Submitted:
22 July 2024
Posted:
24 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study System
2.2. eDNA Field Sampling
2.3. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification, Sequencing
2.4. Bioinformatics
2.5. Estimating Species Diversity and Assemblage Structure
3. Results
3.1. Species Richness
3.2. Assemblage Structure among Spring Samples
3.3. Seasonal and Spatial Variation in Bayou Habitats
3.4. Comparison to Historical and Recent Capture-Based Records of Species Presence
4. Discussion
4.1. Species Diversity
4.2. Assemblage Structure
4.3. Taxonomic Distribution of Diversity
4.4. Invasive and Introduced Species, and Species of Conservation Concern
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adams, S. R., Inebnit, T. E., Lewis, L. C., Naus, C. J., & Kluender, E. (2024). Spawning Ecology and Spawning Site Fidelity of Alligator Gar , Atractosteus spatula , in the Fourche LaFave River : Implications for River-Floodplain Management and Alligator Gar Conservation Spawning Ecology and Spawning Site Fidelity of Alligator Gar , . 1(64).
- Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Gilbert, M. T. P., & Bohmann, K. (2018). Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 134–147. [CrossRef]
- Allen, Y., Kimmel, K., & Constant, G. (2020). Using Remote Sensing to Assess Alligator Gar Spawning Habitat Suitability in the Lower Mississippi River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 40(3), 580–594. [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N., & Clarke, K. R. (2008). PERMANOVAþ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods.
- Beng, K. C., & Corlett, R. T. (2020). Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges and prospects. In Biodiversity and Conservation (Vol. 29, Issue 7). Springer Netherlands. [CrossRef]
- Best, J. (2019). Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nature Geoscience, 12(1), 7–21. [CrossRef]
- Chao, A., Gotelli, N. J., Hsieh, T. C., Sander, E. L., Ma, K. H., Colwell, R. K., & Ellison, A. M. (2014). Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecological Monographs, 84(1), 45–67. [CrossRef]
- Chao, A., & Jost, L. (2012). Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: Standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology, 93(12), 2533–2547. [CrossRef]
- Cilleros, K., Valentini, A., Allard, L., Dejean, T., Etienne, R., Grenouillet, G., Iribar, A., Taberlet, P., Vigouroux, R., & Brosse, S. (2019). Unlocking biodiversity and conservation studies in high-diversity environments using environmental DNA (eDNA): A test with Guianese freshwater fishes. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19(1), 27–46. [CrossRef]
- Cross, F. B., Mayden, R. L., & Stewart, J. D. (1986). Fishes in the western Mississippi drainage. In C. H. Hocutt & E. O. Wiley (Eds.), Zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes (pp. 363–412). Wiley.
- Deagle, B. E., Kirkwood, R., & Jarman, S. N. (2009). Analysis of Australian fur seal diet by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces. Molecular Ecology, 18(9), 2022–2038. [CrossRef]
- Deiner, K., Bik, H. M., Mächler, E., Seymour, M., Lacoursière-Roussel, A., Altermatt, F., Creer, S., Bista, I., Lodge, D. M., de Vere, N., Pfrender, M. E., & Bernatchez, L. (2017). Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology, 26(21), 5872–5895. [CrossRef]
- Dembkowski, D. J., & Miranda, L. E. (2012). Hierarchy in factors affecting fish biodiversity in floodplain lakes of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 93(3), 357–368. [CrossRef]
- Dettmers, J. M., Gutreuter, S., Wahl, D. H., & Soluk, D. A. (2001). Patterns in abundance of fishes in main channels of the upper Mississippi River system. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58(5), 933–942. [CrossRef]
- DuBowy, P. J. (2013). Mississippi River Ecohydrology: Past, present and future. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology, 13, 73–83. [CrossRef]
- Euclide, P. T., Lor, Y., Spear, M. J., Tajjioui, T., Vander Zanden, J., Larson, W. A., & Amberg, J. J. (2021). Environmental DNA metabarcoding as a tool for biodiversity assessment and monitoring: reconstructing established fish communities of north-temperate lakes and rivers. Diversity and Distributions, 27(10), 1966–1980. [CrossRef]
- García-Machado, E., Laporte, M., Normandeau, E., Hernández, C., Côté, G., Paradis, Y., Mingelbier, M., & Bernatchez, L. (2022). Fish community shifts along a strong fluvial environmental gradient revealed by eDNA metabarcoding. Environmental DNA, 4(1), 117–134. [CrossRef]
- Geheber, A. D., & Piller, K. R. (2012). Spatio-temporal patterns of fish assemblage structure in a coastal plain stream: Appropriate scales reveal historic tales. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 21(4), 627–639. [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, C. S., Turner, C. R., Deiner, K., Klymus, K. E., Thomsen, P. F., Murphy, M. A., Spear, S. F., McKee, A., Oyler-McCance, S. J., Cornman, R. S., Laramie, M. B., Mahon, A. R., Lance, R. F., Pilliod, D. S., Strickler, K. M., Waits, L. P., Fremier, A. K., Takahara, T., Herder, J. E., & Taberlet, P. (2016). Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(11), 1299–1307. [CrossRef]
- Hallam, J., Clare, E. L., Jones, J. I., & Day, J. J. (2021). Biodiversity assessment across a dynamic riverine system: A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding versus traditional fish surveying methods. Environmental DNA, 3(6), 1247–1266. [CrossRef]
- Harris, P. M., Roe, K. J., & Mayden, R. L. (2005). A Mitochondrial DNA Perspective on the Molecular Systematics of the Sunfish Genus Lepomis ( Actinopterygii : Centrarchidae ) Published by : American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists ( ASIH ) Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/4098540 Li. 2005(2), 340–346.
- Harrison, J. B., Sunday, J. M., & Rogers, S. M. (2019). Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1915). [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, T., Ma, K., & Chao, A. (2024). iNEXT: Interpolation and Extrapolation for Species Diversity. R package version 3.0.1. http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/.
- Humphries, P., King, A. J., & Koehn, J. D. (1999). Fish, flows and flood plains: Links between freshwater fishes and their environment in the Murray-Darling River system, Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 56(1–2), 129–151. [CrossRef]
- Isphording, W., & Fitzpatrick Jr., J. (1992). Geologic and evolutionary history of drainage systems in the Southeastern United States. In C. Hackney, S. Adams, & W. Martin (Eds.), Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States Aquatic Communities. (pp. 19–56). John Wiley and Sons.
- Jarvis, S. G., Mackay, E. B., Risser, H. A., Feuchtmayr, H., Fry, M., Isaac, N. J. B., Thackeray, S. J., & Henrys, P. A. (2023). Integrating freshwater biodiversity data sources: Key challenges and opportunities. Freshwater Biology, 68(9), 1479–1488. [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, C. N., Van Houtan, K. S., Pimm, S. L., & Sexton, J. O. (2015). US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(16), 5081–5086. [CrossRef]
- Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B., & Sparks, R. E. (1989). The flood pulse concept in River-Floodplain Systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 106(September 1989), 110–127.
- Kačergytė, I., Petersson, E., Arlt, D., Hellström, M., Knape, J., Spens, J., Żmihorski, M., & Pärt, T. (2021). Environmental DNA metabarcoding elucidates patterns of fish colonisation and co-occurrences with amphibians in temperate wetlands created for biodiversity. Freshwater Biology, 66(10), 1915–1929. [CrossRef]
- Klymus, K. E., Richter, C. A., Thompson, N., & Hinck, J. E. (2017). Metabarcoding of environmental DNA samples to explore the use of uranium mine containment ponds as a water source for wildlife. Diversity, 9(4), 1–18. [CrossRef]
- Koel, T. M. (2004). Spatial Variation in Fish Species Richness of the Upper Mississippi River System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 133(4), 984–1003. [CrossRef]
- Kumar, G., Farrell, E., Reaume, A. M., Eble, J. A., & Gaither, M. R. (2022). One size does not fit all: Tuning eDNA protocols for high- and low-turbidity water sampling. Environmental DNA, 4(1), 167–180. [CrossRef]
- Lecaudey, L. A., Schletterer, M., Kuzovlev, V. V., Hahn, C., & Weiss, S. J. (2019). Fish diversity assessment in the headwaters of the Volga River using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(10), 1785–1800. [CrossRef]
- Lee, V. M., Berkman, L. K., Geheber, A. D., Landwer, B., Ludwig, E. J., & Duvernell, D. D. (2024). Putting eDNA to the test: A field comparison of eDNA metabarcoding to established protocols for assessing biodiversity in Missouri’s Ozark Highland streams. Environmental DNA, 6(1), 1–18. [CrossRef]
- Mächler, E., Little, C. J., Wüthrich, R., Alther, R., Fronhofer, E. A., Gounand, I., Harvey, E., Hürlemann, S., Walser, J. C., & Altermatt, F. (2019). Assessing different components of diversity across a river network using eDNA. Environmental DNA, 1(3), 290–301. [CrossRef]
- Mathieu, C., Hermans, S. M., Lear, G., Buckley, T. R., Lee, K. C., & Buckley, H. L. (2020). A systematic review of sources of variability and uncertainty in eDNA data for environmental monitoring. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8(May), 1–14. [CrossRef]
- Mathon, L., Valentini, A., Guérin, P. E., Normandeau, E., Noel, C., Lionnet, C., Boulanger, E., Thuiller, W., Bernatchez, L., Mouillot, D., Dejean, T., & Manel, S. (2021). Benchmarking bioinformatic tools for fast and accurate eDNA metabarcoding species identification. Molecular Ecology Resources, 21(7), 2565–2579. [CrossRef]
- McColl-Gausden, E. F., Weeks, A. R., Coleman, R. A., Robinson, K. L., Song, S., Raadik, T. A., & Tingley, R. (2021). Multispecies models reveal that eDNA metabarcoding is more sensitive than backpack electrofishing for conducting fish surveys in freshwater streams. Molecular Ecology, 30(13), 3111–3126. [CrossRef]
- MDC. (2024). Missouri species and communities of conservation concern checklist. https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/SOCC Checklist 2024_ADA_0.pdf.
- Miya, M. (2022). Environmental DNA Metabarcoding: A Novel Method for Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Fish Communities. Annual Review of Marine Science, 14, 161–185. [CrossRef]
- Miya, M., Sato, Y., Fukunaga, T., Sado, T., Poulsen, J. Y., Sato, K., Minamoto, T., Yamamoto, S., Yamanaka, H., Araki, H., Kondoh, M., & Iwasaki, W. (2015). MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. Royal Society Open Science, 2(7). [CrossRef]
- Morrison, R. R., Simonson, K., McManamay, R. A., & Carver, D. (2023). Degradation of floodplain integrity within the contiguous United States. Communications Earth and Environment, 4(1), 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Nakagawa, H., Yamamoto, S., Sato, Y., Sado, T., Minamoto, T., & Miya, M. (2018). Comparing local- and regional-scale estimations of the diversity of stream fish using eDNA metabarcoding and conventional observation methods. Freshwater Biology, 63(6), 569–580. [CrossRef]
- Near, T. J., & Koppelman, J. B. (2009). Species diversity, phylogeny and phylogeography of Centrarchidae. In S. J. Cooke & D. P. Philipp (Eds.), Centrarchid Fishes: Diversity, Biology, and Conservation (pp. 1–38). Wiley-Blackwell.
- Nevers, M. B., Przybyla-Kelly, K., Shively, D., Morris, C. C., Dickey, J., & Byappanahalli, M. N. (2020). Influence of sediment and stream transport on detecting a source of environmental DNA. PLoS ONE, 15(12 December), 1–21. [CrossRef]
- Noss, R. F., Platt, W. J., Sorrie, B. A., Weakley, A. S., Means, D. B., Costanza, J., & Peet, R. K. (2015). How global biodiversity hotspots may go unrecognized: Lessons from the North American Coastal Plain. Diversity and Distributions, 21(2), 236–244. [CrossRef]
- Olson, K. R., Morton, L. W., & Speidel, D. (2016a). Little river drainage district conversion of big swamp to fertile agricultural land. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 37A-43A. [CrossRef]
- Olson, K. R., Morton, L. W., & Speidel, D. (2016b). Missouri Ozark Plateau Headwaters Diversion engineering feat. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(1), 13A-19A. [CrossRef]
- Pflieger, W. L. (1997). The Fishes of Missouri (2nd ed.).
- Phelps, Q. E., Tripp, S. J., Herzog, D. P., & Garvey, J. E. (2015). Temporary connectivity: The relative benefits of large river floodplain inundation in the lower Mississippi River. Restoration Ecology, 23(1), 53–56. [CrossRef]
- Pierce, S. C., Kröger, R., & Pezeshki, R. (2012). Managing artificially drained low-gradient agricultural headwaters for enhanced ecosystem functions. Biology, 1(3), 794–856. [CrossRef]
- Pukk, L., Kanefsky, J., Heathman, A. L., Weise, E. M., Nathan, L. R., Herbst, S. J., Sard, N. M., Scribner, K. T., & Robinson, J. D. (2021). eDNA metabarcoding in lakes to quantify influences of landscape features and human activity on aquatic invasive species prevalence and fish community diversity. Diversity and Distributions, 27(10), 2016–2031. [CrossRef]
- Radinger, J., Britton, J. R., Carlson, S. M., Magurran, A. E., Alcaraz-Hernández, J. D., Almodóvar, A., Benejam, L., Fernández-Delgado, C., Nicola, G. G., Oliva-Paterna, F. J., Torralva, M., & García-Berthou, E. (2019). Effective monitoring of freshwater fish. Fish and Fisheries, 20(4), 729–747. [CrossRef]
- Rees, H. C., Maddison, B. C., Middleditch, D. J., Patmore, J. R. M., & Gough, K. C. (2014). The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA - a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(5), 1450–1459. [CrossRef]
- Rojahn, J., Gleeson, D. M., Furlan, E., Haeusler, T., & Bylemans, J. (2021). Improving the detection of rare native fish species in environmental DNA metabarcoding surveys. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 31(4), 990–997. [CrossRef]
- Roswell, M., Dushoff, J., & Winfree, R. (2021). A conceptual guide to measuring species diversity. Oikos, 130(3), 321–338. [CrossRef]
- Ruppert, K. M., Kline, R. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2019). Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, e00547. [CrossRef]
- Schenekar, T. (2023). The current state of eDNA research in freshwater ecosystems: are we shifting from the developmental phase to standard application in biomonitoring? Hydrobiologia, 850(6), 1263–1282. [CrossRef]
- Schönhuth, S., Vukić, J., Šanda, R., Yang, L., & Mayden, R. L. (2018). Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the Holarctic family Leuciscidae (Cypriniformes: Cyprinoidei). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 127, 781–799.
- Schramm, H. L., & Eggleton, M. A. (2006). Applicability of the flood-pulse concept in a temperate floodplain river ecosystem: Thermal and temporal components. River Research and Applications, 22(5), 543–553. [CrossRef]
- Schramm, H. L., Hatch, J. T., Hrabik, R. A., & Slack, W. T. (2016). Fishes of the Mississippi River. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 84(January), 53–77. %3CGo%0Ato.
- Schramm, H. L., & Ickes, B. S. (2016). The Mississippi River : A Place for Fish The Mississippi River : A Place for Fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 84, 3–34.
- Smith, N. G., Daugherty, D. J., Brinkman, E. L., Wegener, M. G., Kreiser, B. R., Ferrara, A. M., Kimmel, K. D., & David, S. R. (2020). Advances in Conservation and Management of the Alligator Gar: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge and Introduction to a Special Section. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 40(3), 527–543. [CrossRef]
- Solomon, L. E., Phelps, Q. E., Herzog, D. P., Kennedy, C. J., & Taylor, M. S. (2013). Juvenile alligator gar movement patterns in a disconnected floodplain habitat in southeast Missouri. American Midland Naturalist, 169(2), 336–344. [CrossRef]
- Sowa, S. P., Annis, G., Morey, M. E., & Diamond, D. D. (2007). A gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri. Ecological Monographs, 77(3), 301–334. [CrossRef]
- Sparks, R. E. (1999). Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. NCASI Technical Bulletin, 2(781), 507. [CrossRef]
- Spens, J., Evans, A. R., Halfmaerten, D., Knudsen, S. W., Sengupta, M. E., Mak, S. S. T., Sigsgaard, E. E., & Hellström, M. (2017). Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8(5), 635–645. [CrossRef]
- Turner, C. R., Uy, K. L., & Everhart, R. C. (2015). Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water. Biological Conservation, 183, 93–102. [CrossRef]
- USACE. (2014). Mississippi River and Tributaries Project - Levee System Evaluation Report for the National Flood Insurance Program. April, 78. http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/Portals/52/docs/MRC/LeveeSystem/MRT_levee_system_eval_report_for_NFIP.pdf.
- USGS. (2024). Floodplain elevation data, accessed June 24, 2024. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/.
- Valentini, A., Taberlet, P., Miaud, C., Civade, R., Herder, J., Thomsen, P. F., Bellemain, E., Besnard, A., Coissac, E., Boyer, F., Gaboriaud, C., Jean, P., Poulet, N., Roset, N., Copp, G. H., Geniez, P., Pont, D., Argillier, C., Baudoin, J. M., … Dejean, T. (2016). Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology, 25(4), 929–942. [CrossRef]
- Warren, M. L., Burr, B. M., Walsh, S. J., Bart, H. L., Cashner, R. C., Etnier, D. A., Freeman, B. J., Kuhajda, B. R., Mayden, R. L., Robison, H. W., Ross, S. T., & Starnes, W. C. (2000). Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States. Fisheries, 25(10), 7–31. [CrossRef]
- Williams, K. E., Huyvaert, K. P., & Piaggio, A. J. (2016). No filters, no fridges: A method for preservation of water samples for eDNA analysis. BMC Research Notes, 9(1), 1–5. [CrossRef]
- Zbinden, Z. D., Geheber, A. D., Lehrter, R. J., & Matthews, W. J. (2022). Multifaceted assessment of stream fish alpha and beta diversity using spatial models. Hydrobiologia, 849(8), 1795–1820. [CrossRef]
- Adams, S. R., Inebnit, T. E., Lewis, L. C., Naus, C. J., & Kluender, E. (2024). Spawning Ecology and Spawning Site Fidelity of Alligator Gar , Atractosteus spatula , in the Fourche LaFave River : Implications for River-Floodplain Management and Alligator Gar Conservation Spawning Ecology and Spawning Site Fidelity of Alligator Gar , . 1(64).
- Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Gilbert, M. T. P., & Bohmann, K. (2018). Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 134–147. [CrossRef]
- Allen, Y., Kimmel, K., & Constant, G. (2020). Using Remote Sensing to Assess Alligator Gar Spawning Habitat Suitability in the Lower Mississippi River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 40(3), 580–594. [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N., & Clarke, K. R. (2008). PERMANOVAþ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods.
- Beng, K. C., & Corlett, R. T. (2020). Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges and prospects. In Biodiversity and Conservation (Vol. 29, Issue 7). Springer Netherlands. [CrossRef]
- Best, J. (2019). Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nature Geoscience, 12(1), 7–21. [CrossRef]
- Chao, A., Gotelli, N. J., Hsieh, T. C., Sander, E. L., Ma, K. H., Colwell, R. K., & Ellison, A. M. (2014). Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecological Monographs, 84(1), 45–67. [CrossRef]
- Chao, A., & Jost, L. (2012). Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: Standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology, 93(12), 2533–2547. [CrossRef]
- Cilleros, K., Valentini, A., Allard, L., Dejean, T., Etienne, R., Grenouillet, G., Iribar, A., Taberlet, P., Vigouroux, R., & Brosse, S. (2019). Unlocking biodiversity and conservation studies in high-diversity environments using environmental DNA (eDNA): A test with Guianese freshwater fishes. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19(1), 27–46. [CrossRef]
- Cross, F. B., Mayden, R. L., & Stewart, J. D. (1986). Fishes in the western Mississippi drainage. In C. H. Hocutt & E. O. Wiley (Eds.), Zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes (pp. 363–412). Wiley.
- Deagle, B. E., Kirkwood, R., & Jarman, S. N. (2009). Analysis of Australian fur seal diet by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces. Molecular Ecology, 18(9), 2022–2038. [CrossRef]
- Deiner, K., Bik, H. M., Mächler, E., Seymour, M., Lacoursière-Roussel, A., Altermatt, F., Creer, S., Bista, I., Lodge, D. M., de Vere, N., Pfrender, M. E., & Bernatchez, L. (2017). Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology, 26(21), 5872–5895. [CrossRef]
- Dembkowski, D. J., & Miranda, L. E. (2012). Hierarchy in factors affecting fish biodiversity in floodplain lakes of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 93(3), 357–368. [CrossRef]
- Dettmers, J. M., Gutreuter, S., Wahl, D. H., & Soluk, D. A. (2001). Patterns in abundance of fishes in main channels of the upper Mississippi River system. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58(5), 933–942. [CrossRef]
- DuBowy, P. J. (2013). Mississippi River Ecohydrology: Past, present and future. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology, 13, 73–83. [CrossRef]
- Euclide, P. T., Lor, Y., Spear, M. J., Tajjioui, T., Vander Zanden, J., Larson, W. A., & Amberg, J. J. (2021). Environmental DNA metabarcoding as a tool for biodiversity assessment and monitoring: reconstructing established fish communities of north-temperate lakes and rivers. Diversity and Distributions, 27(10), 1966–1980. [CrossRef]
- García-Machado, E., Laporte, M., Normandeau, E., Hernández, C., Côté, G., Paradis, Y., Mingelbier, M., & Bernatchez, L. (2022). Fish community shifts along a strong fluvial environmental gradient revealed by eDNA metabarcoding. Environmental DNA, 4(1), 117–134. [CrossRef]
- Geheber, A. D., & Piller, K. R. (2012). Spatio-temporal patterns of fish assemblage structure in a coastal plain stream: Appropriate scales reveal historic tales. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 21(4), 627–639. [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, C. S., Turner, C. R., Deiner, K., Klymus, K. E., Thomsen, P. F., Murphy, M. A., Spear, S. F., McKee, A., Oyler-McCance, S. J., Cornman, R. S., Laramie, M. B., Mahon, A. R., Lance, R. F., Pilliod, D. S., Strickler, K. M., Waits, L. P., Fremier, A. K., Takahara, T., Herder, J. E., & Taberlet, P. (2016). Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(11), 1299–1307. [CrossRef]
- Hallam, J., Clare, E. L., Jones, J. I., & Day, J. J. (2021). Biodiversity assessment across a dynamic riverine system: A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding versus traditional fish surveying methods. Environmental DNA, 3(6), 1247–1266. [CrossRef]
- Harris, P. M., Roe, K. J., & Mayden, R. L. (2005). A Mitochondrial DNA Perspective on the Molecular Systematics of the Sunfish Genus Lepomis ( Actinopterygii : Centrarchidae ) Published by : American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists ( ASIH ) Stable URL : https://www.jstor.org/stable/4098540 Li. 2005(2), 340–346.
- Harrison, J. B., Sunday, J. M., & Rogers, S. M. (2019). Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1915). [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, T., Ma, K., & Chao, A. (2024). iNEXT: Interpolation and Extrapolation for Species Diversity. R package version 3.0.1. http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/.
- Humphries, P., King, A. J., & Koehn, J. D. (1999). Fish, flows and flood plains: Links between freshwater fishes and their environment in the Murray-Darling River system, Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 56(1–2), 129–151. [CrossRef]
- Isphording, W., & Fitzpatrick Jr., J. (1992). Geologic and evolutionary history of drainage systems in the Southeastern United States. In C. Hackney, S. Adams, & W. Martin (Eds.), Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States Aquatic Communities. (pp. 19–56). John Wiley and Sons.
- Jarvis, S. G., Mackay, E. B., Risser, H. A., Feuchtmayr, H., Fry, M., Isaac, N. J. B., Thackeray, S. J., & Henrys, P. A. (2023). Integrating freshwater biodiversity data sources: Key challenges and opportunities. Freshwater Biology, 68(9), 1479–1488. [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, C. N., Van Houtan, K. S., Pimm, S. L., & Sexton, J. O. (2015). US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(16), 5081–5086. [CrossRef]
- Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B., & Sparks, R. E. (1989). The flood pulse concept in River-Floodplain Systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 106(September 1989), 110–127.
- Kačergytė, I., Petersson, E., Arlt, D., Hellström, M., Knape, J., Spens, J., Żmihorski, M., & Pärt, T. (2021). Environmental DNA metabarcoding elucidates patterns of fish colonisation and co-occurrences with amphibians in temperate wetlands created for biodiversity. Freshwater Biology, 66(10), 1915–1929. [CrossRef]
- Klymus, K. E., Richter, C. A., Thompson, N., & Hinck, J. E. (2017). Metabarcoding of environmental DNA samples to explore the use of uranium mine containment ponds as a water source for wildlife. Diversity, 9(4), 1–18. [CrossRef]
- Koel, T. M. (2004). Spatial Variation in Fish Species Richness of the Upper Mississippi River System. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 133(4), 984–1003. [CrossRef]
- Kumar, G., Farrell, E., Reaume, A. M., Eble, J. A., & Gaither, M. R. (2022). One size does not fit all: Tuning eDNA protocols for high- and low-turbidity water sampling. Environmental DNA, 4(1), 167–180. [CrossRef]
- Lecaudey, L. A., Schletterer, M., Kuzovlev, V. V., Hahn, C., & Weiss, S. J. (2019). Fish diversity assessment in the headwaters of the Volga River using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(10), 1785–1800. [CrossRef]
- Lee, V. M., Berkman, L. K., Geheber, A. D., Landwer, B., Ludwig, E. J., & Duvernell, D. D. (2024). Putting eDNA to the test: A field comparison of eDNA metabarcoding to established protocols for assessing biodiversity in Missouri’s Ozark Highland streams. Environmental DNA, 6(1), 1–18. [CrossRef]
- Mächler, E., Little, C. J., Wüthrich, R., Alther, R., Fronhofer, E. A., Gounand, I., Harvey, E., Hürlemann, S., Walser, J. C., & Altermatt, F. (2019). Assessing different components of diversity across a river network using eDNA. Environmental DNA, 1(3), 290–301. [CrossRef]
- Mathieu, C., Hermans, S. M., Lear, G., Buckley, T. R., Lee, K. C., & Buckley, H. L. (2020). A systematic review of sources of variability and uncertainty in eDNA data for environmental monitoring. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8(May), 1–14. [CrossRef]
- Mathon, L., Valentini, A., Guérin, P. E., Normandeau, E., Noel, C., Lionnet, C., Boulanger, E., Thuiller, W., Bernatchez, L., Mouillot, D., Dejean, T., & Manel, S. (2021). Benchmarking bioinformatic tools for fast and accurate eDNA metabarcoding species identification. Molecular Ecology Resources, 21(7), 2565–2579. [CrossRef]
- McColl-Gausden, E. F., Weeks, A. R., Coleman, R. A., Robinson, K. L., Song, S., Raadik, T. A., & Tingley, R. (2021). Multispecies models reveal that eDNA metabarcoding is more sensitive than backpack electrofishing for conducting fish surveys in freshwater streams. Molecular Ecology, 30(13), 3111–3126. [CrossRef]
- MDC. (2024). Missouri species and communities of conservation concern checklist. https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/SOCC Checklist 2024_ADA_0.pdf.
- Miya, M. (2022). Environmental DNA Metabarcoding: A Novel Method for Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Fish Communities. Annual Review of Marine Science, 14, 161–185. [CrossRef]
- Miya, M., Sato, Y., Fukunaga, T., Sado, T., Poulsen, J. Y., Sato, K., Minamoto, T., Yamamoto, S., Yamanaka, H., Araki, H., Kondoh, M., & Iwasaki, W. (2015). MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. Royal Society Open Science, 2(7). [CrossRef]
- Morrison, R. R., Simonson, K., McManamay, R. A., & Carver, D. (2023). Degradation of floodplain integrity within the contiguous United States. Communications Earth and Environment, 4(1), 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Nakagawa, H., Yamamoto, S., Sato, Y., Sado, T., Minamoto, T., & Miya, M. (2018). Comparing local- and regional-scale estimations of the diversity of stream fish using eDNA metabarcoding and conventional observation methods. Freshwater Biology, 63(6), 569–580. [CrossRef]
- Near, T. J., & Koppelman, J. B. (2009). Species diversity, phylogeny and phylogeography of Centrarchidae. In S. J. Cooke & D. P. Philipp (Eds.), Centrarchid Fishes: Diversity, Biology, and Conservation (pp. 1–38). Wiley-Blackwell.
- Nevers, M. B., Przybyla-Kelly, K., Shively, D., Morris, C. C., Dickey, J., & Byappanahalli, M. N. (2020). Influence of sediment and stream transport on detecting a source of environmental DNA. PLoS ONE, 15(12 December), 1–21. [CrossRef]
- Noss, R. F., Platt, W. J., Sorrie, B. A., Weakley, A. S., Means, D. B., Costanza, J., & Peet, R. K. (2015). How global biodiversity hotspots may go unrecognized: Lessons from the North American Coastal Plain. Diversity and Distributions, 21(2), 236–244. [CrossRef]
- Olson, K. R., Morton, L. W., & Speidel, D. (2016a). Little river drainage district conversion of big swamp to fertile agricultural land. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 37A-43A. [CrossRef]
- Olson, K. R., Morton, L. W., & Speidel, D. (2016b). Missouri Ozark Plateau Headwaters Diversion engineering feat. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(1), 13A-19A. [CrossRef]
- Pflieger, W. L. (1997). The Fishes of Missouri (2nd ed.).
- Phelps, Q. E., Tripp, S. J., Herzog, D. P., & Garvey, J. E. (2015). Temporary connectivity: The relative benefits of large river floodplain inundation in the lower Mississippi River. Restoration Ecology, 23(1), 53–56. [CrossRef]
- Pierce, S. C., Kröger, R., & Pezeshki, R. (2012). Managing artificially drained low-gradient agricultural headwaters for enhanced ecosystem functions. Biology, 1(3), 794–856. [CrossRef]
- Pukk, L., Kanefsky, J., Heathman, A. L., Weise, E. M., Nathan, L. R., Herbst, S. J., Sard, N. M., Scribner, K. T., & Robinson, J. D. (2021). eDNA metabarcoding in lakes to quantify influences of landscape features and human activity on aquatic invasive species prevalence and fish community diversity. Diversity and Distributions, 27(10), 2016–2031. [CrossRef]
- Radinger, J., Britton, J. R., Carlson, S. M., Magurran, A. E., Alcaraz-Hernández, J. D., Almodóvar, A., Benejam, L., Fernández-Delgado, C., Nicola, G. G., Oliva-Paterna, F. J., Torralva, M., & García-Berthou, E. (2019). Effective monitoring of freshwater fish. Fish and Fisheries, 20(4), 729–747. [CrossRef]
- Rees, H. C., Maddison, B. C., Middleditch, D. J., Patmore, J. R. M., & Gough, K. C. (2014). The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA - a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(5), 1450–1459. [CrossRef]
- Rojahn, J., Gleeson, D. M., Furlan, E., Haeusler, T., & Bylemans, J. (2021). Improving the detection of rare native fish species in environmental DNA metabarcoding surveys. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 31(4), 990–997. [CrossRef]
- Roswell, M., Dushoff, J., & Winfree, R. (2021). A conceptual guide to measuring species diversity. Oikos, 130(3), 321–338. [CrossRef]
- Ruppert, K. M., Kline, R. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2019). Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, e00547. [CrossRef]
- Schenekar, T. (2023). The current state of eDNA research in freshwater ecosystems: are we shifting from the developmental phase to standard application in biomonitoring? Hydrobiologia, 850(6), 1263–1282. [CrossRef]
- Schönhuth, S., Vukić, J., Šanda, R., Yang, L., & Mayden, R. L. (2018). Phylogenetic relationships and classification of the Holarctic family Leuciscidae (Cypriniformes: Cyprinoidei). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 127, 781–799. [CrossRef]
- Schramm, H. L., & Eggleton, M. A. (2006). Applicability of the flood-pulse concept in a temperate floodplain river ecosystem: Thermal and temporal components. River Research and Applications, 22(5), 543–553. [CrossRef]
- Schramm, H. L., Hatch, J. T., Hrabik, R. A., & Slack, W. T. (2016). Fishes of the Mississippi River. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 84(January), 53–77. %3CGo%0Ato.
- Schramm, H. L., & Ickes, B. S. (2016). The Mississippi River : A Place for Fish The Mississippi River : A Place for Fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 84, 3–34.
- Smith, N. G., Daugherty, D. J., Brinkman, E. L., Wegener, M. G., Kreiser, B. R., Ferrara, A. M., Kimmel, K. D., & David, S. R. (2020). Advances in Conservation and Management of the Alligator Gar: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge and Introduction to a Special Section. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 40(3), 527–543. [CrossRef]
- Solomon, L. E., Phelps, Q. E., Herzog, D. P., Kennedy, C. J., & Taylor, M. S. (2013). Juvenile alligator gar movement patterns in a disconnected floodplain habitat in southeast Missouri. American Midland Naturalist, 169(2), 336–344. [CrossRef]
- Sowa, S. P., Annis, G., Morey, M. E., & Diamond, D. D. (2007). A gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri. Ecological Monographs, 77(3), 301–334. [CrossRef]
- Sparks, R. E. (1999). Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. NCASI Technical Bulletin, 2(781), 507. [CrossRef]
- Spens, J., Evans, A. R., Halfmaerten, D., Knudsen, S. W., Sengupta, M. E., Mak, S. S. T., Sigsgaard, E. E., & Hellström, M. (2017). Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8(5), 635–645. [CrossRef]
- Turner, C. R., Uy, K. L., & Everhart, R. C. (2015). Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water. Biological Conservation, 183, 93–102. [CrossRef]
- USACE. (2014). Mississippi River and Tributaries Project - Levee System Evaluation Report for the National Flood Insurance Program. April, 78. http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/Portals/52/docs/MRC/LeveeSystem/MRT_levee_system_eval_report_for_NFIP.pdf.
- USGS. (2024). Floodplain elevation data, accessed June 24, 2024. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/.
- Valentini, A., Taberlet, P., Miaud, C., Civade, R., Herder, J., Thomsen, P. F., Bellemain, E., Besnard, A., Coissac, E., Boyer, F., Gaboriaud, C., Jean, P., Poulet, N., Roset, N., Copp, G. H., Geniez, P., Pont, D., Argillier, C., Baudoin, J. M., … Dejean, T. (2016). Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology, 25(4), 929–942. [CrossRef]
- Warren, M. L., Burr, B. M., Walsh, S. J., Bart, H. L., Cashner, R. C., Etnier, D. A., Freeman, B. J., Kuhajda, B. R., Mayden, R. L., Robison, H. W., Ross, S. T., & Starnes, W. C. (2000). Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States. Fisheries, 25(10), 7–31. [CrossRef]
- Williams, K. E., Huyvaert, K. P., & Piaggio, A. J. (2016). No filters, no fridges: A method for preservation of water samples for eDNA analysis. BMC Research Notes, 9(1), 1–5. [CrossRef]
- Zbinden, Z. D., Geheber, A. D., Lehrter, R. J., & Matthews, W. J. (2022). Multifaceted assessment of stream fish alpha and beta diversity using spatial models. Hydrobiologia, 849(8), 1795–1820. [CrossRef]







| Abundance | Dependence | Percent of Total Read Count | Spring | Fall | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Species | Slough | Ditch | Robin-Son Lake | Wolf Bayou | Hosner Bayou | Samples Bayou | Wolf Bayou | Hosner Bayou | Samples Bayou | MDC Surveys (Years Recorded) | |||
| Amiidae | Amia ocellicauda | U | B | 3.43% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 75% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 100% | 40;79;22 |
| Anguillidae | Anguilla rostrata | U | 0.004% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||
| Aphredoderidae | Aphredoderus gibbosus | U | B | 0.13% | 100% | 33% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 50% | 40;79;22 |
| Atherinopsidae | Labidesthes sicculus | U | F | 0.33% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 83% | 75% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 66;79;94 |
| Menidia beryllina | C | F | 0.14% | 67% | 67% | 86% | 17% | 0% | 0% | 17% | 50% | 0% | 78;22 | |
| Catostomidae | Carpiodes spp. (carpio, cyprinus) | A/U | F | 0.05% | 100% | 100% | 43% | 50% | 25% | 50% | 50% | 75% | 50% | 79 |
| Ictiobus spp. (bubalus, cyprinellus, niger) | A/C/U | B | 10.36% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 40;79 | |
| Moxostoma macrolepidotum | U | F | 0.00% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 79b | |
| Centrarchidae | Centrarchus macropterus | P | B | 0.00% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 40 |
| Lepomis cyanellus | U | B | 2.35% | 67% | 67% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 66;22 | |
| Lepomis gulosus | U | B | 0.89% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% | 75% | 100% | 40;66;22 | |
| Lepomis humilis | U | B | 6.89% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 79;94;22 | |
| Lepomis macrochirus | C | B | 12.3% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 40;66;79;94;22 | |
| Lepomis marginatus | P | B | 6.13% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| Lepomis megalotis | U | B | 0.43% | 100% | 100% | 71% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 100% | 79;94;22 | |
| Lepomis microlophus | U | B | 0.003% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||
| Lepomis miniatus | U | B | 0.01% | 0% | 0% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||
| Lepomis symmetricus | U | B | 0.02% | 0% | 0% | 86% | 67% | 25% | 0% | 17% | 0% | 0% | ||
| Micropterus punctulatus | P | B | 0.24% | 33% | 33% | 0% | 100% | 75% | 100% | 100% | 50% | 100% | ||
| Micropterus nigricans | U | B | 0.71% | 100% | 100% | 86% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 75% | 100% | 66;79;94 | |
| Pomoxis annularis | C | B | 0.33% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 75% | 100% | 75% | 100% | 40;79;22 | |
| Pomoxis nigromaculatus | U | B | 0.52% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 75% | 83% | 75% | 75% | 40;22 | |
| Clupeidae | Alosa chrysochloris | C | F | 0.01% | 67% | 0% | 0% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 0% | |
| Dorosoma cepedianum | A | B | 4.37% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 75% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 40;66;79 | |
| Dorosoma petenense | U | B | 0.25% | 67% | 100% | 57% | 67% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 100% | 50% | ||
| Esocidae | Esox americanus | P | B | 0.01% | 0% | 0% | 29% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 79b |
| Fundulidae | Fundulus spp. (notatus, olivaceus) | P | B | 0.87% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 100% | 66;79;94 |
| Ictaluridae | Ameiurus spp. (melas, natalis) | U | B | 0.01% | 0% | 0% | 57% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 40;79;22 |
| Ictalurus punctatus | C | 0.21% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 75% | 75% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 79b | ||
| Noturus gyrinus | U | B | 0.02% | 0% | 0% | 14% | 50% | 0% | 50% | 50% | 25% | 50% | 66;79;94 | |
| Pylodictis olivaris | A | 0.35% | 100% | 100% | 29% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 100% | |||
| Lepisosteidae | Atractosteus spatula | U | B | 0.004% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 50% | 0% | 0% | 17% | 0% | 0% | |
| Lepisosteus oculatus | U | B | 1.49% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 22 | |
| Lepisosteus osseus | C | B | 0.15% | 67% | 100% | 57% | 100% | 100% | 75% | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| Lepisosteus platostomus | C | B | 3.22% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 40;79;22 | |
| Leuciscidae | Hybognathus hayia | U | B | 0.00% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 79b |
| Hybognathus nuchalis | C | F | 0.0002% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||
| Notemigonus crysoleucas | P | B | 0.01% | 0% | 0% | 57% | 0% | 25% | 0% | 33% | 25% | 0% | 40;79;22 | |
| Notropis atherinoides | A | F | 0.002% | 33% | 0% | 43% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||
| Opsopoeodus emiliae | P | B | 0.28% | 100% | 0% | 86% | 67% | 100% | 75% | 83% | 100% | 100% | 79 | |
| Paranotropis shumardia | C | F | 0.00% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 79 | |
| Moronidae | Morone chrysops | C | F | 0.07% | 100% | 100% | 29% | 17% | 25% | 0% | 33% | 50% | 0% | 79b |
| Percidae | Etheostoma asprigene | U | B | 0.68% | 100% | 100% | 86% | 83% | 100% | 100% | 67% | 75% | 100% | 66;79 |
| Etheostoma chlorosoma | P | B | 0.40% | 100% | 0% | 86% | 83% | 75% | 75% | 67% | 100% | 100% | 79 | |
| Etheostoma gracile | U | F | 0.01% | 33% | 0% | 86% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 17% | 0% | 0% | 66;22 | |
| Percina caprodes | U | 0.004% | 0% | 33% | 0% | 50% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | |||
| Percina shumardi | U | F | 0.001% | 33% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 79b | |
| Poeciliidae | Gambusia affinis | U | B | 1.59% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 83% | 50% | 25% | 33% | 75% | 100% | 40;66;79;94;22 |
| Polyodontidae | Polyodon spathula | C | F | 0.01% | 0% | 33% | 43% | 67% | 0% | 0% | 83% | 0% | 25% | 79 |
| Sciaenidae | Aplodinotus grunniens | A | F | 0.85% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| Cyprinidae | Cyprinus carpio | I | B | 6.89% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 40 |
| Xenocyprididae | Ctenopharyngodon idella | I | F | 1.45% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| Hypophthalmichthys molitrix | I | F | 8.54% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 22 | |
| Hypophthalmichthys nobilis | I | F | 20.6% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| Mylopharyngodon piceus | I | 2.36% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | |||
| Source | df | SS | MS | Pseudo-F | P(perm) | Unique Perms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat | 5 | 2284.2 | 456.83 | 6.8944 | 0.0001 | 9897 |
| Res | 21 | 1391.5 | 66.261 | |||
| Total | 26 | 3675.7 |

| Source | df | SS | MS | Pseudo-F | P(Perm) | Unique Perms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayou | 2 | 364.9 | 182.44 | 2.81 | 0.0025 | 9941 |
| Season | 1 | 146.1 | 146.07 | 2.25 | 0.055 | 9957 |
| Bayou x Season | 2 | 180.1 | 90.05 | 1.39 | 0.19 | 9940 |
| Res | 22 | 1429.5 | 64.98 | |||
| Total | 27 | 2119.6 |
| Groups | t | P(Perm) | Unique Perms | P(MC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HB, SB | 1.28 | 0.14 | 9954 | 0.17 |
| HB, WB | 1.73 | 0.013 | 9947 | 0.028 |
| SB, WB | 1.76 | 0.022 | 9959 | 0.028 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).