DOCSLIB.ORG

Current Status and Distribution of Indiana's Seven Endangered Darter Species (Percidae)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Current Status and Distribution of Indiana's Seven Endangered Darter Species (Percidae) 2008. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 117(2): 167-192 CURRENT STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF INDIANA'S SEVEN ENDANGERED DARTER SPECIES (PERCIDAE) Brant E. Fisher: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Atterbury Fish & Wildlife Area, 7970 South Rowe Street, P.O. Box 3000, Edinburgh, Indiana 46124 USA ABSTRACT. At the beginning of this study seven darter species (Bluebreast, Harlequin, Spotted, Spottail, Tippecanoe, Variegate, and Gilt) were on Indiana's list of endangered fish species; and up-to-date, statewide distributional information was lacking. All known historical and recent records were compiled; and 350 original sites were sampled between 1996 and 2006 in an attempt to determine the accurate, current distribution of each species. Many were found to be more widely-distributed than expected; likely the result of very species-specific sampling techniques used during this study rather than actual range expansions. Harlequin Darter was collected from many previously unknown tributaries, as well as new locations on the mainstems, of the East Fork White River, West Fork White River, and lower Wabash River drainages. Spottail Darter is now known from more locations than it ever has been, although it is still restricted to small streams of the extreme southwestern portion oflndiana. Bluebreast Darter, although once known from many more locations, still maintains populations in several watersheds. Spotted Darter and Tippecanoe Darter were recorded for the first time from the East Fork White River and Wabash River, respectively. Of the species sampled, Gilt Darter and Variegate Darter maintain the most restricted ranges in the state. Gilt Darter, once found in several of the larger rivers of the Wabash River and Lake Erie drainages, is now only found in the upper Tippecanoe River. Variegate Darter is now restricted to the Whitewater River drainage in Indiana. Dams, as well as natural habitat barriers, are limiting further range expansions for many of the darters sampled during this study. As a result of this study, Bluebreast Darter, Harlequin Darter, Spotted Darter, Spottail Darter, and Tippecanoe Darter were removed from Indiana's endangered fish list (Spotted Darter and Tippecanoe Darter were retained as species of special concern). Variegate Darter and Gilt Darter remain on the endangered list. Keywords: Darters, Indiana, distribution Gerking (1945) was the first to provide a et al. (1980), Page (1983), Kuehne & Barbour statewide look at darter (Percidae) distribution (1983), and Page & Burr (1991) provided a in Indiana, compiling all historical fish data North American perspective on darter distri­ known at the time and sampling 412 sites bution, although they included little new across Indiana between 1940 and 1943. Whi­ information specific for Indiana species, rather taker & Gammon (1988) reviewed the distribu­ relying mainly on museum and literature tion of Indiana's endangered fish species, records already included in Gerking (1945). including several darter species, and gathered The aforementioned studies provided invalu­ new information since Gerking (1945). They able information on the distribution of darters included darter distribution information from in Indiana; however, they were somewhat Baker et al. ( 1984), Keevin et al. (1985), Baker limited in scope. They either concentrated & Forsyth (1986), and Grannan & Lodato sampling in one watershed or region of (1986). Several additional regional surveys Indiana, or conversely, sampled only a few specifically targeting darter species in Indiana sites in multiple watersheds over a large region were completed since Whitaker & Gammon of the state. The distributions represented in (1988), including those by Seegert (1987), many of these publications did not actually Gammon & Gammon (1989), Seegert (1990), represent the species' current distribution in the Simon (1993a, 1993b), and Bandoli (1998). Lee state; many watersheds lacked current infor­ mation, and distributions were often based on Correspondence to: Brant E. Fisher, Indiana De­ very old historical records. For example, partment of Natural Resources, Atterbury Fish & Kuehne & Barbour (1983) stated that the Wildlife Area, 7970 South Rowe Street, PO Box Vermillion River basin in Illinois probably 3000, Edinburgh, IN 46124 contained the last population of Bluebreast 167 168 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Darter in the entire Wabash River basin, and while a second person, using a backpack that Spotted Darter was likely extinct from the electrofisher, shocked their way downstream drainage. This revealed an obvious lack of new to the seine, disturbing the substrate with their data, as both still occurred in multiple water­ feet as they went. This technique was very sheds in the Wabash River basin in Indiana at effective in collecting darter and madtom the time of their publication. An accurate species adapted to fast water habitats and that depiction of the current, statewide distribution are normally found hiding under rocks; these of Indiana's endangered darter species is not species were not collected as easily using either available. method individually. This method was espe­ Prior to the current study, there had been no cially useful in deep, fast, large river habitats comprehensive, statewide, species-specific sur­ that do not normally get sampled adequately veys for darters completed in Indiana. This using other more standard methods such as information was needed in order to assess the boat electrofishing or seining alone. The status of each of Indiana's seven endangered desired habitat (described in the following darter species [Bluebreast Darter (Etheostoma species accounts) of each darter species was camurum), Harlequin Darter (E. histrio), Spot­ specifically targeted at each site in order to ted Darter (E. maculatum), Spottail Darter (E. determine their presence or absence. squamiceps), Tippecanoe Darter (E. tippeca­ Each year, throughout the course of this noe), Variegate Darter (E. variatum) and Gilt study, literature and scientific purpose license Darter (Percina evides)], and to determine if reports were reviewed in an attempt to identify their current status was warranted. The pur­ all new records by other researchers. These pose of the current study was to: 1) compile all records, along with those compiled prior to and known records, 2) survey all historical loca­ collected during the course of this study were tions, and 3) survey other surrounding areas in then used to depict as accurately as possible the order to determine the current and complete historical and current distribution of each statewide distribution for each of Indiana's species. seven endangered darter species. Specimens vouchered during the course of this study are currently housed at the Atterbury METHODS Fish and Wildlife Area, Edinburgh, Indiana. Prior to sampling, all known records were compiled for the seven darter species of interest RESULTS in this study. These known locations were then During the course of this study, 418 sampling sampled first to determine if the populations events were completed at 350 locations to were still extant. If the species was found to be delineate the distribution of each of Indiana's present, subsequent sampling was then contin­ seven endangered darter species (Fig. 1). For ued further upstream or downstream from the the purposes of reporting on the known records collection point to determine to what extent for each of the seven darter species, the records each species currently inhabited the watershed. were divided into two time periods: 1) pre-1980, Sampling continued in this way until the species and 2) 1980-2006. Collections prior to 1980 was absent from two consecutive sites, in most were considered 'historical' data. For the most cases. It was then assumed that this was a break part this consisted of information compiled by in the species' distribution and further sites Gerking (1945) as well as a few other literature/ upstream/downstream were not sampled. Sites museum records that he did not include. It were sampled between 1996 and 2006, using the is important to note that Gerking (1945) following techniques. included several 'dots' on his distribution maps All darters were collected using a backpack that do not correlate with any of his actual electrofisher (Smith-Root Type VII) or seine sample locations. These, in most instances, (various sizes, although most commonly a were from records he included from the knotless 1.6 mm Delta mesh seine of 1.8 m X University of Michigan Museum of Zoology 1.8 m), although most sites were sampled using fish collection. There was very little additional the "kick-shock" technique (Fisher et al. 2001), collection activity between Gerking (1945) and which utilized a combination of both gears. 1980, except for an occasional Indiana DNR Using this method, one person positioned/ survey report and miscellaneous museum col­ secured a small seine in the stream channel lections. FISHER-ENDANGERED DARTERS 169 1. St. Joseph River 2. St. Marys River 3. Maumee River 4. Eel River 5. Deer Creek 6. Tippecanoe River 7. Big Pine Creek 8. Sugar Creek 9. Patoka River 10. Black River 11. Wabash River 12. Sugar Creek 13. Big Blue River 14. Flatrock River 15. Driftwood River 16. Muscatatuck River 17. East Fork White 18. Richland Creek 19. West Fork White 20. White River 21. Whitewater River 22. Blue River 23. Little Pigeon Creek N Figure !.-All collection locations sampled between 1996-2006, with major streams in which these collections took place identified. 'Current' data consist of those records from The following list of historical and current between 1980 and 2006, including all original records are separated by waterbody and listed collections made during the course of this in each of the species' accounts using the study, indicated by the prefix BEF. More following format - W ATERBODY: County: detailed information on the exact location of Year of Collection: Reference - Museum these collections can be found in Appendix I. catalogue numbers, if voucher specimens are 170 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE N A Figures 2, 3.-2. Historical (pre-1980) collection locations for Bluebreast Darter in Indiana; 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • E.3-IDNR Roster of Navigable Waterways in Indiana
    APPENDIX E.3 IDNR Roster of Navigable Waterways in Indiana Nonrule Policy Documents NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Information Bulletin #3 July 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Roster of Indiana Waterways Declared Navigable I. NAVIGABILITY Property rights relative to Indiana waterways often are determined by whether the waterway is "navigable". Both common law and statutory law make distinctions founded upon whether a river, stream, embayment, or lake is navigable. A landmark decision in Indiana with respect to determining and applying navigability is State v. Kivett, 228 Ind. 629, 95 N.E.2d 148 (1950). The Indiana Supreme Court stated that the test for determining navigability is whether a waterway: was available and susceptible for navigation according to the general rules of river transportation at the time [1816] Indiana was admitted to the Union. It does not depend on whether it is now navigable. .The true test seems to be the capacity of the stream, rather than the manner or extent of use. And the mere fact that the presence of sandbars or driftwood or stone, or other objects, which at times render the stream unfit for transportation, does not destroy its actual capacity and susceptibility for that use. A modified standard for determining navigability applies to a body of water which is artificial. The test for a man-made reservoir, or a similar waterway which did not exist in 1816, is whether it is navigable in fact. Reed v. United States, 604 F. Supp. 1253 (1984). The court observed in Kivett that "whether the waters within the State under which the lands lie are navigable or non-navigable, is a federal" question and is "determined according to the law and usage recognized and applied in the federal courts, even though" the waterway may not be "capable of use for navigation in interstate or foreign commerce." Federal decisions applied to particular issues of navigability are useful precedents, regardless of whether the decisions originated in Indiana or another state.
    [Show full text]
  • Percina Copelandi) in CANADA
    Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Central and Arctic, and Quebec Regions Science Advisory Report 2010/058 RECOVERY POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF CHANNEL DARTER (Percina copelandi) IN CANADA Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) Figure 1. Distribution of Channel Darter in Canada. © Ellen Edmondson Context : The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed the status of Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) in April 1993. The assessment resulted in the designation of Channel Darter as Threatened. In May 2002, the status was re-examined and confirmed by COSEWIC. This designation was assigned because the species exists in low numbers where found, and its habitat is negatively impacted by siltation and fluctuations in water levels. Subsequent to the COSEWIC designation, Channel Darter was included on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) when the Act was proclaimed in June 2003. A species Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) process has been developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science to provide the information and scientific advice required to meet the various requirements of the SARA, such as the authorization to carry out activities that would otherwise violate the SARA as well as the development of recovery strategies. The scientific information also serves as advice to the Minister of DFO regarding the listing of the species under SARA and is used when analyzing the socio-economic impacts of adding the species to the list as well as during subsequent consultations, where applicable. This assessment considers the scientific data available with which to assess the recovery potential of Channel Darter in Canada. SUMMARY In Ontario, the current and historic Channel Darter distribution is limited to four distinct areas of the Great Lakes basin: Lake St.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Glaciers.PM6
    How the Ice Age Shaped Indiana Jerry Wilson Published by Wilstar Media, www.wilstar.com Indianapolis, Indiana 1 Previiously published as The Topography of Indiana: Ice Age Legacy, © 1988 by Jerry Wilson. Second Edition Copyright © 2008 by Jerry Wilson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2 For Aaron and Shana and In Memory of Donna 3 Introduction During the time that I have been a science teacher I have tried to enlist in my students the desire to understand and the ability to reason. Logical reasoning is the surest way to overcome the unknown. The best aid to reasoning effectively is having the knowledge and an understanding of the things that have previ- ously been determined or discovered by others. Having an understanding of the reasons things are the way they are and how they got that way can help an individual to utilize his or her resources more effectively. I want my students to realize that changes that have taken place on the earth in the past have had an effect on them. Why are some towns in Indiana subject to flooding, whereas others are not? Why are cemeteries built on old beach fronts in Northwest Indiana? Why would it be easier to dig a basement in Valparaiso than in Bloomington? These things are a direct result of the glaciers that advanced southward over Indiana during the last Ice Age. The history of the land upon which we live is fascinating. Why are there large granite boulders nested in some of the fields of northern Indiana since Indiana has no granite bedrock? They are known as glacial erratics, or dropstones, and were formed in Canada or the upper Midwest hundreds of millions of years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Fish\Eastern Sand Darter Sa.Wpd
    EASTERN SAND DARTER STATUS ASSESSMENT Prepared by: David Grandmaison and Joseph Mayasich Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811-1442 and David Etnier Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee 569 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1610 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111 January 2004 NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2003/40 DISCLAIMER This document is a compilation of biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future threats to the eastern sand darter, Ammocrypta pellucida (Agassiz). It does not represent a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on whether this taxon should be designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document; other relevant biological and threat data not included herein; and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The result of the decision will be posted on the Service's Region 3 Web site (refer to: http://midwest.fws.gov/eco_serv/endangrd/lists/concern.html). If designated as a candidate species, the taxon will subsequently be added to the Service's candidate species list that is periodically published in the Federal Register and posted on the World Wide Web (refer to: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html). Even if the taxon does not warrant candidate status it should benefit from the conservation recommendations that are contained in this document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices
    Crystal Darter Crystallaria asprella Guidelines for Landowners Using Conservation Practices Missouri Department of Conservation Photo Credit: Missouri Department of Conservation Common name ▪ Crystal Darter Recommendations Scientific name ▪ Crystallaria asprella As a species that prefers clean streams, crystal State status ▪ Endangered darters may act as indicators of a healthy Federal status ▪ None ecosystem. Protecting and restoring streams for the crystal darter will also benefit other aquatic species. Ecology Efforts should be made to ensure our waterways are Crystal darters have a large historic range, healthy through protection and/or restoration of stretching from river basins in West Virginia west to habitat for this and other aquatic species. Missouri and from Minnesota south to the Gulf of Mexico. In east-central to southeastern Missouri, Avoid constructing stream crossings. If they inhabit open channels of large, clear streams unavoidable, culverts and crossings should be and ditches with low to moderate gradients and long constructed with the same bottom elevation as the stretches of silt-free sand and small gravel existing streambed to avoid restricting flow and substrate. They prefer streams with strong current obstructing fish passage. and water depths of about 3 feet. The biology of this darter in Missouri is poorly known. Studies Bank stabilization materials should consist only of suggest that darters may bury themselves in the rock, clean broken concrete or similar materials free sand during the day and become active at night. of pollutants, silt and extraneous debris including Crystal darters forage for mainly aquatic insects, exposed rebar. Erosion and sediment controls especially midges, mosquitoes, blackflies and should be implemented, maintained and monitored caddisflies.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of the Freshwater Mussels
    ILLINO S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. bO&C Natural History Survey TLf94S Library I l' 13) SURVEY OF THE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: UNIONIDAE) OF THE WABASH RIVER DRAINAGE PHASE III: WHITE RIVER AND SELECTED TRIBUTARIES Kevin S. Cummings, Christine A. Mayer, and Lawrence M. Page Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 1991 (3) Illinois Natural History Survey 607 E. Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 Prepared for Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife 607 State Office Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Study Funded by a Grant from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program Endangered Species Act Project E- 1, Study 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................2 STUDY AREA AND METHODS.............................................................................. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................. .................................. 9 SPECIES ACCOUNTS............................... ...............................................................21 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Suitability and Detection Probability of Longnose Darter (Percina Nasuta) in Oklahoma
    HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA By COLT TAYLOR HOLLEY Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Ecology and Management Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 2016 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December, 2018 HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: Dr. James M. Long Thesis Advisor Dr. Shannon Brewer Dr. Monica Papeş ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am truly thankful for the support of my advisor, Dr. Jim Long, throughout my time at Oklahoma State University. His motivation and confidence in me was invaluable. I also thank my committee members Dr. Shannon Brewer and Dr. Mona Papeş for their contributions to my education and for their comments that improved this thesis. I thank the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) for providing the funding for this project and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (OKCFWRU) for their logistical support. I thank Tommy Hall, James Mier, Bill Rogers, Dick Rogers, and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Scott for allowing me to access Lee Creek from their properties. Much of my research could not have been accomplished without them. My field technicians Josh, Matt, and Erick made each field season enjoyable and I could not have done it without their help. The camaraderie of my friends and fellow graduate students made my time in Stillwater feel like home. I consider Dr. Andrew Taylor to be a mentor, fishing partner, and one of my closest friends.
    [Show full text]
  • Stability, Persistence and Habitat Associations of the Pearl Darter Percina Aurora in the Pascagoula River System, Southeastern USA
    Vol. 36: 99–109, 2018 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published June 13 https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00897 Endang Species Res OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Stability, persistence and habitat associations of the pearl darter Percina aurora in the Pascagoula River System, southeastern USA Scott R. Clark1,4,*, William T. Slack2, Brian R. Kreiser1, Jacob F. Schaefer1, Mark A. Dugo3 1Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, USA 2US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory EEA, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, USA 3Mississippi Valley State University, Department of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health, Itta Bena, Mississippi 38941, USA 4Present address: Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA ABSTRACT: The southeastern United States represents one of the richest collections of aquatic biodiversity worldwide; however, many of these taxa are under an increasing threat of imperil- ment, local extirpation, or extinction. The pearl darter Percina aurora is a small-bodied freshwater fish endemic to the Pearl and Pascagoula river systems of Mississippi and Louisiana (USA). The last collected specimen from the Pearl River drainage was taken in 1973, and it now appears that populations in this system are likely extirpated. This reduced the historical range of this species by approximately 50%, ultimately resulting in federal protection under the US Endangered Species Act in 2017. To better understand the current distribution and general biology of extant popula- tions, we analyzed data collected from a series of surveys conducted in the Pascagoula River drainage from 2000 to 2016. Pearl darters were captured at relatively low abundance (2.4 ± 4.0 ind.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa
    Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa By Jun Cheng A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto © Copyright Jun Cheng 2013 Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa Jun Cheng Masters of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto 2013 Abstract Area of Occupancy (AO) is a frequently used indicator to assess and inform designation of conservation status to wildlife species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The applicability of the current grid-based AO measurement on freshwater organisms has been questioned due to the restricted dimensionality of freshwater habitats. I investigated the extent to which AO influenced conservation status for freshwater taxa at a national level in Canada. I then used distribution data of 20 imperiled freshwater fish species of southwestern Ontario to (1) demonstrate biases produced by grid-based AO and (2) develop a biologically relevant AO index. My results showed grid-based AOs were sensitive to spatial scale, grid cell positioning, and number of records, and were subject to inconsistent decision making. Use of the biologically relevant AO changed conservation status for four freshwater fish species and may have important implications on the subsequent conservation practices. ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank many people who have supported and helped me with the production of this Master’s thesis. First is to my supervisor, Dr. Donald Jackson, who was the person that inspired me to study aquatic ecology and conservation biology in the first place, despite my background in environmental toxicology.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 9-4H for the IDNR Navigable Waterways Roster
    IDNR Navigable Waterways Roster: Name of Waterway Portion Considered Navigable Anderson River Navigable in Spencer County from its junction with the Ohio (including Middle River for 28.4 river miles to the Perry-Spencer County Line. Fork) The Middle Fork is navigable from its junction with the Anderson River for 3.3 river miles. Armuth Ditch See Black Creek Arnold Creek Navigable in Ohio County from its junction with the Ohio River for 4.4 river miles. Baker Creek Navigable in Spencer County from its junction with Little Pigeon Creek 1.8 river miles. Bald Knob Creek Navigable in Perry County from its junction with Oil Creek for 0.5 river miles. Banbango Creek See Baugo Creek. Baugo Creek Navigable from its junction with the St. Joseph River in South Bend for 15.2 river miles to the main forks (near Wakarusa). Bayou Creek Navigable in Vanderburgh County from its junction with the Ohio River for 1.5 river miles. Beanblossom Creek Navigable in Monroe County from its junction with the West Fork of the White River for 17.7 river miles to Griffy Creek. Bear Creek Navigable in Perry County from its junction with the Ohio River for 1.6 river miles. Big Blue River Navigable from its junction with Sugar Creek (to form the Driftwood River) for 55.46 river miles to the Henry-Rush County Line. Big Blue River See, also, Blue River. Big Creek Navigable in Posey County from its junction with the Wabash River for 25.4 river miles (near Cynthiana). See, also, Little Fork of Big Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Ecology and Habitat Preference of the Leopard Darter, Percina Pantherina
    REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY AND HABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE LEOPARD DARTER, PERCINA PANTHERINA By PAUL WILLIAM /~AMES Bachelor of Science University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas 1981 ·4::er of Science ...1.issouri State University 3pringfield, Missouri 1983 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the·Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1989 . - ~· ,• ) "' Oklahoma State Univ. Lihra1 REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY AND HABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE LEOPARD DARTER, PERCINA PANTHERINA Thesis Approved: ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. o. Eugene Maughan, for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and for his encouragement throughout my graduate program. I would also like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. William A. Drew, Dr. Anthony A. Echelle, Dr. Rudolph J. Miller, and Dr. Alexander v. Zale, for their professional and personal advice throughout the course of the study. I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for providing financial and technical support for the study. I am especially grateful to Mr. Frank James of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation's McCurtain County Wilderness Area for his friendship and hospitality during extended field trips. A sincere thanks goes to Rick Horton, Steve O'Donnell, and Todd Phillips for their help in the field and laboratory. A special thanks goes to Stuart Leon for helping with the development of many of the field and data analysis techniques used in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • New York and New York and Long Island Field Offices Strategic Plan
    New York and Long Island Field Offices Strategic Plan FY2012 Table of Contents Page Strategic Plan Introduction 6 New York Focal Area Map 8 ALLEGHENY FOCAL AREA 9 Allegheny Focal Area Map 10 Bald Eagle Species Action Plan 11 Broad-winged Hawk Species Action Plan 19 Brook Trout Species Action Plan 27 Cerulean Warbler Species Action Plan 35 Clubshell Species Action Plan 43 Eastern Hellbender Species Action Plan 51 Rayed Bean Species Action Plan 63 Spotted Darter Species Action Plan 70 FINGER LAKES ONONDAGA FOCAL AREA 78 Finger Lakes/Onondaga Focal Area Map 79 American Hart’s-tongue Fern Species Action Plan 80 American Black Duck Species Action Plan 86 Bog Turtle Species Action Plan 95 Brook Trout Species Action Plan 103 Cerulean Warbler Species Action Plan 113 Chittenango Ovate Amber Snail Species Action Plan 122 Indiana Bat Species Action Plan 129 Lake Sturgeon Species Action Plan 139 Leedy’s Roseroot Species Action Plan 148 Massasauga Rattlesnake Species Action Plan 154 GREAT LAKES FOCAL AREA 160 Great Lakes Focal Area Map 162 American Woodcock Species Action Plan 163 ii Bald Eagle Species Action Plan 173 American Black Duck Species Action Plan 182 Bobolink Species Action Plan 192 Bog Turtle Species Action Plan 199 Broad-winged Hawk Species Action Plan 205 Brook Trout Species Action Plan 212 Cerulean Warbler Species Action Plan 221 Common Tern Species Action Plan 229 Houghton’s Goldenrod Species Action Plan 237 Indiana Bat Species Action Plan 244 Lake Sturgeon Species Action Plan 253 Massasauga Rattlesnake Species Action Plan 262 Piping
    [Show full text]