Stonecat Abundance and Population Parameters in Vermont’s Missisquoi and LaPlatte Rivers.

Stonecat Abundance and Population Parameters in
Vermont’s Missisquoi and LaPlatte Rivers.
Masters Proposal
Betsy Puchala
Advisor Dr. Donna L. Parrish
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
Aquatic Ecology and Watershed Science
Justification
Stonecats (Noturus flavus, Rafinesque 1818) are listed as endangered in the state of
Vermont (Langdon et al. 2006). In November 2008 lapriside (TFM) was applied to the
Missisquoi River at Swanton dam (Cox 2009). At the completion of the 2008 treatment 36
stonecats where found stressed and 22 dead (Cox 2009). TFM is a chemical applied to streams
and tributaries in order to control larval populations of sea lamprey, an invasive species that has
detrimental effects on game fish populations (Brege et al. 2003). The lampriside treatments in the
Missisquoi River occurs every four years, and is essential to the continuing success of the salmon
stocking program. With the death of an endangered species it became important to learn more
about the stonecat’s population parameters, such as age class structure, birth and death rates, in
Vermont. This information is critical in managing and understanding the current and future
populations of stonecats in Vermont. While this study will not address all population parameters
it will address population abundance, habitat use, age class structure, and sex ratio.
Objectives

Estimate the abundance of stonecats in the Missisquoi River above and below Swanton
dam.

Estimate the abundance of stonecats in the LaPlatte River above and below Shelburne
Falls.

Determine seasonal movement, and habitat use, for stonecats in Missisquoi River.

Map substrate in the Missisquoi River above and below Swanton dam to determine
suitable habitat for stonecats.

Determine the age class structure and sex ratio of stonecats in the Missisquoi and
LaPlatte Rivers.
Background
Abundance
Stonecat (Noturus flavus, Rafinesque 1818) is the only Noturus species found in Vermont
and is listed as endangered by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife (Langdon et al. 2006). Their
known range in Vermont is limited to the LaPlatte and Missisquoi Rivers, including Hungerford
Brook, a tributary to the Missisquoi River (Cox 2009; Langdon et al. 2006). Stonecats are found
2
throughout the United States from Montana throughout the Mississippi basin including
Oklahoma and Alabama and reaching into southern provinces of Canada including Alberta,
Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario, see figure 1 (McCulloch and Stewart 1998; Pollard 2004).
Vermont lays in the eastern most part of its range.
The abundance of stonecat in Vermont is unknown, and have only been documented in
the two rivers described above. Stonecats are rather common throughout the rest of its range and
are not listed for any type of federal protection. There are some locations, Alberta Canada,
Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia, where the stonecat is in need of conservation but is not
legally enforced as seen in Vermont (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005; Pollard
2004; Tennessee aquatic nuisance species task force 2008; Virginia department game and inland
fisheries 2010). There could be a number of reasons why stonecats are in need of conservation
and it varies depending on the location. Much comes from habitat destruction (Langdon et al.
2006; Sindt et al. 2011), but there are other sources such as siltation (Langdon et al. 2006;
Trautman 1957), or temperature limitations at the edges of their range (Kline and Morgan 2000;
Pollard 2004).
Habitat
Little information is known about habitat preferences for stonecats. Stonecats utilize a
wide range of habitat including, pools, the main channels of the Mississippi, Ohio and Missouri
Rivers, and even rocky lake shores as seen in Lake Erie (Gilbert 1953; Langdon et al. 2006;
Layher and Wood 1986; Walsh and Burr 1985). While they have been observed in many types of
macrohabitats they are most often seen in riffle type areas, with a relatively swift current and
shallow depth (Banks and DiStefano 2002; Kline and Morgan 2000; Layher and Wood 1986;
McCulloch and Franzin 1996). Most often stonecats are sampled in locations where the current is
less than 1 meter per second and depths less than 1 meter. Table 1 shows a summary of depth
(m) and velocity (m/s) where stonecats have been observed.
Stonecats prefer areas with cover. They hide in crevices often between boulders, and
have even been observed burrowing into gravel (Steiner 2000). This is why their common name
refers to stone (Steiner 2000). Stonecats are observed in all substrate types from silt to boulder,
though they are most often found in rocky type substrate such as gravel and cobble, following
3
the Wentworth scale (Wentworth 1922). Table 2 shows a summary of percentage of substrate
types where stonecats have been observed.
The variation in substrate type and macrohabitat use may be due to seasonal movement.
Other madtoms have been observed shifting habitats due to seasonality such as the nesho
madtom where breeding adults were observed shifting to shallower areas (Bulger and Edds
2001). While there is no evidence of large distance movement, there is evidence of seasonal
variation of habitat use (Brewer et al. 2006; Bulger and Edds 2001; Pollard 2004). The locations
of stonecats at different times of the year will be essential knowledge with the ongoing
lamrpiside treatments.
Age
Stonecats are the largest and latest to mature of the Noturus species. Males and female do
not reach breading maturity until ages 3-4 (Walsh and Burr 1985). The largest stonecat on record
came from Ohio at 312 mm (Trautman 1957), though most individuals from streams rarely live
longer than 6 years and have a total length around 180 mm (Walsh and Burr 1985). In a study
conducted by Gilbert (1953), it was found that stonecats from Lake Erie were larger on average
than those found in streams in Ohio. It was postulated that they had greater access to food
resources which allowed them to grow to larger sizes (Gilbert 1953). The stonecat is benthic and
consumes mostly aquatic insects but also can eat mollusks, minnows and fish eggs (Langdon et
al. 2006; Pollard 2004; Walsh and Burr 1985).
Length of individuals is a common method for estimating age (Anderson and Neumann
1996). There appears to be a lot of overlap with length at age for individual stonecats (Gilbert
1953; Walsh and Burr 1985). Length and age information gives insight into future populations,
because we are able to determine the number of spawning individuals as cohorts become mature.
See table 3 for a summary of literature on stonecat lengths at age.
Methods
Study Site
The study will take place in the Missisquoi and LaPlatte Rivers located in the Lake
Champlain Basin, Vermont. Different types of landscapes, such as city, agriculture and forest,
surround both rivers. The Missisquoi River originates in Lowell Vermont, it heads into Canada
4
for a few miles then comes back into Vermont in East Richford (Vermont agency of natural
resources 2005). There are 7 dams located on the Missisquoi River the first in Troy Vermont and
the last in Swanton VT. At least 6 of the dams, as of 2005, were still being used as hydroelectric
facilities. Missisquoi River contains many habitat types. There are regions of riffle habitat in
more abundance above the natural fall line, though some exist bellow Highgate and Swanton
dams. Much of the river consists of deep slow moving water.
LaPlatte River originates in Hinesburg VT, goes through Charlotte and Shelburne, and
finally drains into Shelburne Bay, a potion of Lake Champlain (Winooski natural resources
conservation district et al. 1979). The LaPlatte flows for approximately 16 miles and drains
36,740 acres of land (Winooski natural resources conservation district et al. 1979). There are no
dams located on the LaPlatte River.
Sampling Gear
The rarity of stonecats and their ability to hide in crevices will greatly affect our ability to
successfully sample for them. Because of this and the heterogeneity of the Missisquoi and
LaPlatte Rivers, many methods will be used for sampling stonecats. Backpack electrofishing is a
common method of sampling (Kline and Morgan 2000; Reynolds 1996; Westley and Fleming
2011) and will be used in wadeable areas. The amount time and area covered will be recorded at
each sampling time. This technique is known to be effective for sampling stonecats (Cox 2009;
McCulloch and Stewart 1998; Pollard 2004), but is time consuming, active, dependent on
weather, stream discharge, and subject to bias of user experience.
Minnow traps may also be used in wadeable and non wadeable areas. This has been used
effectively on other Noturus species (Cox 2009; Knight et al. 2007) However, this method is
rather time consuming, passive, and covers little area.
Trap nets may be used in areas that are both wadeable and non wadeable. This method
has work in capturing stonecats in the Missisquoi River at Hungerford Brook (Cox 2009), and
may be used in other areas of the Missisquoi River if appropriate. Modified versions of trap nets
that have been shown to be effective in capturing benthic fish (Crites et al. 2002; Gryska et al.
1998) may also be used, depending on success of other gear types.
Mini Missouri trawl method will be used in both wadeable and non wadeable sampling
areas. In wadeable sections the trawl will be pulled by hand and in non wadeable sections will be
5
pulled by boat. This has been shown to be effective on benthic fish species and has successfully
captured stonecats (Herzog et al. 2005; Herzog et al. 2009; Neebling and Quist 2011). This is an
active method, effective in pools, and river channels but less effective in riffle and rocky areas
due to the net getting caught on the substrate.
Tagging
To be successful in grasping stonecat abundance and habitat movement individuals must
be tagged. Regardless of the sampling gear used for capture, each individual will be marked with
either a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag, or a visible implant elastomer (VIE) mark.
These two methods are commonly used on fish species (Guy et al. 1996; Hewitt et al. 2010; Hill
et al. 2006). Tagging method will depend on the size of the individual, as a tag will not weigh
more than 10% of any individuals body weight, and its location.
PIT tags allow us to successfully keep track of individuals (Guy et al. 1996), as each tag
has a unique number associated with it. This is essential for determining habitat movement
throughout a season. When an individual is captured it will be anesthetized with MS222 at
100mg/L. The PIT tag will be inserted with a 10ml syringe and 12-gauge needle. A PIT tag
requires recapture of an individual so that it can be read with PIT tag reader (Guy et al. 1996). A
more recent advancement in technology has created PITpacks (Hill et al. 2006). These packs
allow fish with PIT tags to be detected without having to be recaptured. The PIT tag reader has
been modified to a ring that you use to scan for individuals much like a metal detector
(Zydlewski et al. 2001).
VIE has been shown to be effective both long term and on small endangered individuals
(Phillips and Fries 2009). In the Phillip and Fries (2009) study VIE marking had no negative
effects on growth, or survival. You cannot differentiate between individuals using a VIE tag,
though large changes in movement will be detectable based on location where they were found.
VIE marking does require recapture of individuals and handling time to visualize and confirm
the VIE mark.
Substrate Mapping
Side scan sonar is often used in ocean systems for search and recovery efforts, and
seafloor mapping. A similar method of using side scan sonar has come out of Georgia
6
Department of Natural recourses as an effective way to map substrate type in rivers (Kaeser and
Litts 2008; Kaeser and Litts 2010). Substrate mapping will be used to determine potential
stonecat habitat. This information will also help determine the location of sampling, to ensure
that sampling is occurring in ideal stonecat habitat.
A humminbird 1198c, which is a combination depth finder, mapping, and side scan sonar
device often used by angles, will be used to map the substrate. The humminbird will be attached
to the front of the boat. The boat will run downstream at approximately 5 mph and at designated
intervals a snapshot of the substrate will be taken. The GPS location of each snapshot,
waypoint, will be recorded along with the GPS coordinate path, track, that we will travel.
The snapshot images will have to be rectified and then the waypoints and images will be
joined, and finally placed along the track. This will result in a single image of the riverbed.
I will create polygons on the images differentiating between substrate types. The result will
be a vector layer that shows each substrate type and location.
Movement
There is no information on the movement of stonecats in Vermont. This will be
accomplished by using the same gear types, during spring, summer, and autumn. The gear types
will be placed in varying habitat types, (i.e. pools, riffles) and substrate types (i.e. gravel, sand).
Keeping track of the individuals found in each location will indicate the kind of movement we
can expect seasonally and it will also tell us the type of habitat stonecats are using. We will
record the substrate type, temperature, and stream velocity with each capture period.
Age Structure/ Sex Ratio
Using otoliths and spines to age Icatlurides is a common method and has been successful
with stonecats (Chan and G.R. 2000; DeVries and Frie 1996; Gilbert 1953; Maceina et al. 2007;
Walsh and Burr 1985). Using otoliths are more accurate than spines, but requires sacrificing
individuals (DeVries and Frie 1996; Maceina et al. 2007). It is illegal to kill stonecats in
Vermont therefore stonecats will be sampled from the Great Chazy River, near Champlain New
York, approximately 65 miles from the Vermont study sites. Roughly 200 stonecats will be
captured at night using backpack electrofishing. Length, weight, and sex will be recorded for
each individual.
7
Recording the sex of there 200 stonecats will tell us the sex ratio for stonecats in this
region. In other Noturus species it has been observed to be a 1:1 ratio (Bulger and Edds 2001),
but has not been reported for stonecats specifically. As with other Noturus species there is no
sexual dimorphism displayed in stonecats except during spawning (Walsh and Burr 1985).
Otoliths and right pectoral spine will be removed for ageing. Following procedures
similar to Clugston and Cooper (1960) and Chan and Parson (2000) two people will examine
each otolith and pectoral spine to determine age and precision between the two structures. This
procedure will be done by two people to try and limit experience bias. Doing a comparison
between structures will allow us to determine if taking spines, and which section of spines, could
be a viable, non-lethal, method for determining stonecat ages in this region.
There is little information that uses length to determine age for stonecats, and what is
available is outdated and from other geographical areas (Gilbert 1953; Walsh and Burr 1985). To
compare the length at age information from New York to that in Vermont, during sampling in
the Missisquoi and LaPlatte Rivers length data will be taken for each individual. This will
produce a length frequency histogram (Fuselier and Edds 1994; Simonson and Neves 1992) for
Vermont stonecats. Length frequency histograms reflect age groups (DeVries and Frie 1996).
Clustering of individuals at lengths will reveal cohorts. It can then be expected that each cohort
reflects age groups and their expected length ranges. This histogram will add credence to the age
class structure from the stonecats collected in New York without taking spines.
Program MARK
This robust program will allow us to create a model best suited to our data. We will use
either the Jolly-Seber (open model) or Robust Design (combination open-closed model) to
estimate population. Program MARK uses the number of individuals marked and recaptured
during a designated amount of time to estimate total population. Necessary information such as
fecundity will be obtained from the literature. Other information including age class structure
and sex ratio will be the observed data from this study.
Expected Results
Substrate Mapping
8
A GIS layer describing the substrate type in the study sections of the Missisquoi and
LaPlatte Rivers will be created. The area and location of each substrate type will be known and
quantifiable (for an example see figure 2).
Movement
We expect to see stonecats captured in different areas of the river depending on the
season. Specifically we hypothesize that stonecats are more likely to be in pools in early spring,
shifting to shallow gravel beds during the breading season and into riffles during the summer as
seen by Brewer et al. (2006) and Brewer and Rabeni (2008).
Age Structure
From the otoliths we expect to see a range of lengths that equate to age. We will know
the precision of using spines to age stonecats compared to otoliths. We also expect a length
frequency histogram from the Missisquoi and LaPlatte Rivers to compare to the age structure
observed in the Great Chazy River. We will also know the sex ratio for stonecats in this region.
Program MARK
We expect to have population estimates for stonecat populations in the LaPlatte and
Missisquoi Rivers. This information will include age structure, fecundity and birth and death
rates obtained from the literature.
Limitations
One of the largest and most concerning limitations is the number of stonecats that we will
be able to capture. The validity of program MARK and length frequency histograms depends on
the number of individuals captured. This is why we will be using multiple gear types to find the
most effective way to capture stonecats. Another limitation is experience bias. This is a concern
with both gear use, and ageing otoliths.
9
Measurement
Velocity (m/s)
Min
0
0
0.25
Max
0.68
0.38
1.54
0.03
0.05
0.46
0.42
Avg
0.071
0.72
n
28
46
344
Location
Big Penny MO
Casselman River MD
Assiniboine CAN
Sources
Banks and Distefano 2002
Kline and Morgan 2000
McCulloch and Franzin 1996
Depth (m)
29
Big Penny MO
Banks and Distefano 2002
0.2
46
Casselman River MD
Kline and Morgan 2000
0.4
1
Lyon Creek KA
Layer and Wood 19866
0.15
1.2
0.5
344
Assiniboine CAN
McCulloch and Franzin 1996
0.45
0.45
0.45
274
Little Saskatchewan CAN
McCulloch and Franzin 1996
0.8
1
Several Tributaries to Assiniboine CAN
McCulloch and Franzin 1996
0.25
1.17
0.87
Meramec River MO
Walsh and Burr 1985
Table1. A summary of velocity and depths where stonecats have been observed including, when available; minimum (min) maximum
(max) and average (avg) velocity or depth at each location, total number of individuals observed (n), river of each observation and
state or country (Canada), and source.
Boulder
>250mm
Cobble 40200mm
Pebble 1564mm
Gravel
2-16mm
Sand
<2mm
Detritus
n
Location
Sources
0-.23
.03-.52
>.4
0.61
0.1
0.67*
0.86*
.07-.91
>.4
0.35
0.3
.02-.33
0-.15
0-.47
Big Penny MO
Mas de Cyhgnes MO
Casselman River MD
Lyon Creek KA
Assiniboine CAN
Little Saskatchewan CAN
Several Tributaries to
Assiniboine
Banks and Distefano 2002
Brewer et al. 2006
Kline and Morgan 2000
Layer and Wood 1986
McCulloch and Franzin 1996
McCulloch and Franzin 1996
0.02
0.3
0.00
0.75*
1.00*
0.08*
0.64*
0.1
0.55*
0.00*
29
140
46
1
344
274
1.00*
0.00*
1.00*
1
0.02
McCulloch and Franzin 1996
Table 2. A summary of percent substrate where stonecats have been observed, using a modified Wentworth scale noting the size class,
total number of individuals observed (n), river of each observation and state or country (Canada), and source.
*denotes that the particle size classes where not reported in the paper and was therefore assumed.
10
Source
Gilbert 1953
Ohio Streams
Walsh and Burr 1985
IL and MO rivers
Average (mm)
n
Average (mm)
n
Age0+
53.6
47
Age1+
72.6
34
Age2+
89.0
29
48.6
1
Age3+
104.1
23
Age4+
116.4
16
Age5+
128.9
10
100
17
123.3
7
177
2
Table 3. A summary of the average lengths in millimeters of stonecats for each age class with the
number of individuals (n) sampled.
Figure 1. Known
distribution of stonecat
(Page and Burr 2006).
Figure 2. An example of a
substrate type GIS layer
from the humminbird
(Kaeser and Litts 2010)
11
References
Anderson, R. O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural
indices. Pages 447-482 in B. R. Murphy, and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries
techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Banks, S. M., and R. J. DiStefano. 2002. Diurnal habitat associations of the madtoms Noturus
Albater, N. Exilis, N. Flavater and N. Flavus in Missouri Ozarks streams. American
Midland Naturalist 148:138-145.
Brege, D. C., and coauthors. 2003. Factors responsible for the reduction in quantity of the
lampricide, TFM, applied annually in streams tributary to the Great Lakes from 1979
to 1999. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29, Supplement 1(0):500-509.
Brewer, S. K., D. M. Papoulias, and C. F. Rabeni. 2006. Spawning habitat associations and
selection by fishes in a flow-regulated prairie river. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 135:763-778.
Brewer, S. K., and C. F. Rabeni. 2008. Seasonal and diel habitat shifts by juvenile ictalurids
in a flow-regulated prairie river. American Midland Naturalist 159:42-54.
Bulger, A. G., and D. R. Edds. 2001. Population structure and habitat use in neosho madtom
(Noturus placidus). The Southwestern Naturalist 46(1):8-15.
Chan, M. D., and P. G.R. 2000. Aspects of brown madtom, Noturus phaeus, life history in
northern Mississippi. Copeia 3:757-762.
Clugston, J. P., and E. L. Cooper. 1960. Growth of the common eastern madtom, Noturus
insignis in Central Pennsylvania. Copeia 1960(1):9-16.
Cox, K. M. 2009. Evaluation of several population sampling techniques applied to stonecat
Noturus flavus in shallow water habitats. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department,
Springfield Vermont.
Crites, J. W., V. A. Barko, and R. A. Hrabik. 2002. An evaluation of an experimental and a
deepwater benthic fish trap in a large river system. Transactions of the Missouri
Academy of Science. 33:5.
DeVries, D. R., and R. V. Frie. 1996. Determination of age and growth. Pages 483-512 in B. R.
Murphy, and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Fuselier, L., and D. Edds. 1994. Seasonal variation in habitat use by the neosho madtom
(Teleostei: Ictaluridae: Noturus placidus). The Southwestern Naturalist 39(3):217223.
Gilbert, C. R. 1953. Age and growth of the yellow stone catfish Noturus flavus (Refinesque).
Ohio State University.
Gryska, A. D., W. A. Hubert, and K. G. Gerow. 1998. Relative abundance and lengths of
Kendall Warm Springs dace captured from different habitats in a specially designed
trap. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(2):309-315.
Guy, C. S., H. L. Blankenship, and L. A. Nielsen. 1996. Tagging and Marking. Pages 353-384 in
B. R. Murphy, and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Herzog, D. P., V. A. Barko, J. S. Scheibe, R. A. Hrabik, and D. E. Ostendorf. 2005. Efficacy of a
benthic trawl for sampling small-bodied fishes in large river systems. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:594-603.
12
Herzog, D. P., D. E. Ostendorf, R. A. Hrabik, and V. A. Barko. 2009. The mini-Missouri trawl: a
useful methodology for sampling small-bodied fishes in small and large river
systems. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24:103-108.
Hewitt, D. A., E. C. Janney, B. S. Hayes, and R. S. Shively. 2010. Improving inferences from
fisheries capture-recapture studies through remote detection of PIT tags. Fisheries
35(5):217-231.
Hill, M. S., G. B. Zydlewski, J. D. Zydlewski, and J. M. Gasvoda. 2006. Development and
evaluation of portable PIT tag detection units: PITpacks. Fisheries Research
77(1):102-109.
Kaeser, A. J., and T. L. Litts. 2008. An assessment of deadhead logs and large woody debris
using side scan sonar and field surveys in streams of southwest georgia. Fisheries
33:589-597.
Kaeser, A. J., and T. L. Litts. 2010. A novel technique for mapping habitat in navigable
streams using low-cost side scan sonar. Fisheries 35:163-174.
Kline, M. J., and R. P. Morgan. 2000. Current distribution, abundance, and habitat
preferences of the stonecat (Noturus flavus) in Maryland. University of Maryland
center for environmental science, Frostburg, Maryland.
Knight, J. T., T. M. Glasby, and L. O. Brooks. 2007. A sampling protocol for the endangered
freshwater fish, oxleyan pygmy prech Nannoperca oxleyana Whitley. Australian
zoologist 34(2):148-157.
Langdon, R. W., M. T. Ferguson, and K. M. Cox. 2006. Fishes of Vermont. Vermont
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury, VT.
Layher, W. G., and R. D. Wood. 1986. New country records in Kansas USA for the stonecat
Noturus flavus new-record and the slender madtom Noturus exilis new-record with
descriptions of habitat at collection sites. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of
Science 89:169-170.
Maceina, M. J., and coauthors. 2007. Current status and review of freshwater fish aging
procedures used by state and provincial fisheries agencies with recommendations
for future directions. Fisheries 32(7):329-340.
McCulloch, B. R., and W. G. Franzin. 1996. Fishes collected from the Canadian portion of the
Assiniboine River drainage. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg,
Manitoba.
McCulloch, B. R., and K. W. Stewart. 1998. Range extension and new locality records for the
Stonecat, Noturus flavus, in Manitoba: Evidence for a recent natural invasion.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 112(2):217-224.
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2005. Mississippi's comprehensive wildlife
conservation strategy, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks,
Mssissippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson Mississippi.
Neebling, T. E., and M. C. Quist. 2011. Comparison of boat electrofishing, trawling, and
seining for sampling fish assemblages in Iowa's nonwadeable Rivers. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 31(2):390-402.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2006. Stonecat Noturus flavus. Pages
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/catfish/ictaluridae/stonecat.htm in G. E. Sheehy, editor.
Florida Museum of Natural History.
13
Phillips, C. T., and J. N. Fries. 2009. An evaluation of visible implant elastomer for marking
the federally listed fountain darter and the san marcos salamander. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 29(3):529-532.
Pollard, S. M. 2004. Status of the sontecat (Noturus flavus) in Alberta. Alberta Fish and
Wildlife Division.
Reynolds, J. B. 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy, and D. W. Willis,
editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Simonson, T. D., and R. J. Neves. 1992. Habitat suitability and reproductive traits of the
orangefin madtom Noturus gilberti (Pisces: Ictaluridae). American Midland
Naturalist 127(1):115-124.
Sindt, A. R., J. R. Fischer, M. C. Quist, and C. L. Piernce. 2011. Ictalurids in Iowa's streams and
rivers: Status distribution, and relationships with biotic integrity. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 77:335-347.
Steiner, L. 2000. Catfishes. Pages 170 in Pennsylvania fishes. Pennsylvania fish and boat
commission.
Tennessee aquatic nuisance species task force. 2008. Tennessee aquatic nuisance species
management plan, Tennessee wildlife resources agency, Nashville, Tennessee.
Trautman, M. B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio, with illustrated keys. Ohio State University Press,
Columbus Ohio.
Vermont agency of natural resources. 2005. Basin 6 Missisquoi River watershed.
Virginia department game and inland fisheries. 2010. List of native and naturalized fauna of
virginia. Pages 61 in, Virginia department of game and inland fisheries.
Walsh, S. J., and B. M. Burr. 1985. Biology of the stonecat, Noturus flavus (Siluriformes,
Ictaluridae), in central Illinois and Missouri streams, and comparison with Great
Lakes populations and congeners. . Ohio Journal of Science 85(3):85-96.
Wentworth, C. K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. The Journal of
Geology 30(5):377-392.
Westley, P. A. H., and I. A. Fleming. 2011. Landscape factors that shape a slow and
persistent aquatic invasion: brown trout in Newfoundland 1883-2010. Diversity and
Distributions 17(3):566-579.
Winooski natural resources conservation district, Vermont agency of environmental
conservation, Vermont department of agriculture, U.S. department of agriculture
soil conservation service, and U.S. department of agriculture forest service. 1979.
Watershed plan for LaPlatte River watershed Vermont, Chittenden County,
Vermont.
Zydlewski, G. B., A. Haro, K. G. Whalen, and S. D. McCormick. 2001. Performance of
stationary and portable passive transponder detection systems for monitoring of
fish movements. Journal of Fish Biology 58(5):1471-1475.
14