Printer Friendly

Changes in the condition of the Wabash River drainage from 1990-2004.

ABSTRACT. The Wabash River drainage was evaluated based on three hydrologic watershed units that were sampled from 1990-2004 so that patterns in biological integrity and assessment of aquatic life designated uses could be determined. The three units included: 1) the West Fork and lower White River, 2) the East Fork White River, and 3) the remainder of the Indiana portions of the Wabash River system above its confluence with the Ohio River. Targeted sampling was done in each of the three watershed units from 1990-1995, while a random probability sample design was used from 1996-2004. Assessment of the fish assemblage information for the three periods showed increasing biological integrity for each of the three watersheds. The watershed with the highest biological integrity was the East Fork White River, followed by the West Fork White River, and Wabash River. Aquatic life designated uses were met in 76% of the East Fork White River stream miles; 62% of the West Fork and lower White rivers; and 53% of the Wabash River stream miles.

Keywords: Biotic integrity, biological assessment, probabilistic design, Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)

**********

The mandate of water quality monitoring agencies is to assess the condition of the waters of the United States and to report on their status. As new tools are developed (Morris et al. 2006) and indices are calibrated (Simon 1992; Simon & Stahl 1998; Simon in review), increasingly more accurate assessments of the status of these waters can be generated which will allow for more emphasis to be placed on restoration of vulnerable and threatened systems, as well as protection of high quality waters. Over the last two decades monitoring tools developed in Indiana have focused primarily on the use of biological indicators (Simon 1992; Simon & Dufour 1998; Simon 2006).

An environment that supports an assemblage of organisms similar to that produced by long-term evolutionary processes is considered to have high biological integrity. Biological integrity has been defined as "the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated adaptive assemblage of organisms having species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region" (Karr & Dudley 1981; Karr et al. 1986). Human activities often degrade the environment, resulting in a detectable decline in biological integrity.

When comparing all streams in North America, large rivers are disproportionately degraded (Karr et al. 1985; Poff et al. 1997). The loss of biological integrity in these large river systems is the result of widespread land use changes and anthropogenic land scale disturbance. Few studies have evaluated the long-term changes in biological integrity in drainage units as large as the Wabash River, with emphasis on large mainstem rivers (Hughes et al. 2005).

The purpose of the current study was to document changes in three hydrologic watershed units within the Wabash River drainage from 1990-2004. We compared changes during three assessment periods and the status of the watershed based on a stratified probability based approach.

METHODS

Study area.--The Wabash River is the largest northern tributary of the Ohio River and is the longest free-flowing large river east of the Mississippi. For this study, the Wabash River drainage was divided into three watershed study areas based on 8-digit hydrologic units as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The Wabash River and its direct tributaries include the headwater areas from the State of Ohio to its confluence with the Ohio River (Posey County). The other two drainage units include the largest tributaries of the Wabash River, which are the East and West Forks of the White River. Together these three drainage units represent nearly two-thirds of the total area of central Indiana and encompass portions of the Eastern Corn Belt Plain (ECBP), which is primarily rowcrop agriculture, and the Interior River Lowland (IRL), which includes forest landscapes, as well as oil, gas, and coal exploration land uses (Omernik & Gallant 1988).

Study design.--The State of Indiana uses a Probabilistic Monitoring Program as one portion of the state's comprehensive strategy to provide an evaluation of stream water quality and biological integrity in major basins of Indiana. The probability design generates statistically valid estimates of the percent of total stream miles impaired for aquatic life and recreational uses.

Three hydrologic units in the Wabash River drainage were assessed based on a random, stratified probabilistic design (Messer et al. 1991). The Probabilistic Monitoring Program divided the state into nine major watersheds that are sampled once every five years, providing a complete assessment of the entire state.

Sites were generated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) selection methods, which used randomly selected sites to assess and characterize the overall water quality and biotic integrity of the study basin (USEPA 1994; USGS 1994). The target population was defined as all perennial streams within the geographic boundaries of Indiana for the basin of interest. "Perennial" for the purpose of the Probabilistic Monitoring Program was defined as water present in at least 50% of the stream reach (reach was defined as 15 times the average wetted width of the stream, minimum 50 m, maximum 500 m). The sample population included all rivers, streams, canals, and ditches as indexed through the USEPA River Reach File 3 excluding marshes, wetlands, backwaters, impoundments, dry and tiled sites. Site selection was stratified to ensure streams of all sizes/orders (Strahler 1952) were sampled allowing for a spatially accurate representation of the various stream sizes (USEPA 1994; USGS 1994).

Three study periods included the baseline study that was conducted from 1990-1995 and two rounds of the probability sampling that included the periods 1996-1999 and 2001-2004.

Field collection.--Fish assemblages were assessed using a variety of electrofishing equipment. Small streams (<3.3 m wetted width) were sampled using either backpack or long-line electrofishing units; wadeable streams (>3.3 m wetted width) were sampled using long-line or tote-barge electrofishing equipment; large river (non-wadeable >2580 [km.sup.2] drainage area) and great river (>5956.97 [km.sup.2]) reaches were sampled using boat mounted electrofishing units. Sampling was conducted along a linear reach of stream based on 15 times the wetted width with minimum distances of 50 m and maximum distances of 500 m (500 m each bank for large rivers). All representative habitats were sampled within the stream reach. All fish encountered were netted and placed into a live well. At the completion of the sampling, all fish were identified to species, counted, batch weighed by species, and minimum and maximum length recorded. All individuals were inspected for deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumor (DELT) anomalies. Fish were identified using regional identification manuals (Gerking 1955; Smith 1973; Trautman 1981), and voucher specimens are curated at the Indiana Biological Survey Aquatic Research Center, Bloomington, Indiana.

Calculations of biological integrity.--The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was used to assess the biological integrity of the stream (Simon 1992; Simon & Dufour 1998; Simon & Stahl 1998; Simon 2006). The IBI is composed of 12 metrics that assess fish assemblage structure, trophic composition (feeding and reproductive guilds), and fish condition and health. The total IBI score, integrity class and attributes help define fish assemblage characteristics. Table 1, modified from Karr et al. 1986, uses total IBI score, integrity class and attributes to define the fish assemblage characteristics in Indiana streams and rivers.

Indiana narrative biological criteria [327 IAC 2-1-3(2)] states that "all waters, except those designated as limited use, will be capable of supporting a well-balanced, warm water aquatic community" (IDEM 2006a). The water quality standard definition of a "well-balanced aquatic community" is "an aquatic community which is diverse in species composition, contains several different trophic levels, and is not composed mainly of strictly pollution tolerant species" [327 IAC 2-1-9(60)] (IDEM 2006a). A stream segment is non-supporting for aquatic life use when the monitored fish assemblage receives an IBI score of less than 35 which is considered poor or very poor (IDEM 2006b).

Statistics and data analysis.--When estimates for characteristics of the entire target watershed are computed, the statistical analysis must account for any loss of stratification or unequal probability selection due to some sites not being sampled (i.e., access denied, impounded, dry, etc.). This method applies a post-hoe statistical correction factor (weighting factor) to an unbalanced sample stratification resulting in a corrected probability design (Diaz-Ramos et al. 1996).

The USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) in Corvallis, Oregon, created a software program "psurvey.analysis" that is used to adjust the weighting of sites and develop accurate estimates for a measured parameter in a target population. This software program contains functions which calculate the final weight value for each site and estimates the percentage of integrity class for each hydrologic unit in the Wabash drainage (http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/analysispages/techinfoanalysis.htm).

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Fish assemblage.--Based on surveys of the entire Wabash River, 150 species were found from 1990-2004. This number of species represents 72.1% of the entire fish fauna of Indiana (Simon et al. 2002). We collected 135 species from the Wabash River hydrologic unit, 113 species from the West Fork and lower White River hydrologic unit, and 115 species from the East Fork White River hydrologic unit (Table 2).

Status.--Based on the sampling and IBI results of three hydrologic units that comprise the Wabash River drainage, the Wabash River and tributaries drainage unit has remained relatively stable during the last 15 years. However, the East Fork White River (EFWR) and West Fork White River (WFWR) drainage units show an increase in biological integrity with higher percentages of fair, good, and excellent integrity classes (Table 3). The EFWR had the highest percentage (17%) of excellent streams, while the Wabash River had the lowest (1%). Watershed ranking of sites that met designated uses for aquatic life (IBI Score >35) included EFWR (76%), WFWR (62%), and Wabash River (53%) (Table 3). The Wabash River possessed the highest percentage of poor sites based on biological integrity (36%), followed by the WFWR (27%), and the EFWR (22%).

Wabash River: Three sampling periods included targeted sampling during 1990-1995, and two probabilistic survey periods during 1998-1999, and 2003-2004 (Fig. 1). Surveys of the Wabash River from 1990-1995 resulted in an average IBI score that classified sites as fair (Fig. 1). None of the Wabash River mainstem sites rated as excellent. The frequency distribution for each of the IBI condition categories from 1990-1995 included good-excellent (3.6%), good (7.1%), good-fair (14.3%), fair (32.1%), fair-poor (21.4%), poor (17.9%), and very poor (3.6%). Biological integrity for the Wabash River mainstem was low in 1993 from Fountain County to Posey County (Simon & Stahl 1998), possibly influenced by prolonged early summer flooding (Gammon & Simon 1998). For the Wabash River mainstem, the lowest IBI scores occurred near old Grand Rapids dam (IBI = 22); and there was a large depression in biological integrity along Vermillion County down river to northern Vigo County (Simon & Stahl 1998). Overall, streams in the watershed improved in the excellent and good condition categories during 1998-99, but categories that failed to meet aquatic life designated uses also increased (Table 3). Continued improvements were observed during 2003-2004 with increases in excellent and good categories, and declines in the fair condition category (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, the poor and very poor condition categories also increased (Table 3). The three frequency distribution curves of total IBI score for the Wabash River watershed over three survey periods show increases in the fair and good integrity classes (ranging from 35 to 53) (Fig. 4).

[FIGURES 1 & 4 OMITTED]

East Fork White River: Biological integrity increased in the EFWR from 1990-2002 (Fig. 2). During 1990-1995, the fish assemblage conditions ranged from poor-very poor (IBI = 25) to good (IBI = 51). The frequency distribution was: good (16.7%), fair (11.1%), fair-poor (50.0%), poor (16.7%), poor-very poor (5.6%). Sampling conducted during 1997 produced similar results to the 1990-1995 period (Fig. 2), with the only difference being an increase in the amount of poor condition sites. During 2002, excellent and good condition sites increased in frequency and poor and very poor condition sites decreased (Table 3). Overall, there were fewer poor sites in 1990-1995 than in both 1997 and 2002. However, more good and excellent integrity classes were found in 2002 than in 1990-1995 and 1997 (Fig. 5).

[FIGURES 2 & 5 OMITTED]

West Fork White River: Biological integrity in the WFWR and lower White River improved with the largest increases occurring between the poor and fair integrity categories (Fig. 3). During 1990-1995, an increase in biological integrity was observed downstream from the East and West Fork junction to the mouth of the lower White River (Simon 1992). The condition of fish assemblages in the lower White River (1990-1995) ranged from poor to fair (IBI = 27-44), and IBI scores approximated a normal curve with a frequency distribution including, fair 31.3% (n = 5), fair-poor 37.5% (n = 6), and poor 31.3% (n = 5) (Simon 1992). The condition of the fish assemblages in the WFWR (1990-1995) ranged from poor-very poor (IBI = 24) to good (IBI = 46), and the IBI frequency distribution for the 1990-1995 period for the WFWR included: good (5.6%), fair (11.1%), fair-poor (16.7%), poor (22.2%), and poor-very poor (33.3%). During 1996, the biological integrity of the WFWR watershed improved with the increase of the good and fair categories and the decline of the very poor category (Table 3). The frequency distribution of total IBI scores for the West Fork and lower White rivers over the three survey periods indicates a decrease in fair and good integrity classes from 1990-1995 to 1996. However, the high integrity classes rebound in 2001 to levels greater than those seen from 1990-1995 and 1996 (Fig. 6).

[FIGURES 3 & 6 OMITTED]

Assessment of the three watershed units.--The benefit of the random probability design was a narrower confidence interval for estimated parameters with increasing number of data points; however, this assumes that no changes in water quality affected the biological assemblages (Messer et al. 1991). Assessments of each watershed can be evaluated based on either each of the three time periods or based on a combination of the random probability design sites during each of the two sample rounds (Table 3).

Each watershed estimate reflects a high degree of confidence; however, combination of the data for the ten year period from 1996-2006 can be used to determine trends in aquatic life designated uses. Based on the combined assessment conditions, the Wabash River watershed unit has about 53% of all stream miles meeting aquatic life designed uses; EFWR has 76% of all stream miles meeting aquatic life designated uses (IBI > 35); and WFWR has 62% of all stream miles meeting aquatic life designated uses (Table 3). The EFWR has 33% of all stream miles classified as either good or excellent based on biological integrity, while the WFWR has 17% of stream miles and the Wabash River has 14% classified as good or excellent. The Wabash River had 47% of stream miles failing aquatic life designated uses (classified as poor or very poor), WFWR had 38% failing, and EFWR had 24% as either poor or very poor (Table 3).

An increasing need for Water Quality agencies to report on the entire waters of the nation requires monitoring and assessment tools that can be used to provide accurate classification of water resources. The Wabash River drainage is perhaps one of the most important waters in the State of Indiana. Water quality agencies are increasingly challenged with the responsibility for providing clean water and for restoring the biological integrity of the nation's surface waters. The use of a probabilistic sample design allows all waters to be classified and accurate reporting and inventory to be classified. Trends in biological integrity can be followed as management and restoration programs are implemented.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We appreciate the assistance of the Department of Environmental Management biologists in the collection of data. We especially thank Ronda Dufour, Anthony Branam, Jim Butler, Greg Nottingham, Doug Campbell, Andrew Ellis, Steven Newhouse, James Stahl, and Steve Wente for field assistance. Although this study may have been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no endorsement should be inferred by these agencies.

LITERATURE CITED

Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr. & A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistical Methods Manual. EPA/ 620/R-96/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL-Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon.

Gammon, J.R. & T.P. Simon. 2000. Variation in a great river index of biotic integrity over a 20-year period. Hydrobiologia 422/423:291-304.

Gerking, S.D. 1955. Key to the fishes of Indiana. Investigations of Indiana Lakes and Streams 4: 49-86.

Hughes, R.M., J.N. Rinne & B. Calamusso. 2005. Historical changes in large river fish assemblages of the Americas. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45. Bethesda, Maryland.

IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 2006a. Title 327 of the Indiana Administrative Code, Indiana Environmental Rules: Water, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indianapolis, Indiana. http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/iac_title?iact=327

IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 2006b. Indiana Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report 2006. B-001-OWQ-A-00-06-R3. (Jody Arthur, ed.). Office of Water Quality, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indianapolis, Indiana, http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/water/305b/index.html

Karr, J.R. & D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55-68.

Karr, J.R., L.A. Toth & D.R. Dudley. 1985. Fish communities of midwestern rivers: A history of degradation. BioScience 35:90-95.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant & I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters, a Method and its Rational. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 5.

Messer, J.J., R.A. Linthurst & W.S. Overton. 1991. An EPA program for monitoring ecological status and trends. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 17:67-78.

Morris, C.C., T.P. Simon & S.A. Newhouse. 2006. A local-scale in situ approach for stressor identification for biologically impaired aquatic systems. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 50(3):325-334.

Omernik, J.M. & A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the upper midwest states. EPA/600/3-88/037. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ERL, Corvallis, Oregon.

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks & J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784.

Simon, T.P. 1992. Biological criteria development for large rivers with an emphasis on an assessment of the White River drainage, Indiana. EPA 905/R-92/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.

Simon, T.P. 2006. Evaluation and assessment of fish assemblages near electric generating facilities: with emphasis on review of discharge submitted data, development of standard operating procedures, and traveling zone assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program and Division of Ecological Services, Bloomington, Indiana.

Simon, T.P. 2006. Development, calibration, and validation of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Wabash River. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 115:170-186.

Simon, T.P. & R.L. Dufour. 1998. Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. V. Eastern Corn Belt Plain. EPA 905-R-96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.

Simon, T.P. & J.R. Stahl. 1998. Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the Wabash River. EPA 905/R-96/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, Chicago, Illinois.

Simon, T.P., J.O. Whitaker, Jr., J.S. Castrale & S.A. Minton. 2002. Revised checklist of the vertebrates of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 111(2):182-214.

Smith, P.W. 1973. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, Illinois. 314 pp.

Strahler, A.N. 1952. Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63:923-938.

Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio. 782 pp.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Environmental monitoring and assessment program, surface waters and Region 3 regional environmental monitoring and assessment program, 1994 pilot field operations and methods manuals for streams. EPA/620/R-94/004. (Donald J. Klemm and James M. Lazorchak, eds.). Bioassessment and Ecotoxicology Branch, Ecological Monitoring Research Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1994. Report of the Interagency Biological Methods Workshop. Open-file report 94-490. (Martin E. Gurtz and Thomas A. Muir, eds.). U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Manuscript received 28 August 2006, revised 17 October 2006.

Stacey L. Sobat, Charles C. Morris, and Alison K. Stephan: Biological Studies Section, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 USA

Thomas P. Simon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 S. Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47403 USA
Table 1.--Total IBI score, integrity class and
attributes to define the fish assemblage characteristics
in Indiana streams and rivers (modified from Karr
et al. 1986).

Total IBI Integrity Attributes
 score class

53-60 Excellent Comparable to "least
 impacted" conditions,
 exceptional assemblage
 of species.
45-52 Good Decreased species richness
 (intolerant species in
 particular), sensitive
 species present.
35-44 Fair Intolerant and sensitive
 species absent, skewed
 trophic structure.
23-34 Poor Top carnivores and many
 expected species absent
 or rare, omnivores and
 tolerant species dominant.
12-22 Very poor Few species and individuals
 present, tolerant species
 dominant, diseased fish
 frequent.
<12 No fish No fish captured during
 sampling.

Table 2.--Checklist of fish species collected from the three hydrologic
units including the Wabash River, West Fork White River, and East Fork
White River from three study periods (1990-2004).

 Wabash River

 Family, species, common name 90-95 96-99 01-04

Petromyzontidae
 Ichthyomyzon castaneus,
 chestnut lamprey 1 1
 I. fossor, northern brook lamprey 4
 I. unicuspis, silver lamprey 3
 Lampetra aepyptera,
 least brook lamprey
 L. appendix, American brook lamprey 2 1
Acipenseridae
 Scaphirhynchus platorynchus,
 shovelnose sturgeon 4 1 4
Polyodontidae
 Polyodon spathula, paddlefish 26
Lepisosteidae
 Lepisosteus oculatus, spotted gar
 L. osseus, longnose gar 138 12 2
 L. platostomus, shortnose gar 159 15 63
Amiidae
 Amia calva, bowfin 7 4 3
Hiodontidae
 Hiodon alosoides, goldeye 18
 H. tergisus, mooneye 16
Anguillidae
 Anguilla rostrata, American eel
Clupeidae
 Alosa chrysochloris, skipjack herring
 Dorosoma cepedianum, gizzard shad 3648 267 319
 D. petenense, threadfin shad 6 5
Cyprinidae
 Campostoma anomalum,
 central stoneroller 6715 2166 1136
 C. oligolepis, largescale stoneroller 17 130 92
 Carassius auratus, goldfish
 Ctenopharyngodon idella, grass carp 2
 Cyprinella lutrensis, red shiner 11
 C. spiloptera, spotfin shiner 2018 2328 418
 C. whipplei, steelcolor shiner 512 119 93
 Cyprinus carpio, common carp 630 200 270
 Ericymba buccata, silverjaw minnow 840 360 646
 Erimystax dissimilis, streamline chub 3
 E. x-punctatus, gravel chub 3
 Hybognathus hayi, cypress minnow 11
 H. nuchalis, Mississippi
 silvery minnow 803 82 76
 Hybopsis amblops, bigeye chub 39 295 170
 H. amnis, pallid shiner 3
 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix,
 silver carp 4
 Luxilus chrysocephalus, striped shiner 900 216 301
 L. cornutus, common shiner 6 3
 Lythrurus fumeus, ribbon shiner 9 6
 L. umbratilis, redfin shiner 196 26 126
 Macrhybopsis hyostoma, shoal chub 20 1
 M. storeriana, silver chub 168 5 2
 Nocomis biguttatus, hornyhead chub 62 35 90
 N. micropogon,river chub 317 143 80
 Notemigonus crysoleucus, golden shiner 74 9
 Notropis ariommus, popeye shiner
 N. atherinoides, emerald shiner 862 666 114
 N. blennius, river shiner 242 1625 20
 N. boops, bigeye shiner 6 1
 N. buchanani, ghost shiner 3
 N. heterodon, blackchin shiner 1
 N. heterolepis, blacknose shiner 1
 N. ludibundus, sand shiner 677 576 574
 N. photogenis, silver shiner 1 1
 N. rubellus, rosyface shiner 15 61 98
 N. shumardi, silverband shiner 49 81
 N. volucellus, mimic shiner 14 1 259
 N. wickliffi, channel shiner 91 1 13
 Opsopoeodus emiliare, pugnose minnow
 Phenacobius mirabilis,
 suckermouth minnow 702 157 65
 Phoxinus eythrogaster,
 southern redbelly dace 177 59 37
 Pimephales notatus, bluntnose minnow 5063 2644 2448
 P. promelas, fathead minnow 106 5 36
 P. vigilax, bullhead minnow 364 422 100
 Rhinichthys atratulus,
 western blacknose dace 2587 1061 575
 Semotilus atromaculatus, creek chub 6177 2247 1899
Catostomidae
 Carpiodes carpio, river carpsucker 490 214 127
 C. cyprinus, quillback 62 6 15
 C. velifer, highfin carpsucker 16 11
 Catostomus catostomus, longnose sucker 3
 C. commersoni, white sucker 2441 194 298
 Cycleptus elongatus, blue sucker 85 14 29
 Erimyzon oblongus, creek chubsucker 139 29 46
 Hypentilium nigricans,
 northern hogsucker 990 370 242
 Ictiobus bubalus, smallmouth buffalo 40 2 11
 I. cyprinellus, bi-mouth buffalo 21 4 9
 I. niger, black buffalo 7 14
 Minytrema melanops, spotted sucker 86 37 31
 Moxostoma anisurum, silver redhorse 45 26 12
 M. carinatum, river redhorse 5 2 4
 M. duquesnei, black redhorse 145 127 216
 M. erythrurum, golden redhorse 234 85 310
 M. macrolepidotum, shorthead redhorse 120 14 51
 M. valenciennesi, greater redhorse 1
Ictaluridae
 Ameiurus melas, black bullhead 22 1 9
 A. natalis, yellow bullhead 238 126 128
 A. nebulosus, brown bullhead 4 1 2
 Ictalurus furcatus, blue catfish 24
 I. punctatus, channel catfish 605 83 126
 Noturus eleutherus, mountain madtom 1 1
 N. flavus, stonecat 47 70 16
 N. gyrinus, tadpole madtom 24 9 3
 N. miurus, brindled madtom 7 9 20
 N. nocturnus, freckled madtom 4 4
 Pylodictus olivaris, flathead catfish 81 41 21
Esocidae
 Esox americanus, grass pickerel 82 27 52
 E. lucius, northern pike
 E. lucius x masquinongy, tiger muskie 2
Umbridae
 Umbra limi, central mudminnow 75 9 193
Salmonidae
 Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout
Aphredoderidae
 Aphredoderus sayanus, pirate perch 21 95 6
Fundulidae
 Fundulus catenatus, northern studfish
 F. dispar, starhead topminnow
 F. notatus, blackstripe topminnow 148 148 97
 F. olivaceus, blackspotted topminnow 10
Poeciliidae
 Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish 117 28 13
Atherinidae
 Labidesthes sicculus, brook silverside 54 3 9
Cottidae
 Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin 1411 838 167
 C. carolinae, banded sculpin 27
Moronidae
 Morone chrysops, white bass 45 1 10
 M. chrysops x saxatilis, wiper 11
 M. mississippiensis, yellow bass 6 2 2
 M. saxatilis, striped bass
Centrarchidae
 Ambloplites rupestris, rock bass 260 276 223
 Centrarchus macropterus, flier
 Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish 1312 765 517
 L. gibbosus, pumpkinseed 6 25
 L. gulosus, warmouth 17 11 8
 L. humilis, orangespotted sunfish 121 64 41
 L. macrochirus, bluegill 495 513 254
 L. megalotis, longear sunfish 1872 1473 1293
 L. microlophus, redear sunfish 27 10 8
 L. punctatus, spotted sunfish 8
 Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass 176 60 116
 M. punctulatus, spotted bass 188 150 123
 M. salmoides, largemouth bass 48 48 12
 Pomoxis annularis, white crappie 120 6 9
 P. nigromaculatus, black crappie 10 18 13
Percidae
 Ammocrypta clara, western sand darter
 A. pellucida, eastern sand darter 1
 Etheostoma asprigene, mud darter 5 12
 E. blennioides, greenside darter 938 718 391
 E. caeruleum, rainbow darter 1108 462 488
 E. camurum, bluebreast darter 8 10 13
 E. chlorosomum, bluntnose darter 5
 E. flabellare, fantail darter 467 155 153
 E. gracile, slough darter 9 9 7
 E. histrio, harlequin darter
 E. microperca, least darter 1 2 4
 E. nigrum, johnny darter 1608 417 518
 E. spectabile, orangethroat darter 912 283 287
 E. squamiceps, spottail darter 3 12
 E. zonale, banded darter 4
 Perca flavescens, yellow perch 13 8
 Percina caprodes, logperch 143 59 36
 P. evides, gilt darter 1 2
 P. maculata, blackside darter 33 43 11
 P. phoxocephala, slenderhead darter 92 28 10
 P.sciera, dusky darter 41 115 58
 P. shumardi, river darter 8
 Sander canadense,sauger 22 2 7
 S. vitreum, walleye 8 3 3
Sciaenidae
 Aplodinotus grunniens, freshwater drum 578 182 164

 West Fork White River

 Family, species, common name 90-95 96-99 01-04

Petromyzontidae
 Ichthyomyzon castaneus,
 chestnut lamprey 2
 I. fossor, northern brook lamprey
 I. unicuspis, silver lamprey 3 4
 Lampetra aepyptera,
 least brook lamprey 1
 L. appendix, American brook lamprey 2 3
Acipenseridae
 Scaphirhynchus platorynchus,
 shovelnose sturgeon
Polyodontidae
 Polyodon spathula, paddlefish
Lepisosteidae
 Lepisosteus oculatus, spotted gar 7
 L. osseus, longnose gar 56
 L. platostomus, shortnose gar 30 3
Amiidae
 Amia calva, bowfin 3 1
Hiodontidae
 Hiodon alosoides, goldeye
 H. tergisus, mooneye
Anguillidae
 Anguilla rostrata, American eel
Clupeidae
 Alosa chrysochloris, skipjack herring 3
 Dorosoma cepedianum, gizzard shad 1276 16 27
 D. petenense, threadfin shad 9
Cyprinidae
 Campostoma anomalum,
 central stoneroller 4744 551 1021
 C. oligolepis, largescale stoneroller 191
 Carassius auratus, goldfish 96 1
 Ctenopharyngodon idella, grass carp
 Cyprinella lutrensis, red shiner 3
 C. spiloptera, spotfin shiner 13,822 258 262
 C. whipplei, steelcolor shiner 208 20
 Cyprinus carpio, common carp 221 36 100
 Ericymba buccata, silverjaw minnow 1069 147 120
 Erimystax dissimilis, streamline chub
 E. x-punctatus, gravel chub
 Hybognathus hayi, cypress minnow
 H. nuchalis, Mississippi
 silvery minnow 55 12
 Hybopsis amblops, bigeye chub 39
 H. amnis, pallid shiner
 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix,
 silver carp
 Luxilus chrysocephalus, striped shiner 762 116 47
 L. cornutus, common shiner
 Lythrurus fumeus, ribbon shiner 3 2
 L. umbratilis, redfin shiner 137 87 3
 Macrhybopsis hyostoma, shoal chub 1
 M. storeriana, silver chub 4 2
 Nocomis biguttatus, hornyhead chub 32 4
 N. micropogon,river chub 8 4
 Notemigonus crysoleucus, golden shiner 106 5
 Notropis ariommus, popeye shiner 132
 N. atherinoides, emerald shiner 48 18 22
 N. blennius, river shiner 20
 N. boops, bigeye shiner 1 7
 N. buchanani, ghost shiner 3
 N. heterodon, blackchin shiner
 N. heterolepis, blacknose shiner
 N. ludibundus, sand shiner 891 76 86
 N. photogenis, silver shiner 11 9 24
 N. rubellus, rosyface shiner 61 9 2
 N. shumardi, silverband shiner 186
 N. volucellus, mimic shiner 29 3
 N. wickliffi, channel shiner 2
 Opsopoeodus emiliare, pugnose minnow 1
 Phenacobius mirabilis,
 suckermouth minnow 477 49 11
 Phoxinus eythrogaster,
 southern redbelly dace 70 38
 Pimephales notatus, bluntnose minnow 3404 1268 393
 P. promelas, fathead minnow 23 2 17
 P. vigilax, bullhead minnow 2409 29 71
 Rhinichthys atratulus,
 western blacknose dace 489 131 388
 Semotilus atromaculatus, creek chub 2482 582 968
Catostomidae
 Carpiodes carpio, river carpsucker 76 1 34
 C. cyprinus, quillback 214 9
 C. velifer, highfin carpsucker 8 1
 Catostomus catostomus, longnose sucker
 C. commersoni, white sucker 1099 282 347
 Cycleptus elongatus, blue sucker
 Erimyzon oblongus, creek chubsucker 16 32 9
 Hypentilium nigricans,
 northern hogsucker 600 192 101
 Ictiobus bubalus, smallmouth buffalo 99 2
 I. cyprinellus, bi-mouth buffalo 2
 I. niger, black buffalo
 Minytrema melanops, spotted sucker 59 17 9
 Moxostoma anisurum, silver redhorse 27
 M. carinatum, river redhorse 1
 M. duquesnei, black redhorse 182 31 135
 M. erythrurum, golden redhorse 248 60 136
 M. macrolepidotum, shorthead redhorse 20 5
 M. valenciennesi, greater redhorse
Ictaluridae
 Ameiurus melas, black bullhead 6 5 4
 A. natalis, yellow bullhead 161 36 63
 A. nebulosus, brown bullhead 6 1
 Ictalurus furcatus, blue catfish
 I. punctatus, channel catfish 164 1 9
 Noturus eleutherus, mountain madtom 36 1
 N. flavus, stonecat 16 17
 N. gyrinus, tadpole madtom 2 1 3
 N. miurus, brindled madtom 6 3 12
 N. nocturnus, freckled madtom 3
 Pylodictus olivaris, flathead catfish 36 11
Esocidae
 Esox americanus, grass pickerel 22 9 29
 E. lucius, northern pike 1
 E. lucius x masquinongy, tiger muskie
Umbridae
 Umbra limi, central mudminnow
Salmonidae
 Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout
Aphredoderidae
 Aphredoderus sayanus, pirate perch 1 1
Fundulidae
 Fundulus catenatus, northern studfish
 F. dispar, starhead topminnow 3
 F. notatus, blackstripe topminnow 171 103 115
 F. olivaceus, blackspotted topminnow
Poeciliidae
 Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish 23 31 207
Atherinidae
 Labidesthes sicculus, brook silverside 103 3 3
Cottidae
 Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin 1003 237 238
 C. carolinae, banded sculpin 15 16
Moronidae
 Morone chrysops, white bass 13
 M. chrysops x saxatilis, wiper
 M. mississippiensis, yellow bass 11 7
 M. saxatilis, striped bass 3
Centrarchidae
 Ambloplites rupestris, rock bass 162 107 41
 Centrarchus macropterus, flier
 Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish 1000 343 338
 L. gibbosus, pumpkinseed 2
 L. gulosus, warmouth 8
 L. humilis, orangespotted sunfish 85 2 9
 L. macrochirus, bluegill 897 130 633
 L. megalotis, longear sunfish 2017 674 395
 L. microlophus, redear sunfish 32 1
 L. punctatus, spotted sunfish 6
 Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass 145 101 67
 M. punctulatus, spotted bass 250 71 67
 M. salmoides, largemouth bass 179 11 47
 Pomoxis annularis, white crappie 20 4
 P. nigromaculatus, black crappie 14 4
Percidae
 Ammocrypta clara, western sand darter 1
 A. pellucida, eastern sand darter
 Etheostoma asprigene, mud darter 19 1
 E. blennioides, greenside darter 417 168 138
 E. caeruleum, rainbow darter 809 106 444
 E. camurum, bluebreast darter
 E. chlorosomum, bluntnose darter
 E. flabellare, fantail darter 98 18 118
 E. gracile, slough darter 5 1 1
 E. histrio, harlequin darter
 E. microperca, least darter
 E. nigrum, johnny darter 641 132 595
 E. spectabile, orangethroat darter 646 137 632
 E. squamiceps, spottail darter 1
 E. zonale, banded darter
 Perca flavescens, yellow perch
 Percina caprodes, logperch 44 11 21
 P. evides, gilt darter
 P. maculata, blackside darter 35 17 21
 P. phoxocephala, slenderhead darter 14 6
 P.sciera, dusky darter 19 11 59
 P. shumardi, river darter
 Sander canadense,sauger 2
 S. vitreum, walleye
Sciaenidae
 Aplodinotus grunniens, freshwater drum 464 6

 East Fork White River

 Family, species, common name 90-95 96-99 01-04

Petromyzontidae
 Ichthyomyzon castaneus,
 chestnut lamprey 1 1 4
 I. fossor, northern brook lamprey
 I. unicuspis, silver lamprey 3 3
 Lampetra aepyptera,
 least brook lamprey 1
 L. appendix, American brook lamprey 1 1
Acipenseridae
 Scaphirhynchus platorynchus,
 shovelnose sturgeon
Polyodontidae
 Polyodon spathula, paddlefish
Lepisosteidae
 Lepisosteus oculatus, spotted gar 3
 L. osseus, longnose gar 13 1 6
 L. platostomus, shortnose gar 2 5 4
Amiidae
 Amia calva, bowfin 3 1 1
Hiodontidae
 Hiodon alosoides, goldeye
 H. tergisus, mooneye 1
Anguillidae
 Anguilla rostrata, American eel 1
Clupeidae
 Alosa chrysochloris, skipjack herring 1
 Dorosoma cepedianum, gizzard shad 393 60 364
 D. petenense, threadfin shad 1
Cyprinidae
 Campostoma anomalum,
 central stoneroller 2443 809 2425
 C. oligolepis, largescale stoneroller
 Carassius auratus, goldfish
 Ctenopharyngodon idella, grass carp
 Cyprinella lutrensis, red shiner
 C. spiloptera, spotfin shiner 3939 291 872
 C. whipplei, steelcolor shiner 20 202 74
 Cyprinus carpio, common carp 65 9 74
 Ericymba buccata, silverjaw minnow 187 305 60
 Erimystax dissimilis, streamline chub 5 14
 E. x-punctatus, gravel chub
 Hybognathus hayi, cypress minnow
 H. nuchalis, Mississippi
 silvery minnow 4 192 22
 Hybopsis amblops, bigeye chub 161 39 303
 H. amnis, pallid shiner 2
 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix,
 silver carp
 Luxilus chrysocephalus, striped shiner 849 68 587
 L. cornutus, common shiner 2
 Lythrurus fumeus, ribbon shiner
 L. umbratilis, redfin shiner 125 62 70
 Macrhybopsis hyostoma, shoal chub
 M. storeriana, silver chub 3
 Nocomis biguttatus, hornyhead chub 14 5 41
 N. micropogon,river chub 11 44
 Notemigonus crysoleucus, golden shiner 26 3 2
 Notropis ariommus, popeye shiner
 N. atherinoides, emerald shiner 91 37 42
 N. blennius, river shiner
 N. boops, bigeye shiner 14 11 2
 N. buchanani, ghost shiner 1
 N. heterodon, blackchin shiner
 N. heterolepis, blacknose shiner
 N. ludibundus, sand shiner 140 17 280
 N. photogenis, silver shiner 6 35
 N. rubellus, rosyface shiner 48 18 44
 N. shumardi, silverband shiner 2 7
 N. volucellus, mimic shiner 7 25 12
 N. wickliffi, channel shiner
 Opsopoeodus emiliare, pugnose minnow 12 4
 Phenacobius mirabilis,
 suckermouth minnow 165 39 26
 Phoxinus eythrogaster,
 southern redbelly dace 179 76
 Pimephales notatus, bluntnose minnow 1847 1009 802
 P. promelas, fathead minnow 3
 P. vigilax, bullhead minnow 1023 59 331
 Rhinichthys atratulus,
 western blacknose dace 556 79 98
 Semotilus atromaculatus, creek chub 1650 650 840
Catostomidae
 Carpiodes carpio, river carpsucker 31 3 37
 C. cyprinus, quillback 10 1 1
 C. velifer, highfin carpsucker 5 1
 Catostomus catostomus, longnose sucker
 C. commersoni, white sucker 516 59 270
 Cycleptus elongatus, blue sucker 7
 Erimyzon oblongus, creek chubsucker 48 25 18
 Hypentilium nigricans,
 northern hogsucker 397 27 453
 Ictiobus bubalus, smallmouth buffalo 4 3 27
 I. cyprinellus, bi-mouth buffalo 2 2 6
 I. niger, black buffalo 2
 Minytrema melanops, spotted sucker 73 2 32
 Moxostoma anisurum, silver redhorse 14 3 17
 M. carinatum, river redhorse 3 1 25
 M. duquesnei, black redhorse 67 27 393
 M. erythrurum, golden redhorse 173 58 491
 M. macrolepidotum, shorthead redhorse 30 12 39
 M. valenciennesi, greater redhorse
Ictaluridae
 Ameiurus melas, black bullhead 2 5
 A. natalis, yellow bullhead 102 61 48
 A. nebulosus, brown bullhead 3 2
 Ictalurus furcatus, blue catfish 13
 I. punctatus, channel catfish 156 12 132
 Noturus eleutherus, mountain madtom 5
 N. flavus, stonecat 7 12
 N. gyrinus, tadpole madtom 3
 N. miurus, brindled madtom 4 30 25
 N. nocturnus, freckled madtom
 Pylodictus olivaris, flathead catfish 15 11 43
Esocidae
 Esox americanus, grass pickerel 7 12 39
 E. lucius, northern pike
 E. lucius x masquinongy, tiger muskie
Umbridae
 Umbra limi, central mudminnow 1 1 1
Salmonidae
 Oncorhynchus mykiss, rainbow trout 1
Aphredoderidae
 Aphredoderus sayanus, pirate perch 4 15 12
Fundulidae
 Fundulus catenatus, northern studfish 1 6 8
 F. dispar, starhead topminnow
 F. notatus, blackstripe topminnow 104 46 10
 F. olivaceus, blackspotted topminnow 18
Poeciliidae
 Gambusia affinis, western mosquitofish 1 33
Atherinidae
 Labidesthes sicculus, brook silverside 72 16
Cottidae
 Cottus bairdi, mottled sculpin 312 31 118
 C. carolinae, banded sculpin
Moronidae
 Morone chrysops, white bass 1
 M. chrysops x saxatilis, wiper
 M. mississippiensis, yellow bass
 M. saxatilis, striped bass
Centrarchidae
 Ambloplites rupestris, rock bass 100 71 203
 Centrarchus macropterus, flier 1
 Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish 527 201 243
 L. gibbosus, pumpkinseed 8
 L. gulosus, warmouth 22 3 30
 L. humilis, orangespotted sunfish 1 1
 L. macrochirus, bluegill 711 253 692
 L. megalotis, longear sunfish 1427 629 1407
 L. microlophus, redear sunfish 7 1 17
 L. punctatus, spotted sunfish 4
 Micropterus dolomieu, smallmouth bass 78 13 200
 M. punctulatus, spotted bass 400 115 227
 M. salmoides, largemouth bass 64 24 27
 Pomoxis annularis, white crappie 9 5 34
 P. nigromaculatus, black crappie 1 6 29
Percidae
 Ammocrypta clara, western sand darter 8
 A. pellucida, eastern sand darter 1 5
 Etheostoma asprigene, mud darter 28 21
 E. blennioides, greenside darter 438 276 554
 E. caeruleum, rainbow darter 207 82 380
 E. camurum, bluebreast darter
 E. chlorosomum, bluntnose darter
 E. flabellare, fantail darter 196 171 57
 E. gracile, slough darter 1
 E. histrio, harlequin darter 16 8
 E. microperca, least darter 11 13
 E. nigrum, johnny darter 425 191 328
 E. spectabile, orangethroat darter 253 411 138
 E. squamiceps, spottail darter
 E. zonale, banded darter
 Perca flavescens, yellow perch
 Percina caprodes, logperch 27 11 72
 P. evides, gilt darter
 P. maculata, blackside darter 42 18 35
 P. phoxocephala, slenderhead darter 4 11 29
 P.sciera, dusky darter 58 18 111
 P. shumardi, river darter 4
 Sander canadense,sauger 1 2 5
 S. vitreum, walleye
Sciaenidae
 Aplodinotus grunniens, freshwater drum 14 12 40

Table 3.--Probability estimates of condition +/- 95% confidence
interval for three hydrologic units in the Wabash River drainage
in Indiana (CI = confidence interval, n = number of sites).

 Wabash and tributaries

 1st cycle 2nd cycle
 (1996-1999) (2001-2004)

Integrity class 95% CI n 95% CI n

Excellent 1% [+ or -] 1 2 2% [+ or -] 2 2
Good 10% [+ or -] 6 13 14% [+ or -] 7 17
Fair 46% [+ or -] 11 37 35% [+ or -] 11 27
Poor 35% [+ or -] 11 30 37% [+ or -] 12 23
Very poor 8% [+ or -] 7 5 12% [+ or -] 8 6

 East Fork White River

 1st cycle 2nd cycle
 (1996-1999) (2001-2004)

Integrity class 95% CI n 95% CI n

Excellent 1% [+ or -] 1 1 22% [+ or -] 8 11
Good 9% [+ or -] 7 5 20% [+ or -] 12 8
Fair 30% [+ or -] 15 10 37% [+ or -] 16 12
Poor 53% [+ or -] 16 14 19% [+ or -] 14 6
Very poor 7% [+ or -] 9 2 2% [+ or -] 3 1

 West Fork White River and Lower White River

 1st cycle 2nd cycle
 (1996-1999) (2001-2004)

Integrity class 95% CI n 95% CI n

Excellent 0% 0 6% [+ or -] 8 2
Good 12% [+ or -] 10 6 15% [+ or -] 10 7
Fair 35% [+ or -] 15 12 54% [+ or -] 17 18
Poor 48% [+ or -] 17 12 8% [+ or -] 7 4
Very poor 5% [+ or -] 8 1 17% [+ or -] 12 5

 Wabash and tributaries

 Combined

Integrity class 95% CI n

Excellent 1% [+ or -] 1 4
Good 13% [+ or -] 5 30
Fair 39% [+ or -] 8 64
Poor 36% [+ or -] 8 53
Very poor 11% [+ or -] 6 11

 East Fork White River

 Combined

Integrity class 95% CI n

Excellent 17% [+ or -] 10 12
Good 16% [+ or -] 7 13
Fair 43% [+ or -] 12 22
Poor 22% [+ or -] 7 20
Very poor 2% [+ or -] 2 3

 West Fork White River
 and Lower White River

 Combined

Integrity class 95% CI n

Excellent 3% [+ or -] 4 2
Good 14% [+ or -] 7 13
Fair 45% [+ or -] 12 30
Poor 27% [+ or -] 11 16
Very poor 11% [+ or -] 7 6
COPYRIGHT 2007 Indiana Academy of Science
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Simon, Thomas P.
Publication:Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science
Date:Feb 12, 2007
Words:6700
Previous Article:Small mammals of the Wabash River bottoms.
Next Article:Development, calibration and validation of an index of biotic integrity for the Wabash River.


Related Articles
THE FISHES OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY, INDIANA.
Occurrence and distribution of freshwater mussels in small streams of Tippecanoe County, Indiana.
The Wabash River symposium.
Forest communities and tree species of the Lower Wabash River basin.
Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River drainage of Indiana.
An annotated list of the aquatic insects collected in 2004 in the Wabash River watershed, Indiana.
Present and historic distribution of fishes in South Fork Wildcat creek, Tippecanoe, Clinton and Tipton counties, Indiana.
Biodiversity of fishes in the Wabash River: status, indicators, and threats.
Small mammals of the Wabash River bottoms.
Development, calibration and validation of an index of biotic integrity for the Wabash River.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters