DOCSLIB.ORG

KDFWR Annual Research Highlights 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KDFWR Annual Research Highlights 2009 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Annual Research Highlights 2009 Volume III, Sept. 2010 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Annual Research Highlights 2009 Volume III, Sept. 2010 Our Mission: To conserve and enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide opportunity for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating and other wildlife related activities. Annual Research Highlights 2008 Foreword 4) To expand and diversify our user base and 5) To create a more diverse, effective, and efficient orga- nization. These two documents are available to the public, and are intended for frequent revision and re-adjustment to incorpo- rate ever changing agency and public needs and interests. The 2009 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Research Summary represents our targeted efforts to fulfill the goals of our Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as well as the goals of the 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan. These project summaries serve as a testament to KDFWR’s vigi- lance in the conservation of the fish and wildlife resources that we hold in trust for the public. Prescribed burn / Joe Lacefield Funding Sources and Long Term Conservation two unique purposes. The Compre- Guidance to Federal Planning in Kentucky hensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Programs The mission of the Kentucky (CWCS) is Kentucky’s roadmap for The Kentucky Department of Fish Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- sustaining fish and wildlife diversity. and Wildlife Resources receives no sources (KDFWR) is to conserve and The two primary goals of the CWCS general fund taxpayer dollars. As a enhance fish and wildlife resources are to identify and prioritize important result, the Department relies on hunting and to provide opportunity for hunting, species and habitats of conservation and fishing license fees, boat registra- fishing, trapping, boating, and other concern within Kentucky and to suc- tion fees, and federal programs to fund wildlife related activities. To effec- cessfully implement conservation mea- the six divisions within KDFWR. Proj- tively conserve and enhance game and sures for these species and habitats. In ects that are entirely funded by the state non-game fish and wildlife resources contrast, the 2007 – 2012 Strategic Plan are labeled “non-federal aid” (NFA); in Kentucky, long-term planning is addresses fish and wildlife manage- however, most of the projects included necessary. Over the past several years, ment issues as well as agency issues as in this document are partially or fully KDFWR has collaborated with multiple a whole. funded by federal programs such as the outside agencies, non-profit organiza- State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Pro- tions, professionals, and biologists The five primary goals of the gram, the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pit- to complete two important planning Strategic plan are: tman-Robertson), the Sport Fish Resto- documents: the Comprehensive Wild- 1) To conserve and enhance fish and ration Program (Dingell-Johnson), and life Conservation Strategy (completed wildlife populations and their habi- the Cooperative Endangered Species in 2007; http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/) tats; Conservation Fund (Section 6). and the 2008 – 2012 Kentucky Depart- 2) To increase opportunity for, and safe These federal programs serve a va- ment of Fish and Wildlife Resources participation in hunting, fishing, riety of purposes; however, each has an Strategic Plan (http://fw.ky.gov/pdf/ trapping, boating, and other wildlife- underlying goal of fish, wildlife, and/or strategicplan008-01.pdf). Both of related activities; habitat conservation. Brief descrip- these documents are designed to guide 3) To foster a more informed and in- tions of each of these programs are as agency decisions; however, they serve volved public; follows: Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources FOREWORD Federal Funding Source Program Goal To develop and implement programs that benefit wildlife and State Wildlife Grant their habitats, specifically species (SWG) Program and habitats of conservation concern Wildlife Restoration To restore, conserve, manage and Act enhance wild birds and mammals (Pittman-Robertson) and their habitats To fund fishery management Sport Fish Restoration projects, boating access, and aquatic (Dingell-Johnson) Program education Cooperative To fund conservation projects Endangered Species for candidate, proposed, or listed Conservation Fund species (Section 6) Big South Fork mussel release / Lee McClellan These federal programs provided tents. For projects that have been com- that began in 2009, a brief 1-page over- approximately 18.9 million dollars to pleted and not yet published, a detailed view of the project is included in the KDFWR in 2009 (see Figure 1). For summary will be included in the first second portion (“project highlights”) reference, we have included the state portion of the document. For projects of the document. For select and federal funding sources for ongoing projects, brief updates each project; however, these are included in the last section projects may be additionally of this document. In the table supplemented by outside fund- of contents, an expected date ing provided by non-profit of completion is listed for each organizations or universities. project with a finite end-date. When possible, we listed these This will facilitate looking up sources in addition to the state detailed summaries of com- and federal funding sources. pleted projects in later years. For each project summary, we Additionally, a comprehensive also identify the specific goals glossary of all projects in- of the strategic plan or CWCS cluded in Research Highlights fulfilled, as well as the KD- documents (beginning in 2007) FWR contact responsible for is listed after the Table of Con- each project. tents. How to Use This Please use the following citation Document This document is divided when referencing this into four main sections: pub- (UNTINGAND&ISHING,ICENSES document: lished research, completed &EDERAL2EIMBURSEMENT Kentucky Department of projects, project highlights, Fish and Wildlife Resources "OAT2EGISTRATION&EES and project updates. Citations Annual Research Highlights, for all published research with /THEREG)NCOME4AX#HECK OFFAND)NTEREST)NCOME 2009. Volume III. Publication Kentucky Department of Fish of the Wildlife and Fisheries and Wildlife involvement are Figure 1. Kentucky Department of Fish and Divisions. September, 2010, included in the Table of Con- Wildlife Resources Funding Sources 009 121 pp. Annual Research Highlights 009 Table of Contents Published Research Wildlife Contact SWG Coordinator, Danna Baxley Genetic Diversity, Structure, and Recolonization Patterns ([email protected]) for reprints of these publications. of Black Bears in Eastern Kentucky ..........................33 Culp, J.J., A.C. Shepard, and M.A. McGregor. 2009. Bias in GPS Telemetry Studies: A Case Study Using Fish hosts and conglutinates of the pyramid pigtoe Black Bears in Southeastern Kentucky .....................38 (Pleurobema rubrum). Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):19-22. Factors Impacting Reproductive Success of Interior Dzialak, M.R., K.M. Carter, M.J. Lacki, D.F. Westneat, Least Terns (Sterna antillarum athalassos) in Western and K. Anderson. 2009. Activity of post-fledging Kentucky....................................................................46 peregrine falcons in different rearing and habitat conditions. Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):93-106. Harris, D., C. Elliott, R. Frederick, and T. Edwards. Project Highlights 2009. Habitat characteristics associated with These projects began in 009 American woodcock (Scolopax minor Gmelin) nests in central Kentucky. The Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Sciences 70(2):114-144. Fishes Hartman, P.J., D.S. Maehr, and J.L. Larkin. 2009. Alligator Gar Propagation and Restoration in Western Habitat selection by cerulean warblers in Eastern Kentucky Kentucky. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology Estimated Completion Date: December 31, 030 .....54 121(3):469-475. Distribution and Ecology of the Blackfin Sucker Hopkins, R.L. 2009. Use of landscape pattern metrics (Thoburnia atripinnis) in the Upper Barren River, and multiscale data in aquatic species distribution Kentucky models: a case study of a freshwater mussel. Estimated Completion Date: December 31, 010 .....55 Landscape Ecology 29:943-955. West Creek Fish Barrier Removal – Harrison County, Hopkins, R.L. and B.M. Burr. 2009. Modeling freshwater fish distributions using multiscale Kentucky landscape data: A case study of six narrow range Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 011 ..............56 endemics. Ecological Modelling 220:2024-2034. Description and Geography of Restricted Range Kentucky Fish Endemics Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 011 ..............57 Completed Projects Fisheries Mollusks The Ichthyofauna of Rock Creek, Kentucky, with Augmentation of the Slippershell Mussel, Alasmidonta Observations on the Impact of Stocking Rainbow viridis in Guist Creek, Kentucky ...............................58 Trout on Native Fishes ................................................9 Augmentation of the Snuffbox, Epioblasma triquetra in Spatio-temporal Analysis of Fishes in Terrapin Creek, the Rolling Fork River, Kentucky ..............................59 Kentucky....................................................................15 Five Year Quantitative Monitoring at Thomas Bend on Conservation Status and Habitat of the Longhead the Green River, Kentucky ........................................60 Darter,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • Bluegill Diet Verification Project Outline Final W Letter of Support.Pdf
    EVALUATE PHASE II PRODUCTION OF BLUEGILL SUNFISH COMPARING A LEAST-COST DIET UTILIZED IN THE PHASE I VERIFICATION STUDY COMPARED TO AN “INDUSTRY STANDARD” FOR ONE PRODUCTION CYCLE Chairperson: Charles E. Hicks, Lincoln University of Missouri Industry Advisory Council Liaison: Paula J. Moore Extension Liaison: Charles E. Hicks, Lincoln University of Missouri Funding Request: $75,000 Duration: 1 year (September 1, 2012 – August 31, 2013) Objectives: 1. Using consistent protocols, evaluate/determine performance of age-2 bluegill fed the diet (41% protein/<8.3% lipid) previously developed by a NCRAC funded project compared to an “industry standard” diet used in the on-going project at two distinct latitude location in ponds for one growing season. 2. Coordinate dissemination of project results with the NCRAC Technical Committee/Extension Subcommittee. The expected deliverable will be a technical bulletin containing such detailed information as growth, production parameters, size composition, and survival using data collected over grow out to market size; i.e., the first year from the on-going project plus this year’s project. Proposed Budgets: Institution Principal Investigators Objectives Year 1 Total Lincoln University of Missouri Charles E. Hicks 1 & 2 $35,475 $35,475 James E. Wetzel Purdue University Paul B. Brown 1 & 2 $3,050 $3,050 Robert A. Rode University of Wisconsin - Christopher F. Hartleb 1 & 2 $36,475 $36,475 Stevens Point Totals $75,000 $75,000 \AMENDMENT #2 TO THE PLAN OF WORK FOR GRANT #2010-38500-20929 ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OVERVIEW (PARTICIPANTS, OBJECTIVES, AND PROPOSED BUDGETS) ....................... 1 JUSTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................... 3 RELATED CURRENT AND PREVIOUS WORK .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/SHIL/NRR—2017/1387 ON THE COVER Bridge over the Shiloh Branch in SHIL. Photo courtesy of Robert Bird. Shiloh National Military Park Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/SHIL/NRR—2017/1387 Andy J. Nadeau Kevin Benck Kathy Allen Hannah Hutchins Anna Davis Andrew Robertson GeoSpatial Services Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota 890 Prairie Island Road Winona, Minnesota 55987 February 2017 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Percidae: Etheostoma Raneyi) in Disjunct Watersheds of Northern Mississippi
    University of Mississippi eGrove Faculty and Student Publications Biology 1-1-2020 Cryptic diversity among Yazoo Darters (Percidae: Etheostoma raneyi) in disjunct watersheds of northern Mississippi Ken A. Sterling USDA Forest Service Stuart V. Nielsen Florida Museum of Natural History Andrew J. Brown Louisiana Purchase Gardens and Zoo Melvin L. Warren USDA Forest Service Brice P. Noonan University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/biology_facpubs Recommended Citation Sterling KA, Nielsen SV, Brown AJ, Warren, Jr. ML, Noonan BP. 2020. Cryptic diversity among Yazoo Darters (Percidae: Etheostoma raneyi) in disjunct watersheds of northern Mississippi. PeerJ 8:e9014 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9014 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty and Student Publications by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cryptic diversity among Yazoo Darters (Percidae: Etheostoma raneyi) in disjunct watersheds of northern Mississippi Ken A. Sterling1, Stuart V. Nielsen2, Andrew J. Brown3, Melvin L. Warren, Jr.1 and Brice P. Noonan4 1 USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Stream Ecology Laboratory, Oxford, MS, United States of America 2 Division of Herpetology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, FL, United States of America 3 Louisiana Purchase Gardens and Zoo, Monroe, LA, United States of America 4 Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, University, MS, United States of America ABSTRACT The Yazoo Darter, Etheostoma raneyi (Percidae), is an imperiled freshwater fish species endemic to tributaries of the Yocona and Little Tallahatchie rivers of the upper Yazoo River basin, in northern Mississippi, USA.
    [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]
  • A Middle Triassic Kyphosichthyiform from Yunnan, China, and Phylogenetic Reassessment of Early Ginglymodians
    SUPPLEMENTARY DATA A Middle Triassic kyphosichthyiform from Yunnan, China, and phylogenetic reassessment of early ginglymodians XU Guang-Hui1,2 MA Xin-Ying1,2,3 WU Fei-Xiang1,2 REN Yi1,2,3 (1 Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100044 [email protected]) (2 CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment Beijing 100044) (3 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100049) Part A Material examined and references Amia calva and Solnhofenamia elongata (Grande and Bemis, 1998); Araripelepidotes temnurus (Maisey, 1991; Thies, 1996); Asialepidotus shingyiensis (Xu and Ma, 2018); Atractosteus spatula, Cuneatus wileyi, Dentilepisosteus laevis, Lepisosteus osseus, Masillosteus janeae, and Obaichthys decoratus (Grande, 2010); Caturus furcatus (Patterson, 1975; Lambers, 1992; Grande and Bemis, 1998; FMNH UC2057); Dorsetichthys (‘Pholidophorus’) bechei (Patterson, 1975; Grande and Bemis, 1998; Arratia, 2013); Elops hawaiensis (Forey, 1973); Fuyuanichthys wangi (Xu et al., 2018); Ichthyokentema purbeckensis (Griffith and Patterson, 1963); Ionoscopus cyprinoides (Grande and Bemis, 1998; Maisey, 1999; FMNH P15472); Isanichthys palustris (Cavin and Suteethorn, 2006); Kyphosichthys grandei (Xu and Wu, 2012; Sun and Ni, 2018); Lashanichthys (‘Sangiorgioichthys’) sui (López-Arbarello et al., 2011); Lashanichthys (‘Sangiorgioichthys’) yangjuanensis (Chen et al, 2014); Lepidotes gigas (Thies,
    [Show full text]
  • As Assessment of Stream Fish Vulnerability and an Evaluation Of
    AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI ___________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri ___________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science ___________________________________________________________ by NICHOLAS A. SIEVERT DR. CRAIG P. PAUKERT, THESIS SUPERVISOR DECEMBER 2014 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled: AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI Presented by Nicholas A. Sievert A candidate for the degree of Master of Science And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. ______________________________________ Dr. Craig Paukert ______________________________________ Dr. Joanna Whittier ______________________________________ Dr. Timothy Matisziw ______________________________________ Dr. Michelle Staudinger ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank the United States Geological Service National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center for funding this project. I would also like to thank the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) for providing the fish community data which served as the foundation upon which this project was completed. Specifically, I would like to thank Matt Combes and Dr. Doug Novinger, who not only provided me with tremendous sources of data for Missouri’s stream fish communities, but also shared with me their expertise and knowledge by reviewing my work and offering invaluable insights. Dorothy Butler of MDC also generously provided fish records from the Missouri Natural Heritage Database. I would also like to thank Gust Annis and the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership for providing me with GIS data without which this project would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Gar (Lepisosteidae)
    Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Animal Information Series Gar (Lepisosteidae) Gar species found in Indiana waters: -Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus osseus) -Shortnose Gar (Lepisosteus platostomus) -Spotted Gar (Lepisosteus oculatus) -Alligator Gar* (Atractosteus spatula) *Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula) Alligator gar were extirpated in many states due to habitat destruction, but now they have been reintroduced to their old native habitat in the states of Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kentucky. Because they have been stocked into the Ohio River, there is a possibility that alligator gar are either already in Indiana or will be found here in the future. Alligator gar are one of the largest freshwater fishes of North America and can reach up to 10 feet long and weigh 300 pounds. Alligator gar are passive, solitary fishes that live in large rivers, swamps, bayous, and lakes. They have a short, wide snout and a double row of teeth on the upper jaw. They are ambush predators that eat mainly fish but have also been seen to eat waterfowl. They are not, however, harmful to humans, as they will only attack an animal that they can swallow whole. Photo Credit: Duane Raver, USFWS Other Names -garpike, billy gar -Shortnose gar: shortbill gar, stubnose gar -Longnose gar: needlenose gar, billfish Why are they called gar? The Anglo-Saxon word gar means spear, which describes the fishes’ long spear-like appearance. The genus name Lepisosteus contains the Greek words lepis which means “scale” and osteon which means “bone.” What do they look like? Gar are slender, cylindrical fishes with hard, diamond-shaped and non-overlapping scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the Alligator Gar, Atractosteusspatula, in the Vicente G1;Jerreroreservoir, Tamaulipas, Mexico
    THE SOUTHWESTERNNATURALIST 46(2):151-157 JUNE 2001 ECOLOGY OF THE ALLIGATOR GAR, ATRACTOSTEUSSPATULA, IN THE VICENTE G1;JERRERORESERVOIR, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO .-., FRANCISCO J. GARCiA DE LEON, LEONARDO GoNzALEZ-GARCiA, JOSE M. HERRERA-CAsTILLO, KIRK O. WINEMILLER,* AND ALFONSO BANDA-VALDES Laboratorio de Biologia lntegrativa, lnstituto Tecnol6gicode Ciudad Victoria, Boulevard Emilio Fortes Gil1301, Ciudad Victoria, CP 87010, Tamaulipas, Mexico (F]GL, LGG,]MHC) Department of Wildlife and FisheriesSciences, Texas A&M University, CollegeStation, TX 77843-2258 (KO~ Direcci6n Generalde Pescadel Gobiernodel Estado de Tamaulipas, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico (ABV) * Correspondent:[email protected] ABsTRACf-We provide the first ecological account of the alligator gar, Atractosteusspatula, in the Vicente Guerrero Reservoir, Tamaulipas, Mexico. During March to September, 1998, the local fishery cooperative captured more than 23,000 kg of alligator gar from the reservoir. A random sample of their catch was dominated by males, which were significantly smaller than females. Males and females had similar weight-length relationships. Relative testicular weight varied little season- ally, but relative ovarian weight showed a strong seasonal pattern that indicated peak spawning activity during July and August. Body condition of both sexes also varied in a pattern consistent with late summer spawning. Fishing for alligator gar virtually ceased from October to February, when nonreproductive individuals were presumed to move offshore to deeper water. Alligator gar fed primarily on largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides,and less frequently on other fishes. The gillnet fishery for alligator gar in the reservoir appears to be based primarily on individuals that move into shallow, shoreline areas to spawn. Males probably remain in these habitats longer than females.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Improving Rock Ramp Fishways for Small-Bodied
    THESIS IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES Submitted by Tyler R. Swarr Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2018 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher A. Myrick Kevin R. Bestgen Brian P. Bledsoe Copyright by Tyler R. Swarr 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES The growing global need to improve the longitudinal connectivity of lotic systems is often met by using fish passage structures (fishways). When designing fishways in the past, biologists and engineers focused primarily on strong swimming species such as salmonids. However, the majority of riverine species in the interior United States are not salmonids and may be excluded by fishways built using salmonid criteria due to lower swimming abilities and/or behavioral differences. I designed and built a 9.1-m long adjustable hydraulic research flume at the Colorado State University Foothills Fisheries Laboratory (FFL) to test fish passage and evaluate the effects of grade (slopes of 2 – 10%, in 2% increments) on the passage success of three Great Plains fish species: Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis, Stonecat Noturus flavus, and Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini. A 6.1-m long rock ramp fishway was installed in the flume and four PIT tag antennas were used to detect full or partial passage success. In order to test the key assumption that tagging does not affect fish performance, I evaluated the impacts of 8-mm PIT tags on Arkansas Darter and found no significant difference in the survival and swimming abilities of PIT tagged fish versus non-tagged fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic
    Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................
    [Show full text]