DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparative Conservation Genetics of Two Endangered Darters, Percina Rex and Percina Jenkinsi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparative Conservation Genetics of Two Endangered Darters, Percina Rex and Percina Jenkinsi Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 52 Number 52 (December 2010) Article 3 12-1-2010 Comparative Conservation Genetics of Two Endangered Darters, Percina rex and Percina jenkinsi Anna L. George David A. Neely Richard L. Mayden Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Part of the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation George, Anna L.; Neely, David A.; and Mayden, Richard L. (2010) "Comparative Conservation Genetics of Two Endangered Darters, Percina rex and Percina jenkinsi," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 52. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss52/3 This Original Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. Comparative Conservation Genetics of Two Endangered Darters, Percina rex and Percina jenkinsi This original research article is available in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: https://trace.tennessee.edu/ sfcproceedings/vol1/iss52/3 Comparative Conservation Genetics of Two Endangered Darters, Percina rex and Percina jenkinsi ANNA L. GEORGE 1,2* , DAVID A. NEELY 1, AND RICHARD L. MAYDEN 2 1Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute, 1 Broad St., Chattanooga, TN 37402 USA; 2Department of Biology, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63103 USA *Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT tats, the Ictaluridae and Percidae, have disproportionately higher percentages of jeopardized species than other Within the logperch group, a clade of 10 darter species southeastern fish families (Etnier and Starnes, 1991; from North America, two species are afforded federal pro - Etnier, 1997). tection. Percina rex is found in four major systems of the Within the family Percidae, darters are a clade of over Roanoke and Chowan river drainages, and Percina jenkin - 200 species of smaller-bodied fishes endemic to eastern si is restricted to less than 45 river kilometers of the North America (Song et al., 1998; Sloss et al., 2004). While Conasauga River. Two complete mitochondrial genes, the relationships within this group have been the subject NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 and cytochrome b, were of considerable debate (Near, 2002; Sloss et al., 2004; Lang sequenced to assess genetic diversity and conservation sta - and Mayden, 2007), one group consistently recovered is a tus of these two species. Levels of haplotype diversity were clade of logperches of the genus Percina , subgenus higher in P. rex (h = 0.919) than P. jenkinsi (h = 0.889), but Percina (Near, 2002). The 10 described species of logperch nucleotide diversity was higher in P. jenkinsi (p = 0.00485) are ideal for comparative conservation genetics studies than P. rex (p = 0.00367). Four haplogroups were recov - due to their rapid diversification rates (Near and Benard, ered in P. rex , and two distinct clades of haplotypes were 2004) and a broad disparity in rarity and abundance, from recovered from phylogenetic analysis of P. jenkinsi . These extremely common and broadly distributed taxa to criti - results are interpreted as reflecting differing causes of cally rare and localized endemics. The clade is character - decline for the two logperch species: recent geographic ized by an elongate and conical snout, a pigmentation pat - fragmentation with subsequent bottleneck events in P. rex tern consisting of tiger-stripe bars, and the behavioral versus a historical bottleneck of the restricted P. jenkinsi . synapomorphy of rock-flipping. Individuals use their coni - Within P. rex , a combination of natural isolation of subpop - cal snout to turn over rocks and gravel to prey upon hiding ulations in different tributary systems and recent anthropo - macroinvertebrates (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994), a morphic fragmentation of the drainage is likely responsible behavior unique among darters. Because this feeding strat - for observed patterns of differentiation among the extant egy requires nonembedded gravel or cobble substrates, populations. Percina jenkinsi is at far greater risk of logperch are negatively affected by siltation (Rosenberger extinction, and both the species and its habitat are in need and Angermeier, 2003). The two basal most species in this of immediate conservation actions. group, Percina rex (Jordan and Evermann) and Percina jenkinsi Thompson, are the only two in the subgenus list - INTRODUCTION ed as Federally Endangered (Near, 2002; Near and Benard, 2004; George et al., 2006). Aquatic vertebrates are imperiled at rates twice as high Percina rex , the Roanoke Logperch, was described as terrestrial species (Richter et al., 1997). Drainages of the from the upper Roanoke River in 1889 (Jordan, 1889), but southeastern U.S. contain a particularly diverse and imper - not widely considered a valid species until the late 1960s iled ichthyofauna (Master, 1990; Burr and Mayden, 1992; (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Until 2006, P. rex was only Lydeard and Mayden, 1995; Warren et al., 2000). Etnier known from four river systems in Virginia (Fig. 1; Jenkins (1997) identified the top three causes of imperilment of and Burkhead, 1994). Three of these systems, the this fauna to be nonpoint-source pollution, alteration of Roanoke, Pigg, and Smith rivers (Roanoke River water flow, and small native range. Fishes with habitat drainage), are separated from the fourth, Nottoway River preferences of medium-sized rivers are disproportionately (Chowan River drainage), by Albemarle Bay. This disjunct affected. While these habitats support only 20% of south - distribution has been invoked as evidence for the loss of eastern fish species, they contain 40% of the fishes consid - many populations across the Piedmont physiographic ered imperiled from all habitats (Etnier, 1997). Two fami - province over the past 150 years (Jenkins and Burkhead, lies of fishes exhibiting close associations with these habi - 1994). This hypothesis was supported through the recent 1 December 2010 George et al. – Genetic Diversity in Two Endangered Logperch discovery of P. rex in several other systems of the Roanoke 1960s, caused one of the largest extinction events in the River drainage: Goose Creek and Big Otter River in the United States when at least 39 species of mollusks were middle Roanoke River and Mayo River and downstream lost (Folkerts, 1997; Neves et al., 1997). Many imperiled Smith River in North Carolina (Rosenberger, 2007; Roberts fishes found in the Conasauga River ( Cyprinella caerulea et al., 2009). The most recent management plan for P. rex (Jordan) , Noturus munitus Suttkus and Taylor , recognizes six populations: upper Roanoke River, middle Etheostoma ditrema Ramsey and Suttkus , Etheostoma Roanoke River, Pigg River, Smith River upstream of trisella Bailey and Richards and Percina antesella Philpott Reservoir, Smith River downstream of Philpott Williams and Etnier) are now isolated from other extant Reservoir, and Chowan Reservoir (Rosenberger, 2007). populations in the Mobile Basin by impoundments, with The populations in the Mayo and Smith rivers in North little opportunity for dispersal. Though the Conasauga Carolina had not been discovered yet (Roberts et al., River has been designated as critical habitat for 11 federal - 2009). ly listed species, and much of the headwaters drain Of the four populations of P. rex , the one in the upper National Forest, nonpoint-source pollution from agricul - Roanoke River has consistently been considered the ture and road construction continues to increase sedimen - healthiest (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Visual surveys in tation and threaten the fauna (Burkhead et al., 1997; 2000 and 2001 found the population in the Chowan River Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Subsequent urban sprawl drainage may be equally robust (Rosenberger and from Atlanta has further jeopardized the region; the Angermeier, 2003; Rosenberger, 2007). Many populations Conasauga and Etowah rivers contain a higher proportion are now affected by downstream impoundments, which of imperiled aquatic species than any similarly sized sys - alter riverine habitat and connectivity. Concerns about the tem in the southeastern United States (Burkhead et al., status of P. rex were first vocalized in the 1970s, as chem - 1997). ical spills and proposed dams threatened the species, espe - While there are no historical records indicating that cially the population in the upper Roanoke River (Jenkins either P. rex or P. jenkinsi ever occupied larger ranges, the and Burkhead, 1994). Though P. rex was listed as Federally occurrence of sympatric taxa with more widespread distri - Endangered in 1989 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989), butions suggests that their rarity may be relatively recent. critical habitat has not been designated. If these species have only recently become rare, conserva - Percina jenkinsi , the Conasauga logperch, is one of tion strategies should seek to halt their recent decline by the rarest fish in North America. It is known only from increasing available habitats to augment population size approximately 50 specimens taken from a 44-km reach of and prevent extinction (Hanski, 1998). However, if these the Conasauga River, a tributary of the Coosa River in the species have always been spatially rare or geographically Mobile Basin
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]
  • Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with the Descriptions of Four New Species
    Zootaxa 4247 (5): 501–555 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2017 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4247.5.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B6B0858B-BBEE-4E59-A7AD-58B5DE381065 Morphological and genetic evolution in eastern populations of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with the descriptions of four new species CARTER R. GILBERT1, RICHARD L. MAYDEN2,4 & STEVEN L. POWERS3 1Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA. E-mail [email protected] 2Department of Biology, 3507 Laclede Avenue, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2010 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3Department of Biology, Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia 24153 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 4Corresponding author Table of contents Abstract . 501 Introduction . 502 Methods and materials. 504 Genus Macrhybopsis . 508 Systematic accounts . 508 Macrhybopsis hyostoma (Gilbert 1884) . 508 Macrhybopsis boschungi Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 512 Macrhybopsis etnieri Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 514 Macrhybopsis pallida Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 517 Macrhybopsis tomellerii Gilbert & Mayden sp. nov. 520 Key to species of Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex east of Mississippi River . 522 Acknowledgments . 544 References . 545 Appendix 1 . 551 Abstract For many years the North American cyprinid fish Macrhybopsis aestivalis (common name: Speckled Chub) was regarded as a single widespread and morphologically variable species, occurring in rivers throughout much of the Mississippi Val- ley and geographically adjacent eastern Gulf slope drainages, west to the Rio Grande basin in Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico. Eisenhour (1997) completed a morphological study of western populations of the Speckled Chub, the results of which appeared thereafter in published form (Eisenhour 1999, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]
  • Low-Head Dams Facilitate Round Goby Neogobius Melanostomus Invasion
    Biol Invasions (2018) 20:757–776 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1573-3 ORIGINAL PAPER Low-head dams facilitate Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus invasion Dustin Raab . Nicholas E. Mandrak . Anthony Ricciardi Received: 9 July 2017 / Accepted: 23 September 2017 / Published online: 3 October 2017 Ó Springer International Publishing AG 2017 Abstract Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus inclusion of both reservoir-associated abiotic variables invasion of the Grand River (Ontario, Canada) and Round Goby abundance as model terms. To presents an opportunity to assess the role of abiotic determine establishment potential of the uninvaded gradients in mediating the establishment and impact of reach immediately upstream, four environmental nonnative benthic fishes in rivers. In this system, habitat characteristics were used in discriminant sequential low-head dams delineate uninvaded and function analysis (DFA) to predict three potential invaded river reaches and create upstream gradients of outcomes of introduction: non-invaded and either increasing water velocity. We hypothesized that flow lower or higher Round Goby abundance (low and high refugia created by impounded reservoirs above low- invasion status, respectively) than the median number head dams enhance local Round Goby abundance. of Round Goby at invaded sites. Our DFA function Round Goby influence on the native fish community correctly classified non-invaded and high-abundance was determined by variance partitioning, and we used invasion status sites [ 85% of the time, with lower generalized additive models to identify small-bodied (73%) success in classifying low-abundance invasion benthic fish species most likely to be impacted by status sites, and the spatial pattern of our results Round Goby invasion.
    [Show full text]
  • Underwater Observation and Habitat Utilization of Three Rare Darters
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2010 Underwater observation and habitat utilization of three rare darters (Etheostoma cinereum, Percina burtoni, and Percina williamsi) in the Little River, Blount County, Tennessee Robert Trenton Jett University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Jett, Robert Trenton, "Underwater observation and habitat utilization of three rare darters (Etheostoma cinereum, Percina burtoni, and Percina williamsi) in the Little River, Blount County, Tennessee. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2010. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/636 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Robert Trenton Jett entitled "Underwater observation and habitat utilization of three rare darters (Etheostoma cinereum, Percina burtoni, and Percina williamsi) in the Little River, Blount County, Tennessee." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. James L. Wilson, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: David A. Etnier, Jason G.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5
    Summary Report of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Summary Report of Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Prepared by: Amy J. Benson, Colette C. Jacono, Pam L. Fuller, Elizabeth R. McKercher, U.S. Geological Survey 7920 NW 71st Street Gainesville, Florida 32653 and Myriah M. Richerson Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. 7315 North Atlantic Avenue Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 29 February 2004 Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………... ...1 Aquatic Macrophytes ………………………………………………………………….. ... 2 Submersed Plants ………...………………………………………………........... 7 Emergent Plants ………………………………………………………….......... 13 Floating Plants ………………………………………………………………..... 24 Fishes ...…………….…………………………………………………………………..... 29 Invertebrates…………………………………………………………………………...... 56 Mollusks …………………………………………………………………………. 57 Bivalves …………….………………………………………………........ 57 Gastropods ……………………………………………………………... 63 Nudibranchs ………………………………………………………......... 68 Crustaceans …………………………………………………………………..... 69 Amphipods …………………………………………………………….... 69 Cladocerans …………………………………………………………..... 70 Copepods ……………………………………………………………….. 71 Crabs …………………………………………………………………...... 72 Crayfish ………………………………………………………………….. 73 Isopods ………………………………………………………………...... 75 Shrimp ………………………………………………………………….... 75 Amphibians and Reptiles …………………………………………………………….. 76 Amphibians ……………………………………………………………….......... 81 Toads and Frogs
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Feeding As an Overwintering Survival Strategy in Young-Of-The-Year Winter Flounder Richard J
    This article was downloaded by: [Department Of Fisheries] On: 25 September 2012, At: 20:24 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utaf20 Winter Feeding as an Overwintering Survival Strategy in Young-of-the-Year Winter Flounder Richard J. Bell a a Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island, 02882, USA Version of record first published: 13 Jun 2012. To cite this article: Richard J. Bell (2012): Winter Feeding as an Overwintering Survival Strategy in Young-of-the-Year Winter Flounder, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 141:4, 855-871 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.675896 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotted Darter Status Assessment
    SPOTTED DARTER STATUS ASSESSMENT Prepared by: Joseph M. Mayasich and David Grandmaison Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811-1442 and David Etnier Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee 569 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1610 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111 March 2004 NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2004-02 DISCLAIMER This document is a compilation of biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future threats to the spotted darter, Etheostoma maculatum (Kirtland). It does not represent a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on whether this taxon should be designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document; other relevant biological and threat data not included herein; and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The result of the decision will be posted on the Service's Region 3 Web site (refer to: http://midwest.fws.gov/eco_serv/endangrd/lists/concern.html). If designated as a candidate species, the taxon will subsequently be added to the Service's candidate species list that is periodically published in the Federal Register and posted on the World Wide Web (refer to: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html). Even if the taxon does not warrant candidate status it should benefit from the conservation recommendations that are contained in this document. i TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER............................................................................................................................... ii NARRATIVE ................................................................................................................................1 SYSTEMATICS...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]