DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of the Interactions Between Catfishes and Freshwater Mollusks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of the Interactions Between Catfishes and Freshwater Mollusks American Fisheries Society Symposium 77:733–743, 2011 © 2011 by the American Fisheries Society A Review of the Interactions between Catfi shes and Freshwater Mollusks in North America JEREMY S. TIEMANN* Illinois Natural History Survey Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 1816 South Oak Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA STEPHEN E. MCMURRAY Missouri Department of Conservation, Resource Science Division 1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201, USA M. CHRISTOPHER BARNHART Missouri State University, Department of Biology 901 South National, Springfi eld, Missouri 65897, USA G. THOMAS WATTERS The Ohio State University, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology 1315 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212, USA Abstract.—Catfi shes are important in freshwater ecosystems not only as consumers, but also as essential partners in symbiotic relationships with other organisms. Freshwater mol- lusks are among the many organisms that have interactions with catfi shes. For example, icta- lurids are hosts for larvae of several native freshwater mussel species. The larvae, which attach briefl y to gills or fi ns of fi sh to complete their development to the free-living juvenile stage, disperse via upstream and downstream movement of host fi sh. In turn, freshwater mussels serve as a food source for some catfi sh species while other catfi sh species may use spent mus- sel shells for habitat. Ictalurids also benefi t from the conservation status of many freshwater mussel species. Federal and state laws protecting these invertebrates can preserve water qual- ity and habitat and, at times, provide incentives and funding for conservation and restoration of stream and riparian habitats. Introduction ter gastropods (Lysne et al. 2008). Because catfi shes and aquatic mollusks cohabitate in many ecosys- North American native freshwater mollusks are tems, understanding interactions of these taxonomic among the most imperiled group of organisms in groups can benefi t managers and conservationists. In the world (Lydeard et al. 2004; Christian and Harris this review, we summarize importance of catfi shes 2008). More than 70% of the 297 freshwater mus- to freshwater mollusks and explain how catfi shes sel taxa are extinct, listed federally as endangered can benefi t from freshwater mollusks. or threatened, or in need of conservation, and more than 60% of the 842 freshwater snail taxa are im- Predator–Prey Relationships between periled, critically imperiled, or presumed extinct (Williams et al. 1993; Lysne et al. 2008). In his na- Catfi shes and Freshwater Mollusks tional strategy for the conservation of freshwater Both freshwater mussels and snails are important mussels, Neves (1997) pointed out that the public components of aquatic ecosystems and fi ll several has a lack of understanding of the plight and value valuable ecological and economic roles. Freshwa- of freshwater mussels; the same is true for freshwa- ter mollusks and their feces and pseudofeces are valuable components in food webs (Vaughn and * Corresponding author: [email protected] Hakenkamp 2001; Brown et al. 2008). Freshwater 733 734 TIEMANN ET AL. mollusks are a food source for some catfi sh species, (1888) reported that mollusks accounted for nearly including black bullhead Ameiurus melas, yellow 25% of the diet in black bullhead, 20% in brown bullhead A. natalis, brown bullhead A. nebulosus, bullhead, 15% in channel catfi sh, and 5% in yellow blue catfi sh Ictalurus furcatus, channel catfi sh I. bullhead. We assume effects of catfi sh predation punctatus, and fl athead catfi sh Pylodictis olivaris would vary seasonally and with mollusk density and (Forbes 1888; Edds et al. 2002; Grist 2002). Sev- fi sh size (e.g., gape size). Bailey and Harrison (1948) eral species of madtoms Noturus spp. also have stated that few freshwater mussels were consumed been known to consume mollusks. Gastropods have by channel catfi sh in the Des Moines River because been reported in stomachs of the slender madtom N. mussels were rare in the river, whereas Forbes exilis (Curd 1960), Ouachita madtom N. lachneri (1888) stated that some channel catfi sh collected in (Robison and Harp 1985), and northern madtom N. September and October had nothing but mollusks stigmosus (Tzilkowski and Stauffer 2004). Forbes in their stomach, and brown bullheads collected in (1888) described mollusks as “a decidedly important September and October fed nearly exclusively on element” in catfi sh diet, with bivalves (e.g., unionids fi ngernail clams. Since the time of Forbes (1888), and sphaeriids) and gastropods being nearly equally North American freshwater mollusks have experi- consumed. While some authors have reported catfi sh enced drastic reductions in terms of species richness consuming whole mollusks, including shell (e.g., and biomass as a result of habitat destruction, envi- Graham 1999; Ledford and Kelly 2006), Forbes ronmental contamination, overharvest, and invasion (1888) suggested that catfi shes were able to sepa- of nonindigenous species (Bogan 1993; Williams et rate mollusk bodies from their shells. He stated that al. 1993; Watters 2000). It is unknown what kind of a catfi sh “seizes the foot of the mollusk while the effects, if any, this had on catfi sh predating on native latter is extended from the shell, and tears the animal mollusks. loose by vigorously jerking and rubbing it about.” Within the past 100 years, North America has Forbes (1888) continued by speculating that a catfi sh witnessed invasion of several freshwater mollusks, might be able to crack shells in its jaws to consume including corbiculids (e.g., Asian clam Corbicula the soft parts. He strengthened his argument by stat- fl uminea) in the 1930s and dreissenids (e.g., zebra ing that “no fragment of a shell was ever found in mussel Dreissena polymorpha) in the 1980s (Wat- <the> stomachs, but the bodies of the animals had ters et al. 2009). Asian clams and zebra mussels are invariably been torn from the shell while yet living usually smaller than native freshwater mussels, are – as shown both the fresh condition of the recently in- often very abundant, and have low mobility (Wat- gested specimens and likewise by the fact that the ad- ters et al. 2009). Blue catfi sh have been known to ductor muscles were scarcely ever present in the frag- utilize these as a food source (Grist 2002; Eggleton ments.” He also stated that 120 bodies and opercles and Schramm 2003; Eggleton and Schramm 2004). of Viviparus spp. (as Melanthos and Vivipara), but no Ictalurid consumption of zebra mussels and Asian shells, were counted in one specimen. In describing clams varies seasonally and can be dependent upon catfi shes, Forbes (1888) stated, “the capacious mouth, fi sh size and location of the fi sh (e.g., main chan- wide esophagus, and short broad stomach, admit ob- nel versus fl oodplain lake) within a particular habitat jects of relatively large size and of nearly every shape; (Eggleton and Schramm 2003; Bowers et al. 2005; the jaws, each armed with a broad pad of fi ne sharp Bowers and de Szalay 2007). Magoulick and Lewis teeth, are well calculated to grasp and hold soft bodies (2002) noted that blue catfi sh selected against more as well as hard; the gill-rakers are of average number energetically rich shad (Dorosoma spp.) during and development; and the pharyngeal jaws— broad, summer months, instead choosing more abundant stout arches below and oval pads above, with thin op- and energetically poor zebra mussels. Effects this posed surfaces covered with minute, pointed denticles dietary shift may have on catfi shes are unknown — serve fairly well to crush the crusts of insects and but has been implicated in declines in total length of the shells of the smaller mollusks and to squeeze and other fi shes. French and Bur (1996) found that total grind the vegetable objects which appear in the food. length of 6-year-old female freshwater drum Aplodi- The use made of the jaws in tearing mollusks from notus grunniens in Lake Erie signifi cantly declined their shells <sic> is probably the most peculiar feed- following invasion of dreissenids, presumably due ing practice of these animals.” to increased feeding on the nonindigenous mus- Data are limited on when and how much cat- sels. While any effects have yet to be documented fi shes consume native freshwater mollusks. Forbes in catfi sh, they would counteract management goals CATFISH–MUSSEL INTERACTIONS 735 of increasing size of blue catfi sh to increase angler water mussels. The article stated that even though satisfaction (e.g., Dames et al. 2003). some ictalurids consume freshwater mussels, legal- Catfi shes may help to control these nonindig- ity of using mollusks as bait varied from state to enous species (e.g., Robinson and Wellborn 1988; state. For example, in Missouri, it is legal to possess Bartsch et al. 2005), but sheer abundance and high up to fi ve freshwater mussels (other than species of fecundity of Asian clams and zebra mussels make it conservation concern) per day with a fi shing license, doubtful that fi shes will ever eradicate them (Thorp and these may be used as bait (MDC 2010); how- et al. 1998; Magoulick and Lewis 2002). Rather, ever, in Ohio, it is illegal to possess any freshwater catfi shes could become vectors in dispersal of these mussels, including invasive species (Watters et al. nonindigenous mollusks because both zebra mus- 2009). Promoting awareness of freshwater mollusk sels and Asian clams can pass through blue catfi sh conservation among anglers could be a valuable tool undigested (D. Shoup, Oklahoma State University, for aquatic managers because improving freshwater personal communication). This potential for spread- mollusk populations and protecting their habitats ing nonindigenous mollusks needs to be considered would benefi t not only mollusks themselves, but when moving fi shes between water bodies or into also could bolster catfi sh populations and improve hatcheries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Channel Catfish Life History and Biology
    SRAC Publication No. 180 Southern Regional Aquaculture Center December, 1988 . Channel Catfish Life History and Biology Thomas L. Wellborn* Channel cattish, Ictalurus punctatus Rocky Mountains. Since then chan- is located on the back between the (Rafinesque), is the most important nel catfish have been widely intro- dorsal and caudal fins (Fig. 1). One species of aquatic animal commer- duced throughout the United States conspicuous characteristic of all cially cultured in the United States. and the world. catfish is the presence of barbels It belongs to the family Ictaluridae, around the mouth. The barbels are order Siluriformes. Members of the Physical characteristics arranged in a definite pattern with order Siluriformes are found in fresh Like all native North American cat- four under the jaw and one on each and salt water worldwide. There are fishes, a channel catfish has a body tip of the maxilla (upper jaw). at least 39 species of catfish in North that is cylindrical in cross-section, America, but only six have been cul- and lacks scales. Fins are soft-rayed The channel catfish is the only tured or have potential for commer- except for the dorsal and pectoral spotted North American catfish with cial production. They are the blue fins which have sharp, hard spines a deeply forked tail. There are 24-29 catfish, Ictalurus furcatus (LeSueur); that can inflict a nasty, painful rays in the anal fin. They are general- the white catfish, Ictalurus catus wound if a catfish is handled care- ly olivaceous to blue on the back, (Linnaeus); the black bullhead, Ic- lessly.
    [Show full text]
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 282
    Cl>lAat;i<,<:>';i^;}Oit3Cl <a f^.S^ iVi^ 5' i ''*«0£Mi»«33'**^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY I NotUTus albater, new species, a female paratype, 63 mm. in standard length; UMMZ 102781, Missouri. (Courtesy Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.) UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Rafinesque^ With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae WILLIAM RALPH TAYLOR Associate Curator, Division of Fishes SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1969 IV Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield
    Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield Submitted to: Department of the Interior National Park Service Cumberland Piedmont Network By Dennis Mullen Professor of Biology Department of Biology Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 September 2006 Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) – nuptial male From Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans Photograph by D. Mullen Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………iv List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………..v Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……..2 Methods……………………………………………………………………………...3 Results……………………………………………………………………………….7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….10 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………...14 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………….15 ii List of Tables Table1: Location and physical characteristics (during September 2006, and only for the riverine sites) of sample sites for the STRI fish inventory………………………………17 Table 2: Biotic Integrity classes used in assessing fish communities along with general descriptions of their attributes (Karr et al. 1986) ………………………………………18 Table 3: List of fishes potentially occurring in aquatic habitats in and around Stones River National Battlefield………………………………………………………………..19 Table 4: Fish species list (by site) of aquatic habitats at STRI (October 2004 – August 2006). MF = McFadden’s Ford, KP = King Pond, RB = Redoubt Brannan, UP = Unnamed Pond at Redoubt Brannan, LC = Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans……...….22 Table 5: Fish Species Richness estimates for the 3 riverine reaches of STRI and a composite estimate for STRI as a whole…………………………………………………24 Table 6: Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for three stream reaches at Stones River National Battlefield during August 2005………………………………………………...25 Table 7: Temperature and water chemistry of four of the STRI sample sites for each sampling date…………………………………………………………………………….26 Table 8 : Total length estimates of specific habitat types at each riverine sample site.
    [Show full text]
  • Length-Weight Relationshiips of Alabama Fishes
    LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIIPS OF ALABAMA FISHES From: River and Impoundment Surveys, 1949-1964 by Fisheries Staffs of Auburn University and Alabama Department of Conservation Wayne E. Swingle Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Departmental Series No. 1 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY R. Dennis Rouse, Director June--' 965 Auburn, Alabama Revised July 1972 I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I, 1 LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONS1AIPS OF ALABAMA FISHES From: River and Impoundment Surveys, 1949-1964 by Fisheries Staffs of Auburn University and Alabama Department of Conservation Wayne E. Swingle Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Departmental Series No. 1 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY R. Dennis Rouse, Director June,.1965 Auburn, Alabama Revised July 1972 LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS OF ALABAMA FISHES Wayne E. Swingle* The tables presented herein contain length-weight data of Alabama fishes from river and river impoundment surveys conducted by the fisheries staffs of Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station and the Alabama Department of Conservation, and those surveys made in cooperation with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Georgia Game and Fish Commission, and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. The values presented in the following tables represent data collected during the period of 1949 to 1964. Pages 1 through 81 contain total length-weight values for 95 species of fish arranged alphabetically by common name. The common names used are those given in the American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 2 (1960), with the following exceptions: The carp, Cyprinis carpio, is called the common carp, following FAO usage to distinguish it from Chinese and Indian carps.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service December 2012 Arkansas Species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Pending Evaluations of Other Species Taxonomic Species in Multi- Species Other Listed Group District Litigation in Mega- Petitioned Species and Other Candidates Petition Species Mammals - - 4 4 Birds 1 1 1 5 Fishes 1 9 1 5 Amphibians - 1 3 1 Plants - 4 - 5 Reptiles - 1 1 - Mussels/ Snails 2 8 - 14 Ouachita Madtom, by Brian Wagner/ Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Crayfish - 9 - 2 Insects - 2 2 1 Total 4 35 12 37 Note: All numbers are subject to change based on new petitions, litigation and findings. Legal actions brought under the deadlines have been set for those final Endangered Species Act have listing decisions. dramatically increased the workload of the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish Mega-Petition Caddo Mountain Salamander, by Stan and Wildlife Service. Under the 1973 Act, The Mega-Petition is a large petition Trauth, Arkansas State University any citizen may petition the Service to list filed in 2010 by several advocacy groups species as threatened or endangered. In that requested the Service to list 404 addition, the Service’s decisions may be aquatic and aquatic-dependent species challenged in a court of law. found mostly in the Southeast. In 2011, the Service determined 374 of those Multi-District Litigation species need to be further evaluated. No and Other Candidates deadlines have been set. In 2009 and 2010, two advocacy groups filed lawsuits related to the Service’s Other Petitions missed deadlines under the Act, and The Service continues to receive other the national backlog of 251 species petitions to list species as threatened or categorized as candidates for the Federal endangered under the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Download BALMNH No 25 2007
    ••• 11111111 ••• ••• ... .... ... ••• ALABAMA MUSEUM of Natural History Bulletin 25 August 1, 2007 Systematics, Evolution and Biogeography of the Etheostoma simoterum Species Complex (Percidae: Subgenus Ulocentra) Distribution and Satus of Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia Unionidae) of the Lower Coosa and Tallapoosa River Drainages in Alabama The Osteology of the Stonecat, Noturus flavus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae), with Comparisons to Other Siluriforms 8 1 BULLETIN ALABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL mSTORY The scientific publication of the Alabama Museum of Natural History. Dr. Phillip Harris, Editor. BULLETIN AlABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY is published by the Alabama Museum of Natural History, a unit of The University of Alabama. The BULLETIN succeeds its predecessor, the MUSEUM PAPERS, which was terminated in 1961 upon the transfer of the Museum to the University from its parent organiza­ tion, the Geological Survey of Alabama. The BULLETIN is devoted primarily to scholarship and research concerning the natural history of Alabama and the Southeast. It appears twice yearly in consecutively numbered issues. Communication concerning manuscripts, style, and editorial policy should be addressed to: Editor, BULLETIN AlABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, The University of Alabama, Box 870345, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0345; telephone (205) 348-1831 or [email protected]. Prospective authors should exam­ ine the Notice to Authors inside the back cover. Orders and requests for general information should be addressed to BULLETIN AlABAMA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, at the above address or emailed to [email protected]. Yearly subscriptions (two issues) are $30.00 for individ­ uals, $50.00 for corporations and institutions. Numbers may be purchased individual­ ly. Payment should accompany orders and subscriptions and checks should be made out to "The University of Alabama." Library exchanges should be handled through: Exchange Librarian, The University of Alabama, Box 870266, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0340.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 7Ildlife ,Ogbook
    4HISBOOKBELONGSTO A Journey of Exploration /HIO2IVER 7ILDLIFE ,OGBOOK $ISCOVERYIS THEJOURNEY UNDERSTANDINGIS THEDESTINATION %XPLORE 7HATWILLYOUDISCOVERABOUTTHE WILDLIFEOFTHE/HIO2IVER There is a way that nature speaks, that land speaks. Most of the time we are simply not patient enough, quiet enough, to pay attention to the story. -Linda Hogan, 21st century Chickasaw writer 2IVER7ORKS 1 2 2IVER7ORKS The Ohio River is an important tributary of the Mississippi River. It begins at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join. The Ohio River is 981 miles long, and its watershed includes fourteen states. At its lower end, it enters the Mississippi near the city of Cairo, Illinois. For centuries, the Ohio River Valley was home to different groups of American Indians. Europeans began to explore the river in the late 17th century, but it was colonial frontiersmen who opened the river valley to settlers. Diaries from that era provide glimpses of the beauty and vast resources of the river as well as the lifestyles of the native peoples who lived along it. Significant changes have been made since those diaries were written. Though some of the changes have been beneficial, others have not been. As a result, many plant and wildlife species along the river are at risk today from pollution and loss of habitat. Invasive species pose serious challenges. As a river explorer, you can learn about the animals and plants of the river and perhaps become involved with protecting them. 2IVER7ORKS 3 7HATISAWATERSHED A watershed (called a drainage basin) is an area of land where all the small creeks and streams drain into a larger body of water, such as a river.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian River Basin Bioassessment
    Canadian River Basin Bioassessment Sarah Robertson, Melissa Parker, Gordon Linam, Clinton Robertson, Archis Grubh Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division AND Melissa Casarez University of Texas at Austin, Biodiversity Collections River Studies Report No. 26 Inland Fisheries Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2 Survey and Management History .............................................................................. 2 Study Sites .............................................................................................................................. 4 Canadian River .......................................................................................................... 6 Oxbow Lakes ............................................................................................................. 6 Supplemental Fish Collection Sites ........................................................................... 7 Water Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................... 8 Fish Assemblage ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]