DOCSLIB.ORG

Fish and Invertebrate Community Response to Flow Magnitude in the Kansas River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fish and Invertebrate Community Response to Flow Magnitude in the Kansas River FISH AND INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO FLOW MAGNITUDE IN THE KANSAS RIVER by JOSEPH EDWARD GERKEN B.S., Miami University, 2005 M.S., University of Central Arkansas, 2007 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Division of Biology College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2015 Abstract River discharge influences fish and invertebrate communities and understanding how hydrologic variables contribute to fish and invertebrate composition can provide information for restoration and management. This study examines the relationship between several flow regime metrics that may influence fish and invertebrate community structure in large river systems such as the Kansas River. First, I examined how hydrology influences macroinvertebrate (drifting and benthic) density and fish communities before, during, and after flooding in both main and secondary channels. I found that drifting invertebrate density increased during flooding potentially providing increased prey opportunities for fishes. I also found that fluvial dependent and generalist fish species use inundated habitats more than fluvial specialists. My results suggest that the flux of water into inundated habitats supports a unique subset of invertebrate and fish communities of the main channel. Next, I examined the importance of lateral connectivity on fish and invertebrate composition by examining differences in seasonally and permanently inundated secondary channels in relation to main channel reaches. I found that drifting and benthic invertebrate assemblages and fish assemblages differed between seasonally inundated and permanently connected secondary channels. These results suggest that maintenance of diverse secondary channel connections is useful in preserving native biota in the Kansas River. Finally, I tested if hydrologic variables influenced recruitment of four native Kansas River fishes. I found that recruitment for two of the four fish species (flathead catfish, Pylodictis olivaris, and shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) increased in high flow years. These results indicate that a natural and variable flow regime may be important for maintaining fish community structure in the Kansas River. The results of this study have implications for management strategies that include the use of high flows to provide a pulse of insect prey to the main channel for fishes, restoration of natural high and low flow variability as important to fish recruitment, and diversity in secondary channel connectivity (seasonal and permanently connected) that promotes unique fish and invertebrate communities. FISH AND INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO FLOW MAGNITUDE IN THE KANSAS RIVER by JOSEPH EDWARD GERKEN B.S., Miami University, 2005 M.S., University of Central Arkansas, 2007 A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Division of Biology College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2015 Approved by: Major Professor Dr. Craig Paukert Copyright JOSEPH EDWARD GERKEN 2015 Abstract River discharge influences fish and invertebrate communities and understanding how hydrologic variables contribute to fish and invertebrate composition can provide information for restoration and management. This study examines the relationship between several flow regime metrics that may influence fish and invertebrate community structure in large river systems such as the Kansas River. First, I examined how hydrology influences macroinvertebrate (drifting and benthic) density and fish communities before, during, and after flooding in both main and secondary channels. I found that drifting invertebrate density increased during flooding potentially providing increased prey opportunities for fishes. I also found that fluvial dependent and generalist fish species use inundated habitats more than fluvial specialists. My results suggest that the flux of water into inundated habitats supports a unique subset of invertebrate and fish communities of the main channel. Next, I examined the importance of lateral connectivity on fish and invertebrate composition by examining differences in seasonally and permanently inundated secondary channels in relation to main channel reaches. I found that drifting and benthic invertebrate assemblages and fish assemblages differed between seasonally inundated and permanently connected secondary channels. These results suggest that maintenance of diverse secondary channel connections is useful in preserving native biota in the Kansas River. Finally, I tested if hydrologic variables influenced recruitment of four native Kansas River fishes. I found that recruitment for two of the four fish species (flathead catfish, Pylodictis olivaris, and shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) increased in high flow years. These results indicate that a natural and variable flow regime may be important for maintaining fish community structure in the Kansas River. The results of this study have implications for management strategies that include the use of high flows to provide a pulse of insect prey to the main channel for fishes, restoration of natural high and low flow variability as important to fish recruitment, and diversity in secondary channel connectivity (seasonal and permanently connected) that promotes unique fish and invertebrate communities. Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1 – Flooding and Lateral Connectivity: An Ecosystem Perspective ................................. 1 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 - Fish and Invertebrate Community Response to High Flows and Floodplain Inundation in the Kansas River ................................................................................................ 7 Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods .................................................................................................................................... 13 Study Site .............................................................................................................................. 13 Main channel macroinvertebrate response during flooding .................................................. 14 Drifting Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 14 Benthic Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 14 Invertebrate Laboratory Methods ..................................................................................... 15 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 15 Main channel and inundated habitat macroinvertebrate response during flooding .............. 16 Fish community response to flooding ................................................................................... 17 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 18 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Macroinvertebrate response to main channel flooding ......................................................... 19 Drifting Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 19 Benthic Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 20 Main channel and inundated habitat macroinvertebrate response during flooding .............. 21 Drifting Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 21 Benthic Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 22 Fish community response to flooding ................................................................................... 23 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 24 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 30 viii Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 32 Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Figures .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seasonal and Diel Movements and Habitat Use of Robust Redhorses in the Lower Savannah River. Georgia, and South Carolina
    Transactions of the American FisheriesSociety 135:1145-1155, 2006 [Article] © Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2006 DO: 10.1577/705-230.1 Seasonal and Diel Movements and Habitat Use of Robust Redhorses in the Lower Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina TIMOTHY B. GRABOWSKI*I Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina,29634-0326, USA J. JEFFERY ISELY U.S. Geological Survey, South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 29634-0372, USA Abstract.-The robust redhorse Moxostonta robustum is a large riverine catostomid whose distribution is restricted to three Atlantic Slope drainages. Once presumed extinct, this species was rediscovered in 1991. Despite being the focus of conservation and recovery efforts, the robust redhorse's movements and habitat use are virtually unknown. We surgically implanted pulse-coded radio transmitters into 17 wild adults (460-690 mm total length) below the downstream-most dam on the Savannah River and into 2 fish above this dam. Individuals were located every 2 weeks from June 2002 to September 2003 and monthly thereafter to May 2005. Additionally, we located 5-10 individuals every 2 h over a 48-h period during each season. Study fish moved at least 24.7 ± 8.4 river kilometers (rkm; mean ± SE) per season. This movement was generally downstream except during spring. Some individuals moved downstream by as much as 195 rkm from their release sites. Seasonal migrations were correlated to seasonal changes in water temperature. Robust redhorses initiated spring upstream migrations when water temperature reached approximately 12'C. Our diel tracking suggests that robust redhorses occupy small reaches of river (- 1.0 rkm) and are mainly active diumally.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Fish Species
    The Angler’s Guide To TennesseeIncluding Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesFish Published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Cover photograph Paul Shaw Graphics Designer Raleigh Holtam Thanks to the TWRA Fisheries Staff for their review and contributions to this publication. Special thanks to those that provided pictures for use in this publication. Partial funding of this publication was provided by a grant from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Authorization No. 328898, 58,500 copies, January, 2012. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $.42 per copy. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is available to all persons without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age, dis- ability, or military service. TWRA is also an equal opportunity/equal access employer. Questions should be directed to TWRA, Human Resources Office, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204, (615) 781-6594 (TDD 781-6691), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Human Resources, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. Contents Introduction ...............................................................................1 About Fish ..................................................................................2 Black Bass ...................................................................................3 Crappie ........................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Montana DEQ-Table of Known Or Expected Spawning Times for Most
    The following table lists the known or expected spawning times for most fishes in Montana. This table was prepared for the purpose of identifying periods when “early life stages” of fish may be present. EPA has defined the early life stage for salmonids to be 30 days after emergence/swim-up; for all other species it is 34 days after spawning. This information is necessary when applying Dissolved Oxygen and Ammonia water quality standards to individual waterbodies. SPAWNING TIMES OF MONTANA FISHES, Prepared by Don Skaar, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 3/6/01. This table is a combination of known spawning times for fish in Montana and estimates based on spawning times reported in other areas in North America of similar latitude. Sources used for this table include G.C. Becker, Fishes of Wisconsin; C.J.D. Brown, Fishes of Montana; K.D. Carlander, Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, volumes 1 and 2; R.S. Wydoski, and R.R. Whitney. Inland fishes of Washington; Scott and Crossman. Freshwater fishes of Canada; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks fisheries biologists. The code for the table is as follows: J1,J2, F1, F2 refer to the half month increments of January 1-15, January 16-31, February 1-14, February 15-29, and so on. In the table S=spawning period, I = incubation period for eggs of salmonids, E=time period in which salmonid sac-fry are in the gravels Species J1 J2 F1 F2 M1 M2 A1 A2 M1 M2 J1 J2 J1 J2 A1 A2 S1 S2 O1 O2 N1 N2 D1 D2 White sturgeon S S S S Pallid sturgeon S S S S S Shovel.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Fishes IDENTIFICATION GUIDE
    Pennsylvania Fishes IDENTIFICATION GUIDE Editor’s Note: During 2018, Pennsylvania Angler & the status of fishes in or introduced into Pennsylvania’s Boater magazine will feature select common fishes of major watersheds. Pennsylvania in each issue, providing scientific names and The table below denotes any known occurrence. WATERSHEDS SPECIES STATUS E O G P S D Freshwater Eels (Family Anguillidae) American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) N N N N Species Status Herrings (Family Clupeidae) EN = Endangered Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) N TH = Threatened Skipjack Herring (Alosa chrysochloris) DL N Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris) EN N C = Candidate Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) I N N American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) N N EX = Believed extirpated Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) N DL = Delisted (removed from the Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) N N N N endangered, threatened or candidate species list due to significant Suckers (Family Catostomidae) expansion of range and abundance) River Carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) N Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus) N N N N Highfin Carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer) EX N Watersheds Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus) EN N N White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) N N N N N N E = Lake Erie Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus) EX N O = Ohio River Eastern Creek Chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) N N N Lake Chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) EX N G = Genesee River Northern Hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans) N N N N N X Smallmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus) DL N N P = Potomac River Bigmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus)
    [Show full text]
  • Sucker Species (Catostomidae) Diversity in North Carolina
    Sucker Species (Catostomidae) Diversity in North Carolina There are 29 species of suckers including five undescribed species inhabiting North Carolina waters (Tracy et al. 2020; Tracy et al. 2021; Table 1). You might have heard fishermen calling them Mullets, Redhorses, Hoovers, Creek Trout, Razor Back, or many more colloquial names. But each species has an American Fisheries Society-accepted common name (Page et al. 2013) and a scientific (Latin) name (Table 1; Appendix 1).Twelve species are considered imperiled in North Carolina (Table 2; NCAC 2017; NCNHP 2020; NCWRC 2017). Table 1. Species of suckers found in North Carolina. Common names enclosed within tick marks (“) are scientifically undescribed species. Scientific Name/ Scientific Name/ American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name Carpiodes carpio - River Carpsucker Moxostoma breviceps - Smallmouth Redhorse Carpiodes cyprinus - Quillback Moxostoma carinatum - River Redhorse Carpiodes sp. "Atlantic" Highfin Carpsucker Moxostoma cervinum - Blacktip Jumprock Carpiodes sp. "Carolina" Quillback Moxostoma collapsum - Notchlip Redhorse Catostomus commersonii - White Sucker Moxostoma duquesnei - Black Redhorse Erimyzon oblongus - Eastern Creek Chubsucker Moxostoma erythrurum - Golden Redhorse Erimyzon sucetta - Lake Chubsucker Moxostoma macrolepidotum - Shorthead Redhorse Hypentelium nigricans - Northern Hog Sucker Moxostoma pappillosum - V-lip Redhorse Hypentelium roanokense - Roanoke Hog Sucker Moxostoma robustum - Robust Redhorse Ictiobus bubalus - Smallmouth Buffalo Moxostoma rupiscartes - Striped Jumprock Ictiobus cyprinellus - Bigmouth Buffalo Moxostoma sp. "Brassy" Jumprock Ictiobus niger - Black Buffalo Moxostoma sp. "Carolina" Redhorse Minytrema melanops - Spotted Sucker Moxostoma sp. "Sicklefin" Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum - Silver Redhorse Thoburnia hamiltoni – Rustyside Sucker Moxostoma ariommum - Bigeye Jumprock Table 2. Imperiled species of suckers in North Carolina (NCAC 2017, NCNHP 2020, and NCWRC 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Food Habits and Gill Raker Morphology of Seven Catostomid Species in Iowa Rivers Jason Spiegel Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2010 Summer food habits and gill raker morphology of seven Catostomid species in Iowa rivers Jason Spiegel Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Spiegel, Jason, "Summer food habits and gill raker morphology of seven Catostomid species in Iowa rivers" (2010). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11647. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11647 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Summer food habits and gill raker morphology of seven Catostomid species in Iowa rivers by Jason Robert Spiegel A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Fisheries Biology Program of Study Committee: Joseph E. Morris, Major Professor Michael C. Quist Richard C. Schultz Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 References 4 CHAPTER 2. PRECISION OF SCALES AND PECTORAL FIN RAYS FOR ESTIMATING AGE OF HIGHFIN CARPSUCKER, QUILLBACK CARPSUCKER, AND RIVER CARPSUCKER Abstract 6 Introduction 7 Methods 9 Results 11 Discussion 12 References 14 Tables 19 Figures 23 iii CHAPTER 3. SUMMER FEEDING HABITS AND GILL RAKER MORPHOLOGY OF SEVEN CATASTOMID SPECIES IN IOWA RIVERS Abstract 24 Introduction 25 Methods 27 Results 30 Discussion 33 References 38 Tables 44 Figures 48 CHAPTER 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Carp, River Carpsucker Smallmouth Buffalo and Bigmouth Buffalo in Lewis and Clark Lake Missouri River
    CARP, RIVER CARPSUCKER SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO AND BIGMOUTH BUFFALO IN LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE MISSOURI RIVER Charles H. Walburg and William R. Nelson Fishery Research Bio/ogish RESEARCH REPORT 69 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Stewart L. Udall, Secretary Stanley A. Cain, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Clarence F. Pautzke, Commissioner BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE John S. Gottschalk, Director Published by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife • Washington • 1966 Printed at the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. CONTENTS Page Introduction - - - - - 1 Lewis and Clark Lake - - - - - 1 Materials and methods - - - - - 2 Carp - - - - - 4 Length and age composition - - - - - 4 Calculated growth - - - - - 4 Length-weight relation - - - - - 7 Reproduction and year-class strength - - - - - 7 Food habits - - - - - 8 River carpsucker - - - - - 9 Length and age composition - - - - - 9 Calculated growth - - - - 10 Length-weight relation - - - - 12 Reproduction and year-class strength - - - - 13 Food habits - - - - 14 Smallmouth buffalo - - - - 16 Length and age composition - - - - 16 Calculated growth - - - - 16 Length-weight relation - - - - 17 Reproduction and year-class strength - - - - 18 Food habits - - - - 19 Bigmouth buffalo - - - - 20 Length and age composition - - - - 20 Calculated growth - - - - 20 Length-weight relation - - - - 92 Reproduction and year-class strength - - - - 22 Food habits - - - - 23 Discussion - - - - 24 Summary - - - - 26 References - - - - 28
    [Show full text]
  • Research.Pdf
    ASSEMBLAGE STRUCTURE AND SHALLOW-WATER HABITAT USE BY SMALL-BODIED FISHES AT LOWER MISSOURI RIVER SANDBARS A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by CLAYTON RIDENOUR Dr. David Galat, Thesis Supervisor AUGUST 2007 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled ASSEMBLAGE STRUCTURE AND SHALLOW-WATER HABITAT USE BY SMALL-BODIED FISHES AT LOWER MISSOURI RIVER SANDBARS presented by Clayton Ridenour, a candidate for the degree of Master of Science, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Dr. David L. Galat Dr. Charles Rabeni Dr. Mark Ellersieck Dr. Vince Travnichek ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Missouri Department of Conservation provided funding and much of the equipment to support this project, including a large boat, motor and trailer. In addition, the University of Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the U.S.G.S. Columbia Environmental Research Center, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Resource Office Region 3 offered equipment and expertise as needed. The J. Louis Crum Cooperation in Columbia, Missouri, and Russ DeVenney, Jr., deserves special acknowledgement for donating several hundred dollars of copper pipe; Russ’s networking skills were invaluable for locating additional pipe at a discount price. I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. David L. Galat, for his encouragement, support, and criticism during this research and my education. David’s expertise and eye for detail have fine tuned my scientific and creative thinking skills and improved my technical writing skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals Reptiles Amphibians Fish Birds
    Prairie Species List Key : Northern Grasshopper Mouse Walleye Perch (int) imperiled (i) Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Northern Pike rare (r) Prairie Vole Brook Stickleback endemic (e) Sagebrush Vole River Carpsucker Western Harvest Mouse White Sucker MAMMALS Western Jumping Mouse Bigmouth Buffalo Sucker White-footed Mouse Pumpkinseed Sunfish BATS SQUIRRELS *Fish listed above are likely to be Big Brown Bat Black-tailed Prairie Dog on the APR based on recent fish California Myotis Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel surveys directly on and near the Hoary Bat Least Chipmunk Reserve. Future surveys may Little Brown Myotis Richardson’s Ground Squirrel add or eliminate species from Long-eared Myotis Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel this list. Long-legged Myotis Yellow-bellied Marmot Silver-haired Bat Townsend’s Big-eared Bat BIRDS UNGULATES Western Small-footed Myotis Big Horn Sheep CHICKADEES, CREEPERS Bison BEAVERS Black-capped Chickadee Elk Beaver Brown Creeper (r) Moose Mountain Chickadee Mule Deer CARNIVORES Red-breasted Nuthatch Pronghorn Badger White-tailed Deer Bobcat CUCKOOS Coyote Black-billed Cuckoo Least Weasel REPTILES Long-tailed Weasel DOVES Mink Bull Snake Mourning Dove Mountain Lion Common Sagebrush Lizard Rock Dove (r) Raccoon Eastern Racer Snake Red Fox Greater Short-horned Lizard FINCHES River Otter Painted Turtle American Goldfinch Short-tail Weasel Plains Gartersnake Cassin’s Finch Striped Skunk Prairie Rattlesnake Common Redpoll Snapping turtle Evening Grosbeak (r) GOPHERS Western Hog-nosed Snake Gray-crowned Rosy-finch Northern
    [Show full text]
  • River Carpsucker (Carpiodes Carpio) Predicted Suitable Habitat Modeling
    River Carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) Predicted Suitable Habitat Modeling Distribution Status: Resident Year Round State Rank: S5 Global Rank: G5 Modeling Overview Data Source Last Updated: August 23, 2018 Model Produced On: July 11, 2019 Deductive Modeling Modeling Process, Outputs, and Suggested Uses This is a simple rule-based model using stream reaches and standing waterbodies where the species presence has been confirmed through direct capture or where they are believed to be present based on the professional judgement of a fisheries biologist due to confirmed presence in adjacent areas. See Montana fish distribution, survey, stocking, and genetic testing information from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at: http://gis-mtfwp.opendata.arcgis.com/ For compatibility with other predictive distribution models the Montana Natural Heritage Program produces, we have intersected this fish presence information with a uniform grid of hexagons that have been used for planning efforts across the western United States (e.g. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies - Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool). Each hexagon is one square mile in area and approximately one kilometer in length on each side. Any hexagon that intersected a waterbody evaluated as having a species present was classified as suitable habitat; native or introduced. Model outputs are not evaluated and we suggest they be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy water bodies present within each hexagon for the purposes of landscape-level planning. Model outputs should not be used in place of on-the-ground surveys for species, and wildlife and land management agency biologists should be consulted about the value of using model output to guide habitat management decisions for regional planning efforts or local projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Sucker (Catostomus Platyrhynchus): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project August 23, 2006 Laura Thel Belica1 and Nathan P. Nibbelink, Ph.D.2 with a life cycle model by David McDonald, Ph.D.3 11623 Steele Street, Laramie, WY 82070 2University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Green St / DW Brooks Drive, Athens, GA 30602-2152 3University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology, 1000 University Ave, Dept 3166, Laramie, WY 82071 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. (2006, August 23). Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the many biologists and managers from Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming and from the national forests within Region 2 who provided information about mountain sucker populations, status, and management in their jurisdictions. We also extend our appreciation to David B. McDonald at the University of Wyoming for the population demographic matrix analysis he provided. We especially thank Richard Vacirca and Gary Patton of the USDA Forest Service for their review of this species assessment and help in bringing this report to completion. We also thank Dr. Edward J. Peters, Professor Emeritus of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Laura Thel Belica received her Master of Science Degree in Zoology and Physiology from the University of Wyoming in 2003 (as L.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory
    2008 INDIANA FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana Department of Natural Resources Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Governor Table of Contents 2008 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Background 1 Background We have prepared this booklet to support fishermen and those who like Using the Advisory 2 to eat fish by providing helpful information to make healthy choices. Fishing and eating fish from Indiana waterways can be safe and fun if Guidelines to Reduce Your Risks 2 you follow the suggestions on the following pages. In addition to Risk Comparison Table 2 describing healthy eating of sport-caught fish, interest has increased over the years about consuming commercial and farm-raised fish. We have, therefore, included information in the Advisory. Health Risks and Benefits from Eating Sport and 3 Commercial Fish The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Indiana Department of Advisory Groups 4 Environmental Management (IDEM), with support from Purdue University, collaborate to produce this annual Indiana Fish Carp Advisory for all Indiana Rivers and Streams 4 Consumption Advisory . Group 5 Waterways 4 The Advisory is based on the statewide collection and analysis of fish Fish Consumption Guidelines 5 samples for long-lasting contaminants found in fish tissue, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and/or heavy metals (e.g., Commonly Asked Questions 6 mercury). Samples were taken from fish that feed at all depths of the water, predatory and bottom-feeding. Parasites and Tumors in Fish 6-7 Well over 200 Indiana water bodies have been tested for fish Summary 7 contaminants through the years.
    [Show full text]