DOCSLIB.ORG

2006 Proceedings.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2006 Proceedings.Indd Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, Vol. 85 (2006) 247 RECENT RANGE EXTENSIONS, NAME CHANGES AND STATUS UPDATES FOR SELECTED SOUTH DAKOTA FISHES Cari-Ann Hayer South Dakota State University Brookings, SD 57006 Brandon C. Harland Iowa Department of Natural Resources Des Moines, IA 50319 Charles R. Berry, Jr. U.S. Geological Survey South Dakota Cooperative Research Unit South Dakota State University Brookings, South Dakota 57007, USA ABSTRACT We present new distributional records for ten species of fish in South Dakota: silver chub, Macrhybopsis storeriana, Topeka shiner, Notropis topeka, northern redbelly dace, Phoxinus eos, southern redbelly dace, P. erythrogaster, shorthead redhorse, Moxostoma macrolepidotum, yellow bullhead, Ameiurus na- talis, northern pike, Esox lucius, Iowa darter, Etheostoma exile, johnny darter E. nigrum, yellow perch, Perca flavescens, and walleye, Sander vitreus. We also pres- ent several recently described or renamed fishes: shoal chub, Macrhybopsis hyos- toma, Carmine shiner, Notropis percobromus, western blacknose dace, Rhinichthys obtusus, and northern plains killifish, Fundulus kansae. The sand shiner,Notropis stramineus, is traditionally separated into two subspecies: eastern sand shiner, N. s. stramineus and plains sand shiner, N. s. missuriensis, both of which are present in South Dakota. There are also three species of carpsuckers in South Dakota: northern river carpsucker, Carpiodes carpio carpio, central quillback carpsucker, C. cyprinus hinei, and highfin carpsucker, C. velifer. Difficulties in distinguish- ing among these species obscure the status of the rarer quillback and highfin carpsuckers. Many species in South Dakota are easily misidentified; therefore we recommend preserving specimens for future examinations. Keywords Fish distribution, range extensions, misidentification, South Dakota 248 Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, Vol. 85 (2006) INTRODUCTION The last comprehensive survey of South Dakota fishes was conducted by Bai- ley and Allum in 1962. Researchers at South Dakota State University compiled a comprehensive list on the fish fauna of South Dakota which included both his- torical and recent survey records, allowing researchers to examine changes in fish distributions across the state (Smith et al. 2002, Hayer et al. 2006, Hoagstrom 2006). Systematic sampling by several agencies in South Dakota (see acknowl- edgements) continues to produce new distributional records for many South Dakota fishes (Blausey 2001, Harland 2003, Duehr 2004, Morey and Berry 2004, and Hoagstrom 2006). Our objectives were to report on species that have demonstrated significant range extensions based on historical and recent sam- pling sites across South Dakota drainage basins (Figure 1). In addition, we will present an update on South Dakota species whose names have changed recently, and report on certain species that are either difficult to identify or that are often confused with others. Figure 1. Map of South Dakota drainage basins. METHODS Literature was used to determine historical fish species presence in South Dakota and additional data were gathered from several agencies across South Dakota and surrounding states and used to compile an updated list of South Dakota fishes and their distributions (Hayer et al. 2006, Hoagstrom 2006) by drainage basin (Figure 1). Fishes were collected by various methods (i.e. seining, Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, Vol. 85 (2006) 249 electrofishing, hook and line) depending on the study. A total of 2,015 historic and recent sampling locations were compiled and used to examine potential range extensions based on 11 drainages (Figure 1). Taxonomic name changes were based on an American Fisheries Society special publication which updated previous taxonomic lists in an attempt to “achieve uniform use of common names and avoid confusion in scientific names” (Nelson et al. 2004). The list suggests scientific names to use based on current literature and views of special- ists on the various taxa. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Range Extensions Eleven species demonstrated considerable range extensions from their histor- ical distributions (Table 1). Each species will be discussed below, beginning with where the new distribution occurred and the habitat in which it was collected. This will be followed by the nearest documented locality and a description of other drainage basins where the species has been previously collected in the state. We will then hypothesize why the range extension occurred and give the status of the species in South Dakota (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 2006) and in the surrounding states of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming (Iowa DNR 2006, Minnesota DNR 2006, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 2006, North Dakota Game and Fish Department 1994, Wyoming Game and Fish 2006). Macrhybopsis storeriana (Kirtland) – silver chub One silver chub was col- lected from the Keya Paha River (Table 1, Figure 2) west of Clearfield, South Dakota in June 2002 (Harland and Berry 2004) by seining. The sampling site was comprised of 75% sand, 15% gravel, and 0.34 m/s velocities, which are common silver chub habitats (Harlan et al. 1987). The Keya Paha River is a tributary to the Niobrara River in Ne- braska. The nearest published collection of this species is Figure 2. Silver Chub, Macrhybopsis storeriana, point located in the Niobrara River distributions, native range, and range extensions into the Keya Paha River drainage. in Nebraska (228.5 km). This is the first verified record for silver chub west of the Missouri River in South Dakota. The silver chub is cat- egorized as a large-river species being restricted to the Missouri River and a few 250 Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, Vol. 85 (2006) Table 1: List of species exhibiting range extensions in South Dakota, the source for the extension, and specific location for the new record. STREAM SPECIES SOURCE BASIN NAME UTM TRS Silver Chub 420813E T96N R77E Macrhybopsis Harland and Keya Paha Keya Paha River storeriana Berry 2004 4771278N Sec. 32 Topeka shiner Blausey 2001; Vermillion, Notropis topeka James and Wall et al. 2004 Big Sioux Northern Redbelly Dace Morey and Grand River Stink Creek 328639E Phoxinus eos Berry 2004 5054981N Southern Redbelly Dace Springman and Little Beaver T98N R49W Phoxinus Banks 2005 Big Sioux Creek Sec. 34 erythrogaster Antelope 387310E T38N R26E Creek 4787039N Sec. 34 T96N R78E Sec. 17 Shorthead Harland and Keya Paha redhorse Berry 2004 Keya 410169E T95N R76E Moxostoma Paha 4775627N Sec. 22 macrolepidotum River 433595E 4765215N Harland 2003 Missouri Bull Creek 459801E T103N R73W 4836631N Sec. 36 Yellow bullhead 635300E Ameiurus natalis Hampton 1998 Cheyenne Cheyenne River 4805690N T8S R7E Sec. 6 Antelope 363361E T38N R28E Creek Sec. 19 Harland and Keya Paha Northern Pike Berry 2004 White 4789507N T96N R77E Esox lucius Willow Creek 420970E Sec. 32 4771463N Duehr 2004 Moreau Thunder Butte 269361E T15N R18E Creek 5018930N Sec. 5 Iowa darter Duehr 2004 Cheyenne Sulpher Creek 685306E T10N R12E Etheostoma exile 4968045N Sec 10 Johnny darter Etheostoma Duehr 2004 Moreau Moreau River 360637E T15N R27E nigrum 5015925N Sec. 11 American Crow 466945E T104 R73W 4850456N Sec 14 Harland 2003 Missouri T103N R73W Sec. 36 Bull Creek 459801E 4836631N White 420970E T96N R77E Yellow perch Harland and Keya Paha 4771463N Sec. 32 Perca flavescens Berry 2004 Willow Creek 409874E T96N R78E Sand Creek 4774390N Sec. 19 Walleye 419882E T103N R77E Sander vitreum Harland 2003 White Dog Ear Creek 4836084N Sec. 36 Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, Vol. 85 (2006) 251 watersheds within the James, Big Sioux, and Niobrara river basins (Figure 2, Bai- ley and Alum 1962, Hesse et al. 1979, Smith et al. 2002) and typically inhabits semi-turbid water in strong current over sand a gravel substrates (Harlan et al. 1987). Harland and Berry (2004) suggested that this collection was the result of silver chub using the Keya Paha for spawning activities. It is not a species of concern in South Dakota or surrounding states and this new record represents a notable range extension. Notropis topeka (Gilbert) – Topeka shiner The Topeka shiner was recorded to occur in 24 streams before 1999 (Blausey 2001) and collections since 1999 have recorded its presence in 21 additional streams located throughout the Vermillion, James, and Big Sioux river drainages (Wall et al. 2004). The Topeka shiner is native to Big Sioux, Vermillion and James rivers in eastern South Dakota (Bailey and Allum 1962). These new local records may be the result of the Topeka shiner being listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Tabor 1998), which prompted surveys of many tributaries within their historical range (Blausey 2001, Wall et al. 2004). The To- peka shiner is considered a species of concern in South Dakota and threatened in Iowa; however, recent collections in Minnesota and South Dakota (Hatch 2001, Wall et al. 2004) at both historic and new locations suggest it is more persistent in the northern part of its range in Minnesota and South Dakota than the south- ern part of its range in Kansas (Wall and Berry 2004). Phoxinus eos (Cope) – northern redbelly dace Thirteen northern red- belly dace were collected in June 2003 by pulsed-DC elec- trofishing (Table 1, Figure 3) in the Grand River drainage (Morey and Berry 2004). The sample reach consisted of a single, unconstrained channel that transected open prairie, with pools consisting mostly of silt substrate, filamentous algae, and rooted macro- phytes. The stream gradient was low (0.1%) and there was no apparent surface flow at Figure 3. Northern redbelly dace, Phoxinus eos, point the time of sampling. Mean distributions, native range, and range extensions into the Grand River drainage. wetted width was 1.33 m and mean depth was 23 cm. Water quality conditions consisted of water temperature (16.6° C), dissolved oxygen (14.6 mg/L), conductivity (748 µmhos.cm), and pH (7.69). Habitat conditions were similar to those reported for this species by others (Brown 1971, Eddy and Underhill 1976, Becker 1983, Bestgen 1989).
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Aquatic Fish Report
    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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 TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 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). The checklist has grown because of descriptions of three new species, new distribution records of both native and non-native species, and the addition numerous of marine species that are known to enter freshwaters in Louisiana.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the Dakotas
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2020 Fishes of the Dakotas Kathryn Schlafke South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Schlafke, Kathryn, "Fishes of the Dakotas" (2020). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3942. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/3942 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FISHES OF THE DAKOTAS BY KATHRYN SCHLAFKE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Specialization in Fisheries Science South Dakota State University 2020 ii THESIS ACCEPTANCE PAGE Kathryn Schlafke This thesis is approved as a creditable and independent investigation by a candidate for the master’s degree and is acceptable for meeting the thesis requirements for this degree. Acceptance of this does not imply that the conclusions reached by the candidate are necessarily the conclusions of the major department. Brian Graeb, Ph.D. Advisor Date Michele R. Dudash Department Head Date Dean, Graduate School Date iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my advisors throughout this project, Dr. Katie Bertrand and Dr. Brian Graeb for giving me the opportunity to work towards a graduate degree at South Dakota State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis Gelida) and Sicklefin Chub (Macrhybopsis Meeki) UNDER the U.S
    PETITION TO LIST THE Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) and Sicklefin Chub (Macrhybopsis meeki) UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Top: Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida). Bottom: Sicklefin Chub (Macrhybopsis meeki). Photos © David Ostendorf, used with permission. Petition Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Petitioner: WildEarth Guardians 2590 Walnut St. Denver, Colorado 80205 (720) 443-2615 Address correspondence to: Taylor Jones [email protected] August 11, 2016 INTRODUCTION WildEarth Guardians (Guardians) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) list the Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) and the Sicklefin Chub (Macrhybopsis meeki) as “threatened” or “endangered” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544). WildEarth Guardians also requests that the Service designate critical habitat for these species. Sicklefin and Sturgeon Chub are small fish that inhabit large, free-flowing riverine systems, characterized by swift flows, highly variable flow regimes, braided channels, high turbidity, and sand/fine gravel substrates. Both species are in decline due to severe habitat changes. In particular, the construction and operation of mainstem dams has fragmented the habitat of the Sicklefin and Sturgeon Chub. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS The ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, was enacted in 1973 “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b).
    [Show full text]
  • CLASS Actinopterygii
    Kentucky's Species of Greatest Conservation Need and their statuses. Common name Scientific name Federal Heritage GRank SRank Actinopterygii (9 species). Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger N S G5 S3 Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta N S G5 S3 Burbot Lota lota N S G5 N Paddlefish Polyodon spathula N N G4 S4 Pallid Shiner Hybopsis amnis N X G4 N Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus N N G4 S3 Sicklefin Chub Macrhybopsis meeki N H G3 N Spring Cavefish Forbesichthys agassizii N N G4 S4 Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida N H G3 N Literature cited Download all 9 new 2013 Fish Statewide Maps (10 MB) CLASS Actinopterygii Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger Federal Heritage GRank SRank GRank SRank Status Status (Simplified) (Simplified) N S G5 S3 G5 S3 G-Trend Unknown G-Trend Throughout its range, the black buffalo appears to be less common than the other Comment species of buffalo (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Some authorities regard this species to be inadequately diagnosed and its taxonomic status uncertain (Burr and Warren 1986, Robison and Buchanan 1988). This has led to uncertainty regarding its distributional status in several states and speculation about misidentifications. The species is generally treated as vulnerable to imperiled in most of the upper Mississippi River basin and Ohio River drainage. It is considered secure in only a few states in the middle and lower Mississippi River basin, although records in the Gulf Slope drainages in Texas and New Mexico are thought to potentially be based on misidentifications or introductions (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Natureserve 2008, Shute 1980). S-Trend Unknown S-Trend Burr and Warren (1986) regarded this species as sporadic and rare in rivers and Comment reservoirs in western Kentucky, and sporadic in the main channels of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]