|Scientific Name:||Noturus gilberti Jordan & Evermann, 1889|
|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.|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Endangered B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Smith, K. & Darwall, W.R.T.|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Hammerson, G.A. & Ormes, M.|
This species is listed as Endangered because its extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 sq km, area of occupancy is less than 500 sq km, native (and /or probably viable) populations occur in not more than five locations, distribution may be severely fragmented, and habitat quality is subject to ongoing degradation.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
|Range Description:||Range includes the Ridge and Valley and upper Piedmont of the upper Roanoke River (including the Dan River) drainage, Virginia and North Carolina; and upper James River, Virginia, where possibly introduced (Page and Burr 2011). Range in the Roanoke drainage is highly fragmented (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).|
The clearly viable populations include those in the Roanoke River from Salem upstream, through the South Fork of the Roanoke River, into the lower Bottom and Goose creeks; lower Big Chestnut Creek and a nearby Pigg River site; the Dan River from its gorge in the Blue Ridge downstream into North Carolina; and the South Mayo River and North Fork of South Mayo River within or just above Stuart (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Rare to uncommon in portions of the Roanoke River drainage (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). The population in Craig Creek in the James River drainage, Virginia, almost certainly originated by transplantation of fishes from the Roanoke River drainage (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). The species is apparently extirpated in the heavily silted lower North Fork of the Roanoke River and in the lower Roanoke River below Salem, lower Little Dan River, and upper Smith River (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||Five isolated populations inhabit the upper Roanoke River drainage (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). A probably introduced population occurs in the upper James River drainage (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).|
Generally this species is rare to uncommon (Page and Burr 2011).
In the Roanoke River, this species appears to extirpated in Roanoke, and population density in Salem is much reduced (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Populations in the North Fork Roanoke, Smith, and Little Dan rivers are minuscule or extirpated (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
Since 1977, the species apparently has increased its range in Craig Creek, Big Chestnut Creek, and the South Mayo River systems.
|Current Population Trend:||Unknown|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Habitat includes swift riffles with small cobble substratum; this madtom occupies interstitial spaces among cobbles; generally it is not in areas with large amounts of sand and silt (Simonson and Neves 1992). Riffles and runs of medium to large, cool to warm, usually clear streams; lives under large gravel, rubble and probably boulders and other cover. Medium-sized, moderate gradient, montane and upper Piedmont streams; the largest populations are in streams that usually are clear (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Eggs presumably are laid under loose rubble.|
|Movement patterns:||Not a Migrant|
|Use and Trade:||Madtoms are collects by anglers for use as bait.|
|Major Threat(s):||Threats include channelization, siltation, various forms of chronic pollution, catastrophic chemical spills, impoundment, dewatering, and bait-seining (anglers collect madtoms for use as bait). Low reproductive rate and short life span (Simonson 1997, Simonson and Neves 1992, Simonson 1987) exacerbate these threats (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Inhabited reaches of Big Chestnut Creek (Pigg River system) and the Pigg River are moderately to heavily silted (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Habitat suitability is marginal in the South Mayo River and the upper Roanoke River system, particularly in the North Fork of the Roanoke River (Simonson and Neves 1992).|
Research the possibility of making other reintroductions. Determine current abundance and distribution.
Burkhead and Jenkins (1991) made the following recommendations: measures should be taken to decrease siltation, especially in the upper Dan River; rare fishes should be considered before channelization projects are undertaken; the taking of madtoms should be prohibited in any stream known to contain Noturus gilberti.
|Citation:||NatureServe. 2013. Noturus gilberti. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T14902A19033372.Downloaded on 14 August 2018.|
|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|