Influence of Instream and Landscape-Level Factors on the Distribution of Topeka Shiners<i>Notropis topeka</i>in Kansas Streams

Schrank, Sally J.; Guy, Christopher S.; Whiles, Matt R.; Brock, Brent L.

doi:10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[0413:ioiall]2.0.co;2

Cited by 46 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A lack of strong gradient in landscape conditions is one possibility (Schrank et al 2001). For example, the lack of an elevation effect could be a result of sampling over a narrow range of elevations.…”

Section: Physical Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A growing body of literature suggests that the patterns of distribution for many fishes are the result of both local-habitat conditions and largerscale biotic and abiotic processes (e.g., Rabeni and Sowa 1996;Dunham et al 1997;Schrank et al 2001). The physical characteristics of streams at the small scale of individual habitat units or stream reaches have often been associated with variation in fish density (e.g., Rabeni and Sowa 1996;Watson and Hillman 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The physical characteristics of streams at the small scale of individual habitat units or stream reaches have often been associated with variation in fish density (e.g., Rabeni and Sowa 1996;Watson and Hillman 1997). However, large-scale watershed or landscape features such as stream size, basin area, spatial geometry, and stream temperature or surrogates for climate (Bozek and Hubert 1992;Fausch et al 1994;Rieman and McIntyre 1995;Dunham et al 1997Harig and Fausch 2002) as well as biotic factors such as the presence of nonnative species and degree of isolation from other populations (Osborne and Wiley 1992;Schrank et al 2001) have also been implicated. Large-scale processes are likely to be important because landscape features influence (1) local-scale habitat features (Rabeni and Sowa 1996), (2) species interactions or individual physiological responses (Fausch et al 1994), and (3) dispersal, colonization, and gene flow within and among local populations (Luttrell et al 1999;Rieman and Dunham 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Local‐Habitat, Watershed, and Biotic Features Associated with Bull Trout Occurrence in Montana Streams

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.-We evaluated the association of local-habitat features, large-scale watershed factors, the presence of nonnative brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, and connectivity to neighboring populations with patterns of occurrence of threatened bull trout S. confluentus in 112 first-order to fourthorder streams in the Bitterroot River drainage in western Montana. Species presence or absence was estimated via single-pass electrofishing, local-habitat features were measured in 500-m sampling reaches, watershed variables were obtained from topographic maps, and potential demographic support from nearby bull trout populations occupying larger main-stem streams was estimated from electrofishing data records. We defined a set of nine candidate models that represented various combinations of these four main factors and used an information-theoretic approach to evaluate the relative plausibility of competing models. Models combining local habitat (width, gradient, and woody debris) with brook trout presence and the main-stem abundance of bull trout and a global model (all variables) were the best approximating models. In contrast, watershed models based on elevation, basin area, and tributary slope and models with local-habitat or biotic variables alone were poor predictors of bull trout occurrence. Bull trout occurrence was positively associated with channel width, large woody debris, and the presence of a ''strong'' neighboring main-stem population and negatively associated with channel gradient and the presence of brook trout. Our findings suggest that bull trout have increased resistance to invasion by brook trout in streams with high habitat complexity and connectivity. Consideration of abiotic and biotic factors at multiple scales, along with a means for ranking their relative importance, is needed to perform more comprehensive assessments of landscape and local influences on species distribution patterns.

show abstract

Section: Physical Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local‐Habitat, Watershed, and Biotic Features Associated with Bull Trout Occurrence in Montana Streams

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental and correlational studies indicate that predation by Micropterus salmoides reduces the density and species diversity of native and alien aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates and can cause trophic cascades in lentic environments (Maezono and Miyashita 2003;Maezone et al, 2005). Micropterus salmoides have been implicated as a preliminary reason for the extirpation of the federally endangered Notropis topeka (Topeka shiner) from streams in Kansas (Schrank et al, 2001). …”

Section: Micropterus Salmoides (Largemouth Bass)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Presence of Micropterus Salmoides (Largemouth Bass) Influences the Populations of Rana Draytonii (California Red-Legged Frog) and Pseudacris Regilla (Pacific Treefrog) in Two Ponds in Santa Barbara County, California

Gilliland¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The impact of sport fish stockings have not been studied for this species, but have the potential to be detrimental to a smallspecies such as plains topminnow. Previously, Schrank et al (2001) found that the extirpation of the endangered Topeka shiner in Kansas was linked to the abundance of intro duced largemouth bass. In addition to the intro duction of non-native predatory sport fish, riverine environments have often experienced shifts in species assemblages towards non-native generalist species (Fischer & Paukert 2008).…”

Section: Potential Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in range-wide distribution of plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus

Pasbrig¹,

Koupal²,

Schainost³

et al. 2012

Endang. Species. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, riverine fishes are affected by degradation of habitat, stream alterations, lost stream connectivity and introduction of non-native species. The plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus, a small stream-dwelling fish, currently does not have a federal conservation status in the USA; however, anecdotal reports have suggested its decline for the last 20 yr. Our goals were to evaluate the validity of its reported decline and to determine the current range-wide status of this species. We identified 927 historical sites (1889−1999) of occurrence and compiled recent records or re-visited 667 sites (2000−2010). We found plains topminnow at 189 (28.0%) of these sites. Although Nebraska represented the center of distribution and included 66.7% of all historical sites, plains topminnow were only found at 34.4% of historical sites, with the largest declines observed in the Platte and Republican River drainages. Current sampling efforts in Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming found similar declines. In Iowa and Kansas, plains topminnow was not found, whereas potential increases in distribution were observed in a single drainage in Minnesota and Wyoming. In addition to our sampling efforts, we repeatedly sampled 40 sites within Nebraska to determine detection probability. Detection probabilities for plains topminnow were consistent at 0.76 ± 0.05 (mean ± SE) among sites that were sampled with a single visit. Further research is needed on the species and the potential threats to its occupation of sites, as no singular cause for decline seems plausible. Observed threats include degradation and loss of habitat and shifts in species assemblages towards generalist non-native species. 16: 235-247, 2012 ditionally, lotic systems are geographically expansive and can be influenced by multiple alterations and disturbances at the same time, which makes determining the primary causes for species decline and loss difficult (McCartney 2002). KEY WORDS: Fundulus sciadicus · Plains topminnow · Fundulidae · Endemic · Decline · Threat Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher Contribution to the Theme Section 'Endangered river fish: threats and conservation options' OPEN PEN ACCESS CCESSEndang Species ResThe plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus is en demic to the central United States (Fig. 1) with 2 disjunct populations (Lee et al. 1980). The largest distribution is centered in Nebraska and extends to north eastern Colorado, southwestern Wyoming, southern South Dakota, southwestern Minnesota and Iowa (Baxter & Stone 1995, Weitzel 2002, Rahel & Thel 2004. The second population is centered in Missouri and ex tends from Kansas south to Oklahoma (Pflieger 1997) (Fig. 2). The plains topminnow is currently ranked as globally secure according to the Natural Heritage database (NatureServe 2011). However, all states in the native range, except Oklahoma, recognize some level of concern for plains topminnow. In Iowa and Kansas, plains topminnow is presumed extirpated (Harlan et al...

show abstract

Influence of Instream and Landscape-Level Factors on the Distribution of Topeka ShinersNotropis topekain Kansas Streams

Cited by 46 publications

References 9 publications

Local‐Habitat, Watershed, and Biotic Features Associated with Bull Trout Occurrence in Montana Streams

Local‐Habitat, Watershed, and Biotic Features Associated with Bull Trout Occurrence in Montana Streams

The Presence of Micropterus Salmoides (Largemouth Bass) Influences the Populations of Rana Draytonii (California Red-Legged Frog) and Pseudacris Regilla (Pacific Treefrog) in Two Ponds in Santa Barbara County, California

Changes in range-wide distribution of plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About