DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Utilization & Movements of White Suckers (Catostomus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Utilization & Movements of White Suckers (Catostomus Habitat utilization & movements of white suckers (Catostomus commersonii) in Cobleskill Creek, New York1 Zachary R. Diehl2, Lyndon Watkins2, John R. Foster3 & Richard Clark Abstract: White suckers (Catostomus commersonii) are one of the most widely distributed freshwater fish in North America, but relatively little is known about their habitat utilization and movements. The little research that has been conducted to date has focused on large rivers and lakes. This study’s goal was to characterize the habitat utilization and movements of white suckers in a small watershed, Cobleskill Creek. Fifteen adult white suckers were surgically implanted with radio tags and tracked in this 27.2 km, 3rd order stream. Over a 6- year period, 2,151 fish positions were plotted with GPS. White suckers in Cobleskill Creek had a much more limited home range than those described in rivers. Adult white suckers primarily occurred in pools, followed by runs and riffles. The majority of the time they remained in their home pool, venturing into shallower riffles and runs primarily at night. Greatest movements, up to 3 km, occurred during spring spawning migrations. In spite of substantial differences in the physical environment between large rivers and small streams, this study found that the habitat utilization and movements of adult white suckers were remarkably similar. INTRODUCTION White suckers (Catostomus commersonii) are one of the most widely distributed freshwater fish in North America, and were once commonly used in the diet of Native Americans and colonists. However, white suckers, like other freshwater nongame species, are often understudied and underappreciated (Monroe et al. 2009). Competing interests in freshwater fisheries resources inevitably focus research efforts on large bodied game fish and keystone species or focus on population dynamics and conservation threats (Stone 2007). White suckers play an important role in the ecology of both fish and benthic communities in lakes and streams, but behavioral aspects of their habitat utilization and movements have received little attention (Saint-Jacques 2000, McManamay et al. Young 2012). Radio telemetry has been used to assess habitat utilization and seasonal movements of other members of the sucker family (Matheney and Rabeni 1995, Verrill et al. 1995, Banish et al. 2009, Neely et al. 2009). However, what little research that has been conducted on white sucker habitat utilization and movements, has focused on large rivers and lakes (Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011, McManamay et al. 2012). 1 This work was supported by the Schoharie County Conservation Association. 2 Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, SUNY Cobleskill. 3 Professor Emeritus. Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Sciences, SUNY Cobleskill. The goal of this study was to describe white sucker habitat utilization and movements in a small watershed, and compare those findings to their life habits in larger river systems. To achieve this goal fifteen radio tagged adult white suckers were observed over a 6-year period to assess their habitat utilization and movements. The hypothesis was that white sucke’rs behavior in small watersheds would be different than that observed in larger river systems (Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011). MATERIALS & METHODS White sucker habitat utilization and movements were studied in Cobleskill Creek, a 3rd order stream, approximately 27.2 km long, located in Schoharie County, NY (Figure 1). White suckers were tracked primarily in the township of Cobleskill, although some fish ventured into Richmondville Township. White suckers were collected by angling or electrofishing from three adjacent pools (Figure 5). The upper pool was 51m long and 20.3m wide, the mid-pool was 82 m long and 36.5m wide and the lower pool was 96m long and 34m wide. Captured fish were placed in an anesthetic bath of tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222) and surgically implanted with ATS radio tags following Ross and Kleiner (1982). The 15 adult white suckers utilized in this study were between 425-473mm long and 5-8 years old. Radio telemetry was used to locate and plot (N=2,151) fish positions over a 6-year period from June 2012 – Jan. 2018. Fish locations were determined throughout the week and throughout the day, although the majority of the data were collected at 8am, noon. 5pm and mid-night. GPS points were used to plot habitat use and movements (James et al. 2000). Creek temperature was measured during each sampling. Figure 1. Cobleskill Creek study area (arrow). RESULTS Habitat Utilization In Cobleskill Creek, adult white suckers did not distribute themselves evenly throughout 2 the habitat (X test, P < .001). Pools were utilized 51% of the time, followed by runs (33%) and riffles (16%, Figure 2). White sucker habitat utilization differed throughout the seasons (Figure 3). Pool utilization was highest in the summer and winter, while utilization of runs was highest in the spring and fall. There was no significant difference in the seasonal use of riffles. White Sucker Habitat Utilization (%) Riffle 16% Pool 51% Run 33% Figure 2. Habitat utilization of adult white suckers in Cobleskill Creek. White Sucker Seasonal Habitat Utilization 80% Pool Run Riffle 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Spring Summer Fall Winter Figure 3. Seasonal habitat utilization of adult White suckers in Cobleskill Creek. Habitat utilization also differed throughout the day (Figure 4). White suckers utilized riffles and runs more frequently at night than during the day (χ2 test, P < .001). Day vs. Night White Sucker Habitat Utilization 700 Day 600 Night 500 400 300 200 100 0 Run Riffle Pool Figure 4. Day versus night habitat utilization of adult white suckers in Cobleskill Creek. Pool Fidelity & Homing In this study, tagged adult white suckers were immediately returned to one of three adjacent pools from which they were originally captured. For months at a time all 15 white suckers were most frequently observed in their “home” pool complex, which included the adjacent riffles and runs (Figure 5). Figure 5. An example of pool fidelity over a 6-month period (June – November 2012) for three adult white suckers tagged in three adjacent pools. The 15 white suckers in this study spent a total of 3175 consecutive days in their home pool (Figure 6). One fish spent 21 consecutive days in an adjacent upstream pool, while three other white suckers spent a total of 232 consecutive days in an adjacent downstream pool. Fish #422-482 were only observed for three months and spent 100% of their time in their home pool complex. Consecutive Days Suckers Spent in Home Pools 400 Upstream 350 Home 300 Downstream 250 200 150 100 Consecutive Days 50 0 193 232 252 273 323 422 433 464 482 503 523 523 530 940 1150 Fish Number - Frequency Figure 6. Consecutive days white suckers spent in their home pool complex. While adult white suckers moved into other habitats and could travel up to 3 km, they invariably returned to the pool where they were initially captured. Movements White sucker short-term movements had a significant diel component. While adult white suckers spent the day (Figure 7) in their home pool, they moved into adjacent riffles and runs during the night (Figure 8). This would indicate that short-term movements occur at dawn and dusk or at night. Although runs and riffles occurred at both ends of their home pool, the short-term movements of white suckers outside of their home pool were primarily upstream (86%, χ2 test, P < .001). Relatively few adult white suckers exhibited short term downstream movements (14%) and these seemed to be associated with high flow events. In the spring, adult white suckers made their most extensive movements. Of the eight suckers tracked in the spring, 5 made substantial upstream movements of up to 3 km. However, 3 adult suckers did not move beyond the riffles just upstream of their home pool, indicating that extensive movements did not occur every spring with every fish. Riffles Run Pool Figure 7. Daylight positions of white suckers. Riffles Run Pool Figure 8. Night positions of white suckers showing upstream movement. DISCUSSION In spite of substantial differences in the physical environment between large rivers and small streams, this study found that the habitat utilization and movements of adult white suckers were remarkably similar over a wide geographic range (Minckley 1963, Geen et al. 1966, Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011). Adult white suckers in Cobleskill Creek primarily inhabited pools, followed by runs and riffles. A tagging study in a similar sized creek (Doe Run, Kentucky) also found white suckers were concentrated in pools (Minckley 1963). White suckers in rivers were also most highly concentrated in pools (Brown et al. 2001, Doherty et al. 2011). In streams and rivers, white sucker activity was very limited in winter greatly enhancing the percent of time spent in pools (Brown et al. 2001). While home ranges of white suckers in rivers was relatively restricted, they were much larger than that observed in this study in streams. In a similar sized creek (Doe Run, Kentucky) a mark & recapture study showed that there was a strong tendency for white suckers to remain in specific pools for relatively long periods (Minckley 1963). Riffles often limit the home ranges of stream fishes and serve as barriers to their movement (Gerking, 1953). As elsewhere (Minckley 1963, Doherty et al. 2011), this study showed that tagged white suckers generally stayed in the pool in which they were captured. Adult white suckers in the Saint John River also maintained small home ranges and strong site fidelity (Doherty et al. 2011). This study and Minckley (1963) showed that white suckers in small watersheds were much more localized in their day to day activities, than suckers in large river systems (Brown et al.
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]
  • Options for Selectively Controlling Non-Indigenous Fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin
    Options for Selectively Controlling Non-Indigenous Fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin Draft Report June 1995 Leo D. Lentsch Native Fish and Herptile Coordinator Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Robert Muth Larval Fish Lab Colorado State University Paul D. Thompson Native Fish Biologist Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Dr. Todd A. Crowl Utah State University and Brian G. Hoskins Native Fish Technician Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Colorado River Fishery Project Salt Lake City, Utah TABLE OP CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT .......................... INTRODUCTION ...................... Non-Indigenous Problems ..... Objectives ................... Control Options ............. Mechanical Control ..... Chemical Control ....... Biological Control ..... Physicochemical Control METHODS .......................................................... Literature Review .......................................... Species Accounts ........................................... RESULTS .......................................................... Species Accounts ........................................... Clupeidae-Herrings ................................... Threadfin Shad .................................. Cyprinidae-Carps and Minnows ........................ Red Shiner ...................................... Common Carp ..................................... Utah Chub ........................................ Leathers ide Chub ................................ Brassy Minnow ................................... Plains Minnow
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Selection of Robust Redhorse Moxostoma Robustum
    HABITAT SELECTION OF ROBUST REDHORSE MOXOSTOMA ROBUSTUM : IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS by DIARRA LEMUEL MOSLEY (Under the Direction of Cecil A. Jennings) ABSTRACT Robust Redhorse, described originally in 1870, went unnoticed until 1991 when they were rediscovered in the lower Oconee River, Georgia. This research evaluated one hypothesis (habitat use) for explaining the absence of juveniles (30 mm – 410 mm TL) from samples of wild-caught robust redhorse. Two mesocosms were used to determine if juvenile robust redhorse use available habitats proportionately. Pond-reared juveniles were exposed to four, flow-based habitats (eddies = - 0.12 to -0.01 m/s, slow flow = 0.00 to 0.15 m/s, moderate flow = 0.16 to 0.32 m/s, and backwaters). Location data were recorded for each fish, and overall habitat use was evaluated with a Log-Linear Model. In winter, the fish preferred eddies and backwaters. In early spring the fish preferred eddies. Catch of wild juveniles may be improved by sampling eddies and their associated transitional areas. INDEX WORDS: backwaters, catostomid, eddies, habitat selection, juvenile fish, mesocosm, Moxostoma robustum, Oconee River, robust redhorse HABITAT SELECTION OF ROBUST REDHORSE MOXOSTOMA ROBUSTUM : IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS by DIARRA LEMUEL MOSLEY BSFR, University of Georgia, 1998 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2006 © 2006 Diarra Lemuel Mosley All Rights Reserved HABITAT SELECTION OF ROBUST REDHORSE MOXOSTOMA ROBUSTUM : IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS by DIARRA LEMUEL MOSLEY Major Professor: Cecil A.
    [Show full text]
  • Threats, Conservation Strategies, and Prognosis for Suckers (Catostomidae) in North America: Insights from Regional Case Studies of a Diverse Family of Non-Game fishes
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 317–331 www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Review Threats, conservation strategies, and prognosis for suckers (Catostomidae) in North America: insights from regional case studies of a diverse family of non-game fishes Steven J. Cooke a,b,*,1, Christopher M. Bunt c, Steven J. Hamilton d, Cecil A. Jennings e, Michael P. Pearson f, Michael S. Cooperman g, Douglas F. Markle g a Department of Forest Sciences, Centre for Applied Conservation Research, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 b Centre for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820, USA c Biotactic Inc., 691 Hidden Valley Rd., Kitchener, Ont., Canada N2C 2S4 d Yankton Field Research Station, Columbia Environmental Research Center, United States Geological Survey, Yankton, SD 57078, USA e United States Geological Survey, Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA f Fisheries Centre and Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 g Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA Received 10 December 2003; received in revised form 6 May 2004; accepted 18 May 2004 Abstract Catostomid fishes are a diverse family of 76+ freshwater species that are distributed across North America in many different habitats. This group of fish is facing a variety of impacts and conservation issues that are somewhat unique relative to more economically valuable and heavily managed fish species. Here, we present a brief series of case studies to highlight the threats such as migration barriers, flow regulation, environmental contamination, habitat degradation, exploitation and impacts from introduced (non-native) species that are facing catostomids in different regions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Dissolved Organic Carbon on Pathways of Energy Flow, Resource Availability, and Consumer Biomass in Nutrient-Poor Boreal Lakes
    The effects of dissolved organic carbon on pathways of energy flow, resource availability, and consumer biomass in nutrient-poor boreal lakes By Joseph Tonin A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba In partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Science Department of Entomology University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba Copyright © 2019 by Joseph Tonin i Abstract Over the past few decades, terrestrially derived dissolved organic carbon (DOC) has been recognized as a fundamental driver of food web productivity in nutrient poor lakes. The mechanisms that underlie these effects remain poorly understood, particularly for higher trophic levels including zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish. In a survey of eight lakes in northwestern Ontario, I determined consumer biomass and used stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen to investigate relationships between DOC and pathways of energy flow, resource and habitat availability, and consumer biomass. Using Bayesian stable isotope mixing models, I found that hypolimnetic phytoplankton were an important resource for zooplankton in low-DOC lakes. With increased DOC concentrations, light attenuation increased and chlorophyll a concentrations below the thermocline were reduced relative to epilimnetic concentrations. At higher DOC concentrations, zooplankton acquired proportionately more energy from low quality terrestrial sources. Zooplankton biomass also declined with increasing utilization of terrestrial sources (allochthony), suggesting that terrestrial organic matter suppresses zooplankton productivity through simultaneous limitations on habitat and resource availability and quality. Based on biomass, the dominant fish species across my study lakes was White Sucker (Catostomus commersonnii). Bayesian mixing models indicated that allochthony by White Suckers increased with DOC and that greater allochthony was related to lower White Sucker biomass measured as catch-per-unit-effort (bCPUE).
    [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]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • Iowa Fishing Regulations
    www.iowadnr.gov/fishing 1 Contents What’s New? Be a Responsible Angler .....................................3 • Mississippi River walleye length limit License & Permit Requirements ..........................3 changes - length limits in Mississippi Threatened & Endangered Species ....................4 River Pools 12-20 now include the entire Health Benefits of Eating Fish .............................4 Mississippi River in Iowa (p. 12). General Fishing Regulations ...............................5 • Missouri River paddlefish season start Fishing Seasons & Limits ....................................9 date changed to Feb. 1 (p. 11) Fish Identification...............................................14 • Virtual fishing tournaments added to License Agreements with Bordering States .......16 Iowa DNR special events applications Health Advisories for Eating Fish.......................17 - the definition of fishing tournaments now Aquatic Invasive Species...................................18 includes virtual fishing tournaments (p. 6) Fisheries Offices Phone Numbers .....................20 First Fish & Master Angler Awards ....................21 Conservation Officers Phone Numbers .............23 License and Permit Fees License/Permit Resident Nonresident On Sale Dec. 15, 2020 On Sale Jan. 1, 2021 Annual 16 years old and older $22.00 $48.00 3-Year $62.00 Not Available 7-Day $15.50 $37.50 3-Day Not Available $20.50 1-Day $10.50 $12.00 Annual Third Line Fishing Permit $14.00 $14.00 Trout Fee $14.50 $17.50 Lifetime (65 years old and older) $61.50 Not Available Boundary Water Sport Trotline $26.00 $49.50 Fishing Tournament Permit $25.00 $25.00 Fishing, Hunting, Habitat Fee Combo $55.00 Not Available Paddlefish Fishing License & Tag $25.50 $49.00 Give your kids a lifetime of BIG memories The COVID-19 pandemic ignited Iowans’ pent-up passion to get out and enjoy the outdoors.
    [Show full text]
  • Quick ID Features for Bait Fish [Pdf]
    OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Quick ID Features for Baitfish DEALER EDITION PUB 5487-D Quick ID Features for Baitfish TABLE OF CONTENTS Common Bait Fish-At a Glance ................................03 Sliver Carp and Bighead Carp ..................................18 Common Minnows: Family Cyprinidae .....................04 Grass Carp and Black Carp ......................................19 Suckers: Family Catostomidae .................................05 Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, and Golden Shiner ............20 Gizzard Shad: Family Clupeidae ..............................06 Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, Mooneye, and Goldeye .......21 Skipjack Herring: Family Clupeidae .........................07 Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, and Skipjack Herring ..........22 Smelt (Rainbow): Family Osmeridae ........................08 Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, and Gizzard Shad ..............23 Brook Silverside: Family Atherinidae .........................09 Bowfin, Burbot, and Snakehead ...............................24 Brook Stickleback: Family Gasterosteidae .................10 Blackstripe Topminnow and Northern Studfish ..........25 Trout-Perch: Family Percopsidae .............................11 Mottled Sculpin, Tubenose Goby, and Round Goby ....26 Sculpins: Family Cottidae .......................................12 Yellow Perch, White Bass, and Eurasian Ruffe .............27 Darters: Family Percidae ........................................13 White Bass, White Perch, and Freshwater Drum ..........28 Blackstripe Topminnow: Family
    [Show full text]
  • Longnose Sucker & Endangered Species Catostomus Catostomus
    Natural Heritage Longnose Sucker & Endangered Species Catostomus catostomus Program State Status: Special Concern www.mass.gov/nhesp Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Longnose Suckers are torpedo-shaped fish with a snout that extends beyond the subterminal mouth. They can grow to over 500 mm (~20 in.); however in New England they are generally smaller. They are silvery-gray to yellowish in color and sometimes have darker blotches or saddles along their sides. During the breeding season they will have a red lateral stripe and tubercles (pimple-like bumps) on their head and fins. Illustration by Laszlo Meszoly, from Hartel et al. 2002. SIMILAR SPECIES: Longnose Suckers and White Inland Fishes of Massachusetts. Suckers (Catostomus commersoni) can be easily confused. Longnose Suckers have finer scales and have HABITAT: In Massachusetts, Longnose Suckers are 85 lateral line scales, compared to 75 for White Suckers. found mainly in cool upper sections of streams and The lateral line pores can sometimes be easily seen in rivers with rocky substrates. They are only found in the the Longnose Sucker whereas in the White Sucker the western part of the State, specifically in the Deerfield, pores are not visible. In the Longnose Sucker, the lower Housatonic, Hoosic, and Westfield watersheds. In other lips look like two square flaps, whereas in the White parts of their range they are found in lakes and have been Sucker the lower lips are more tapered. found as deep as 600 ft. LIFE HISTORY: Longnose Suckers reach maturity at around 5 to 7 years of age, or 130-400 mm (~5 to ~16 in.) in length.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Selection and Spatiotemporal Patterns of Movement in a Fluvial Population of White Sucker (Catostomus Commersoni)
    Approved and recommended for acceptance as a thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. Special committee directing the thesis work of Jeremy Michael Shiflet __________________________________________ Thesis Co-Advisor Date __________________________________________ Thesis Co-Advisor Date __________________________________________ Member Date __________________________________________ Academic Unit Head Date Received by The Graduate School ______________ Date Habitat Selection and Spatiotemporal Patterns of Movement in a Fluvial Population of White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni) Jeremy Michael Shiflet A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Biology May 2008 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Mr. Mark Hudy for the support and belief in me that has helped get me to this stage in my personal life and professional career. Mark gave me the opportunity to begin my professional career earlier than most students and has provided meaningful guidance and instruction throughout the six years we have known each other. I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Reid Harris and Dr. Jon Kastendiek. I appreciate the willingness they showed at all times to be of whatever help I needed. Dr. Corey Cleland took the time to show me the basics of tying surgical knots. His assistance is much appreciated. Dr. Samantha Bates Prins was an enormous help. She was more than willing to assist with my statistics and I am very grateful for the time she took to sit and explain to me the mythical world of statistics. This project would not have been possible without the support of Rainbow Hill Farms, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Notes U.S
    TECHNICAL NOTES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WYOMING SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Biology No. 308 January 1986 Subject: LONGNOSE SUCKER* General The longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) is the most widespread sucker in the North and is found in large numbers in most clear, cold waters. The species occurs throughout Canada and Alaska and south to western Maryland, north to Minnesota, west and north through northern Colorado and through Washington in the U.S.A. It occurs in arctic drainages of eastern Siberia and North America, but is not found in the arctic islands or in insular Newfoundland. Sporadic populations occur farther south where it appears as a glacial relict or semirelict population; but, in general, longnose suckers probably do not occur south of 400 north latitude, except in West Virginia. The longnose sucker has been reported to hybridize with the mountain sucker, C. platyrhynchus end with the white sucker, C. commersoni. Dwarf forms of the longnose sucker, which ere often late-spawning, have been considered separate subspecies (C. c. nannomyzon in the East and C. c. pocatello in Idaho and Montana) Age, Growth, and Food In the northern part of its range, the longnose sucker reaches maturity at ages IV to VII, usually IV to V for males and V to VI for females. In Colorado, maturity occurs at age III for males and age IV for females. Prepared by: Richard Rintamaki, State Biologist *Information taken from Ecoregion M3113 Handbook and Habitat Suitability Index Models, Wildlife Species Narratives (literature searches), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, various dates between 1978- 1984.
    [Show full text]