DOCSLIB.ORG

SERDP Final Report Draftsubmission 07 07 17

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL REPORT Development of an Environmental Metagenetics Approach for Monitoring Aquatic Biodiversity SERDP Project RC-2240 JULY 2017 Michael E. Pfrender University of Notre Dame Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 07-07-2017 SERDP Final Report 09/25/2012 – 09/25/17 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Development of an Environmental Metagenetics Approach for Monitoring Aquatic 5b. GRANT NUMBER Biodiversity 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Deiner, Kristy: Jerde, Christopher; Evans, Nathan; Lamberti, Gary; Li, Yiyuan; Olds, 12 RC01-012 / RC02240 Brett; Renshaw, Mark; Lodge, David; Pfrender, Michael E. 5e. TASK NUMBER 1-5 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION University of Notre Dame REPORT Not re Dame, Indiana, USA 46556 NUMBER RC-2240 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) DoD Strategic Environmental SERDP Research and Development Program (SERDP) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT Alexandria,AND ADDRESS(ES) VA 22350-3605 NUMBER(S) RC-2240 12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Distribution A: unlimited public release 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT Our overall hypothesis is that genetic-based approaches are more accurate than existing methods in estimating species richness because they are more sensitive in the detection of rare species, whether invasive, threatened, or endangered. Our project was divided into five tasks. Task 1: Develop aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA) metagenetic assays for fishes and amphibians using ultrasequencing and validated for selected species with quantitative real time PCR (qPCR). Task 2: Test the assays on artificial aquatic mesocosm-scale assemblages of known species richness and diversity. Task 3: Test the assays in natural environments whose species richness has been thoroughly evaluated by traditional methods. Task 4: Apply the assays to natural environments with unknown species richness at different spatial scales, for comparison with traditional methods for estimating species richness. Task 5: Apply and compare alternative models for estimating species richness and biodiversity across a variety of aquatic systems. To accomplish these objectives, we developed and applied a new metagenetic toolbox of PCR primers based on multiple mitochondrial loci for the detection via sequencing of freshwater fish and amphibian species richness. By applying these tools to experimental and natural systems we demonstrated that eDNA methods entail much less sampling effort than traditional methods while providing more sensitive estimates of species presence. Therefore, eDNA yielded higher and likely more accurate estimates of species richness than traditional methods. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Metagenetics, metagenomics, metabarcoding, ultrasequencing, eDNA, species detection, species richness, aquatic biodiversity 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. 19a. NAME OF OF ABSTRACT NUMBER RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF PAGES Michael Pfrender a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 103 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) UNCLASS UNCLASS UNCLASS UNCLASS (574)631-0591 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 Page Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................ 1 TECHNICAL APPROACH .............................................................................................................................. 1 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 BENEFITS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................ 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 4 TASK 1: DEVELOP AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTAL DNA METAGENETIC ASSAYS ....................... 5 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Marker choice and primer design .................................................................................................... 5 eDNA sample collection and extraction ........................................................................................... 5 Library preparation ............................................................................................................................ 7 Contamination and error controls .................................................................................................... 8 Bioinformatics pipeline ...................................................................................................................... 8 Reference database generation ...................................................................................................... 10 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 10 Marker choice and primer design .................................................................................................. 10 eDNA sample collection and extraction ......................................................................................... 11 Library preparation .......................................................................................................................... 13 Contamination and error controls .................................................................................................. 13 Bioinformatics pipeline .................................................................................................................... 14 Reference database generation ...................................................................................................... 14 TASK 2: ARTIFICIAL AQUATIC MESOCOSOM ................................................................................. 15 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 15 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 15 TASK 3: TESTS IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS WITH KNOWN SPECIES RICHNESS ............... 16 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Juday Creek, St. Joseph County, Indiana, USA ........................................................................... 16 Lawler pond, Fort Custer, Michigan Army National Guard, Michigan, USA ........................ 21 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 25 Juday Creek, St. Joseph County, Indiana, USA ........................................................................... 25 Lawler pond, Fort Custer, Michigan Army National Guard, Michigan, USA ........................ 27 TASK 4: TESTS IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS WITH UNKNOWN SPECIES RICHNESS .......... 29 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Eagle
Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species

    Endangered Species

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
  • Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 27 Article 11 1973 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M. Buchanan University of Arkansas – Fort Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Population Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Buchanan, Thomas M. (1973) "Checklist of Arkansas Fishes," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 27 , Article 11. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol27/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 27 [1973], Art. 11 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes THOMAS M.BUCHANAN Department ot Natural Science, Westark Community College, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901 ABSTRACT Arkansas has a large, diverse fish fauna consisting of 193 species known to have been collected from the state's waters. The checklist is an up-to-date listing of both native and introduced species, and is intended to correct some of the longstanding and more recent erroneous Arkansas records.
  • Arkansas Endemic Biota: an Update with Additions and Deletions H

    Arkansas Endemic Biota: an Update with Additions and Deletions H

    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 62 Article 14 2008 Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions H. Robison Southern Arkansas University, [email protected] C. McAllister C. Carlton Louisiana State University G. Tucker FTN Associates, Ltd. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Robison, H.; McAllister, C.; Carlton, C.; and Tucker, G. (2008) "Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 62 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol62/iss1/14 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 62 [2008], Art. 14 The Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions H. Robison1, C. McAllister2, C. Carlton3, and G. Tucker4 1Department of Biological Sciences, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 71754-9354 2RapidWrite, 102 Brown Street, Hot Springs National Park, AR 71913 3Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1710 4FTN Associates, Ltd., 3 Innwood Circle, Suite 220, Little Rock, AR 72211 1Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Pringle and Witsell (2005) described this new species of rose-gentian from Saline County glades.
  • Status Survey and Population Characteristics of the Paleback Darter (Etheostoma Pallididorsum) and the Caddo Madtom (Noturus Taylori)

    Status Survey and Population Characteristics of the Paleback Darter (Etheostoma Pallididorsum) and the Caddo Madtom (Noturus Taylori)

    Title: Status survey and population characteristics of the Paleback Darter (Etheostoma pallididorsum) and the Caddo Madtom (Noturus taylori) Project Summary: This project seeks to provide updated information on the status and population characteristics of two of Arkansas’ Species of Greatest Conservation Need, the Paleback Darter and Caddo Madtom. The main objectives of this project include: (1) conducting surveys of historic localities throughout their range; (2) obtaining size-distribution (estimating age classes) data and relative abundance for both species at select locations on a seasonal basis; and (3) generating population characteristics for each species via non-lethal genetic methods (e.g. genetic variation, effective population sizes, patterns of migration). The overall objective is to provide data for both species that will inform potential listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in addition to state ranking decisions by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Principle Investigator: Dr. Brook L. Fluker (Assistant Professor of Aquatic Ecology) Arkansas State University, Department of Biological Sciences Po Box 599, State University, AR 72467 Phone: (870)-972-3253 email: [email protected] Project Partners: 1. Betty Crump (Stream Ecologist) US Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, 100 Reserve Street, Hot Springs, AR 71901 Phone: 501-321-5236 email: [email protected] 2. Mitzi Cole (Fishery Biologist) US Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, 100 Reserve Street, Hot Springs,
  • 2018 Southern Division Spring Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico

    2018 Southern Division Spring Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico

    PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS Southern Division American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting March 8–11, 2018 Intercontinental Hotel San Juan, Puerto Rico Hosted by the Puerto Rico Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Organizing Committee Chairs Meeting Miguel Garcia / Pat Mazik Program Tom Kwak / Craig Lilyestrom Workshops Steve Lochmann Posters Vilmarie Roman / Alexandra Galindo / Ramon Martin Student Affairs Nicole Rankin / Gus Engman / John Galvez / Alexandra Galindo Registration Kim Bonvechio / Darien Lopez Fundraising Wes Neal / Lourdes Olmeda Local Arrangements Aitza Pabon / Lourdes Olmeda / Farel Valazquez Marinelly Valentin Technology Fernando Nuñez / Ivan Llerandi Roman Webmaster Hae Kim 2 Note from the Meeting Team It is our pleasure to provide you with the abstracts of the posters and oral presentations presented at the 2018 Southern Division American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. The abstracts are presented in the following order: Symposium Oral Presentation Abstracts .......................... Page 6 Poster Presentation Abstracts ........................................... Page 27 Contributed Oral Presentation Abstracts .......................... Page 39. Please search this document by author, affiliation, or words in the title or text of an abstract. Thank you to all the presenters who contributed to the success of this gathering by sharing their knowledge, expertise, accomplishments, and science with others. 3 Special Thanks to our Sponsors Marlin ($5,000) Tuna ($2,500–$4,999) Tarpon ($1,000–$2,499) 4 Special Thanks to
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And

    Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • Biological Evaluation

    Biological Evaluation

    Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION for Activities Related to Timber, Wildlife, Prescribed Fire, and Watershed in the Smith Mountain Project Area USDA-Forest Service Ouachita National Forest Caddo-Womble Ranger District Montgomery County, Arkansas by Laura Morris Wildlife Biologist Caddo-Womble Ranger District 1523 Hwy 270 E Mount Ida, AR 71957 (870) 867-2101 (voice) (870) 867-3338 (fax) [email protected] August 11, 2010 1 of 33 Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District CONTENTS I) PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 3 II) PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 4 III) PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 4 IV) PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 5 V) INVENTORY HISTORY 6 VI) SPECIES CONSIDERED AND SPECIES EVALUATED 6 VII) EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION 6 VIII) ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 6 a. Arkansas Fatmucket Mussel 7 b. Paleback Darter 9 c. Caddo Madtom 9 d. Diana Fritillary 10 e. Bald Eagle 11 f. Eastern Small-footed Bat 12 g. Waterfall’s Sedge 14 h. Ozark Chinquapin 15 i. Small’s Woodfern 16 j. Southern Lady-slipper 16 IX) CONSULTATION HISTORY WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR – U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 18 X) DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 18 XI) LITERATURE CITED and REFERENCES 20 XII) APPENDIX A – PETS Species Checklist 28 XIII) APPENDIX B – Herbicide Toxicity Ratings 33 2 of 33 Smith Mountain Project Area BE Caddo-Womble Ranger District PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest (ONF), Caddo-Womble Ranger District (CWRD), proposes to implement management activities in the 15,296-acre project area known as Smith Mountain that primarily lies within the watersheds identified as Smokey Hollow and Collier.
  • Final Business Plan NFWF Native Black Bass Keystone Initiative Feb

    Final Business Plan NFWF Native Black Bass Keystone Initiative Feb

    A Business Plan for the Conservation of Native Black Bass Species in the Southeastern US: A Ten Year Plan February 2010 Executive Summary Conservation need : The southeastern US harbors a diversity of aquatic species and habitats unparalleled in North America. More than 1,800 species of fishes, mussels, snails, turtles and crayfish can be found in the more than 70 major river basins of the region; more than 500 of these species are endemic. However, with declines in the quality and quantity of aquatic resources in the region has come an increase in the rate of extinctions; nearly 100 species have become extinct across the region in the last century. At present, 34 percent of the fish species and 90 percent of the mussels in peril nationwide are found in the southeast. In addition, the southeast contains more invasive, exotic aquatic species than any other area of the US, many of which threaten native species. The diversity of black bass species (genus Micropterus ) mirrors the freshwater fish patterns in North America with most occurring in the southeast. Of the nine described species of black bass, six are endemic to the southeast: Guadalupe bass, shoal bass, redeye bass, Florida bass, Alabama bass, and Suwannee bass. However, many undescribed forms also exist and most of these are in need of conservation measures to prevent them from becoming imperiled. Furthermore, of the black bass species with the greatest conservation needs, all are endemic to the southeast and found in relatively small ranges (Figure 1). In an effort to focus and coordinate actions to conserve these species, local, state and federal agencies, universities, NGOs and businesses from across the region have come together in partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to develop the Southeast Native Black Bass Keystone Initiative.
  • Conservation Concerns for the Candy Darter (Etheostoma Osburni) with Implications Related to Hybridization

    Conservation Concerns for the Candy Darter (Etheostoma Osburni) with Implications Related to Hybridization

    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2017 Conservation Concerns for the Candy Darter (Etheostoma osburni) with Implications Related to Hybridization Isaac Gibson Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Gibson, Isaac, "Conservation Concerns for the Candy Darter (Etheostoma osburni) with Implications Related to Hybridization" (2017). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 5673. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/5673 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Conservation concerns for the Candy Darter (Etheostoma osburni) with implications related to hybridization Isaac Gibson Thesis submitted to the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Design at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science
  • Section 8. Appendices

    Section 8. Appendices

    Section 8. Appendices Appendix 1.1 — Acronyms Terminology AWAP – Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan BMP – Best Management Practice CWCS — Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy EO — Element Occurrence GIS — Geographic Information Systems SGCN — Species of Greatest Conservation Need LIP — Landowner Incentive Program MOA — Memorandum of Agreement ACWCS — Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy SWG — State Wildlife Grant LTA — Land Type Association WNS — White-nose Syndrome Organizations ADEQ — Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality AGFC — Arkansas Game and Fish Commission AHTD — Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department ANHC — Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission ASU — Arkansas State University ATU — Arkansas Technical University FWS — Fish and Wildlife Service HSU — Henderson State University NRCS — Natural Resources Conservation Service SAU — Southern Arkansas University TNC — The Nature Conservancy UA — University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) UA/Ft. Smith — University of Arkansas at Fort Smith UALR — University of Arkansas at Little Rock UAM — University of Arkansas at Monticello UCA — University of Central Arkansas USFS — United States Forest Service 1581 Appendix 2.1. List of Species of Greatest Conservation Need by Priority Score. List of species of greatest conservation need ranked by Species Priority Score. A higher score implies a greater need for conservation concern and actions. Priority Common Name Scientific Name Taxa Association Score 100 Curtis Pearlymussel Epioblasma florentina curtisii Mussel 100
  • Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States by Melvin L

    Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States by Melvin L

    CONSERVATION m Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States By Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Brooks M. Burr, Stephen J. Walsh, Henry L. Bart, Jr., Robert C. Cashner, David A. Etnier, Byron J. Freeman, Bernard R. Kuhajda, Richard L. Mayden, Henry W. Robison, Stephen T. Ross, and Wayne C. Starnes ABSTRACT The Southeastern Fishes Council Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the diversity, distribution, and status of all native freshwater and diadromous fishes across 51 major drainage units of the southern United States. The southern United States supports more native fishes than any area of comparable size on the North American continent north of Mexico, but also has a high proportion of its fishes in need of conservation action. The review included 662 native freshwater and diadromous fishes and 24 marine fishes that are significant components of freshwater ecosystems. Of this total, 560 described, freshwater fish species are documented, and 49 undescribed species are included provisionally pending formal description. Described subspecies (86) are recognized within 43 species, 6 fishes have undescribed sub- species, and 9 others are recognized as complexes of undescribed taxa. Extinct, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable status is recognized for 28% (187 taxa) of southern freshwater and diadromous fishes. To date, 3 southern fishes are known to be extinct throughout their ranges, 2 are extirpated from the study region, and 2 others may be extinct. Of the extant southern fishes, 41 (6%) are regarded as endangered, 46 (7%) are regarded as threatened, and 101 (15%) are regarded as vulnerable. Five marine fishes that frequent fresh water are regarded as vulnerable.