Expanded Distributions of Three Etheostoma Darters
(Subgenus Nothonotus) within the Upper Ohio River
Watershed
Anthony S. Honick, Brian J. Zimmerman, Jay R. Stauffer Jr., David G. Argent, and Brady A. Porter
Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 24, Issue 2 (2017): 209–234
Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)
Access Journal Content
Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.
Current Issue: Vol. 30 (3)
Check out NENA's latest Monograph:
Monograph 22
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
209
2017 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 24(2):209–234
Expanded Distributions of Three Etheostoma Darters
(Subgenus Nothonotus) within the Upper Ohio River
Watershed
Anthony S. Honick1,*, Brian J. Zimmerman2, Jay R. Stauffer Jr.3,
David G. Argent4, and Brady A. Porter1
Abstract - Within the upper Ohio River watershed, 3 Etheostoma darter species in the
subgenus Nothonotus have been documented in disjunct populations and were listed as
threatened or endangered in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Tailwater habitat below navigation
lock and dam (L/D) installations has been shown to contain diverse darter assemblages.
Etheostoma camurum (Bluebreast Darter), E. maculatum (Spotted Darter), and E. tippecanoe
(Tippecanoe Darter) often live in similar habitats; thus, we hypothesized that all 3 were
occupying tailwater habitat below navigational L/Ds. Electrified benthic trawling verified
Bluebreast Darter and Tippecanoe Darter below 8 L/D installations and at water depths
varying from 1.4 m to 4.5 m and 1.4 m to 5.9 m, respectively. Spotted Darter was only
found below 1 L/D. In the Ohio River, benthic trawling documented Bluebreast Darter and
Tippecanoe Darter utilizing habitat located within deposition zones and areas above and below
islands. Analysis of contemporary and historic distribution data shows that Bluebreast
Darter and Tippecanoe Darter now span large sections of the river, but the range of Spotted
Darter is more limited and warrants close monitoring. Our study confirms the effectiveness
of utilizing benthic trawling in non-wadeable rivers to survey for benthic species such as
river-inhabiting darters.
Introduction
Etheostoma (Nothonotus) camurum (Cope) (Bluebreast Darter) was described
from the headwaters of the Cumberland River in Tennessee (Cope 1870) and is
known to have variable population sizes (Page 1983, Trautman 1981) and a disjunct
distribution in the upper Allegheny drainage (PA, NY); Cheat, Little Kanawha,
and Elk river drainages (WV); Walhonding and Scioto drainages (OH); Wabash
drainage (IN, IL); Cumberland drainage (KY, TN); Licking and upper Kentucky
drainages (KY); and Duck, Elk, and upper Tennessee drainages (TN, AL, VA) (see
Supplemental File 1 available online at http://www.eaglehill.us/NENAonline/
suppl-files/n24-2-N1537-Honick-s1, and, for BioOne subscribers, at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1656/N1537.s1). Bluebreast Darter habitat is reported to consist of moderate
to swift riffles, raceways, and runs of moderate- to large-sized clear streams, and
1Bayer School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh,
PA 15282. 2School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University Museum
of Biodiversity, Columbus, OH 43212. 3Ecosystem Science and Management, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. 4Department of Biological and
Environmental Sciences, California University of Pennsylvania, California, PA 15419 *Corresponding
author - ashonick@gmail.com.
Manuscript Editor: David Halliwell
Northeastern Naturalist
210
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
rivers running over silt-free boulders, cobble, and gravel at depths of 0.5 m to 1.5 m
(Boschung et al. 2004, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Stauffer et al. 1995, Trautman 1981).
Etheostoma (Nothonotus) tippecanoe Jordan and Evermann (Tippecanoe Darter)
was described from the Tippecanoe River at Marshland, IN (Jordan and Evermann
1890). This species is known to have dramatic year-to-year variation in population
sizes (Trautman 1981), and Stauffer (2016) noted that populations in French Creek,
PA, cycled every 3 years. Tippecanoe Darters have disjunct distributions in the
upper Allegheny drainage (PA); Elk and Little Kanawha rivers (WV); lower Muskingum
River, Walhonding River and the Scioto River drainage (OH); East Fork
White River and upper Wabash River drainage (IN); Licking River, Kentucky River
drainage and Green River (KY); and Big South Fork, Red Stones, and Harpeth
rivers (TN) (see Supplemental File 1 available online at http://www.eaglehill.us/
NENAonline/suppl-files/n24-2-N1537-Honick-s1, and, for BioOne subscribers, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/N1537.s1). Tippecanoe Darters inhabit riffles of medium
to large rivers with slow to moderate currents and substrates of clean, fine gravel,
sand, and cobble (Cooper 1983, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Trautman 1981).
Etheostoma (Nothonotus) maculatum Kirtland (Spotted Darter) was described
from the Mahoning River near Youngstown, OH (Kirtland 1840), but that population
was extirpated by pollution from a steel mill sometime in the mid-1850s
(Trautman 1981). Historically, the Spotted Darter has been found in low population
densities over a few disjunct localities in the Beaver River (now extirpated) and
upper Allegheny drainage (PA and NY), Elk River (WV), Walhonding River and the
Scioto River drainage (OH), Tippecanoe River (IN), and the Green River (KY)
(see Supplemental File 1 available online at http://www.eaglehill.us/NENAonline/
suppl-files/n24-2-N1537-Honick-s1, and, for BioOne subscribers, at http://dx.doi.
org/10.1656/N1537.s1). Of these 3 species, the Spotted Darter is less broadly distributed
(Kuehne and Barbour 1983, Page 1983); the largest number of remaining
populations occur in the upper Allegheny River drainage of Pennsylvania and Big
Darby Creek in Ohio (see Supplemental File 2 available online at http://www.
eaglehill.us/NENAonline/suppl-files/n24-2-N1537-Honick-s2, and, for BioOne
subscribers, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/N1537.s2). Spotted Darters inhabit swift
riffles in medium to large streams associated with large cobble and boulder substrates
(Zorach and Raney 1967).
Until recently, all 3 species were listed as either threatened or endangered by
the Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODNR 2015, Ohio Revised Code 2015) and the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (Pennsylvania Bulletin 1999). In the most
recent compilation of imperiled North American freshwater fishes by the American
Fisheries Society, Jelks et al. (2008) listed the Tippecanoe Darter as vulnerable and
the Spotted Darter as threatened and declining.
Even though it is generally accepted that the nation’s waterways have experienced
improved water quality conditions since implementation of the Clean
Water Act (1972), nationwide assessments by Brown and Froemke (2012) and the
US Environmental Protection Agency (2009) indicate that the nation’s water resources
are experiencing increased stress from nonpoint-source pollution. Jelks et
al. (2008) corroborated these claims and reported that imperilm ent of inland fishes
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
211
had substantially increased since the last assessment completed by the American
Fisheries Society in 1989. In contrast, and on a regional scale, surveys since 2003 in
Pennsylvania (Argent and Kimmel 2010; Freedman et al. 2009a; Howell 2007; Koryak
et al. 2009, 2011) and assessments from Yoder et al. (2005) and the Ohio EPA
(OEPA 2016) have found that the fish communities in non-wadeable rivers of the
upper Ohio River watershed were recovering. Regardless, there remains a pressing
need to accurately document the return of imperiled fishes from refugia (e.g., French
Creek, PA, and Big Darby Creek, OH) and track their distributional changes for
future assessment of imperilment. In this study, we documented the changes in the
distribution of these 3 focal darter species that have been increasing in occurrence
outside of their known refugia. Several factors have contributed to elucidating these
changes: (1) in Ohio, extensive routine monitoring using rigorous boat-electrofishing
protocols and trawling have documented changes throughout the mainstem
Ohio River and (2) in Pennsylvania, historically there may have been less-rigorous
routine sampling efforts, but there has been a recent switch in sampling protocols to
include benthic and electrified benthic trawling in non-wadeable rivers and within
lock and dam (L/D) tailwaters. Efforts in Pennsylvania and Ohio have demonstrated
the extent to which these 3 darter species now occupy non-wadeable rivers
in the upper Ohio River watershed. In addition, because previous work indicated
the importance of L/D tailwater habitat to benthic riverine fish species (Argent and
Kimmel 2014, Freedman et al. 2009a, Koryak et al. 2009), we hypothesized that
these darters in Pennsylvania were occupying tailwater habitat below L/D installations.
In summary, we performed electrified benthic trawling surveys and compiled
contemporary and historic data from multiple sources in Ohio and Pennsylvania to
re-assess the darters’ current distributions. These data have increased our understanding
of the focal species’ distributions within non-wadeable rivers and provided
a summary of regional distribution changes that are imperative to documenting
recovery since the delisting of Bluebreast Darter (in Ohio and Pennsylvania) and
Tippecanoe Darter and Spotted Darter (in Pennsylvania).
Study Area
We analyzed contemporary and historic fish-survey data collected from rivers
and streams in the upper Ohio River watershed of Pennsylvania and Ohio. Target
water bodies included the mainstem rivers and tributaries of the Ohio River from
river kilometer (rkm) 790.0 (the Ohio/Indiana border) upstream to Pittsburgh, PA
(rkm 0), the Allegheny River from Pittsburgh, PA, upstream to the Pennsylvania/
New York border, and the Monongahela River from Pittsburgh, PA, to the Pennsylvania/
West Virginia border (Fig. 1).
Methods
Sampling methods
In Pennsylvania, we sampled the tailwaters of 11 L/D installations on 4 river systems
(Allegheny, Beaver, Monongahela, and Ohio rivers; Fig. 2) using a modified
Missouri trawl (2.4 m x 1.2 m, 3.2-mm mesh) electrified with a Smith-Root VI-A
Northeastern Naturalist
212
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
electrofisher (Smith-Root Vancouver, WA) and a 5000-W generator. The unit was
powered with an output mode of 6.0 amps, 120 PPS DC, and 6.0 ms pulse width.
We established a transect within the tailrace of the L/D (50 m to 150 m below the
installation) as the starting point for 7 trawls and placed 1 trawl each within 10 m
of the left and right descending bank, 1 trawl at center channel, and the 4 remaining
trawls evenly spaced between center-channel and the descending bank. We
manually deployed the trawl from the bow of a 6.1-m Sea Ark Jon-type boat with
a 115-hp outboard motor moving backwards downstream at a speed slightly faster
than river current. We aborted snagged trawls and started a new trawl adjacent to
the original location. We used river depth to determine the length of rope deployed
with each trawl with the following guidelines: 5.0 m of depth or less = 15.2 m of
rope, 5.0 to 10.0 m of depth = 30.5 m of rope. Each trawl consisted of 2 minutes
of sampling effort. We identified and enumerated all fish species. In addition to
the electrified-benthic trawling, we electrofished 9 tributaries (Smith Root LR-24,
backpack electrofisher; single pass) for 100 m starting at the first riffle upstream of
the confluence with the main river. We sampled streams with moderate to high flow
by electrofishing into a blocking seine (2.4 m x 1.8 m, 3.2-mm mesh). We identified
and enumerated all fish species.
In Ohio from 2011 to 2014, we sampled the Ohio River from the Indiana/
Ohio border to the Ohio/Pennsylvania border, the entire length of the Muskingum
Figure 1. The major rivers and tributaries of the upper Ohio River watershed in Pennsylvania
and Ohio.
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
213
River, and the Scioto River from Chillicothe to its confluence with the Ohio River
at Portsmouth. We sampled all 3 systems approximately every 8 rkm (i.e., about
every 5 river miles). The intent of the Ohio portion of this study was to provide
presence/absence data for an improved understanding of the Ohio distribution of
small benthic fishes in these large rivers. To conduct our samples, we employed a
2.4-m-wide mini-Missouri trawl (Innovative Net Systems, Milton, LA; Herzog et
al. 2005) and a 1.4 m x 2.4 m (4.8-mm mesh) seine with a chain added to the lead
line for better benthic contact. The trawl was manually deployed from the bow of a
4.8-m flat-bottomed boat (run in reverse) equipped with two 30-hp outboard motors
at a target speed of 3.2–6.4 kmph. We classified as suitable habitat in non-wadeable
areas all locations with unique features such as depositional zones at tributary
mouths, current breaks at upstream and downstream ends of islands, tailwaters, and
other areas of significant flow that might support darters and other benthic fishes.
We conducted a minimum of 4 trawls varying from 30 s to 60 s in duration at each
location. Large areas of suitable habitat were sampled more rigorously (e.g., at least
10 trawls). We sampled wadeable areas in the mainstem Ohio, Muskingum, and
Scioto rivers with suitable habitat (as described above) using both kick seining and
Figure 2. Sample locations of electrified-benthic trawls and the 9 tributaries sampled in this
study. Note: Emsworth L/D consists of a main channel and a separate back-channel dam
which we counted as 2 separate sample locations. All electrified trawls were conducted in
dam tailwaters. The dam on the Beaver River is not a navigational lock and dam; therefore,
the sample site is only designated with an open circle.
Northeastern Naturalist
214
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
downstream hauls. When access was possible either by road or boating upstream
from the mainstem river, we employed the seining methods described above to sample
the first several riffles in the tributaries to these larger rivers. In this study, we
use the term “traditional methods” to collectively refer to all fish-survey methods
that were used prior to the development and implementation of the mini-Missouri
trawl by Herzog et al. (2005). These protocols included backpack electrofishing,
boat and tow-barge electrofishing, and all types of seining methods employed to
survey for benthic fishes.
Historical data and map construction
We queried historical and contemporary survey data for Ohio from the Ohio
State University Museum of Biological Diversity Fish Division database (OSUMBD
2015; Table 1). OEPA is the largest contributor with over 400,000 records
dating back to 1975. We compiled information on relative abundance, specific location,
museum record/collection number, and gear type (see Supplemental File 2
available online at http://www.eaglehill.us/NENAonline/suppl-files/n24-2-N1537-
Honick-s2, and, for BioOne subscribers, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/N1537.s2).
Specific sampling protocols can be obtained from each respective agency.
We obtained historic and contemporary data from as many sources as possible for
Pennsylvania records (Table 1). Raney (1938) compiled historic records for western
Pennsylvania dating back to 1817. We collected information on relative abundance,
specific location, museum record/collection number, and gear type (see Supplemental
File 2 available online at http://www.eaglehill.us/NENAonline/suppl-files/
n24-2-N1537-Honick-s2, and, for BioOne subscribers, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/
N1537.s2). Specific sampling protocols can be obtained from each respective agency.
We quality-checked historic and contemporary records from Ohio and Pennsylvania
for errors (e.g., duplicates, incorrect coordinates). When possible, we
assigned coordinates based on site descriptions of the original survey record
for historic records that did not have coordinate data and removed ambiguous
Table 1. Sources of historic and contemporary data.
State Source
Ohio
Ohio State University Museum of Biological Diversity, Fish Division Database
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Wildlife
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) -
http://www.orsanco.org/data/fish-population/
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
US Army Corps of Engineers - Pittsburgh District
The Pennsylvania State University Museum - Fish Collection
California University of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
215
records. We constructed all distribution maps in ArcMap (v. 10.3.1; ESRI, Redlands,
CA). In order to visualize distribution changes, we constructed maps for
each species by grouping the data into 5 time-categories: pre-1981, 1981–1990,
1991–2000, 2001–2010, and 2011–2015. We plotted symbols denoting previous
survey data (before 2011) on top of the most recent survey data to enhance visualization
of distribution changes. For clarification, the terms “record” and “site
record” both indicate that the respective species was positively identified during a
sampling event at a specific location.
Results
Bluebreast Darter
Pre–1981. Survey records document Bluebreast Darter in a limited number of
drainages across Ohio and Pennsylvania (Fig. 3). In Ohio, the Great Miami, Scioto,
and Muskingum river watersheds contained extant populations of Bluebreast Darter.
We found a total of 106 records, 60 of which were from sites located within Big
Darby Creek (Fig. 3; Osburn 1901, OSU-MBD database 2015, Trautman 1981).
In Pennsylvania, populations of Bluebreast Darter were confined to the upper
reaches of the Allegheny River, French Creek, and the tributaries that form the
Beaver River (Fig. 3). Nine of the 19 records were documented in French Creek
Figure 3. Distribution of Bluebreast Darter in the upper Ohio River system in Ohio and
Pennsylvania showing all historic and contemporary data from pre-1981 to 2015.
Northeastern Naturalist
216
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
(Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 2015, Raney 1938, Schwartz 1965); the
remainder were located in the upper Allegheny River, Tionesta Creek, Little Coon
Creek, and Sandy Creek (Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 2015, Raney
1938). Two additional locations in the upper Beaver River drainage were documented
in the Shenango River and Neshannock Creek (Pennsylvania Natural Heritage
Program 2015, Raney 1938).
1981–1990. Additional records for Bluebreast Darter between 1981 and 1990
showed minimal changes in distribution in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Within Ohio,
37 records showed an increased presence in Big Darby Creek, Deer Creek, Paint
Creek, Kokosing, Walhonding, and Olentangy rivers (Fig. 3). During this time
period, the OEPA greatly increased the amount of fish-sampling effort conducted
across Ohio.
In Pennsylvania, records from the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program
(2015) documented Bluebreast Darter at 14 sites—13 within French Creek and the
upper Allegheny River above Tionesta (Fig. 3). Interestingly, 1 verified record in
1986 was collected in the Allegheny River below L/D 5, which was more than 144
rkm downstream from the nearest documented sites in the Allegheny River and
French Creek at Franklin, PA (Fig. 3).
1991–2000. By 2000, a total of 93 additional records in Ohio began to show
range expansion of Bluebreast Darter within 18 rivers and streams (Fig. 3). Substantial
increases were documented within Big Darby Creek (16 sites), Deer Creek
(18 sites), Paint Creek (11 sites), and the middle section of the Scioto River from
the confluence of Big Darby Creek downstream to Indian Creek, where 26 records
documented their presence (OSU-MBD database 2015). Furthermore, Bluebreast
Darter was documented in 7 new Ohio tributary locations, including the Middle
Fork Little Beaver Creek, Jelloway Creek, Mohican River, Salt Creek, Sugar Run,
Tuscarawas River, Wakatamika Creek, and the first mainstem Ohio River site located
near Manchester, OH (Fig. 3). In Pennsylvania, only 9 additional records were
documented, all of them in the middle to upper reaches of Tionesta Creek, and the
previously documented French Creek (Fig. 3).
2001–2010. By 2010, range expansion had become more apparent with 314
Bluebreast Darter records: 182 records in Ohio and 132 in Pennsylvania (Fig. 3).
The first upper Ohio River mainstem record along Ohio’s border was
documented in 2001 by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO) during boat electrofishing from the Hannibal Pool. Beginning in
2007, use of a modified mini-Missouri benthic trawl (Herzog et al. 2005) by
ORSANCO documented 9 sites in the Ohio River from the Pike Island and Hannibal
pools (OH) and 1 record in the Scioto River downstream in Chillicothe, OH
(OSU-MBD 2015). Additional eastern Ohio range expansion was represented by
collections in the Little Muskingum River; Short, Island, and Wheeling creeks;
and the Ohio River at the Pike Island tailwater. Elsewhere in Ohio, despite little to
no increase in sampling effort, continued surveys by OEPA documented range expansion
within Salt Creek, Paint Creek, Walhonding River, and Muskingum River
systems (Fig. 3).
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
217
Beginning in 2005, benthic trawls were also used to obtain Bluebreast Darter
records in Pennsylvania. Of the 132 records, 76 were documented from benthic trawling,
and of these, 69 sites were documented in the Allegheny River and 7 records were
from the Ohio River below Pittsburgh (Freedman et al. 2009b, ORSANCO 2017).
More-efficient sampling methods combined with traditional techniques revealed that
Bluebreast Darter in Pennsylvania was present from the upper free-flowing sections of
the Allegheny River to below the Montgomery L/D on the Ohio River (Fig. 3).
2011–present. A total of 451 Bluebreast Darter records have been documented in
Ohio (367) and Pennsylvania (83) since 2011. In Ohio, 81 trawling records resulting
from this study have expanded the known distribution of Bluebreast Darter in the
Ohio River from the Pennsylvania state line, downstream to near Indian Creek just
southeast of Cincinnati (Fig. 3). We also documented this species in multiple Ohio
River tributaries upstream of Marietta, OH, including Yellow, Cross, McMahon,
Wegee, Captina, and Sunfish creeks and Croxton Run. Further range documentation
included Big Walnut Creek, Tuscarawas River, and progression down the Scioto
and Muskingum rivers to near their confluences with the Ohio River mainstem (also
documented by this study and continued efforts by OEPA).
Of the 83 records of Bluebreast Darter in Pennsylvania since 2011, 45 records
were obtained by trawling with either a modified mini-Missouri trawl or an electrified
Missouri trawl. Employing the electrified trawl in Pennsylvania during 2013–
2014, we confirmed the presence of Bluebreast Darter in 2 new locations: (1) the
lower Beaver River just below the first dam upstream from the confluence with
the Ohio River, and (2) expansion of Bluebreast Darter into the lower Monongahela
River just below Braddock L/D (Fig. 3). We documented a total of 4 new tributary
site records—2 tributaries to the lower Allegheny River (Kiskiminetas River and
Bull Creek) and 2 tributaries to the upper Ohio River (Moon Run and Montour Run)
(Table 3, Fig. 3).
Tippecanoe Darter
Pre–1981. Prior to 1981, there were 27 records documenting the presence of
Tippecanoe Darter in Ohio. All records were within the Scioto and Muskingum
River drainages (Fig. 4), 20 of which were in Big Darby Creek (Osburn 1901, OSUMBD
2015, Trautman 1981).
In Pennsylvania, 14 records for Tippecanoe Darter were documented from the
upper reaches of the Allegheny River, including 12 records from French Creek and
2 records from the Allegheny River near Tidioute, PA (Cooper 1983, Pennsylvania
Natural Heritage Program 2015, Raney 1938).
1981–1990. OEPA sampling effort increased dramatically in this time period,
and by 1990, an additional 12 records of Tippecanoe Darter had been collected
within the Scioto River drainage in Ohio. Big Darby Creek contained 10 of the 12
records (Fig. 4). Within Pennsylvania, 10 records for Tippecanoe Darter were recorded
in the upper Allegheny River and French Creek (Fig. 4).
1991–2000. In Ohio, Tippecanoe Darter started to show signs of distribution
changes towards the end of the decade, with a total of 50 site records. New records
included Paint Creek (2 sites), and Little Darby Creek (4 sites) with expansion in
Northeastern Naturalist
218
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
the Deer Creek system (6 sites) (Fig. 4). The middle reaches of the Scioto River
from Walnut Creek downstream to Paint Creek contained 23 records, and sampling
in Big Darby Creek documented the presence of Tippecanoe Darter with 15 records.
French Creek was the only location within Pennsylvania, and an additional 9 records
of Tippecanoe Darter had been documented by 2000 (Fig. 4).
2001–2010. A total of 100 Tippecanoe Darter records were documented in Ohio
between 2001 and 2010. During this period, benthic trawling was added as a new
sampling method for both Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of the 100 records for Ohio only
6 were obtained with trawling, but the trawling records documented Tippecanoe
Darter in the Ohio River for the first time (Fig. 4, ORSANCO 2017). Other new
locations included: Buckskin Creek, Little Beaver Creek (on the Ohio/Pennsylvania
border), North Fork Paint Creek, Salt Creek, Walnut Creek, and Wheeling Creek
(Table 2, Fig. 4; OEPA 2016, OSU-MBD 2015). Additional records showed an
increased presence upstream in Paint Creek (8 records), and 5 records in the lower
Muskingum River at the Lowell L/D tailwater (Fig. 4). Further known range expansion
of Tippecanoe Darter was documented with 42 records on the Scioto River. A
majority of the records from the Scioto River occurred in the reach from the Greenlawn
Dam in Columbus, OH, downstream to Big Darby Creek, but 8 more records
showed the movement of Tippecanoe Darter downstream to near Candy Run near
Lucasville, OH, largely resulting from OEPA standard surveys (Fig. 4).
Figure 4. Distribution of Tippecanoe Darter in the upper Ohio River system in Ohio and
Pennsylvania showing all historic and contemporary data from pre-1981 to 2015.
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
219
In comparison to Ohio, trawling in Pennsylvania accounted for 57% of the
records of Tippecanoe Darter (40 out of 70). Trawling data combined with
traditional sampling methods helped to document the Tippecanoe Darter’s
distribution from the free-flowing section of the Allegheny River downstream
through the navigable reaches and into the Ohio River below the Dashields L/D.
The Dashields record documented the Tippecanoe Darter ~224 rkm downstream
from its previously recorded location near Franklin, PA (Fig. 4).
2011–present. Fish surveys in Ohio from 2011 to 2015 resulted in 189 records
of Tippecanoe Darter (Fig. 4). Benthic trawling from this study resulted in 40 records,
which documented Tippecanoe Darter in the Muskingum, Ohio, and Scioto
rivers. Trawls also produced 32 records in the Ohio River, and extended the known
range of the Tippecanoe Darter from the Pennsylvania/Ohio border downstream to
the Racine L/D tailwater. Our sampling efforts also documented Tippecanoe Darter
expansion into the lower portion of Cross Creek, a direct tributary to the Ohio River
in eastern Ohio and in the North Fork of Paint Creek and the Scioto River to near
its confluence with the Ohio River. Eight new records documented upstream movement
past Osburn’s 1897 site record on Big Walnut Creek to the confluence with the
Rocky Fork (Fig. 4).
In Pennsylvania, there were 56 records for Tippecanoe Darter from 2011 to
2015. Benthic trawling accounted for 61% (34 out of 56) of the records and extended
its known range in Pennsylvania with new site records at the tailwaters of
the Montgomery L/D on the Ohio River, and up into the lower Monongahela River
to the tailwaters of the Braddock L/D (Fig. 4). Additionally, benthic trawling confirmed
the presence of Tippecanoe Darter in the tailwaters of the Allegheny River
L/Ds 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Backpack electrofishing in the Kiskiminetas River and Bull
Creek (Tarentum, PA.) produced new site records for Tippecanoe Darter within
Pennsylvania (Fig. 4).
Spotted Darter
Pre–1981. Historic records of Spotted Darter in Ohio (total = 38) documented
the species in 8 different waterbodies: Big Darby Creek, Big Walnut Creek, Deer
Creek, Kokosing River, Mahoning River, Olentangy River, Walhonding River, and
Yellow Creek (Mount 1959, Osburn 1901, OSU-MBD database 2015, Trautman
1981; Fig. 5). Twenty-three of these records were from Big Darby Creek.
Prior to 1981, there were 34 records for Spotted Darter in Pennsylvania from
5 streams or rivers: the upper Allegheny River, French Creek, Little Neshannock
Creek, Otter Creek, and the Shenango River (Cooper 1983; PAFBC 2015; Pennsylvania
Natural Heritage Program 2015; Raney 1938, Raney and Lachner 1939;
Fig. 5).Twenty-five of the records were documented in French Creek.
1981–1990. In Ohio, 12 records were documented for Spotted Darter within
previously identified locations. Big Darby Creek accounted for 11 of these records,
1 of which occurred upstream near the confluence of Little Darby Creek (Fig. 5).
As previously mentioned, sampling effort greatly increased across Ohio in this
time period. In Pennsylvania, 8 records for Spotted Darter represented 1 new site
Northeastern Naturalist
220
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
in Sandy Creek (tributary to the upper Allegheny River), 5 in French Creek, and
2 in the Allegheny River near Tidioute, PA (Fig. 5).
1991–2000. There were 7 additional records for Spotted Darter in Ohio between
1991 and 2000. Two new sites were documented in the Scioto River just
downstream of Big Darby Creek, and the others were in the Walhonding River and
Big Darby Creek (Fig. 5). In Pennsylvania, French Creek contained all 6 Spotted
Darter records. No new locations were documented.
2001–2010. Thirty Spotted Darter records were documented in Ohio. Several
new site records were documented: near the mouth of Little Darby Creek and Paint
Creek, and 4 records were from Walnut Creek just upstream of the confluence with
Little Walnut Creek (Table 2, Fig. 5). Additional records documented Spotted Darter
presence in the Kokosing River (9 records) and Big Darby Creek (15 records).
Trawling did not produce any Spotted Darter records in Ohio.
Of the 42 Pennsylvania records, Spotted Darter was documented at 3 new
sites: Woodcock Creek (tributary to French Creek), the mouth of Oil Creek
(tributary to the Allegheny River), and the Ohio River just below Pittsburgh.
The remainder of the records were within French Creek (11) and the Allegheny
River (28). By 2007, the Spotted Darter was documented in the navigable
reaches of the Allegheny River below L/D 3 (between the islands that make up
Allegheny Islands State Park), and below the Dashields L/D, in the upper Ohio
Figure 5. Distribution map for the Spotted Darter in the upper Ohio River system in Ohio
and Pennsylvania showing all historic and contemporary data from pre-1981 to 2015.
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
221
River below Pittsburgh, PA (Fig. 5). Benthic trawling accounted for 19 of the records
(18 in the Allegheny River and 1 in the Ohio River).
2011–present. Our seine sampling efforts helped to document 55 Spotted Darter
records in Ohio. Range expansion, however, was minimal (Fig. 5). Additional sites
showed slight movement up Little Darby Creek, but the majority of the records
documented stable populations in the Kokosing River (3), a slight increase further
upstream in Walnut Creek (12), and increased number of records in Big Darby
Creek (34). The Spotted Darter has not been documented in the Ohio River within
Ohio’s borders and was never found during benthic trawling. To date, 21 additional
records have documented the Spotted Darter within Pennsylvania. Fifteen of the
records were within the Allegheny River and the 6 were in French Creek (Fig. 5).
Benthic trawling documented 4 of the records within the Allegheny River.
Extirpations
Bluebreast Darter. There are 3 systems in Ohio where Bluebreast Darter appears
to have been extirpated: (1) the Stillwater River (documented 1899), which
is a tributary to the Great Miami River in western Ohio; (2) the North Fork of the
Licking River (documented in 1899); and (3) Yellow Creek (documented in 1853),
a tributary to the Mahoning River on the Ohio/Pennsylvania border (Fig. 3). In
Pennsylvania, Bluebreast Darter appears to be extirpated from 2 upper tributaries of
the Beaver River system in northwestern PA: (1) Neshannock Creek (documented
in 1934), and (2) the Shenango River (documented in 1935) (Fig. 3).
Tippecanoe Darter. The current distribution of Tippecanoe Darter in Ohio illustrates
2 locations where they have been apparently unable to recolonize: (1) the
Olentangy River (documented in 1896), which enters the Scioto River near Columbus;
and (2) the Walhonding River (documented in 1962) which is in the upper
Muskingum River system (Fig. 4). All historical locations for Tippecanoe Darter in
Pennsylvania have extant populations.
Spotted Darter. Currently, the Spotted Darter appears to be extirpated from 3
systems in the Scioto River drainage including: (1) the Olentangy River (documented
1958, 1960, and 1963), (2) Big Walnut Creek (documented in 1897, 1959, and
1962), and (3) Deer Creek (documented in 1956) (Fig. 5). No recent surveys on the
Ohio/Pennsylvania border have found the Spotted Darter in Yellow Creek (documented
1853) or the adjacent Mahoning River, which is the type locality (Kirtland
1840). The Spotted Darter has apparently not been able to reestablish populations
in the Mahoning River since being presumed extirpated in the mid-1850s (Trautman
1981). In Pennsylvania, the Spotted Darter appears to be extirpated from the upper
reaches of the Shenango River (documented 1905 and 1934) and Neshannock Creek
(documented 1935) (Fig. 5).
Electrified benthic trawling
Electrified benthic trawling surveys below 11 L/D installations yielded varying
results. We documented Bluebreast Darter below 8 installations: Allegheny River
L/D 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Beaver River Dam 1; Monongahela L/D 2; and below the Emsworth
back channel L/D on the Ohio River. We also found Tippecanoe Darter below
Northeastern Naturalist
222
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
8 installations: Allegheny River L/D 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Monongahela River L/D 2;
Ohio River Emsworth back channel; and the Montgomery L/D. We documented the
Spotted Darter only below 1 installation: Allegheny River L/D 3.
Discussion
A large proportion of the contemporary survey records illustrate increases in
the known ranges of darters of the subgenus Nothonotus into the non-wadeable
riverine environments of the Allegheny, Ohio, and Monongahela rivers. Regional
improvements in water quality that have resulted in improved fish assemblages
(Yoder et al. 2005) may have influenced the distribution changes in these focal
species. In addition, we suggest that recently developed and improved sampling
techniques including the modified Missouri trawl (Herzog et al. 2005, 2009) and
the PSU electrified benthic trawl (Freedman et al. 2009a) are responsible for
elucidating these new records in the non-wadeable portions of the Allegheny,
Monongahela, Muskingum, and upper Ohio rivers in depths >2.0 m where traditional
methods can be less effective. In Ohio, the history of increased sampling
that coincided with the inception of the OEPA surface-waters sampling program
thoroughly documented an increase in distribution of Nothonotus darters and
many other fish species as water quality improved (OEPA 2016, Yoder et al.
2005). Until recently, non-wadeable stream sampling in the basin was mainly limited
to lock-chamber surveys (Thomas et al. 2005), boat electrofishing (Emery et
al. 2003, Koryak et al. 2008), hoop/gill netting, beach seining, and various-sized
mesh for trawling (Neebling and Quist 2011). Each method has valid applications,
but they can also be biased towards certain species, body sizes (Neebling
and Quist 2011), and aquatic habitats (e.g., pelagic fish vs. benthic fish). For example,
Koryak et al. (2008) surveyed a navigable section of the Allegheny River
with both night electrofishing and benthic trawling. Electrofishing resulted in 42
species (834 individuals), while benthic trawling documented 27 species (2903
individuals). Benthic trawling was more effective at collecting species in the
family Percidae; electrofishing detected 4 species and trawling documented 12
(Koryak et al. 2008). The use of multiple sample gears to survey for large-river
darters was also supported by Neebling and Quist (2011), who compared boat
electrofishing, trawling, and shoreline bag-seining in non-wadeable rivers. Those
authors surveyed 21 reaches from 3 to 5 km in length and found that 8 species
were only detected by trawling and 4 of those species were darters. However, it is
important to point out that, in Ohio, the OEPA has shown that boat electrofishing
can be effective at detecting the presence of darter species by using an appropriate
level of effort and detail within an electrofishing site (Yoder et al. 2005). It
should be noted, though, that once depths are consistently > 2 m, effectiveness
of this method is diminished. For all data from Ohio and Pennsylvania collected
since 2005 and summarized in this study, trawling records accounted for 32% of
all records of the 3 focal darter species. The number of trawling records since
2005 also varied by state—20% of the records in Ohio and 57% of the records in
Pennsylvania were from trawling. Our surveys and analysis of historical records
support previous assessments that concluded it is necessary to utilize benthic and/
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
223
or electrified benthic trawling to effectively survey non-wadeable riverine environments
for benthic fishes (Freedman et al. 2009a, 2009b; Herzog et al. 2005,
2009; Koryak et al. 2008, 2011). We propose that benthic trawls are an effective
Table 2. Streams in Ohio that were sampled in the same location and the year Nothonotus appeared.
Full references presented in Table 4. OEPA = Data queried from Ohio State University Museum of
Biological Diversity, Fish Division database, analyzed by B.J. Zimmerman.
Abundance
Stream/site Year E. camurum E. maculatum E. tippecanoe Reference
Middle Fork Salt Creek
Site 1 1988 - - - OEPA
1997 - - - OEPA
2005 1 - - OEPA
Salt Creek
Site 2 1992 - - - OEPA
2005 10 - 4 OEPA
Site 3 1984 - - - OEPA
1992 - - - OEPA
2005 15 - 27 OEPA
Site 4 1992 - - - OEPA
2005 - - 3 OEPA
Scioto River
Site 5 1997 - - - OEPA
2011 2 - 2 OEPA
Site 12 1979 - - - OEPA
1988 - - - OEPA
1992 - - - OEPA
2002 - 1 - OEPA
Paint Creek
Site 6 1992 - - - OEPA
1997 3 - - OEPA
2006 6 - 2 OEPA
Site 7 1997 - - - OEPA
2006 6 - 1 OEPA
Site 8 1997 - - - OEPA
2006 3 - 1 OEPA
North Fork Paint Creek
Site 9 1985 - - - OEPA
1997 - - - OEPA
2006 1 - - OEPA
Walnut Creek
Site 10 1996 - - - OEPA
2010 72 3 14 OEPA
Site 11 1982 - - - OEPA
2005 21 2 1 OEPA
Killbuck Creek
Site 13 1983 - - - OEPA
2009 1 - - OEPA
Northeastern Naturalist
224
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
sampling method for small-bodied benthic species (e.g., darters) in conditions
when depths are greater than >2.0 m and/or there is elevated turbidity.
Even though more-efficient sampling techniques may have elucidated the
changes documented in the impounded reaches of the non-wadeable rivers, we
also show evidence of range expansion of Bluebreast Darter, Tippecanoe Darter,
and Spotted Darter into the unimpounded rivers and smaller tributaries. Surveys in
multiple streams, with historic and contemporary samples using the same methodology,
have recently documented new site records for these 3 darter species. In Ohio,
there were at least 13 OEPA survey sites in 7 streams that have newly documented
Nothonotus records (Table 2, Fig. 6). In Pennsylvania, 6 new records in 6 streams
documented the recent expansion of Nothonotus species (Table 3, Fig. 7).
Since 2000, outside of the refugia areas of Big Darby Creek, OH, and French
Creek, PA, the population sizes of Spotted Darter have been consistently lower
than the other 2 focal species (see Supplemental File 2 available online at http://
www.eaglehill.us/NENAonline/suppl-files/n24-2-N1537-Honick-s2, and, for
BioOne subscribers, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/N1537.s2), which justifies
continued monitoring. Previously, Lorson (2010) performed benthic trawling
surveys of the Allegheny River from its headwaters to Pittsburgh, PA. Within the
navigable section of the river, he only documented 1 Spotted Darter below 1 L/D
Figure 6. Sites in Ohio where Nothonotus species have only recently been documented after
years of consistent sampling. Site numbers correspond to Table 2.
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
225
installation—the same pool where we documented them (pool 2 below L/D 3).
Even within an 81-km reach of the free-flowing section of the upper Allegheny
River, Argent and Kimmel (2014) only documented 4 Spotted Darters. In 2015,
the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission documented 11 individuals below
L/D 3 on the Allegheny River, which suggests that there is a stable population at
this location (Fig. 5). However, to our knowledge, documentation of the extension
of Spotted Darters downstream into the Montgomery pool of the Ohio River
(Freedman et al. 2009b) has not been duplicated, and additional surveys and cautious
interpretation of the range extension of stable populations of the Spotted
Darter within Pennsylvania are warranted.
Factors effecting Spotted Darter expansion
Habitat considerations and connectivity. The expansion of the known ranges
of Bluebreast Darter and Tippecanoe Darter has been robust, but the Spotted
Darter has been less successful at utilizing the navigable portions of the Allegheny,
Monongahela, Muskingum, and Ohio rivers (Figs. 3, 4, and 5). Reasons for this lack
Table 3. Streams in PA that were sampled in the same location and the year Nothonotus appeared. ASH
= data collected by A.S. Honick and B.A Porter. BAP = data collected by B.A Porter.
Abundance
Stream/site Year E. camurum E. maculatum E. tippecanoe Reference
Little Sewickley Creek
Site 14 2003 - - - Koryak (2003)
2006 - - - MARIS (2016)
2012 13 - - This study (BAP)
2013 13 - - This study (ASH)
Montour Run
Site 15 1982 - - - USACE (1997)
1991 - - - USACE (1997)
1996 - - - USACE (1997)
2003 - - - Koryak (2003)
2014 2 - - This study (ASH)
Moon Run
Site 16 2003 - - - Koryak (2003)
2014 1 - - This study (ASH)
Pine Creek
Site 17 2002 - - - Hoskin et al. (2003)
2005 1 - 1 Howell (2007)
Bull Creek
Site 18 2006 - - - MARIS (2016)
2014 1 - 15 This study (ASH)
Kiskiminetas River
Site 19 2009 - - - This study (BAP)
2010 - - - This study (BAP)
2011 - - - This study (BAP)
2013 - - 4 This study (BAP)
2013 10 - 25 This study (ASH)
Northeastern Naturalist
226
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
of expansion may be directly related to the availability of optimal habitat. Historically,
the Spotted Darter was considered an associate of the Bluebreast Darter and
Tippecanoe Darter (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, Raney 1939), but was reported to
occupy “deeper parts of riffles” that were often overlooked (Raney and Lachner
1939). In the Ohio River, along the border of Ohio, benthic trawling commonly
documented Bluebreast Darters and Tippecanoe Darters in areas of moderate flow,
including gravel outwashes near tributaries and the gravel/cobble habitat found
up- and downstream of islands. However, benthic and electrified benthic trawling
does not support the hypothesis that Spotted Darter is preferentially utilizing
similar habitats in the navigable portions of the upper Ohio River watershed. Our
electrified benthic trawling surveys below 11 L/D installations documented Bluebreast
Darters and Tippecanoe Darters at 8 installations, and have revealed that
these 2 species can occupy great depths; ranging from 1.4 m to 4.5 m and 1.4 m to
5.9 m, respectively. In contrast, the Spotted Darter was only found below 1 installation,
within a wadeable riffle ~1.0 m deep. Raney and Lachner (1939) described
Spotted Darters as occurring in deep, fast riffles and spawning at depths no greater
than 0.6 m. Kessler and Thorp (1993) analyzed microhabitat use between the
Spotted Darter and Etheostoma bellum Zorach (Orangefin Darter) in a tributary of
the upper Green River, KY, and documented that Spotted Darters utilized deeper
habitats (mean depth = 0.2 m) and were observed mostly under large rocks. Osier
Figure 7. Sites in Pennsylvania where Nothonotus species have only recently been documented
after years of consistent sampling. Site numbers correspond to Table 3.
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
227
and Welsh (2007) studied Spotted Darter habitat in the Elk River, WV, and found
that they occurred with large rocks in the glide habitat between the riffles at depths
ranging from 0.31 m to 0.49 m. These data suggest that the Spotted Darter is more
of a habitat specialist and prefers deeper habitat. However, our data suggest that
Spotted Darters may be restricted to shallower habitat within non-wadeable riverine
environments, while Bluebreast Darter and Tippecanoe Darter may be benthic
generalists that have the ability to utilize the more diverse and deeper habitat found
within L/D tailwaters. The restricted expansion of Spotted Darters into the navigable
portions of the Allegheny and Ohio rivers could be linked to current and historic
dredging of the rivers for commercial aggregates and navigation requirements.
Since 2004, the upper Ohio and lower Allegheny rivers have had over 13.6 million
metric tons of substrate removed for commercial aggregates, and since the 1800s,
it has been estimated that ~0.5 billion metric tons of substrate have been removed
(R. Ventorini, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pittsburgh, PA, unpubl.
data). Freedman et al. (2013) studied the navigable portion of the Allegheny River
and found that dredging significantly changed the benthic fish community, reduced
habitat heterogeneity, and shifted the fish assemblage towards habitat generalists.
In summary, the Spotted Darter has a limited presence in the navigable portion of
the Allegheny River and the upper Ohio River. We were only able to document this
species below 1 L/D installation. Freedman et al. (2009b) documented 5 Spotted
Darters below Dashields L/D, but that record hasn’t been duplicated. Regardless
of continued water quality improvements, the historic data compiled by Raney and
Lachner (1939), Osburn (1901), and a report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(2011) suggests that the Spotted Darter was likely never common throughout its
range, which may be due to specific habitat requirements (Kessler and Thorp 1993,
Osier and Welsh 2007, Raney and Lachner 1939). No surveys have documented
Spotted Darters in the Ohio River downstream of the Pennsylvania state line; thus,
we contend that the non-wadeable, impounded river environment may not have
enough preferred habitat to support robust expansion of the Spo tted Darter.
In addition to more-specific habitat requirements, Spotted Darter range extension
may be negatively impacted by the Allegheny River’s restricted connectivity
between the upper free-flowing reaches and the now-lentic habitat of the navigable
portion below L/D 9. Recently, Argent and Kimmel (2010) documented that fish community
composition immediately above and below L/D installations were markedly
different in both the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers. On the Monongahela River,
the small-bodied fish assemblages consisted of 12 and 13 species above and below
the installations with 2 darter species above and 5 species below. In contrast, in the
Allegheny River, the small-bodied fish assemblages consisted of mostly darters, but
only 2 darter species were documented above the installations, and 10 darter species
were utilizing the tailrace habitat below the L/D installations. Regardless of the fact
that the Monongahela River experiences higher lockage-frequency from more boat
traffic, neither river indicated a correlation between small-bodied fish diversity and
lockage frequency (Argent and Kimmel 2010). Therefore, Argent and Kimmel (2010)
indicated that the physical restriction to fish movement posed by L/Ds may result in
Northeastern Naturalist
228
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
isolated populations of darters within navigation pools. The navigational L/D system
on the lower Allegheny River may be impeding the movement of Spotted Darters,
which suggests that within the upper Ohio River watershed, the species needs to be
closely monitored for proper conservation management.
Differences in reproductive strategies, spawning habitat requirements, and
larval duration/transport. Field observations directly documenting fecundity and
clutch sizes in Bluebreast, Tippecanoe, and Spotted Darters are sparse and are
mostly from aquarium studies. Bluebreast Darter and Tippecanoe Darter have been
documented as belonging to the egg-burying guild (Kelly et al. 2012, Stiles 1972).
Field observations (Stiles 1972, Tiemann 2008) and aquarium experiments in the
laboratory (Mount 1959, Page and Simon 1988, Warren et al. 1986) indicated that
females of both species bury themselves into the gravel substrate while the males
mount them and fertilize the eggs. Tiemann (2008) observed spawning behavior
of Bluebreast Darter in the Vermilion River, IL, and documented that males stop
defending their territories soon after spawning. Warren et al. (1986) collected
Tippecanoe Darters from the Green River, KY, and in aquarium studies, showed
that males established territories but quickly abandoned nests after spawning, just
like Bluebreast Darters.
In contrast, under field and laboratory conditions, the Spotted Darter uses a
different reproductive strategy and has different spawning habitat requirements.
Raney and Lachner (1939), Winn (1958), and Stiles (1972) documented the Spotted
Darter as belonging to the egg-clumper guild, in which females attach their
eggs to the underside of large, flat rocks. They also observed that, in contrast to
Bluebreast and Tippecanoe Darters, male Spotted Darters continue to defend their
territory after spawning. Additionally, Raney and Lachner (1939) documented that
regardless of the amount of suitable spawning habitat, Spotted Darter nests were
spaced ≥1.2 m apart. Out of the 14 species of darters that Winn (1958) studied, the
Spotted Darter was among the species laying the fewest eggs, and males provided
substantial parental care. More recently, Ruble et al. (2016) studied reproductive
behaviors of Etheostoma wapiti Etnier & J. D. Williams (Boulder Darter), E. vulneratum
(Cope) (Wounded Darter), and Spotted Darter under laboratory conditions
and found that Spotted Darter and Boulder Darter averaged fewer eggs per
female and had lower egg-to-juvenile survival rates than Wounded Darter. Therefore,
Spotted Darter exhibits characteristics of a K-selected species reproductive
strategy, while Bluebreast and Tippecanoe Darters exhibit reproductive strategies
more similar to r-selected species. This reproductive strategy and the lack of suitable
spawning habitat featuring large unembedded cover stones or large boulders
associated with swift currents are likely hindering population expansion by Spotted
Darters. In contrast, the impounded portions of the Allegheny and Ohio rivers
contain abundant gravel in areas with swift current to prevent siltation where Bluebreast
and Tippecanoe Darters can bury their eggs.
Another potential reason for the differences in distribution changes among these
3 species may be linked to temporal variation in pelagic larval duration (PLD) and
larval transport. Douglas et al. (2013) studied PLD in 23 darter species and Turner
(2001) examined larval transport of 8 darters. Both reports found that PLD and
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
229
larval-transport times were highly variable across species of darters. Douglas et
al. (2013) documented darter PLDs ranging from 0 to 60 days, with Spotted Darter
exhibiting an average PLD of only 18 days. Of the 23 species studied, 12 were
listed as imperiled (Douglas et al. 1013) and had PLD averages varying from 9 to
15 days. Short PLDs suggest that the species may have evolved that way to reduce
downstream movement in attempts to stay within restricted habitats (Douglas et
al. 2013), but reduced dispersal may essentially lead to isolated populations with
small ranges (Sorte 2013), which is the pattern observed in Spotted Darter. The
shorter PLDs of Spotted Darter relative to Bluebreast and Tippecanoe Darters may
also have allowed the latter 2 species to re-establish in the larger rivers after water
quality improvements in a shorter amount of time than Spotted Darter.
Summary/Conclusions
Populations of darters classified in the subgenus Nothonotus in the upper
Ohio River system have historically been described as having disjunct distributions
(Cooper 1983, Kuehne and Barbour 1983, Page 1983, Simon and Wallus
2006, Trautman 1981). Our surveys and analysis of ~1700 historic and contemporary
survey records revealed major distribution changes for these darters in
the upper Ohio River watershed. In Pennsylvania, all 3 species were listed as
threatened in 1999 (Pennsylvania Bulletin 1999), and in Ohio, Bluebreast and
Tippecanoe Darters were listed as threatened in 1990 and Spotted Darter was
listed as endangered in 1974 (15 Ohio Rev. Code § 1531.25 - 2015). In Pennsylvania,
assessment of recent survey data led the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission to delist all 3 species in 2014 (Pennsylvania Bulletin 2014). Extensive
surveys in Ohio from 2006 to 2012 led to the delisting of Bluebreast Darter
in 2012 (ODNR 2012, OSU-MBD 2015) while the Tippecanoe and Spotted Darters
maintained their threatened and endangered status, respectively. Our analysis
showed that Spotted Darter was less common, had a smaller geographic range,
and fewer individuals per sample site compared to Bluebreast and Tippecanoe
Darters, which may be related to life-history characteristics, a lack of optimal
habitat, and impaired connectivity throughout the navigable portions of the
upper Ohio River watershed. Therefore, the stable Spotted Darter source populations
should be closely monitored.
Based on previous observations, it is conceivable that the Spotted Darter is not
expanding its distribution as effectively because (1) Bluebreast and Tippecanoe
Darters employ an r-selected reproductive strategy, while the Spotted Darter displays
a K-selected reproductive strategy (Ruble et al. 2016); (2) the Spotted Darter
may require larger areas of suitable spawning habitat as a result of maintaining
territoriality and nest defense, potentially producing fewer offspring per unit of
available habitat; (3) Spotted Darter has been documented as having a short PLD
that may be limiting their distance or rate of dispersal; and (4) the navigational L/D
system may be restricting movement of Spotted Darters between the free-flowing
sections of the upper Allegheny River and the navigable portions of the upper Ohio
River watershed.
Northeastern Naturalist
230
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
We were able to collect enough samples of Bluebreast Darter to investigate
genetic structure of these populations. The results of our ongoing analysis will
provide insight into metapopulation structure and dynamics and reveal if impaired
river-connectivity has resulted in many genetically isolated populations within
the navigable sections of the rivers. These data will facilitate development of
management strategies that emphasize conservation efforts toward maintaining
genetically diverse source populations compared to smaller, genetically
depauperate, and ephemeral sink populations. In addition, efforts are underway in
Ohio to reintroduce all 3 darter species back into historic locations where barriers
have prohibited natural recolonization (B. Zimmerman, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH, unpubl. data).
Acknowledgments
We thank Doug Locy (Aquatic Systems, Inc.) and Mike Koryak for assistance with the
electrified benthic surveys, and all the individuals who helped with tributary electrofishing.
We are grateful to Elizabeth Dakin for help with sampling and providing comments on the
manuscript. Thanks to all the agencies that supplied historic survey data including: Pennsylvania
Natural Heritage Program, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (Doug
Fischer), Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Rick Spear), the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
We appreciate the US Geological Survey for providing funds to the Pennsylvania Water
Resources Research Center that supported our electrified benthic trawling surveys. Finally,
we are grateful to the 2 anonymous reviewers for helping to improve the manuscript.
Literature Cited
Argent, D.G., and W.G. Kimmel. 2010. Influence of navigational lock and dam structures
on adjacent fish communities in a major river system. River Research and Applications
27:1325–1333.
Argent, D.G., and W.G. Kimmel. 2014. Patterns of ichthyofaunal distribution and connectivity
in navigable and free-flowing reaches of a major river system: The Allegheny
River in Pennsylvania. River Research and Applications 30:631–638.
Boschung, H.T., R.L. Mayden, and J.R. Tomelleri. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian
Books, Washington, DC. 736 pp.
Brown, T.C., and P. Froemke. 2012. Nationwide assessment of nonpoint-source threats to
water quality. Bioscience 62:136–146.
Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. The Pennsylvania
University Press, University Park, PA. 252 pp.
Cope, E.D. 1870. On Some Etheostomine Perch from Tennessee and North Carolina. Proceedings
of the American Philosophical Society 11:261–270.
Douglas, M., B.P. Keck, C. Ruble, M. Petty, J.R. Shute, P. Rakes, and C.D. Hulsey. 2013.
Pelagic larval duration predicts extinction risk in a freshwater fish clade. Biology Letters
9(6):20130672.
Emery, E.B., T.P. Simon, F.H. McCormick, P.L. Angermeier, J.E. Deshon, C.O. Yoder, E.E.
Sanders, W.D. Pearson, G.D. Hickman, R.J. Reash, and J.A. Thomas. 2003. Development
of a multimetric index for assessing the biological condition of the Ohio River.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:791–808.
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
231
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN. 689 pp.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). 1972. 33 U.S.C 1251–1376; Chapter
758; P.L. 845, 30 June 1948; amended: 85 stat. 379; P.L. 92-240, 1 March 1972.
Freedman, J.A., T.D. Stecko, B.D. Lorson, and J.R. Stauffer. 2009a. Development and efficacy
of an electrified-benthic trawl for sampling large-river fish assemblages. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:1001–1005.
Freedman, J.A., T.D. Stecko, R.W. Criswell, and J.R. Stauffer. 2009b. Extensions of the
known ranges of Percina shumardi Girard and three species of Etheostoma (subgenus
Nothonotus) in Pennsylvania. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science
83:42–44.
Freedman, J.A., R.F. Carline, and J.R. Stauffer. 2013. Gravel dredging alters diversity and
structure of riverine-fish assemblages. Freshwater Biology 58:26 1–274.
Herzog, D.P., V.A. Barko, J.S. Scheibe, R.A. Hrabik, and D.E. Ostendorf. 2005. Efficacy of
a benthic trawl for sampling small-bodied fishes in large river systems. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 25:594–603.
Herzog, D.P., Ostendorf, D.E., Hrabik, R.A. and V.A. Barko. 2009. The mini-Missouri
trawl: A useful methodology for sampling small-bodied fishes in small and large river
systems. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24:103–108.
Hoskin, R.H., M. Koryak, and L.J. Stafford. 2003. Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Allegheny
and Monongahela Rivers in Urban/Suburban Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 77:51–58.
Howell, L.A. 2007. Genetic population structure and breeding parameters of three Pennsylvania
state threatened darter species: Etheostoma camurum, E. maculatum, and E.
tippecanoe. M.Sc. Thesis. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA. 187 pp.
Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson,S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter,
C.B. Renaud, J.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren Jr. 2008. Conservation
status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries
33:372–407.
Jordan, D.S,. and B.W. Evermann. 1890. Description of a new species of fish from Tippecanoe
River, Indiana. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 13:3–4.
Kelly, N., T. Near, and S. Alonzo. 2012. Diversification of egg-deposition behaviours and
the evolution of male parental care in darters (Teleostei: Percidae: Etheostomatinae).
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25:836–846.
Kessler, R.K., and J.H. Thorp. 1993. Microhabitat segregation of the threatened Spotted
Darter (Etheostoma maculatum) and closely related Orangefin Darter (E. bellum). Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50(5):1084–1091.
Kirtland, J. 1840. Descriptions of four new species of fishes. Boston Journal of Natural
History 3:273–277.
Koryak, M. 2003. Fishes of Small Tributaries to the Ohio River in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
The STUDIO for Creative Inquiry, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Koryak, M., P. Bonislawsky, D. Locy, and B.A. Porter. 2008. Use of benthic trawling to
supplement electrofishing in characterizing the fish community of the Allegheny River
navigation channel in Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 23:491–494.
Koryak, M., P.S. Bonislawsky, D.D. Locy, and B.A. Porter. 2009. Typical channel-fish assemblage
of the recovering lower Allegheny River navigation system, Pennsylvania,
USA. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24:509–517.
Northeastern Naturalist
232
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
Koryak, M., P.S. Bonislawsky, D.D. Locy, and B.A. Porter. 2011. Gilt Darter (Percina
evides: Percidae: Etheostomatinae) range expansion, microhabitat selection, and phylogenetics
within the Allegheny River navigation system, Pennyslvania, USA. Journal of
the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 85:104–108.
Kuehne, R.A., and R.W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY. 177 pp.
Lorson, B.D. 2010. Distribution and the putative origin of fishes in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania.
M.Sc. Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. 184 pp.
Mount, D.I. 1959. Spawning behavior of the Bluebreast Darter, Etheostoma camurum
(Cope). Copeia 3:240–243.
Multistate Aquatic Resources Information System (MARIS). 2016. Data sourced from PA
Fish and Boat Commission. Available online at http://www.marisdata.org. Accessed 20
September 2016.
Neebling, T.E., and M.C. Quist. 2011. Comparison of boat electrofishing, trawling, and
seining for sampling fish assemblages in Iowa’s non-wadeable rivers. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 31:390–402.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2012. Ohio’s recovery of Bluebreast
Darters made possible with improved water quality. Available online at http://wildlife.
ohiodnr.gov/stay-informed/news-announcements/post/ohio-s-recovery-of-bluebreastdarters-
made-possible-with-improved-water-quality. Accessed 18 May 2016.
ODNR. 2015. Wildlife that are considered to be endangered, threatened, species of concern,
special interest, extirpated, or extinct in Ohio. Publication 5356 (R0815), updated October
2015. Columbus, OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2016. Ohio 2106 Integrated water-quality
monitoring and assessment report, final report. Available online at http://wwwapp.epa.
state.oh.us/dsw/2016IR.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2017.
Ohio Revised Code. 2015. Title 15: Conservation of Natural Resources. Chapter 1531.25 -
Protection of species threatened with statewide extinction, pursuant to Section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO). 2017. Online fish population
database. Available online at http://www.orsanco.org/data/fish-population/. Accessed
15 March 2017.
Ohio State University Museum of Biological Diversity (OSU-MBD). 2015. Fish Division
database. Available online at http://osuc.biosci.ohio-state.edu/Fishes/. Accessed
in 2015.
Osburn, R.C. 1901. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Academy of Sciences Special Paper
4:1–105.
Osier, E.A., and S.A. Welsh. 2007. Habitat use of Etheostoma maculatum (Spotted Darter)
in Elk River, West Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 14:447–460.
Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of Darters. TFH Publications, Neptune City, NJ. 271 pp.
Page, L., and T. Simon. 1988. Observations on the reproductive behavior and eggs of four
species of darters, with comments on Etheostoma tippecanoe and E. camurum. Transactions
of the Illinois State Academy of Science 81:205–210.
Pennsylvania Bulletin. 1999. Chapter 75.2, Threatened fish species. 29:4869–4870.
Pennsylvania Bulletin. 2014. Chapter 75.2, Threatened fish species. 44:7876–7878.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC). 2015. Fish inventory database. No public
access; requests for data processed through Douglas Fischer, Nongame Fisheries Biologist
Natural Diversity Section, Division of Environmental Services, Bellefonte, PA.
Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 2
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017
233
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. 2015. Pennsylvania natural diversity inventory.
No public access; data granted upon request from http://www.naturalheritage.state.
pa.us. Accessed in 2015.
Raney, E.C. 1938. The distribution of the fishes of the Ohio drainage basin of western Pennsylvania.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 102 pp.
Raney, E.C., and E.A. Lachner. 1939. Observations on the Life History of the Spotted
Darter, Poecilichthys maculatus (Kirtland). Copeia 1939:157–165.
Ruble, C.L., P.L. Rakes, J.R. Shute, and S.A. Welsh. 2016. Captive propagation, reproductive
biology, and early life history of Etheostoma wapiti (Boulder Darter), E. vulneratum
(Wounded Darter), and E. maculatum (Spotted Darter). Southeastern Naturalist
15:115–126.
Schwartz, F.J. 1965. Densities and ecology of the darters of the upper Allegheny River watershed.
Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Special Publication 3:95–103.
Simon, T.P., and R. Wallus. 2006. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes
in the Ohio River Drainage: Percidae-Perch, Pikeperch, and Darters. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL. 619 pp.
Sorte, C.J.B. 2013. Predicting persistence in a changing climate: Flow direction and limitations
to redistribution. Oikos 122:161–170.
Stauffer, J.R., J.M. Boltz, and L.R. White. 1995. The Fishes of West Virginia. Proceedings
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 146:1–389.
Stauffer, J.R., Jr., R.W. Criswell, and D. P. Fischer. 2016. The Fishes of Pennsylvania. Cichlid
Press, El Paso, TX. 556 pp.
Stiles, R.A. 1972. The comparative ecology of three species of Nothonotus (Percidae-
Etheostoma) in Tennessee’s Little River. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Tennessee-
Knoxville, Knoxville, TN. 96 pp.
Thomas, J.A., E.B. Emery, and F.H. McCormick. 2005. Detection of temporal trends in
Ohio River fish assemblages based on lockchamber surveys (1957–2001). American
Fisheries Society Symposium 2005:431–449.
Tiemann, J.S. 2008. Distribution and life history characteristics of the state-endangered
Bluebreast Darter, Etheostoma camurum (Cope), in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois
State Academy of Science 101:235–246.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio (with illustrated keys). Ohio State University
Press, Columbus, OH. 782 pp.
Turner, T.F. 2001. Comparative study of larval transport and gene flow in darters. Copeia
2001:766–774.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1997. Montour Run Watershed, Allegheny County,
PA: Water quality and aquatic life resources. Pittsburgh, PA.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. National Water Quality Inventory: Report to
Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle. EPA 841-R-08-001.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species assessment and listing priority assignment
form: Etheostoma maculatum Kirtland. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/
es/soc/fish/SpottedDarterCandidateAssess.html. Accessed 18 May 2016.
Warren, M.L., B.M. Burr, and B.R. Kuhajda. 1986. Aspects of the reproductive biology of
Etheostoma tippecanoe with comments on egg-burying behavior. American Midland
Naturalist 116:215–218.
Winn, H.E. 1958. Comparative reproductive behavior and ecology of fourteen species of
darters (Pisces-Percidae). Ecological Monographs 28:155–191.
Northeastern Naturalist
234
A.S. Honick, B.J. Zimmerman, J.R. Stauffer Jr., D.G. Argent, and B.A. Porter
2017 Vol. 24, No. 2
Yoder, C.O., E.T. Rankin, M.A. Smith, B.C. Alsdorf, D.J. Altfater, C.E. Boucher, R.J.
Miltner, D.E. Mishne, R.E. Sanders, and R.F. Thoma. 2005. Changes in fish-assemblage
status in Ohio’s nonwadeable rivers and streams over two decades. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 45:399–429.
Zorach, T., and E.C. Raney. 1967. Systematics of the percid fish, Etheostoma maculatum
Kirtland, and related species of the subgenus Nothonotus. American Midland Naturalist
77:296–322.