DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on The C Copyntni by ihe Amencjn Fisheries Socieiy 2( •I the American Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on the "sages for pink 1 DistributioU1SU ru n of the Threatened Neosho Madtom ^ in C. Busack i in a Midwestern Warmwater Stream diversity units a jonid fishes in • MARK L. WILDHABER,Wi LD * ANN L. ALLERT, AND CHRISTOPHER J. SCHMITT "Department of 1 • RAD 95-02. I u.U.Ss. GGeological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center. 4204 0 New Haven Road. Columbia. Missouri 65201. USA •' B. A. White. 1 VERNO\ N M. TABOR AND DANIEL MULHERN •v :lbaum). from (miitt U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen-ice. md potential fl^ fcTO=M&t>\flfcQ8:\L-fYcmr&dlVir a•WK \Houston Street. Suiie E. Manhattan. Kansas 66502. USA urnal of Fish WD KENNETH L. POWELL larcini. J. M. ¥"'••flt; "~ i 0 •'97. Ethnic- W)ttien L^P O1^^ Wesrvi'i/od Professional Semices, Inc., 99 Anagram Drive. Eden Prairie. Minnesota 55344. USA ition-specific • M, D I SCOTT P. SOWA £r. and R. J. M Missourii CooperativCoopt'ra e Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The School of Natural Resources, salmon (On- 9 Universityy of Missouri. 302 AB\R Building. Columbia. Missouri 65211. USA 'i the Fraser M Jtellite DNA fl -s- a Abstract. — We aattemptet eh d to discern the contributions of physical habitat, water chemistry, nu- in recovery 9 tnentstrients., and contacontaminantm in s from historic lead-zinc mining activities on the riffle-dwelling benihic •n Biology g; 19 fish communityy off th<e Spring River, a midwestern warmwater stream that originates in Missouri 9 andd Mow Hows sint into oKansa Kanssa and Oklahoma. The Spring River has a fish community that includes the ••lington De- 9 Neosho madtom NtiiNoturuu s placidus, a species federally listed as threaiened. Although anthropogenic lington Trea- J9 factors suchh as contaminantcon tar s limited populations and densities of fishes, an integrated assessment salmon and §1 of naturall and anthropogenianiliro c factors was necessary to effectively estimate the influence of the •hington De- aa latter. Fish populationpopulatior s in the Spring River, especially Neosho madtoms. seem to be limited by the presence of cadmium, lead, and zinc in water and in benihic invertebrate food sources and by Sinauer As- physical habitat. The population density and community structure of fish in the Spring River also seem to be related 10 water chemistry and nutrients. Concurrently, diminished food availability iimating F- may be limiting fish populations at some sites where Neosho madtoms are not found. Many of n structure. the natural factors that may be limiting Neosho madlpm.and other riffle-dwelling fish populations in the Spring River probably are characteristic of the physiographic regiort drained by the upper reach and many of the tributaries of the Spring River. Our results indicate that competition between the Neosho madtom and other species within the riffle-Swelling fish cnrnrnuniiy is jj cause of Neosho madtom^popuraTfon TrrnitatiorrTiT tlie Spiini! RTver7 Relationships between stream fish communities dance of stream fishes (Layher and Maughan 1985; and their habitats have been well documented (An- Layher et al. 1987; Maret et al. 1997). Habitat has germeier and Karr 1984; Matthews and Heins been the primary focus of studies that target factors I/ 1987: Kessler and Thorp 1993). Physical habitat limiting the distribution and density of stream fish- f complexity has been correlated with fish species es, especially threatened and endangered fishes diversity (Gorman and Karr 1978). Habitat factors (Kessler and Thorp 1993; Freeman and Freeman such as waier depth, velocity, and substrate com- 1994). position are important to stream fishes (Aadland The Neosho madtom Noturus p!acidns is a small 1993). Moreover, habitat utilization by stream fish- (<75 mm total length! ictalurid first described as es varies with community composition (Fausch a species in 1969 (Taylor 1969). Neosho madtoms and White 1981: Finger 1982), and water chem- have been found in the highest numbers in riffles istry and nutrients affect the distribution and abun- during daylight in late summer and early fall, after young of the year are estimated to have recruited to the population (Moss 1983; Luttrell el al. 1992; * Corresponding author: mark_wildhaher<s'usgs.go\ Fuselier and Edds 1994). Neosho madtoms prefer Received March 19. 1998; accepted May 14. 1999 the interstitial spaces of unconsolidated pebbles 243 Spring River Study Area For Enlargement (see Figure 2) North Fork of the Spring River FIGURE 1.—Sampling sites on the Neosho. Couonwood. and Spring rivers in 1994. Triangles represent siies where Neosho mudtoms were collected: squares represent sites where they were not collected. and gravel, moderate to slow flows, and depths as supporting 20 fishes not found anywhere else averaging 0.23 m (Moss 1983). Neosho madioms in Kansas. Except for one small population just feed on larval insects among stones at night (Cross upstream-"of Baxter Springs, Kansas (Pflieger and Collins 1995). The Neo'sho madlom was listed ' 1975; Barks 1977; Wilkinson et al. 1996), Neosho as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service madtoms have only been collected from the Spring (USFWS) in May 1990, and a recovery plan was River upstream of the primary sources of pollution approved in September 1991 (USFWS 1991). The from lead fPb) and zinc (Zn) mining (Figure 2). USFWS (1991) hypothesized that habitat and po- Studies of the effects of contaminants on fish tential fish competitors of the Neosho madlom, populations have generally focused on the contam- such as other ictalurids, darters (Percidae), and inants (McCormick et al. 1994) and given little other riffle-dwelling benthic fishes, may limit Ne- attention to other concurrent factors (Neves and osho madlom populations. Currently, Neosho Angermeier 1990, Hall et al. 1996, Scoti and Hall madioms are found in main stems of the Neosho, 1997). Hall et al. (1996) assessed habitat factors Cottonwood, and Spring rivers in Kansas, Mis- along with contaminants; however, they empha- souri, and Oklahoma (Luttrell et al. 1992: Cross sized overall ecological health and biological in- and Collins 1995; Wilkinson et al. 1996) (Figure tegrity of the fish community, not specific popu- 1). The density of Neosho madtoms is much great- lations of fish. Contaminants and physicochemicaJ er in the Neosho system (i.e., the Neosho and Cot- characteristics differ between the Neosho and Cot- lonwood rivers combined) than in the Spring River ton wood rivers (Neosho system) and the Spring (Moss 1983, Wilkinson et al. 1996). Cross and River (Moss 1983; Spruill 1987; Allen and Black- Collins (1995) described the Spring River drainage ford 1995). All are affected by similar anthropo- ver \rea --ment re 2) 3 KUwn«««n Missouri FIGURE 2.—Enlargement of the Spring River study area with sampling sites in 1994. Triangles represent sites where Neosho madtoms were collected: squares represent sites where they were nol collected. Lead-zinc mining Arkansas and processing occurred within shaded areas. :'epresem sites genie factors (agriculturaJ runoff and municipal considered in any comprehensive evaluation of waste inputs) (Allen and Blackford 1995; Kiner et these river systems. Previous studies (Moss 1983) nywhere else al. 1997). The Spring River is also impacted by indicate the Spring Rjver tends to be less turbid ipulation just runoff from historic Pb—Zn mining and related ac- and has lower un-ionizcd ammonia (NH3), chloride sas (Pflieger tivities that have resulted in elevated levels of Pb, (Cl), and sulfate (SO,,) concentrations than the Ne- 996), Neosho Zn, and cadmium (Cd) (Barks 1977; Czarneski osho system. Turbidity may provide protection to ;m the Spring 1985; Spruill 1987; Smith 1988; Schmitt et al. the Neosho madtom from predators; NH3, Cl, and s of pollution 1993) and by industrial inputs from chemical man- SO4 may have both natural and anthropogenic • (Figure 21. ufacturing and industrial facilities (Kiner et al. sources (Wetzel 1983). lants on fish 1997). Lead, Zn, Cd. arsenic (As), iron (Fe), mer- Detrimental effects of Pb, Zn, and Cd on fish • theconiam- cury (Hg), and manganese (Mn) are also a concern have been well documented", and all three can be i given little in the Neosho system. However, concentrations of "acutely toxic (USEPA 1986; Eisler 1988). Effects < (Neves and Pb and Zn in fish and sediments of the Neosho have been documented for waterborne (Eisler and L-ott and Hall system are much lower than those historically Hennekey 1977; Weber 1993; Bryan et al. 1995) Libitat factors found in Center and Turkey creeks, tributaries of and dietary exposures (Thomas and Juedes 1992; they empha- the Spring River. Further, As. Fe, Hg, and Mn have Woodward et al. 1994). Lead affects heme syn- Mo/ogicai in- relatively low concentrations in the Neosho system thesis (Johansson-Sjobeck and Larsson 1979), res- pecific popu- (Spruill 1987; Smith 1988: Schmitt et al. 1993; piration (Somero et al. 1977), and reproductive sicochemical Allen and Blackford 1995). Most of the metals of behavior (Weber 1993) of fishes. High concentra- )sho and Cot- concern in the Neosho and Spring River systems tions of Zn cause hyperglycemia (Wagner and d the Spring can be toxic to fish, and water quality standards McKeown 1982), behavioral avoidance (Wood- •n and Bla^ck- for protection of aquatic life have been established ward et al. 1995, 1997), increased heterozygosity lar anthropo- for them (USEPA 1986); therefore, they must be of specific allozymes (Roark and Brown 1996), 246 and reduced survival (Eisler and Hennekey 1977). associated with Neosho madtoms in the Neosho gions. B Cadmzum can affect the immune system (Lemaire- system to compare them with those in the mining- an ecot( Gony et al. 1995), the kjdney (Gill et al. 1989). affected Spring River. We collected data on the effectivt and behavior (Bryan et al. 1995).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Bryan Et Al. 2004
    Environmental Biology of Fishes 70: 80, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Threatened fishes of the world: Noturus placidus Taylor, 1969 (Ictaluridae) Janice L. Bryana, Mark L. Wildhaberb & Douglas B. Noltiea aDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, 302 ABNR, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A (e-mail: [email protected]) bU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, 4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, MO 65201, U.S.A Common names: Neosho madtom (T). Conservation status: Listed federally as threatened 22 May 1990 (USFWS 1991). Identification: One of 25 madtom species, distinguished from four madtoms in its range by two distinct crescent-shaped bands of pig- ment on caudal fin and lack of dark pigment extending to edge of adipose fin (Taylor 1969). Pectoral spines have poorly developed saw-like teeth on front margin. Fin ray counts: anal rays 13–16 (14.72); pelvic rays 8–12 (9.06), soft pelvic rays 7–9 (7.99); caudal rays 49–59 (54.32); vertebrae: 32–36 (33.62). Adults typically greater than 50 mm TL (Bulger & Edds 2001). Males in spawning condition exhibit swollen cephalic epaxial muscles and elongated genital papil- lae; both sexes exhibit reddened tooth patches during spawning season. Photograph by Janice L. Bryan. Distribution: Endemic to Neosho River basin in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (Taylor 1969). Species’ range historically extended south to Illinois River in Oklahoma; currently restricted by reservoirs to approximately two-thirds of original range (Moss 1981). Abundance: Large population fluctuations occur seasonally and annually (Moss 1981). In 1 year, Wilkinson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Water Flow on Neosho Madtom
    Am. Midl. Nat. 156:305–318 Influence of Water Flow on Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) Reproductive Behavior JANICE L. BRYAN1 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 MARK L. WILDHABER U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri 65201 AND DOUGLAS B. NOLTIE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 ABSTRACT.—The Neosho madtom is a small, short-lived catfish species endemic to gravel bars of the Neosho River in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, U.S.A. It spawns during summer in nesting cavities excavated in gravel. Although the species has survived dam construction within the Neosho River basin, its declining numbers resulted in it being added to the federal threatened species list in 1991. To test how water flow affects the reproductive behavior of Neosho madtoms, we compared activities of male-female pairs in static versus flowing-water aquaria. Using a behavioral catalog, we recorded their behavior sequences during randomly selected 5-min nighttime periods. For males and females, Jostle and Embrace were the most performed reproductive behaviors and the Jostle-Embrace-Carousel was the most performed reproductive behavior sequence. Water flow decreased the mean frequency of occurrence, percentage of time spent and mean event duration of male Nest Building. Because Neosho madtom courtship, reproduction and parental care is a complex and extended process, disturbances such as heightened river flows during the species’ spawning season may negatively affect nest quality and reproductive success. INTRODUCTION Many environmental cues trigger spawning in temperate fish species, including food abundance, photoperiod, temperature, flooding, lunar cycles and social interaction (Bye, 1984; Munro et al., 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The
    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Madtom in Ontario
    Joseph R. Tomelleri Photo: (Noturus stigmosus) in Ontario Ontario Recovery Strategy Series Ministry of Natural Resources About the Ontario Recovery Strategy Series This series presents the collection of recovery strategies that are prepared or adopted as advice to the Province of Ontario on the recommended approach to recover species at risk. The Province ensures the preparation of recovery strategies to meet its commitments to recover species at risk under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. What is recovery? What’s next? Recovery of species at risk is the process by which the Nine months after the completion of a recovery strategy decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated a government response statement will be published species is arrested or reversed, and threats are which summarizes the actions that the Government of removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of a Ontario intends to take in response to the strategy. species’ persistence in the wild. The implementation of recovery strategies depends on the continued cooperation and actions of government agencies, individuals, communities, land users, and What is a recovery strategy? conservationists. Under the ESA a recovery strategy provides the best available scientific knowledge on what is required to For more information achieve recovery of a species. A recovery strategy outlines the habitat needs and the threats to the To learn more about species at risk recovery in Ontario, survival and recovery of the species. It also makes please visit the Ministry of Natural Resources Species at recommendations on the objectives for protection and Risk webpage at: www.ontario.ca/speciesatrisk recovery, the approaches to achieve those objectives, and the area that should be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Neosho Madtom Determined to Be Threatened
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Fish & Wildlife Publications US Fish & Wildlife Service 1990 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened" (1990). US Fish & Wildlife Publications. 201. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs/201 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Fish & Wildlife Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Fish & Wildlife Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 21148 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 1990 I Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Cottonwood and Spring Rivers are With the exception of mainstream part of the Neosho River drainage. Federal reservoirs, and Flint Hills Fish and Wildlife Service Specimens misidentified as furious National Wildlife Refuge at the upper Ladtom (Schilbeodes eleutherus) and end of John Redmond Reservoir, all 50 CFR Part 17 rindled madtom (Schilbeodes miurus) stream reaches in the range of the PIN 1O18-AB31 3lso were collected from the Illinois Neosho madtom are in private Ri ‘er in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, in ownership. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 1946 (Moore and Paden 1950). The Neosho madtom is small, with and Plants; Neosho Madtom Subsequent collections in 1948 and 1950 adults averaging less than 7.5 cm (3 Determined To Be Threatened confirmed the presence of Neosho inches) long.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And
    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]
  • Current Status of Native Fish Species in Kansas
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE KANSAS Vol. 108, no. 1/2 ACADEMY OF SCIENCE p. 32-46 (2005) Current status of native fish species in Kansas STEPHEN G. H ASLOUER,1 MARK E. EBERLE,2 DAVID R. EDDS,3 KEITH B. GIDO,4 CHRIS S. MAMMOLITI,5 JAMES R. TRIPLETT,6 JOSEPH T. COLLINS,7 DONALD A. DISTLER,8 DONALD G. H UGGINS7 AND WILLIAM J. STARK2 1. Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 1000 SW Jackson St., Topeka, Kansas 66612 ([email protected]) 2. Department of Biological Sciences, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas 67601 3. Department of Biological Sciences, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas 66801 4. Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506 5. Tetra Tech EM Inc., 1200 SW Executive Drive, Topeka, Kansas 66617 6. Department of Biology, Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, Kansas 66762 7. Kansas Biological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 8. Department of Biological Sciences, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 67260 A re-evaluation of the status of fishes in Kansas suggests that 54 of the 116 native species should be assigned special conservation status due to substantial declines in distribution or abundance and/or their rarity in the state. Nine species are recommended for retention in their existing status of endangered, threatened, or species in need of conservation. We recommend elevated conservation status for 44 additional species, and provide information on trends in distribution and abundance for these taxa. A single species, the Arkansas River Shiner, Notropis girardi, is considered to be extirpated recently from Kansas. Keywords: fishes, endangered, threatened, conservation, Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Noturus Eleutherus)
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-2017 Aspects of the Physiological and Behavioral Defense Adaptations of the Mountain Madtom (Noturus eleutherus) Meredith Leigh Hayes University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Behavior and Ethology Commons, and the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Hayes, Meredith Leigh, "Aspects of the Physiological and Behavioral Defense Adaptations of the Mountain Madtom (Noturus eleutherus). " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4968 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Meredith Leigh Hayes entitled "Aspects of the Physiological and Behavioral Defense Adaptations of the Mountain Madtom (Noturus eleutherus)." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. J. Brian Alford, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Gerald Dinkins, Jeffrey Becker, J. R. Shute Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Aspects of the Physiological and Behavioral Defense Adaptations of the Mountain Madtom (Noturus eleutherus) A Thesis Presented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Meredith Leigh Hayes December 2017 ii Copyright ã by Meredith Hayes Harris All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Carolina Madtom (Noturus Furiosus) Version 1.1
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) Version 1.1 November 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA This document was prepared by Sarah McRae (USFWS-Raleigh Field Office) with assistance from Erin Rivenbark (USFWS-Region 4), Beth Forbus (USFWS-HQ), and the Carolina Madtom SSA Technical Advisory Team (Tyler Black-NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Judith Ratcliffe- NC Natural Heritage Program, Bryn Tracy-NC Division of Water Resources, and Chris Wood- NC Wildlife Resources Commission). Valuable peer reviews of a draft of this document were provided by Tom Gerow (NC Forest Service), Tom Kwak (NC State University), Tim Savidge (Three Oaks Engineering), and Wayne Starnes (retired). We appreciate the time and effort of those dedicated to learning and implementing the SSA Framework, which resulted in a more robust assessment and final report. Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Species status assessment report for the Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus). Version 1.1. November, 2018. Atlanta, GA. Carolina Madtom SSA Report Page ii November 2018 Summary of Version Updates The change from version 1.0 (April 2017) and 1.1 (November 2018) was minor and did not change the SSA Analysis for Carolina Madtom. The change was: 1) Removed mention of SmithEnvironment Blog in Section 4.6 under Regulatory Reform in North Carolina. Carolina Madtom SSA Report Page iii November 2018 Species Status Assessment Report For Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus) Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This species status assessment (SSA) reports the results of the comprehensive status review for the Carolina Madtom (Noturus furiosus (Jordan and Meek 1889)), documenting the species’ historical condition and providing estimates of current and future condition under a range of different scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • NEOSHO MADTOM (Noturus Placidus)
    KANSAS THREATENED £39 ENDANGERED SPECIES NEOSHO MADTOM (Noturus placidus) STATUS: Endangered in Kansas; Not on National List. (Drawing from " Fishes in Kansas" by Frank B. Cross and Joseph T. Collins. 1975.) DESCRIPTION is known from only one collection from the Spring River in Missouri, near the Kansas border, and collec­ The Neosho Madtom is a three inch long member tions from the Neosho (Grand) River in Oklahoma. of the catfish family. It is a small, mottled dark/light Kansas supports virtually the total known population brown madtom with pale bars on the tail fin. Dorsal of Neosho Madtoms. and anal fins have dusky streaks but are not black tipped. The dark blotch on the adipose fin does not REASONS FOR DECLINE extend to its margin. The upper jaw protrudes be­ yond the lower jaw. Increased siltation and chemical pollution from agricultural practices, streambed alteration, removal LIFE HISTORY of gravel from riverbed gravel bars, and the construc­ tion of reservoirs are believed to be major causes of Virtually nothing is known concerning its repro­ the population reduction. duction, food habits or life history. MANAGEMENT v HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION The following practices are recommended: The Neosho Madtom inhabits gravelly or rocky riffles and areas along sloping gravel bars in strong 1. Avoidance of gravel removal from gravel currents. Deep loose deposits of coarse rounded lime­ bars. stone gravel seems to be preferred. 2. Control of pollution. In Kansas the Neosho Madtom is known only from 3. Improved erosion control from agriculture the mainstem of the Neosho River and the lower farmland that drains into these rivers.
    [Show full text]