Integrating Fish Assemblage Data, Modeled Stream Temperatures

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Integrating Fish Assemblage Data, Modeled Stream Temperatures Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 148:739–754, 2019 © 2019 American Fisheries Society ISSN: 0002-8487 print / 1548-8659 online DOI: 10.1002/tafs.10169 ARTICLE Integrating Fish Assemblage Data, Modeled Stream Temperatures, and Thermal Tolerance Metrics to Develop Thermal Guilds for Water Temperature Regulation: Wyoming Case Study Caitlin P. Mandeville*1 Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Department 3166, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Frank J. Rahel Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Department 3166, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Lindsay S. Patterson Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, USA Annika W. Walters U.S. Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Department 3166, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Abstract Many streams are experiencing increased average temperatures due to anthropogenic activity and climate change. As a result, surface water temperature regulation is critical for preserving a diverse stream fish species assemblage. The development of temperature regulations has generally been based on laboratory measurements of individual spe- cies’ thermal tolerances rather than community response to temperature in the field, despite multiple limitations of using laboratory data for this purpose. Using field data to develop temperature regulations may avoid some of the lim- itations of laboratory data, but the use of field data comes with additional challenges that prevent its widespread adoption. We used Wyoming stream fish assemblages as a case study to examine the feasibility of addressing the limi- tations of field and laboratory data through a hybrid approach that integrates both types of data to classify species into thermal guilds that can potentially inform regulatory standards. We identified coldwater, coolwater, and warmwa- ter classes of sites with modeled mean August temperatures of <15.5, 15.5–19.9, and >19.9°C, respectively. We used species’ associations with these temperature classes to place species into site‐groups. Finally, we used standardized lab- oratory measures of species’ upper acute and chronic thermal tolerances to identify and reclassify species with unusual thermal distributions. Through this process we classified species into five thermal guilds that may be useful for surface water temperature regulation in Wyoming. Our approach addresses the limitations identified for field and laboratory data and demonstrates a framework that could be used for incorporating multiple types of data to develop tempera- ture standards. *Corresponding author: cmpeterson78@gmail.com 1Present address: Department of Natural History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Erling Skakkes Gate 47B, 7012, Trondheim, Norway. Received August 8, 2018; accepted April 8, 2019 739 740 MANDEVILLE ET AL. Temperature has a major influence on the physiology attainability but would be infeasible to implement. There- and behavior of fish (Kingsolver 2009; Buckley et al. fore, a general maxim is that species should be divided 2012). Every fish species has an optimal temperature into the maximum number of guilds for which regulations range, and deviation from this range may result in both can be feasibly implemented. individual mortality and reduced population viability Although the division of species into guilds of similar (Cherry et al. 1977; Coutant 1977; Hokanson et al. 1977). thermal requirements is a simple concept, it is difficult in Because thermal optima, maxima, and minima vary sub- practice to detect thermal thresholds between distinct spe- stantially among species, the composition of stream fish cies assemblages (Beauchene et al. 2014). Historically, assemblages is strongly related to water temperature thresholds were established by ranking species‐specific met- (Hokanson et al. 1977; Magnuson et al. 1979; Comte and rics, most commonly laboratory‐derived thermal optima or Grenouillet 2013). The preservation of natural thermal maxima, and subjectively drawing “break points” along the regimes is therefore essential to protect distinct stream fish gradient of species’ responses (Magnuson et al. 1979; Eaton species assemblages (Rahel and Hubert 1991; Wehrly et al. 1995). Ranked species‐specific laboratory values et al. 2003; Poole et al. 2004). remain the basis of many thermal regulations today. Labo- Stream thermal regimes are driven by natural and ratory‐derived thermal tolerance provides a good measure anthropogenic factors. Natural factors include solar radia- of species’ physiological sensitivities to thermal stress under tion, air temperature, elevation, groundwater input, chan- otherwise ideal conditions but may not represent upper nel morphology and shading, and stream flows (Caissie thermal limits in natural settings where other abiotic or bio- 2006; Webb et al. 2008). Anthropogenic influences such as tic stresses may be present (Magnuson et al. 1979; Meeuwig riparian zone alteration, dams and diversions, land use et al. 2004; Wehrly et al. 2007). Furthermore, the quantity change, and the direct input of thermal effluent often and quality of thermal stress test results vary widely by spe- increase water temperatures (Walsh et al. 2005; Hester cies, so regulations derived from these results may favor and Doyle 2011; Firkus et al. 2018). Models predict that species with an extensive history of stress testing and disad- climate change is likely to further increase stream temper- vantage less‐studied species (Isaak et al. 2017b; Peterson atures (Isaak et al. 2010; Paukert et al. 2016). Because of 2017) (Table 1). these anthropogenic influences, preventing increases in Recently, there has been increased interest in studying stream temperature that may be detrimental to fish and species’ thermal requirements in the context of their natu- other aquatic life is a major focus of stream water quality ral thermal regimes (Eaton et al. 1995; Poole et al. 2004; regulation. McCullough 2010). Newer approaches for thermal thresh- Thermal regulatory approaches vary among regulatory old detection involve collecting paired field data on species agencies along with regional differences in stream fish assemblages and stream temperatures at a large number of assemblages and stream thermal regimes, but a common stream sites (Eaton et al. 1995; Beauchene et al. 2014; objective is that regulations should be protective while Parkinson et al. 2016). Threshold detection approaches also remaining attainable (Poole et al. 2004; CWQCC include multivariate methods, such as ordination, cluster, 2011). In other words, maximum allowable temperatures and similarity index analyses, or threshold indicator meth- must be low enough to protect species from harmful ther- ods (Wehrly et al. 2003; Lyons et al. 2009; Beauchene et mal change but should not be exceeded by naturally al. 2014). After thresholds are identified, fish species’ asso- occurring thermal regimes. ciations with the assemblages on either side of the thresh- The identification of thermally distinct species assem- olds are used to inform the development of regulatory blages, or guilds, is a common approach used to balance thermal guilds. The advantage of field data is its ability to protection and attainability (Todd et al. 2008; McCul- capture the impact of factors that alter species’ thermal lough et al. 2009; McCullough 2010). Species associated niches. These factors include thermally mediated species with a thermally distinct species assemblage are classified interactions (Fausch et al. 1994; Taniguchi et al. 1998; into a thermal guild, and regulatory criteria are developed Carmona‐Catot et al. 2013), food availability and for each guild. Streams are tested for compliance with the metabolic rate at various temperatures (Sullivan et al. criteria associated with the guild expected to be present. 2000; Larsson 2005), and access to thermal refugia The number of recognized guilds, as well as their taxo- (Westhoff et al. 2016; Ouellet et al. 2017). Additionally, nomic composition and regulatory criteria, are expected to species assemblage data offer an objective method for clas- vary regionally. The lowest resolution approach would sifying species with limited or no thermal stress test data involve two guilds (for example, coldwater and warmwa- from laboratory studies. ter guilds); the highest resolution approach would entail a Despite the development of threshold detection unique regulatory criterion for each species expected to be approaches, regulatory agencies have generally not begun present in a management area. The high‐resolution sce- to use field‐based data for developing stream temperature nario could in theory achieve perfect protection and regulations. One barrier to the application of field data to STREAM FISH THERMAL GUILDS FROM INTEGRATED FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA 741 TABLE 1. Challenges in thermal guild development using laboratory‐derived data (cases A through C) and field‐derived data (cases D through G). Case Limitation Example A Thermal niche constraints. Laboratory data often fail to In some streams with both Brook Trout capture species’ realized thermal niches because factors that Salvelinus fontinalis and Brown Trout Salmo alter species’ thermal distribution in the field are difficult to trutta, the Brown Trout thermal niche is measure in the lab. If a
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub
    1 RFP No. 212f for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub Final Report Contributing authors: David S. Ruppel, V. Alex Sotola, Ozlem Ablak Gurbuz, Noland H. Martin, and Timothy H. Bonner Addresses: Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 (DSR, VAS, NHM, THB) Kirkkonaklar Anatolian High School, Turkish Ministry of Education, Ankara, Turkey (OAG) Principal investigators: Timothy H. Bonner and Noland H. Martin Email: TBonner@txstate.edu, noland.martin@txstate.edu Date: July 31, 2017 Style: American Fisheries Society Funding sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Turkish Ministry of Education- Visiting Scholar Program (OAG) Summary Four hundred mesohabitats were sampled from 36 sites and 20 reaches within the upper Red River drainage from September 2015 through September 2016. Fishes (N = 36,211) taken from the mesohabitats represented 14 families and 49 species with the most abundant species consisting of Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis, Red River Shiner Notropis bairdi, Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus, and Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. Red River Pupfish Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (a species of greatest conservation need, SGCN) and Plains Killifish Fundulus zebrinus were more abundant within prairie streams (e.g., swift and shallow runs with sand and silt substrates) with high specific conductance. Red River Shiner (SGCN), Prairie Chub Macrhybopsis australis (SGCN), and Plains Minnow were more abundant within prairie 2 streams with lower specific conductance. The remaining 44 species of fishes were more abundant in non-prairie stream habitats with shallow to deep waters, which were more common in eastern tributaries of the upper Red River drainage and Red River mainstem. Prairie Chubs comprised 1.3% of the overall fish community and were most abundant in Pease River and Wichita River.
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Fish Fauna of Major Drainages East of The
    THE NATIVE FISH FAUNA OF MAJOR DRAINAGES EAST OF THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE IN NEW MEXICO A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Biology Eastern New Mexico University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements fdr -the7Degree: Master of Science in Biology by Michael D. Hatch December 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction Study Area Procedures Results and Discussion Summary Acknowledgements Literature Cited Appendices Abstract INTRODUCTION r (t. The earliest impression of New Mexico's native fish fauna =Ems during the 1850's from naturalists attached to various government survey parties. Without the collections from these and other early surveys, the record of the native fish fauna would be severely deficient because, since that time, some 1 4 native species - or subspecies of fish have become extirpated and the ranges of an additionial 22 native species or subspecies have become severly re- stricted. Since the late Miocene, physiographical changes of drainages have linked New Mexico, to varying degrees, with contemporary ichthyofaunal elements or their progenitors from the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains, the Chihuahuan Desert, the Mexican Plateau, the Sonoran Desert and the Great Basin. Immigra- tion from these areas contributed to the diversity of the state's native ichthyofauna. Over the millinea, the fate of these fishes waxed and waned in ell 4, response to the changing physical and _chenaca-l-conditions of the surrounding environment. Ultimately, one of the most diverse fish faunas of any of the interior southwestern states developed. Fourteen families comprising 67 species of fish are believed to have occupied New Mexico's waters historically, with strikingly different faunas evolving east and west of the Continental Divide.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Document – Content May Not Reflect Current Scientific Research, Policies Or Practices
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Historic document – Content may not reflect current scientific research, policies or practices. COOPERATIVE FISHERY UNIT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1968 THROUGH JUNE 1969 TRAIN ING UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DIVISION OF FISHERY SERVICES RESOURCE PUBLICATION 80 E RESl=AP-CH CENTEI"' {lBRARV WILDUF - · ' ~ ~ilill)lll~l~~ll I: S/'~~ P~ .'"'.' ~::'~ ~c·~~i E 90018774 OUNER, COL01\KUO t02 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Depart- ment of the Interior has basic responsibilitie s for water, fish, wildlife, mineral, land, park, and recreational re- sources. Indian and Territorial affairs are ocher major concerns of America's "Department of Natural Resources." The Department works co assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so each will ma lee its full contribution to a better United States -- now and in the future. Cover drawing by Craig P. Phillips, National Fisheries Center and Aquarium, Washington, D.C. For sole by tho Superlnumdont ol Docwncnta, U.S. Oovernmont Prlnll11& omce Wo.shln&ton, D.C. 20402 • Price 76 oont.s UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR , WALTER J . HICKEL , SECRETARY Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wi ldlif e, Parks, and Marine Resources Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles H. Meacham , Corrunissioner Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Direct or COOPERATIVE FISHERY UNIT REPORT for the Period January 1968 through June 1969 A Nation-wide Cooperative Program of Training, Investigation and Application by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, State Game and Fi s h Departments, and Colleges and Universities .
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Chrosomus Erythrogaster Andc. Eos (Osteichthyes: Cyprinidae) Taxonomy, Distribution) Ecology a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty O
    CHROSOMUS ERYTHROGASTER AND C. EOS (OSTEICHTHYES: CYPRINIDAE) TAXONOMY, DISTRIBUTION) ECOLOGY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA By Gary Lee Phillips IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Pegree Granted June, 1968 FRONTISPIECE. Male Chrosomus erythrogaster in breeding color, headwaters of the Zumbro River, Dodge County, Minnesota, 4 June 1966. Photograph by Professor David J. Merrell of the University of Minnesota. 47?-a•4 V gir irck 4r4.4- 1,1! IL .1, 74ko2,4,944,40tgrAt skr#9 4.e4 riff4eotilired‘ ik tit "ital.:A-To 4-v.w.r*:ez••01.%. '.or 44# 14 46#41bie. "v1441t..4frw.P1)4iiriiitalAttt.44- Aiihr4titeec --N. 1 4r40•4-v,400..orioggit kf)f 4y 4:11 to_ r •ArPV .1 1 "11(4% tk eat'n'ik\Nthl haf ilif -7b111,6 10t 11*4 * A Aver44, wr. • 4‘4041:Nr 0141 -at 1,10,71mr--,• 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SYNONYMY AND NOMENCLATURE METHODS AND MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION 23 Geographical Distribution ................... 23 Ecological Distribution ......,....•.....,.. 24 Distribution in Minnesota ............. 27 VARIATION 38 Reliability of Measurements •.*****••••••** 4 • * 38 Sexual Variation •.. 53 Ontogenetic Variation •••• • • • • • •••• 61 Geographical Variation .................. ft ft. 72 Interpopulation Mean Character Differences • • * 77 Anomalies 83 REPRODUCTION 86 Schooling BehaviOr, ....................- 86 , 000,. W.4,41 , 87 .Spawning ,Behavior. , ,10041.4100 .......„......... 00 90 Breeding Color .. Breeding Tubercle ......................,. 93 Sex Ratios ... ............... ..,. 97 Sexual cycles ' , .-•,................ ... 99 ft 99 Fecundity ... ft ft ft ft 0 ft S OlkOodt*40o,OWOOsoo•O*00-Ito , 41,* 111: Hybridization 40. 0.41400**************0.0 DIET 1.28 The Digestive Tract .....................
    [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]
  • Rare Animals Tracking List
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Basin Checklists and Dichotomous Keys for Inland Fishes of Texas
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 874: 31–45Drainage (2019) basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas 31 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 CHECKLIST http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas Cody Andrew Craig1, Timothy Hallman Bonner1 1 Department of Biology/Aquatic Station, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Corresponding author: Cody A. Craig (cac300@txstate.edu) Academic editor: Kyle Piller | Received 22 April 2019 | Accepted 23 July 2019 | Published 2 September 2019 http://zoobank.org/B4110086-4AF6-4E76-BDAC-EA710AF766E6 Citation: Craig CA, Bonner TH (2019) Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas. ZooKeys 874: 31–45. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 Abstract Species checklists and dichotomous keys are valuable tools that provide many services for ecological stud- ies and management through tracking native and non-native species through time. We developed nine drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for 196 inland fishes of Texas, consisting of 171 native fishes and 25 non-native fishes. Our checklists were updated from previous checklists and revised using reports of new established native and non-native fishes in Texas, reports of new fish occurrences among drainages, and changes in species taxonomic nomenclature. We provided the first dichotomous keys for major drainage basins in Texas. Among the 171 native inland fishes, 6 species are considered extinct or extirpated, 13 species are listed as threatened or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 59 spe- cies are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) by the state of Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title
    AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity Prepared for Pima County Wastewater Management 201 N. Stone, 8th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701-1207 Prepared by Parametrix Environmental Research Lab 33972 Texas Street SW Albany, OR 97321-9487 541-791-1667 www.parametrix.com In Collaboration with GEI Consultants, Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 S. Sycamore St., Suite 101 Littleton, CO 80123 303-794-5530 www.geiconsultants.com April 2007 │ 07-03-P-139257-0207 CITATION Pima County Wastewater Management. 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model, and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity. Prepared by Parametrix, Albany, Oregon. April 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report Pima County Wastewater Management TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.............................................................................................................VII REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................XI EVALUATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS USING BIOTIC LIGAND MODEL ADJUSTED COPPER AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA/USE OF THE USEPA RECALCULATION PROCEDURE TO DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC BLM-BASED COPPER CRITERIA........................XI
    [Show full text]
  • Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and General Wildlife
    Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and General Wildlife Thunder Valley PUD Weld County, Colorado January 26, 2018 Prepared for: J&T Consulting, Inc. 305 Denver Avenue, Suite D Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Contact: Todd Yee Phone: (303) 857‐6222 Email: toddyee@j‐tconsulting.com ERC Project #420‐1707 Thunder Valley PUD Threatened‐Endangered Species and General Wildlife Screening Screening Report for Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and General Wildlife Thunder Valley PUD Weld County, Colorado January 26, 2018 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 GENERAL SURVEY AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 1 3.0 SCREENING METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 GENERAL WILDLIFE HABITAT (NON‐REGULATED) ................................................................................... 7 5.0 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT ................................................................................................................ 8 6.0 SPECIES PROTECTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 .................................................. 9 COLORADO BUTTERFLY PLANT (GAURA NEOMEXICANA VAR. COLORADENSIS) ................................ 10 PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE (ZAPUS HUDSONIUS
    [Show full text]