DOCSLIB.ORG

AND LYTHRURUS UMBRATILIS (GIRARD) (CYPRINIFORMES: CYPRINIDAE) in TIIE O1-Ilo RIVER BASIN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AND LYTHRURUS UMBRATILIS (GIRARD) (CYPRINIFORMES: CYPRINIDAE) in TIIE O1-Ilo RIVER BASIN HYBRIDIZATION OF LYTHRURUS FASCIOLARIS (COPE).AND LYTHRURUS UMBRATILIS (GIRARD) (CYPRINIFORMES: CYPRINIDAE) IN TIIE O1-IlO RIVER BASIN A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Science and Technology Morehead State University In Partial Fulfullrnent of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Robert L. Hopkins, II November 2005 .• i• CAMDEN-CARROLL LIBRARY . MOREHE,AD, KY 40351 ff}~ lf 7h-fStJ (oj,. 08-;). /-1195 A Accepted by the faculty of the College of Science and Technology, Morehead State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. /j~-ki~ Director o esis Master' s Committee: 14 NOJ.ffi)PH 2C05 Date II HYBRIDIZATION OF LYTHRURUS FASCIOLARJS (COPE) AND LYTHRURUS UMBRATILJS (GIRARD) (CYPRINIFORMES: CYPRINIDAE) IN THE OHIO RIVER BASIN Robert L. Hopkins, II, M.S. Morehead State University, 2005 Director ofThesis:. __rf:J=-=~==el'_,,/cc-_..~""'====------- The scarlet shiner (Lythrurusfasciolaris) and redfin shiner (L. umbratilis) are common small minnow species usually exhibiting a parapatric geographic distribution within the Ohio River basin. Historical collection records suggest several areas of possible syntopy along the periphery of distributional ranges, with suspected hybridization based upon observed intermediate coloration patterns of nuptial males. Nuptial males from nine localities of suspected hybridization were collected in June and July 2004 and analyzed using morphometric, meristic, tuberculation, coloration, and nuclear DNA data. Based on univariate and multivariate analyses and qualitative assessment of the morphological data, the Green River, Kentucky River, and Salt River drainages in Kentucky and the Scioto River drainage in Ohio all contain populations with evidence of hybrid influence. These contact areas contained nuptial males exhibiting atypical coloration and tuberculation patterns compared to parental species. Results from principal component analyses of morphometrics and meristics indicate that putative hybrid progeny exhibit either intermediate or discordant shape_ and meristic character combinations compared to parental species. Comparisons of current observations to historical collection records iii suggest hybridization may be facilitating an eastward range expansion of L. umbratilis through replacement of L. fasciolaris as indicated by the introgression of morphological characters toward those of L. umbratilis in the Green River, Salt River, and Scioto River drainages. Specimens from the Kentucky River drainage indicate that hybridization bas allowed the development of a static, morphologically and genetically distinct hybrid swarm. In each case, environmental conditions seem closely linked with the occurrence and net effects of hybridization between these two species. Accepted by: lV Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Robert and Linette Hopkins, who have given me unwavering support and encouragement. V Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my major professor, Dr. David Eisenhour, for his unending patience and direction throughout this study and for developing my interest in systematic zoology. I would also like to express sincere thanks to Dr. David Peyton, for introducing me to molecular techniques and providing constant counsel with their applications. Much appreciation also goes to my other. committee members, Dr. Sean O'Keefe and Dr. Brian Reeder, for their comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to Dr. David Rudy for project funding and access to the many resources making this study possible. The following people were most helpful in field collections of specimens: Lynn Eisenhour, Jonathan Eisenhour, and Rebecca Hopkins. Collection permits were provided by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, West Virginia Natural Resources, and the Ohio Fish and Game Departments. Morehead State University IACUC granted permission for collection of tissue samples from specimens. My most heartfelt appreciation goes to my wife, Rebecca, who assisted enormously in the editing and revision stages of the thesis and compilation of the final product. vi Table of Contents Page Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 Methods and Materials ......................................................................... I 0 Results: Reference Specimens ............................................................... .19 Results: Putative Hybrid Populations ........................................................37 Discussion ........................................................................................67 Diagnostic Characters of Reference Specimens ................................... 67 Identity of Putative Hybrid Populations ............................................70 Conclusions ......................................................................................84 Future Research ................................................................................. 88 Literature Cited .................................................................................. 90 Appendix I.. .....................................................................................95 vii List of Tables Page Table I. Description of28 truss-geometric measurements for morphometric analysis ................................................................................ 14 Table 2. Sheared PCA loadings for 107 L. fasciolaris, I 02 L. umbratilis, and 102 putative hybrids ........................................................................................ 21 Table 3. Summary ofmeristic difference between two species of Lythrurus ..........26 Table 4. Frequency distribution of anal fin rays, scales above lateral line, and scales below lateral line in L. fasciolaris and L. umbratilis .................... 27 Table 5. Frequency distribution of circumferential scales and scales around caudal peduncle in L.fasciolaris and L. umbratilis .............................28 Table 6. Distribution of genotypes of parental populations .............................. 35 Table 7. Comparison of genotypes and phenotypes for Eagle Creek specimens in Grant County, KY ............................................................... .57 Table 8. Comparison of genotypes and phenotypes for Eagle Creek specimens in Owen County, KY ................................................................ 62 viii List of Figures Page Figure 1. Geographic distribution of L. fasciolaris and L. umbratilis within the Ohio River basin ......................................................... 5 Figure 2. Putative syntopic areas overlain on range map ...................................8 Figure 3. Map of collection locales for reference and putative hybrid specimens ........................................................................... 11 Figure 4. Twenty-one landmarks (white dots) shown with associated measurements used in the morphometric analysis ............................. 16 Figure 5. A) Sequences of cytoplasmic beta-actin with intron 2 ......................... 18 Figure 6. Morphometric scores for reference specimens on sheared PCA axes II and III.............................................................................. 20 Figure 7. Bivariate plots of body width (top) and D-A (bottom) versus standard length (SL) measurements for reference specimens of L.fasciolaris and L. umbratilis .................................................................... 22 Figure 8. Bivariate plots ofD-P2 (top} and Dend-A (bottom) versus standard length (SL) measurements for reference specimens of L. fasciolaris and L. umbratilis .................................................................... 23 Figure 9. Meristic scores on PCA axes I and II ............................................25 Figure IO. Combined plot of PCA scores of two separate analyses ofmeristic (x-axis) and morphometric characters (y-axis) of reference specimens .... 30 Figure I I. Composite illustrations of head tuberculation patterns for nuptial males in high condition ...........................................................31 Figure 12. Electrophoreses products of intron 2 region of cytoplasmic beta- actin with assigned genotypes labeled .......................................... 34 Figure 13. Combined plot of individual PCA scores of Lythrurus specimens from reference populations (enclosed in dashed polygon) and ix Bear Creek specimens (enclosed in solid polygon) ........................... 38 Figure 14. Composite tubercle image of seven high males captured in Bear Creek (Green River drainage) on 25 June 2004 ........................ .39 Figure 15. Combined plot of individual PCA scores of Lythrurus specimens from reference populations (enclosed in dashed polygon) and Taylor Fork specimens (enclosed in solid polygon) ......................... .41 Figure I 6. Composite head tuberculation image of 11 high males capture at Taylor Fork (Green River dr.) on 25 June 2004.............................. .42 Figure 17. Combined plot of individual PCA scores of Lythrurus specimens from reference populations (enclosed in dashed polygon) and Mott's Lick Cr. specimens (enclosed in solid polygon) ......................44 Figure 18. Composite head tuberculation image of 15 high males captured Mott's Lick Cr. (Green River dr.) on 25 June 2004 .......................... .45 Figure 19. Combined plot of individual PCA scores of Lythrurus specimens from reference populations (enclosed in dashed polygon) and Knob Creek specimens
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • Redfin Shiner Lythrurus Umbratilis Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata the Redfin Shiner Is About Two to Three Inches in Class: Osteichthyes Length
    redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilis Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata The redfin shiner is about two to three inches in Class: Osteichthyes length. This minnow has a deep body that is Order: Cypriniformes compressed from side to side. The back is green- yellow with black specks, the sides are silver and the Family: Cyprinidae belly is white. There is a black spot at the front edge ILLINOIS STATUS (bottom) of the dorsal fin. The scales on the upper body are uniformly pigmented with black. The scales common, native in front of the dorsal fin are small and crowded. The lateral line curves sharply downward. Teeth are present in the throat. The breeding male has a bright blue body, red fins and white or pale gray on the top of the head. BEHAVIORS The redfin shiner may be found statewide in Illinois. It lives in clear, slow-flowing creeks. It is tolerant of © Konrad P. Schmidt, University of Minnesota silt and turbidity. This minnow is most common in pool habitats where there is little or no current. It adult swims in schools at middle water depths or near the surface. Spawning occurs from June through August over the nest of a green sunfish or longear sunfish. Approximately 500 to 700 eggs are deposited by the female. The redfin shiner eats insects and other small invertebrates. ILLINOIS RANGE © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2020. Biodiversity of Illinois. Unless otherwise noted, photos and images © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. © Uland Thomas Aquatic Habitats rivers and streams Woodland Habitats none Prairie and Edge Habitats none © Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
    [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]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • COPEIA February 1
    2000, No. 1COPEIA February 1 Copeia, 2000(1), pp. 1±10 Phylogenetic Relationships in the North American Cyprinid Genus Cyprinella (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) Based on Sequences of the Mitochondrial ND2 and ND4L Genes RICHARD E. BROUGHTON AND JOHN R. GOLD Shiners of the cyprinid genus Cyprinella are abundant and broadly distributed in eastern and central North America. Thirty species are currently placed in the genus: these include six species restricted to Mexico and three barbeled forms formerly placed in different cyprinid genera (primarily Hybopsis). We conducted a molecular phylogenetic analysis of all species of Cyprinella found in the United States, using complete nucleotide sequences of the mitochondrial, protein-coding genes ND2 and ND4L. Maximum-parsimony analysis recovered a single most-parsimonious tree for Cyprinella. Among historically recognized, nonbarbeled Cyprinella, the mitochondrial (mt) DNA tree indicated that basal lineages in Cyprinella are comprised largely of species with linear breeding tubercles and that are endemic to Atlantic and/or Gulf slope drainages, whereas derived lineages are comprised of species broadly distrib- uted in the Mississippi basin and the American Southwest. The Alabama Shiner, C. callistia, was basal in the mtDNA tree, although a monophyletic Cyprinella that in- cluded C. callistia was not supported in more than 50% of bootstrap replicates. There was strong bootstrap support (89%) for a clade that included all species of nonbarbeled Cyprinella (except C. callistia) and two barbeled species, C. labrosa and C. zanema. The third barbeled species, C. monacha, fell outside of Cyprinella sister to a species of Hybopsis. Within Cyprinella were a series of well-supported species groups, although in some cases bootstrap support for relationships among groups was below 50%.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Timing of the Largescale Stoneroller, Campostoma Oligolepis, in the Flint River, Alabama
    REPRODUCTIVE TIMING OF THE LARGESCALE STONEROLLER, CAMPOSTOMA OLIGOLEPIS, IN THE FLINT RIVER, ALABAMA by DANA M. TIMMS A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Biological Sciences to The School of Graduate Studies of The University of Alabama in Huntsville HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Bruce Stallsmith for all his guidance on this project and greater dedication to raising awareness to Alabama’s river ecosystems. I am grateful to my other committee members, Dr. Gordon MacGregor and Dr. Debra Moriarity also from UAH. Thanks to everyone who braved the weather and elements on collecting trips: Tiffany Bell, Austin Riley, Chelsie Smith, and Joshua Mann. I would like to thank Megan McEown, Corinne Peacher, and Bonnie Ferguson for dedicating long hours in the lab. Special thanks to Matthew Moore who assisted in collections, lab work, and data processing. Most of all, I would like to thank my husband, Patrick, for his love and encouragement in all my endeavors. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page • List of Figures viii • List of Tables x • CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 o Context 1 o Campostoma oligolepis Taxonomy 3 o History of Campostoma oligolepis 4 ▪ Campostoma oligolepis in the South 6 ▪ Campostoma Hybridization 8 ▪ Campostoma Ranges and Species Differentiation 9 ▪ Life History 12 ▪ Reproduction 12 o Purpose and Hypothesis 15 • CHAPTER TWO: Methodology 17 o Laboratory Analysis 19 o Reproductive Data 21 o Ovary and Oocyte Staging 22 o Statistical Analysis 22 • CHAPTER THREE: Results 27 o Reproductive Data 29 ▪ Ovary and Oocyte Development 32 ▪ Testicular Development 39 vi • CHAPTER FOUR: Discussion 40 o Study Limitations 40 o Lateral Line Scale Count 41 o Reproductive Cues and Environmental Influences 42 o Multiple-spawners 42 o Asymmetry of Ovaries 42 o Bourgeois Males 43 o Campostoma variability 44 o Conclusion 45 • WORKS CITED 46 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page • 1.1 Campostoma oligolepis, Largescale Stoneroller, specimens from the Flint River, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86
    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86 THE "LOST" JORDAN AND HAY FISH COLLECTION AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY Carter R. Gilbert: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA ABSTRACT. A large fish collection, preserved in ethanol and assembled by Drs. David S. Jordan and Oliver P. Hay between 1875 and 1892, had been stored for over a century in the biology building at Butler University. The collection was of historical importance since it contained some of the earliest fish material ever recorded from the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, and also included types of many new species collected during the course of this work. In addition to material collected by Jordan and Hay, the collection also included specimens received by Butler University during the early 1880s from the Smithsonian Institution, in exchange for material (including many types) sent to that institution. Many ichthyologists had assumed that Jordan, upon his departure from Butler in 1879. had taken the collection. essentially intact, to Indiana University, where soon thereafter (in July 1883) it was destroyed by fire. The present study confirms that most of the collection was probably transferred to Indiana, but that significant parts of it remained at Butler. The most important results of this study are: a) analysis of the size and content of the existing Butler fish collection; b) discovery of four specimens of Micropterus coosae in the Saluda River collection, since the species had long been thought to have been introduced into that river; and c) the conclusion that none of Jordan's 1878 southeastern collections apparently remain and were probably taken intact to Indiana University, where they were lost in the 1883 fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Species List
    FISH American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American eel Anguilla rostrata Banded darter Etheostoma zonale Bigeye chub Notropis amblops Bigeye shiner Notropis boops Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth shiner Notropis dorsalis Black buffalo Ictiobus niger Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside darter Percina maculate Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus Blue sucker Cycleptus elongates Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Bowfin Amia calva Brindled madtom Noturus miurus Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Central mudminnow Umbra limi Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel darter Percina copelandi Channel shiner Notropis wickliffi Common shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus Dusky darter Percina sciera sciera Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Grass pickerel Esox americanus
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent
    Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent Mark Endries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville North Carolina INTRODUCTION The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the lead governmental agency involved in the recovery of federally endangered and threatened species in freshwater and terrestrial habitats. To meet its recovery and protection goals, the Service: (1) works with other federal agencies to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants from projects they authorize, fund, or carry out; (2) supports the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on private land through technical and financial assistance; and (3) provides scientific knowledge and analyses to help guide the conservation, development, and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. Freshwater ecosystems present unique management challenges due to their linear spatial orientation and their association with upland habitat variables. On broad scales, the movement of aquatic species within the stream environment is limited to upstream and downstream migration. The inability of aquatic species to circumnavigate man-made obstacles causes them to be particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation has a major influence on species distribution and complicates distribution mapping. To better understand the spatial distributions of freshwater aquatic species in North Carolina, the Service created predictive habitat maps for 226 different aquatic species using geographic information systems (GIS) and maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling. These maps were derived by comparing known species occurrences with a suite of stream- or land-cover-derived environmental variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The
    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
    [Show full text]