Western North American Naturalist
Volume 67 Number 2 Article 1
6-20-2007
Zoogeographic patterns and faunal change of South Dakota fishes
Christopher W. Hoagstrom South Dakota State University, Brookings
Steven S. Wall South Dakota State University, Brookings
Jason G. Kral South Dakota State University, Brookings
Brian G. Blackwell South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Webster
Charles R. Berry Jr. South Dakota State University, Brookings
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan
Recommended Citation Hoagstrom, Christopher W.; Wall, Steven S.; Kral, Jason G.; Blackwell, Brian G.; and Berry, Charles R. Jr. (2007) "Zoogeographic patterns and faunal change of South Dakota fishes," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 67 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol67/iss2/1
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 67(2), © 2007, pp. 161–184
ZOOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS AND FAUNAL CHANGE OF SOUTH DAKOTA FISHES
Christopher W. Hoagstrom1,2, Steven S. Wall1,6, Jason G. Kral1,3, Brian G. Blackwell4, and Charles R. Berry, Jr.5
ABSTRACT.—We summarized historic and recent fish distributions in South Dakota and analyzed fish faunal similar- ity at 2 spatial scales (geomorphic province and river drainage) for both historic (native) and recent (post-1990) faunas. We quantified zoogeographic patterns between geomorphic provinces and among neighboring river drainages for his- toric and recent faunas. We also quantified faunal change (species losses and additions) between provinces and among drainages. Ninety-seven fishes were native to South Dakota, but 111 fishes were present in recent collections because 8 native species were missing, and 22 nonnatives were present. There was high β diversity among historic and recent river drainage fish faunas, but there was between 22% and 56% faunal change between periods. Recent faunas were homogenized compared to historic faunas at both provincial and river drainage spatial scales. Patterns of nonnative species establishment were geographically distinct from patterns of native species loss. Most nonnative species addi- tions were in cold-water or human-made habitats of the Great Plains. Most native species declines stemmed from warm water streams of the Central Lowlands and Missouri River valley. Conservation of rare and declining native species and containment of nonnatives are both necessary to preserve historical patterns of fish biodiversity in South Dakota.
Key words: South Dakota, freshwater fish biodiversity, faunal similarity, taxonomic homogenization, introduced species, Great Plains, Central Lowlands, riverine archipelago.
There is increasing concern for freshwater riverine archipelago he studied (Scott and Helf- fish conservation in North America (Pister 1999, man 2001, Walters et al. 2003, Carlson and Abell 2002, McKinney 2002). Forty North Daniels 2004). American fish taxa are extinct (Miller et al. Taxonomic homogenization results from the 1989). Extinction rates have increased through- disappearance of native species with localized out the 20th century (Wilcove et al. 1992) and distributions and the concurrent range expan- are expected to increase further (Ricciardi sions of invasive species (McKinney and Lock- and Rasmussen 1999). wood 1999, Olden et al. 2004). In North Amer- A biogeographic perspective is important ica, taxonomic homogenization has been doc- for a comprehensive conservation plan for umented among freshwater fish faunas of North American freshwater fishes (Sheldon eastern Texas (Hubbs et al. 1997), California 1988). For example, river drainage location, (Marchetti et al. 2001), New York (Carlson and area, isolation, and fragmentation influence Daniels 2004), and British Columbia (Taylor fish species diversity, composition, and faunal 2004). It is considered a major threat to bio- similarity (Sheldon 1988, Oberdorff et al. 1997, diversity (Olden and Poff 2003, Olden et al. Hoagstrom and Berry 2006). Sheldon (1988) 2004). demonstrated that neighboring river drainages Fish distributions in South Dakota have constitute “riverine archipelagos” with isolated received a modest amount of study, and zoo- fish faunas among river drainage “islands.” geographic patterns of fish distributions in Human activities have reduced isolation and South Dakota have never been documented. increased habitat similarity among North Amer- Further, the impacts of faunal change on zoo- ican river drainages which, as predicted by geographic patterns have never been assessed. Sheldon (1988), is homogenizing faunas of the Here we present a revised list of distributions
1Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, Box 2140B, Room 138 SNP, Brookings, SD 57007. 2Present address: Department of Zoology, Weber State University, Ogden, UT 84408. E-mail: [email protected] 3Present address: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 3127 436th Avenue, Yankton, SD 57078. 4South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 603 East 8th Avenue, Webster, SD 57274. 5U.S. Geological Survey, South Dakota Cooperative Research Unit, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, Box 2140B, Room 138 SNP, Brookings, SD 57007. 6Present address: James River Water Development District, Box 849, Huron, SD 57350.
161 162 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
Fig. 1. Map of South Dakota and adjacent areas showing the 14 river drainages, 2 sections of the Missouri River Val- ley, 2 geomorphic provinces, and important geographical features. The Bois de Sioux River drainage (1) is part of the Hudson Bay drainage. All other drainages belong to the Mississippi River drainage. The upper Minnesota River drainage (2) is part of the upper Mississippi River drainage. All other river drainages—Big Sioux River (3), Vermillion River (4), James River (5), lower Missouri River valley (6), Niobrara River (7), Ponca Creek (8), White River (9), Crow Creek (10), Bad River (11), Cheyenne River (12), Moreau River (13), Grand River (14), upper Missouri River valley (15), and Little Missouri River (16)—belong to the Missouri River drainage. The Central Lowlands geomorphic province extends east from the western edge of the James River drainage. The remainder of the state is within the Great Plains geomorphic province. of South Dakota fish by river drainage, along River and its small direst tributaries collec- with an analysis of zoogeographic patterns and tively as the Missouri River valley. faunal change within the state. Our objectives The most noteworthy river drainage bound- are (1) to update and expand the distributional ary in South Dakota is the continental divide summary of South Dakota fishes (sensu Bailey between the Hudson Bay and Gulf of Mexico and Allum 1962), (2) to quantify zoogeogra- drainages. This divide crosses the northeast phic patterns, and (3) to measure change corner of the state. The majority of South between historic and recent fish faunas and Dakota (>99%) is within the Mississippi River assess the effects of change on patterns of bio- drainage. The Bois de Sioux River drains the diversity. portion of South Dakota that lies within the Hudson Bay drainage. South Dakota waters STUDY AREA that flow to the Gulf of Mexico are all within the Mississippi River drainage. South Dakota is a large state with a small Another noteworthy river drainage bound- human population (De Blij 2005). Part or all of ary divides the Mississippi River drainage of 14 major river drainages are present therein South Dakota into 2 subdrainages: the Min- (Fig. 1). In addition, the mainstem Missouri nesota River and Missouri River drainages. This River, which is fed by many small streams, divide crosses northeastern South Dakota. flows from north to south through central Approximately 97% of South Dakota lies with- South Dakota and along the southeastern state in the Missouri River drainage and includes boundary. We refer to the mainstem Missouri all or portions of 12 major tributary drainages 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 163 along with the Missouri River valley. Less great many small impoundments were con- than 3% of South Dakota lies within the Min- structed in western South Dakota for livestock nesota River drainage. This region is drained (Rieger 2004). These alter surface runoff (Culler by the Upper Minnesota River. 1961). Rivers of eastern South Dakota have South Dakota includes portions of 2 geo- many low-head dams (Sinning 1968, Owen et morphic provinces, the Central Lowlands and al. 1981) that may modify flows and create bar- Great Plains (Thornbury 1965, Hogan 1995, riers to fish dispersal. Holliday et al. 2002). The Missouri Coteau forms the western edge of the Central Low- METHODS lands. Geomorphic provinces are defined based Fish Species of South Dakota on geology and topography. The Central Low- lands is lower in elevation than the Great Plains. We used literature to determine fish species Rocks of the Central Lowlands are mainly 223 presence in 14 river drainages and 2 sections million years old or older (Paleozoic) while of the Missouri River valley in South Dakota rocks of the Great Plains are mainly younger (Fig. 1). We divided the Missouri River valley than 223 million years (Mesozoic and Ceno- into 2 sections, with Fort Randall Dam as the zoic). The Central Lowlands in South Dakota boundary. Questionable records were verified, was entirely glaciated and the present topog- when possible, from voucher specimens. How- raphy has low relief and is characterized by ever, there is presently no major repository for abundant lakes, wetlands, and low-gradient South Dakota fish specimens, so opportunities streams of glacial origin. The Big Sioux, Ver- to examine vouchers were limited. We used an million, and James rivers are the major drain- approach similar to one described in detail by ages of the Central Lowlands in South Dakota. Carlson and Daniels (2004) to determine accept- In contrast, the Great Plains was glaciated ability of questionable records that could not only near the boundary between provinces. be verified from specimens, and we noted ques- The Great Plains landscape has high topo- tionable reports and controversial decisions graphic relief, which reflects the dominance of (Hoagstrom 2006). We also reported species uplift and erosion in the province. The Grand, known from outside the borders of South Dakota Moreau, Cheyenne, Bad, and White rivers are for river drainages that extended into other the major drainages of the Great Plains in states so that researchers would be alerted to South Dakota. their potential presence in South Dakota, but Humans have modified the waters of South these species were not used in subsequent Dakota through construction of reservoirs and analyses. drainage of wetlands. Wetland drainage was NATIVE SPECIES.—Native fish species were most common in the Big Sioux, Vermillion, presumably present within a given river drain- and James River drainages (Central Lowlands) age when humans of European descent first because the glaciated landscape and low relief settled in South Dakota, roughly in 1850. Pre- naturally created an abundance of lakes and sumably, species distributions were not influ- marshes (Johnson and Higgins 1997). In 1990, enced by human impacts to aquatic habitats or wetland loss from South Dakota was 35% by human transport of fishes prior to this date. (Dahl 1990). For our analysis, we refer to “historic faunas” Stream impoundments are widespread in as composed of only native species. The desig- South Dakota. Four mainstem reservoirs were nation of species as native or nonnative is dif- constructed on the Missouri River in South ficult because humans of European descent Dakota for the purposes of flood damage altered aquatic habitats and introduced non- reduction, water supply and irrigation, naviga- native fishes prior to the earliest fish surveys tion, hydropower, fish and wildlife benefit, (Bailey and Allum 1962). In addition, early and recreation (CMRES 2002). Irrigation sup- surveys provided such limited fish distribution ply reservoirs were constructed in western data that modern day researchers still fre- Missouri River tributary drainages (Hembree quently discover new native fish populations et al. 1964, Sando et al. 2001) because the (Morey and Berry 2004, Springman and Banks climate was more arid (many crops required 2005). Hence, it is difficult to determine the irrigation in this region) and because relatively native ranges of species. Our designations pri- high relief provided suitable reservoir sites. A marily follow the interpretations of previous 164 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67 ichthyologists as summarized in Rostlund 2002). We selected the number of clusters, with (1952), Bailey and Allum (1962), Lee et al. the goal of maximizing the amount of informa- (1980), and Page and Burr (1991). Exceptional tion conserved while also delimiting inter- cases in which we did not follow these authors pretable river drainage groups (sensu McCune are noted in Table 1. et al. 2000). We analyzed faunal similarity with NONNATIVE SPECIES.—We classified nonna- cluster analysis for historic and native river tive fish species as either out-of-state nonnatives drainage faunas to determine whether zoo- that were introduced wherever present in South geographic patterns were consistent between Dakota or in-state nonnatives that were native periods. to some river drainages of the state but intro- FAUNAL DISPARITY.—Faunal disparity (β di- duced to others, thus expanding their historic versity) is the amount of total diversity that is distributions. In-state nonnatives are likely to unique to various subregions of a given area be more successful invaders than out-of-state (Whittaker 1975)—in this case, geomorphic nonnatives because they were native to waters provinces or river drainages within South with relatively similar environmental condi- Dakota. We determined faunal disparity be- tions and fish assemblages (Brown and Moyle tween geomorphic provinces (comparisons be- 1997, Gido et al. 2004). tween provinces did not include the Missouri RECENT SPECIES.—Recent fish species were River valley), among neighboring river drain- those collected since 1990, whether native or ages of the riverine archipelago of South introduced. We chose post-1990 collections as Dakota, and between sections of the Missouri “recent” because fish sampling in South Dakota River valley. There are 2 types of neighboring was extensive after this year and included drainages: (1) those with neighboring river major surveys of all river drainages except the mouths and (2) those with neighboring head- Bois de Sioux River, Crow Creek, and the waters (Sheldon 1988), all of which we ana- Little Missouri River. Along with literature lyzed. We summarized faunal disparity in 2 records (Table 1), the recent statewide distri- ways. First, we determined faunal turnover bution of some fishes was determined from (number of unshared species; Allan 1975, Rus- data provided by the South Dakota Depart- sell 1998). Second, we calculated faunal resemblance using Preston’s index z (Preston ment of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP 2004a, 1962, Sheldon 1988), which is calculated as 2004b, 2004c). Recent data are the only data available for the Ponca Creek drainage, which z = –3.32 * log[0.6x + 0.4y], was not sampled prior to 1990. Zoogeographic Patterns where x equals the fraction of combined fauna that is present in larger fauna and y equals the FAUNAL SIMILARITY.—We investigated fish fraction of combined fauna that is present in faunal similarity among all South Dakota river smaller fauna. The index varies from 0 (identi- drainages using a hierarchical, agglomerative, cal faunas) to 1 (unique faunas). Values >0.27 polythetic cluster analysis (Legendre and Le- represent isolated faunas and values <0.27 gendre 1998) performed with PC-ORD 4.25 suggest that faunas are subsets of larger faunas software. We used Sørensen’s index (Sørensen (Preston 1962, Sheldon 1988). Faunal disparity 1948) as our distance measure because it gives analyses were performed separately for his- double weight to double presences, which are toric and recent faunas to determine whether theoretically the most meaningful indicators patterns were similar between periods. of faunal similarity (Legendre and Legendre 1998, McCune and Mefford 1999). We used Faunal Change flexible clustering with β = –0.25 as our link- We documented the level of fish faunal age method (Legendre and Legendre 1998, change between the historic and recent faunas McCune and Grace 2002). We scaled the clus- of South Dakota at statewide, geomorphic pro- ter dendrogram with Wishart’s objective func- vince, and river drainage scales by calculating tion, which measures information loss for each faunal turnover (percent unshared species; step in a hierarchical cluster based on the Rahel 2002, Taylor 2004) between periods. amount of total variation that is present in each Unshared species were of 2 types: (1) native cluster (Wishart 1969, McCune and Grace species absent from recent collections (species
2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 165
Little Missouri River Missouri Little
p
n
Missouri Valley (upper) Valley Missouri
o
1 2 n n n n
Grand River Grand n
Moreau River Moreau m
Cheyenne River Cheyenne
l
22n
Bad River Bad k
e; * = present in the drainage adjoining
Crow Creek Crow
j
n nnnnnnn nn n
White River White
i q
n n (2004) except we recognize subspecies. (2004) except *
onca Creek onca P h
Niobrara River Niobrara
g q q q q q
*
Missouri Valley (lower) Valley Missouri
f r
1 2
James River James
e
nn
ermillion River ermillion V
d
nnnnnnnnn n nnn n nnn* nn
Big Sioux River Sioux Big
c
n n
Central LowlandsRiver Minnesota Upper Great Plains b
nnnnnn nn n nn n nnn
Bois de Sioux River Sioux de Bois a q q ______central stoneroller * shovelnose sturgeon n n n n * red shiner n grass carp 1 1 1 shortnose gar n n n n n * silver lamprey gizzard shad n n n n alewife pallid sturgeon n lake sturgeon n skipjack herring lake chub longnose gar * paddlefish goldfish 1 1 1 1 1 goldeye n n n n * American eel mooneye lampreys paddlefishes sturgeons gars bowfin mooneyes freshwater eels carps and minnows herrings 1. Fish species presence in South Dakota river drainages. N = native species; 1 out of state nonnative; 2 nonnativ 1. Fish bowfins , species, and episosteus osseus episosteus platostomus olyodon spathula ABLE UPEIDAE Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Couesius plumbeus Ctenopharyngodon idella Cyprinella lutrensis Amia calva Alosa pseudoharengus Dorosoma cepedianum L Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Alosa chrysochloris Ascipenser fulvescens Scaphirhynchus albus L Hiodon tergisus Anguilla rostrata Carassius auratus P Hiodon alosoides Campostoma anomalum pullum T IODONTIDAE L YPRINIDAE EPISOSTEIDAE CIPENSERIDAE MIIDAE NGUILLIDAE AMILIES ETROMYZONTIDAE OLYODONTIDAE C H states but never reported from South Dakota; bold = species absent from post-1990 collections. Fish names follow Nelson et al. states but never reported from South Dakota; bold = species absent post-1990 collections. Fish F P A P A C L subspecies A
166 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
Little Missouri River Missouri Little
p q q q n
Missouri Valley (upper) Valley Missouri
o
2 2 n* n
Grand River Grand
n
nnn
Moreau River Moreau m
Cheyenne River Cheyenne
l q q
nnnnn * *
Bad River Bad
k
nnnnnn n
Crow Creek Crow
j
nnnnnnn nn
White River White
i q q
nn n nn *
onca Creek onca P
h q
Niobrara River Niobrara
g q q n
Missouri Valley (lower) Valley Missouri
f q 1 nn* nn n nnnnnn n* n* nn
James River James
e q q
nn n * *
ermillion River ermillion V
d
11 1111111111111 n nnnn n nnnnn* nn n n
Big Sioux River Sioux Big
c
nnn n n nn n n
Central LowlandsRiver Minnesota Upper Great Plains
b q nn nnnnnnnn n nnnnnnnnn nnnn n nnn nnnnnn 2 22 nnnnnn * n n
Bois de Sioux River Sioux de Bois a q q q q q q q n n n n n ______pearl dace n n n plains sand shiner n n n n eastern sand shiner * silver carp 1 1 1 1 bighead carp 1 1 1 golden shiner * brassy minnow silver chub * shoal chub n western silvery minnow carmine shiner * Suckermouth minnow plains minnow emerald shiner n n n spotfin shiner * sturgeon chub n n n sicklefin chub n blacknose shiner spottail shiner * blackchin shiner * mimic shiner * hornyhead chub silverband shiner river shiner bigmouth shiner opeka shiner n n n * common shiner common carp 1 1 1 T northern redbelly dace n n n n n n n * 1. Continued. , species, and uxilus cornutus ABLE Notropis hudsonius Macrhybopsis storeriana Macrhybopsis hyostoma Notropis shumardi Notropis stramineus missuriensis Notropis stramineus Hybognathus placitus Notropis heterolepis Cyprinus carpio Hybognathus argyritis Phenacobius mirabilis Notropis dorsalis Notropis heterodon Notropis volucellus T Cyprinella spiloptera Macrhybopsis gelida Macrhybopsis meeki Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis blennius Hybognathus hankinsoni Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Margariscus margarita nachtriebi Nocomis biguttatus Notropis atherinoides Notropis percobromus Notropis topeka Phoxinus eos Hypophthalmichthys nobilis L AMILIES F subspecies
2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 167
Little Missouri River Missouri Little
p q q n n
Missouri Valley (upper) Valley Missouri
o
2 2 n n* n n
Grand River Grand
n
2
Moreau River Moreau m
Cheyenne River Cheyenne
l
2 n n nnn
Bad River Bad
k
n
Crow Creek Crow
j
n
White River White
i q q
n * *
onca Creek onca P h
Niobrara River Niobrara
g q q q q qs
nn n n nnn *
Missouri Valley (lower) Valley Missouri
f
n n nn n nnnnnn n n
James River James
e q nn nn n
ermillion River ermillion V
d
nnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnn nnnnnnnn nnnn nnnnnnnn nnnn n nnnnnn n
Big Sioux River Sioux Big
c q
n nnn nn
Central LowlandsRiver Minnesota Upper Great Plains
b q nn nn nnnn nnnnnnnnn nnnn* nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nn
Bois de Sioux River Sioux de Bois a q q n n n n ______longnose dace rudd 1 1 shorthead redhorse n n n mountain sucker * white sucker n n n central quillback carpsucker n n n creek chub northern river carpsucker n golden redhorse n n * longnose sucker * southern redbelly dace n northern hog sucker fathead minnow western blacknose dace * brown bullhead n n * blue sucker n n n n n bigmouth buffalo n n n n n n * channel catfish n n n bluntnose minnow finescale dace * flathead chub blue catfish n highfin carpsucker * yellow bullhead 2 n n n smallmouth buffalo n n n n * black bullhead n n n black buffalo suckers North American catfishes 1. Continued. , species, and ABLE TOSTOMIDAE Ameiurus natalis Scardinus erythrophthalmus Semotilus atromaculatus Ameiurus nebulosus Carpiodes carpio Phoxinus erythrogaster Ictiobus cyprinellus Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus punctatus Phoxinus neogaeus Ameiurus melas Pimephales notatus Catostomus commersonii Catostomus platyrhynchus Cycleptus elongatus Hypentelium nigricans erythrurum Moxostoma Ictiobus bubalus Pimephales promelas Ictiobus niger Catostomus catostomus macrolepidotum Moxostoma Carpiodes cyprinus hinei Carpiodes velifer Platygobio gracilis Rhinichthys cataractae Rhinichthys obtusus T A AMILIES CTALURIDAE F C subspecies I
168 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
Little Missouri River Missouri Little
p q
Missouri Valley (upper) Valley Missouri
o
1 1 1 1 1 2 n n*
Grand River Grand n
Moreau River Moreau m
Cheyenne River Cheyenne
l
1 11 1111 1 11 n
Bad River Bad k
Crow Creek Crow
j
2222222
White River White
i q
1 n *
onca Creek onca P h
Niobrara River Niobrara
g q q
Missouri Valley (lower) Valley Missouri
f
1 1 n* n
James River James
e
1
ermillion River ermillion V
d
111 1 1111 nnnn n nnnnn n
Big Sioux River Sioux Big
c t
1 n n
Central LowlandsRiver Minnesota Upper Great Plains b
1 11 nnnn nn n n
Bois de Sioux River Sioux de Bois a r q q ______ellowstone cutthroat trout Y grass pickerel n * western banded killifish * chinook salmon trout-perch * lake whitefish Coho salmon rainbow trout lake trout kokanee (sockeye) salmon Bonneville cisco brook trout burbot muskellunge 1 1 1 1 flathead catfish n n n n cisco 1 rainbow smelt 1 1 1 tadpole madtom * stonecat brown trout 1 * central mudminnow n n northern pike n n n 2 n 2 2 2 2 trout-perches topminnows trouts and salmons smelts mudminnows pikes cods 1. Continued. , species, and ota lota maculosa undulus diaphanus menona ercopsis omiscomaycus ABLE Salmo trutta Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Oncorhynchus mykiss Prosopium gemmifer Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri Pylodictis olivaris Coregonus clupeaformis Esox americanus vermiculatus Coregonus artedi Salvelinus fontinalis Salvelinus namaycush Esox masquinongy Noturus flavus Esox lucius Osmerus mordax Umbra limi F P L Noturus gyrinus T SMERIDAE MBRIDAE ADIDAE SOCIDAE UNDULIDAE AMILIES ERCOPSIDAE ALMONIDAE P U F F S O E subspecies G
2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 169
Little Missouri River Missouri Little
p q
2 n *
Missouri Valley (upper) Valley Missouri
o
1 n
Grand River Grand
n q
Moreau River Moreau m
Cheyenne River Cheyenne
l u
nnnn n
Bad River Bad
k
222222 22 22222
Crow Creek Crow
j
2222222
White River White
i
2 nn nn*
onca Creek onca P h
Niobrara River Niobrara
g r
q nn n nnn
Missouri Valley (lower) Valley Missouri
f
22 n n
James River James
e
22 2222 2 22 n
ermillion River ermillion V
d
222222 22222 222222 22222 222222 2 22222 2 2 2 nnnnn 222 n
Big Sioux River Sioux Big
c
2 n
Central LowlandsRiver Minnesota Upper Great Plains
b q q q nnnn nn nnnnnnnnn nn nnnnn nnn nn nnnnn* n n
Bois de Sioux River Sioux de Bois a t t q q q 2 n n ______bluegill 2 n n 2 2 n 2 2 2 largemouth bass 2 n n striped fantail darter * black crappie 2 n n least darter * rainbow darter * smallmouth bass * redear sunfish 1 rock bass * johnny darter n n n plains topminnow n banded darter * green sunfish * brook stickleback white crappie 2 pumpkinseed * white bass 2 n n logperch n Iowa darter northern plains killifish * orangespotted sunfish striped bass 1 yellow perch n n n n n n 2 2 2 sticklebacks mottled sculpin sunfishes temperate basses sculpins perches 1. Continued. , species, and epomis cyanellus epomis gibbosus epomis humilis epomis macrochirus epomis microlophus undulus kansae undulus sciadicus omoxis annularis ercina caprodes omoxis nigromaculatus erca flavescens ABLE P Etheostoma flabellare lineolatum P Cottus bairdii Micropterus salmoides P Morone saxatilis Morone chrysops F F Etheostoma exile Etheostoma microperca Etheostoma nigrum Etheostoma zonale P L L L L L Micropterus dolomieu Etheostoma caeruleum Ambloplites rupestris Culaea inconstans T ORONIDAE ASTEROSTEIDAE OTTIDAE ENTRARCHIDAE AMILIES ERCIDAE M P C F G C subspecies
170 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
Little Missouri River Missouri Little t p q
Missouri Valley (upper) Valley Missouri
o n*
Grand River Grand n v n
was more widespread in pre-
Moreau River Moreau
m v
n
Cheyenne River Cheyenne l v nn* n
C. platyrhynchus
Bad River Bad v
k gest nnnnnn
Crow Creek Crow
j nn
White River White
i v
n n
onca Creek onca P h
Niobrara River Niobrara
g q q q
Missouri Valley (lower) Valley Missouri f nd includes all tributary streams except those reported separately in this table. Johnson et al. (1992), nd includes all tributary streams except ll Dam and includes all portions of mainstem reservoirs and all tributary streams except those reported ll Dam and includes all portions of mainstem reservoirs tributary streams except kson et al. (2001), USGS (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), and Duehr (2004) reported recent surveys from the luence (including the Lac qui Parle River). Dieterman and Berry (1994), Pope and Willis (1994), USGS and Willis River). Dieterman and Berry (1994), Pope luence (including the Lac qui Parle and River drainage. ish were collected.
from the White River drainage. ver drainage. age.
om the Vermillion River drainage. om the Vermillion rveys from the Big Sioux River drainage.
James River James e es River drainage. q ver and Bois de Sioux River join (including the Otter Tail River drainage). Anderson (personal communication) ver and Bois de Sioux River join (including the Otter Tail ng potential former or future inhabitants. possibility. rted recent surveys from the lower Missouri River Valley. ve given the species access to Niobrara Drainage from Platte, Cheyenne, or White drainages.
999), Smith and Brown (2002), USGS (2002, 2003, 2004), Lott et al. (2003, Sorensen (2004) reported recent
ermillion River ermillion V d
Big Sioux River Sioux Big c
Central LowlandsRiver Minnesota Upper Great Plains
b nn * n
Bois de Sioux River Sioux de Bois q a ______invaded the Missouri River following human modifications that altered river conditions. specimen reported from the Niobrara River Drainage in Nebraska was mislabeled. Recent geological and ichthyological studies sug chrysochloris A. C. platyrhynchus freshwater drum n n n n n n * walleye n n n n n n * slenderhead darter sauger n n n n * blackside darter * drums and croakers 1. Continued. , species, and are unaware of recent surveys from the Crow Creek drainage. The USGS (2001) made 1 visit to drainage but no f Loomis et al. (1999), USGS (2001, 2002, 2004), and Duehr (2004) reported recent surveys from the Moreau River drainage. ercina maculata ercina phoxocephala ABLE Schmulbach and Braaten (1993), Berry (1997), Blausey (2001), USGS (2002, 2003, 2004) reported recent surveys fr Erickson (personal communication) reported recent surveys from the Little Missouri River drainage. Species or subspecies native to specific river drainages but only known outside the borders of South Dakota and thus representi The Ponca Creek river drainage was not sampled prior to 1990. USGS (2001, 2003) reported recent surveys from the Ponca Creek ri Creek river drainage was not sampled prior to 1990. USGS (2001, 2003) reported recent surveys from the Ponca The Ponca USGS (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Morey and Berry (2004) Erickson (personal communication) reported recent surveys from the Gr Upper Minnesota River drainage refers to the portion of the Minnesota River drainage upstream from the Lac qui Parle River conf Upper Minnesota River drainage refers to the portion of upstream from Lac qui Parle Cunningham et al. (1995), USGS (2002, 2003), and Harland Berry (2004) reported recent surveys from the Niobrara River drain The upper Missouri River Valley refers to the Missouri River from the South Dakota–North Dakota border downstream to Fort Randa refers to the Missouri River from South Dakota–North Dakota border downstream Fort The upper Missouri River Valley Milewski (2001), USGS (2002), and Harland (2003) report recent surveys from the Bad River drainage. Berry et al. (1993), Blausey (2001), USGS (2001, 2002, 2003), and Shearer (2003) reported recent surveys from the Jam Dieterman and Berry (1998), Kirby (2001), Milewski Blausey USGS (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004) reported recent su Bois de Sioux River drainage refers to the portion of the Red River of the North drainage upstream from where the Otter Tail Ri Bois de Sioux River drainage refers to the portion of Red North upstream from where Otter Tail Bailey and Allum (1962) believed the Cross and Huggins (1975) concluded that Species or subspecies introduced to the drainage outside borders of South Dakota making future presence in state a The lower Missouri River Valley refers to the Missouri River from Fort Randall Dam downstream to the South Dakota–Iowa border a refers to the Missouri River from Fort The lower Missouri River Valley Cunningham et al. (1995), USFWS (1997), Fryda (2001), USGS (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), and Harland (2003) reported recent surveys Cunningham et al. (1995), USFWS (1997), Fryda We Meester (1994, 1999), SDGFP (1993), Cunningham et al. (1995), Hampton and Berry (1997), Doorenbos (1998), Erickson Eric Sander canadensis P P a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Aplodinotus grunniens Sander vitreus T ickstrom (1999, 2004), USGS (2001, 2002), Berry and Young (2004), Shuman et al. (2005), and Kral (personal communication) repo ickstrom (1999, 2004), USGS (2001, 2002), Berry and Young AMILIES CIANIDAE W (2002, 2004), and Anderson (personal communication) reported recent surveys. separately in this table. Johnson et al. (1992, 1995, 1998, 1999), Riis and (1995), Stone Sorensen (1 surveys from the upper Missouri River Valley. Cheyenne River drainage. F S reported recent surveys. subspecies historic times (Cross et al. 1986). Stream captures and interdrainage connections (Swinehart 1985, Mayden 1987) could ha 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 171 F.
was losses) and (2) nonnative species present in
sider recent collections (species additions). Compar- isons between provinces did not include the Missouri River valley.
S. vitreus We assessed changes in statewide faunal similarity by comparing similarity patterns be-
as native to all major drainages tween historic and recent faunas at the geo- morphic province and river drainage scales. Increasing similarity indicates taxonomic homogenization and decreasing similarity in-
S. vitreus dicates taxonomic differentiation. We used Jaccard’s index (Jaccard 1912) to assess changes in faunal similarity. It is the traditional mea- sure for studies of faunal change and thus facilitates comparisons with former studies
covery (Bailey and Allum 1962). Other species that were absent from the (Rahel 2000, Marchetti et al. 2001, Taylor 2004, Olden et al. 2004). However, we also con- 2003). Thus, Nebraska, South Dakota, North and possibly Kansas con-
(Evermann and Cox 1896), all of which are considered native (Bailey and Allum (Evermann and Cox ducted analyses using Sørensen’s index be- cause it is superior to Jaccard’s index (Legendre and Legendre 1998, McCune and Mefford
rveys missed the species although it was present elsewhere in drainage. Prehistoric stream 1999) and thus may provide a more sensitive measure of changing faunal similarity. Both introductions to the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains largely followed construction of reservoirs Jaccard’s and Sørensen’s indexes may be ex- Carpiodes carpio pressed as percentages, and they vary from 0% and t the limited extent of pre-reservoir t the limited extent surveys in western tributaries of Missouri River South Dakota The western extent of the native range in these states is difficult to determine because The western extent to 100%, with 100% indicating identical fau- obably the best available evidence of the historic range. We report obably the best available evidence of historic range. We
S. vitreus nas. We conducted comparisons between all river drainage pairs for historic and recent faunas and summarized the frequency distri- bution of similarity values among historic and recent river drainage faunas. We used a 2- to naturally populate the Cheyenne River drainage. In absence of more objective evidence human introduction, we thus con tailed t test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) to compare did not inhabit them prior to plantings of the species in newly formed reservoirs. ansae k the means of all pairwise comparisons from F. historic and recent faunas. We also summa- rized changes in similarity between native and
S. vitreus recent river drainage faunas to determine whether the sum of all changes increased or decreased faunal similarity. We compared the mean of all similarity changes to 0 using a 1- sample t test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). We compared historic fish ranges (number of drainages occupied) to recent fish ranges to investigate how different species groups affected patterns of faunal change. We separated re- cent fishes into 3 groups: natives with stable to be introduced the Cheyenne River downstream from Angostura Dam due their absence 2 collections prior dis or declining ranges (recent natives), natives
kansae with expanding ranges (in-state nonnatives), F. Hybognathus argyritis, Notropis stramineus missuriensis, Pimephales promelas, Semotilus atromaculatus,
is introduced to Wyoming (Simon 1946, Baxter and Simon 1970, Stone 1995) Montana (Brown 1971, Holton Johnson is introduced to Wyoming and out-of-state nonnatives—and determined
populations are highly variable over time and patchy in distribution (Fausch and Bestgen 1997) so it is possible the 2 early su populations are highly variable over time and patchy in distribution (Fausch the skewness of frequency distributions for each group. Frequency distributions that are strongly right-skewed contribute to taxonomic differentiation, while nonskewed distribu- undulus kansae native to the Cheyenne River drainage. F Miller (1955) considered Sander vitreus tions contribute to taxonomic homogenization u v ansae stocked widely prior to extensive fish surveys. However, many early stocking attempts were unsuccessful and the success of fish surveys. However, stocked widely prior to extensive (Simon 1946, Bailey and Allum 1962, Cross Collins 1995), so collections from streams prior to reservoir construction are pr 1962). stitute the southwestern edge of historic range (Johnson 1942, Bailey and Allum 1962, Cross 1967, Collins 1995). the Little Missouri Drainage, which follows Rostlund (1952) and Bailey Allum (1962) among others, bu of South Dakota except (White, Bad, Cheyenne, Moreau, and Grand rivers) leaves open the possibility that same 2 collections include captures between the Cheyenne and Platte drainages (Swinehart et al. 1985) may have allowed k (McKinney 2004). 172 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
ent in all river drainages except the upper In-state nonnatives Minnesota River and composed the majority Out-of-state nonnatives of nonnatives in most drainages (Fig. 2). Out- of-state nonnatives were most prevalent in the upper Minnesota, Big Sioux, lower Missouri, Cheyenne, and upper Missouri river drainages. RECENT SPECIES.—Based on our findings, the recent fish fauna of South Dakota included 111 fish species—89 natives and 22 nonna- tives. Recent species richness was 79 in the Central Lowlands and 64 in the Great Plains (this analysis did not include the Missouri River valley). Thirty-two species were present only in the Central Lowlands and 17 were Fig. 2. Nonnative fish species richness by river drain- present only in the Great Plains. Recent species age. Nonnatives are divided into 2 groups: out-of-state richness varied from 72 in the lower Missouri nonnatives (introduced wherever present) and in-state River valley to 17 in the Ponca Creek drainage nonnatives (native to some river drainages). River drain- (Table 1). age abbreviations follow Table 2. Zoogeographic Patterns
RESULTS FAUNAL SIMILARITY.—Zoogeographic patterns of faunal similarity were distinct and persis- Fish Species of South Dakota tent. Cluster analyses of historic and recent NATIVE SPECIES.—Based on our findings, fish faunas indicated that there were 3 major 97 fish species and subspecies (henceforth river drainage groups in South Dakota based referred to collectively as “species”) were on faunal similarity at a level where 40% of native to South Dakota (Table 1). An addi- the information was remaining (Fig. 3). His- tional 4 species were known from adjacent toric river drainage groups were (1) Bois de waters of the Bois de Sioux River or Upper Sioux River and Ponca Creek (drainages with Minnesota River drainages, but these 4 species only headwater reaches extending into the were not considered in subsequent analyses. state), (2) major Great Plains river drainages, Only 1 species, sand shiner Notropis strami- and (3) Central Lowlands river drainages and neus, was represented by multiple subspecies. both sections of the Missouri River valley. Native species richness was 83 in the Central Recent river drainage groups were (1) the Bois Lowlands and 47 in the Great Plains (exclud- de Sioux River, (2) Central Lowlands river ing the Missouri River valley). Forty-five spe- drainages and both sections of the Missouri cies were only native to the Central Lowlands River valley, and (3) major Great Plains river and 9 were only native to the Great Plains. drainages, including Ponca Creek. Native species richness varied by river drain- FAUNAL DISPARITY.—There was substantial age from 64 in the lower Missouri River valley faunal disparity (β diversity) between geomor- to 11 in the Ponca Creek drainage. phic provinces and neighboring river drain- NONNATIVE SPECIES.—According to our ages for both historic and recent faunas. There records, 25 fish species were introduced to was 59% faunal turnover (unshared species) South Dakota. Three of these (alewife Alosa between historic Central Lowlands and Great pseudoharengus, Coho salmon Oncorhynchus Plains faunas (the Missouri River valley was kisutch, and Bonneville cisco Prosopium gem- excluded from this analysis), due primarily to mifer) failed, so 22 nonnative species were species restricted to the Central Lowlands, present in recent collections. Introductions of which represented 49% of the historic fauna. many species failed in certain tributary drain- Similarly, there was 51% faunal turnover be- ages, but were successful in others (Table 1). tween recent faunas of the Central Lowlands Failed introductions were not included in sub- and Great Plains, but only 33% of the recent sequent analyses. There were also 22 in-state species were restricted to the Central Low- nonnatives that had expanded distributions lands. These results indicated an increase in within the state. In-state nonnatives were pres- the proportion of unique intraprovincial species 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 173
Fig. 3. Dendrogram depicting results of a hierarchical, agglomerative, polythetic cluster analysis based on Sørensen’s coefficient of faunal similarity among historic (A) and recent (B) river drainage fish faunas. The dendrogram is scaled with Wishart’s objective function that measures information loss for each step in a hierarchical cluster. We differentiated clusters for which 40% of the information remained. that were restricted to the Great Plains. His- valleys was 35% among historic faunas and toric faunal resemblance between provinces 42% among recent faunas. Faunal resem- (Preston’s z) was 0.42, and recent resemblance blance (Preston’s z) was 0.25 for historic faunas was 0.39, indicating that provincial faunas and 0.32 for recent faunas. were distinct from each other in both periods. Faunal Change There was substantial faunal disparity be- tween neighboring river drainages (Fig. 4). SOUTH DAKOTA FAUNA.—Historic and recent There was 14%–72% faunal turnover (unshared fish faunas of South Dakota were substantially species) between drainages of historic and different. There was a net increase of 14 spe- recent faunas. Resemblance values (Preston’s z) cies between historic and recent fish faunas indicated that most neighboring faunas were because 22 nonnatives were successfully distinct from each other, but a few river drain- established in the state, but 8 natives were age pairs had resemblance values <0.27, which missing (Table 1). This accounted for 25% fau- suggested they were subsets of larger regional nal turnover (unshared species) between his- faunas. Historic and recent species richness toric and recent faunas. patterns were similar among neighboring river PROVINCIAL FAUNAS.—Patterns of fish fau- drainages. Faunal turnover (unshared species) nal change differed between geomorphic pro- between the upper and lower Missouri River vinces. In both cases, there was substantial 174 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
Fig. 4. Plot showing 3 measures that quantify faunal disparity (β diversity) between river drainages of the “riverine archipelago” of South Dakota for historic and recent fish faunas. The 3 measures are percent unshared species (top graphs), faunal resemblance (Preston’s z; middle graphs) and species richness (bottom graphs). Comparisons between drainages with adjacent river mouths along the Missouri River are shown on the left. Comparisons between drainages with adjacent headwaters are shown on the right. River drainage abbreviations follow Table 2. faunal turnover (unshared species), with 29% both categories because they were missing from turnover between historic and recent faunas of their native river drainages but introduced the Central Lowlands and 39% turnover be- into others. Faunal turnover (unshared species) tween historic and recent faunas of the Great by river drainage ranged from 22% in the Nio- Plains. Change in the Central Lowlands led to brara River drainage to 56% in the Bois de a net loss of 4 species because 16 natives were Sioux River drainage (Fig. 5). missing from recent collections and only 12 Overall, there was higher similarity among nonnatives were present. In contrast, change recent faunas than among historic faunas (Fig. in the Great Plains resulted in a net increase 6), but the frequency distributions of faunal of 17 species because, although 5 native species similarity values were statistically similar. His- were missing from recent collections, 22 non- toric faunal similarity based on Jaccard’s index natives were present. Faunal similarity values ranged from 12% between Ponca Creek and were 41% between historic provincial faunas the Big Sioux River drainages to 83% between and 49% between recent provincial faunas the Moreau River and Grand River drainages. based on Jaccard’s index (8% increase), and Recent faunal similarity based on Jaccard’s 58% between historic provincial faunas and index ranged from 8% between the Little Mis- 66% between recent provincial faunas based souri River and Bois de Sioux River drainages on Sørensen’s index (8% increase). to 89% between the Grand River and Moreau RIVER DRAINAGE FAUNAS.—Historic fish fau- River drainages. Mean Jaccard’s similarity be- nas were substantially different from recent tween all river drainage pairs was similar be- fish faunas in all river drainages. Fifty native tween historic (x– = 40%, s = 17.3%) and species were missing from 1 or more histori- recent (x– = 42%, s = 13.9%) faunas (t = 1.1, cally occupied drainages (Table 1). In contrast, df = 208, P = 0.27; Table 2). Similarly, historic the river drainage distributions of 17 native faunal similarity based on Sørensen’s index species (in-state nonnatives) increased. Skip- ranged from 22% between Ponca Creek and jack herring, Alosa chrysochloris, and small- the Big Sioux River drainages to 91% between mouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu, fit within the Moreau River and Grand River drainages. 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 175
DISCUSSION Zoogeographic Patterns Fish faunal similarity among river drain- ages indicated distinct zoogeographic patterns between geomorphic provinces and along the riverine archipelago of South Dakota. The division between Great Plains and Central Lowlands faunas was consistent with findings elsewhere (Stevenson et al. 1974, Hawkes et al. 1986). Essentially, the Great Plains fauna represents a subset of the Central Lowlands fauna (Cross et al. 1986). Relatively harsh aquatic habitats of the Great Plains are domi- Fig. 5. Percent of total species richness by river drain- nated by relatively hardy generalist species, ages that was unshared between historic and recent fish presumably because more specialized or less faunas. Percentages are subdivided into 2 components: native species missing from recent surveys and nonnative tolerant species cannot survive (Matthews and species present in recent surveys. *Ponca Creek river Hill 1980, Matthews 1987, Bramblett and drainage was not surveyed prior to 1990, so recent collec- Fausch 1991). tions represent historic and recent faunas. Values of faunal resemblance among neigh- boring river drainages were comparable to those reported by Sheldon (1988) in southeast- Recent faunal similarity based on Sørensen’s ern North America, suggesting that the river index ranged from 15% between the Little drainages of South Dakota constitute a river- Missouri River and Bois de Sioux River drain- ine archipelago. Lowest resemblance (highest ages to 94% between the Grand River and values) corresponded to the transition between Moreau River drainages. Mean Sørensen’s Central Lowlands and Great Plains faunas index similarity between all river drainage pairs (between the James and Niobrara river drain- was also similar between historic (x– = 55%, ages), which supported the distinction between s = 17.3%) and recent (x– = 58%, s = 13.8%) geomorphic provinces. There was also low re- faunas (t = 1.5, df = 208, P = 0.13; Table 3). Overall, the magnitude of change in river semblance from south to north within the Great drainage similarity among all pairs was posi- Plains (Niobrara to Cheyenne river drainage), tive (Fig. 7) and statistically >0, indicating tax- which supported the findings of Hoagstrom onomic homogenization. The mean magnitude and Berry (2006) who documented dramatic of change in similarity based on Jaccard’s faunal change from south to north among trib- index was 2.4% (s = 9.3%; t = 2.6, df = 104, utaries of the western Missouri River drainage. P = 0.01). The mean magnitude of change in Faunal Change similarity based on Sørensen’s index was 3.3% (s = 10.0%; t = 3.4, df = 104, P < 0.01). SPECIES LOSSES.—Species losses were a Frequency distributions of out-of-state non- major factor in historical fish community natives were highly right-skewed (Fig. 8), in- change. Land-use changes in South Dakota dicating that, as a group, out-of-state nonna- were likely important in the decline of native tive species contributed to taxonomic differen- fishes. Siltation and pollution associated with tiation. In contrast, frequency distributions of row-crop agriculture and urbanization have in-state nonnatives were slightly left skewed, affected streams of the Big Sioux (Sinning indicating that, as a group, in-state nonnative 1968, Dieterman and Berry 1998, Milewski species contributed to taxonomic homogeniza- et al. 2001), Vermillion (Schmulbach and tion. The frequency distributions of native Braaten 1993), and James (Owen et al. 1981) species with stable or declining ranges were river drainages, which suffered relatively high similarly skewed to those of historic native native species losses. Many of the species lost species, suggesting that, as a group, stable and from these drainages are sensitive to habitat declining native species did not contribute to degradation and have declined elsewhere due taxonomic homogenization or differentiation. to land-use change (e.g., Smith 1971, Karr et al. 176 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
Fig. 6. Frequency of Jaccard’s faunal similarity values (left graphs) and Sørensen’s faunal similarity values (right graphs) for comparisons of South Dakota river drainages between historic (A) and recent (B) fish faunas.
1985, Wang et al. 1997, Haslouer et al. 2005). 1998, Haslouer et al. 2005). Historically, the High species losses were also documented for mainstem Missouri River could have served as big river fishes of the mainstem Missouri a dispersal corridor between river drainages River, which has been impacted by impound- and as a refuge during drought. Dams and re- ment (Hesse et al. 1989, Galat et al. 2005). servoirs have created barriers and eliminated Future species losses may continue to change fluvial habitats on the mainstem Missouri fish distributions in South Dakota, particularly River. They also have fragmented the Cheyenne for species that have already declined. Because River and Grand River drainages. of their restricted distributions, species re- River fragmentation increases extinction risk stricted to only 1 river drainage face a rela- for isolated fish populations (Sheldon 1987). tively high risk of extinction (Moyle and Indeed, the combination of local drought and Williams 1990). habitat fragmentation could explain the loss of Species losses were fewer among river sturgeon chub from the Little Missouri River drainages of the Great Plains compared to the drainage (Kelsch 1994). It is also possible that Central Lowlands, perhaps because Great more sensitive species were historically pres- Plains fishes have high tolerance for climatic ent in the Great Plains of South Dakota, but fluctuation and habitat instability, and because disappeared rapidly due to human impacts. human impacts are similar to natural distur- Cross and Moss (1987) documented the rapid bances of the region (Bramblett and Fausch loss of sensitive species from the Great Plains 1991). However, some Great Plains fishes (west- of Kansas, where historical collections were ern silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis, more extensive. plains minnow Hybognathus placitus, sturgeon SPECIES ADDITIONS.—The fish fauna of chub Macrhybopsis gelida, and flathead chub South Dakota was enriched by a surplus of Platygobio gracilis) have declined from the Great successfully introduced species compared to Plains of South Dakota and are declining in lost native species, in contrast to the majority other states (e.g., Hesse et al. 1993, Patton et al. of U.S. states (McKinney 2002). Some studies 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 177 enne, Morea = Moreau, UpMs Upper enne, Morea = Moreau, UpMs Upper r drainages of South Dakota: Bois = de Sioux, er drainages of South Dakota: Bois = de Sioux, Bois UpMn BigS Verm James LoMs Niobr Ponca White Bad Cheye Morea Grand UpMs LiMs Bois UpMn BigS Verm James LoMs Niobr Ponca White Bad Cheye Morea Grand UpMs LiMs 2. Jaccard’s faunal similarity coefficients for historic (lower diagonal) and recent (upper fish faunas among 16 rive 3. Sørensen’s faunal similarity coefficients for historic (lower diagonal) and recent (upper fish faunas among 16 riv 3. Sørensen’s ABLE ABLE rm 43.5 54.9 72.9 85.1 66.7 59.0 49.2 64.3 58.8 59.2 64.1 65.0 66.0 38.7 rm 27.8 37.8 57.3 74.1 50.0 41.8 32.6 47.4 41.7 42.0 47.2 48.1 49.3 24.0 T T onca 32.0 13.8 12.3 18.4 17.0 15.4 36.7 39.0 41.4 26.8 41.7 39.5 25.4 29.6 onca 48.5 24.2 22.0 31.0 29.0 26.7 53.7 56.1 58.5 42.3 58.8 56.6 40.5 45.7 UpMn = Upper Minnesota, BigS = Big Sioux, Verm = Vermillion, LoMs = Lower Missouri River Valley, Niobr = Niobrara, Cheye Chey LoMs = Lower Missouri River Valley, = Vermillion, UpMn = Upper Minnesota, BigS Big Sioux, Verm Missouri River Valley, LiMs = Little Missouri. Missouri River Valley, BoisUpMnBigSVe 54.5JamesLoMs 40.9NiobrP 52.1 59.2White 76.2 41.9Bad 50.0 64.2Cheye 44.0 72.9 55.5Morea 46.4 44.7Grand 78.7 35.0 40.7UpMs 48.5 64.5 75.6 42.7 51.2LiMs 49.5 74.3 85.7 44.4 24.7 34.5 50.6 69.8 81.1 42.4 53.3 34.2 57.1 34.1 84.1 35.9 33.7 42.7 40.0 57.4 83.5 42.4 64.2 39.1 51.9 24.3 70.4 40.4 46.2 58.2 35.7 53.0 60.9 58.8 75.4 52.9 55.3 31.1 52.4 51.4 37.7 48.2 41.0 42.4 74.7 61.2 52.7 44.4 42.4 34.9 54.2 43.2 41.5 54.2 38.7 53.9 71.6 84.4 40.5 47.1 34.3 56.9 35.6 48.3 58.3 64.5 56.5 46.6 66.7 75.9 44.4 57.7 66.7 41.0 43.0 58.4 67.9 41.4 37.2 56.5 54.4 81.1 62.2 49.4 43.8 61.2 58.5 47.4 41.2 65.4 75.8 50.0 60.2 58.6 32.7 61.3 76.4 40.0 52.4 59.8 77.2 68.8 72.0 51.7 61.2 59.1 74.4 59.3 82.1 67.9 55.2 56.1 82.9 74.5 45.2 61.3 70.6 58.1 62.4 79.2 61.5 75.7 71.8 56.9 80.0 81.1 15.0 26.9 68.6 68.4 73.9 75.9 72.7 74.5 27.6 71.1 90.9 76.3 58.3 64.6 32.0 76.7 75.6 85.0 35.2 64.7 94.3 57.7 68.7 55.8 69.0 85.7 62.1 66.7 71.4 71.4 50.0 57.1 69.2 66.7 42.5 BoisUpMnBigSVe 37.5JamesLoMs 25.7NiobrP 35.2 42.0White 61.5 26.5Bad 33.3 47.2Cheye 28.2 57.3 38.4Morea 30.2 28.8Grand 64.9 21.2 25.6UpMs 32.0 47.6 60.7 27.1 34.4LiMs 32.9 59.2 75.0 28.6 14.1 20.8 33.9 53.6 68.2 26.9 36.4 20.6 40.0 20.6 72.6 21.9 20.3 27.2 25.0 40.2 71.6 26.9 47.3 24.3 35.0 13.8 54.3 25.3 30.0 41.1 21.7 36.1 43.8 41.7 60.5 36.0 38.2 18.4 35.5 34.6 23.2 31.7 25.8 26.9 59.6 44.1 35.8 28.6 26.9 21.1 37.2 27.6 26.2 37.1 24.0 36.9 55.7 73.0 25.4 30.8 20.7 39.7 21.6 31.8 41.2 47.6 39.4 30.4 50.0 61.2 28.6 40.6 50.0 25.8 27.4 41.3 51.4 26.1 22.9 28.8 37.3 68.2 45.1 32.8 28.0 44.1 41.4 31.1 25.9 48.6 61.0 33.3 43.1 41.5 19.6 44.2 61.8 25.0 35.5 42.7 62.9 52.4 56.3 34.9 44.1 41.9 59.2 42.2 69.6 51.4 38.2 39.0 70.8 59.3 29.2 44.2 54.5 40.9 45.3 65.6 44.4 60.9 56.0 39.7 66.7 68.2 15.5 52.2 8.1 52.0 58.7 61.1 57.1 59.4 16.0 55.2 83.3 61.7 41.2 47.7 19.0 62.2 60.7 73.9 21.3 47.8 89.2 40.5 52.3 38.7 52.6 75.0 45.0 50.0 55.6 55.6 33.3 40.0 52.9 50.0 27.0 UpMn = Upper Minnesota, BigS = Big Sioux, Verm = Vermillion, LoMs = Lower Missouri River Valley, Niobr = Niobrara, Cheye Chey LoMs = Lower Missouri River Valley, = Vermillion, UpMn = Upper Minnesota, BigS Big Sioux, Verm LiMs = Little Missouri. Missouri River Valley, 178 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
Fig. 7. Frequency of the magnitude of change in Jac- card’s faunal similarity values (A) and Sørensen’s faunal similarity values (B) for comparisons between historic and recent fish faunas of South Dakota river drainages. have concluded that nonnative fishes may enrich native faunas without causing recipro- cal species losses, although they note that neg- Fig. 8. Frequency distributions of fish species among ative impacts may yet occur (Moyle and Light river drainages for historic fishes (A), recent natives (B), 1996, Gido and Brown 1999, Irz et al. 2004). in-state nonnatives (C), and out-of-state nonnatives (D). Others suggest that species richness is not an appropriate measure of ecological integrity and that faunal enrichment is a threat to global cisco Coregonus artedi, lake whitefish Core- biodiversity (Marchetti et al. 2001, Taylor et gonus clupeaformis, kokanee salmon Oncorhyn- al. 2001, Taylor 2004). chus nerka, Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus Increased fish species richness in South tschawytscha, and lake trout Salvelinus namay- Dakota is attributable to the faunal enrich- cush inhabit only human-created cold water ment of cold water habitats in the Great Plains habitats (i.e., deep reservoirs). Taxonomic en- and the Missouri River valley. Muskellunge richment of reservoir and cold water stream Esox masquinongy, Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitats in South Dakota is consistent with Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri, rainbow trout trends throughout North America (Moyle 1986). Oncorhynchus mykiss, brown trout Salmo trutta, The restriction of many nonnatives to human- brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, and mottled made habitats supports the findings of Gido sculpin Cottus bairdii have been introduced et al. (2004) who found that many nonnative either to mountain streams of the Black Hills, fishes in Kansas and Oklahoma were localized cool spring-fed streams throughout the state, near reservoirs, possibly because they were reservoir tailwaters, or deep reservoirs. Skip- not adapted for the harsh abiotic environment jack herring, rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax, of unaltered habitats. 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 179
All 22 in-state nonnatives were native to man 2001, Carlson and Daniels 2004) or have portions of the Central Lowlands and nonna- not found a clear pattern of homogenization tive to the Great Plains, similar to findings in (Marchetti et al. 2001, 2006, Taylor 2004). Kansas and Oklahoma (Gido et al. 2004). Some Thus, it is noteworthy that we found homoge- of these species were more widespread during nization among South Dakota river drainages, prehistoric times. For example, roughly 14,000 even though the level of homogenization was to 10,000 years ago, western banded killifish less than it was between geomorphic provinces. Fundulus diaphanus menona, pumpkinseed Olden and Poff (2003, 2004) concluded that Lepomis gibbosus, bluegill Lepomis macrochirus homogenization is greatest when invasive spe- macrochirus, largemouth bass Micropterus cies are widespread, causing either no native salmoides salmoides, and yellow perch Perca extinctions or differential native extinctions. flavescens were present in the Great Plains of Their conclusion fits with our findings in South North Dakota and South Dakota (Clayton 1967, Dakota, except that native species extinctions Cvancara et al. 1971, Ossian 1973). They eventu- have not been linked to nonnative species ally disappeared from the Great Plains, pre- invasions. Conceptual models of taxonomic sumably because the climate became harsher homogenization in freshwater faunas empha- (Newbrey and Ashworth 2004). Recently, hu- size the contribution of habitat alteration by mans have re-created suitable habitats for these humans and nonnative species introductions fishes and provided transport, facilitating their (Marchetti et al. 2001, Scott and Helfman 2001, recolonization. Rahel 2002). Factors that appear to cause TAXONOMIC HOMOGENIZATION.—The level homogenization between geomorphic provinces of homogenization between the Central Low- in South Dakota are land-use change in the lands and Great Plains geomorphic provinces Central Lowlands (e.g., agricultural develop- based on Jaccard’s index (8%) was comparable ment, urbanization), which leads to native to that observed among U.S. states (7%; Rahel species loss, and management activities in the 2000) and higher than that observed among Great Plains (e.g., water development, sport fish Canadian provinces (1%; Taylor 2004). This introductions), which lead to nonnative species level of interprovincial homogenization was invasion. Thus, the process of taxonomic corroborated by analyses based on Sørensen’s homogenization in South Dakota appeared to index and by opposing patterns of native be spatially segregated, with species from species loss and nonnative species invasion more diverse Central Lowlands faunas declin- between provinces. Low skewness of recent ing in some cases and being spread to less native and in-state nonnative fish species indi- diverse Great Plains faunas in other cases, sim- cates that the spread of in-state nonnatives ilar to findings in Kansas and Oklahoma (Gido (mostly sport fishes) throughout South Dakota et al. 2004). has been a major factor in homogenization, supporting the findings of Rahel (2000). CONCLUSION The level of homogenization among river drainages was less pronounced than between The fish fauna of South Dakota has 2 major geomorphic provinces, in part due to relatively geographical divisions that correspond to geo- high variation among pairwise similarity values. morphic provinces: the Central Lowlands and Nevertheless, the overall trend was for in- Great Plains. The major river drainages of the creased faunal similarity, and Sørensen’s index state constitute a riverine archipelago with indicated an even higher level of homogeniza- high faunal disparity (β diversity). The Central tion than Jaccard’s index. It is possible that the Lowlands fauna has been diminished by the theoretical superiority of Sørensen’s index decline of sensitive fishes that were not native compared to Jaccard’s index (Legendre and to the Great Plains. In contrast, other fishes Legendre 1998) makes it a more sensitive that were native to certain Central Lowlands measure of homogenization by emphasizing river drainages were introduced throughout shared presences between faunas. Previous the state. Native Great Plains faunas received studies of taxonomic homogenization of fresh- many nonnative species introductions, but water fish faunas at the river drainage scale have suffered fewer native fish declines to have either not quantified faunal similarity date. The Great Plains fauna was also enriched patterns (Hubbs et al. 1997, Scott and Helf- by the introduction of cold water fishes to 180 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67 mountain streams of the Black Hills and to ALLAN, J.D. 1975. The distributional ecology and diversity human-made reservoirs. Recent zoogeographic of benthic insects in Cement Creek, Colorado. Ecol- ogy 56:1040–1053. patterns along the riverine archipelago of BAILEY, R.M., AND M.O. ALLUM. 1962. Fishes of South South Dakota are strikingly similar to historic Dakota. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zool- patterns, indicating the importance of geogra- ogy, University of Michigan, No. 119, Ann Arbor. phic variation among river drainages. However, BAXTER, G.T., AND J.R. SIMON. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Revised edition. Bulletin No. 4, Wyoming Game and statewide comparisons of faunal similarity be- Fish Department, Cheyenne. tween geomorphic provinces and among river BAXTER, G.T., AND M.D. STONE. 1995. The fishes of drainages indicate faunal homogenization that Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, results from changes (declines, expansions) Cheyenne. in the distributions of historically restricted BERRY, C.R., JR., W.G. DUFFY, R. WALSH, S. KUBENY, D. SCHUMACKER, AND G. VAN EECKOUT. 1993. The James species. Although the total richness of the River of the Dakotas. Pages 70–86 in L.W. Hesse, South Dakota fish fauna has increased, the C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. Benson, and J.R. Zuboy, editors, native fish fauna, particularly within the Cen- Proceedings of the symposium on restoration plan- tral Lowlands, has declined. The pattern of ning for rivers of the Mississippi River ecosystem. National Biological Survey Report 19, U.S. Govern- native species loss is better explained by the ment Printing Office, Washington, DC. decline of species sensitive to human impacts BERRY, C.R., JR., AND B. YOUNG. 2004. Fishes of the Mis- than by nonnative species introductions. The souri National Recreational River, South Dakota and conservation of native fishes with restricted Nebraska. Great Plains Research 14:89–114. BLAUSEY, C.M. 2001. The status and distribution of the distributions, curtailment of interdrainage trans- Topeka shiner Notropis topeka in eastern South fers in South Dakota, and containment of out- Dakota. Master’s thesis, South Dakota State Univer- of-state nonnatives will be necessary to prevent sity, Brookings. further taxonomic homogenization. BRAATEN, P.J., AND C.R. BERRY, JR. 1997. Fish associations with four habitat types in a South Dakota prairie stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12:477–489. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BRAMBLETT, R.G., AND K.D. FAUSCH. 1991. Variable fish communities and the index of biotic integrity in a Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration funds western Great Plains river. Transactions of the Amer- administered by South Dakota Game, Fish and ican Fisheries Society 120:752–769. Parks (Project Number F-21-R and F-15-R) BROWN, C.J.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Big Sky Books, supported this research. We thank Doug Montana State University, Bozeman. BROWN, L.R., AND P. B . M OYLE. 1997. Invading species in Backlund, Mike Barnes, Rick Cordes, Todd the Eel River, California: successes, failures, and St. Sauver, Will Sayler, Dennis Unkenholz, relationships with resident species. Environmental and especially Jack Erickson and Jeff Shearer Biology of Fishes 49:271–291. (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks), Kyle CARLSON, D.M., AND R.A. DANIELS. 2004. Status of fishes Anderson (Minnesota Department of Natural in New York: increases, declines and homogenization of watersheds. American Midland Naturalist 152: Resources), Anna Loan-Wilsey and Clay Pierce 104–139. (Iowa State University), Deb Springman (East CLAYTON, L. 1967. Stagnant-glacier features of the Mis- Dakota Water Development District), Alan souri Coteau in North Dakota. Pages 25–46 in L. Wittmuss (South Dakota Department of Envi- Clayton and T.F. Freers, editors, Glacial geology of the Missouri Couteau and adjacent areas. North ronment and Natural Resources), Jay Hatch Dakota Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Series 30, (University of Minnesota), Nathan Morey Grand Forks. (South Dakota Department of Transportation), [CMRES] COMMITTEE ON MISSOURI RIVER ECOSYSTEM Greg Power (North Dakota Game and Fish SCIENCE, WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD, Department), and Charles Scalet and David DIVISION OF EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 2002. The Missouri River eco- Willis (South Dakota State University) for system, exploring the prospects for recovery. National providing information and collection records. Academy Press, Washington, DC. We also thank Julian Olden, Jeff Shearer, Greg CROSS, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. Univer- Power, and 3 anonymous reviewers for very sity of Kansas, Museum of Natural History, Miscella- helpful comments on an earlier version of this neous Publication No. 45, Lawrence. CROSS, F.B., AND J.T. COLLINS. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. 2nd manuscript. edition, revised. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. CROSS, F.B., AND D.G. HUGGINS. 1975. Skipjack herring, LITERATURE CITED Alosa chrysochloris, in the Missouri River basin. Copeia 1975:382–385. ABELL, R. 2002. Conservation biology for the biodiversity CROSS, F.B., R.L. MAYDEN, AND J.D. STEWART. 1986. Fishes crisis: a freshwater follow-up. Conservation Biology in the western Mississippi Basin (Missouri, Arkansas 16:1435–1437. and Red Rivers). Pages 363–412 in C.H. Hocutt and 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 181
E.O. Wiley, editors, The zoogeography of North Amer- GIDO, K.B., AND J.H. BROWN. 1999. Invasion of North ican freshwater fishes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., American drainages by alien fish species. Freshwater New York. Biology 42:387–399. CROSS, F.B., AND R.E. MOSS. 1987. Historic changes in fish GIDO, K.B., J.F. SCHAEFER, AND J. PIGG. 2004. Patterns of communities and aquatic habitats in plains streams fish invasions in the Great Plains of North America. of Kansas. Pages 155–165 in W. J. Matthews and D.C. Biological Conservation 118:121–131. Heins, editors, Community and evolutionary ecol- HAMPTON, D.R., AND C.R. BERRY, JR. 1997. Fishes of the ogy of North American stream fishes. University of main stem Cheyenne River in South Dakota. Pro- Oklahoma Press, Norman. ceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science CULLER, R.C. 1961. Hydrology of stock-water reservoir in 76:11–25. upper Cheyenne River basin. U.S. Geological Sur- HARLAND, B., AND C.R. BERRY, JR. 2004. Fishes and habi- vey Water-Supply Paper 1531-A, U.S. Government tat characteristics of the Keya Paha River, South Printing Office, Washington, DC. Dakota–Nebraska. Journal of Freshwater Ecology CUNNINGHAM, G.R., R.D. OLSON, AND S.M. HICKEY. 1995. 19:169–177. Fish surveys of the streams and rivers in south cen- HARLAND, B.C. 2003. Survey of the fishes and habitat of tral South Dakota west of the Missouri River. Pro- western South Dakota streams. Master’s thesis, South ceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science Dakota State University, Brookings. 74:55–64. HASLOUER, S.G., M.E. EBERLE, D.R. EDDS, K.B. GIDO, CVANCARA, A.M., L. CLAYTON, W.B. BICKLEY, JR., A.F. JACOB, C.S. MAMMOLITI, J.R. TRIPLETT, J.T. COLLINS, ET AL. A.C. ASHWORTH, J.A. BROPHY, C.T. SHAY, ET AL. 1971. 2005. Current status of native fish species in Kansas. Paleolimnology of late Quaternary deposits: Siebold Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 108: Site, North Dakota. Science 171:172–174. 32–46. DAHL, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States HAWKES, C.L., D.L. MILLER, AND W. G. L AYHER. 1986. Fish 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, ecoregions of Kansas: stream fish assemblage pat- Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. terns and associated environmental correlates. Envi- DE BLIJ, H.J. 2005. Atlas of North America. Oxford Uni- ronmental Biology of Fishes 17:267–279. versity Press, Inc., New York. HEMBREE, C.H., R.A. KRIEGER, AND P.R. JORDAN. 1964. DIETERMAN, D., AND C.R. BERRY, JR. 1994. Fishes in seven Chemical quality of surface waters, and sedimenta- streams of the Minnesota River drainage in north- tion in the Grand River drainage basin North and eastern South Dakota. Proceedings of the South South Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Dakota Academy of Science 73:23–30. Paper 1769, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- ______. 1998. Fish community and water quality changes ington, DC. in the Big Sioux River. Prairie Naturalist 30:199– HESSE, L.W., G.E. MESTL, AND J.W. ROBINSON. 1993. Status 224. of selected fishes in the Missouri River in Nebraska DOORENBOS, R.D. 1998. Fishes and habitat of the Belle with recommendations for their recovery. Pages 327– Fourche River, South Dakota. Master’s thesis, South 340 in L.W. Hesse, C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. Benson, and Dakota State University, Brookings. J.R. Zuboy, editors, Restoration planning for the DUEHR, J.P. 2004. Fish and habitat relations at multiple rivers of the Mississippi River ecosystem. U.S. Depart- spatial scales in Cheyenne River Basin, South Dakota. ment of the Interior, National Biological Survey, Bio- Master’s thesis, South Dakota State University, logical Report 19, Washington, DC. Brookings. HESSE, L.W., J.C. SCHMULBACH, J.M. CARR, K.D. KEEN- ERICKSON, J. 1998. Statewide fisheries surveys, 1997 sur- LYNE, D.G. UNKENHOLZ, J.W. ROBINSON, AND G.E. vey of public waters (annual report), part 2-streams. MESTL. 1989. Missouri River fishery resources in Annual Report No. 98-15, South Dakota Department relation to past, present, and future stresses. Pages of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. 352–371 in D.P. Dodge, editor, Proceedings of the ERICKSON, J., L. FERBER, G. GALINAT, AND G. SIMPSON. International Large River Symposium (LARS). Cana- 2001. Statewide fisheries surveys, 2000 survey of dian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic public waters (annual report), part 2-streams. Annual Sciences 106, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Report No. 01-10, South Dakota Department of Ottawa. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. HOAGSTROM, C.W. 2006. Fish community assembly in the EVERMANN, B.W., AND U.O. COX. 1896. Report upon the Missouri River basin. Doctoral dissertation, South fishes of the Missouri River Basin. Report to the U.S. Dakota State University, Brookings. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries 20:325–429. HOAGSTROM, C.W., AND C.R. BERRY, JR. 2006. Island bio- FAUSCH, K.D., AND K.R. BESTGEN. 1997. Ecology of fishes geography of native fish faunas among Great Plains indigenous to the central and southwestern Great drainage basins: basin scale features influence com- Plains. Pages 131–166 in F.L. Knopf and F.B. Sam- position. American Fisheries Society Symposium 48: son, editors, Ecology and conservation of Great 221–264. Plains vertebrates. Ecological Studies 125, Springer, HOGAN, E.P. 1995. The geography of South Dakota. Pine New York. Hill Press, Inc., Freeman, SD. FRYDA, D.D. 2001. A survey of the fishes and habitat of HOLLIDAY, V.T., J.C. KNOX, G.L. RUNNING, IV, R.D. MAN- the White River, South Dakota. Master’s thesis, South DEL, AND C.R. FERRING. 2002. The Central Low- Dakota State University, Brookings. lands and Great Plains. Pages 335–362 in A.R. Orme, GALAT, D.L., C.R. BERRY, JR., W.M. GARDNER, J.C. HEN- editor, The physical geography of North America. DRICKSON, G.E. MESTL, G.J. POWER, C. STONE, AND Oxford University Press, Inc., New York. M.R. WINSTON. 2005. Spatiotemporal patterns and HOLTON, G.D., AND H.E. JOHNSON. 2003. A field guide to changes in Missouri River fishes. American Fisheries Montana fishes. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Society Symposium 45:249–291. Helena. 182 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
HUBBS, C., E. MARSH-MATTHEWS, W.J. MATTHEWS, AND MARCHETTI, M.P., T. LIGHT, J. FELICIANO, T. ARMSTRONG, A.A. ANDERSON. 1997. Changes in fish assemblages Z. HOGAN, J. VIERS, AND P. B . M OYLE. 2001. Homoge- in east Texas streams from 1953 to 1986. Texas Jour- nization of California’s fish fauna through abiotic nal of Science 49 (supplement):67–84. change. Pages 259–278 in J.L. Lockwood and M.L. IRZ, P., C. ARGILLIER, AND T. O BERDORFF. 2004. Native McKinney, editors, Biotic homogenization. Kluwer and introduced fish species richness in French lakes: Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. local and regional influences. Global Ecology and MARCHETTI, M.P., J.L. LOCKWOOD, T. LIGHT. 2006. Effects Biogeography 13:335–344. of urbanization on California’s fish diversity: differ- JACCARD, P. 1912. The distribution of the flora in the entiation, homogenization and the influence of spa- alpine zone. New Phytologist 11:37–50. tial scale. Biological Conservation 127:310–318. JOHNSON, B., D. FIELDER, J. RIIS, C. STONE, D. WARNICK, MATTHEWS, W.J. 1987. Physicochemical tolerance and AND G. WICKSTROM. 1992. Annual fish population selectivity of stream fishes as related to their geo- surveys on South Dakota Missouri River reservoirs, graphic ranges and local distributions. Pages 111–120 1991. Annual Report No. 92-4, South Dakota Depart- in W. J. Matthews and D.C. Heins, editors, Commu- ment of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. nity and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. JOHNSON, B., R. HANTEN, J. LOTT, AND W. N ELSON-STASTNY. MATTHEWS, W.J., AND L.G. HILL. 1980. Habitat partition- 1999. Annual fish population and sport fish harvest ing in the fish community of a southwestern river. surveys on Lake Oahe, South Dakota, 1998. Annual Southwestern Naturalist 25:51–66. Report No. 99-21, South Dakota Department of MAYDEN, R.L. 1987. Faunal exchange between the Nio- Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. brara and White river systems of the North Ameri- JOHNSON, B., J. LOTT, AND W. N ELSON-STASTNY. 1998. can Great Plains. Prairie Naturalist 19:173–176. Annual fish population and angler use and harvest MCCUNE, B., AND J.B. GRACE. 2002. Analysis of ecological surveys on Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, 1997. Annual communities. MjM Software Design, Glenden Beach, Report No. 98-16, South Dakota Department of OR. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. MCCUNE, B., AND M.J. MEFFORD. 1999. PC-ORD, multi- JOHNSON, B., J. LOTT, AND J. RIIS. 1995. Annual fish popu- variate analysis of ecological data, version 4. MjM lation and sport fish harvest surveys on Lake Oahe, Software Design, Glenden Beach, OR. South Dakota, 1994. Annual Report No. 95-7, South MCCUNE, B., R. ROSENTRETER, J.M. PONZETTI, AND D.C. Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. SHAW. 2000. Epiphyte habitats in an old conifer forest JOHNSON, R.E. 1942. The distribution of Nebraska fishes. in western Washington, U.S.A. Bryologist 103:417– Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann 427. Arbor. MCKINNEY, M.L. 2002. Do human activities raise species JOHNSON, R.R., AND K.F. HIGGINS. 1997. Wetland resources richness? Contrasting patterns in United States plants of eastern South Dakota. South Dakota State Uni- and fishes. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11: versity, Brookings. 343–348. KARR, J.R., L.A. TOTH, AND D.R. DUDLEY. 1985. Fish com- ______. 2004. Do exotics homogenize or differentiate munities of Midwestern rivers: a history of degrada- communities? Roles of sampling and exotic species tion. BioScience 35:90–95. richness. Biological Invasions 6:495–504. KELSCH, S.W. 1994. Lotic fish–community structure fol- MCKINNEY, M.L., AND J.L. LOCKWOOD. 1999. Biotic homog- lowing transition from severe drought to high dis- enization: a few winners replacing many losers in charge. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9:331–341. the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology and KIRBY, D.J. 2001. An assessment of the channel catfish Evolution 14:450–453. population in the Big Sioux River, South Dakota. MEESTER, R.J. 1994. Statewide fisheries surveys, 1993 Master’s thesis, South Dakota State University, survey of public waters (annual report) part 2- Brookings. streams. Annual Report No. 94-11, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. LEE, D.S., C.R. GILBERT, C.H. HOCUTT, R.E. JENKINS, D.E. ______. 1999. Statewide fisheries surveys, 1998 survey of MCALLISTER, AND J.R. STAUFFER, JR. 1980. Atlas of public waters (annual report) part 2-streams. Annual North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina Report No. 99-20, South Dakota Department of State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. LEGENDRE, P., AND L. LEGENDRE. 1998. Numerical ecology. MILEWSKI, C.L. 2001. Local and systemic controls on fish 2nd English edition. Elsevier Science B.V., Amster- and fish habitat in South Dakota rivers and streams: dam, Netherlands. implications for management. Doctoral dissertation, LOOMIS, T.M., C.R. BERRY, JR., AND J. ERICKSON. 1999. South Dakota State University, Brookings. The fishes of the upper Moreau River basin. Prairie MILEWSKI, C.L., C.R. BERRY, JR., AND D. DIETERMAN. Naturalist 31:193–214. 2001. Use of the index of biological integrity in east- LOTT, J., B. JOHNSON, AND K. POTTER. 2003. Annual fish ern South Dakota rivers. Prairie Naturalist 33:135– population and angler use, harvest and preference 151. surveys on Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, 2002. Annual MILLER, R.R. 1955. An annotated list of the American Report No. 03-11, South Dakota Department of cyprinodontid fishes of the genus Fundulus, with the Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. description of Fundulus persimilis from Yucatan. LOTT, J., W. NELSON-STASTNY, AND K. POTTER. 2004. Annual Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, Uni- fish population and angler use, harvest and prefer- versity of Michigan, No. 568, Ann Arbor. ence surveys on Lake Oahe, South Dakota, 2003. MILLER, R.R., J.D. WILLIAMS, AND J.E. WILLIAMS. 1989. Annual Report No. 04-22, South Dakota Depart- Extinctions of North American fishes during the past ment of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. century. Fisheries 14(6):22–38. 2007] FISH FAUNAL CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA 183
MOREY, N.M., AND C.R. BERRY, JR. 2004. New distribu- RICCIARDI, A., AND J.B. RASMUSSEN. 1999. Extinction rates tional record of the northern redbelly dace in the of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation northern Great Plains. Prairie Naturalist 36:257–260. Biology 13:1220–1222. MOYLE, P.B. 1986. Fish introductions into North America: RIEGER, B.A. 2004. Demographics of western South Dakota patterns and ecological impact. Pages 27–43 in H.A. wetlands and basins. Master’s thesis, South Dakota Mooney and J.A. Drake, editors, Ecology of biologi- State University, Brookings. cal invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer- RIIS, J., AND B. JOHNSON. 1995. Annual fish population Verlag New York, Inc., New York. and angler use and harvest surveys on Lake Sharpe, MOYLE, P.B., AND T. L IGHT. 1996. Biological invasions of South Dakota, 1994. Annual Report No. 95-5, South fresh water: empirical rules and assembly theory. Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Biological Conservation 78:149–161. Pierre. MOYLE, P.B., AND J.E. WILLIAMS. 1990. Biodiversity loss in ROSTLUND, E. 1952. Freshwater fish and fishing in native the temperate zone: decline of the native fish fauna North America. University of California Publication of California. Conservation Biology 4:275–284. in Geography 9:1–314. NELSON, J.S., E.J. CROSSMAN, H. ESPINOSA-PÉREZ, L.T. RUSSELL, G.J. 1998. Turnover dynamics across ecological FINDLEY, C.R. GILBERT, R.N. LEA, AND J.D. WILLIAMS. and geological scales. Pages 377–404 in M.L. McKin- 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from ney and J.A. Drake, editors, Biodiversity dynamics, the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 6th edition. turnover of populations, taxa, and communities. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29, Columbia University Press, New York. Bethesda, MD. SANDO, S.K., J.E. WILLIAMSON, K.K. DICKERSON, AND E.A. NEWBREY, M.G., AND A.C. ASHWORTH. 2004. A fossil record WESOLOWSKI. 2001. Irrigation drainage studies of of colonization and response of lacustrine fish popu- the Angostura Reclamation Unit and the Belle lations to climate change. Canadian Journal of Fish- Fourche Reclamation Project, western South Dakota: eries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1807–1816. results of 1994 sampling and comparisons with 1988 data. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Inves- OBERDORFF, T., B. HUGUENY, AND J.-F. GUÉGAN. 1997. Is there an influence of historical events on contempo- tigations Report 01-4103, U.S. Government Printing rary fish species richness in rivers? Comparisons Office, Washington, DC. between western Europe and North America. Jour- SCHMULBACH, J.C., AND P. J . B RAATEN. 1993. The Vermil- nal of Biogeography 24:461–467. lion River: neither red nor dead. Pages 57–69 in L.W. Hesse, C.B. Stalnaker, N.G. Benson, and J.R. OLDEN, J.D., AND N.L. POFF. 2003. Toward a mechanistic Zuboy, editors, Proceedings of the symposium on understanding and prediction of biotic homogeniza- restoration planning for rivers of the Mississippi tion. American Naturalist 162:442–460. River ecosystem. National Biological Survey Report ______. 2004. Ecological processes driving biotic homog- 19, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, enization: testing a mechanistic model using fish fau- DC. nas. Ecology 85:1867–1875. SCOTT, M.C., AND G.S. HELFMAN. 2001. Native invasions, OLDEN, J.D., N.L. POFF, M.R. DOUGLAS, M.E. DOUGLAS, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity of AND K.D. FAUSCH. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary fish assemblages. Fisheries 26(11):6–15. consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends in SHEARER, J.S., AND C.R. BERRY, JR. 2003. Fish community Ecology and Evolution 19:18–24. persistence in eastern North and South Dakota rivers. OSSIAN, C.R. 1973. Fishes of a Pleistocene lake in South Great Plains Research 13:139–159. Dakota. Publications of the Museum, Michigan State SHELDON, A.L. 1987. Rarity: patterns and consequences University, Paleontological Series 1:101–124. for stream fishes. Pages 203–209 in W. J. Matthews OWEN, J.B., D.S. ELSEN, AND G.W. RUSSELL. 1981. Distri- and D.C. Heins, editors, Community and evolution- bution of fishes in North and South Dakota basins ary ecology of North American stream fishes. Uni- affected by the Garrison Diversion Unit. University versity of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Press, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. ______. 1988. Conservation of stream fishes: patterns of PAGE, L.M., AND B.M. BURR. 1991. A field guide to fresh- diversity, rarity, and risk. Conservation Biology water fishes, North America North of Mexico. Hough- 2:149–156. ton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. SHUMAN, D.A., R.A. KLUMB, AND S.T. MCALPIN. 2005. Pal- PATTON, T.M., F.J. RAHEL, AND W.A. HUBERT. 1998. Using lid sturgeon population assessment and associated historical data to assess changes in Wyoming’s fish fish community monitoring for the Missouri River: fauna. Conservation Biology 12:1120–1128. segments 5 and 6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, PISTER, E.P. 1999. Professional obligations in the conser- Northwest Division, Kansas City and Omaha Dis- vation of fishes. Environmental biology of fishes 55: tricts, Yankton, SD. 13–20. SIMON, J.R. 1946. Wyoming fishes. Wyoming Game and POPE, K.L., AND D.W. WILLIS. 1994. Changes in the brown Fish Department, Bulletin No. 4, Cheyenne. trout population in Gary Creek, South Dakota, SINNING, J.A. 1968. Fishes of the Big Sioux River. Master’s 1988–1993. Proceedings of the South Dakota Acad- thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings. emy of Sciences 73:51–58. SMITH, K.A., AND M.L. BROWN. 2002. Seasonal composi- PRESTON, F.W. 1962. The canonical distribution of com- tion and abundance of ichthyoplankton entrained monness and rarity: part II. Ecology 43:410–432. through Big Bend Dam, South Dakota. Journal of RAHEL, F.J. 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across Freshwater Ecology 17:199–207. the United States. Science 288:854–856. SMITH, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams: a classification based ______. 2002. Homogenization of freshwater faunas. on their fishes and an analysis of factors responsible Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:291– for disappearance of native species. Biological Notes 315. No. 76, Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana. 184 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST [Volume 67
SOKAL, R.R., AND F. J . R OHLF. 1995. Biometry: the princi- TAYLOR, E.B. 2004. An analysis of homogenization and dif- ples and practice of statistics in biological research. ferentiation of Canadian freshwater fish faunas with 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. an emphasis on British Columbia. Canadian Journal SORENSEN, J. 2004. Annual fish population and angler use of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:68–79. and sport fish harvest surveys on Lake Francis Case, THORNBURY, W.D. 1965. Regional geomorphology of the South Dakota. Annual Report No. 04-19, South United States. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. [USFWS] UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. SØRENSEN, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of 1997. Fishes of the Little White River, south central equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similar- South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great ity of species content and its application to analyses Plains FWMAO, Pierre, SD. of the vegetation on Danish commons. Det Kon- [USGS] UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 2001. Envi- gelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Biologiske ronmental monitoring and assessment program Skrifter 5(4):1–34. activities in South Dakota, annual progress report. [SDGFP] SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH U.S. Geological Survey, Rapid City, SD. AND PARKS. 1993. An evaluation of introduced sport ______. 2002. Environmental monitoring and assessment and forage fish species in Pactola Reservoir, 1989– program activities in South Dakota, annual progress 1991. Completion Report No. 93-11, South Dakota report. U.S. Geological Survey, Rapid City, SD. Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. ______. 2003. Environmental monitoring and assessment ______. 2004a. Fish stocking report, 2003. Annual Report program activities in South Dakota, annual progress No. 04-04. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish report. U.S. Geological Survey, Rapid City, SD. and Parks, Pierre. ______. 2004. Environmental monitoring and assessment ______. 2004b. Fishing in South Dakota. [Accessed 30 program activities in South Dakota, annual progress May 2005.] Available from: http://www.sdgfp.info/ report. U.S. Geological Survey, Rapid City, SD. wildlife/fishing/index.htm WALTERS, D.M., D.S. LEIGH, AND A.B. BEARDEN. 2003. ______. 2004c. South Dakota fishing and hunting guide. Urbanization, sedimentation, and the homogeniza- South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, tion of fish assemblages in the Etowah River basin, Pierre. USA. Hydrobiologia 494:5–10. SPRINGMAN, D.J., AND R.L. BANKS. 2005. Range extension WANG, L., J. LYONS, P. KANEHL, AND R. GATTI. 1997. Influ- of the southern redbelly dace into South Dakota. ences of watershed land use on habitat quality and Prairie Naturalist 37:175–176. biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22(6): STEVENSON, M.M., G.D. SCHNELL, AND R. BLACK. 1974. 6–12. Factor analysis of fish distribution patterns in west- WHITTAKER, R.H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems. 2nd ern and central Oklahoma. Systematic Zoology 23: edition. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York. 202–218. WICKSTROM, G. 1999. Annual fish population survey of STONE, C. 1995. Angler fish population and angler use Lewis and Clark Lake, 1998. Annual Report No. 99- and sport fish harvest surveys on Lake Francis Case, 11, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and South Dakota, 1994. Annual Report No. 95-3, South Parks, Pierre. Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. ______. 2004. Annual fish population surveys of Lewis STONE, C., AND J. SORENSEN. 1999. Annual fish population and Clark Lake, 2003. Annual Report No. 04-09, and angler use and sport fish harvest surveys on South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Lake Francis Case, South Dakota, 1998. Annual Pierre. Report No. 99-9, South Dakota Department of Game, WILCOVE, D., M. BEAN, AND P.C. LEE. 1992. Fisheries Fish and Parks, Pierre. management and biological diversity: problems and SWINEHART, J.B., V.L. SOUDERS, H.M. DEGRAW, AND R.F. opportunities. Pages 373–383 in R.E. McCabe, edi- DIFFENDAL, JR. 1985. Cenozoic paleogeography of tor, Transactions of the 57th North American Wild- western Nebraska. Pages 209–229 in R.M. Flores life and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife and S.S. Kaplan, editors, Cenozoic paleogeography Management Institute, Washington, DC. of the west-central United States. The Rocky Moun- WISHART, D. 1969. An algorithm for hierarchical classifi- tain Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists cations. Biometrics 25:165–170. and Mineralogists, Denver, CO. TAYLOR, C.A., J.H. KNOUFT, AND T.M. H ILAND. 2001. Con- Received 30 August 2005 sequences of stream impoundment on fish commu- Accepted 2 August 2006 nities in a small North American drainage. Regu- lated rivers: research and management 17:687–698.