The clam shack is in the news!

KDWP, mostly just Bryan Simmons, have spent the last few years creating a native mussel propogation facility.  Today, front page of the local paper!  Ok, so its a small readership, but hey, spread the word!  I'll have to explain this whole thing at some point.

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.

What? Thursday? Already?

No Analyze Everything this week. Labor day messed up my schedule. Will return next week.

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.

Random Pics

Random snail that I can't identify along the Verdigris River.

Native mussel shells found in the Verdigris River.

American toad (we think) found in the riparian woodlands along the Verdigris River.

Cowskin Creek in southern Sedgwick County. All of the riparian areas were cleared (completely) a year ago.

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.