Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
2011 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 10(1):155–166
Capture Efficiency of Underwater Observation Protocols
for Three Imperiled Fishes
Johnathan G. Davis1,2,*, Jason E. Miller1, M. Shane Billings1, W. Keith Gibbs1,
and S. Bradford Cook1
Abstract - Underwater observation is a widely used fish-sampling method, but capture
efficiencies of this method are often unknown. For accuracy, survey counts require correction
by measuring capture efficiencies of sampling protocols. Capture efficiencies for
underwater observation were calculated for three small imperiled fishes—Etheostoma
sitikuense (Citico Darter), Noturus flavipinnis (Yellowfin Madtom), and Noturus baileyi
(Smoky Madtom)—using modified mark-recapture methods. Fishes were tagged with
visual implant elastomer tags, released at sites within Abrams Creek in the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, and then recaptured. Efficiencies were calculated by comparing
numbers of released individuals to recaptures. In the propagation facility, tag retention
was 100 percent, and no post-tagging mortality was observed. Capture efficiency (CE =
0.12) was low for all species and potentially influenced by predation upon marked fish,
emigration of fish from sites, or difficulty in sampling some habitats. Thus, population
sizes may be larger than observed due to low capture efficiencies. Our results highlight
challenges to estimating capture efficiencies for imperiled fishes when using underwater
The southeastern United States has the highest diversity of freshwater fishes
and the largest number of endemic species in North America (Warren et al. 2000),
but also the highest number of imperiled fishes (Warren and Burr 1994). Of the
290 species in Tennessee, approximately 83 taxa of native species are designated
with a protective status (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In particular, endemic species
of Percidae (i.e., darters) and Ictaluridae (i.e., madtoms) are in greatest jeopardy
of imperilment (Etnier and Starnes 1991). Etheostoma sitikuense Blanton (Citico
Darter), Noturus baileyi Taylor (Smoky Madtom), and Noturus flavipinnis Taylor
(Yellowfin Madtom) are native to southeastern Tennessee and reflect current efforts
to restore imperiled native fishes. These fishes were extirpated from Abrams Creek
in the 1950s, but were successfully reintroduced through the combined efforts of
the National Park Service and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. (Shute et al. 2005).
The Citico Darter is a recently described, endangered species (Blanton and Jenkins
2008), formerly known as Etheostoma percnurum Jenkins (Duskytail Darter;
Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, Layman 1991). A member of the subgenus Catonotus,
the Citico Darter is a benthic species found in moderate gradient streams at shallow
depths under cobble and small-boulder substrates in gently flowing pools (Etnier
and Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The Smoky Madtom is a small,
1Department of Biology, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee
38505. 2Current address - Division of Math and Sciences, Nashville State Community
College, Cookeville, Tennessee 38506. *Corresponding author- JGDavis22@tntech.edu.
156 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 1
endangered catfish species found in riffle and run habitats under cobble and smallboulder
substrates (Dinkins 1984, Dinkins and Shute 1996). These two fishes are
found only in Abrams Creek, Citico Creek, and Tellico River, TN. Once considered
extinct (Taylor et al. 1971), the threatened Yellowfin Madtom is found in the upper
Tennessee River drainage in portions of Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia (Etnier
and Starnes 1993). Preferring cover such as slabrocks, ledges, and leaf litter, Yellowfin Madtoms inhabit calm pools of moderate-gradient streams (Dinkins and
Shute 1996, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Distributions of all three species within
Abrams Creek are limited by the amounts of cobble and small-boulder substrate
(Gibbs 2008, Throneberry 2008).
Several methods are available to sample these fishes based on a wide range
of conditions (Murphy and Willis 1996). The most popular techniques include
electrofishing, seining, and trap netting. However, there are limitations when
using these gears that preclude them from sampling small, endangered fishes
such as darters and madtoms, most notably sampling mortality. Furthermore,
traditional sampling gears are often inefficient at sampling benthic fishes that
seek cover under cobble and boulder substrates, woody debris, and rock ledges
in streams (Price and Peterson 2010). Underwater observation is the most nonintrusive
and non-lethal technique available, but enumerating population size
using this method is difficult because capture efficiencies vary based upon species
and water body. Capture efficiency is defined as “the percentage of the true
number of individuals present at a sampling site that are captured with a specified
amount of effort using a type of gear or capture method” (Peterson and
Paukert 2009). Biotic characteristics such as body size, behavior, coloration,
and morphology and abiotic characteristics such as turbidity, habitat complexity,
and stream width and depth can influence fish capture efficiencies for
snorkeling (Peterson and Paukert 2009).
Long-term monitoring protocols are established to provide repeatable procedures
that result in statistically valid and comparable information which can
track changes in populations. Routinely, protocols use count data to describe the
population. However, if an accurate population estimate is desired, count data
must be calibrated by calculating the capture efficiency of the method or protocol
employed for the particular species of interest. Estimating capture efficiencies
for rare and endangered fishes is inherently difficult. Conducting pilot studies for
these species to estimate capture efficiencies can be costly, time-consuming, and
cause incidental mortality.
Estimating capture efficiency of a particular method involves comparing the
number of fish present to an unbiased estimate of the number of fish, which can
be estimated in various ways, including stocking a known number of fish into a
site (Rodgers et al. 1992), using dual gears (Thurow et al. 2006), and conducting
a mark-recapture study to obtain an estimator (Peterson et al. 2004). Although
capture efficiencies can vary based upon sampling gear, fish species, and habitat,
in general, capture efficiencies for benthic species such as darters, are low (Angermeier
et al. 1991, Price and Peterson 2010). However, some darters, such as
Etheostoma okaloosa Fowler (Okaloosa Darter), have reported capture effeciencies
greater than 0.50 (Jordan and Jelks 2007). When using various electrofishing
gears, Burns (2007) reported capture efficiencies of 0.46–0.58 for Etheostoma
2011 J.G. Davis, J.E. Miller, M.S. Billings, W.K. Gibbs, and S.B. Cook 157
flabellare Rafinesque (Fantail Darter). Little information is available on the capture
efficiencies of cryptic, benthic darters and madtoms when using underwater
The goal of this study was to estimate capture efficiency of the Citico Darter,
the Smoky Madtom, and the Yellowfin Madtom using a strategy that reduced
cost and time, minimized mortality, and provided an accurate assessment of efficiency. A mark-recapture study was conducted to evaluate the capture efficiency
of these three imperiled fishes by using an experimental population in Abrams
Creek, TN. Specifically, the objectives were to (1) determine and compare capture
efficiencies of each species, (2) analyze visual implant elastomer tagging
methods for estimating efficiencies, and (3) determine if predation occurs on
marked fish. Capture efficiency estimates from this study can be applied to counts
from monitoring these species, and possibly to similar darters and madtoms, to
more accurately estimate population sizes. These results will aid conservation
biologists in monitoring populations and making informed decisions on the conservation
status of these species.
Located within the Tennessee River watershed, Abrams Creek is located in
Blount County, TN within the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park (GSMNP) in southeastern Tennessee. The watershed is approximately
225 km2, with 348 km of streams (Parker and Pipes 1990). Abrams Creek is a
moderately sized, fifth order, coolwater stream with an average temperature not
exceeding 23 °C (Schaffer 2004). Abrams Falls, a 6.0-m waterfall, bisects the
stream into upper and lower sections. The lower section, containing the sampling
sites, extends from Abrams Falls to the embayment of Chilhowee Reservior
and has an average width of 18 m and an average gradient of 3.5 percent (Shaffer
2004). This section encompasses all previous reintroduction sites for Citico
Darters, Smoky Madtoms, and Yellowfin Madtoms (Rakes and Shute 2007).
The dominant substrate in this section consists of cobble, boulder, and bedrock
substrates; the dominant habitat type is run habitat (Gibbs 2008, Throneberry
2008). Conductivity and pH are higher in this stream than other streams due to
the underlying limestone geologic formation (Gibbs 2008).
Tagging and release procedure
Citico Darters, Smoky Madtoms, and Yellowfin Madtoms were obtained from
Conservation Fisheries, Inc. (Cfi) for tagging and subsequent stocking into
Abrams Creek. Fishes were raised in 76-L grow-out tanks operating on a filtered,
independent recirculating system (Rakes and Shute 2007). For this study, 200
Citico Darters, 100 Smoky Madtoms, and 100 Yellowfin Madtoms were tagged
on 22 September 2009 using visible implant elastomer (VIE) tags. VIE tagging is
a non-lethal method in which fluorescent dye is injected subcutaneously into fish
and is useful for collecting data on many fish species. These tags have been used
previously for monitoring these species and other similar, reintroduced species
(Coombs et al. 2004, Shute et al. 2005).
158 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 1
Fish were removed from grow-out tanks and anesthetized using a solution
of 100 mg MS-222 per liter of water at 23.2 °C. Individuals were placed in the
MS-222 solution for a period of 2–3 minutes before showing effects of anesthesia.
Prior to injection, VIE tagging material was prepared by combining colored
elastomer at a 10:1 ratio with a curing agent and mixed thoroughly for one
minute. VIE material was then transferred to a 0.3-cc syringe for injection into
anesthetized fish (Northwest Marine Technologies 2005). Tags were implanted
immediately anterior to the dorsal fin in Citico Darters and posterior to the dorsal
fin in madtoms. Approximately 100 of 200 Citico Darters were tagged with pink
fluorescent-colored elastomer while the other 100 individuals were tagged with
green fluorescent-colored elastomer. For madtoms, two batches of 50 Smoky
Madtoms were marked with yellow- and orange-colored elastomer, respectively,
while two batches of 50 Yellowfin Madtoms were marked with pink- and
green-colored elastomer, respectively. Thus, two separate batches of individuals
for each species were distinctively marked for stocking at two separate sites
(Table 1). After tagging, fish were placed in observation trays and allowed to recover
for approximately five minutes before returning them to grow-out tanks.
Two sites were chosen based upon the amount of suitable habitat available as
derived from previous habitat studies that evaluated success of previous reintroduction
efforts (Gibbs 2008, Throneberry 2008). Multiple sites were necessary
to account for the variability of sampling conditions encountered under normal
circumstances and to increase the capabilities of capture-efficiency models. Sites
were located within suggested reaches of suitable macrohabitat for all three species
in Abrams Creek (Gibbs 2008, Throneberry 2008; Fig. 1). Sites 1 and 2 were
each approximately 50 m in length and 20 m in width. These sites consisted of
shallow, slow-flowing water located in transition areas between fast riffle and run
habitats with heterogeneous mixtures of mostly cobble and bedrock substrates.
Citico Darters and both madtom species have demonstrated a low dispersal rate
and an unwillingness to inhabit other habitat types such as riffles or deep, silty
pools (Rakes and Shute 2007). Therefore, it was assumed that stocked fish would
not traverse these areas to emigrate from the site, but rather that these areas
would be barriers to emigration from the site.
Fishes were transported from CFI’s rearing facility in Knoxville, TN to the
stocking location on 6 October 2009. Prior to transport, individuals were checked
for the presence of a tag to ensure tag retention. Fishes were removed from aquaria
and placed into 1.0-gallon plastic bags filled half with water and half with 100
percent oxygen gas. Oxygen was pumped into the bag until the bag was completely
full and then closed and sealed. Fishes implanted with different colored
tags were put into separate transportation bags, with a maximum of 50 individuals
per bag. Fishes were transported from the rearing facility at 0900 hrs to Abrams
Table 1. Visible implant elastomer tag colors for each species released at two sites in Abrams Creek,
TN. The number of individuals released at each site is indicated in parenthesis.
Site Etheostoma situkuense Noturus baileyi Noturus flavipinnis
1 Pink (100) Yellow (50) Pink (50)
2 Green (100) Orange (50) Green (50)
2011 J.G. Davis, J.E. Miller, M.S. Billings, W.K. Gibbs, and S.B. Cook 159
Creek Campground. Plastic transportation bags were then loaded into backpacks
and transported approximately 2 kms to each stocking site. Upon arrival at each
stocking site, bags were removed from backpacks and placed into the stream to
acclimate to water temperatures. During each transfer from one holding compartment
to the next, fish were checked for mortality. Water was slowly exchanged in
the bag by periodically splashing water into each bag. When fish were adequately
acclimated (≈45 min), the bag was carried to an exact location within the release
site containing an abundance of suitable habitat. Fish were released approximately
1–2 m upstream of this location to account for drift during release. Release occurred
at approximately 1430 hrs. During release, fish were observed underwater
for ≈30–45 min to determine if any immediate predation was occurring and to note
the behavioral response of released fish. Stocking was based on methods developed
by Cfistaff during their successful reintroductions of these three species into
Abrams Creek over the past 20 years (George et al. 2009, Rakes and Shute 2007).
Sampling and recapture of individuals.
Prior to sampling, an attempt was made to capture potential predators through
hook-and-line sampling at each site. Stomachs were removed from sampled
predators and analyzed for VIE tagging material. Underwater observation was
used to count marked individuals. Marked fish were considered recaptured when
a snorkeler observed an individual underwater. Marked fish were not removed
from the population when counted. Snorkelers entered the water downstream of
Figure 1. Release-site locations (black squares) and subsequent recapture sites for three imperiled
species within the Abrams Creek watershed in Tennessee. Sites were approximately
50 m long and 20 m wide. Thick, black line indicates the waters of Abrams Creek.
160 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 1
release sites, starting just upstream of the most downstream barrier (i.e., riffle) and
swam transects upstream parallel to the bank until encountering high flows of the
upstream barrier. Starting from the left descending bank, snorkelers were approximately
1.5–2-m apart from one another and proceeded upstream at the same pace,
with the overall goal of sampling 100 percent of the available area within the site.
Thus, all released, marked fish had the opportunity to be recaptured. Upon encountering
a marked fish, snorkelers observed the fish carefully for the presence of a
mark. Upon observing a marked fish, observers recorded the encounter by communicating
with a team member on the bank who recorded the observation. Fish were
assumed to stay within the boundaries of the site. It was also assumed that mortality
did not occur between release and sampling. The total number of recaptures was recorded
for each site. Two separate surveys were completed at 20 and 44 hours after
the initial stocking for each site, resulting in four complete surveys.
Estimating capture efficiency
Capture efficiencies were calculated by dividing the number of recaptured individuals
for each species by the number of released individuals of each species
at a site. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each species from all surveys
of both sites. Significant differences (α = 0.05) in capture efficiencies between
each species were tested using analysis of variance in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute
2009). Tukey’s post hoc test was used to determine if differences existed in mean
capture efficiencies between species. Additionally, because habitat complexity
and structure can influence capture efficiency, a site comparison was conducted
using mean capture efficiencies from all species at each site.
Released fish were approximately five months old when tagged. Mortality
during tagging of Citico Darters was 0.05 percent, as only one individual did not
survive the tagging process. No mortality was observed during tagging of either
madtom species. No delayed mortality was observed over the two-week period
between tagging and release. Tag retention during this two-week period was 100
percent for all species. Mortality of fish during transportation from the rearing
facility to the release site was zero percent. No mortality was observed during the
period of underwater observation following stocking.
Observations during fish release confirmed the ease of identifying VIE tags on
released fish. Observation was halted after approximately 45 minutes in fear of
attracting predators and affecting behavior of released fish. Based on observation,
Citico Darters did not immediately reflect the behavior of naturalized fish. While
some Citico Darters immediately sought cover under available cobble and small
boulder substrate, most individuals remained on top of the substrate in the immediate
vicinity of the release area (≈1.5–2 m2). This behavior was exhibited until
observation concluded. Yellowfin Madtoms displayed similar behavior, whereas
Smoky Madtoms immediately sought cover.
Survey times at each site varied depending upon field conditions and habitat
type. In general, time to completely survey a site varied between 3–4 hrs. Ten
transects were required to survey the entire width of the stream. Green and pink
2011 J.G. Davis, J.E. Miller, M.S. Billings, W.K. Gibbs, and S.B. Cook 161
tags were easily observed. The number of recaptures at a site ranged from one to
twelve individuals for each species and varied between the two sampling passes
at each site (Table 2). Capture efficiencies (CE) for all species ranged from
0.02–0.24. There was no significant difference between the capture efficiencies
for each species (P = 0.1237) or between sampling sites (P = 0.1003). Capture
efficiencies were lowest for Citico Darters (0.06–0.11) and highest for Smoky
Madtoms (0.12–0.20) (Table3). Yellowfin Madtoms were difficult to capture at
site 1 (CE = 0.03), but had an increased capture efficiency at site 2 (CE = 0.18).
Micropterus dolomeiu Lacepède (Smallmouth Bass; n = 2) were captured at
site 1, but none were captured at site 2. Underwater observation did not confirm
the presence of any Smallmouth Bass at site 2. Stomach contents of one Smallmouth
Bass contained a pink VIE tag and a partially decomposed fish. It was
assumed that this fish was a released Citico Darter.
Capture efficiencies were statistically similar for all three species, although
similarities may be the result of observing each species in similar habitat. Differences
may exist, but were not detected due to low statistical power from small
sample sizes. For example, no difference was detected for Yellowfin Madtoms even
though they are often considered more difficult to capture (Shute et al. 2005). Furthermore,
each species exhibits similar behavior in that they are each small, cryptic
fish who seek out cover underneath cobble and small-boulder substrates. Observers
did not change throughout the study, and the same individuals surveyed for fish
with an equal amount of effort at a site. Thus, differences between capture efficiencies
were not due to differences in training, experience, or effort of snorkelers.
VIE tags have been successfully used in various fishes including Centrachids
(Catalano et al. 2001, Dewey and Zigler 1996), Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum
Table 2. The number of recaptured fish from each species collected during two mark-recapture
sampling events at two sites in Abrams Creek, TN.
Site Sample Etheostoma situkuense Noturus baileyi Noturus flavipinnis
1 1 10 2 10
1 2 6 1 6
2 1 6 12 7
2 2 11 6 10
Table 3. Mean capture efficiencies of three imperiled fishes estimated from mark-recapture studies
at two release sites in Abrams Creek, TN. Fishes at site one and site two were observed 20 and 44
hours post-release, respectively. No significant differences were detected for capture efficiencies
between each species.
95% confidence intervals
Species n Mean (± SD) Range Lower Upper
Etheostoma situkuense 4 0.08 (±0.03) 0.06–0.11 0.02 0.14
Noturus baileyi 4 0.17 (±0.04) 0.12–0.20 0.10 0.23
Noturus flavipinnis 4 0.11 (±0.10) 0.02–0.24 0.04 0.17
162 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 1
(Rainbow Trout; Close 2000, Close and Jones 2002), Salmo trutta L. (Brown
Trout; Olsen and Volestad 2001), and Salmo salar L. (Atlantic Salmon; Fitzgerald
et al. 2004). Also, VIE tags do not affect survival and growth (Phillips and Fries
2009). Reported tag-retention rates for VIE tags in darters are high, with up to
100 percent retention. Roberts and Angermeier (2004) reported retention rates
of 94 percent after 80 days. Weston and Johnson (2008) reported that retention
rates of VIE tags for darters are 100 percent for Etheostoma caeruleum Storer
(Rainbow Darter) and 88 percent for Etheostoma moorei Raney and Suttkus (Yellowcheek
Darter). Tag retention was 88 percent for Etheostoma fonticola Jordan
and Gilbert (Fountain Darter; Phillips and Fries 2009). Tag retention rates for this
study are similar to other studies, although tag retention was expected to be high
for a period of 14 days. Another criteria that should be considered is choice of tag
color, as some colors may be hard to see or hard to distinguish. Curtis (2006) reported
that green and yellow VIE tags and red and orange VIE tags are sometimes
confused. Therefore, VIE tag color combinations of released fish among sites
were pink and green or yellow and orange to prevent any misinterpretation. Tags
were easily viewed underwater and identified with certainty by all observers.
Observation of Citico Darters and Yellowfin Madtoms immediately after
release revealed behavior that was different than resident populations (Gibbs
2008). A majority of Citico Darters did not hide underneath available cobble
and boulder substrates, but rather positioned themselves beside or on top of
cover rocks. This altered behavior may represent a potential problem in estimating
capture efficiency because released fish may have reacted differently to our
sampling method than would resident fish. However, most recaptured fishes were
found underneath cobble, and only two Citico Darters and one Yellowfin Madtom
were not located underneath cover at 20 and 44 hours post-release. Behavioral
differences may have resulted from the stress of transport. During propagation
and rearing, ample cover is provided for each species, and reared species exhibit
similar behaviors to wild populations (Rakes and Shute 2007). Furthermore, all
stocked fish are F1 offspring collected from source-population nesting sites.
Analysis of stomach contents of Smallmouth Bass (n = 2) captured by hookand-
line sampling at 20 hours post-release at site 1 confirmed predation upon
Citico Darters. A clearly visible, pink section of a hardened elastomer tag was
found in one stomach along with a small portion of bone. This was assumed to
be material from a released Citico Darter. Due to small sample size, the rate of
predation upon released darters is unknown. Predation should be accounted for
if more accurate estimates of capture are to be developed. Darters may exist in
smaller densities in the presence of Smallmouth Bass (Magoulick 2004). Another
potential predator in these sites was Ambloplites rupestris Rafinesque (Rock
Bass). Angermeier (1992) found that Rock Bass preyed upon the Fantail Darter,
another Catonotus species similar to Citico Darters, at greater rates in deeper water
than in shallow water. Releasing Citico Darters in shallow areas may reduce
susceptibility to predation by Centrachid species.
Both release sites were chosen based upon the availability of suitable habitat
such as cobble and small-boulder substrate in gently flowing pools (Gibbs 2008,
Throneberry 2008). However, both sites also contained slabs of broken and unbroken
bedrock, which formed deep crevices and ledges that were impossible to
2011 J.G. Davis, J.E. Miller, M.S. Billings, W.K. Gibbs, and S.B. Cook 163
effectively observe. Therefore, many potential hiding places went unsampled,
and it is possible that tagged fish may have inhabited these areas, decreasing the
overall detection of individuals.
Recaptures of darters were not only located in the immediate vicinity of release,
but also throughout the majority of the surveyed site. For this study, it was
assumed that released fishes would not migrate past downstream barriers, in this
case, riffles. The dispersal ability of the Citico Darter is thought to be limited
(Gibbs 2008), and dispersal capabilities in general for darters are relatively small
(Freeman 1995, McClain and Ross 2005). During a 30-day period, Mundahl and
Ingersoll (1983) found that 87 percent of Fantail Darters did not disperse from
the original pool of capture. The close proximity of some relocated individuals
to these riffles at the downstream margins of sites infers the possibility that some
individuals may have left the site. There was no significant difference in capture
efficiency from a time of 20 hours to 44 hours, which suggests that the majority
of dispersal occurs in the first 20 hours after release. Because of sampling
limitations and logistics, areas downstream of release sites were not surveyed to
determine if movement occurred across barriers.
Recommendations for future stocking of Citico Darters and both madtom
species should consider removal of predators from release sites. The behavior
of Citico Darters immediately following release makes them highly susceptible
to predation. Also, consideration should be given to blocking predator access to
individuals in order to allow released individuals to acclimate to their surroundings.
Most darters and madtoms recaptured after 20 hrs exhibited behavior consistent
with wild populations by seeking cover under cobble and small boulder
substrate. For this study, the assumption that emigration did not occur may have
been violated. Thus, it may be beneficial to block downstream migration routes
with block nets before release as well. The timing of stocking was not conducive
to using block nets due to increasing flows and leaf litter in the stream.
The capture efficiencies of these three species were negatively influenced by
predation of released individuals, inability to effectively sample some areas of
release sites, and possible emigration of released individuals from the stocking
site. Total mean capture efficiency of these fish was approximately 0.12, but the
capture efficiency may actually be much higher. The results of this study can
be used to estimate capture efficiencies for similar species in similar sampling
conditions. Capture efficiencies for the Citico Darter can serve as a surrogate
for the similar Etheostoma lemniscatum Blanton (Tuxedo Darter) or Duskytail
Darter because of similarities in appearance, behavior, and habitat preference
(Blanton and Jenkins 2008, Eisenhour and Burr 2000). The use of surrogate species
to solve problems associated with the conservation of endangered species
is common (Caro and O’Doherty 1999). For example, capture efficiencies could
be incorporated into monitoring the Tuxedo Darter in the Big South Fork of the
Cumberland River, TN to calibrate underwater observation counts (J.G. Davis
and S.B. Cook, unpubl. data). Currently, future monitoring is planned for the
Citico Darter, Smoky Madtom, and Yellowfin Madtom in Abrams Creek, and
estimates of the capture efficiency of underwater observation will improve monitoring
of these imperiled species.
164 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 1
We would like to especially thank Conservation Fisheries Inc., particularly J.R. Shute
and Pat Rakes, for their assistance in tagging and transporting fish as well as for providing
and propagating all fish for this study. We would also like to acknowledge Steve Moore
and Matt Kulp of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park for their guidance and help
during planning and implementation of this project. We are grateful to two anonymous
reviewers whose comments improved this manuscript. The majority of funding for this
research was provided by the National Park Service and the Tennessee Technological
University Center for the Utilization, Protection, and Management of Water Resources.
The authors would also like to thank all personnel responsible for the continued reintroduction
efforts of native fishes into Abrams Creek.
Angermeier, P.L. 1992. Predation by Rock Bass on other stream fishes: Experimental effects
of depth and cover. Environmental Biology of Fishes 34(2):171–180.
Angermeier, P.L., R.A. Smogor, and S.D. Steele. 1991. An electric seine for collecting
fish in streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:352–357.
Blanton, R.E., and R.E. Jenkins. 2008. Three new darter species of the Etheostoma
percnurum species complex (Percidae, subgenus Catonotus) from the Tennessee and
Cumberland River drainages. Zootaxa 1963:1–24.
Burns, A.D. 2007. Comparison of two electrofishing gears (backpack and parallel wires)
and abundances of fishes of the upper Greenbrier River drainage. M.Sc. Thesis. West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Caro, T.M., and G. O’Doherty. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation
biology. Conservation Biology 13(4):805–814.
Catalano, M.J., S.R. Chipps, M.A. Bouchard, and D.H. Wahl. 2001. Evaluation of injectable
fluorescent tags for marking centrarchid fishes: Retention rate and effects
on vulnerability to predation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Close, T L. 2000. Detection and retention of postocular visible implant fluorescent elastomer
in fingerling Rainbow Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Close, T.L., and T.S. Jones. 2002. Detection of visible implant elastomer in fingerling
and yearling Rainbow Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Coombs, J.A., V.A. Harrison, and J.L. Wilson. 2004. A survey of Pigeon River reintroduction
efforts. Proceedings of the Warmwater Streams Symposium II, Warmwater
Streams Technical Committee, Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society.
28–29 February, Oklahoma City, OK.
Curtis, J.M.R. 2006. Visible implant elastomer color determination, tag visibility, and tag
loss: Potential sources of error for mark–recapture studies. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 26:327–337.
Dewey, M.R., and S.J. Zigler. 1996. An evaluation of fluorescent elastomer for marking
Bluegills in experimental studies. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 58:219–220.
Dinkins, G.R. 1984. Aspects of the life history of the Smoky Madtom, Noturus baileyi
Taylor, in Citico Creek. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Dinkins, G.R., and P.W. Shute. 1996. Life histories of Noturus baileyi and Noturus flavipinnis,
two rare madtom catfishes in Citico Creek, Monroe County, Tennessee. Bulletin
of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 18:43–69.
2011 J.G. Davis, J.E. Miller, M.S. Billings, W.K. Gibbs, and S.B. Cook 165
Eisenhour, D.J., and B.M. Burr. 2000. Conservation status and nesting biology of the
endangered Tuxedo Darter, Etheostoma leminiscatum, in the Big South Fork of the
Cumberland River, Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1991. An analysis of Tennessee’s jeopardized fish taxa.
Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 66(4):129–133.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN.
Fitzgerald, J.L., T.F. Sheehan, and J.F. Kocik. 2004. Visibility of visual implant elastomer
tags in Atlantic Salmon reared for two years in marine net-pens. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 24:222–227.
Freeman, M.C. 1995. Movements by two small fishes in a large stream. Copeia
George, A.L., B.R. Kuhajda, J.D. Williams, M.A. Cantrell, P.L. Rakes, and J.R. Shute.
2009. Guidelines for propagation and translocation for freshwater fish conservation.
Gibbs, W.K. 2008. Current status of the threatened Spotfin Chub, Erimonax monachus,
and the endangered Duskytail Darter, Etheostoma percnurum, in Abrams Creek, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. M.Sc. Thesis. Tennessee Technological University,
Cookeville, TN. 82 pp.
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Jordan, F., and H. Jelks. 2007. Population monitoring of the endangered Okaloosa Darter.
Okaloosa Darter Annual Monitoring Report, US Geological Survey, Gainesville, fl.
Layman, S.R. 1991. Life history of the relict, Duskytail Darter, Etheostoma (Catonotus)
sp., in Little River, Tennessee. Copeia 1991(2):471–485.
Magoulick, D.D. 2004. Effects of predation risk on habitat selection by water-column
fish, benthic fish, and crayfish in stream pools. Hydrobiologia 527(1):209–221.
McClain, D.C., and M.R. Ross. 2005. Reproduction based on local patch size of Alasmidonta
heterodon and dispersal by its darter host in the Mill River, Massachusetts, USA.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(1):139–147.
Mundahl, N.D., and C.G. Ingersoll. 1983. Early autumn movements and densities of
Johnny Etheostoma nigrum and Fantail Etheostoma flabellare Darters in a southwestern
Ohio stream. Ohio Journal of the Academy of Sciences 83(3):103–108.
Murphy, B.R., and D.W. Willis. 1996. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd Edition. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Northwest Marine Technologies. 2005. Instructions for 10:1 Visual Implant Elastomer.
Northwest Marine Technologies, Shaw Island, WA.
Olsen, E.M., and L.A. Volestad. 2001. An evaluation of visible implant elastomer for
marking age-0 Brown Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Parker, C.R., and D.W. Pipes. 1990. Watersheds of the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park: A geographical information system analysis. United States Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Reseach/Resources Management Report SER-91/01.
Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, GA. 126 pp.
Peterson, J.T., and C.P. Paukert. 2009. Converting nonstandard fish-sampling data to
standardized data. Pp. 195–215, In S.A. Bonar, W.A Hubert, and D.W. Willis (Eds.).
Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fishes. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
166 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 10, No. 1
Peterson, J.T., R.F. Thurow, and J.W. Guzevich. 2004. An evaluation of multipass electrofishing to estimate the abundance of stream-dwelling salmonids. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 133:462–475.
Philips, C.T., and J.N. Fries. 2009. An evaluation of visible implant elastomer for marking
the federally listed Fountain Darter and the San Marcos Salamander. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 29:529–532.
Price, A.L., and J.T. Peterson. 2010. Estimation and modeling of electrofishing capture
efficiency for fishes in wadeable warmwater streams. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 30:481–498.
Rakes, P.L., and J.R. Shute. 2007. Captive propagation and population monitoring of
southeastern rare fishes: 2006. Unpublished report to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency. Contract No. FA-99-13085-00.
Roberts, J.H., and P.L. Angermeier. 2004. A comparison of injectable fluorescent marks
in two genera of darters: Effects on survival and retention rates. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 24:1017–1024.
Rodgers, J.D., M.F. Solazzi, S.L. Johnson, and M.A. Buckman. 1992. Comparison of
three techniques to estimate juvenile Coho Salmon populations in small streams.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:79–86.
SAS Institute. 2009. SAS Version 9.1. Cary, NC.
Schaffer, G.P. 2004. Evaluation of Smallmouth Bass in Abrams Creek and Little River
within Great Smoky Mountains National Park. M.Sc. Thesis. Tennessee Technological
University, Cookeville, TN.
Shute, J.R., P.L. Rakes, and P.W. Shute. 2005. Reintroduction of four imperiled fishes in
Abrams Creek, Tennessee. Southeastern Naturalist 4(1):93–110.
Taylor, W.R., R.E. Jenkins, and E.A. Lachner. 1971. Rediscovery and description of the
ictalurid catfish, Noturus flavipinnis. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
Throneberry, J. 2008. Evaluation of reintroduction success of Smoky Madtom, Noturus
baileyi, and Yellowfin Madtom, Noturus flavipinnis, in Abrams Creek, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. M.Sc. Thesis. Tennessee Technological University,
Thurow, R.F., J.T. Peterson, and J.W. Guzevich. 2006. Utility of day and night snorkel
counts for estimating Bull Trout abundance in first- to third-order streams. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:217–232.
Warren, M.L., and B.M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes of the United States:
Overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries 19(1):6–18.
Warren, M.L., B.M. Burr, S.J. Welsh, H.L. Bart, Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman,
B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the
southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7–29.
Weston, M.R., and R.L. Johnson. 2008. Visible implant elastomer as a tool for marking
Etheostomine darters (Actinopterygii: Percidae). Southeastern Naturalist 7(1):159–164.