|Scientific Name:||Notropis anogenus|
|Species Authority:||Forbes, 1885|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Least Concern ver 3.1|
|Reviewer(s):||Smith, K. & Darwall, W.R.T.|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Hammerson, G.A. & Ormes, M.|
This species is listed as Least Concern because its extent of occurrence is large, the number of locations exceeds 10, and distribution does not appear to be severely fragmented; area of occupancy is unknown but not precariously small. However, the area of occupancy, number of locations, abundance, and habitat quality/quantity are subject to ongoing slow declines, so the species warrants continued conservation attention.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
|Range Description:||Original range extended from western New York (Smith 1985) and eastern Ontario west to southeastern North Dakota, south to northern Iowa, Illinois (Smith 1979), Wisconsin (Becker 1983), Michigan (Bailey et al. 2004), northern Indiana, and northern Ohio (Trautman 1981); see map in Lee et al. 1980. However, the historical range was very limited, and occurrences in Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, New York, and Ontario are largely peripheral to the main (but spotty) distribution in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (mainly the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins, but also in the Red River drainage [Hudson Bay basin] of Minnesota and South Dakota (Page and Burr 2011).|
The only records in Ohio were from western Lake Erie, and none have been found in the state since 1931 (Trautman 1981). The species may be extirpated from North Dakota.
See Scott and Crossman (1973) and Parker et al. (1987) for more detailed information on the Canadian distribution.
Native:Canada; United States
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||This species is represented by a fairly large number of occurrences (subpopulations); 50+ collection sites rangewide in last 25 years. About 40 such occurrences were documented in states and provinces other than Minnesota. Minnesota is thought to have more occurrences than other states (Phillips et al. 1982). Becker (1983) mapped about 35 collection sites in Wisconsin.|
Total population size is unknown. This fish is generally rare (Gilbert 1978, Smith 1979). Phillips et al. (1982) noted that generally only a few specimens are collected, even with intensive efforts. However, Wisconsin records indicate several sites with collections of 30–80 individuals in some years, and Becker (1983) stated that the species may be locally abundant in Wisconsin. This species is rare in Minnesota (Moyle 1975), a core part of the range. The habitat is difficult to sample effectively, so available information may underestimate abundance.
Bailey (1959:121) indicated that the species was "becoming rare in areas where it was formerly common" and that it remained most common in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
In Canada, a population trend has not been documented, though Scott and Crossman (1973) noted a decrease in the (historically small) range in Canada. According to Parker et al. (1987), the species has never been found in large numbers in Canada, and therefore the current low population is not enough reason to consider the species endangered or threatened in Canada. More inventory is necessary in Canada before the status can be adequately evaluated.
Becker (1983) mentioned the then recent discovery of new populations in Wisconsin but also noted the disappearance of earlier known populations in three counties.
The range in Michigan appears to have become more restricted in the past few decades, but this suggestion should be viewed with caution, because no statewide intensive survey has been conducted in recent years. Records since 1970 have come from only four counties: Cheboygan, in the northern Lower Peninsula, and Newago, Barry and Kalamazoo, in the western and southwestern Lower Peninsula. Earlier records came from 31 counties across the entire Lower Peninsula. Rivers and lakes are represented in both time periods (MNFI 1993). In recent decades, the species has been found in only seven of the 18 watersheds from which it was historically recorded (Derosier 2004).
Howell (1993 pers. comm.) reported declines in Iowa. The species may be extirpated from North Dakota; none have been collected there since the 1960s, despite intensive inventory of historic sites and similar habitat in 1982 and 1991. Remaining Illinois populations occur in three lakes; historically this species was known from a few other glacial lakes in the state (Smith 1979, Karnes pers. comm. 1993).
This species has not been monitored sufficiently to clarify recent rangewide population trends, but ongoing declines seem likely ("rare and disappearing over most of range," according to Page and Burr 2011). The rate of decline probably does not exceed 30% over 10 years or three generations.
|Current Population Trend:||Unknown|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Habitat includes clear, heavily vegetated glacial lakes and vegetated pools and runs of low gradient creeks and rivers, over bottoms of sand, mud, marl, or gravel; these fishes are mostly in shallows in warm months, probably in deep water during rest of year (Smith 1979, Gilbert in Lee et al. 1980, Trautman 1981, Becker 1983, Smith 1985, Page and Burr 2011).|
|Movement patterns:||Not a Migrant|
|Major Threat(s):||Declines have resulted at least in part from increased turbidity and reduction in aquatic vegetation (Herkert 1992). Removal of vegetation to make swimming beaches or allow boat access is detrimental. Siltation, pollution, boating, and development can all contribute to declining habitat quality. For example, agricultural activities in North Dakota have resulted in moderate to great stream turbidity (Peterka 1992). Such turbidity has been suggested as the primary cause of the decline (Smith 1979, Trautman 1981, Parker et al. 1987). Increased incidence of whole-lake herbicide treatments may be a problem.|
Determine minimum viable population size, spawning habitat, impacts of aquatic vegetation management, and interactions with competitors and predatory fishes.
Check historical sites to see if populations are still extant. Determine current abundance and distribution, especially in Michigan, Minnesota and Ontario.
Promote policies that protect water quality (especially clarity) and aquatic vegetation.
|Citation:||NatureServe. 2014. Notropis anogenus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T184076A19034270.Downloaded on 24 March 2017.|
|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|