DOCSLIB.ORG

Thermal Tolerances and Preferences of Fishes of the Virgin River System (Utah, Arizona, Nevada)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thermal Tolerances and Preferences of Fishes of the Virgin River System (Utah, Arizona, Nevada) Publications (WR) Water Resources 10-1987 Thermal tolerances and preferences of fishes of the Virgin River system (Utah, Arizona, Nevada) James E. Deacon University of Nevada, Las Vegas Paul B. Schumann University of California School of Public Health, Los Angeles Edward L. Stuenkel University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/water_pubs Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Desert Ecology Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Fresh Water Studies Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Sustainability Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Repository Citation Deacon, J. E., Schumann, P. B., Stuenkel, E. L. (1987). Thermal tolerances and preferences of fishes of the Virgin River system (Utah, Arizona, Nevada). Great Basin Naturalist, 47(4), 538-546. Available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/water_pubs/38 This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Article in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Publications (WR) by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THERMAL TOLERANCES AND PREFERENCES OF FISHES OF THE VIRGIN RIVER SYSTEM (UTAH, ARIZONA, NEVADA) James E. Deacon1, Paul B. Schumann2, and Edward L. Stuenkel3 ABSTRACT.—Critical thermal maxima (CTM) and thermal preferenda of the common fishes of the Virgin River were examined. Differences in final temperature preferenda and CTM for species with low thermal lability (speckled dace, spinedace, roundtail chub) correspond well with differences in their distribution and abundance in the river. These species shifted their acute thermal preferences relatively little as acclimation temperature increased. For thermally labile species (woundfin, red shiner, desert sucker, and fiannehnouth sucker), the final preferendum is a less precise indicator of probable distribution. The woundfin, an endangered fish, has a high CTM (39.5 C at 25 C acclimation) and a labile acute preferendum (slope nearest 1) compared to other species in the system. The introduced red shiner likewise has a high CTM and a labile acute preferendum. In cooler temperatures, its acute preferendum shifts more rapidly than does that of the woundfin. At higher temperatures (above 15 C), the red shiner does not shift its acute preferendum as rapidly as does the woundfin. The red shiner, however, has a higher final preferendum. For thermally labile species, influence of acclimation temperature on mean preferendum, together with CTM, provides a better insight into distributional relationships within the system. In recent years, agricultural, municipal, only six native species: speckled dace (Rhi- and industrial water uses in arid regions of the nichthys osculus); flannelmouth sucker (Cato- southwestern United States have reduced stomus latipinnis); desert sucker (Cato- both stream flows and water quality. The con- stomus [Pantosteus] clarki); Virgin spinedace sequent alterations in thermal, chemical, and (Lepidorneda mollispinis mollispinis) and Vir- flow regimes, coupled with the discharge of gin roundtail chub (Gila robusta seminuda), various effluents and the introduction of non- the latter two of which are endemic subspe- native fishes, have seriously reduced many cies; and woundfin (Plagopterus argentis- native fish stocks (Deacon and Minckley 1974, simus), which is an endemic species. The Deacon 1979, Pister 1979, 1981). woundfin is listed as endangered (U.S. Fish The Virgin River in Utah, Arizona, and Ne- and Wildlife Service 1986), the Virgin round- vada is an example of such a system. Its shift- tail has been recommended for endangered ing, sandy bottoms, steep gradients, high sed- status, and the Virgin spinedace has been rec- iment loads, variable flows, large daily and ommended for threatened status (Deacon seasonal fluctuations in temperature, and 1979, Deacon et al. 1979). The red shiner, other physical and chemical characteristics Notropis lutrensis, was introduced into the are typical of desert streams (Cook 1960, Dea- Colorado River system as a bait fish in the con and Minckley 1974, Naiman 1981). Below early 1950s (Hubbs 1954). Of the 13 intro- Zion National Park, Utah, several natural duced fish species recorded from the lower physicochemical and geographic barriers dis- Virgin River (Cross 1985), only the red shiner rupt the continuity of the biotic communities. has become well established (Williams 1977, These include Pah Tempe Springs, a series of Cross 1978a). over 100 saline hot springs emerging along the Agricultural diversion and groundwater use Hurricane Fault in Utah; and the Virgin River since 1900 have reduced flows in the main- Gorge in Arizona where, during much of the stream to the extent that long stretches may year, the entire flow seeps below ground and be dry during summer months. Following reemerges in springs above Littlefield, Ari- completion of the Quail Creek Reservoir pro- zona (Sandberg and Sultz 1982). ject early in 1985, an unanticipated, dramatic The fish fauna of the Virgin River consists of increase in discharge of Pah Tempe Springs 'Department of Biological Sciences. University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas. Nevada 89154. Environmental Science and Engineering Program, University of California School of Public Health, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024. Present address: Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. Department of Physics, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California 94117. 538 October 1987 DEACON ETAL.: VIRGIN RIVER FISH 539 caused increases in both temperature and observed is an unambiguous endpoint, eco- salinity throughout the downstream segment logically equivalent to death in a natural situa- of the Virgin River in Utah (Deacon, in press). tion where the animal would then be unable Summer river temperatures fluctuate by to escape lethal conditions (Fry 1971). CTMs 15-20 C daily, reaching 36 C in some areas were not measured for 15-C-acclimated suck- (Cross 1975, Deacon 1977, Schumann 1978). ers of either species (see next section). However, except for the roundtail (Schumann 1978) and Virgin spinedace (Espinosa and Thermal Preferendum Deacon 1978), the temperature responses of Acute preferred temperatures (Reynolds the native fishes have not been examined. and Casterlin 1979) were determined for six This paper reports preliminary investiga- individuals of each species (except the suckers tions of the temperature tolerances and pref- and the roundtail chub) at all acclimation tem- erences of the native fishes and the intro- peratures. Testing was done in a horizontal duced red shiner. gradient consisting of three 20-liter aquaria joined lengthwise and partitioned to give six METHODS AND MATERIALS small chambers, each 16 x 20 X 21 cm. One end was cooled by plastic-coated copper coils Collection and Maintenance of Specimens through which refrigerated water was circu- Suckers, spinedace, speckled dace, wound- lated, while the other end was heated with fin, and red shiners were collected during 100-W aquarium heaters. Aeration in each May and June using 10-m nylon seines with cell prevented gas supersaturation and tem- 6.4-mm mesh. Virgin roundtail adults were perature stratification. Fish could thus choose collected between April and October. Cap- temperatures between approximately 8 C and tured fish were acclimated in aerated and fil- 35 C. Tests were observed from behind a tered 450-liter and 1100-liter aquaria, con- blind, and temperatures were measured by taining aged tap water maintained at mercury thermometers in each chamber. temperatures of 10, 15, and 25 ± 1 C, for at Preliminary tests without a thermal gradi- least two weeks before testing (Otto 1973, ent demonstrated that selection was not spa- Feldmeth and Baskin 1976, Otto and Rice tially influenced in any of the species. This 1977). Fish were maintained on a 12-hour was further avoided during the course of the photoperiod and fed Purina Trout Chow experiments by a slight shift of temperatures daily. Food was withheld for 25 hours prior to along the gradient. experimentation. All experiments were con- Two or three individuals of a single species ducted between June and August to avoid the were introduced into the chamber closest to influences of seasonality and aging (McCauley their acclimation temperature and left undis- etal. 1977). turbed for 30 minutes. Chamber tempera- tures and the distribution of the animals in the Critical Thermal Limits gradient were then recorded at 10-minute in- Tolerance of high temperature was mea- tervals for one hour, and at 20-minute inter- sured as critical thermal maximum (CTM) vals for the next two hours. The fish were then (Lowe and Heath 1969, Fry 1971, Feldmeth removed and their length and weight and Baskin 1976). The CTM was determined recorded (Table 1). for six individuals of each species at each accli- Time and resource constraints prevented mation temperature in an aerated 13-liter our collecting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah
    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management Jack H. Berryman Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State University Extension Service Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah 1998 Acknowledgments This publication was produced by Utah State University Extension Service Department of Fisheries and Wildlife The Jack H. Berryman Institute Utah Division of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Extension and Publications Contributing Authors Purpose and Introduction Terry Messmer Marilet Zablan Mammals Boyde Blackwell Athena Menses Birds Frank Howe Fishes Leo Lentsch Terry Messmer Richard Drake Reptiles and Invertebrates Terry Messmer Richard Drake Utah Sensitive Species List Frank Howe Editors Terry Messmer Richard Drake Audrey McElrone Publication Publication Assistance by Remani Rajagopal Layout and design by Gail Christensen USU Publication Design and Production Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management This bulletin was developed under the auspices of the Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management through the sponsorship of the S. J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation in partnership with the College of Natural Resources, Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wild- life Damage Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. i Contents Purpose of this Guide . iii Introduction . v What are endangered and threatened species? . vi Why some species become endangered or threatened? . vi Why protect endangered species? . vi The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) . viii Mammals Black-footed Ferret . 1 Grizzly Bear . 5 Gray Wolf . 9 Utah Prairie Dog . 13 Birds Bald Eagle .
    [Show full text]
  • Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Revised RECOVERY PLAN for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Original Plan Approved: November 1993 Prepared by: Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Billings, Montana For Mountain-Prairie Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, CO January 2014 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Plans are reviewed by the public and subject to additional peer review before they are adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species’ status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Copies of all documents reviewed in development of the plan are available in the administrative record, located at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Billings, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Gap Ranch Biological Resource Evaluation
    RED GAP RANCH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Prepared for: Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. Prepared by: WestLand Resources, Inc. Date: February 14, 2014 Project No.: 1822.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 1 2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................... 2 2.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Physical Environment ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Biological Environment and Resources ....................................................................................... 3 3. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................ 5 3.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2. Screening Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1. USFWS-listed Species ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2. USFS Coconino National Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................ 15 3.2.3. USFS Management Indicator Species ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (Gila Elegans) (BONY) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River
    Bonytail (Gila elegans) (BONY) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River 2018 Updates 1. Eggs & Early Larvae G1-2 R5-1 S1-2 5. Spawning 2. Fry & Adults Juveniles S5-4 G2-4 G4-4 P4-5 S2-4 S4-4 4. Established Adults G3-4 3. Newly- S3-4 Stocked SHR Adults Photo courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation March 2019 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service Revised
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Revised RECOVERY PLAN for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Original Plan Approved: November 1993 Prepared by: Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Billings, Montana For Mountain-Prairie Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, CO January 2014 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Plans are reviewed by the public and subject to additional peer review before they are adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species’ status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Copies of all documents reviewed in development of the plan are available in the administrative record, located at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Billings, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution, Demise, and Restoration of the Native Fishes of the Lower Colorado River by Brent R
    The evolution, demise, and restoration of the native fishes of the lower Colorado River By Brent R. Campos ABSTRACT Throughout the last century, the Colorado River’s natural flow regime was drastically altered by the infrastructure of water regulation. The once dramatic seasonal and annual variations in water flows, which shaped the life histories and unique morphologies of its native fishes, have been subdued by the many impoundments throughout the river. Bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, speckled dace, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnnow, humpback chub and razorback sucker are fish native to the Colorado River Basin, the latter four being critically endangered endemics. The native fish face two major threats: (1) habitat degradation, caused by cold, sediment-starved, and relatively flat-lined water releases, and (2) nonnative fishes, introduced since the late 1800s. Both of these threats work together in precluding the recruitment of the natives. The cold, clear, hypolimnetic releases degrade the natives’ backwater rearing habitat and cause near-zero growth rates in their young-of-year offspring, while the introduced fishes predate upon the young-of-year and juveniles. The current and proposed management strategies for restoring and/or perpetuating the fish native to the mainstem of the lower Colorado River include experimental flows, mimicking the natural flow regime, tailwater warming, nonnative fish control, and artificially-maintained populations. A holistic, ecosystem-based approach, using a combination of these management options, will likely be needed if the sustainable recovery of the lower Colorado River’s native fishes is ever to be achieved. INTRODUCTION The many dams impeding the natural flow of water on the Colorado River and its tributaries make the Colorado River Basin one of the most altered watersheds in the world (Fradkin 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Where Are the Facts? Water Delivered by District in 2011
    Spring 2012 Kolob Reservoir Water for Today and Tomorrow • Conservation Every Day™ Manager’s Message — Drought conditions extremely likely this summer Where are the The National Oceanic and 673-3617 or go to the District’s website value of approximately $101 million. Facts? Atmospheric Association has issued a for conservation tips. (wcwcd.org/ The QCP was a $30 million project. statement that La Niña is still with us conservation) About 30% of the county’s taxable value Check out our new and may even strengthen. This particular All of us saving several gallons was bonded so this project could be webpage at wcwcd.org weather pattern usually means that of water will, in the long run, save built. Washington County residents went southern Utah will experience drought thousands of gallons of water. The Water to the polls and over 90% voted in favor conditions. Local reservoirs will do their District’s maxim says it this way: “Water of the QCP bond. See our blog for job to make sure we have the water we for Today and Tomorrow – Conservation Today, close to 150,000 people reside information about water need, but water levels will drop. Every Day.” in Washington County and the county’s projects and water issues Even though we had a record wet year taxable property value is approximately wcwcd.org/blog in 2011, that does not mean we can be Yesterday’s canals are $10 billion. We are able to borrow wasteful. It takes years to recover from today’s pipelines money for the important projects that we the impacts of even a short-term drought.
    [Show full text]
  • August 1979, Vol
    August 1979, Vol. IV, No. 8 ENDANGERED SPECIES W TECHNICAL BULLETIN Department of the Interior • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 Critical Habitat for Three Fishes Reproposed; Withdrawn A reproposal of Critical Habitat for three fishes in Alabama and Ten- nessee will be withdrawn by the Ser- vice because of procedural errors in the nature of the public meeting and the inadequate availability of informa- tion concerning economic considera- tions. The reproposal was published in the July 27, 1979, Federal Register, and the subsequent meetings were held August 28-30. The proposed listing for the spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma sp.) and the pygmy sculpin (Cottus pygmaeus) will be automatically with- drawn on November 29,1979, two years after its initial publication. The pro- posed listing for the Barrens topmin- now (Fundulus sp.) will be withdrawn on December 30, 1979, also two years U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo after publication. A new proposal will Current knowledge suggests that the agent that extirpated the brown pelican from be made only if new information be- Louisiana would have been equally effective regardless of the population size. comes available. Recovery Planned for LIght-Footed Clapper Rail, Woundfin, Eastern Brown Pelican The Service approved three recovery new habitat. These activities will aid in consists of a marsh environment with plans in July; one for the light-footed achieving the plan's objective of in- cordgrass or pickleweed for nesting clapper rail {Rallus longirostris creasing the rail's breeding population and escape cover, a supply of crabs, levipes), a California bird Endangered to at least 400 pairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan
    GuamMarine Biosecurity Action Plan September 2014 This Marine Biosecurity Action Plan was prepared by the University of Guam Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan Author: Roxanna Miller First Released in Fall 2014 About this Document The Guam Marine Biosecurity Plan was created by the University of Guam’s Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. Information and recommendations within this document came through the collaboration of a variety of both local and federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), the University of Guam (UOG), the Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the Port Authority of Guam, the National Park Service
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2012-2013)
    IUCN Red List version 2013.2: Table 7 Last Updated: 25 November 2013 Table 7: Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2012-2013) Published listings of a species' status may change for a variety of reasons (genuine improvement or deterioration in status; new information being available that was not known at the time of the previous assessment; taxonomic changes; corrections to mistakes made in previous assessments, etc. To help Red List users interpret the changes between the Red List updates, a summary of species that have changed category between 2012 (IUCN Red List version 2012.2) and 2013 (IUCN Red List version 2013.2) and the reasons for these changes is provided in the table below. IUCN Red List Categories: EX - Extinct, EW - Extinct in the Wild, CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, LR/cd - Lower Risk/conservation dependent, NT - Near Threatened (includes LR/nt - Lower Risk/near threatened), DD - Data Deficient, LC - Least Concern (includes LR/lc - Lower Risk, least concern). Reasons for change: G - Genuine status change (genuine improvement or deterioration in the species' status); N - Non-genuine status change (i.e., status changes due to new information, improved knowledge of the criteria, incorrect data used previously, taxonomic revision, etc.) IUCN Red List IUCN Red Reason for Red List Scientific name Common name (2012) List (2013) change version Category Category MAMMALS Nycticebus javanicus Javan Slow Loris EN CR N 2013.2 Okapia johnstoni Okapi NT EN N 2013.2 Pteropus niger Greater Mascarene Flying
    [Show full text]