Species Profiles: The Flathead Chub

Threatened and Endangered species tend to fall into one of the following categories: Rare to the point where they are never seen, abundant in certain locations, or just damned hard to find. The Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis) falls into that first category. For example, some researchers at K-State have been sampling the Kansas River for most of the last three years. In 2007, they pulled out >36,000 fish, but didn’t find a single flathead chub (Eitzmann and Paukert 2007). Needless to say, this one is on the list of Kansas T&E species that I haven’t seen.

The flathead chub is a member of the minnow family (Cyprinidae), otherwise known as the largest family of freshwater fishes in the world (~286 species in N. America alone). Like most members of this family, flathead chubs are small (typically 9-16 cm). This species has a relatively broad, wedge-shaped head with long, sickle-shaped pectoral fins. Coloration is greenish or brown on top, with plain, silvery sides. The species was first described way back in 1836 (McPhail and Lindsey 1970), although the name has changed a lot (the genus flipped back and forth from Hybopsis to Platygobio a few times from 1950-1989, so you will see some references to H. gracilis here and there).

This species has occasionally been broken up into two subspecies: A large-river variety (H. gracilis gracilis; primarily the Missouri) and a smaller stream variety (H. gracilis gulonellus; primarily in the Ark River drainages). The transition zone between these two subspecies was Kansas, and the possibility of distinct genetic lineages was disputed (some people disagree with designating these as subspecies). That question will probably never be resolved due to the species’ afore-mentioned “rare to the point where they are never seen” status in Kansas.

The absence of this species isn’t terribly surprising, although that doesn’t make it somewhat depressing. Like the Pallid Sturgeon, the Paddlefish, the Chestnut Lamprey, and a ridiculous number of other fishes, the flathead chub has been eviscerated as a part of the natural community in large portions of its range by the construction of impoundments. The species occurs widely throughout North America, but is only endangered in the southern extent of its range (see the pretty map from Natureserve). The large rivers in the Missouri/Mississippi Drainage have been extensively regulated, thus wiping out avenues for upstream migration, and also reducing the productivity associated with flood events and backwater areas.

Meanwhile, less regulated areas of the flathead chub’s range continue to support viable populations. In Wyoming, the occurrence of the chub may be declining (Patton et al. 1998), but at least it is still out there. NatureServe actually lists them as being ‘secure’ throughout Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota and much of Canada.

Little is known about the spawning habits of this species, although in Kansas most spawning occurs between July 1^st and August 15^th. As an agency, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks is supposed to have a recovery plan for this species, but as yet none has been written. I have a hard time imagining such a recover plan that didn’t include propagation efforts, and KDWP currently does not propagate any fish species for non-game purposes. At this point, the agency primarily protects this species by restricting activities in waters where the species potentially occurs (the Kansas and Arkansas Rivers) during the spawning period.

Want to read more about this species? I recommend this conservation assessment by Rahel and Thel (2007; pdf).

Lit cited:

Eitzmann, J.L. and C. Paukert. 2007. Annual performance report: Distribution and Abundance of fishes in the Kansas River.

McPhail, J.D. and C.D. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater Fishes of Northwestern Canada and Alaska. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 173. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Patton, T.M., F.J. Rahel, and W.A. Hubert. 1998. Using historical data to assess changes in Wyoming’s fish fauna. Conservation Biology 12:1120-1128.

Rahel, F.J. and L. A. Thel. 2004. Flathead Chub (Platygobio grcilis): A technical Conservation Assessment. Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service.

Unionid Mussels

One of the most imperiled classes of animals in North America are the Unionid Mussels. There are 11 species of mussels on the Kansas Threatened or Endangered species list, and there are more that are definitely in need of conservation. Historically, these species were harvested for buttons (like on your shirt), and a massive industry existed within Kansas to harvest these species out of the Arkansas River, Verdigras River, and Neosho River (to name a few). Massive water quality issues compounded the mussel's decline through the early part of the 1900. Even into the 1970s, the mussel-rich portions of Kansas waters were experiencing massive fish kills due to runoff from feedlots and poor municipal water treatment facilities. Once the Clean Water Act came along and cleaned up the water (the importance of the CWA can never be understated), the surviving mussel populations were isolated by impoundments and low-head dams. Consequently they've been slow to make any kind of comeback. This is why KDWP is propagating mussels in an effort to circumvent barriers that are isolating them. The initial results of this are quite promising, but I should really save that for another post.

Regardless, last week I went out and did a mussel survey and relocation. A temporary stream crossing will be going across the Verdigris River, and we came to insure no mussels were harmed. In particular we were looking for the Ouachita Kidneyshell Mussel (Ptychobranchus occidentalis), and we were unsuccessful in finding it. We did find shells from 13 mussels, and live individuals from 5 (about 20 individuals overall), including a couple that are fairly rare. Hope you enjoy the pics:


The Verdigris River. If you look closely, you can actually see a lot of mussel shells on the stream-bottom and on the gravel bar even in this picture. There were literally thousands of mussel shells here.



A fairly common species, the Pistolgrip (Tritogonia verrucosa).

A smaller Pistolgrip and a White Heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata complanata).


A Threeridge (Amblema plicata plicata). I got these confused with Washboard (Megalonaias nervosa), but I guess the key is the area where the ridges begin. In a Washboard there would be distinct 'patterning' there (the overall body shape is different as well). Incidentally, the three ridges are not characteristic (more ridges will form if the animal is given enough time to grow), but they were harvested for buttons only when they were large enough to have 3 ridges. These are thick, heavy shells that would probably make a lot of buttons.


We packed all the live mussels into a bucket and moved them upstream, so that erosion caused by the stream crossing wouldn't affect them. We also found some live Pimplebacks (Quadrula pustulosa pustulosa), Mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula), and Bleufer (Potamilus purpuratus).


I didn't really dump them all in one location, but we forgot to take pictures of us putting the live ones back in the river. This is our 'creative recreation' of the event.

The Disappearing Eastern Spotted Skunk

There are few more interesting inclusions into the Kansas Threatened and Endangered species list than the Eastern Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putorius). The species is known by various names (e.g., polecat, civet cat) that indicate its distinction from its more common cousin skunks (the Latin name essentially means “stinking spotted weasel”). Where striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) are more barrel-shaped and hefty, the spotted skunk is more weasel-like in appearance and small. A host of exceedingly detailed characteristics are used to distinguish S. putorius from S. gracilis (the Western Spotted Skunk), but hardly anyone honestly believed they were separate species until it was revealed that S. putorius breeds in Spring and has babies early summer, while S. gracilis breeds in the fall and has babies the following spring (Verts et al. 2001). Like all other skunks, the spotted skunk does have the skink-emitting, anal-scent glands so characteristic of skunks in general. In fact, Johnson (1921; described in Butfiloski and Swaygnham ), the spotted skunk will actually stand up on its front legs to more effectively direct its anal sacs towards a potential threat. I wish I could find a video of this behavior, but I did find a photograph (from Kinlaw 1995).


Both striped and spotted skunks have a long history as important furbearers. From the 1920s-1930s the spotted skunk was the third most harvested species in the Kansas fur-trade, averaging around 100,000 pelts a year (a level apparently believed to be sustainable), which was 3rd behind the striped skunk and possums (Roy 1997). The skunk appears to be a historic resident of Kansas, and most of the Great Plains, but some authors (e.g., Choate et al. 1973) have speculated that other spotted skunk species (i.e., the western Spotted Skunk, S. gracilis) may account for sightings prior to the agricultural settling of Kansas. In general these accounts refer to the spotted skunk as common throughout the state, even more common than striped skunks in some areas, up until about the early 1940s (Nilz and Fink 2008).

The late 30s/early 40s saw the number of skunk pelts declining significantly. By 1977 the season on these skunks was permanently closed and in 1982 the species was listed as threatened by KDWP. This wasn’t a uniquely Kansas phenomenon. Declines also occurred throughout the lower Midwest (Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma; summarized in Nilz and Fink 2008) and potentially elsewhere in the species’ range (Reed and Kennedy 2000).

The skunk feeds on all kinds of small mammals, arthropods, birds and plant matter and is generally considered an opportunistic omnivore that benefits agriculture by eating rodents. There’s been some suggestions that the skunk moved west with agriculture and attained high densities only when benefiting from old, relatively wasteful, agricultural practices. The advent of modern farming, with less waste, chemical methods to control pests (rodents) and less ‘fringe’ habitats seems to correspond to the decline of the species. As a result, modern agricultural practices are generally considered to be at the heart of the skunk’s decline.

And decline is the right word. The spotted skunk’s preferred habitat is…just about anything native. According to the available data (which is admittedly scarce), the skunk does well in woodlands, prairies, riparian areas, scrub-land, and around abandoned farmhouses. Yet despite the huge range of habitats and food options available to the skunk, it’s almost totally absent from the Kansas landscape. Almost all the recent data comes from road kills and trappers. Nilz and Fink (2008) summarized the recent data and demonstrated that the distribution of the known occurrences of this species has continued to decline in the last thirty years. Almost nobody I’ve ever met has even seen one.

There’s a lot more out there to talk about, for instance, quite a bit is known about the evolutionary origins of this species. And apparently the skunks are in the same family as ‘stink badgers’, which I’d never known even existed. Unfortunately, I’m out of time for this week.


Choate, J.R., E.D. Fleharty, and R.J. Little. 1973. Status of the spotted skunk, Spilogale putorius, in Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 76:226-233.

Johnson, C.E. 1921. The “hand-stand” habit of the spotted skunk. Journal of Mammology 2:87-89.

Kinlaw, A. 1995. Spilogale putorius. Mammalian Species 511:1-7.

Nilz, S.K. and E.J. Finck. 2008. Proposed recovery plan for the Eastern Spotted Skunk (Spilogale putorius) in Kansas. KDWP.

Reed, A.W. and M.L. Kennedy. 2000. Conservation status of the Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee. American Midland Naturalist 144:133-138.

Roy, C.C. 1997. 1995-1996 Kansas furbearer surveys and investigations project summary. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Unpublished report, 70 pp.

Verts, B.J., N. Leslie, and A. Kinlaw. 2001. Spilogale gracilis. Mammalian Species: 674:1-10.

50 CFR Part 402.

In case anyone forgot, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce have jointly issued a new proposed set of regulations related to the Endangered Species Act. The deadline for commenting on these regulations is September 15th. I recommend anyone who cares visit the appropriate site and leave a comment.  To find the appropriate site, follow these instructions:

Here's how you get your comments read: 

• Go to www.regulations.gov and use the search terms: "50 CFR Part 402 proposed rule."   
  
• The proposed changes are in Document # EB - 18938 
  
• To see the proposed changes, click on "View this document."  
  
• Click on "Send a comment or submission" to write your comment. 
  

This is what I said:

The proposed rules appear to drastically limit the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect and preserve threatened and endangered species. I frequently work with agency personnel from federal agencies not associated with the US FWS. Because those agencies have mandates to perform other services, they are unwilling or unable to adequately assess or mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species. The U.S. FWS has been an advocate for those species on behalf of an increasingly disillusioned public who is consistently in favor of preserving these species. Eliminating or reducing their already limited influence is unnecessary and offensive. From popular press articles it seems clear that this action is in direct response to the listing of the polar bear. Please do not throw out the good aspects of the E.S.A. just to circumvent dealing with a small number of difficult species. I implore the agencies involved to reconsider these proposed changes in light of their statutory mandates and the definite negative effects they will have on the unique fauna native to the United States.

The Chestnut Lamprey

Lampreys are a fairly unique class of aquatic vertebrates with an apparently ancient lineage. Every description I’ve read identifies them as superficially similar looking to eels, but lacking a jaw and instead having a round, sucking disk mouth (Cross and Collins 1995, Wikipedia, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, etc.). That is to say that they are elongated, have no scales, and have spine-less fins. However, the resemblance is pretty much completely superficial. In fact, lampreys are not even true fish (Cross and Collins 1995, Tree of Life), and in 2006 researchers found a fossilized lamprey that was virtually indistinguishable from the modern animal (article about the find) from 360 million years ago. That is way back there, when fish were just evolving jaws.

Lamprey life-history is fairly straightforward...for an amphibian (which it isn’t). The larvae are called ammocoetes, and live in mucky sediments consuming microorganisms (at one point, it was thought these were a totally different species). After 5-7 years of this, they grow eyes and a new mouth, get bigger and learn how to swim. Then they spent ~18 months swimming around and sucking the blood out of fish large enough for them to latch onto (this varies tremendously by species, Chestnut lampreys, the Kansas Threatened species I’m gradually getting to, do not survive more than a year and are adults only a very short amount of this time). Adults then move upstream into smaller streams and reproduce. Reproduction occurs by spawning (egg and sperm release) into shallow, excavated depressions in gravel beds, and the hatched offspring move downstream and spend much of their lifespan in the benthos.

Lampreys are typically thought of as blood-suckers. Indeed, many of the most well-known members of this are fish parasites that kill their host and cause untold economic damage. The introduction of sea lampreys into the Great Lakes by the construction of locks and canals for shipping essentially destroyed the fishing industry in the lakes and devastated the native trout species (probably more economic cost from that than all the benefit they’ve provided). According the Great Lakes Fishery Commission “before sea lampreys entered the Great Lakes, Canada and the United States harvested about 7 million kgs. (15 million lbs.) of lake trout in lakes Huron and Superior annually. By the early 1960s, the catch was only about 136,000 kgs. (300,000 lbs.). The fishery was devastated.”

With all that context, why is there a lamprey species listed as a Threatened species in Kansas? Well, I’m still not sure. The Chestnut Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon castaneus) appears to occur sporadically, but widely, across the Eastern United states. Early literature describes them as “little known” (Jordan 1918). Hall and Moore (1954) considered them rare, and were apparently surprised to be able to find them easily to conduct some fairly technical taxonomic studies (apparently a lot has been made about their teeth?). In 1973, the Kansas Academy of Sciences (KAS) published a list of Rare, Endangered and Extirpated Species in Kansas, and included the Chestnut lamprey as a species “Endangered in Kansas but not nationally” because its status was uncertain and no records had been collected since the 1950s. They recommended stabilizing flow and minimizing turbidity on small, high-gradient streams. Kansas T&E laws date from 1975, and I suspect but cannot confirm yet that the KAS list was adopted en masse when the state law went into effect. So apparently the species was being found with relative frequency prior to the 1950s, then stopped being found anywhere in Kansas except in the main-stem of the Missouri and Kansas Rivers. There’s a nice-looking map on Natureserve that seems to indicate the species is imperiled several places in its range, but I’ve got a touch of color-blindness and therefore I can’t really interpret the map very well (feel free to do so yourself).

Hall and Moore (1954) also described the Chestnut Lamprey’s ecology and habits in Oklahoma, suggesting that this might be one of those native species that actually benefits from the construction of large reservoirs. This is because large fish moving upstream are forced to stop at the barriers presented by reservoirs. Where they congregate, the Chestnut lamprey is able to find abundant food, and their larvae are able to survive better because of the removal of silt. However, the construction of those dams in Oklahoma also corresponds to the species disappearing in Kansas (~1950s-60s). I have a hypothesis that the lamprey throughout the Ark basin was a single, massive metapopulation that became fragmented after the construction of the dams and was subsequently wiped out by random, local, events (i.e., feedlot runoff in the Neosho basin killed hundreds of thousands of fish in the Neosho Basin).

These days, the species if found in Kansas only in the Missouri River and the Kansas River below a dam in Lawrence. That’s an extremely limited range. Cross and Collins (1995) also indicate an active record in Cherokee County (extreme SE Kansas on the Ozark Plateau). That’s actually an area of intense heavy-metal pollution due to mining activities over the past hundred or so years, and I suspect if any lampreys exist, they survive in Missouri and only occasionally wander into Kansas. The only designated critical habitat for this species in Kansas is the Missouri River, and as far as I know, KDWP is not taking any special actions or precautions for the species. This is one of those species I don’t know a lot about, so as I read more, I may write more on it.

Jordan, D.S. 1918. The Freshwater Lamprey’s of the United States. Copeia, 64: 93-96

G.E. Hall and G.A. Moore. 1954. Oklahoma Lampreys: Their Characterization and Distribution. Copeia, 2:127-135

Kansas Academy of Science. 1973. Rare, endangered and extirpated species in Kansas. I. Fishes. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 76:97-106.

The Slender Walker Snail

Kansas is often thought of as a very dry state, a prairie state. Compared to my experiences in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana, this is true. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some unique and wonderful wetlands and streams in Kansas that contain unique wildlife. Take for instance the Muscotah Marsh. Located in Atchison County, the marsh is an artesian wetland. Meaning, water is literally coming up out of the ground to create the marsh. I use the name “Muscotah Marsh” to imply a significant sized wetland, but in reality, this is just a tiny little area (Muscotah is the name of the nearest town).

Apart from being the only artesian marsh I’m aware of it Kansas (I’m sure there are more), the marsh is notable for being the home to the only population of slender walker snails in the state (Pomatiopsis lapidaria). Apparently this snail occurs commonly in the eastern U.S. (Pratt 1935), but only isolated population are known from the Kansas-Oklahoma/Great Plains region. However, Liechti (1984) described them as having a spotty occurrence even in the Eastern U.S.

This population of snails is interesting not just because it is so isolated, but because it is so abundant where found. Liechti (1984) found them in densities of 1,255 individuals per square meter (in raised portions of the marsh). Dundee (1957) found a single female could lay 42 eggs after a single mating and all of them would hatch.

Although the Marsh has actually been the subject of research for over a hundred years (see summary in Liechti 1984), there’s been essentially no research done on the site or the snail since the previously mentioned Liechti (1984) paper. In fact, I spoke with Paul on Tuesday about the site, and he wasn’t aware of anyone even visiting the site since he did the paper. In 2003, William Layher submitted a Recovery Plan for the species to KDWP, which was subsequently signed and approved, but this was simply a recounting of other studies. There’s no indicate a new site visit was made, or that the author had even seen the site.

The recovery plan is interesting in its own right. Right now the species is listed as endangered. In order to move from Endangered to Threatened, all that KDWP needs to do is buy or put the land into a conservation easement (the Marsh is currently privately owned). Why this hasn’t been done is beyond me, since getting a species downlisted is the whole point of having a T&E program.

The next part of the recovery plan is the difficult part:

P. lapidaria should be introduced to five sites in various regions of the state. Introductions should be monitored. If the species proliferates and become established in three new locales and persists for five years, the species could be downlisted [from Threatened] to SINC [species in need of conservation] status as events that may impact on site would not affect other sites. If populations continue to flourish for ten years, the species could be removed from all lists.

-- Layher, W.G. 2003. Kansas Recovery Plan for the Slender Walker Snail, Pomatiopsis lapidaria (Say) in Kansas.

This is tough, because introducing species outside of their range is a tricky prospect. Non-indigenous species have turned invasive all over the world. I doubt the Slender Walker Snail poses much threat as an invasive, but what we don’t understand about how species become invasive could fill several books (and has). Probably the entire reason we know as much as we do about the snail is due to its status as a potential intermediate host for Schistosoma japonicum, the human blood fluke, which causes schistosomiasis. The U.S. realized this (and other) species needed to be studied as potential vectors after WWII when soldiers in areas known to contain the fluke started returning state-side.

As I discussed previously, I think many peripheral populations should be conserved, and I think that’s true here too. However, I’m not so confident about introducing them outside their range. Any thoughts?

Sometime before winter, I plan on heading up to try and visit the Muscotah Marsh and see the Slender Walker Snail for myself. I'll be sure to publish pics when/if I get permission to get on-site.

Dundee, D.S. 1957. Aspects of the biology of Pomatiopsis lapidaria (Say). Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool., Univ. Michigan No. 100:1-37.

Liechti, P.M. 1984. Population study of Pomatiopsis lapidaria (Say), a small amphibious snail of endangered status in Kansas. Kansas Biological Survey (KU No. 5054-705). 18 pp.

Pratt, H.S. 1935. A manual of the common invertebrate animals, exclusive of insects. P. Blakiston’s Son and Co., Inc. Philadelphia. Pp. 616-625.

Why species on the edge should be preserved

Often the political boundaries of states and countries do not align with any biologically relevant boundaries, and so species often occur sporadically or rarely in one state, while being extremely abundant in an adjacent state. These species are considered “peripheral species” and are often derided by developers and biologists alike as being unworthy of special regulatory protection.

Peripheral species often occur in habitat conditions that are not ideal for the species. For instance, many of the peripheral fish species in Kansas are surviving in waters that are almost too saline for the species to survive.

In some cases I tend to agree. Species which are not threatened, when their entire range is considered, should generally not be the focus of threatened and endangered species regulations. However, a number of fairly compelling arguments can be made to support the case that peripheral species deserve more protection than we might at first believe. Biologically, I know of three biological reasons for protecting peripheral species:

1. When species collapse, it appears that populations on the edge are more persistent. This is a counter-intuitive effect, and, in fact, I have no good feeling for why it occurs (in general). Some species may have been intentionally targeted (i.e., sea otters) and therefore it wasn’t profitable to visit peripheral ranges. Other peripheral populations may be isolated, and therefore unaffected by disease or invasive species that are decimating the ‘core’ range. Fraser (1999; the paper which got me thinking about this) compiled a number of examples where both vertebrates and invertebrates became extirpated within the “core” of their range, but persist at the edges. Obviously, if an entire species is at risk, preserving the peripheral populations may be extremely important.

2. Populations at the edge of the species’ range may be reservoirs of important genetic diversity. An example of this could be the Broadhead Skink, a peripheral Kansas species that is more common in Missouri. However, the Broadhead Skink in Kansas may experience hotter and generally more prairie-type conditions. As a result, genes that favor those conditions likely occur more frequently in those populations. Each peripheral population may have different gene frequencies than the core population and other peripheral populations. These populations are each adapted to unique stressors that may become more widespread with environmental changes. For instance, increasing global temperatures are driving many species northward. Those species that will be most likely to lead that forced migration are the ones located in peripheral areas, and having genes that allow them to exploit the new conditions most effectively. Alternatively, if conditions change and no migration is possible, then peripheral species may have the genes necessary for the entire species to survive.

3. Peripheral species may also be endangered elsewhere. For the most part, political boundaries determine the scope of influence for any state or government, but those political boundaries are rarely important biologically. A species endangered throughout its range should also be protected on the periphery of its range.

In addition, there are some more pragmatic reasons to list peripheral species. Listing a species automatically attracts scientific attention to it due to the increased availability of funding and ‘practical application.’ Occasionally, we have discovered a peripheral species occurs much more widely than previously thought (rendering its ‘peripheral’ status obsolete), other times we have learned the species is not as threatened as originally believed.

There is also a considerable amount of eco-tourism that is derived from peripheral species. Birds and mammals in particular attract considerable attention that is substantially focused on areas of high diversity (i.e., transitional landscapes).

I’m not saying this means every peripheral species should be protected, but I am arguing that merely designating a species “peripheral” is not justification to avoid protecting it.

Fraser, D.F. 2000. Species at the edge: the case for listing of “peripheral” species. pp 49-53 in L.M. Darling (ed.) Proceedings of a Conference on the Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk. Kamloops, B.C., Canada.

The Mysterious and Elusive Blackside Darter (Percina maculata)

And with that, Analyze Everything is back. Expect a weekly post on Thursday or Friday, focused initially on Kansas T&E and SINC species. Other posts will pop up sporadically. Hope you enjoy, and feel free to ask questions.

State and federal Threatened and Endangered Species lists are riddled with species who are so rare that they may easily be considered extirpated (or even extinct; see Eskimo Curlew). Although apparently facing no global threat of extinction (even in 1973 the darter was considered endangered in Kansas but not nationally), the Blackside Darter has become a whisper of a ghost in Kansas. According to the NatureServe distribution map (see it here), the existing (or recently existing) Kansas population is confined to the Mill Creek Watershed. This is interesting because the next closest population is in Missouri or Oklahoma, between 4-8 HUC8s away.

During the Summer of 2008, KDWP conducted a survey of the Mill Creek looking for Topeka Shiners (more on them elsewhere). There was some optimism that the Blackside Darter would be found at the same time, since unlike many darters, the Blackside is a common mid-column pool resident (Cross and Collins 1995). At this point, no Blacksides have been found (although some collected specimens may be identified as such later), and as far as I can tell, none have been found in Kansas since 1974! (Drenner and Cross 1981) Actually, now that I dig around the KDWP Stream Survey database I see a record of 3 Blackside Darters found on a site in 1994. A return visit in 2000 didn’t find any, however.

I wonder if the Blackside Darters are becoming extirpated in part due to their hybridization with logperch (P. caprodes). The two species have overlapping ranges, and have been observed to hybridize in Kansas (Drenner and Cross 1981), with hybrids having intermediate physical characteristics. Winn (1958) observed logperch males chasing female P. maculate (the latter being a small portion of the overall darter population even when relatively common). Hybridization may have some weird implications for conservation of rare species (c.f. Perry 2001). I did see a logperch in Mill Creek in July of 2008 that looked ‘funny.’ I wonder if that individual has a Blackside ancestor (might explain why we caught it in a pool).

The Blackside Darter is sexually mature in their second year (Becker 1983), and females may continue breeding until they are 4 years old (Bart and Page 1992). This darter consumes primarily benthic invertebrates (NatureServe 2008), although Cross and Collins (1995) also mentioned that the Blackside Darter “sometimes rises to the surface for food.” Among Kansas darters, the Blackside is unique for not clinging to the stream bottom. In general the species tends to prefer streams that one would consider good for mayfly and stonefly species (i.e., cool, clear streams with moderate currents and gravel substrates). Many Flint Hills streams fit this description, but despite fairly extensive sampling efforts in the Northern Flint Hills (mostly hunting the Topeka Shiner), the species is only known to occur in Mill Creek.

Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny on life history variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R. L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calfiornia. xxvi + 969 pp.

Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.

Cross, F.B. and J.T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence KS. p 238.

Drenner, R.W. and F.B. Cross. 1981. A natural hybrid fish, Percina maculate × P. caprodes, from Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 84:61-62.

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: July 21, 2008 ).

Perry, W.L., J.L. Feder, and D.M. Lodge. 2001. Hybridization and introgression between introduced and resident Orconectes crayfishes; implications for conservation. Conservation Biology.

Soil Conservation Commission (SCC). 1973. Rare, Endangered and Extirpated Species in Kansas. I. Fishes. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 76:97-106.

Species Profile: The Neosho Madtom

Let's go looking for Neosho Madtoms!
(I look silly in waders)

The Neosho Madtom is a state and federally listed threatened species. The species occurs only within the Neosho River basin. Individuals are usually small (1-2 inches as adults) and often only live one year. They are primarily consumers of benthic invertebrates.

The species first got listed back in 1990, and it has been the subject of some fairly testy back and forth between regulators and gravel harvesters ever since. KDWP suspended all gravel harvesting options for a while, then allowed them to continue within some limits. Needless to say, this ticked off the gravel harvesters, one of whom successfully sued KDWP for the lost income. Some of these guys are extremely bitter about the whole thing. For some reason I've had three requests to do these gravel harvesting operations in the past month, saturating all the available permits for the Neosho River.

Unfortunately, below is the best picture I have of the fish, since we were largely unsuccessful in finding the little guys.

Back in the mid-90s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS; the federal agency tasked with enforcing the Endangered Species Act) issued an opinion about gravel-harvesting options in the Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers. In essence, they said that the gravel harvesting was possibly damaging the Neosho Madtom populations. As a result, a large, long-term study by FWS and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks has been occurring since then to figure out whether or not gravel harvesting is harming the Neosho Madtom.

The kinda non-intuitive part of this is that the gravel harvesters aren't even getting into the water. That picture above is of a gravel bar in early November. The gravel harvesters are pulling gravel out from above the waterline. So why might these operations be a problem? Basically, when the river floods, the madtoms may be moving up onto the flooded gravel bars and using them as a site for reproduction. What happens when gravel is being removed? The answer is we don't know. But we will.

That's pretty cool.

So there have been grumblings that the Bush administration has consistently undermined the best science at federal agencies. Finally some action is being taken to correct those idiotic decisions. Let's just hope this keeps up.