History of the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Streams
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
BLUENOSE SHINER Scientific Name: Pteronotropis Welaka Evermann
Common Name: BLUENOSE SHINER Scientific Name: Pteronotropis welaka Evermann and Kendall Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: Notropis welaka Family: Cyprinidae Rarity Ranks: G3G4/S1 State Legal Status: Threatened Federal Legal Status: Not Listed Description: The bluenose shiner is a slender minnow with a compressed body, a pointed snout and a terminal to subterminal mouth. Adults reach 53 mm (2.1 in) standard length. The first ray of the dorsal fin (i.e., the origin) is distinctly posterior to the first ray of the pelvic fin. There are 3-13 pored scales on the lateral line, 8-9 anal fin rays, and a typical pharyngeal tooth count formula of 1-4-4-1 (occasionally 0-4-4-0). A wide, dark lateral stripe runs along the length of the body between the snout and the caudal spot and is often flecked with silvery scales in both males and females. A thin, light-yellow stripe runs just above the black lateral stripe. The oblong caudal spot extends onto the median rays of the caudal fin and is bordered above and below by de-pigmented areas. The dorsum is dusky olive-brown and the venter is pale. This species exhibits striking sexual dimorphism, which includes a bright blue snout and greatly enlarged dorsal, pelvic, and anal fins on breeding males. The dorsal fin becomes black with a pale band near its base and the anal and pelvic fins turn white to golden yellow with contrasting black pigment within the middle of each fin. These characteristics develop gradually with age and many males will exhibit only partial development of nuptial male morphology and color patterns (e.g., a blue snout, but not greatly enlarged fins). -
Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 115 Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0 October 1997 Seattle, Washington noaa NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION National Ocean Service Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA) provides decisionmakers comprehensive, scientific information on characteristics of the oceans, coastal areas, and estuaries of the United States of America. The information ranges from strategic, national assessments of coastal and estuarine environmental quality to real-time information for navigation or hazardous materials spill response. Through its National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, ORCA uses uniform techniques to monitor toxic chemical contamination of bottom-feeding fish, mussels and oysters, and sediments at about 300 locations throughout the United States. A related NS&T Program of directed research examines the relationships between contaminant exposure and indicators of biological responses in fish and shellfish. Through the Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT) Scientific Support Coordination program, ORCA provides critical scientific support for planning and responding to spills of oil or hazardous materials into coastal environments. Technical guidance includes spill trajectory predictions, chemical hazard analyses, and assessments of the sensitivity of marine and estuarine environments to spills. To fulfill the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce as a trustee for living marine resources, HAZMAT’s Coastal Resource Coordination program provides technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during all phases of the remedial process to protect the environment and restore natural resources at hundreds of waste sites each year. -
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. -
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 -
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 -
A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And
t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature. -
Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(S): Noel M
Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(s): Noel M. Burkhead Source: BioScience, 62(9):798-808. 2012. Published By: American Institute of Biological Sciences URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.5 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Articles Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 NOEL M. BURKHEAD Widespread evidence shows that the modern rates of extinction in many plants and animals exceed background rates in the fossil record. In the present article, I investigate this issue with regard to North American freshwater fishes. From 1898 to 2006, 57 taxa became extinct, and three distinct populations were extirpated from the continent. Since 1989, the numbers of extinct North American fishes have increased by 25%. From the end of the nineteenth century to the present, modern extinctions varied by decade but significantly increased after 1950 (post-1950s mean = 7.5 extinct taxa per decade). -
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................ -
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
APPENDIX A. VIRGINIA SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Taxa Common Scientific Name Tier Cons. Opp. Habitat Descriptive Habitat Notes Name Ranking Amphibians Barking Hyla gratiosa II a Forest Forests near or within The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System indicates treefrog shallow wetlands the loss suitable wetlands constitute the greatest threats to this species. DGIF recommends working to maintain or restore forested buffers surrounding occupied wetlands. These needs are consistent with action plan priorities to conserve and restore wetland habitats and associated buffers. Recently discovered populations within its known range, may indicate this species is more abundant than previously believed. An in-depth investigation into its status may warrant delisting. This species will be prioritized as Tier 2a. Amphibians Blue Ridge Desmognathus IV c Forest High elevation seeps, This species' distribution is very limited. Other than limiting dusky orestes streams, wet rock faces, logging activity in the occupied areas, no conservation salamander and riparian forests actions have been identified. Unless other threats or actions are identified, this species will be listed as Tier 4c. Amphibians Blue Ridge Eurycea III a Wetland Mountain streams and The needs of this species are consistent with priorities for two-lined wilderae adjacent riparian areas maintaining and enhancing riparian forests and aquatic salamander with mixed hardwood or habitats. This species will be listed as Tier 3a. spruce-fir forests up to 6000 feet. Amphibians Carpenter Lithobates III a Wetland Freshwater wetlands with The needs of this species are consistent with action plan frog virgatipes sphagnum moss priorities to preserve and restore aquatic and wetland habitats and water quality. -
Abstracts Part 1
375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions. -
Abstract Book JMIH 2011
Abstract Book JMIH 2011 Abstracts for the 2011 Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists & Herpetologists AES – American Elasmobranch Society ASIH - American Society of Ichthyologists & Herpetologists HL – Herpetologists’ League NIA – Neotropical Ichthyological Association SSAR – Society for the Study of Amphibians & Reptiles Minneapolis, Minnesota 6-11 July 2011 Edited by Martha L. Crump & Maureen A. Donnelly 0165 Fish Biogeography & Phylogeography, Symphony III, Saturday 9 July 2011 Amanda Ackiss1, Shinta Pardede2, Eric Crandall3, Paul Barber4, Kent Carpenter1 1Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA, 2Wildlife Conservation Society, Jakarta, Java, Indonesia, 3Fisheries Ecology Division; Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 4University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Corroborated Phylogeographic Breaks Across the Coral Triangle: Population Structure in the Redbelly Fusilier, Caesio cuning The redbelly yellowtail fusilier, Caesio cuning, has a tropical Indo-West Pacific range that straddles the Coral Triangle, a region of dynamic geological history and the highest marine biodiversity on the planet. Caesio cuning is a reef-associated artisanal fishery, making it an ideal species for assessing regional patterns of gene flow for evidence of speciation mechanisms as well as for regional management purposes. We evaluated the genetic population structure of Caesio cuning using a 382bp segment of the mitochondrial control region amplified from over 620 fish sampled from 33 localities across the Philippines and Indonesia. Phylogeographic -
Notropis Cahabae)
Cahaba Shiner (Notropis cahabae) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Cahaba Shiner, from Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin, Mettee, O’Neil, and Pierson 1987. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office Jackson, Mississippi 1 5-YEAR REVIEW Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review: In conducting this 5-year review, we relied on the best available information pertaining to historical and current distributions, life histories, and habitats of this species. We announced initiation of this review and requested information in a published Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period (74 FR 31972). We conducted an internet search, reviewed all information in our files, and solicited information from knowledgeable individuals familiar with this species including those associated with academia and State conservation programs. Specific sources included the final rule listing this species under the Endangered Species Act; the Recovery Plan; peer reviewed scientific publications; unpublished field observations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State and other experienced biologists; unpublished survey reports; and notes and communications from other qualified biologists or experts. The completed draft was sent to other associated Service offices and peer reviewers. Comments were evaluated and incorporated, as appropriate, into this final document (see Appendix A). No public comments were received. B. Reviewers Lead Region – Southeast Region: Kelly Bibb, 404-679-7132 Lead Field Office – Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office: Daniel J. Drennen, 601-321-1127 Cooperating Field Office – Alabama Ecological Services Field Office: Jeff Powell, 251-441-5858. C.