Deciding Where to Survey: Prioritizing Watersheds for Assessing Road‐Stream Barriers Across the Southeastern United States

ABSTRACT Anthropogenic barriers such as dams and culverts have led to riverine habitat fragmentation and decreased fish diversity worldwide. Low‐head structures such as culverts are far more abundant than large dams and may have a larger cumulative impact on river connectivity. Due to the high variation in road‐stream crossing structures, researchers and conservation practitioners must rely on field surveys to determine an individual crossing's impact on aquatic organism passage. However, due to limited resources and high numbers of road‐stream crossings, managers and researchers must rely on systems prioritizing evaluation efforts. We created an index that prioritizes watersheds for conducting road‐stream crossing field surveys throughout the southeastern United States. The prioritization index is comprised of watershed‐scale indices of three categories of variables that may influence priority for surveying road‐stream crossing structures: river network fragmentation, land cover and native biodiversity; the first two of which were indexed by numerous sub‐variables. Each watershed was given a score between 0 ( lowest priority ) and 1 ( highest priority ). Of 25,290 watersheds, 1678 were removed from the analysis, 10,917 were ranked low priority (a score below 0.5) and 2465 high priority (a score above 0.7). Native aquatic species vulnerability index score was the primary factor associated with priority scores, with natural land cover and average stream gradient of road‐stream crossings being the next largest contributors. A spatial hotspot analysis revealed groups of high‐priority watersheds in areas with high natural land cover, high native biodiversity and steeper relief. Cold spots occurred in coastal areas, agricultural plains and urban/metropolitan areas. Our index is easily customizable to adjust variable contribution weights or to accommodate additional variables as dictated by specific users' needs and therefore represents one tool among many that may help practitioners prioritize key resources.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.70486
Primary Topic
Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Deciding Where to Survey: Prioritizing Watersheds for Assessing Road‐Stream Barriers Across the Southeastern United States

Kathleen Hoenke, Brandon K. Peoples, Lesley Twiner
4 links
Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
article

Deciding Where to Survey: Prioritizing Watersheds for Assessing Road‐Stream Barriers Across the Southeastern United States

Kathleen Hoenke, Brandon K. Peoples, Lesley Twiner
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Anthropogenic barriers such as dams and culverts have led to riverine habitat fragmentation and decreased fish diversity worldwide. Low‐head structures such as culverts are far more abundant than large dams and may have a larger cumulative impact on river connectivity. Due to the high variation in road‐stream crossing structures, researchers and conservation practitioners must rely on field surveys to determine an individual crossing's impact on aquatic organism passage. However, due to limited resources and high numbers of road‐stream crossings, managers and researchers must rely on systems prioritizing evaluation efforts. We created an index that prioritizes watersheds for conducting road‐stream crossing field surveys throughout the southeastern United States. The prioritization index is comprised of watershed‐scale indices of three categories of variables that may influence priority for surveying road‐stream crossing structures: river network fragmentation, land cover and native biodiversity; the first two of which were indexed by numerous sub‐variables. Each watershed was given a score between 0 ( lowest priority ) and 1 ( highest priority ). Of 25,290 watersheds, 1678 were removed from the analysis, 10,917 were ranked low priority (a score below 0.5) and 2465 high priority (a score above 0.7). Native aquatic species vulnerability index score was the primary factor associated with priority scores, with natural land cover and average stream gradient of road‐stream crossings being the next largest contributors. A spatial hotspot analysis revealed groups of high‐priority watersheds in areas with high natural land cover, high native biodiversity and steeper relief. Cold spots occurred in coastal areas, agricultural plains and urban/metropolitan areas. Our index is easily customizable to adjust variable contribution weights or to accommodate additional variables as dictated by specific users' needs and therefore represents one tool among many that may help practitioners prioritize key resources.

Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsVol. 36(11)
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (US), Clemson University (US)
Nature Conservancy, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Life on land, Clean water and sanitation, Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon