DOCSLIB.ORG

Low-Head Dams Facilitate Round Goby Neogobius Melanostomus Invasion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Low-Head Dams Facilitate Round Goby Neogobius Melanostomus Invasion Biol Invasions (2018) 20:757–776 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1573-3 ORIGINAL PAPER Low-head dams facilitate Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus invasion Dustin Raab . Nicholas E. Mandrak . Anthony Ricciardi Received: 9 July 2017 / Accepted: 23 September 2017 / Published online: 3 October 2017 Ó Springer International Publishing AG 2017 Abstract Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus inclusion of both reservoir-associated abiotic variables invasion of the Grand River (Ontario, Canada) and Round Goby abundance as model terms. To presents an opportunity to assess the role of abiotic determine establishment potential of the uninvaded gradients in mediating the establishment and impact of reach immediately upstream, four environmental nonnative benthic fishes in rivers. In this system, habitat characteristics were used in discriminant sequential low-head dams delineate uninvaded and function analysis (DFA) to predict three potential invaded river reaches and create upstream gradients of outcomes of introduction: non-invaded and either increasing water velocity. We hypothesized that flow lower or higher Round Goby abundance (low and high refugia created by impounded reservoirs above low- invasion status, respectively) than the median number head dams enhance local Round Goby abundance. of Round Goby at invaded sites. Our DFA function Round Goby influence on the native fish community correctly classified non-invaded and high-abundance was determined by variance partitioning, and we used invasion status sites [ 85% of the time, with lower generalized additive models to identify small-bodied (73%) success in classifying low-abundance invasion benthic fish species most likely to be impacted by status sites, and the spatial pattern of our results Round Goby invasion. Round Goby abundance suggest that likelihood of establishment is greatest in declined as the degree of reservoir effect decreased impounded habitat. upstream. The distributions of four species (including the endangered Eastern Sand Darter Ammocrypta Keywords Establishment Á Impact Á Laurentian pellucida) in invaded reaches were best explained by Great Lakes Á Tributary impoundment D. Raab (&) Á A. Ricciardi Redpath Museum, McGill University, 859 Sherbrooke St. Introduction West, Montreal, QC H3A 0C4, Canada e-mail: [email protected] More than 180 aquatic nonindigenous species are D. Raab established in the Laurentian Great Lakes basin Biology Department, McGill University, 1205 Docteur (GLB), and some of these species have caused Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada substantial ecological and economic impacts (Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2006). The GLB is a model N. E. Mandrak University of Toronto Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, system for studying how introduced species invade Toronto, ON M1C 1A4, Canada new environments, yet most attention has focused on 123 758 D. Raab et al. the establishment of invaders in the lakes themselves, can facilitate invasions within a watershed by acting as rather than their tributaries. Physical attributes of ‘stepping-stones’ for spread and by supporting tributaries (e.g., water velocity, temperature) may increased propagule pressure, altering hydrologic initially inhibit establishment by aquatic invasive conditions, and altering native assemblages (Havel species, such as dreissenid (zebra and quagga) mussels et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2008). For example, low- and Eurasian Ruffe Gymnocephalus cernua, which head dams are believed to enhance downstream have been slow to colonize flowing waters (Bauer recruitment of dreissenid mussels in an inland river- et al. 2007). Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus,a reservoir system, by supporting high mussel abun- small non-indigenous benthic fish of Eurasian origin, dance in the lentic sections above dams (Smith et al. has recently expanded its range into tributaries after 2015). On some GLB tributaries, low-head dams may colonizing all five Great Lakes (Bronnenhuber et al. impede Round Goby range expansion (Poos et al. 2011; Poos et al. 2010) and was the fastest spreading 2010). Yet, on the Grand River in southern Ontario, vertebrate in the GLB in the years immediately Round Goby has been detected above dams that are following its introduction (Dopazo et al. 2008). Round naturally impassable to them, suggesting human- Goby has become the most abundant benthic fish in facilitated transport in sufficient numbers to overcome some nearshore Great Lakes habitats (Kornis et al. demographic barriers to establishment (Bronnenhuber 2012) and has been linked to local declines or et al. 2011). The slower water velocity of the extirpations of native fishes, including Logperch impounded reservoir immediately upstream of the Percina caprodes and Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdii dam may provide a flow refuge for Round Goby, (Balshine et al. 2005; Janssen and Jude 2001; Leino which cannot hold a fixed position in water velocities and Mensinger 2016). Documented impacts of Round above 0.35 m s-1 and cannot sustain swimming Goby on native fish communities in tributaries appear speeds over 1.25 m s-1 (Tierney et al. 2011). There- not to have been as severe as in the Great Lakes proper fore, high water velocities could form an effective (Kornis et al. 2013; Poos et al. 2010), but a broader barrier to the upstream movement of Round Goby in suite of species may be affected. Fish communities in hydrologically unmodified tributaries and in areas southwestern Ontario tributaries are the most speciose beyond the reservoir on modified tributaries. Reser- in Canada, with a number of nationally listed at-risk voir sections affect more than just water velocity, with fishes confined to small ranges within this region consequences for substrate size and embeddedness, (Staton and Mandrak 2005). For example, Northern channel width, and depth (Alexandre and Almeida Madtom Noturus stigmosus and Eastern Sand Darter 2010; Gillette et al. 2005; Santucci et al. 2005). We Ammocrypta pellucida are two at-risk native benthic describe this suite of highly collinear variables acting fishes found in tributaries colonized by Round Goby in concert as the ‘reservoir effect’. (Poos et al. 2010), and the conservation implications Compared to unmodified rivers, fish communities of these invasions is uncertain. in dammed rivers may be more vulnerable to the Tributaries in the GLB have frequently been effects of fish invasions, and there is considerable hydrologically altered for navigation, flow manage- evidence that the reservoir effect tends to favour ment, hydroelectricity, and preventing the spawning invaders (Alexandre and Almeida 2010; Falke and migration of invasive Sea Lamprey Petromyzon Gido 2006; Moyle and Marchetti 2006). The majority marinus (Harford and McLaughlin 2007; Noakes of research examining Round Goby invasion of GLB et al. 2000; Porto et al. 1999). The majority of these tributaries has not extended upstream of the first dams are low-head barriers (\ 4 m in height), which barrier (e.g., Abbett et al. 2013; Campbell and Tiegs have less pronounced fragmentation, hydrologic, and 2012; Kornis et al. 2013; Krakowiak and Pennuto water chemistry effects than large dams (Cumming 2008) and has typically focused on relatively slow- 2004; Nilsson et al. 2005). Nonetheless, low-head moving stream reaches near lake inlets (Pennuto et al. dams restrict fish movement (Noakes et al. 2000; Porto 2010). Round Goby behaviour in slow-moving and et al. 1999) and share similarities with large dams by reservoir habitat likely plays a role in the decline of affecting river processes and biota at local and native benthic fishes; aggression and competitive landscape scales (Dodd et al. 2003; Harford and superiority has been observed experimentally where McLaughlin 2007; Santucci et al. 2005). Reservoirs food and shelter are limiting (Balshine et al. 2005; 123 Low-head dams facilitate Round Goby invasion 759 Dubs and Corkum 1996; Janssen and Jude 2001; affect abundance of native benthic fishes where these Kornis et al. 2012). Presence of Round Goby at low species co-occur. Finally, we used invaded reaches to densities was experimentally shown to negatively predict establishment risk to an uninvaded reach if affect the growth of a native darter in a slow-moving Round Goby are introduced, a plausible scenario given GLB tributary (average water velocity \ 10 m s-1), strong angling activity in the region (Drake and which was attributed to interspecific competition Mandrak 2014). (Kornis et al. 2014); however, the trend was not evident at high invader abundance, potentially a result of complex inter- and intraspecific interactions that Methods were responsible for increased mortality. Where access to free-flowing riverine habitat is limited by Study area impoundment and the creation of a reservoir effect, Round Goby are the likely winners of competition; The Grand River (43°080N, 80°170W) is a species-rich when the reservoir effect is minimal, lotic-adapted tributary of Lake Erie and a species-at-risk hotspot species are likely to persist. (Poos et al. 2010). It is highly fragmented, with over We surveyed the Grand River as a model system to 130 dams throughout the * 6500 km2 watershed examine the role of abiotic gradients in mediating the (Reid et al. 2008). Three reaches of the middle and colonization and impact of Round Goby. We hypoth- lower Grand River, bounded at their downstream and esized that impoundments above low-head dams upstream limits by dams, were sampled between 2010 create a reservoir effect that promote establishment and 2014 (Fig. 1). Moving downstream in the water- of Round Goby, while negatively affecting the abun- shed, the three reaches measure 15 km (reach 1; R01), dance of native small-bodied benthic fishes. Further, 43 km (reach 2; R02), and 53 km (reach 3; R03), we predicted that Round Goby itself would negatively respectively. Stream gradient is highest in R01 Fig. 1 Location of the study area within the lower Grand River by numbered arrows: 1. Dunnville Dam, Dunnville, Ontario; 2. watershed, sampled from 2010 to 2014. Detail view: Study sites Caledonia Dam, Caledonia, Ontario; 3. Wilkes Dam, Paris, (circles) on three river reaches (R01–R03). Dams are indicated Ontario; 4. Paris Dam, Paris, Ontario 123 760 D.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Tennessee Fish Species
    The Angler’s Guide To TennesseeIncluding Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesFish Published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Cover photograph Paul Shaw Graphics Designer Raleigh Holtam Thanks to the TWRA Fisheries Staff for their review and contributions to this publication. Special thanks to those that provided pictures for use in this publication. Partial funding of this publication was provided by a grant from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Authorization No. 328898, 58,500 copies, January, 2012. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $.42 per copy. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is available to all persons without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age, dis- ability, or military service. TWRA is also an equal opportunity/equal access employer. Questions should be directed to TWRA, Human Resources Office, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204, (615) 781-6594 (TDD 781-6691), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Human Resources, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. Contents Introduction ...............................................................................1 About Fish ..................................................................................2 Black Bass ...................................................................................3 Crappie ........................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta Pellucida) in Canada (Ontario Populations) for the Period 2012 - 2017
    Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Report Series Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in Canada (Ontario Populations) for the Period 2012 - 2017 Eastern Sand Darter 2018 c Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Eastern Sand Darter 2018 Recommended Citation: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2018. Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in Canada (Ontario Populations) for the Period 2012 – 2017. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Report Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 33 p. For copies of the progress report, or for additional information on species at risk, including COSEWIC Status Reports, recovery strategies, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk Public Registry. Cover illustration: Alan Dextrase, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Également disponible en français sous le titre « Rapport sur les progrès de la mise en œuvre du programme de rétablissement du dard de sable (Ammocrypta pellucida) au Canada, populations de l’Ontario pour la période 2012-2017» © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2018. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-660-24756-4 Catalogue no. En3-4/122-1-2018E-PDF Content (excluding the cover illustration) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. i Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Eastern Sand Darter 2018 Preface The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the 3Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996) agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruffe (Gymnocephalus Cernua) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua) Ecological Risk Screening Summary US Fish and Wildlife Service, February 2011 Revised, July 2014 Revised, June 2015 Photo: USFWS 1 Native Range, and Status in the United States Native Range From Fuller et al. (2014): “Northern Europe and Asia (Berg 1949; Holcik and Hensel 1974; Wheeler 1978; Page and Burr 1991).” Status in the United States From Fuller et al. (2014): “The ruffe was first identified by Wisconsin DNR in specimens collected from the St. Louis River at the border of Minnesota and Wisconsin in 1987 (Pratt 1988; Pratt et al. 1992; Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003). Following that report, reexamination of archived samples revealed misidentified larval specimens of ruffe had been collected from the same area in 1986 (Pratt 1988). The ruffe subsequently spread into Duluth Harbor in Lake Superior and several tributaries of the lake (Underhill 1989; Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2004; Scheidegger, pers. comm.; J. Slade, pers. comm.). It is found in the Amnicon, Flag, Iron, Middle, Raspberry, and Bad rivers, Chequamegon Bay, and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin (Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004; Tilmant 1999). In August 1994, it was found in Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin, and in the upper peninsula of Michigan at the mouths of the Black and Ontonagon rivers (K. Kindt, pers. comm.). In the lower Peninsula of Michigan along Lake Huron, the first three specimens were caught at the mouth of the Thunder Bay River in August 1995 (K. Kindt, pers. comm.). This species has also been collected in Michigan in Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Torch Lake, Little Bay de Noc in Escanaba, Big Bay de Noc, Misery River, Ontonagon River, Thunder Bay, and Sturgeon River Sloughs (Czypinski et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Synopsis of the Biology and Life History of Ruffe
    J. Great Lakes Res. 24(2): 170-1 85 Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 1998 A Synopsis of the Biology and Life History of Ruffe Derek H. Ogle* Northland College Mathematics Department Ashland, Wisconsin 54806 ABSTRACT. The ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), a Percid native to Europe and Asia, has recently been introduced in North America and new areas of Europe. A synopsis of the biology and life history of ruffe suggests a great deal of variability exists in these traits. Morphological characters vary across large geographical scales, within certain water bodies, and between sexes. Ruffe can tolerate a wide variety of conditions including fresh and brackish waters, lacustrine and lotic systems, depths of 0.25 to 85 m, montane and submontane areas, and oligotrophic to eutrophic waters. Age and size at maturity dif- fer according to temperature and levels of mortality. Ruffe spawn on a variety ofsubstrates, for extended periods of time. In some populations, individual ruffe may spawn more than once per year. Growth of ruffe is affected by sex, morphotype, water type, intraspecific density, and food supply. Ruffe feed on a wide variety of foods, although adult ruffe feed predominantly on chironomid larvae. Interactions (i.e., competition and predation) with other species appear to vary considerably between system. INDEX WORDS: Ruffe, review, taxonomy, reproduction, diet, parasite, predation. INTRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION This is a review of the existing literature on Ruffe are native to all of Europe except for along ruffe, providing a synopsis of its biology and life the Mediterranean Sea, western France, Spain, Por- history. A review of the existing literature is tugal, Norway, northern Finland, Ireland, and Scot- needed at this time because the ruffe, which is na- land (Collette and Banarescu 1977, Lelek 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Eurasian Ruffe (Gymnocephalus Cernua), Native to Northern Europe and Asia, Have Threatened the Great Lakes and Surrounding States Since the Late 1980S
    State of Michigan’s Status and Strategy for Eurasian Ruffe Management Scope Invasive Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua), native to northern Europe and Asia, have threatened the Great Lakes and surrounding states since the late 1980s. The goals of this document are to: • Summarize the current understanding level of the biology and ecology of Eurasian ruffe. • Summarize the current management options for Eurasian ruffe in Michigan. • Identify possible future directions of Eurasian ruffe management in Michigan. Biology and Ecology I. Identification Eurasian ruffe, also known as blacktail Gary Cholwek – National Biological Service or river ruffe, is a member of genus Gymnocephalus within Percidae. Eurasian ruffe is a small, aggressive, benthic fish native to Europe and Asia. The species resemble yellow perch with distinct walleye markings (McLean 1997). The Eurasian ruffe can be distinguished from other perch by their large, jointed dorsal fin composed of 11 to 16 spines with rows of dark spots between each spine. Adult ruffe are typically five to six inches long with large individuals rarely exceeding 10 inches. They have a small, downturned mouth, lack scales on their head, and are slimy when handled (McLean 1997). Eurasian ruffe have two dorsal fins, one spiny (anterior) and one soft (posterior), and are commonly mistaken for troutperch, which have only a single dorsal fin. Their coloration consists of an olive-brown dorsal surface, pale sides, and a yellow underside (Fuller 2014, Hajjar 2002). Eurasian ruffe have two ventral fins with sharp spines on the leading edges; the anterior fin has only one spine where the posterior fin has two spines.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm Field Guide
    FARM FIELD GUIDE to species at risk in southern Ontario Rivers & Streams A wildlife guide for farmers Content Introduction 2 What are Rivers and Streams? 4 8 10 State of Rivers and Streams 6 How to use this guide 7 Your Observations are Important 8 Species - Redside Dace 10 Eastern Sand Darter 12 Grass Pickerel 14 Northern Brook Lamprey 16 20 Wavy-rayed lampmussel 18 Rainbow Mussel 20 Queensnake 22 Spiny Softshell 24 Northern Map Turtle 26 Bald Eagle 28 Bank Swallow 30 Eastern Musk Turtle 32 Kidneyshell Mussel 34 30 Silver Shiner 34 Channel Darter 35 Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle 35 Laura’s Clubtail 36 Riverine Clubtail 36 American Water-willow 37 Heart-leaved Plantain 37 35 1012 14 16 26 18 2216 24 26 28 32 34 34 35 36 36 37 37 An identification guide for species at risk that use rivers and streams in Ontario Rivers and streams are defined as fast moving or flowing bodies of water. Rivers and streams have been an important part of Ontario’s development and growth providing many services to its inhabitants. Most importantly, these waterways are a valuable source of drinking water. Did you know the average person requires about 360 litres of water per day for daily activities? These waterways provide many valuable services to the agricultural community, including water sources for both growing food and livestock, and recreational opportunities such as fishing or paddling. However, many rivers and streams in Ontario have been diverted and deteriorated by humans. As this trend continues, pressure is placed on the plants and animals that depend on these habitats for survival.
    [Show full text]
  • Basinwide Assessment Report Roanoke River Basin
    BASINWIDE ASSESSMENT REPORT ROANOKE RIVER BASIN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Section December 2010 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................................3 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION TO PROGRAM METHODS..............................................................................................5 BASIN DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................6 ROA RIVER HUC 03010103—DAN RIVER HEADWATERS.......................................................................7 River and Stream Assessment .......................................................................................................7 ROA RIVER HUC 03010104—DAN RIVER……………………………………………………………………...9 River and Stream Assessment……………………………………………………………………….…..9 ROA RIVER HUC 03010102—JOHN H. KERR RESERVOIR………………………………………………..11 River and Stream Assessment………………………………………………………………………….11 ROA RIVER HUC 03010106—LAKE GASTON………………………………………………………………..13 River and Stream Assessment………………………………………………………………………….13
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Biota
    Low Gradient, Cool, Headwaters and Creeks Macrogroup: Headwaters and Creeks Shawsheen River, © John Phelan Ecologist or State Fish Game Agency for more information about this habitat. This map is based on a model and has had little field-checking. Contact your State Natural Heritage Description: Cool, slow-moving, headwaters and creeks of low-moderate elevation flat, marshy settings. These small streams of moderate to low elevations occur on flats or very gentle slopes in watersheds less than 39 sq.mi in size. The cool slow-moving waters may have high turbidity and be somewhat poorly oxygenated. Instream habitats are dominated by glide-pool and ripple-dune systems with runs interspersed by pools and a few short or no distinct riffles. Bed materials are predominenly sands, silt, and only isolated amounts of gravel. These low-gradient streams may have high sinuosity but are usually only slightly entrenched with adjacent Source: 1:100k NHD+ (USGS 2006), >= 1 sq.mi. drainage area floodplain and riparian wetland ecosystems. Cool water State Distribution:CT, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, temperatures in these streams means the fish community WV contains a higher proportion of cool and warm water species relative to coldwater species. Additional variation in the stream Total Habitat (mi): 16,579 biological community is associated with acidic, calcareous, and neutral geologic settings where the pH of the water will limit the % Conserved: 11.5 Unit = Acres of 100m Riparian Buffer distribution of certain macroinvertebrates, plants, and other aquatic biota. The habitat can be further subdivided into 1) State State Miles of Acres Acres Total Acres headwaters that drain watersheds less than 4 sq.mi, and have an Habitat % Habitat GAP 1 - 2 GAP 3 Unsecured average bankfull width of 16 feet or 2) Creeks that include larger NY 41 6830 94 325 4726 streams with watersheds up to 39 sq.mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Fishes: Just How Many Species Are There Anyway?
    B Spring 2015 American Currents 10 MINNESOTA FISHES: JUST HOW MANY SPECIES ARE THERE ANYWAY? Jay Hatch Dept. of Postsecondary Teaching and Learning and James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota INTRODUCTION FIGURING OUT THE COUNT In terms of fish diversity, for a state at the northern edge and Were they ever really here? halfway between the east–west extremes of the contiguous On the surface, this one appears pretty simple, but it can USA, Minnesota doesn’t do badly. Of the five states and two cause way more gray hairs than you might think. For ex- Canadian provinces bordering it, only Wisconsin boasts as ample, what do you do if Minnesota’s ichthyological fore- many or more species. We (my fish biology colleagues and )I fathers—like Albert Woolman and Ulysses Cox—reported believe this is true, but counting species is not quite as easy species such as the Chestnut Lamprey (Icthyomyzon casta- as it seems. You’re asking: What could be easier? Just find out neus) from the Minnesota River basin or the Longnose Gar if a fish species swims in your lakes or streams, then count it, (Lepisosteus osseus) from the Red River of the North basin right? Well, as they used to say in the Hertz rental car com- (see Figure 1 for Minnesota’s 10 major basins), but no one mercial, “not exactly.” else has ever collected these species in those basins over the What kinds of issues lead to “not exactly?” Quite a few, last 120 years? Look at the specimens, right? Good luck; including the uncertainty of old or historical records, the they no longer exist.
    [Show full text]