DOCSLIB.ORG

Molecular Detection of Northern Leatherside Chub (Lepidomeda Copei ) DNA in Environmental Samples

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Molecular Detection of Northern Leatherside Chub (Lepidomeda Copei ) DNA in Environmental Samples Western North American Naturalist 78(1), © 2018, pp. 92–99 Molecular detection of northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei ) DNA in environmental samples JOSEPH C. D YSTHE 1,* , K ELLIE J. C ARIM 1, T HOMAS W. F RANKLIN 1, D AVE KIKKERT 2, MICHAEL K. Y OUNG 1, K EVIN S. M CKELVEY 1, AND MICHAEL K. S CHWARTZ 1 1U.S. Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT 59801 2Stantec, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT 84107 ABSTRACT .— The northern leatherside chub ( Lepidomeda copei ) is a cyprinid fish native to the Snake River, Green River, and Bonneville basins of the western United States. Population declines prompted the development of a multi - state conservation agreement and strategy, which emphasized the need to reliably delineate its current distribution and monitor its status. To facilitate species monitoring, we developed a quantitative PCR assay to detect northern leatherside chub DNA in environmental samples. The assay consistently detected northern leatherside chub DNA in concentra - tions as low as 2 copies per reaction and did not amplify DNA of potentially sympatric fish species. The assay amplified a synthetic DNA template representing 3 congeneric species: White River spinedace ( L. albivallis ), Virgin spinedace, (L. mollispinis mollispinis ), and Big Spring spinedace, ( L. m. pratensis ); however, none of these are sympatric with northern leatherside chub. Field tests of the assay accurately reproduced expected patterns of species occupancy. RESUMEN .— La especie Lepidomeda copei es un pez ciprínido nativo de las cuencas del Río Snake, Río Green y del Lago Bonneville del oeste de los Estados Unidos. La disminución de su población impulsó el desarrollo de un acuerdo de conservación multi-estado, que enfatiza la necesidad de delinear con precisión su distribución actual y de monitorear su estado. Para facilitar el monitoreo de las especies, aplicamos la técnica cuantitativa de Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa (PCR, por sus siglas en inglés) que permitió detectar ADN de L. copei en muestras ambientales. La técnica detectó de manera consistente ADN de L. copei en concentraciones menores a 2 copias por reacción, sin amplificar ADN de otras especies de peces potencialmente simpátricas. La técnica amplificó un templado de ADN sintético que representa tres especies congenéres: L. albivallis, L. mollispinis mollispinis, y L. m. pratensis. Sin embargo, ninguna de estas especies es simpátrica con L. copei . Los muestreos de campo reprodujeron con precisión los patrones previstos en cuanto a la ocupación de las especies. Fishes of the genus Lepidomeda (family Bonneville and Snake River basins. They also Cyprinidae) are patchily distributed through - concluded that northern leatherside chub is out warm- and cold-desert streams of the not the sister taxon to southern leatherside Bonneville, Colorado River, and Snake River chub, but is more closely related to Virgin basins (UDWR 2009, Blakney et al. 2014). spinedace ( L. mollispinis ) and White River This group has been the subject of some taxo - spinedace ( L. albivallis ) (Johnson et al. 2004). nomic revision. Until 2004, the leatherside Due to this taxonomic revision and the chub ( Snyderichthys copei or Gila copei; understanding of the northern leatherside’s Johnson et al. 2004) was considered a broadly taxonomic uniqueness, there has been greater distributed taxon of the intermountain western interest in the evaluation of its current distri - United States. Considering genetic, morpho - bution. While some populations that were logical, and ecological evidence, however, John - regarded as introduced (UDWR 2009) were son et al. (2004) split this taxon into 2 species actually likely to be indigenous (Blakney et al. and placed them in the genus Lepidomeda: 2014), suggesting a wider range than previ - the southern leatherside chub ( L. aliciae ) in ously thought, there is a broad consensus that the southern Bonneville basin and the north - the northern leatherside chub has declined ern leatherside chub ( L. copei ) in the northern across its range and has been extirpated from *Corresponding author: [email protected] JCD orcid.org/ 0000-0002-6790-7841 KJC orcid.org/ 0000-0002-9622-9146 MKY orcid.org/ 0000-0002-0191-6112 92 DYSTHE ET AL . ♦ NORTHERN LEATHERSIDE CHUB EDNA A SSAY 93 several basins (Belk and Johnson 2006, UDWR tool, we further examined the specificity of 2009). To mitigate further range contractions, each component of the assay in silico to deter - this taxon was petitioned for listing under the mine potential sources of non target detection. U.S. Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2011) We then compared the candidate assay and was designated as a species of conserva - with all northern leatherside chub cytb tion concern throughout its range (UDWR sequences ( n = 47) available on GenBank 2009). Conservation efforts have emphasized (AF270885–AF270893, Johnson and Jordan the need to assess the distribution of northern 2000; AF452086–AF452087, Dowling et al. leatherside chub (Blakney et al. 2014, Schultz 2002; AY825431–AY825445, Johnson et al. et al. 2016), but its patchy occurrence and low 2004; JX443059, Schonhuth et al. 2012; and relative abundance (UDWR 2009, Dauwalter KJ175008–KJ175027, Blakney et al. 2014). et al. 2014) have sometimes made this task These sequences were obtained from fish challenging. Thus, developing a rapid and collected in 24 streams throughout the Bear reliable method for assessing presence and River, Green River, and Snake River water - distribution would be useful for evaluating sheds in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. species status and prioritizing conservation We found that one of the 47 sequences (acces - efforts for this species. sion: KJ175010; Blakney et al. 2014), which Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling has was not evaluated in the initial in silico step, proven to be an efficient and reliable method contained a single nucleotide polymorphism for delineating distributions of rare species (SNP) in which guanine replaced adenine 10 (McKelvey et al. 2016) and detecting sensitive bases from the 3 ፱ end of the probe. This fish species (Thomsen et al. 2012, Sigsgaard et al. originated in Muddy Creek within the Bear 2015, Spear et al. 2015) or species difficult to River basin in Wyoming, and was the only sample using traditional approaches (Taberlet fish with this SNP in 225 sequences exam - et al. 2012). Furthermore, analysis of eDNA via ined by Blakney et al. (2014), which included quantitative PCR (qPCR) is more sensitive and other northern leatherside chubs collected effective in detecting low DNA concentrations from Muddy Creek (Ernest Keeley, Idaho than traditional PCR methods (Wilcox et al. State University, personal communication). To 2013, 2016). Accordingly, we developed a ensure detection of this rare haplotype, we qPCR assay for northern leatherside chub for developed an additional probe incorporating eDNA-based detection throughout its range. this SNP; the assay is a mixture of both To develop an eDNA assay for northern probes (Table 2). leatherside chub, we examined 54 GenBank We tested the specificity of the assay in sequences of the cytochrome b (cytb) mito - vitro using a StepOne Plus Real-time PCR chondrial region of northern leatherside Instrument (Life Technologies) in 15- mL reac - chub and 14 sympatric or closely related non - tions containing 7.5 mL of Environmental target species (Table 1). We screened these Master Mix 2.0 (Life Technologies), 900 nM sequences in MEGA 6 (Tamura et al. 2013) each of forward and reverse primer, 125 nM of and identified candidate primer sites that each probe, 4 mL DNA template ( ~0.4 ng), would amplify an 80-nucleotide fragment and the remaining volume with PCR-grade unique to northern leatherside chub (Table 2). water. Thermocycler conditions were 95 °C for Within this fragment, we designed a FAM- 10 min followed by 45 cycles of denaturation labeled, minor-groove-binding, nonfluorescent at 95 °C for 15 s and annealing and extension at quencher (MGB-NFQ) probe (Table 2). We 60 °C for 1 min. We screened DNA extracted maximized within-primer and within-probe from 17 northern leatherside chub tissues nucleotide mismatches with nontarget species from 3 locations and from 22 additional to avoid instances of primer competition and species (Table 3). DNA used in this study was cross-amplification of the probe (Wilcox et al. obtained from archival samples, or from fin 2013). We adjusted primer and probe lengths to clips collected from fish that were immedi - optimize annealing temperatures in Primer ately released at the point of capture. Fin Express 3.0.1 (Life Technologies), and screened clips were stored in ≥95% ethanol until them for secondary structures using IDT DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Tissue OligoAnalyzer (https://www.idtdna.com/calc/ and Blood Kit (Qiagen, Inc) according to the analyzer). Using the NCBI nucleotide BLAST manufacturer’s instructions. 9 4 W E S T E R N TABLE 1. Species, number of sequences, and GenBank accession number for DNA sequences used for in silico assay development. Also included is the minimum number of N mismatches between the sequences and the forward primer (F), reverse primer (R), and probe (P). O R T H Nucleotide mismatches A ____________________ M Family name Species name Common name Sequences F R P GenBank accession number E R I C Cyprinidae Lepidomeda copei Northern leatherside chub 8 0 0 0 KJ175009.1; KJ175012.1; KJ175017.1; KJ175019.1; A N KJ175020.1; KJ175022.1;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis Gelida): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project August 31, 2004 Frank J. Rahel and Laura A. Thel Department of Zoology and Physiology University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rahel, F.J. and L.A. Thel. (2004, August 31). Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ projects/scp/assessments/sturgeonchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank biologists from Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, and from the national forests and national grasslands within Region 2 who provided information about sturgeon chub within their jurisdictions. We especially thank Gregory Hayward and Richard Vacirca of the USDA Forest Service for their review of this species assessment. Comments also were provided by two anonymous reviewers. David B. McDonald of the University of Wyoming provided the population demographic matrix analysis. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Frank J. Rahel is a professor in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming where he teaches courses in fi sheries management, ichthyology, and conservation biology. His research interests are centered around fi sh ecology and the infl uence of anthropogenic disturbances on fi sh assemblages. Laura A. Thel is a graduate research assistant in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming with research interests involving stream ecology, hydrology, and landscape ecology, especially as these are related to the management of native fi shes. COVER PHOTO CREDIT Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida).
    [Show full text]
  • In the Weber River, Utah
    An International Periodical Promoting Conservation and Biodiversity Southwestern United States—Mexico—Central America Una Revista Internacional para Fomentar la Conservación y Biodiversidad El Suroeste de USA—México—Centroamérica STATUS AND STRUCTURE OF TWO POPULATIONS OF THE BLUEHEAD SUCKER (CATOSTOMUS DISCOBOLUS) IN THE WEBER RIVER, UTAH P. A ARON WEBBER,PAUL D. THOMPSON,* AND PHAEDRA BUDY Colorado River Fishery Project, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1380 South 2350 West, Vernal, UT 84078 (PAW) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 515 East 5300 South, Ogden, UT 84405 (PDT) United States Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 8432 (PB) * Correspondent: [email protected] THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 57(3): 267–276 SEPTEMBER 2012 STATUS AND STRUCTURE OF TWO POPULATIONS OF THE BLUEHEAD SUCKER (CATOSTOMUS DISCOBOLUS) IN THE WEBER RIVER, UTAH P. A ARON WEBBER,PAUL D. THOMPSON,* AND PHAEDRA BUDY Colorado River Fishery Project, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1380 South 2350 West, Vernal, UT 84078 (PAW) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 515 East 5300 South, Ogden, UT 84405 (PDT) United States Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 8432 (PB) * Correspondent: [email protected] ABSTRACT—We compared two populations of the bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus) during 2007–2009 in the Weber River, Davis, Summit, and Weber counties, Utah. We estimated 225 and 546 individuals in these populations. Based on recaptured, PIT-tagged fish, annual survival of adults (202–575 mm total length) was high (77%); however, our top model indicated mortality increased with size (i.e., senescence).
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Non-Native Trout on Native Non-Game Fish in Nebraska Headwater Streams" (2014)
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Dissertations & Theses in Natural Resources Natural Resources, School of 5-2014 Influence of Non-Native Trout on Native Non- Game Fish in Nebraska Headwater Streams Kelly C. Turek University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natresdiss Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Turek, Kelly C., "Influence of Non-Native Trout on Native Non-Game Fish in Nebraska Headwater Streams" (2014). Dissertations & Theses in Natural Resources. 90. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natresdiss/90 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations & Theses in Natural Resources by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. INFLUENCE OF NON-NATIVE TROUT ON NATIVE NON-GAME FISH IN NEBRASKA HEADWATER STREAMS By Kelly C. Turek A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Major: Natural Resource Sciences Under the Supervision of Professors Mark A. Pegg and Kevin L. Pope Lincoln, Nebraska May, 2014 INFLUENCE OF NON-NATIVE TROUT ON NATIVE NON-GAME FISH IN NEBRASKA HEADWATER STREAMS Kelly C. Turek, M.S. University of Nebraska, 2014 Advisors: Mark A. Pegg and Kevin L. Pope Introduced, non-native trout may have detrimental competitive or predatory interactions with native fishes. However, few studies have experimentally examined interactions between introduced trout and native non-game species.
    [Show full text]
  • LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda Vitata RECOVERY PLAN
    DRAFT LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda vitata RECOVERY PLAN prepared by: C.O. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 August 1994 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico ' DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ...) i ' ,4 , ' P DRAF1- ig l Li &a-liATION8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 199. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan. Phoenix, AZ pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 The fee for the Plan varies depending on the number of pages of the Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • In Panguitch Lake and Navajo Lake, Utah, from Scales and Opercular Bones
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-1954 Age and Growth of the Utah Chub, Gila atraria (Girard), in Panguitch Lake and Navajo Lake, Utah, From Scales and Opercular Bones John M. Neuhold Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Recommended Citation Neuhold, John M., "Age and Growth of the Utah Chub, Gila atraria (Girard), in Panguitch Lake and Navajo Lake, Utah, From Scales and Opercular Bones" (1954). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 3769. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/3769 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGE AND GROWTH OF THE UTAH CHUB, Ql1! ATRARIA (GIRARD), IN PANGUITCH LAKE AND NAVAJO LA!E, UTAH, FROM SCALES AND OPERCULAR BONES by John M. Beuhold A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ot MASTER OF SCIENCE ln Fishery Management UTAH STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE Logan, Utah 1954 ABSTRACT Previous literature indicates the opercular bone as a . useful t ool for the determination of age and growth of fish. The reliability and validity _o f this method is tested for two populations of Utah chub. Age and growth are calculated for 222 Utah chub collected from Panguitch Lake and 212 Utah chub collected from Navajo Lake, southern Utah, in 1952-1953 from both scales and opercular bones.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah
    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management Jack H. Berryman Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State University Extension Service Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah 1998 Acknowledgments This publication was produced by Utah State University Extension Service Department of Fisheries and Wildlife The Jack H. Berryman Institute Utah Division of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Extension and Publications Contributing Authors Purpose and Introduction Terry Messmer Marilet Zablan Mammals Boyde Blackwell Athena Menses Birds Frank Howe Fishes Leo Lentsch Terry Messmer Richard Drake Reptiles and Invertebrates Terry Messmer Richard Drake Utah Sensitive Species List Frank Howe Editors Terry Messmer Richard Drake Audrey McElrone Publication Publication Assistance by Remani Rajagopal Layout and design by Gail Christensen USU Publication Design and Production Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management This bulletin was developed under the auspices of the Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management through the sponsorship of the S. J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation in partnership with the College of Natural Resources, Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wild- life Damage Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. i Contents Purpose of this Guide . iii Introduction . v What are endangered and threatened species? . vi Why some species become endangered or threatened? . vi Why protect endangered species? . vi The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) . viii Mammals Black-footed Ferret . 1 Grizzly Bear . 5 Gray Wolf . 9 Utah Prairie Dog . 13 Birds Bald Eagle .
    [Show full text]
  • Parker Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan
    Parker Fisheries Resource Office Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Little Colorado River Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan prepared by: C. 0. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 October 1997 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: ~~~ector Regi Date: r~IAN 09 1998 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the stakeholders involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals ofany individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan LITERATURE CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepido-meda vittata Recovery Plan. Albuquerque NM. 51 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 800/582-3421 Fees charged for Recovery Plans vary depending on the number of Plans requested.
    [Show full text]