DOCSLIB.ORG

SICKLEFIN CHUB (MACRHYBOPSIS Meekl), STURGEON CHUB (M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 1994 THE STATUS OF NEBRASKA FISHES IN THE MISSOURI RIVER, 5. SELECTED CHUBS AND MINNOWS (CYPRINIDAE): SICKLEFIN CHUB (MACRHYBOPSIS MEEKl), STURGEON CHUB (M. GEUDA), SILVER CHUB (M. STORERIANA), SPECKLED CHUB (M. AESTIVAUS), FLATHEAD CHUB (PLATYGOBIO GRACILIS), PLAINS MINNOW (HYBOGNATHUS PLACITUS), AND WESTERN SILVERY MINNOW (H. ARGYRITIS) Larry W. Hesse Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Hesse, Larry W., "THE STATUS OF NEBRASKA FISHES IN THE MISSOURI RIVER, 5. SELECTED CHUBS AND MINNOWS (CYPRINIDAE): SICKLEFIN CHUB (MACRHYBOPSIS MEEKl), STURGEON CHUB (M. GEUDA), SILVER CHUB (M. STORERIANA), SPECKLED CHUB (M. AESTIVAUS), FLATHEAD CHUB (PLATYGOBIO GRACILIS), PLAINS MINNOW (HYBOGNATHUS PLACITUS), AND WESTERN SILVERY MINNOW (H. ARGYRITIS)" (1994). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 101. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/101 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 1994. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 21: 99-108 THE STATUS OF NEBRASKA FISHES IN THE MISSOURI RIVER, 5. SELECTED CHUBS AND MINNOWS (CYPRINIDAE): SICKLEFIN CHUB (MACRHYBOPSIS MEEKl), STURGEON CHUB (M. GEUDA), SILVER CHUB (M. STORERIANA), SPECKLED CHUB (M. AESTIVAUS), FLATHEAD CHUB (PLATYGOBIO GRACILIS), PLAINS MINNOW (HYBOGNATHUS PLACITUS), AND WESTERN SILVERY MINNOW (JI. ARGYRITIS) Larry W. Hesse Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Box 934, Norfolk, Nebraska 68702 Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, Dingell-Johnson Project, F-75-R-ll December 1993. Publication funded by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. ABSTRACT Sicklefin chub life history (Macrhybopsis meeki) The earliest collection of sicklefin chubs was made Seven species of native Missouri River cyprinids have by Meek (1892) from the Missouri River near Sioux been reduced in abundance by 70 to 98%. Several have been City, Iowa. Subsequently they were again collected by extirpated from the reach upstream from Gavins Point Dam. Johnson (1942) from the Missouri Rivet and Morris The reasons for the decline are most likely the alteration of sediment dynamics due to dam construction, the elimination (1960) from the Platte River. Although there is the ofbankful discharge, and the elimination of critical habitats, possibility that these were misidentified (personal com­ such as sandbars and off-channel areas. munication, Dr. Richard Stasiak, Professor, University of Nebraska at Omaha). Cross (1967) suggested that t t t this species seemed so specialized for life in the large, silt-laden Missouri and lower Mississippi rivers that The minnow family is large, with more than 40 their survival might be threatened by impoundments species occurring as natives in the Missouri River Ba­ and other modifications of habitat. Harlan and Speaker sin; more than 30 species are native to Nebraska, and (1987) indicated that sicklefin chubs were rare at all at least 21 can be found associated with the Missouri sites, and their occurrence was restricted to the Mis­ River main channel on Nebraska's border (Eddy and souri River, where they have been collected in Woodbury, Underhill, 1980; Hesse et aI., 1989; Stasiak 1987). Na­ Harrison, Pottawatamie, Mills and Fremont counties tive Nebraska minnows are more commonly found in in Iowa. Bailey and Allum (1962) raised concern for streams than in lakes, and before the streams of the this species in South Dakota because of the reduction state were altered they may have been more numerous in turbidity associated with impoundment. Pflieger than any other fishes (Jones, 1963). Species with simi­ and Grace (1987) determined that the species was more lar habits tended to be found together in guilds. Min­ numerous in the lower Missouri River in Missouri in nows are adapted to be carnivorous, herbivorous or recent collections compared to two earlier periods (1940- detritovorous, and they served an important role in the 45 and 1962-72). However, their presence was restricted transfer of solar energy up the trophic ladder in the to the lowermost reaches of the Missouri River near the Missouri River ecosystem (Fig. 1). confluence with the Mississippi River. The historical range of the species was the mainstem of the Missouri This paper presents the results of sampling effort River from Montana downstream to the Mississippi carried out during the period of 1971-1993 to show the River, and down the Mississippi River to the Gulf. population trend for seven native cyprinids of the Mis­ Their range has been disjointed due to dam construc­ souri River in Nebraska. Some time will be allocated to tion. With the exception of small extant populations in a description of the future management requirements Montana and in Missouri, they are now so rare that for these species. they may be in danger of extinction (Carter, 1983; Guillory, 1979; Werdon, 1993a). 99 100 L. W. Hesse ,..-_-+----=""""" Fort Peck (Fort Peck Dam) (RK 2.851) Oahe (Oahe Dam) (RK 1,725) Sharpe (Big Bend Dam) (RK 1,588) Francis Case (Fort Randall Dam) (RK 1,416) Yankton (RK 1,295) Lewis and Clark (Gavins Point Damt (RK 1,305) lown City (RK 1,178) \. \; ~. -e,i.,. Figure 1. Map of the Missouri River showing the lowermost dams and unchannelized and channelized segments. The sicklefin chub was very specialized for life in a collected in the lower than upper Missouri River within large and turbid river. The animal's eyes are partially the state of Missouri (Pflieger and Grace, 1987). Cross covered by skin and reduced in size to limit abrasion. It (1967) found this species only in the Kansas, lower favors sandy bottoms in moderate current. It has taste Smoky Hill and Missouri rivers. Those collected in the buds on the outside of its head as well as numerous Kansas River were commonly found where the water taste organs in its mouth, which are used to sort food was very shallow and the velocity high, which kept fine from bottom soils (Pflieger, 1975). They most likely sediments from accumulating. Stewart (1980) noted feed on aquatic insect larvae, and detritus consumed that sturgeon chubs were found only in gravel deposits with them (Reigh and Elsen, 1979). The animal is in the Powder River in Wyoming, and that they did not thought to breed in the spring (Pflieger, 1975). ascend the Powder above the Salt Creek, a source of high turbidity. As in the case of the sicklefin chub, Sturgeon chub life history sturgeon chubs have highly developed cutaneous sense (Macrhybopsis gelida) organs extending over the entire head and onto the fins Sturgeon chubs were found in the Platte River in (Moore, 1950). Cross (1967) described this species to be Nebraska by Everman and Cox (1896). Johnson (1942) highly adapted to life in large turbid rivers. The fish found them in Bazile Creek near the Missouri River has a depressed head and slender body somewhat confluence, as well as throughout the Platte, Republi­ wedge-shaped and tapering tailward, all of which pro­ can, Missouri and lower Elkhorn rivers. Bailey and vides minimal resistance to flow and makes use of the Allum (1962) defined the difference in distribution of current to hold the fish on the bottom. The small eyes sturgeon and sicklefin chubs. The former replaced the are somewhat shielded against abrasion. Moreover it latter in the upper Missouri River Basin; they were co­ has epidermal keels on scales above the lateral line inhabitants of the middle Missouri and were replaced which may aid in the smooth dissipation of flow across by sicklefin chubs in the lower Missouri. They are not its body (Cross, 1967). It is mostly carnivorous, con­ known to ascend either the Ohio or Mississippi rivers suming aquatic insect larvae (Reigh and Elsen, 1979; above the confluence with the Missouri River. Their Stewart, 1980). Stewart (1980) reported the onset of range may be explained by their penchant for strong spawning in sturgeon chubs during early June in the current over gravel rather than sand-silt. However, in Powder River. The historical range of the sturgeon recent collections in Missouri more sturgeon chubs were chub has been much reduced to such an extent that it Chubs and minnows in the Missouri River 101 may be in imminent danger of extinction (Guillory, Pflieger, 1975). 1979; Rowe, 1992; Stasiak, 1990; Werdon 1993b). Like other native chubs, it has a well developed Silver chub life history external sensory system and unlike silver chubs must (Macrhybopsis storeriana) rely on these olfactory senses to feed. It feeds on Silver chubs have been reported to occur in the aquatic insect larvae, crustaceans, and plant material lower reaches ofthe Platte, Loup, Elkhorn, and Repub­ (Pflieger, 1975). It is known to spawn during a pro­ lican rivers as well as throughout the Missouri River in tracted period from early May to late August, and eggs Nebraska (Jones, 1963). Pflieger (1975) called it one of are semi-buoyant (Botrell et al., 1964). The animal is the common and characteristic minnows of the Mis­ very short-lived « 2 years). souri and Mississippi rivers. Cross (1967) found it in the Kansas, Blue, Smoky Hill, Neosho, and Arkansas The status ofthe species within its range is not well rivers, though it was only numerous in the Missouri defined, but Pflieger and Grace (1987) indicated that it River. Bailey and Allum (1962) indicated that the increased in abundance from 1940-45 to 1978-83 in upstream limit of silver chubs was Lewis and Clark Missouri's portion of the Missouri River.
Recommended publications
  • Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis Gelida): a Technical Conservation Assessment

    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).
  • Notropis Girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis Tetranema)

    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.
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road

    Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road

    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
  • Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with the Descriptions of Four New Species

    Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with the Descriptions of Four New Species

    Zootaxa 4247 (5): 501–555 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2017 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4247.5.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B6B0858B-BBEE-4E59-A7AD-58B5DE381065 Morphological and genetic evolution in eastern populations of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with the descriptions of four new species CARTER R. GILBERT1, RICHARD L. MAYDEN2,4 & STEVEN L. POWERS3 1Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA. E-mail [email protected] 2Department of Biology, 3507 Laclede Avenue, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2010 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3Department of Biology, Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia 24153 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 4Corresponding author Table of contents Abstract . 501 Introduction . 502 Methods and materials. 504 Genus Macrhybopsis . 508 Systematic accounts . 508 Macrhybopsis hyostoma (Gilbert 1884) . 508 Macrhybopsis boschungi Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 512 Macrhybopsis etnieri Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 514 Macrhybopsis pallida Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 517 Macrhybopsis tomellerii Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 520 Key to species of Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex east of Mississippi River . 522 Acknowledgments . 544 References . 545 Appendix 1 . 551 Abstract For many years the North American cyprinid fish Macrhybopsis aestivalis (common name: Speckled Chub) was regarded as a single widespread and morphologically variable species, occurring in rivers throughout much of the Mississippi Val- ley and geographically adjacent eastern Gulf slope drainages, west to the Rio Grande basin in Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico. Eisenhour (1997) completed a morphological study of western populations of the Speckled Chub, the results of which appeared thereafter in published form (Eisenhour 1999, 2004).
  • Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup Annual Report

    Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Workgroup Annual Report

    UPPER BASIN PALLID STURGEON RECOVERY WORKGROUP 2004 ANNUAL REPORT Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Workgroup c/o Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1420 East Sixth Helena MT 59620 August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION WORKGROUP MEETING NOTES 2004 Annual Meeting Notes – December 1-2, 2004 .............................................................5 March 9, 2005 Meeting Notes ...............................................................................................21 WORKGROUP LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS Intake BOR Letter..................................................................................................................29 Garrison Review Team Report Submission Letter to USFWS..............................................31 Review of pallid sturgeon culture at Garrison Dam NFH by the Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon Review Team, March, 2005 ..............................................................36 RESEARCH AND MONITORING 2004 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Efforts in the Upper Missouri River, Montana (RPMA #1), Bill Gardner, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Lewistown, MT...................49 Habitat Use, Diet, and Growth of Hatchery-reared Juvenile Pallid Sturgeon And Indigenous shovelnose sturgeon in the Missouri River avove Fort Peck Reservoir, Montana, Paul C. Gerrity, Christopher S. Guy, and William M. Gardner, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Montana State University.............................65 Lower Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers Pallid Sturgeon Study, 2004 Report, Mtthew M. Klungle and Matthew W. Baxter, Montana
  • Endangered Species

    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.
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    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.
  • Aquatic Fish Report

    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
  • Proceedings of SDAS 1997

    Proceedings of SDAS 1997

    Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science Volume 76 1997 Published by the South Dakota Academy of Science Academy Founded November 22, 1915 Editor Kenneth F. Higgins Terri Symens, Wildlife & Fisheries, SDSU provided secretarial assistance Tom Holmlund, Graphic Designer We thank former editor Emil Knapp for compiling the articles contained in this volume. TABLE OF CONTENTS Minutes of the Eighty-Second Annual Meeting of the South Dakota Academy of Science........................................................................................1 Presidential Address: Can we live with our paradigms? Sharon A. Clay ..........5 Complete Senior Research Papers presented at The 82nd Annual Meeting of the South Dakota Academy of Science Fishes of the Mainstem Cheyenne River in South Dakota. Douglas R. Hampton and Charles R. Berry, Jr. ...........................................11 Impacts of the John Morrell Meat Packing Plant on Macroinvertebrates in the Big Sioux River in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Craig N. Spencer, Gwen Warkenthien, Steven F. Lehtinen, Elizabeth A. Ring, and Cullen R. Robbins ...................................................27 Winter Survival and Overwintering Behavior in South Dakota Oniscidea (Crustacea, Isopoda). Jonathan C. Wright ................................45 Fluctuations in Daily Activity of Muskrates in Eastern South Dakota. Joel F. Lyons, Craig D. Kost, and Jonathan A. Jenks..................................57 Occurrence of Small, Nongame Mammals in South Dakota’s Eastern Border Counties, 1994-1995. Kenneth F. Higgins, Rex R. Johnson, Mark R. Dorhout, and William A. Meeks ....................................................65 Use of a Mail Survey to Present Mammal Distributions in South Dakota. Carmen A. Blumberg, Jonathan A. Jenks, and Kenneth F. Higgins ................................................................................75 A Survey of Natural Resource Professionals Participating in Waterfowl Hunting in South Dakota. Jeffrey S. Gleason and Jonathan A.
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern

    2010 Animal Species of Concern

    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
  • Biobasics Contents

    Biobasics Contents

    Illinois Biodiversity Basics a biodiversity education program of Illinois Department of Natural Resources Chicago Wilderness World Wildlife Fund Adapted from Biodiversity Basics, © 1999, a publication of World Wildlife Fund’s Windows on the Wild biodiversity education program. For more information see <www.worldwildlife.org/windows>. Table of Contents About Illinois Biodiversity Basics ................................................................................................................. 2 Biodiversity Background ............................................................................................................................... 4 Biodiversity of Illinois CD-ROM series ........................................................................................................ 6 Activities Section 1: What is Biodiversity? ...................................................................................................... 7 Activity 1-1: What’s Your Biodiversity IQ?.................................................................... 8 Activity 1-2: Sizing Up Species .................................................................................... 19 Activity 1-3: Backyard BioBlitz.................................................................................... 31 Activity 1-4: The Gene Scene ....................................................................................... 43 Section 2: Why is Biodiversity Important? .................................................................................... 61 Activity
  • Thesis Improving Rock Ramp Fishways for Small-Bodied

    Thesis Improving Rock Ramp Fishways for Small-Bodied

    THESIS IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES Submitted by Tyler R. Swarr Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2018 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher A. Myrick Kevin R. Bestgen Brian P. Bledsoe Copyright by Tyler R. Swarr 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES The growing global need to improve the longitudinal connectivity of lotic systems is often met by using fish passage structures (fishways). When designing fishways in the past, biologists and engineers focused primarily on strong swimming species such as salmonids. However, the majority of riverine species in the interior United States are not salmonids and may be excluded by fishways built using salmonid criteria due to lower swimming abilities and/or behavioral differences. I designed and built a 9.1-m long adjustable hydraulic research flume at the Colorado State University Foothills Fisheries Laboratory (FFL) to test fish passage and evaluate the effects of grade (slopes of 2 – 10%, in 2% increments) on the passage success of three Great Plains fish species: Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis, Stonecat Noturus flavus, and Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini. A 6.1-m long rock ramp fishway was installed in the flume and four PIT tag antennas were used to detect full or partial passage success. In order to test the key assumption that tagging does not affect fish performance, I evaluated the impacts of 8-mm PIT tags on Arkansas Darter and found no significant difference in the survival and swimming abilities of PIT tagged fish versus non-tagged fish.