D e cl of a D iv rs e Fish ine e Fauna: Pat e rns of t Im pe ril ent and m Prot c ion in t e e t h Sout e ast rn Unit d St e s h e e at

Me l L W arre n, JK, Paul Ange rm e ie v, vin L Brook s M. Burv, and W e nde lR. H aag l

he southeastern United States harbors the richest freshwater fish fauna on the North American continent north of Mexico (Burr and Mayden, 1992), but portents of decline of this great fauna are increasingly acknowledged (e.g., Burr and Warren, 1986; Mount, 1986; Burkhead and Jenkins, 1991; Etnier and Starnes, 1991; Ross and Brenneman, 1991; Gilbert, 1992; Warren and Burr, 1994; Angermeier, 1995; Menhinick, in press). Southeastern fishes (493 species) comprise about 47 percent of the North American fish fauna (1,061 species) and 62 percent of the fauna in the United States (790 species) (Page and Burr, 1991; Burr and Mayden, 1992). Within the United States, imperilment of southeastern fishes is second only to that of western fishes (Williams et al., 1989; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Warren and Burr, 1994). Unlike the southeastern fish fauna, the western fish fauna of North America is relatively depauperate, and the proportion of the western fish fauna that is extinct or threatened with extinction

106 C HAPTER 5: PATERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

is high (Miller et al., 1989; Moyle and Williams, 1990; Warren and Burr, 1994). In response to wholesale losses of native fishes, comprehensive programs in the west are underway or planned to conserve and recover fish diversity (e.g., Minckley and Deacon, 199 1; Moyle and Yoshiyama, 1994), but success of these reactive approaches are as yet unknown. Increasing recognition of the decline of fishes and aquatic habitats in the Southeast, both harbingers of the western situation (Minckley and Deacon, 1991), should be the clarion call for proactive efforts toward conservation of the richest fish fauna in the United States. Known extinctions of southeastern fishes are limited to two species, the harelip sucker (Moxost a l om acerum ) and whiteline topminnow (Fu n d & al ineat (Miller et al., 1989), bol us) but reduction in range, extreme isolation of extant populations, and extirpation of fishes from entire drainages are common (e.g., Etnier et al., 1979; Burr and Page, 1986; Starnes and Etnier, 1986; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994; Warren et al., 1994). Fish extinction or local extirpation is nearly always attributable to multiple human impacts, and cumulative effects from complex aquatic degradation may obscure association of geographic, population, or ecological characteristics with extinction or extirpation patterns (Miller et al., 1989; Moyle and Leidy, 1992; Frissel, 1993; Angermeier, 1995). Successful management for maintenance of fish diversity in the Southeast is, as in the West, a battle against extinction (Minckley and Deacon, 1991) and ultimately, a battle for ecological integrity at landscape scales (Angermeier and Karr, 1994). Studies of fishes (Sheldon, 1987; Etnier and Starnes, 1991; Nagel, 1391; Angermeier, 1995), island birds (Terborgh and Winter, 1980; Karr, 1990), and meta-population dynamics (Hanski, 1982) relate the process of extinction to factors that decrease habitat area and increase insularization (Angermeier, 1995). However, loss of diversity via extinction is not usually observable nor cataclysmic. Rather, the process is incremental with total extinction preceded by local or regional extirpations that usually reflect a populations sensitivity to decreasing habitat area and increasing isolation (Angermeier, 1995). Recent state and regional analyses of extirpation patterns (Sheldon, 1987; Etnier and Starnes, 199 1; Nagel, 199 1; Moyle and r Leidy, 1992; Flssel, 1993) indicate that landscape-scale phenomena such as decreasing habitat area and increasing habitat fragmentation are associated strongly with regional loss of fish diversity. Theoretical considerations suggest that local extinction is accelerated when landscapes are insularized if meta-population dynamics are important (Hanski, 1982). Meta-population concepts have been applied only recently to stream fish conservation issues (Schlosser and Angermeier, 1995). Understanding (and ultimately preventing) anthropogenic extinction is likely to require greater focus on landscape-level patterns and processes than in traditional conservation approaches. The Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, is a potentially powerful statutory vanguard for proactive management for ecological integrity of aquatic systems (Blockstein, 1992; Angermeier and Karr, 1994), but the last line of defense against extinction of fishes in the United States is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. To effectively implement existing laws, two primary types of information are needed in the conservation arsenal (Warren and Angermeier, in press): accounting and ecological information. Accounting information (e.g., the presence or absence of taxa or communities) comes from inventories of sites, watersheds, or ecoregions. These data are necessary to integrate levels and geographic distributions of fish diversity across multiple spatial scales and to ident& fishes and fish communities that are unique, rare, or imperiled. Ecological information, such as

M . L. W A R R E N, JR ., P. L. A N G E R M E IE R , B . M . B U R R,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

107

habitat needs or evolutionary history, helps elucidate factors involved in the generation and maintenance of fish diversity, may help predict potential losses of fish diversity, enhances successful recovery of diminished fish diversity, and identifies taxa or communities that are sensitive indicators of ecological integrity. The availability and synthesis of these two types of information are requisite to elucidating landscape-level patterns and developing effective management for native fishes. Basic accounting information is available for southeastern fishes but has not been generally synthesized or analyzed for conservation assessment or planning (Etnier and Starnes, 1991; Angermeier, 1335; Warren and Angermeier, in press). Although ecological information also is available, the quality of that information varies widely for different fishes. As such, we rely here primarily on accounting information to discern patterns of imperilment at landscape scales. To date, there has been little effort to examine large-scale patte;ns of diversity and imperilment of southeastern fishes with the objectives of discovering general principles underlying imperilment that may be useful in proactive management or conservation triage (Frissel, 1393; Angermeier, 1995). We provide here a beginning toward the large-scale synthesis of accounting and to a <limited extent ecological information for fishes of the southeastern United States. In doing so, we present an up-to-date, comprehensive inventory of fishes of the Southeast and use asp geographical d 1 ays of fish and stream diversity and imperilment to convey the richness, spatial extent, and variation in these characteristics. For individual fishes and fish families, we ask two questions: is range size associated with imperilment, and is imperilment a function of familial membership? For major river drainages of the Southeast, we pose three questions: is fish imperilment associated with drainage area, native fish taxa richness, endemism, or stream-type diversity; which of these variables are the best predictors of imperilment; and what are the implications of the identified predictors? Our specific objectives are to provide an updated distributional checklist of all southeastern freshwater fishes; summarize geographical patterns of fish imperilment, fish diversity, and stream diversity by state and major rivers in the southeastern United States; and examine relationships of numbers of imperiled taxa to native fish taxa richness, geographic range, drainage area, and stream-type diversity. We believe the maps and accompanying analyses are useful initial steps in prioritizing and coordinating conservation actions for fishes and other aquatic resources in the Southeast and in highlighting the urgent need for holistic approaches to aquatic conservation.

METHODS Geographic Units

Our study area, referenced as the Southeast or southeastern United States, includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Figure 1). We followed Warren and Burr (I 994) for the number of native fishes in each state. Although these totals may not exactly match those of others, they do illustrate patterns in fish diversity and levels of imperilment among southeastern states (Warren and Burr, 1994). Within the 1 l-state study area, we recognized 33 drainage units (DUl-DU33) grouped

108

C HAPTER

5:

P ATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

Figure 1. Tot num be r of nat f h t (uppe r val ] num be r of im pe rild f h t al ive is axa ue , e is axa [m iddl e val ] and pe rce ntof t al ive f h f ue , ot nat is auna t atis im pe rild [l e r or righ t v ue ] f e lve n s out h e ow al or e h e as t rn s t e s (m odif d from W arre n and Burr, 19 9 41. I pe rild f h t e at ie m e is axa are t os e incl d in h ude Am e rican Fis h e rie s Socie t cons e rvat s t us cat gorie s [s e e W il s e t al 19 89 ). Dark t l t y ion at e l iam ., o igh s h ading indicat s h igh e s t t l e s t lve l of nat t rich ne s s . e o ow e s ive axa

Ig into 11 regions (A-K) (Table 1; F ure 2). We delimited drainage units and regions based upon fish fauna1 similarity analyses (Burr and Warren, 1986; Hocutt et al., 1986; Swift et al., 1386; Warren et al., 1991), vicariance biogeography analyses (Mayden, 1988), drainage propinquity and interconnectivity, and debauchment into a common lake, sound, or bay (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, DUl-DU2; Albemarle and Pamlico sounds, DU3-DU4; Lake Pontchartrain, DU2 1). As a measure of stream-type diversity, we calculated the number of hydrologic-physiographic types for each drainage unit and state in the study area. Each stream type is a unique combination of three attributes: drainage unit, stream size, and physiography.

M. L. W A R R E N, JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , B. M. BU R R , AND W . R. H AAG 1 0 9

St e s . at

Table 1. H ie rarch icalis tof re gions (A-H ]and drainage unit (l f th e s out e as t rn Unit d l s -33) or h e e

A. Western Chesapeake Bay Region 1) Potomac-Rappahannock-York River Drainages 2) James River Drainage B. Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds Region 3) Roanoke River Drainage (including Chowan River) 4) Tar-Neuse River Drainages C. Long-Onslow Bays/Cooper-Santee Region 5) Cape Fear River Drainage (including coastal drainages from Cape Lookout to mouth of Cape Fear River) 6) Peedee River Drainage (from mouth of Cape Fear River to and including Peedee River) 7) Santee-Cooper River Drainages (from mouth of Peedee River to mouth of Cooper River) P. Edisto-Savannah-Altamaha Region (mouth of Cooper River to and including Altamaha River) 8) Edisto-Combahee River Drainages (from mouth of Cooper River including Combahee and Coosahatchie systems to mouth of Savannah River) 9) Savannah River Drainage 10) Ogeechee-Altamaha River Drainages (from mouth of Savannah River to and including Altamaha River) E. Peninsular Florida Region 11) Satilla-St. Marys-St. Johns River Drainages (from mouth ofAltamaha River to and including St. Johns River) 12) Everglades-Tampa Bay-Waccasassa River Drainages (northwest to and including Waccasassa River) 13) Suwannee-A&la-Ochlockonee River Drainages (from mouth of Waccasassa River to Apalachicola Bay) F. Apalachicola-Florida Panhandle Region a 1 ICO 14) Ap ac h 1a B asin (including Chipola, Chattahoochee, and Apalachicola rivers) 15) St. Andrew-Choctawhatchee-Pensacola Bay Drainages G. Mobile Bay Basin Region 16) Coosa-Tallapoosa River Systems I 7) Lower Alabama-Cahaba River Systems (including Mobile Bay) 18) Tombigbee-Black Warrior River Systems H. Pascagoula-Pearl-Pontchartrain Region 19) Pascagoula-Biloxi-Bay St. Louis Drainages (from Mobile Bay including Escatawpa and Bay St. Louis systems to mouth of Pearl River) 20) Pearl River Drainage 21) Lake Pontchartrain Drainage (from mouth of Pearl River)

110 C HAPTER

5:

PATERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

Table 1. Continued.

I. Yazoo-Black-Mississippi Minor Tributary Region 22) Minor Mississippi Tributaries South (eastern tributaries from mouth of North River to mouth of Black River) 23) Black-Yazoo River Systems 24) Minor Mississippi Tributaries North (from mouth of Yazoo River to and including Mayfield Creek) 25) Mississippi River Mainstem J. Tennessee-Cumberland Region 26) Lower Tennessee River System (from mouth Sequatchie River downstream) 27) Upper Tennessee River System (from and including Sequatchie River upstream) 28) Cumbcrland River System K. Southeastern Ohio River Region 29) Green-Tradewater River Systems (from Mayfield Creek to mouth of Green River) 30) Kentucky-Salt River Systems (from mouth of Green River to mouth of Licking River) 3 1) Licking-Big Sandy R tver Systems (from and including mouth of Licking River to mouth Guyandotte River) 32) Kanawha-New-Guyandotte River Systems (from and including Guyandotte to Kanawha-New) 33) Ohio River Mainstem

Drainage units are defined in Table 1. Using a 1: 1 O-scale map (Fenneman and Johnson, I964), we recognized three stream sizes: <fourth order, fifth through seventh order, and 2 eighth order. We used six physiographies (Fenneman and Johnson, 1964): Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, Appalachian Plateau, and Interior Low Plateaus. We took drainage-unit areas (n = 30) from stream gauging station compendia (Anderson, 1350; Hains, 1968) and Burr and Warren (1986), Swift et al. (1986), and Jenkins and Burkhead (1994). We did not estimate areas for DU12, DU25, or DU33.

Fauna1 Status
We obtained presence or absence and native versus non-indigenous status of fishes within a particular drainage unit (Appendix 1) from Lee et al. (1980), Hocutt et al. (1986), Startles and Etnier (1986), and Swift et al. (1986). We updated this information from distribution maps in Burr and Warren (1986), Page and Burr (1991), Ross and Brenneman (199 I), Etnier and Starnes (1993), and Jenkins and Burkhead (1994). We obtained distribution information concerning species described subsequent to the previously cited works, those resurrected from synonymy, and subspecies elevated to species from the following sources: Bauer et al. (1995, Et ost a scot i); Boschung et al. (1992, h om t ictogast er); Gilbert et al. (1992, Et ost u ch erm ock i); Burr and Page (1993, Prvcina st h om assom a al abam ae); Page et al. Fu n d u lcs n w opt at r and E: rubriJFons); Mayden (I 993, EL z t u

M. L. W A R R E N , JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , B. M. BU R R ,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

111

Figure 2. Drainage unit w it in t e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . Num be rs re f re nce drainage unit s h h h e e at e nam e s and de l it ions s e t f im at orth in Tabl 1. e

(1992, Et e ost n ch i e n e n s e , E. pseudouul um , E. ooph yl E. cororut and E. forbesi); h om ut ax, , Suttkus (133 1, Not ropis ruj inesquei); Suttkus and Etnier (199 1, Et e ost n t h poosne and b om d E. brev irost rum ); Suttkus and Bailey (1993, Et eost a col h om orosum and E. b e lat l or); Suttkus et al. (1994a, Et eost a runeyi, E.L neri, and E. ram seyi); Suttkus et al. (19 9 413, Pe r& a h om uch aurora and I? b rev u h ); Thompson (19 9 5, Percina aust icu roperca); Warren (1972, L epom is m in i& u s ); Warren et aI. (1994, NOD-opis n&zonntz~s); Williams and CIemmer (1991, Sc~ zpbirh ynch us sut k usi); and Wood and Mayden (1993, Et eost u d ougl t h om asi, E . ch urk w acbat e , and E. e t ah n e ). For native fishes, we followed the familial arrangement, t ow common names, and nomenclature of Mayden et al. (19 9 2) , and for exotic species, Page and Burr (1991). In the checklist (Appendix l), we arranged genera and species aIphabetitally within families.

112 C HAPTER 5: PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

SOUTHEAS

Unique taxa and range extent are indices of endemicity and cosmopolitanism, respectively, across the Southeast, as judged from known historical distributions of extant native fishes. Unique taxa are those restricted to one drainage unit. Most of these are endemic to one drainage unit in the Southeast, but a few are peripheral and occur outside the area. Range extent is the number of drainage units in which a particular taxon occurs or historically occurred. We took the conservation status of fishes from lists published by the American Fisheries Society (AFS) (D eacon et al., 1979; Williams et al., 1989) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994a, 1994b) (Appendix 1). Re f erence to imperilment or imperiled includes those taxa with any one of three AFS conservation status categories as recognized by Williams et al. (1989). We used this definition of imperilment for statistical analyses because of the time lag between recognition of a species as being imperiled and actual protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Reffalt, 199 1; Warren and Burr, 1994). The AFS categories included endangered (AFS-E), threatened (AFS-T), and of special concern (AFS-SC). We a 1 so used two combinations of these, AFS-ET and AFSETSC, in analyses to distinguish among: 1) the most critically imperiled fishes and 2) all fishes with a conservation status, respectively. Reference to federal status categories included endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed endangered (PE), proposed threatened (PT), candidate 1 (Cl), and candidate 2 (C2) as listed in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994a, 1994b). Protected federal categories included only the first four of these (Littell, 1992). We calculated percentage imperilment as the number of imperiled fishes in a drainage unit divided by the total number of native fish taxa in that unit x 100. We estimated percentage increase in imperilment as the total number of imperiled fish taxa in a drainage unit minus the total number of taxa recognized in Deacon et al. (1979) divided by the native fish taxa richness in the unit x 100. As ostensible temporal rates, we recognize these estimates do not account for the discovery of new or better distribution information for fishes nor the discovery of previously unrecognized taxa. As such, the assumption of a linear increase in imperilment over the ten-year interval may be invalid. The Deacon et al. (1979) and Williams et al. (1989) pa p ers remained, however, the only temporal benchmarks available from which estimates could be made.

Statistical Analyses
We calculated familial imperilment, expressed in percent, as the number of imperiled taxa (AFS-ETSC) in a family divided by the number of native taxa represented in that family in the Southeast. We tested independence oftotal imperiled taxa in a family and familial taxa richness for the six most taxa-rich families using the likelihood ratio test (LI) (StatXactTurbo, Mehta and Patel, 1992; G-test equivalent, Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). To help insure that no variables with potentially useful associative or predictive value were overlooked, we conducted all hypothesis testing at p < 0.10 (see Angermeier, 1995 and papers cited therein). We assessed the relationship between range extent and imperilment across fish taxa using the Kruskal-Wallis test, analysis of variance with a priori orthogonal contrasts of means, and logistic regression (SAS Institute, Inc., 1994). For the Kruskal-Wallis test and analysis of variance, class variables were AFS-E, AFS-T, AFS-SC, and no status; the response variable was range extent. For logistic regression, imperilment (AFS-ETSC) and no status were the response variables, and range extent, the independent variable. We

M. L. WA R R E N , JR ., P. L. ANGERMEIER , B. M. BURR ,

AND

W. R. HAAG 113

evaluated goodness of fit of the logistic model following Hosmer and Lemeshow (1989). We tested total native taxa richness, imperilment (AFS-ET and AFS-ETSC), unique taxa, and stream-type diversity across the 33 drainage units for the departure of spatial distribution from random using the index of Dispersion (I,)) where: I,, = sL(n - 1)/x and sL is the variance; n, the sample size; and x is the mean (Southwood, 1978). The index is distributed approximately as x2 and approaches zero for samples from a random spatial distribution (i.e., Poisson distribution). Conversely, a large I,, implies spatial aggregation or clumping. Across drainage units, we examined relationships of imperilment (AFS-ET and AFSETSC) to drainage-unit area, unique taxa, stream-type diversity, and total native taxa richness using correlation and multiple regression analyses in SAS Institute, Inc. (1994). We used both nonparametric and parametric correlation coefficients (Kendalls tau-b and Pearson respectively). We used Type II sums of squares to assess relative predictive capabilities s, of several independent variables for imperilment (Angermeier and Schlosser, 1989). After examination of scatterplots, we log-transformed drainage-unit area, imperilment, and native taxa richness as log,,,(x) or log,,,(x + 1) to minimize effects of non-linearity (Sokal and Rohlf, 198 I).

RESULTS
We compiled a comprehensive list of 530 freshwater fish taxa for the southeastern United States (Appendix 1). This inventory included 496 extant native taxa (493 species) and 34 nonindigenous, established fishes. Interdrainage transfers of indigenous fishes by humans also are common in the Southeast. At least 62 indigenous southeastern fish species, 13 percent of the fauna, have been introduced to drainages in the Southeast to which they are not native. Eighty-four fish taxa in the Southeast are recognized as imperiled (Table 2). Fifty taxa (ten percent of the fauna) are placed in AFS-E and AFS-T categories and 34 (seven percent) are recognized as AFS-SC. Thirty-two fishes (six percent of the fauna) are in protected federal categories and an additional 52 (11 percent) are candidate species. Although total numbers recognized in federal status categories versus AFS status categories are equal, the AFS assessment differs notably in the number of fish species considered threatened. By either source about 17 percent of the southeastern fish fauna is considered in need of conservation actions.

Patterns of Diversity and Imperilment Among States

The southeastern states have a high diversity of fishes, moderate to high imperilment, and a wide range of stream-type diversity. Six southeastern states have native freshwater fish faunas of 200 or more taxa (Figure 1). Tennessee and Alabama are centers of diversity; each harbors at least 257 native fish taxa. Kentucky and Georgia follow with 220 and 219 fishes, respectively. No southeastern state has fewer than 119 fish taxa. Nine of the 11 southeastern states support ten or more imperiled fishes (Figure 1). Alabama and Tennessee have the highest number of imperiled fishes (30 and 40 taxa, respectively) followed by Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia (18-2 1 fishes). Percentage imperilment is highest in Tennessee (15.6 percent), is greater than ten percent in Alabama, North Carolina, and Virginia, and is lowest in West Virginia (6.1 percent). The Southeast lies within several major physiographic regions and is drained by numerous large rivers. These factors are reflected in the tally by state for stream-type diversity. Stream-type diversity ranges from seven stream types in Louisiana to 42 in Virginia. Geor-

114 C HAPTER 5: PATERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

SOUTHEASI

Table 2. Fe de raland Am e rican Fis h e rie s Socie t [AFS] cons e rvat s t us cat gory t al f y ion at e ot s or f h e s of t e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . is h h e e at St us Categories at Endangered Proposed Endangered Threatened Proposed Threatened Subtotal Candidate Special Concern Total Federal 18 AFS

14 36 50 34

1 13 32 52 84

84

gia, Alabama, and North Carolina also show high stream-type diversity (2 34; Figure 3).

P&terns of Imperilment Among Fish Families

Imperilment is not distributed evenly among fish families in the Southeast. Of 30 families of native fishes, 12 have one or more imperiled members (Table 3). Among these 1 2 families, percent imperilment is variable, ranging from seven percent regarding the sunfishes (Centrarchidae) co 86 percent regarding the sturgeons (Acipenseridae). High percent imperilment also occurs in the pygmy sunfishes (Elassomatidae) and cavefishes (Amblyopsidae), with 50 percent and 40 percent (respectively) of family members imperiled. Among the six most taxa-rich families, imperilment scatus (AFS-ETSC versus no status) and family membership are associated (LI = 30.41, p < 0.0001, 5 df) (Table 4). The perches and darters (Percidae, primarily the genera A m m ocvypta, Et e ost a, and Peercina) h om and bullhead catfishes (Ictaluridae, mostly madtoms of the genus Noturus) have more imperiled members than expected based on their representation in the fauna; the suckers (Catostomidae) are imperiled in approximate proportion to fauna1 representation; and the minnows (Cyprinidae), topminnows (Fundulidae), and sunfishes (Centrarchidae) have fewer imperiled taxa than expected (Table 4).

Imperilment and Range Extent

Imperilment is related negatively to range extent for native fishes in the Southeast. Both the Kruskal-Wallis test and analysis of variance showed significant differences in range extent among status categories (Xl = 9 .08, p < 0.0282; F = 3.674, p < 0.0122, respectively). Orthogonal contrasts of the means indicated range extent of imperiled taxa is significantly lower rhan non-imperiled Caxa (F = 10.63, p < O.O012)(Table 5). Contrasts did not reveal significant differences in range extent among imperiled taxa (AFS-SC versus AFS-ET, F = 1.17, p < 0.28; AFS-E versus AFS-T, F = 0.47, p < 0.47), but mean range extent was distributed along an increasing gradient from AFS-E to AFS-SC (Table 5). Probability of imperilment increased with decreasing range extent. Logistic regression, modeling the probability of imperilment on range extent, yielded a significant model with a good fit (a = -1.16, Wald X = 9 .07, p < 0.0026; b = -0.06, Walds xL = 50.15, p < s 0.0001; Hosmer and Lemeshow X = 4.97, p = 0.3855). Calculations from estimates of

M. L.

WARREN,JR.,

P L.

ANGERMEIER,

B. M. BURR,

AND

W. R. HAAG 115

25 0 25 50 100 200 m---e SCALE OF MILES

Figure 3. Stre am -t ype dive rs it (num be r of s tre am t s ) in e lve n s out e as t rn s t e s . Dark t y ype e h e at o l ts h ading indicat s h igh e s tt l e s tlve l ofdive rs it igh e o ow e s y.

m od e lparam e t rs (f l ing Rit and R ant 1333) indicat d p rob abily of im peril ent e ol ow a a, e it m incre as e s f rom > 0.1 t > 0.2 as range e xt o ent d e cre as e s f rom < 16. t < 3. d rainage unit 2 o 5 s.

Geographic Patterns Among Drainage Units

FISH TAXA RICHNESS Fish div rsit am ong t e 33 d rainage unit w as ls s v e y h s e ariab l t an any ot e r at ribut e h h t e e xam ined and w as not dist ribut d rand om l (Tab l 6). D rainage unit w it t e h igh e s t e y e s h h f ish species rich ness (> I50 t axa) f orm e d a ge ograph ical cont l y iguous core of div rsit e y (Figure 4; A ppendix 1) t at incl d e d t e L e r Te n n e s s e e R i v r Syst m (DU26), h u h ow e e Cum b e rl and R i v r Syst m (D U 28), and Green-Trad e w at r R i v r Syst m s (DU29 ). A rough e e e e e

116

C HAPTER

5:

PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

S OU T H E A S T

Table 3. Fam il im pe ril e nt [Le ., num be r of im pe rild t ial m e axa in f il pe rce nt of f il t am y; am y axa t at h am ial at or are im pe rild re porte d in pare nt e s e s ), f il t rich ne s s , and pe rce nt f il re pre s e nt ion f e h am ialaxa nat f h e s of t e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . I pe rild t ive is h h e e at m e axa are t os e re cognized by t e Am e rih h can Fis h e rie s Socie t (s e e W il s e tal 19 89 ). y l iam .,

Family Acipenseridae Amblyopsidae Amiidae Anguillidae Aphredoderidae Atherinidae Catostomidae Centrarchidae Clupeidae Cottidae Cyprinidae Cyprinodontidae Elassomatidae Esocidae Fundulidae Casterosteidae Hiodontidae Ictaluridae Lepisosteidae Lotidae Moronidae Percidae Percopsidae Petromyzontidae Poeciliidae Polyodontidae Rivulidae Salmonidae Sciaenidae Umbridae

Familial Imperilment

Familial Taxa Richness 7 5 1 1 1 3 34 28 8 7 151 2 6 3 22 1 2 33 5 t, 152 1 8 4 1 1 1 1 2

Familial Percent of Native Fishes 1 1 <l <l <l <1 7 6 2 1 31 <I 1 <l 4 <l <l 7 1 <1 <I 31 <l 2 <I <l <I <l <l <l

6 (86)
2 (40) 0 0 0 0 6 (18) 2 (7) 11:4) 16 (11) 0 3 (50) 2Y9) 0 0 7 (21) 0 0 361:4) 0 0 0 l(100) l(100) 0 0 0

semicircle of secondary richness (125 to 147 fishes) is formed to the south (Mobile Basin Region, DU16-DU18), east (Upper Tennessee River System, DU27), and west (Minor Mississippi Tributaries North, DU24) of the richest units.
UNIQUE TAXA

Among all 33 drainage units, 128 fishes (26 percent of the native fauna) are unique to a given, single unit. Numbers of unique taxa across drainage units were highly variable spatially and were not distributed randomly (Table 6). A primary center of unique taxa (> 10 unique taxa) was located in the Coosa-Tallapoosa River Systems (DU16) and the Tennessee-Cumberland Region (DU26-28) (F.g ure 5). A secondary tier of unique taxa (five I

M. L. W ARREN,JR.,

P L.

ANGERMEIER, B. M. BURR,

A ND

W . R. HAAG

117

Figure 4. Nat f h t ive is axa rich ne s s [i.e ., num be r of t axa) in 33 drainage unit of t e s out e as t rn s h h e Unit d St e s . Dark t l ts h ading indicat s h igh e s t t l e s tlve l of rich ne s s . e at o igh e o ow e s

to seven unique taxa) occurred peripheral to the primary center and included the TombigbeeBlack Warrior River Systems (DUl and Apalachicola-Florida Panhandle Region (DUI 48) DU15) to the southwest and east, respectively; the Green-Tradewater River Systems (DU23) to the northwest; and the Roanoke River Drainage (DU3) and Kanawha-New-Guyandotte River Systems (DU32) to the northeast.
LEVELS OF IMPERILMENT

Imperilment was highly variable among drainage units and neither AFS-ET nor AFSETSC status combinations were distributed randomly (Table 6). Highest imperilment overlayed the core of drainage units with high numbers of unique taxa and, in part, units of highest taxa richness (Figure 6). The d rainage units with highest numbers of unique

118 C HAPTER 5: PA TT ERNS

OF

F ISH IM PERI MENT L

IN THE

S OUTHEAST

Table 4. I pe ril e nt f th e s ix m os t dive rs e f h f il s in t e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . m m or is am ie h h e e at Expe ct d val s re fe cta 17 pe rce nt ove ralim pe ril e nt of t e s out e as t rn f h f e ue l l m h h e is auna. A l e l ood ik ih rat t s t indicat d as s ociat be t e e n s t us (im pe rild vs nonim pe rild] and f il m e m be rs h ip io e e ion w at e e am y (LI = 30.41, p < 0.0001, 5 df ).

Family Percidae (perches and darters) Ictaluridae (bullhead catfishes) Catostomidae (suckers) Cyprinidae (minnows and carps) Fundulidae (topminnows) Centrarchidae (sunfishes)

Imperilment Observed Expected 36 (24) 7 (21) 6 (18) 16 (11) 2 (9) 2 (7) 26 6 6 26 4 5

taxa (Tennessee-Cumberland Region, DU26-DU28; C oosa-Tallapoosa River Systems, DUl6) also had the highest percentages of imperiled fishes (16 to 19 taxa, 9.2 to 12.6 percent, respectively)(F ure 6). The Lower Alabama-Cahaba River Systems (DU17) and Ig the Kanawha-New-Guyandotte River Systems (DU32) formed a secondary tier of imperilment. Imperilment was lowest along drainages of the Atlantic and easternmost Gulf slopes but ranged as high as seven taxa and seven percent of drainage-unit taxa richness.
INCREASES IN IMPERILMENT

For all drainage units combined, imperiled species increased from 14.4 to 17.4 percent of total native fishes from 1979 to 1989 (D eacon et al., 1979; Williams et al., 1989). Percentage increases in imperilment among drainage units are uneven for the ten-year period, but no unit showed decreases (Figure 7). The largest increases (greater than three percent) occurred in two geographically contiguous drainage units, the Coosa-Tallapoosa (DU16) and the Upper Tennessee (DU27) river systems, both with the highest numbers of imperiled fishes (Figures 6 and 7), and a geographically disjunct unit, the Mississippi River Mainstem (DU25). Eleven other units showed increases from one to two percent: Roanoke River Drainage (DU3); Edisto-Savannah-Altamaha Region (DU8-DU 10); Everglades-Tampa Bay-Waccasassa River Drainages (DU12); the remainder of the Mobile Bay Basin Region (DU17, DUlX); Lower Tennessee River System (DU26); and units in the Southeastern Ohio River Region (DU31-DU33). With the exceptions previously noted, most streams on the Atlantic and Gulf slopes, the Mississippi Embayment, and the Southeastern Ohio River Region showed low (less than one percent) or no percentage increases in imperilment.
STREAM-TYPE DIVERSITY

Stream-type diversity among drainage units was variable over the study area and was not characterized by abrupt geographic breaks or discontinuities (Figure 8). The departure of the distribution of stream-type diversity from random was weaker than for native taxa richness, imperilment, or unique taxa (Table 6). High stream-type diversity occurred in drainage units that arise in uplands and continue through and/or across lowlands; low

M. L. WARREN, JR., P L. ANGERMEIER , 6. M. BURR,AND W.R.HAAG 119

y 0 25 50 1

0 200

SCALEOF MILES

Figure 5. Num be rs ofuniq ue f h t in 33 drainage unit oft e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . Dark is axa s h h e e at t l t s h ading indicat s h igh e s tt l e s t lve l of uniq ue t o igh e o ow e s axa.

dive rs it occurred in units primarily restricted to lowlands (Figure 8). Drainage units with y the highest stream-type diversity (nine to ten) included: James River Drainage (DU2); Roanoke River Drainage (DU3); C oosa-Tallapoosa River Systems (DU16); PotomacRappahannock-York River Drainages (DUl); and the Lower Tennessee River System (DU26). Low stream-type diversity (2 three) occurred in a geographically and faunistitally eclectic group of drainage units, but with few exceptions these units have relatively small drainage areas and/or are predominated by lowlands. These units included the GreenTradewater River Systems (DU23) and Ohio River Mainstem (DU33); Yazoo-Black-Mississippi Minor Tributaries Region (DU22-DU24); Pascagoula-Pearl-Pontchartrain Region (DU19-DU21); St. Andrew-Choctawhatchee-Pensacola Bay Drainages (DU15); Peninsular Florida Region (DUl l-DU13); and the Edisto-Combahee River Drainages (DUS).

120

CHAPTER

5: PATERNS

OF

FISH IM PERILMENT

IN TH E

SOUTH EAST

Figure 6. Tot num be r of im pe rild f h t al e is axa [uppe r val s ) and pe rce nt of im pe rild f h t ue e is axa (l e r val s ] in 33 drainage units of th e s outh e as te rn Unite d State s . Im pe rild fis h e s are th os e ow ue e incl d in Am e rican Fis h e rie s Socie ty cons e rvation s tatus cate gorie s (s e e W iliam s e t al 19 89 ). ude l ., Dark t l t s h ading indicat s h igh e s t t l e s t lve l of im pe ril e nt o igh e o ow e s m .

Correlation and Prediction of Imperilment

Variables with potential to predict imperilment of fishes in the drainage units included native fish taxa richness, stream-type diversity, drainage-unit area, and unique taxa (Table 7). Native fish taxa richness and unique taxa were correlated significantly with imperilment (AFS-ET and AFS-ETSC). D rainage-unit area and stream-type diversity showed weaker correlations with imperilment. Because of the tendency for predictor variables to be intercorrelated (e.g., stream-type diversity and drainage-unit area; native taxa richness and unique taxa), we used two multiple regression models (Angermeier and Schlosser, 1989) to assess the relative usefulness of native fish taxa richness, stream-type diversity, drainage-unit area, and unique taxa in

M. L.

WARREN,JR., P L.ANGERMEIER, 6. M. BURR,ANO w. R. HAAG 121

Figure 7. Pe rce nt incre as e in f h im pe ril e ntin 33 drainage unit of t e Unit d St e s be t e e n is m s h e at w 19 79 and 19 89 I e e De acon e tal 19 79 ;W il s e tal 19 89 1. Dark t l ts h ading indicat s h igh e s t s ., l iam ., o igh e t l e s t incre as e s in im pe ril e nt o ow m .

predicting imperilment (AFS-ET and AFS-ETSC) (Table 8). The first models regressed imperilment on all four variables. Drainage-unit area and unique taxa did not contribute a significant proportion of the sums of squares (Type II SS) for imperilment, and their removal from the models reduced R values by < 1.5 percent for both AFS-ET and AFSETSC status combinations. The second model included only native taxa richness and stream-type diversity as independent variables. Both variables contributed a significant proportion of the sums of squares for imperilment and were useful predictors for fish imperilment in drainages ofthe Southeast. In addition, we regressed imperilment on drainage-unit area only, and although the models were significant, R values were < 0.15 for both status combinations.

122 C HAPTER 5: PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

Figure 8. Stre am -t dive rs it [num be r ofs tre am t s ] of33 drainage unit in t e s out e as t rn ype y ype s h h e Unit d St e s . Dark t l t s h ading indicat s h igh e s t t l e s t lve l of s tre am -t dive rs it e at o igh e o ow e s ype y.

DISCUSSION Patterns and Management Among States

Al abam a, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia face some of the greatest and most immediate challenges of all southeastern states in future management of native fishes. Each of these states ranks within the top three for two or more of the attributes of fish taxa richness, imperilment, and stream-type diversity (Figures 1 and 3). Nevertheless, we emphasize that all southeastern states support relatively rich fish faunas. The average taxa richness of 188 fishes among southeastern states equals or surpasses that of all other of the lower 48 states except Arkansas and Missouri (Warren and Burr, 1994). Likewise, even states that do not show high values for ftsh taxa richness, imperilment, or stream-

M. L.

A R R E N,

JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , B. M. B U R R ,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

123

Table 5. M e ans and variat in range e xt ntofnat f h e s groupe d by s t us cat gorie s acros s ion e ive is at e 33 drainage unit in t e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . Tabld e ntrie s incl m e an, t o s t s h h e e at e ude w andard e rrors of t e m e an (2xSE), and coe ficie nt of v h f ariat [CV]. ion Status AFS-E (n = 14) AFS-T (n = 36) AFS-SC (n = 34) AFS-ETSC (n = 84) No Status (n = 409) Mean 2 x SE 1.34 1.86 2.04 1.16 0.76 c v 80 114 103 108 99

I
::;I 5.9 5.0 7.7

V.rl ur5

IIOI s i~ ~ ~ ~ tk dntl dif bnt il orrlogonal cot~ t~ d s f\. y f l ~

type diversity face critical problems in conservation of native fishes. In Florida (and other Atlantic states), for example, spawning runs are severely curtailed for several anadromous species as a result of dams on large coastal tributaries (Gilbert, 1992). In Mississippi, flood control projects and short interval (about 15 years) channel maintenance operations threaten riverine fishes in the Yazoo River basin despite growing recognition of the socio-economic and cultural value of this resource (Jackson et al., 1993). We explicitly recognize that states are artificial geographic entities but acknowledge that their jurisdictional and civic importance cannot be ignored in any pragmatic approach to aquatic conservation in spite of our scientific tendency (and necessity) to do so. Through statutory obligation, many state-bound, natural-resource decision makers simply do not divide the landscape among natural units, like drainages or watersheds, but see and manage only within political boundaries. Even so, states are capable of recognizing problems and offering solutions for recovery and management of fishes. For example, most southeastern states now have heritage-based programs charged with inventorying and monitoring (i.e., accounting information) imperiled fishes (e.g., Eager and Hatcher, 1980; Mount, 1986; Warren et al., 1986; Terwilliger, 199 1; Gilbert, 1992; Menhinick, in press). State agencies also are making efforts to maintain fish diversity rather than targeting specific species (e.g., Holman et al., 1993; Toth and Aumen, 1994). Obversely, many state-based programs for nongame fishes are left to languish on soft money (Williams, 1986; Pister, 1992), are underemphasized (Cain, 1993; Angermeier and Karr, 1994), and lack the force of institutional will or statutory authority, short of federal mandate, to effect change (Johnson, 1987; Pister, 1991). Notwithstanding parochial sovereignty and nongame fish program development in states, conflicts in use of streams among and within southeastern states are common (e.g., Voigtlander and Poppe, 1989; Neves and Angermeier, 1990; Anderson et al., 199 1; Jackson et al., 1993; Saylor et al., 1993; Crawford, 1994). Of the 33 drainage units recognized here, 21 cross state boundaries (Figure 2). Obviously both federal-state and interstate cooperation toward long-term management of these drainages is appropriate and critical. Historical cooperation was limited to ostensible improvement of waterways for flood control and navigation, generally imposed through federal water projects, with incalculable losses to aquatic habitat (e.g., Hunt, 1988; Neves and Angermeier, 1990). Recent cooperation goes little beyond attempts to resolve acute and immediate water resource conflicts (e.g., Saylor et al., 1993) or occurs through federal abandonment of contin-

124 CH A P T E R

5:

PATERNS

OF

FISH IM~ERILMN

IN

THE SO U T H E A S T

Table 6. M e ans and m e as ure s ofs pat variat f fis h t rich ne s s , uniq ue t ial ion or axa axa, im pe ril e nt m , and s tre am -t ype dive rs it f 33 drainage unit of t e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . Tabl e ntrie s e ach y or s h h e e at e , al incl m e an, t o s t ude w andard e rrors oft e m e an 12 x SE] m inim um (Min.1 and m axim um [Max.]v ue s , h coe ficie nt of v f ariat [CV], I x of Dis pe rs ion [I and t e s ignif ion nde ,), h icance lve l e (p-val ]f de parture ue or from a random s pat dis tribut ial ion. Variable Fish Taxa Richness Unique Taxa Imperilment AFS-ET AFS-ETSC Stream Types Mean 108.6 3.9 3.2 6.2 5 2 x SE 10.97 1.44 0.59 0.39 Min. 56 0 0 1 Max. 193 16 14 19 10 C 29 107 104 83 57 In 292 142 113 138 53 p-value p<< 0.01 p<< 0.01 p<<o.o 1 p<<o.o 1 p<o.o5

ued waterway improvement (e.g., Jackson and Jackson, 1989; Hupp, 1992). For example, the Tennessee River drainage includes portions ofseven states, most ofwhich are centers of fish imperilment and diversity. However, no comprehensive, coordinated management plan exists for theTennessee, and the priority for sustainable management of this resource is low (Voigtlander and Poppe, 1989). Federal-state and intra- and interstate coordination is confounded within southeastern states primarily because jurisdiction over water, waterways, and the aquatic fauna is fragmented among agencies with different and often contradictory regulatory mandates (e.g., providing drinking water versus recreational fishing versus waste disposal).

Familial Imperilment
If imperilment were the result of random sampling among families, familial imperilment would be proportional to familial representation in the total native fish fauna; howert ever, this is not the case (Tables 3 and 4). Im p 1 ment is disproportionately bestowed on both diverse and depauperate fish families. Fish families with disproportionately high levels of imperilment are characteristically dependent on vegetated, isolated wetland habitats; hypogean habitats; or benthic habitats (Tables 3 and 4). Three relatively depauperate fish families, the pygmy sunfishes (Elassomatidae), cavefishes (Amblyopsidae), and sturgeons (Acipenseridae), and two diverse families, darters and perches (Percidae) and bullhead catfishes (Ictaluridae) are exemplars. Imperiled members of the pygmy sunfishes primarily inhabit vegetated, often spring-fed, permanent wetlands (Rohde and Arndt, 1987; Mayden, 1993). Th ese habitats, particularly those with springs, arc among the most jeopardized in the Southeast (Etnier and Starnes, 199 1; Cubbage and Flather, 1993; Mayden, 1993; Dickson and Warren, 1994). Lk ewise, the cavefishes depend on the inI tegrity of a food base originating from surface waters and, ultimately, must live in a habitat that often serves as a sump for a variety of anthropogenic pollutants. Subterranean habitats and their dramatically evolved fishes are under threat worldwide (Groombridge, 1 9 9 2 ) . H i g im eri 1ment also is concentrated among the sturgeons, darters and perches, h p and bullhead catfishes, all of which have a benthic life style. For some sturgeons, vulnerability to imperilment is associated with dams blocking migratory spawning runs, but most members of these families are dependent on the ecological integrity of the benthic environment and often require specific substrate sizes and configurations for spawning, feeding,

M. L. W

A R R E N,

JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , B. M. B U R R ,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

125

Table 7. Re s ul ofcorre l ion anal e s (Pe ars on corre l ion coe ficie ntand K e ndals t t s at ys s at f l au-b coe f axa, and s tre am f nt off h im pe ril e ntand drainage -unitare a, nat f h t rich ne s s , uniq ue t icie ) is m ive is axa t dive rs it in 33 drainage unit of t e s out e as t rn Unit d St e s . AFS-ET and AFS-ETSC re f r to ype y s h h e e at e com binat ions ofAm e rican Fis h e rie s Socie t cons e rvat s t us cat gorie s [s e e W il s e tal 19 89 ). y ion at e l iam ., Status Category D rainage - u n i t Area AFS-ET Pearson s 0.374 (p < 0.0415) 0.214 (p < 0.1140) Fish Taxa Richness 0.753 (p < 0.0001) 0.589 (p < 0.0001) Unique Taxa Stream-type Diversity 0.401 (p < 0.0206) 0.177 (p < 0.1890)

0.800 (p < 0.0001) 0.363 (p < 0.0072)

Kendalls

AFS-ETSC Pearson s

0.448 (p < 0.0130) 0.249 (p < 0.0630)

0.828 (p < 0.0001) 0.636 (p < 0.0001)

0.854 (p < 0.0001) 0.473 (p < 0.0004)

0.425 (p < 0.0137) 0.247 (p < 0.0629)

Kendalls

and cover (Page and Swofford, 1984; Etnier and Starnes, 1993; Kessler and Thorp, 1993). High levels of imperilment in fishes with multiple niche axes converging on benthic resources is not unexpected. Degradation of streams is often first manifested in benthic habitats and communities (Reice and Wohlenberg, 1993). Streams entrain organic and inorganic material from the watershed, and this material is deposited, stored, and biologically recycled largely on or within the streams substrate (Merritt et al., 1984). Being in intimate contact with these materials, benthic fishes (and their benthic food resources) are affected directly by sediment particles (Minshall, 1984; Berkman and Rabeni, 1987; Haro and Brusven, 1994) and by nutrients and toxins contained within sediments (Reice and Wohlenberg, 1993). We conclude that the disproportionately high imperilment of these benthic fish families is simply the initial, expected manifestation of long-term, complex, cumulative aquatic degradation.

Imperilment and Range Extent

Mean range extent was lower for imperiled than nonimperiled fishes (Table 5), and probability of imperilment increased with decreasing range extent. However, the explanatory power of these relationships is weak. Although significant statistically, conservation status accounted for only 2.2 percent of the variation in range extent in the analysis ofvariance model. Likewise, in the logistic regression model, the increase in probability of imperilment as range extent decreases was low, and misclassifications of imperiled and nonimperiled fishes was high. Imperilment, a measure of extinction potential, and range extent, a categorical measure of area inhabited, might be expected to show stronger relationships than detected in these models. Restricted geographic range is often associated with fish vulnerability to extinction (Moyle and Williams, 1990; Etnier and Starnes, 199 1; Angermeier, 1995). The weak

126 C HAPTER 5: PA TT ERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

SOUTHEAST

M. L. W A R R E N, JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , B. M. BU R R ,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

127

explanatory power of the resultant models is less enigmatic considering: 1) the relatively large spatial scale of resolution of range extent, as defined here, and 2) a scenario of complex, widespread degradation of southeastern fish habitats (Angermeier, 1995). Many nonimperiled fishes in the Southeast are restricted to one or few drainage units (i.e., limited in range extent) but occur widely and commonly within those units. In contrast, some imperiled fishes are known from a number of southeastern drainage units but inhabit very limited stream reaches within each unit. Populations of the latter are effectively subject to effects of reduced habitat area and insularization (Angermeier, 1995) regardless of overall range extent. In either case, our measure of range extent does not account well for the actual area occupied. If examined at finer spatial scales (e.g., kilometers of stream inhabited), geographic range might account for greater variance in imperilment, and limited range might show a higher increase in risk of imperilment. Even at smaller spatial scales and using only extirpated fishes, Angermeier (1995) a so noted relatively weak statistical associations between 1 extinction and limited physiographic range for fishes in Virginia. Weak relationships between range extent and imperilment are expected if widespread, complex degradation of southeastern fish habitats is a strong determinant of imperilment (Angermeier, 1995). Complex degradation over a large geographic area involves numerous forms of insult to aquatic systems that affect various vulnerable fish taxa differentially depending on the intensities and combinations of exposures. Angermeier (1995) identified three uncontrolled factors interacting to randomize degradation treatments among species in ecosystems subject to anthropogenic impacts: 1) differential effects of various types of degradation among species; 2) differential occurrence of species among ecosystems; and 3) differential exposure ofspecies to degradation among ecosystems. The expected pattern of imperilment in a complex degradation scenario would be statistically noisy (Angermeier, 19%). Dependence of models on only one deterministic variable, like range extent, may further decrease the signal to noise ratio. Perhaps most importantly, the results raise the premise of pervasive habitat degradation as a strong determinant of imperilment in southeastern fishes.

Geographic Patterns Among Drainage Units

Fish taxa richness, unique taxa, and stream-type diversity showed variable, but aggregated, distribution patterns that overlap considerably with one another and with the spatial distribution of imperilment in drainage units of the Southeast (Table 6; Figures 4-8). Statistical results generally supported association of these attributes and fish imperilment (Table 7). The Tennessee-Cumberland Region (DU26-DU28) and Mobile Bay Basin Region (DU16-DU18) consistently had one or more drainage units forming part of a 1 core of high fish taxa richness, unique taxa, and imperilment (Figures 4-6). Drainage units adjacent to these core regions usually showed intermediate values (i.e., Southeastern Ohio River Region, DU29-DU33). Most drainage units of the Atlantic and Gulf slopes and Mississippi embayment showed low to intermediate values for fish taxa richness, unique taxa, and imperilment. Drainage units congruent in levels of taxa richness, unique taxa, or stream-type diversity and imperilment often share common biogeographic histories. Although the relationships between imperilment and these other attributes were positive (Table 7), we discern a clear

128 C HAPTER 5: PATERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

temporal distinction in the origin of imperilment and the other attributes. Patterns of fish taxa richness, unique taxa, and stream types in the Southeast all have a strong association with Earth history (Burr and Page, 1986; Hocutt et al., 1986; Starnes and Etnier, 1986; Swift et al., 1986; Mayden, 1988; Warren et al., 1991). I n contrast, patterns of imperilment are primarily products of the past century that were only documented in the past 30 or so years (Deacon et al., 1979; Miller et al., 1989; Williams et al., 1989). For example, the highlands of the Tennessee-Cumberland, Southeastern Ohio River, and the Mobile Bay Basin regions were subjected to a series of complex, major geological vicariance events initiated in the pre-Pleistocene and as a result, were relatively isolated from much of the remaining diverse and widespread Central Highlands ichthyofauna (Mayden, 1988). Likewise, much of the ichthyofaunal composition and endemicity of the Atlantic and Gulf slope lowlands is associated with eustatic cycles, dating at least to the Miocene, superimposed on physiographic features and drainage trends (Swift et al., 1986). The implication of the association of imperilment with recent environmental degradation following millions of years of Earth history is clear. In a geological blink of the eye the fish fauna across the entire Southeast is being compromised. The largest increases in imperilment of fishes overlapped with high fish taxa richness, unique taxa, and stream-type diversity, but substantial increases also occurred across a wide diversity of drainage units (e.g., Everglades-Tampa Bay-Waccasassa River Drainages, I DU12, and Mississippi River Mainstem, DU25) (Fg ure 7). However, even at relatively low rates of increase, imperilment of the fauna can increase dramatically in brief time periods. A 0.2 percent annual increase in imperilment in a given drainage unit for 50 years yields a fauna with nearly ten percent of its members imperiled. We emphasize our estimates of increases in imperilment for southeastern drainages are uncertain and not amenable to tests for accuracy or precision, particularly for predictive purposes. We do not suggest by the hypothetical example that even low rates of imperilment or more correctly, its corollary, extinction, could be sustained over long periods (e.g., 100 years? 200 years?). The numbers of imperiled and ultimately, extinct fishes, necessarily reach an asymptote as the pool of vulnerable taxa is exhausted over time. Nevertheless, it is certain that integrity of the fish fauna will not be maintained even if low rates of increase are projected into the next century. The mapped patterns of imperilment, increased imperilment, fish taxa richness, and unique taxa among southeastern drainage units provide a starting point for applying conservation triage and prioritizing proactive efforts to sustain overall fish and other aquatic diversity within a historical ecological context (Figures 3-7). Certain geographic aggregations of drainage units are in greater need of action than others in terms of sheer numbers of imperiled, unique, or native taxa, particularly the Tennessee-Cumberland and Mobile Bay Basin regions. We note, however, that every drainage unit in the Southeast shows some level of imperilment and many show high levels of increase in imperilment regardless of fish taxa richness or stream-type diversity. The management actions required to go beyond triage or simple prioritization and actually affect change must be grounded in a framework of interstate and federal cooperation that is, to date, unprecedented.

M. L.

WARREN,JR.,

P L. ANGERMEIER, B. M. B URR,

AND

W. R. HAAG 129

Predicting Imperilment Among Drainage Units

FISH TAXA RICHNESS AND STREAM-TYPE DIVERSITY

Drainage units with high fish taxa richness and stream-type diversity contained more imperiled species than units with low richness and stream-type diversity (Table 8). In the final regression models, however, fish taxa richness accounted for 85 percent of the Type II SS contributed by fish taxa richness and stream-type diversity. The predictive power of the regression models thus lies primarily in fish taxa richness; national patterns of animal endangerment are associated similarly (Flather et al., 1994). A log-log regression model of imperilment and fish taxa richness approximates a power function (Conner and McCoy, I979), where: I = k(R) and I is imperilment, R is fish taxa richness, and k and Z are constants. Interpreted as such, the proportion of imperiled fishes in a drainage unit increases with increasing fish taxa richness. This does not imply direct causation or circularity (e.g., high taxa richness begats high imperilment). Rather, a hypothesis is supported that imperilment (as a measure of extinction vulnerability) is largely an epiphenomenon of sampling of the available pool of fish taxa in a drainage unit. Similar hypotheses are prescribed for analogous regression models (Connor and McCoy, 1373; Angermeier and Schlosser, 1989). Simply, drainage units with large fish faunas have more individual fish taxa vulnerable to extinction. This result is a direct expectation under a scenario of complex, pervasive degradation of aquatic habitats (Angermeier, 1995). We conclude that conditions favorable for extinction are pervasive across southeastern drainages but are most visibly manifested in the richest drainage units.
DRAINAGE-UNIT AREA

Imperilment is not predicted effectively by drainage-unit area despite correlation of drainage area and fish taxa richness in subsections of the Southeast (Swift et al., 1986; Sheldon, 1987; Warren and Angermeier, in press). Drainage unit area not only failed to add explanatory power to multiple regression models (Table 8), but it was not an effective substitute for total native taxa richness in predicting imperilment. As a single independent variable, drainage-unit area explained less than 15 percent of the variation in imperilment. From this, we infer two things: 1) particular drainage units or groups of drainage units by virtue of their shared Earth histories have produced more fish species than other similar-sized units, and 2) the general species-area relationship is not an effective model at this spatial scale for predicting imperilment. Our models for predicting fish imperilment showed stronger effects from historical ecology (i.e., production of species) than from components of equilibrium-based island-biogeographic theory (i.e., area). It is not clear such a pattern holds at smaller regional scales where effects of historical ecology may be minimized. Future analyses aimed at groups of drainage units with shared Earth histories may provide additional insight into relationships between fish imperilment and ecological or drainage-unit attributes (Gorman, 1992; Mayden, 1992).
UNIQUE TAXA

The relative lack of usefulness of unique taxa for predicting imperilment complements the weak associations between range extent and imperilment. In addition, we found no

130 C HAPTER 5: PATERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

difference for the total native fish fauna in the proportion of unique taxa among imperiled and nonimperiled fishes (LI = 2.58, p < 0.1337). We do not suggest these results negate the intuitively appealing and empirically supported associations between restricted geographic range and imperilment in fishes (Etnier and Starnes, 1391; Moyle and Leidy, 1992; Angermeier, 1995) or other organisms (Flather et al., 1994). Instead, we invoke reasoning analogous to that forwarded for the models of range extent and imperilment. Vulnerability to extinction in southeastern fishes is not a simple function of endemicity (or degree ofcosmopolitanism). Some unique taxa are widely distributed within a drainage unit; others are severely limited in distribution. Via the randomized treatments of pervasive, complex degradation, vulnerability to extinction may be allocated among fishes with diverse range sizes and ecological attributes (Angermeier, 1995). Weak associations of range size and imperilment in concert with the final multiple regression models support a scenario of pervasive, complex habitat degradation as a strong determinant of observed imperilment patterns in southeastern fishes.

IMPLICATIONS
Development of models associating vulnerability to the extinction process and ecological and zoogeographic characteristics of organisms and communities is a high priority for conservation biology (S I6 and Kohm, 1989). Aside from this effort, few related analyses ou are available for fishes in the Southeast (Sheldon, 1987; Nagel, 1991; Angermeier, 1995). Geographic and ecological range restrictions are primary among attributes associated with many southeastern imperiled, extirpated, and extinct fishes (Mayden, 1992; Etnier and Starnes, 1991; Angermeier, 1995). We find that several promising geographic and fauna1 attributes (i.e., drainage-unit area, range extent, and unique taxa) are not completely satisfactory in explaining individual fish imperilment nor levels of imperilment in drainage units, but this finding is not unprecedented (Moyle and Leidy, 1992; Frissel, 1993; Etnier and Starnes, 199 1; Angermeier, 1995). We do not construe this as meaning no associations exist among imperilment and these geographic and fauna1 attributes but only that no strong associations exist (Angermeier, 1995). The final models identifying taxa richness, and to a lesser degree, stream-type diversity as the best predictors of imperilment were more revealing and complementary to the relative ineffectiveness of other variables. The synthesis of these results implicates pervasive, complex degradation of fish habitats across southeastern drainages as the engine of imperilment. To this we add an important caveat taken from the familial analyses. Degradation appears most strongly manifested in imperilment of fishes associated with benthic habitats; a habitat predictably impacted first by cumulative, long-term abuse of aquatic systems. Decline of other benthic organisms, such as freshwater mussels, strongly supports this contention (Williams et al., 1993). Society must recognize that all upstream activities, including those on the terrestrial component of the catchment, have cumulative downstream effects and address this reality in prioritization, resource allocation, and implementation of conservation management. The linear, unidirectional nature of rivers and streams is a singular attribute that dictates emphasis on whole-system approaches to management. The prevailing strategy of waiting for species to become imperiled before activating conservation programs is a major and costly shortcoming in conservation in the Southeast and elsewhere (Scott et al., 1988; Blockstein, 1992; Angermeier,

M. L. WA R R E N , JR ., P. L. ANGERMEIER , B. M. BURR ,

AND

W. R. HAAG 131

19 9 5). Th e current sit ion f aq uat re s ource m anage m ent am ong and w it in sout e ast rn uat or ic h h e st e s i s d e s cribed succinc l by Noss and Coope rrid e r (19 9 4; page 264): Now h e re is t e at ty h f ragm ent ion of our t ink ing and inst ut at h it ions and t e arrogance of our m anage m ent m ore h pronounce d t an in our st w ard s h ip of aq uat e cosyst m s. h e ic e W e b e l e it sh oul b e q u i t clar t at succe s s f m anage m ent f aq uat biol iev d e e h ul or ic ogical int grit m ust t e y ranscend policalb ound arie s , j it urisdic ionalsubdiv t isions, and s h ort e rm -t e conom ic pol icies and ul at l f t im e y ocus on t e l h ong-t rm int rac ion of h um ans and t e e e t h env ironm ent w it in ecol h ogical d e f l y inabl unit (Karr, 19 9 3; A nge rm e i e r and K arr, 19 9 4; e s M as e r and Se d e l 19 9 4; Noss and Cooperrider, 19 9 4). Societ m ust m ov t ard proacl , y e ow t e m anage m ent c e re d on m aint iv ent aining e col ogicalint grit of aq uat e cosyst m s and e y ic e h ence prot c ing e xist e t ing div rsit as a w h ol (Bl st e y e ock ein, 19 9 2; H ugh e s and Noss, 19 9 2; A l and Flck e r, 19 9 3; A nge rm e i e r and K arr, 19 9 4; M arcot e t al 19 9 4). l an e . , Th e l l of d e f ast ine ense against e xt t inc ion of f es in t e Sout e ast and e le w h e re in t e ish h h s h Unit d St es is t e Endange re d Speci e s A c of 19 73, as am e n d e d . It sh oul re m ain j e at h t d ust t at t e l l of d e f h , h ast ine ense. Clarl t is Ac , t e s t e y, h t h ronge s t env ironm ent l on Eart , al aw h cannot b e gin t m e e t t e h e rculan t o h e ask of conserv ing t e Sout e asts im perild f e s , h h e ish . and as a species-by-species saf t net it sim pl cannot and s h oul not b e e xpe c e d t e y , y d t o f t unc ion al in conserv ion of t e gre at sout e ast rn f one at h h e ish f auna. W e n e e d s h if s in t m anage m ent approach e s t at av rt c inued endange rm ent of f e s . Th e f h e ont ish ound at ion of such an approach sh oul incl d e a syst m -ld (e . , d rainage unit rat e r t an species-ld d u e e g. ) h h e f ocus; e xpl biol icit ogicalint grit goal in t e cont xt of pre v ing d e grad at e y s h e ent ion of h igh q ualy syst m s and re s t it e oring poor-q ualy syst m s; com m it ent t im plm ent it e m o e ing e f e cf t e l - w at r m anage m ent prac ice s rat e r t an im plm ent iv and e t h h e ing bureaucracies; and re cognit of l and w at r re s ource s as int grat d p art of t e s am e syst m . ion and e e e s h e W e present e v idence f rom t e f f h ish auna point ing t t e w idespre ad , perv e d e cl o h asiv ine of aq uat h abit s across t e Sout e ast Th e associat d p rob lm s, if t e re is a w il t ic at h h . e e h lo corre c t e m (see Meyer, 19 9 5), are sim pl beyond t e s t ut t h y h at ory and f iscalabilies of any it one piece of lgisl ion or agency t corre c . In sh ort w e b e l e t e n e e d f t e at o t , iev h or ranscend e n ce , f ocus, and act ion is clar and urgent e .

REFERENCES
A l J D . and A . S. Fe ck e r. 19 9 3. Biodiv rsit conserv ion in running w at rs. l an, . , l e y at e BioScience 43~ 32-43. A n d e rson, I. E. 19 50. Surf ace w at rs of Mississippi. M k issippi St e Geol e at ogical Suw ey Bulet 68: I-338. l in A n d e rson, R . M . J B. L e r, and M . E. Gord on. 19 9 1. R e cent cat roph ic d e cl of , . ayz ast ine m ussel (Riv v Unionid ae ) in t e L te Sout Fork Cum b e rl s alia: h it l h and R i v r, Kene t y. Brim l uck eyana 17:1-8. A nge rm e i e r, I! L 19 9 5. Ecol . ogicalat ribut s of e xt t t e inc ion-prone s p e cies: L oss of f w at r f es of V resh e ish irginia. Conserv ion Biology 9: 143-158. at A nge rm e i e r, I? L, and J R . K arr. 19 9 4. Biol . . ogicalint grit v rsus biol e y e ogicaldiv rsit e y as pol dire c iv s . BinScience 44:69 0-69 7. icy t e os at or re ish A nge rm e i e r, I? L, and I. J . .Sch l s e r. 19 89 . Species-are a re l ionsh ips f st am f e s . Ecol 70:1450-1462. ogy

132

C HAPTER

5: PATERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

S OUTHEAST

Bauer, B. H., D. A. Etnier, and N. M. Burkhead. 1995. Etbeostoma (Ulocentra) scotti (Osteichthyes: Percidae), a new darter from the Etowah River system in Georgia. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 17: I- 16. Berkman, H. E., and C. F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environmental Biology ofFishes l&285-294. Blockstein, D. E. 1992. An aquatic perspective on U.S. biodiversity policy. Fisheries 17(3):26-30. Boschung, H. T., R. L. Mayden, and J. R. Tomelleri. 1992. Etbeostoma cbermocki (Teleostei: Percidae) from the Black Warrior River drainage of Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 13: 1 l-20. Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. In Virginiaj Endangered Species. K. Terwilliger (coord.). McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA, p. 32 l-403. Burr, B. M., and R. L. Mayden. 1992. Phyl o genetics and North American freshwater fishes. In Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes. R. L. Mayden (ed.). Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, p. 18-75. Burr, B. M., and L. M. Page. 1986. Zoogeography of fishes of the lower Ohio-upper Mississippi River basin. In The Zoogeography ofNorth American Freshwater Fishes. C. H. Hocutt, and E. 0. Wiley (eds.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, p. 287-324. Burr, B. M., and L. M. Page. 1993. A new species of Percina (Odontopbolis) from Kentucky and Tennessee with comparisons to Percina cymatotaenia (Teleostei: Percidae). Bulletin of the Alabama Museum ofNaturaL History 16: 15-28. Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A DistributionalAtlas ofKentucky Fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series Number 4, Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY. Cain, T. 1993. Beyond dollars and sense: Debating the value of nongame fish. Fisheries 18(7):20-21. Conner, E. F., and E. D. McCoy. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. American Naturalist 113:791-833. Crawford, T. V. 1994. Integrated environmental management at the Savannah River site. In Implementing htegrated Environmental Management. J. Cairns, Jr., T. V. Crawford, and H. Salwasser (eds.). University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, p. 109- 116. Cubbage, F. W., and C. H. Flather. 1993. Forested wetland distribution: A detailed look at the south. Journal ofForestry 91(5):35-40. Deacon, J. E., G. Kobetich, J. D. Wdliams, and S. Contreras. 1979. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1979. Fisheries 4(2):30-44. Dickson, J. G., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1994. Wildle and fish communities of eastern riparian If forests. In Functions, L&es, and Management: Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems in the Humid US. National Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C., p. 1-31. Eager, D. C., and R. M. Hatcher (eds.). 1980. Tennesseej Rare Wildlif. Volume I: Tbe Vertebrates. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and Tennessee Department of Conservation, Nashville, TN. Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1991. An analysis OfTennessee jeopardized fish taxa. s Journal of the i%messee Academy of Science 66: 12% 133.

M. L. W A R R E N , JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , B. M. B U R R ,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

133

ennessee. University of Tennessee Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. Th e Fish es of T Press, Knoxville, TN. Etnier, D. A., W. C. Starnes, and B. H. Bauer. 1979. Whatever happened to the silvery minnow (H ybognat bus nuch al in the Tennessee River? Proce e d in gs of t e Sout east is) h h ern Fish es Council2: l -3. Fenneman, N. M., and D. W. Johnson. 1964. Physical divisions of the United States. United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 1 p. Flather, C. H., L. A. Joyce, and C. A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species endangerment patterns in the United States. General Technical Report RM-GTR-24 1, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO, 42 p. Frissel, C. A. 1993. Topology of extinction and endangerment of native fishes in the at ogy Pacific Northwest and California (U.S.A.). Conserv ion Biol 7~ 342-354. Gilbert, C. R. (ed.). 1992. Rare and E n d an gere d Biot ofFl a. V u m e I . Fish es. a orid ol I University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Gilbert, C. R., R. C. Cashner, and E. 0. Wiley. 1992. Taxonomic and nomenclatural status of the banded topminnow, Fu n d u l cingul us (Cyprinodontiformes: us at Cyprinodontidae). Copeia 1992:747-759. Gorman, 0. T. 1992. Evolutionary ecology and historical ecology: Assembly, structure, and organization of stream fish communities. In Syst m at e ics, H ist orical Ecol ogy, an d Nort Am erican Fresh w at Fish es. R. L. Mayden (ed.). Stanford University Press, h er Stanford, CA, p. 659-688. B ersig Chapman and Hall, London. o Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1992. Gk ,b al t d z v Hains, C. E 1968. Flow characteristics of Alabama streams. Circular 32, Geological Survey of Alabama, University, AL, 382 p. Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: The core and satellite species hypothesis. Oik os 38:210-221. Haro, R. J., and M. A. Brusven. 1994. Effec t.5 of co ble1 embeddedness on the 3 microdistribution of the sculpin Cot us b e l ingi and its stonefly prey. Great Basin t d Nat ural 54~ 64-70. ist Hocutt, C. H., R. E. Jenkins, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the central Appalachians and central Atlantic Coastal Plain. In Th e Z ooge ograph y of Nort Am erican Fresh w at Fish es. C. H. Hocutt, and E. 0. Wiley (eds.). John h er Wiley and Sons, I n c., New York, NY, p. 161-211. Holman, T., J. Skains, and D. Riecke. 1993. The Big Black River, Mississippi: A case history. Nat ionalBiol ogicalSurv Biol ey, ogicalReport 191266-28 1. Hosmer, D. W., Jr., and S. Lemeshow. 1989. Appl L ied ogist Regression . John Wiley ic and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Hughes, R. M., and R. F. Noss. 1992. Biological diversity and biological integrity: Current concerns for lakes and streams. Fish eries 17(3): 1 l-l 9. Hupp, C. R. 1992. Riparian vegetation recovery patterns following stream channelization: A geomorphic perspective. Ecol ogy 73: 1209- 1226. Hunt, C. E. 1988. Dow n by t e Riv Island Press, Washington, D.C. h er Jackson, D. C., and J. R. Jackson. 1989. A gl immer of hope for stream fisheries in Mississippi. Fish eries 14(3):4-O.

134

C HAPTER

5: PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

Jackson, D. C., N. J. Brown-Peterson, and T. D. Rhine. 1993. Perspectives for rivers and their fishery resources in the upper Yazoo River basin, Mississippi. National BiologicaL Survey, Biological Report 19~255-265. Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Johnson, J. E. 1987. Protected Fishes of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Karr, J. R. 1990. Avian survival rates and the extinction process on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Conservation Biology 4:391-397. Karr, J. R. 1993. Measuring biological integrity: Lessons from streams. In Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. S. Woodley, J. Kay, and G. Francis (eds.). St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL, p. 83-104. Kessler, R. K., and J. H. Thorp. 1993. M icrohabitat segregation of the threatened spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum) and closely related orangefin darter ( E . be&n). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 1084- 109 1. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980 et seq. Atlas ofNorth American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. Littell, R. 1992. Endangered and Other Protected Species: Federal Law and Regulations. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. Marcot, B. G., M. J. Wisdom, H. W Li, and G. C. Castillo. 1994. Managing for featured, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem sustainability. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-329, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR, 39 p. Maser, C., and J. R. Sedell. 1994. Fram the Forest to the Sea: The Ecology of Wood in Streams. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. lcariance biogeography, parsimony, and evolution in North Mayden, R. L. 1988. V . American freshwater fishes. Systematic Zoology 37:329-355. Mayden, R. L. 1992. An emerging revolution in comparative biology and the evolution of North American freshwater fishes. In Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes. R. L. Mayden (ed.). Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, p. 864-890. Mayden, R. L. 1993. Elassoma alabamae, a new species of pygmy sunfish endemic to the Tennessee River drainage of Alabama (Teleostei: Elassomatidae). Bulletin of the Alabama Museum ofNatural History 16:1-14. Mayden, R. L., B. M. Burr, L. M. Page, and R. R. Miller. 1992. The native freshwater fishes of North America. In Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Fresbwater Fishes. R. L. Mayden (ed.). Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, p. 827-863. Mehta, C., and N. Patel. 1992. StatXact-Turbo. Cytel Software Corporation, Cambridge, MA. Menhinick, E. E (ed.). in press. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part III. A re-evaluation of the freshwater fishes. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey.

M. L. W A R R E N , JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , B. M. BU R R ,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

135

Merritt, R. W., K. W. Cummings, and T. M. Burton. 1984. The role of aquatic insects in the processing and cycling of nutrients. In Th e Ecol ogy of Aquat I ic nsec s. V. H. t Resh, and D. M. Rosenberg (eds.). Praeger Scientific, New York, NY, p. 134-163. e H Meyer, S. M. 1995. Th e role of scientists in the New Politics. Th e Ch ron icl of igh er Ed u cat ion 26 May 1995, Section A, p. l-2. i Miller, R. R., J. D. W 11 iams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fish eries 14(6):22-38. Minckley, W. L., and J. E. Deacon (eds.). 1991. Bat l Again s t Ext c ion : Nat e Fish te in t iv A4anagem e n t in t e Am erican W e s t University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. h . Minshall, G. W. 1984. Aquatic insect-substratum relationships. In Th e Ecol of ogy Aquat Insec s. V. H. Resh, and D. M. Rosenberg (eds.). Praeger Scientific, New ic t York, NY, p. 358-400. ert e s abam a in N e e d of Special t ion. At ent Mount, R. H. (ed.). 1986. V e b rat Anim al ofAl Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, AL. Moyle, P. B., and R. A. Leidy. 1992. L oss of aquatic ecosystems: Evidence from the fish faunas. In Conserv ion Biol at ogy: Th e Th eory an d Prac ice of Nat t ure Conserv ion, at Preserv ion , andManagem ent I L. Fiedler, and S. K. Jain (eds.). Chapman and at . ? Hall, New York, NY, p. 127-169. Moyle, P B., and J. E. Wrlliams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: Decline of the native fish fauna of California. Conserv ion Biol at ogy 4:275-284. Moyle, P B., and R. M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: A five-tiered approach. Fish eries 19 (2):6-l 8. Nagel, J. W. 1991. Is the decline of brook trout in the southern Appalachians resulting from competitive exclusion and/or extinction due to habitat fragmentation? /ournal of t e Tennessee Acad e m y Science 66: 14 1- 143. h Nev s , R. J., and P L. Angermeier. 1990. Habitat alteration and its effects on native e fishes in the upper Tennessee River system, east-central U.S.A. JournalofFish Biol 37(Supplement A):45-52. ogy Noss, R. F., and A. Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Sav g Nat re? L in u egacy: Prot t g an d ec in Rest orin g Biod iv ersit Island Press, Washington, D.C. y. d o er Page, L. M., and B. M. B urr. 199 1. A Fiel Guid e t Fresh w at Fish es.Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Page, L. M., P. A. Ceas, D. L. Swofford, and D. G. Buth. 1992. Evolutionary relationships within the Et e ost a squam iceps complex (Percidae; subgenus Cat ot s ) b om on u with descriptions of five new species. Copeia 19 9 2:6 15-646. 0 g Page, L. M., and D. L. Swofford. 1984. Morph 01 ica 1 correlates of ecological specialization in darters. Env iron m e n t Biol of Fish es 11: 139-l 59. al ogy Pister, E. I? 1991. The Desert Fishes Council: Catalyst for change. In Bat l Again s t te Ext c ion : Nat e Fish M anagem e n t in t e Am erican W e s t W. L. Minckley, and J. E. in t iv h . Deacon (eds.). University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, p. 55-68. Pister, E. I? 1992. Ethical considerations in conservation of biodiversity. Trdnsactions of ionalResources Conference 57~ 355-358. t e Nort Am erican W il & ye and Nat h h d Reffalt, W 199 1. The endangered species lists: Chronicles of extinction? In Bah z cin g on t e h Brin k ofExt inction. K. A. Kohm (ed.). Island Press, Washington, D.C., p. 77-85.

136

CHAPTER

5: PATERNS 0~ FISH IMPERILMENT

IN THE

S OUTHEAST

R e i ce , S. R . and M . W oh ln b e rg. 19 9 3. M onit , e oring f s h w at r bent ic re e h m acroinv rt b rat s and b e n t ic processes: Measures f assessm ent of e cosyst m e e e h or e h e al . In Fresh w at Biom onit t h er oring and Bent ic Macroinv ebrat D . M . h ert es. l , R os e n b e rg, and V H . R e s h (e d s . Ch ap m an and H al Ne w York , NY, p. 287-305. . ). Rit H . and E.R ant 19 9 3. O n anal a, , a. yzing species incidence . Annal Z ooL es ogici Fennici 30:173-176. R oh d e , E C. and R .G.A m d t 19 87. Tw o ne w species of pygm y sunf e s , . ish assom a) f rom t e Carol h inas.Proce e d in gs of t e Acad e m y ofNat h uraL (El assom at idac, El Sciences, Pbil e L ia 139 ~ 65-85. ad ph R oss, S.T. and W .M .Brennem an.19 9 1.Dist u t , rib ion of Fresh w at Fish es in Missiser m d @pi. Fre s h w eL e rF ISh e rie s R e p ort Num b e r 108, Mississippi Depart ent of W ilt le , Fish e rie s , and Park s, J son, M S. if ack SA S Inst ut , Inc. 19 9 4. SASJ;r Wzn d ow s, Rel it e l ease 6. SA S Inst ut , Inc. Cary, NC. 1. it e , Sayl C. E, A .D .M cKinney, and W . H . Sch ach e r. 19 9 3. Cas e s t or, udy of t e Pige on h R i v r in t e Tennessee Riv r d rainage . Nat e h e ionalBiol ogicalSurv Biol ey, ogicalReport 19 :241-254. Sch l s e r, I. J, and I? L A nge rm e i e r. 19 9 5. Spat v os . . ial ariat ion in dem ograph ic proce s s e s in l ic f e s : Concept ot ish ualm od e l e m piricale v s, idence , and im pl ions f icat or conserv ion. In Ev ut and t e Aquat Ecosyst : Dej at ol ion h ic em ning Unit in Popul ion s at Conserv ion . J L Niel (ed. Sym posium Num b e r 17, A m e rican Fish e rie s at . . sen ). Societ Be t e s d a, M D , p.39 2-401. y, h Scot , J M . E D av F. Csut K . Sm it , J E. Est s , and S. Caicco. 19 88. Be y ond t . , is, i, h . e e n d ange re d s p e cies: An int grat d conserv ion st e gy f t e pre s e rv ion of e e at rat or h at biol ogical div rsit Endangered Species Updat 5143-48. e y. e Sh e lon, A . L 19 87. R arit Pat e rns and consequence s f st am f e s . In Com m ud . y: t or re ish nit and Ev ut y ol ionary Ecol of Nort Am erican St ogy h ream Fish es. W . J M at h e w s, and . t D . C.H eins (e d s . Univ rsit of O k l om a Pre s s , Norm an, O K , p. 203-209 . ). e y ah ry. ion re Sok al R . R . and F. J R oh l 19 8 1.Bz om e t 2n d E d it .W . H . F e m an and Com , , . f . pany, Ne w York , NY. ies or at oa. Soul , M . E. and K .A , K oh m .19 89 .Research Priorit f Conserv ion Biol & , Crit icalIssues Se ries Num b e r 1, Isl and Pre s s , W ash ingt on, D . C. Sout w ood , T. R . E. 19 78.Ecol h ogicalM e t od s . 2n d E d it . Ch apm an and H al Ne w h ion l , York , NY. St arne s , W C. and D . A . Et , nier. 19 86. D rainage e v ut ol ion and f ish bioge ograph y of t e Tennessee and Cum b e rl riv rs d rainage re al . In Th e Z oogeograph y of h and e m Nort h Am erican Fresh w at Fish es. C. H . H ocut , and E. 0. W il (eds. J n W il and er t ey ). oh ey Sons, Inc. Ne w York , NY, p. 325-361. , Sut k us, R . D . 19 9 1. Not t ropis raj nesquei, a ne w cyprinid f f ish rom t e Yaz oo Riv r h e syst m in Mississippi. Bulet of t e Al e l in h abam a Museum of Nat ralH ist 10: 1-9 . u ory Sut k us, R . D . and R . M . Bail 19 9 3. Et e ost a col t , ey. b om orosum and E. b e lat t o ne w l or, w d art rs, subgenus U l n t f e oce ra, rom sout e ast rn Unit d St e s .Tu l e St d ies in h e e at an u Z ool and Bot ogy any 29 : l -28. Sut k us, R . D . R . M . Bail and H . L Bart J 19 9 4a. Th re e n e w species of t , ey, . , r. Et eost a, subgenus U l n t f h om oce ra, rom t e Gul Coast Pl of sout e ast rn h f al ain h e Unit d St e s . Tuk ane St e at udies in Z ool an d Bot ogy any 29 :9 7-126.

M . L. W A R R E N, JR., P. L. A N G E R M E IE R , B. M. B U R R,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

137

Sut k us, R . D . and D . A . Et t , nier. 19 9 1. Etbeostoma tallapoosae and E. brevirortrum, two new d art rs, subgenus Ulocentra, f e rom t e A l am a Riv r d rainage . Tulane Studies h ab e in Zoology Botany 28: 1-24. . , r. e Sut k us, R . D . B. A . Th om p son, and H . L Bart J I9 9 4b . Tw o ne w d art rs, Percina t , rom t e s out e ast rn Unit d St e s , w it a re v h h e e at h iew of t e subgenus. h (Cottogarter), f Occasional Papers of the Tulane University Museum ofNatural History 4: 1-46. Sw if , C. C., C. R . Gile rt S. A . Bort , G. H . Burge s s , and R . W . Ye rge r. 19 86. t b , one Z ooge ograph y of t e f s h w at r f e s of t e s out e ast rn Unit d St e s : Sav h re e ish h h e e at annah Riv r t L e Pont h art e o ak c rain. In The Zoogeography ofNorth American Freshwater Fishes. C. H . H ocut , and E. 0. W il (eds. J n W il and Sons, Inc. Ne w t ey ). oh ey , York , NY, p. 213-265. Te rb orgh , J W ., and B. W int r. 19 80. Som e causes of e xt t . e inc ion. In Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. M. E. SoulC, and A . A . W il cox (e d s . Sinaue r, Sunderl , M A , p. 119 -133. ). and Te rw il r, K .(coord . 19 9 1.Virginia: Endangered Species. M cD onal and W ood w ard l ige ). d Publ ing Com pany, Bl sburg, V . ish ack A ercina austroperca: A n e w species of l rch (Pe rcidae , subgenus ogpe Th om pson, B. . 19 9 5. P A Percina) f rom t e Ch oct h at h e e and Escam bia riv rs in Al am a and Fl a. h aw c e ab orid Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State Universig 69: l-20. Tot , L A ., and N. G. Aum en. 19 9 4. Int grat h . e ion of m ul e issues in env t ipl ironm e n t al re s t ion and re s ource e n h ance m ent proj c s in sout cent Fl a. In Impleorat e t h ral orid menting Integrated Environmental Management. J Cairns, J , T. V Craw f , and . r. . ord H . Sal as s e r (e d s . Univ rsit Cent r f Env w ). e y e or ironm ent and H az ard ous Mat rial al e s St udies, Virginia Te ch , Bl sburg, V , p. 61-78. ack A d if ant U. F S. ish and W ille Se rv . 19 9 4a. Endange re d and t re at n e d w il l e and pl s; d if ice h e anim alcand i d at re v e iew f l ing as e n d ange re d or t re at n e d s p e cies, propose d or ist h e rul. U. Federal Register 59:58982-5X)28. e S. h e d if ant U. F S. ish and W ille Se rv . 19 9 4b . E n d an ge re d and t re at n e d w ille and pl s. d if ice U.S. FederaLRegister 50 CFR (17. 1 and 17. 1 12):1-42. e V l e r, C. W . and W . L Poppe . 19 89 . Th e Tennessee Riv r. In Proceedings of the oigtand , . International Large River Symposium (LARS). D . I? D od ge (e d . SpecialPubl ion ). icat 106, Canadian Fish e rie s and A q u at Science s , Toront O t aw a, Canad a, p. 372-384. ic o, t W arren, M . L, J 19 9 2. V . r. ariat ion of t e spot ed sunf , Lepomispunctatus com p lx h t ish e (Cent rarch idac): M e rist ics, m orph om e t rics, pigm ent ion and s p e cies l it at im s. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 12: l -47. rot s or ic W arren, M . L J and E L Ange rm eier. in press. P ocol f assessing aq uat ., r., . biodiv rsit GIS appl ions in V e y: icat irginia. Proceedings of t e Unit d St e s Fish and h e at W ille Se rv CIS W ork sh op f 19 9 3, U. F and W ille Se rv , L aye t e , L . d if ice or S. ish d if ice af t A W arren, M . L, J , and B. M . Burr. 19 9 4. St us of f s h w at r f e s of t e Unit d . r. at re e ish h e St e s : O v rv at e iew of an im perild f e auna. Fisheries 19 (1):6-l8. W arren, M . L, J , B. M . Burr, D . A . Et . r. nier, and W . C. St arne s . 19 9 1. F e s of ish Kent y and Tennessee: A h ierarch icalcl icat uck assif ion of d rainage s . Journal of the Tennessee Academy ofscience 661135-140.

138

C HAPTER

5:

PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

SOUTHEAST

W arren, M . L, J , B. M . Burr, and J M . Grady. 19 9 4. Notropis albizonatur, a new . r. . cyprinid endemic to the Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages, with a phylogeny of the Notropisprocne species group. Cop&a 1994:868-886. W arren, M . L, J , W . H . D av R . R . H annan, M . Ev . r. is, ans, D . L Bat h , B. D . A n d e r. c ac re l o, h s on, B. Pal e r- Bal J , J R . M G g or, R . R . Cice re l R . A t ey, B. A . m l r. . , Branson, G.J Fal B. M . Burr, M . E. M e d l and J M . Bask in. 19 86. E n d an. l o, ey, . ge re d , t re at n e d , and rare pl s and anim al of Kent y. Transactions of the h e ant s uck Kentucky Academy of Science 47~83-38. e il s, J D . and G. H .Clm m e r. 19 9 1. Scaphirhynchus suttkusi, a new sturgeon l iam . , (Pisces: Acipenseridae) from the Mobile Basin of Alabama and Mississippi. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 10: 17-3 1. il s, J D . M . L W arren, J , K . S. Cum m ings, J L H arris, and R . J Nev s . l iam . , . r. . . . e 1993. Cons e rv ion st us of fre s h w at r m ussel of t e Unit d St e s and Canad a. at at e s h e at Fisheries 18(9):6-23. oh re d . il s, J E. J E. J nson, D . A . H e n d rick son, S. Cont ras-Bale ras, J D . l iam . , . W il s, M . Nav l iam arro-Mendoz a, D . E. M cA l e r, and J E. D e acon. 19 89 . F e s l ist . ish of Nort A m e rica e n d ange re d , t re at n e d , or of specialconce rn: 19 89 . Fisheries h h e 14(6):2-20. il s , T. 19 86. Who managing the wildlife managers? Orion Nature Quarterly l iam s 5(4): 16-23. . e ics of t e Etbeostomajordani species h ood , R . M . and R . L M ayd e n . 19 9 3. Syst m at , group (Teleostei: Percidae), with descriptions of three new species. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum OfNaturalHistory 16~31-46.

W W

Appendix 1. Ch e ck l tofe xt f h e s (N = nat , I = introduce d] t e ir cons e rvat s t us , and dis tribut w it in 33 drainage unit oft e s out e as t rn Unit d is ant is ive , h ion at ion h s h h e e St e s . Cons e rvat s t us is l t d f e ach s pe cie s as re cognized by t e Unit d St e s Fis h and W il if Se rvice [Fe de ral E = e ndange re d, T = t re at ne d, PE = at ion at is e or h e at dle , h e propos e d e ndange re d, PT = propos e d t re at ne d, Cl candidat 1, and C2 = candidat ] and t e Am e rican Fis h e rie s Socie t [AFS, E = e ndange re d, T = t re at ne d, h e = e e h y h e s e e SC = s pe cial conce rn] (s e e W il s e tal 19 89 ). Drainage unit are cros s -re f re nce d by num be r to Tabl 1 and Figure 2. l iam .,
Federal TAXA PETROMYZONTnm.E - Lampreys E T PE PT Cl AFS

Drainage Units SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

c2

Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Ohlo lamprey) I. castaneus (chestnut lamprey) I. fossor (northern brook lamprey) I. gagei (southern brook lamprey) I. greeleyi (mountain brook lamprey) I. umcuspis (silver lamprey) Lmpetra aepyptera (least brook lamprey) L. appendix (American brook lamprey) KIPENSERIDAE - sturgeons Acipenser brevirostrum (shortnose sturgeon) A. fulvescens (lake sturgeon) A. oxyrhynchus desotoi (Gulf sturgeon) A. o. oxyrhynchus (*tlantic sturgeon) Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon) S. platorynchus (shovelnose sturgeon) S. suttkusl (Alabama sturgeon) POLYODONTIDAE - Paddlefishes Polyodan spathula (paddlefish) LEPISOSTEIDAE - Gars Atractoste"s spatula (alligator gar)

_ _ _ _ _ _

--NNNNNNNN --NNN-NNNN-NNNNN---N --NN---NNNNNNNNNNNN-N-------

___ ___ _ _ . .

___________________-.--. -NNNN---_______________-.--- -N--NN-NNNN-N

NN_N------___ NAN__-----___----___..-_

-NNNNNN-NNN-N-NNNNNN -NNNNNN--

_x

___________--.

--N-N-NNN-NNNN-N----N

140 C HAPTER 5: PATTERNS

OF

F ISH IMPERILMEN

IN

THE

SOUTHEAST

Appendix 1. Cont d. inue

TAXA CYPRINIDAE - Mumows

and Campostoma anomalum (central stoneroller) C. oligolepis (largescale stoneroller) C. pauciradii (bluefin stoneroller) Carassius auratus (goldfIsh) Clinostomus elongatus (redside date) C. funduloides (rosysIde date) C. funduloides ssp. (Little Tennessee date) Ctenopharyngodon idella (grass carp) Cyprinella analostana (satinfin shiner) C. caerulea (blue shiner) C. callisema (Ocmulgee shiner) C. callistia (Alabama shiner) C. callltaenla (bluestrIpe shiner C. cam"ra (bluntface shiner) C. chloristia (greenfin shiner) c. galactura (whitetail shiner) C. gibbsi (Tallapoosa shiner) C. leedsl (bannerfIn shiner) C. lutrensls (red shiner) C. "lYea (whitefin shiner) C. pyrrhomelas (fieryblack shiner) C. sp11optera (spotfn shner)

--~~~~-----_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I-I-1 I _ N _ _

-NNNN---_ N I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I

-N-N__--_-_--

~_______________~

1.1

--NN--

______

_ ___

~~~~~~~-~--------------- N _________________________ _

N
N

N
_

N
_

N
_

--NNN--------------_

_ _ _ _

_x_

____________

_N___________________

__N_NNNNN_______

______

___

_____

__

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_.

N___-__-

_.

~__~______~__~_~___~NNNI--N--_N

_NNNN_N________________________

--NN-------------------------_

p.J

-NNNNNNNN

APTER

5: PATERNS

OF

FISH IMPERILMENT

IN

THE

SOUTHEAST

M. L.

WARREN.JR..

p. L.

ANGERMEIER.

B. M. BURR ,

A ND

W. R. HAAG 143

144 C HAPTER 5: PA TT ERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN

THE

SOUTHEASl

e z z

,
I I

e
I I

a z

M. L. W A R R E N , JR ., P. L. AN G E R M E IE R , 6. M. B U R R ,

AND

w . R. H

AAG

145

Cl APTER 5: PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

S OUTHEAST

Appendix 1. Cont d. inue

Federal
TAXA

AFS E T SC

Drainage Units 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33 --NNN-NNNNNN

E T PE PT

Cl c2

mirabills (suckermouth minnow) P. teretu1us (Kanawha m1nnaw) P. uranops (strrgazlng m1nnaw, Phowlnus cumberlandensis (blackside date) P. erythrogaster (southern redbelly date) P. oreas (mountain redbelly date) P. tennesseensis (Tennessee date) Phoxuus sp. cf P. tennesseensis (Waldens Ridge date) Pimephales notates (bluntnose muu~ow) P promelas (fathead mu,now) P vlgilax (bullhead mu,now) Platygoblo gracilis (flathead chub, Pteronotropis euryronus (broadstrlpe shiner) P. hypselopterus (sailfin shiner) P. signipinnis (flagfin shiner) P. welaka (bluenose shiner) Rhznxhthys atratulus (blacknose date) R. (longnose date) Semotilus atromaculatus (creek chub) S. corporalis (fallfish) S. lumbee (sandhills chub) S thoreaulaws (Dixie chub)
P.

cataractae

Appendix 1. Cont d. inue

Federal T PE PT Clc2 AFS T SC Drainage Urnts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33

CATOSTOMIDAE -

Suckers Carpiodes carpio (river carpsucker) C. cyprlnus (quillback) C. vellfer (highfin carpsucker) CatoStom"s cOmmersQ*l (white sucker) cyc1eptus e1ongatus (blue sucker) cyc1eptus sp. Cf. c. e1ongatus (Gulf blue sucker) Erimyaon oblongus (creek chubsucker) sucetta E. (lake chubsucker) E . tenuis (sharpfin chubsucker) I&i&us bubalus (smallmouth buffalo) I . cyprinellus (bigmouth buffalo) I. niger (black buffalo) Hypentelium etovanum (Alabama hog sucker) X. nigricans (northern hog sucker) h'. roanokense (Roanoke hog sucker) Minytrema melanops (spotted sucker) Moxostoma anisurum (silver redhorse) M . carinatum (river redhorse) M . duguesnei (black redhorse) M. erythrurum (golden redhorse) M. macrolepidotum (shorthead redhorse)

M. L W

A R R E N,

JR ., P. L. ANGERMEIER, B. M. BURR,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

149

150 CHAPTER

5:

PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

S OUTHEAST

Appendix 1. Cont d inue

Federal TAXA E T PE PT AFS

Drainage Units
SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33

Cl

c2 x x

E T -

NotunIs sp. cf. N. e 1e gans (saddld madtom) e Noturus sp. cf. N. insignis (spotted madtom) Pylodictis olivarls (flathead catfish) CIARIIDAE - Labyrinth Catfishes Clarias batrachus (walking catfish) LORICARIIDAE - Suckermouth CatfIshes Xypostom"s spp. (suckermouth catfishes) Llposarcus multiradiatus (sailfin catfish) L. disjunctivus (vermiculated sallfln catfish) ESOCIDAE - Pikes Esox americanus (grass or redfin E. masquinongy (muskellunge) E. luaus (northern pike) E. niger (chain pickerel)

_-N--____

- - -

__*_-_____-_______---___----__.--

I-III--------NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

_____.

_I

____

___..--_

I _
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ I

___

__-_

____

____--..

_ _ _ _ _ _ pickerel)

_ _ _

__-

UMBRIDAE - Mudminnows Umbra limi (central mudmuln0w) ". pygmaea (eastern mudminnow) OSMERIDAE - Smelts Canerus mordax (ranbow smelt) Sat4ONIDAE - Trouts, and Whitefishes Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout) Salmo (brown trout) Salmons

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_~_______ ~~~~~~~~~~~_~____-----__-----__._* _ _ _ _ ___.

I__1

____-_

____.----

I I I I

trutta

1.

___

___

-___I

152 CHAPTER

5: PATTERNS

0~ FISH IMPERILMENT

IN

THE

S OUTHEAST

Appendix 1. Cont d. inue

Federal E blairae (western starhead tapmlnnow) F. catenatus (northern studfish) F. chrysotus (qolden topminnow) F: diaphanis (banded killifishl F. dispar (northern starhead topminnow) F. escambiae starhead topminnow) F. euryzonus (broadstripe topminnow) F. julisia (Barrens topminnow) F. lineolatus (lined topminnow) F. notti (southern starhead topminnow) F. notatlls (blackstripe topminnow) F. olivaceus (blackspotted topminnow) F. rathbuni (speckled kllllfish) F. rubrifrons (redface topminnow) F. seminolis (Seminole killiflsh) F. stellifer (southern studfish) F. waccamensis Waccamaw killifish) Leptolucania ommata (pygmy killifish) Lucania goodei (bluefin killifish) L. parva (rainwater killifish)
F.

AFS E T SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Drainage Units 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33

T PE PT Cl c2

_ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _

--__________-

-N-NNNN___-------___ --NNN---NNNNNI--

--NNNNNNNNNN-N-NNNNNNN-------------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~____________________~.~~~.~ -_~~~__~~~~__-----

(eastern

______

___

___..--..--

_NNN----_____________-

3
!-

POECILIlDAE - Livebearers Belonesox belizanus (pike killifish)

154 C HAPTER 5: PAT TERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

SOUTHEAST

u
H

Appendix 1. Cont d inue

Federal
TAXA A. cavlfrons (Roanake bass)

AFS E T SC x 1 2 3 4 5

Dramage

Units

E T PE PT

Cl cz

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 fi 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 30 31 32 33

__N*-_____________---..__----__-I I I II----__----__-----_NNNNNNNN

A rupestr1s (rock bass) Centrarchus macropterus (flies) Chaenobryttus gulosus (war-mouth) Enneacanthus chaetodon (blackbanded sunfxh) E. gloriosus (bluespotted sunfxh) E. oixsus (banded sunfish) Lepom~s auritus (redbreast sunfish) L. cyanellus (green sunfish) L. gibbosus (pumpkinseed) L. humilis (orangespotted sunfish) L. macrochlrus (bluegill) L. marginatus (dollar sunfish) L. megalotis (longear sunfish) L. microlophus (redear sunflsh) L. (redspotted sunfish) L. punctatus (spotted sunflsh) L. symmetricus (bantam sunfish)

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN_NN___N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN--

_._

____..

NNNNNNNNNNNN~NN---___.---__-...-NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNI-I-----I-IIIIIIII I I I I I I I 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N I N N N N N

NNNNNNNN___--_____-----__I N N N N N N N N N N

IIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN --NNNNNNNNNNNN-NNNNNNNN-N--------NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN I I 11x11-NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-NNNNII-N --NNNNNNNNN-N-NN---__. -NNNNNNNNNNN__----___----___---NNNNNN--_______ --NN-I I I -N-NNN__--_-_-II---__

mlnlatus

______

___

Mlcropterus coosae
(redeye bass) M. dolomleu (smallmouth bass) M. nOtl"s (Suwannee bass) M. punctulatus (spotted bass)

*_I~_--___-----_____--NNNNNNNN _ ___ _ _ _ _ N _ _ ____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___-

__..-._ I I _ I ___

INNNNNNNNNN-NNNNNNNN

156

C HAPTER

5:

PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

S OU T H E A S T

Appe ndix 1. Cont d. inue

Federal
TAX+

AFS E T SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Drainage Units 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33

. N _ _ -

T PE PT Cl c2

E. baileyi (emerald darter) E. barbouri (teardrop darter) E. ban-e&se (mlendid darter) E. bellator (warrior darter) E. bellurn (orangefin darter) E. blennioides (greenside darter) E. blennius (blenny darter) E. boschungi (slackwater darter) E. brevirostsum (holldav darter) E . caerhm (rainbow darter) E. camurum (bluebreast darter) E. chermocki (vermilion darter) E. chienense (relict darter) E. chlorobranchium (greenfin darter) E. chlorosoma (bluntnose darter) E. chuckwachatte (lipstick darter) E. cinereum (ashy darter) E. collis (Carolma darter) E. c010r0sum (coastal darter) E. coosae (Coosa darter) E. corona (crown darter) E. crossopterum (fringed darter)

_
_ _ ______ ___

_--___--___--__---__---___--N--_-

_-___x

___

____-____-___-__

_N______-____-___

______
x

___
___

______________

_N-____-___--___--_

--___--___-__-__---_-----N____-_-

__N-N-N_-___

158

C HAPTER

5: PATTERNS

OF

F ISH I MPERILMENT

IN THE

SOUTHEAST

e e z

Appendix 1. Cont d. inue

Federal
TAXA

AFS E T SC x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

T PE PT Cl c2

Units 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122

Dramage

23 24 25 26

luteovinctum (redband darter) E. 1ynceum (brighteye darter) E. maculatum (spotted darter) E. mariae (pinewoods darter) E. mlcrolepidum (smallscale darter) E. microperca (least darter) E neopterum (lollypop darter) E. n=gripinne (blackfin darter) E. nigrum nigrum (johnny darter) E. n. susanae LCumberland lohnnv darter) E. nuchale - _ (watercress darter) E. oixyense (barcheek darter) E. o.ka1oosae (Okaloosa darter) E. olivaceum (dirty darter) E. olmstedi (tessellated darter) E. aophylax (guardu.n darter) E. osburru (flnescale saddled darter, E. parvlpinne (goldstripe darter) E. percnurum (duskytall darter) E. perlongum (Waccamaw darter) E. podostemone (riverweed darter) E. pseudovulatum (egg-mimic darter)
E.

_._ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _

_._ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_NfJNNNN_----__--

__p._____-

___._

___

_ _

---

160 C HAPTER 5: PAT T ERNS

OF

F ISH IM PERI MENT L

IN THE

S OUTHEAST

Appendix 1. Cont d. inue

Federal
TAXA

AFS E T SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Dramage Units 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.

T PE PT Cl C2

thalassinum darter) E. tippecanoe (Tippecanoe darter) E. trisella (trispot darter) E. tuscumbia (Tuscmbia darter) E. variatum (variegate darter) E. virgatum (striped darter) E. "1tlem (glassy darter) E. vulneratum (wounded darter) E. wapiti (boulder darter) E. whipplei (redfin darter) E. ranale (banded darter) E. zonifer (backwater darter) E. zonistium (bandfin darter) Etheostoma sp. cf. (upland (IoldstrIoe Etheostoma sp. cf. (bluegrass darter) Etheostoma ST). cf. (bluemask da&r) Etheostoma sp. cf. (clown darter) Etheostama sp. cf. (longhunt darter) Pera flavescens (yellow perch) Perclna antesella (amber darter) P. aurantlaca (tangerms darter) P. aurolineata (goldline darter)
E.

__N_________________-

(seagreen

--NNNNNNN_ _ _ _ _
x -x______________ _~_________________

_x_

____________________----

_________ _
x _ _ _ _ _
_x-

____________________________ _ _
________________________ _
N _

_ _
_ N N

N
_ _

N
_

N
_

N
_

NNNN--_-________________--_-_--..

______

___

______________

_~~~~~_~~__________
-NNNNNNNN
__NNN___-_---------

____________-----I---------------

E. parvipinne darter) E. stigmaeum E. stigmaeum E. stigmaeum

______ ___ _________

x_-----x

________________ ________________

-N----

_N_N_______

_~_______________
--N--_N_____

__________________________

_ x . _ _ _ x__ ______________

E. stigmaem

IIIIIII-I----II-I--------~~~--l~~
-N----------------

_ _
x _ _ _ _ -x______________

_NN____________---

Appendix 1. Cont d. inue

Federal E aurora (Pearl darter) P. austroperca (southern logperch) P. brevicauda (coal darter) P. burtoni (blotchside logperch) P. caprodes (logperch) P. copelandi (channel darter) P. crassa (Piedmont darter) P. evides (gilt darter) P. gymnocephala (Appalachia darter) P. jenkinsi (Conasauga logperch) P. lentlcula (freckled darter) P. macrocephala (longhead darter) P. maculata (blackslde darter) P. nigrofasclata (blackbanded darter) P. notogramma (stripeback darter) P. ouachitae (saddleback darter) P. oxyrhynchus (sharpnose darter) P. palmaris (bronze darter) P. peltata (shield darter) P. phoxocephala (slenderhead darter) P. rex (Roanoke logperch) P. roanaka (Roanoke darter)
P.

T PE PT Cl CT.2 _ _ _ _ x

AFS T SC

Drainaoe Units
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31 32 33
__NN_------______

_x-

______.....---

~_-------_______--x _ _ _ _ _ _ _x______...----_NNN__------_____

-_x__--________-N--------------NNNNNNNNNNN --NNNNNNNN

_-NNN-______ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. ..____....-----NNNNNNN-

M . L. W A R R E N, JR ., P. L. A N G E R M E IE R , B. M B U R R,

AND

W . R. H

AAG

163

164 C HAPTER 5: PATTERNS

OF

FISH IMPERIL MEN T

IN TH

E SOUTHEA S T