DOCSLIB.ORG

Universi^ Micrcxilms International

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Universi^ Micrcxilms International McGeehan, Lawrence Thomas MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSES OF THE GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION WITHIN ETHEOSTOMA FLABELLARE (PISCES: PERCIDAE) OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA The Ohio State University University Microfilms I ntern eti on elæ o N. zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by McGeehan, Lawrence Thomas All Rights Reserved In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V 1. G lossy photographs or p a_______ g e s 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark backgroundi / ' 4. Illustrations are poor copy_______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print e x c e e d s margin req u irem en_______ ts 9. Tightly bound co p y with print lo st in sp_______ in e 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. P a g e (s_____________ ) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P a g e (s)_____________seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follow s. 13. Two p ages n u m b ered_____________. Text follow s. 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g_______ e s 15. O ther_________________________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSES OF THE GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION WITHIN ETHEOSTOMA FLABELLARE (PISCES: PERCIDAE) OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fullfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Lawrence T. McGeehan The Ohio State University 1985 Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. Paul C. Baumann Dr. Ted M. Cavender Dr. Willard C. Myser Adviser Dr. Barry D. Valentine Department of Zoology Copyright by Lawrence T. McGeehan 1985 ABSTRACT A series of multivariate discriminant function analyses, utilizing 31 meristic, morphometric, and pigmentation characters, indicated Etheostoma flabellare Rafinesque is a widespread polytypic species. There are five recognizable (92 to 96 percent of the time) allopatric forms within E. f l a b e l l a r e . The five allopatric forms are combined into two multivariate groups : a Montane-East Slope group, including E. f. robustum (n. s s p . ), E. f . h u m e r a l i s , and E. f. brevispina; and an Interior group, including an Ozark-Tennessee River assemblage and E. f . flabellare. The nominate form E. f . flabellare inhabits the Mississippi, Ohio, and Great Lakes basins, and isolated localities in the Mohawk, Hudson, and upper Susquehanna Rivers; indicating the subspecies ability to transgress drainage divides, especially in terrain formerly covered by Wisconsinan glacial ice. Etheostoma f. lineolatum (Agassiz) is reduced to a synonym of E. f. flabellare; since there is clinal variation between the two forms, any division along this Cline would be arbitrary. Another questionable form (recognized via discriminant analysis 92% of the time from adjacent populations), herein termed the Ozark-Tennessee group, inhabits the White River system of the Ozark Uplands in Missouri and Arkansas, and tributaries of the lower Tennessee River in the southern Appalachians. Further analysis of this form (including specimens from the geographically intermediate populations, i.e., the Duck, Clarks, and Buffalo Rivers) is needed to clearly define its geographic distribution and relationship with the nominate form. Etheostoma f. robustum (new subspecies) inhabits the upper Tennessee River system (upstream of the confluence of the Little Tennessee River), New River, and as a localized population in headwaters of Shavers Fork Cheat River (Monongahela River drainage). Etheostoma f . flabellare and E. f . robustum are both present in Shavers Fork, but are not syntopic. Intergrades between the two subspecies are identified from headwaters of the Guyandot, Coal, and Elk Rivers, West Virginia. Etheostoma f . humeralis inhabits the Atlantic slope drainages, including the lower Susquehanna, Potomac, James, Roanoke, Neuse, and probably Cape Fear Rivers. Etheostoma f . brevispina is the most southern representative of the barred fantail group on the Atlantic slope, inhabiting the Catawba, Broad, and Pee Dee River drainages in North and South Carolina. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my adviser. Dr. Ted M. Cavender, for his encouragement and guidance during the course of my graduate studies at Ohio State University. His enthusiasm for Ichthyology is apparent and inspirational. Without his tenacious support this work would not have been completed. I would also like to thank my reading committee, including Dr. P. Baumann, Dr. T. Cavender, Dr. W. Myser, and Dr. B. Valentine. Their suggestions were most helpfull. This work also benefited from the assistance, during several field trips, of Miles Coburn, William LeGrande, Ted Cavender, Rich Carter, and Kathy Chan. I also thank the following for specimens borrowed or locality information provided: B. Branson, Eastern Kentucky University; T. Buchanan, Westark Community College; T. Cavender, Ohio State University Museum Zoology; D. Cincotta, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources-Elkins; E. Cooper, Pennsylvania State University; D. Etneir, University of Tennessee; C. Hocutt and J. Stauffer, Appalachian Environmental Laboratory University of Maryland Frostburg; R. Jenkins, Roanoke College; D. Lee, North Carolina State Museum; W. LeGrande University Wisconsin Stevens Point; E. Menhinick,.University North Carolina; L. Page, Illinois Natural History Survey; W. Pflieger Missouri Department of Conservation; R. Schoknecht, Cornell University; M. Warren, Kentucky Nature Preserves; and A. White, John Carroll University. I am especially gratefull to my wife, Susie. Her unwavering support is deeply appreciated. The understanding and support offered by my parents and family, especially my sons Brian and Miles, were valuable sources of inspiration during my studies. August 1, 1951 Born - Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Received primary and secondary education in St. Marys, PA 1 9 7 3 ..................... B.S., John Carroll University 1 9 7 5 ..................... M.S., John Carroll University 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 5................Graduate Assistant, John Carroll University 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 8 2 ................Teaching Assistant, Ohio State University WORK EXPERIENCE 1985 Special Assistant to Governor's Science Advisor 1983-1984 Researcher for Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Office of Planning 1973-1975 Field Coordinator, Environmental Resource Associates FELLOWSHIPS Mary 0‘sburn Summer Fellowship, 1980 Graduate Research Associate, 1979 (Summer) RESEARCH INTERESTS Evolution of North American freshwater fishes Multivariate analyses of morphologic variation of populations Master's Thesis: The effects of acidic effluents on the freshwater fishes of the Clarion River basin, Pennsylvania PRESENTATIONS Multivariate analysis of geographic variation in E. flabellare, 1982 Annual Meeting of American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................ Ü VITA .......................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................... V LIST OF TABLES .............................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ x INTRODUCTION...............................................
Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
  • Surface Water Supply of the United States

    Surface Water Supply of the United States

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OEOJUGE OTIS SMITH. DiBKCTOK WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 243 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 1907-8 PART III. OHIO RIYER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF M. 0. LEIGHTON BY A. H. HORTON, M. R. HALL, AND R. H. BOLSTER WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIRECTOR WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 243 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 1907-8 PART III. OHIO RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF M. 0. LEIGHTON BY A. H. HORTON, M. R. HALL, AND R. H. BOLSTER Water Resources Branch, Geological Survey, WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1910 CONTENTS. Page. Introduction.............................................................. 7 Authority for investigations........................................... 7 Scope of investigations................................................ 8 Purposes of the work. ............................^.................... 9 Publications.......................................................... 10 Definition of terms................................................... 13 Convenient equivalents................................................ 14 Explanation of tables................................................. 15 Field methods of measuring stream flow................................. 16 Office methods of computing and studying discharge and run-off.......... 21 Accuracy and reliability of field data and comparative results........... 26 Use of the data.......................................................
  • Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(S): Clark Hubbs Reviewed Work(S): Source: Copeia, Vol

    Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(S): Clark Hubbs Reviewed Work(S): Source: Copeia, Vol

    Darter Reproductive Seasons Author(s): Clark Hubbs Reviewed work(s): Source: Copeia, Vol. 1985, No. 1 (Feb. 11, 1985), pp. 56-68 Published by: American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1444790 . Accessed: 10/01/2012 14:26 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Copeia. http://www.jstor.org 56 COPEIA, 1985, NO. 1 changes in kinosternid turtles. J. Herpetol. 6:183- . 1938. Seasonal changes in the testes of the 189. musk turtle Sternotherusodoratus L. J. Morphol. 63: MCPHERSON, R. J., AND K. R. MARION. 1981. Sea- 301-317. sonal testicular cycle of the stinkpot turtle (Ster- SAINTGIRONS, H. 1982. Reproductive cycles of male notherus odoratus) in central Alabama. Herpetolog- snakes and their relationships with climate and fe- ica 37:33-40. male reproductive cycles. Herpetologica 38:5-16. MITCHELL, J. C. 1982. Population ecology and de- SPEAT, R. H. 1973. Seasonal variation in the tubular mography of the freshwater turtles Chrysemyspicta and interstitial areas of the testes in Sternothaerus and Sternotherusodoratus.
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare

    Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare

    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
  • Jjjn'iwi'li Jmliipii Ill ^ANGLER

    Jjjn'iwi'li Jmliipii Ill ^ANGLER

    JJJn'IWi'li jMlIipii ill ^ANGLER/ Ran a Looks A Bulltrog SEPTEMBER 1936 7 OFFICIAL STATE September, 1936 PUBLICATION ^ANGLER Vol.5 No. 9 C'^IP-^ '" . : - ==«rs> PUBLISHED MONTHLY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA by the BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS HI Five cents a copy — 50 cents a year OLIVER M. DEIBLER Commissioner of Fisheries C. R. BULLER 1 1 f Chief Fish Culturist, Bellefonte ALEX P. SWEIGART, Editor 111 South Office Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. MEMBERS OF BOARD OLIVER M. DEIBLER, Chairman Greensburg iii MILTON L. PEEK Devon NOTE CHARLES A. FRENCH Subscriptions to the PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER Elwood City should be addressed to the Editor. Submit fee either HARRY E. WEBER by check or money order payable to the Common­ Philipsburg wealth of Pennsylvania. Stamps not acceptable. SAMUEL J. TRUSCOTT Individuals sending cash do so at their own risk. Dalton DAN R. SCHNABEL 111 Johnstown EDGAR W. NICHOLSON PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER welcomes contribu­ Philadelphia tions and photos of catches from its readers. Pro­ KENNETH A. REID per credit will be given to contributors. Connellsville All contributors returned if accompanied by first H. R. STACKHOUSE class postage. Secretary to Board =*KT> IMPORTANT—The Editor should be notified immediately of change in subscriber's address Please give both old and new addresses Permission to reprint will be granted provided proper credit notice is given Vol. 5 No. 9 SEPTEMBER, 1936 *ANGLER7 WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT STREAM POLLUTION By GROVER C. LADNER Deputy Attorney General and President, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen PORTSMEN need not be told that stream pollution is a long uphill fight.
  • An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of Ashe County, North Carolina

    An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of Ashe County, North Carolina

    Executive Summary An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of Ashe County, North Carolina North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Funding provided by: North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund July 1999 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE SITES OF ASHE COUNTY Ashe County is located at the northwestern corner of North Carolina, entirely within the Blue Ridge Province of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. In Ashe County the Blue Ridge is divided into two regions based on landforms and geology: the Unaka Range and the Blue Ridge Range. The northern and northwestern parts of the county, north of the North Fork New River, are contained within the Unaka Range region. The remaining two-thirds of Ashe County falls within the Blue Ridge Range, including all areas south of the North Fork New River. The rolling mountains and valleys of the New River plateau in southeastern Ashe County and the large cluster of high mountains in central and southwestern Ashe County are included within this region. The southeastern border of the county roughly follows the top of the Blue Ridge Escarpment, the steep boundary between the Blue Ridge and the Piedmont. As is typical in the Blue Ridge, the landscape of the county is a complex of mountains and valleys that are oriented in a variety of directions. The elevational range of the mountain peaks is from 2480 feet to 5160 feet, with an average of about 3000 feet. Ashe County contains a greater amount of rare mafic rock types than any other mountain county in the state. Mafic rock types are those that are high in minerals such as magnesium, iron, and calcium and which weather to unusually nutrient-rich high pH (basic) soils.
  • As Assessment of Stream Fish Vulnerability and an Evaluation Of

    As Assessment of Stream Fish Vulnerability and an Evaluation Of

    AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI ___________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri ___________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science ___________________________________________________________ by NICHOLAS A. SIEVERT DR. CRAIG P. PAUKERT, THESIS SUPERVISOR DECEMBER 2014 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled: AN ASSESSMENT OF STREAM FISH VULNERABILITY AND AN EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION NETWORKS IN MISSOURI Presented by Nicholas A. Sievert A candidate for the degree of Master of Science And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. ______________________________________ Dr. Craig Paukert ______________________________________ Dr. Joanna Whittier ______________________________________ Dr. Timothy Matisziw ______________________________________ Dr. Michelle Staudinger ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank the United States Geological Service National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center for funding this project. I would also like to thank the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) for providing the fish community data which served as the foundation upon which this project was completed. Specifically, I would like to thank Matt Combes and Dr. Doug Novinger, who not only provided me with tremendous sources of data for Missouri’s stream fish communities, but also shared with me their expertise and knowledge by reviewing my work and offering invaluable insights. Dorothy Butler of MDC also generously provided fish records from the Missouri Natural Heritage Database. I would also like to thank Gust Annis and the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership for providing me with GIS data without which this project would not have been possible.
  • Wills Creek Preassessment

    Wills Creek Preassessment

    Wills Creek Preassessment Eric Null Len Lichvar Produced by Somerset Conservation District, 6024 Glades Pike Road Suite 103, Somerset, PA 1 2 Wills Creek Preassessment Eric Null Len Lichvar March 2010 Somerset Conservation District Funding for this project provided by the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds With special assistance from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Photos by Len Lichvar, Eric Null, and Amanda Deal Copies of this report may be obtained by contacting the Somerset Conservation District 6024 Glades Pike Road, Suite 103 Somerset, PA 15501 Phone (814) 445-4652 ext.5 Fax (814) 445-2044 E-mail [email protected] Report text may be accessed on the Somerset Conservation District Website http://www.somersetcd.org/ 3 Table of Contents Forward/Acknowledgements………...……………………………………………….7 Introduction………………………………………………………..………………….8 Methods………………………………………………………………………………10 Results…………………………………………………..…………………………....14 Discussion…………………………………………..………………………………..29 Recommendations …………………………………….…………………………….30 Literature Cited……………………………………….……………………………...31 Appendix 1— Macroinvertebrates collected at each site Appendix 2—Fishes collected at each site Wills Creek Sampling Station 5 4 List of Figures Figure 1. The Wills Creek watershed………………………………………………………....8 Figure 2. Wills Creek Preassessment sampling points…………………………………...….11 Figure 3. Macroinvertebrate species richness of the Wills Creek Watershed……………….15 Figure 4. Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index for the macroinvertebrates communities of the Wills Creek Watershed……………………………………………………..16 Figure 5. HBI scores for the Wills Creek watershed………………………………………....17 Figure 6. Percent EPT taxa in the Wills Creek watershed…………………………………....18 Figure 7. Percent Dominant taxa in the Wills Creek watershed……………………………...18 Figure 8. Percent acid tolerant taxa in the Wills Creek watershed…………………………...19 Figure 9. Fish species richness in the Wills Creek watershed ………………………………..21 Figure 10. Shannon-Weaver diversity index for fish communities in the Wills Creek Watershed…………………………………………………………………...22 Figure 11.
  • Adams County Conservation District

    Adams County Conservation District

    Highlights of Conservation District Activities 2017 Presented by PACD Adams County Conservation District 2017 Feature Accomplishments Other Accomplishments Dirt, Gravel & Low Volume Road Maintenance Program Contact Information • Performed 265 E & S inspections with Resource Challenge 85% compliance Sediment is the largest pollutant by volume to the waters of the • Re-assessed 10 streams to upgrade Sherri Clayton-Williams Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Unpaved roads not only Interim District Manager stream designation and protective uses. generate sediment, but also act as collectors for runoff and • Sponsored the Adams County sediment from adjacent land uses resulting in increased flood Envirothon programs involving 104 Charles Bennett flows in streams, and transport of sediment and other pollutant Board Chairman middle school students and 60 high into local waterways. school students • Installed 3 acres of riparian buffers Project Summary and Results 670 Old Harrisburg Road, Suite 201 through community volunteer projects. Technical assistance and funding to install driving surface Gettysburg, PA 17325 • Installed agricultural BMPs including 21 aggregate, new culverts, underdrains, ditching, and stormwater (717) 334-0636 waterways, 2 diversions and 3 terraces management to address problems on local roads that www.adamscounty.us • Provided technical assistance on EQIP adversely affect water quality. • Six project sites completed in 2017- $229,703.48 projects that brought an additional More Work to Do $232,767.00 into Adams County • Three
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy

    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy

    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
  • 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.
  • Introduction to the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregional Conservation Plan

    Introduction to the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregional Conservation Plan

    SOUTHERN BLUE RIDGE ECOREGIONAL CONSERVATION PLAN Summary and Implementation Document March 2000 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY and the SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN FOREST COALITION Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregional Conservation Plan Summary and Implementation Document Citation: The Nature Conservancy and Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition. 2000. Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregional Conservation Plan: Summary and Implementation Document. The Nature Conservancy: Durham, North Carolina. This document was produced in partnership by the following three conservation organizations: The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit conservation organization with the mission to preserve plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition is a nonprofit organization that works to preserve, protect, and pass on the irreplaceable heritage of the region’s National Forests and mountain landscapes. The Association for Biodiversity Information is an organization dedicated to providing information for protecting the diversity of life on Earth. ABI is an independent nonprofit organization created in collaboration with the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers and The Nature Conservancy, and is a leading source of reliable information on species and ecosystems for use in conservation and land use planning. Photocredits: Robert D. Sutter, The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This first iteration of an ecoregional plan for the Southern Blue Ridge is a compendium of hypotheses on how to conserve species nearest extinction, rare and common natural communities and the rich and diverse biodiversity in the ecoregion. The plan identifies a portfolio of sites that is a vision for conservation action, enabling practitioners to set priorities among sites and develop site-specific and multi-site conservation strategies.