DOCSLIB.ORG

Colorado's 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Colorado's 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan Colorado’s 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan Literature Cited Agouridis, C.T., S.R. Workman, R.C. Warner, and G.D. Jennings. 2005. Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:591-606. Allen, C.D., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Schulke, P.B. Stacey, P. Morgan, M. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12:1418–1433. Allen, E.B., R.J. Steers, and S.J. Dickens. 2011. Impacts of fire and invasive species on desert soil ecology. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:450-462. Allendorf, F.W., and R.F. Leary. 1988. Conservation and distribution of genetic variation in a polytypic species, the cutthroat trout. Conservation Biology 2:170-184. Alves, J. 1997a. San Luis Creek fish kill report. Unpublished report, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Monte Vista, CO. Alves, J. 1997b. Rio Grande 1, Annual Fish Survey Project Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Monte Vista, CO. Alves, J.E., K.A. Patten, D.E. Brauch, and P.M. Jones. 2008. Range-wide status report of Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis): 2008. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. Anderson, M.S., H.W. Lakin, K.C. Beeson, F.F. Smith, and E.J. Thacker.1961. Selenium in agriculture. In: Agriculture Handbook No. 200. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Anderson, R.M. and G. Stewart. 2003. Riverine fish flow investigations. Biologically based instream flow recommendations for the Yampa River, the Colorado River in the 15-mile reach, and the Dolores River. Final Report to CPW, Federal Aid Project F-289-R6, Fort Collins, CO. Anderson, R. M. and G. Stewart. 2007. Fish-Flow Investigation: II. Impacts of stream flow alterations on the native fish assemblage and their habitat availability as determined by 2D modeling and the use of fish population data to support instream flow recommendations for 409 Colorado’s 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan the sections of the Yampa, Colorado, Gunnison and Dolores Rivers in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Special Report No. 80, DOW-R-S-80-07, Fort Collins, CO. Armour, C., D. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1994. The effects of livestock grazing on western riparian and stream ecosystem. Fisheries 19:9-12. Armstrong, D.M., J.P. Fitzgerald, and C.A. Meaney. 2011. Mammals of Colorado, 2nd edition. Denver Museum of Nature and Science and University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies [AFWA], Teaming With Wildlife Committee, State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Best Practices Working Group. 2012. Best Practices for State Wildlife Action Plans—Voluntary Guidance to States for Revision and Implementation. Washington (DC): Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 80 pages. Available: http://www.teaming.com & http://www.fishwildlife.org Augustine, D.J. and J.D. Derner. 2012. Disturbance regimes and Mountain Plover habitat in shortgrass steppe: large herbivore grazing does not substitute for prairie dog grazing or fire. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:721-728. Austin, M. 1998. Wolverine winter travel routes and response to transportation corridors in Kicking Horse Pass between Yoho and Banff National Parks. Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Ayre, K.K., C.A. Caldwell, J. Stinson, and W.G. Landis. 2014. Analysis of regional scale risk of whirling disease in populations of Colorado and Rio Grande cutthroat trout using a Bayesian belief network model. Risk Analysis 34: 1589-1605. Baines, D. 1996. The implications of grazing and predator management on the habitats and breeding success of black grouse Tetrao tetrix. Journal of Applied Biology 33:54-62. Baker, W.L. 1992. Structure, disturbance, and change in the bristlecone pine forests of Colorado, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 24: 17-26. Baker, D.W., B.P. Bledsoe, C.M. Albano, and N.L. Poff. 2011. Downstream effects of diversion dams on sediment and hydraulic conditions of Rocky Mountain Streams. River Research and Applications 27:388-401. Barger, N.N., H.D. Adams; C. Woodhouse, J.C. Neff, and G.P. Asner. 2009. Influence of livestock grazing and climate on piñon pine (Pinus edulis) dynamics. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62:531–539. 410 Colorado’s 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan Bartelt, P.E. 1998. Bofo boreas: mortality. Herpetological Review 29:96. Beatty, R.J., F.J. Rahel, and W.A. Hubert. 2009. Complex influences of low-head dams and artificial wetlands on fishes in a Colorado River tributary system. Fisheries Management and Ecology 16:457-467. Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. Free Press, New York, NY. Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431. Berger, L., R. Speare, P. Daszak, D.E. Green, A.A. Cunningham, C.L. Goggin, R. Slocombe, M.A. Ragan, A.D. Hyatt, K.R. McDonald, H.B. Hines, K.R. Lips, G. Marantelli, and H. Parkes. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 95:9031-9036. Beschta, R.L., D.L. Donahue, D.A. DellaSala, J.J. Rhodes, J.R. Karr, M.H. O’brien, T.L. Fleischner, and C.D. Williams. 2013. Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. Environmental Management 51:474- 491. Bestgen, K.R. 1989. Distribution and notes on the biology of Phoxinus eos (Cyprinidae) in Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 34:225-231. Bestgen, K.R., R.I. Compton, K.A. Zelasko, and J.E. Alves. 2003. Distribution and status of Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Contribution 135, Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Bestgen, K.R., K.A. Zelasko, and R.I. Compton. 2003. Environmental factors limiting suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis populations in Colorado: Contribution 136, Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 411 Colorado’s 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan Bestgen, K.R., K.A. Zelasko, and R.I. Compton. 2006. Response of the Green River fish community to changes in flow and temperature regimes from Flaming Gorge Dam since 1996 based on sampling conducted from 2002 to 2004. Final Report, Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program Project Number 115, Contribution 144, Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Bestgen, K.R., D.W. Beyers, J.A. Rice & G.B. Haines. 2006. Factors affecting recruitment of young Colorado pikeminnow: synthesis of predation experiments, field studies, and individual- based modeling. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1722-1742. Bestgen, K.R., P. Budy, and W.J. Miller. 2011. Status and trends of flannelmouth sucker Catostomus lapipinnis, bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus, and roundtail chub Gila robusta, in the Dolores River, Colorado, and opportunities for population improvement: Phase II report. Prepared for Lower Dolores Plan Working Group. Available: http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/docs/fwcb/lfl/PDF/LFL-166-Bestgen_et_al-2011-Rpt.pdf. Bestgen, K.R., K.B. Rogers, and R. Granger. 2013. Phenotype predicts genotype for lineages of native cutthroat trout in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Final Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, Denver Federal Center (MS 65412), Denver, CO. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 177. Bestgen, K.R., H.J. Crockett, and H.P. Foutz. 2013. Historical distribution and status of southern redbelly dace Chrosomus erythrogaster in the Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 58:465-469. Bezzerides, N. and K.R. Bestgen. 2002. Status review of roundtail chub Gila robusta, flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis, and bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus in the Colorado River Basin. Final report submitted to Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Contribution 118, Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Blaisdell, J.P, and R.C. Holmgren. 1984. Managing intermountain rangelands – Salt-desert shrub ranges. Generat Technical Report INT-163, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Blaustein, A.R., L.K. Beldon, D.H. Olson, D.M. Green, T.L. Root, and J.M. Kiesecker. 2001. Amphibian breeding and climate change. Conservation Biology 15:1804-1809. 412 Colorado’s 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, W.R. Penney, and V.M. Hawthorne. 1984. Responses of birds, rodents, and vegetation to livestock exclosure in a semidesert grassland site. Journal of Range Management 37:239-242 Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pp. 296–309 in Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds, D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel eds. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-229. Bock, J.H. and C.E. Bock. 1998. Tallgrass prairie: remnants and relicts. Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, p. 399. Boeker, E.L. 1974. Status of Golden Eagle surveys in the western states. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2:46-49. Bogan, M.A. and T.R. Mollhagen. 2010. Resurvey for bats (Chiroptera) at Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado/Utah, 2008-2009. Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, and Natural History Associates, Lubbock, TX. Bonner, T.H. and G.R. Wilde. 2000. Changes in the Canadian River fish assemblage associated with reservoir construction. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15:189–198.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Weber River, Utah
    An International Periodical Promoting Conservation and Biodiversity Southwestern United States—Mexico—Central America Una Revista Internacional para Fomentar la Conservación y Biodiversidad El Suroeste de USA—México—Centroamérica STATUS AND STRUCTURE OF TWO POPULATIONS OF THE BLUEHEAD SUCKER (CATOSTOMUS DISCOBOLUS) IN THE WEBER RIVER, UTAH P. A ARON WEBBER,PAUL D. THOMPSON,* AND PHAEDRA BUDY Colorado River Fishery Project, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1380 South 2350 West, Vernal, UT 84078 (PAW) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 515 East 5300 South, Ogden, UT 84405 (PDT) United States Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 8432 (PB) * Correspondent: [email protected] THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 57(3): 267–276 SEPTEMBER 2012 STATUS AND STRUCTURE OF TWO POPULATIONS OF THE BLUEHEAD SUCKER (CATOSTOMUS DISCOBOLUS) IN THE WEBER RIVER, UTAH P. A ARON WEBBER,PAUL D. THOMPSON,* AND PHAEDRA BUDY Colorado River Fishery Project, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1380 South 2350 West, Vernal, UT 84078 (PAW) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 515 East 5300 South, Ogden, UT 84405 (PDT) United States Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 8432 (PB) * Correspondent: [email protected] ABSTRACT—We compared two populations of the bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus) during 2007–2009 in the Weber River, Davis, Summit, and Weber counties, Utah. We estimated 225 and 546 individuals in these populations. Based on recaptured, PIT-tagged fish, annual survival of adults (202–575 mm total length) was high (77%); however, our top model indicated mortality increased with size (i.e., senescence).
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
    [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]
  • Rio Grande National Forest Draft Assessment 5 At-Risk Species
    Rio Grande National Forest- Draft Assessment 5 Identifying and Assessing At-risk Species Rio Grande National Forest Draft Assessment 5 Identifying and Assessing At-risk Species Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Information Sources and Gaps .............................................................................................................. 2 Existing Forest Plan Direction .............................................................................................................. 2 Scale of Analysis (Area of Influence) ................................................................................................... 4 Assessment 5 Development Process ..................................................................................................... 4 Federally Recognized Species .................................................................................................................. 6 Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly ......................................................................................................... 6 Black-footed Ferret ............................................................................................................................... 8 Canada Lynx ....................................................................................................................................... 11 New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Costilla Habitat Improvement Project
    Decision Memo Rio Costilla Habitat Improvement Project USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region Questa Ranger District, Carson National Forest Taos County, New Mexico (Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of Township 30 North, Range 15 East) Background An interdisciplinary analysis on this project was conducted and is documented in a project record. Source documents from the project record are incorporated by reference throughout this decision memo by showing the document number in brackets [PR #]. Please refer to Appendix A for the project record index. The Questa Ranger District of the Carson National Forest, in partnership with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, proposes to improve in- stream habitat conditions within the Rio Costilla [PR #77, 128]. The Valle Vidal Unit of the Carson National Forest attracts hundreds of anglers annually. The Rio Costilla is the largest stream in the Valle Vidal and a favorite among anglers. Anglers travel to this area in large part to pursue the native Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Long-term operations of the Costilla Reservoir and Dam have channelized the Rio Costilla, which has become inadequate for holding fish during low-flow conditions and through the winter. The Rio Costilla has become shallow and wide in many spots, and future efforts to re-establish self-sustaining populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout may not be successful without active management. Since 2001, Rio Grande cutthroat trout and other native fish population restoration efforts have been ongoing within the upper Rio Costilla watershed. Restoration efforts in this section of the Rio Costilla have included the construction of the Rio Costilla terminal fish barrier in October 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Species Investigations Kevin Thompson Aquatic Research
    Three-Species Investigations Kevin Thompson Aquatic Research Scientist Job Progress Report Colorado Parks & Wildlife Aquatic Research Section Fort Collins, Colorado May 2017 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bob Randall, Executive Director COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Bob Broscheid, Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION Chris Castilian, Chair Robert William Bray Jeanne Horne, Vice-Chair John V. Howard, Jr. James C. Pribyl, Secretary James Vigil William G. Kane Dale E. Pizil Robert “Dean” Wingfield Michelle Zimmerman Alexander Zipp Ex Officio/Non-Voting Members: Don Brown, Bob Randall and Bob Broscheid AQUATIC RESEARCH STAFF George J. Schisler, Aquatic Research Leader Kelly Carlson, Aquatic Research Program Assistant Peter Cadmus, Aquatic Research Scientist/Toxicologist, Water Pollution Studies Eric R. Fetherman, Aquatic Research Scientist, Salmonid Disease Studies Ryan Fitzpatrick, Aquatic Research Scientist, Eastern Plains Native Fishes Eric E. Richer, Aquatic Research Scientist/Hydrologist, Stream Habitat Restoration Matthew C. Kondratieff, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream Habitat Restoration Dan Kowalski, Aquatic Research Scientist, Stream & River Ecology Adam Hansen, Aquatic Research Scientist, Coldwater Lakes and Reservoirs Kevin B. Rogers, Aquatic Research Scientist, Colorado Cutthroat Studies Kevin G. Thompson, Aquatic Research Scientist, 3-Species and Boreal Toad Studies Andrew J. Treble, Aquatic Research Scientist, Aquatic Data Management and Analysis Brad Neuschwanger, Hatchery Manager,
    [Show full text]
  • Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside This Issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department Led a Multi-Agency Team #TRENDINGNOW
    Volume 1 | Issue 3 | September 2015 Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside this issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department led a multi-agency team #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 that was tasked with developing a watershed-based, fisheries management plan A New Conservation Tool: the for the entire Verde River watershed that would balance sport fish opportunities Chub CCAA ........................... 2 and native fish conservation. That watershed plan is nearing completion. Apache Trout Research ......... 2 IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 The Verde Watershed Fisheries that resources will typically be be available to the public Management Plan was applied to address the primary online at www.azgfd.gov. Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- developed using the emphasis first. led Activities ........................... 3 The Verde Watershed Department’s new Watershed- Gartersnake and Leopard Frog A Verde Watershed Fisheries Fisheries Management Plan is based Fish Management Recovery Updates ................. 3 Process. This process is Management Plan web map the first plan developed using systematic, data-driven, and was developed as the main this process. The team also BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 communication tool for evaluated the effectiveness of addresses socio-political Desert Fish Research and concerns. Department fisheries and the planning process, and Recovery at ARCC ................ 4 aquatic management decisions provided recommendations The team—which included in the Verde River watershed. for future watershed-based state and federal biologists— The web map displays each fish management planning delineated management units individual management unit efforts. and identified a primary and on an interactive map, secondary management allowing users to easily The Verde Watershed emphasis for each unit so that identify high-priority Fisheries Management Plan is more specific prescriptions management units and the in the final stages of review under those categories could primary emphasis for that unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus Elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications Summer 2020 Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River Dakota S. Radford Eastern Illinois University Follow this and additional works at: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Radford, Dakota S., "Aging Techniques & Population Dynamics of Blue Suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) in the Lower Wabash River" (2020). Masters Theses. 4806. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/4806 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGING TECHNIQUES & POPULATION DYNAMICS OF BLUE SUCKERS (CYCLEPTUS ELONGATUS) IN THE LOWER WABASH RIVER By Dakota S. Radford B.S. Environmental Biology Eastern Illinois University A thesis prepared for the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Biological Sciences Eastern Illinois University May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Thesis abstract .................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
    [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]
  • Defining Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Fishes According To
    Ecological Applications, 21(8), 2011, pp. 3002–3013 Ó 2011 by the Ecological Society of America Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity 1,4 1 2 3 ANGELA L. STRECKER, JULIAN D. OLDEN, JOANNA B. WHITTIER, AND CRAIG P. PAUKERT 1School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105 USA 2Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USA 3U.S. Geological Survey, Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USA Abstract. To date, the predominant use of systematic conservation planning has been to evaluate and conserve areas of high terrestrial biodiversity. Although studies in freshwater ecosystems have received recent attention, research has rarely considered the potential trade- offs between protecting different dimensions of biodiversity and the ecological processes that maintain diversity. We provide the first systematic prioritization for freshwaters (focusing on the highly threatened and globally distinct fish fauna of the Lower Colorado River Basin, USA) simultaneously considering scenarios of: taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity; contemporary threats to biodiversity (including interactions with nonnative species); and future climate change and human population growth. There was 75% congruence between areas of highest conservation priority for different aspects of biodiversity, suggesting that conservation efforts can concurrently achieve strong complementarity among all types of diversity. However, sizable fractions of the landscape were incongruent across conservation priorities for different diversity scenarios, underscoring the importance of considering multiple dimensions of biodiversity and highlighting catchments that contribute disproportionately to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande Barry Weinstock
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Water Resources Professional Project Reports Water Resources 2014 Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande Barry Weinstock Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp Recommended Citation Weinstock, Barry. "Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande." (2014). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp/107 This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Water Resources at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Resources Professional Project Reports by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande by Barry Weinstock Committee Dr. Bruce M. Thomson, Chair Dr. William M. Fleming Eric Frey A Professional Project Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Water Resources, Water Resources Program and Master Community and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico July 2014 i Committee Approval The Master of Water Resources and Master of Community and Regional Planning Professional Project Report of Barry Weinstock, entitled Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande, is approved by the committee: ________________________________________ ____________________ Chair Date ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ i Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee. Dr. Bruce Thomson and Dr.
    [Show full text]