Changing Fish Faunas in Two Reaches of the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque Basin

THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 55(1):78–88 MARCH 2010

CHANGING FISH FAUNAS IN TWO REACHES OF THE RIO GRANDE IN THE ALBUQUERQUE BASIN

CHRISTOPHER W. HOAGSTROM,* W. JASON REMSHARDT,JUDE R. SMITH, AND JAMES E. BROOKS

New Mexico Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 3800 Commons Avenue NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 Present address of CWH: Department of Zoology, Weber State University, 2505 University Circle, Ogden, UT 84408 Present address of JRS: Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 179, Umbarger, TX 79091 *Correspondent: [email protected]

ABSTRACT—We intensively sampled fishes from two reaches of the Rio Grande within the Albuquerque Basin (Albuquerque and Belen valleys) during 1998–2001, compared our findings with those from 1984, and compiled a list of all fishes known from the two reaches. Structure of assemblages (richness, diversity, abundance distributions–taxon dominance versus rank abundance) was similar between reaches in 1998–2001, but the faunas had low taxonomic similarity. The nonnative white sucker (Catostomus commersonii), western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and native red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) dominated the Albuquerque Valley. Faunal change in the Albuquerque Valley between 1984 and 1998–2001 indicated all native fishes besides the red shiner declined, particularly the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae). In contrast, the red shiner alone dominated the Belen Valley, nonnative fishes were less dominant, and aside from the Rio Grande silvery minnow and longnose dace, native species did not decline. Environmental differences provide a potential explanation for divergence of faunas between valleys, i.e., discharge in spring and summer is higher and substrate is coarser in the Albuquerque Valley. Dewatering, fragmentation by dams, and modifications of the river channel correspond to historical losses of fishes that require fluvial conditions. With the exception of the red shiner and, possibly, the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and slender carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio), native fishes appear to be succumbing to combined stressors of change in habitat, intermittence of streamflow, and interactions with nonnative taxa.

RESUMEN—Muestreamos intensivamente a peces de dos secciones del rıó Grande dentro de la cuenca de Albuquerque (los valles de Albuquerque y de Beleń) durante 1998–2001, comparamos nuestros resultados con los de 1984, y compilamos una lista de todos los peces conocidos de las dos secciones. La estructura de ensamblajes (riqueza, diversidad, distribuciones de la abundancia–dominancia de taxon contra rango de abundancia) fue similar entre las secciones en 1998–2001, pero la fauna tuvo poca semejanza taxono´mica. El pez exo´tico, matalote (Catostomus commersonii), el guayacoń mosquito (Gambusia affinis), y el pez nativo, carpita roja (Cyprinella lutrensis lutrensis) dominaron el valle de Albuquerque. El cambio de fauna en el valle de Albuquerque entre 1984 y 1998–2001 indico´ que todos los peces nativos adema´s del carpita roja declinaron, particularmente el carpa chamizal (Hybognathus amarus) y el carpita rinconera (Rhinichthys cataractae cataractae). En cambio, so´lo el carpita roja domino´ el valle de Beleń, los peces exo´ticos fueron menos dominantes, y aparte del carpa chamizal y el carpita rinconera, las especies nativas no declinaron. Las diferencias ambientales proporcionan una explicacioń potencial para la divergencia de fauna entre los valles. Es decir, la descarga de agua durante la primavera y verano es ma´s alta y el sustrato es ma´s grueso en el valle de Albuquerque. La desecacioń, la fragmentacioń por las presas y las modificaciones del lecho del rıó corresponden a las pe´rdidas histo´ricas de peces que necesitan condiciones fluviales. Con la excepcioń del carpita roja y, posiblemente, el carpita cabezona (Pimephales promelas) y el matalote chato (Carpiodes carpio elongatus), parece que los peces nativos estań sucumbiendo a las presiones conjuntas del cambio del ha´bitat, flujo intermitente, e interacciones con especies exo´ticas. Extinctions of native fish and introductions of and nonnative fishes have caused declines and nonnative fish are changing fish faunas through- extinctions among native species (Miller, 1961; out North America (Moyle, 1986; Miller et al., Minckley and Deacon, 1968). Entire faunas have 1989). In the Southwest, degradation of streams been altered dramatically (e.g., Contreras-Bal- March 2010 Hoagstrom et al.—Fish faunas of the Albuquerque Basin 79 deras et al., 2002; Hoagstrom, 2003), so historical (Kelley, 1986), but 1874 was a high-water year (Scur- comparisons are necessary to assess ongoing lock, 1998) and may not represent average pre- settlement conditions. Nevertheless, in that year, the changes. only specimens of the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphi- The native fish fauna of the Rio Grande in the rhynchus platorynchus) ever collected from the Rio Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico, is in decline Grande were taken at Albuquerque (Cope and Yarrow, and the modern fauna includes many intro- 1875), perhaps signaling the end of an era because development proceeded rapidly throughout the late duced taxa (Platania, 1991). These faunal 19th century and withdrawals for irrigation largely changes are associated with centuries of devel- depleted the Rio Grande by 1900 (Kelley, 1986; opment of the watershed by humans, which Scurlock, 1998). intensified after 1846 (Horgan, 1984; Kelley, The historical channel of the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque Basin was relatively wide and braided 1986; Scurlock, 1998). Presently, waters of the (Stafford, 1938; Scurlock, 1998). With the exception Rio Grande are heavily exploited and tightly of the narrows near San Felipe, it was a sand-bed controlled (Price et al., 2007). Our goals in this channel (Culbertson and Dawdy, 1964). Sands origi- paper are to characterize the modern fish fauna nated from the Rio Jemez, Rio Grande upstream, of two reaches of the Rio Grande in the Galisteo Creek, and Santa Fe River (Rittenhouse, 1944), but flood-control dams (Jemez Canyon Dam, Albuquerque Basin, assess short-term faunal 1953; Galisteo Dam, 1970; Cochiti Dam, which change, and consider long-term faunal changes replaced Cochiti Diversion Dam, 1973) now capture with regard to chronology of settlement by sand inflows from each of these sources. Deprivation humans and extirpations of native fish. of sediment has caused geomorphic degradation, including narrowing of the river channel and coars- ening of the substrate throughout the Albuquerque MATERIALS AND METHODS—Study Area—With the ex- Basin, most severely in proximity to the sediment- ception of its mountainous headwaters, the Rio Grande capturing dams (i.e., in the Santo Domingo and upstream of the Rıó Conchos (a major tributary in Albuquerque valleys), but effects increasingly extend Chihuahua) traverses a rift valley constructed via downstream (Dewey et al., 1979; Lagasse, 1994; tectonic, volcanic, and fluvial processes (Bryan, 1938; Schmidt et al., 2003). Hawley, 1978). The river flows through a sequence of Our study included the Rio Grande in the Albu- structural basins separated by narrows (Lee, 1907; querque (61 river km) and Belen (90 river km) valleys Bryan, 1938). Basins provide ideal conditions for of the Albuquerque Basin. Flow regimes in both irrigated agriculture and urban development, whereas reaches largely reflected patterns of release from narrows provide ideal locations for dams that divert Cochiti Dam, but flows within the Belen Valley were river water onto basins downstream (Blaney et al., 1938; less than in the Albuquerque Valley during spring and Towne, 2007). summer because of withdrawals made via the Isleta The Albuquerque Basin lies in the central segment Dam (Fig. 1a), which separates the two reaches. The of the Rio Grande Rift in central New Mexico (Chapin, Albuquerque Valley also had a coarser-sand substrate 1979). It extends ca. 164 km north to south, 40–64 km than the Belen Valley (Figs. 1b and c), which reflected east to west, and is filled to a depth of 3,658 m with the proximity of sediment-capturing dams (Lagasse, sandstone, mudstone, and gravel (Kelley, 1977). The 1994; Schmidt et al., 2003). pre-development floodplain of the Rio Grande in the Collections—We collected fishes with flat seines (3.2- Albuquerque Basin was 3–5 km in width, except for mm mesh, 3.0-m wide, 1.2-m deep; one lead weight narrows near San Felipe (91 m in width) and Isleta every 15 cm). Sampling trips were designed to (,2 km in width; Kelley, 1977). These narrows divide determine the fish fauna of each reach, so sampling the Albuquerque Basin into (from upstream to locations were visited throughout the length of each downstream) the Santo Domingo, Albuquerque, and reach during each trip. Within sampling locations, Belen valleys (Kelley, 1977). Diversion dams were distinct mesohabitats were seined in proportion to constructed at each narrows (Angostura Dam near their presence. Each seine collection was made within a San Felipe, 1936; Isleta Dam in the Isleta narrows, single mesohabitat type, including riffles, runs, sub- 1936) to irrigate valleys downstream. Diversion dams merged banks, pools, plunge pools, channel-conflu- also were placed at the head of the Santo Domingo ence pools, embayments, forewaters, backwaters, and Valley (Cochiti Diversion Dam, 1936) and at the mouth isolated pools. Piles of wood and associated materials of the Belen Valley (San Acacia Diversion Dam, 1936). created habitat in the river channel and, when present, The four dams combined to fragment the Rio Grande were sampled. Distance seined was measured for each of the Albuquerque Basin into three discreet reaches collection and multiplied by width of seine to quantify that corresponded to the three valleys. the area sampled (sampling effort). In most cases, Agricultural and urban development substantially fishes were identified and enumerated in the field modified the Rio Grande (Stafford, 1938; Woodson immediately upon collection and released alive. Data and Martin, 1965; Schmidt et al., 2003) and, unfortu- from collections of fish were recorded separately, by nately, pre-development conditions were never quanti- seine collection. In some cases, voucher specimens fied. A voyage from Santo Domingo to Mesilla, New were retained and deposited in the Division of Fishes, Mexico, in August 1874 suggested the river was Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New navigable despite substantial withdrawals of water Mexico, Albuquerque (MSB-ACC2003-X:1). 80 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 55, no. 1

sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test (Tokeshi, 1993). We also used Fisher’s a (Magurran, 2003) to estimate taxonomic diversity within each valley. Fisher’s a is a robust measure of diversity that is not biased by highly abundant taxa, rare taxa, or sample size (Kempton and Taylor, 1974). Also, confidence limits can be calculated and used to statistically compare diversity among faunas (Magurran, 2003). To compare faunal similarity between valleys, we used Morisita’s Index (Im), which is accurate (Smith and Zaret, 1982) and minimally biased by sample size or taxonomic diversity (Wolda, 1981). Index values range from zero to slightly greater than one, with those .0.7 being considered relatively strong (Ross et al., 1985). We designated taxa as native or nonnative and constructed an overall faunal list of fishes for each valley based on data provided by Miller (1977), Smith and Miller (1986), Sublette et al. (1990), Platania (1991), Rinne and Platania (1995), Propst (1999), and Calamusso et al. (2005). We consulted multiple sources because there is disagreement on the status of some fishes (Table 1). Nonnative taxa were further classified as either drainage nonnatives (native to the Rio Grande drainage but not the study area) or extra-drainage nonnatives (not native anywhere in the Rio Grande drainage). Drainage nonnatives potentially could invade the study area via their own means (although it is unlikely they could disperse upstream past major dams) and are more likely to successfully colonize the study area because they naturally inhabit similar environments (Gido et al., 2004). In contrast, extra- drainage nonnatives could only reach the study area with aid of humans and are less likely on average to successfully invade because they originate in more distant habitats with less similar environmental conditions. Historical Comparisons—We assessed short-term FIG. 1—Mean daily discharge (a) for water-year 2001 change in faunas of both valleys by comparing our (October 2000–September 2001) at surface-water findings with those of Platania (1991). He presented gaging stations of the United States Geological Survey data from collections made during August 1984 at six at Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico (ALB, locations in the Albuquerque Valley and three in the Belen Valley. We compared taxon diversity, taxon- gage 08330000, Albuquerque Valley), and near Ber- abundance distributions, faunal similarity, and preva- nardo, Socorro County, New Mexico (BER, gage lence of nonnatives between his and our study. We also 08332010, Belen Valley). Mean and 95% CI of the assessed long-term change in the combined fish fauna proportion of bed material taken at each gaging station by comparing the number of native and nonnative taxa during water-year 2001 (n 5 12) that was ,0.25-mm that have been extirpated from the study area with the diameter of sieve (b) and ,0.50-mm diameter of sieve number present in our study. (c). Data are from Byrd et al. (2002). RESULTS—Collecting Effort and Abundance of Comparisons of Reaches—We contrasted abundance of Fish—We made collections during September fish between reaches by comparing mean density 1998–April 2001, conducting 5,570 seine collec- (Mann-Whitney test) and percentage of seine hauls tions in 28 sampling trips within the Albuquer- with no fish. We investigated both structure of the que Valley and 4,692 seine collections in 19 assemblage of fish faunas and faunal similarity between valleys. Marsh-Matthews and Matthews (2000) suggest- sampling trips within the Belen Valley. Total area ed the two may be incongruent across space and time. seined was 128,980 m2 in the Albuquerque Valley We quantified structure of assemblage by determining and 99,415 m2 in the Belen Valley. Collections taxon richness (number of taxa collected) and were made in every month of the year in both constructing taxon-abundance distributions, which reaches. Mean density of fish was significantly simultaneously indicate taxonomic richness (number of species present) and patterns of dominance of taxa different between reaches of the river (Mann- (species that are most abundant; Tokeshi, 1993). We Whitney U 5 9,572,604, P , 0.001), being nearly compared taxon-abundance distributions with a two- double in the Belen Valley (1.1 6 5.74 SD fish/ March 2010 Hoagstrom et al.—Fish faunas of the Albuquerque Basin 81 m2) compared to the Albuquerque Valley (0.6 6 1998–2001 but absent in 1984, the red shiner was 4.24 SD fish/m2). Fishes were absent from 63% the only native taxon that did not decline in the of all seine collections in the Albuquerque Valley Albuquerque Valley between periods (Table 1). compared to 40% in the Belen Valley. Taxonomic richness in the Belen Valley Faunal Diversity and Similarity—Most fishes differed between 1984 and 1998–2001 (19 versus were present in both reaches of the river. 13 taxa), but diversity was similar (Figs. 2c and Exceptions were the extra-drainage nonnatives 2d). We collected all taxa present in 1984 plus brown trout (Salmo trutta) and yellow perch the native gizzard shad, the drainage nonnatives (Perca flavescens) that were collected only from green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and bluegill the Albuquerque Valley, and the drainage (Lepomis macrochirus), and the extra-drainage nonnative largemouth bass (Micropterus sal- nonnatives white bass, spotted bass, and walleye. moides) that was collected only from the Belen Taxon-abundance distributions indicated similar Valley (Table 1). Hence, taxon richness was structure of assemblages between faunas similar (20 fishes in the Albuquerque Valley, 19 (Figs. 3b and 3d; Z 5 1.04, P 5 0.235) and in the Belen Valley), as was taxon diversity faunal similarity was high (Im 5 0.9), indicating (Fig. 2d). Taxon-abundance distributions indi- minimal change in relative dominance of taxa. cated similar faunal structure between valleys However, drainage nonnatives were more dom- (Figs. 3c and 3d; Z 5 0.53, P 5 0.945). However, inant in 1998–2001 than in 1984 (Figs. 2a and faunal similarity was moderate (Im 5 0.6), 2b). The most dramatic faunal change in the indicating that taxa varied in relative dominance Belen Valley was decline of the native Rio between valleys. For instance, drainage nonna- Grande silvery minnow, which was offset by tives dominated the Albuquerque Valley, where- increasing dominance of the native red shiner as natives dominated the Belen Valley (Fig. 2b). and drainage nonnative western mosquitofish Short-term Historical Change—We collected (Table 1, Figs. 3b and 3d). In contrast to the more taxa from the Albuquerque Valley in Albuquerque Valley, several other native taxa 1998–2001 than were collected in 1984 (20 (fathead minnow Pimephales promelas, flathead versus 17), but taxonomic diversity was higher chub Platygobio gracilis, slender carpsucker Car- in 1984 (Figs. 2c and 2d) because dominance piodes carpio) also increased in dominance was more even among taxa (Figs. 3a and 3c). between 1984 and 1998–2001 (Table 1). Howev- The native Rio Grande chub (Gila pandora) and er, their increases were small compared to the the extra-drainage nonnative black bullhead red shiner (,4%), and the flathead chub was (Ameiurus melas) were present in 1984 but rare in both periods (,0.4%). missing in 1998–2001, whereas the native gizzard Long-term Historical Change—Between 1998 and shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and extra-drainage 2001, we collected 21 of the 44 fishes previously nonnative brown trout, white bass (Morone reported from the Albuquerque and Belen chrysops), spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), valleys or presumed native there (Table 1). This yellow perch, and walleye (Sander vitreus) were indicates substantial long-term faunal change. present in 1998–2001, but missing in 1984. Drainage nonnatives showed highest persistence Taxon-abundance distributions indicated similar as a group, with six of eight documented taxa structure of assemblages between faunas (75%) remaining. In contrast, only 6 of 14 (Figs. 3a and 3c; Z 5 0.86, P 5 0.456), but known extra-drainage nonnatives (43%) were faunal similarity was relatively low (Im 5 0.4), present in 1998–2001 and only 7 of 22 natives indicating substantial change in dominance of (32%) remained. Only one of the missing taxa, i.e., drainage nonnatives were more dom- natives (Rio Grande chub) and one of the inant in 1998–2001 than in 1984 (Figs. 2a and missing extra-drainage nonnatives (black bull- 2b). Notably, the white sucker (Catostomus head) were present in 1984, indicating that commersonii) and western mosquitofish (Gambusia most extirpations and failed introductions oc- affinis) increased, whereas the native Rio Grande curred prior to then. To our knowledge, this is silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) and long- the first report of spotted bass from the nose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) declined (Ta- mainstem Rio Grande. ble 1, Figs. 3a and 3c). The native red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) was dominant in both faunas DISCUSSION—Comparisons of Reaches and Short- and, aside from gizzard shad, which was rare in term Historical Change—Marsh-Matthews and Mat- 82 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 55, no. 1

TABLE 1—Fishes of the Albuquerque and Belen valleys, Albuquerque Basin, Sandoval, Bernalillo, Valencia, and Socorro counties, New Mexico, including all taxa reported from the study area or presumed native based on archaeological evidence. Dominance (percentage abundance) is indicated for taxa collected in 1984 (Platania, 1991) and during 1998–2001 (this study).

Albuquerque Valley Belen Valley Fish taxa Statusa 1984 1998–2001 1984 1998–2001 Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Native — — — — Lepisosteus osseus Nativeb ———— Anguilla rostrata Native — — — — Dorosoma cepedianum Nativec — 0.01 — 0.01 Campostoma anomalum D.nonn. — — — — Cyprinella lutrensis Native 11.62 28.38 52.64 60.83 Cyprinus carpio E.nonn. 0.22 0.36 0.30 1.20 Dionda episcopa D.nonn.d ———— Gila pandora Native 0.04 — — — Hybognathus amarus Native 24.10 0.24 30.21 0.17 Macrhybopsis aestivalis Native — — — — Notemigonus crysoleucas E.nonn. — — — — Notropis jemezanus Native — — — — Notropis orca Native — — — — Notropis simus Native — — — — Pimephales promelas Native 5.10 1.49 1.72 5.64 Platygobio gracilis Native 1.77 1.49 0.15 0.38 Rhinichthys cataractae Native 23.11 1.14 0.07 0.01 Carpiodes carpio Native 4.67 3.20 7.94 10.38 Catostomus commersonii D.nonn. 3.89 41.41 0.97 1.07 Catostomus plebeius Native — — — — Cycleptus elongatus Nativeb ———— Ictiobus bubalus Nativeb ———— Moxostoma congestum Nativeb ———— Ameiurus melas E.nonn.e 0.91 — — — Ameiurus natalis E.nonn. 4.45 0.19 1.42 0.35 Ictalurus furcatus Native — — — — Ictalurus punctatus D.nonn. 7.78 3.42 2.55 4.04 Pylodictis olivaris Native b ———— Oncorhynchus mykiss E.nonn. — — — — Salmo trutta E.nonn. — 0.01 — — Gambusia affinis D.nonn.f 11.10 18.19 1.91 15.39 Morone chrysops E.nonn. — 0.01 — ,0.01 Lepomis cyanellus D.nonn. 0.26 0.06 — ,0.01 Lepomis gulosus E.nonn. g ———— Lepomis macrochirus D.nonn.h 0.04 0.03 — ,0.01 Micropterus dolomieu E.nonn. — — — — Micropterus salmoides D.nonn. 0.04 — 0.07 0.42 Micropterus punctulatus E.nonn. — 0.02 — 0.01 Pomoxis annularis E.nonn. 0.91 0.33 0.04 0.08 Pomoxis nigromaculatus E.nonn. — — — — Perca flavescens E.nonn. — 0.01 — — Sander vitreus vitreus E.nonn. — 0.02 — 0.01 Aplodinotus grunniens Nativeb ———— a Categories of status of taxa are: Native, native to the study area; D.nonn., native to the Rio Grande drainage, but not the Albuquerque Basin (drainage nonnative); and E.nonn., nonnative to the entire Rio Grande drainage (extra-drainage nonnative). b Taxa presumed native based on archaeological evidence reviewed by Sublette et al. (1990). c Authors disagree about the status of D. cepedianum. We follow Miller (1977), Sublette et al. (1990), Propst (1999), and Calamusso et al. (2005). March 2010 Hoagstrom et al.—Fish faunas of the Albuquerque Basin 83

the Albuquerque Basin were stable between reaches of the river and study periods although sensitive, native taxa declined and nonnatives were introduced and proliferated. Fish faunas of the two valleys showed different trends between 1984 and 1998–2001. Substantial change occurred in the Albuquerque Valley, with dramatic declines of sensitive natives and con- comitant increases of nonnatives. The Albuquer- que Valley is apparently becoming less suitable for native fishes, with the exception of the red shiner, which has high environmental tolerances (Matthews, 1985, 1987) and often is invasive when introduced into altered habitats outside its native range (Douglas et al., 1994; Propst and Gido, 2004). Faunal change was less dramatic in the Belen Valley, which appeared to remain relatively suitable for three tolerant natives: red shiner, fathead minnow, and slender carpsucker. Thus, although structure of assemblages remained similar between valleys and time periods, faunal similarity diverged, presumably reflecting divergence in environmental conditions (e.g., FIG. 2—Dominance (percent) of native, nonnative discharge in spring and summer, coarseness of to drainage (native to drainage of Rio Grande, but not substrate). to the study area), and extra-drainage-nonnative fishes (nonnative to drainage of Rio Grande) in the Remaining native fishes are presumably the Albuquerque Valley Reach (ALB) and Belen Valley hardiest and most suited to live in human-altered Reach (BEL) of the Rio Grande during 1984 (a; habitats. Nevertheless, the Rio Grande silvery Platania, 1991) and 1998–2001 (b). Taxonomic diver- minnow and longnose dace appear to be sity (Fisher’s a with confidence limits; Magurran, 2003) succumbing to ongoing environmental degrada- of fish assemblages by reach of river during 1984 (c; tion. The Rio Grande silvery minnow, a federally Platania, 1991) and 1998–2001 (d). listed endangered species, declined rapidly after Cochiti Dam was completed (Bestgen and thews (2000) suggested properties of structure of Platania, 1991); perhaps, in response to oligo- assemblages (i.e., taxon richness, taxon-abun- trophication and loss of floodplain connectivity dance distributions) are relatively stable at a (Cowley et al., 2006; Shirey et al., 2008). regional scale, whereas faunal composition (rel- Displacement of pelagic embryos and larvae ative dominance) depends on local conditions. through diversion dams also limits recruitment Our study supports their hypothesis. Taxon in situ and degrades genetic diversity (Turner et richness and taxon-abundance distributions in al., 2006; Dudley and Platania, 2007). Continued r

d Authors disagree about the status of D. episcopa. We follow Smith and Miller (1986), Rinne and Platania (1995), Propst (1999), and Calamusso et al. (2005). e Some authors list A. melas as native elsewhere in the Rio Grande drainage (Smith and Miller, 1986; Edwards et al., 2002). We follow Miller (1977) and Calamusso et al. (2005). f Authors disagree about the status of G. affinis. We follow Miller (1977), Smith and Miller (1986), Platania (1991), Rinne and Platania (1995), and Calamusso et al. (2005). g Some authors list L. gulosus as native elsewhere in the Rio Grande drainage (Miller, 1977; Smith and Miller, 1986; Edwards et al., 2002). We follow Sublette et al. (1990), Contreras-Balderas et al. (2002), and Calamusso et al. (2005). h Authors disagree about the status of L. macrochirus. We follow Miller (1977), Smith and Miller (1986), Platania (1991), Rinne and Platania (1995), and Calamusso et al. (2005). 84 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 55, no. 1

FIG. 3—Abundance of taxa (log10 of dominance, i.e., percentage abundance, versus rank abundance) by reach of river based on collections from 1984 (Platania, 1991) for the reach in Albuquerque Valley (a) and the reach in Belen Valley (b) and based on collections from 1998–2001 (c, Albuquerque Valley; d, Belen Valley). Unique symbols indicate selected fishes that exhibited dramatic changes in dominance between periods in one or both reaches. decline of this taxon has led to intensifying (Campostoma anomalum), black bullhead, and conservation and recovery efforts (Parody, 2007; rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), are present Towne, 2007). in adjacent canals (Platania, 1991; Cowley et al., Recent decline of the longnose dace has not 2007) and might, at times, inhabit the mainstem been studied, but is unlikely to be caused by Rio Grande. Some taxa present in canals and downstream displacement because embryos and other adjacent waters, such as the rainwater larvae of this taxon are not pelagic (Sublette et killifish (Lucania parva) and longear sunfish al., 1990). Dewatering may contribute to decline (Lepomis megalotis; Sublette et al., 1990; Platania, of the longnose dace because it usually is 1991; Cowley et al., 2007) have yet to be reported associated with relatively swift and cool waters from the mainstem Rio Grande, but could (Koster, 1957; Sublette et al., 1990). Reductions invade if conditions become suitable. in streamflow typically reduce velocities of water Fishes of all kinds had low abundance in the and increase diel fluctuations in temperature. study area, particularly in the Albuquerque Absence of some fishes from our collections Valley. Seine collections associated with shore- might be an artifact of sampling bias. Fishes that lines, woody cover, slow velocity, and shallow occur upstream in the Rio Grande or in adjacent depth often produced fishes, whereas seine waters, such as floodplain wetlands, artificial collections from fluvial habitats frequently pro- ponds and lakes, or canals, might be transient duced none. Conditions apparently have be- within the Rio Grande, present only under come unsuitable for fluvial fishes (those that suitable conditions, or when displaced by high occupy flowing-water habitats); perhaps, because flows. For example, the native Rio Grande chub, periods of intermittent streamflow preclude as well as the nonnative central stoneroller successful reproduction (Durham and Wilde, March 2010 Hoagstrom et al.—Fish faunas of the Albuquerque Basin 85

2006) or favor taxa that tolerate harsh conditions The second extirpation period (post-1939) in isolated pools (Ostrand and Wilde, 2004). resulted in disappearance of native fluvial Only three native fluvial fishes remain (Rio minnows (Rio Grande speckled chub Macrhybop- Grande silvery minnow, flathead chub, longnose sis aestivalis, Rio Grande shiner Notropis jemezanus, dace). Of these, the flathead chub is uncommon phantom shiner Notropis orca, Rio Grande blunt- and the other two taxa are in decline. nose shiner Notropis simus) that persisted long Long-term Historical Change—Our estimate of enough to be documented by historical surveys 22 native fishes within the Albuquerque and of the mid-20th century. These taxa disappeared Belen valleys is conservative because it is based between 1939 and 1988 (Chernoff et al., 1982; on scant historical and archaeological evidence. Bestgen and Platania, 1990). Their extirpations Although presently fragmented, the Rio Grande were facilitated by increasing aridity and human- was once a free-flowing river of substantial size caused dewatering that caused earlier extirpa- throughout its length (Horgan, 1984; Kelley, tions of big-river fishes, but the fluvial minnows 1986). It is unclear what, if any, barrier would withstood periodic dewatering; perhaps, by have precluded fishes presently restricted to the retreating to more-permanent reaches of the lower Rio Grande from ascending upstream to river, such as those in narrows and canyons the Albuquerque and Belen valleys, especially (sensu Minckley, 1991). However, intensifying during high-flow periods. Indeed, historical effects of building dams, manipulation of the presence of catadromous American eels (Angu- river channel, urbanization, and invasions of illa rostrata) indicates such a migration was nonnative organisms along with increasing with- possible (Koster, 1957). Riverine fishes that were drawals of water in the 20th century ultimately never recorded from the Albuquerque and Belen corresponded with extirpations of fluvial min- valleys but potentially ranged upstream prior to nows (Bestgen and Platania, 1990, 1991; Scur- construction of dams and desiccation of the river lock, 1998). Not all native fluvial minnows have include the alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), been extirpated, but rarity of the flathead chub spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), ghost shiner and recent decline of the Rio Grande silvery (Notropis buchanani), black buffalo (Ictiobus ni- minnow and longnose dace suggest they could ger), and Mexican redhorse (Moxostoma austri- be. num). Synergism of increasing dominance by nonna- Extirpations of native fish from the Albuquer- tive fishes and changing environmental condi- que and Belen valleys occurred in two periods tions seems most likely to cause future extirpa- and primarily involved fluvial fishes. The first tions of native fishes in the Albuquerque and extirpation period (pre-1915) resulted in disap- Belen valleys. For instance, some nonnatives pearance of large-bodied, big-river natives (shov- (common carp Cyprinus carpio, white sucker) elnose sturgeon, longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus, spawn earlier than natives, which could give American eel, blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus, them a competitive advantage because larval smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus, gray red- fishes of all taxa rely on the same nursery horse Moxostoma congestum, blue catfish Ictalurus habitats and the same types of prey, especially furcatus, flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris, fresh- when the Rio Grande dries (Pease et al., 2006). water drum Aplodinotus grunniens) that were only Also, carnivorous nonnatives that inhabit canals known from archaeological evidence or 19th- might prey upon natives because when the Rio century surveys. Due to scant evidence, it is not Grande dries, riverine fishes retreat to canals as certain when extirpations began, but all taxa refuges (Cowley et al., 2007). These interactions appear to have been present in 1450 and some likely create a combined stressor on natives. were present as late as 1874 (Sublette et al., The fish fauna of the Rio Grande in the 1990). This period of extirpation was associated Albuquerque and Belen valleys is changing. with increasing aridity and human-caused desic- Long-term changes (decades to centuries) have cation of the Rio Grande (Kelley, 1986; Smith been dramatic, including disappearance of most and Miller, 1986; Scurlock, 1998). If any big-river native fishes. Short-term changes (years to fishes persisted until 1915, completion of Ele- decades) have been more subtle, involving phant Butte Dam likely finalized their disappear- changing patterns of dominance among fishes. ance by blocking dispersal and isolating up- It is uncertain whether changing dominance stream populations. portends future extirpations or simply reflects 86 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 55, no. 1 short-term fluctuations in populations. If it the American Southwest, with descriptions of a new indicates long-term trends, then relict popula- subspecies. Museum of Zoology, University of tions of sensitive, native fishes appear to be Michigan, Occasional Papers 698:1–47. threatened with extirpation. CONTRERAS-BALDERAS, S., R. J. EDWARDS,M.DE L. LOZANO- VILANO, AND M. E. GARCI´A-RAMI´REZ. 2002. Fish This project was partially supported by the United biodiversity changes in the lower Rio Grande/Rio States Army Corps of Engineers and the city of Bravo, 1953–1996. Reviews in Fish Biology and Albuquerque. L. Hall prepared the resumen. Two Fisheries 12:219–240. anonymous reviewers made improvements to the COPE,E.D.,AND H. C. YARROW. 1875. Report upon the manuscript. Field assistance was provided by A. M. collections of fishes made in portions of Nevada, Andazola, C. S. Berkhouse, J. R. Brooks, S. J. Bulgrin, C. Utah, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and A. Cave, S. R. Davenport, J. E. Davis, G. B. Dean, J. S. Arizona during the years 1871, 1872, 1873, and Donahue, R. A. Fike, M. Harberg, P. A. Hoban, A. L. 1874. Pages 635–703 in United States Army Engi- Hobbes, J. A. Jackson, J. S. Johns, J. Kimball, R. D. neers Department report, in charge of G. M. Larson, D. Lente, W. C. Liebfried, B. D. Lujan, M. V. Wheeler, geography and geology of the explorations McPhee, M. L. Meneks, M. D. Morens, A. R. Nevarez, B. and surveys west of the 100th meridian. United States Ortiz, S. D. Parris, J. W. Sigler, H. E. Watts, and B. G. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Wiley. COWLEY, D. E., P. D. SHIREY, AND M. D. HATCH. 2006. Ecology of the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Cyprin- idae: Hybognathus amarus) inferred from specimens LITERATURE CITED collected in 1874. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 111–125. BESTGEN, K. R., AND S. P. PLATANIA. 1990. Extirpation of Notropis simus simus (Cope) and Notropis orca Wool- COWLEY, D. E., R. C. WISSMAR, AND R. SALLENAVE. 2007. man (Pisces: Cyprinidae) from the Rio Grande in Fish assemblages and seasonal movements of fish in New Mexico, with notes on their life history. irrigation canals and river reaches of the middle Rio Museum of Southwestern Biology, Occasional Pa- Grande, New Mexico (USA). Ecology of Freshwater pers 6:1–8. Fish 16:548–558. CULBERTSON, J. K., AND D. R. DAWDY. 1964. A study of BESTGEN, K. R., AND S. P. PLATANIA. 1991. Status and conservation of the Rio Grande silvery minnow, fluvial characteristics and hydraulic variables, mid- Hybognathus amarus. Southwestern Naturalist 36: dle Rio Grande, New Mexico. United States 225–232. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1498-F:1–74. BLANEY, H. F., P. A. EWING,O.W.ISRAELSEN,C.ROHWER, DEWEY, J. D., F. E. ROYBAL, AND D. E. FUNDERBURG. 1979. AND F. C. SCOBEY. 1938. Water utilization. Pages Hydrologic data on channel adjustments 1970 to 293–427 in The Rio Grande joint investigation in 1975, on the Rio Grande downstream from Cochiti the upper Rio Grande basin in Colorado, New Dam, New Mexico before and after closure. United Mexico, and Texas, 1936–1937. United States States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investi- Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. gations 79–70:1–531. BRYAN, K. 1938. Geology and ground-water conditions DOUGLAS, M. E., P. C. MARSH, AND W. L. MINCKLEY. 1994. of the Rio Grande depression in Colorado and New Indigenous fishes of western North America and Mexico. Pages 197–267 in The Rio Grande joint the hypothesis of competitive displacement: Meda investigation in the upper Rio Grande basin in fulgida (Cyprinidae) as a case study. Copeia 1994: Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, 1936–1937. 9–19. United States Government Printing Office, Wash- DUDLEY, R. K., AND S. P. PLATANIA. 2007. Flow regulations ington, D.C. and fragmentation imperil pelagic-spawning river- BYRD, D., K. LANGE, AND L. BEAL. 2002. Water resources ine fishes. Ecological Applications 17:2074–2086. data, New Mexico, water year 2001. United States DURHAM, B. W., AND G. R. WILDE. 2006. Influence of Geological Survey, Water-Data Report NM-2001-01: stream discharge on reproductive success of a 1–403. prairie stream fish assemblage. Transactions of the CALAMUSSO, B., J. N. RINNE, AND R. J. EDWARDS. 2005. American Fisheries Society 135:1644–1653. Historic changes in the Rio Grande fish fauna: GIDO, K. B., J. F. SCHAEFER, AND J. PIGG. 2004. Patterns of status, threats, and management of native species. fish invasions in the Great Plains of North America. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45:205–223. Biological Conservation 118:121–131. CHAPIN, C. E. 1979. Evolution of the Rio Grande rift: a HAWLEY, J. W. 1978. Guidebook to the Rio Grande rift summary. Pages 1–5 in Rio Grande rift: tectonics in New Mexico and Colorado. New Mexico Bureau and magmatism (R. E. Riecker, editor). American of Mines and Mineral Resources Circular 162: Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 1–241. CHERNOFF, B., R. R. MILLER, AND C. R. GILBERT. 1982. HOAGSTROM, C. W. 2003. Historical and recent fish Notropis orca and Notropis simus, cyprinid fishes from fauna of the lower Pecos River. Pages 91–110 in March 2010 Hoagstrom et al.—Fish faunas of the Albuquerque Basin 87

Aquatic fauna of the northern Chihuahuan Desert MINCKLEY, W. L. 1991. Native fishes of the Grand (G. P. Garrett and N. L. Allan, editors). Special Canyon region: an obituary? Pages 124–177 in Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech Univer- Colorado River ecology and dam management. sity 46:1–160. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. HORGAN, P. 1984. Great River, the Rio Grande in North MINCKLEY, W. L., AND J. E. DEACON. 1968. Southwestern American history. Wesleyan University Press, Han- fishes and the enigma of ‘‘endangered species.’’ over, New Hampshire. Science 159:1424–1432. KELLEY, P. 1986. River of lost dreams, navigation on the MOYLE, P. B. 1986. Fish introductions into North Rio Grande. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. America: patterns and ecological impact. Pages KELLEY, V. C. 1977. Geology of Albuquerque Basin, New 27–43 in Ecology of biological invasions of North Mexico. New Mexico Institute of Mining and America and Hawaii (H. A. Mooney and J. A. Drake, Technology Memoir 33:1–59. editors). Springer-Verlag, New York. KEMPTON, R. A., AND L. R. TAYLOR. 1974. Log-series and OSTRAND, K. G., AND G. R. WILDE. 2004. Changes in log-normal parameters as diversity discriminants for prairie stream fish assemblages restricted to isolated the Lepidoptera. Journal of Animal Ecology 43: streambed pools. Transactions of the American 381–399. Fisheries Society 133:1329–1338. KOSTER, W. J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. PARODY, J. M. 2007. The Endangered Species Act and University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. the San Acacia Reach. Pages 80–83 in Water LAGASSE, P. F. 1994. Variable response of the Rio resources of the middle Rio Grande, San Acacia Grande to dam construction. Pages 395–420 in The to Elephant Butte (L. G. Price, P. S. Johnson, and variability of large alluvial rivers (S. A. Schumm and D. Bland, editors). New Mexico Bureau of Geology B. R. Winkley, editors). American Society of Civil and Mineral Resources, Socorro. Engineers Press, New York. PEASE, A. A., J. J. DAVIS,M.S.EDWARDS, AND T. F. TURNER. LEE, W. T. 1907. Water resources of the Rio Grande 2006. Habitat and resource used by larval and valley in New Mexico and their development. juvenile fishes in an arid-land river (Rio Grande, United States Geological Survey, Water-Supply and New Mexico). Freshwater Biology 51:475–486. Irrigation Paper 188:1–59. PLATANIA, S. P. 1991. Fishes of the Rio Chama and MAGURRAN, A. E. 2003. Measuring biological diversity. upper Rio Grande, New Mexico, with preliminary Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. comments on their longitudinal distribution. MARSH-MATTHEWS, E., AND W. J. MATTHEWS. 2000. Southwestern Naturalist 36:186–193. Geographical, terrestrial and aquatic factors: which PRICE, L. G., P. S. JOHNSON, AND D. BLAND. 2007. Water most influence the structure of stream fish assem- resources of the middle Rio Grande. New Mexico blages in the midwestern United States? Ecology of Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro. Freshwater Fish 9:9–21. PROPST, D. L. 1999. Threatened and endangered fishes MATTHEWS, W. J. 1985. Distribution of midwestern fishes of New Mexico. New Mexico Game and Fish, on multivariate environmental gradients, with Technical Report 1:1–84. emphasis on Notropis lutrensis. American Midland PROPST, D. L., AND K. B. GIDO. 2004. Responses of native Naturalist 113:225–237. and nonnative fishes to natural flow regime MATTHEWS, W. J. 1987. Physicochemical tolerance and mimicry in the San Juan River. Transactions of the selectivity of stream fishes as related to their American Fisheries Society 133:922–931. geographic ranges and local distributions. Pages RINNE, J. N., AND S. P. PLATANIA. 1995. Fish fauna. 111–120 in Community and evolutionary ecology of Pages 165–175 in Ecology, diversity, and sustain- North American stream fishes (W. J. Matthews and ability of the middle Rio Grande basin (D. M. Finch D. C. Heins, editors). University of Oklahoma Press, and J. A. Tainter, editors). United States Forest Norman. Service, General Technical Report RM-GTR-268: MILLER, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of 1–186. the American Southwest. Papers of the Michigan RITTENHOUSE, G. 1944. Sources of modern sands in the Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 46:365–404. middle Rio Grande valley, New Mexico. Journal of MILLER, R. R. 1977. Composition and derivation of the Geology 52:145–183. native fish fauna of the Chihuahuan Desert region. ROSS, S. T., W. J. MATTHEWS, AND A. A. ECHELLE. 1985. Pages 365–381 in Transactions of the symposium on Persistence of stream fish assemblages: effects of the biological resources of the Chihuahuan Desert environmental change. American Naturalist 126: region, United States and Mexico (R. H. Wauer and 24–40. D. H. Riskind, editors). United States National Park SCHMIDT, J. C., B. L. EVERITT, AND G. A. RICHARD. 2003. Service, Transactions and Proceedings Series 3:1–658. Hydrology and geomorphology of the Rio Grande MILLER, R. R., J. D. WILLIAMS, AND J. E. WILLIAMS. 1989. and implications for river rehabilitation. Pages Extinctions of North American fishes during the 24–45 in Aquatic fauna of the northern Chihua- past century. Fisheries 14(6):22–38. huan Desert (G. P. Garrett and N. L. Allan, editors). 88 The Southwestern Naturalist vol. 55, no. 1

Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech TOKESHI, M. 1993. Species abundance patterns and University 46:1–160. community structure. Advances in Ecological Re- SCURLOCK, D. 1998. From the rio to the sierra: an search 24:111–186. environmental history of the middle Rio Grande TOWNE, L. 2007. Infrastructure and management of the basin. United States Forest Service, General Tech- middle Rio Grande. Pages 36–40 in Water Resourc- nical Report RMRS-GTR-5:1–440. es of the middle Rio Grande, San Acacia to SHIREY, P. D., D. E. COWLEY, AND R. SALLENAVE. 2008. Elephant Butte (L. G. Price, P. S. Johnson, and D. Diatoms from gut contents of museum specimens Bland, editors). New Mexico Bureau of Geology of an endangered minnow suggest long-term and Mineral Resources, Socorro. ecological changes in the Rio Grande (USA). TURNER, T. F., M. J. OSBORNE,G.R.MOYER,M.A. Journal of Paleolimnology 40:263–272. BENAVIDES, AND D. ALO` . 2006. Life history and SMITH, E. P., AND T. M. ZARET. 1982. Bias in estimating environmental variation interact to determine niche overlap. Ecology 63:1248–1253. effective populations to census size ratio. Proceed- SMITH, M. L., AND R. R. MILLER. 1986. The evolution of ings of the Royal Society B 273:3065–3073. the Rio Grande basin as inferred from its fish fauna. WOLDA, H. 1981. Similarity indices, sample size, and Pages 457–485 in The zoogeography of North diversity. Oecologia (Berlin) 50:296–302. American freshwater fishes (C. H. Hocutt and E. WOODSON, R. C., AND J. T. MARTIN. 1965. The Rio Grande O. Wiley, editors). John Wiley and Sons, New York. comprehensive plan in New Mexico and it effects STAFFORD, H. M. 1938. General report of the Rio Grande on the river regime through the middle valley. joint investigation. Pages 1–194 in The Rio Grande Pages 357–365 in Proceedings of the federal inter- joint investigation in the upper Rio Grande basin in agency sedimentation conference, 1963. United Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, 1936–1937. States Government Printing Office, Washington, United States Government Printing Office, Wash- D.C. ington, D.C. SUBLETTE, J. E., M. D. HATCH, AND M. SUBLETTE. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Submitted 26 August 2008. Accepted 1 June 2009. Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Associate Editor was Gary P. Garrett.