|Scientific Name:||Noturus placidus|
|Species Authority:||Taylor, 1969|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Near Threatened ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Smith, K. & Darwall, W.R.T.|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Hammerson, G.A. & Ormes, M.|
This species is listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence may be less than 20,000 sq km, area of occupancy appears to be less than 500 sq km, and habitat is subject to ongoing degradation. However, it occurs in more than 10 locations, distribution does not appear to be severely fragmented, decline over the past 10 years or three generations probably does not exceed 30 percent, and population size is unknown but may exceed 10,000, so the species does not fully meet the criteria for a threatened category..
|Range Description:||Range includes part of the Arkansas River drainage: Spring River in southwestern Missouri and southeastern Kansas; Cottonwood and Neosho rivers in eastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma; lower Illinois River in east-central Oklahoma (at least formerly) (Bryan et al. 2004, Wildhaber 2006, Page and Burr 2011). This madtom is now found primarily in the Neosho and Cottonwood rivers of Kansas; it persists at low densities in a short stretch of the Neosho (Grand) River in Oklahoma upstream from Lake o' the Cherokees and in the Spring River in extreme southwestern Missouri and southeastern Kansas (Wilkinson et al. 1996).|
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
Approximately 30 extant occurrences have been documented in three mega-populations in three states. Potential habitat has been well-inventoried.
Total population is estimated at 1,000s–10,000s. Occasionally this species is locally abundant.
Historical and current abundance in Missouri appear to be the same (Pflieger 1997). Declines have occurred in Oklahoma and Kansas. Species now occurs in about two-thirds of the historical range (see Bryan et al. 2004).
USFWS (1990) categorized the status as "declining." Abundance at a given locality tends to fluctuate seasonally and annually.
|Habitat and Ecology:||This madtom inhabits permanent flow of medium-sized to moderately large, medium-gradient streams, moderate to strong currents; usually in fairly clear water under rocks in riffles with small, loosely packed gravel-pebble; sometimes in pools adjacent to riffles or near tree trunks in slack water downstream from riffles; nonriffle occurrences may be most frequent during periods of low flow when riffles are not inundated (Wenke et al. 1992, Pflieger 1997). Breeding adults use substrates that are more loosely compacted than those used by nonbreeding adults; juveniles use shallower areas with slower flow and looser substrates than do adults (Bulger and Edds 2001). Loosely compacted gravel bars are important components of the habitat (Bulger and Edds 2001). Eggs are deposited in cavities under large objects in the substrate (Wildhaber 2008).|
Much of the historical habitat has been inundated or isolated by reservoirs and low-head dams; additional habitat has been degraded by in-stream gravel mining, feedlot operations, historical lead-zinc mining, sedimentation, and flow manipulation (Wildhaber 2008). Competition with other species was not likely to be limiting Neosho Madtom populations (Wildhaber 2006).
Threatened by water development/river alteration (inundation by impoundments, release of cold water below dams, water withdrawals, and dredging for sand and gravel). Vulnerable to effects of drought and pollution (e.g., excessive nutrient influx, farm chemicals, heavy metals released by mining).
Threats include: reservoir construction; gravel dredging; dewatering for municipal and agricultural purposes; and deteriorating water quality due to zinc-lead mining, agricultural runoff, and increased urbanization and industrialization (Pflieger 1997).
Dam construction and sedimentation from clearing of land have led to declines in Neosho madtom numbers in Oklahoma and Kansas. Localized threats include construction of dams and impoundments, unrestricted sand and gravel removal, and habitat degradation due to agricultural runoff containing pesticide chemicals and waste from livestock. Source: Missouri Department of Conservation.
Jelks et al. (2008) categorized this species as Threatened due to present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range.
Study reproductive biology, potential competitive relationships with similar species (especially Noturus exilis), and habitat of young. Evaluate threats from proposed watershed developments (USFWS 1990).
Facilitate watershed management for improved water quality; protect best populations through acquisition, easement or registry.
|Citation:||NatureServe 2014. Noturus placidus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 26 January 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|