DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Biology of the Speckled Chub Complex (Cyprinidae: Cf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Biology of the Speckled Chub Complex (Cyprinidae: Cf CONSERVATION BIOLOGY OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN By GEFFERY ROGER LUTTRELL Bachelor of Science Pittsburg State University Pittsburg, Kansas 1987 Master of Science Pittsburg State University Pittsburg, Kansas 1990 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 1997 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN Thesis Approved: ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am eternally grateful to my wife Brooke and daughter Carlee, and to my parents, Charles and Mae Luttrell, for their generous love and support during this arduous course of study. My adviser, mentor, and friend Dr. Anthony Echelle, and advisory committee members Drs. Larry Talent, William Fisher, Donald Turton, and the late W. S. Fargo provided invaluable assistance and guidance. Thanks are due L. Gallery, J. Banta, D. Underwood, L. Williams, N. Ashbaugh, A. A. Echelle, and A. F. Echelle for their help in the field. Thanks to A. A. Echelle, A. F. Echelle, W. Matthews, F. Cross, A. Zale, R. Lemmons, M. Eberle, D. Eisenhour, V. Tabor, G. Ernsting, W. Stark, J. Triplett, and M. Payton for their patience in numerous lengthy discussions. Financial and logistical support for this study were provided by the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and the Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. DISTRIBUTIONAL STATUS OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN ......•..... 1 Introduction. .. 1 Materials and Methods ...........•......... 6 Results. 8 History of Occurrence ..•.•........... 8 Arkansas River. 8 Ninnescah River drainage .......•.•..• 11 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River drainage ........................... 13 Cimarron River drainage ......•.•....• 15 Canadian River drainage ......•....... 17 Extirpations and Artificial Impoundm.en ts. 2 0 Discussion ................................ 21 LITERATURE CITED ... ·· . • . 28 II. HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPECKLED CHUB (CYPRINIDAE: MACRHYBOPSIS HYOSTOMA) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BAS IN. 5 0 ·Introduction . ...·. 50 Materials and Methods ...•................. 53 Habitat Measurements ................. 53 Habitat Analyses ...............•..... 55 Results.:• . 59 Discussion.. 62 LITERATURE c·ITED. .. • . • 67 III. RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: MACRHYBOPSIS HYOSTOMA) IN THE CIMARRON RIVER OF OKLAHOMA. .. • . 7 6 iv Chapter Page Introduction. ~ • . 7 6 Materials and Methods •••.••••••.........•• 77 Results .................................... 79 Disappearance of speckled chub from the Cimarron River ••...••••••. 79 Reappearance of speckled chub in the Cimarron River .•.•...••••••• 81 Discussion ........................... 83 LITERATURE CITED. • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • . • • • . 90 IV. AN ATTEMPTED INTRODUCTION OF A MEMBER OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) INTO AREAS OF PAST OCCURRENCE .......•.. 98 Introduction. 98 Materials and Methods ..••••............... 100 Habitat Measurements .•••••.......... 102 Data An.alyses . ...................... 104 Results ................................... 106 Discussion ................................ 107 LITERATURE CITED ............•.••••..........•.. 111 APPENDIXES ................................................ 120 APPENDIX A--MUSEUM SPECIMENS OF SPECKLED CHUB EXAMINED FROM THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN .................................. 121 APPENDIX B--ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN SITES SAMPLED FOR SPECKLED CHUB FROM 1991 THROUGH 1997 ... ............................... 132 APPENDIX C--LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR 24 HABITAT STUDY SITES SAMPLED IN 1994 AND 1995 ......•.•••••.. 144 APPENDIX D--SEINE-COLLECTIONS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO REINTRODUCTION OF SPECKLED . CHUB . ....•.......•.•.•••••••........... 14 7 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Summary of sampling in this study and historical and present status of M. hyostoma and M. tetranema in the Arkansas River Basin ...••....•. 33 II. Last record of extirpated populations of M. tetranema, and year-of-completion for - reservoirs that isolated areas of extirpation from a source of immigrants. 38 III. Last record of extirpated populations of M. hyostoma, and year-of-completion for reservoirs that isolated areas of extirpation from a source of immigrants ......... 39 IV. Habitat selection by juvenile (n = 58) and adult (:g = 141) !i· hyostoma .. :-.................. 70 V. Back-transformed means and standard deviations of habitat variables from ANOVA in seine-hauls from areas where M. hyostoma was present, historically absent, and extirpated (see text for explanation of groups) . • . 71 VI. Back-transformed means and standard deviations of habitat variables for the ~pper and lower Salt Fork of the Arkansas (= Salt Fork), Cimarron, and Medicine Lodge rivers ............. 113 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Historical distribution. of .. speckled chub in the Arkansas River Basin (1884-1990) ••••....••••••.... 41 2. Present distribution of speckled chub in the Arkansas River Basin (1991-1996) .........•.••..... 43 3. Mean daily discharge for the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Jet, Oklahoma .....•........... 45 4. Temporal cumulative relationship between extirpations of M. tetranema and M. hyostoma from stream reaches and completion of adjacent reservoirs in the Arkansas River drainage ....•...• 47 5. Comparison of approximate time of extirpation of ~. tetranema (upper pane) and~. hyostoma (lower pane) with completion times of reservoirs that would have prevented recolonization from adjacent stream reaches in the Arkansas River drainage ........................................... 49 6. Location of 24 sites in the Arkansas River Basin where collections were made in 1994 and 1995 ..••.. 73 7. Habitat preferences (normalized ratio) of adult (n = 141) and juvenile (~ = 58) ~. hyostoma ....... 75 8. Historical distribution of speckled chub (1928-1965) in the Cimarron River drainage (Luttrell, 1997) .................................. 93 9. Summary of changes in the distribution of M. hyostoma and~. tetranema in the Cimarron River ........................................•.... 95 10. Maximum daily streamflow for the Cimarron River at Perkins... 97 vii Figure Page 11. Historical distribution of speckled chub in the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River drainage (Luttrell, 1997) .................................. 115 12. Map showing speckled chub capture site and release sites (7 and 12) and other study sites in the area .............................................. 117 13. Maximum daily discharges for the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Alva, Oklahoma (upper pane) and the Medicine Lodge River near Kiowa, Kansas (lower pane) in May-August of 1985-1995 ......... 119 viii CHAPTER I DISTRIBUTIONAL STATUS OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTRODUCTION In this paper, I report the historical distributions and present status of two species of the speckled chub complex, Macrhybopsis tetranema and M. hyostoma, in the Arkansas River Basin. Until recently, speckled chubs in the Arkansas River Basin and elsewhere (Wallace, 1980) were referred to as a single, wide-ranging, geographically variable species (~. [= Hybopsis] aestivalis). However, several workers had suggested that the specific epithet may encompass more than one species (Miller and Robison, 1973; Robison and Buchanan, 1988; Page and Burr, 1991). Based on morphological data, D. Eisenhour (pers. comm.) recognizes several species within the complex, two of which inhabit the Arkansas River Basin. Macrhybopsis tetranema is endemic to the basin," where, historically, it occurred in upstream reaches of the Arkansas River and its larger, western 1 2 tributaries. The second species,~- hyostoma, is more widespread, occurring in middle and lower reaches of the Arkansas River mainstem and its western tributaries, and elsewhere in the Mississippi River System. Macrhybopsis tetranema has a conical shaped head, tiny, nearly round eyes, and a pair of posterior barbels that are longer than the length of the orbit along with a pair of anterior barbels more than half the orbit length. Macrhybopsis hyostoma has a rounded head with a hump over the nares, oval eyes, and a pair of posterior barbels that are shorter than the length of the orbit along with a pair of anterior barbels less than half the orbit length. The present work grew out of concern (Cross and Moss, 1987; Williams et al., 1989) for the status of the previously recognized "Arkansas River speckled chub" M. (= Hybopsis) aestivalis tetranemus, which encompassed both of the presently recognized speckled chub species in the Arkansas River Basin. This nominal taxon has declined over large portions of the Arkansas River Basin during the past 30 years, as have other prairie-stream taxa, including cyprinid fishes (Cross and Moss, 1987; Larson, 1991; Echelle et al., 1995) and bivalve mollusks (Distler and Eleam, 1995). In general, decline of the native ~rairie-stream fauna has been attributed to effects of ground-water removal 3 for irrigation and reservoir construction, which have changed base-flow levels (including summertime dewatering of some upstream reaches) and altered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis Gelida): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project August 31, 2004 Frank J. Rahel and Laura A. Thel Department of Zoology and Physiology University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rahel, F.J. and L.A. Thel. (2004, August 31). Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/sturgeonchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank biologists from Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, and from the national forests and national grasslands within Region 2 who provided information about sturgeon chub within their jurisdictions. We especially thank Gregory Hayward and Richard Vacirca of the USDA Forest Service for their review of this species assessment. Comments also were provided by two anonymous reviewers. David B. McDonald of the University of Wyoming provided the population demographic matrix analysis. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Frank J. Rahel is a professor in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming where he teaches courses in fi sheries management, ichthyology, and conservation biology. His research interests are centered around fi sh ecology and the infl uence of anthropogenic disturbances on fi sh assemblages. Laura A. Thel is a graduate research assistant in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming with research interests involving stream ecology, hydrology, and landscape ecology, especially as these are related to the management of native fi shes. COVER PHOTO CREDIT Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida).
    [Show full text]
  • Notropis Girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis Tetranema)
    Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Species Status Assessment Report for the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) Arkansas River shiner (bottom left) and peppered chub (top right - two fish) (Photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Version 1.0a October 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Albuquerque, NM This document was prepared by Angela Anders, Jennifer Smith-Castro, Peter Burck (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Southwest Regional Office) Robert Allen, Debra Bills, Omar Bocanegra, Sean Edwards, Valerie Morgan (USFWS –Arlington, Texas Field Office), Ken Collins, Patricia Echo-Hawk, Daniel Fenner, Jonathan Fisher, Laurence Levesque, Jonna Polk (USFWS – Oklahoma Field Office), Stephen Davenport (USFWS – New Mexico Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office), Mark Horner, Susan Millsap (USFWS – New Mexico Field Office), Jonathan JaKa (USFWS – Headquarters), Jason Luginbill, and Vernon Tabor (Kansas Field Office). Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Species status assessment report for the Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), version 1.0, with appendices. October 2018. Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION (CHAPTER 1) The Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) are restricted primarily to the contiguous river segments of the South Canadian River basin spanning eastern New Mexico downstream to eastern Oklahoma (although the peppered chub is less widespread). Both species have experienced substantial declines in distribution and abundance due to habitat destruction and modification from stream dewatering or depletion from diversion of surface water and groundwater pumping, construction of impoundments, and water quality degradation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with the Descriptions of Four New Species
    Zootaxa 4247 (5): 501–555 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2017 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4247.5.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B6B0858B-BBEE-4E59-A7AD-58B5DE381065 Morphological and genetic evolution in eastern populations of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with the descriptions of four new species CARTER R. GILBERT1, RICHARD L. MAYDEN2,4 & STEVEN L. POWERS3 1Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA. E-mail [email protected] 2Department of Biology, 3507 Laclede Avenue, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2010 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3Department of Biology, Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia 24153 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 4Corresponding author Table of contents Abstract . 501 Introduction . 502 Methods and materials. 504 Genus Macrhybopsis . 508 Systematic accounts . 508 Macrhybopsis hyostoma (Gilbert 1884) . 508 Macrhybopsis boschungi Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 512 Macrhybopsis etnieri Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 514 Macrhybopsis pallida Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 517 Macrhybopsis tomellerii Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 520 Key to species of Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex east of Mississippi River . 522 Acknowledgments . 544 References . 545 Appendix 1 . 551 Abstract For many years the North American cyprinid fish Macrhybopsis aestivalis (common name: Speckled Chub) was regarded as a single widespread and morphologically variable species, occurring in rivers throughout much of the Mississippi Val- ley and geographically adjacent eastern Gulf slope drainages, west to the Rio Grande basin in Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico. Eisenhour (1997) completed a morphological study of western populations of the Speckled Chub, the results of which appeared thereafter in published form (Eisenhour 1999, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And
    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name and the Probability of Occurrence
    DEVELOPING PREDICTED DISTRIBUTION MODELS FOR FISH SPECIES IN NEBRASKA Final Report: July 2006 Submitted to: The USGS National Gap Analysis Program Moscow, Idaho Project Number: 00005007 DEVELOPING PREDICTED DISTRIBUTION MODELS FOR FISH SPECIES IN NEBRASKA FINAL REPORT 11 July 2006 Scott P. Sowa Principal Investigator Gust M. Annis NHD Classification, Watershed Characterization, and Distribution Modeling Michael E. Morey Range Mapping and Distribution Modeling Aaron J. Garringer Habitat Affinity Reports Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership School of Natural Resources University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65201 Contract Administration Through: Office of Sponsored Programs University of Missouri-Columbia Submitted by: Scott P. Sowa, PhD Research Performed Under: Cooperative Agreement No. 01-HQ-AG-0202 Cooperative Agreement No. 04-HQ-AG-0134 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements.............................................................................................iii Introduction..........................................................................................................1 Methods................................................................................................................1 Community Fish Sampling Data..................................................................1 Mapping Geographic Ranges......................................................................2 GIS Base Layer for
    [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]
  • A Check-List of the Fishes of Iowa, with Keys for Identification
    A CHECK-LIST OF THE FISHES OF IOWA, WITH KEYS FOR IDENTIFICATION By Reeve M. Bailey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ................................................................................................................... 187 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 188 Species Removed from the Iowa Faunal List ........................................................ 188 Check-list of Iowa Fishes ............................................................................................ 189 Additional Fishes which May Occur in Iowa ........................................................ 195 Keys for the Identification of Iowa Fishes ............................................................ 196 Key to Families of Iowa Fishes .................................................................... 198 Key to Petromyzontidae (lampreys) .......................................................... 206 Key to Acipenseridae (sturgeons) .............................................................. 207 Key to Lepisosteidae (gars) .......................................................................... 207 Key to Salmonidae (trouts) .......................................................................... 208 Key to Clupeidae (herrings) .......................................................................... 209 Key to Hiodontidae (mooneyes) .................................................................... 209 Key to Esocidae (pikes) .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana
    Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 61 2021 Article 3 March 2021 Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Michael H. Doosey University of New Orelans, [email protected] Henry L. Bart Jr. Tulane University, [email protected] Kyle R. Piller Southeastern Louisiana Univeristy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biodiversity Commons Recommended Citation Doosey, Michael H.; Bart, Henry L. Jr.; and Piller, Kyle R. (2021) "Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 61. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss61/3 This Original Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Abstract Since the publication of Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana (Douglas, 1974) and a revised checklist (Douglas and Jordan, 2002), much has changed regarding knowledge of inland fishes in the state. An updated reference on Louisiana’s inland and coastal fishes is long overdue. Inland waters of Louisiana are home to at least 224 species (165 primarily freshwater, 28 primarily marine, and 31 euryhaline or diadromous) in 45 families. This checklist is based on a compilation of fish collections records in Louisiana from 19 data providers in the Fishnet2 network (www.fishnet2.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition
    Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition Pictures from – NANFA (2017) Warren Lamb Aquatic Biology Program Bemidji State University Bemidji, MN 56601 Introduction Minnesota’s landscape is maze of lakes and river that are home to a recorded total of 163 species of fish. This document is a complete and current dichotomous taxonomic key of the Minnesota fishes. This key was based on the 1972 “Northern Fishes” key (Eddy 1972), and updated based on Dr. Jay Hatch’s article “Minnesota Fishes: Just How Many Are There?” (Hatch 2016). Any new species or family additions were also referenced to the 7th edition of the American Fisheries society “Names of North American Fishes” (Page et al. 2013) to assess whether a fish species is currently recognized by the scientific community. Identifying characteristics for new additions were compared to those found in Page and Burr (2011). In total five species and one family have been added to the taxonomic key, while three have been removed since the last publication. Species pictures within the keys have been provide from either Bemidji State University Ichthyology Students or North American Native Fish Association (NANFA). My hope is that this document will offer an accurate and simple key so anyone can identify the fish they may encounter in Minnesota. Warren Lamb – 2017 Pictures from – NANFA (2017) References Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp. Hatch, J. 2015. Minnesota fishes: just how many are there anyway? American Currents 40:10-21. Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico.
    [Show full text]