Biological Assessment of Environmental Flows for 

Oklahoma

By William L. Fisher, Titus S. Seilheimer, and Jason M. Taylor

Open-File Report 2012–1114

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Fisher, W.L., Seilheimer, T.S., and Taylor, J.M., 2012, Biological assessment of environmental 

flows for Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1114, 43 p., available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1114/.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Acknowledgements

We thank Ellen Tejan of Enogex, LCC for providing us with complied fish records for the State of 

Oklahoma. Additional fish data were provided by Gust Annis, Dorothy Butler, and Michael Morey of the 

Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership, Mark Van Scoyoc of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and 

Parks, Daniel Millican of The Nature Conservancy of Arkansas, and Brooks Tramell of the Oklahoma 

Conservation Commission.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................................ iii

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods for Collecting Data .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Streamgage Selection and Streamflow...................................................................................................................... 3

Flow Alteration ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Fish Data.................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Response of Fish Assemblages to Flow Alteration ................................................................................................ 4

Temporal Response of Fish Assemblage Structure to Flow Alteration................................................................... 5

Quantifying Flow Alteration............................................................................................................................................ 7

Fish Assemblage Structure............................................................................................................................................ 7

Influence of Impoundment on Downstream Hydrologic Conditions............................................................................ 8

Kiamichi River ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Bird Creek .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Influence of Impoundment on Downstream Fish Assemblage Structure.................................................................... 9

Kiamichi River ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

Bird Creek .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Effects of Flow Alteration on Fish Assemblages...........................................................................................................10

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................14

Appendix 1.—Family, Scientific Name, Common Name, and Functional Group Membership for Species 

Observed in This Study ................................................................................................................................................40

Figures

1. Map showing streamgage location and contributing watersheds for reference and altered sites 

in Oklahoma ....................................................................................................................................................19

2. Map of the watershed on A, Bird Creek and B, Kiamichi River, Oklahoma......................................................21

3. Ordination biplot from nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS; Jaccard) of species presence for fishes 

associated with 28 streamgages on reference and altered streams in Oklahoma...........................................22

4. Ordination biplot from principal components (PC) analysis of proportion of functional groups for 28 

streamgages on reference and altered streams in Oklahoma .........................................................................23

5. Charts showing nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordination based on fish species 

composition for sampling events conducted during the early summer over 18 years at one location 

on A, the Kiamichi River and B, Bird Creek, Oklahoma...................................................................................24

6. Chart showing annual variation in three hydrologic parameters that were significantly correlated with 

differences in fish assemblage structure in the Kiamichi River near Antlers, Oklahoma..................................25

7. Charts showing annual variation in five hydrologic parameters that were significantly correlated with 

differences in fish assemblage structure in Bird Creek near Sperry, Oklahoma ..............................................26
v

Tables

1. Names of 27 flow indices used in this study grouped by magnitude, frequency and duration .........................27

2. Study streamgages with U.S. Geological Survey codes, HIP classification group, alteration status, 

location, and basin size ...................................................................................................................................29

3. 5th and 95th percentiles for 27 hydrologic indices for the four HIP groups......................................................30

4. Observed and predicted HIP grouping with disciminant analysis for 28 Oklahoma streamgages....................32

5. Correlations between first and second NMS axes of species presence and functional groups with flow 

variables ..........................................................................................................................................................33

6. Mean proportion of species in functional groups for alteration (reference or altered hydrology), and 

geographic location (eastern or western) of streamgages ...............................................................................34

7. Differences between periods in median and coefficient of dispersion values for Kiamichi River hydrologic 

parameters ......................................................................................................................................................35

8. Differences between periods in median and coefficient of dispersion values for Bird Creek hydrologic 

parameters ......................................................................................................................................................35

9. Correlation coefficients and p-values for best fit environmental vectors describing relationships between 

environmental flow variables and fish assemblage structure in the Kiamichi River and Bird Creek, 

Oklahoma ........................................................................................................................................................38

10. Fish species that were significant indicators of pre- or post-impoundment periods on the Kiamichi River 

and Bird Creek, Oklahoma ..............................................................................................................................39

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per second per square mile [(ft3/s)/mi2] 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square kilometer [(m3/s)/km2]

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this 

report, the mathematically reduced form, foot squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
vi

Abbreviations

BCD Bray-Curtis dissimilarity

HIP hydroecological integrity assessment process

HIT hydrologic index tool

IHA indicators of hydrologic alteration

NMS nonmetric multidimensional scaling

RVA range of variability

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
1

Biological Assessment of Environmental Flows for

Oklahoma

By William L. Fisher,1 Titus S. Seilheimer,2 and Jason M. Taylor2

Abstract

Large-scale patterns in fish assemblage structure and functional groups are influenced by 

alterations in streamflow regime. In this study, we defined an objective threshold for alteration 

for Oklahoma streams using a combination of the expected range of 27 flow indices and a 

discriminant analysis to predict flow regime group. We found that fish functional groups in 

reference flow conditions had species that were more intolerant to flow alterations and 

preferences for stream habitat and faster flowing water. In contrast, altered sites had more 

tolerant species that preferred lentic habitat and slower water velocity. Ordination graphs of the 

presence and functional groups of species revealed an underlying geographical pattern roughly 

conforming to ecoregions, although there was separation between reference and altered sites 

within the larger geographical framework.

Additionally, we found that reservoir construction and operation significantly altered fish 

assemblages in two different systems, Bird Creek in central Oklahoma and the Kiamichi River in 

southeastern Oklahoma. The Bird Creek flow regime shifted from a historically intermittent 

stream to one with stable perennial flows, and changes in fish assemblage structure covaried with 

changes in all five components of the flow regime. In contrast, the Kiamichi River flow regime 

did not change significantly for most flow components despite shifts in fish assemblage 

structure; however, most of the species associated with shifts in assemblage structure in the 

Kiamichi River system were characteristic of lentic environments and were likely related more to 

proximity of reservoirs in the drainage system than changes in flow. The spatial patterns in fish 

assemblage response to flow alteration, combined with different temporal responses of 

hydrology and fish assemblage structure at sites downstream of reservoirs, indicate that 

interactions between flow regime and aquatic biota vary depending on ecological setting. This 

supports the notion that regional variation in natural flow regimes could affect the development 

of flow recommendations.

Introduction

Oklahoma has a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions that create variation 

in stream hydrology and water availability across the State. Climate ranges from humid 

subtropical in the east to semiarid in the west, and these climatic differences influence 

environmental conditions and the flow regime of streams and rivers throughout the State (Turton 

 1 U.S. Geological Survey.

2 Cornell University.
2

and others, 2009). Environmental flows are defined as the quantity, timing, and quality of water 

flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihood and 

well-being that depend on these ecosystems (Poff and others, 2010). A better understanding of 

environmental flows and how flow regimes influence aquatic ecosystems in Oklahoma can help 

assess the impacts of flow-related changes on aquatic organisms, such as fish assemblages. Such 

an assessment could inform water management in Oklahoma under current and future conditions.

The hydrologic flow regime has a direct influence on the structure and function of aquatic 

ecosystems and is the primary driver of ecological integrity of a river ecosystem. Alteration of 

the hydrologic regime of rivers from impoundments and flow diversions modifies the structure 

and function of river ecosystems (Poff and others, 1997; Rosenberg and others, 2000; Postel and 

Richter, 2003; Poff and others, 2007). Hydrologic alterations—such as flow stabilization, 

prolonged low flows, loss of seasonal flow peaks, rapid changes in river stage, and low or high 

water temperatures downstream—disrupt life cycles of aquatic plants, invertebrates, and fishes,

resulting in a reduction in species diversity and modifying reproduction and growth rates that 

oftentimes lead to local extinctions of native species and the invasion and establishment of exotic 

species (Poff and others, 1997). Large water diversions deplete streamflows, sometimes to 

damaging levels, affecting aquatic and floodplain habitats, aquatic biodiversity, sport and 

commercial fisheries, natural floodplain fertility, and natural flood control (Postel and Richter,

2003). The development of water resources to meet the demands of urban population centers is 

growing and threatens the ecological integrity of many freshwater ecosystems (Fitzhugh and 

Richter, 2004).

Alterations in the flow regime of streams can be reflected in the composition of the 

aquatic biota (Poff and Zimmerman, 2010), which makes flow regime a useful indicator of 

ecological integrity. Procedures and tools for measuring flow regime and alteration of flow are 

available through the software Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA; Richter and others,

1996; Matthews and Richter, 2007) and Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process (HIP; 

Olden and Poff, 2003; Henriksen and others, 2006). A classification of unaltered streams using 

the HIP approach was used for Oklahoma streams and indicated that there were four general 

types of flow regime, describing a wide range of flow conditions: perennial runoff, perennial 

flashy, stable groundwater, and intermittent (Turton and others, 2009). These baseline conditions 

provide a reference to determine the level of alteration that has occurred in recent times and to 

relate to changes in biotic communities.

Individual fish species and fish assemblages respond differently to changes in flow 

regime. Poff and Allan (1995) found that the functional organization of fish assemblages was 

influenced by the degree of flow stability in a stream, whereas more variable flow regimes 

resulted in shifts to more generalist strategies (for example, habitat use, feeding) by the fish.

Hypotheses of how ecological communities respond to hydrologic alteration provide a useful 

framework for assessing changes in fish assemblages to alterations in flow. In a review of the 

impacts of altered flow on aquatic biodiversity, fish abundance and diversity were negatively 

influenced by both elevated and decreased flow magnitude (Poff and Zimmerman 2010). The 

authors called for better-defined thresholds for flow alteration-ecological response relationships.

This study addresses this need for rivers in Oklahoma.

Improving our understanding of the response of aquatic organisms to flow alterations is 

an important step in the development of water resource management that incorporates protection 

of Oklahoma’s aquatic resources. Our objectives were to (1) quantify the thresholds of alteration 

for important flow indices, (2) test the configuration of functional fish groups in relation to flow 
3

alteration, and (3) identify patterns in fish assemblages associated with flow regime in all sites.

Finally, we provide a detailed example of the impacts of impoundments on downstream flow 

regimes and resulting changes in fish assemblages at two sites in Oklahoma, the Kiamichi River 

and Bird Creek.

Methods for Collecting Data

Streamgage Selection and Streamflow

We chose 168 streams with gages draining areas smaller than 2,500 square miles in or 

adjacent to Oklahoma (Esralew, 2010) for our original analysis of reference streams. From this 

larger set of gaged streams, we chose a subset of 88 streams with a known reference flow regime 

and that were previously classified into streamflow groups (Turton and others, 2009). These 

streams and their previous classifications provided a benchmark to determine if their flow regime 

had been altered. To minimize the effect of climatic variation on localized streamflow, we 

selected streamgages that monitored flow for a concurrent period. A 15-year minimum period of 

flow data and at least 50 percent concurrent period is recommended to correctly characterize 

flows (Kennard and others, 2010). We selected a 20 concurrent year period (1988–2007), which 

reduced the number of potential streamgages from 88 to 41. Streamgage information (daily mean 

and peak flows) was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water 

Information System (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/) for full water years (October–August) from 

1988 through 2007. This recent period was selected because it was more likely to coincide with 

available fish data. We used the Hydrologic Index Tool (HIT, version 1.48; U.S. Geological 

Survey, undated) to calculate 171 flow indices for each study stream (Turton and others, 2009).

These flow indices describe the entire flow regime, including magnitude of average, low, and 

high flows, frequency of low and high flow, duration of low and high flow, timing of flow 

events, and rate of change (Olden and Poff, 2003).

Flow Alteration

We used two statistical techniques to quantify alteration in Oklahoma streams. In the 

first, we fit distributions and identified the 5th and 95th percentiles (Arthington, 2006) for the

reference flow period of the four flow groups reported by Turton and others (2009) for 88 gaged 

streams. The group notation adopted by Turton and others (2009) was retained (41, 42, 43, and 

44), which corresponded to general flow regime descriptions of perennial runoff (41), perennial 

flashy (41), stable groundwater (43), and intermittent (44). The 27 flow indices we used (table 1) 

were identified as the best combination of variables from the available 171 flow indices to 

categorize the regions flow types. Six types of distribution—normal, lognormal, exponential, 

Weibull 2 parameter, Weibull 3 parameter, and Johnson Su—were fit in JMP (version 7; SAS 

Institute Inc., undated). The best distribution for each flow group was determined by a 

combination of p-value and visual inspection of the fit curve. The distributions were least 

reliable for group 43, which had only 6 member streams but had a distinctive flow regime 

compared with the other groups, so the distributions for group 43 were retained.

The second method used to quantify alteration was discriminant analysis. Discriminant 

analysis is a technique that assigns variables to pre-existing classes or groups using multiple 

explanatory variables (for example, flow indices; Gotelli and Ellison, 2004). We developed an 

algorithm to predict group classification using the same 27 flow indices as in the first method 
4

(table 1). The algorithm was then used to assign the streams of interest in this study to one of 

four flow groups. We noted when a stream changed membership in recent period because it 

indicated a large change in flow regime. It was also possible that a stream could not be classified 

into one of the four groups, which would indicate that the flow regime has been altered and does 

not reflect the four Oklahoma flow regimes identified by Turton and others, (2009). The current 

streams were assigned to reference or altered classes based on these two techniques.

Fish Data

The primary source of fish species data was from a database of Oklahoma fishes (E. 

Tejan, Enogex, LCC, written commun. , 2009), which contained records from the Oklahoma 

Conservation Commission, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and published records. Additional fish data were provided by the Kansas Department of 

Wildlife and Parks, the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership, and The Nature Conservancy 

of Arkansas. A 15-kilometer (km) buffer (that is, radius; Poff and Allan, 1995) from each 

streamgage location was used to select nearest fish sampling locations in close proximity to 

USGS streamgages using ArcGIS (version 8.3; Environmental Research Systems Institute, Inc., 

undated). Only sites on the main stem of the gaged river were selected (Poff and Allan, 1995).

There were 28 streamgage locations with sufficient fish data within the 15-km buffer (table 2; 

fig. 1). The selected streams fall within two major river basins, the Arkansas River to the north 

and the Red River to the south. The streams can also be divided between the wetter eastern 

portion of Oklahoma and drier western portion by running a vertical line to the east of 

streamgage 10 and west of streamgage 18 (fig. 1). A total of 150 species were found in the 

waters near the 28 streamgage sites (appendix 1).

Response of Fish Assemblages to Flow Alteration

Fish data were collected by different sources and with different methods, therefore we 

limited analysis to fish presence and the proportion of fish functional groups at each site. The 

coarse-scale nature of the data allowed us to identify large-scale patterns that affect Oklahoma at 

a regional level (Poff and Allan, 1995). Functional groupings reflect preferences for a narrow 

range of habitat conditions or tolerance to alteration in their environment. Fish species were 

assigned to groups in five functional categories: habitat type (creek, river, creek/river, lentic, 

general), flow velocity, trophic guild, reproductive guild, and tolerance (tolerance to water 

quality degradation, tolerance to habitat degradation, sensitive benthic species, conservation 

status). Species were assigned to functional groups based on published classes, primarily 

developed specifically for Oklahoma species (Jester and others, 1992), but also included 

additional sources for current speed (Frimpong and Angermier, 2009) and conservation status 

(NatureServe, 2009). Functional groups that require additional explanation are lithophilic 

species, reproductive guilds, and those based on Oklahoma State conservation status. Lithophilic 

species are species that spawn on gravel or cobble. Reproductive guilds were based on Goldstein 

and Simon’s (1998) classification and were as follows: A_1, nonguarders, open substratum 

spawners; A_2, nonguarders, brood hiders; B_1, guarders, substratum choosers; B_2, guarders, 

nest spawners; and C_2, internal live bearers. Conservation status of species in Oklahoma is as 

follows: S1, critically imperiled; S2, imperiled; S3, vulnerable; S4, apparently secure; S5, secure;

exotic (NatureServe, 2009). Species in multiple categories were assigned to the dominant 

classification (Goldstein and Simon, 1999).
5

We analyzed patterns in fish assemblage structure among sites representing a range of 

flow alteration using ordination analysis followed by comparison of functional groups among 

alteration classes. Differences in assemblage structure among stream sites were quantified using 

nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordinations (Minchin, 1987; Clarke, 1993) on the 

presence or absence of fish species with Jaccard’s similarity as the distance measure. Jaccard’s 

similarity compares homogeneity in groups, with greater distance between points indicating less 

similarity (McCune and Grace, 2002). Principal components analysis of the correlations was 

used to identify patterns in the proportions of functional groups among stream sites using the 

broken stick method (that is actual eigenvalues higher than eigenvalues from random variation) 

to identify significant components (McCune and Grace, 2002). Rank correlations between flow 

variables and ordination axes were calculated to determine relationships between fish 

assemblage structure and flow components. Differences in proportions of functional groups 

between altered and reference sites were tested with analysis of variance (ANOVA) in JMP.

Multivariate analysis of species presence and functional groups were done in PC–ORD (version 

4; Peck, 2010).

Temporal Response of Fish Assemblage Structure to Flow Alteration

We analyzed trends in hydrologic parameters associated with different periods related to 

reservoir construction within the Kiamichi River and Bird Creek watersheds in Oklahoma (fig. 

2). Daily discharge records were obtained from USGS streamgages located downstream of 

reservoirs on each stream. Discharge in the Kiamichi River is influenced by Jackfork Creek, a 

tributary that was impounded in 1982 to form Sardis Lake. Changes in Kiamichi River flows 

were assessed using the combined records of USGS streamgages 07336200 and 07336500, both 

located near Antlers, Okla., downstream of Sardis Lake and upstream of Hugo Lake. Daily flow 

records from two gages were used to incorporate a period of record long enough to estimate predam conditions (more than 20 years) (Kennard and others, 2010). The combined record spanned 

81 years (1926–2007) and included daily flow data that corresponded with available fish data 

(1977–1996). To assess changes in hydrology within Bird Creek, we used USGS streamgage 

07177500 located downstream of Birch and Skiatook Lakes near Sperry, Okla. The gage record 

spanned 49 years (1938–2007) and included daily flow data that corresponded with fish data 

(1978–1996) collected on Bird Creek. Discharge in Bird Creek is influenced by a tributary that 

was impounded in 1977 to form Birch Lake and a second reservoir on the main stem, Skiatook 

Lake, which was impounded in 1984.

We used a dataset consisting of fish collections from about 40 different sampling events 

at the same location on each stream to assess temporal changes in fish assemblage structure 

between 1977 and 1996. Fish sampling was conducted by the Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality using a standardized sampling effort of twenty 10-meter (m) seine hauls 

made with a 3-m × 1.5-m (4.7-millimeter mesh) lead weighted seine. Sampling effort was 

approximately 1 hour per sampling event. We limited data for analysis to collections that were 

made in early summer (June and July) because this period was sampled every year, whereas late 

summer and early fall sampling effort varied among years. When multiple early summer 

sampling events occurred within one year, we kept both events to include potential effects of 

within-year variation in the analysis. We excluded data for the year preceding and the year of 

impoundment to remove any potential effects of dam construction not related to flow alteration 

from the dataset. This resulted in a total of 26 (Kiamichi River) and 23 (Bird Creek) sampling 

events, representing 17 different summers that we retained for analysis.
6

We used the IHA software (version 7.1; ConserveOnline, undated) to assess potential 

differences in hydrologic conditions between pre- and post-impoundment periods for each 

stream. The pre-impoundment period was between 1926 and 1980 for the Kiamichi River, after 

which flows were potentially altered by Sardis Lake reservoir operations (1983–2007). Bird 

Creek had three periods, including the pre-impoundment (1958–1976), post-Birch Lake 

impoundment (1978–1982), and post-Skiatook Lake impoundment (1985–2007) periods.

The IHA method is based on 33 biologically relevant hydrologic parameters divided 

among five fundamental characteristics of hydrologic regimes that represent temporal changes in 

water conditions (for example, water levels, discharge rates; Richter and others, 1996). These 

characteristics include the magnitude, timing of occurrence, frequency of occurrence, duration of 

time, and the rate of change in specific water conditions. We used the nonparametric statistics 

option to compare median and coefficient of variation values between pre- and postimpoundment periods using a permutation procedure (1,000 permutations) to identify significant 

differences between periods. We also used the range of variability (RVA) approach to assess 

changes in IHA parameters between periods (Richter and others, 1997). The RVA approach 

divides the data from the period before the event for each parameter into three different 

categories based on the 17th percentiles from the median yielding three categories of equal size.

We used RVA to compare medians between pre- and post-impoundment periods in relation to 

RVA boundaries calculated for the pre-impoundment period.

Patterns in fish assemblage structure between sampling events were quantified using 

NMS ordinations (Minchin, 1987; Clarke, 1993) on log10(x)-transformed abundances of fish 

species with Bray-Curtis dissimilarity (BCD) as the distance measure. Prior to analysis, fish 

species occurring in less than two sampling events (< 5 percent) were excluded from the dataset 

to reduce noise (McCune and Grace, 2002). We used rotational vector fitting to relate hydrologic 

parameters from IHA to gradients in fish assemblage structure quantified by the NMS ordination 

(Faith and Norris, 1989). Vector fitting finds the direction of the maximum correlation for each 

environmental variable and assesses significance of the fitted environmental vectors using a 

permutation procedure (1,000 permutations) (Oksanen and others, 2010). Some hydrologic 

variables were log10(x)-transformed to improve assumptions of normality (McCune and Grace,

2002). Ordination plots were rotated to have the strongest correlation with environmental flow 

vectors on the horizontal x-axis(axis 1) of the plots. We also examined the response of 

downstream fish assemblages to impoundment by comparing centroids and dispersion of 

sampling events within pre- and post-impoundment groups within ordination space using 

permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) and permutational analysis of 

multivariate dispersion (PERMDISP; Anderson 2001, 2006). We assigned sampling events to 

pre-impoundment and post-impoundment periods for both the Kiamichi River and Bird Creek.

An addition sampling period, transitional, was added between the pre-impoundment and postimpoundment periods to assess differences in fish assemblage structure among these three 

periods.

We used Indicator Species Analysis (ISA; Dufrêne and Legendre, 1997) to test for 

affinities of different species to our period grouping. ISA measures association between species 

and predetermined groups by calculating an indicator value (IndVal) based on species 

abundances weighted by their occurrence within each group. We estimated the probability of 

achieving an equal or larger IndVal value among groups (p) using a bootstrap method based on 

999 random permutations of the original data. All ordination analysis was conducted in R

statistical language, version 2.11.2 (R Core Development Team, 2010) using the vegan package 
7

for NMS, PERMANOVA, and PERMDISP (R Core Development Team, 2010; Oksanen and 

others, 2011). Indicator species analysis was performed using PC–ORD (version 5.0; McCune 

and Grace, 2002).

Quantifying Flow Alteration

The 20-year period of flow data for 14 streams corresponded to the reference period used 

in the earlier classification; these data are referred to as “reference” in table 2 (Turton and others,

2009). Streams were considered to have an altered flow regime when upstream anthropogenic 

regulation of flows, such as impoundments or water withdrawal, were present and when the 

period of the streamflow record we analyzed was not in the least-altered period (Esralew, 2010).

The expected range (5th and 95th percentile; table 3) of flow indices differed greatly between 

flow regime groups. We compared index values for streams with the expected range and counted 

the number exceeding the expected range of threshold and average percent exceeded (table 4).

The reference streams had lower numbers and percentages of flow indices exceeding the 

expected values. The mean percent exceeding was higher in the altered streams than the 

reference streams.

The discriminant analysis using 27 flow metrics correctly classified 86 of the 88 streams 

into the four flow groups. The discriminant analysis algorithm was then used to predict flow 

regime groups for the 28 study streams. The reference streams were all classified correctly, while 

only 5 of 14 altered streams were the same group as before discriminant analysis (table 4). Three 

streams shifted from group 42 to 43, while one stream in group 42 did not classify into any of the 

defined four groups. Five streams in group 44 changed to 41, 42, and 43. The least common flow 

regime group in Turton and others (2009) was 43 (stable groundwater; six streams), but it was 

the most common group that altered streams fell under because of elevated flows, which 

indicates there was an increase in flow and stability.

Fish Assemblage Structure

Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordination of 28 fish sampling sites 

identified two axes (2D) that explained 85.8 percent of the variation in original distances among 

fish sampling sites (2D stress = 13.5). NMS axis 1 (x axis) represented changes in species 

composition along a gradient of decreasing variability in daily flows (MA04), variability in May 

flows (MA28), frequency of low flow spells (FL03), high flood pulse count (FH04), variability 

in annual maximums of 90-day means of daily discharge (DH10), constancy (TA01), and fall 

rate (RA03). NMS axis 2 (y axis) represented changes in species composition related to 

increasing variability in annual maximums of 3-day means of daily discharge (DH07), DH10, 

and RA03 (table 5). These changes in flow environments appeared to represent geographic 

variation in flow more than flow alteration, as sites were primarily ordinated based on location 

rather than alteration, although eastern Oklahoma sites show some difference between altered 

and reference samples (fig. 3). Streams grouped by basin were clearly separated from each other, 

particularly the eastern basins from the western streams. Altered sites within the two eastern 

basins tended to shift away from reference sites along a trajectory correlated with increasing 

MA04, MA28, FL03, FH04, and TA01 (fig. 3; table 5). In contrast, there was considerable 

overlap between reference and streams with altered hydrology among western streams (fig. 3). In 

general, westerns stream represented fish assemblages associated with higher DH10 and RA03 

(fig. 3; table 5).
8

Principal components analysis of fish functional group proportions at sites identified two 

significant principal components (fig. 4). These two axes explained 63.2 percent of the variation 

in the data. There were nine indices positively correlated with PC1 (MA04, MA28, specific 

mean annual maximum flows (MH20), FL03, flood frequency (FH05), number of zero-flow days 

(DL18), DH10, TA01, RA03, and five indices negatively correlated with PC2 [mean daily flow 

(MA01), mean minimum January flow (ML01), mean maximum April flow (MH04), and no 

daily rises (RA05)] (table 5). There were similar relationships in the PCA plot compared with

those in the NMS plot (fig. 3). There was reasonable separation among eastern Red River, 

Arkansas River, western stream sites, and there was some separation of reference streams verses 

those with altered hydrology along a trajectory associated with small streams on the steams 

loading the highest (that is more distinct functional group configuration) on the second principle 

component compared to larger reference streams with negative values on the second axis in 

eastern streams (fig. 4). There was no evidence of differing functional structure within fish 

assemblages between reference and altered streams among the western basins (fig. 4).

We compared the proportion of functional groups between altered and reference sites 

assigned with discriminant analysis (table 6). There were higher proportions of species in 

reference locations that were intolerant to water quality and habitat degradation, more sensitive 

benthic species and lithophilic spawners, and species associated with fast flowing water. Altered 

sites had more tolerant species that preferred lentic conditions and slower flowing waters.

Generalist broadcast spawners (A_1) were more common in altered locations, while brood hiders 

were more common in reference sites (A_2). We identified a geographical trend of more 

intolerant species in streams with fast flowing water and imperiled species in the eastern portion 

of the State compared with the more generalist groups in the western portion (table 6).

Influence of Impoundment on Downstream Hydrologic Conditions

Kiamichi River

The impoundment of Jackfork Creek by Sardis Lake dam had limited effects on 

downstream hydrology of the Kiamichi River. Median December flows and variation in January 

flows were significantly higher after impoundment (table 7). There were no differences in 

magnitude and duration of minimum flows between the periods, but median 3- and 7-day 

maximum flows significantly decreased between the two periods (table 7). We did not observe 

any significant differences in the timing of annual extreme events between the pre- and postimpoundment periods. High flow pulses and flow reversals were more frequent after 

impoundment (table 7).

Bird Creek

Flow alteration due to the impoundment of Birch Creek, a tributary of Bird Creek, had 

minimal effects on the overall hydrologic conditions in Bird Creek. Only three parameters, 

median monthly flows for May and June and the number of flow reversals in Bird Creek, were 

significantly higher after the construction of Birch Lake (table 8). In contrast, several hydrologic 

parameters, representing all five components of the flow regime, were significantly altered by 

the impoundment of Bird Creek and construction of Skiatook Lake. Reservoir release patterns 

resulted in significantly higher median monthly flows for all 12 months with the months of May 

and June exhibiting more variation in median flow. The magnitude and duration of annual 

extreme conditions, particularly low flows, was significantly altered. Median annual minimum 
9

flows increased dramatically and the base flow index increased by an order of magnitude 

between the pre-impoundment and post-Skiatook-impoundment periods. Additionally, the 

median annual 30-day maximum flow was higher post impoundment. There were no significant 

reservoir effects on the timing of minimum flows, but the annual 1-day maximum flow occurred 

later in the year after the impoundment of Skiatook Lake. Low flow pulses never occurred and 

duration of high flow pulses increased significantly from 4 to 6 days after impoundment of Bird 

Creek by Skiatook Lake. The rate and frequency of changes in discharge were significantly 

altered by reservoir operations with faster fall rates and more frequent and variable flow 

reversals per year (table 8).

Influence of Impoundment on Downstream Fish Assemblage Structure

Kiamichi River

Twenty-six sampling events ordinated in fish species multidimensional space identified 

three axes (3D) that explained 76.5 percent of the variation in original distances among sampling 

events (3D stress = 15.8). Despite only explaining 17 percent of the variation, NMS axis 1 (x 

axis) had strong associations with median flows for September, magnitude and duration of low 

flows (7-day minimum), frequency of flow reversals, and daily discharge for the sampling date 

(fig. 5A, table 9). Frequency of flow reversals was the only hydrologic parameter related to fish 

community structure that was altered after the impoundment of Sardis Lake (fig. 6C, table 7).

However, there were positive trends in September median flows, 7-day minimum flows, and 

number of flow reversals across the period of record associated with available fish data (fig. 6B, 

D, and F). Additionally, there were significant differences in fish species composition (F) 

between pre- and post-impoundment periods using both the two-group (PERMANOVA F1,24 = 

5.52, p < 0.002) and three-group (PERMANOVA F1,24 = 6.96, p < 0.001) structure. There were 

no differences in multivariate dispersion among the pre- and post-dam construction periods 

(PERMDISP F1,24 = 0.07, p = 0.792) or among the pre-dam, transitional, or post-dam 

construction periods (PERMDISP F2,23 = 0.09, p = 0.911). Brook silversides (Labidesthes 

sicculus) was a significant indicator species for pre-impoundment conditions, whereas increased 

abundance of blacktail shiners (Cyprinella venusta) was positively associated with the postimpoundment period (table 10). Among bass species, spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) 

were more abundant and frequent in pre-impoundment collections while largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides) were significant indicators of post-impoundment conditions, 

particularly during the transitional period (table 10).

Bird Creek

Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordination of 23 sampling events in fish 

species space identified three axes that explained 83.3 percent of the variation in original 

distances among fish sampling events (3D stress = 13.07). More than half of the explained 

variation (46.6 percent) was attributed to NMS axis 1 (x axis), which had strong associations 

with increased median flows during typical low flow months (July, August, September, and 

October), December flows, minimum flows (1st, 3d, 7th, 30th, and 90th day), and number of 

flow reversals, as well as decreased number and duration of low flow events (fig. 5B, table 9).

All these hydrologic parameters responded dramatically to flow alteration associated with water 

management practices at Skiatook Lake (fig. 7, table 8). Pre- and post-impoundment periods 

were clearly separated on NMS axis 1 (fig. 5B), and some separation between the transitional 
10

and post-impoundment periods occurred on NMS axis 2 (y axis; fig. 5B). Pre- and postimpoundment fish assemblages differed significantly in their species composition using both the 

two group (PERMANOVA F1,21 = 10.12, p < 0.001) and three group (PERMANOVA F1,22 = 

9.21, p < 0.001) structure. There was a marginal difference in multivariate dispersion among the 

pre- and post-dam construction periods (PERMDISP F1,21 = 3.24, p = 0.094) but no difference 

among pre-dam, transitional, or post-dam construction periods (PERMDISP F2,20 = 2.56, p = 

0.103). No indicator species were identified for the pre-dam construction period, but there were 

13 species that had affinities with the period after dam construction (table 10). Several cyprinid 

minnows, including central stonerollers (Campostoma anomalum), ghost shiners (Notropis 

buchanni), sand shiners (Notropis stramineus), and suckermouth minnows (Phenacobius 

mirabilis), were strong indicators of post-dam construction fish assemblages (table 10). Western 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and inland silversides (Menidia beryllina) showed affinities for 

post-dam construction conditions. Two centrarchids, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) 

and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), were significant indicator species for the post-dam 

construction period. The slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala) was also associated with 

post-dam construction conditions in Bird Creek (table 10).

Effects of Flow Alteration on Fish Assemblages

Development of flow-ecology relationships is critical to setting management goals for 

protecting freshwater biodiversity in altered ecosystems (Poff and others, 2010; Poff and 

Zimmerman, 2010). Analyses of spatial datasets that represent hydrologic alteration gradients as 

well as temporal biological datasets spanning pre-and post-hydrologic alteration events aid in 

this process by identifying components of altered hydrologic regimes and other factors that 

influence biological change (Propst and Gido, 2004; Armstrong and others, 2010; Gido and 

others, 2010; Poff and Zimmerman, 2010; Taylor, 2010). Results from such studies can be used

by water resource managers to help restore critical components of the flow regime while 

continuing to meet anthropogenic needs for water (Richter and others, 2003). The study of this 

report focused on relationships between flow alteration and fish assemblage structure and 

function, relying on a fish dataset with sites that represented different degrees of flow alteration, 

as well as two temporal fish datasets representing pre- and post-river impoundment 

environments. At the broad scale, fish assemblage and functional structure were associated with 

several flow metrics (Poff and Allan, 1995) but had stronger associations with regional factors, 

evidence that regional differences in flow regimes potentially influence fish assemblage structure 

(Gehrke and Harris, 2001). Likewise, patterns in functional group membership were associated 

with reference versus altered flows, but similar patterns were observed from east to west. Thus, 

the development of flow-ecology relationships needs to be stratified across these ecosystem 

types.

Although not presented in this report, we classified altered sites into three levels of 

alteration (low, moderate, high) based on the number and percentage exceeding the expected 

range of values. There were no clear relationships between increasing flow alteration and fish 

functional groups. A study of this type of relationship between degree of flow alteration and fish 

ecology could prove useful, but would be better served by a planned study with active data 

collection to control the level and location of fish sampling relative to alteration. The differences 

in fish assemblages and flow regime between the eastern and western portions of Oklahoma 

would be best served by separate studies of these areas.
11

A previous study of Oklahoma fishes found that they are more sensitive to habitat 

degradation than water quality degradation (Jester and others, 1992), so efforts to identify 

specific instream habitat changes directly related to flow regime alteration in Oklahoma could 

enhance the results in this report. Fish species also can be used as indicators of flow alteration, as 

has been done with water quality in Great Lakes wetlands (Seilheimer and Chow-Fraser, 2007) 

and in this report with the ISA in Bird Creek. This method would take advantage of the greater 

distribution of fish collection data, as well as the relative ease of collecting fish samples 

compared with the 15 or more years of flow data needed to assess flow regime.

One hydrologic change that is clearly shown in our analysis of flow alteration is the shift 

to higher, more stable flows that are reflected by Turton and others (2009), as classified in group 

43. Conditions in group 43 only occurred in a small group of only 6 streams in northeastern 

Oklahoma from the initial total of 88. We observed perennial flashy (42) and intermittent (44) 

streams undergoing significant changes to flow regime to group 43 in current flows. The impacts 

of this change are evident in the analysis of Bird Creek, which changed from an intermittent to a 

stable groundwater classification after the impoundment of Skiatook Lake. Interestingly, 

following the impoundment of Sardis Lake, the Kiamichi River did not shift from a perennial 

flashy stream to one with stable flows characteristic of group 43. An analysis of fish assemblage 

structure across a 17-year period associated with reservoir impoundment in these two river 

systems indicated that there were significant shifts in species composition for both sites.

However, the degree to which reservoir impoundment altered downstream flow regimes within 

the study reaches was not consistent between the two river systems. The construction of Skiatook 

Lake within the Bird Creek river system significantly altered aspects of all five components of 

flow (magnitude, timing of occurrence, frequency of occurrence, duration of time, and rate of 

change in flow conditions), resulting in a change from a naturally intermittent stream flow 

regime to more stable flows, characteristic of streams in northeastern Oklahoma (Turton and 

others, 2009). In contrast, the Kiamichi River hydrologic regime downstream of Sardis Lake was 

relatively unaltered with modest declines in maximum flows and slight increases in number of 

reversals. This system retained the characteristics of a perennial flashy stream identified by 

Turton and others (2009). Despite this lack of identifiable change, there were still significant 

changes in fish assemblage structure within both systems across the 17-year period associated 

with reservoir construction, but species associated with these changes differed between the two 

systems. Several flow-dependent species as well as reservoir species, including largemouth bass, 

increased within the period of record associated with flow alteration in Bird Creek, a historically 

intermittent stream, whereas declines in two riverine-adapted fish coupled with an increase in 

largemouth bass were associated with the impoundment of Sardis Lake within the Kiamichi 

River basin. These contrasting responses of flow regimes and fish assemblages to reservoir 

impoundment within these the two river systems highlight the fact that linkages between 

reservoir impoundments, hydrologic alteration, and biological attributes are dependent on the 

ecological setting and associated natural hydrologic regimes of study systems.

Bird Creek lies in north-central Oklahoma and exhibits a historical flow regime with high 

flow variability and extended periods of extreme low flows, typical of streams draining the Great 

Plains region of North America (Poff and Ward, 1989; Dodds and others, 2004). Fishes of prairie 

streams have evolved behavioral and physiological mechanisms as well as life history traits to 

cope with variable and sometimes harsh conditions associated with dynamic hydrology 

(Matthews, 1987, 1988; Labbe and Fausch, 2000; Matthews and Marsh-Matthews, 2003). It is 

not surprising that there were no significant indicator species associated with Bird Creek fish 
12

assemblages during the pre-impoundment period because fish assemblage structure likely varies 

with stream flow across time in intermittent streams (Matthews and Marsh-Matthews, 2003).

Higher flow conditions and loss of low- to no-flow periods associated with post-impoundment 

habitats corresponded with increases in frequency and abundance of fluvial-dependent species,

including central stonerollers, sand shiners, suckermouth minnows, and slenderhead darters.

Central stonerollers can occupy a wide variety of stream conditions ranging from intermittent 

headwater streams to downstream perennial reaches and adjust life history strategies to persist 

along fluvial gradients experienced in prairie streams (Spranza and Stanley, 2000). Fluvial 

habitats with perennial flow provide more predictable habitat conditions, which may confer more 

stable fish populations. Sand shiners are broadcast spawners that prefer flowing water over sand 

substrates, particularly in the presence of other Notropis sp. (Mueller and Pyron, 2011).

Conditions downstream of reservoirs may provide other benefits to sand shiners, such as 

decreased turbidity, which has been shown to negatively impact feeding on terrestrial and aquatic 

insects by this species (Bonner and Wilde, 2002). Suckermouth minnows and slenderhead darters 

prefer fast flowing waters and require high-velocity areas during spring for spawning (Brewer 

and others, 2006). These two species seem to persist downstream of dams but are often 

extirpated upstream of reservoirs; however, spawning habitats may be impacted by flood control 

reservoirs due to impacts on the timing and magnitude of flows (Quist and others, 2005; Brewer 

and others, 2006). We also observed an increase in western mosquitofish, a species not generally 

associated with higher flows. Mosquitofish exhibit an opportunistic life history strategy 

characterized by small body size with early maturation, low fecundity per spawning event, and 

low juvenile survivorship (Winemiller and Rose, 1992; Hoeinghaus and others, 2007). This 

strategy is well adapted to fish occupying habitats that experience frequent and intense 

disturbance and likely confers an ability to monopolize and maintain higher abundances in 

highly variable shallow stream margin habitats associated with substantially more flow reversals 

in post-impoundment conditions.

Southeastern Oklahoma streams lie within the western extension of the Ozark Mountains 

and support perennial flow with a certain degree of flashiness. While impoundment of Sardis 

Lake did not have strong effects on long-term patterns in stream discharge, general increases in 

September median flows, low-flow duration, and number of reversals for 1976–1996 were 

associated with shifts in fish assemblage structure during the study period. However, these 

increases explained a small proportion of the variation in fish assemblage structure, and there 

were few significant indicator species for the pre- or post-impoundment periods.

Patterns in indicator species analysis suggest that factors associated with reservoir 

impoundment other than flow may have influenced changes in fish assemblage structure. We 

observed an increase in frequency and abundance in largemouth bass coupled with a decrease in 

spotted bass. The flow analysis results do not support altered hydrology as a primary mechanism 

for this shift, and this result may be due simply to increased largemouth bass abundance 

associated with stocking in Sardis Lake as well as Hugo Lake downstream. Additionally, 

reservoir-like conditions can occur during high flow periods within the stream reach due to 

backwater from Lake Hugo. This potential mechanism was not limited to the Kiamichi River site 

as we also observed higher frequency and abundance of inland silversides and largemouth bass 

in post-impoundment collections downstream of Skiatook Lake in Bird Creek. Shifts in 

largemouth bass frequency and abundance downstream of reservoirs may be due to lentic species 

having more generalist life history traits which provide certain advantages in flow-altered 

environments (Arthington and others, 2006). However, increases in largemouth bass abundance 
13

across two systems that differ in flow alteration suggest that their abundance may be more 

related to dispersal from introductions within the reservoir rather than flow requirements.

Previous studies have demonstrated that upstream as well as regional patterns in fish assemblage 

structure are influenced by proximity to reservoir assemblages (Falke and Gido, 2006; Gido and 

others, 2010).

Quist and others (2005) observed introduced game fish species both upstream and 

downstream after construction of a reservoir. This may have been a mechanism for increased 

largemouth bass and forage fish frequency and abundance downstream of reservoirs in the 

current study. The distribution of inland silversides was historically limited to Atlantic and Gulf 

Coast waters and adjacent coastal portions of rivers. Inland silversides has been widely 

introduced in reservoirs of Midwestern States as forage for game fish and is responsible for large 

declines in brook silverside populations in Oklahoma (Gomez and Lindsay, 1972; McCormas 

and Drenner, 1982). While native to Oklahoma streams, largemouth bass populations were 

augmented through stocking of Skiatook reservoir immediately after impoundment. However, 

spotted bass populations increased in the early 1990s and displaced largemouth bass from much 

of their habitat (Long and Fisher, 2005). Factors influencing black bass habitat use within the 

reservoir (stocking, displacement) potentially influenced temporal patterns of frequency and 

occurrence of largemouth bass in downstream habitats of both systems.

Several studies have shown changes in fish assemblage structure associated with water 

resource development and reservoir operations (Bain and others, 1988; Bonner and Wilde, 2002;

Marchetti and Moyle, 2001; Perkin and Bonner, 2011). Our analysis examines a temporal 

sequence of fish assemblage structure in response to reservoir construction in two different 

stream systems representing different ecological settings. However, other factors related to 

reservoirs, including altered thermal regimes due to hypolimnetic releases (Olden and Naiman,

2010) and proximity to reservoir habitats (Falke and Gido, 2006; Gido and others, 2010), may 

also influence fish assemblage structure in lotic environments. Additionally, while the biological 

datasets used in this study were reasonably long, these are temporal datasets of limited length.

For example, in our Kiamichi River analysis, there was little change in long-term hydrologic 

patterns. Yet, within the period of fish sampling there were trends in several hydrologic variables 

that were correlated with fish assemblage structure.

The Kiamichi River is a well-studied system, and recent studies examining longer time 

trends have made some alarming observations. Drought conditions after the period of record that 

this study assessed, combined with flow management have resulted in serious dewatering of 

fluvial habitats and an associated decline in mussel densities with a shift in assemblage structure 

from thermally sensitive to tolerant species (Galbraith and others, 2010). This shift in mussel 

assemblages has important consequences for ecosystem function (Spooner and Vaughn, 2008;

Vaughn, 2010). It is possible that fluvial fish species have also declined during this period. For 

this reason it is important that water management goals be developed by considering a range of 

variability approach that identifies natural flow regimes for dry, moderate, and wet periods to 

maintain key components of the natural flow regime (Richter and others, 2003). The results of 

this study indicate that interactions between flow regime and aquatic biota vary depending on 

ecological setting.

This study was limited by the low number of gaged locations with associated fish 

collections. Of these locations with streamflow and fish information, only a subset had a known 

reference period and could be used. We were unsuccessful at drawing a conclusion associated 

with a gradient of flow alteration, which may have been due to the types of streams in each class 
14

or from other factors impacting species other than flow alteration. The streams considered altered 

were from different ecoregions; thus, there may be biogeographical constraints on the biota that 

could confound the analysis with regards to altered flow regime.

References Cited

Anderson, M.J., 2001, A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance: 

Austral Ecology, v. 26, p. 32–46.

Anderson, M.J., 2006, Distance-based test for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions: 

Biometrics, v. 62, no. 1, p. 245–253.

Armstrong, D.S., Richards, T.A., and Brandt, S.L., 2010, Preliminary assessment of factors 

influencing riverine fish communities in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2010–1139, 43 p., accessed February 29, 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1139/.

Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Poff, N.L., and Naiman, R.J., 2006, The challenge of providing 

environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems: Ecological Applications, v. 16, no. 4, p. 

1311–1318.

Bain, M.B., Finn, J.T., and Booke, H.E., 1988, Streamflow regulation and fish community 

structure: Ecology, v. 69, no. 2, p. 382–392.

Bonner, T.H., and Wilde, G.R., 2002, Effects of turbidity on prey consumption by prairie steam 

fishes: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 131, p. 1203–1208.

Brewer, S.K., Papoulias, D.M., and Rabeni, C.F., 2006. Spawning habitat associations and 

selection by fishes in a flow regulated prairie river: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 135, no. 3, p. 763–778.

Clarke, K.R., 1993, Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure: 

Austral Ecology, v. 18, no. 1, p. 117–143.

ConserveOnline, [undated], Indicators of hydrologic alteration (IHA)—Software for 

understanding hydrologic changes in ecologically-relevant terms: ConserveOnline, accessed 

November 1, 2009, at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/iha.

Dodds, W.K., Gido, Keith, Whiles, M.R., Fritz, K.M., and Matthews, W.J., 2004, Life on the 

edge—The ecology of Great Plains prairie streams: Bioscience, v. 54, no. 3, p. 205–216.

Dufrêne, Marc, and Legendre, Pierre, 1997, Species assemblages and indicator species—The 

need for a flexible asymmetrical approach: Ecological Monographs, v. 67, no. 3, p. 345–366.

Environmental Research Systems Institute, Inc., [undated], ArcGIS—Mapping & analysis for 

understanding our world: Environmental Research Systems Institute, Inc., accessed February 

29, 2012, at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/index.html.

Esralew, R.A., 2010, Determination of baseline periods of record for selected streamflow-gaging 

stations in and near Oklahoma for use in modeling applications: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5106, 65 p., accessed February 29, 2012, at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5106/.

Faith, D.P., and Norris, R.H., 1989., Correlation of environmental variables with patterns of 

distribution and abundance of common and rare freshwater macroinvertebrates: Biological 

Conservation, v. 50, nos. 1-4, p. 77–98.Falke, J.A., and Gido, K.B., 2006, Effects of reservoir 

connectivity on stream fish assemblages in the Great Plains: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, v. 63, no. 3, p. 480–493.

Fitzhugh, T.W., and Richter, B.D., 2004, Quenching urban thirst—Growing cities and their 

impacts on freshwater ecosystems: Bioscience, v. 54, no. 8, p. 741–754.
15

Frimpong, E.A., and Angermeier, P.L., 2009, FishTraits—A database of ecological and life 

history traits of freshwater fishes in the United States: Fisheries, v. 34, no. 10, p. 487–495.

Galbraith, H.S., Spooner, D.E., and Vaughn, C.C., 2010, Synergistic effects of regional climate 

patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities: Biological 

Conservation, v. 143, p. 1175–1183.

Gehrke, P.G., and Harris, J.H., 2001, Regional-scale effects of flow regulation on lowland 

riverine fish communities in New South Wales, Australia: River Research and Management, v. 

17, nos. 4–5, p. 369–391.

Gido, K.B., Dodds, W.K., and Eberle, M.E., 2010, Retrospective analysis of fish community 

change during a half-century of landuse and streamflow changes: Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society, v. 29, no. 3, p. 970–987.

Goldstein, R.M., and Simon, T.P., 1998, Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding 

ecology of North American freshwater fishes, in Simon, T.P., ed., Assessing the sustainability 

and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities: Boca Raton, Fla., CRC 

Press, p. 123–202.

Gomez, Ricardo, and Lindsay, H.L., Jr., 1972, Occurrence of the Mississippi silversides, 

Menidia audens (Hay), in Keystone Reservoir and the Arkansas River: Proceedings of the 

Oklahoma Academy of Sciences, v. 52, p. 16–18.

Gotelli, N.J., and Ellison, A.M., 2004, A Primer of Ecological Statistics: Sunderland, Mass., 

Sinauer Associates Inc.,

Henriksen, J.A., Heasley, John, Kennen, J.G., and Nieswand, Steven, 2006, Users’ manual for 

the hydroecological integrity assessment process software (including the New Jersey 

assessment tools): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1093, 71 p., accessed 

February 29, 2012, at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/21598/21598.pdf.

Hoeinghaus, D.J., Winemiller, K.O., and Birnbaum, J.S., 2007, Local and regional determinants 

of stream fish assemblage structure—Inferences based on taxonomic vs. functional groups:

Journal of Biogeography, v. 34, p. 324–338.

Jester, D.B., Echelle, A.A., Matthews, W.J., Pigg, Jimmie, Scott, C.M., and Collins, K.D., 1992,

The fishes of Oklahoma, their gross habitats, and their tolerance of degradation in water 

quality and habitat: Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, v. 72, p. 7–19.

Kennard, Mark J., Pusey, Bradley J., Olden, Julian D., Mackay, Stephen J., Stein, Janet L, Marsh 

Nick, 2010, Classification of natural flow regimes in Australia to support environmental flow 

management: Freshwater Biology v. 55, no. 1, p. 171–193.Labbe, T.R., and Fausch, K.D.,

2000, Dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate persistence of a threatened fish at 

multiple scales: Ecological Applications, v. 10, no. 6, p. 1774–1791.

Long, J.M., and Fisher, W.L., 2005, Distribution and abundance of black bass in Skiatook Lake, 

Oklahoma, after introduction of smallmouth bass and a liberalized harvest regulation on 

spotted bass: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 25, p. 49–56.

Marchetti, M.P., and Moyle, P.B., 2001, Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a 

regulated California stream: Ecological Applications, v. 11, no. 2, p. 530–539.

Matthews, Ruth, and Richter, B.D., 2007, Application of the indicators of hydrologic alteration 

software in environmental flow setting: Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

v. 43, no. 6, p. 1400–1413.

Matthews, W.J., 1987, Geographic variation in Cyprinella lutrensis (pisces: Cyprinidae) in the 

United States, with notes on Cyprinella lepida: Copeia, no. 3, p. 616–637.
16

Matthews, W.J., 1988, North American prairie streams as systems for ecological study: Journal 

of the North American Benthological Society, v. 7, no. 4, p. 387–409.

Matthews, W.J., and Marsh-Matthews, Edie, 2003, Effects of drought on fish across axes of 

space, time and ecological complexity: Freshwater Biology v. 48, no. 7, p. 1232–1253.

McCormas, S.R., and Drenner, R.W., 1982, Species replacement in a reservoir fish 

community—Silverside feeding mechanisms and competition: Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Science, v. 39, p. 815–821.

McCune, Bruce, and Grace, J.B., 2002, Analysis of ecological communities: Gleneden Beach, 

Oreg., MjM Software Design, 304 p.

Minchin, P.R., 1987, An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological 

ordination: Vegetation, v. 69, p. 89–107.

Mueller, Robert, Jr., and Pyron, Mark, 2009, Substrate and current velocity preferences of 

spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) and sand shiner (Notropis stramineus) in artificial 

streams: Journal of Freshwater Ecology, v. 24, p. 239–245.

NatureServe, 2009, NatureServe explorer—An online encyclopedia of life (version 7.1):

NatureServe, accessed May 21, 2010, at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.

Oksanen, Jari, Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, Roeland, Legendre, Pierre, Minchin, P.R., O’Hara, R.B., 

Simpson, G.L., Solymos, Peter, Stevens, M.H.H., and Wagner, Helene, 2010, Vegan—

Community ecology package (version 1.17–3): The Comprehensive R Archive Network, 

accessed February 29, 2012, at http://cran.at.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html.

Olden, J.D., and Naiman, R.J., 2010, Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows 

assessments—Modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity: Freshwater 

Biology, v. 55, p. 86–107.

Olden, Julian D., and Poff, N.L., 2003, Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for 

characterizing streamflow regimes: River Research and Applications, v. 19, p. 101–121.

Peck, J.E., 2010, Multivariate analysis for community ecologists—Step-by-step using PC–ORD: 

MjM Software Design, 162 p.

Perkin, J.S., and Bonner, T.H., 2011, Long-term changes in flow regime and fish assemblage 

composition in the Guadalupe and San Marcos rivers of Texas: River Research and

Applications, v. 27, no. 5, p. 566–579.

Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard, K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E., and 

Stromberg, J.C., 1997, The natural flow regime: Bioscience, v. 47, no. 11, p. 769–784.

Poff, N.L., and Allan, J.D., 1995, Functional-organization of stream fish assemblages in relation 

to hydrological variability: Ecology, v. 76, no. 2, p. 606–627.

Poff, N.L., and Ward, J.V., 1989, Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for 

lotic community structure—A regional analysis of streamflow patterns: Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 46, p. 1805–1818.

Poff, N.L., and Zimmerman, J.K.H., 2010, Ecological responses to altered flow regimes—A

literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows: Freshwater 

Biology, v. 55, p. 194–205.

Poff, N.L., Olden, J.D., Merrit, D.M., and Pepin, D.M., 2007, Homogenization of regional river 

dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications: Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, v. 104, no. 14, p. 5732–5737.

Poff, N.L., Richter, B.D., Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Naiman, R.J., Kendy, Eloise, Acreman, 

Mike, Apse, Colin, Bledsoe, B.P., Freeman, M.C., Henriksen, James, Jacobson, R.B., Kennen, 

J.G., Merritt, D.M., O’Keeffe, J.H., Olden, J.D., Rogers, Kevin, Tharme, R.E., and Warner, 
17

Andrew, 2010, The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA)—A new framework 

for developing regional environmental flow standards: Freshwater Biology, v. 55, no. 1, p. 

147–170.

Postel, Sandra, and Richter, Brian, 2003, Rivers for life—Managing water for people and nature: 

Washington, D.C., Island Press, 220 p.

Propst, D.L, and Gido, K.B., 2004, Responses of native and nonnative fishes to natural flow 

regime mimicry in the San Juan River: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 133, 

p. 922–931.

Quist, M.C., Hubert, W.A., and Rahel, F.J., 2005, Fish assemblage structure following 

impoundment of a Great Plains river: Western North American Naturalist, v. 65, no. 1, p. 53–

63.

R Core Development Team, 2010, R—A language and environment for statistical computing: 

Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Richter, Brian D., Baumgartner, Jeffery V., Wigington, Robert, Braun, David P., 1997, How 

much water does a river need?: Freshwater Biology, v. 37, p. 231-249.

Richter, Brian D., Baumgartner, Jeffery V., Powell, Jennifer, and Braun, David P, 1996, A 

method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems: Conservation Biology, v.10, no. 

4, p. 1163-1174.

Richter, B.D., Mathews, Ruth, Harrison, D.L., and Wigington, Robert, 2003, Ecological 

sustainable water management—Managing river flows for ecological integrity: Ecological 

Applications v. 13, no. 1, p. 206–224.

Rosenberg, D.M., McCully, Patrick, and Pringle, C.M., 2000, Global-scale environmental effects 

of hydrological alterations—Introduction: Bioscience, v. 50, no. 9, p. 746–751.

SAS Institute Inc., [undated], JMP® statistical discovery software: SAS Institute Inc., accessed 

February 29, 2012, at www.jmp.com/software/.

Seilheimer, T.S., and Chow-Fraser, P., 2007, Application of the wetland fish index to northern

Great Lakes marshes with emphasis on Georgian Bay coastal wetlands: Journal of Great Lakes 

Research v. 33, suppl. 3, p. 154-171.

Spooner, D.E., and Vaughn, C.C., 2008, A trait-based approach to species’ roles in stream 

ecosystems—Climate change, community structure, and material cycling: Oecologia, v. 158, 

no. 2, p. 307–317.

Spranza, J.J., and Stanley, E.H., 2000, Condition, growth, and reproductive styles of fishes 

exposed to different environmental regimes in a prairie drainage: Environmental Biology of 

Fishes, v. 59, no. 1, p. 99–109.

Taylor, C.M., 2010, Covariation among plains stream assemblages, flow regimes, and patterns of 

water use, in Gido, K.B., and Jackson, D.A., eds., Community ecology of stream fishes—

Concepts, approaches, and techniques: American Fisheries Society Symposium 73, Bethesda, 

Md., p. 447–459.

Turton, Don, Fisher, Bill, Seilheimer, T.S., and Esralew, R.A., 2009, An assessment of 

environmental flows for Oklahoma—Final report: Stillwater, Okla., Oklahoma Water 

Resources Research Institute, Oklahoma State University, 58 p., accessed November 1, 2011, 

at http://environ.okstate.edu/OWRRI/files/2008_TurtonFisher_FinalReport.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey, [undated], National hydrologic assessment tool (NATHAT): U.S. 

Geological Survey, accessed February 29, 2012, at 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/NATHAT/.
18

Vaughn, C.C., 2010, Biodiversity losses and ecosystem function in freshwaters—Emerging 

conclusions and research directions: Bioscience, v. 60, p. 25–35.

Winemiller, K.O., and Rose, K.A., 1992, Patterns of life-history diversification in North 

American fishes—Implications for population regulation: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science, v. 49, no. 10, p. 2196–2218.
19

Figure 1. Map showing streamgage location and contributing watersheds for reference and altered sites in Oklahoma. Numbers next to 

streamgage symbols correspond to streamgage names in table 2. Digital data from U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

and Oklahoma Water Resource Board, various scales. Gage locations and gage watersheds developed by authors. Projection is Geographic 

Coordinate System (GCS) North American 1927. Horizontal datum is North American Datum of 1927, Albers conical projection. Map created by Titus 

Seilheimer.
20
21

Figure 2. Map of the watershed on A, Bird Creek and B, Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Sampling site on Bird Creek 

is in relation to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamgage 07177500 near Sperry, Okla., Birch Lake, and 

Skiatook Lake; sampling site on Kiamichi River is in relation to USGS streamgage 07336200 near Antler, Okla.,

and Sardis Lake. Stream data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and water body data from the Oklahoma 

Water Resources Board, various scales. Gage locations and gage watersheds developed by authors. Projection is 

Geographic Coordinate System (GCS) North American 1927. Horizontal datum is North American Datum of 1927, 

Albers conical projection. Map created by Titus Seilheimer.
22

East Arkansas R Reference

East Arkansas R Altered

East Red R Reference

East Red R Altered

West Reference

West Altered

-2 2

-1.5

1.5

Figure 3. Ordination biplot from nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS; Jaccard) of species presence for 

fishes associated with 28 streamgages on reference and altered streams in Oklahoma. The x-axis is NMS 1, and 

the y-axis is NMS 2.
23

East Arkansas R Reference

East Arkansas R Altered

East Red R Reference

East Red R Altered

West Reference

West Altered

-12 12

-8

8

Figure 4. Ordination biplot from principal components (PC) analysis of proportion of functional groups for 28 

streamgages on reference and altered streams in Oklahoma. The x-axis is PC1, and the y-axis is PC2.
24

Figure 5. Charts showing nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordination based on fish species composition 

for sampling events conducted during the early summer over 18 years at one location on A, the Kiamichi River 

(stress = 15.08) and B, Bird Creek (stress = 13.07), Oklahoma. The collection sites lie downstream of Sardis Lake 

on the Kiamichi River and downstream of Birch and Skiatook Lakes on Bird Creek, which were formed by 

impoundments in 1977 and 1982, respectively. NMS axes 1 and 2 represent ecological distances between sites 

based on differences in their species composition. Open symbols indicate pre-dam sampling events, whereas solid 

symbols represent post-dam sampling events divided into transitional (grey), and post-dam construction (black) 

periods for the two river systems. Please refer to text for years associated with each period. Arrows indicate 

direction and magnitude of correlations between nonmetric multidimensional scaling scores and hydrologic 

parameters calculated with indicators of hydrologic alteration analysis (table 9).
25

Figure 6. Chart showing annual variation in three hydrologic parameters that were significantly correlated with 

differences in fish assemblage structure (fig. 7A, table 9) in the Kiamichi River near Antlers, Oklahoma. Parameters 

include A and B, median flows for September; C and D, annual 7-day minimum (min.) flow; and E and F, number 

(#) of flow reversals per year. Each parameter includes plots of period of record (A, C, E) followed by record 

associated with fish data (B, D, F). Thin horizontal lines represent range of variation for the period before the 

construction of the impoundment, and thick horizontal lines represent median values for the periods before the 

construction of the impoundment and after the construction of the Sardis Lake impoundment. Smoothers (B, D, F) 

are based on locally weighted regression (LOWESS). All flow data are presented in cubic feet per second.
26

Figure 7. Charts showing annual variation in five hydrologic parameters that were significantly correlated with 

differences in fish assemblage structure (fig. 7B, table 9) in Bird Creek near Sperry, Oklahoma. Parameters include 

A, median flow for July; B, median flow for December; C, annual 7-day minimum (min.) flow; D, number of low 

pulses per year; and E, number (#) of flow reversals per year. Thin horizontal lines represent range of variation for 

period before the construction of the impoundment, and thick horizontal lines represent median values for the 

periods before construction of the impoundment and after construction of the Birch Lake and Skiatook Lake 

impoundments. All flow data are presented in cubic feet per second.
27

Table 1. Flow indices used in a biological assessment of flows of 28 streams in Oklahoma.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ft3/s/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; ft3/s/d, cubic feet per second per day; %, percent]

Code Hydrologic index Units Definition

Magnitude

MA01 Mean daily flows ft3/s Mean daily flows.

MA04 Variability in daily flows 1 % Coefficient of variation of the logs in daily flows corresponding to the {5th, 

10th, 15th, ..., 85th, 90th, 95th} percentiles.

MA28 Variability in May flows % Coefficient of variation in monthly flows for May.

ML01 Mean minimum January flows ft3/s Mean minimum monthly flow for January.

ML09 Mean minimum September flows ft3/s Mean minimum monthly flow for September.

MH04 Mean maximum April flows ft3/s Mean of the maximum monthly flows for April.

MH14 Median of annual maximum flows Dimensionless Median of the highest annual daily flow divided by the median annual daily flow 

averaged across all years.

MH20 Specific mean annual maximum flows ft3/s /mi2 Mean annual maximum flows divided by catchment area.

Frequency

FL03 Frequency of low flow spells Events per year Total number of low flow spells (threshold equal to 5 % of mean daily flow) 

divided by the record length in years.

FH01 High flood pulse count 2 Events per year Mean number of high pulse events, where the 75th percentile is the high pulse 

threshold.

FH04 High flood pulse count 1 d/yr Mean number of days per year above the upper threshold (defined as 7 times 

median daily flow), and the value is represented as an average instead of a 

tabulated count.

FH05 Flood frequency 1 Events per year Mean number of high flow events per year using an upper threshold of 1 times 

median flow over all years.

Duration

DL03 Annual minima of 7-day means of daily discharge ft3/second Magnitude of minimum annual flow of 7-day mean daily discharge.

DL05 Annual minima of 90-day means of daily discharge ft3/second Magnitude of minimum annual flow of 90-day mean daily discharge.

DL18 Number of zero-flow days d/yr Mean annual number of days having zero daily flow.

DH07 Variability in annual maxima of 3-day means of 

daily discharge

% Coefficient of variation in the 3-day moving average flows.

DH10 Variability in annual maxima of 90-day means of 

daily discharge

% Coefficient of variation in the 90-day moving average flows.

DH15 High flow pulse duration d/yr Mean duration of FH1 (high flood pulse count 1).

DH21 High flow duration 1 Days Average duration of flow events with flows above a threshold equal to the 25th 

percentile value for the entire set of flows.
28

Code Hydrologic index Units Definition

DH23 Flood duration 1 Days Mean annual number of days that flows remain above the flood threshold 

averaged across all years.

Timing

TA01 Constancy Dimensionless See Colwell (1974).

TL01 Julian date of annual minimum Julian days The mean Julian date of the 1-day annual minimum flow over all years.

TH01 Julian date of annual maximum Julian days The mean Julian date of the 1-day annual maximum flow over all years.

Rate of change

RA03 Fall rate ft3/s /d Mean rate of negative changes in flow from one day to the next.

RA05 No day rises Dimensionless Ratio of days where the flow is higher than the previous day.

RA07 Change of flow ft3/s/d Median of difference between natural logarithm of flows between two 

consecutive days with decreasing flow.
29

Table 2. Streamgages used in a biologic assessment of the flows of 28 streams in Oklahoma,

[Streamgage number corresponds to numbers in figure 1. HIP, hydroecological integrity assessment process; no., number; 

mi2

, square miles. HIP classifications are from Turton and others (2009)]

Gage 

no.

Streamgage 

code Gage name

HIP 

group

Alteration 

status Latitude Longitude

Basin 

size 

(mi2)

1 07196900 Baron Fork at Dutch Mills, Ark. 42 Reference 35.88 -94.49 42.2

2 07197000 Baron Fork at Eldon, Okla. 41 Reference 35.92 -94.84 319.7

3 07151500 Chickaskia River near Corbin, Ks. 41 Reference 37.13 -97.60 833.6

4 07189000 Elk River near Tiff City, Mo. 43 Reference 36.63 -94.59 872.7

5 07195800 Flint Creek at Springtown, Ark. 41 Reference 36.26 -94.43 15.1

6 07337900 Glover River near Glover, Okla. 42 Reference 34.10 -94.90 328.6

7 07249400 James Fork near Hackett, Ark. 42 Reference 35.16 -94.41 150.5

8 07335700 Kiamichi River near Big Cedar, Okla. 42 Reference 34.64 -94.61 40.7

9 07249985 Lee Creek near Short, Okla. 42 Reference 35.52 -94.46 445.3

10 07184000 Lightning Creek near McCune, Ks. 44 Reference 37.28 -95.03 201

11 07315700 Mud Creek near Courtney, Okla. 44 Reference 34.00 -97.57 589.3

12 07187000 Shoal Creek above Joplin, Mo. 43 Reference 37.02 -94.52 438.5

13 07191220 Spavinaw Creek near Sycamore, Okla. 41 Reference 36.33 -94.64 135

14 07186000 Spring River near Waco, Mo. 43 Reference 37.25 -94.57 1,188.1

15 07170700 Big Hill Creek near Cherryvale, Ks. 44 Altered 37.27 -95.47 37.8

16 07332500 Blue River near Blue, Okla. 41 Altered 34.00 -96.24 489.8

17 07172000 Caney River near Elgin, Ks. 42 Altered 37.00 -96.32 439.6

18 07336200 Kiamichi River near Antlers, Okla. 42 Altered 34.25 -95.61 1,158.3

19 07341200 Saline River near Lockesburg, Ark. 42 Altered 33.96 -94.06 259.3

20 07152000 Chikaskia River near Blackwell, Okla. 42 Altered 36.81 -97.28 1,921.6

21 07243500 Deep Fork near Beggs, Okla. 42 Altered 35.67 -96.07 2,056.2

22 07247500 Fourche Maline near Red Oak, Okla. 44 Altered 34.91 -95.16 123.5

23 07247000 Poteau River at Cauthron, Ark. 44 Altered 34.92 -94.30 208.8

24 07300500 Salt Fork Red River at Mangum, Okla. 44 Altered 34.86 -99.51 1,380.4

25 07177500 Bird Creek near Sperry, Okla. 44 Altered 36.28 -95.95 930.5

26 07338500 Little River near Idabel, Okla. 42 Altered 33.94 -94.76 1,260

27 07339000 Mountain Fork near Eagletown, Okla. 42 Altered 34.04 -94.62 820.5

28 07316500 Washita River near Cheyenne, Okla. 44 Altered 35.63 -99.67 782.3
30

Table 3. Distribution of 5th and 95th percentiles for 27 hydrologic indices for the four hydroecological integrity 

assessment process groups at 28 streams in Oklahoma. [Distribution types: N, normal; LN, lognormal; EX, exponential; W2, Weibull 2 parameter; W3, Weibull 3 parameter; JS,

Johnson Su. 5Q, 5th percentile; 95Q, 95th percentile; 41–44, group designations from Turton and others (2009). Hydrologic 

indices are described in table 1]

41 42

5Q 95Q Distribution 5Q 95Q Distribution

MA01 3.55 410.01 W2 52.11 1,741.29 W2

MA04 52.19 151.38 N 130.35 223.78 LN

MA28 51.73 145.58 N 104.49 173.71 W2

ML01 2.12 112.6 W2 11.16 412.55 LN

ML09 0.55 53.61 W2 0.72 34.6 W2

MH04 56.35 3,291.1 EX 657.43 16,780.43 W2

MH14 19.57 94.54 N 49.44 271.9 LN

MH20 2.66 44.01 W2 7.58 57.67 N

FL03 0 4.84 LN 3.8 10.27 JS

FH01 4.8 14.65 N 8.09 13.61 W2

FH04 2.9 31.78 N 29.79 77.25 N

FH05 4.47 14.1 N 5.74 10.84 N

DL03 0.21 40.19 W2 0.18 17.18 W2

DL05 1.3 101.41 W2 7.16 273.01 LN

DL18 0 25.97 LN 0 37.11 W2

DH02 61.73 7,328.48 W2 1,129.89 28,740.19 W2

DH07 41.84 108.1 N 45.53 88.29 JS

DH10 34.17 94.76 LN 37.31 78.07 LN

DH15 4.59 12.97 LN 6.38 11.59 JS

DH21 31.56 118.72 N 59.12 148.17 JS

DH23 1.19 2.69 LN 1.33 6.82 JS

TA01 0.22 0.57 N 0.19 0.37 N

TL01 233.62 272.37 N 241.76 276.33 LN

TH01 36.94 220.7 N 33.14 175.88 N

RA03 1.43 172.29 W2 31.05 568.34 W2

RA05 0.18 0.31 N 0.17 0.28 N

RA07 0.05 0.14 LN 0.11 0.2 N
31

43 44

5Q 95Q Distribution 5Q 95Q Distribution

MA01 315.56 1,898.69 LN 12.49 294.59 W2

MA04 81 142.91 N 131.15 280.78 N

MA28 51.29 108.6 N 153.49 266.07 N

ML01 151.89 507.03 LN 0.85 27.94 W2

ML09 66.34 213.08 LN 0.03 8.08 W2

MH04 939.04 18,286.59 W2 103.99 4,592.21 W2

MH14 16.86 56.82 N 86.83 1,087.91 W2

MH20 12.64 29.38 LN 2.89 60.49 W2

FL03 0.01 2.13 W2 5.46 12.14 W3

FH01 5.77 10.49 LN 9.66 15.48 N

FH04 7.54 34.7 N 20.32 105.14 N

FH05 4.86 7.36 LN 6.31 15.36 LN

DL03 50.16 169.4 LN 0 5.14 W3

DL05 82.02 351.56 N 0.98 32.98 W2

DL18 0 0 6.09 140.62 W2

DH02 2,149.5 34,131.3 W2 447.79 7,895.62 W2

DH07 61.64 88.78 W2 46.25 138.96 LN

DH10 52.1 64.36 N 52.67 112.7 LN

DH15 6.71 13.78 N 3.92 8.5 N

DH21 77.76 132.91 N 38.44 122.13 N

DH23 1.33 4.07 N 1.3 3.66 LN

TA01 0.48 0.59 N 0.2 0.38 LN

TL01 258.93 280.4 N 236.26 271.14 W3

TH01 82.6 146.14 N 88.46 207.1 N

RA03 45.6 470.91 W2 28.64 206.04 LN

RA05 0.21 0.26 N 0.16 0.28 LN

RA07 0.04 0.08 N 0.14 0.37 LN
32

Table 4. Observed and predicted hydroecological integrity assessment process grouping with discriminant 

analysis for 28 Oklahoma streamgages.

[Misclassified gages are in bold. HIP, hydroecological integrity assessment process; No., no., number; USGS, U.S. 

Geological Survey]

USGS 

streamgage 

no.

Actual HIP Predicted 

HIP

No. of 

indices 

exceeded

Mean percent 

indices 

exceeded

Stream type

07196900 42 42 5 11.2 Reference

07197000 41 41 2 25.4 Reference

07151500 41 41 0 0.0 Reference

07189000 43 43 2 11.9 Reference

07195800 41 41 0 0.0 Reference

07337900 42 42 3 15.4 Reference

07249400 42 42 0 0.0 Reference

07335700 42 42 6 23.4 Reference

07249985 42 42 3 3.4 Reference

07184000 44 44 0 0.0 Reference

07315700 44 44 0 0.0 Reference

07187000 43 43 5 24.3 Reference

07191220 41 41 1 2.8 Reference

07186000 43 43 4 4.5 Reference

07170700 44 44 6 33.1 Altered

07332500 41 41 3 14.3 Altered

07172000 42 42 2 7.0 Altered

07336200 42 42 0 0.0 Altered

07341200 42 42 7 8.3 Altered

07152000 42 43 6 70.1 Altered

07243500 42 43 9 32.7 Altered

07247500 44 42 5 9.3 Altered

07247000 44 42 6 56.6 Altered

07300500 44 42 9 24.4 Altered

07177500 44 43 16 243.4 Altered

07338500 42 43 13 42.3 Altered

07339000 42 No class 17 181.3 Altered

07316500 44 41 12 49.8 Altered
33

Table 5. Correlations between first and second nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) axes of species 

presence and functional groups with flow variables.

[Correlations in bold typeface have an absolute r value greater than 0.5. Hydrologic indices (variables) are described in table 

1. NMS, nonmetric multidimensional scaling]

Variable Species Functional group

NMS1 NMS2 PC1 PC2

MA01 -0.28 0.32 -0.03 -0.63

MA04 -0.63 -0.04 0.65 -0.16

MA28 -0.53 0.03 0.57 -0.16

ML01 -0.04 0.34 -0.23 -0.58

ML09 0.14 -0.13 -0.23 -0.15

MH04 -0.34 0.33 0.04 -0.67

MH14 -0.40 -0.24 0.55 0.01

MH20 0.25 0.03 -0.17 0.09

FL03 -0.56 -0.06 0.63 0.01

FH01 -0.44 0.27 0.34 -0.29

FH04 -0.61 0.02 0.58 -0.18

FH05 -0.46 0.03 0.45 -0.06

DL03 0.20 -0.16 -0.27 -0.09

DL05 -0.07 0.15 -0.17 -0.49

DL18 -0.41 -0.40 0.59 0.27

DH07 -0.14 -0.70 0.39 0.42

DH10 -0.52 -0.64 0.74 0.32

DH15 0.48 -0.14 -0.41 0.17

DH21 0.05 -0.31 -0.02 0.05

DH23 -0.39 -0.28 0.31 0.03

TA01 -0.52 -0.05 0.59 0.01

TL01 0.15 -0.24 -0.20 -0.10

TH01 -0.12 -0.12 0.00 -0.08

RA03 -0.52 -0.54 0.63 0.08

RA05 -0.41 0.35 0.12 -0.71

RA07 -0.17 0.08 0.03 -0.13
34

Table 6. Average proportions of species in functional groups for alteration and geographic location of 

streamgages on the Kiamichi River and Bird Creek, Oklahoma. [Values in bold typeface are higher and significantly different between reference and altered periods]

Alteration Location

Reference Altered p-value Eastern Western p-value

Tolerance of water quality change

Intolerant 0.26 0.08 <0.01 0.25 0.04 <0.01

Intermediate 0.39 0.40 0.72 0.44 0.33 0.01

Tolerant 0.36 0.52 0.03 0.31 0.64 <0.01

Tolerance of habitat change

Intolerant 0.38 0.24 0.02 0.42 0.14 <0.01

Intermediate 0.33 0.37 0.13 0.34 0.36 0.61

Tolerant 0.29 0.40 0.06 0.24 0.50 <0.01

Sensitive benthic species

No 0.73 0.82 0.01 0.73 0.85 <0.01

Yes 0.27 0.18 0.01 0.27 0.15 <0.01

Lithophilic species

No 0.54 0.79 <0.01 0.56 0.84 <0.01

Yes 0.46 0.21 <0.01 0.44 0.16 <0.01

Habitat type

Creek 0.31 0.16 <0.01 0.30 0.13 <0.01

River 0.09 0.10 0.49 0.11 0.07 0.02

River or creek 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.22 0.15 <0.01

Lentic 0.06 0.15 <0.01 0.06 0.16 <0.01

General 0.34 0.41 0.12 0.31 0.49 <0.01

Current speed

Slow 0.45 0.57 <0.01 0.45 0.60 <0.01

Slow to moderate 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.72

Moderate 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.02 <0.01

Moderate to fast 0.22 0.16 0.03 0.22 0.13 <0.01

Fast 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.11

General 0.07 0.06 0.78 0.07 0.06 0.75

Trophic group

Generalist 0.07 0.06 0.25 0.06 0.08 0.15

Herbivore 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.07

Invertivore 0.64 0.59 0.21 0.69 0.50 <0.01

Omnivore 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.21 <0.01

Piscivore 0.14 0.18 0.02 0.14 0.19 <0.01

Reproductive guild

A_1 0.36 0.46 <0.01 0.37 0.47 <0.01

A_2 0.23 0.14 0.01 0.23 0.10 <0.01

B_1 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.29

B_2 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.39 0.29

C_2 0.02 0.03 0.65 0.02 0.03 0.05

Conservation status

Exotic 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.04 <0.01

S1 0.02 0.02 0.75 0.02 0.01 0.42

S2 0.02 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.00 0.01

S3 0.09 0.09 0.76 0.10 0.08 0.26

S4 0.23 0.22 0.82 0.23 0.22 0.68

S5 0.64 0.61 0.37 0.61 0.65 0.26

Richness

Family richness 9.8 11.3 0.08 10.4 10.7 0.73

Species richness 37.4 43.9 0.28 43.3 36.5 0.27
35

Table 7. Differences between periods in median and coefficient of dispersion values for hydrologic parameters

for the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma.

[Results are based on indicators of hydrologic analysis between pre- and post-impoundment periods. Values in bold typeface 

are significantly different between pre- and post-impoundment periods. CD, coefficient of dispersion; L–RVA, boundary for 

lower range of natural variability; H–RVA, boundary for upper range of natural variability; p(Med.), proportion of 

randomized trials where difference between pre and post impoundment median values were greater than observed values; 

p(CD), proportion of randomized trials where difference between pre and post impoundment CD values were greater than 

observed values]

Pre-impoundment Post Sardis Lake impoundment

Median CD L-RVA H-RVA Median CD p (Med.) p (CD)

Magnitude of monthly water conditions

October 90 2.9 14 172 31 5.4 0.38 0.22

November 178.5 2.9 96 482.1 339 5.4 0.19 0.11

December 356 1.6 246.4 676 1,100 2.0 <0.01 0.54

January 641 1.3 401.4 943 553 3.5 0.62 <0.01

February 986 1 555.4 1,376 872.5 1.6 0.91 0.16

March 1,100 1 793 1,520 1,420 1 0.26 0.79

April 1,055 1.5 845.2 1,610 1,077 2.2 0.87 0.08

May 916 1.3 593 1,368 1,350 1.6 0.10 0.46

June 272 1.8 155.7 507.1 322.5 3.1 0.32 0.09

July 53 2.8 26.5 127.6 46 2.1 0.71 0.59

August 27 2.9 6.2 57.5 12 5.1 0.24 0.16

September 40 2.7 14.7 84.1 35.5 2.2 0.80 0.68

Magnitude and duration of annual extreme conditions

1-day minimum flow 0.6 11.7 0.1 3.9 1.5 2.8 0.13 0.22

3-day minimum flow 0.6 12.5 0.1 4.2 1.9 2.4 0.10 0.23

7-day minimum flow 1 11.9 0.2 4.5 2.4 2.2 0.13 0.23

30-day minimum flow 5.5 5 2.9 18.7 6.5 1.2 0.72 0.23

90-day minimum flow 91.4 2.6 46.2 150.3 77.8 1.1 0.58 0.31

1-day maximum flow 31,100 0.6 24,800 38,960 23,100 0.6 0.07 0.69

3-day maximum flow 26,070 0.7 21,580 34,460 18,630 0.7 0.04 0.98

7-day maximum flow 14,880 0.7 13,700 21,410 11,160 0.7 0.04 0.99

30-day maximum flow 6,630 0.7 4,974 8,173 5,299 0.7 0.17 0.86

90-day maximum flow 3,494 0.7 3,178 4,703 3,419 0.5 0.76 0.32

# of zero-flow days 0 0 0 0 0 0

Timing of annual extreme water conditions

Julian date of 1-day max 253 0.1 232 272.5 258 0.1 0.82 0.60

Julian date of 1-day min 124 0.5 106.5 154.4 136 0.5 0.41 0.94

Frequency and duration of high and low pulses

# of low pulses per year 4 0.8 4 5 4 0.8 0.71 0.85

Duration of low pulses 9 1.2 8 15.3 10.5 1.3 0.48 0.81

# of high pulses per year 12 0.4 11 14.5 14 0.3 0.05 0.25

Duration of high pulses 5 0.4 4 5.5 4.5 0.7 0.29 0.05

Rate and frequency of water condition changes

Rise rates 235 1.4 124.2 343.8 201 1.4 0.68 0.91

Fall rates -48 -1.1 -68.1 -32.5 -45 -1.6 0.91 0.08

# of reversals 73 0.2 66 78 80 0.2 0.04 0.99
36

Table 8. Differences between periods in median and coefficient of dispersion values for hydrologic parameters for Bird Creek, Oklahoma. [Results are based on indicators of hydrologic analysis between pre- and post-impoundment periods. Values in bold typeface are significantly different between 

pre and post impoundment periods. CD, coefficient of dispersion; L–RVA, boundary for lower range of natural variability; H–RVA, boundary for upper range of 

natural variability; p(Med.), proportion of randomized trials where difference between pre and post impoundment median values were greater than observed 

values; p(CD), proportion of randomized trials where difference between pre and post impoundment CD values were greater than observed values]

Pre-impoundment Post Birch Lake impoundment Post Skiatook Lake impoundment

Median CD L–RVA H–RVA Median CD p(Med.) p(CD) Median CD p(Med.) p(CD)

Magnitude of monthly water conditions

October 12 6.8 3.6 64.2 8.7 1.3 0.81 0.34 154 0.5 <0.01 0.18

November 19 3.9 6.2 45.5 18.5 5.7 0.98 0.68 79 6.2 <0.01 0.49

December 25 3.0 7.6 53 25 0.6 0.98 0.52 114 1.5 <0.01 0.23

January 37 2.3 15.6 76.8 19 0.9 0.48 0.37 88 2.4 <0.01 0.92

February 36 2.9 15.1 90.3 87 2.1 0.17 0.77 107 1.5 <0.01 0.28

March 60 3.4 36.0 147.4 93 2.5 0.52 0.78 220 6.0 0.01 0.25

April 137 1.9 47.6 251 204 1.4 0.69 0.76 249 3.8 0.01 0.20

May 153 1.5 98.6 244 446 4.4 0.02 0.35 315 5.2 <0.01 0.03

June 91.5 1.6 39.8 153.9 181.5 1.5 0.06 0.95 273 5.6 <0.01 0.07

July 27 2.8 15.1 69 27 1.9 0.92 0.70 183 0.7 <0.01 0.19

August 10 2.2 5.3 19 15 1.2 0.48 0.70 159 0.3 <0.01 0.25

September 10 7.0 6.5 42.2 9.4 0.9 0.88 0.35 159.5 0.1 <0.01 0.31

Magnitude and duration of annual extreme conditions

1-day minimum flow 1.2 3.4 0.2 2.1 1.8 0.6 0.58 0.46 49 0.4 <0.01 0.21

3-day minimum flow 1.2 3.5 0.3 2.2 2 0.6 0.48 0.41 50.7 0.3 <0.01 0.19

7-day minimum flow 1.6 3.0 0.5 3.8 2.3 0.8 0.60 0.38 54.1 0.3 <0.01 0.12

30-day minimum flow 3.6 2.8 1.3 8.6 5.5 0.5 0.46 0.45 64.6 0.3 <0.01 0.09

90-day minimum flow 17 4.3 10.7 48.6 21.2 0.7 0.79 0.27 132.3 0.8 <0.01 0.13

1-day maximum flow 13,800 0.7 10,760 17,330 9,410 0.6 0.20 0.95 12,900 0.7 0.77 0.70

3-day maximum flow 9,853 0.8 7,404 12,440 6,540 0.6 0.27 0.84 8,130 0.9 0.62 0.56

7-day maximum flow 5,645 1.0 3,754 6,864 3,942 0.9 0.31 0.88 6,613 0.7 0.43 0.40

30-day maximum flow 2,169 0.8 1,479 2,607 1,954 1.2 0.77 0.65 3,115 0.8 0.04 0.95

90-day maximum flow 1,136 1.0 791.2 1,340 1,215 0.8 0.79 0.82 1,429 1.4 0.10 0.25

# of zero-flow days 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Base flow index 0 2.5 0 0 0 3.0 0.34 0.77 0.06 1.7 <0.01 0.59

Timing of annual extreme water conditions

Julian date of 1-day max 257 0.1 246.5 275 283 0.1 0.11 0.63 311 0.2 <0.01 0.40

Julian date of 1-day min 163 0.4 133.1 226.4 139 0.2 0.63 0.12 128 0.3 0.12 0.44
37

Pre-impoundment Post Birch Lake impoundment Post Skiatook Lake impoundment

Median CD L–RVA H–RVA Median CD p(Med.) p(CD) Median CD p(Med.) p(CD)

Frequency and duration of high and low pulses

# of low pulses per year 4 1.3 2.5 5.5 4 1.5 0.73 0.67 0 0 0.21 0.02

Duration of low pulses 11.5 1 9 16.8 5 0.6 0.24 0.43 5.5 0.12

# of high pulses per year 13 0.4 11 14 10 0.4 0.14 0.93 14 0.4 0.09 0.75

Duration of high pulses 4 0.5 3.0 5 5.5 1.0 0.09 0.24 6 0.7 <0.01 0.34

Rate and frequency of water condition changes

Rise rates 25 2.4 11.1 46.7 8 1.3 0.30 0.70 22 2.7 0.75 0.82

Fall rates -9 -1.1 -11 -5 -9 -0.8 0.80 0.70 -16.5 -1.2 <0.01 0.83

# of reversals 69 0.2 65 76 82 0.2 0.05 0.53 112 0.1 <0.01 0.03
38

Table 9. Correlation coefficients and p-values for best fit environmental vectors describing relationships 

between environmental flow variables and fish assemblage structure in the Kiamichi River and Bird Creek, 

Oklahoma.

[Values are based on rotational vector fitting between variables and axes 1 and 2 NMS scores for each site. Bold values 

represent significant relationships. na, not available]

Hydrologic parameter Kiamichi River Bird Creek

r P r P

Magnitude of monthly water conditions

October 0.37 0.182 0.72 0.001

November 0.23 0.526 0.44 0.118

December 0.14 0.801 0.66 0.002

January 0.13 0.809 0.59 0.011

February 0.25 0.505 0.25 0.523

March 0.04 0.986 0.28 0.412

April 0.08 0.918 0.43 0.117

May 0.24 0.525 0.11 0.887

June 0.41 0.126 0.53 0.045

July 0.37 0.202 0.75 0.002

August 0.49 0.051 0.71 0.001

September 0.51 0.024 0.51 0.033

Magnitude and duration of annual extreme conditions

1-day minimum flow 0.73 0.001 0.76 0.001

3-day minimum flow 0.72 0.001 0.78 0.001

7-day minimum flow 0.73 0.001 0.78 0.001

30-day minimum flow 0.56 0.013 0.73 0.001

90-day minimum flow 0.34 0.244 0.74 0.002

1-day maximum flow 0.26 0.447 0.44 0.126

3-day maximum flow 0.19 0.678 0.47 0.084

7-day maximum flow 0.21 0.624 0.56 0.022

30-day maximum flow 0.24 0.538 0.44 0.092

90-day maximum flow 0.26 0.447 0.39 0.171

# of zero-flow days 0.48 0.058 na na

Base flow index 0.42 0.117 0.67 0.002

Timing of annual extreme conditions

Julian date of 1-day max 0.41 0.117 0.2 0.684

Julian date 0f 1-day min 0.39 0.118 0.14 0.832

Frequency and duration of high and low pulses

# of low pulses per year 0.3 0.347 0.73 0.001

Duration of low pulses 0.19 0.641 0.35 0.264

# of high pulses per year 0.3 0.317 0.01 0.999

Duration of high pulses 0.4 0.132 0.17 0.739

Rate and frequency of water condition changes

Rise rates 0.24 0.505 0.079 0.939

Fall rates 0.44 0.079 0.33 0.292

# of reversals 0.57 0.009 0.77 0.001

Discharge at time of sampling 0.78 0.001 0.67 0.005
39

Table 10. Fish species that were significant indicators of pre- or post-impoundment periods on the Kiamichi River 

and Bird Creek, Oklahoma.

[Periods are divided into pre and post for the categorical variable “Dam.” Additionally, periods were divided into pre (pr), 

transitional (tran), and post for the categorical variable “Time.” Significance (p) is based on a Monte Carlo randomization 

test where the proportion of randomized trials with indicator value (indval) equal to or exceeding the observed indicator 

value]

Common Name Variable “Dam” Variable “Time”

Period Indval p Period Indval p

Kiamichi River

Blacktail shriner — — — post 51.6 0.013

Brook silverside pre 74.6 0.002 pre 59.5 0.006

Spotted bass pre 54.3 0.037 — — —

Largemouth bass post 61.1 0.045 tran 49.2 0.003

Bird Creek

Central stoneroller post 84.2 0.001 tran 56.6 0.007

Ghost shiner post 84 0.001 — — —

Sand shiner post 42.9 0.05 tran 46.9 0.041

Suckermouth minnow post 71.2 0.005 — — —

Bullhead minnow post 67.5 0.007 post 67.2 0.001

Inland silverside — — — post 49 0.031

Western mosquitofish post 62.5 0.039 post 47 0.042

Largemouth bass post 56.9 0.026 — — —

White crappie — — — post 57.7 0.012

Slenderhead darter post 50 0.024 — — —
40

Appendix 1.—Family, Scientific Name, Common Name, and Functional 

Group Membership for Species Observed in This Study

Family Scientific name Common name

Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch

Aphredoderidae Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside

Aphredoderidae Menidia beryllina Inland silverside

Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker

Catostomidae Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback

Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii White sucker

Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue sucker

Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta Lake chubsucker

Catostomidae Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker

Catostomidae Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo

Catostomidae Ictiobus cyprinellus Largemouth buffalo

Catostomidae Ictiobus niger Black buffalo

Catostomidae Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker

Catostomidae Moxostoma carinatum River redhorse

Catostomidae Moxostoma duquesnei Black redhorse

Catostomidae Moxostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse

Catostomidae Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead redhorse

Centrarchidae Ambloplites ariommus Shadow bass

Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass

Centrarchidae Centrarchus macropterus Flier

Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus Warmouth sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis humilis Orangespotted sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis marginatus Dollar sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis miniatus Redspotted sunfish

Centrarchidae Lepomis symmetricus Bantam sunfish

Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass

Centrarchidae Micropterus punctulatus Spotted bass

Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass

Centrarchidae Pomoxis annularis White crappie

Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie

Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad

Clupeidae Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad

Cottidae Cottus carolinae Banded sculpin

Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller
41

Family Scientific name Common name

Cyprinidae Campostoma oligolepis Largescale stoneroller

Cyprinidae Carassius auratus Goldfish

Cyprinidae Cyprinella camura Bluntface shiner

Cyprinidae Cyprinella lutrensis Red shiner

Cyprinidae Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner

Cyprinidae Cyprinella venusta Blacktail shiner

Cyprinidae Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner

Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp

Cyprinidae Erimystax x-punctatus Gravel chub

Cyprinidae Hybognathus placitus Plains minnow

Cyprinidae Hybopsis amblops Bigeye chub

Cyprinidae Hybopsis amnis Pallid shiner

Cyprinidae Luxilus cardinalis Cardinal shiner

Cyprinidae Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner

Cyprinidae Luxilus pilsbryi Duskystripe shiner

Cyprinidae Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon shiner

Cyprinidae Lythrurus snelsoni Ouachita Mountain shiner

Cyprinidae Lythrurus umbratilis Redfin shiner

Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis australis Prairie chub

Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver chub

Cyprinidae Nocomis asper Redspot chub

Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis bairdi Red River shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis blennius River shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis boops Bigeye shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis buchanani Ghost shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis greenei Wedgespot shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis nubilus Ozark minnow

Cyprinidae Notropis ortenburgeri Kiamichi shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis percobromus Carmine shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis perpallidus Peppered shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis potteri Chub shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis shumardi Silverband shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis stramineus Sand shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis suttkusi Rocky shiner

Cyprinidae Notropis volucellus Mimic shiner

Cyprinidae Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose shiner

Cyprinidae Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth minnow

Cyprinidae Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern redbelly dace

Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow
42

Family Scientific name Common name

Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow

Cyprinidae Pimephales tenellus Slim minnow

Cyprinidae Pimephales vigilax Bullhead minnow

Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub

Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River pupfish

Elassomatidae Elassoma zonatum Banded pygmy sunfish

Esocidae Esox americanus Grass pickerel

Esocidae Esox niger Chain pickerel

Fundulidae Fundulus blaire Western starhead topminnow

Fundulidae Fundulus catenatus Northern studfish

Fundulidae Fundulus chrysotus Golden topminnow

Fundulidae Fundulus kansae Northern plains killifish

Fundulidae Fundulus notatus Blackstripe topminnow

Fundulidae Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted topminnow

Fundulidae Fundulus sciadicus Plains topminnow

Fundulidae Fundulus zebrinus Plains killifish

Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides Goldeye

Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black bullhead

Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead

Ictaluridae Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish

Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish

Ictaluridae Noturus eleutherus Mountain madtom

Ictaluridae Noturus exilis Slender madtom

Ictaluridae Noturus flavus Stonecat

Ictaluridae Noturus gyrinus Tadpole madtom

Ictaluridae Noturus miurus Brindled madtom

Ictaluridae Noturus nocturnus Freckeled madtom

Ictaluridae Noturus placidus Neosho madtom

Ictaluridae Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus platostomus Shortnose gar

Moronidae Morone chrysops White bass

Moronidae Morone chrysops x Morone saxatilis Wiper

Moronidae Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass

Moronidae Morone saxatilis Striped bass

Percidae Ammocrypta clara Western sand darter

Percidae Ammocrypta vivax Scaly sand darter

Percidae Crystallaria asprella Crystal darter

Percidae Etheostoma asprigene Mud darter

Percidae Etheostoma blennioides Greenside darter

Percidae Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose darter
43

Family Scientific name Common name

Percidae Etheostoma cragini Arkansas darter

Percidae Etheostoma flabellare Fantail darter

Percidae Etheostoma gracile Slough darter

Percidae Etheostoma histrio Harlequin darter

Percidae Etheostoma microperca Least darter

Percidae Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter

Percidae Etheostoma proeliare Cypress darter

Percidae Etheostoma punctulatum Stippled darter

Percidae Etheostoma radiosum Orangebelly darter

Percidae Etheostoma spectabile Orangethroat darter

Percidae Etheostoma stigmaeum Speckled darter

Percidae Etheostoma whipplei Redfin darter

Percidae Etheostoma zonale Banded darter

Percidae Percina caprodes Logperch

Percidae Percina copelandi Channel darter

Percidae Percina fulvitaenia Ozark logperch

Percidae Percina macrolepida Bigscale logperch

Percidae Percina maculata Blackside darter

Percidae Percina nasuta Longnose darter

Percidae Percina pantherina Leopard darter

Percidae Percina phoxocephala Slenderhead darter

Percidae Percina sciera Dusky darter

Percidae Percina shumardi River darter

Percidae Sander canadensis Sauger

Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut lamprey

Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern brook lamprey

Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum