DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecology of Spring Creek, a Large Ozark Creek in Oklahoma

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ECOLOGY OF SPRING CREEK, A LARGE OZARK CREEK IN OKLAHOMA Publication No. TR88-3 OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD November 15, 1988 BCOLOGY OF SPRING CREER, A LARGE OZARK CREEK IN OKLAHOMA by Douglas B. ~ester, Ph. D., Oklahoma Water Resources Board; Everett M. Grigsby, Ph. D., Northeastern State University; Patricia D. Powell, Oklahoma Water Resources Board; and Bob Carroll, ~udy Powlkes, Leonard (Len) Le~an, Loaa Lindley, William Meads, and Bo Stone -- students and former students of the first two principal authors. Publ ication No. TR88-3 Water Ouality Division Oklaboaa Water Resources Board 1000 N.E. lOth Street, P.O. Box 53585 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152 David o. Dillon James R. Barnett Chief, water Ouality Division Executive Director, OWRB November 15, 1988 Acknowledgements The senior author owes a debt of gratitude to his co-authors, Dr ~ Everett M. Grigsby and his Research in Biology students for adopting the investigation of Spring Creek as a summer-school project and the graduate students Carroll, Fowlkes, and Lindley -- for continuing in the laboratory on weekends through the following semester. Ed Trumbull provided a boat to transport the generator for electrofishing. James Leewright and Mike McGaugh of the Drafting Section did their usual excellent job of creating the maps and figures for this report. The large and complex typing job, including visual composition and balancing of data tables for reduction, was done entirely by Joan Franks of the Lawton Field Office of the OWRB. Her careful and conscientious efforts to produce a quality document are greatly appreciated. This publication is printed and issued by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Two hundred fifty .copies have been prepared at a cost to the taxpayers of the state of Oklahoma of $865.00. i Table of Contents Introduction • • • • • •• • • ••••• ••• • 1 Study Area ••••••••• •• • •• • • • •• • • • • • • 2 Locations •••••••• • •• • • •• • • • • • • 2 Geological and Ecological Localities • • • • • • • • • • 3 Geological •••••• ••••• • • • • • • • • • • 3 Ecological •••••• ••••• • • •• • • • • • 3 Drainage Affinities ••• ••••• • • • • • • • • • • 4 Topography and Elevations • •• • • • • •• • • • • • • 5 Topography •••••• •• • • • • • • • • • • 5 Elevations. •••• ••••• • • • • • • • • • • 5 Cultural Characteristics ••••• • • • ... • • • • • • 5 Methods • •• • ••• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 Sampling Stations ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 Physical and Habitat Characteristics • • • • • • 7 Water Quality ••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 Biological ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 Fish community ~ •••••••• • • • • • • • • • 9 Results and Discussion •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Area and Land Use ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Watershed • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Riparian zone • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 10 Climate and Weather •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 Climate • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 Weather •• • • • • • • • • • • • • 12 Most critical period • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13 Vegetation •••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 Geology and Soils ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Geology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Soils • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 Clarksville series • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19 Baxter series •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 Locust series •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 Nixa series ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 Sallisaw series • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 Staser series •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 Elsah series •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 Cannon series • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 Stream Orders ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22 Classification ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22 First Order ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 Second Order••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 Third Order ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 Gradient •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 Entire creek • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 First Order ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 ii Second Order • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 Third Order • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 Summary ••••••••••••••••••• • • • 24 Hydrology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 25 Station and Segment Characteristics •••••••• • • • 26 Physical characteristics •••••••••••• • • 26 Symptomatic water quality ••••••••••• • • • 29 Temperature ••••••••••••••••• • • • 30 Dissolved oxygen ••••••••••••• • • • 30 pH • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31 Specific conductance • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31 Ecological Chemistry ••••••••••••••• • • • 31 Continuous monitoring • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32 Temperature •••• • • • • • "'.~ • • • • • • • • 32 Dissolved oxygen • • • • • • ·• • • • • • • • • • 35 pH • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 37 Specific conductance •••••••••••• • • • 37 Discrete samples •••••••••••••••• • • • 41 Oxygen ••••••••••••••••••• • • • 41 Carbon dioxide •• ••••••••••• • • • 41 Nitrogen •••••••••••••••••• • • • 44 Sulfur ••••••••••••••••••• • • • 45 Phosphorous. ••••••••••••••• • • • 46 Detergents ••••••••••••••••• • • 47 Chlorides ••• •• • ••••••••••• • • • 47 Chlorine •••••••••••••••••• • • • 47 Specific conductance, solids, and turbidity. • • • 47 Biological Characteristics •• • •••••••• • • • 48 Aufwuchs •••••••••••••••••••• • • • 48 Vascular plants •••••••••••••••• • • • 50 Nekton and benthos ••••••••••••••• • • • 53 Fishes ••••••••••••••••••••• • • • 56 Community Ecology of Fishes ••••••••••••• • • • 63 Community Structure •••••••••••••••• • • • 67 First Order •••••••••••••••••• • • • 67 Second Order •••••••••••••••••• • • • 71 Third Order •••••••••••••••••• • • • 74 Entire creek •••••••••••••••••• • • • 78 Community Analysis •••••••••••••••• • • • 80 Similarity and dissimilarity •••••••••• • • • 80 Population interactions •••••••••••• • • • 82 Interactions among stations ••••••••• • • • 83 Interactions among stream orders •••••• • • • 86 Interactions in the entire creek •••••• • • • 87 Partitioning Resources •••••••••••••• • • • 92 Origins and Distribution of Fishes •••• •• •• • • • 106 Literature Cited • • ••• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 109 iii TAXONOMIC REVISIONS Recent taxonomic revisions recognized by the journal Copia and 'all of the pUblications of the American Fisheries Society have resulted in changes in the scientific names of two species of cyprinidae and family affinity of two species of killifishes that are mentioned in this paper. We used the scientific names and family affinity that were recognized at the time this paper was completed in 1988. The new names and affinity are included here as a minor service to our readers. AFS recognized scientific Name Currently Recognized Common Name Used in This Paper Scientific Name Bigeye chub Hybopis amblops Notropis amblops Duskystripe shiner Notropis pilsbryi Luxilus pilsbryi Cashner and Matthews (1988) believe that all fishes which have been identified as N. pilsbryi in Oklahoma actually are members of a new species, the Cardinal shiner Luxilus cardinalis However, it is possible that some populations in northeastern Oklahoma may be L. pilsbryi which have resulted from capture of tributaries of the White River in southwestern Missouri. It has not been determined whether this population in Spring Creek is L. pilsbryi or L. cardinalis. Two killifishes, Fundulus olivaceus and Fundulus sciadicus, are reported as members of Family Cyprinodontidae. Both Copia and AFS have recognized erection of the Family Fundulidae to partition Fundulus from Cyprinodontidae. It follows that F. olivaceus and F. sciadicus are members of Family Fund'\llidae, and Family Cyprinodontidae is not known in Spring Creek. cashner,R.C., and W.J.Matthews. 1988. Changes in the known Oklahoma fish fauna from 1973 to 1988. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 68:1-7. ERRATUM p. 64, line 32 - change 8.1 m/km to 2.4 m/km and (42.5 ft./mi.) to (12.6 ft/mi. ). ECOLOGY OF SPRING CREEK, A LARGE OZARK CREEK IN OK LAHOMA 1 by Douglas B. Jester, Ph.D., Oklahoma water Resources Board, Oklahoma City, OK; Everett M. Grigsby, Ph.D., Northeastern state University, Tahlequah, OK; Patricia D. Powell, Oklahoma water Resources Board, Oklahoma City, OK; and six co-authors 2 • Introduction Spring Creek is a common name for creeks in Oklahoma as it is elsewhere. However,· this Spring Creek is an uncommon creek because it is representative of large creeks in the western Ozarks which contain large and diverse communities of unique coolwater fishes combined with ubiquitous, tolerant warmwater species. It is named appropriately because· it derives and maintains its water supply from. peripheral and stream-bottom springs and groundwater return throughout its length. Spring Creek originates in three ephemeral-flow channels, the longest beginning 1.62 miles (2.59 km) northeast of Kansas, Delaware County, Oklahoma, immediately west of state Highway 10 and 1.25 miles (2.0 km) north of state Highway 33. It becomes a perennial stream as it approaches the city limit of Kansas and remains perennial, except for one unique segment, to its confluence with the Neosho (= Grand) River in Mayes County. A large segment of the creek is in northern Cherokee County. The entire channel is 34 miles (55 km) long 3 and the perennial portion, at least during normal conditions, is approximately 33.5 miles (53.6 km) long. Direction of flow is essentially west, with the mouth of the creek slightly south of the origin. It enters
Recommended publications
  • Habitat Suitability and Detection Probability of Longnose Darter (Percina Nasuta) in Oklahoma

    Habitat Suitability and Detection Probability of Longnose Darter (Percina Nasuta) in Oklahoma

    HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA By COLT TAYLOR HOLLEY Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Ecology and Management Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 2016 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December, 2018 HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: Dr. James M. Long Thesis Advisor Dr. Shannon Brewer Dr. Monica Papeş ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am truly thankful for the support of my advisor, Dr. Jim Long, throughout my time at Oklahoma State University. His motivation and confidence in me was invaluable. I also thank my committee members Dr. Shannon Brewer and Dr. Mona Papeş for their contributions to my education and for their comments that improved this thesis. I thank the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) for providing the funding for this project and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (OKCFWRU) for their logistical support. I thank Tommy Hall, James Mier, Bill Rogers, Dick Rogers, and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Scott for allowing me to access Lee Creek from their properties. Much of my research could not have been accomplished without them. My field technicians Josh, Matt, and Erick made each field season enjoyable and I could not have done it without their help. The camaraderie of my friends and fellow graduate students made my time in Stillwater feel like home. I consider Dr. Andrew Taylor to be a mentor, fishing partner, and one of my closest friends.
  • Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(S): Clark Hubbs Reviewed Work(S): Source: Copeia, Vol

    Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(S): Clark Hubbs Reviewed Work(S): Source: Copeia, Vol

    Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(s): Clark Hubbs Reviewed work(s): Source: Copeia, Vol. 1985, No. 1 (Feb. 11, 1985), pp. 56-68 Published by: American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1444790 . Accessed: 10/01/2012 14:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Copeia. http://www.jstor.org 56 COPEIA, 1985, NO. 1 changes in kinosternid turtles. J. Herpetol. 6:183- . 1938. Seasonal changes in the testes of the 189. musk turtle Sternotherusodoratus L. J. Morphol. 63: MCPHERSON, R. J., AND K. R. MARION. 1981. Sea- 301-317. sonal testicular cycle of the stinkpot turtle (Ster- SAINTGIRONS, H. 1982. Reproductive cycles of male notherus odoratus) in central Alabama. Herpetolog- snakes and their relationships with climate and fe- ica 37:33-40. male reproductive cycles. Herpetologica 38:5-16. MITCHELL, J. C. 1982. Population ecology and de- SPEAT, R. H. 1973. Seasonal variation in the tubular mography of the freshwater turtles Chrysemyspicta and interstitial areas of the testes in Sternothaerus and Sternotherusodoratus.
  • Kansas Stream Fishes

    Kansas Stream Fishes

    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And

    A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And

    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
  • GCP LCC Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow

    GCP LCC Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow

    Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration Photo credit: Brandon Brown A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee Edited by: Mary Davis, Coordinator, Southern Aquatic Resources Partnership 3563 Hamstead Ct, Durham, North Carolina 27707, email: [email protected] and Shannon K. Brewer, U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 007 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 email: [email protected] Wildlife Management Institute Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee members for their time and thoughtful input into the development and testing of the regional flow-ecology hypotheses. Shannon Brewer, Jacquelyn Duke, Kimberly Elkin, Nicole Farless, Timothy Grabowski, Kevin Mayes, Robert Mollenhauer, Trevor Starks, Kevin Stubbs, Andrew Taylor, and Caryn Vaughn authored the flow-ecology hypotheses presented in this report. Daniel Fenner, Thom Hardy, David Martinez, Robby Maxwell, Bryan Piazza, and Ryan Smith provided helpful reviews and improved the quality of the report. Funding for this work was provided by the Gulf Coastal Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and administered by the Wildlife Management Institute (Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation: Davis, M. M. and S. Brewer (eds.). 2014. Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration. A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee to the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) for the GCP LCC Instream Flow Project.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Fisheries in Recovery? TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE # IP Resort and Casino Floor Plan .....................................................................................ii Sponsor Pages .................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................vi Organizing Committee, SDAFS & MSAFS Officers .....................................................vii Technical Committee Meetings .......................................................................................viii Workshops ......................................................................................................................ix Local Activities................................................................................................................xiv Theme Speakers...............................................................................................................xvi Symposia Descriptions.....................................................................................................xvii Sponsor Exhibitors...........................................................................................................xix Schedule-at-a-Glance ......................................................................................................xx Best Student Papers Competition Finalists......................................................................xxii Opening Session...............................................................................................................xxiii
  • Reproductive Biology and Host Requirement Differences

    Reproductive Biology and Host Requirement Differences

    REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND HOST REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES AMONG ISOLATED POPULATIONS OF CYPROGENIA ABERTI (CONRAD, 1850) A Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Southwest Missouri State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science, Biology By Nathan L. Eckert August 2003 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND HOST REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES AMONG ISOLATED POPULATIONS OF CYPROGENIA ABERTI (CONRAD, 1850) Biology Department Southwest Missouri State University, August 2003 Master of Science Nathan L. Eckert ABSTRACT Cyprogenia aberti, the Western fanshell, is a rare and threatened pearly mussel endemic to the Interior Highlands of Eastern North America. Previous genetic analysis suggested that multiple species are present within this taxon. The present study sought phenotypic differences among genetically distinct populations in the upper Arkansas River system (Verdigris and Spring rivers), the St. Francis River, and the Ouachita River. Like other native mussels, the glochidia larvae of Cyprogenia are obligate parasites on particular species of host fish. Transformation success of glochidia was compared among 8 species of Percina and Etheostoma. The percentage of attached glochidia that transformed on individual fish ranged between 0 and 86%. Effective hosts (those that transformed a large proportion of attached glochidia) were always sympatric with the mussel population, and species with narrow geographic range were effective hosts only for sympatric mussel populations. However, two populations of a geographically widespread host species, the logperch, were effective hosts for each mussel population tested. The timing of glochidia and juvenile drop-off appeared to be related to the age or maturity of the glochidia. Glochidia size and shape differed among mussel populations. Conglutinate color, which is determined by the color of undeveloped eggs, varied within and among populations.
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The

    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The

    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
  • Checklist of Kansas Fishes

    Checklist of Kansas Fishes

    CHECKLIST OF KANSAS FISHES From "A Checklist of the Vertebrate Animals of Kansas", second edition, 1999, by George Potts, Joseph Collins and Kate Shaw (Species marked with an asterisk * are extirpated from the wild in Kansas.) 142 Species REFERENCE: Fishes in Kansas, 2nd edition, 1995 By Frank Cross and Joseph Collins, KU Press Order of Lampreys (Petromyzontiformes) Family Petromyzontidae Chestnut Lamprey - Ichthyomyzon castaneus Order of Sturgeons and Paddlefish (Acipenseriformes) Family Acipenseridae Lake Sturgeon - Acipenser fulvescens Pallid Sturgeon - Scaphirhynchus albus Shovelnose Sturgeon - Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Family Polyodontidae Paddlefish - Polyodon spathula Order of Gars (Semionotiformes) Family Lepisosteidae Spotted Gar - Lepisosteus oculatus Longnose Gar - Lepisosteus osseus Shortnose Gar - Lepisosteus platostomus Order of Bowfins (Amiiformes) Family Amiidae Bowfin - Amia calva Order of Bony-tongued fishes (Osteoglossiformes) Family Hiodontidae Goldeye - Hiodon alosoides * Mooneye - Hiodon tergisus Order of Eels (Anguilliformes) Family Anguillidae American Eel - Anguilla rostrata Order of Herrings (Clupeiformes) Family Clupeidae Skipjack Herring - Alosa chrysochloris Gizzard Shad - Dorosoma cepedianum Threadfin Shad - Dorosoma petenense Page 1 of 5 Order of Carp-like fishes (Cypriniformes) Family Cyprinidae Central Stoneroller - Campostoma anomalum Goldfish - Carassius auratus Grass Carp - Ctenopharyngodon idella Bluntface Shiner - Cyprinella camura Red Shiner - Cyprinella lutrensis Spotfin Shiner - Cyprinella spiloptera
  • Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment and Associated Fish Community Monitoring for the Missouri River: Segment 3

    Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment and Associated Fish Community Monitoring for the Missouri River: Segment 3

    2016 Annual Report Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment and Associated Fish Community Monitoring for the Missouri River: Segment 3 Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Missouri River Recovery Program By: John Hunziker, Landon Holte and Tyler Haddix Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks PO Box 165 Fort Peck, MT 59223 March, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2016 field season marked the 11 th consecutive sampling year for Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment crews in Segment 3 of the Missouri River. However, it was the first year of an exercise to reduce the amount of standard gears used, with the abandonment of the otter trawl and mini-fyke net. Additionally, effort was also reduced by nearly half, from 22 standard bends to 12 standard bends. With the reduction of gear and effort, total captures of pallid sturgeon reached an all-time low (N=25) for Segment 3. All 12 bends were sampled once each, with trammel net during both the sturgeon and fish community seasons, respectively. Comparatively, trotlines were used to sample each bend just once, with half of the bends sampled during the sturgeon season, and the other half sampled during the fish community season. A total of 220 trammel net deployments were utilized throughout Segment 3 during the 2016 field season; which totaled roughly 49 km of riverine habitat sampled. Additionally, a total of 96 trotlines were deployed in Segment 3 during 2016. With 20 hooks per trotline, a total of 1,920 nightcrawler-baited hooks were set in Segment 3 during 2016. Trammel net deployments throughout Segment 3 during the 2016 field season resulted in the capture of seven individual pallid sturgeon.
  • Age Determination and Growth of Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma Caeruleum) in the Grand River, Ontario

    Age Determination and Growth of Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma Caeruleum) in the Grand River, Ontario

    Age Determination and Growth of Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma caeruleum) in the Grand River, Ontario by Alexandra Crichton A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Masters of Science in Biology Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2016 ©Alexandra Crichton 2016 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract The accurate determination and validation of age is an important tool in fisheries management. Age profiles allow insight into population dynamics, mortality rates and growth rates, which are important factors in many biomonitoring programs, including the Canadian Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program. Many monitoring studies in the Grand River, Ontario have focused on the impact of municipal wastewater effluent (MWWE) on fish health. Much of the research has been directed at understanding the effects of MWWE on responses across levels of biological organization. The rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum), a small-bodied, benthic fish found throughout the Grand River watershed has been used as a sentinel species in many of these studies. Although changes in somatic indices (e.g. condition, gonad somatic indices) have been included in previous studies, methods to age rainbow darters would provide additional tools to explore impacts at the population level. The objective of the current study was to develop a method to accurately age rainbow darter, validated by use of marginal increment analysis (MIA) and edge analysis (EA) and to characterize growth of male and female rainbow darter at a relatively unimpacted site on the Grand River.
  • Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014

    Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014

    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014.