DOCSLIB.ORG

An Ecological Description of Three Black Bass Species in Two Northeastern Kentucky Muskellunge Streams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Ecological Description of Three Black Bass Species in Two Northeastern Kentucky Muskellunge Streams AN ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THREE BLACK BASS SPECIES IN TWO NORTHEASTERN KENTUCKY MUSKELLUNGE STREAMS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences -,· I Morehead State University --, ' In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Albert F. surmont, Jr. -! •• , 10 December 1990 Accepted by the faculty of.the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Morehead State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. Director of Thesis Master's Committee: ,Chairman I 2-ltJ-9o Date ABSTRACT OF THESIS AN ECOLOGIC~ DESCRIPTION OF THREE BLACK BAss-sPECIES IN TWO NORTHEASTERN KENTUCKY MUSKELLUNGE STREAMS Albert F.- Surmont, Jr., M.S. Morehead state University, 1990 Director of Thesis: Populations of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (H. dolomieui), and spotted bass (H. punctulatus) were sampled in two muskellunge (Esox masguinongyl streams, Kinniconick Creek and Tygarts Creek, during 1980-1981. This study was performed to document the impact muskellunge may have on the three black bass species. The fish population was sampled with i a boat-mounted electrofishing.unit in pools known to be inhabited by muskellunge. Water quality parameters were taken and be~thic macroinvertebrates were sampled· seasonally. This study was carried out in conjunction with Dingell-Johnson Project Number F-50: Muskellunge Investigations. Spotted bass were the dominant black bass species sampled. Ten stations sampled in Kinniconick Creek represented 66.6 hours of electrofishing in 19.7 stream ki}.ometers and yielded a total of 219 spotted bass, 38 smallmouth bass, and 37 largemouth bass. Seventeen stations, encompassing 22. 7· stream kilometers .on Tygarts Creek, sampled for 46.0 hours, yielded 128 spotted bass, 16 largemouth bass, and 13 smallmouth bass. Relative weight values were slightly lower than standard weights for all three black bass species in both streams. Fish scale examinations in b.oth streams revealed ·bass growth rates typical of that found in Kentucky streams, with Tygarts Creek species showing slightly faster growth. Seven age groups of spotted bass were found in.both streams, with few spotted bass exceeding.300mm before perishing. Largemouth and smallmouth bass exceeded 300mm during their sixth and fifth year, respectively, in Ki~niconjck Creek, while both species reached 300mm during their fifth year in Tygarts Creek. Proportional stock density values were ii adequate for largemouth bass and smallmouth bass in both streams, but spotted bass were below preferred levels. Food availability was good, based on benthic macroinvertebrate and food fish sampling, in both streams. Benthic samples, fish populations, and water quality parameters indicated high quality water in both streams. Muskellunge do not appear to have an impact on the black bass population in either stream. Accepted by: ,·chairman ~---------9---- iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Lewis E. Kornman for his suggestions, assistance and guidance in writing this manuscript. His fish identification and library proved invaluable. Thanks are also extended to Gerald L. Buynak, the black bass research biologist for the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, for his ideas and suggestions, and for his assistance with statistical analyses. I wish to thank Dr. Jerry Howell, Jr., for his assistance in reviewing this manuscript and for the time spent as chairman of my graduate committee. Thanks go to Dr. Gerald L. Demoss for the time he spent confirming the identification of benthic samples, and for serving on my graduate committee. Thanks are also extended to Mr. Fred Busroe and Mr. Les Meade for their valuable suggestions and for serving on my graduate committee. I thank Mel Warren, Jr.(Southern Illinois University), for confirming several uncommon Cyprinids and Percids identified by Lewis Kornman. Thanks are also due Dr. David Magrane for his "push" to get this manuscript completed. I wish to express my gratitude to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources for providing equipment and facilities necessary to iv complete this research. My appreciation is also extended to Debbie Mann for her fine job of typing the manuscript. And finally, special thanks go to my family for their support and patience during completion of this manuscript. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 Kinniconick Creek 4 Tygarts creek 6 II. LITERATURE REVIEW 9 Prehistoric Species Distribution 9 Recent Literature 17 III. MATERIAL AND METHODS 23 Fish SamJ?ling 23 Kinniconick creek 24 Tygarts Creek 31 Water Qualit:y 38 Data Collections and Calculations 40 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 50 Kinniconick Creek 50 ·Tygarts Creek 79 Comparison :·--.-- 105 Physical - Chemical Determinations 119 Fishes of Kinniconick Creek 132 Fishes of Tygarts Creek 140 Species Catch Rate 148 Kinniconick creek Benthic Invertebrates 154 T¥garts Creek Benthic·Invertebrates 162 Fish stocking 170 Food Habits of Spotted Bass in Streams 171 V. CONCLUSIONS 175 LITERATURE CITED 181 APPENDIX A 195 Fishes of Kinniconick Creek, various collections APPENDIX B 200 Fish stocked by the Kentucky DeJ?artment of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Kinniconick, Creek, Lewis County APPENDIX C 201 Fishes of Tygarts creek, various collections APPENDIX D 207 Fish stocked by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Tygarts Creek, Carter and Greenup counties vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. stream Map of Kinniconick and Tygarts Creek Drainages 5 2. Kinniconick Creek with Sampling Locations 25 3. Tygarts Creek with Sampling Locations 32 4. Length - Weight Relationship of Spotted Bass Captured in Kinniconick Creek during 1980 - 1981 57 5. Length - Weight Relationship of Smallmouth Bass Captured in Kinniconick Creek during 1980 - 1981 58 6. Length - Weight Relationship of Largemouth Bass captured in Kinniconick Creek during 1980 - 1981 59 7. Kinniconick Creek Spotted Bass Relative Weights (Wr) per Centimeter Group 62 8. Kinniconick Creek Spotted Bass Relative Weights (Wr) per Sample Station 64 9. Smallmouth Bass Age and Growth in Kinniconick Creek 68 10. Largemouth Bass Age and Growth in Kinniconick Creek 70 11. Spotted Bass Age and Growth in Kinniconick Creek 73 12, Mean Length and Range of Age II Spotted Bass per Pool Sampled in Kinniconick Creek 74 13. Kinniconick Creek Spotted Bass Catch Rates (CPUE) per Sample station 77 14. Catch Per Unit Effort of Spotted Bass and Muskellunge per Sample Pool in Kinniconick Creek 78 vii 15. Length - Weight Relationship of Spotted Bass Captured in Tygarts Creek during 1980"- 1981 86 16. Length - Weight Relationship of Smallmouth Bass Captured in Tygarts Creek during 1980 - 1981 87 17. Length - Weight Relationship of Largemouth Bass Captured in Tygarts Creek during 1980 - 1981 88 18. Tygarts Creek Spotted Bass Relative Weights (Wr) per Centimeter Group 91 19. Tygarts Creek Spotted Bass Relative Weights (Wr) per Sample Station 92 20. Smallmouth Bass Age and Growth in Tygarts Creek 96 21. Largemouth Bass Age and Growth in Tygarts Creek 99 22. Spotted Bass Age and Growth in Tygarts creek 102 23. Mean Length and Range of Age II Spotted Bass per Pool Sampled in Tygarts Creek 103 24. Tygarts Creek Spotted Bass Catch Rates (CPUE) per Sample Station 104 25. Catch Per Unit Effort of Spotted Bass and Muskellunge in Tygarts Creek 106 26. Catch Per Unit Effort Per Sample Pool for Spotted Bass 115 27. Mean Length at Capture Per Sample Pool for Spotted Bass 116 28. Oil Shale in Kentucky 131 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. stream survey form 44 2. Black bass captured in Kinniconick Creek, 1980 - 1981 51 3. Black bass mark - recapture results, Kinniconick Creek 54 4. Black bass population estimates based on mark - recapture efforts in Kinniconick Creek 55 5. Relative weight values (Wr) for black bass species collected from Kinniconick Creek in 1981 61 6. Average calculated total len~th of smallmouth bass collected from Kinniconick Creek in 1981 67 7. Average calculated total length of largemouth bass collected from Kinniconick Creek in 1980 - 1981 69 8. Average calculated total len~th of spotted bass collected from Kinniconick Creek in 1980 - 1981 72 9. catch rates ~er hour (CPUE) of black bass and muskellunge in Kinniconick Creek, 1980 - 1981 76 10. Black bass captured in Tygarts Creek, 1980 - 1981 81 11. Black bass mark - recapture results, Tygarts Creek 83 12. Black bass population estimates based on mark - recapture efforts in Tygarts Creek 84 13. Relative weights values (Wr) for black bass species collected from Tygarts Creek in 1980 - 1981 89 14. catch rates per hour (CPUE) of black bass and muskellunge in Tygarts Creek, 1980 - 1981 93 ix 15. Average calculated total length of smallmouth bass collected from Tygarts Creek in 1980 - 1981 95 16. Average calculated total length of largemouth bass collected from Tygarts Creek in 1981 98 17. Average calculated total length of spotted bass collected from Tygarts Creek in 1980 - 1981 100 18. Comparison of black bass percent composition in various Kentucky streams 107 19. Com~arison of spotted bass growth from various streams 109 20. Comparison of largemouth bass growth from various streams 111 21. Comparison of smallmouth bass growth from various streams 112 22. Comparison of black bass catch rates per hour (CPUE) from various streams 113 23. Historical black bass size limits in Kentucky streams 117 24. Gradient, stream kilometers (sk), and sampling stations at Kinniconick and Tygarts Creeks 120 25. Physical characteristics of each pool sampled in Kinniconick Creek 122 26. Physical characteristics of each pool sampled in Tygarts creek 123 27. Water quality determinations from Kinniconick creek (1981) 128 28. Water quality determinations from Tygarts Creek (1981) 129 29. List of fishes collected in Kinniconick creek 133 30. List of fishes collected in Tygarts Creek 142 31. Species and length distribution of fish sampled from Kinniconick Creek in 1981 150 X 32. Species and length distribution of fish sampled from Tygarts Creek in 1981 152 33.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup Annual Report
    UPPER BASIN PALLID STURGEON RECOVERY WORKGROUP 2004 ANNUAL REPORT Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Workgroup c/o Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1420 East Sixth Helena MT 59620 August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION WORKGROUP MEETING NOTES 2004 Annual Meeting Notes – December 1-2, 2004 .............................................................5 March 9, 2005 Meeting Notes ...............................................................................................21 WORKGROUP LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS Intake BOR Letter..................................................................................................................29 Garrison Review Team Report Submission Letter to USFWS..............................................31 Review of pallid sturgeon culture at Garrison Dam NFH by the Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Review Team, March, 2005 ..............................................................36 RESEARCH AND MONITORING 2004 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Efforts in the Upper Missouri River, Montana (RPMA #1), Bill Gardner, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Lewistown, MT...................49 Habitat Use, Diet, and Growth of Hatchery-reared Juvenile Pallid Sturgeon And Indigenous shovelnose sturgeon in the Missouri River avove Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, Paul C. Gerrity, Christopher S. Guy, and William M. Gardner, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Montana State University.............................65 Lower Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers Pallid Sturgeon Study, 2004 Report, Mtthew M. Klungle and Matthew W. Baxter, Montana
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Improving Rock Ramp Fishways for Small-Bodied
    THESIS IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES Submitted by Tyler R. Swarr Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2018 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher A. Myrick Kevin R. Bestgen Brian P. Bledsoe Copyright by Tyler R. Swarr 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES The growing global need to improve the longitudinal connectivity of lotic systems is often met by using fish passage structures (fishways). When designing fishways in the past, biologists and engineers focused primarily on strong swimming species such as salmonids. However, the majority of riverine species in the interior United States are not salmonids and may be excluded by fishways built using salmonid criteria due to lower swimming abilities and/or behavioral differences. I designed and built a 9.1-m long adjustable hydraulic research flume at the Colorado State University Foothills Fisheries Laboratory (FFL) to test fish passage and evaluate the effects of grade (slopes of 2 – 10%, in 2% increments) on the passage success of three Great Plains fish species: Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis, Stonecat Noturus flavus, and Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini. A 6.1-m long rock ramp fishway was installed in the flume and four PIT tag antennas were used to detect full or partial passage success. In order to test the key assumption that tagging does not affect fish performance, I evaluated the impacts of 8-mm PIT tags on Arkansas Darter and found no significant difference in the survival and swimming abilities of PIT tagged fish versus non-tagged fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Ecology and Habitat Preference of the Leopard Darter, Percina Pantherina
    REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY AND HABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE LEOPARD DARTER, PERCINA PANTHERINA By PAUL WILLIAM /~AMES Bachelor of Science University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas 1981 ·4::er of Science ...1.issouri State University 3pringfield, Missouri 1983 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the·Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1989 . - ~· ,• ) "' Oklahoma State Univ. Lihra1 REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY AND HABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE LEOPARD DARTER, PERCINA PANTHERINA Thesis Approved: ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. o. Eugene Maughan, for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and for his encouragement throughout my graduate program. I would also like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. William A. Drew, Dr. Anthony A. Echelle, Dr. Rudolph J. Miller, and Dr. Alexander v. Zale, for their professional and personal advice throughout the course of the study. I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for providing financial and technical support for the study. I am especially grateful to Mr. Frank James of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation's McCurtain County Wilderness Area for his friendship and hospitality during extended field trips. A sincere thanks goes to Rick Horton, Steve O'Donnell, and Todd Phillips for their help in the field and laboratory. A special thanks goes to Stuart Leon for helping with the development of many of the field and data analysis techniques used in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Part 1
    375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Species-Specific Dispersal and Regional Stochasticity On
    Landscape Ecol (2012) 27:405–416 DOI 10.1007/s10980-011-9683-2 RESEARCH ARTICLE Impact of species-specific dispersal and regional stochasticity on estimates of population viability in stream metapopulations Mark S. Poos • Donald A. Jackson Received: 7 June 2011 / Accepted: 3 November 2011 / Published online: 13 November 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract Species dispersal is a central component of decay models provided qualitatively similar rankings metapopulation models. Spatially realistic metapopu- of viable patches; however, there were differences of lation models, such as stochastic patch-occupancy several orders of magnitude in the estimated intrinsic models (SPOMs), quantify species dispersal using mean times to extinction, from 24 and 148 years to estimates of colonization potential based on inter- 362 and [100,000 years, depending on the popula- patch distance (distance decay model). In this study tion. We also found that the rate of regional stochas- we compare the parameterization of SPOMs with icity had a dramatic impact for the estimate of species dispersal and patch dynamics quantified directly from viability, and in one case altered the trajectory of our empirical data. For this purpose we monitored two metapopulation from viable to non-viable. The diver- metapopulations of an endangered minnow, redside gent estimates in time to extinction times were likely dace (Clinostomus elongatus), using mark-recapture due to a combination species-specific behavior, the techniques across 43 patches, re-sampled across a dendritic nature of stream metapopulations, and the 1 year period. More than 2,000 fish were marked with rate of regional stochasticity. We demonstrate the visible implant elastomer tags coded for patch location importance of developing comparative analyses using and dispersal and patch dynamics were monitored.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blackside Dace (Chrosomus Cumberlandensis) and the Cumberland Arrow Darter (Etheostoma Sagitta) in Northeast Tennessee
    WATER QUALITY’S INFLUENCE ON THE OCCUPANCY OF TWO JEOPARDIZED FISHES: THE BLACKSIDE DACE (CHROSOMUS CUMBERLANDENSIS) AND THE CUMBERLAND ARROW DARTER (ETHEOSTOMA SAGITTA) IN NORTHEAST TENNESSEE __________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Science Morehead State University _________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science _________________________ by Brandon L. Yates July 5, 2017 ProQuest Number:10605069 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest 10605069 Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 Accepted by the faculty of the College of Science, Morehead State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. ______________________________ David J. Eisenhour Director of Thesis Master’s Committee: ________________________________, Chair David J. Eisenhour _________________________________ Brian C. Reeder _________________________________ David P. Smith _________________________________ Michael C. Compton ________________________ Date WATER QUALITY’S INFLUENCE ON THE OCCUPANCY OF TWO JEOPARDIZED FISHES: THE BLACKSIDE DACE (CHROSOMUS CUMBERLANDENSIS) AND THE CUMBERLAND ARROW DARTER (ETHEOSTOMA SAGITTA) IN NORTHEAST TENNESSEE Brandon L. Yates Morehead State University, 2017 Director of Thesis: __________________________________________________ David J.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTION: Original DATE: 12/28/2011 8:06 AM
    ACTION: Original DATE: 12/28/2011 8:06 AM 3745-1-01 Purpose and applicability. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of recognized organizations and associations, federal rules and federal statutory provisions referenced in this rule, see rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code.] (A) Purpose and objective. It is the purpose of this chapter to: (1) Establish minimum water quality requirements for all surface waters of the state, thereby protecting public health and welfare; (2) Enable the present and planned uses of Ohio's water for public water supplies, industrial and agricultural needs, propagation of fish, aquatic life and wildlife, and recreational purposes; (3) Enhance, improve and maintain water quality as provided under the laws of the state of Ohio, section 6111.041 of the Revised Code, the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. sections 1251 to 1387, and rules adopted thereunder; and (4) Further the overall objective of the Clean Water Act "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." (B) Goals. Consistent with national goals set forth in the Clean Water Act, all surface waters in Ohio shall provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water unless the director determines the goal is not attainable for a specific water body. If the director determines that a water body cannot reasonably attain these goals using the available tests and criteria allowed under the Clean Water Act, then one of the following steps shall be taken: (1) The director shall evaluate the water body's designated uses and, where uses are not attainable, propose to change the designated uses to the best designations that can be attained; or (2) The director shall grant temporary variances from compliance with one or more water quality criteria applicable by this chapter pursuant to rule 3745-33-07 of the Administrative Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings Template
    Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2019/033 Central and Arctic Region Information in support of a Recovery Potential Assessment of Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in Canada Dominique E. Lebrun, Lynn D. Bouvier, Monica Choy, David W. Andrews, and D. Andrew R. Drake Fisheries and Oceans Canada Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, ON, L7S 1A1 September 2020 Foreword This series documents the scientific basis for the evaluation of aquatic resources and ecosystems in Canada. As such, it addresses the issues of the day in the time frames required and the documents it contains are not intended as definitive statements on the subjects addressed but rather as progress reports on ongoing investigations. Published by: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 200 Kent Street Ottawa ON K1A 0E6 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/ [email protected] © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2020 ISSN 1919-5044 Correct citation for this publication: Lebrun, D.E., Bouvier, L.D., Choy, M., Andrews, D.W., and Drake, D. Andrew R. 2020. Information in support of a Recovery Potential Assessment of Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2019/033. v + 49 p. Aussi disponible en français : Lebrun, D.E., Bouvier, L.D., Choy, M., Andrews, D.W., and Drake, D. Andrew R. 2020. Information à l’appui d’une évaluation du potentiel de rétablissement du méné long (Clinostomus elongatus) au Canada. Secr. can. de consult. sci. du MPO. Doc. de rech.
    [Show full text]