DOCSLIB.ORG

Freshwater Fisheries and Eagles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Davis Pond Freshwater Prediversion Biomonitoring Study: Freshwater Fisheries and Eagles Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5067 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photograph: A tree-climber scales a tree in the Davis Pond, La., area. Active bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests were targeted for sampling eaglet blood. The site is near mile marker 75 on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Davis Pond Freshwater Prediversion Biomonitoring Study: Freshwater Fisheries and Eagles By Jill A. Jenkins, E. Beth Bourgeois, and Clint W. Jeske Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5067 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/ U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/ 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Jenkins, J.A., Bourgeois, E.B., and Jeske, C.W., 2008, Davis Pond freshwater prediversion biomonitoring study—freshwater fisheries and eagles: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5067, 102 p. iii Preface This report presents results, study interpretations, and background information regarding the biomonitoring survey for contaminants performed at the Davis Pond freshwater diversion project site in Louisiana. The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate potential impacts of the operations of the Davis Pond freshwater diversion structure on fish, bivalves, and eagles in the downstream marsh area. These data were collected in 2001, prior to full functioning of the diversion structure, and so are considered to have been obtained prediversion. The monitoring plan closely examines the status of the freshwater fisheries and eaglets along with contaminant residues; interpretations of biological relevance are offered based on biomarker observations and literature. Contaminant values are provided for individual fish, composites of bivalve tissues, and eaglet blood samples, and comparisons were made from appropriate available literature, both recent and historical, to enhance understanding of the chemical data. Further, because biomarkers reflect the condition of animals and the habitat in which they reside, biomarker data were collected to add relevant information to the understanding of potential effects of contaminant stressors in or entering this ecosystem. This study was conducted cooperatively by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The study was designed in the mid-1990s through an interagency cooperative effort and is in accordance with a memorandum from the president of the Mississippi River Commission dated October 31, 1995: Flood Control of the Mississippi River and Tributaries, Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana, Salinity Control Structures, Design Memorandum No. 1 – Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion Structure, Supplement No. 1 – Biological, Hydrologic, Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring Program. Specifics of this sampling design are in accordance with the initial USFWS 1984 biological opinion written by Dennis Jordan, then field supervisor of the USFWS Endangered Species Field Office, and the 1996 revision for the Davis Pond diversion as mandated by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Questions regarding this report should be directed to either of the following: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service J.A. Jenkins Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Geological Survey 646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400 National Wetlands Research Center Lafayette, LA 70506 700 Cajundome Blvd. Lafayette, LA 70506 iv Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................3 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................................................8 Collection of Fishes .................................................................................................................8 Biomarkers ...............................................................................................................................9 Collection of Bivalves ...........................................................................................................10 Collection of Eaglet Blood ....................................................................................................10 Analyses for Contaminants ..................................................................................................10 Statistical Analyses ..............................................................................................................11 Results ..........................................................................................................................................................11 Graphics for Contaminants Analyses ................................................................................11 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................45 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................53 References ....................................................................................................................................................53 Appendix 1. Additional Tables and Figures .............................................................................................61 Appendix 2. Background and Environmental Relevance .....................................................................83 Appendix 3. Citations for Chemical Names and Abbreviations ..........................................................93 Figures 1. Map showing locations of sampling sites for freshwater fish at the Davis Pond freshwater diversion in Louisiana ........................................................................................4 2. Map showing locations of sampling sites in the current study for fish along the Mississippi River in relation to the Caernarvon and Davis Pond freshwater diversions..................................................................................................................................5 3. Graph of splenosomatic indices of fish ......................................................................................12 4. Microscopic image of blood cells from mullet .........................................................................12 5. Graph of comparison of average percent white blood cells per site per species .............13 6. Micrographs of macrophage aggregates from fish spleens .................................................13 7. Graph of frequency of macrophage aggregates per spleen by site .....................................14 8. Graph of average EROD specific activity ...................................................................................14 9. Graph and data table showing total organochlorines from aquatic animal tissues ..........16 10. Graph and data table showing total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from aquatic animal tissues ..........................................................................................................20 11. Graph showing percent white blood cells per fish versus BaP ...........................................21 12. Graph and data table showing total aliphatic hydrocarbons from aquatic animal tissues ........................................................................................................................22 13. Graph and data table showing aluminum from aquatic animal tissues .............................23 14. Graph showing aluminum, arsenic, barium, and zinc in eaglet whole blood ....................24 15. Graph and data table showing arsenic from aquatic animal tissues .................................25 16. Satellite image showing EMAP Louisianian Province within Caernarvon and Davis Pond areas ...........................................................................................................26 v 17. Graph and data table showing barium from aquatic animal tissues ..................................28 18. Graph and data table showing boron from aquatic animal tissues ....................................29 19. Graph and data table showing cadmium from aquatic animal tissues ..............................30 20. Graph and data table showing chromium from aquatic animal tissues .............................32 21. Graph and data table showing copper from aquatic animal tissues ..................................33 22. Graph showing copper, selenium, and silicon in eaglet whole blood.................................34 23. Graph
Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started

    Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started

    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
  • Some Factors Affecting Fish Forage Production in Four Arizona Lakes

    Some Factors Affecting Fish Forage Production in Four Arizona Lakes

    Some factors affecting fish forage production in four Arizona lakes Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Bergersen, Eric P. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 30/09/2021 20:32:03 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/552039 SOME FACTORS AFFECTING FISH FORAGE PRODUCTION IN FOUR ARIZONA LAKES by Eric P. Bergersen A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN FISHERY BIOLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 6 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
  • Fishes of Mountain Fork River

    Fishes of Mountain Fork River

    Fishes of Mountain Fork River Pre-impoundment Post-impoundment Species Species Common Name distribution distribution Upper Middle Lower Upper Lake Lower lchthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut lamprey x x I. gagei Southern brook lamprey x x Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar x x x x L. osseus Longnose gar x x x x Anguilla rostrata American eel x Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack shad x Dorosoma cepedianum American gizzard shad x x x x D. petenense Threadfin shad x x Hiodon alosoides Goldeye x H. tergisus Mooneye x x Esox americanus American pickerel x x x x x Campostoma anomalum Central stoneroller x x x x x x Cyprinus carpio Common carp x Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi silvery minnow x Dionda nubila Ozark Minnow x Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner x x x x Notropis amnis Pallid shiner x N. atherinoides Emerald shiner x x x N. atrocaudalis Blackspot shiner x N. boops Bigeye shiner x x x x x N. buchanani Ghost shiner x N. chalybaeus Ironcolor shiner x N. cornutus Common shiner x x N. emiliae Pugnose minnow x N. fumeus Ribbon shiner x x x N. lutrensis Red shiner x N. ortenburgeri Kiamichi shiner x N. perpallidus Peppered shiner x N. rubellus Rosyface shiner x x N. stramineus Sand shiner x N. umbratilis Redfin shiner x x x x N. venustus Blacktail shiner x x N. volucellus Mimic shiner x N. whipplei Steelcolor Shiner x x x x x x Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow x x x x x x P. vigilax Bullhead Minnow x x Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub x x x x Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker x x Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker x x x x x lctiobus bubaltts Smallmouth buffalo x x x I.
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes

    Humboldt Bay Fishes

    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
  • Predator-Prey Interactions Among Fish-Eating Birds and Selected Fishery Resources in the Chesapeake

    Predator-Prey Interactions Among Fish-Eating Birds and Selected Fishery Resources in the Chesapeake

    W&M ScholarWorks CCB Technical Reports Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) 2010 Predator-prey interactions among fish-eating birds and selected fishery resources in the Chesapeake Bay: temporal and spatial trends and implications for fishery assessment and management. G. Garman The Center for Conservation Biology C Viverette The Center for Conservation Biology B Watts The Center for Conservation Biology, [email protected] S Macko The Center for Conservation Biology Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports Recommended Citation Garman, G.; Viverette, C; Watts, B; and Macko, S, "Predator-prey interactions among fish-eating birds and selected fishery resources in the Chesapeake Bay: temporal and spatial trends and implications for fishery assessment and management." (2010). CCB Technical Reports. 349. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports/349 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CCB Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NCBO Award NA06NMF4570304 Draft Report: Predator-prey interactions among fish-eating birds and selected fishery resources in the Chesapeake Bay: temporal and spatial trends and implications for fishery assessment DRAFTand management. Dr. Greg Garman, Catherine Viverette, Center for Environmental Studies and VCU Rice Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 843050, Richmond, VA 23284 -3050, (804) 828-1574, [email protected]. Dr. Bryan Watts, Center for Conservation Biology, College of William and Mary and Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Stephen Macko, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia.
  • Stony Brook University

    Stony Brook University

    SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University. ©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr... Developing an ecosystem-based approach to management of the Gulf menhaden fishery using Ecopath with Ecosim A Thesis Presented by Tess M. Geers to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Marine and Atmospheric Science Stony Brook University December 2012 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Tess M. Geers We, the thesis committee for the above candidate for the Master of Science degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this thesis. Dr. Ellen K. Pikitch – Thesis Advisor Professor, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Dr. Michael G. Frisk – Second Reader Associate Professor, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Dr. Anne E. McElroy – Third Reader Professor, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences This thesis is accepted by the Graduate School Charles Taber Interim Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Thesis Developing an ecosystem-based approach to management of the Gulf menhaden fishery using Ecopath with Ecosim by Tess M. Geers Master of Science in Marine and Atmospheric Science Stony Brook University 2012 The Gulf of Mexico (GoM) is a valuable ecosystem both socially and economically, and fisheries contribute substantially to this value. Gulf menhaden, Brevoortia patronus, support the largest fishery in the Gulf (by weight) and provide forage for marine mammals, seabirds and commercially and recreationally important fish species. Understanding the complex interactions among multiple fisheries and myriad unfished species requires tools different from those used in traditional single-species management.
  • Fish I.D. Guide

    Fish I.D. Guide

    mississippi department of wildlife, fisheries, and parks FRESHWATER FISHES COMMON TO MISSISSIPPI a fish identification guide MDWFP • 1505 EASTOVER DRIVE • JACKSON, MS 39211 • WWW.MDWFP.COM Table of Contents Contents Page Number • White Crappie . 4 • Black Crappie. 5 • Magnolia Crappie . 6 • Largemouth Bass. 7 • Spotted Bass . 8 • Smallmouth Bass. 9 • Redear. 10 • Bluegill . 11 • Warmouth . 12 • Green sunfish. 13 • Longear sunfish . 14 • White Bass . 15 • Striped Bass. 16 • Hybrid Striped Bass . 17 • Yellow Bass. 18 • Walleye . 19 • Pickerel . 20 • Channel Catfish . 21 • Blue Catfish. 22 • Flathead Catfish . 23 • Black Bullhead. 24 • Yellow Bullhead . 25 • Shortnose Gar . 26 • Spotted Gar. 27 • Longnose Gar . 28 • Alligator Gar. 29 • Paddlefish. 30 • Bowfin. 31 • Freshwater Drum . 32 • Common Carp. 33 • Bigmouth Buffalo . 34 • Smallmouth Buffalo. 35 • Gizzard Shad. 36 • Threadfin Shad. 37 • Shovelnose Sturgeon. 38 • American Eel. 39 • Grass Carp . 40 • Bighead Carp. 41 • Silver Carp . 42 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) Other Names including reservoirs, oxbow lakes, and rivers. Like other White perch, Sac-a-lait, Slab, and Papermouth. members of the sunfish family, white crappie are nest builders. They produce many eggs, which can cause Description overpopulation, slow growth, and small sizes in small White crappie are deep-bodied and silvery in color, lakes and ponds. White crappie spawn from March ranging from silvery-white on the belly to a silvery-green through May when water temperatures are between or dark green on the back with possible blue reflections. 58ºF and 65ºF. White crappie can tolerate muddier There are several dark vertical bars on the sides. Males water than black crappie. develop dark coloration on the throat and head during the spring spawning season, which can cause them to be State Record mistaken for black crappie.
  • Herring Diversity (Family Clupeidae and Dussumieriidae) in North Carolina

    Herring Diversity (Family Clupeidae and Dussumieriidae) in North Carolina

    Herring Diversity (Family Clupeidae and Dussumieriidae) in North Carolina North Carolina is home to 13 species of herrings, but most people only know of or heard of the more common ones such as American Shad, Hickory Shad, Alewife, Blueback Herring, Atlantic Menhaden, Gizzard Shad, and Threadfin Shad (Table 1; NCWRC undated – a). Except for perhaps some fishermen along the coast, few people have ever heard of or seen Round Herring, Yellowfin Menhaden, Atlantic Herring, Scaled Sardine, Atlantic Thread Herring, or Spanish Sardine. Table 1. Species of herrings found in or along the coast of North Carolina. Scientific Name/ Scientific Name/ American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name Alosa aestivalis - Blueback Herring Dorosoma cepedianum - Gizzard Shad Alosa mediocris - Hickory Shad Dorosoma petenense - Threadfin Shad Alosa pseudoharengus - Alewife Etrumeus sadina - Round Herring1 Alosa sapidissima - American Shad Harengula jaguana - Scaled Sardine Brevoortia tyrannus - Atlantic Menhaden Opisthonema oglinum - Atlantic Thread Herring Brevoortia smithi - Yellowfin Menhaden Sardinella aurita - Spanish Sardine Clupea harengus - Atlantic Herring 1 Until recently, Round Herring, Etrumeus sadina (previously known as E. teres), was placed, along with all the other clupeids found in North Carolina, in the Family Clupeidae. Fish taxonomists now place this species in the Family Dussumieriidae. Alewife and Blueback Herring are often referred to as “River Herring”; other colorful names applied to this family of fishes include glut herring, bigeye herring, nanny shad, stink shad, or just plain “shad”. Each species has an American Fisheries Society-accepted common name (Page et al. 2013) and a scientific (Latin) name (Table 1; Appendix 1). Herring occur across the state in freshwater and saltwater environments, but especially in many of our reservoirs, coastal rivers, estuaries, and offshore (Tracy et al.
  • Survey of Texas Hornshell Populations in Texas: Years

    Survey of Texas Hornshell Populations in Texas: Years

    FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT As Required by THE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM TEXAS Grant No. TX E-132-R-2 Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation Survey of Texas Hornshell Populations in Texas Prepared by: Drs. Lyubov Burlakova and Alexander Karatayev Carter Smith Executive Director Clayton Wolf Division Director, Wildlife 25 August 2014 FINAL REPORT STATE: ____Texas_______________ GRANT NUMBER: ___E – 132-R-2____ GRANT TITLE: Survey of Texas Hornshell Populations in Texas, Yr 2&3 REPORTING PERIOD: ____1 Sep 11 to 31 Aug 14 OBJECTIVE(S): To assess the current distribution of P. popeii in Texas; evaluate long-term changes in distribution range; locate and describe existing populations, and determine species’ habitat requirements. Segment Objectives: 1. Assess the current distribution of Popenaias popeii in Texas; 2. Evaluate long-term changes in distribution range; 3. Locate and describe existing populations, and (4) determine species’ habitat requirements. Significant Deviation: None. Summary Of Progress: Please see Attachment A. Location: Terrell, Maverick, Webb, and Val Verde counties, TX Cost: ___Costs were not available at time of this report.__ Prepared by: _Craig Farquhar_____________ Date: 25 Aug 2014 Approved by: ______________________________ Date:___ 25 Aug 2014 C. Craig Farquhar 2 ATTACHMENT A TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT TRADITIONAL SECTION 6 Joint Project with New Mexico Department of Game and Fish FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT State: Texas Project Number: 419446 Project Title: “Survey of Texas Hornshell Populations in Texas” Time period: February 3, 2012 - August 31, 2014 Full Contract Period: 3 February 2012 To: 31 August 2014 (with requested 12-month no-cost extension) Principal Investigators: Lyubov E. Burlakova, Alexander Y.
  • Intrinsic Vulnerability in the Global Fish Catch

    Intrinsic Vulnerability in the Global Fish Catch

    The following appendix accompanies the article Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch William W. L. Cheung1,*, Reg Watson1, Telmo Morato1,2, Tony J. Pitcher1, Daniel Pauly1 1Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory (AERL), 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada 2Departamento de Oceanografia e Pescas, Universidade dos Açores, 9901-862 Horta, Portugal *Email: [email protected] Marine Ecology Progress Series 333:1–12 (2007) Appendix 1. Intrinsic vulnerability index of fish taxa represented in the global catch, based on the Sea Around Us database (www.seaaroundus.org) Taxonomic Intrinsic level Taxon Common name vulnerability Family Pristidae Sawfishes 88 Squatinidae Angel sharks 80 Anarhichadidae Wolffishes 78 Carcharhinidae Requiem sharks 77 Sphyrnidae Hammerhead, bonnethead, scoophead shark 77 Macrouridae Grenadiers or rattails 75 Rajidae Skates 72 Alepocephalidae Slickheads 71 Lophiidae Goosefishes 70 Torpedinidae Electric rays 68 Belonidae Needlefishes 67 Emmelichthyidae Rovers 66 Nototheniidae Cod icefishes 65 Ophidiidae Cusk-eels 65 Trachichthyidae Slimeheads 64 Channichthyidae Crocodile icefishes 63 Myliobatidae Eagle and manta rays 63 Squalidae Dogfish sharks 62 Congridae Conger and garden eels 60 Serranidae Sea basses: groupers and fairy basslets 60 Exocoetidae Flyingfishes 59 Malacanthidae Tilefishes 58 Scorpaenidae Scorpionfishes or rockfishes 58 Polynemidae Threadfins 56 Triakidae Houndsharks 56 Istiophoridae Billfishes 55 Petromyzontidae
  • Assemblages of Fishes and Their Associations with Environmental Variables, Lower San Joaquin River Drainage, California by LARRY R

    Assemblages of Fishes and Their Associations with Environmental Variables, Lower San Joaquin River Drainage, California by LARRY R

    Assemblages of Fishes and Their Associations with Environmental Variables, Lower San Joaquin River Drainage, California BY LARRY R. BROWN U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-77 National Water-Quality Assessment Program Sacramento, California 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director For additional Information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: Chief, California District U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Water Resources Division Box25286, Building 810 6000 J Street, Placer Hall Denver, CO 80225-0286 Sacramento, California 95819-6129 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time. earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ Improve understanding of the primary natural tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- and human factors that affect water-quality ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound conditions. decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and This information will help support the development trends is an important part of this overall mission. and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni­ One of the greatest challenges faced by water- toring decisions by other Federal, State, and local resources scientists is acquiring reliable information agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. that will guide the use and protection of the Nation's The goals of the NAWQA Program are being water resources. That challenge is being addressed by achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations Federal, State, interstate, and local water-resource of 59 of the Nation's most important river basins and agencies and by many academic institutions.
  • Dorosomatinae

    Dorosomatinae

    click for previous page 230 Geographical Distribution : Rivers of Burma (chiefly the Irrawaddy, but perhaps others). 40º Habitat and Biology : Riverine in middle and upper reaches. More data needed. Size : To about 16 cm standard length. 20º Interest to Fisheries : Contributes to riverine artisanal fisheries, but catches not recorded. Local Names : - 0º Literature : See under synonyms. Remarks: Rather few specimens seem to have 20º been studied (Vongratana, 1980, saw only three). 40º 80º 100º 120º 140º 160º 180º 2.2.5 SUBFAMILY DOROSOMATINAE FAO Names : En - Gizzard shads. Diagnostic Features : Moderate-sized herring-like fishes (to about 30 cm standard length or a little more); fully scuted along belly, scutes also present on back before dorsal fin in some (Clupanodon). Mouth inferior or subterminal, sometimes terminal, snout usually projecting;upper jaw not evenly rounded in front, but with a distinct median notch into which the symphysis of the lower jaw fits; no teeth. Gillrakers fine and numerous; a pair of pharyngeal pouches above 4th gill arch, apparently for collecting food seived by gillrakers. Dorsal fin at about midpoint of body, last dorsal finray filamentous and long (except in the Indo-Pacific Gonialosa and Anodontostoma); anal fin moderate, up to 38 mouth finrays; pelvic fin under or a little before dorsal fin origin, with i 7 finrays. inferior Scales usually well attached, usually 38 to 55 in lateral series (but 43 to 71 scales in Gonialosa and up to 86 in some Dorosoma). Stomach muscular, gizzard-like. A dark spot often present behind gill opening, in some species followed by a series of spots.