DOCSLIB.ORG

Neosho Madtom and Other Ictalurid Populations in Relation to Hydrologic Characteristics of an Impounded Midwestern Warmwater Stream: Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neosho Madtom and Other Ictalurid Populations in Relation to Hydrologic Characteristics of an Impounded Midwestern Warmwater Stream: Update Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Neosho Madtom and Other Ictalurid Populations in Relation to Hydrologic Characteristics of an Impounded Midwestern Warmwater Stream: Update Open-File Report 2010–1109 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photograph. Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus). Photograph by Janice L. Bryan, U.S. Geological Survey. Neosho Madtom and Other Ictalurid Populations in Relation to Hydrologic Characteristics of an Impounded Midwestern Warmwater Stream: Update By Janice L. Bryan, Mark L. Wildhaber, William B. Leeds, and Rima Dey Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Open-File Report 2010–1109 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Bryan, J.B., Wildhaber, M.L., Leeds, W.B., and Dey, Rima, 2010, Neosho madtom and other ictalurid populations in relation to hydrologic characteristics of an impounded midwestern warmwater stream—update: U.S. Geological Sur- vey Open-File Report 2010–1109, 20 p. with app. iii Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1 Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................2 Gravel-Bar Sampling ............................................................................................................................2 Hydrologic Data.....................................................................................................................................2 Statistical Analyses ..............................................................................................................................2 Results ............................................................................................................................................................4 Neosho Madtom Monitoring ...............................................................................................................4 Species Associations ...........................................................................................................................4 Reservoir Associations ........................................................................................................................6 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Associations ...........................................................................6 Site-Level Trends ..................................................................................................................................6 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................16 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................16 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................16 Appendix........................................................................................................................................................17 Figures 1. Map showing the position of the Neosho madtom sampling locations and U.S. Geological Survey streamgages used in this study. These locations are on the Neosho, Cottonwood, and Spring Rivers in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma ...........3 2. Graph showing the pattern of the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration parameters and Neosho madtom density at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgages on the Cottonwood/Neosho Rivers. The streamgages are ordered downstream, left to right; the dashed line indicates the location of the John Redmond Reservoir; and the letter ‘M’ indicates streamgage-level Neosho madtom density ....................................7 iv Tables 1. Summary of the yearly mean value for Neosho madtom density per 36 square meters at each location and respective hydrologic streamgage used in this study ........5 2. Statistics about the relations between Neosho madtoms, other ictalurids, depth, and velocity. Statistics include: number of locations, mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s correlation coefficients and their respective P-values .......................................6 3. Two-way analysis of variance using Type III sums of squares and the associated p-value, and F statistics for evaluating the variation in fish density and habitat variables due to year, position of the location relative to the John Redmond Reservoir, and their interaction ..................................................................................................7 4. Coefficients and P-values from the two-way analysis of covariance of Neosho madtom densities and Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration parameters, summarized by river, preceding water year (water year prior to when the fish were sampled), and current water year (same year the fish were sampled). Neosho madtom densities were grouped and averaged for each year by the nearest U.S. Geological Survey streamgage ......................................................................................................................8 5. Slope of regression analysis and the P-value of the Durbin-Watson T-statistic for each site ...................................................................................................................................9 6. Site-level Pearson’s correlation coefficients of Neosho madtom densities with the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration parameters for the Cottonwood, Emporia, and Humbolt sites. Pearson’s correlation coefficients and P-values are summarized for each site ..........................................................................................................10 7. Site-level Pearson’s correlation coefficients of Neosho madtom densities with the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration parameters for the National Wildlife Area, Oswego, and Oklahoma sites. Pearson’s correlation coefficients and P-values are summarized for each site ..........................................................................................................12 8. Site-level Pearson’s correlation coefficients of Neosho madtom densities with the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration parameters for the Spring River sites. Pearson’s correlation coefficients and P-values are summarized for each site .............14 Appendix Tables 1. Yearly median Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration parameters averaged over the years for the Cottonwood/Neosho River sites ................................................................18 2. Yearly median Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration parameters averaged over the years for the Spring River sites .........................................................................................20 v Conversion Factors Multiply By To obtain Length inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm) centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.) inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi) Area square inch (inch2) 645.16 square millimeter (mm2) square millimeter (mm2) 0.00155 square inch (inch2) square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2) Volume cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3) cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) Flow rate cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s) cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) centimeter per second (cm/s) 0.3937 inch per second (in/s) inch per second (in/s) 25.4 centimeter per second (cm/s) meter per second (m/s) 3.281 foot per second (ft/s) foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s) Water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which the water year ends and that includes 9 of the 12 months. vi Neosho Madtom and Other Ictalurid Populations in Relation to Hydrologic Characteristics of an Impounded Midwestern Warmwater Stream: Update By Janice L. Bryan1, Mark L. Wildhaber1, William B. Leeds2, and Rima Dey2 Abstract Introduction The Neosho madtom, Noturus placidus, is a small (less The Neosho madtom, Noturus placidus, (Taylor, 1969) than 75 millimeters in total length) ictalurid that is native is a small [less than 75 millimeters (mm)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 282
    Cl>lAat;i<,<:>';i^;}Oit3Cl <a f^.S^ iVi^ 5' i ''*«0£Mi»«33'**^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY I NotUTus albater, new species, a female paratype, 63 mm. in standard length; UMMZ 102781, Missouri. (Courtesy Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.) UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Rafinesque^ With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae WILLIAM RALPH TAYLOR Associate Curator, Division of Fishes SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1969 IV Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.
    [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]
  • Bryan Et Al. 2004
    Environmental Biology of Fishes 70: 80, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Threatened fishes of the world: Noturus placidus Taylor, 1969 (Ictaluridae) Janice L. Bryana, Mark L. Wildhaberb & Douglas B. Noltiea aDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, 302 ABNR, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A (e-mail: [email protected]) bU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, 4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, MO 65201, U.S.A Common names: Neosho madtom (T). Conservation status: Listed federally as threatened 22 May 1990 (USFWS 1991). Identification: One of 25 madtom species, distinguished from four madtoms in its range by two distinct crescent-shaped bands of pig- ment on caudal fin and lack of dark pigment extending to edge of adipose fin (Taylor 1969). Pectoral spines have poorly developed saw-like teeth on front margin. Fin ray counts: anal rays 13–16 (14.72); pelvic rays 8–12 (9.06), soft pelvic rays 7–9 (7.99); caudal rays 49–59 (54.32); vertebrae: 32–36 (33.62). Adults typically greater than 50 mm TL (Bulger & Edds 2001). Males in spawning condition exhibit swollen cephalic epaxial muscles and elongated genital papil- lae; both sexes exhibit reddened tooth patches during spawning season. Photograph by Janice L. Bryan. Distribution: Endemic to Neosho River basin in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (Taylor 1969). Species’ range historically extended south to Illinois River in Oklahoma; currently restricted by reservoirs to approximately two-thirds of original range (Moss 1981). Abundance: Large population fluctuations occur seasonally and annually (Moss 1981). In 1 year, Wilkinson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • GCP LCC Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow
    Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration Photo credit: Brandon Brown A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee Edited by: Mary Davis, Coordinator, Southern Aquatic Resources Partnership 3563 Hamstead Ct, Durham, North Carolina 27707, email: [email protected] and Shannon K. Brewer, U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 007 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 email: [email protected] Wildlife Management Institute Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee members for their time and thoughtful input into the development and testing of the regional flow-ecology hypotheses. Shannon Brewer, Jacquelyn Duke, Kimberly Elkin, Nicole Farless, Timothy Grabowski, Kevin Mayes, Robert Mollenhauer, Trevor Starks, Kevin Stubbs, Andrew Taylor, and Caryn Vaughn authored the flow-ecology hypotheses presented in this report. Daniel Fenner, Thom Hardy, David Martinez, Robby Maxwell, Bryan Piazza, and Ryan Smith provided helpful reviews and improved the quality of the report. Funding for this work was provided by the Gulf Coastal Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and administered by the Wildlife Management Institute (Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation: Davis, M. M. and S. Brewer (eds.). 2014. Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration. A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee to the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) for the GCP LCC Instream Flow Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of the Life History of the Slender Madtom Noturus Exilis in Northeastern Oklahoma (Pisces: Ictaluridae)
    Adr's Aspects of the Life History of the Slender Madtom Noturus exilis in Northeastern Oklahoma (Pisces: Ictaluridae) STEPHEN P. VIVES Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706 ABSTRACT: The ictalurid, Noturus exilis, was studied from 13 February 1981 to 23 May 1982 in Flint and Cloud creeks in northeastern Oklahoma. Current speed, depth and substrate type in areas occupied by N. exilis were compared with frequency distributions of habitat availability. Noturus exilis were selective in their choice of cur- rent speed and substrate type; however, depths were used in the same proportion they were available. Slender madtoms in Flint Creek consumed ephemeropteran naiads and dipteran larvae most frequently by number (57.8% and 25.9%, respectively) and these organisms also occurred in proportionally more stomachs (66.1% and 57.6%, respectively). Compared with N. exilis in Green Creek, Illinois (studied by R.L. Mayden and B.M. Burr): (1) Flint Creek N. exilis were smaller at a given age; (2) Flint and Cloud creek N. exilis had a higher percentage of females that were mature in their 1st summer of life (age 0 + ); (3) Flint and Cloud creek N. exilis had signifi- cantly fewer ova per gram adjusted body weight, and (4) Cloud Creek N. exilis had significantly larger ova and Flint Creek N. exilis nearly so. INTRODUCTION Several life history studies have been published recently on the ictalurid genus No- turus. These studies have increased our knowledge of N. albater (Mayden et al., 1980), N. elegans (Burr and Dimmick, 1981), N. exilis (Mayden and Burr, 1981), N.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Water Flow on Neosho Madtom
    Am. Midl. Nat. 156:305–318 Influence of Water Flow on Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) Reproductive Behavior JANICE L. BRYAN1 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 MARK L. WILDHABER U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri 65201 AND DOUGLAS B. NOLTIE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 ABSTRACT.—The Neosho madtom is a small, short-lived catfish species endemic to gravel bars of the Neosho River in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, U.S.A. It spawns during summer in nesting cavities excavated in gravel. Although the species has survived dam construction within the Neosho River basin, its declining numbers resulted in it being added to the federal threatened species list in 1991. To test how water flow affects the reproductive behavior of Neosho madtoms, we compared activities of male-female pairs in static versus flowing-water aquaria. Using a behavioral catalog, we recorded their behavior sequences during randomly selected 5-min nighttime periods. For males and females, Jostle and Embrace were the most performed reproductive behaviors and the Jostle-Embrace-Carousel was the most performed reproductive behavior sequence. Water flow decreased the mean frequency of occurrence, percentage of time spent and mean event duration of male Nest Building. Because Neosho madtom courtship, reproduction and parental care is a complex and extended process, disturbances such as heightened river flows during the species’ spawning season may negatively affect nest quality and reproductive success. INTRODUCTION Many environmental cues trigger spawning in temperate fish species, including food abundance, photoperiod, temperature, flooding, lunar cycles and social interaction (Bye, 1984; Munro et al., 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Species List
    FISH American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American eel Anguilla rostrata Banded darter Etheostoma zonale Bigeye chub Notropis amblops Bigeye shiner Notropis boops Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth shiner Notropis dorsalis Black buffalo Ictiobus niger Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside darter Percina maculate Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus Blue sucker Cycleptus elongates Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Bowfin Amia calva Brindled madtom Noturus miurus Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Central mudminnow Umbra limi Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel darter Percina copelandi Channel shiner Notropis wickliffi Common shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus Dusky darter Percina sciera sciera Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Grass pickerel Esox americanus
    [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]
  • How to Use This Checklist
    How To Use This Checklist JAWLESS FISHES: SUPERCLASS AGNATHA Pikes: Family Esocidae LAMPREYS: CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI __ Grass Pickerel Esox americanus O Lampreys: Family Petromyzontidae __ Northern Pike Esox lucius O; Lake Erie and Hinckley Lake; The information presented in this checklist reflects our __ Silver Lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis h current understanding of the status of fishes within Cleveland formerly common __ American brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix R; __ Muskellunge Esox masquinongy R; Lake Erie; Metroparks. You can add to our understanding by being a Chagrin River formerly common knowledgeable observer. Record your observations and __ *Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus O; Lake Erie; Minnows: Family Cyprinidae contact a naturalist if you find something that may be of formerly common; native to Atlantic Coast __ Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas C interest. JAWED FISHES: SUPERCLASS __ Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus O GNATHOSTOMATA __ Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster R Species are listed taxonomically. Each species is listed with a BONY FISHES: CLASS OSTEICHTHYES __ Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus C common name, a scientific name and a note about its Sturgeons: Family Acipenseridae __ Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus h; formerly in occurrence within Cleveland Metroparks. Check off species __ Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens h; Lake Erie; Cuyahoga and Chagrin River drainages. that you identify in Cleveland Metroparks. Ohio endangered __ River Chub Nocomis micropogon C; Chagrin River; O Gars: Family
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The
    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
    [Show full text]