DOCSLIB.ORG

Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Environmental Setting in the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion of the Lower Tennessee River Basin, Alabama and Tennessee, 1999 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4268 National Water-Quality Assessment Program U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photographs: Background photograph is the Duck River at Osteen Bend (river mile 173.1), Marshall County, Tennessee (Photograph by Rodney Knight, USGS). Left photo is the Northern studfish— Fundulus catenatus (Photograph by Rodney Knight, USGS). Right photo is the Slackwater Darter— Etheostoma boschungi (Photograph by J.R. Shute, Conservation Fisheries, Inc. Used with permission.) Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Environmental Setting in the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion of the Lower Tennessee River Basin, Alabama and Tennessee, 1999 By Jeffrey R. Powell U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4268 Nashville, Tennessee 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale Norton, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm name in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100 Box 25286 Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 More information about the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available via the World Wide Web at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/naqwa_home.html FOREWORD The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is commit- Each assessment is guided by a nationally con- ted to serve the Nation with accurate and timely scien- sistent study design and methods of sampling and tific information that helps enhance and protect the analysis. The assessments thereby build local knowl- overall quality of life, and facilitates effective man- edge about water-quality issues and trends in a partic- agement of water, biological, energy, and mineral ular stream or aquifer while providing an resources. Information on the quality of the Nation’s understanding of how and why water quality varies water resources is of critical interest to the USGS regionally and nationally. The consistent, multi-scale because it is so integrally linked to the long-term approach helps to determine if certain types of water- availability of water that is clean and safe for drinking quality issues are isolated or pervasive, and allows and recreation and that is suitable for industry, irriga- direct comparisons of how human activities and natu- tion, and habitat for fish and wildlife. Escalating popu- ral processes affect water quality and ecological health lation growth and increasing demands for the multiple in the Nation’s diverse geographic and environmental water uses make water availability, now measured in settings. Comprehensive assessments on pesticides, terms of quantity and quality, even more critical to the nutrients, volatile organic compounds, trace metals, long-term sustainability of our communities and eco- and aquatic ecology are developed at the national systems. scale through comparative analysis of the Study-Unit findings. The USGS implemented the National Water- The USGS places high value on the communi- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to support cation and dissemination of credible, timely, and rele- national, regional, and local information needs and vant science so that the most recent and available decisions related to water-quality management and knowledge about water resources can be applied in policy. Shaped by and coordinated with ongoing management and policy decisions. We hope this efforts of other Federal, State, and local agencies, the NAWQA publication will provide you the needed NAWQA Program is designed to answer: What is the insights and information to meet your needs, and condition of our Nation’s streams and ground water? thereby foster increased awareness and involvement in How are the conditions changing over time? How do the protection and restoration of our Nation’s waters. natural features and human activities affect the quality of streams and ground water, and where are those The NAWQA Program recognizes that a effects most pronounced? By combining information national assessment by a single program cannot address all water-resource issues of interest. External on water chemistry, physical characteristics, stream coordination at all levels is critical for a fully inte- habitat, and aquatic life, the NAWQA Program aims to grated understanding of watersheds and for cost- provide science-based insights for current and emerg- effective management, regulation, and conservation of ing water issues and priorities. NAWQA results can our Nation’s water resources. The Program, therefore, contribute to informed decisions that result in practical depends extensively on the advice, cooperation, and and effective water-resource management and strate- information from other Federal, State, interstate, gies that protect and restore water quality. Tribal, and local agencies, non-government organiza- Since 1991, the NAWQA Program has imple- tions, industry, academia, and other stakeholder mented interdisciplinary assessments in more than 50 groups. The assistance and suggestions of all are of the Nation’s most important river basins and aqui- greatly appreciated. fers, referred to as Study Units. Collectively, these Study Units account for more than 60 percent of the overall water use and population served by public water supply, and are representative of the Nation’s major hydrologic landscapes, priority ecological resources, and agricultural, urban, and natural sources Robert M. Hirsch of contamination. Associate Director for Water Foreword iii CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Description of the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion .................................................................................................. 3 Physiography and Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 4 Fauna and Flora ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Historical Land Use........................................................................................................................................... 8 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Study Design.......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Sampling Methods................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Environmental Characteristics..................................................................................................................................... 10 Fish Communities........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Analytical Methods................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Environmental Characteristics..................................................................................................................................... 15 Fish Communities........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Environmental Characteristics ......................................... 17 Environmental Characteristics and Fish Communities in the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion ......................................... 17 Physical Characteristics............................................................................................................................................... 17 Variation of Natural Environmental Setting within the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion......................................... 20 Water Chemistry.......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Fish Communities........................................................................................................................................................ 24 Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Environmental Setting......................................... 26 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TDEC’S Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for  the Stream’S Status Changes
    Draft Version YEAR 2016 303(d) LIST July, 2016 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION Planning and Standards Unit Division of Water Resources William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Ave Nashville, TN 37243 Table of Contents Page Guidance for Understanding and Interpreting the Draft 303(d) List ……………………………………………………………………....... 1 2016 Public Meeting Schedule ……………………………………………………………. 8 Key to the 303(d) List ………………………………………………………………………. 9 TMDL Priorities ……………………………………………………………………………... 10 Draft 2016 303(d) List ……………………………………………………………………… 11 Barren River Watershed (TN05110002)…………………………………………. 11 Upper Cumberland Basin (TN05130101 & TN05130104)…………………….. 12 Obey River Watershed (TN05130105)…………………………………………... 14 Cordell Hull Watershed (TN05130106)………………………………………….. 16 Collins River Watershed (TN05130107)…………………………………………. 16 Caney Fork River Watershed (TN05130108)…………………………………… 18 Old Hickory Watershed (TN05130201)………………………………………….. 22 Cheatham Reservoir Watershed (TN05130202)……………………………….. 24 Stones River Watershed (TN05130203)………………………………………… 30 Harpeth River Watershed (TN05130204)……………………………………….. 35 Barkley Reservoir Watershed (TN05130205)…………………………………… 41 Red River Watershed (TN05130206)……………………………………………. 42 North Fork Holston River Watershed (TN06010101)…………………………... 45 South Fork Holston River Watershed (TN06010102)………………………….. 45 Watauga River Watershed (TN06010103)………………………………………. 53 Holston River Basin (TN06010104)………………………………………………. 56 Upper French Broad River Basin (TN06010105 & TN06010106)…………….
    [Show full text]
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield
    Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield Submitted to: Department of the Interior National Park Service Cumberland Piedmont Network By Dennis Mullen Professor of Biology Department of Biology Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 September 2006 Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) – nuptial male From Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans Photograph by D. Mullen Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………iv List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………..v Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……..2 Methods……………………………………………………………………………...3 Results……………………………………………………………………………….7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….10 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………...14 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………….15 ii List of Tables Table1: Location and physical characteristics (during September 2006, and only for the riverine sites) of sample sites for the STRI fish inventory………………………………17 Table 2: Biotic Integrity classes used in assessing fish communities along with general descriptions of their attributes (Karr et al. 1986) ………………………………………18 Table 3: List of fishes potentially occurring in aquatic habitats in and around Stones River National Battlefield………………………………………………………………..19 Table 4: Fish species list (by site) of aquatic habitats at STRI (October 2004 – August 2006). MF = McFadden’s Ford, KP = King Pond, RB = Redoubt Brannan, UP = Unnamed Pond at Redoubt Brannan, LC = Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans……...….22 Table 5: Fish Species Richness estimates for the 3 riverine reaches of STRI and a composite estimate for STRI as a whole…………………………………………………24 Table 6: Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for three stream reaches at Stones River National Battlefield during August 2005………………………………………………...25 Table 7: Temperature and water chemistry of four of the STRI sample sites for each sampling date…………………………………………………………………………….26 Table 8 : Total length estimates of specific habitat types at each riverine sample site.
    [Show full text]
  • Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/SHIL/NRR—2017/1387 ON THE COVER Bridge over the Shiloh Branch in SHIL. Photo courtesy of Robert Bird. Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/SHIL/NRR—2017/1387 Andy J. Nadeau Kevin Benck Kathy Allen Hannah Hutchins Anna Davis Andrew Robertson GeoSpatial Services Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota 890 Prairie Island Road Winona, Minnesota 55987 February 2017 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Fish\Eastern Sand Darter Sa.Wpd
    EASTERN SAND DARTER STATUS ASSESSMENT Prepared by: David Grandmaison and Joseph Mayasich Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811-1442 and David Etnier Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee 569 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1610 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111 January 2004 NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2003/40 DISCLAIMER This document is a compilation of biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future threats to the eastern sand darter, Ammocrypta pellucida (Agassiz). It does not represent a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on whether this taxon should be designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document; other relevant biological and threat data not included herein; and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The result of the decision will be posted on the Service's Region 3 Web site (refer to: http://midwest.fws.gov/eco_serv/endangrd/lists/concern.html). If designated as a candidate species, the taxon will subsequently be added to the Service's candidate species list that is periodically published in the Federal Register and posted on the World Wide Web (refer to: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html). Even if the taxon does not warrant candidate status it should benefit from the conservation recommendations that are contained in this document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER...................................................................
    [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]
  • FISHERIES REPORT: Warmwater Streams and Rivers
    FISHERIES REPORT: Warmwater Streams and Rivers Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 2015 Region IV Report 16-11 FISHERIES REPORT: Warmwater Streams and Rivers FISHERIES REPORT REPORT NO. 16-11 WARMWATER STREAM FISHERIES REPORT REGION IV 2015 Prepared by Bart D. Carter Rick D. Bivens Carl E. Williams and James W. Habera Page 1 FISHERIES REPORT: Warmwater Streams and Rivers TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY Development of this report was financed in part by funds from Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration (TWRA Project 4350) (Public Law 91-503) as documented in Federal Aid Project FW-6. This program receives Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. Cover: Lake Sturgeon find a new home in the French Broad River above Douglas Reservoir. Releases were made in the French Broad River in 2014 and 2015. Page 2 FISHERIES REPORT: Warmwater Streams and Rivers TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 4 METHODS 5 Index of Biotic Integrity Surveys: South Indian Creek 9 Long Creek 14 Turkey Creek 17 Pigeon River 22 Little River 33 North Cumberland Habitat Conservation Plan Monitoring: 45 Straight Fork Jake Branch Hudson Branch Terry Creek Stinking Creek Jennings Creek Louse Creek Special Project: 53 Tennessee Dace Distribution Survey Sport Fish Survey: French Broad River 55 Holston River 67 LITERATURE CITED 84 Page 3 FISHERIES REPORT: Warmwater Streams and Rivers INTRODUCTION The fish fauna of Tennessee is the most diverse in the United States, with approximately 307 species of native fish and about 30 to 33 introduced species (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]
  • Ruffe (Gymnocephalus Cernua) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua) Ecological Risk Screening Summary US Fish and Wildlife Service, February 2011 Revised, July 2014 Revised, June 2015 Photo: USFWS 1 Native Range, and Status in the United States Native Range From Fuller et al. (2014): “Northern Europe and Asia (Berg 1949; Holcik and Hensel 1974; Wheeler 1978; Page and Burr 1991).” Status in the United States From Fuller et al. (2014): “The ruffe was first identified by Wisconsin DNR in specimens collected from the St. Louis River at the border of Minnesota and Wisconsin in 1987 (Pratt 1988; Pratt et al. 1992; Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003). Following that report, reexamination of archived samples revealed misidentified larval specimens of ruffe had been collected from the same area in 1986 (Pratt 1988). The ruffe subsequently spread into Duluth Harbor in Lake Superior and several tributaries of the lake (Underhill 1989; Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2004; Scheidegger, pers. comm.; J. Slade, pers. comm.). It is found in the Amnicon, Flag, Iron, Middle, Raspberry, and Bad rivers, Chequamegon Bay, and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin (Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004; Tilmant 1999). In August 1994, it was found in Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin, and in the upper peninsula of Michigan at the mouths of the Black and Ontonagon rivers (K. Kindt, pers. comm.). In the lower Peninsula of Michigan along Lake Huron, the first three specimens were caught at the mouth of the Thunder Bay River in August 1995 (K. Kindt, pers. comm.). This species has also been collected in Michigan in Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Torch Lake, Little Bay de Noc in Escanaba, Big Bay de Noc, Misery River, Ontonagon River, Thunder Bay, and Sturgeon River Sloughs (Czypinski et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Timing of the Largescale Stoneroller, Campostoma Oligolepis, in the Flint River, Alabama
    REPRODUCTIVE TIMING OF THE LARGESCALE STONEROLLER, CAMPOSTOMA OLIGOLEPIS, IN THE FLINT RIVER, ALABAMA by DANA M. TIMMS A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Biological Sciences to The School of Graduate Studies of The University of Alabama in Huntsville HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Bruce Stallsmith for all his guidance on this project and greater dedication to raising awareness to Alabama’s river ecosystems. I am grateful to my other committee members, Dr. Gordon MacGregor and Dr. Debra Moriarity also from UAH. Thanks to everyone who braved the weather and elements on collecting trips: Tiffany Bell, Austin Riley, Chelsie Smith, and Joshua Mann. I would like to thank Megan McEown, Corinne Peacher, and Bonnie Ferguson for dedicating long hours in the lab. Special thanks to Matthew Moore who assisted in collections, lab work, and data processing. Most of all, I would like to thank my husband, Patrick, for his love and encouragement in all my endeavors. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page • List of Figures viii • List of Tables x • CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 o Context 1 o Campostoma oligolepis Taxonomy 3 o History of Campostoma oligolepis 4 ▪ Campostoma oligolepis in the South 6 ▪ Campostoma Hybridization 8 ▪ Campostoma Ranges and Species Differentiation 9 ▪ Life History 12 ▪ Reproduction 12 o Purpose and Hypothesis 15 • CHAPTER TWO: Methodology 17 o Laboratory Analysis 19 o Reproductive Data 21 o Ovary and Oocyte Staging 22 o Statistical Analysis 22 • CHAPTER THREE: Results 27 o Reproductive Data 29 ▪ Ovary and Oocyte Development 32 ▪ Testicular Development 39 vi • CHAPTER FOUR: Discussion 40 o Study Limitations 40 o Lateral Line Scale Count 41 o Reproductive Cues and Environmental Influences 42 o Multiple-spawners 42 o Asymmetry of Ovaries 42 o Bourgeois Males 43 o Campostoma variability 44 o Conclusion 45 • WORKS CITED 46 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page • 1.1 Campostoma oligolepis, Largescale Stoneroller, specimens from the Flint River, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • RESTORATION and COLONIZATION of FRESHWATER MUSSELS and FISH in a SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES Tailwatery
    RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS River Res. Applic. 22: 475–491 (2006) Published online 21 March 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/rra.919 RESTORATION AND COLONIZATION OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS AND FISH IN A SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES TAILWATERy JAMES B. LAYZERa* and EDWIN M. SCOTT, Jr.b a U.S. Geological Survey, Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 38505, USA b Tennessee Valley Authority, Resource Stewardship, 17 Ridgeway Road, Norris, TN 37828, USA ABSTRACT The French Broad River originates in North Carolina, flows west into Tennessee and at its confluence with the Holston River forms the Tennessee River. Douglas Dam, located on the French Broad River 52 km above its mouth, is operated primarily for peaking hydroelectric power and flood control. Prior to completion of the dam in 1943, the lower French Broad River contained about 53 species of freshwater mussels and 100 species of fish. By 1977, the fauna in the 52-km-long tailwater was reduced to 12 species of mussels and 42 native species of fish. Improvements in tailwater conditions occurred following initiation of mini- mum flows in 1987, and consistent reaeration of discharge in 1993. From 1988 to 2002, we sampled three sites (4, 28, and 39 km downstream of the dam) to monitor the fish assemblage. Each year since 1988, we have collected one or more additional spe- cies, indicating continued immigration. We collected 82 native and 9 exotic species of fish overall, but the maximum of 67 species in 1 year suggests that some species reside in the tailwater at low densities or all immigrants may not successfully colonize the tailwater.
    [Show full text]