DOCSLIB.ORG

Stable Isotope Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stable Isotope Analysis University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 5-2012 Stable Isotope Analysis (delta nitrogen-15 and delta carbon-13) and Bioenergetic Modeling of Spatial- Temporal Foraging Patterns and Consumption Dynamics in Brown and Rainbow Trout Populations Within Catch-and-Release Areas of Arkansas Tailwaters Jon M. Flinders University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Flinders, Jon M., "Stable Isotope Analysis (delta nitrogen-15 and delta carbon-13) and Bioenergetic Modeling of Spatial-Temporal Foraging Patterns and Consumption Dynamics in Brown and Rainbow Trout Populations Within Catch-and-Release Areas of Arkansas Tailwaters" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 301. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/301 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STABLE ISOTOPE ANALYSIS ( δ15 N and δ13 C) AND BIOENERGETIC MODELING OF SPATIAL-TEMPORAL FORAGING PATTERNS AND CONSUMPTION DYNAMICS IN BROWN AND RAINBOW TROUT POPULATIONS WITHIN CATCH-AND-RELEASE AREAS OF ARKANSAS TAILWATERS STABLE ISOTOPE ANALYSIS ( δ15 N and δ13 C) AND BIOENERGETIC MODELING OF SPATIAL-TEMPORAL FORAGING PATTERNS AND CONSUMPTION DYNAMICS IN BROWN AND RAINBOW TROUT POPULATIONS WITHIN CATCH-AND-RELEASE AREAS OF ARKANSAS TAILWATERS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biology By Jon M. Flinders Utah State University Bachelor of Science in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, 2000 University of Arizona Master of Science in Wildlife and Fisheries Science, 2003 May 2012 University of Arkansas Abstract I examined spatial and temporal consumption dynamics using an energy intake model and a bioenergetics model of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss , and brown trout, Salmo trutta , within three catch-and-release (C-R) areas in Bull Shoals and Norfork tailwaters to determine whether trout populations were limited by food supply. I also examined the seasonal and ontogenetic shifts in the foraging patterns of brown and rainbow trout within these areas using gut content analysis (GCA) and stable isotope analysis (SIA) of δ13 C and δ15 N. I examined 605 brown trout and 768 rainbow trout for GCA and SIA at Bull Shoals, Norfork, and Sylamore C-R areas. For growth analysis and abundance estimates, I tagged a total of 11,423 brown and rainbow trout. Mean rainbow trout densities were higher (47 to 342 fish·ha -1) than brown trout (3 to 84 fish·ha -1) at all C-R areas. The Norfork C-R area contained the highest densities of brown and rainbow trout. Benthic macroinvertebrates at Bull Shoals and Norfork were 14.0 to 18.7 times higher in biomass than at Sylamore. Biomass of sculpin was approximately 2 to 8 times higher at Norfork than Bull Shoals and Sylamore. I found a high proportion of filamentous algae, Cladophora , and a nuisance diatom, Didymosphenia geminata in the diets of rainbow trout (15-91%), despite the apparent lack of energetic value from this food source. Generally, SIA mixing model results provided broad ranges of source contributions rather than more informative narrow ranges of solutions limiting the conclusions regarding food source contributions. Large rainbow trout failed to consume sufficient food biomass to exceed maintenance ration and exhibited slow or negative seasonal growth suggesting poorer energetic conditions existed for this size class and species. In contrast, brown trout experienced high growth rates at lower densities than rainbow trout. Growth rate differences between brown and rainbow trout may be from brown trout shifting towards the incorporation of more energetically profitable prey fish. These findings suggest rainbow trout, and not brown trout, in Arkansas tailwater C-R areas were limited by spatial-temporal fluctuations in food availability. This dissertation is approved for Recommendation to the Graduate Council Dissertation Director: Daniel D. Magoulick Dissertation Committee: Dr. Steven J. Beaupre Dr. Arthur V. Brown Dr. Phillip D. Hays Disseration Duplication Release I hereby authorize the University of Arkansas Libraries to duplicate this dissertation when needed for research and/or scholarship. Agreed Jon M. Flinders Refused Jon M. Flinders Acknowlegements I am indeed grateful to my major advisor Dr. Dan Magoulick for his support and fisheries advice, both from a scientific and recreational perspective. I would also like to thank Dr. Steve Beaupre, Dr. Art Brown, and Dr. Phil Hays for their time and assistance in improving this dissertation. I was fortunate to interact with students and staff in USGS Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Christy Kitterman was extremely instrumental in this project and assisted me both in the field and laboratory and I appreciated her dedication and hard work. The graduate students throughout my tenure were exceptional and I would like to thank John Ludlam, Matt Dekar, Chris Bare, Aaron Cushing, and Eric Larson for their input to my research and endless discussions regarding various fisheries topics. Diane Moler assisted in providing administrative and Dr. David Krementz provided constructive feedback. Funding for this project was provided by Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) and their support and assistance was critical. I would specifically like to thank the following: Darrell Bowman, Jeff Williams, Stan Todd, Kent Coffey, Eli Powers, Matt Schroeder, Ken Shirley, and Mark Oliver. Multiple university students and staff provided countless hours in the laboratory assisting me in analyzing the data. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife Peggy for always being there to offer love and support through all the long hours spent in the office and lab. Dedication To my wife Peggy for her unwavering support, patience, and love. Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................ 6 Effects of prey and tissue type on δ13 C and δ15 N fractionation and turnover rates and assimilation efficiency of rainbow trout............................................................................................................ 10 Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 11 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 12 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 28 Literature Cited ...................................................................................................................... 38 Spatial-temporal foraging patterns of brown and rainbow trout within catch-and-release areas in Arkansas tailwaters using gut content and stable isotope analysis ( δ13 C and δ15 N) ..................... 51 Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 52 Methods .................................................................................................................................... 58 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 68 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 79 Literature cited ........................................................................................................................ 91 Food availability and consumption dynamics of brown and rainbow trout populations within catch-and-release areas in Arkansas tailwaters: a bioenergetics modeling approach ................. 123 Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 124 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 131 Results .................................................................................................................................... 146 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 162 Literature cited ...................................................................................................................... 175 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 215 Literature cited ...................................................................................................................... 219 Introduction In the southeastern United States rainbow trout,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The
    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
    [Show full text]
  • Neogobius Melanostomus (Round Goby) [Original Text by J
    Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 2019 Revised, September 2019 Web Version, 11/18/2019 Photo: E. Engbretson, USFWS. Public domain. Available: https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/natdiglib/id/5112/rec/2. (June 2019). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Fuller et al. (2019): “Eurasia including Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Sea of Azov and tributaries (Miller 1986).” 1 From Freyhof and Kottelat (2008): “Native: Azerbaijan; Bulgaria; Georgia; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Kazakhstan; Moldova; Romania; Russian Federation; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Ukraine” Status in the United States From Fuller et al. (2019): “Already spread to all five Great Lakes, with large populations in Lakes Erie and Ontario. Likely to find suitable habitat throughout Lake Erie and in all Great Lakes waters at depths less than 60 m (USEPA 2008). Established outside of the Great Lakes basin in 1994 (Dennison, personal communication), and in 2010 spread into the lower Illinois River (K. Irons, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL, personal communication)” “Round Goby was considered extremely abundant in the St. Clair River in 1994. Short trawls made in Lake Erie in October 1994 turned up 200 individuals. Frequent trawling in 1995 collected over 3,000 individuals near Fairport Harbor, Ohio (Knight, personal communication). Densities in Calumet Harbor exceed 20 per square meter (Marsden and Jude 1995). Gravid females and different size classes have been found in Lake Erie (T. Cavender, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, personal communication). In Lake Superior, primarily established in Duluth-Superior Harbor and lower St.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Synopsis of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus Salmoides)
    Biological Synopsis of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) T.G. Brown, B. Runciman, S. Pollard, and A.D.A. Grant Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science Branch, Pacific Region Pacific Biological Station 3190 Hammond Bay Road Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 6N7 CANADA 2009 Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2884 Fisheries and Oceans Peches et Oceans 1+1 Canada Canada Canada Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Manuscript reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing knowledge but which deals with national or regional problems. Distribution is restricted to institutions or individuals located in particular regions of Canada. However, no restriction is placed on subject matter, and the series reflects the broad interests and policies ofthe Department ofFisheries and Oceans, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences. Manuscript reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts and indexed in the Department's annual index to scientific and technical publications. Numbers 1-900 in this series were issued as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series) of the Biological Board ofCanada, and subsequent to 1937 when the name ofthe Board was changed byAct of Parliament, as Manuscript Reports (Biological Series) of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 1426 - 1550 were issued as Department ofFisheries and the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Manuscript Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 1551. Manuscript reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover and title page.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, Cottus Immaculatus, a New Species of Sculpin
    Zootaxa 2340: 50–64 (2010) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2010 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Cottus immaculatus, a new species of sculpin (Cottidae) from the Ozark Highlands of Arkansas and Missouri, USA ANDREW P. KINZIGER1 & ROBERT M. WOOD2 1Department of Fisheries Biology, Humboldt State University, One Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521. E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103–2010, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Cottus immaculatus, new species, is described from the Current, Eleven Point, Spring and White river systems of the White River drainage, in the Ozark Highlands of Arkansas and Missouri, USA. Cottus immaculatus is a member of the Uranidea clade and distinguishable from all members of the genus Cottus using genetic and morphological characters. Cottus immaculatus possesses a previously unreported but possibly widespread character in the genus Cottus, enlargement of the tips of the dorsal-fin spines of males. The description of Cottus immaculatus brings the total number of species recognized within the genus Cottus to 68. Key words: sculpin, Cottidae, Cottus, Cottus immaculatus, Cottus hypselurus, Cottus bairdii, Missouri, Arkansas, Ozark Highlands, fin knobs Introduction Cottus hypselurus, the Ozark Sculpin, is a relatively small (< 80 mm SL) freshwater sculpin endemic to cool to cold streams of the Ozark Highlands in Missouri and Arkansas (Robins & Robison, 1985; Pflieger, 1997). Molecular phylogenetic analyses of the genus Cottus have resolved C. hypselurus as a member of the Uranidea clade (Kinziger et al., 2005). Intraspecific molecular phylogenetic studies have revealed that C.
    [Show full text]
  • NRSA 2013/14 Field Operations Manual Appendices (Pdf)
    National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013/14 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1, April 2013 Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies Appendix Equipment A: & Supplies A-1 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013/14 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1, April 2013 pendix Equipment A: & Supplies Ap A-2 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013/14 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1, April 2013 Base Kit: A Base Kit will be provided to the field crews for all sampling sites that they will go to. Some items are sent in the base kit as extra supplies to be used as needed. Item Quantity Protocol Antibiotic Salve 1 Fish plug Centrifuge tube stand 1 Chlorophyll A Centrifuge tubes (screw-top, 50-mL) (extras) 5 Chlorophyll A Periphyton Clinometer 1 Physical Habitat CST Berger SAL 20 Automatic Level 1 Physical Habitat Delimiter – 12 cm2 area 1 Periphyton Densiometer - Convex spherical (modified with taped V) 1 Physical Habitat D-frame Kick Net (500 µm mesh, 52” handle) 1 Benthics Filteration flask (with silicone stopped and adapter) 1 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Fish weigh scale(s) 1 Fish plug Fish Voucher supplies 1 pack Fish Voucher Foil squares (aluminum, 3x6”) 1 pack Chlorophyll A Periphyton Gloves (nitrile) 1 box General Graduated cylinder (25 mL) 1 Periphyton Graduated cylinder (250 mL) 1 Chlorophyll A, Periphyton HDPE bottle (1 L, white, wide-mouth) (extras) 12 Benthics, Fish Vouchers HDPE bottle (500 mL, white, wide-mouth) with graduations 1 Periphyton Laboratory pipette bulb 1 Fish Plug Microcentrifuge tubes containing glass beads
    [Show full text]
  • Cave Fauna of the Buffalo National River
    G. O. Graening, Michael Slay, and Chuck Bitting. Cave Fauna of the Buffalo National River. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 68, no. 3, p. 153–163. CAVE FAUNA OF THE BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER G. O. GRAENING The Nature Conservancy, 601 North University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA, [email protected] MICHAEL E. SLAY The Nature Conservancy, 601 North University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA, [email protected] CHUCK BITTING Buffalo National River, 402 North Walnut, Suite 136, Harrison, AR 72601, USA, [email protected] The Buffalo National River (within Baxter, Marion, Newton, and Searcy counties, Arkansas) is completely underlain by karstic topography, and contains approximately 10% of the known caves in Arkansas. Biological inventory and assessment of 67 of the park’s subterranean habi- tats was performed from 1999 to 2006. These data were combined and analyzed with previous studies, creating a database of 2,068 total species occurrences, 301 animal taxa, and 143 total sites. Twenty species obligate to caves or ground water were found, including four new to sci- ence. The species composition was dominated by arthropods. Statistical analyses revealed that site species richness was directly proportional to cave passage length and correlated to habitat factors such as type of water resource and organics present, but not other factors, such as de- gree of public use or presence/absence of vandalism. Sites were ranked for overall biological significance using the metrics of passage length, total and obligate species richness. Fitton Cave ranked highest and is the most biologically rich cave in this National Park and second-most in all of Arkansas with 58 total and 11 obligate species.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States by Melvin L
    CONSERVATION m Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States By Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Brooks M. Burr, Stephen J. Walsh, Henry L. Bart, Jr., Robert C. Cashner, David A. Etnier, Byron J. Freeman, Bernard R. Kuhajda, Richard L. Mayden, Henry W. Robison, Stephen T. Ross, and Wayne C. Starnes ABSTRACT The Southeastern Fishes Council Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the diversity, distribution, and status of all native freshwater and diadromous fishes across 51 major drainage units of the southern United States. The southern United States supports more native fishes than any area of comparable size on the North American continent north of Mexico, but also has a high proportion of its fishes in need of conservation action. The review included 662 native freshwater and diadromous fishes and 24 marine fishes that are significant components of freshwater ecosystems. Of this total, 560 described, freshwater fish species are documented, and 49 undescribed species are included provisionally pending formal description. Described subspecies (86) are recognized within 43 species, 6 fishes have undescribed sub- species, and 9 others are recognized as complexes of undescribed taxa. Extinct, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable status is recognized for 28% (187 taxa) of southern freshwater and diadromous fishes. To date, 3 southern fishes are known to be extinct throughout their ranges, 2 are extirpated from the study region, and 2 others may be extinct. Of the extant southern fishes, 41 (6%) are regarded as endangered, 46 (7%) are regarded as threatened, and 101 (15%) are regarded as vulnerable. Five marine fishes that frequent fresh water are regarded as vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Trends of Stream Fish Community Assemblages in Southern Missouri with Contemporary Land Use Impacts
    BearWorks MSU Graduate Theses Summer 2018 Long-Term Trends of Stream Fish Community Assemblages in Southern Missouri with Contemporary Land Use Impacts Stephanie Marie Sickler Missouri State University, [email protected] As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Sickler, Stephanie Marie, "Long-Term Trends of Stream Fish Community Assemblages in Southern Missouri with Contemporary Land Use Impacts" (2018). MSU Graduate Theses. 3308. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3308 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The work contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LONG-TERM TRENDS OF STREAM FISH COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGES IN SOUTHERN MISSOURI WITH CONTEMPORARY LAND USE IMPACTS A Masters Thesis Presented to The Graduate
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Aquatic Resources Investigations Federal Aid Project F-237R-18
    Colorado River Aquatic Resources Investigations Federal Aid Project F-237R-18 R. Barry Nehring General Professional V Co-Authors Brian Heinold Justin Pomeranz Tom Remington, Director Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Job Progress Report Colorado Division of Wildlife Aquatic Wildlife Research Section Fort Collins, Colorado June 2011 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Mike King, Executive Director COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Tom Remington, Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION Tim Glenn, Chair Robert G. Streeter, Ph.D., Vice Chair Kenneth M. Smith, Secretary David R. Brougham Dennis G. Buechler Dorothea Farris Allan Jones John W. Singletary Dean Wingfield Ex Officio/Non-Voting Members: Mike King, Department of Natural Resources John Stulp, Department of Agriculture AQUATIC RESEARCH STAFF George J. Schisler, General Professional VI, Aquatic Wildlife Research Leader Rosemary Black, Program Assistant I Stephen Brinkman, General Professional IV, Water Pollution Studies Eric R. Fetherman, General Professions IV, Salmonid Disease Investigations Ryan Fitzpatrick, General Professional IV, Eastern Plains Native Fishes Matt Kondratieff, General Professional IV, Stream Habitat Restoration Jesse M. Lepak, General Professional V, Coldwater Lakes and Reservoirs R. Barry Nehring, General Professional V, Stream Fisheries Investigations Brad Neuschwanger, Hatchery Technician IV, Research Hatchery Kyle Okeson, Technician III, Fish Research Hatchery Christopher Praamsma, Technician III, Fish Research Hatchery Kevin B. Rogers, General Professional IV, Colorado Cutthroat Studies Kevin G. Thompson, General Professional IV, GOCO - Boreal Toad Studies Harry Vermillion, General Professional III, F-239, Aquatic Data Analysis Nicole Vieira, Physical Scientist III, Toxicologist Paula Nichols, Federal Aid Coordinator Kay Knudsen, Librarian i Prepared by: R. Barry Nehri g, General essional V, Aquatic Wildlife Researcher Approved by: George J.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States by Melvin L
    CONSERVATION Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater Fishes of the Southern United States By Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Brooks M. Burr, Stephen J. Walsh, Henry L. Bart, Jr., Robert C. Cashner, David A. Etnier, Byron J. Freeman, Bernard R. Kuhajda, Richard L. Mayden, Henry W. Robison, Stephen T. Ross, and Wayne C. Starnes ABSTRACT The Southeastern Fishes Council Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the diversity, distribution, and status of all native freshwater and diadromous fishes across 51 major drainage units of the south- ern United States. The southern United States supports more native fishes than any area of compara- ble size on the North American continent north of Mexico, but also has a high proportion of its fishes in need of conservation action. The review included 662 native freshwater and diadromous fishes and 24 marine fishes that are significant components of freshwater ecosystems. Of this total, 560 described, freshwater fish species are documented, and 49 undescribed species are included provi- sionally pending formal description. Described subspecies (86) are recognized within 43 species, 6 fishes have undescribed subspecies, and 9 others are recognized as complexes of undescribed taxa. Extinct, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable status is recognized for 28% (187 taxa) of southern freshwater and diadromous fishes. To date, 3 southern fishes are known to be extinct throughout their ranges, 2 are extirpated from the study region, and 2 others may be extinct. Of the extant south- ern fishes, 41 (6%) are regarded as endangered, 46 (7%) are regarded as threatened, and 101 (15%) are regarded as vulnerable. Five marine fishes that frequent fresh water are regarded as vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.1 June 2018
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841-B-17-004 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.1 June 2018 2018/19 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.1, June 2018 Page ii of 185 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-2019 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-19: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA-841-B-17-001 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-19: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA-841-B-17-002 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-19: Non-Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA-841-B- 17-003a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-19: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA-841-B-17- 003b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-19: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA-841-B-17-004 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-19: Wadeable & Non-Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2018-2019.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Freshwater Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
    United States Office of Water EPA 822-R-18-002 Environmental Protection 4304T April 2013 Agency AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR AMMONIA – FRESHWATER 2013 EPA-822-R-13-001 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria For Ammonia – Freshwater 2013 April 2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Science and Technology Washington, DC ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... vii FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................................ ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................x ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ....................................................................................1
    [Show full text]