1.

S2 Fig -

2.

S2 Fig -

3.

S2 Fig -

4.

S2 Fig -

5.

S2 Fig -

6.

S2 Fig -

7.

S2 Fig -

1.

S3 Fig -

2.

S3 Fig -

3.

S3 Fig -

4.

S3 Fig -

5.

S3 Fig -

6.

S3 Fig -

7.

S3 Fig -

1.

S4 Fig -

2.

S4 Fig -

3.

S4 Fig -

4.

S4 Fig -

5.

S4 Fig -

6.

S4 Fig -

7.

S4 Fig -

1.

Variable importance plots for random forest regressions predicting abundances of Cyrtonaias tampicoensis , Lampsilis bracteata , and Utterbackia imbecillis using modeled hydraulic...

2.

Variable importance plots for random forest regressions predicting abundances of Cyrtonaias tampicoensis , Lampsilis bracteata , and Utterbackia imbecillis using modeled hydraulic...

3.

Variable importance plots for random forest regressions predicting abundances of Cyrtonaias tampicoensis , Lampsilis bracteata , and Utterbackia imbecillis using modeled hydraulic...

4.

Variable importance plots for random forest regressions predicting abundances of Cyrtonaias tampicoensis , Lampsilis bracteata , and Utterbackia imbecillis using modeled hydraulic...

5.

Variable importance plots for random forest regressions predicting abundances of Cyrtonaias tampicoensis , Lampsilis bracteata , and Utterbackia imbecillis using modeled hydraulic...

6.

Variable importance plots for random forest regressions predicting abundances of Cyrtonaias tampicoensis , Lampsilis bracteata , and Utterbackia imbecillis using modeled hydraulic...

7.

Variable importance plots for random forest regressions predicting abundances of Cyrtonaias tampicoensis , Lampsilis bracteata , and Utterbackia imbecillis using modeled hydraulic...

1.

Additional methodology for field data collection and HEC-RAS model preparation.

2.

Additional methodology for field data collection and HEC-RAS model preparation.

3.

Additional methodology for field data collection and HEC-RAS model preparation.

4.

Additional methodology for field data collection and HEC-RAS model preparation.

5.

Additional methodology for field data collection and HEC-RAS model preparation.

6.

Additional methodology for field data collection and HEC-RAS model preparation.

7.

Additional methodology for field data collection and HEC-RAS model preparation.

1.

Fig 1 -

2.

Fig 1 -

3.

Fig 1 -

4.

Fig 1 -

5.

Fig 1 -

6.

Fig 1 -

7.

Fig 1 -

1.

Data flow diagram describing inputs and outputs of data analysis, including the data used to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model to simulate flow conditions in a segment of the...

2.

Data flow diagram describing inputs and outputs of data analysis, including the data used to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model to simulate flow conditions in a segment of the...

3.

Data flow diagram describing inputs and outputs of data analysis, including the data used to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model to simulate flow conditions in a segment of the...

4.

Data flow diagram describing inputs and outputs of data analysis, including the data used to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model to simulate flow conditions in a segment of the...

5.

Data flow diagram describing inputs and outputs of data analysis, including the data used to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model to simulate flow conditions in a segment of the...

6.

Data flow diagram describing inputs and outputs of data analysis, including the data used to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model to simulate flow conditions in a segment of the...

7.

Data flow diagram describing inputs and outputs of data analysis, including the data used to create a two-dimensional HEC-RAS model to simulate flow conditions in a segment of the...

1.

Habitat preferences of freshwater mussels [67], as shown by percent of available habitat sampled ( i . e ., pool, riffle, run) compared to percent of the total mussel abundance fou...

2.

Habitat preferences of freshwater mussels [67], as shown by percent of available habitat sampled ( i . e ., pool, riffle, run) compared to percent of the total mussel abundance fou...

3.

Habitat preferences of freshwater mussels [67], as shown by percent of available habitat sampled ( i . e ., pool, riffle, run) compared to percent of the total mussel abundance fou...

4.

Habitat preferences of freshwater mussels [67], as shown by percent of available habitat sampled ( i . e ., pool, riffle, run) compared to percent of the total mussel abundance fou...

5.

Habitat preferences of freshwater mussels [67], as shown by percent of available habitat sampled ( i . e ., pool, riffle, run) compared to percent of the total mussel abundance fou...

6.

Habitat preferences of freshwater mussels [67], as shown by percent of available habitat sampled ( i . e ., pool, riffle, run) compared to percent of the total mussel abundance fou...

7.

Habitat preferences of freshwater mussels [67], as shown by percent of available habitat sampled ( i . e ., pool, riffle, run) compared to percent of the total mussel abundance fou...

1.

Getis Ord Gi* hotspots of species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Simpson’s diversity within the study segment in the San Saba River, TX.

2.

Getis Ord Gi* hotspots of species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Simpson’s diversity within the study segment in the San Saba River, TX.

3.

Getis Ord Gi* hotspots of species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Simpson’s diversity within the study segment in the San Saba River, TX.

4.

Getis Ord Gi* hotspots of species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Simpson’s diversity within the study segment in the San Saba River, TX.

5.

Getis Ord Gi* hotspots of species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Simpson’s diversity within the study segment in the San Saba River, TX.

6.

Getis Ord Gi* hotspots of species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Simpson’s diversity within the study segment in the San Saba River, TX.

7.

Getis Ord Gi* hotspots of species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, and Simpson’s diversity within the study segment in the San Saba River, TX.

1.

Results of Wilcoxon tests comparing average hydraulic conditions during low (0.42 m 3 s -1 ), moderate (5.32 m 3 s -1 ), moderate-high, (32.28 m 3 s -1 ), and high (361.89 m 3 s -1...

2.

Results of Wilcoxon tests comparing average hydraulic conditions during low (0.42 m 3 s -1 ), moderate (5.32 m 3 s -1 ), moderate-high, (32.28 m 3 s -1 ), and high (361.89 m 3 s -1...

3.

Results of Wilcoxon tests comparing average hydraulic conditions during low (0.42 m 3 s -1 ), moderate (5.32 m 3 s -1 ), moderate-high, (32.28 m 3 s -1 ), and high (361.89 m 3 s -1...

4.

Results of Wilcoxon tests comparing average hydraulic conditions during low (0.42 m 3 s -1 ), moderate (5.32 m 3 s -1 ), moderate-high, (32.28 m 3 s -1 ), and high (361.89 m 3 s -1...

5.

Results of Wilcoxon tests comparing average hydraulic conditions during low (0.42 m 3 s -1 ), moderate (5.32 m 3 s -1 ), moderate-high, (32.28 m 3 s -1 ), and high (361.89 m 3 s -1...

6.

Results of Wilcoxon tests comparing average hydraulic conditions during low (0.42 m 3 s -1 ), moderate (5.32 m 3 s -1 ), moderate-high, (32.28 m 3 s -1 ), and high (361.89 m 3 s -1...

7.

Results of Wilcoxon tests comparing average hydraulic conditions during low (0.42 m 3 s -1 ), moderate (5.32 m 3 s -1 ), moderate-high, (32.28 m 3 s -1 ), and high (361.89 m 3 s -1...