Etnier and Starnes (1991) analyzed the approximately 300 taxa of native Tennessee fishes in an attempt to detect patterns associated with jeopardization or imperilment. Their analysis indicated that two habitat types (medium-sized rivers and springs) and two families (Ictaluridae and Percidae) contained disproportionately large numbers of jeopardized taxa. At the other extreme, no jeopardized Tennessee fish taxa were characteristic of quiet water (lentic) habitats, and none were centrarchids. In the following admittedly very subjective analysis I attempt to expand coverage to include all native freshwater fishes in a broadly defined southeastern United States, and to include reasons for imperilment.
For the purposes of this analysis, the southeastern United States includes the Ohio and Susquehanna rivers and their tributaries, south through peninsular Florida and to the Gulf of Mexico, and west to the west bank of the Mississippi River. Diadromous fishes (those that migrate to or from the sea to spawn) are included, but euryhaline species such as Cyprinodon variegatus (sheepshead minnow) and marine fishes such as Trinectes maculatus (hogchoker) are not. Nomenclature is essentially that used by Robins et al. (1991) except that Hybopsis is retained as a valid genus in Cyprinidae as has been done by Jenkins and Burkhead (1993; page 345) and Etnier and Starnes (1993; page 174). I have assigned preferred habitat (big river, medium river, creeks, headwaters [streams of first or second order], springs, caves, lentic, or diadromous) based on available published information, input from colleagues, and personal experience. In many cases where an obvious choice of preferred habitat was not possible, two habitats are listed (see Appendix 1), but the first of the two listed habitats is the one utilized in the analysis. This occurred most commonly within the continuum of lotic habitats. If, for instance, a species occurred commonly in both creeks and medium rivers, the habitat listed first and the one used for the analysis was the one where I perceived the majority of the populations to occur. Jeopardized taxa are those protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act plus those that I feel (again with input from colleagues) warrant protected status because of rapidly decreasing size of range or naturally very small and localized range. Reasons for jeopardized status are based on knowledge of the species’ biology, former range, and potentially disruptive anthropogenic activities within that range. For each of the 91 jeopardized species selected for analysis, one or two primary causes were identified as most likely responsible for their jeopardized status. For each identified cause, a score of one was recorded for each species for which it was the only cause identified, and a score of one-half for each species for which it was one of two causes identified. Total scores per cause were divided by 91 to obtain their percentage contribution to jeopardized status of southeastern fishes. While there is a large subjective element associated with assigning habitat preference, determining jeopardized status, and reason(s) for imperilment, I feel that Appendix 1 is sufficiently similar to the data set that would be generated by a consensus of southeastern ichthyologists, such that no major differences in interpretation would occur.
The southeastern region treated contains 490 species of native freshwater fishes. Twelve of these species are currently under study, and are believed to consist of two or more species or subspecies in the Southeast. I consider 91 of these 490 species (19 percent) to be jeopardized. An additional 11 species have been considered by others to be deserving of protected status throughout their range. Two species on the list (Lagochila lacera, harelip sucker; Fundulus albolineatus, whiteline topminnow) are conceded to be extinct, and two additional species (Noturus trautmani, Scioto madtom; Etheostoma sellare, Maryland darter) are regarded as probably extinct (Etnier, 1994). Few if any southeastern ichthyologists consider the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) to be extinct, in spite of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent refusal to list the species because it was presumed to be extinct (U.S. Federal Register, 1994).
Since Tennessee’s fish fauna contains approximately three-fifths of the native freshwater fish fauna of southeastern United States, it is hardly surprising that medium-sized rivers and springs, identified as jeopardized habitats in Tennessee by Etnier and Starnes (1991), again appear to be the habitats that contain a disproportionately large number of jeopardized fishes (Table 1). Creeks are preferred habitats for 51 percent of our southeastern fishes, but contain only 35 percent of the jeopardized species of the region. Lentic habitats contain 14 percent of southeastern fishes, but only three percent of the region’s jeopardized species. Big river, headwater, cave, and diadromous habitats have jeopardized taxa proportional to total taxa that occur in each habitat (Table 1).
Table 1. Total and jeopardized amounts of native southeastern freshwater fishes listed according to major habitat preference. 1 |
|||||
Habitat |
Number of Species |
Percent of Total |
Number Jeopardized |
Percent of Total Jeopardized |
Percent Jeopardized |
Big River |
45 |
9 |
6 |
7 |
13 |
Medium River |
90 |
18 |
36 |
40 |
40 |
Creek |
248 |
51 |
32 |
35 |
13 |
Headwaters |
16 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
25 |
Springs |
10 |
2 |
7 |
9 |
70 |
Caves |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
33 |
Lentic |
70 |
14 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Diadromous |
8 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
25 |
Total |
490 |
|
91 |
|
19 |
1 Values derived from information contained in Appendix 1. |
Medium-sized rivers are uncommon relative to creeks, heavily impounded, and have fish communities dominated by species dependent on coarse, silt-free substrates for feeding, reproduction, or both. Springs are noted for high endemism, may be drastically altered due to human demands on the high quality water they contain, and many have been inundated by reservoirs. Creeks (stream orders 3 and 4) continue to be "abundant," many are relatively unperturbed, and they are occupied by fishes that are likely to be equally adept at utilizing headwater streams as temporary refugia and using medium rivers as dispersal routes. Big rivers, such as the Alabama, lower Cumberland, Cape Fear, Mississippi, Ohio, Pee Dee, Roanoke, Santee, Savannah, and Tennessee, are certainly less "common" than medium-sized rivers, but their fish communities are dominated by species tolerant of the fine-grained depositional substrates that predominate in these habitats. Impoundments result in less drastic changes in these big-river habitats, and may actually convert medium-sized river habitats into ones ecologically more similar to those of big rivers. Three of six jeopardized big-river fishes are sturgeons. Lentic habitats, except for oxbows and temporary floodplain ponds along big rivers, have surely increased in abundance in the Southeast coincident with construction of farm ponds and reservoirs. The alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula) is treated herein as a big-river species, but its jeopardized status is likely due at least in part to a loss of floodplain waters adjacent to big rivers. As appears to be the case for big rivers, the number of jeopardized diadromous fishes and fish species in headwater streams and caves is approximately proportional to the number of taxa with a preference for these habitats (Table 1).
Table 2. Numbers and percents of native southeastern jeopardized fishes by family. 1 |
|||
Family |
Number of Species |
Number Jeopardized |
Percent Jeopardized |
Acipenseridae |
6 |
5 |
83 |
Cyprinidae |
155 |
18 |
12 |
Catostomidae |
35 |
5 |
14 |
Ictaluridae |
31 |
8 |
26 |
Fundulidae |
20 |
3 |
15 |
Centrarchidae |
28 |
0 |
0 |
Percidae |
149 |
46 |
31 |
Other Families |
66 |
6 |
9 |
Total |
490 |
91 |
|
1 Values derived from information contained in Appendix 1. |
When analyzed by family (Table 2), the results are again virtually identical to those reported by Etnier and Starnes (1991). Catfishes (Ictaluridae) and percids (Percidae) have 26 percent and 31 percent of their species jeopardized, respectively — well above the overall 19 percent of southeastern fish species that are jeopardized. Sturgeons (Acipenseridae), with five out of six taxa jeopardized, were apparently capable of coping nicely with changes that occurred since the late Cretaceous (about 70 million years), until the past half century of dam construction and utilization of big rivers as silt and waste conduits jeopardized nearly the entire family. At the other extreme, the large and primarily lentic family Centrarchidae (sunfishes) contains no jeopardized taxa.
Catfishes (31 species) and percids (150 species) are well-represented in the Southeast, and contain 46 of 91 (51 percent) jeopardized southeastern fish species, but only 37 percent of southeastern native freshwater fishes. If these two families, or percids alone, have a disproportionately high number of taxa with a medium-sized river or spring habitat preference, the conclusion that we have been particularly abusive to spring and medium-river habitats may be unjustified, and an artifact of habitat preference of jeopardized families. Should this be the case, there must be something about the biology of catfishes and/or percids that results in their being susceptible to jeopardization. Nine of 31 catfishes (29 percent) and 36 of 149 percids (24 percent) are associated with medium-river habitats (data from Appendix 1). Both percentages are well above the overall mean of only 18 percent of all southeastern fishes with a medium-river habitat preference. On the other hand, 17 of 36 percids (47 percent) and four of nine catfishes (44 percent) with medium-river habitats are jeopardized. These figures are well above the overall 31 percent of percid and 26 percent of catfish species jeopardized in the Southeast. This indicates that there is both a familial and a preferred habitat aspect to imperilment, and the combined effect of these two variables has resulted in the large number of catfishes and percids that are jeopardized. All jeopardized catfish are madtoms, and all jeopardized percids are darters. Specialized reproductive behavior (both families), high endemism (darters), and high sensitivity to olfactory pollution (madtoms) have been suggested as contributing to the high percentages of jeopardized taxa in these groups (Etnier and Starnes, 1991).
Table 3. Percent contribution of various factors toward jeopardizing native southeastern freshwater fishes. 1 |
|
Factor |
Percent Contribution |
Nonpoint-source pollution |
40 |
Alteration of water flow |
32 |
Small native range |
23 |
Introduction of exotics |
2 |
Point-source pollution |
2 |
Overzealous collectors |
0 |
Unknown |
1 |
1 Values derived from information contained in Appendix 1. |
Since only ten species have a habitat preference for springs, and these ten represent six different families, the conclusion that spring habitats have been jeopardized is inescapable. Only three percids were classified as spring inhabitants; all three are jeopardized.
As mentioned above, five of six southeastern sturgeon species are jeopardized. All are either anadromous or have big-river habitats. Impoundments have certainly been the major cause for their plight, either by blocking migratory routes (anadromous species), by blanketing spawning areas with silt in combination with the aforementioned factor (Acipenser fulvescens, Scaphirhynchus suttkusi), or by drastically altering flow regimes (Scaphirhynchus albus).
Factors contributing to the jeopardized status of southeastern native freshwater fishes are indicated in Appendix 1 and are summarized in Table 3. Based on these data, the combination of nonpoint-source pollution (primarily siltation) and alteration of flow regimes (primarily impoundment) are anthropogenic factors responsible for 72 percent of fish imperilment problems in the Southeast. A non-anthropogenic factor that contributes 23 percent to causes of jeopardization is high endemism (small native range). Point-source pollution and introduction of exotic fish species (less than two percent for each) have been far less influential. It should be noted that a similar analysis in western North America, especially the Southwest, likely would result differently and indicate exotic species introductions to rival alteration of flow regimes and exceed siltation in importance in contributing to jeopardized status of native fishes of that area. As an ichthyologist, fisherman, and former mentor of many students now associated with the aquarium hobby, it is reassuring for me to find that activities of people of these persuasions apparently have not resulted in jeopardizing native southeastern fish species.
The author wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this paper, whose considerable efforts resulted in significant improvements.
Appendix 1. Jeopardized southeastern fishes, their preferred habitat, and reason for jeopardized status. Preferred habitats were determined subjectively by the author with input from colleagues. Jeopardized fishes (and associated data) are listed in boldface, reason for jeopardized status was determined subjectively by the author with input from colleagues. Additional species whose status has been considered as jeopardized by other workers are indicated with a question mark in the status column, but were not treated as jeopardized in this analysis. Preferred habitats are as follows: BR = big river, MR = medium river, CR = creeks, HW = headwaters (orders 1 and 2), SP = springs, CA = caves, LE = lentic, DI = diadromous. MR/CR = medium river is my best guess, but some uncertainty is involved (treated as MR in analysis). Under the "Reason for Status column: NPSP = nonpoint-source pollution, PSP = point-source pollution, Altered Flow = altered flow regimes such as impoundment or rechanneling, Small Range = taxa under no current threat but with a range so small that a single accident could result in federal threatened or endangered status, Exotics = taxa jeopardized due to introduced fish species. Area covered in this analysis includes: Ohio River and all of its tributaries, the Susquehanna River drainage, and south from there to the Gulf of Mexico, then west to the west bank of the Mississippi River. Marine and euryhaline fishes, such as Trinectes maculatus and Cyprinodon variegatus, respectively, are not included. Species preceded with an asterisk are currently considered to be complexes of two to several species or subspecies. 1 |
||
Taxon |
Preferred Habitat |
Reason for Status |
Petromyzontidae |
||
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
Acipenseridae |
||
|
DI |
Altered Flow |
|
BR |
Altered Flow |
|
DI |
Altered Flow |
|
BR |
Altered Flow |
|
BR |
|
|
BR |
Altered Flow |
Polyodontidae |
||
|
BR |
|
Lepisosteidae |
||
|
BR/LE |
Altered Flow |
|
LE |
|
|
BR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
LE |
|
Amiidae |
||
|
LE |
|
Hiodontidae |
||
|
BR |
|
|
MR/BR |
|
Anguillidae |
||
|
DI |
|
Clupeidae |
||
|
DI |
|
|
BR |
Altered Flow |
|
BR |
|
|
DI |
|
|
DI |
|
|
DI |
|
|
MR/BR |
|
|
LE/BR |
|
Cyprinidae |
||
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR/CR |
NPSP |
|
MR |
NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR/MR |
NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
SP |
? |
|
BR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
BR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow |
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
BR |
? |
|
BR |
? |
|
BR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
? |
|
CR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
? |
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
MR |
NPSP |
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
HW/CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
SP |
|
|
LE/CR |
|
|
CR/LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR/MR |
NPSP |
|
LE |
? |
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
Small Range |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
HW/CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
LE/CR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
HW |
NPSP |
|
HW |
|
|
CR |
|
|
HW |
NPSP |
|
HW |
Small Range |
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
BR |
|
|
BR/MR |
|
|
HW |
|
|
CR |
|
|
HW |
|
|
CR |
|
|
HW |
Small Range |
|
HW |
|
Catostomidae |
||
|
BR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
HW |
|
|
BR/MR |
Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
BR/MR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
MR |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
Small Range |
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Exotics, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
MR/CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR/CR |
Altered Flow |
Ictaluridae |
||
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
MR/BR |
|
|
CR |
Small Range, PSP |
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
NPSP |
|
MR/CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
NPSP |
|
CR/MR |
NPSP |
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
MR |
NPSP |
|
CR/MR |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
LE |
|
|
BR |
|
Esocidae |
||
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
MR |
? |
|
LE |
|
Umbridae |
||
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
Salmonidae |
||
|
HW |
? |
Percopsidae |
||
|
MR |
|
Aphredoderidae |
||
|
LE |
|
Amblyopsidae |
||
|
CA |
? |
|
LE |
|
|
SP |
|
|
CA |
Small Range |
|
CA |
|
Gadidae |
||
|
MR |
|
Cyprinodontidae |
||
|
LE |
|
Fundulidae |
||
|
SP |
Small Range, PSP |
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
SP |
NPSP |
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
Poeciliidae |
||
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
Atherinidae |
||
|
MR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
LE |
Small Range, NPSP |
Gasterosteidae |
||
|
LE |
|
Cottidae |
||
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
SP |
Small Range |
|
MR/CR |
|
Moronidae |
||
|
LE/MR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
LE/BR |
|
|
DI |
|
Elassomatidae |
||
|
SP |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
LE |
? |
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
? |
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
Centrarchidae |
||
|
LE |
|
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
? |
|
MR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
MR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
|
LE |
|
Percidae |
||
|
CR/MR |
|
|
MR/CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
MR/CR |
|
|
MR/CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow |
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR/MR |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
MR |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
BR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
MR/CR |
|
|
CR |
Small Range |
|
CR |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
MR/BR |
|
|
CR |
NPSP, Small Range |
|
MR |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
SP |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
NPSP |
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
BR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow |
|
CR |
Small Range |
|
MR |
Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
Small Range |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
SP |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
Exotics, Small Range |
|
CR |
Small Range |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
NPSP |
|
HW |
|
|
MR |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
Small Range |
|
CR |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
NPSP |
|
CR/MR |
Small Range, NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
HW |
? |
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
NPSP |
|
CR/MR |
Exotics, Small Range |
|
LE |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
HW |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
NPSP, Small Range |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR |
Altered Flow |
|
SP |
Altered Flow, PSP |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow |
|
HW |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
LE |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
CR/MR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR/CR |
|
|
MR/CR |
NPSP, Small Range |
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
Small Range |
|
MR |
Altered Flow, NPSP |
|
MR |
NPSP, Altered Flow |
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
MR/CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
MR |
NPSP, Small Range |
|
CR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
MR |
|
|
CR/MR |
? |
|
MR |
Altered Flow |
|
MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR/MR |
|
|
CR |
|
|
BR |
|
|
BR |
|
Sciaenidae |
||
|
BR |
|
1 DATA SUMMARY: 490 taxa, 91 jeopardized taxa. Habitat summary (number of total taxa:number of jeopardized taxa): Big River = 45:6, Medium River = 90:36, Creeks = 248:32, Headwaters = 16:4, Springs = 10:7, Caves = 3:1, Lentic = 70:3, Diadromous = 8:2. Family summary (number of total taxa:numbers of jeopardized taxa): Acipenseridae = 6:5, Cyprinidae = 155:18, Catostomidae = 35:5, Ictaluridae = 31:8, Fundulidae = 20:3, Centrarchidae = 28:0, Percidae = 150:46. |