Noturus furiosus 

Scope: Global
Language: English

Translate page into:

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Actinopterygii Siluriformes Ictaluridae

Scientific Name: Noturus furiosus Jordan & Meek, 1889
Common Name(s):
English Carolina Madtom
Taxonomic Source(s): Jordan, D.S. 1889. Descriptions of fourteen species of fresh-water fishes collected by the U. S. Fish Commission in the summer of 1888. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 11(723): 351-362.

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria: Near Threatened ver 3.1
Year Published: 2014
Date Assessed: 2012-04-17
Assessor(s): NatureServe
Reviewer(s): Smith, K. & Darwall, W.R.T.
Contributor(s): Hammerson, G.A.
Facilitator/Compiler(s): Hammerson, G.A. & Ormes, M.
This species is listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 sq km, area of occupancy may be less than 2,000 sq km, and distribution, abundance, and habitat quality are declining; on the other hand, the species occurs in more than 10 locations, and the distribution, while becoming fragmented in some areas, is not yet severely fragmented. Rate of decline likely does not exceed 30 percent over 10 years or three generations. Population size is unknown. Hence the species is close to but does not fully qualify for the Vulnerable category.
Previously published Red List assessments:

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:Range includes the Neuse and Tar river drainages, North Carolina, on the Piedmont and inner Coastal Plain, with most records from the vicinity of the Fall Line (Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr (2011).
Countries occurrence:
United States
Additional data:
Range Map:Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population:During 1982–1985 surveys, this species was collected from 42 distinct localities (Menhinick 1991 mapped 42 collection sites); 33 of these have been recollected since 1982; several sites not yielding specimens were too flooded for adequate sampling and some probably harbour extant populations; without low water conditions, this madtom is difficult to find (Burr and Lee 1985). Fewer occurrences revealed by more recent surveys (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission - Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee report, prepared by Wayne Starnes on 6 November 2002).

Total adult population size is unknown. Generally rare or uncommon, but this may relate in part to inadequate sampling of appropriate habitat and lack of collections made after dusk (Burr and Lee 1985). Reproducing and undergoing recruitment at several localities in the Neuse and Tar rivers (Burr et al. 1989, cited by Braswell 1991). Locally common (Page and Burr 2011).

Recent surveys by Brian Watson (in litt.), formerly of the NCWRC, indicate that Carolina Madtoms may be extirpated from portions of the Neuse River where it formerly was common. In fact, these surveys yielded no specimens from the Neuse Basin whereas the same investigators took several from Tar River tributaries with ease by similar methods. It appears that this madtom has severely declined in the Neuse basin and thus may be effectively extirpated from over half of its overall range. Development is on the increase in the Tar River basin where good populations remain (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission - Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee report, prepared by Wayne Starnes on 6 November 2002; Sarah Kopplin, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ).

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reported the following: Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission launched a project during 2007 to find where the madtoms occurred. They conducted 60 surveys throughout the Tar and Neuse river basins to determine the status of this species. Data collected during the surveys suggested that the Neuse basin populations have dramatically declined over the past several decades. The Carolina Madtom was discovered at a mere 10 percent of the areas where the fish historically occurred. Only two populations were identified during the 2007 surveys in the entire Neuse Basin. In contrast, 90 percent of the historically occupied sites sampled in the Tar basin still had healthy populations.

Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but distribution and abundance probably are slowly declining.
Current Population Trend:Decreasing
Additional data:

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:Habitat includes sand-, gravel-, and detritus-bottomed riffles and runs of small to medium rivers (Page and Burr 2011). Usually this madtom is in very shallow water with little or no current over fine to coarse sand bottom (Lee et al. 1980). Nests have been found in cans and bottles in pools and runs (Burr et al. 1989).
Movement patterns:Not a Migrant

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s): Threats include habitat alteration and degradation. Populations in the Neuse drainage have been adversely affected by the construction of Falls Lake, which has significantly altered water temperatures below the dam. These cool waters and general pollution problems around Raleigh have reduced habitat in the upper Neuse River. The Tar drainage populations have experienced fewer cases of habitat degradation. However, the Tar River below Rocky Mount to about 20 km downstream showed evidence of extensive municipal and industrial effluents; populations were not found in this region during a 1989 survey (see Braswell 1989). This area of North Carolina is undergoing a boom in hog farms and hog processing plants; there is a great deal of agricultural and silviculture runoff (H. LeGrand pers. comm. 1997; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission - Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee report, prepared by Wayne Starnes on 6 November 2002).

Distribution has become fragmented and reduced by dams and urbanization (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions: Obtain basic information on reproductive behaviour, critical diurnal habitats, movements and migrations, nocturnal behaviour, and winter habitat (Burr and Lee 1985). Determine effects of siltation, substrate preferences, water temperature preference, and preference for types of shelter; develop propagation techniques (Burr and Lee 1985).

Determine abundance and periodically monitor known populations to assess trends.

Citation: NatureServe. 2014. Noturus furiosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T14901A19033935. . Downloaded on 25 May 2018.
Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
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