My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04610
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04610
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:46:43 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 12:45:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Overview of River-Floodplain Ecology in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Date
12/9/1996
Prepared By
USGS
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />SPECIES EXTIRPATIONS <br /> <br />OVERVIEW OF RIVER-FLOODPLAIN ECOLOGY IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN <br /> <br />As with exotic species introductions, plant extirpations <br />are not well documented. It is likely that massive develop- <br />ment in the UMRS floodplain eradicated many terrestrial <br />and wetland species. Degradation in the aquatic environ- <br />ment has caused the decline of many wetland and aquatic <br />species, though the impact has not been adequately <br />documented. <br />Mussels are the most devastated faunal group in the <br />UMR. In the Illinois River they have been reduced from 47 <br />to only 24 species. and total abundance has been reduced <br />(Cummings, 1991). Similar trends are evident on the upper <br />Mississippi River. Commercial shelling, which was once <br />very active on both rivers (Carlander, 1954; Starrett, 1971). <br />has declined significantly, and harvest has even been pro- <br />hibited by State regulators in minois, <br />Fishes have suffered significantly from the perturba- <br />tion of the river-floodplain ecosystem. Although wholesale <br />extinctions are uncommon. in lhe Illinois River 10 percent <br />(13 of 131 species) have probably been extirpated (Page and <br />others, 1992). In the Mississippi River. blocked migration <br />routes have nearly eliminated skipjack herring from the <br />upper floodplain reach. and paddlefish migrations have <br />been intenupted (Pflieger. 1975). Walleye movements have <br />also been disrupted (John Pitlo, personal commun., 1993). <br /> <br />CONTAMINANTS <br /> <br />Toxic contaminants and fish consumption advisories <br />are widespread in the UMRS (Wiener and others, 1984; <br />Dukerschein and others, 1992). Near large urban areas <br />(Minneapolis. Minnesota; Davenport, Iowa; St, Louis, Mis- <br />souri; Chicago, Illinois: and Peoria, lllinois), industrial con- <br />taminants are common. Sewage effluents were very high in <br />the Illinois River following the diversion of Lake Michigan <br />water in 1900 (Mills and others, 1966), A zone of degrada- <br />tion spread slowly down the river until the river had been <br />severely degraded as far south as the LaGrange Lock and <br />Dam. Sewage and storm-water treatment improved water <br />quality dramatically but at a huge economic cost ($10 bil- <br />lion). Regulatory controls have improved water quality but <br />not sediment conditions. <br />Throughout the remainder of the basin, most contami- <br />nants are of agricultural origin and occur in concentrations <br />at or near maximum advisable levels (Goolsby and others. <br />1993; Pereira and Hostettler, 1992). While point source pol- <br />lutants have been effectively regulated. nonpoint pollutants <br />are largely uncontrolled, Papers in Wiener and others (1984) <br />provide a detailed summary of UMRS contaminants. <br />although the work should be updated to reflect recent <br />changes. <br /> <br />ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS FROM <br />THE "GREAT FLOOD OF 1993" <br /> <br />Flood stages in 1993 were greater than ever recorded <br />in most places in the basin (Parrett and others, 1993), The <br />force of the water scoured banks, levees, and floodplains, <br />Flood flows also deposited sediments throughout the flood- <br />plain and in some places may have restored sand habitats <br />lost through the years. The newly created habitats will <br />increase habitat diversity if the areas affected by the flood <br />are left to recover naturally. <br />Floodplain herbaceous plants were destroyed in the <br />areas suffering flooding late into the summer. Because the <br />flood lasted throughout most of the growing season, most <br />plants were not able to grow at all before the onset of fall <br />senescence. Inundated herbaceous plants provided large <br />amounts of organic energy for detritivores. Wetland and <br />aquatic plants are expected to recover quickly when hydro- <br />logic conditions stabilize. The effect on trees is unknown <br />but will be carefully monitored. <br />Aquatic invertebrates sampled in the minois River <br />were very abundant at the moving edge of the rising flood. <br />The highest density and diversity were found in the shal- <br />lowest water in flooded vegetation. <br />Many fishes are adapted to reproduce during the rising <br />portion of the flood pulse. In the lower Illinois River, repro- <br />ductive success for most lacustrine and some river fishes <br />was higher than previously documented. In 1993 the skip- <br />jack herring was found in Pool 4 for the first time since <br />1989. when LTRMP fish sampling was initiated (Mark <br />Stapyro, personal commun., 1993), Because Lock and Dam <br />19, which normally blocks fish migrations, was overtopped <br />by floodwaters. skipjack herring and other fish species <br />moved freely throughout the UMRS. <br />Birds were variably affected, depending on the habitats <br />they prefer. Waterfowl were spread widely over the inun- <br />dated floodplain but may have suffered from reduced plant <br />food availability. Piscivorous birds appeared to thrive; they <br />occurred in large numbers in isolated floodplain puddles <br />and at the moving edge of the river. where they fed on the <br />abundant small fishes. <br />A detrimental effect of the inundation of levee districts <br />was the drowning of small mammals, reptiles, and amphibi- <br />ans. Larger mammals were caught in a few cases, but most <br />were able to escape unhanned. Many instances of wildlife <br />wandering into urban areas were reported as animals were <br />forced out of their homes on the floodplain. <br />Floodwaters quickly filled levee districts and inun- <br />dated the relatively immobile small animals. In natural sys- <br />tems, animals usually have time to escape flooding because <br />the waters move slowly across the floodplain rather than <br />breaking through manmade barriers. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.