Biodiversity Data Journal :
Taxonomic paper
|
Corresponding author:
Academic editor: Benjamin Price
Received: 08 Dec 2014 | Accepted: 09 Jan 2015 | Published: 12 Jan 2015
© 2015 Thomas Simon, Charles Morris, Joseph Robb, William McCoy
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Simon T, Morris C, Robb J, McCoy W (2015) Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300
|
|
The National Wildlife Refuge system is a vital resource for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and biological integrity in the United States. Surveys were conducted to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of fish, macroinvertebrate, and crayfish populations in two watersheds that encompass three refuges in southern Indiana. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge had the highest number of aquatic species with 355 macroinvertebrate taxa, six crayfish species, and 82 fish species, while the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge had 163 macroinvertebrate taxa, seven crayfish species, and 37 fish species. The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge had the lowest diversity of macroinvertebrates with 96 taxa and six crayfish species, while possessing the second highest fish species richness with 51 species. Habitat quality was highest in the Muscatatuck River drainage with increased amounts of forested habitats compared to the Patoka River drainage. Biological integrity of the three refuges ranked the Patoka NWR as the lowest biological integrity (mean IBI reach scores = 35 IBI points), while Big Oaks had the highest biological integrity (mean IBI reach score = 41 IBI points). The Muscatatuck NWR had a mean IBI reach score of 31 during June, which seasonally increased to a mean of 40 IBI points during summer. Watershed IBI scores and habitat condition were highest in the Big Oaks NWR.
Distribution, Conservation, Ecological health, Fish, Crayfish, Macroinvertebrates.
The National Wildlife Refuge system is an invaluable resource in the protection of biological diversity (
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge Administration Act), Section 4(a)(4)(B) states that "In administering the System, the Secretary shall... ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans" (
The goal of biological integrity, unlike fishable and swimmable goals, encompasses all factors affecting the ecosystem (
Biological diversity is evaluated at various taxonomic levels, and for purposes of Endangered Species Act implementation at distinct population segments (
Ecological health is defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge System as the extent that environmental composition, structure, and function have been altered from historic conditions (
Limited biological integrity studies have been conducted on National Wildlife Refuges, with the exception of contaminant studies at the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge (
Study area
The Patoka River watershed (Fig.
Sampling was conducted over two years in both the Patoka and Vernon Fork of the Muscatatuck river drainage. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is the sole refuge in the Patoka watershed (Fig.
Study design
Sampling design incorporated a random probability selection for a portion of sites based on bridge access. Contamination at Big Oaks NWR required crews to access streams from bridge access points due to safety concerns from unexploded ordinance. As a result, all of the random sampling was conducted at bridge access points to maintain consistency. A panel survey design stratified sites with some selected from prior surveys (
Sampling gear was selected for each of the appropriate habitat types. Lake and wetland areas were sampled using a boat mounted Smith Root 2500 watt DC generator unit. Large to medium size streams (> 8 m wetted width) were assessed using a long-line or backpack electrofishing unit. Small streams (< 8 m wetted width) were assessed using a Smith-Root DC generator backpack unit. Sampling of streams was conducted along a linear reach based on 15 times the wetted stream width (
Field and Laboratory methods
Fish collection methods. Daytime inventories were conducted using standard fish community sampling equipment during the summer season (i.e., June-September). The appropriate sampling gear for each site was determined by the field crew chief. Sampling was conducted by the same crew leader, using the same techniques, and equipment, during all sampling periods. Five percent of sites were sampled by both crew leaders to validate crew performance. No statistical difference (Student’s t-test, α = 0.05) was observed in results between crews. Relative abundance (catch per unit effort or CPUE is the number of fish per minute of electrofishing effort) data were gathered by performing surveys at reaches using appropriate electrofishing gear. Sampling gear included a model 6A Smith-Root boat-mounted electrofishing unit in nonwadeable, large main stem rivers and lakes, while Smith Root backpack and longline systems were used in tributaries. Longline units used the same generator and transformer unit, i.e., 3500 watt DC generator and 6A Smith Root unit, as the boat mounted unit. Gear selection was based on stream width with longline units used on large, wadeable wetted widths (>8 m).
Electrofishing surveys included systematic sampling of all representative habitats within each reach, including shallows, instream cover, and the thalweg or deepest point in the cross sectional profile. A representative sample was collected from each reach. Captured fish were placed into a live well until a sampling event was completed. Each survey event included documentation of species identification, batch weight, number of fish captured, presence of external disease including deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumor anomalies (DELTs) for each individual and an estimate of qualitative habitat condition (
Fish identified in the field had vouchers of 2-3 individuals for later taxonomic verification, while difficult species and other small minnow, darter, and madtom species were preserved in 10% formalin for laboratory processing using standard taxonomic keys (
List of fish species collected from three National Wildlife Refuges in southern Indiana. Numbers indicate the sites at which each species has been collected based on information in Supplemental materials Suppl. material
Species |
Patoka River |
Muscatatuck |
Big Oaks |
---|---|---|---|
Petromyzontidae |
|||
Lethenteron appendix (DeKay 1842) |
6, 11 |
||
Lepisosteidae |
|||
Lepisosteus oculatus Winchell 1864 |
6 |
||
Lepisosteus osseus (Linnaeus 1758) |
10 |
14 |
|
Lepisosteus platostomus Rafinesque 1820 |
20, 34, 61, 74, 76, 78 |
||
Amiidae |
|||
Amia calva Linnaeus 1766 |
6, 20, 33, 34, 36, 55, 68, 69 |
2, 3, 5 |
|
Hiodontidae |
|||
Hiodon alosoides (Rafinesque 1819) |
61 |
||
Clupeidae |
|||
Alosa chrysochloris (Rafinesque 1820) |
63 |
||
Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur 1818) |
1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 16, 20, 33, 34, 61, 63, 74, 78 |
||
Dorosoma petenense (Günther 1867) |
61 |
||
Cyprinidae |
|||
Campostoma anomalum (Rafinesque 1820) |
1-5, 8, 9, 13-22, 24-27, 29-30, 35, 38, 45, 47, 48, 50-51, 64-65, 72-73 |
6, 8, 14 |
1-5, 7-13, 15-16, 20-27, 29-32 |
Chrosomus erythrogaster (Rafinesque 1820) |
4 |
||
Cyprinella spiloptera (Cope 1867) |
2, 6, 7, 9-13, 16, 19, 20, 25-27, 32, 34, 42, 74, 78 |
6, 14-15 |
5, 12, 20 |
Cyprinella whipplei Girard 1856 |
9, 12, 16, 19, 20, 44, 63, |
6, 14-15 |
|
Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus 1758 |
2, 6, 7, 12, 33, 34, 36, 43, 63, 67, 74, 76-78 |
||
Ericymba buccata Cope 1865 |
12-14, 16, 18-21, 25-27, 29, 30, 35, 44-45, 47-48, 50, 73 |
13, 15 |
1, 2, 5, 7-13, 26 |
Hybognathus nuchalis Agassiz 1855 |
20, 63, 65, 66 |
||
Hybopsis amblops (Rafinesque 1820) |
12 |
15 |
1-3, 5, 8-12 |
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes 1844) |
36, 61, 74 |
||
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson 1845) |
74 |
||
Luxilus chrysocephalus (Rafinesque 1820) |
1-3, 7-9, 12-14, 18-19, 21, 22, 45, 61, 66 |
1, 5, 7-13, 15, 20-21, 24-27, 29-30, 32 |
|
Lythrurus fumeus (Evermann 1892) |
6, 7, 10, 42, 51 |
||
Lythrurus umbratilis (Girard 1856) |
1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 19, 20, 25-27, 31, 34, 42, 61 |
6, 11, 14, 15 |
2, 8-12, 17, 19-22, 24, 30 |
Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill 1814) |
28, 31, 40, 45 |
1, 2, 4, 10, 12 |
28 |
Notropis ariommus (Cope 1867) |
1, 11, 20 |
||
Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque 1818 |
54, 63, 74, 77 |
15 |
|
Notropis boops Gilbert 1884 |
1, 2, 8-10, 12, 20, 29-30 |
||
Notropis photogenis (Cope 1865) |
8, 10 |
||
Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard 1856) |
12-13, 16, 26-27, 34, 72-74 |
||
Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque 1820) |
1-9, 12-14, 16, 18-23, 25-32, 34, 38, 42, 45, 47, 61, 63, 66, 74, 75 |
6, 8, 11, 13-15 |
1-5, 7-13, 16, 20-24, 26, 28-33 |
Pimephales promelas Rafinesque 1820 |
4, 8, 75 |
||
Pimephales vigilax (Baird and Girard 1853) |
12, 61 |
6, 14-15 |
|
Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill 1818) |
1, 3-5, 8, 9, 13-15, 17-19, 21-22, 24-25, 27-31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 44-51, 54, 56-58, 60, 64-66, 70, 71, 73-74 |
8-11, 14-15 |
2-5, 7-13, 15-33 |
Catostomidae |
|||
Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque 1820) |
10, 33, 74 |
||
Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur 1817) |
45, 61 |
||
Catostomus commersonii (Lacepède 1803) |
1-4, 8, 13, 17, 19 |
5, 8, 11 |
3, 5, 8-13, 28, 32-33 |
Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill 1814) |
3, 8, 13-14, 19, 20, 22-23, 26, 35, 40, 42 |
7, 18-21, 24-27, 29 |
|
Erimyzon sucetta (Lacepède 1803) |
18, 21, 25, 27-32, 45 |
||
Hypentelium nigricans (Lesueur 1817) |
5, 14-15 |
1, 2, 8-12, 23, 30 |
|
Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque 1818) |
6, 10, 11, 33, 61, 63, 74, 76 |
||
Ictiobus cyprinellus (Valenciennes 1844) |
6, 10, 33, 74 |
||
Ictiobus niger (Rafinesque 1819) |
6, 7, 10, 11, 33, 34, 36, 63, 78 |
||
Minytrema melanops (Rafinesque 1820) |
2, 6, 9, 13, 16, 19 |
2, 3, 5, 15 |
|
Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque 1820) |
5, 6, 15 |
||
Moxostoma duquesnei (Lesueur 1817) |
11 |
3, 5, 6, 14-15 |
1, 2, 8-12, 20 |
Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque 1818) |
1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19 |
5, 14-15 |
1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11 |
Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Lesueur 1817) |
61 |
||
Ictaluridae |
|||
Ameiurus catus (Linnaeus 1758) |
74 |
||
Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque 1820) |
38, 62, 68, 69, 71 |
9 |
|
Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur 1819) |
4, 5, 8, 9, 13-14, 16, 18-22, 26-28, 30, 32, 38-40, 42, 44-48, 50-52, 54, 57, 62, 64-66, 72, 75 |
5, 7, 9-10, 12 |
1, 5, 9-13, 15, 28-29, 33 |
Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur 1819) |
6, 13, 19, 26, 39, 40, 42, 46 |
3, 15 |
1 |
Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque 1818) |
11, 12, 20, 23, 34, 54, 61, 74, 77 |
||
Noturus flavus Rafinesque 1818 |
78 |
||
Noturus gyrinus (Mitchill 1817) |
25, 45 |
||
Noturus miurus Jordan 1877 |
12 |
6, 14-15 |
9-10, 20 |
Noturus nocturnus Jordan and Gilbert 1886 |
32 |
||
Pylodictis olivaris (Rafinesque 1818) |
6, 12, 33, 34, 54, 74, 78 |
||
Esocidae |
|||
Esox americanus vermiculatus Lesueur 1846 |
20, 35, 38-40, 51, 54, 55, 59, 64-66, 74 |
2, 6, 7, 10-13 |
13, 16, 27, 30 |
Umbridae |
|||
Umbra limi (Kirtland 1841) |
65, 66 |
7, 9, 11, 13 |
|
Aphredoderidae |
|||
Aphredoderus sayanus gibbosus Lesueur 1833 |
2, 7, 8, 11, 20, 23, 26, 31, 32, 34, 38-40, 42, 43, 48, 51, 59, 65 |
2, 10 |
|
Fundulidae |
|||
Fundulus notatus (Rafinesque 1820) |
1-3, 5, 9, 12-14, 16, 18-23, 25-31, 38-41, 45-48, 51-56, 58-59, 61, 64-68, 71-73, 75 |
13 |
20 |
Poeciliidae |
|||
Gambusia affinis affinis (Baird and Girard 1853) |
12, 14, 16, 18, 20-21, 25-28, 30-35, 37, 44-47, 51, 53, 56, 58-59, 64, 66-67, 69-71, 73, 75, 77, 78 |
1, 2, 12-14 |
12-13, 15 |
Atherinidae |
|||
Labidesthes sicculus (Cope 1865) |
6, 12, 13, 16, 20, 61, 74 |
12 |
13 |
Cottidae |
|||
Cottus carolinae (Gill 1861) |
1, 3 |
||
Centrarchidae |
|||
Ambloplites rupestris (Rafinesque 1817) |
1, 2 |
15 |
1-2, 11-12 |
Centrarchus macropterus (Lacepède 1801) |
62, 68 |
2, 5, 12 |
|
Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque 1819 |
1-9, 12-14, 16-22, 25-28, 30-31, 35, 37-40, 42-56, 58-59, 62, 64-75 |
2, 5-15 |
1-5, 7, 9-13, 15-22, 24-30, 32-33 |
Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier 1829) |
1, 2, 5, 12, 59, 62, 70 |
1-5, 7, 9-12, 14 |
|
Lepomis humilis (Girard 1858) |
12 |
||
Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque 1819 |
1-5, 8-14, 16-17, 19-23, 25-26, 33-40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-52, 54-55, 60-66, 68, 70, 74, 76 |
1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15 |
1, 2, 5, 6, 8-15, 17, 19-20, 28-29, 32, 34 |
Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque 1820) |
1-14, 16, 18-23, 25-28, 32-35, 38-40, 43, 44, 47-48, 50-55, 59-64, 66, 74 |
5-6, 9, 11, 13-15 |
1-7, 8-17, 26-27, 29-30 |
Lepomis microlophus (Günther 1859) |
1, 9, 20, 59, 62, 65 |
1-4 |
5-6, 14, 34 |
Lepomis miniatus (Jordan 1877) |
62 |
2 |
|
Lepomis symmetricus Forbes 1883 |
52 |
||
Micropterus dolomieu Lacepède 1802 |
1, 2, 7 |
1 |
|
Micropterus punctulatus (Rafinesque 1819) |
5-8, 12, 17, 19, 20, 28, 32, 40, 47, 61, 64, 66, 74, 77 |
6, 15 |
|
Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède 1802) |
1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 22-23, 26, 38, 46, 54, 67, 69, 72, 75 |
1-5, 9-10, 12 |
2, 6, 11, 14-15, 34 |
Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque 1818 |
1, 2, 11, 20, 36, 63 |
||
Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur 1829) |
33, 36 |
3-5 |
6, 14, 34 |
Percidae |
|||
Ammocrypta pellucida (Putnam 1863) |
15 |
||
Etheostoma asprigene (Forbes 1878) |
5-6 |
||
Etheostoma asprigene nov. sp |
32, 38, 74 |
||
Etheostoma blennioides Rafinesque 1819 |
1-2, 5, 8-12, 20, 29-30 |
||
Etheostoma caeruleum Storer 1845 |
14 |
1-3, 5, 8-13, 20, 25-26, 29, 30 |
|
Etheostoma flabellare Rafinesque 1819 |
1-5, 7-13, 16, 20, 23-25, 29, 30 |
||
Etheostoma gracile (Girard 1859) |
31-32, 34, 37, 65 |
||
Etheostoma histrio Jordan and Gilbert 1887 |
78 |
6, 14 |
|
Etheostoma nigrum Rafinesque 1820 |
1-3, 14, 42, 45 |
6, 11, 13-15 |
1-5, 7-13, 15-16, 20-26, 28-30 |
Etheostoma spectabile (Agassiz 1854) |
1, 3-5, 8, 9, 14, 18-19, 21-22, 27 |
2-5, 7-13, 15-17, 21-25, 27, 29, 30, 32-33 |
|
Percina caprodes (Rafinesque 1818) |
7, 12-13 |
5, 15 |
|
Percina maculata (Girard 1859) |
7, 19, 39, 42, 48 |
15 |
|
Percina phoxocephala (Nelson 1876) |
11, 16 |
6, 14, 15 |
|
Percina sciera (Swain 1883) |
7, 10, 11-12, 39, 74 |
6, 14-15 |
|
Sciaenidae |
|||
Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque 1819 |
7, 11-12, 20, 33, 34, 36, 63, 76, 78 |
Comparison of fish assemblage structure and catch percentages from the Patoka River drainage, 2006 to 2007.
2006 |
2007 |
Total |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Lepisosteidae |
||||||
Lepisosteus oculatus |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Lepisosteus osseus |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Lepisosteus platostomus |
11 |
<1% |
5 |
<1% |
16 |
<1% |
Amiidae |
||||||
Amia calva |
9 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
12 |
<1% |
Hiodontidae |
||||||
Hiodon alosoides |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Clupeidae |
||||||
Alosa chrysochloris |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Dorosoma cepedianum |
90 |
2% |
72 |
2% |
162 |
2% |
Dorosoma petenense |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Cyprinidae |
||||||
Campostoma anomalum |
827 |
16% |
323 |
7% |
1150 |
12% |
Chrosomus erythrogaster |
3 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
||
Cyprinella spiloptera |
142 |
3% |
89 |
2% |
231 |
2% |
Cyprinella whipplei |
70 |
1% |
2 |
<1% |
72 |
1% |
Cyprinus carpio |
47 |
1% |
39 |
1% |
86 |
1% |
Ericymba buccata |
21 |
<1% |
203 |
4% |
224 |
2% |
Hybognathus nuchalis |
12 |
<1% |
70 |
2% |
82 |
1% |
Hybopsis amblops |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix |
1 |
<1% |
6 |
<1% |
7 |
<1% |
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis |
3 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
||
Luxilus chrysocephalus |
378 |
7% |
71 |
2% |
449 |
5% |
Lythrurus fumeus |
5 |
<1% |
5 |
<1% |
||
Lythrurus umbratilis |
75 |
1% |
10 |
<1% |
85 |
1% |
Notemigonus crysoleucas |
1 |
<1% |
50 |
1% |
51 |
1% |
Notropis atherinoides |
6 |
<1% |
8 |
<1% |
14 |
<1% |
Phenacobius mirabilis |
7 |
<1% |
81 |
2% |
88 |
1% |
Pimephales notatus |
283 |
6% |
524 |
12% |
807 |
8% |
Pimephales promelas |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
4 |
<1% |
Pimephales vigilax |
27 |
1% |
27 |
<1% |
||
Semotilus atromaculatus |
210 |
4% |
671 |
15% |
881 |
9% |
Catostomidae |
||||||
Carpiodes carpio |
2 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
Carpiodes cyprinus |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Catostomus commersonii |
89 |
2% |
89 |
1% |
||
Erimyzon oblongus |
114 |
2% |
7 |
<1% |
121 |
1% |
Erimyzon sucetta |
209 |
5% |
209 |
2% |
||
Ictiobus bubalus |
18 |
<1% |
8 |
<1% |
26 |
<1% |
Ictiobus cyprinellus |
4 |
<1% |
4 |
<1% |
8 |
<1% |
Ictiobus niger |
28 |
1% |
28 |
<1% |
||
Minytrema melanops |
21 |
<1% |
21 |
<1% |
||
Moxostoma duquesnei |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Moxostoma erythrurum |
31 |
1% |
1 |
<1% |
32 |
<1% |
Moxostoma macrolepidotum |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Ictaluridae |
||||||
Ameiurus catus |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Ameiurus melas |
1 |
<1% |
22 |
<1% |
23 |
<1% |
Ameiurus natalis |
141 |
3% |
69 |
2% |
210 |
2% |
Ameiurus nebulosus |
17 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
18 |
<1% |
Ictalurus punctatus |
8 |
<1% |
11 |
<1% |
19 |
<1% |
Noturus flavus |
4 |
<1% |
4 |
<1% |
||
Noturus gyrinus |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Noturus miurus |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Noturus nocturnus |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Pylodictis olivaris |
5 |
<1% |
5 |
<1% |
10 |
<1% |
Esocidae |
||||||
Esox americanus |
17 |
<1% |
13 |
<1% |
30 |
<1% |
Umbridae |
||||||
Umbra limi |
7 |
<1% |
7 |
<1% |
||
Aphredoderidae |
||||||
Aphredoderus sayanus |
19 |
<1% |
24 |
1% |
43 |
<1% |
Fundulidae |
||||||
Fundulus notatus |
58 |
1% |
423 |
9% |
481 |
5% |
Poeciliidae |
||||||
Gambusia affinis |
33 |
1% |
568 |
12% |
601 |
6% |
Atherinidae |
||||||
Labidesthes sicculus |
15 |
<1% |
5 |
<1% |
20 |
<1% |
Cottidae |
||||||
Cottus carolinae |
24 |
<1% |
24 |
<1% |
||
Centrarchidae |
||||||
Ambloplites rupestris |
9 |
<1% |
9 |
<1% |
||
Centrarchus macropterus |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Lepomis cyanellus |
260 |
5% |
288 |
6% |
548 |
6% |
Lepomis gulosus |
5 |
<1% |
5 |
<1% |
10 |
<1% |
Lepomis humilis |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Lepomis macrochirus |
461 |
9% |
178 |
4% |
639 |
7% |
Lepomis megalotis |
1314 |
26% |
264 |
6% |
1578 |
16% |
Lepomis microlophus |
8 |
<1% |
7 |
<1% |
15 |
<1% |
Lepomis miniatus |
11 |
<1% |
11 |
<1% |
||
Lepomis symmetricus |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Micropterus dolomieu |
7 |
<1% |
7 |
<1% |
||
Micropterus punctulatus |
26 |
1% |
57 |
1% |
83 |
1% |
Micropterus salmoides |
25 |
<1% |
11 |
<1% |
36 |
<1% |
Pomoxis annularis |
22 |
<1% |
22 |
<1% |
||
Pomoxis nigromaculatus |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Percidae |
||||||
Etheostoma asprigene nov. sp. |
1 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
Etheostoma gracile |
2 |
<1% |
41 |
1% |
43 |
<1% |
Etheostoma histrio |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Etheostoma nigrum |
8 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
11 |
<1% |
Etheostoma spectabile |
74 |
1% |
17 |
<1% |
91 |
1% |
Percina caprodes |
2 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
Percina maculata |
5 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
6 |
<1% |
Percina phoxocephala |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Percina sciera |
5 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
8 |
<1% |
Sciaenidae |
||||||
Aplodinotus grunniens |
18 |
<1% |
5 |
<1% |
23 |
<1% |
Total Number of Individuals |
5110 |
4548 |
9658 |
List of macroinvertebrate taxa collected during 2006-2007 from the Patoka River, Muscatatuck, and Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuges. Numbers indicate the sites at which each species has been collected based on information in Supplemental materials Suppl. material
Taxa List |
Patoka River |
Muscatatuck |
Big Oaks |
---|---|---|---|
Ephemeroptera |
67 |
||
Ameletidae |
|||
Ameletus spp. Eaton 1885 |
15, 18, 27 |
||
Baetidae |
23, 26, 38, 43, 44, 72 |
13, 15 |
|
Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen 1861) |
14, 15, 18, 25, 27, 30 |
8, 11 |
|
Baetis flavistriga McDunnough 1921 |
4, 14 |
5 |
|
Baetis intercalaris McDunnough 1921 |
3, 19, 26, 34, 36 |
20 |
|
Callibaetis spp. Eaton 1881 |
23, 24, 26, 30, 35, 44, 72 |
16, 17 |
|
Centroptilum spp. Eaton 1869 |
5, 8, 15-16, 17, 20, 27, 42-43, 47-48, 50 |
15, 29 |
|
Plauditus dubius (Walsh 1862) |
14 |
||
Plauditus spp. Lugo-Ortiz and McCafferty 1998 |
15, 18, 22, 27, 29 |
11 |
|
Procloeon spp. Bengtsson 1915 |
19 |
||
Pseudocloeon spp. Klapàlek 1905 |
26, 35, 78 |
||
Caenidae |
|||
Caenis spp. Stephens 1835 |
2-4, 7, 9, 14-18, 20, 22-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33, 38, 40-44, 47-48, 50-52, 55, 63, 65-66, 72-73 |
7, 8, 16 |
8-13, 15-16, 19-20, 25, 29, 30 |
Ephemeridae |
|||
Ephemera spp. Linnaeus 1758 |
7, 10-12, 20, 25, 27, 30 |
||
Ephemera simulans Walker 1853 |
7-10, 12 |
||
Hexagenia limbata (Serville 1829) |
26 |
11, 30 |
|
Ephemererellidae |
|||
Attenella attenuate (McDunnough 1925) |
8 |
||
Eurylophella spp. Tiensuu 1935 |
11, 12 |
||
Heptageniidae |
5, 34, 76, 77 |
8, 9, 12 |
|
Nixe spp. Flowers 1980 |
14, 15, 18, 22, 29, 37, 49, 82 |
||
Leucrocuta spp. Flowers 1980 |
11, 20, 25 |
||
Maccaffertium pulchellum (Walsh 1862) |
5, 11, 25 |
||
Stenacron spp. Jensen 1974 |
11 |
5, 11, 20, 27, 30 |
|
Stenacron interpunctatum (Say 1839) |
7, 36, 42, 63, 76 |
9, 11 |
|
Stenonema femoratum (Say 1823) |
1-5, 9, 14, 15, 18, 22-23, 25-26, 30, 42, 43 |
11 |
7-13, 15, 16, 20, 15, 29, 30 |
Isonychiidae |
|||
Isonychia spp. Eaton 1871 |
12, 20, 25, 30 |
||
Leptohyphidae |
|||
Tricorythodes spp. Ulmer 1920 |
6, 33-35, 63, 76-78 |
||
Leptophlebiidae |
|||
Choroterpes spp. Eaton 1881 |
5 |
20, 29 |
|
Leptophlebia spp. Westwood 1840 |
12, 17, 20 |
||
Paraleptophlebia spp. Lestage 1917 |
1, 2, 10, 14, 15, 18, 22, 82, 83 |
7-12, 15 |
|
Siphlonuridae |
|||
Siphlonurus spp. Eaton 1868 |
83 |
20 |
|
Odonata |
9, 20, 23, 38, 40, 43, 44, 67 |
||
Calopterygidae |
54 |
||
Calopteryx maculate Beauvois 1805 |
39, 40, 44, 51, 63, 77 |
12 |
|
Calopteryx spp. Leach 1815 |
15, 18, 22, 30, 46, 48-50, 56, 59, 64, 66 |
8, 13, 19 |
|
Hetaerina americana (Fabricius 1798) |
13, 16, 26 |
||
Hetaerina spp. Hagen 1853 |
40 |
||
Coenagrionidae |
1, 9, 14-15, 19, 20, 22-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-35, 38, 40-41, 44, 47-48, 50, 52, 55-56, 59, 62, 66, 67, 72-73, 77, 82 |
13, 16, 17 |
7, 15 |
Argia spp Rambur 1842 |
6, 7, 11, 14, 16, 20, 25-26, 29, 30, 33, 40-44, 46-48, 50, 52-53, 56, 62, 66, 73, 76-78 |
13 |
9, 11, 12, 20 |
Argia apicalis-tibialis (Say 1839) |
6, 7, 9-11, 20, 33, 34, 40, 54, 63, 76-78 |
||
Argia fumipennis (Burmeister 1839) |
9, 19, 23, 39, 40, 44, 51, 72 |
9 |
|
Argia moesta Selys 1865 |
76 |
9 |
|
Argia sedula (Hagen 1861) |
26, 40 |
||
Enallagma basidens Calvert 1902 |
9, 13, 16, 19, 23, 26, 38, 40, 72 |
13 |
|
Enallagma divagans Selys 1850 |
6, 13, 16, 20, 26, 33, 34, 38-40, 44, 72, 77 |
8, 10, 12, 13 |
|
Enallagma exsulans (Hagen 1861) |
9, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 38, 40, 72 |
||
Enallagma signatum (Hagen 1861) |
67 |
||
Enallagma spp. Charpentier 1840 |
2, 7, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 26, 38-40, 72 |
||
Ischnura posita (Hagen 1861) |
9, 33, 63 |
||
Ischnura posita-verticalis (Hagen 1861) |
1, 38 |
||
Ischnura spp. Charpentier 1840 |
9, 17, 23, 24-25, 27, 33, 35, 38, 40, 63, 67, 72 |
10 |
|
Aeshnidae |
|||
Aeshna umbrosa Walker 1908 |
35 |
||
Basiaeschna Janata (Say 1839) |
1-3, 13, 16, 20, 38-40, 42-44, 54, 77 |
13 |
13, 15 |
Boyeria vinosa (Say 1839) |
1, 40, 44, 51 |
||
Boyeria spp. McLachlan 1895 |
41, 46 |
13 |
12 |
Nasiaeschna pentacantha (Rambur 1842) |
34, 77 |
||
Cordulegastridae |
|||
Cordulegaster spp. Leach 1815 |
49, 83 |
12, 32 |
|
Corduliidae |
15 |
||
Epitheca princeps Hagen 1861 |
11, 16, 26, 33, 38, 43 |
||
Epitheca spp Burmeister 1839 |
40, 43 |
||
Somatochlora ensigera Martin 1906 |
43 |
||
Somatochlora spp Selys 1871 |
42, 67 |
7, 15, 18, 27, 32 |
|
Tetragoneuria spp. Hagen 1861 |
16 |
||
Libellulidae |
17 |
||
Erythemis simplicicollis (Say 1839) |
17 |
||
Libellula spp. Linnaeus 1758 |
14, 29, 56, 59, 62, 73 |
13, 19 |
|
Libellula luctuosa Burmeister 1839 |
15 |
||
Pachydiplax longipennis (Burmeister 1839) |
7, 12 |
13 |
|
Pantala hymenaea (Say 1839) |
23 |
||
Perithemis tenera (Say 1839) |
72 |
13 |
|
Plathemis Lydia (Drury 1773) |
26, 38, 42, 72 |
13, 15 |
|
Sympetrum spp. Newman 1833 |
40 |
||
Macromiidae |
|||
Didymops transversa (Say 1839) |
13 |
||
Macromia taeniolata Rambur 1842 |
78 |
||
Macromia spp. Rambur 1842 |
7, 34, 39, 42, 43, 51, 55 |
||
Gomphidae |
54, 62 |
13, 30 |
|
Dromogomphus spinosus Selys 1854 |
38-40, 44 |
7, 9, 12, 15 |
|
Dromogomphus spoliatus (Hagen 1858) |
1, 6, 42 |
||
Dromogomphus spp. Selys 1854 |
11 |
||
Gomphus spp. Leach 1815 |
64, 66 |
5, 11, 30 |
|
Hagenius brevistylus Selys 1854 |
11, 30 |
||
Progomphus obscurus (Rambur 1842) |
44, 51, 64 |
10 |
|
Plecoptera |
|||
Leuctridae |
|||
Leuctra spp. Stephens 1835 |
3, 14, 15, 37, 48, 82 |
5 |
|
Nemouridae |
|||
Amphinemura spp. Ris 1902 |
14, 18, 22, 29, 37, 41, 46-50, 82, 83, 86 |
11, 19 |
|
Perlidae |
|||
Acroneuria spp. Pictet 1841 |
3 |
5, 12, 30 |
|
Acroneuria evoluta Klapàlek 1909 |
9 |
||
Neoperla spp. Needham 1905 |
3 |
||
Perlodidae |
56 |
||
Isoperla spp. Banks 1906 |
14, 15, 18, 22, 27, 29, 49, 82 |
11 |
|
Hemiptera |
|||
Belostomatidae |
|||
Belostoma flumineum Say 1832 |
23, 26, 35, 38 |
13 |
|
Belostoma lutarium (Stàhl 1855) |
30, 41, 62 |
17 |
|
Belostoma spp. Latreille 1807 |
1, 34, 72 |
||
Corixidae |
1, 11, 23, 36, 38, 43, 67 |
15 |
|
Palmacorixa nana Walley 1930 |
11 |
||
Sigara modesta (Abbott 1916) |
15 |
16 |
|
Sigara spp. Fabricius 1775 |
17 |
15 |
|
Trichocorixa calva (Say 1832) |
1, 20, 33, 36, 43, 55, 59, 67 |
15 |
|
Trichocorixa kanza Sailer 1948 |
77, 78 |
||
Trichocorixa spp. Kirkaldy 1908 |
35, 76 |
||
Gerridae |
1, 2, 9, 23, 38 |
||
Gerridae larvae |
41 |
15 |
|
Aquarius spp. Schellenberg 1800 |
3, 8, 17 |
7 |
|
Aquarius remigis (Say 1832) |
23 |
||
Gerris spp. Fabricius 1794 |
8, 17, 35, 38-40, 42, 67, 72 |
||
Limnoporus spp. Stàhl 1868 |
72, 77 |
||
Rheumatobates palosi Blatchley 1926 |
38 |
||
Rheumatobates rileyi Bergroth 1892 |
3 |
||
Rheumatobates tenuipes Meinert 1895 |
6 |
||
Rheumatobates spp. Bergroth 1892 |
3, 6, 11, 13, 16, 20, 26, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 77, 78 |
||
Trepobates pictus (Herrich-Schaeffer 1847) |
4, 5, 42 |
||
Trepobates subnitidus Esaki 1926 |
6, 9, 13, 16, 19, 20, 38, 72 |
13 |
|
Trepobates spp. Uhler 1883 |
3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 19, 20, 26, 42, 72 |
29 |
|
Hebridae |
|||
Hebrus spp. Curtis 1831 |
23 |
||
Hydrometridae |
|||
Hydrometra martini Kirkaldy 1900 |
1, 44 |
||
Mesoveliidae |
|||
Mesovelia mulsanti White 1879 |
1, 6, 11, 13, 16, 20, 38, 72 |
8 |
|
Naucoridae |
|||
Pelocoris femoratus (Palisot 1820) |
38, 67 |
17 |
|
Nepidae |
|||
Ranatra buenoi Hungerford 1922 |
11, 39 |
12 |
|
Ranatra nigra Herrich-Schaeffer 1849 |
16 |
||
Notonectidae |
|||
Notonecta irrorata Uhler 1879 |
43, 77, 83 |
13 |
|
Notonecta spp. Linnaeus 1758 |
24, 36 |
||
Pleidae |
|||
Neoplea striola (Fieber 1844) |
9, 11, 13, 20, 33, 38, 67, 72 |
10 |
|
Saldidae |
|||
Micracanthia spp. Reuter 1912 |
19 |
||
Veliidae |
23 |
||
Microvelia americana (Uhler 1884) |
1, 3-5, 8, 13, 17, 35, 39, 40, 42-44, 51, 77 |
||
Microvelia spp. Westwood 1834 |
19, 23, 35, 43, 46-47, 54, 67, 72, 83-86 |
||
Rhagovelia obesa Uhler 1871 |
39, 40 |
||
Rhagovelia spp. Mayr 1865 |
76 |
||
Megaloptera |
|||
Corydalidae |
|||
Chauliodes pectinicornis (Linnaeus 1763) |
36 |
15 |
|
Chauliodes spp. Latreille 1796 |
70 |
||
Corydalus cornutus (Linnaeus 1758) |
5, 8, 11-13, 20, 25 |
||
Nigronia spp. Banks 1908 |
|||
Nigronia serricornis (Say 1824) |
3 |
5, 7, 11-13, 15, 20, 25, 30 |
|
Sialidae |
|||
Sialis spp. Latreille 1802 |
1-4, 38, 39, 42-44, 51, 53-54, 62, 83 |
7, 8, 10, 11-13, 15, 16, 27, 30 |
|
Trichoptera |
|||
Hydropsychidae |
|||
Cheumatopsyche spp. Wallengren 1891 |
3-5, 13-15, 19, 20, 25-27, 29-30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 44, 47-52, 54-55, 63-65, 77-78 |
9, 11, 13 |
5, 8, 11, 12, 20 |
Hydropsyche betteni Ross 1938 |
25, 29, 50 |
5 |
|
Hydropsyche betteni-depravata Hagen 1861 |
19, 51 |
||
Hydropsyche cuanis Ross 1938 |
36 |
||
Hydropsyche hageni Banks 1905 |
63 |
||
Hydropsyche simulans Ross 1938 |
4, 7, 33, 34, 54, 76, 77, 78 |
||
Hydropsyche spp. pupae Pictet 1834 |
22 |
9 |
|
Helicopsychidae |
|||
Helicopsyche borealis (Hagen 1861) |
7, 15, 25 |
||
Hydroptilidae |
|||
Hydroptila spp. Dalman 1819 |
25, 27, 38, 40, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 59, 64 |
||
Oxyethira spp. Eaton 1873 |
44 |
||
Leptoceridae |
20, 39 |
||
Ceraclea flava (Banks 1904) |
8, 9 |
||
Nectopsyche candida (Hagen 1861) |
77 |
||
Nectopsyche exquisita (Walker 1852) |
34, 78 |
||
Nectopsyche spp. Mueller 1879 |
26, 76, 78 |
||
Oecetis cinerascens (Hagen 1861) |
40 |
||
Oecetis spp. McLachlan 1877 |
14, 20, 38, 40-41, 56, 64 |
||
Limnephilidae |
|||
Ironoquia spp. Banks 1916 |
18, 22, 27, 29, 41, 46, 49, 82, 84 |
8-10, 19, 20 |
|
Pycnopsyche spp. Banks 1905 |
12 |
||
Philopotamidae |
|||
Chimarra aterrima Hagen 1861 |
4, 19 |
||
Chimarra obscura (Walker 1852) |
19, 51 |
||
Chimarra spp. Stephens 1829 |
41, 47, 48, 50 |
5, 11, 20, 30 |
|
Phryganeidae |
|||
Ptilostomis spp. Kolenati 1859 |
83, 85 |
17 |
|
Polycentropodidae |
|||
Cernotina spicata Ross 1938 |
2, 4 |
8, 10 |
|
Neureclipsis crepuscularis (Walker 1852) |
5, 7, 34, 63, 76-78 |
||
Polycentropus spp. Curtis 1835 |
83 |
||
Rhyacophilidae |
|||
Rhyacophila spp. Pictet 1834 |
27, 41 |
11, 19 |
|
Uenoidae |
|||
Neophylax spp. McLachlan 1871 |
15 |
||
Lepidoptera |
|||
Crambidae |
8 |
||
Acentria spp. Stephens 1829 |
26 |
||
Noctuidae |
|||
Bellura spp. Walker 1865 |
8 |
||
Pyralidae |
17 |
19 |
|
Coleoptera |
|||
Curculionidae |
26, 34 |
7 |
|
Dryopidae |
|||
Helichus basalis LeConte 1852 |
39 |
7, 8, 10, 12, 20, 25, 27, 30 |
|
Helichus fastigiatus (Say 1824) |
41 |
||
Helichus lithophilus (Germar 1824) |
2, 9, 16, 18-20, 40, 44, 77 |
9, 12, 20, 25 |
|
Dytiscidae |
44 |
||
Acilius spp. larvae Leach 1817 |
20 |
||
Acilius fraternus (Harris 1828) |
43 |
18 |
|
Agabus gagates Aubè 1838 |
18 |
||
Agabus semivittatus LeConte 1852 |
84 |
||
Agabus spp. Leach 1817 |
15, 18, 22, 29, 30, 47, 52 |
||
Brachyvatus apicatus (Clark 1862) |
72 |
||
Copelatus chevrolati Aubè 1838 |
67 |
||
Copelatus glyphicus (Say 1823) |
35 |
||
Heterosternuta laetus (Leech 1948) |
82 |
||
Heterosternuta pulcher (LeConte 1855) |
22, 29 |
||
Hydroporus spp. Clairville 1806 |
17, 44 |
||
Laccophilus fasciatus Aubè 1838 |
24, 35, 67 |
27 |
|
Laccophilus spp. Leach 1815 |
23, 24, 35 |
||
Laccophilus maculosus Say 1823 |
13 |
||
Liodessus spp. Guignot 1939 |
23 |
||
(Hydroporinae) |
18, 22, 29, 62, 66 |
16 |
|
Neoporus dimidiatus (Gemminger and Harold 1868) |
55, 65, 66 |
||
Neoporus spp. Guignot 1931 |
1-3, 11, 16, 23, 26, 34, 38, 40, 42, 43, 78 |
7, 9, 11-13, 15 |
|
Neoporus undulatas (Say 1823) |
25, 73, 83 |
12, 16 |
|
Elmidae |
|||
Ancyronyx variegatus (Germar 1824) |
1, 2, 7, 33, 34, 38, 76-78 |
||
Dubiraphia minima Hilsenhoff 1973 |
1-3, 6, 7, 9, 16, 20, 23, 26, 33, 34, 38-40, 43, 44, 54, 63, 76-78 |
8-10, 13, 15 |
|
Dubiraphia quadrinotata (Say 1825) |
77 |
||
Dubiraphia spp. Sanderson 1954 |
23, 26, 38-40, 43, 44 |
8, 9, 13, 15 |
|
Dubiraphia spp. larvae and adults Sanderson 1954 |
14, 47, 48, 52, 46, 59, 64-66, 70, 73 |
||
Macronychus glabratus Say 1825 |
7, 11, 33, 34, 38-40, 63, 76-78 |
10 |
|
Stenelmis crenata (Say 1824) |
2-4, 6, 11, 16, 20, 26, 33, 34, 36, 38-40, 51, 63, 76-78 |
||
Stenelmis decorata Sanderson 1938 |
51 |
||
Stenelmis quadrimaculata Horn 1870 |
44 |
||
Stenelmis sexlineata Sanderson 1938 |
8-10 |
||
Stenelmis spp. Dufour 1835 |
3-5, 19, 26, 34, 40, 44, 76 |
5, 8-10, 13, 20, 25, 29 |
|
Stenelmis spp. larvae and adults Dufour 1835 |
14, 18, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 41, 46-50, 55, 56, 64 |
||
Gyrinidae |
44 |
||
Dineutus serrulatus LeConte 1868 |
10, 43 |
||
Dineutus spp. Macleay 1825 |
20 |
||
Dineutus spp. adults Macleay 1825 |
73 |
13 |
|
Gyretes sinuatus Leconte 1851 |
6, 77 |
||
Gyrinus spp. Geoffroy 1762 |
35, 42-44 |
||
Gyrinus spp. adults Geoffroy 1762 |
47, 55 |
||
Haliplidae |
|||
Haliplus deceptus Matheson 1912 |
62 |
||
Peltodytes dunavani Young 1961 |
38, 40, 86 |
9 |
|
Peltodytes duodecimpunctatus |
1, 9, 11, 13, 15-18, 20, 23, 26, 29-31, 35, 37-38, 40, 43, 44, 47-48, 50, 55, 59, 66-67, 72-73 |
13, 16 |
8, 12-13, 15, 16, 23, 27, 29 |
Peltodytes edentulus (LeConte 1863) |
23 |
||
Peltodytes lengi Roberts 1913 |
1, 2, 5, 16, 20, 23, 26, 33, 35, 39, 40, 44, 67 |
8, 13, 15 |
|
Peltodytes litoralis Matheson 1912 |
31, 44 |
||
Peltodytes muticus (LeConte 1853) |
1, 48, 62, 67, 70 |
12, 17, 20 |
15 |
Peltodytes pedunculatus Blatchley 1910 |
1 |
13 |
|
Peltodytes sexmaculatus Roberts 1913 |
16, 20, 35, 59, 65, 67 |
13 |
|
Peltodytes spp. Règimbart 1878 |
20, 35, 44, 67 |
||
Peltodytes spp. larvae Règimbart 1878 |
59, 62, 66 |
17 |
|
Heteroceridae |
13, 23, 35, 39, 40, 72 |
||
Hydrochidae |
|||
Hydrochus spp. Leach 1817 |
1, 43, 67 |
||
Hydrophilidae |
35, 72 |
||
Berosus infuscatus LeConte 1855 |
2, 67 |
||
Berosus peregrinus (Herbst 1797) |
9, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26, 35, 38, 40, 44, 51, 72 |
15 |
|
Berosus spp. Leach 1817 |
9, 16, 20, 23, 26, 34, 38, 40, 44, 51, 72 |
13. 15 |
|
Berosus spp. larvae Leach 1817 |
14, 18, 25, 29, 46, 48, 50, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 64, 73 |
||
Enochrus pygmaeus nebulosus (Say 1824) |
22 |
||
Enochrus spp. Thomson 1859 |
1, 13, 24, 26, 35, 40, 44 |
||
Hydrobius spp. Leach 1815 |
35 |
||
Hydrochara spp. larvae Berthold 1827 |
10 |
||
Hydrochara soror Smetana 1980 |
20 |
||
Paracymus spp. Thomson 1867 |
8, 17, 35 |
||
Tropisternus glaber (Herbst 1797) |
23, 35, 40, 44, 67 |
8, 15 |
|
Tropisternus lateralis nimbatus (Say 1823) |
67 |
||
Tropisternus natator Orchymont 1938 |
27 |
||
Tropisternus spp. Solier 1834 |
16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 39, 44 |
||
Tropisternus spp. larvae Solier 1834 |
27 |
||
Psephenidae |
|||
Ectopria spp. larvae LeConte 1853 |
11, 23 |
||
Psephenus herricki (DeKay 1844) |
3-5, 13 |
5, 7-12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 29, 30 |
|
Scirtidae |
|||
Cyphon spp. Paykull |
1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 23, 26, 33 |
10, 12, 13 |
|
Scirtes spp. Illiger |
46, 70 |
20 |
|
Diptera |
|||
Chironomidae |
1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 23, 26, 33-35, 38, 40, 43, 44, 72 |
7, 15 |
|
(Diamesinae) |
|||
Diamesa spp. |
14, 15, 18 |
||
Potthastia longimana group (Keiffer 1922) |
29 |
||
(Orthocladiinae) |
7 |
||
Acricotopus spp. |
62 |
||
Chaetocladius spp. Kieffer |
15, 49, 55, 82, 84-86 |
||
Corynoneura spp. |
9 |
7, 8, 15 |
|
Cricotopus spp. Wulp 1874 |
7-9, 11, 13, 16 |
||
Hydrobaenus spp. Fries |
8, 9, 11, 13 |
||
Limnophyes spp. Eaton |
15, 18, 22, 46, 47, 50 |
||
Nanocladius spp. Keiffer |
7 |
20 |
|
Orthocladius spp. Wulp 1874 |
23, 26, 35, 40 |
||
Parametriocnemus spp. Goetghebuer 1932 |
18, 41 |
||
Paraphaenocladius spp. |
44 |
||
Pseudorthocladius spp. |
85 |
||
Smittia spp. |
31 |
||
(Corynoneurini) |
|||
Corynoneura spp. |
15, 18, 22, 49, 59 |
||
Thienemanniella spp. Kieffer |
14, 22, 30, 48, 49, 52, 56, 73 |
||
(Orthocladiini/Metriocnemini) |
|||
Cricotopus spp. Wulp 1874 |
14, 15, 18, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 41, 46-50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 64-66, 70, 73, 82, 84 |
||
Cricotopus sylvestris (Fabricius 1794) |
38 |
||
Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp. Wulp 1874 |
26, 35, 44 |
||
Eukiefferiella spp. Thienemann |
49 |
||
Hydrobaenus spp. Fries |
15, 18, 22, 47-50, 52, 55, 56, 59, 64, 66, 73 |
||
Nanocladius spp. Keiffer |
52, 72 |
||
Parakiefferiella spp. |
47, 62 |
||
Psectrocladius spp. Kieffer |
62 |
||
Rheocricotopus spp. Thienemann and Harnisch |
82 |
||
(Chironominae) |
5, 6, 8, 13, 17, 20, 26, 33, 35, 43, 72, 77 |
15 |
|
(Chironomini) |
5, 8, 14-5, 19, 23, 25, 27, 33, 35, 38-40, 43, 56, 62, 64, 70 |
7, 10-12 |
|
Chironomus spp. |
1, 8, 15, 22, 24, 29, 34, 35, 39, 43, 44, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 70, 73, 86 |
9, 17, 20 |
10-11, 18 |
Cladopelma spp. Kieffer 1921 |
62 |
||
Cryptochironomus spp. |
6, 23, 25-26, 35, 38, 40, 42, 43, 50, 56, 64, 66, 73 |
||
Cryptotendipes spp. Lenz |
26, 38, 40, 43, 56, 66 |
||
Dicrotendipes spp. Kieffer 1913 |
5, 9, 13, 15-16, 19, 20, 23, 25-27, 29-30, 35, 38, 40, 42-44, 56, 62, 66, 72-73 |
7, 11 |
29 |
Endochironomus spp. Kieffer |
7, 16, 35, 52, 62, 73 |
16, 17 |
|
Glyptotendipes spp. |
42, 43, 63, 70, 86 |
7, 11, 16, 17 |
9, 10, 12, 15, 30 |
Microtendipes spp. |
4, 5, 8, 22, 44 |
5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 20 |
|
Parachironomus spp. Lenz |
6, 7, 16, 52 |
16 |
|
Paralauterborniella spp. Lenz 1941 |
39, 40, 43, 70, 76 |
||
Paratendipes spp. |
15, 18, 29, 30, 42, 47, 70 |
11 |
11, 23 |
Phaenopsectra spp. Kieffer |
5, 11, 13, 19, 35, 39, 42, 56 |
||
Polypedilum fallax (Johannsen 1905) |
13 |
||
Polypedilum spp. Kieffer 1913 |
1, 2, 4-7, 9, 13-16, 18-20, 22-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-36, 38-44, 46-49, 51-52, 55-56, 63-64, 66-67, 72-73, 77-78, 83 |
7-9, 11, 13, 16, 17 |
5, 7, 10-11, 13, 20, 30 |
Saetheria tylus (Townes 1945) |
8 |
||
Stenochironomus spp. |
50 |
||
Stictochironomus spp. Kieffer |
3, 4, 26, 42, 43 |
7-8, 10-12, 15-16, 27, 29, 32 |
|
Tribelos spp. |
77 |
||
(Pseudochironomini) |
|||
Pseudochironomus spp. |
22-23, 25-26, 29-30 |
||
(Tanytarsini) |
9, 33, 35, 43, 44, 63 |
15 |
|
Cladotanytarsus spp. Kieffer 1921 |
9, 18, 20, 22-23, 26, 43, 44, 48, 50, 64, 67 |
11 |
10, 11, 13 |
Micropsectra spp. Kieffer 1909 |
15, 18, 22, 29, 48, 49, 52, 53, 59, 62, 66 |
9 |
|
Micropsectra/Tanytarsus spp. Kieffer 1909 |
3, 8, 13, 20, 23, 26, 34, 35, 38, 40, 43, 44, |
||
Paratanytarsus spp. Bause |
8, 14, 26-27, 29, 35, 38, 40, 44, 59, 62, 64, 66, 70 |
7 |
|
Rheotanytarsus spp. Bause and Thienemann 1913 |
14, 25-27, 30, 33-34, 40, 43, 46, 49, 50, 52, 70 |
5 |
|
Stempellinella spp. Brundin |
9 |
||
Tanytarsus spp. Van Der Wulp |
14-16, 18, 20, 22, 25-27, 30, 35, 38, 40-41, 43-44, 47, 48, 50-51, 55, 56, 59, 62, 64, 66, 70, 83 |
7, 10 |
11, 13, 15, 29, 30 |
(Tanypodinae) |
4, 18, 35 |
15 |
|
(Coelotanypodini) |
|||
Clinotanypus spp. |
20, 23, 40-41, 72 |
12 |
|
(Natarsiini) |
|||
Natarsia baltimoreus (Macquart 1855) |
1, 4, 17, 42, 44 |
7 |
|
Natarsia spp. |
22, 29, 79 |
||
(Procladiini) |
|||
Procladius spp. Skuse 1889 |
16, 20, 35, 38-40, 42, 43, 52, 55, 59, 62, 72 |
16 |
11 |
(Pentanuerini) |
|||
Ablabesmyia janta (Roback 1959) |
2, 6, 7, 11, 33, 34, 63, 76-78 |
||
Ablabesmyia mallochi (Walley 1925) |
3, 5, 7, 17, 26, 33, 35, 38-40, 42-44, 72 |
||
Ablabesmyia spp. Johannsen 1905 |
15, 48, 50, 53 |
16, 17 |
|
Labrundinia becki Roback 1971 |
1 |
||
Labrundinia pilosella (Loew 1866) |
33, 34, 43, 63 |
||
Labrundinia spp. |
40 |
17 |
|
Larsia spp. Wiedemann 1824 |
5, 18, 22, 31, 40, 46, 52, 62, 64, 70, 73, 79, 82 |
16 |
|
Paramerina spp. |
35 |
||
Pentaneura spp. |
66 |
||
Thienemannimyia group |
1, 5, 13-15, 17-19, 22, 25-27, 29-31, 33, 35, 40, 46-48, 50-51, 55-56, 64, 66 |
8, 9 |
8 |
Zavrelimyia spp. Kittkau |
15, 37, 48, 79, 82 |
||
(Tanypodini) |
|||
Tanypus neopunctipennis Sublette 1964 |
67, 72 |
||
Tanypus spp. Meigen 1803 |
59, 62 |
17 |
|
Ceratopogonidae |
47, 50, 53-55, 56, 59, 62, 64, 66, 70, 85 |
19 |
|
Atrichopogon spp. |
13, 24 |
||
Bezzia-Palpomyia group |
2, 3, 40, 46, 70 |
||
Ceratopogon spp. Meigen 1803 |
33, 35, 38, 40, 43, 54 |
||
Dasyhelea spp. |
44, 53, 59, 62 |
||
Forcipomyia spp. Meigen 1818 |
23 |
||
Probezzia spp. Kieffer 1906 |
26 |
||
Serromyia spp. |
40 |
||
Chaoboridae |
|||
Chaoborus spp. Lichtenstein 1800 |
18 |
||
Culicidae |
|||
Aedes Meigen 1818 / Ochlerotatus |
86 |
||
Aedes spp. Meigen 1818 |
24 |
||
Anopheles punctipennis (Say 1823) |
4, 6, 8, 9, 17, 36 |
||
Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say 1824 |
67 |
||
Anopheles spp. Meigen 1818 |
24, 42, 44 |
||
Dixidae |
12 |
||
Dixella spp. |
3, 4, 6, 7 |
||
Dolichopodidae |
31 |
||
Empididae |
|||
Clinocera spp. Meigen 1803 |
14 |
||
Hemerodromia spp. |
3, 4, 14, 44, 47, 48, 50, 56, 64, 66 |
||
Ephydridae |
27, 59 |
||
Ptychopteridae |
|||
Bittacomorpha spp. Westwood 1835 |
18 |
||
Sciomyzidae |
7, 9 |
||
Simuliidae |
|||
Simulium jenningsi Malloch 1914 |
4 |
||
Simulium tuberosum (Lundstrom 1911) |
3 |
||
Simulium vittatum (Zetterstedt 1838) |
51 |
||
Simulium spp. Latreille 1802 |
25, 27, 29, 46, 52, 53, 64-66, 70, 73 |
7, 11 |
|
Stratiomyidae |
|||
Stratiomys spp. Geoffroy 1762 |
2, 67 |
7, 13 |
|
Tabanidae |
29, 37, 41, 50, 53, 62, 83 |
9 |
|
Chlorotabanus crepuscularis Bequaert 1926 |
1, 42 |
||
Chrysops spp. |
1, 6, 23, 35, 40, 43, 44 |
13 |
|
Tabanus spp. |
72 |
8 |
|
Tipulidae |
26 |
7 |
|
Hexatoma spp. Latreille 1809 |
5, 7-8, 12, 20 |
||
Limnophila spp. Macquart 1834 |
9 |
||
Pilaria spp. Sintenis 1889 |
49 |
11, 12 |
|
Pseudolimnophila spp. |
4 |
||
Tipula spp. Linnaeus 1758 |
14, 18-19, 29, 30, 38, 41, 56, 64, 82 |
11, 13 |
8 |
Tipulidae pupae |
47 |
||
Orthoptera |
|||
Acrididae |
|||
Metaleptea brevicornis (Johannson 1763) |
13 |
||
Collembola |
|||
Isotomidae |
4, 10, 20, 24, 26, 35, 38, 67, 72 |
9 |
|
Poduridae |
63 |
||
Sminthuridae |
23 |
||
Decapoda |
|||
Cambaridae |
|||
Cambarus species “A” |
24, 35, 44, 48, 54, 67 |
7, 19-20 |
18 |
Cambarus polychromatus Thoma, Jezerinac, and Simon 2005 |
35, 39, 44 |
||
Orconectes immunis (Hagen 1870) |
11, 14-15, 24, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 56, 65, 70 |
||
Orconectes indianensis (Hay 1896) |
1-3, 6, 7, 17, 19, 22, 25-26, 29, 34, 38-40 |
||
Orconectes juvenilis Taylor 2002 |
9-12 |
||
Orconectes juvenilis x virilis |
12 |
||
Orconectes propinquus (Girard 1852) |
63 |
||
Orconectes rusticus (Girard 1852) |
9, 11 |
||
Orconectes sloanii (Bundy 1876) |
5, 7-13, 15, 16, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32 |
||
Orconectes virilis (Hagen 1870) |
5 |
13 |
|
Procambarus acutus (Girard 1852) |
59 |
||
Procambarus spp. Ortmann 1905 |
62 |
||
(Cambarinae) |
14, 15, 22, 25, 27, 29-31, 37, 41, 47-50, 55, 56, 65, 66, 73, 79, 83, 84 |
||
Amphipoda |
|||
Hyalellidae |
|||
Hyalella azteca Saussure 1858 |
1, 2, 18, 25-27, 38, 40, 46-48, 50, 52, 55, 59, 62-63 |
7, 12, 16, 17, 19 |
8, 9, 12, 13, 15 |
Crangonyctidae |
|||
Crangonyx spp. Bate 1859 |
11, 18, 22, 27, 31, 37, 40-41, 46-50, 55, 63, 70, 73, 79, 82-84 |
8-10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 |
|
Synurella dentata Hubricht 1943 |
22, 27, 29, 41, 64-66, 82, 83 |
8-11, 13, 19, 20 |
29 |
Isopoda |
|||
Asellidae |
|||
Caecidotea spp. Packard 1871 |
5, 14-15, 17-18, 22, 25, 27, 29-30, 35-37, 39, 40-43, 46-50, 52, 53, 56, 58-59, 62-66, 70, 73, 76, 82-84, 86 |
9, 10, 12, 13, 20 |
|
Lirceus fontinalis Rafinesque 1820 |
1, 3, 22, 25, 27, 29-31, 35, 36, 73, 79 |
7-13, 16, 19, 20 |
13, 15, 20 |
Acariformes |
4, 11, 35, 67 |
13, 15 |
|
Veneroida |
|||
Corbiculidae |
|||
Corbicula fluminea (Müller 1774) |
26, 33, 34, 38-40, 44, 78 |
8, 11 |
|
Corbicula spp. Mühlfeld 1811 |
27, 56, 59, 64, 66, 73 |
13 |
12 |
Pisidiidae |
65, 66 |
||
Pisidium spp. Pfeiffer 1821 |
15, 25, 27, 29-31, 37, 58, 64-65, 67, 70 |
12 |
10, 18, 19, 27, 29 |
Sphaerium spp. Scopoli 1777 |
1, 6, 11, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 43, 56, 58, 59, 65, 67, 72, 76-78 |
7, 12, 16, 17, 19 |
5, 7-13, 15, 20, 25, 30, 32 |
Gastropoda |
|||
Ancylidae |
7 |
||
Ferrissia spp. Walker 1903 |
35 |
10 |
|
Laevapex spp. Walker 1903 |
43 |
||
Lymnaeidae |
22, 30, 31, 35, 37, 47, 48, 56, 59, 62, 73 |
9, 11-13, 20 |
|
Fossaria spp. Westerlund 1885 |
35, 44, 67 |
||
Planorbidae |
35, 38, 40 |
||
Gyraulus spp. Agassiz 1837 |
70 |
7, 12, 16 |
|
Helisoma spp. Swainson 1840 |
1, 25, 31, 59, 64, 70 |
11 |
13, 15, 27, 29, 30 |
Planorbella spp.Haldeman 1842 |
26 |
13 |
|
Physidae |
|||
Physa Draparnaud 1801/Physella spp. Haldeman 1842 |
1, 8, 9, 13, 15-17, 19- 20, 23-27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37-44, 53, 56, 58-59, 62, 65, 67, 70, 72-73, 76-78 |
7, 9-13, 16, 20 |
7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 27, 32 |
Pleuroceridae |
|||
Elimia spp. Adams and Adams 1854 |
1 |
5, 7-13, 15, 20, 25, 30 |
|
Viviparidae |
40 |
||
Campeloma spp. Rafinesque 1819 |
1 |
||
Oligochaeta |
8-13, 15 |
||
Tubificidae without hair chaetae |
11, 13, 19 |
||
Branchiobdellida |
35 |
7, 10, 11, 13 |
|
Enchytraeidae |
14, 31, 55, 62 |
||
Lumbricidae |
15, 25, 30, 37, 47, 58, 73, 79, 83, 84, 86 |
18 |
|
Lumbriculidae |
1, 10, 76, 79 |
||
Naididae |
16, 23, 24, 26, 34, 35, 38-40, 42, 43, 54, 67, 72, 76 |
13 |
|
Chaetogaster diaphanus (Gruithuisen 1828) |
9, 16 |
||
Chaetogaster limnaei Von Baer 1827 |
13 |
||
Dero spp. Okem 1815 |
58, 62, 66 |
7, 12, 16 |
|
Nais communis Piquet 1906 |
14, 15, 30, 31, 58, 70, 83 |
9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 |
|
Nais pardalis Piquet 1906 |
14, 22, 27, 29-31, 64, 66 |
13, 16 |
|
Nais variabilis Piquet 1906 |
14, 30, 52, 53, 56, 58, 64, 73 |
25 |
|
Pristina spp. Ehrenberg 1828 |
16 |
||
Pristina leidyi Smith 1896 |
62 |
||
Ophidonais serpentine (Mueller 1773) |
7 |
||
Slavina appendiculata (D’udekem 1855) |
22 |
9, 16 |
16 |
Stephensoniana tandyi Harman 1975 |
7 |
||
Tubificidae |
34, 42, 51, 78 |
||
Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard 1892 |
7, 11, 22, 29, 30, 43, 76 |
||
Limnodrilus spp. Claparede 1862 |
30, 73 |
||
Potamothrix bavaricus (Oschman 1913) |
50 |
||
Tubifex tubifex (Mueller 1774) |
62 |
||
Quistradrilus multisetosus Brinkhurst and Cook 1966 |
16 |
||
Tubificidae with hair chaetae |
22, 27, 29, 31, 37, 47, 56, 58, 59, 62, 64-66, 70 |
12 |
|
Tubificidae without hair chaetae |
14, 15, 18, 22, 25, 27, 29-31, 37, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 62, 64-66, 70, 73, 83 |
12, 16, 19 |
|
Hirudinea |
|||
Erpobdellidae |
35, 38, 43 |
||
Erpobdella punctate (Leidy 1870) |
14, 31 |
9 |
|
Mooreobdella fervida (Verrill 1872) |
58 |
20 |
|
Mooreobdella microstoma (Moore 1901) |
|||
Glossiphoniidae |
33, 38, 43, 67 |
12 |
|
Nematomorpha |
|||
Paragordius varius (Leidy 1851) |
11, 67 |
||
Nemertea |
|||
Prostoma spp. Duges 1828 |
52, 59 |
||
Neuroptera |
|||
Climacia areolaris (Hagen 1861) |
33, 77, 78 |
||
Turbellaria |
6, 15, 19, 72, 83 |
||
Planariidae |
|||
Dugesia spp. |
29, 52 |
7, 16 |
|
Cnidaria |
|||
Hydra spp. Linnaeus 1758 |
7, 16 |
List of crayfish taxa collected from three National Wildlife Refuges. Numbers indicate the sites at which each species has been collected based on information in Supplemental materials Appendix a-d and Figures 1-3.
Species |
Patoka |
Muscatatuck |
Big Oaks |
Procambarus (Ortmannicus) acutus (Girard 1852) |
59, 62 |
13 |
|
Orconectes (Faxonius) indianensis (Hay 1896) |
1-3, 6-7, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 38-40, 63 |
||
O. (Gremicambarus) virilis (Hagen 1870) |
5 |
1, 2 |
|
O. (Procericambarus) juvenilis (Hagen 1870) |
8-11, 15 |
||
O. (Rhoadesius) sloanii (Bundy 1876) |
5, 6, 10, 13-15, 20 |
3-5, 7- 13, 15-17, 20-27, 29-33 |
|
O. (Trisellescens) immunis (Hagen 1870) |
11, 14-15, 22, 24-25, 27, 29-31, 34-35, 37, 41, 47-50, 55-56, 65- 66, 70, 73, 79, 83, 84 |
6, 8-11, 13, 21 |
5 |
Cambarus (Cambarus) ortmanni Williamson 1907 |
10, 15, 19, 32 |
||
C. (Erebicambarus) laevis Faxon 1914 |
19 |
||
C. (Lacunicambarus) species "A" |
24, 35, 44, 48, 54, 67 |
1, 5, 7, 8-13, 15-16, 18-20 |
7, 10, 11, 18 |
C. (Tubericambarus) polychromatus Thoma, Jezerinac, and Simon 2005 |
35, 39, 44 |
8, 13, 15 |
3, 7, 10-11, 25, 33 |
Comparison of fish assemblage structure and catch percentages from the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge.
2006 |
2007 |
Total |
||||
Species |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Cyprinidae |
||||||
Campostoma anomalum |
426 |
8% |
751 |
17% |
1177 |
12% |
Cyprinella spiloptera |
10 |
<1% |
18 |
<1% |
28 |
<1% |
Ericymba buccata |
40 |
1% |
171 |
4% |
211 |
2% |
Hybopsis amblops |
72 |
1% |
223 |
5% |
295 |
3% |
Luxilus chrysocephalus |
182 |
3% |
461 |
10% |
643 |
7% |
Lythrurus umbratilis |
29 |
1% |
16 |
<1% |
45 |
<1% |
Notemigonus crysoleucas |
18 |
<1% |
18 |
<1% |
||
Notropis ariommus |
10 |
<1% |
10 |
<1% |
||
Notropis boops |
38 |
1% |
28 |
1% |
66 |
1% |
Notropis photogenis |
15 |
<1% |
15 |
<1% |
||
Pimephales notatus |
964 |
18% |
857 |
19% |
1821 |
0 |
Semotilus atromaculatus |
523 |
10% |
485 |
11% |
1008 |
10% |
Esocidae |
||||||
Esox americanus |
4 |
<1% |
4 |
<1% |
||
Catostomidae |
||||||
Catostomus commersonii |
26 |
<1% |
235 |
5% |
261 |
3% |
Erimyzon oblongus |
30 |
1% |
1 |
<1% |
31 |
<1% |
Hypentelium nigricans |
39 |
1% |
93 |
2% |
132 |
1% |
Moxostoma duquesnei |
10 |
<1% |
75 |
2% |
85 |
1% |
Moxostoma erythrurum |
21 |
<1% |
7 |
<1% |
28 |
<1% |
Ictaluridae |
||||||
Ameiurus natalis |
18 |
<1% |
8 |
<1% |
26 |
<1% |
Ameiurus nebulosus |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Noturus miurus |
6 |
<1% |
3 |
<1% |
9 |
<1% |
Fundulidae |
||||||
Fundulus notatus |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Poeciliidae |
||||||
Gambusia affinis affinis |
123 |
2% |
52 |
1% |
175 |
2% |
Atherinopsidae |
||||||
Labidesthes sicculus |
2 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
||
Centrarchidae |
||||||
Ambloplites rupestris |
12 |
<1% |
6 |
<1% |
18 |
<1% |
Lepomis cyanellus |
285 |
5% |
78 |
2% |
363 |
4% |
Lepomis macrochirus |
1159 |
22% |
3 |
<1% |
1162 |
12% |
Lepomis megalotis |
147 |
3% |
148 |
3% |
295 |
3% |
Lepomis microlophus |
161 |
3% |
161 |
2% |
||
Micropterus dolomieu |
1 |
<1% |
1 |
<1% |
||
Micropterus salmoides |
23 |
<1% |
2 |
<1% |
25 |
<1% |
Pomoxis nigromaculatus |
21 |
<1% |
21 |
<1% |
||
Percidae |
||||||
Etheostoma blennioides |
72 |
1% |
32 |
1% |
104 |
1% |
Etheostoma caeruleum |
286 |
5% |
137 |
3% |
423 |
4% |
Etheostoma flabellare |
86 |
2% |
66 |
1% |
152 |
2% |
Etheostoma nigrum |
177 |
3% |
375 |
8% |
552 |
6% |
Etheostoma spectabile |
269 |
5% |
109 |
2% |
378 |
4% |
Total Number of Individuals |
5292 |
4455 |
9747 |
Macroinvertebrate collection methods. Daytime macroinvertebrate assemblages were sampled using a “representative habitat sampling” procedure developed for streams (
Samples were brought to the laboratory for sorting of stream bank composited samples. The sample contents were placed into a 250 mm x 250 mm (10 x 10 inch) gridded sorting pan (
After the completion of the 300 organism sort, a 15 minute large-rare examination was completed for samples that were not entirely picked. A large-rare sort included the remaining squares were scanned for taxa that had not been previously observed with emphasis on unique taxa not previously observed. Individuals from the large-rare pan sorted pick were identified and data content was incorporated into species richness metric calculations, but were not included in trophic or relative abundance metrics following standard procedures (
Crayfish collection methods. Crayfish sampling included the evaluation of primary, secondary, and tertiary burrowing species (
Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) is based on the number of individuals collected per effort required to sample each site based on the stream size. Greater sized streams had more effort. Effort is based on the 15 times the wetted width in a linear distance sampled.
Burrowing crayfish were collected using excavation and plunging techniques (
Specimens were preserved in 70% ethanol, returned to the laboratory for processing, and identified using standard taxonomic references including
Assessment of Biological Integrity
Statistical analyses
Cumulative frequency distributions of IBI scores and descriptive statistics for each refuge were completed using Statistica (
Patoka River NWR: 22, 27, 29, 41, 64-66, 82, 83
Muscatatuck NWR: 8-11, 13, 19, 20
Big Oaks NWR: 29
The toothed spring amphipod (Synurella dentata) was collected by
Synurella dentata was a dominant species represented by a 16% occurrence and is considered to have a wide habitat tolerance. The toothed spring amphipod (Synurella dentata) is a cave spring species associated with karst habitats (
The toothed spring amphipod has a species conservation rank of S4/G5.
Patoka River NWR: 1, 3, 22, 25, 27, 29-31, 35, 36, 73, 79
Muscatatuck NWR: 7-13, 16, 19, 20
Big Oaks NWR: 13, 15, 20
The species ranges from southern Indiana, Kentucky, southwestern Ohio, and northern Tennessee (
Lirceus fontinalis (24%) was dominant within the refuges and is considered to have a wide habitat tolerance. The bluegrass spring isopod is a cave spring species associated with karst habitats (
The bluegrass spring isopod has a conservation species rank is S3/G4.
Patoka River NWR: 1-3, 6-7, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26, 29, 34, 38-40, 63
An additional sixteen records of Indiana crayfish were found from areas surrounding the refuge. These sites included solid rock substrate habitats as described by
This former Federal candidate species does not warrant protection based on current and previously known collection information (
Muscatatuck NWR: 5, 6, 10, 13-15, 20
Big Oaks NWR: 5, 7-13, 15, 16, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32
Extensive survey of southwestern Ohio and southeastern Indiana documented the distribution and status of Sloan’s crayfish. Closer inspection of St John's (1988) distribution maps show that areas included within the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge were represented by only Sloan’s crayfish and did not possess the invasive rusty crayfish. Our sampling results found similar results as
Sloan’s crayfish was collected at 76.5% of the sites in the Big Oaks refuge. Relative abundance averaged 13.6 individuals per site. Mean density of Sloan’s crayfish was 0.272 individuals per square meter. Sloan’s crayfish was collected at 36.8% of the sites on the Muscatatuck refuge. Relative abundance averaged 9.14 individuals per site. Mean density of Sloan’s crayfish was 0.182 individuals per square meter.
Sloan’s crayfish (Orconectes sloanii) is a species of special interest to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, which has experienced intensive invasion threats from the rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus Girard 1852). Nutrient impacts are pervasive throughout the Vernon Fork watershed. The Muscatatuck NWR receives runoff drainage through Sandy Branch and Mutton Creek from the City of Seymour, Indiana, and from high density residential land uses.
Sloan’s crayfish is stable and has a relatively high relative abundance in the Big Oaks and Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuges. No instances of rusty crayfish were observed in either of the refuges (Table
Big Oaks NWR: 1, 11, 20
The collection of popeye shiner represent the first record for this species in Indiana since the species was originally described from the White River near Indianapolis in the late 1800’s. During this study specimens were collected from Otter Creek, Big Graham Creek, and Big Creek (Table
The species was collected from moderate sized flowing rivers over cobble and gravel substrates.
The species has been considered extirpated within Indiana, but with these records should be considered for additional study to determine the species current status.
Patoka River NWR: 62, 68
Muscatatuck NWR: 2, 5, 12
Flier is a centarchid species largely associated with the southeastern and eastern United States. Its distribution is restricted to the Coastal Plain from the Chesapeake Bay to Eastern Texas and north through the Mississippi Embayment to southern Illinois and Indiana (
A total of 11 individuals were collected from the Muscatatuck NWR. Our flier individuals occurred in pool and low-flow, basic gradient streams with wood debris (
Patoka River NWR: 52
The Bantam sunfish is reported from the Patoka River watershed from Rough Creek. This watershed has experienced extensive acid mine drainage impacts.
Lepomis symmetricus was collected from a pool about 1 m in depth from the areas upstream from the bridge.
Lepomis symmetricus is rare and is considered endangered within the State of Indiana.
Muscatatuck NWR: 15
The eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) was collected from one site on the Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River (Table
The eastern sand darter was once recognized as state threatened species based on limited presence in the state (
Patoka River NWR: 78
Muscatatuck NWR: 6, 14
The harlequin darter was thought to be extripated from Indiana until its rediscovery within the White River Drainage in 1991 (
Two Harlequin darter individuals were collected over gravel/sand riffles with swift current.
Habitat patterns at a watershed scale
There is a direct correlation between landscape scale ecological patterns and reach scale habitat measures (
Watershed scale patterns in habitat condition for the Patoka River (A) and Muscatatuck River (B) drainages using spline smoothed joined mean scores based on the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). Position and outline of the three National Wildlife Refuges are shown in relationship to the watershed (Suppl. materials
The Muscatatuck River drainage comparatively has the highest habitat quality of the two drainages. The Muscatatuck NWR has the lower habitat quality associated with the refuge borders compared to the Big Oaks NWR (Fig.
Biological diversity, composition, and assemblage changes
Patoka River NWR
Species richness and composition. We collected 9,658 individuals representing 82 fish species from streams and rivers on the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and tributaries (Table
Macroinvertebrate species richness and composition. No previous macroinvertebrate investigation has been conducted in the Patoka River drainage at the lowest taxonomic resolution levels. During this investigation of the Patoka River watershed, 355 taxa representing 93 families were collected (Table
Crayfish species richness and composition. Several studies of crayfish near the Patoka River NWR have been conducted (
Changes in Biological diversity
Fish assemblage record changes. Five times as much collection effort was expended in the Patoka watershed since 1992 than had previously occurred over the last two centuries.
The increase in the number of species records was directly a result of increased sampling effort. The rediscovery of lake chubsucker, paddlefish, rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), slough darter (Etheostoma gracile), harlequin darter, blackside darter (Percina maculata), dusky darter, and banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) are all species sensitive to siltation and acidity. The increased occurrence of these species in the watershed may be an environmental indicator of recovery. Species composition additions during 2006 included Spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), longnose gar (L. osseus), skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris), ribbon shiner, southern redbelly dace, white sucker (Catostomus commersonii), black buffalo (Ictiobus niger), spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops), black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei), stonecat, banded sculpin, rock bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), black crappie (P. nigromaculatus), harlequin darter, and slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala). Many species, such as rock bass, southern redbelly dace, banded sculpin, smallmouth bass, and slenderhead darter, were collected in areas upstream of the refuge in high gradient tributaries that drain the Hoosier National Forest. While large river, floodplain species such as spotted and longnose gar, black buffalo, spotted sucker, and harlequin darter were collected from the Patoka River downstream of the refuge. Forty-eight of the 82 fish species (58.5%) collected during 2006 were also collected during 2007. During 2007, first records for species composition additions included goldeye, threadfin shad, bigeye chub (Hybopsis amblops), bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), bullhead minnow, quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus), lake chubsucker, shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum), white catfish, tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), brindled madtom (Noturus miurus), freckled madtom (Noturus nocturnus), central mudminnow (Umbra limi), flier (Centrarchus macropterus), orangespotted sunfish (Lepomis humilis), redspotted sunfish (Lepomis miurus), and bantam sunfish (Lepomis symmetricus).
First drainage records for fish. First records of six species collected from Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge was previously unknown from the Patoka River (Table
Alien fish species presence. Silver carp and bighead carp are exotic species from southeast Asia, while white catfish is a non-indigenous species from the Atlantic Slope. These species were all collected from the Patoka River at Oatsville Bottom, while the Asian carps were also collected from the Patoka River upstream of the dam at Winslow. These records represent the first records for these species in the Patoka River. The white catfish was stocked into Patoka Lake and into several other large reservoirs in Indiana near Indianapolis (
Big Oaks NWR
Fish species richness and composition. Surveys of streams, lakes, and ponds on the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge collected 9,747 individuals representing 37 fish species (Table
Macroinvertebrate species richness and composition. A subterranean faunal study was completed by
Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling between 2006 and 2007 showed an increase in the number of sensitive taxa were found at the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge (Table
Crayfish species richness and composition. Limited information about crayfish species is available from the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge.
Two orconectid species were collected from only a few sites on the refuge (Table
Changes in Biological Diversity
Fish assemblage record changes. Eleven fish species were collected from the refuge during historical events that were not collected during the current surveys (
During the 2006 sampling, nine species were collected from Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge that had not been collected during 2007 (Table
Alien species presence. During the 2006-2007 surveys, the western mosquitofish and redear sunfish were collected. The western mosquitofish was collected from three sites on Little Graham Creek (Table
Muscatatuck NWR
Fish species richness and composition. Fifty one species of fish representing 14 families were collected from the 15 sample sites (Table
Four medium-large wadable streams (>8 m wetted width) were sampled. Mutton Creek was sampled upstream of US 31 bridge where it is a channelized and slow flowing stream. Mutton Creek was dominated by centarchid and catostomid species. Longear sunfish (31.7%), spotted sucker (26.2%), and warmouth (Lepomis gulosus) (12.4%) were the most numerically dominant species. Spotted sucker (60.7%), white sucker (11.4%), and bowfin (7.28%) were the most common fish by relative biomass at Mutton Creek. The Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River was sampled at three locations including, upstream and downstream of the refuge and a single site on the refuge. These three sites had similar diverse fish assemblages (Table
Seven small streams (<8 m wetted width) were sampled on refuge property (Suppl. material
Macroinvertebrate species richness and composition. The current study is the first comprehensive evaluation of the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge that included taxonomic identifications to lowest possible levels. Eleven sites were sampled for macroinvertebrates (Fig.
During 2007, nearly 2,505 individuals representing 96 taxa and 45 families were collected from the refuge (Table
Crayfish species richness and composition. Limited crayfish species information is available from the vicinity of the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge.
Six crayfish species were collected from the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge (Table
Alien species presence. The only non-indigenous species collected on the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge was the western mosquitofish. It was collected from Linda (site 1) and Moss lakes (site 2), Mutton Creek, Sandy Branch, and the Vernon Fork Muscatatuck River downstream of the refuge (Table
Maintaining or restoring biological integrity is not the same as maximizing biological diversity (
In deciding which management activities needs to be conducted to accomplish refuge purpose(s) while maintaining biological integrity, we consider how the ecosystem functioned under historic conditions (
Landscape diversity is descriptive of the number and dominance of different patch types and is a fundamental component of refuge management (
Changes in Biological Integrity
Patoka River NWR. In order to determine the biological integrity and ecological health of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, we chose an unbiased approach to verify our understanding of overall biological integrity (
Comparison of Relative IBI Cumulative Distribution Frequency for sites sampled within the Patoka River drainage including: A) Fish & Wildlife Service 2001 and B) Fish & Wildlife Service 2007 (n=46) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management in 2006 (n=37) and a combination of all sites (n=83) (Suppl. material
The probability distributions of biological integrity, based on index of biotic integrity (IBI) score for the watershed showed that the two years had similar results (Fig.
The trend for biological integrity in the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge is not significantly different from previous surveys conducted between 1993—2001 (
Big Oaks NWR. Biological integrity classification scores, based on targeted least-impacted sampling at 34 sites between 1992 and 2001, showed that stream biological integrity of the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge and associated watersheds had declined slightly over this period (Fig.
At the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge we sampled 14 sites. We did not sample lake or pond locations in 2007 that had been prior sampled during 2006. The probability distributions of biological integrity, based on index of biotic integrity (IBI) score for the watershed showed that the two years had similar results (Fig.
The trend for biological integrity in the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge is not significantly different during the surveys conducted between 1993 to 2007 (
Muscatatuck NWR. The seven small, wadable streams sampled on the refuge ranged from "poor" to "fair" (Suppl. material
The larger streams showed higher quality biological conditions. The four larger stream sites ranged from "very good" to "exceptional" (Suppl. material
The four lakes ranged from “fair” to “fair-good” (Suppl. material
The cumulative frequency distributions did not include the lake or pond sites that had been sampled during 2006. Based on probability distributions of biological integrity, index of biotic integrity (IBI) score for the watershed (Fig.
Comparison of Relative IBI Cumulative Distribution Frequency for sites sampled by Fish & Wildlife Service (n=49), the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (n=30), and a combination of all sites (n=79) within and around the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge during 2007 (Suppl. material
Although the trend has slightly improved between the two surveys periods in 2007, this is most likely a result of not including the lake sites in the IBI statistics and the greater number of higher order streams in the later summer sampling events. Larger streams such as Vernon Fork represented a higher percentage of the collections compared to 4.08% of the early summer collections. A different random draw was selected between the two periods so that only a few of the samples included the same sites. The survey results based on the 2007 survey is probably most representative of the variety of aquatic habitat conditions found at Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge.
Landscape level management for wholeness, resistence, and resilience requires the recognition of network patterns within the basin management planning (
Biological diversity and integrity comparison of aquatic faunal assemblages at three National Wildlife Refuges in southern Indiana.
Species Richness |
Mean IBI |
||||||
Refuge |
Macroinvertebrates |
Crayfish |
Fish |
Total |
2006 |
2007 |
Range |
Patoka River NWR |
355 |
6 |
82 |
443 |
35 |
31 |
0-56 |
Muscatatuck NWR |
96 |
6 |
51 |
153 |
-- |
40 |
12-54 |
Big Oaks NWR |
163 |
7 |
37 |
207 |
35 |
41 |
26-54 |
Biological integrity associated with the Muscatuck River drainage was highest in the area where the Vernon Fork joined the mainstem Muscatatuck River (Fig.
Species richness and watershed patterns
The aquatic fauna of Indiana’s National Wildlife Refuges includes a significant portion of the rarest of Indiana’s fish fauna; however, due to contaminant impacts associated with legacy land use the refuges are not necessarily considered least-impacted habitats (
A hot-spot analysis of watershed biodiversity showed that the central portion of the Patoka River drainage had the highest macroinvertebrate species richness (Fig.
The management goal of sustaining ecological and evolutionary processes within a natural range of variability requires an understanding of the fundamental elements of the landscape (
Field assistance was provided by S. Sobat, A. Stephans, P. McMurray, and K. Crane, Indiana Department of Environmental Management; student interns J. Burskey, Indiana State University; R. Winemiller, Muscatatuck NWR, H. Hamilton, Patoka River NWR, and J. Ridge and C. Swetzer, Big Oaks NWR; and D. Karns, Hanover College. We appreciate the professional field courtesies supplied by M. Weber, T. Dailey and S. Knowles, Muscatatuck NWR. Special thanks to D. Clark and C.L. Bridges, Indiana Department of Environmental Management for field support. M.K. McShane created geographic information system pleth maps. Although this document may be wholly or partially funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, no agency endorsement or support should be inferred. This study was funded through contaminant investigation #12613N3431440 to TPS. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Site distribution data with decimal minute degree lat-lon for study sites.
Patoka raw data on separate spreadsheets including macroinvertebrate, crayfish, and fish information and analyzed results of index of biotic integrity, Shannon-Weiner, and species richness.
Data files for fish, crayfish, macroinvertebrate, QHEI, index of biotic integrity, Shannon-Weiner, and Species richness information for the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge.
Data files for fish, crayfish, macroinvertebrates, including analyzed information for QHEI, index of biotic integrity, Shannon-Weiner, and Species richness for the Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge