|Scientific Name:||Notropis perpallidus|
|Species Authority:||Hubbs & Black, 1940|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Vulnerable B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Smith, K. & Darwall, W.R.T.|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Hammerson, G.A. & Ormes, M.|
This species is listed as Vulnerable because its extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 sq km, area of occupancy appears to be less than 2,000 sq km, number of known recent locations is fewer than 10, and distribution, abundance, and habitat quantity and quality are subject to ongoing declines. Population size is unknown but not very large.
|Previously published Red List assessments:||
|Range Description:||Range includes tributaries of Red and Ouachita rivers in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas; in the Red River drainage, the species known from the Little and Kiamichi rivers; in the Ouachita drainage, it occurs in the Saline, Ouachita, Caddo, and Little Missouri rivers; (Lee et al. 1980, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Miller and Robison 2004, Page and Burr 2011). Range of known extant populations is smaller than the historical range (Robison 2006).|
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||Robison (2006) mapped about 47 collection sites in Arkansas and Oklahoma (not all of these represent distinct occurrences (subpopulatiions) or locations. Range-wide surveys in 1999–2001 found the species in only five sites, all in Arkansas (Robison 2006).
Total adult population size is unknown but not very large. This shiner is uncommon in Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988); never abundant at any locality (C. Taylor pers. comm. 1997); relatively rare (Miller and Robison 2004).
In 81 fish collections made in the range of this species in 1999–2001, only 17 specimens of Notropis perpallidus were obtained (Robison 2006).
This species has declined in certain local areas, especially downstream from reservoirs (Wagner et al. 1987). In Arkansas, surveys conducted below dam sites resulted in no collections or numbers far less than found prior to reservoir construction (C. Osborne pers. comm. 1997). Overall, the range and abundance of this species have declined in Arkansas and Oklahoma over the past several decades (Robison 2006).
Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but distribution and abundance probably are slowly declining. "Small population size and low densities make it imperative that a careful watch be maintained on this species in the future" (Robison 2006).
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Habitat includes pools and slow runs of warm, clear, small to medium rivers with gravel substrate; often in quiet water near vegetation; typically in lees of islands and other obstructions out of main current (Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr 1991); primarily deeper (more than 50 cm), slower (less than 0.3 cm/sec) areas (Wagner et al. 1987).|
|Movement patterns:||Not a Migrant|
|Use and Trade:||This species is not utilized.|
Threatened by habitat alteration and fragmentation due to reservoir construction and intensive silviculture (C. Taylor 1997). Reservoirs fragment populations, and cold water releases impact areas many kilometres below reservoirs (Robison 2006).
Increases in turbidity and siltation have also occurred in the upland streams inhabited by the Peppered Shiner as poor land practices such as road building, farming, clearing of land for pasture, clearcutting, destruction of riparian buffer strips and other human perturbations continue in these watersheds (Robison 2006). Other possible reasons for decline of the Peppered Shiner include gravel removal operations in a number of Arkansas streams and nutrient enrichment from the enormous increase in poultry and swine operations (Robison 2006). Human population growth also contributes to habitat degradation in various ways.
Moderately threatened in Arkansas due to dam construction; additional dam construction may take place in the future (C. Osborne pers. comm. 1997). Low population densities and a rather patchy distribution are reasons for concern over future status; very susceptible to environmental disturbance (see Robison and Buchanan 1988).
Research life history, habitat, distribution, threats, reproductive biology, and taxonomy. Determine effect of habitat fragmentation (C. Taylor pers. comm. 1997).
Survey to determine location of extant populations and abundance. Monitor known populations to determine trends.
Preserve habitat in its natural state.
|Citation:||NatureServe. 2013. Notropis perpallidus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T14893A19032246. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T14893A19032246.en . Downloaded on 04 October 2015.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|