Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas - novelonlinefull.com
You’re read light novel Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas Part 8 online at NovelOnlineFull.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit NovelOnlineFull.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
FISHES OF DOUBTFUL OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE
In addition to the species listed above, the following species have been reported nearby and may occur within the area surveyed.
_Lepisosteus productus_ (Cope)--This gar has not been reported from Kansas. It has been taken at several points in the northern half of Oklahoma and as far west as Canton Reservoir by Buck and Cross (1951). A specimen of the spotted gar was taken by Elkin (1954:28) in Salt Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma.
_Polyodon spathula_ (Walbaum)--The paddlefish has never been reported from the Arkansas River system in Kansas. Several reports by fishermen were traced by the writer, but authentication was not achieved. One mounted specimen was examined in a sporting goods store in Arkansas City. This fish was said to have been taken on the Arkansas River south of Arkansas City but information on the date and method of capture were vague. Mr. Darrell Wheat of Arkansas City reported taking four paddlefish below a dam at Oxford, Kansas, in 1948 and 1949.
_Hiodon alosoides_ (Rafinesque)--One specimen (K. U. 3095) of the goldeye was taken in 1953 on the Arkansas River near Oxford in Sumner County. Fishermen also report taking this fish occasionally in the Walnut River in Cowley County.
_Noturus flavus_ (Rafinesque)--The stonecat was taken in the Verdigris system by R. D. Lindsay in 1911 (K. U. 2058) and more recently by Cross in Montgomery County (C-120) and Schelske (1957:46) in Wilson and Montgomery Counties. The close proximity of these collection areas to lower portions of the Elk River indicate probable occurrence in Elk River and other Verdigris tributaries.
_Noturus nocturnus_ (Jordan and Gilbert)--The freckled madtom has been taken on all sides of the area studied making its occurrence therein highly probable. This madtom has been taken in Beaver Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma (OAM 4771); from a tributary of the Walnut River in Sedgwick County by Cross (1954); from the Chikaskia River (Moore and Buck, 1953:24); and from several localities on the Verdigris River (Schelske, 1957:47).
_Etheostoma cragini_ (Gilbert)--One Cragin's darter (K. U. 3470) was taken by Cross in the Arkansas River near the Sumner-Cowley county line (Sec. 25, T31S, R2E). Records of this darter are few and widely scattered geographically. Several collections from north-eastern Oklahoma are noted by Moore and Cross (1950:144).
_Etheostoma whipplii_ (Girard)--Schelske (1957:38) reports the redfin darter from the Verdigris River three miles southeast of Benedict, Kansas. Dr. George Moore of Oklahoma A. & M. College states that it has been taken in the Verdigris drainage in Oklahoma at several locations.
_Etheostoma zonale arcansanum_ (Jordan and Gilbert)--Two banded darters (K. U. 3213) have been reported by Schelske (1957:49) from Fall River near Neodesha, Kansas. Because a tributary of Fall River enters Elk County its presence in this and other Verdigris tributaries in the area seems possible. This darter has been reported from only one other stream in Kansas, Shoal Creek in Cherokee County, where it has been collected often.
_Roccus chrysops_ (Rafinesque)--The white ba.s.s has been stocked in Hulah Reservoir on Big Caney River in Oklahoma. To date it has not been reported from the Big Caney in Kansas. White ba.s.s are common in many reservoirs of Kansas and Oklahoma and have been taken in rivers in both states. Mr. Clement Gillespie of Arkansas City, Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission wildlife protector for the area, states that two hundred young of _R. chrysops_ were released in Grouse Creek several years ago under auspices of the Commission. The fish has not been reported by fishermen since that time to the knowledge of Mr. Gillespie or of the writer.
_Lepomis microlophus_ (Gunther)--One redear sunfish was taken on Salt Creek in Osage County, Oklahoma, by Elkin (1954:28). Because this species has been stocked widely in Oklahoma its eventual occurrence in Kansas seems probable.
_Chaen.o.bryttus gulosus_ (Cuvier)--The warmouth has been taken south of the collection area in Osage County on Salt Creek by Elkin (1954:28).
FAUNAL COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENT STREAMS
The faunas of Elk River, Big Caney River, and Grouse Creek were generally similar. These streams and most of their tributaries originate in the same hilly area of eastern Cowley County and western Elk and Chautauqua counties; their similarities and differences have been pointed out.
The following species were taken in all of these streams:
_Lepisosteus osseus_ _Dorosoma cepedianum_ _Ictiobus bubalus_ _Moxostoma erythrurum_ _Minytrema melanops_ _Cyprinus carpio_ _Campostoma anomalum_ _Notropis boops_ _Notropis lutrensis_ _Notropis umbratilis_ _Notropis volucellus_ _Pimephales notatus_ _Pimephales tenellus_ _Fundulus notatus_ _Gambusia affinis_ _Ictalurus melas_ _Ictalurus punctatus_ _Etheostoma spectabile_ _Percina caprodes_ _Micropterus salmoides_ _Pomoxis annularis_ _Lepomis cyanellus_ _Lepomis humilis_ _Lepomis megalotis_ _Lepomis macrochirus_ _Labidesthes sicculus_
No species was found in Elk River to the exclusion of Big Caney and Grouse Creek. Fish taken exclusively in Grouse Creek were _Ictiobus cyprinella_ at station G-2 and _Notropis percobromus_ at station G-1.
The following species were taken only in Big Caney River: _Ictiobus niger_, _Notropis rubellus_, _Phenacobius mirabilis_, _Pimephales vigilax_, and _Pomoxis nigromaculatus_.
_Notropis buchanani_ and _Pimephales promelas_ were taken in Grouse Creek and Elk River, but not in Big Caney River, although the watershed of Big Caney lies largely between these two streams. Three species, _Notropis camurus_, _Micropterus punctulatus_, and _Aplodinotus grunniens_, were found in Elk River and Big Caney but not in Grouse Creek. _Ictalurus natalis_, _Pylodictis olivaris_, and _Percina phoxocephala_ were taken in Big Caney River and Grouse Creek but not in Elk River. _Percina copelandi_ was taken by Cross on Elk River in 1954 and 1955 (K. U. 3464 and K. U. 3197).
Forty species were taken in Big Caney River, 35 in Grouse Creek and 31 in Elk River. Collections were made from only six stations on Elk River as compared with 18 from Big Caney and 17 from Grouse Creek.
Twenty-four species were taken in the Walnut River system, only one of which (_Notemigonus crysoleucas_) was taken exclusively there.
In the Arkansas River 18 species were found, four of which did not occur elsewhere. These were _Hybopsis aestivalis_, _Notropis blennius_, _N.
girardi_, and _Fundulus kansae_.
Table 5 lists the number of stations in each of the streams surveyed from which each species was taken.
TABLE 5.--SPECIES OF FISHES COLLECTED AND NUMBER OF STATIONS IN EACH STREAM SYSTEM AT WHICH EACH SPECIES WAS FOUND.
KEY: A: Arkansas River 3 stations B: Walnut River 5 stations C: Grouse Creek 17 stations D: Big Caney River 18 stations E: Elk River 6 stations F: Middle Caney 2 stations G: Beaver Creek 3 stations
============================================================ Total number | | | | | | | of stations | A | B | C | D | E | F | G --------------------+-------+---+----+----+--------+---+---- _L. osseus_ | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | Seen | | _D. cepedianum_ | Seen | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | _Carpiodes carpio_ | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | _I. bubalus_ | | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | | _I. cyprinella_ | | | 1 | | | | _I. niger_ | | | | 2 | | | _M. erythrurum_ | | | 4 | 10 | 3 | | _M. melanops_ | | | 1 | 3 | 1 | | _Cyprinus carpio_ | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | | _C. anomalum_ | | 1 | 1 | 14 | 2 | | 1 _H. aestivalis_ | 1 | | | | | | _N. blennius_ | 2 | | | | | | _N. boops_ | | | 2 | 14 | 2 | 2 | _N. buchanani_ | | | 1 | | 1 | | _N. camurus_ | | | | 13 | 2 | | _N. deliciosus_ | 3 | 3 | | | | | _N. girardi_ | 2 | | | | | | _N. lutrensis_ | 3 | 4 | 13 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 3 _N. rubellus_ | | | | 11 | | | _N. percobromus_ | 3 | 3 | 1 | | | | _N. umbratilis_ | | | 8 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 2 _N. volucellus_ | | | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | _N. crysoleucas_ | | 1 | | | | | _H. placita_ | 3 | 2 | | | | | _P. mirabilis_ | | 1 | | 1 | | | _P. notatus_ | | 1 | 6 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 1 _P. promelas_ | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 _P. vigilax_ | 1 | | | 3 | | 1 | _P. tenellus_ | | | 1 | 7 | 1 | 2 | _F. notatus_ | | 4 | 10 | 1 | 1 | | 1 _F. kansae_ | 2 | | | | | | _G. affinis_ | 3 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 1 | | _I. melas_ | 1 | 4 | 12 | 9 | 5 | | 3 _I. natalis_ | | | 6 | 3 | | | _I. punctatus_ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | | _P. olivaris_ | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | | _E. spectabile_ | | 1 | 4 | 17 | 2 | | 1 _P. copelandi_ | | | 1 | 5 | | | _P. phoxocephala_ | | | 1 | 4 | | | _P. caprodes_ | | | 5 | 8 | 1 | | _M. salmoides_ | | | 4 | 2 | 3 | | 1 _M. punctulatus_ | | | | 7 | 1 | | _P. annularis_ | | 2 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 1 | _P. nigromaculatus_ | | | | 1 | | | _L. cyanellus_ | | 3 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 1 | 3 _L. humilis_ | 1 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 2 _L. megalotis_ | | 3 | 9 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 2 _L. macrochirus_ | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | | _A. grunniens_ | | | | 1 | 1 | | _L. sicculus_ | | | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 ------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRIBUTIONAL VARIATIONS WITHIN THE SAME STREAM
An a.n.a.lysis of faunal variations in different parts of the same stream system was made for Big Caney River and Grouse Creek. Collecting was more extensive in these streams, and sampling was done over a wider range of habitat, than in the Arkansas and Walnut rivers.
The fish taken in the first five seine hauls at each station were counted and the number of each species was recorded as a percentage of the total number of fish taken. These percentages were calculated for the main stream and for each tributary in an attempt to discern possible intra-stream faunal patterns. In Table 6 lower, middle, and upper segments of each stream have been segregated and the average of all stations within each segment is shown.
The results are subject to several sources of error, some of which are discussed below:
(1) Seining techniques could not be entirely standardized. One station might present a series of long narrow riffles and narrow, shallow pools in which only a small seine could be used effectively; another station might consist of a large, deep, isolated pool in which a larger seine was needed for effective sampling. In practice, the five seine hauls were made with any of several seines ranging from ten to twenty feet in length.
(2) Seines are species-selective, due partly to the preference of certain fishes for special habitat niches. Fishes that are often found under stones or in weedy pools require special collecting techniques and frequently were not represented in the initial five hauls. If work subsequent to the first five hauls indicated that such fish were a prominent part of the fauna at a particular station, these results were considered before percentages were calculated.
(3) Temporal variations occur in populations at the same station. There were both seasonal and diurnal differences in relative numbers of species taken in these collections. This was noted especially at station C-5 where collecting was done both at night and by day. Sp.a.w.ning by certain species during the course of the study complicated estimates of their relative abundance.
(4) In tabulating percentages of fishes obtained an arbitrary element is often unavoidable in deciding whether a station, especially a station on a tributary, should be considered as part of the lower, middle, or upper segment of a river system.
Despite these disadvantages it is felt that table 6 has factual basis permitting some reliable interpretation.
TABLE 6.--RELATIVE ABUNDANCE IN PER CENT OF FISHES IN COLLECTIONS FROM THREE STREAM SEGMENTS.
==================================================================== | Big Caney River Grouse Creek |------------------------+----------------------- | Lower | Middle | Upper | Lower | Middle | Upper -------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+------ _L. osseus_ | .7 | .5 | | .6 | .02 | _D. cepedianum_ | .3 | | | | .02 | _Carpiodes carpio_ | .06 | | | 1.0 | | _I. bubalus_ | .6 | .45 | | 1.4 | | _I. cyprinella_ | | | | .1 | | _I. niger_ | .01 | | | | | _M. erythrurum_ | .2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | .03 | .5 | 1.1 _M. melanops_ | .1 | .01 | | | .1 | _Cyprinus carpio_ | .7 | | | 1.3 | .2 | _C. anomalum_ | .6 | 5.9 | 18.0 | | .1 | _N. boops_ | .6 | .6 | 5.1 | | 1.3 | _N. buchanani_ | | | | .01 | | _N. camurus_ | 6.4 | 5.5 | .4 | | | _N. lutrensis_ | 8.8 | 1.0 | .5 | 6.4 | 11.4 | 15.2 _N. percobromus_ | | | | 1.1 | | _N. rubellus_ | .4 | 1.4 | 3.9 | | | _N. umbratilis_ | 17.6 | 28.3 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 5.5 _N. volucellus_ | .3 | .4 | | | .3 | _P. mirabilis_ | .3 | | | | | _P. notatus_ | 3.5 | 5.7 | 13.0 | | .9 | 6.6 _P. vigilax_ | .8 | | | | | _P. promelas_ | | | | | | 2.9 _P. tenellus_ | .7 | .5 | | .01 | | _G. affinis_ | 14.6 | .4 | .4 | 20.8 | 10.2 | 1.0 _F. notatus_ | .1 | | | 6.6 | 17.2 | 1.4 _I. melas_ | .9 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 18.0 _I. natalis_ | | | .5 | .5 | .8 | _P. olivaris_ | .01 | | | .01 | | _I. punctatus_ | .3 | | | .4 | | _E. spectabile_ | 1.9 | 4.9 | 18.0 | .4 | .3 | .3 _P. copelandi_ | .8 | .1 | | .01 | | _P. phoxocephala_ | .1 | | | .1 | | _P. caprodes_ | .4 | .6 | .2 | .2 | .2 | .4 _M. salmoides_ | .06 | | | | 1.1 | .3 _M. punctulatus_ | .5 | 1.7 | .4 | | | _P. annularis_ | 3.9 | .8 | | 2.9 | 4.2 | .3 _L. cyanellus_ | 3.4 | .8 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 30.5 _L. humilis_ | 10.6 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 31.4 | 17.7 | 14.8 _L. megalotis_ | 12.4 | 22.3 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 14.0 | 1.7 _L. macrochirus_ | .3 | | | .2 | 1.3 | _A. grunniens_ | .1 | | | | | _L. sicculus_ | 7.1 | 1.6 | .4 | 7.7 | 10.2 | --------------------------------------------------------------------
_Big Caney River_
The "lower segment" of Big Caney River is immediately upstream from Hulah Reservoir, and is not the lowermost portion of the entire river basin, but merely the lower part of the river in the area studied. A conspicuous characteristic of the lower segment was the general restriction of the deep-bodied suckers and the carp to this part of the stream. Other fishes that were most common in the lower section were _Pimephales vigilax_, _Percina phoxocephala_, _Gambusia affinis_, and _Aplodinotus grunniens_. _Labidesthes sicculus_ and _Lepisosteus osseus_ ranged into the middle section of the stream, but were present in larger numbers downstream. _Ictalurus punctatus_, _Pomoxis annularis_, and _Lepomis macrochirus_ were taken chiefly in downstream habitats; however, stocking has confused the distributional pattern of these species. _Notropis lutrensis_, although found throughout the system, progressively declined in numbers taken in the middle and upper sections. Approximately 18 species were usually taken in downstream collections.
No species were found exclusively in the middle section of the Big Caney system. _Micropterus punctulatus_, _Notropis umbratilis_, and _Lepomis megalotis_ tended to be most common in the middle section of the main stream. These three species were taken together at stations C-5, C-6, C-8, and C-10.
The upper section yielded no species that did not occur also in another section. Fishes most abundant in the upper section included: _Campostoma anomalum_, _Etheostoma spectabile_, _Notropis boops_, _Notropis rubellus_, _Pimephales notatus_, and _Lepomis cyanellus_. _Ictalurus natalis_ also seemed more common upstream than in lower parts of the basin.
_Campostoma anomalum_ was one of the most common fishes taken at many of the stations on small upland tributaries. In downstream collections its relative abundance was less, although it was often concentrated on riffles.
In the Big Caney system as a whole _Notropis umbratilis_ was the most abundant species. Several species were present throughout the system in proportions varying, sometimes greatly, from station to station.
_Lepomis megalotis_ and _Lepomis humilis_ were erratic in occurrence, and the numbers of _Notropis camurus_ and _Ictalurus melas_ varied without pattern.