DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Integrity Assessment of Ozark Rivers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT OF OZARK RIVERS TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY FOR PROTECTIVE STATUS by Andrea Radwell Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Department of Biological Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 2000 COOP UNIT PUBLICATION NO. 36 ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT OF OZARK RIVERS TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY FOR PROTECTIVE STATUS ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT OF OZARK RIVERS TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY FOR PROTECTIVE STATUS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science by Andrea Radwell, B.S., M.A. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 1971, 1972 May 2000 University of Arkansas THESIS DUPLICATION RELEASE I hereby authorize the University of Arkansas Libraries to duplicate this thesis when needed for research and/or scholarship. Agreed _______________________________________ Refused ______________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the many people who have expressed their confidence in me, shared their expertise, and provided the encouragement and guidance needed to complete the research presented in this thesis. Without Dr. Tom Kwak’s initial confidence in my abilities to become a researcher, this project would never have been undertaken. He provided the important step in helping me develop my ideas for this project into a coherent, well-defined research agenda. He has always encouraged me to proceed, never doubting my ability to carry on. He has provided guidance from start to finish. I will always value both his friendship and his contribution to my growth as a graduate student and a researcher. Dr. Art Brown is deserving of acknowledgement for sharing his wealth of knowledge of stream ecology and his enthusiasm for studying and protecting the natural environment. Kip Heth deserves special recognition for invaluable assistance with invertebrate identification. I thank Dr. Paul Vendrell for providing insight into water quality issues. And I would also like to acknowledge Dwayne Rambo for his cooperative spirit in sharing data that he collected in 1996 that was incorporated into this study. Dr. James Dunn and Lynnette Duncan of the Mathematical Sciences Department made a major contribution to my understanding of statistical analyses. They offered great patience, genuine interest, and creative options for analysis of my data. I am most grateful for their contribution to this research. iv The Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit provided financial support, office support, and equipment, as well as field technician assistance. I thank Barbara Parker, Dennis Lichtenberg, and Casey Pevey for being there for me. Many individuals spent time in the rivers with me, and I extend my appreciation for the help of Sam Allen, Rebecca Dukes, Jacque Hill, Shane Jackson, April King, Mike Mason, Danielle Pender, Scott Quinton, Rhonda Rimer, and Jennifer Robbins. I offer special thanks to Rhonda Rimer for the many hours she gave and for her spirited appreciation of this project, and to Jacque Hill for the generous hospitality he offered to us at his home during field work. The landowners along the rivers were gracious enough to allow us access to sampling sites, as well as cordial and willing to share information about the unique river environment they know so well. Malcolm Williamson and Anne Gisiger from the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies were most helpful with the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) component of this study. Conclusions surrounding the data that they assisted me in obtaining were among the most important findings in this study. Also, Terri and Bruce Gorham have been great friends and colleagues – providing further assistance with GIS analyses, as well as sharing an enthusiasm for my project. For much of my life and this study, I had the loyal support of my sister, Karen. I only wish she were still with me to see the completion of this work. I know she would have expressed pride in my achievements, as she often did over the course of my life. I have worked hard to live up to her expectations. Margie and Nick, my remaining sister and brother, have taken a sincere interest in my work, which has been positive for all of us. v Sharing the “trials and tribulations” as well as the joys of this research with my son, Brent, has served to motivate me to do my very best. We are role models for one another. His expressed support and excitement over my accomplishments is truly rewarding. To all these people, I extend a most sincere thank-you – it could not have been done without you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xii ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 3 OBJECTIVES AND RELEVANCE 8 BACKGROUND 10 Ecological Integrity 10 History of Aquatic Bioassessment 11 Recent Bioassessment Protocols 13 Ecoregion Perspective 14 Fish Assemblages 15 Macroinvertebrate Assemblages 16 Instream Habitat and Riparian Vegetation 18 METHODS 19 Study Rivers and Sampling Sites 19 Field and Laboratory Procedures 21 Fish Assemblages 21 Macroinvertebrate Assemblages 23 Instream Habitat and Riparian Vegetation 24 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Water Quality 25 Geographic Information System Analysis 25 Statistical Methods 26 Cluster and Discriminant Function Analyses 26 Multidimensional Scaling 28 RESULTS 32 Biological Attributes 32 Fish Assemblages 32 Macroinvertebrate Assemblages 53 Physical and Chemical Attributes 53 Instream Habitat and Riparian Vegetation 53 Water Quality 75 Watershed Attributes 75 River Comparisons 81 Biotic and Physical Variable Comparisons 81 River Grouping based on Similarities 87 Ranking Rivers Relative to Ideal Conditions 90 DISCUSSION 94 LITERATURE CITED 101 viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Geographic location and description of watersheds and 22 sampling sites. Table 2. Original data sources and categories used in GIS analysis of 27 watershed attributes. Data were derived from the digital data archives of the Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST), University of Arkansas. Table 3. Values assigned to metrics for a conceptually ideal 29 headwater river reach in the Boston Mountain ecoregion. Table 4. Fish species present, metric classification, and number of 33 sites where each was present. Table 5. Fish assemblage characteristics for headwater reaches of 10 37 Boston Mountain rivers. Table 6. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in Big 39 Piney Creek 15 October 1998. Table 7. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in 40 Hurricane Creek 28 June 1996 (Rambo 1998). Table 8. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in Kings 41 River 29 July 1998. Table 9. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in Middle 42 Fork Illinois Bayou 9 July 1996 (Rambo 1998). Table 10. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in 44 Mulberry River 12 September 1998. Table 11. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in North 46 Fork Illinois Bayou 2 July 1996 (Rambo 1998). Table 12. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in 47 Richland Creek 20 August 1998. Table 13. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in Upper 48 Buffalo River 20 July 1998. ix LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table 14. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in War 49 Eagle Creek 23 July 1998. Table 15. Density and biomass estimates for fishes sampled in White 51 River 14 July 1998. Table 16. Macroinvertebrate assemblage characteristics for headwater 54 reaches of 10 Boston Mountain rivers. Table 17. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in Big 55 Piney Creek 16 October 1998. Table 18. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in 56 Hurricane Creek 1 August 1998. Table 19. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in Kings 58 River 30 July 1998. Table 20. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in 60 Middle Fork Illinois Bayou 24 October 1998. Table 21. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in 61 Mulberry River 12 August 1998. Table 22. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in North 63 Fork Illinois Bayou 26 September 1998. Table 23. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in 65 Richland Creek 10 October 1998. Table 24. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in 67 Upper Buffalo River 20 July 1998. Table 25. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in 69 War Eagle Creek 27 July 1998. Table 26. Identity and number of macroinvertebrates sampled in White 71 River 14 July 1998. Table 27. Instream habitat and riparian vegetation characteristics for 73 headwater reaches of 10 Boston Mountain rivers. x LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table 28. Water quality characteristics for headwater reaches of 10 76 Boston Mountain rivers sampled in summer. Table 29. Water quality characteristics for headwater reaches of 10 78 Boston Mountain rivers sampled in winter. Table 30. Watershed attributes for headwater reaches of 10 Boston 80 Mountain rivers. Table 31. Statistical characteristics of metrics used in cluster analysis 82 and Guttman’s scaling. Table 32. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between variables with 85 significance level (probability) of 0.05 or lower. Table 33. Significant variables (p < 0.07) that distinguished between 89 river groupings based on stepwise discriminant analysis. Table 34. Variables that characterized North Fork Illinois Bayou 93 ranked as closest to ideal and War Eagle Creek and White River ranked as furthest from ideal. xi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Map of Boston Mountain ecoregion showing study rivers 20 and sites. Figure 2. Grouping of study rivers based on cluster analysis. 88 Figure 3. Guttman’s scale ranking rivers relative to conceptually ideal 91 conditions using 34 variables describing biotic, physical, chemical, and watershed characteristics. xii ABSTRACT The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 was passed to protect free-flowing rivers with outstanding ecological and social values and requires suitability studies as part of the designation process. An objective, quantitative method to determine suitability based on ecological integrity was developed and tested using headwater reaches of 10 Ozark rivers, five with Wild and Scenic status.
Recommended publications
  • Fishing Opportunities Ouachita National Forest

    Fishing Opportunities Ouachita National Forest

    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 1 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 2 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST This page intentionally left blank FISHING OPPORTUNITIES Page 3 of 27 IN THE RA-24 OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST RIVERS ....................................Page • Ouachita........................................................3 • Fourche LaFave ...........................................4 • South Fork Fourche LaFave.......................4 • Little Missouri ..............................................5 • Poteau............................................................6 • Glover............................................................6 • Caddo ............................................................7 • Cossatot.........................................................7 • Mountain Fork .............................................8 • Petit Jean.......................................................9 LAKES/PONDS ………………Page…..Location (Quad) • Dry Fork Lake..............................................10....................C-15 • Cedar Lake ...................................................11....................C-3 • Hunter's Pool ...............................................12....................K-3 • Lake Sylvia ...................................................13....................C-18 • Moss Creek Pond .........................................14....................A-11, A-12* • Rock Creek Lake..........................................14....................B-17 • Little Bear Creek
  • FISHING OPPORTUNITIES in the OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24

    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES in the OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24

    FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 1 of 24 FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Page 2 of 24 RIVERS Ouachita Fourche LaFave South Fork Fourche LaFave Little Missouri Poteau Glover Caddo Cossatot Mountain Fork Petit Jean LAKES-PONDS Quad Map Location Dry Fork Lake ..............................................C-15 Cedar Lake ...................................................C-3 Hunter's Pool ...............................................K-3 Lake Sylvia ...................................................C-18 Moss Creek Pond .........................................A-11, A-12* Rock Creek Lake ..........................................B-17 Little Bear Creek Lake ................................C-16 Cove Creek Lake ..........................................B-16 Huston Lake .................................................B-17 Macedonia Pond ...........................................D-10 North Fork Lake ..........................................E-10 Shady Lake ...................................................G-8 Caddo Pond ..................................................F-12, F-13, G-12* Crooked Branch Lake .................................C-3 John Burns Pond ..........................................D-11 Mauldin Ponds ............................................E-11 Old Forester Pond ........................................C-10 Story Pond ....................................................D-12 Cedar Creek Lake
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    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.
  • As Assessment of Stream Fish Vulnerability and an Evaluation Of

    As Assessment of Stream Fish Vulnerability and an Evaluation Of

    AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI ___________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri ___________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science ___________________________________________________________ by NICHOLAS A. SIEVERT DR. CRAIG P. PAUKERT, THESIS SUPERVISOR DECEMBER 2014 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled: AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI Presented by Nicholas A. Sievert A candidate for the degree of Master of Science And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. ______________________________________ Dr. Craig Paukert ______________________________________ Dr. Joanna Whittier ______________________________________ Dr. Timothy Matisziw ______________________________________ Dr. Michelle Staudinger ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank the United States Geological Service National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center for funding this project. I would also like to thank the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) for providing the fish community data which served as the foundation upon which this project was completed. Specifically, I would like to thank Matt Combes and Dr. Doug Novinger, who not only provided me with tremendous sources of data for Missouri’s stream fish communities, but also shared with me their expertise and knowledge by reviewing my work and offering invaluable insights. Dorothy Butler of MDC also generously provided fish records from the Missouri Natural Heritage Database. I would also like to thank Gust Annis and the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership for providing me with GIS data without which this project would not have been possible.
  • Survival, Abundance, and Relative Predation of Wild Rainbow Trout in the Deerfield Reservoir System, South Dakota Jeremy L

    Survival, Abundance, and Relative Predation of Wild Rainbow Trout in the Deerfield Reservoir System, South Dakota Jeremy L

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Theses and Dissertations 2016 Survival, Abundance, and Relative Predation of Wild Rainbow Trout in the Deerfield Reservoir System, South Dakota Jeremy L. Kientz South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Kientz, Jeremy L., "Survival, Abundance, and Relative Predation of Wild Rainbow Trout in the Deerfield Reservoir System, South Dakota" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 991. This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVIVAL, ABUNDANCE, AND RELATIVE PREDATION OF WILD RAINBOW TROUT IN THE DEERFIELD RESERVOIR SYSTEM, SOUTH DAKOTA BY JEREMY L. KIENTZ A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Specialization in Fisheries Science South Dakota State University 2016 iii This thesis is dedicated to Jamie, the love of my life. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I want to thank my wife, Jamie, for her enduring love and encouragement throughout our adventures together. I could not have asked for a better companion through many days both good and bad.
  • FY 2016 Annual Monitoring Report and Ten Year Review

    FY 2016 Annual Monitoring Report and Ten Year Review

    FY 2016 Annual Monitoring Report and Ten-Year Review of the 2005 Forest Plan Arkansas and Oklahoma Fiscal Years 2006-2016 October 1, 2006 - September 30, 2016 United States Department of Agriculture FY 2016 Annual Forest Service Monitoring Report and 10-year Review of the 2005 Forest Plan Ouachita National Forest Arkansas and Oklahoma Arkansas Counties: Ashley, Garland, Hot Spring, Howard, Logan, Montgomery, Perry, Pike, Polk, Saline, Scott, Sebastian, Yell Oklahoma Counties: LeFlore, McCurtain In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • 3.4 Species Found in & Along the River

    3.4 Species Found in & Along the River

    3.4 Species Found In & Along the River Mammals There are many mammals found in our region that are highly dependent on the Kings River and its trib- utaries. Otter, muskrat, beaver, raccoon, white-tailed deer, mink, opossum, and squirrels are all seen regularly on the Kings River. Raccoon Procyon lotor Opossom Didelphis virginiana Mink Mustela vision Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Steven Walling River Otter Lontra canadensis The Landowner’s Guide to Streamside Living 25 Is That Mammal a Nuisance or a Menace? Native to Arkansas, the beaver was completely Despite the use of the Razorback as a symbol for eradicated in the state by the early 1900s because Northwest Arkansas, the feral hog is a non-native of heavy trapping. Between 1926 and 1957, sev- species that is causing significant environmental enty seven beavers were restocked around the state problems in our area. Feral hogs are domesticated – leading to the rebounded population of today. swine that are released and then become “wild”. Feral hogs can wreak havoc on agricultural lands Beavers are pure vegetarians, subsisting solely on and natural habitats through their rooting and con- leaves, twigs, stems, and bark. These mammals sumption of a huge variety of food. These hogs build dams to create ponds and extend their zone eat almost anything and everything that comes of comfort. Beavers are very slow on land, and across their path. They can also spread disease to thus vulnerable to a variety of predators. Beaver both humans and domesticated animals. ponds and wetlands create habitat used by water- fowl, shorebirds, otters, fish, amphibians, and Feral hogs are very adaptive and thus very difficult aquatic plants.
  • Thesis-1984-W576c.Pdf (7.715Mb)

    Thesis-1984-W576c.Pdf (7.715Mb)

    CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALLMOUTH BASS AND QZARK BASS POPULATIONS IN BUFFALO _NATIONAL JIVER, ARKANSAS By KEITH AVIS WHISENANT lt Bachelor of Science Baylor University Waco, Texas 1970 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE July, 1984 Q()( 1 I'\ ,() >s•{ " • t I toe_,, Cof. ~ CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALLMOUTH BASS AND OZARK BASS POPULATIONS IN BUFFALO NATIONAL ' RIVER, ARKANSAS Thesis Approved: ii PREFACE This study is concerned with the population characteristics of the two principal game fish species, smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieui, and Ozark bass, Ambloplites constellatus, inhabiting Buffalo National ( River. The primary objectives were to determine what effect habitat availability and/or various levels of recreational boating activity were having on these two species. I want to express my appreciation to my major advisor, Dr. O. Eugene Maughan, for his guidance, encouragement and assistance throughout this study. I also express appreciation to Dr. Anthony Echelle and Dr. Larry Talent for agreeing to serve on my committee on short notice and their assistance in preparation of this thesis. Special thanks is given to Dr. Milford R. Fletcher, Chief, Division of Natural Resource Management~ Southwest Region of the National Park Service, who established the program and provided the funding without which this study would not have been possible. Thanks are also given to Buffalo National River Superintendent Alec Gould and Chief Ranger Carl Hinrichs and their predecessors, Superintendent John Turney and Chief Ranger John Welch, who not only allowed me to take time from my regular duties to attend Oklahoma State University to accomplish this research but who also allowed other members of their staff to assist with data collection and analysis.
  • The Influence of Flow Alteration on Instream Habitat and Fish Assemblages

    The Influence of Flow Alteration on Instream Habitat and Fish Assemblages

    THE INFLUENCE OF FLOW ALTERATION ON INSTREAM HABITAT AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES By NICOLE FARLESS Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 2012 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December, 2015 THE INFLUENCE OF FLOW ALTERATION ON INSTREAM HABITAT AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES Thesis Approved: Shannon Brewer Thesis Adviser Todd Halihan Jim Long ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that I need to acknowledge for their help and support throughout my Master’s research. I would like to start off thanking my advisor, Dr. Shannon Brewer. Shannon not only continually helped me broaden my knowledge of science and research but also invested her time to improve my practical knowledge as well. I would also like to thank my funding source, The Nature Conservancy and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. I would also like to thank Brian Brewer for all of his help building and developing the thermal tolerance lab. Without him I could not have completed my temperature tolerance study. I am indebted to many graduate students that have assisted with statistical, theoretical, and field work. Especially, Jonathan Harris and Robert Mollenhauer, who have volunteered countless hours editing my writing and assisting with data analysis. I would also like to thank Dr. Jim Shaw, my undergraduate advisor, for recognizing my potential and encouraging me to attend graduate school. Without him I would have never considered furthering my education. I would not have been able to complete this project without the help of the many technicians that worked hard for me in the lab and in the field: Desiree Williams, Frances Marshall, Joshua Mouser, Bailey Johnson, Emily Gardner, Spencer Wood, Cooper Sherrill, and Jake Holliday.
  • Predator-Prey Interactions Between Hellbenders

    Predator-Prey Interactions Between Hellbenders

    PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HELLBENDERS (CRYPTOBRANCHUS ALLEGANIENSIS ALLEGANIENSIS AND C. A. BISHOPI) AND NATIVE AND NONNATIVE FISHES A Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Missouri State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science, Biology By Brian G. Gall August 2008 PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HELLBENDERS (CRYPTOBRANCHUS ALLEGANIENSIS ALLEGANIENSIS AND C. A. BISHOPI) AND NATIVE AND NONNATIVE FISHES Department of Biology Missouri State University, August 2008 Masters of Science Brian G. Gall ABSTRACT The introduction of nonnative fishes often results in the local extinction of native amphibians due to a lack of evolutionary history and therefore, minimally-adapted antipredator behaviors toward the introduced fishes. Populations of hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) in Missouri have declined considerably since the 1980’s, coinciding with a rapid increase in trout introductions for recreational angling. I examined hellbender and fish predator-prey interactions by: (1) examining the foraging behavior of predatory fishes in response to a hellbender secretion; (2) comparing the number of secretion and control-soaked food pellets consumed by trout; and (3) comparing the response of larval hellbenders to chemical stimuli from introduced (trout) and native fish predators. Brown trout, walleye and large banded sculpin respond to hellbender secretions with increased activity while small banded sculpin responded by decreasing activity. In addition, brown trout ingested more hellbender secretion-soaked food pellets than control pellets, while rainbow trout expelled secretion-soaked food pellets. Finally, larval hellbenders exhibited weak fright behavior in response to chemical stimuli from nonnative trout relative to their responses to native predatory fish stimuli. These combinations of responses indicate that predation by nonnative fishes may be a plausible hypothesis for the decline of hellbender populations in Missouri.
  • A Summary of Missouri Fishing Regulations 2019

    A Summary of Missouri Fishing Regulations 2019

    A SummarySummary of Missouri of Fishing Regulations MissouriEffective March 1, 2019 Fishing Regulations Effective March 1, 2019 DAVID STONNER DAVID DAVID STONNER DAVID Contents Sport Fishing in Missouri . .1 Permits: General Information . 2. Purchasing Permits . .3 Missouri Fishing Permits . .4 General Fishing Rules . 6. Game Fish . .8 Nongame Fish . 10 Live Bait . 12. Bullfrogs and Green Frogs . .14 Mussels and Clams . .14 Turtles . .14 Trout Fishing . .16 Reciprocal Fishing Privileges . 21 Illustrated Guide to the Fishes of Missouri . .22 How to Measure a Fish . .27 Special Area Regulations . .28 MO Fishing App . 4. 1 Fish Consumption Advisory . .42 Definitions . .44 Think You Have a Record? . .45 Contact Information . Back cover What’s New for 2019? ◾◾Lessees may no longer fish, hunt, or trap without a permit on the land that they lease . ◾◾Due to federal and state regulations, you are now required to provide a Social Security number to obtain fishing, hunting, and trapping permits . See Page 3 . Sport Fishing in Missouri When it comes to fishing, Missouri has a In Your Hands lot to offer . More than 200 species of fish The information in this live in the Show-Me State, and more than booklet is only a summary of four dozen species offer opportunities for the fishing rules and contains anglers . Seasons are long, and daily limits only those rules that affect are generous . Regulations exist to improve the ordinary sport angler . It and maintain the quality of fishing, ensure is NOT a legal document and that everyone has an equal chance of is subject to revision during catching fish, and protect aquatic resources .