DOCSLIB.ORG

Year 1 Report for 'Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Year 1 Report for 'Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, And Year 1 report for ‘Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need’ PI – Dean A. Hendrickson, Curator of Ichthyology, University of Texas Austin, Department of Integrative Biology, Biodiversity Collections (Texas Natural History Collections - TNHC), 10100 Burnet Rd., PRC176EAST/R4000, Austin, Texas 78758-4445; tel: 512-471-9774; email: [email protected]; co-authors - Gary P. Garrett; Ben J. Labay; Adam E. Cohen, Melissa Casarez (all same affiliation as PI) TPWD Project Leader: Timothy Birdsong, Habitat Conservation Branch – Inland Fisheries Division, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744. [email protected]. Phone 512 389-4744. Funded by: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant Program, grant TX T-106-1 (CFDA# 15.634) Contract/Project Number: Contract No. 459125 UTA14-001402 Reporting Period: September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2015 Submitted: December 31, 2015 Hendrickson et al. 2015. Year 1 State Wildlife Grant report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vii Activity 1. Coordinate and Facilitate Science and Conservation Actions for Conserving Texas Biodiversity ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Year 1 Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Expand and strengthen UT-TPWD coordination. .............................................................................. 1 2. Establish the collaborative relationship between UT and TPWD ..................................................... 1 3. Provide data-supported recommendations to TPWD for fishes in the anticipated updates to the Texas Conservation Action Plan (supports activities 2, 3 and 4). ......................................................... 1 4. Integrate specimens, datasets and feedback from resource managers and other FoTX stakeholders to increase overall size of FoTX database, especially with newer records, and facilitate improved data flow between FoTX and TPWD. ............................................................................................................ 1 5. Continue cleaning and normalizing FoTX Project online database records...................................... 4 Activity 2. Identify Priority Geographic Management Units for Conserving Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Year 1 Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Identify and propose Native Fish Conservation Areas for the portions of Texas where spatial prioritization analysis has not yet been conducted. ............................................................................. 5 2. New species distribution models for SGCN taxa ............................................................................... 6 3. Prioritization assessment for SGCN fishes in Texas .......................................................................... 6 4. Native Fish Conservation Areas ........................................................................................................ 8 Activity 3. Develop Monitoring and Conservation Plans for Native Fish Conservation Areas .................... 10 Year 1 Outcomes ..................................................................................................................................... 10 1. Monitoring and conservation plans for Native Fish Conservation Areas ....................................... 10 Activity 4. Conduct Field-Based Surveys Detailed Biodiversity Assessments (i.e. Bioblitzing), and Citizen-Based Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Year 1 Outcomes ..................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1. Field-Based Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 14 Fish sampling in under-sampled areas indicated by FoTX database analyses .................................... 14 4 .2 . Detailed Biodiversity Assessments (i.e., Bioblitzing) ................................................................... 16 Bioblitz within the Nueces River headwaters ..................................................................................... 16 Bioblitz within the Big Cypress Creek basin ........................................................................................ 16 Bioblitz within the Village Creek basin ................................................................................................ 17 4.3 Citizen-Based Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 17 Develop guidelines and best practices for citizen-based monitoring to ensure that data are provided in a format that supports species identification, scientists trained to use iNaturalist and in fish ID. ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Annual report for Texas Parks and Wildlife / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant TX T-106-1 (CFDA# 15.634) Contract/Project No. 459125 UTA14-001402 Page i Hendrickson et al. 2015. Year 1 State Wildlife Grant report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need Promote citizen-based monitoring via iNaturalist forums, expert workshops, Master Naturalists, etc. ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Develop a fact sheet with guidance on processing photographic observations into iNaturalist. ...... 21 Provide identification verification and other recommendations on data provided through online collaboration with iNaturalist users .................................................................................................... 23 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix 1 - Species of Greatest Conservation Need – updated ............................................................... 25 Appendix 2 - Conservation Plans for Great Plains NFCAs ........................................................................... 55 Conservation Activities and Monitoring Guidelines for the Southern Plains Native Fish Conservation Areas ....................................................................................................................................................... 55 Objective 1: Protect and maintain intact, healthy habitats ................................................................ 55 Objective 2: Restore impacted habitats.............................................................................................. 56 Objective 3: Restore stream and habitat connectivity ....................................................................... 57 Objective 4: Mitigate effects of invasive species ................................................................................ 57 Objective 5: Organize networks of public and private landowners .................................................... 57 Objective 6: Develop conservation demonstration areas .................................................................. 57 Objective 7: Conduct research to fill critical information gaps .......................................................... 58 Objective 8: Adaptive management and reporting ............................................................................ 58 Fishes of the (upper) Brazos River NFCA................................................................................................. 59 Macrhybopsis hyostoma ..................................................................................................................... 60 Notropis buccula ................................................................................................................................. 60 Notropis oxyrhynchus ......................................................................................................................... 61 Notropis potteri .................................................................................................................................. 62 Notropis shumardi .............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notropis Girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis Tetranema)
    Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Species Status Assessment Report for the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) Arkansas River shiner (bottom left) and peppered chub (top right - two fish) (Photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Version 1.0a October 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Albuquerque, NM This document was prepared by Angela Anders, Jennifer Smith-Castro, Peter Burck (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Southwest Regional Office) Robert Allen, Debra Bills, Omar Bocanegra, Sean Edwards, Valerie Morgan (USFWS –Arlington, Texas Field Office), Ken Collins, Patricia Echo-Hawk, Daniel Fenner, Jonathan Fisher, Laurence Levesque, Jonna Polk (USFWS – Oklahoma Field Office), Stephen Davenport (USFWS – New Mexico Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office), Mark Horner, Susan Millsap (USFWS – New Mexico Field Office), Jonathan JaKa (USFWS – Headquarters), Jason Luginbill, and Vernon Tabor (Kansas Field Office). Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Species status assessment report for the Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), version 1.0, with appendices. October 2018. Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION (CHAPTER 1) The Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) are restricted primarily to the contiguous river segments of the South Canadian River basin spanning eastern New Mexico downstream to eastern Oklahoma (although the peppered chub is less widespread). Both species have experienced substantial declines in distribution and abundance due to habitat destruction and modification from stream dewatering or depletion from diversion of surface water and groundwater pumping, construction of impoundments, and water quality degradation.
    [Show full text]
  • Clear Creek Gambusia Scientific Name: Gambusia Heterochir Federal Status: Endangered, 3/11/67 • State Status: Endangered
    Clear Creek Gambusia Scientific Name: Gambusia heterochir Federal Status: Endangered, 3/11/67 • State Status: Endangered Description greater temperature fluctuations. tolerant of variable water tempera- The Clear Creek gambusia is a small, This habitat is less suitable for the tures. These eurythermal (wide tem- stocky fish, about 1.2 to 1.3 inches in spring-dwelling Clear Creek gambu- perature tolerance) organisms soon length, with a metallic sheen. Scat- sia, and more suitable for the western overwhelmed the springrun animals tered dark markings on some scales mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), a that were not isolated upstream from form distinctive crescent-shaped pat- major competitor. the first dam (Dam 1). terns. Unlike some other Gambusia Since the only habitat for the species, this fish has no speckling on Life History Clear Creek gambusia exists upstream the tail or yellow pigment on the dor- The Clear Creek gambusia is vivipa- from Dam 1, this dam is vital for pro- sal or anal fins. Females have a pro- rous (bears living young). Once fer- tecting an environment isolated from nounced anal spot, especially when tilized, females can store sperm for invasion by the western mosquitofish. pregnant, and males have a deep several months, and they may pro- In 1979, Dam 1 was in serious disre- notch at the top of the pectoral fin. duce several broods of young from pair due to age, the effects of tunnel- Like other live-bearers, the male’s March through September. Factors ing by nutria (a large introduced anal fin is modified into a tube-like such as day length, temperature, and rodent), and the expansion of root structure called a gonopodium for food availability have been shown to systems of trees.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Western Mosquitofish, Gambusia Affinis (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae): New Distributional Records for Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma
    42 Salsuginus seculus (Monogenoidea: Dactylogyrida: Ancyrocephalidae) from the Western Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae): New distributional records for Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma Chris T. McAllister Science and Mathematics Division, Eastern Oklahoma State College, Idabel, OK 74745 Donald G. Cloutman P. O. Box 197, Burdett, KS 67523 Henry W. Robison Department of Biology, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 71754 Studies on fish monogeneans in Oklahoma and S. fundulus (Mizelle) Murith and Beverley- are relatively uncommon (Seamster 1937, 1938, Burton in Northern Studfish,Fundulus catenatus 1960; Mizelle 1938; Monaco and Mizelle 1955; (McAllister et al. 2015, 2016). In Kansas, a McDaniel 1963; McDaniel and Bailey 1966; single species, S. thalkeni Janovy, Ruhnke, and Wheeler and Beverley-Burton 1989) with little Wheeler (syn. S. fundulus) has been reported or no published work in the past two decades from Northern Plains Killifish,Fundulus kansae or more. Members of the ancyrocephalid (see Janovy et al. 1989). Here, we report genus Salsuginus (Beverley-Burton) Murith new distributional records for a species of and Beverley-Burton have been reported Salsuginus in Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma. from various fundulid fishes including those from Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, During June 1983 (Kansas only) and again Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, and Texas, between April 2014 and September 2015, and Newfoundland and Ontario, Canada, 36 Western Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis and the Bahama Islands; additionally, two were collected by dipnet, seine (3.7 m, 1.6 species have been reported from the Western mm mesh) or backpack electrofisher from Big Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis (Poeciliidae) Spring at Spring Mill, Independence County, from California, Louisiana, and Texas, and Arkansas (n = 4; 35.828152°N, 91.724273°W), the Bahama Islands (see Hoffman 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub
    1 RFP No. 212f for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub Final Report Contributing authors: David S. Ruppel, V. Alex Sotola, Ozlem Ablak Gurbuz, Noland H. Martin, and Timothy H. Bonner Addresses: Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 (DSR, VAS, NHM, THB) Kirkkonaklar Anatolian High School, Turkish Ministry of Education, Ankara, Turkey (OAG) Principal investigators: Timothy H. Bonner and Noland H. Martin Email: [email protected], [email protected] Date: July 31, 2017 Style: American Fisheries Society Funding sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Turkish Ministry of Education- Visiting Scholar Program (OAG) Summary Four hundred mesohabitats were sampled from 36 sites and 20 reaches within the upper Red River drainage from September 2015 through September 2016. Fishes (N = 36,211) taken from the mesohabitats represented 14 families and 49 species with the most abundant species consisting of Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis, Red River Shiner Notropis bairdi, Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus, and Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. Red River Pupfish Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (a species of greatest conservation need, SGCN) and Plains Killifish Fundulus zebrinus were more abundant within prairie streams (e.g., swift and shallow runs with sand and silt substrates) with high specific conductance. Red River Shiner (SGCN), Prairie Chub Macrhybopsis australis (SGCN), and Plains Minnow were more abundant within prairie 2 streams with lower specific conductance. The remaining 44 species of fishes were more abundant in non-prairie stream habitats with shallow to deep waters, which were more common in eastern tributaries of the upper Red River drainage and Red River mainstem. Prairie Chubs comprised 1.3% of the overall fish community and were most abundant in Pease River and Wichita River.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish of Greatest Conservation Need
    APPENDIX G. FISH OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Tier Opportunity Ranking Fish Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus IV a Fish Allegheny pearl dace Margariscus margarita IV b Fish American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix IV c Fish American eel Anguilla rostrata III a Fish American shad Alosa sapidissima IV a Fish Appalachia darter Percina gymnocephala IV c Fish Ashy darter Etheostoma cinereum I b Fish Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus I b Fish Banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus IV c Fish Bigeye jumprock Moxostoma ariommum III c Fish Black sculpin Cottus baileyi IV c Fish Blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon I a Fish Blackside darter Percina maculata IV c Fish Blotched chub Erimystax insignis IV c Fish Blotchside logperch Percina burtoni II a Fish Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis IV a Fish Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum IV c Fish Blueside darter Etheostoma jessiae IV c Fish Bluestone sculpin Cottus sp. 1 III c Fish Brassy Jumprock Moxostoma sp. IV c Fish Bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus I a Fish Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IV c Fish Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis IV a Fish Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IV c Fish Candy darter Etheostoma osburni I b Fish Carolina darter Etheostoma collis II c Virginia Wildlife Action Plan 2015 APPENDIX G. FISH OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Fish Carolina fantail darter Etheostoma brevispinum IV c Fish Channel darter Percina copelandi III c Fish Clinch dace Chrosomus sp. cf. saylori I a Fish Clinch sculpin Cottus sp. 4 III c Fish Dusky darter Percina sciera IV c Fish Duskytail darter Etheostoma percnurum I a Fish Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IV c Fish Fatlips minnow Phenacobius crassilabrum II c Fish Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens III c Fish Golden Darter Etheostoma denoncourti II b Fish Greenfin darter Etheostoma chlorobranchium I b Fish Highback chub Hybopsis hypsinotus IV c Fish Highfin Shiner Notropis altipinnis IV c Fish Holston sculpin Cottus sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Plains Killifish - Fundulus Kansae Abundance: Common Status: NSS3 (Bb) Natureserve: G5 S5 Population Status: Stable
    Northern plains Killifish - Fundulus kansae Abundance: Common Status: NSS3 (Bb) NatureServe: G5 S5 Population Status: Stable. Distribution and abundance appears stable over last decade. Limiting Factor: Habitat: severe due to limited availability of shallow, sandy habitats. Comment: Changed from NSS4 to NSS3 in 2017 due to recent surveys indicating that the distribution of this species is more restricted than previously believed within native range. Introduction The northern plains killifish is native to the Great Plains region of central North America, where it ranges from southeast Montana, South Dakota, and Missouri south to Texas (Rahel and Thel 2004). Populations have been introduced in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Texas, and South Dakota (Rahel and Thel 2004). In Wyoming, northern plains killifish are indigenous to the North Platte and South Platte drainages, but are also found outside their range in the Big Horn and Cheyenne river drainages (Baxter and Stone 1995), possibly introduced by bait fisherman (Baxter and Simon 1970). Baxter and Simon (1970) reported no findings of northern plains killifish within the Powder River basin during 1964 sampling. Patton (1997) was the first to record the presence of this species in the Powder River system. Given this, they are likely not native to the Powder River drainage. Northern plains killifish are typically carnivorous, consuming a variety of insects and other aquatic invertebrates, and occasionally eat plant material and diatoms (Minckley and Klaassen 1969; Pflieger 1997; Rahel and Thel 2004). They feed at the surface, in the water column, and from the bottom substrate (Baxter and Stone 1995). Spawning takes place from May to August and may be stimulated by temperature and flow cues (Pflieger 1997; Rahel and Thel 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters a Method and Its Rationale
    Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R. Karr Kurt D. Fausch Paul L. Angermeier Philip R. Yant Isaac J. Schlosser Jordan Creek ---------------- ] Excellent !:: ~~~~~~~~~;~~;~~ ~ :: ,. JPoor --------------- 111 1C tE 2A 28 20 3A SO 3E 4A 48 4C 40 4E Station Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5 September 1986 Printed by authority of the State of Illinois Illinois Natural History Survey 172 Natural Resources Building 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 The Illinois Natural History Survey is pleased to publish this report and make it available to a wide variety of potential users. The Survey endorses the concepts from which the Index of Biotic Integrity was developed but cautions, as the authors are careful to indicate, that details must be tailored to lit the geographic region in which the Index is to be used. Glen C. Sanderson, Chair, Publications Committee, Illinois Natural History Survey R. Weldon Larimore of the Illinois Natural History Survey took the cover photos, which show two reaches ofJordan Creek in east-central Illinois-an undisturbed site and a site that shows the effects of grazing and agricultural activity. Current affiliations of the authors are listed below: James R. Karr, Deputy Director, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama Kurt D. Fausch, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins Paul L. Angermeier, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg Philip R. Yant, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Isaac J. Schlosser, Department of Biology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks VDP-1-3M-9-86 ISSN 0888-9546 Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R.
    [Show full text]
  • Dionda Diaboli), 6 with Implications for Its Conservation…………………………………
    ECOLOGICAL PROFILES FOR SELECTED STREAM-DWELLING TEXAS FRESHWATER FISHES IV A Final Report To The Texas Water Development Board Prepared by: Robert J. Edwards Department of Biology University of Texas-Pan American Edinburg, TX 78541 TWDB Contract Number: 95-483-107 30 August 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ………………………………………….…………………….. 2 Introduction 3 Scientific Publications Resulting From This TWDB Contract………...………. 3 Discovery of a New Population of Devils River Minnow (Dionda diaboli), 6 With Implications for its Conservation…………………………………. Acknowledgements………………………………………………………..………. 14 Literature Cited……………….………………………………………….……….. 14 2 Introduction A major goal of the Water Development Board's mission are its research, monitoring, and assessment programs designed to minimize the effects of water development projects on the affected native aquatic fauna and to maintain the quality and availability of instream habitats for the use of dependent aquatic resources. The instream flows necessary for the successful survival, growth and reproduction of affected aquatic life are a major concern. Unfortunately, instream flow data with respect to the ecological requirements of Texas riverine fishes are largely unknown. While some information can be found in the published literature, a substantial but unknown quantity of information is also present in various agencies and research museums around the state. In order to minimize the disruptions to the native fauna, quantitative and qualitative information concerning life histories, survival,
    [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]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [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]
  • Factors Influencing Community Structure of Riverine
    FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF RIVERINE ORGANISMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES MANAGEMENT by David S. Ruppel, M.S. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Aquatic Resources and Integrative Biology May 2019 Committee Members: Timothy H. Bonner, Chair Noland H. Martin Joseph A. Veech Kenneth G. Ostrand James A. Stoeckel COPYRIGHT by David S. Ruppel 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, David S. Ruppel, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my major advisor, Timothy H. Bonner, who has been a great mentor throughout my time at Texas State University. He has passed along his vast knowledge and has provided exceptional professional guidance and support with will benefit me immensely as I continue to pursue an academic career. I also thank my committee members Dr. Noland H. Martin, Dr. Joseph A. Veech, Dr. Kenneth G. Ostrand, and Dr. James A. Stoeckel who provided great comments on my dissertation and have helped in shaping manuscripts that will be produced in the future from each one of my chapters.
    [Show full text]