CONSERVATION BIOLOGY OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN By GEFFERY ROGER LUTTRELL Bachelor of Science Pittsburg State University Pittsburg, Kansas 1987 Master of Science Pittsburg State University Pittsburg, Kansas 1990 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 1997 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN Thesis Approved: ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am eternally grateful to my wife Brooke and daughter Carlee, and to my parents, Charles and Mae Luttrell, for their generous love and support during this arduous course of study. My adviser, mentor, and friend Dr. Anthony Echelle, and advisory committee members Drs. Larry Talent, William Fisher, Donald Turton, and the late W. S. Fargo provided invaluable assistance and guidance. Thanks are due L. Gallery, J. Banta, D. Underwood, L. Williams, N. Ashbaugh, A. A. Echelle, and A. F. Echelle for their help in the field. Thanks to A. A. Echelle, A. F. Echelle, W. Matthews, F. Cross, A. Zale, R. Lemmons, M. Eberle, D. Eisenhour, V. Tabor, G. Ernsting, W. Stark, J. Triplett, and M. Payton for their patience in numerous lengthy discussions. Financial and logistical support for this study were provided by the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and the Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. DISTRIBUTIONAL STATUS OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN ......•..... 1 Introduction. .. 1 Materials and Methods ...........•......... 6 Results. 8 History of Occurrence ..•.•........... 8 Arkansas River. 8 Ninnescah River drainage .......•.•..• 11 Salt Fork of the Arkansas River drainage ........................... 13 Cimarron River drainage ......•.•....• 15 Canadian River drainage ......•....... 17 Extirpations and Artificial Impoundm.en ts. 2 0 Discussion ................................ 21 LITERATURE CITED ... ·· . • . 28 II. HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPECKLED CHUB (CYPRINIDAE: MACRHYBOPSIS HYOSTOMA) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BAS IN. 5 0 ·Introduction . ...·. 50 Materials and Methods ...•................. 53 Habitat Measurements ................. 53 Habitat Analyses ...............•..... 55 Results.:• . 59 Discussion.. 62 LITERATURE c·ITED. .. • . • 67 III. RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: MACRHYBOPSIS HYOSTOMA) IN THE CIMARRON RIVER OF OKLAHOMA. .. • . 7 6 iv Chapter Page Introduction. ~ • . 7 6 Materials and Methods •••.••••••.........•• 77 Results .................................... 79 Disappearance of speckled chub from the Cimarron River ••...••••••. 79 Reappearance of speckled chub in the Cimarron River .•.•...••••••• 81 Discussion ........................... 83 LITERATURE CITED. • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • . • • • . 90 IV. AN ATTEMPTED INTRODUCTION OF A MEMBER OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) INTO AREAS OF PAST OCCURRENCE .......•.. 98 Introduction. 98 Materials and Methods ..••••............... 100 Habitat Measurements .•••••.......... 102 Data An.alyses . ...................... 104 Results ................................... 106 Discussion ................................ 107 LITERATURE CITED ............•.••••..........•.. 111 APPENDIXES ................................................ 120 APPENDIX A--MUSEUM SPECIMENS OF SPECKLED CHUB EXAMINED FROM THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN .................................. 121 APPENDIX B--ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN SITES SAMPLED FOR SPECKLED CHUB FROM 1991 THROUGH 1997 ... ............................... 132 APPENDIX C--LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR 24 HABITAT STUDY SITES SAMPLED IN 1994 AND 1995 ......•.•••••.. 144 APPENDIX D--SEINE-COLLECTIONS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO REINTRODUCTION OF SPECKLED . CHUB . ....•.......•.•.•••••••........... 14 7 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Summary of sampling in this study and historical and present status of M. hyostoma and M. tetranema in the Arkansas River Basin ...••....•. 33 II. Last record of extirpated populations of M. tetranema, and year-of-completion for - reservoirs that isolated areas of extirpation from a source of immigrants. 38 III. Last record of extirpated populations of M. hyostoma, and year-of-completion for reservoirs that isolated areas of extirpation from a source of immigrants ......... 39 IV. Habitat selection by juvenile (n = 58) and adult (:g = 141) !i· hyostoma .. :-.................. 70 V. Back-transformed means and standard deviations of habitat variables from ANOVA in seine-hauls from areas where M. hyostoma was present, historically absent, and extirpated (see text for explanation of groups) . • . 71 VI. Back-transformed means and standard deviations of habitat variables for the ~pper and lower Salt Fork of the Arkansas (= Salt Fork), Cimarron, and Medicine Lodge rivers ............. 113 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Historical distribution. of .. speckled chub in the Arkansas River Basin (1884-1990) ••••....••••••.... 41 2. Present distribution of speckled chub in the Arkansas River Basin (1991-1996) .........•.••..... 43 3. Mean daily discharge for the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Jet, Oklahoma .....•........... 45 4. Temporal cumulative relationship between extirpations of M. tetranema and M. hyostoma from stream reaches and completion of adjacent reservoirs in the Arkansas River drainage ....•...• 47 5. Comparison of approximate time of extirpation of ~. tetranema (upper pane) and~. hyostoma (lower pane) with completion times of reservoirs that would have prevented recolonization from adjacent stream reaches in the Arkansas River drainage ........................................... 49 6. Location of 24 sites in the Arkansas River Basin where collections were made in 1994 and 1995 ..••.. 73 7. Habitat preferences (normalized ratio) of adult (n = 141) and juvenile (~ = 58) ~. hyostoma ....... 75 8. Historical distribution of speckled chub (1928-1965) in the Cimarron River drainage (Luttrell, 1997) .................................. 93 9. Summary of changes in the distribution of M. hyostoma and~. tetranema in the Cimarron River ........................................•.... 95 10. Maximum daily streamflow for the Cimarron River at Perkins... 97 vii Figure Page 11. Historical distribution of speckled chub in the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River drainage (Luttrell, 1997) .................................. 115 12. Map showing speckled chub capture site and release sites (7 and 12) and other study sites in the area .............................................. 117 13. Maximum daily discharges for the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River near Alva, Oklahoma (upper pane) and the Medicine Lodge River near Kiowa, Kansas (lower pane) in May-August of 1985-1995 ......... 119 viii CHAPTER I DISTRIBUTIONAL STATUS OF THE SPECKLED CHUB COMPLEX (CYPRINIDAE: CF. MACRHYBOPSIS AESTIVALIS) IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTRODUCTION In this paper, I report the historical distributions and present status of two species of the speckled chub complex, Macrhybopsis tetranema and M. hyostoma, in the Arkansas River Basin. Until recently, speckled chubs in the Arkansas River Basin and elsewhere (Wallace, 1980) were referred to as a single, wide-ranging, geographically variable species (~. [= Hybopsis] aestivalis). However, several workers had suggested that the specific epithet may encompass more than one species (Miller and Robison, 1973; Robison and Buchanan, 1988; Page and Burr, 1991). Based on morphological data, D. Eisenhour (pers. comm.) recognizes several species within the complex, two of which inhabit the Arkansas River Basin. Macrhybopsis tetranema is endemic to the basin," where, historically, it occurred in upstream reaches of the Arkansas River and its larger, western 1 2 tributaries. The second species,~- hyostoma, is more widespread, occurring in middle and lower reaches of the Arkansas River mainstem and its western tributaries, and elsewhere in the Mississippi River System. Macrhybopsis tetranema has a conical shaped head, tiny, nearly round eyes, and a pair of posterior barbels that are longer than the length of the orbit along with a pair of anterior barbels more than half the orbit length. Macrhybopsis hyostoma has a rounded head with a hump over the nares, oval eyes, and a pair of posterior barbels that are shorter than the length of the orbit along with a pair of anterior barbels less than half the orbit length. The present work grew out of concern (Cross and Moss, 1987; Williams et al., 1989) for the status of the previously recognized "Arkansas River speckled chub" M. (= Hybopsis) aestivalis tetranemus, which encompassed both of the presently recognized speckled chub species in the Arkansas River Basin. This nominal taxon has declined over large portions of the Arkansas River Basin during the past 30 years, as have other prairie-stream taxa, including cyprinid fishes (Cross and Moss, 1987; Larson, 1991; Echelle et al., 1995) and bivalve mollusks (Distler and Eleam, 1995). In general, decline of the native ~rairie-stream fauna has been attributed to effects of ground-water removal 3 for irrigation and reservoir construction, which have changed base-flow levels (including summertime dewatering of some upstream reaches) and altered