DOCSLIB.ORG

The Reintroduction of Alligator Gar (Atractosteus Spatula) at Merwin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Reintroduction of Alligator Gar (Atractosteus Spatula) at Merwin Monitoring of Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula) Reintroduced into Merwin Preserve Nathan Grider - University of Illinois, Springfield Rob Hilsabeck - Illinois Department of Natural Resources Status • Populations have declined • Vulnerable to extinction • Reintroduction in AL, AR, FL, KY, LA, MS, MO, OK, TN, and TX M.D. W. F. P Field & Stream River Monsters Jeremy Wade and Mark Spitzer with a 7 ft, 111 lb alligator gar http://colourofautumn1216.blogspot.com/2010/06/river-monsters.html History In Illinois • Last vouchered record from 1966 • Delisted in 1994 (extirpated) • Reintroduction efforts began in 2009 by IDNR Kaskaskia River Why Reintroduce Them? • Increase biodiversity – resist invasion • Apex predators provide top-down control • May control “rough fish” and invasive species • May help prevent stunting of sportfish • Popular food fish • Angling and bowfishing Big Fish Bowfishing Texas™ Merwin Preserve (Spunky Bottoms) • Approximately 590 ha • 100 alligator gar were tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT), released 9/29/2011 • Average length was 538 mm and weight 886 g Objectives 1) Measure growth rate and compare to data from the southern range 2) Determine condition (fitness) and compare to data from the southern range 3) Investigate prey selection and potential use as a management tool 4) Compare sampling methods used to capture alligator gar Methods Sampling • Sampled May - October = six events • Sample event = two days and one night of extensive gear effort Gears • Modified multifilament gill nets – 3” bar mesh, dyed black • Experimental monofilament gill nets • Trap nets, 1.5” mesh • Mini fyke nets • DC Electrofishing Diet Analysis • Gastric lavage • Strauss (1979) index used to determine prey selection • Compares abundance of prey items in diet to abundance in environment -1 = avoidance/inaccessibility, 0 = no selection (opportunistic) +1 = selection Results American Fisheries Society Catch Frequency, All Gears, All months 30 N = 6,911 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Frequency % Frequency 8 6 4 0.25 2 0 Length and Mass Gain 1000 7 (t(17) = -13.48, p < 0.001) 6 800 5 600 4 400 3 Mass (kg) Mass Length (mm) Length 2 200 1 (t(17) = -10.39, p < 0.001) 0 0 Length Mass 4/1/2012 9/14/2011 11/3/2011 2/11/2012 5/21/2012 7/10/2012 8/29/2012 12/7/2012 12/23/2011 10/18/2012 Growth Rates and Water Temperature 40 0.2 r(4) = 0.84, p < 0.05) 35 SGR 0.15 30 C ° 25 0.1 Length/Mass Length/Mass 20 0.05 Water Temp. Temp. Water 15 (r(4) = 0.80, p = 0.07) 10 0 Mean Water Temp. (°C) 6/5/2012 0:00 8/4/2012 0:00 4/26/2012 0:00 5/16/2012 0:00 6/25/2012 0:00 7/15/2012 0:00 8/24/2012 0:00 9/13/2012 0:00 10/3/2012 0:00 Length SGR Mass SGR Growth Rate: Illinois and Louisiana 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 (% /Day) (% IL 0.04 0.03 LA 0.02 (t(42) = -5.54, p = 0.13 Length SGR SGR Length 0.01 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 TL (mm) 0.3 0.25 /Day) 0.2 0.15 IL 0.1 Mass SGR (% SGR Mass LA 0.05 (t(42) = -1.49, p = 0.14 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mass (kg) Length Gain: Illinois and Louisiana 1100 1000 900 800 IL 700 TL (mm) TL LA 600 500 400 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Age in days Body Condition: Illinois and Louisiana 4 3.5 3 IL Merwin Preserve (n = 18) LA Port Sulphur (n = 54) Mass (g) Mass 10 2.5 LA Bayou Dularge (n = 48) Log Log Mass = 3.7654 (Log Total Length) - 7.4777 2 10 10 n = 120 R² = 0.98 p < 0.01 1.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 Log10 TL (mm) Diets Diet Content Frequency 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Unknown Fish 50% Gizzard Shad 40% Empty 30% 20% 10% 0% Shortnose Alligator Gar Estimating Prey Length from Remains • Knowing prey size allows us to estimate predator impact • How do we estimate prey length from diet remains? • Use linear relationship of eye diameter or caudal peduncle to total length (Scharf et al. 1997). Prey Size selection y = 0.0831x + 0.2483 Gizzard Shad R² = 0.9523 35 Mean 20.3 ± 1.1 n = 339 y = 0.0324x + 4.1315 30 R² = 0.7872 Mean 12.0 ± 1.0 25 20 Eye Diameter Caudal Peduncle 15 Linear (Eye Diameter) 10 Linear (Caudal Peduncle) 5 Caudal Peduncle from Alligator Gar Diet Eye Diameter/Caudal Peduncle (mm) Peduncle Diameter/Caudal Eye 0 Caudal Peduncle from Shortnose 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Gar Diet Total length mm 41% of Predators Length Diet Contents Over Time Alligator Gar Diets Over Time 8 7 6 5 Gizzard Shad 4 Unknown Fish 3 Empty Samples Collected Samples 2 1 0 May (2) June (2) July (1) August (1) September (4) October (7) Shortnose Gar Diets Over Time 8 7 6 5 Gizzard Shad 4 Unknown Fish 3 Empty Samples Collected Samples 2 1 0 May (0) June (1) July (1) August (5) September (7) October (7) Food Selection Index 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Score -0.2 L -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 May/June July/August September/October Ameiurus -0.0649 -0.078 -0.1688 Bigmouth Buffalo -0.0119 -0.0395 -0.063 Common Carp -0.2727 -0.3192 -0.529 Gizzard Shad 0.68515 0.74139 -0.0504 Largemouth Bass -0.1862 -0.0968 -0.0554 Lepomis -0.341 -0.1774 -0.063 Pomoxis -0.0586 -0.0305 -0.0705 +1 = Selection 0 = No selection (opportunistic) -1 = Avoidance/inaccessibility Prey Abundance Over Time July & August Electrofishing CPUE 20 15 Common Carp 10 Gizzard Shad 5 Lepomis Catch/Hour 0 Largemouth Bass 40 90 190 240 290 340 390 440 490 550 140 Pomoxis Total Length (mm) September & October Electrofishing CPUE 20 15 Common Carp 10 Gizzard Shad 5 Lepomis Catch/Hour 0 Largemouth Bass 40 Pomoxis 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 630 Total Length (mm) June October Recapture Success and Mortality Alligator Gar: Gear Mortality 7 6 5 4 Lived catch 3 Mortality 2 1 0 Modified Gill (6) Experimental Gill (2) Trap (8) Electrofishing Modified (1) • May – August: Mortality = 50% • September – October Mortality = 38% Discussion Objective 1 & 2 • No significant difference in growth rate or condition compared to Louisiana • Factors that effect growth rate: salinity, temp., prey, and habitat Objective 3 • No sportfish found in diet. • Did they eat a few? Probably. • Selection or opportunistic feeding on gizzard shad? “Optimal Foraging Theory” Some Diet Predictions 300 250 Bigmouth Buffalo 200 Common Carp Largemouth Bass 150 Gizzard Shad Total catch Total 100 Ameirus 50 Pomoxis 0 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 TL (mm) Abundance of potential prey items at Merwin Preserve within the preferred prey size range (200 – 320 mm) of 137 – 183 cm alligator gar described by Goodyear (1967). Discussion Objective 4 • Trap nets and modified gill nets worked best • Modified gill nets produced less bycatch, but higher mortality • Sampling in September & October is recommended DC Electrofishing • 3,500 watt generator (small boat) = no Alligator Gar • 5,000 watt generator (big boat) = 8.5 hours produced 1 Alligator Gar @ 30 cycles/sec & 7 amps What’s Next? • Continue reintroduction and monitoring • Consider further harvest restrictions • Public education and outreach • Maybe develop catch and releasing fishing opportunities in dedicated waters Could help fund continued conservation work! Bass Pro Shop - Springfield, MO Acknowledgments Illinois Department of Natural Resources Rob Hilsabeck Trent Thomas Illinois Natural History Survey Dr. Leon Hinz Doug Carney Nerissa Michaels Matt O’Hara Levi Solomon Rich Lewis John Wisher Karen Miller The Nature Conservancy Todd Rettig Tharran Hobson Nate Goetten Dr. Michael Lemke - Thesis Advisor Literature Cited Brinkman, E. L. 2008. Contributions to the life history of alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula, lacepede), in Oklahoma. Master’s Thesis, Oklahoma State University. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Garcia De Leon, F. J., L. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. M. Herrera-Castillo, K. O. Winemiller, & A. Banda- Valdes. 2001. Ecology of the alligator gar, Atractosteus spatula, in the Vicente Guerrero Reservoir, Tamaulipas, Mexico . The Southwestern Naturalist 46(2):151-157 Ianni, R. C. 2011. Monitoring diets and growth rates of native predatory fish stocked to suppress non-native tilapia. Master’s Thesis, Nicholls State University. Thibodaux, Louisiana Scharf, F. S., J. A. Buckel, F. Juanes, & D. O. Conover. 1997. Estimating piscine prey size from partial remains: Testing for shifts in foraging mode by juvenile bluefish. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49: 377-388 Strauss, R. E. 1979. Reliability estimates for Ivlev’s Electivity Index, the forage ratio, and a proposed linear index of food selection. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108: 344-352 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus Elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications Summer 2020 Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River Dakota S. Radford Eastern Illinois University Follow this and additional works at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Radford, Dakota S., "Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River" (2020). Masters Theses. 4806. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/4806 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGING TECHNIQUES & POPULATION DYNAMICS OF BLUE SUCKERS (CYCLEPTUS ELONGATUS) IN THE LOWER WABASH RIVER By Dakota S. Radford B.S. Environmental Biology Eastern Illinois University A thesis prepared for the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Biological Sciences Eastern Illinois University May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Thesis abstract .................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
    [Show full text]
  • Gar (Lepisosteidae)
    Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Animal Information Series Gar (Lepisosteidae) Gar species found in Indiana waters: -Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus osseus) -Shortnose Gar (Lepisosteus platostomus) -Spotted Gar (Lepisosteus oculatus) -Alligator Gar* (Atractosteus spatula) *Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula) Alligator gar were extirpated in many states due to habitat destruction, but now they have been reintroduced to their old native habitat in the states of Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kentucky. Because they have been stocked into the Ohio River, there is a possibility that alligator gar are either already in Indiana or will be found here in the future. Alligator gar are one of the largest freshwater fishes of North America and can reach up to 10 feet long and weigh 300 pounds. Alligator gar are passive, solitary fishes that live in large rivers, swamps, bayous, and lakes. They have a short, wide snout and a double row of teeth on the upper jaw. They are ambush predators that eat mainly fish but have also been seen to eat waterfowl. They are not, however, harmful to humans, as they will only attack an animal that they can swallow whole. Photo Credit: Duane Raver, USFWS Other Names -garpike, billy gar -Shortnose gar: shortbill gar, stubnose gar -Longnose gar: needlenose gar, billfish Why are they called gar? The Anglo-Saxon word gar means spear, which describes the fishes’ long spear-like appearance. The genus name Lepisosteus contains the Greek words lepis which means “scale” and osteon which means “bone.” What do they look like? Gar are slender, cylindrical fishes with hard, diamond-shaped and non-overlapping scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Examination of Three State Records for Spotted Gar in Oklahoma Richard A
    41 Examination of Three State Records for Spotted Gar in Oklahoma Richard A. Snow Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma Fishery Research Laboratory, Norman, OK 73072 Michael J. Porta Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma Fishery Research Laboratory, Norman, OK 73072 Abstract: Spotted Gar are found throughout Oklahoma and managed as a non-game species. This designation allows the species to be recreationally harvested using any legal methods. We examined three-state record (unrestricted division; harvested by bowfishing) Spotted Gars to estimate age, back calculate length-at-age (growth rates), and identify sex and stomach contents. Spotted Gars age estimates ranged from 32-43 years old. Back-calculated length-at-age displayed similar growth among the three specimens. All Spotted Gar examined were females, and contained no stomach contents. Although this study is limited in scope to the largest of Oklahoma specimens, it improves our knowledge of an understudied species in Oklahoma. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Introduction 2016), several U.S. states (Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania), and are thought to be extirpated in New Mexico (NatureServe 2019). The Spotted Gar (Lepisosteus oculatus) is one of four species of Lepisosteidae found in In Oklahoma, Spotted Gar are managed by the Oklahoma (Miller and Robison 2004, Frenette Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and Snow 2016). Lepisosteidae represents an (ODWC) as a non-game fish (allowing harvest by ancient lineage of fishes that are widespread any legal method) and currently no regulations in central and eastern North America and protect this species (bag or size regulations), but throughout Central America (Echelle and Grande populations are considered stable.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish I.D. Guide
    mississippi department of wildlife, fisheries, and parks FRESHWATER FISHES COMMON TO MISSISSIPPI a fish identification guide MDWFP • 1505 EASTOVER DRIVE • JACKSON, MS 39211 • WWW.MDWFP.COM Table of Contents Contents Page Number • White Crappie . 4 • Black Crappie. 5 • Magnolia Crappie . 6 • Largemouth Bass. 7 • Spotted Bass . 8 • Smallmouth Bass. 9 • Redear. 10 • Bluegill . 11 • Warmouth . 12 • Green sunfish. 13 • Longear sunfish . 14 • White Bass . 15 • Striped Bass. 16 • Hybrid Striped Bass . 17 • Yellow Bass. 18 • Walleye . 19 • Pickerel . 20 • Channel Catfish . 21 • Blue Catfish. 22 • Flathead Catfish . 23 • Black Bullhead. 24 • Yellow Bullhead . 25 • Shortnose Gar . 26 • Spotted Gar. 27 • Longnose Gar . 28 • Alligator Gar. 29 • Paddlefish. 30 • Bowfin. 31 • Freshwater Drum . 32 • Common Carp. 33 • Bigmouth Buffalo . 34 • Smallmouth Buffalo. 35 • Gizzard Shad. 36 • Threadfin Shad. 37 • Shovelnose Sturgeon. 38 • American Eel. 39 • Grass Carp . 40 • Bighead Carp. 41 • Silver Carp . 42 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) Other Names including reservoirs, oxbow lakes, and rivers. Like other White perch, Sac-a-lait, Slab, and Papermouth. members of the sunfish family, white crappie are nest builders. They produce many eggs, which can cause Description overpopulation, slow growth, and small sizes in small White crappie are deep-bodied and silvery in color, lakes and ponds. White crappie spawn from March ranging from silvery-white on the belly to a silvery-green through May when water temperatures are between or dark green on the back with possible blue reflections. 58ºF and 65ºF. White crappie can tolerate muddier There are several dark vertical bars on the sides. Males water than black crappie. develop dark coloration on the throat and head during the spring spawning season, which can cause them to be State Record mistaken for black crappie.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Lepisosteidae (Gars)
    Invasive Species Fact Sheet Gar, Family Lepisosteidae General Description Gars are large, freshwater fish belonging to the Lepisosteidae family, which consists of 7 species of gar: alligator, Cuban, Florida, longnose, shortnose, spotted, and tropical. Gars have long, cylindrical bodies covered in hard, shiny, diamond-shaped Alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula) scales. Their dorsal and anal fins sit far back on the body, Photo by South Carolina Department of Natural Resources near the tail. They have slender snouts with sharp, needle- like teeth. Gars are generally green to brown in color on their top and sides and white to yellow on their bellies; some species have spots on their bodies and/or fins. The different species of gar can be distinguished by snout length, number of rows of teeth, and the amount and location of spots. Depending on the species, adult gar range from 1 to over 9 feet long. The largest species of gar, the alligator gar, has been reported to grow up to 10 feet and weigh 350 lbs. Current Distribution Gars are not currently found in California. Alligator gars have been collected in California waters on a few occasions, but these fish were likely the result of aquarium releases. Five of the seven gar species are native to the United States. Spotted gars (Lepisosteus oculatus) confiscated Gars are currently found within and outside of their native ranges in by CDFW wardens the United States from the Great Lakes basin in the north, south Photo by CDFW through the Mississippi River drainage to Texas, Mexico, and Florida. Florida gars are only found in Florida and Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence and Co‐Occurrence Patterns of Gar in River–Floodplain
    North American Journal of Fisheries Management 40:622–637, 2020 © 2019 American Fisheries Society ISSN: 0275-5947 print / 1548-8675 online DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10402 SPECIAL SECTION: ALLIGATOR GAR Occurrence and Co-Occurrence Patterns of Gar in River–Floodplain Habitats: Methods to Leverage Species Coexistence to Benefit Distributional Models David A. Schumann1 and Michael E. Colvin* Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Box 9690, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762, USA Leandro E. Miranda U.S. Geological Survey, Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Box 9691, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762, USA D. Todd Jones-Farrand U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA Abstract Habitat segregation and hypothesized biotic interactions among coexisting gar species may confound attempts to describe the distributions of these species by using only macrohabitat availability in the presence of conspecifics. How- ever, the strength of interactions among gar species and the spatial scale at which they occur are largely unknown. We used an existing data set to evaluate the co-occurrence patterns (i.e., random assemblages versus species co-occur- ring more or less than expected at random) of three gar species in 62 dynamic river–floodplain habitats associated with the lower Mississippi River and its major tributaries. A novel parameterization of a multispecies occupancy model was utilized to examine the spatial relationships among the full array of possible gar assemblages across a gra- dient of floodplain habitats. Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus were the most abundant and frequently encountered species (~78% of samples). Shortnose Gar L. platostomus (~27% of samples) and Longnose Gar L.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Species Management Plan for Alligator Gar (Atractosteus Spatula) in Illinois
    Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Resource Conservation Division of Fisheries Fish Species Management Plan for Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula) in Illinois The last vouchered Alligator Gar collected in Illinois waters (Cache-Mississippi R Diversion Channel - 1966) Courtesy of Brooks Burr Fish Species Management Plan for Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula) in Illinois April, 2017 Rob Hilsabeck District 4 Fisheries Biologist Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Resource Conservation Division of Fisheries Trent Thomas Region III Streams Biologist Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Resource Conservation Division of Fisheries Nathan Grider Impact Assessment Section Biologist Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Realty and Environmental Planning Division of Ecosystems and Environment Michael McClelland Rivers, Reservoirs, and Inland Waters Program Manager Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Resource Conservation Division of Fisheries Dan Stephenson Chief of Fisheries Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Resource Conservation Division of Fisheries ii Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………….………...............…………1 Historical Distribution……………..………………….…………...............……..1 Life History and Ecological Information…….……....………................…...…...2 Characteristics……………………………….………...............…………2 Diet ………………………………………….………...............…………3 Reproduction ……………………….……….………...............…………3 Causes of Decline………………………………………….................…………..3
    [Show full text]
  • Tangling with Longnose
    What this living fossil lacks in game appeal, it makes up for with tenacity and an astonishing natural history. Gar Tangling With Longnose By Michael A. Kallok 2 Photography by TomMinnesota Conservation Volunteer Thulen July–August 2011 3 The diamond-shaped, razor- catch. He also holds the current Backwater Maze sharp, and enamel-hard scales of state record for a type of sucker We arrive at Verchota Landing gar were once used to tip arrows. known as golden redhorse. near Minnesota City just after 9 No hook required: Flies made A good map like the Geving’s curiosity about a.m. with a 16-foot fishing boat of frayed nylon rope tangle in the one found in the Minnesota’s native fish was in tow. Waiting for us is Heath teeth of longnose gar. DNR’s Mississippi first inspired by family trips Sershen, technology manager Removing a tangled rope fly River guide is to St. Croix State Park. There, for the National Eagle Center in requires a good pair of pliers. essential for navi- with hook, line, sinker, and Wabasha and self-described for- gating the river’s humble nightcrawler, he mer trout snob. He still enjoys maze of backwaters. and his brother Corey (the fishing for trout, but it’s clear Geving displays a 40-inch other half of roughfish.com) that Sershen now avidly pursues longnose gar caught from Pool 5a discovered a diverse world other species as he relates a story of the Mississippi. swimming beneath the river’s about arecent battle with abow- surface. Like birders keeping fin.
    [Show full text]
  • Primer Designs for Identification and Environmental DNA (Edna)
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society © 2018 American Fisheries Society ISSN: 0002-8487 print / 1548-8659 online DOI: 10.1002/tafs.10043 SPECIAL SECTION: ANGLING FOR DINOSAURS Primer Designs for Identification and Environmental DNA (eDNA) Detection of Gars Nicole J. Farley and Adrian A. Vasquez Department of Physiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA Richard Kik IV Belle Isle Aquarium, c/o Belle Isle Conservancy, 300 River Place Drive, Suite 2800, Detroit, Michigan 48207, USA Solomon R. David Nicholls State University, 906 East 1st Street, 112 Beauregard Hall, Thibodaux, Louisiana 70310, USA Arjun S. Katailiha Department of Biomedical Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA Xavier N. Walker Department of Physiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA Jeffrey L. Ram* Department of Physiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA; and Belle Isle Aquarium, c/o Belle Isle Conservancy, 300 River Place Drive, Suite 2800, Detroit, Michigan 48207, USA Abstract Gars (family Lepisosteidae) play important roles as apex predators in freshwater ecosystems, helping to balance fish populations. Several gar species are exploited as food and game fish, and some species are classified as vulnerable due to habitat loss. New molecular techniques to detect, monitor, and identify environmental DNA (eDNA) from gars might help inform management and conservation efforts for these interesting fish. The goal of this project was to develop and test PCR primers for gars, using specimens of all seven gar species, which are on exhibit at the Belle Isle Aquarium in Detroit, Michigan. Focusing on the mitochondrial gene for cytochrome oxidase I, we first designed pri- mers to amplify DNA from all species of gars (“universal gar primers”) and confirmed their specificity in silico.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Basin Checklists and Dichotomous Keys for Inland Fishes of Texas
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 874: 31–45Drainage (2019) basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas 31 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 CHECKLIST http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas Cody Andrew Craig1, Timothy Hallman Bonner1 1 Department of Biology/Aquatic Station, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Corresponding author: Cody A. Craig ([email protected]) Academic editor: Kyle Piller | Received 22 April 2019 | Accepted 23 July 2019 | Published 2 September 2019 http://zoobank.org/B4110086-4AF6-4E76-BDAC-EA710AF766E6 Citation: Craig CA, Bonner TH (2019) Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas. ZooKeys 874: 31–45. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 Abstract Species checklists and dichotomous keys are valuable tools that provide many services for ecological stud- ies and management through tracking native and non-native species through time. We developed nine drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for 196 inland fishes of Texas, consisting of 171 native fishes and 25 non-native fishes. Our checklists were updated from previous checklists and revised using reports of new established native and non-native fishes in Texas, reports of new fish occurrences among drainages, and changes in species taxonomic nomenclature. We provided the first dichotomous keys for major drainage basins in Texas. Among the 171 native inland fishes, 6 species are considered extinct or extirpated, 13 species are listed as threatened or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 59 spe- cies are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) by the state of Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Digital Prairie
    W 2800.7 F293 no. T-14-P-l 10/03-9/05 c.l OKLAHOMA o OCTOBER 1, 2003 through SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 This report summarizes the known species of freshwater mussels existing in Oklahoma. Included in each species account are: Current scientific name Photo of the species Synonymy of names for the species used in Oklahoma in the past Description of the species General distribution of the species Table of shell characters Oklahoma distribution map List of specimen locations in Oklahoma Comments Also included in the report are sections on: Anatomy and physiology of freshwater mussels Literature Mussel conservation Zoogeography Finally at the end of the report are included: Questionable and uncertain species that may occur in Oklahoma Exotic species Species list for major river systems in Oklahoma An expanded list ofunionid literature Glossary of terms Summarize historical and recent literature and collections with descriptions, distributions and photographs ofthe native and introduced freshwater mussels of Oklahoma. Oklahoma is host to approximately 57 species of native Unionid mussels, and several populations with uncertain taxonomic status. Native freshwater mussels are found throughout the state, but species richness declines from east to west across the state. The greatest diversity of mussels occurs in several southeastern rivers such as the - Kiamichi and Little Rivers. Oklahoma's mussels include many widespread species (e.g. Pyganodon grandis, Strophitus undulatus) but also several regionally endemic species restricted to the Ozark and/or Ouachita Highlands (e.g. Ptychobranchus occidentalis, Lampsilis rafinesqueana) or the Gulf Coastal Plain (e.g. Obovaria jacksoniana). Live specimens of at least one species, the Western Fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti), have not been collected in several decades suggesting that this species may be extirpated from Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Shortnose Gar (Lepisosteus Platostomus) Predicted Suitable Habitat Modeling
    Shortnose Gar (Lepisosteus platostomus) Predicted Suitable Habitat Modeling Distribution Status: Resident Year Round State Rank: S1 (Species of Concern) Global Rank: G5 Modeling Overview Data Source Last Updated: August 23, 2018 Model Produced On: July 11, 2019 Deductive Modeling Modeling Process, Outputs, and Suggested Uses This is a simple rule-based model using stream reaches and standing waterbodies where the species presence has been confirmed through direct capture or where they are believed to be present based on the professional judgement of a fisheries biologist due to confirmed presence in adjacent areas. See Montana fish distribution, survey, stocking, and genetic testing information from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at: http://gis-mtfwp.opendata.arcgis.com/ For compatibility with other predictive distribution models the Montana Natural Heritage Program produces, we have intersected this fish presence information with a uniform grid of hexagons that have been used for planning efforts across the western United States (e.g. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies - Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool). Each hexagon is one square mile in area and approximately one kilometer in length on each side. Any hexagon that intersected a waterbody evaluated as having a species present was classified as suitable habitat; native or introduced. Model outputs are not evaluated and we suggest they be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy water bodies present within each hexagon for the purposes of landscape-level planning. Model outputs should not be used in place of on-the-ground surveys for species, and wildlife and land management agency biologists should be consulted about the value of using model output to guide habitat management decisions for regional planning efforts or local projects.
    [Show full text]