. Soc.-Special Publ. 8.

511 pp.

Barger, L. E., and R. V. Kilambi. 1980. Feeding ecology of larval shad,

Dorosoma, in Beaver Reservoir, Arkansas. Pages 136-145 in Lee A. Fuiman,

ed. Proc. 4th Annu. Larval Fish Conf., U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo

FWS/OBS-80/43.

Barnes, J. 1977. The sustained swimming ability of larval and juvenile gizzard

shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSueur), and threadfin shad, .Q. petenense

(Gunther), as related to entrainment and/or impingement by water intake

structures of power stations. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville,

AR. 141 pp.

Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press. Madison.

1052 pp.

Berry, F. H. 1958. Age and growth of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma lacepedi)

(LeSueur), in Lake Newnan, Flori da. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc.

Game Fish Comm. 11:318-331.

26
Bodola, A. 1965. Life history of the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum

(LeSueur), in western Lake Erie. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Fish. Bull.

65:391-425.

Borges, H. M. 1950. Fi sh di stri but ion studi es, Ni angua Arm of the Lake of

the Ozarks, Missouri. J. Wildl. Manage. 14(1):16-33.

Boschung, H. T., Jr. 1961. An annotated list of fishes from the Coosa River

System of Alabama. Am. Midl. Nat. 66(2):257-285.

Bovee, K. D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream

Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Inf. Pap. 12. U.S. Fish

Wil dl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82126. 248 pp.

Branson, B. A. 1967. Fishes of the Neosho River System in Oklahoma. Am.

Midl. Nat. 78(1):126-154.

Bross, M. C. 1967. Fish samples and year-class strength (1965-1967) from

Canton Reservoir, Oklahoma. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci. 48:194-199.

Brungs, W. A., and B. R. Jones. 1977. Temperature cri teri a for freshwater

fish: protocol and procedures. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency. Natl.

Environ. Res. Cent. Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-77-061. 130 pp.

Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes. Am.

Mus. Nat. Hist. Press, New York. 941 pp.

Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Vol. 1.

Life history data on freshwater fishes of the United States and Canada,

exclusive of the Perciformes. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. viii +

752 pp.

Carter, N. E. 1967. Fish distribution in Keystone Reservoir in relation to

physicochemical stratification. M.S. Thesis, Oklahoma State Univ.,

Stillwater. 38 pp.

Clark, J. R. 1969.

220(3): 19-27.

Thermal pollution and aquatic life. Sci. Am.

Cramer, J. D., and G. R. Marzolf. 1970. Selective predation on zooplankton

by gizzard shad. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99:320-332.

Cvancara, V. A., S. F. Stieber, and B. A. Cvancara. 1977. Summer temperature

tolerance of selected species of Mississippi River acclimated young of

the year fishes. Compo Biochem. Physiol. 56A: 81-85.

Dalquest, W. W., and L. T. Peters. 1966. A life history study of four

problematic fish in Lake Diversion, Archer and Baylor Counties, Texas.

Texas Parks Wildl. Dept., Inland Fish. Rep. 6. 86 pp.

27
Dendy, J. S. 1945. Fish distribution, Norris Reservoir, Tennessee, 1943. II

Depth distribution of fish in relation to environmental factors, Norris

Reservoir. Rep. Reelfoot Biol. Sta. "9:114-135.

Downey, P., and D. Toetz. 1983. Distribution of larval gizzard shad (Dorosoma

cepedianum) in Lake Carl Blackwell, OK. Am. Midl. Nat. 109:23-33.

Drenner, R. W. 1977. The feeding mechanics of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma

cepedianum). Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. Kansas, Lawrence. 100 pp.

Drenner, R. W., J. R. Strickler, and W. J. O'Brien. 1978. Capture

probability: the role of zooplankter escape in the selective feeding of

planktivorous fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35:1370-1373.

Drenner, R. W., F. deNouyelles, Jr., and D. Kettle. 1982a. Selective impact

of filter-feeding gizzard shad on zooplankton community structure.

Limnol. Oceanogr. 27:965-968.

Drenner, R. W., W. John O'Brien, and J. R. Mummert. 1982b. Filter-feeding

rates of gizzard shad. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111:210-215.

Drenner R. W., J. R. Mummert, F. deNoyelles, Jr., and D. Kettle. 1984.

Selective particle ingestion by a filter-feeding fish and its impact on

phytoplankton community structure. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29(5):941-948.

Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill. 1974. Northern fishes. Univ. Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis. 414 pp.

Gallagher, R. P., and J. V. Conner. 1980. Spatio-temporal distribution of

ichthyoplankton in the lower Mississippi River, Louisiana. Pages 101-115

in Lee A. Fuiman, ed. Proc. 4th Annu. Larval Fish Conf., U.S. Fish

Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-80/43.

Gammon, J. R. 1973. The effect of thermal inputs on the populations of fish

and macroinvertebrates in the Wabash River. Purdue Univ. Water Resources.

Research Center, Tech. Rep. 32. West Lafayette, IN. 160 pp.

Gasaway, C. R. 1970. Changes in the fish population in Lake Francis Case in

South Dakota in the first 16 years of impoundment. U.S. Fish Wildl.

Servo Tech. Pap. 56.

Gebhart, G. E., and R. C. Summerfelt. 1978. Seasonal growth rates of fishes

in relation to conditions of lake stratification. Proc. Oklahoma Acad.

Sci. 58:6-10.

Gerking, S. D. 1945. The distribution of the fishes of Indiana. Invest.

Indiana Lakes Streams 3:1-137.

Gunter, G. 1945. Studies on marine fishes of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci.

1:1-190.

28
Hamilton, K., and E. P. Bergersen. 1984. Methods to estimate aquatic habitat

variables. U.S. Bur. Reclamation, Eng. Res. Cent., Denver, CO. n.p.

Hart, J. S. 1952. Geographic variations of some physiological and morphological characters in certain freshwater fish. Univ. Toronto, Biol. Ser.

60, Publ. Ontario Fish. Res. Lab. 72. 79 pp.

Hendricks, M. K., and R. L. Noble. 1979. Feeding interactions of three

planktivorous fishes in Trinidad Lake, TX. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeastern

Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies 33:324-330.

Hubbs, C. L. 1934. Some experiences and suggestions on forage fish culture.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 63:53-63.

Hubbs, C. L., and K. F. Lagler.

Pond, Gibson County Indiana.

1942. Annotated list of the fishes of Foots

Invest. Indiana Lakes Streams 2:73-83.

Jenkins, R. M. 1949. A biological fishery survey of the Great Salt Plains

Reservoir. Mimeo. U.S. Army Corps Eng., Tulsa District. (Masters

Thesis). 92 pp.

1957. The effect of gizzard shad on the fish population of a

small Oklahoma lake. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 85: 58-74.

1968. The influence of some environmental factors on standing

crop and harvest of fishes in U. S. reservoirs. Proc. Reservoir Fish.

Resour. Symp. (1967):298-321.

1970. The influence of engineering design and operation and

other environmental factors on reservoir fishery resources. Water Resour.

Bull. 6(1):110-119.

1977. Prediction of fish biomass, harvest, and prey-predator

relations in reservoirs. Pages 282-293 in W. Van Winkle, ed. Proc.

Conf. on Assessi ng effects of Power-Pl ant Induced Mortal i ty of Fi sh

Populations. Pergamon Press, New York.

Jester, D. B. 1962. Fisheries study of Conchas Lake. Fed. Aid Proj. F-22,

R-3, Work Plan 2, Job B-l(3). Job Completion Rep., New Mexico Dept. Game

Fish. 102 pp.

Jester, D. B., and B. L. Jensen. 1972. Life history and ecology of the

gi zzard shad, Dorosoma cepedi anum (LeSueur) with reference to El ephant

Butte Lake. New Mexico State Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 218.

56 pp.

Jude, D. J. 1973. Food and feeding habits of gizzard shad in Pool 19,

Mississippi River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102:378-383.

Kashuba, S. A., and W. J. Matthews. 1984. Physical condition of larval shad

during spring-summer in a southwestern reservoir. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

113: 199-204.

29
Kersh, G. M., Jr. 1970. Growth and distribution of larval and early juvenile

gizzard shad and threadfin shad in Beaver and Bull Shoals Reservoirs.

M.S. Thesis, Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville. 77 pp.

King, P. A., T. E. Wissing, E. J. DeVillez, M. J. Chimney, and W. B. Randall,

Jr. 1977. Nutritional implications of surface feeding by gizzard shad

(Dorosoma cepedianum) on insect remains in an Ohio reservoir. J. Fish.

Res. Board Can. 34:269-273.

Kutkuhn, J. H. 1958. Utilization of plankton by juvenile gizzard shad in a

shallow prairie lake. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 87:80-103.

Lagler, K. F., and H. Van Meter. 1951. Abundance and growth of gizzard shad,

Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSueur), in a small Illinois Lake. J. Wildl.

Manage. 15:357-360.

Langlois, T. F. 1954. The western end of Lake Erie and its ecology. J. W.

Edwards, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI. 479 pp.

Larimore, R. W., and P. W. Smith. 1963. The fishes of Champaign County, IL.

Bull. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. 28:295-382.

Leidy, G. R., and R. M. Jenkins. 1977. The development of fishery compartments and popul at i on rate coeffi ci ents for use in reservoi r ecosystem

modeling. Contract Report Y-77-1, prepared for Office, Chief Eng., U.S.

Army, Washington, DC. 72 pp. + appendices.

Lewis, R. E., and J. R. Siler. 1980. Determination of the vertical distribution of ichthyoplankton on Lake Norman, North Carolina, using a discretedepth sampling design. Pages 91-100 in L. A. Fuiman, ed. Proc. 4th

Annu. Larval Fish Conf. FWS/OBS-80/43.

Matthews, W. J. 1984. Influence of turbid inflows on vertical distribution

of larval shad and freshwater drum. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113:192-198.

Mayhew, J. 1957. Notes on the observations of the reproductive habits of the

gizzard shad in two Iowa Lakes. Iowa Conserv. Comm. Q. Biol. Rep.

10:20-22.

Megrey, B. A. 1980. Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSueur). Page 69 in D. S. Lee

et al., eds. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina

Biol. Surv. Publ. 1980-12. 867 pp.

Milhous, R. T., D. L. Wegner, and T. Waddle. 1984. User's guide to the

Physical Habitat Simulation System. Instream Flow Inf. Pap. 11. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-81/43. Revised.

Miller, R. R. 1957. Origin and dispersal of the alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus

and the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum, in the Great Lakes. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. 86:97-111.

30
1960. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma

cepedianum) and related fishes. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Fish. Bull. V.

60: 371-392.

Minckley, W. L. 1963. The ecology of a spring stream, Doe Run, Meade County,

Kentucky. Wildl. Monogr. 11. 124 pp.

Minckley, W. L., and L. A. Krumholz. 1960. Natural hybridization between the

clupeid genera Dorosoma and ~nalosa, with a report on the distribution

of ~. petenensis. Zool. 44:171-182.

Moss, R. E. 1981. Unpublished field data. Kansas Dept. Fish Game, Pratt.

Mummert, J. R. 1983. Gill raker morphology and the filtering efficiency of

the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). M.S. Thesis, Texas Christian

Univ., Ft. Worth. 44 pp.

Netsch, N. F., G. M. Kersh, Jr., A. Houser, and R. V. Kilambi. 1971. Distribution of young gizzard and threadfin shad in Beaver Reservoir. Pages

95-105 in G. E. Hall, ed. Reservoir Fish. Limnol. Am. Fish. Soc. Special

Publ. 8-.

Pahl, G., and G. Willfahrt. 1962. Growth study of young gizzard shad.

Minnesota Acad. Sci. Proc. 30:22-25.

Pflieger, W. L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes. Univ.

Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ. 20:225-570.

Pierce, R. J. 1977. Life history and ecological energetics of the gizzard

shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) in Acton Lake, OH. Ph.D. Dissertation, Miami

Univ., Oxford,OH. 214 pp.

Pierce, R. J., T. E. Wissing, and B. A. Megrey. 1981. Aspects of the feeding

ecology of gizzard shad in Acton Lake, OH. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

110:391-395.

Ploskey, G. R., J. M. Nestler, and L. R. Aggus. 1984. Effects of water

levels and hydrology on fisheries in hydropower storage, hydropower

mainstream, and flood control reservoirs. Tech. Rep. E-84-8, prepared by

the U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., U.S. Dept. Int., and Environ. Lab., U.S. Army

Eng. Waterways Exp. Stn., Vicksburg, MS.

Proffit, M. A., and R. S. Benda. 1971. Growth and movement of fishes, and

distribution of invertebrates, related to a heated discharge into the

White River at Petersburg, Indiana. Indiana Univ. Water Resour. Invest.

Rep. 5. 94 pp.

Rabern, D. A. 1984. Development of habitat based models for predicting

standing crops of nine species of riverine fishes in Georgia. M.S.

Thesis. Univ. Georgia, Athens. 127 pp.

31
Reuter, J. M., and C. E. Herdendorf. 1974. Laboratory estimates of the

seasonal final temperature preferenda of some Lake Erie Fish. Proc. 17th

Conf. Great Lakes Res. (Int. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.) 17:59-67.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish.

Res. Board Can. Bull. 184, Ottawa, Canada. 966 pp.

Shelton, W. L. 1972. Comparative reproductive biology of the gizzard shad,

Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSueur), and the threadfin shad, ~. petenense

(Gunther), in Lake Texoma, OK. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Oklahoma,

Norman. 241 pp.

Shelton, W. L., and B. G. Grinstead. 1973. Hybri d i za t i on between Dorosoma

cepedianum and Q. petenense in Lake Texoma, OK. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeastern Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 26:506-510.

Shelton, W. L., and R. R. Stephens. 1980. Comparative embryogeny and early

development of threadfin and gizzard shad. Prog. Fish-Cult. 42: 34-41.

Shoemaker, H. H. 1942. The fishes of Wayne County, Indiana. Invest. Indiana

Lakes Streams 2:267-296.

Storck, T. W., D. W. Dufford, and K. T. Clement. 1978. The distribution of

limnetic fish larvae in a flood control reservoir in central Illinois.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:419-424.

Strawn, K. 1958. Optimum and extreme temperatures for growth and survival of

various fishes. For handbook of biological data. Cited in K. D.

Carlander, 1969. Handb. Freshwater Fish. Biol. Iowa State Univ. Press,

Ames. 752 pp.

Summerfelt, R. C. 1967. Fishes of the Smokey Hill River, Kansas. Trans.

Kansas Acad. Sci. 70:102-139.

Taber, C. A. 1969. The distribution and identification of larval fishes in

the Buncombe Creek Arm of Lake Texoma with observations on spawning

habits and relative abundance. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Oklahoma,

Norman. 119 pp.

Terrell, J. W., T. E. McMahon, P. D. Inskip, R. F. Raleigh, and K. L.

Williamson. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Appendix A.

Guidelines for riverine and lacustrine applications of fish HSI models

with the Habitat Evaluation Procedures. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo

FWS/OBS-82/10.A. 54 pp.

Tiffany, L. H. 1921a. The gizzard shad in relation to plants and game fishes.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 50:381-386.

1921b. Algal food of the young gizzard shad. Ohio J. Sci.

21(4):113.

Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Univ. Press. 782 pp.

32
Turner, W. R. 1953. The age and growth of the gizzard shad Dorosoma

cepedianum (LeSueur) in Herrington Lake, KY. Kentucky Dept. Fish Wildl.

Resour., Fish. Bull. 13. 15 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Multiple regression formulas for use

in estimating fish standing crop, sport fish harvest and angler effort in

U.S. reservoirs. Natl. Reservoir Res. Program. 18 pp. mimeo.

suitability index models.

Serv. n. p.

1981. Standards for the development of habitat

103 ESM. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Div. Ecol.

Velasquez, G. T. 1939. On the viability of algae obtained from the digestive

tract of the gizzard shad, Dorosoma ~edianu~ (LeSueur). Am. Midl. Nat.

22:376-412.

Wa"lburg, C. H. 1964. Summary of fish population studies, Lewis and Clark.

Lake, during the first seven years of impoundment, 1956-1962. U.S. Fish

Wildl. Serv., Special Sci. Rep., Fish. 482. 27 pp.

1976. Changes in the fish population of Lewis and Clark Lake,

1956-74, and their relation to water management and the environment.

U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Res. Rep. 79. 33 pp.

Warner, E. N. 1940. Studies on the embryology and early life history of the

gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum LeSueur. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio

State Univ. 28 pp.

Zeller, H. D., and H. N. Wyatt. 1967. Selective shad removal in southern

reservoirs. Pages 405-414 in C. E. Lane, Chairman. Reservoir Fish.

Resour. Symp. Athens, GA. 5691pp.

33
3. Recipient'. Ac:ceulon No. REPORT DOCUMENTAnON II..REPORT.NO. 12. PAGE Blologlcal Report 82(10.112)

50272· 1ft1

.. TItle .nd Subtitle

Habitat Suitability Index r10dels and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: Gizzard Shad

5. Report One

September 1985 .. 7. Author(.)

K. L. Williamson and P. C. Nelson

8. ,"-"ormln. O....nlzatlon Rept. No.

9. ,"-"orml. Orpnlzatlon Neme .nd Add_ Hestern Energy and Land Use Team

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Drake Creekside Building One

2627 Redwing Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899

10. Projec:tIT••k/Work Unit No.

U. ContrKt(C) or Grent(G) No.

(C)

(G)

12.Spon.orI.0rpnlzatlonN.me.ncIAdd,... Western Energy and Land Use Team 11 Type of R.port& ,"-,IodCoYered

Division of Biological Services

Research and Development

Fish and Wildlife Service 1~

Department of the Interior. Washinatoh. DC 20240

15. Suppiement.ryNot.. The Biological Report series was initiated in October 1984 to replace the

FWS/OBS series published since 1976. The report number assigned to this model follows

consecutively from the Habitat Suitability Index models published as FWS/OBS 81/10. , now

numbered as Biological Report 82(10. ). -

I" AlmrKt (Umlt: 200 _rae)

A review and synthesis of existing information were used to develop a Habitat

Suitability Index (HSI) model and instream flow suitability curves for gizzard

shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). The model consolidates habitat use information into

a framework appropriate for field application, and is scaled to produce an index

between 0.0 (unsuitable habitat) and 1.0 (optimum habitat). HSI models are

designed to be used with Habitat Evaluation Procedures previously developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

17. Document Anelyal. •• Deac:rlpto...

Fishes

Habitabi 1ity

Mathematical models

II. ldentlftera/Open-Ended Term.

Gizzard shad

Dorosoma cepedianum

Habitat suitability

Co COSAn FIeld/Group

18. Anilebility StIIt.ment 21. No. of P....

Release unlimited

19. Security Cln. (Thl. Report)

Unclassified

20. Security Cln. (Thl. P••e)

Unclassified

33

22. Price

r

(See ANSI-Z3UI)

-trU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-580-637/25401

See I".tructlon. on R_"e OPTIONAL fORM 272 (4-77>

(Formerly NTI5-35)

Dep.rtment of Commerce
•

••• ..__ .... J~.

' . '· 0 ,,-

Hawaiian Islands (>

-(:( Headq uarters . Division of Biological

Services, Wasnington, DC

x Eastern Energy anO Land Use Team

Leetown , WV

* Nationa l Coastal Ecosystems Team

Slidell, LA

• Western Energy and Land Use Team

Ft. Coll ins . CO

• Locat ions of Regional Off ices

REGION 1

Regional Director

U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lloyd Five Hundred Building, Suite 1692

500 N.E. Multnomah Street

Portland , Oregon 97232

REGION 4

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Richard B. Russell Building

75 Spring Street , S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

I

J- - - - ---6 1

r-- - L, J

I : --

I I

1- - -'

I I

l,_ I 2 ,, -~-

-_.J

REGION 2

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 103

REGION 5

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

One Gateway Cente r

Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158

REGION 7

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

lOll E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

- ..~,.

REGION 3

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and WildlifeService

Federal Building, Fort Snelling

Twin Cities, Minnesota 551 JI

REGION 6

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 25486

Denver Federal Center

Denver, Colorado 8022 5
u.s. FISH ..WILDLIFE f>ERVICE

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hi?]

u.s.FISH ANDWILDLIFESERVICE "'-r rw T " "

As the Nation's pri ncipal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our ,nationally owned public lands and natural resources . This includes

fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife,

preserving th & environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places,

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that t heir development is in

the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major respons ibility for

American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under

U.S. adm inist ration.