DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Sport Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance in the Lower Red Deer River, Alberta, Phase II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Sport Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance in the Lower Red Deer River, Alberta, Phase II Assessment of Sport Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance in the Lower Red Deer River, Alberta, Phase II CONSERVATION REPORT SERIES The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act. CONSERVATION REPORT SERIES 25% Post Consumer Fibre When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable Assessment of Sport Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance in the Lower Red Deer River, Alberta, Phase II Jason Blackburn and Jason Cooper Alberta Conservation Association 2nd Floor, YPM Place 530‐8 Street S. Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 2J8 Report Series Co‐editors PETER AKU KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Crescent NW #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Calgary, Alberta T3L 2T9 Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data, Technical ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐7707‐2 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐7708‐9 Publication No.: T/195 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested citation: Blackburn, J., and J. Cooper. 2006. Assessment of sport fish distribution and relative abundance in the Lower Red Deer River, Alberta, Phase II. Technical report, T‐ 2006‐003 produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 56 pp + App. Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1998 Fax: (780) 464‐0990 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fish species distribution and abundance was assessed on 450 km of the Lower Red Deer River (LRDR) using electrofishing. A total of 90 1‐km reaches were sampled of a predetermined 95 sample reaches. Species distribution and abundance, and total abundance by section, were determined from capture totals, visual counts, and catch‐ per‐unit‐effort (CPUE). Goldeye and shorthead redhorse displayed the broadest distributions, as well as the greatest abundance throughout the study area. Sauger was the next most abundant and widely distributed sport fish species, followed by walleye, burbot, mooneye, and northern pike. Sections with the highest total abundance of fish were section 1 near Joffre, downstream of the Highway 11 bridge crossing, and sections 12 to 13 near Buffalo and Bindloss, toward the confluence with the South Saskatchewan River near the Alberta ‐ Saskatchewan border. The total number of fish observed during sampling differed substantially from the total number captured, with 1,116 fish observed compared with only 429 captured. Capture success was low (inefficient) and possibly linked to water turbidity, with reduced success in clear water. Overall sample efficiency was highest via visual counts in clear water, with 58% of all tallied fish made by visual counts in three resampled sections. Comparison of abundance data collected in 2004 with that collected between 1990 ‐ 1991 revealed a statistically significant decline in total relative fish abundance from an average of 25.5 fish/km in 1990 – 1991 to 5.3 fish/km in 2004. In particular, significant decreases in abundance were observed for goldeye, sauger, walleye, white sucker, shorthead redhorse, longnose sucker, and quillback sucker. There was no significant change in relative abundance of burbot, mountain whitefish, northern pike, lake whitefish or lake sturgeon. Declines in abundance were attributed to sampling inefficiency in 2004 and/or the effects of consecutive drought years prior to the assessment. Species composition between assessments was similar; however, species distribution patterns were typically smaller and more fragmented in 2004. Species richness was greater in 2004 than the previous survey and was probably the result of a larger study area and greater sampling effort. In comparison to the assessment in 1990 ‐ 1991, aging structures collected in 2004 indicated slower growth rates in goldeye and mooneye, but faster rates for walleye and sauger. Use of a broader variety of sampling methods is recommended to increase capture success, and an angler creel survey could be used to verify anecdotal reports of increased sauger catches in recent years. A comprehensive habitat assessment of the ii LRDR should be conducted to assist future conservation measures to ensure sustainability of the fishery. Additional focused sampling of the data deficient species quillback and sauger should be undertaken, encompassing other southern Alberta river systems to ensure sufficient data capture. Long‐term monitoring of declining sauger and goldeye populations should also be initiated. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was funded by the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). Thanks to Kevin Wingert and Vance Buchwald (ASRD, Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Biologists, Red Deer) and Cam Wallman (ASRD, Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Biologist, Brooks) for their time and expertise piloting the boat and sampling during the field portion of the assessment. Special thanks to Byron Jensen (ASRD, Fish and Wildlife, District Conservation Officer, Drumheller) for offering his knowledge of the LRDR and for filling in and working long hours on the river on a Sunday when we were shorthanded. Additional thanks to Chad Tourand for providing accommodations and entertainment during equipment down‐time and repair. This report benefited from constructive comments offered by Cam Wallman, Glen Clements (ASRD, Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Biologist, Lethbridge), Vance Buchwald and Trevor Council (ACA, Fisheries Biologist). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........................................................................................................iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Phase II objectives ........................................................................................................2 2.0 STUDY AREA...................................................................................................................2 3.0. MATERIALS AND METHODS .....................................................................................5 3.1 Phase I ............................................................................................................................5 3.2 Phase II...........................................................................................................................7 4.0 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................11 4.1 Species composition and relative abundance.........................................................11 4.2 Species distributions ..................................................................................................15 4.3 Fish catchability ..........................................................................................................23 4.4 Sport fish species distribution and habitat observations......................................24 4.5 Non‐sport fish species distributions........................................................................26 4.6 Comparison of 2004 and 1990 ‐ 1991 data...............................................................28 5.0 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................40 5.1 Capture success in the 2004 assessment..................................................................40 5.2 Methodology...............................................................................................................41 5.3 Measuring total fish abundance and distribution .................................................43 5.4 Comparing relative abundances ..............................................................................44 5.5 Comparing species distributions .............................................................................48 5.6 Potential effects of angling........................................................................................50 5.7 Future considerations and recommendations........................................................50 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................53 7.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................57
Load more

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Beginning and the End – a Summer Holiday Experience
    The Beginning and the End – TT A Summer Holiday Experience BY TJARDA BARRA y husband rob and i, when saskatchewan border and ventured a then just before the confluence, a moose watching the red deer river few miles into saskatchewan where the crossed the river right in front of our flow by our home at the eastern red deer joins the south saskatchewan canoes. it was a perfect canadian scene: endM of red deer county, asked ourselves river. From a high lookout we gazed out water, moose, migrating geese overhead where the water comes from and where it at the confluence. What a magnificent and the glorious expanse of nature. is going. Hence, as a summer project, we sight: open rolling land divided by these We beached our canoes on a muddy decided to search out the beginning and two great rivers – the brownish shallow bank at the V-shaped confluence of the end of the red deer river. waters of the red deer meeting and the rivers for picture taking and then In late July last year we went on a mixing with the blue-green of the wider, continued for another 10 km on the much three-day hike in banff National Park and deeper south saskatchewan. there was deeper, wider and faster moving south stayed at skoki Lodge. On the second not a soul to be seen. Our only witnesses saskatchewan to estuary Ferry, our end day we set out for the five kilometre hike were the prairie wind, waving grasses, point of the day. to the headwaters of the red deer river.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 2 from U
    FINAL - Submitted for Approval Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River From U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas © Konrad Schmidt Canadian River Municipal Water Authority June 2005 Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 2 from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas This management plan is a cooperative effort between various local, state, and federal entities. Funding for this plan was provided by the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. Suggested citation: Canadian River Municipal Water Authority – 2005 – Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas Preparation of this Plan was accomplished by John C. Williams, acting as Special Advisor under contract to CRMWA. Technical review was provided by Rod Goodwin, Wildlife Biologist and Head of the Water Quality Division of CRMWA. Editorial review was performed by Jolinda Brumley. Cover photograph: Arkansas River Shiner by Ken Collins, USFWS Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 3 from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith Table of Contents Introduction and Background …………………………………………………………7 Species Biology ...................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Sport Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance on the Lower Red Deer River from Dickson Dam to Joffre, Alberta, 2005
    Sport Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance on the Lower Red Deer River from Dickson Dam to Joffre, Alberta, 2005 CONSERVATION REPORT SERIES The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act. CONSERVATION REPORT SERIES 25% Post Consumer Fibre When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable Sport Fish Distribution and Relative Abundance on the Lower Red Deer River from Dickson Dam to Joffre, Alberta, 2005 Jason Blackburn Alberta Conservation Association 2nd floor, YPM Place, 530 – 8th Street South Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 2J8 Report Series Co‐editors PETER AKU KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cres. NW #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Calgary, AB T3A 5K6 Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data, Technical ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐7731‐7 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐7732‐4 Publication No.: T/199 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Blackburn, J. 2007. Sport fish distribution and relative abundance on the Lower Red Deer River from Dickson Dam to Joffre, Alberta, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Influencing Community Structure of Riverine
    FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF RIVERINE ORGANISMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES MANAGEMENT by David S. Ruppel, M.S. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Aquatic Resources and Integrative Biology May 2019 Committee Members: Timothy H. Bonner, Chair Noland H. Martin Joseph A. Veech Kenneth G. Ostrand James A. Stoeckel COPYRIGHT by David S. Ruppel 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, David S. Ruppel, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my major advisor, Timothy H. Bonner, who has been a great mentor throughout my time at Texas State University. He has passed along his vast knowledge and has provided exceptional professional guidance and support with will benefit me immensely as I continue to pursue an academic career. I also thank my committee members Dr. Noland H. Martin, Dr. Joseph A. Veech, Dr. Kenneth G. Ostrand, and Dr. James A. Stoeckel who provided great comments on my dissertation and have helped in shaping manuscripts that will be produced in the future from each one of my chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Bow River Basin State of the Watershed Summary 2010 Bow River Basin Council Calgary Water Centre Mail Code #333 P.O
    30% SW-COC-002397 Bow River Basin State of the Watershed Summary 2010 Bow River Basin Council Calgary Water Centre Mail Code #333 P.O. Box 2100 Station M Calgary, AB Canada T2P 2M5 Street Address: 625 - 25th Ave S.E. Bow River Basin Council Mark Bennett, B.Sc., MPA Executive Director tel: 403.268.4596 fax: 403.254.6931 email: [email protected] Mike Murray, B.Sc. Program Manager tel: 403.268.4597 fax: 403.268.6931 email: [email protected] www.brbc.ab.ca Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 2 Overview 4 Basin History 6 What is a Watershed? 7 Flora and Fauna 10 State of the Watershed OUR SUB-BASINS 12 Upper Bow River 14 Kananaskis River 16 Ghost River 18 Seebe to Bearspaw 20 Jumpingpound Creek 22 Bearspaw to WID 24 Elbow River 26 Nose Creek 28 WID to Highwood 30 Fish Creek 32 Highwood to Carseland 34 Highwood River 36 Sheep River 38 Carseland to Bassano 40 Bassano to Oldman River CONCLUSION 42 Summary 44 Acknowledgements 1 Overview WELCOME! This State of the Watershed: Summary Booklet OVERVIEW OF THE BOW RIVER BASIN LET’S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK... THE WATER TOWERS was created by the Bow River Basin Council as a companion to The mountainous headwaters of the Bow our new Web-based State of the Watershed (WSOW) tool. This Comprising about 25,000 square kilometres, the Bow River basin The Bow River is approximately 645 kilometres in length. It begins at Bow Lake, at an River basin are often described as the booklet and the WSOW tool is intended to help water managers covers more than 4% of Alberta, and about 23% of the South elevation of 1,920 metres above sea level, then drops 1,180 metres before joining with the water towers of the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use, Climate Change and Ecological Responses in the Upper
    Land use, climate change and ecological responses in the Upper North 1 Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment Land use, climate change and ecological responses in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment Dan Farr, Colleen Mortimer, Faye Wyatt, Andrew Braid, Charlie Loewen, Craig Emmerton, Simon Slater Cover photo: Wayne Crocker This publication can be found at: open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460140697. Comments, questions, or suggestions regarding the content of this document may be directed to: Ministry of Environment and Parks, Environmental Monitoring and Science Division 10th Floor, 9888 Jasper Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 5C6 Tel: 780-229-7200 Toll Free: 1-844-323-6372 Fax: 780-702-0169 Email: [email protected] Media Inquiries: [email protected] Website: environmentalmonitoring.alberta.ca Recommended citation: Farr. D., Mortimer, C., Wyatt, F., Braid, A., Loewen, C., Emmerton, C., and Slater, S. 2018. Land use, climate change and ecological responses in the Upper North Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment. Government of Alberta, Ministry of Environment and Parks. ISBN 978-1-4601-4069-7. Available at: open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460140697. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Alberta Environment and Parks, 2018. This publication is issued under the Open Government Licence - Alberta open.alberta.ca/licence. Published September 2018 ISBN 978-1-4601-4069-7 Land use, climate change and ecological responses in the Upper North 2 Saskatchewan and Red Deer River Basins: A scientific assessment Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the external reviewers for providing their technical reviews and feedback, which have enhanced this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian River Basin Bioassessment
    Canadian River Basin Bioassessment Sarah Robertson, Melissa Parker, Gordon Linam, Clinton Robertson, Archis Grubh Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division AND Melissa Casarez University of Texas at Austin, Biodiversity Collections River Studies Report No. 26 Inland Fisheries Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2 Survey and Management History .............................................................................. 2 Study Sites .............................................................................................................................. 4 Canadian River .......................................................................................................... 6 Oxbow Lakes ............................................................................................................. 6 Supplemental Fish Collection Sites ........................................................................... 7 Water Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................... 8 Fish Assemblage ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater
    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis Oxyrhynchus) and Smalleye Shiner (N
    Species Status Assessment Report For the Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) And Smalleye Shiner (N. buccula) Prepared by the Arlington, Texas Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date of last revision: June 10, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This species status assessment reports the results of the comprehensive status review for the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and smalleye shiner (N. buccula) and provides a thorough account of the species’ overall viability and, conversely, extinction risk. Sharpnose and smalleye shiners are small minnows currently restricted to the contiguous river segments of the upper Brazos River basin in north-central Texas. In conducting our status assessment we first considered what the two shiners need to ensure viability. We generally define viability as the ability of the species to persist over the long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. We then evaluated whether those needs currently exist and the repercussions to the species when those needs are missing, diminished, or inaccessible. We next consider the factors that are causing the species to lack what it needs, included historical, current, and future factors. Finally, considering the information reviewed, we evaluated the current status and future viability of the species in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand stochastic events and, in the case of the shiners, is best measured by the extent of suitable habitat in terms of stream length. Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events by spreading the risk and can be measured through the duplication and distribution of resilient populations across its range.
    [Show full text]