DOCSLIB.ORG

National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.1 June 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. All Project Cooperator laboratories should follow these guidelines. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. More details on specific methods for site evaluation, sampling, and sample processing can be found in the appropriate companion document. The suggested citation for this document is: USEPA. 2017. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018-19: Laboratory Operations Manual. EPA- 841-B-17-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. OTICE N ii 2018/19 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.1, June 2018 Page iii of 185 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE ...............................................................................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 9 2.0 GENERAL LABORATORY GUIDELINES ..................................................................................................... 10 2.1 RESPONSIBILITY AND PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 10 2.2 ROLES AND CONTACT INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 SAMPLE TRACKING .......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.0 ALGAL TOXIN: CYLINDROSPERMOPSIN IMMUNOASSAY PROCEDURE .................................................... 12 3.1 DEFINITIONS AND REQUIRED PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.2 Personnel Qualifications ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 PRECAUTIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS .................................................................................................................................. 14 3.4 SAMPLE RECEIPT ............................................................................................................................................. 14 3.5 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.5.1 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 15 3.5.2 Kit Preparation ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.5.3 Insertion of Contents into Wells ............................................................................................................. 17 3.5.4 Dilutions (if needed) ............................................................................................................................... 21 3.6 PERTINENT QA/QC PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................................... 22 3.6.1 QC Samples ............................................................................................................................................ 22 3.6.2 Summary of QA/QC Requirements ........................................................................................................ 23 4.0 ALGAL TOXIN: MICROCYSTIN IMMUNOASSAY PROCEDURE ................................................................... 25 4.1 SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY WARNINGS ........................................................................................................................ 25 4.3 DEFINITIONS AND REQUIRED RESOURCES (PERSONNEL, LABORATORIES, AND EQUIPMENT) ........................................... 25 4.3.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 25 4.4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LABORATORIES ...................................................................................................... 27 4.4.1 Expertise ................................................................................................................................................ 27 4.4.2 Quality assurance and quality control requirements ............................................................................. 27 4.4.3 Personnel ............................................................................................................................................... 27 4.4.4 Equipment/Materials ............................................................................................................................. 27 4.5 SAMPLE RECEIPT ............................................................................................................................................. 28 4.6 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.6.1 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 29 4.6.2 Kit Preparation ....................................................................................................................................... 29 4.6.3 Insertion of Contents into Wells ............................................................................................................. 30 4.6.4 Dilutions (if needed) ............................................................................................................................... 35 4.7 QUALITY MEASURES ........................................................................................................................................ 36 4.7.1 Assistance Visits ..................................................................................................................................... 36 4.7.2 QC Samples ............................................................................................................................................ 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii 2018/19 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.1, June 2018 Page iv of 185 4.7.3 Summary of QA/QC Requirements .......................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Introductions of Threatened and Endangered Fishes (Full Statement)

    Introductions of Threatened and Endangered Fishes (Full Statement)

    AFS Policy Statement #19: Introductions of Threatened and Endangered Fishes (Full Statement) ABSTRACT Introductions of threatened and endangered fishes are often an integral feature in their recovery programs. More than 80% of threatened and endangered fishes have recovery plans that call for introductions to establish a new population or an educational exhibit, supplement an existing population, or begin artificial propagation. Despite a large number of recent and proposed introductions, no systematic procedural policies have been developed to conduct these recovery efforts. Some introductions have been inadequately planned or poorly implemented. As a result, introductions of some rare fishes have been successful, whereas recovery for others has progressed slowly. In at least one instance, the introduced fish eliminated a population of another rare native organism. We present guidelines for introductions of endangered and threatened fishes that are intended to apply when an introduction is proposed to supplement an existing population or establish a new population. However, portions of the guidelines may be helpful in other Situations, such as establishing a hatchery stock. The guidelines are divided into three components: (1) selecting the introduction site, (2) conducting the introduction, and (3) post-introduction monitoring, reporting, and analysis. Implementation should increase success of efforts to recover rare fishes. "On 3 August 1968, we collected 30 or 40 individuals from among the inundated prickly pear and mesquite near the flooded spring, which by that time was covered with about 7 m of clear water." Peden (1973) The above quote described the collection of Amistad gambusia, Gambusia amistadensis, as its habitat was being flooded. Fortunately, most translocations of endangered fishes do not occur under such a feverish pace as did this collection of Amistad gambusia.
  • A Thesis Entitled Molecular, Morphological, and Biogeographic Resolution of Cryptic Taxa in the Greenside Darter Etheostoma Blen

    A Thesis Entitled Molecular, Morphological, and Biogeographic Resolution of Cryptic Taxa in the Greenside Darter Etheostoma Blen

    A Thesis Entitled Molecular, morphological, and biogeographic resolution of cryptic taxa in the Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides complex By Amanda E. Haponski Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Science Degree in Biology (Ecology-track) ____________________________ Advisor: Dr. Carol A. Stepien ____________________________ Committee Member: Dr. Timothy G. Fisher ____________________________ Committee Member: Dr. Johan F. Gottgens ____________________________ College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2007 Copyright © 2007 This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Molecular, morphological, and biogeographic resolution of cryptic taxa in the Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides complex Amanda E. Haponski Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Science Degree in Biology (Ecology-track) The University of Toledo December 2007 DNA sequencing has led to the resolution of many cryptic taxa, which are especially prevalent in the North American darter fishes (Family Percidae). The Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides commonly occurs in the lower Great Lakes region, where two putative subspecies, the eastern “Allegheny” type E. b. blennioides and the western “Prairie” type E. b. pholidotum , overlap. The objective of this study was to test the systematic identity and genetic divergence distinguishing the two subspecies in areas of sympatry and allopatry in comparison to other subspecies and close relatives. DNA sequences from the mtDNA cytochrome b gene and control region and the nuclear S7 intron 1 comprising a total of 1,497 bp were compared from 294 individuals across 18 locations, including the Lake Erie basin and the Allegheny, Meramec, Obey, Ohio, Rockcastle, Susquehanna, and Wabash River systems.
  • Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams

    Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams

    Amencan F~sheriesSociety Symposium 37:179-193, 2003 Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Department ofFisheries and Wildlife Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 1000 Front Street, Oxford, Massachusetts 38655, USA Abstracf.-Many ecological processes are associated with large wood in streams, such as forming habitat critical for fish and a host of other organisms. Wood loading in streams varies with age and species of riparian vegetation, stream size, time since last disturbance, and history of land use. Changes in the landscape resulting from homesteading, agriculture, and logging have altered forest environments, which, in turn, changed the physical and biological characteristics of many streams worldwide. Wood is also important in creating refugia for fish and other aquatic species. Removing wood from streams typically results in loss of pool habitat and overall complexity as well as fewer and smaller individuals of both coldwater and warmwater fish species. The life histories of more than 85 species of fish have some association with large wood for cover, spawning (egg attachment, nest materials), and feeding. Many other aquatic organisms, such as crayfish, certain species of freshwater mus- sels, and turtles, also depend on large wood during at least part of their life cycles. Introduction Because decay rate and probability of displace- ment are a function of size, large pieces have a Large wood can profoundly influence the struc- greater influence on habitat and physical processes ture and function of aquatic habitats from head- than small pieces. In general, rootwads, branches, waters to estuaries.
  • Interim Performance Report Endangered Species

    Interim Performance Report Endangered Species

    INTERIM PERFORMANCE REPORT ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM GRANT NUMBER F17AP01052 WILDLIFE PROJECTS – ALABAMA PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama October 1, 2018 - September 30, 2020 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES DIVISION Prepared by: Todd B. Fobian Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries PROJECT Reproductive Characteristics and Host Fish Determination of Canoe Creek Clubshell, Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al. 2006) in the Big Canoe Creek drainage (Etowah and St. Clair Counties), Alabama Year 1 Interim Report State: Alabama Introduction Pleurobema athearni (Gangloff et al, 2006), Canoe Creek Clubshell is currently a candidate for federally threatened/endangered status by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It is Coosa Basin endemic, with historical records only known from the Big Canoe Creek (BCC) system in Alabama (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Recent surveys completed by ADCNR and USFWS established the species is extant at six localities in the basin, with two in Upper Little Canoe Creek (ULCC), one in Lower Little Canoe Creek (LLCC), and three in BCC proper. (Fobian et al. 2017). As culture methods improve, propagated P. athearni juveniles could soon be available to support reintroduction/augmentation efforts within historical range. Little is known about Pleurobema athearni reproduction, female brooding period, or glochidial hosts. Female P. athearni are presumed short term-brooders and likely gravid from late spring to early summer (Gangloff et al. 2006, Williams et al. 2008). Glochidial hosts are currently unknown although other Mobile River Basin Pleurobema species often utilize Cyprinidae (shiners) to complete metamorphosis (Haag and Warren 1997, 2003, Weaver et al.
  • 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.
  • Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 11

    Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 11

    Fisheries ISSN: 0363-2415 (Print) 1548-8446 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 11 To cite this article: (2015) Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 11, Fisheries, 40:11, 525-572, DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1115707 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1115707 Published online: 05 Nov 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 147 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ufsh20 Download by: [Department Of Fisheries] Date: 13 March 2016, At: 23:47 FisheriesVol. 40 • No. 11 • November 2015 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 23:47 13 March 2016 How to Thrive in Grad School Are Hermaphroditic Fish More Vulnerable to Fishing? Introduced Populations Help Preclude ESA Listing “I was amazed at how eective these gloves were and how easy they made handling of large-sized fishes.” – Alan Temple* “We were some of the first people to field-test [the gloves]. We used them last spring in our hatcheries to spawn muskies and walleye, and in the field to implant transmitters in muskies, walleyes and trout for telemetry studies. They worked great. We were really impressed.” – Je Hansbarger** · Portable, waterproof, and lightweight · Measuring and tagging made simple · Chemical free handling · Fish can be lawfully released immediately Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 23:47 13 March 2016 · Rubber gloves Safely immobilize live fish with Smith-Root’s new insulate user FISH HANDLING GLOVE SYSTEM.
  • Endangered Species

    Endangered Species

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    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.
  • 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.
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The

    Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The

    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist WATER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 0908 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 8 IBI sample collection ............................................. 8 Habitat measures............................................... 10 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 15 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 19 Designation of guilds....................................... 20 Results and discussion................................................ 22 Sampling sites and collection results . 22 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 41 1. Number of native species ................................
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • 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.