DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparative Study of Isolation in Headwater Fishes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Dissertations Spring 5-2016 A Comparative Study of Isolation in Headwater Fishes Bjorn Victor Schmidt University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations Part of the Biology Commons, Genetics and Genomics Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Schmidt, Bjorn Victor, "A Comparative Study of Isolation in Headwater Fishes" (2016). Dissertations. 356. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/356 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ISOLATION IN HEADWATER FISHES by Bjorn Victor Schmidt A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School and the Department of Biological Sciences at The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved: ________________________________________________ Dr. Jake Schaefer, Committee Chair Professor, Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Dr. Brian Kreiser, Committee Member Professor, Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Dr. David Duvernell, Committee Member Professor, Biological Sciences, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville ________________________________________________ Dr. Donald Yee, Committee Member Associate Professor, Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Dr. Micheal Davis, Committee Member Associate Professor, Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Dr. Karen S. Coats Dean of the Graduate School May 2016 COPYRIGHT BY Bjorn Victor Schmidt 2016 Published by the Graduate School ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ISOLATION IN HEADWATER FISHES by Bjorn Victor Schmidt May 2016 Headwater resident fishes may be prone to a high rate of population fragmentation within river networks because large streams have habitat conditions outside of their preferred ecological niche and may limit gene flow in the dendritic ecological network. To investigate patterns of population structure, asymmetrical gene flow, and influences on genetic distance and isolation from connecting habitat pathways, species specific ecological traits, and basin scale characteristics, a multi-species, multi-regional study was performed. Six headwater species of fish from four taxonomic groupings were sampled for genetic material in three regions of paired neighbor drainages and then genotyped for eight microsatellite loci. All species were found to have a nested hierarchical population structure relating to regional and geographical structure of drainages. There were also differences in rates of fragmentation across the species and regions studied, with Fundulus olivaceus and the Lower Mississippi River having the lowest rates. Most of the headwater species were found to have patterns with the majority of drainages supporting asymmetrical upstream gene flow along the main stem of the networks. Five of the species were found to have significant Isolation by Distance, and four of the species were found to have significant Isolation by Resistance due to large streams. The reservoir in the Pearl River was found to not significantly increase genetic distance, while the reservoir in the Little Red River significantly increased genetic distance. Headwater specialization and a combination of ii opportunistic strategy and periodic strategy life history traits were found to increase isolation rates across species. The amount of available habitat within drainages and the shape of the drainage were found to have the most influence on genetic distance patterns at large scales. This study shows that natural fragmentation of populations within networks is common across different species of headwater fishes, and is related to specific ecological characteristics of those species and regional characteristics of the drainage network. This project contributes to the understanding of how habitat preference within dendritic networks influences genetic population structure and provides a background rate of fragmentation in common headwater species that can be used for comparison with threatened or endangered species. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee members for their guidance and advice in completing this project. I would especially like to thank my advisor, Jake Schaefer, for the technical advice for methods and statistics and project design and scope, for helping with sampling equipment and logistics, and for helping review this document. I would like to especially thank Brian Kreiser for teaching me genetic techniques used in the study and for generously allowing me to use lab equipment for this study. I would also like to thank Kyle Pillar for his advice and help with earlier stages of the project. I would like to thank Chazz Coleman, Yadong Shi Schmidt, Scott Clark, Charles Champagne, Laura Stewart, Paul Mickle, Jared Harris, Mikaela Howie, and Justin Dyer for help collecting samples in the field. I would also like to thank Justin Dyer for performing DNA extractions for some of the species in the dataset. I would like to thank the following fish research collections for providing presence localities for the study: University of Alabama Ichthyological Collection, Auburn University Museum of Natural History, Florida Museum of Natural History Ichthyology Collection, Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Ohio State University – Fish Division, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Southern Mississippi Ichthyology Collection, Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of Tennessee – Etnier Ichthyological Research Collection, Texas A&M University Biodiversity Research and Teaching Collection, Tulane University Museum of Natural History – Royal D. Suttkus Fish Collection, and Yale University Peabody Museum. iv DEDICATION Luck affects everything; let your hook always be cast; in the stream where you least expect it, there will be a fish. – Ovid For my son Andrew, may you always have the courage to cast your hook in life. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................ xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... xx CHAPTER I – COMPARATIVE HIERARCHICAL POPULATION STUCTURE OF HEADWATER FISHES ..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................... 6 Results ........................................................................................................................... 10 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 16 References ..................................................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER II – DIRECTIONAL GENE FLOW BETWEEN HEADWATER SYSTEMS ALONG THE MAIN STEM OF A RIVER NETWORK ................................................ 71 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 71 Methods......................................................................................................................... 75 Results ........................................................................................................................... 79 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 79 vi References ................................................................................................................... 105 CHAPTER III – ISOLATION BY DISTANCE AND ISOLATION BY CONNECTING PATHWAY RESISTANCE FOR HEADWATER FISHES .......................................... 109 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 109 Methods....................................................................................................................... 114 Results ......................................................................................................................... 117 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 119 References ..................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Endangered Species Act 2018

    Endangered Species Act 2018

    ▪ Requires regulators to consider potential effects on T&E species during permitting process ▪ Must evaluate whether they are present ▪ If present, will there be any effects? ▪ Each plant or animal type has particular set of rules about when protective measures need to be placed in permit ▪ Terrestrial species typically only require protections when present within footprint of activity or within a buffer zone of habitat features (roost trees, hibernacula, etc.) ▪ Aquatic species require protections if project is within a certain distance upstream and/or if the project disturbs an upstream drainage area greater than a given size Species Scientific Name Eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar* Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Cheat Mountain salamander Plethodon nettingi Diamond darter Crystallaria cincotta Madison Cave isopod Antrolana lira Species Scientific Name Clubshell mussel Pleurobema clava Fanshell mussel Cyprogenia stegaria James spiny mussel Pleurobema collina Pink mucket mussel Lampsilis abrupta Rayed bean mussel Villosa fabalis Sheepnose mussel Plethobasus cyphyus Spectaclecase mussel Cumberlandia monodonta Species Scientific Name Snuffbox mussel Epioblasma triquetra Tubercled blossom pearly mussel Epioblasma torulosa torulosa Guyandotte River crayfish Cambarus veteranus Big Sandy crayfish Canbarus callainus Flat-spired three toothed land snail Triodopsis platysayoides Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Northeastern bulrush Scirpus ancistrochaetus
  • 2020 Mississippi Bird EA

    2020 Mississippi Bird EA

    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage and Threats of Damage Caused by Birds in the State of Mississippi Prepared by United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services In Cooperation with: The Tennessee Valley Authority January 2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlife is an important public resource that can provide economic, recreational, emotional, and esthetic benefits to many people. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and threaten human safety. When people experience damage caused by wildlife or when wildlife threatens to cause damage, people may seek assistance from other entities. The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) program is the lead federal agency responsible for managing conflicts between people and wildlife. Therefore, people experiencing damage or threats of damage associated with wildlife could seek assistance from WS. In Mississippi, WS has and continues to receive requests for assistance to reduce and prevent damage associated with several bird species. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental planning into federal agency actions and decision-making processes. Therefore, if WS provided assistance by conducting activities to manage damage caused by bird species, those activities would be a federal action requiring compliance with the NEPA. The NEPA requires federal agencies to have available
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Stability, Persistence and Habitat Associations of the Pearl Darter Percina Aurora in the Pascagoula River System, Southeastern USA

    Stability, Persistence and Habitat Associations of the Pearl Darter Percina Aurora in the Pascagoula River System, Southeastern USA

    Vol. 36: 99–109, 2018 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published June 13 https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00897 Endang Species Res OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Stability, persistence and habitat associations of the pearl darter Percina aurora in the Pascagoula River System, southeastern USA Scott R. Clark1,4,*, William T. Slack2, Brian R. Kreiser1, Jacob F. Schaefer1, Mark A. Dugo3 1Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, USA 2US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory EEA, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, USA 3Mississippi Valley State University, Department of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health, Itta Bena, Mississippi 38941, USA 4Present address: Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA ABSTRACT: The southeastern United States represents one of the richest collections of aquatic biodiversity worldwide; however, many of these taxa are under an increasing threat of imperil- ment, local extirpation, or extinction. The pearl darter Percina aurora is a small-bodied freshwater fish endemic to the Pearl and Pascagoula river systems of Mississippi and Louisiana (USA). The last collected specimen from the Pearl River drainage was taken in 1973, and it now appears that populations in this system are likely extirpated. This reduced the historical range of this species by approximately 50%, ultimately resulting in federal protection under the US Endangered Species Act in 2017. To better understand the current distribution and general biology of extant popula- tions, we analyzed data collected from a series of surveys conducted in the Pascagoula River drainage from 2000 to 2016. Pearl darters were captured at relatively low abundance (2.4 ± 4.0 ind.
  • Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report

    Aquatic Fish Report Acipenser fulvescens Lake St urgeon Class: Actinopterygii Order: Acipenseriformes Family: Acipenseridae Priority Score: 27 out of 100 Population Trend: Unknown Gobal Rank: G3G4 — Vulnerable (uncertain rank) State Rank: S2 — Imperiled in Arkansas Distribution Occurrence Records Ecoregions where the species occurs: Ozark Highlands Boston Mountains Ouachita Mountains Arkansas Valley South Central Plains Mississippi Alluvial Plain Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon 362 Aquatic Fish Report Ecobasins Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - Arkansas River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - St. Francis River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain - White River Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Lake Chicot) - Mississippi River Habitats Weight Natural Littoral: - Large Suitable Natural Pool: - Medium - Large Optimal Natural Shoal: - Medium - Large Obligate Problems Faced Threat: Biological alteration Source: Commercial harvest Threat: Biological alteration Source: Exotic species Threat: Biological alteration Source: Incidental take Threat: Habitat destruction Source: Channel alteration Threat: Hydrological alteration Source: Dam Data Gaps/Research Needs Continue to track incidental catches. Conservation Actions Importance Category Restore fish passage in dammed rivers. High Habitat Restoration/Improvement Restrict commercial harvest (Mississippi River High Population Management closed to harvest). Monitoring Strategies Monitor population distribution and abundance in large river faunal surveys in cooperation
  • 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.
  • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic

    Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic

    Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................
  • Candy Darter Recovery Outline

    Candy Darter Recovery Outline

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Candy Darter Recovery Outline Photo by Corey Dunn, University of Missouri Species Name: Candy Darter (Etheostoma osburni) Species Range: Upper Kanawha River Basin including the Gauley, Greenbrier, and New River Watersheds including portions of Greenbrier, Pocahontas, Nicholas, and Webster counties in West Virginia; and Bland, Giles, and Wythe counties, Virginia. The range of the species is shown in figure 1 below. Recovery Priority Number: 5; explanation provided below Listing Status: Endangered; November 21, 2019; 83 FR 58747 Lead Regional Office/Cooperating RO(s): Northeast Region, Hadley MA Lead Field Office/Cooperating FO(s): West Virginia Field Office, Elkins WV; Southwestern Virginia Field Office, Abingdon, VA; White Sulphur Springs National Fish Hatchery, White Sulphur Springs, WV Lead Contact: Barbara Douglas, 304-636-6586 ext 19. [email protected] 1) Background This section provides a brief overview of the ecology and conservation of the candy darter. This information is more fully described in the Species Status Assessment (SSA), the final listing rule, and the proposed critical habitat rule. These documents are available at: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/candydarter/ 1 Type and Quality of Available Information to Date: Important Information Gaps and Treatment of Uncertainties One of the primary threats that resulted in the listing of the candy darter under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the spread of the introduced variegate darter (Etheostoma variatum). This species hybridizes with the candy darter. Key information gaps and areas of uncertainty for the recovery and management of the candy darter include whether there are any habitat or other natural factors that could limit the spread of variegate darter.
  • Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M

    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 27 Article 11 1973 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes Thomas M. Buchanan University of Arkansas – Fort Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Population Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Buchanan, Thomas M. (1973) "Checklist of Arkansas Fishes," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 27 , Article 11. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol27/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 27 [1973], Art. 11 Checklist of Arkansas Fishes THOMAS M.BUCHANAN Department ot Natural Science, Westark Community College, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901 ABSTRACT Arkansas has a large, diverse fish fauna consisting of 193 species known to have been collected from the state's waters. The checklist is an up-to-date listing of both native and introduced species, and is intended to correct some of the longstanding and more recent erroneous Arkansas records.
  • 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.
  • Arkansas Endemic Biota: an Update with Additions and Deletions H

    Arkansas Endemic Biota: an Update with Additions and Deletions H

    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 62 Article 14 2008 Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions H. Robison Southern Arkansas University, [email protected] C. McAllister C. Carlton Louisiana State University G. Tucker FTN Associates, Ltd. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Robison, H.; McAllister, C.; Carlton, C.; and Tucker, G. (2008) "Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 62 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol62/iss1/14 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 62 [2008], Art. 14 The Arkansas Endemic Biota: An Update with Additions and Deletions H. Robison1, C. McAllister2, C. Carlton3, and G. Tucker4 1Department of Biological Sciences, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 71754-9354 2RapidWrite, 102 Brown Street, Hot Springs National Park, AR 71913 3Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1710 4FTN Associates, Ltd., 3 Innwood Circle, Suite 220, Little Rock, AR 72211 1Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Pringle and Witsell (2005) described this new species of rose-gentian from Saline County glades.