Printer Friendly

Collapsing range of an endemic great plains minnow, peppered chub macrhybopsis tetranema.

INTRODUCTION

Combined effects of drought and fragmentation has led to declines in fish biodiversity across the Great Plains (Perkin et al., 2015a). Perkin et al. (2015b) proposed an "ecological ratchet" for the Arkansas and Ninnescah rivers in Kansas in which several species that declined following moderate to severe droughts (i.e., Palmer Drought Severity Index values < -2 and -3, respectively) were not able to recover because of a highly fragmented river system. They hypothesized this ratcheting mechanism likely first began in the 1960s following reservoir and small-dam construction, fragmenting both rivers and exacerbating the effects of drought on population dynamics of pelagic-spawning minnows (i.e., Arkansas River Shiner Notropis girardi, Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus, and Peppered Chub Macrhybopsis tetranema). There exist several examples where drought in concert with fragmentation may have led to a ratcheting down of other members of this pelagic-spawning reproductive guild, specifically members of the genus Macrhybopsis, across the Great Plains. Kelsch (1994) failed to collect Sturgeon Chub M. gelida in a fragmented reach of the Little Missouri River, North Dakota following a 6 y drought despite the species being common in historical samples. Burrhead Chub M. marconis experienced declines and extirpation following a 10 y period of drought in south Texas due to consecutive failed reproductive efforts (Perkin et al., 2013). Perkin et at. (2013) hypothesized impoundments blocked the recolonization of upstream reaches despite the return of flows, therefore leading to Burrhead Chub extirpation. Recent sampling efforts in the Arkansas River, Kansas showed declines in the probability of occurrence of Peppered Chub from 0.35 [+ or -] 0.15 (mean [+ or -] 95% confidence interval) in 2000-2008 to 0.06 [+ or -] 0.03 in 2011-2013 due to the cumulative effects of fragmentation by dams and consecutive years of moderate to severe drought in the Arkansas River in Kansas (Perkin et al., 2015b). These 2 y of drought encompassed the entire known range of Peppered Chub during summer 2011 and 2012 [see Fig. S4 in Perkin et al (2015b) for intensity and geographic extent of the drought].

The Peppered Chub is a short-lived (approximately 2.5 y; Bonner, 2000), relatively small minnow (max total length = 77mm; Eisenhour, 1999) that inhabits shallow, flowing reaches over clean, sand-gravel substrate (Perkin, 2014). They belong to a highly threatened reproductive guild or ecotype that spawn semi-buoyant eggs into the water column that drift downstream as they develop over several days (pelagic spawners; Bottrell et al., 1964; Perkin and Gido, 2011; Worthington et al., 2014). Survival and reproductive success are thought to be reliant on river discharge (Wilde and Durham, 2008) and connectivity (Perkin and Gido, 2011) because eggs must remain in suspension to avoid settling to the river bottom and being covered in sediment. Hatching occurs after 24-48 h, and larvae continue to drift and develop for 2-3 d before becoming free-swimming (Platania and Altenbach, 1998; Perkin and Gido, 2011). The Peppered Chub is part of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex, which prior to the work of Eisenhour (2004), consisted of six subspecies: M. a. aestivalis, M. a. australis, M. a. hyostoma, M. a. marconis, M. a. sterletus, and M. a. tetranemus. Eisenhour (1999) elevated the Peppered Chub to the species level, distinguishable from other members of the M aestivalis complex based on a suite of morphological characteristics; most notably by its two pairs of long barbels. The Peppered Chub is endemic to the Arkansas River mainstem and its major tributaries in Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas (Eisenhour, 2004). Peppered Chub are currently classified as endangered in Kansas, threatened in New Mexico, species of greatest conservation concern in Texas, and extirpated in Colorado and Oklahoma (Luttrell et al, 1999; Miller and Robison, 2004).

The Peppered Chub was reported to be extirpated from 90% of its historical range and thought to remain in only two geographically isolated populations (Luttrell et al., 1999). One population occurred in parts of the Ninnescah and Arkansas rivers in south-central Kansas and a second in the Canadian River between Ute Reservoir in New Mexico and Meredith Reservoir in Texas (Fig. 1). The Arkansas River in Kansas remains dry throughout the western half of the state and is fragmented by multiple dams along its flowing portions. The Ninnescah River has several low-head dams occurring on the south fork and a large reservoir (Cheney Reservoir) on the north fork. The reach of the Arkansas River that has historically maintained Peppered Chub consists of approximately 140 km downstream of Wichita, Kansas to the upper portions of Kaw Reservoir in Oklahoma. An additional 146 km of river persists in the Ninnescah River downstream of Kingman, Kansas to the confluence with the Arkansas River. The Canadian River population of Peppered Chub is confined to a 220 km reach of river by two large reservoirs (Perkin et al., 2015a).

Peppered Chub are highly susceptible to the coupled effects of fragmentation and drought because they require large intact river reaches (i.e., > 100 km) to complete their life history (Perkin and Gido, 2011) and are relatively short lived (Bonner, 2000). Consequently, 2 y of failed recruitment could have detrimental effects on their populations (Wilde and Durham, 2008). Thus, we compiled recent collecting activities to assess the status of Peppered Chub across its known range following severe drought occurring in 2011 and 2012. Specifically, we assessed if Peppered Chub populations were able to persist during and rebound following drought in Kansas and New Mexico. We also describe long term discharge and water quality from locations along river fragments in Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas where Peppered Chub were thought to still occur to identify trends that might influence their persistence.

METHODS

We compiled records of Peppered Chub throughout its range to capture records of occurrence before and after the drought of 2011 and 2012. These records included museum specimens since the review by Luttrell et al. (1999; Table 1), sampling by the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (KDPWT) on the Ninnescah River (1994-2003), sampling by the City of Wichita (COW) on the Arkansas River (1991-2007), sampling by Kansas State University (Perkin et al., 2015b; unpublished data by the authors) on the Arkansas and Ninnescah rivers (2011-2015), multiple sampling efforts in the Canadian River and associated tributaries in New Mexico (1991-2012; D. L. Propst, unpublished data), and recent sampling conducted by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 2013-2015 on the Canadian River downstream of Ute Reservoir.

Sampling effort was variable across studies (Table 2). In Kansas 32 localities sampled on the Ninnescah (between 37[degrees]39'42"N, 98[degrees]30'07"W and 37[degrees]23'29"N, 97[degrees]20'19"W) and Arkansas (between 37[degrees]40'16"N, 97[degrees]20'38"W and 37[degrees]18'54"N, 97[degrees]09'36"W) rivers encompassed areas where Peppered Chub were previously caught. Sampling gears consisted of either a combination of tote barge electrofishing and seining 300 m reaches (i.e., KDWPT and COW) or only seining in all available habitats for approximately 1 h (i.e., Perkin et al., 20156 and this study). All sites visited during this study on the Ninnescah River were sites sampled by Perkin et al. (20156) in 2011-2013. Sampling on the Arkansas River occurred at sites previously sampled by other projects {i.e., KDWPT, COW, and Perkin et al., 2015) and opportunistically sampled reaches that historically maintained Peppered Chub. Sampling records from the Canadian River system in New Mexico were located between Ute Dam (35[degrees]20'42"N, 103[degrees]26'32"W) to the New Mexico/Texas border (35[degrees]23'37"N, 103[degrees]02'36"W). This 56 km stretch of river included Revuelto Creek an ephemeral tributary that often flows during storm events and was sampled as part of ongoing monitoring efforts for the threatened Arkansas River Shiner Notropis girardi. Discrete mesohabitats were seined in proportion to their occurrence within a site. Due to the variable effort among datasets we transformed data into catch per unit effort (CPUE). Catch per unit effort was calculated as the number of Peppered Chub collected divided by the number of sampling events in a year. We used CPUE to describe patterns in Peppered Chub collections before and after the most recent drought in Kansas and New Mexico.

We feel it is important to acknowledge that the variable sampling efforts combined with small population sizes may have influenced our detection ability (i.e., imperfect detection). However, the habitat from which Peppered Chub are commonly collected (i.e., runs <1 m in depth, over clean sand or gravel) is easily sampled with seines and can produce a large number of individuals if they are abundant in the system (e.g., Cross, 1950; Wilde et al., 2001). Sampling efforts in Kansas were at least as intense as, and collected more individual fishes per sampling event than, sampling in New Mexico where Peppered Chub were collected following the most recent drought. Moreover, previous sampling in Kansas produced Peppered Chub consistently and in greater abundance than more recent sampling despite comparable sampling efforts in reaches that historically maintained Peppered Chub.

To evaluate flow regimes in the Arkansas and Canadian rivers that might influence persistence of Peppered Chub, we used the software program Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA; Richter et al., 1996) to calculate mean monthly discharge ([m.sup.-3] [s.sup.-1]) and the number of high flow pulses for the period between 1970 and 2015 for gages located on the South Fork Ninnescah (USGS gage #07145200), Ninnescah (0714550), and Arkansas (07144550) rivers in Kansas; and Revuelto Creek (07227100) in New Mexico and the Canadian River in New Mexico (07227000) and Texas (07227500). A high flow pulse is a daily discharge exceeding one standard deviation of the long term mean. We chose these two flow parameters because they reflect annual variation in climate (i.e., drought) and their importance to the spawning success of Peppered Chub both by means of egg and larval transport and by providing cues to induce and synchronize spawning (Wilde and Durham, 2008). Additionally, we evaluated water quality in the Canadian River in Texas and the South Fork Ninnescah River in Kansas using data from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's STORET Database (https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/storage-and-retrieval-andwater-quality-exchange) to identify other factors that might influence the persistence and recovery of Peppered Chub.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The last collections of Peppered Chub in Kansas consisted of one individual from the Ninnescah River (Perkin et al., 2015b) and two individuals from the Arkansas River (R. Waters, KDWPT, unpublished data), both of which were collected in 2012. In contrast Canadian River Peppered Chub CPUE declined during the drought in 2012, but they persisted and had rebounded by 2015 (Fig. 2). Peppered Chub were collected in every year prior to and even during the most recent drought, but CPUE declined to zero after the drought in Kansas. Long-term and drought-year (2011-2012) mean monthly discharges were nearly an order of magnitude higher in the Arkansas and Ninnescah rivers when compared to the Canadian River system (Fig. 3). The reach of Canadian River examined appears to be a more seasonal system than the Arkansas and Ninnescah rivers, showing higher mean discharge during summer (June-September) than the South Fork Ninnescah in Kansas. Rivers in Kansas all experienced peak flows in June while all rivers in New Mexico and Texas peaked in August. During the most recent drought in 2011 and 2012, flows in the Canadian River, New Mexico were maintained somewhat due to seepage flow from Ute Reservoir dam. Seepage from the dam maintains baseflows of approximately 0.08 [m.sup.-3] [s.sup.-1] until the river's confluence with Revuelto Creek, an unmanaged perennial tributary, which has a median discharge of 0.12 [m.sup.-3] [s.sup.-1] (S. Davenport, unpublished data). High flow pulses from Revuelto Creek likely provided spawning cues for pelagic spawners in the Canadian River in New Mexico that were reduced or absent during drought years in Kansas (Fig. 4). Contributions from small tributaries both in flow pulses and sediments may be important for the reproductive success of Peppered Chub. The fact Peppered Chub persisted the drought in the lower flows of the Canadian River is suggestive that high flow pulses may be more important than base flows to the persistence of this species, but further research would be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

There may be other factors contributing to the decline of Peppered Chub including water quality, pollution, and possibly the interactions between these and other factors coinciding with fragmentation (Hoagstrom et al, 2011). Water quality issues may have impacted Peppered Chub in the Arkansas River in the summer of 2012. During May of 2012, a fish kill occurred downstream of the City of Wichita when the Lincoln Street Dam was raised halting all flow downstream for 1-2 d. The fish kill was a result of a water treatment facility leaking untreated sewage into the Arkansas River. The combination of drought induced low flows (i.e., below the 95% confidence levels of the long term mean annual discharge; Perkin et al., 2015b) and the raising of the dam led to flows in the river consisting entirely of contaminated effluent. No Peppered Chub were identified among the 652 fishes collected but only three sites were visited in a 2.4 km stretch of river by KDWPT biologists (R. Waters, pers. comm.). Salinity is another factor that could have assisted in the persistence of Peppered Chub in the Canadian River despite lower flows. Salinity effects the buoyancy and developmental rate of the eggs of pelagic-spawning minnows (Mueller, 2013). Faster developmental rates could reduce the length of river that eggs and larvae require before becoming free-swimming (Mueller, 2013). Average annual total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Canadian River downstream of the New Mexico/Texas border (Fig. 1) ranged from 2523-6970 mg/L (4868 [+ or -] 1237; mean [+ or -] sd) in 1985-2011, and from 434-814 mg/L (572 [+ or -] 113) in 1999-2012 in the SF Ninnescah River at Murdock, Kansas. Therefore, although discharge was generally higher in rivers in Kansas, higher TDS in the Canadian River could contribute to increased survival and reproductive success in the Canadian River population allowing them to be more resilient to the ratcheting effects of drought in fragmented systems.

If the Kansas population of Peppered Chub is extirpated, the only remaining population occurs within a highly regulated reach of the Canadian River that has experienced an 88% decline in mean annual discharge since impoundment by Ute Reservoir in New Mexico (Costigan et al., 2012). Given this severe range contraction, Peppered Chub might face extinction unless immediate actions are taken. Much of the historical habitat of the Peppered Chub has been lost completely due to river desiccation following groundwater extraction from the Ogallala Aquifer formations in the upper portions of the Cimarron and Arkansas rivers (Cross et al., 1985). However, declines of the Peppered Chub also coincide with the construction of reservoirs (Luttrell et al., 1999) and the ratcheting mechanism created by the coupled effects of fragmentation and drought (Perkin et al., 2015b). Fragmentation and habitat loss has isolated remaining populations such that natural recolonization is not possible and the only way for Peppered Chub to re-establish in historical reaches, from which the species has been lost, is through repatriation from the Canadian River. This makes the reach of Canadian River shared by New Mexico and Texas of high conservation value. Conservation efforts that help preserve and recover this species include maintenance of river discharge and flow variability (i.e., high flow pulses) and captive spawning programs may need to be started with individuals from the Canadian River to ensure repatriation efforts are possible (Osbourne et al., 2014).

It is notable that Peppered Chub have persisted in the Canadian River system, where discharge is much less than river systems elsewhere in the Arkansas River basin. Wilde and Durham (2008) developed a life history model for this population of Peppered Chub and discharge was the best predictor for age-0 survival. They concluded post-impoundment discharge of the Canadian River, New Mexico and Texas has not been maintained at a level necessary to maintain a stable population (i.e., average annual discharge = 11.9 [m.sup.-3] [s.sup.-1]). Over the course of their 6 y sampling period (1996 to 2001), an 80% decline in CPUE of Peppered Chub was documented, and based on estimated age-1 survival, an 89% population decline was predicted following a single failed reproductive event. Average annual discharge in the Arkansas and Ninnescah rivers during 2011 and 2012 were comparable to the 11.9 [m.sup.-3] [s.sup.-1] recommended by Wilde and Durham (2008) but were not enough to maintain a stable population in Kansas. Despite the disappearance of the Peppered Chub across its historical range, there still remain several reaches of river where repatriation could prove successful (Table 3). These reaches have lengths ranging from 178 to 528 km (Perkin et al., 2015a) and have maintained an average annual discharge greater than 12 [m.sup.-3] [s.sup.-1] determined from USGS gage data (1980-2015).

Regardless of the persistence of this population in Kansas, it is clear the Peppered Chub has experienced declines throughout its entire range and what was once considered a refuge for the species (Hoagstrom et al., 2011) might now be considered a place of recent extirpation. Previous studies (e.g., Cross and Moss, 1987; Cross and Collins, 1995; Eisenhour, 1999; Luttrell et al., 1999; Gido et al., 2010; Perkin et al., 20156) have documented the decline of this and similar Great Plains riverine specialists over the past three decades. Repatriation or supplemental stocking as is done elsewhere for small-bodied cyprinids (e.g., endangered Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Hybognathus amarus in New Mexico; Osborne et al., 2013) is now a necessary first step in recovery, but this alone might not be sustainable or sufficient without taking the proper actions to remedy habitat deficiencies. Specifically, removing (or modifying to allow fish passage) the remaining barriers impeding upstream recolonization of rivers throughout the species' historical range and maintaining adequate seasonal river flows to support juvenile survival (Wilde and Durham, 2008; Perkin et al., 2015a) is likely necessary for recruitment. Construction of a fish passage structure on the Arkansas River in Wichita, Kansas was recently completed in 2010. This fish passage was built specifically for the passage of small-bodied fishes. Although it only reconnects 9 km of river before another low-head dam blocks upstream movement of fishes, it has already allowed for the recolonization of Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides into a reach of river from which the species was previously extirpated (Pennock, 2016) suggesting that fish passage structures such as this can restore upstream connectivity for small-bodied Great Plains fishes.

Acknowledgments.--We thank the past crew members of the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism Stream Survey and Assessment Program who assisted in the collection of data. Additionally, for field assistance during our most recent sampling we thank R. Weber, M. Waters, R. Waters, S. Hedden, Z. Cordes, C. Wellemeyer, C. Hedden, J. Mounts, B. Kerr, and A. Hartford. Shannon Brewer, Mark Pyron, and three anonymous reviewers contributed valuable comments on previous versions of this manuscript. This is contribution number 27 of the Wichita State University Biological Field Station. Funding was provided by a State Wildlife Grant provided by the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism.

LITERATURE CITED

Bonner, T. H. 2000. Life history and reproductive ecology of the Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub in the Canadian River, Texas and New Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

--and G. R. Wilde. 2000. Changes in the Canadian River fish assemblage associated with reservoir construction. J. Freshw. Ecol., 15:189-198.

Bottrell, C. E., R. H. Ingersol, and R. W. Jones. 1964. Notes on the embryology, early development, and behavior of Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus (Gilbert). T. Am. Microsc. Soc., 83:391-399.

Costigan, K H. and M. D. Daniels. 2012. Damming the prairie: Human alteration of Great Plains river regimes. J. Hydrol., 444-445:90-99.

Cross, F. B. 1950. Effects of sewage and of a headwaters impoundment on the fishes of Stillwater Creek in Payne County, Oklahoma. Am. Midi. Nat., 1950:128-145.

--and J. T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Public Education Series Number 14.

--and R. E. Moss. 1987. Historic changes in fish communities and aquatic habitats in plains streams of Kansas, p. 115-165. In: W.J. Matthews and D. C. Heins (eds). Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

--, --, and J. T. Collins. 1985. Assessment of dewatering impacts on stream fisheries in the Arkansas and Cimarron rivers. Museum of Natural History University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Eisenhour, D. J. 1999. Systematics of Macrhybopsis tetranema (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Copeia, 1999:969-980.

--2004. Systematics, variation, and speciation of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex west of the Mississippi River. Bull. Al. Mus. Nat. Hist., 23:9-48.

Gido, K. B., W. K. Dodds, and M. E. Eberle. 2010. Retrospective analysis of fish community change during a half-century of landuse and streamflow changes. J. N Am. Benthol. Soc., 29:970-987.

Hoagstrom, C. W., J. E. Brooks, and S. R. Davenport. 2011. A large-scale conservation perspective considering endemic fishes of the North American plains. Biol. Consent., 144:21-34.

Kelsch, S. W. 1994. Lotic fish-community structure following transition from severe drought to high discharge. J. FreshwaterEcol., 9:331-341.

Luttrell, G. R., A. A. Echelle, W. L. Fisher, and D. J. Eisenhour. 1999. Declining status of two species of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in the Arkansas River basin and related effects of reservoirs as barriers to dispersal. Copeia 1999:981-989.

Miller, R. J. and H. W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Mueller, J. 2013. Effects of temperature, salinity, and suspended solids on the early life history stages of Arkansas River shiner. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Natureserve. 2016. NatureServe Web Service. Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Available http://services.natureserve.org. (Accessed: 10 January 2016).

Osborne, M. J., T. L. Perez, C. S. Altenbach, and T. F. Turner, 2013. Genetic analysis of captive spawning strategies for the endangered Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. J. Hered. 104:437-446.

--, J. S. Perkin, K. B. Gido, and T. F. Turner, 2014. Comparative riverscape genetics reveals reservoirs of genetic diversity for conservation and restoration of Great Plains fishes. Mol. Ecol. 23:5663-5679.

Pennock, C. A. 2016. Fragmentation and fish passage: Can fishways mitigate discontinuities in Great Plains fish communities? M.S. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Perkin, J. S. 2014. Peppered Chub, Macrhybopsis tetranema Gilbert 1886. Pages 189-191 in Kansas Fishes Committee. Kansas Fishes. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.

--and K. B. Gido. 2011. Stream fragmentation thresholds for a reproductive guild of Great Plains fishes. Fisheries, 36:371-383.

--, --, A. R. Cooper, T. F. Turner, M. J. Osborne, E. R. Johnson, and K. B. Mayes. 2015a. Fragmentation and dewatering transform Great Plains stream fish communities. Ecol. Monogr., 85:73-92.

--, --, K. H. Costigan, M. D. Daniels, and E. R. Johnson. 20155. Fragmentation and drying ratchet down Great Plains stream fish diversity. Aquat. Conserv., 25:639-655.

--, Z. R. Shattuck, J. E. Gerken, and T. H. Bonner. 2013. Fragmentation and drought legacy correlate with distribution of burrhead chub in subtropical streams of North America. T. Am. Fish. Soc., 142:1287-1298.

Platania, S. P. and C. S. Altenbach. 1998. Reproductive strategies and egg types of seven Rio Grande basin cyprinids. Copeia 1998:559-569.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D. P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 10:1163-1174.

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2011. Canadian River data synthesis and survey design recommendations, p. 1-145. SWCA report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque New Mexico. Albuquerque: SWCA Environmental Consultants.

Wilde, G. R., T. H. Bonner, and P. J. Zwank. 2001. Diets of the Arkansas River Shiner and the Peppered Chub in the Canadian River, New Mexico and Texas. J. Freshwater Ecol, 16:403-410.

--and B. W. Durham. 2008. A life history model for Peppered Chub, a broadcast-spawning cyprinid. T. Am. Fish. Soc., 137:1657-1666.

Worthington, T. A., S. K. Brewer, T. B. Grabowski, and J. Mueller. 2014. Backcasting the decline of a vulnerable Great Plains reproductive ecotype: identifying threats and conservation priorities. Glob. Change. Biol., 20:89-102.

SUBMITTED: 1 APRIL 2016

ACCEPTED: 27 AUGUST 2016

CASEY A. PENNOCK (1) and KEITH B. GIDO

Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506

JOSHUAH S. PERKIN

Department of Biology, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville 38505

VAUGHN D. WEAVER

SCS Engineers, Wichita, Kansas 67226

STEPHEN R. DAVENPORT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Albuquerque 87109

AND

JOHN M. CALDWELL

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe 87504

(1) Corresponding author: e-mail: pennock@ksu.edu

Caption: Fig. 1-Top) Major rivers and associated water storage reservoirs of the Upper Arkansas River Basin where the Peppered Chub is endemic. Also depicted are USGS gaging stations and EPA STORET water quality collection locations used in data analyses. Bottom) Occurrence records (NatureServe, 2016; modified by the authors) at a USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code scale depicting the historical range of the Peppered Chub, alongside the extant (Canadian River) and recently extirpated (Ninnescah/ Arkansas River) reaches

Caption: Fig. 2--Catch per unit effort on a Log scale of Peppered Chub in Kansas and New Mexico from 1990-2015. No Peppered Chub were collected from Kansas after 2012. Methods used varied by researchers conducting sampling (a)

(a) Sampling in 2005 in New Mexico was intensive depletion sampling of 100 m using three seine crews working simultaneously at each of five sites (SWCA, 2011). For comparison each seine crew and pass was considered a sampling event

Caption: Fig. 3--95% confidence interval bands of mean monthly discharge (1970-2015, grey shading) for the reaches of river last known to maintain Peppered Chub in Kansas (left), and New Mexico and Texas (right). Mean monthly discharge for 2011-2012 (dashed line) is shown to illustrate the effects of the drought on discharge. Y-axes are scaled differently for each panel. Letters correspond with USGS gage locations labeled in Fig. 1

Caption: Fig. 4--Number of high flow pulses during spawning months (May - August) of Peppered Chub in Kansas (left) and New Mexico and Texas (right) before, during, and after the most recent drought years in 2011 and 2012. Rivers are listed in the legend from upstream to downstream. A high flow pulse event was classified as a mean daily flow that exceeded one standard deviation of the long term mean (1970-2015)
TABLE 1--Recent museum records for Peppered Chub by state.
Institution codes where specimens are housed are in parenthesis and
represent: Fort Hays Sternberg Museum (FHSM), KU Biodiversity
Institute (KU), Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (OMNH),
Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB), and Texas Natural History
Collections (TNHC). Records were obtained from VertNet and FishNet2
repositories

Year    Kansas    New Mexico    Texas

1999   1 (FHSM)                1 (TNHC)
2000   1 (KU)
2001   2 (KU)
2002   1 (KU)
2003   1 (KU)
2007                           2 (OMNH)
2009               1 (MSB)

TABLE 2--Sampling efforts from multiple collections in Kansas and
New Mexico from 1990-2015. Records from the Arkansas and Ninnescah
rivers in Kansas and the Canadian River in New Mexico were used to
assess the post-drought status of Peppered Chub in the only two
remaining populations

  State          Rivers              Collectors

Kansas
             Arkansas         City of Wichita

             Ninnescah        Kansas Dept, of Wildlife,
                                Parks and Tourism

             Arkansas,        Perkin et al. (2015),
               Ninnescah        Kansas State University
                                unpub. data
             Arkansas,        Sampling by authors
               Ninnescah
New Mexico
             Canadian,        D. L. Propst, unpub. data
               Revuelto Ck.
             Canadian,        NMDGF and USFWS

  State          Rivers             Gear            Years

Kansas
             Arkansas         tote barge          1991-2007
                                electrofishing,
                                seining
             Ninnescah        tote barge          1994-2003
                                electrofishing,
                                seining
             Arkansas,        seining             2011-2013
               Ninnescah

             Arkansas,        seining               2015
               Ninnescah
New Mexico
             Canadian,        seining             1990-2012
               Revuelto Ck.
             Canadian,        seining             2013-2015

                              Number of   Number of    Mean Number
                              Peppered    Sampling    of Fishes per
  State          Rivers         Chub       Events     Sampling Event

Kansas
             Arkansas            264         133           1909

             Ninnescah           55          40            2185

             Arkansas,           47          211           938
               Ninnescah

             Arkansas,            0          64            1100
               Ninnescah
New Mexico
             Canadian,           596         38            558
               Revuelto Ck.
             Canadian,           261         64            817

                              Total Number
                               of Fishes
  State          Rivers        Collected

Kansas
             Arkansas           253,879

             Ninnescah           87,401

             Arkansas,          197,972
               Ninnescah

             Arkansas,           70,371
               Ninnescah
New Mexico
             Canadian,           21,202
               Revuelto Ck.
             Canadian,           52,295
               Revuelto Ck.

TABLE 3--River reaches that have maintained average annual flows
(1980-2015) predicted to allow for stable populations of Peppered
Chub (Wilde and Durham, 2008), and which have fragment length
characteristics necessary for the completion of Peppered Chub life
history (Perkin and Gido, 2011). Fragment length was determined from
data reported by Perkin et al. (20156)

                                  Fragment
                                   Length     Discharge [+ or -] S.D.
            River                (river km)   ([m.sup.-3] [s.sup.-1])

Cimarron River between Old
  Settlers Diversion Dam and
  Keystone Reservoir, Oklahoma      528         22.9 [+ or -] 11.2
Arkansas and Salt Fork
  Arkansas Rivers downstream
  of Great Salt Plains and Kaw
  Reservoirs, Oklahoma              292         31.8 [+ or -] 13.9
Arkansas and Ninnescah Rivers
  between Wichita/Kingman,
  Kansas and Kaw Reservoir,
  Oklahoma                          251         30.8 [+ or -] 14.4
Arkansas River between Great
  Bend and Wichita, Kansas          178          12.3 [+ or -] 5.8

            River                USGS gage

Cimarron River between Old
  Settlers Diversion Dam and
  Keystone Reservoir, Oklahoma   07159100
Arkansas and Salt Fork
  Arkansas Rivers downstream
  of Great Salt Plains and Kaw
  Reservoirs, Oklahoma           07151000
Arkansas and Ninnescah Rivers
  between Wichita/Kingman,
  Kansas and Kaw Reservoir,
  Oklahoma                       07144550
Arkansas River between Great
  Bend and Wichita, Kansas       07143330
COPYRIGHT 2017 University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Pennock, Casey A.; Gido, Keith B.; Perkin, Joshuah S.; Weaver, Vaughn D.; Davenport, Stephen R.; Cal
Publication:The American Midland Naturalist
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Words:4907
Previous Article:Freshwater fish inventory of the Aleutian Archipelago, Alaska.
Next Article:Provisioning behavior of male and female eastern screech-owls during the post-brooding period.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |