Abstract
AbstractHistorically, suckers (Catostomidae) have been largely neglected in conservation efforts. Due to pervasive lotic habitat degradation and loss throughout North America, sucker habitat knowledge is urgently needed for conservation. The sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.) is an undescribed, imperiled sucker, endemic to a small geographic range in the southern Appalachian Mountains (USA). We described adult sicklefin redhorse seasonal and spawning microhabitat suitability, quantified spawning substrate composition, identified seasonal and spawning habitat niches (i.e., macrohabitats), and characterized foraging habitat. We combined radiotelemetry and visual observations of Hiwassee River basin adult sicklefin redhorses during March–January (2006–2008) to address our objectives. Sicklefin redhorses occupied seasonal and spawning microhabitats non-randomly, and we developed season- and spawning-specific habitat suitability criteria (HSC) using a Bayesian approach. Adult sicklefin redhorses occupied habitats with swift midchannel currents, moderate depths, and coarse substrates supporting hornleaf riverweed (Podostemum ceratophyllum). In contrast, suitable spawning sites were located in near-bank shallow depths, slow currents, over intermediate-sized substrates near cover, but free of riverweed. Annually, principal component analyses indicated that sheet and run macrohabitats were predominantly occupied, while pocket-water riffles near depositional, edgewater zones provided spawning sites. Spawning substrate composition was predominantly small cobble (40.9%) and very coarse gravel (21.3%), but fines (3.0%) were also prevalent within interstitial spaces. Mean Fredle index was 28.2, indicating spawning substrate permeability at half potential. Annually, bedrock covered with hornleaf riverweed was the dominant foraging substrate. Our adult sicklefin redhorse annual, seasonal, and spawning HSCs, multivariate habitat niche characterizations, spawning substrate analyses, and foraging habitat descriptions can guide habitat conservation and restoration throughout the species’ geographic range.
Funder
World Wildlife Fund
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Aquatic Science,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference150 articles.
1. Altman HM (2006) Eastern Cherokee fishing. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
2. Angermeier PL (1995) Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of Virginia. Conserv Biol 9:143–158
3. Arend KK (1999) Classification of streams and reaches. In: Bain MB, Stevenson NJ (eds) Aquatic habitat assessment. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 47–56
4. Argentina JE, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ (2010) The response of stream fish to local and reach-scale variation in the occurrence of a benthic aquatic macrophyte. Freshw Biol 55:643–653
5. Bain MB, Stevenson NJ (1999) Aquatic habitat assessment: common methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda