DOCSLIB.ORG

Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE HILLS AND COASTAL TERRACES ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 1116 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion . 7 Methods ............................................................ 9 IBI sample collection ............................................. 9 Habitat measures............................................... 11 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 16 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 20 Designation of guilds....................................... 21 Results and discussion................................................ 23 Sampling sites and collection results . 23 Selection and scoring of Hills and Coastal Terraces IBI metrics . 43 Metrics selected for the Hills and Coastal Terraces IBI . 49 1. Number of native species ................................. 49 2. Number of cyprinid species ............................... 50 3. Number of sucker species................................. 50 4. Number of Lepomis species ............................... 54 5. Number of darter + madtom species . 54 6. Percent dominant species................................. 57 7. Percent as tolerant species................................ 57 8. Percent as Lepomis ..................................... 60 9. Percent as insectivorous cyprinids . 60 10. Percent as top carnivores ................................ 63 11. Percent with DELT+hybrids............................... 63 12. Percent as simple lithophilic spawners . 66 IBI development for the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion . 66 Conclusions ........................................................ 80 References cited..................................................... 84 Appendix A. Habitat evaluation forms..................................... 89 Appendix B. Reproduction and trophic guild classifications for Alabama fishes . 92 Appendix C. Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion fish community sampling data ........................................................ 103 TABLES Table 1. IBI sampling sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion, 2005-11 ...................................................... 25 Table 2. Fish species collected in the Alabama, Black Warrior, Cahaba, and Tombigbee River systems, 2005-11 . 29 ii Table 3. Rapid habitat assessment scores for sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion .......................................... 34 Table 4. Human disturbance metrics for sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion .................................................. 37 Table 5. LDI-weighted human disturbance metrics for sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion .......................................... 40 Table 6. Correlation coefficients between candidate IBI metrics and glide-pool habitat assessment metrics ....................................... 44 Table 7. Correlation coefficients between candidate IBI metrics and human disturbance metrics ............................................. 45 Table 8. Statistical and responsive measures for candidate IBI metrics . 47 Table 9. Redundancy analysis for Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion IBI metrics .................................................... 48 Table 10. Fish community values for Hills and Coastal Terraces IBI metrics . 68 Table 11. Scores for Hills and Coastal Terraces IBI metrics . 71 Table 12. IBI integrity classes for the Hills and Coastal Terraces, Southern Plains, Tennessee Valley, Ridge and Valley/Piedmont, and Plateau ichthyoregions . 74 FIGURES Figure 1. Preliminary ichthyoregion classification for Alabama . 5 Figure 2. Ecoregions and river systems in Alabama . 8 Figure 3. Conceptual model illustrating the relationship between disturbance, stressor, and response. .......................................... 17 Figure 4. Location of IBI sampling sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion .................................................. 24 Figure 5. Frequency distribution of sampling sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion by watershed area and human disturbance . 28 Figure 6. Relationships between the IBI metric number of native species and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat. 51 Figure 7. Relationships between the IBI metric number of cyprinid species and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 52 Figure 8. Relationships between the IBI metric number of sucker species and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 53 Figure 9. Relationships between the IBI metric number of Lepomis species and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 55 Figure 10. Relationships between the IBI metric number of darter+madtom species and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 56 Figure 11. Relationships between the IBI metric percent dominant species and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 58 Figure 12. Relationships between the IBI metric percent tolerant species and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 59 Figure 13. Relationships between the IBI metric percent Lepomis and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat ..................................... 61 iii Figure 14. Relationships between the IBI metric percent insectivorous cyprinids and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat. 62 Figure 15. Relationships between the IBI metric percent top carnivores and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 64 Figure 16. Relationships between the IBI metric percent DELT + hybrids and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 65 Figure 17. Relationships between the IBI metric percent simple lithophilic spawners and watershed area, disturbance, and habitat . 67 Figure 18. Frequency distribution of IBI integrity classes for sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion .................................... 74 Figure 19. Comparison of the IBI in level IV ecoregions and drainages relative to habitat quality and a comparison of IBI scores for small and large watersheds relative to habitat quality . 75 Figure 20. Comparison of the IBI in level IV ecoregions and drainages relative to human disturbance and a comparison of IBI scores for small and large watersheds relative to human disturbance . 76 Figure 21. Tiered aquatic life use relationships between the IBI, habitat quality, and human disturbance for sites in the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion .................................................. 78 Figure 22. Biological condition gradient models for the Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion .................................................. 79 iv ABSTRACT The Hills and Coastal Terraces ichthyoregion in Alabama was sampled from 2005 through 2011 to develop data for creating and calibrating the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). One hundred and one sites were selected to represent a range of watershed areas and levels of human disturbance. Watershed areas at sampled sites ranged from 4.7 mi22 up to 333 mi , with 37 percent of the watersheds <25 mi2, 39 percent ranging from 21 to 100 mi22, and 25 percent >100 mi in area. Rapid habitat assessments were completed for each sample and eight measures of human disturbance were derived for each site from a geographic information system (GIS). Thirty-four candidate IBI metrics were screened for inclusion in the IBI by evaluating their relationship to the habitat assessment and human disturbance metrics. Both human disturbance metrics and habitat metrics were correlated with IBI metrics. Twelve metrics were selected for the Hills and Coastal Terraces IBI: number of native species, number of cyprinid species, number of sucker species, number of Lepomis species, number of darter+madtom species, percent of the dominant species, percent of tolerant species, percent of Lepomis species, percent of insectivorous cyprinids, percent of top carnivores, percent with DELT+hybrids (DELT=deformities, eroded fins, lesions, tumors) and the percent of simple lithophilic spawners. Both disturbance and habitat measures were effective in discriminating sites with good biological condition from sites with poor condition, though the degree varied with the IBI metrics. Twenty-eight percent of the sites scored in the poor to very poor range, 43 percent in the fair range, and 30 percent in the good to excellent range. The range of scores for each integrity class of the Hills and Coastal Terraces IBI were similar to those developed for the Plateau, Southern Plains, and Ridge and Valley/Piedmont IBI and slightly higher than criteria developed for the Tennessee Valley IBI. The Hills and Coastal Terraces IBI integrity classes were applied to the USEPA biological condition gradient concept for tiered aquatic life uses to model the response of biological condition to ecosystem stress in the region. This model can be used to better assess stream
Recommended publications
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma Forbesi)

    Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma Forbesi)

    Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma forbesi) Version 2.0 Acknowledgements: This Species Status Assessment would not have been possible without the research and assistance of Dr. Richard Harrington, Yale University Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Hayden Mattingly and his students, Tennessee Tech University School of Environmental Studies, Dr. John Johansen, Austin Peay State University Department of Biology, and Mark Thurman, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Biology and Life History ........................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................ 4 Genetic Diversity ..................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Lifecycle .................................................................................................................................. 7 Population Needs ....................................................................................................................
  • Freshwater Fishes

    Freshwater Fishes

    WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE state oF BIODIVERSITY 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 2 Methods 17 Chapter 3 Freshwater fishes 18 Chapter 4 Amphibians 36 Chapter 5 Reptiles 55 Chapter 6 Mammals 75 Chapter 7 Avifauna 89 Chapter 8 Flora & Vegetation 112 Chapter 9 Land and Protected Areas 139 Chapter 10 Status of River Health 159 Cover page photographs by Andrew Turner (CapeNature), Roger Bills (SAIAB) & Wicus Leeuwner. ISBN 978-0-620-39289-1 SCIENTIFIC SERVICES 2 Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity 2007 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Andrew Turner [email protected] 1 “We live at a historic moment, a time in which the world’s biological diversity is being rapidly destroyed. The present geological period has more species than any other, yet the current rate of extinction of species is greater now than at any time in the past. Ecosystems and communities are being degraded and destroyed, and species are being driven to extinction. The species that persist are losing genetic variation as the number of individuals in populations shrinks, unique populations and subspecies are destroyed, and remaining populations become increasingly isolated from one another. The cause of this loss of biological diversity at all levels is the range of human activity that alters and destroys natural habitats to suit human needs.” (Primack, 2002). CapeNature launched its State of Biodiversity Programme (SoBP) to assess and monitor the state of biodiversity in the Western Cape in 1999. This programme delivered its first report in 2002 and these reports are updated every five years. The current report (2007) reports on the changes to the state of vertebrate biodiversity and land under conservation usage.
  • Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield

    Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield

    Fish Inventory at Stones River National Battlefield Submitted to: Department of the Interior National Park Service Cumberland Piedmont Network By Dennis Mullen Professor of Biology Department of Biology Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 September 2006 Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) – nuptial male From Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans Photograph by D. Mullen Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………iv List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………..v Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...……..2 Methods……………………………………………………………………………...3 Results……………………………………………………………………………….7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………….10 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………...14 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………….15 ii List of Tables Table1: Location and physical characteristics (during September 2006, and only for the riverine sites) of sample sites for the STRI fish inventory………………………………17 Table 2: Biotic Integrity classes used in assessing fish communities along with general descriptions of their attributes (Karr et al. 1986) ………………………………………18 Table 3: List of fishes potentially occurring in aquatic habitats in and around Stones River National Battlefield………………………………………………………………..19 Table 4: Fish species list (by site) of aquatic habitats at STRI (October 2004 – August 2006). MF = McFadden’s Ford, KP = King Pond, RB = Redoubt Brannan, UP = Unnamed Pond at Redoubt Brannan, LC = Lytle Creek at Fortress Rosecrans……...….22 Table 5: Fish Species Richness estimates for the 3 riverine reaches of STRI and a composite estimate for STRI as a whole…………………………………………………24 Table 6: Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores for three stream reaches at Stones River National Battlefield during August 2005………………………………………………...25 Table 7: Temperature and water chemistry of four of the STRI sample sites for each sampling date…………………………………………………………………………….26 Table 8 : Total length estimates of specific habitat types at each riverine sample site.
  • Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams

    Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams

    Amencan F~sheriesSociety Symposium 37:179-193, 2003 Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Department ofFisheries and Wildlife Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 1000 Front Street, Oxford, Massachusetts 38655, USA Abstracf.-Many ecological processes are associated with large wood in streams, such as forming habitat critical for fish and a host of other organisms. Wood loading in streams varies with age and species of riparian vegetation, stream size, time since last disturbance, and history of land use. Changes in the landscape resulting from homesteading, agriculture, and logging have altered forest environments, which, in turn, changed the physical and biological characteristics of many streams worldwide. Wood is also important in creating refugia for fish and other aquatic species. Removing wood from streams typically results in loss of pool habitat and overall complexity as well as fewer and smaller individuals of both coldwater and warmwater fish species. The life histories of more than 85 species of fish have some association with large wood for cover, spawning (egg attachment, nest materials), and feeding. Many other aquatic organisms, such as crayfish, certain species of freshwater mus- sels, and turtles, also depend on large wood during at least part of their life cycles. Introduction Because decay rate and probability of displace- ment are a function of size, large pieces have a Large wood can profoundly influence the struc- greater influence on habitat and physical processes ture and function of aquatic habitats from head- than small pieces. In general, rootwads, branches, waters to estuaries.
  • Interim Performance Report Endangered Species

    Interim Performance Report Endangered Species

    INTERIM PERFORMANCE REPORT ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM GRANT NUMBER F17AP01052 WILDLIFE PROJECTS – ALABAMA PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama October 1, 2018 - September 30, 2020 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES DIVISION Prepared by: Todd B. Fobian Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in the Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama Year 1 Interim Report State: Alabama Introduction Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al, 2006), Canoe Creek Clubshell is currently a candidate for federally threatened/endangered status by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It is Coosa Basin endemic, with historical records only known from the Big Canoe Creek (BCC) system in Alabama (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Recent surveys completed by ADCNR and USFWS established the species is extant at six localities in the basin, with two in Upper Little Canoe Creek (ULCC), one in Lower Little Canoe Creek (LLCC), and three in BCC proper. (Fobian et al. 2017). As culture methods improve, propagated P. athearni juveniles could soon be available to support reintroduction/augmentation efforts within historical range. Little is known about Pleurobema athearni reproduction, female brooding period, or glochidial hosts. Female P. athearni are presumed short term-brooders and likely gravid from late spring to early summer (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Glochidial hosts are currently unknown although other Mobile River Basin Pleurobema species often utilize Cyprinidae (shiners) to complete metamorphosis (Haag and Warren 1997, 2003, Weaver et al.
  • Endangered Species

    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.
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The

    Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The

    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist WATER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 0908 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 8 IBI sample collection ............................................. 8 Habitat measures............................................... 10 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 15 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 19 Designation of guilds....................................... 20 Results and discussion................................................ 22 Sampling sites and collection results . 22 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 41 1. Number of native species ................................
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater

    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
  • Impact of Introduced Red Shiners, Cyprinella Lutrensis, on Stream Fishes Near Atlanta, Georgia

    Impact of Introduced Red Shiners, Cyprinella Lutrensis, on Stream Fishes Near Atlanta, Georgia

    IMPACT OF INTRODUCED RED SHINERS, CYPRINELLA LUTRENSIS, ON STREAM FISHES NEAR ATLANTA, GEORGIA Joseph C. DeVivo AUTHOR: Joseph C. DeVivo, M.S. student, Conservation Ecology and Sustainable Development, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202. REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 11 and April 12, 1995, at The University of Georgia, Kathryn J. Hatcher, Editor, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Abstract. The red shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis, is native to of C. lutrensis within streams near Atlanta, Georgia; and 4) watersheds in the south- and central-plains states west of the management strategies for the control of C. lutrensis populations Mississippi River, but its use as a bait fish for sport fishing has within the ACF River basin resulted in its introduction in many watersheds across the country. Cyprinella lutrensis is a tolerant generalist that typically thrives in degraded waters. Historically, the introduction of C. lutrensis CYPRINELLA LUTRENSIS IN ITS NATIVE RANGE has resulted in significant shifts in fish assemblages, either as a result of displacement of native fishes, or by hybridization with Cyprinella lutrensis is a cyprinid native to watersheds of the congeneric fishes. Cyprinella lutrensis has been introduced into south- and central-plains states west of the Mississippi River the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River basin and (Page and Burr, 1991). Although its morphology is thrives particularly in the impacted streams near Atlanta, Georgia. geographically variable, it can be easily identified by its deep- Fish samples collected near Atlanta by the National Water Quality body and bright red fins on breeding males (Matthews, 1987).
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86

    Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86

    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86 THE "LOST" JORDAN AND HAY FISH COLLECTION AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY Carter R. Gilbert: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA ABSTRACT. A large fish collection, preserved in ethanol and assembled by Drs. David S. Jordan and Oliver P. Hay between 1875 and 1892, had been stored for over a century in the biology building at Butler University. The collection was of historical importance since it contained some of the earliest fish material ever recorded from the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, and also included types of many new species collected during the course of this work. In addition to material collected by Jordan and Hay, the collection also included specimens received by Butler University during the early 1880s from the Smithsonian Institution, in exchange for material (including many types) sent to that institution. Many ichthyologists had assumed that Jordan, upon his departure from Butler in 1879. had taken the collection. essentially intact, to Indiana University, where soon thereafter (in July 1883) it was destroyed by fire. The present study confirms that most of the collection was probably transferred to Indiana, but that significant parts of it remained at Butler. The most important results of this study are: a) analysis of the size and content of the existing Butler fish collection; b) discovery of four specimens of Micropterus coosae in the Saluda River collection, since the species had long been thought to have been introduced into that river; and c) the conclusion that none of Jordan's 1878 southeastern collections apparently remain and were probably taken intact to Indiana University, where they were lost in the 1883 fire.