FISHES of BURRO GREEK James Johnson Murray Itzkowitz

FISHES OF BURRO GREEK

James Johnson Murray Itzkowitz Ichthyology W. L. Minckley January 4, 1966

The Fishes of Burro Creek Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona Introduction: Arizona has three major river drainage systems--the Gila- Salt River, the Little Colorado River and the Bill Williams River. All three systems drain into the Colorado River--the Little Col- orado just above the Grand Canyon National Park, the Gila at Yuma and the Bill Williams about 130 miles north of Yuma at Parker Dam. The Little Colorado and the Gila RIVER drainages both have major cities IN THEIR patterns and many studies have been made of

THEIR FISH FAUNA and ECOLOGY (GILBERT AND SCOFIELD, 1898, MILLER,

1961, Minckley, personal comm.). The Bill Williams River IS UNIQUE in its isolation SINCE THE ONLY major towns in its drainage ARE Wikieup and BAGDAD WITH A COMBINED POPULATION OF LESS than two thousand. Even the major roads (U.S. 66, 89, and 60) encircle this area rather THAN going through IT. THE only access is via Arizona highway 93. THIS ISOLATION MAY BE the reason why the Bill WILLIAMS RIVER AND ITS MAJOR TRIBUTARIES, the Santa Maria River, the Big Sandy River, and Burro Creek are relatively unknown as far as scientific studies ARE CONCERNED. THIS PAPER relates the 0 fish fauna of one of the tributaries of the Bill Williams River-- Burro Creek.

One or the biggest problems involved in this study WAS FINDING adequate maps of the area. Even WHEN maps were finally OBTAINED,

/ . A* .

. ' e 0° " 1 , •••• ' / , I

s.1 !W ol - LPN! 1

-- GvAt i. v i a s wv m v.,\ )1 1. g -2-

the roads leading into the area were extremely difficult to find. Nowt of Burro Creek is accessable only via "jeep roads", horse- back or walking. Stream Description: The main body of water is above (east) of the Arizona 93 bridge with very little permanent water below this bridge. Burro Creek was crossed in three places below State Highway 93 and its junction with the Big Sandy--two of these locations were dry and although the other had water, no fish were observed. This stream wasvery muddy and appeared to be eroding a new channel within the limits of the old stream bed; it is assumed that this was not permanent water. It was only 0.5 meters in width and 10 cm. at its greatest depth. . The stream was followed over one mile upstream and the condition of the water did not change. At and above Arizona 93 bridge, fish were scattered in iso- --401' lated pools. Some of these pools may dry A(Ninckley, personal comm.) at times but are connected during flood conditions. The fish population varies with the depth and the amount of cover in each pool. ir the smaller, shallow pools contained numerous Notropis lutrensis,

Agosia. chrrsogaster and Gila robusta. The larger pools in the area contained the above fish in the shallows and also Cyprinus carpio, Ictalurus melas and Lepomis cyanellus in varying abundance. One Catostomus insignis was also captured in the pool directly below the bridge. The water upstream is connected by very shallow (10 cm.) riffles and fish (mainly Gila robusta) were seen fleeing across _3_ these shallows when chased by the seine. This can demonstrate that the fish wailb. pool to pool and thus may not always maintain stable populations in each pool. This may also be the way the fish avoid being left stranded in drying pools. The larger pools often have a depth greater than one meter r and have spotty vegetation with overhanging rocks for cover. 471.. 0 Larger seines (* inch mesh) were used in these pools and thus the smaller fish were observed but not captured. The fish taken were: Catostomus insignis, Gila robusta and Cyprinus carpio. Except for Gila, the fish were of the same relative size and no young-of-the- year were taken. A study of the scales' growth rings showed that these fish were hatched during the same year. In a very large pool (400x50x1-2* mj about 3/4 mile above the bridge, a large school of suckers was observed, but avoided capture. Nineteen, 6 to 10-incheGila were captured at this location. Above this pool, the stream formed a number of small, stagnant pools and then disappeared underground for an unknown distance. The next major collecting site was approximately five miles above the first, at "Burro Creek Ford". At the Ford there is a large (600x50x1 164 pool formed by a stone and stick dam constructed by beavert. The upper reaches of this pool were difficult to seine because of the fresh willow cuttings that littered the bottom. Lepomis oyanellus was extremely abundant here but only in small sizes (2 to 7 cm.). Carp of various sizes were also found, the smaller fish running in schools of one hundred individuals or more. Above the pool the water was contained in a series of pool- riffles that terminated 1/3 of a mile above the beaver pond. At this *headwaters" a soft deposit of marl was noted extending 50 m. downstream. The calcium carbonate deposit indicates that the water must be traveling for some distance underground, picking up carbon dioxide from the respiration and decomposition taking place in the soil. This carbon dioxide combines with water to form the weak acid, carbonic acid. In the presence of an acid, calcium combines with the bicarbonate ion to form the soluable calcium bicarbonate. When the stream surfaced, the carbon dioxide began to diffuse into the atmosphere, increasing the pbt, causing the calcium bicarbonate to change into insoluable calcium carbonate which precipitated. An absence of fish and plants was noticed in this area, possibly because of the changing chemical composi- tion of the water. Above the marl pool was a valley with trees and grass growing in it. There was no sign of any previously existing stream except for the eroded bedrock. Upstream, about one mile, three, separate, dry stream beds were found which joined into one and remained dry for at least three to five miles upstream. Below the beaver pond the water seeped through the dam and again formed a series of pool-riffles. Lepomis cyanellus wore still abundant, but instead of carp, small Gila robusta were found. These two species were the only fish found for i mile below the pool. 4t The stream then formed two, large, deep pools (100x20x5 4) with large boulders and relatively little shallow water. A gill net was set up in one of these pools for two nights and the species of fish taken there were Gila robusta, Iotalurus melas, Cyprinus carpio, and Catostomus insignis. Lepomis and Agosia were also caught with a seine, but the pools were too deep and rocky to do c(1 an effective job seining. Below the second pool the water fell about 10 meters in a series of fast riffles to a large, deep, boulder-strewn pool lying between sheer, rock walls. The riffles were seined and Lepomis and Notropis were taken. This is the greatest distance Up Burro Creek that Notropis lutrensis was recorded. It seems that this ten-meter drop acts as a barrier against at least the Notropis, even though they were found in pools half-way up the falls. Be- low this area, Notropis is commonly found, but not in such numbers as just below the Arizona 93 bridge. The large pool below the "falls" was not seined but several large fish, believed to be suckers, were seen. From here the water formed a series of large, deep pools, most of which were too deep and rocky to seine. Fish seen in these pools were: G. robusta, Iotalurus Lopomis Notropis a., Cyyrinus carpio, and a sucker of unknown:genus. It may also be noted that the abundance of Lepomis and Notropis was nearly the same as near the 93 bridge. Although this series of pools was not connected to those near the 93 bridge, the compar- m A y able densities of Notropis and Lepomis indicate% that these pools A are connected more often that to those pools above the water falls. History of Introduced Species:

LEPOMIS CYANELLUS--FIRST DESCRIBED by Rafinesque in 1819, the green sunfish is generally distributed in warm waters from the Great Lakes, south to Mexico, and east of the Rockies to the Alleghenies. It was introduced into Utah in 1890 in the Weber RIVER and Utah LAKE (SIGLER and Miller, 1963). This fish was collected in the Salt River between Phoenix and Tempe and at the mouth of the Gila River in 1926, and in Lake Mead in 1942 (Miller and Lowe, in Lowe, 1964). Ictalurus melas-rFirst described as SilUrus melas by Rafinosque in 1820, there are no reliable records of their introduction into Nevada, but it was probably around the mid-1800's (LaRivers, 1962). The black bullhead was first collected in Arizona in the Colorado River at Yuma in 1904 (Lowe, 1964). Notropis lutronsis--This fish ranges widely over the central United States, from Illinois and South Dakota, southwardi.and west- ward to the basin of the Rio Grande in Texas and New Mexico. Its distribution in northern Mexico is not well known. It is an inhab- itant of both creeks and rivers, tolerating the muddy waters of the Great Plains (Miller, 1952). In his 1952 paper, Miller states that Notropis lutrensis seems wholly UNSUITED FOR THE waters of the Colorado River; it is "therefore not considered to be harmful" to the present fauna of the river. He does not take into consideration what will happen to the rauna of the tributaries of the Colorado River that N. LUTRENSIS does find suitable. The actual establishment of this Notropis is fairly recent as indicated by its absenee in the col1ections reported by Gilbert and Scofield (1898), by Dill (19)10, and by Miller (1950) (Hubbs, 1954). Notropl„s lutrensis was first collected fvom the Colorado River by Norris 0 0A5' and Allanson in 1953 (Hubbs, ). This collection and later ones in the same year show large numbers of both adult fish and fry. In December 1953, between 500 and 700 shiners were taken 124.5 miles from the Colorado River, in a drying pool of a California canal. This shows that the fish had become well destributed in the system and that it had great potential to spread into the tributaries of the Colorado River. The initial introduction of Notropis lutrensis probably came from ponds of the Arizona Fish Farms, Inc. at Ehrenburg, Arizona. The fish are thought to have been first propagated there in 1948 and sold for bait at Needles, California. In 1949 an employee of the farm saw large numbers of fry passing through the screens of the fish farm into the river,(Hubbs, ibid.). From this point, it is approximately fifty miles upstream to the Bill Williams Liver and another eighty miles to the upper limits where these fish were found in Burro Creek. It should again be noted that their occurrence seems to have terminated at the "waterfalls", as none was taken above this point during the study. However, they were present up to the "falls" and even partially up the falls in the quiet pools. Cyprinus carpio--Originally faom Asia, carp were introduced te4

=eft

into the United States in 1870 as a fish. The Nevada Game Commission not only explains why carp were stocked it most states but also how quickly this mistake was realized. Thvada's first Fish Commissioner in 1881, H. G. Parker, said "Carp, as a food fish have no superior; when our streams are stocked with them the people of the State will possep as grand a luxury as found in the waters of those states celebrated for the abundance and variety of their fishes; besides carp should be as plentiful to our people as chickens are to the table of the prudent farmer; ...(easy rearing) renders this fish most popular and desirable. One of my great aims has been to stock our waters with the best species of carp, and with the very sufficient appropriations at my command I regret the causes that have occasioned the delay. I now report and trust the coming season will be more propitious to the ends I have in view' (LaRivers, 1962). By 1897, George T. Mella (the new 1:evada Fish Commissioner) had already seen the "benefits" of carp. "Several years ago, during the carp furore, the General Government, while not entirely ital. to blame, was particeps criminis in fostering upon this State and polluting our waters with that undesirable fish, the carp. "True, application for the same w=re made by many of our citizens, ignorant of the qualities and habits of the fish and unsuspecting as to the ruin their introduction would bring. Time has now established their worthlessness, and our waters are suf- fering from their presence" (LaRivers, 6,1a) -9-

From these accounts it is evident how carp were introduced into Burro Creek--perhaps from an original planting in the Colorado River or perhaps directly into the drainage by some well-meaning individual. Species DescriatLIn: ITotropis lutrensis--Adults found in Burro Creek reached a maximum size of six centimeters. The sides are dark, due to the increased pigmentit4OL on the borders of the scales. There is also a narrow dark line on the side of the body which extends usually from the middle of the body to the tail. The lateral line usually has between thirty and thirty-five scales. There are usually nine anal rays. The fins have a slightly red color. Cyprinus carpio--Although the carp collected at Burro Creek only reached a manimum length of thirty centimeters, adults are known to grow much larger. The sides of the body are silver- gray and shiny, and the scales are very large; the lateral line count is usually between thirty-five and thirty-eight; there is a thick "spine" in the dorsal fin and the anal fin; a prominant barbel is found on each side of the upper jaw. Agosia chrysogaster--Adults reach a maximum length of about nine centimeters. The body is slim with small scales. There is a small maxillary barbel on each side of the head. The upper portion of the body is dark while the lower portion is white; between the dark and the white is a black band which extends from the operculum, slightly above the eye, to the caudal fin. A dark spot is found posteriorly to the band on the caudal fin. The -10-

mouth is in an inferior position. 7 Gila obusta--To be discussed later in the paper. Catostorms insignia--The largest adult collected at Burro Creek was about thirty centimeters. The body is silver-gray. The scales are largo ana the Iateral line usually numbers less than sixty-five. Those counted ranged from fifty-five to sixty- five for the lateral line. The mouth is of a typical sucker shape and there. is no notch on the corners. The base of each scale has a distinct spot. Ictalurus melas--This catfish reaches a maximum size of thirty-five centimeters in Burro Crook. The caudal fin is not forked and the barbels below the mouth are gray. The body is an unmottled dark brown with a yellowish-white ventrum. Lepomis cyanellus--The largest size captured of this species was about ten centimeters. The body is shallower than most sunfish and it has long gillrakers. The lateral line contains less than fifyt-four scales, The supernaxilla is about 2/3 the maxillary width. The Gila Robusta from iJurro Creek: As noted in Table 1 compariLg the four subspecies of Gila

robusta l the fish collected from Burro Creek have dkversified characteristics. The authors believe that these differences may warrant the fish a new subspecific status. Tanner (1950) describes the Gila in the White River of Yevada as the species jordani, using only the prominande of basal radii and the dark blotches on the body as the main variations from robusta robusta. Lartivers, --- 17C. TAble /. Comparison of THE SUB*PECIES Gila robustal.

CHARACTER G. ROBUSTA G. ROBUSTA G. ROBUSTA G. ROBUSTA FROM. INTERMEDIA ROBUST*, JORDANI BURRO CREEK * DORSAL FIN 8 8-?-lc 9 9 RAYS * ANAL FIN 8 9 9 8 RAYS

* PELVIC FIN 8/8 9/9 9/9 9/9 8/8 RAYS

SQUAMATION COMPLETE Complete COMPLETE COMPLEIT - 6 - 65-87 79 9 75-88 79 98 MASAL RADII Basal radii Basal radii BASAL RADII USUALLY poorly CONSPICUOUS POORLY PRESENT developed DEVELOPED NUCHAL HUMP Absent Slight in ABSENT ABSENT older fish ,

-4 PEDUNCLE INTO 2.6-3.4 3.3-4.3 3.4 .1 2.75-4..1 HEAD LEN

. SMALL HABITAT Small Small . Small Streams Rivers Streams STREAMS

RANGE GILA RIVER Colorado WHITE RIVER BURRO CREEK River IN NAVADA BASIN A

- TAKENA FROM LA RIVERS(L962) iN 64 *MOST COMMON NUMBER **USUALLY BETWEEN 8O-85 -11-

(1962) however, decided that this fish did not rate a specific status and therefore changed it to a subspecies. The question

arises at this point as to what is a valid morphological char-

Art acteristic in taxonomy. For example l t# the dark blotches and prominant basal radii Of equivalent importance to the number of fin rays or the number of scales in the lateral line? LaRivers, (ibid.), when comparing jordani, to other robusta, ignores.the conspicuous black blotches which are not found on the other fish. Therefore, it is assumed that he did not consider this feature to be a valid taxonomic characteristic. The Gila found in Burro Creek also had the black blotches but this was not included in the comparison because of the precedent set by LaRivers. LaRivers, (ibid.) states "...JORDANI agrees so closely with typical robusta ; that were it not for the isolation -Of the former so that it no longer has contact at any point with other populations of robusta, it would hardly be possible to regard it as a nameable entity." Using geography alone to determine subspecific status is ludicrous since every isolated desert pool would have a new subspecies for the same fish. RHINICHTHYS OSCULUS IS a good example since it is found in many isolated systems in the southwest; if different subseecific names were applied to each of these fish, the literature would be cluttered with many different names for this fish. The White RiVer was connected to the Colorado River System in Pleistocene times and it was thus isolated relatively recently (Hubbs and Laller, 1948). In the near future Alamo Dam will be

' -12-

constructed at the mouth of the Santa Maria River which will indeed isolate this system from the Col6rado River, and thus this Gila mal be a new subspecies due to geographic isolation alone. Food Habits of t_ila robusta: and were for the The stomachs of nine Gila were dissected_ post part empty. However, one stOach contained a partially digested Notropis Lutrensis. The Gila was siixteen centimeters long and the Notropis was three centimeters long. The contents of the intestines of the remainder were insppcted ant, the following was observed: one fish's gut wasfilled with a green algae identified as belonging to the genus Mow,eotia, which is normally thought to be a pool dweller. The Gila was caught in the large pool beneath the new bridge; this coincides with the algae identification. By pushing out the contents of the gut and measuring the material, it was found that two other Gila were feeding on approximately eighty per cent algae and twenty per cent insects. This does not take into account the possible animal remains hidden in the algae. Other fish seemed to feed exclusively on insects and fish. The fish seemed to be either Notropis lutrensis or small Gila, as scales, ribs, eye lenses, and pharyngeal teeth of these species were found undigested in the material. In no case did fish seem to make up the major part of the diet of these Gila. z However, some fish seem to feed exclusively on insects. The insect species were quite varied with legs, wings, and cases bein identified; Tricoptera made up the majority. As digestion, for the most part,.' was in an advanced state, insect identification was rather incomplete. It should be noted that the. fish that fed on the algae were captured about one month after the insectivore' thus showing that Gila may eat anything readily available. Niscellaneous Information:

There substantial reports concerning the differences and A similarities between the fauna of the Bill Williams and the Gila • . River drainages (the Gila borders the Bill Williams drainage on the south and east)(Lowe l 1964). The si,nilarities in the fauna rEriQ nt ettAs reeentives may be due to both streams opening into the Colorado River; however the distance a fish would have to travel would be hundreds of miles. Stream capture would provide a more believe- able explanation. Because of the normal erosional cuttie-ne or possibly great geological changes, it is quite possible that such streams as the upper-Burro and Kirkland Creeks in the Williams system and Granite and Walnut Creeks in the Gila system may have changed their flowage. U R.R. collected a Pantosteos in the lower branch Miller (1946) , 1‘e 444“, of Frances Creek that is believed to be a new species. ;\ were unable to reach this location or to find the sucker in the lower reaches of Burro Creek.

I:7s'. id s e" of the Water Resources Division of the United

.`? States Geological Survey reported an interview with an "old Indian" who could remember catching Squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) with pitchforks at the mouth of Burro Creek during theA spring run iv up this tributary. Special thanks should be given Bagdad Copper Corporation for their maps and first hand information of the area. According to '119ermanerct 0 one of their employees, there is no pa=maii* water in B4der Creek but there are someA permanent pools in Wilder Creek. Due to poor s Veri weather and roads wiNwere unable to al t/these statements. - 7w4147: ?q174.

; ! .•0 Literature Cited

Dill Williams - 1944. Fishery of the Lower Colorado. Calif. Fish and Game. 30(2):109-211. , Gilbert, C. H. and N. B. Scofield 1898. Notes on a collection of the Fishes from the Colorado Basin in Arizona. Bullet#1 of the U. S. Fish Commission. XX(1131):487-499, 4 plates. Hubbs, Carl L. 1954. Establishment of a Forage Fish, the Red Shiner ;; Totro is lutrensis), in the Lower Colorado River System. h. 40, Si. 3, July. 4-f,r4v ali . Fis and Game.. 1 and Robert R. Miller. --171-8. The Great Basin, With Emphasis on Glacial and Postglacial Times. Bull...of U. of Utah. 38(20)07-166, 1 map. Lowe, Charles H. 1964. VertebraUa of Arizona. Univ. of Ariz. Press. pp. • cc Miller, Robert R. 1952. Bail Fish of the Lower Colorado River from Lake Nevada, to Yuma, Arizona, with a Key for their Identification. Calif. Fish and Game. 38(1):7-42.

1961. Man and the Changing Fish Fauna of the American Southwest. Mich. Acad. of Science, Art, Letters, Papers. 46:165-404. Tanner, Vasco M. 1950. A New Species of from Nevada (Cyprinidae). Great Basin Nat. 10(1-4 1-36.