DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents ATUR F N AL O R T E N S E O U M R T C R E A S STATE OF MICHIGAN P E DNR D M ICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Michigan State Forest Management Plan Approved April 10, 2008 FOREST, MINERAL, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT and WILDLIFE DIVISIONS www.michigan.gov/dnr/ This page was intentionally left blank. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOREST, MINERAL, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT and WILDLIFE DIVISIONS April 10, 2008 Michigan State Forest Management Plan David L. Price, Editor MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) MISSION STATEMENT “The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the State’s natural resources for current and future generations.” NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (NRC) STATEMENT The Natural Resources Commission, as the governing body for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, provides a strategic framework for the DNR to effectively manage your resources. The NRC holds monthly, public meetings throughout Michigan, working closely with its constituencies in establishing and improving natural resources management policy. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NON DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write: HUMAN RESOURCES Or MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS Or OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CADILLAC PLACE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PO BOX 30028 3054 W. GRAND BLVD., SUITE 3-600 4040 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE LANSING MI 48909-7528 DETROIT MI 48202 ARLINGTON VA 22203 ATUR F N AL O R T E For information or assistance on this publication, contact the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, S N E O U M R T C Fisheries Division, PO BOX 30446, LANSING, MI 48909, or call 517-373-1280. R E A S P E DNR D TTY/TDD: 711 (Michigan Relay Center) M ICHIGAN Suggested Citation Format Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Michigan state forest management plan. D.L. Price, editor. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division and Wildlife Division, Lansing. ii Michigan State Forest Management Plan April 10, 2008 Table of Contents List of Figures ...........................................................................................................vii List of Tables ........................................................................................................... viii List of Appendices...................................................................................................... x Preface and Acknowledgements................................................................................xi Executive Summary..................................................................................................xii Components of the State Forest Management Plan .................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Use of the Plan......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Organization and Relationship to other Plans ....................................................... 3 1.3 DNR State Forestland Management System................................................................. 5 1.4 Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goals for the State Forest.............................................. 6 1.4.1 Mission and Vision for the State Forest................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Strategic Goals........................................................................................................ 7 Ecological Goals ........................................................................................................... 7 Social-Economic Goals ................................................................................................. 7 1.5 Statewide Ownerships and Management Unit Boundaries ........................................... 8 1.6 Plan Implementation and Communications ................................................................... 8 Figures................................................................................................................................. 9 Tables ................................................................................................................................11 Forest History .......................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Pre-European Settlement History (Glaciation to 1800s).............................................. 12 2.2 Post-European Settlement History (1600s to 1900) .................................................... 14 2.3 Contemporary History (1900 to the present) ............................................................... 17 Figures...............................................................................................................................21 Tables ................................................................................................................................26 Current Forest Conditions, Uses, and Trends.......................................................... 29 3.1 General Land Cover and Forest Resource Base......................................................... 30 3.1.1 Statewide Forest Conditions and Trends .............................................................. 30 3.1.2 DNR-Owned Forestland Conditions and Trends ................................................... 33 Aspen Association....................................................................................................... 34 Northern Hardwoods ................................................................................................... 34 Jack Pine..................................................................................................................... 35 Red Pine ..................................................................................................................... 36 Mixed Swamp Conifers ............................................................................................... 37 Oak Association .......................................................................................................... 37 Cedar Swamp ............................................................................................................. 38 White Pine................................................................................................................... 39 Hemlock ...................................................................................................................... 39 Lowland Hardwoods.................................................................................................... 40 Grasslands .................................................................................................................. 40 3.1.3 Timber Harvest Trends.......................................................................................... 41 Aspen .......................................................................................................................... 41 iii Michigan State Forest Management Plan April 10, 2008 Jack Pine..................................................................................................................... 42 Northern Hardwoods................................................................................................... 42 Red Pine ..................................................................................................................... 43 Oak.............................................................................................................................. 43 Minor Cover Types...................................................................................................... 43 3.2 Forest Health Conditions and Trends.......................................................................... 44 3.2.1 Cervid Herbivory.................................................................................................... 45 3.2.2 Emerald Ash Borer ................................................................................................ 46 Quarantine Considerations ......................................................................................... 47 3.2.3 Beech Bark Disease.............................................................................................. 47 3.2.4 Eastern Larch Beetle and Larch Caseborer .......................................................... 48 3.2.5 Gypsy Moth ........................................................................................................... 48 3.2.6 Oak Wilt................................................................................................................. 48 3.2.7 Red-Headed Pine Sawfly ...................................................................................... 49 3.2.8 Jack Pine Budworm............................................................................................... 49
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [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]
  • Endangered Species
    Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Endangered species From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Main page Contents For other uses, see Endangered species (disambiguation). Featured content "Endangered" redirects here. For other uses, see Endangered (disambiguation). Current events An endangered species is a species which has been categorized as likely to become Random article Conservation status extinct . Endangered (EN), as categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Donate to Wikipedia by IUCN Red List category Wikipedia store Nature (IUCN) Red List, is the second most severe conservation status for wild populations in the IUCN's schema after Critically Endangered (CR). Interaction In 2012, the IUCN Red List featured 3079 animal and 2655 plant species as endangered (EN) Help worldwide.[1] The figures for 1998 were, respectively, 1102 and 1197. About Wikipedia Community portal Many nations have laws that protect conservation-reliant species: for example, forbidding Recent changes hunting , restricting land development or creating preserves. Population numbers, trends and Contact page species' conservation status can be found in the lists of organisms by population. Tools Extinct Contents [hide] What links here Extinct (EX) (list) 1 Conservation status Related changes Extinct in the Wild (EW) (list) 2 IUCN Red List Upload file [7] Threatened Special pages 2.1 Criteria for 'Endangered (EN)' Critically Endangered (CR) (list) Permanent link 3 Endangered species in the United
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(S): Noel M
    Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(s): Noel M. Burkhead Source: BioScience, 62(9):798-808. 2012. Published By: American Institute of Biological Sciences URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.5 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Articles Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 NOEL M. BURKHEAD Widespread evidence shows that the modern rates of extinction in many plants and animals exceed background rates in the fossil record. In the present article, I investigate this issue with regard to North American freshwater fishes. From 1898 to 2006, 57 taxa became extinct, and three distinct populations were extirpated from the continent. Since 1989, the numbers of extinct North American fishes have increased by 25%. From the end of the nineteenth century to the present, modern extinctions varied by decade but significantly increased after 1950 (post-1950s mean = 7.5 extinct taxa per decade).
    [Show full text]
  • 2002-Nanfa-Conventio
    Winter (Feb.) 2003 American Currents 10 Great Lakes, Great People, Great Memories: A Report from the 2002 NANFA Convention in Ann Arbor, Michigan Christopher Scharpf 1107 Argonne Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218 [email protected] have a favorite memory from every NANFA “Hey, how did this get in here?”I asked Leo Long, who, Convention I’ve attended. In Chattanooga, it was first along with Bob Muller, co-organized the Ann Arbor meeting setting eyes on the woman who would later become my (with the help of several others, acknowledged below. I should I wife, Stephanie. In Champaign-Urbana, it was seining also mention that NANFA shared the display cabinet with for darters with Dr. Darter himself, Larry Page. In Jackson, Leo’s exquisite wood carving of a shoal of bluespotted sunfish.) it was simply getting there after our Jeep had broken down in “That was Dr. Smith’s idea,” Leo answered. the aptly named Ft. Payne, Alabama. In Hocking Hills, Ohio, Later that evening I thanked Dr. Smith for including it was the surprise party in celebration of my 40th birthday. NANFA in the Great Lakes exhibit. (Just so you know, Dr. Last year in Ann Arbor my favorite memory was this: Smith is one of North America’s most active ichthyologists, A small group of us had arrived at the University of an expert on fossil fishes, zoogeography and suckers, and Michigan Museum of Zoology and had gathered in the curator of the University of Michigan fish collection.) What lobby, or rotunda. While we waited for Dr. Gerald Smith to prompted him, I asked, to pay NANFA this honor? arrive to unlock the door to the Museum’s cavernous fish Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda
    Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Biology Faculty Publications Biology 2016 ZOOTAXA: Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda Hisao P. Arai Pacific Biological Station John W. Smith Wilfrid Laurier University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/biol_faculty Part of the Biology Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Arai, Hisao P., and John W. Smith. Zootaxa: Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda. Magnolia Press, 2016. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Zootaxa 4185 (1): 001–274 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Monograph ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4185.1.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0D054EDD-9CDC-4D16-A8B2-F1EBBDAD6E09 ZOOTAXA 4185 Guide to the Parasites of Fishes of Canada Part V: Nematoda HISAO P. ARAI3, 5 & JOHN W. SMITH4 3Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia V9R 5K6 4Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5. E-mail: [email protected] 5Deceased Magnolia Press Auckland, New Zealand Accepted by K. DAVIES (Initially edited by M.D.B. BURT & D.F. McALPINE): 5 Apr. 2016; published: 8 Nov. 2016 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 HISAO P. ARAI & JOHN W.
    [Show full text]
  • Coregonus Nigripinnis) in Northern Algonquin Provincial Park
    HABITAT PREFERENCES AND FEEDING ECOLOGY OF BLACKFIN CISCO (COREGONUS NIGRIPINNIS) IN NORTHERN ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Faculty of Arts and Science Trent University Peterborough, Ontario, Canada © Copyright by Allan Henry Miller Bell 2017 Environmental and Life Sciences M.Sc. Graduate Program September 2017 ABSTRACT Depth Distribution and Feeding Structure Differentiation of Blackfin Cisco (Coregonus nigripinnis) In Northern Algonquin Provincial Park Allan Henry Miller Bell Blackfin Cisco (Coregonus nigripinnis), a deepwater cisco species once endemic to the Laurentian Great Lakes, was discovered in Algonquin Provincial Park in four lakes situated within a drainage outflow of glacial Lake Algonquin. Blackfin habitat preference was examined by analyzing which covariates best described their depth distribution using hurdle models in a multi-model approach. Although depth best described their distribution, the nearly isothermal hypolimnion in which Blackfin reside indicated a preference for cold-water habitat. Feeding structure differentiation separated Blackfin from other coregonines, with Blackfin possessing the most numerous (50-66) gill rakers, and, via allometric regression, the longest gill rakers and lower gill arches. Selection for feeding efficiency may be a result of Mysis diluviana affecting planktonic size structure in lakes containing Blackfin Cisco, an effect also discovered in Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). This thesis provides insight into the habitat preferences and feeding ecology of Blackfin and provides a basis for future study. Keywords: Blackfin Cisco, Lake Whitefish, coregonine, Mysis, habitat, feeding ecology, hurdle models, allometric regression, Algonquin Provincial Park ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes and Decapod Crustaceans of the Great Lakes Basin
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267883780 Ichthyofauna of the Great Lakes Basin Conference Paper · September 2011 CITATIONS READS 0 26 5 authors, including: Brian M. Roth Nicholas Mandrak Michigan State University University of Toronto 33 PUBLICATIONS 389 CITATIONS 173 PUBLICATIONS 2,427 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Greg G Sass Thomas Hrabik Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources University of Minnesota Duluth 95 PUBLICATIONS 796 CITATIONS 68 PUBLICATIONS 1,510 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Ecological Grass Carp Risk Assessment for the Great Lakes Basin View project All content following this page was uploaded by Greg G Sass on 14 September 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Fishes and Decapod Crustaceans of the Great Lakes Basin Brian M. Roth, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Th omas R. Hrabik, Greg G. Sass, and Jody Peters The primary goal of the first edition of this chapter (Coon 1994) was to provide an overview of the Laurentian Great Lakes fish community and its origins. For this edition, we have taken a slightly diff erent approach. Although we have updated the checklist of fishes in each of the Great Lakes and their watersheds, we also include a checklist of decapod crustaceans. Our decision to include decapods derives from the lack of such a list for the Great Lakes in the literature and the importance of decapods (in particular, crayfishes) for the ecology and biodiversity of streams and lakes in the Great Lakes region (Lodge et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    ATUR F N AL O R T E N S E O U M R T C R E A S STATE OF MICHIGAN P E DNR D M ICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Michigan State Forest Management Plan 2008 DRAFT FOREST, MINERAL, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT and WILDLIFE DIVISIONS www.michigan.gov/dnr/ This page was intentionally left blank. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOREST, MINERAL, AND FIRE MANAGEMENT and WILDLIFE DIVISIONS DRAFT January 2008 Michigan State Forest Management Plan David L. Price, Editor MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) MISSION STATEMENT “The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the State’s natural resources for current and future generations.” NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (NRC) STATEMENT The Natural Resources Commission, as the governing body for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, provides a strategic framework for the DNR to effectively manage your resources. The NRC holds monthly, public meetings throughout Michigan, working closely with its constituencies in establishing and improving natural resources management policy. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NON DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire additional information, please write: HUMAN RESOURCES Or MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS Or OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CADILLAC PLACE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PO BOX 30028 3054 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 19002010
    Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(s): Noel M. Burkhead Reviewed work(s): Source: BioScience, Vol. 62, No. 9 (September 2012), pp. 798-808 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.5 . Accessed: 21/09/2012 12:59 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience. http://www.jstor.org Articles Articles Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 NOEL M. BURKHEAD Widespread evidence shows that the modern rates of extinction in many plants and animals exceed background rates in the fossil record. In the present article, I investigate this issue with regard to North American freshwater fishes. From 1898 to 2006, 57 taxa became extinct, and three distinct populations were extirpated from the continent. Since 1989, the numbers of extinct North American fishes have increased by 25%. From the end of the nineteenth century to the present, modern extinctions varied by decade but significantly increased after 1950 (post-1950s mean = 7.5 extinct taxa per decade).
    [Show full text]
  • Call Numbers for Salmonidae
    CALL NUMBERS FOR SALMONIDAE Use this chart for the special breakdown of QL638.S2. The names in boldface represent authorized Library of Congress subject headings. Works on ciscoes, salmon, trout, and whitefish using these common names but covering species within one genus will be classed under the specific genus. Made-up example: Title: Guide to trouts. Subjects: Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), and Apache trout (O. apache). Class under: Oncorhynchus (.S25) Works on ciscoes, salmon, trout, and whitefish covering species which belong to more than one genus but which fall collectively under one of these common names will be classed under the Cutter for the common name. Made-up example: Title: Guide to trouts. Subjects: Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Class under: “trout” (.S216) The fishes are arranged by scientific (Latin) nomenclature. Only the most current standard scientific (Latin) name is given. Obsolete and debated scientific names are numerous. Adjustments to taxonomical classification are not uncommon, including reclassification to a different genus. The previous or alternative versions of common (vernacular) names are shown. Be aware that some market names (those used commercially) are scientifically incorrect. For brevity, this table excludes some species and races, particularly under Coregonus and Salvelinus. ARLIS Call Numbers for Salmonidae under QL638 Salmonidae Salmonidae (in general or two or more genuses) .S2 Coregonidae
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]