|Scientific Name:||Percina cymatotaenia|
|Species Authority:||(Gilbert & Meek, 1887)|
Etheostoma cymatotaenia Gilbert & Meek, 1887
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Vulnerable B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) ver 3.1|
|Reviewer/s:||Smith, K. & Darwall, W.R.T.|
|Facilitator/s:||Hammerson, G.A. & Ormes, M.|
This species is downlisted from its previous assessment of EN (in 1996). Data from 1969 and 1980 suggested that the population was in slow decline at that time. However, over the past several decades (through 2002) the abundance and distribution of the species have increased in some areas, while some populations have declined. Overall, the current population trend appears to be relatively stable. The species is currently listed as Vulnerable because extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 sq km, area of occupancy is less than 2,000 sq km, number of locations may not exceed 10, and habitat quality is subject to ongoing degradation.
|Range Description:||This darter has a localized distribution in the Osage and Gasconade river drainages in northern Ozarks of south-central Missouri; it is widely distributed in the Gasconade River system and in the Niangua River (Pflieger 1997, Page and Burr 2011). Present range includes six streams: Big Piney River, Gasconade River, Roubidoux Creek, Osage Fork, Whetstone Creek, and Niangua River. See Burr and Page (1993) for a spot map and list of localities.|
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
Pflieger (1997) mapped about 29 collection sites for the period 1945–1995, plus several additional historical locations that probably do not support extant populations; recent collections represent several distinct occurrences in six streams.
Based on a rough average number of fish seined per 100 linear feet of stream in habitat known to be occupied by bluestripe darters (4.08), and on total miles of stream known to be inhabited by the species (240 mi) (Pflieger 1984), a population estimate of over 50,000 fish can be calculated. However, it is not clear whether total miles of inhabited stream includes only habitat known to be occupied, or also includes some stretches of intervening inappropriate habitat. If the latter, the population could be considerably smaller, but probably still numbers over 10,000.
It is now rare but may have been more common before 1900 (Pflieger 1997).
Pflieger (1984) indicated that his sampling experience in 1969 and 1980 suggested that the population was in slow decline.
Sampling over the past several decades (through 2002) indicated that abundance and distribution have increased in some areas, whereas the upper Osage Fork population showed decline over time, and the Woods Fork and upper Big Piney River populations showed depressed numbers (Winston and Tilley 2003). Overall, trend was relatively stable.
|Habitat and Ecology:||Habitat includes quiet pools and backwaters of small to medium rivers with sandy bottoms and abundant cover (submerged vegetation or deposits of sticks, leaves, or other organic debris); also submerged vegetation over mud and occasionally in emergent vegetation along sand or gravel bars; this is a midwater species (Page and Burr 1991, 2011). Water depths of 25–140 cm and currents often too slight to measure are characteristic. Associated submerged plants include Justicia, Ranunculus, Myriophyllum, Potamogeton, and Heteranthera (Pflieger 1984). Spawning occurs apparently over gravel riffles.|
Threatened by habitat alteration from continued urban expansion and conversion of forest to pasture (Pflieger 1984).
This species occupies stream systems that are for the most part continuous and free of substantial movement barriers such as large dams (D. Novinger, Missouri Department of Conservation).
Define real barriers to dispersal and determine number of distinct populations. Evaluate fragility. Determine what factors drove species out of headwater streams.
Protection of Gasconade River system from impoundment or degradation of hydrology and water quality would probably secure the continued existence of this species. Enforcement of state water quality standards is essential. Increasing the stringency of such standards may be necessary. Other protection needs include education of landowners, encouragement of conservation practices, and leasing of easements along reaches of stream with prime habitat (Pflieger 1984).
|Citation:||NatureServe 2013. Percina cymatotaenia. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 16 April 2014.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided|