Regular issues
Monographs
Special Issues



Southeastern Naturalist
    SENA Home
    Range and Scope
    Board of Editors
    Staff
    Editorial Workflow
    Publication Charges
    Subscriptions

Other EH Journals
    Northeastern Naturalist
    Caribbean Naturalist
    Urban Naturalist
    Eastern Paleontologist
    Eastern Biologist
    Journal of the North Atlantic

EH Natural History Home

Conservation Status of Etheostoma luteovinctum and Notes on Observations of a Burying Behavior
Matthew D. Wagner, Mark S. Hoger, and Rebecca E. Blanton

Southeastern Naturalist, Volume 13, Issue 3 (2014): 530–546

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)

 

Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 530 2014 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 13(3):530–546 Conservation Status of Etheostoma luteovinctum and Notes on Observations of a Burying Behavior Matthew D. Wagner1,2,* , Mark S. Hoger1,3, and Rebecca E. Blanton1 Abstract - Etheostoma luteovinctum (Redband Darter) is a benthic headwater fish of the Caney Fork and Stones rivers (Cumberland River drainage) and the Duck and Elk rivers (Tennessee River drainage) of central Tennessee. The Redband Darter was regarded as a species of special concern due to its small native range, but was recently designated as stable. The current status of the species was assessed by sampling 65 historical localities and collecting other nearby habitat-appropriate sites to document presence or absence. Redband Darter was not found at 63% of the 65 sampled historical localities, indicating the stable status of the species is not valid. Additionally, comments on observations of a unique burying behavior are provided. Introduction Darters are one of the most speciose groups of fishes in North America, having their greatest diversity in the Southeastern United States (Page 1983). Of the currently recognized species of darters, 44% are imperiled due to a variety of anthropogenic activities (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Jelks et al. 2008). Within the Southeastern United States, Tennessee is home to a rich diversity of darters, including several endemic and imperiled species. Ranges of these species commonly are small and restricted to physiographic regions (Starnes and Etnier 1986). Etheostoma luteovinctum Gilbert and Swain (Redband Darter) is one such species, typically found in small headwater streams with limestone bedrock and small amounts of gravel and sand at the stream margins (Paxton 1998). The species is a brightly colored member of the subgenus Oligocephalus and only occurs in portions of the Tennessee and Cumberland river systems that flow through the Eastern Highland Rim and Nashville Basin in Tennessee (Fig. 1). Within the Cumberland River drainage, the species occurs in headwater streams of the Stones River and Caney Fork River and in several small direct Cumberland River tributaries. Within the Tennessee River drainage, Redband Darter is known from headwater streams of the Duck River and from a single stream in the Elk River (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Nicholas J. Lang, Lane Tech High School, Chicago, IL, pers. comm.). Within its small range, Redband Darter is potentially impacted by the use of land for pasture and crops in the Eastern Highland Rim and the Outer Nashville Basin. In the Inner Nashville Basin, potential impacts from extensive urban development 1Austin Peay State University, Department of Biology and Center of Excellence for Field Biology, PO Box 4718, Clarksville, TN 37044.2Current address - South Dakota State University, Department of Natural Resource Management, SNP 138, Brookings, SD 57007. 3Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101. *Corresponding author - matthew.wagner@sdstate.edu. Manuscript Editor: Morgan Raley Southeastern Naturalist 531 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 also are present (Arnwine et al. 2003, 2005; Layman et al. 1993). Additionally, headwater streams in the region frequently become dewatered during periods of low flow and drought, possibly resulting in local extirpations of Redband Darter. Recolonization of previously occupied streams from neighboring populations may be impeded by the disjunct distribution of the species, which necessitates dispersal around potential barriers, such as larger river reaches and dams. Larger stream reaches act as potential migrational barriers for obligate headwater darters (Starnes and Etnier 1986) because corridors with increased depth limit darter movement (Hoger 2012). Dams, which are common in the region, act as migrational barriers to other species of darters (Beneteau et al. 2009, Haponski et al. 2007) and other small-stream fishes (Skalski et al. 2008). Darters in this region with disjunct populations often exhibit phylogeographic structure (Hollingsworth and Near 2009, Keck and Near 2013), and Redband Darter follows this pattern. Two genetically distinct lineages of Redband Darters were recently identified using amplified fragment length polymorphisms (ALFPs; Wagner 2012). One lineage is comprised of populations in the Duck River, Elk River, Middle Fork Stones River, West Fork Stones River, and Hickory Creek of the Caney Fork River (referred to herein as the Tennessee Clade); while the other lineage is confined to the remainder of the known localities in the Cumberland River drainage (referred to herein as the Cumberland Clade). Due to the small native range and impacts to the habitat of Redband Darters, this species has been regarded as imperiled; however, its imperilment status has changed several times in recent history. Currently, Redband Darter is designated by the state of Tennessee as “in need of management”. Previously, Deacon et al. (1979) recognized Redband Darter as a species of special concern. Etnier and Starnes (1993) commented that although the fish has a restricted range, it is under no immediate threat because it is locally common. Subsequently, Jelks et al. (2008) no longer regarded Redband Darter as a species of special concern due to an “improved status”, but data supporting this claim was not provided. Recent conclusions regarding the stability of Redband Darter were made in the absence of a comprehensive status survey. It has been many years since a survey of Redband Darters was last conducted, and one is needed in light of recent conservation status changes that have indicated the species is generally stable. Such work is especially relevant given the small range of the species, the disjunct distribution of its populations, potential degradation of its habitat, and the recent identification of two genetic lineages. Thus, the primary objective of this study was to survey historical localities for Redband Darter to document its presence or absence and provide an estimate of its current distribution, thereby establishing baseline data needed to further evaluate its conservation needs. Additionally, given the few studies of Redband Darter, snorkeling was conducted at one site to assess the potential of this method for detecting its presence and to make notes on general behavior. Although, more data are needed to compare collection methods (which is not a focus of this paper), snorkeling resulted Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 532 in observation of a behavior not previously documented in this species that is described herein. Methods Historical localities for Redband Darter were obtained from various institutions and organizations (Appendix 1). All historical localities obtained were geo-referenced using Geolocate (Rios and Bart 2010) and a Tennessee Atlas and Gazetteer (DeLorme 2007). For all sampled historical localities, abundance of Redband Darter was recorded from museum records for the most recent historical collection for comparison. All institutional abbreviations follow Sabaj-Peréz (2013). Localities were sampled using a 2 m x 4 m (0.64-cm mesh) seine and a backpack electrofisher between February and April of 2011 and 2012 for a 30-minute sampling period or until 10 specimens were collected. At all localities that Redband Darter was found, voucher specimens were euthanized with MS-222 and then preserved in 10% formalin. Specimens were transferred to 70% ethanol for permanent storage in the David H. Snyder Museum of Zoology at Austin Peay State University. A single locality within the Stones River (Dry Fork Creek) was snorkel surveyed to make observations of behavior by 3 observers for 45 minutes. In the Cumberland River drainage, 38 of 44 identified historical localities were sampled for Redband Darter. The 27 historical localities that were sampled in the Tennessee River drainage included a sub-set of 25 of the 74 historical localities encompassing the entire range of Redband Darter within the Duck River and two of the three historic localities within the Elk River (sites 24 and 65). A total of 21 additional non-historical, but habitat-appropriate localities were sampled across the known range to find potential new localities for the species. Results of the status survey were recorded and imported into ArcMap version 10.0 (ESRI 2011) to generate a distribution map. Appendix 1 provides specific locality information for historical localities and the number of individuals captured at each site based on the most recent historical collection identified from museum records. Due to potential and likely variation in sample effort between current and historical collections of Redband Darter, only average relative abundance across all sampled localities in the current study was compared to that for historic collections following the methods of Eisenhour et al. (1996). Results Survey Results A total of 121 historical localities were identified from museum collection records, of which 65 were resampled (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). Of those localities that were resampled, Redband Darter was present at 24 and absent from the remaining 41. In addition to the known historical localities, survey of 21 habitat-appropriate sites resulted in identification of five new localities (Fig. 1, Appendix 1) including: Shelton Branch (Stones River, site 122), Dry Fork Creek (Stones River, site 123), Southeastern Naturalist 533 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 a tributary to the Middle Fork Stones River (Stones River, site 124), a tributary to the West Fork Stones River (Stones River, site 125), and Pumpkin Creek (Duck River, site 126). These five newly identified sites brings the total to 126 known localities for Redband Darter. However, of the 70 known localities sampled, Redband Darter was only present at 41.4% (29 out of 70) of them. In the context of the two genetically distinct lineages (Wagner 2012), Redband Darter was absent from 16 of the 35 sampled localities in the Tennessee Clade and from 22 of the 35 localities in the Cumberland Clade (Figs. 1, 2; Appendix 1). The average number of individuals collected in the most recent historical collection of those 70 known localities was 5.9 individuals/collection compared to 8.2 individuals/collection at sites where Redband Darter was present in the current study (Appendix 1). However, if extended to all historical localities sampled, the average for historical collections is 9.0 individuals/collection compared to 3.0 individuals/collection for all localities surveyed in the current study. Additionally, if compared by river system, a mean of 2.5 individuals/collection was observed in the Cumberland River system in the current study compared to 7.3 individuals/ collection in historical collections. We observed a mean of 3.8 individuals/collection in our study in the Tennessee River system compared to 11.4 individuals/ collection in historical collections. An increase in abundance at sampling sites compared to the most recent historical collection was observed at 17 out of 24 sites where we found Redband Darters: 8 Cumberland River sites and 9 Tennessee River sites where Redband Darter was Figure 1. Results of the status survey of Etheostoma luteovinctum (Redband Darter) showing all historical localities and the presence or absence of the species at sampled sites. Populations within the Cumberland River clade (Wagner 2012) are outlined in dark gray, and those representing the Tennessee River Clade are outlined in light gray. Specific locality information is given in Appendix 1 and symbols used are explained in the legend. Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 534 Figure 2. Graphical summary of status survey results comparing number of localities where Redband Darter has been know to occur to the number where the species was found in our survey. Results include newly identified localities. observed in this study. However, a decrease in abundance was observed at the remaining 7 sites where Redband Darter was observed and the 41 sites where the species was not observed during this study (Fig. 3, Appendix 1). Behavioral observations During snorkel surveys at Dry Fork Creek (Stones River in the Cumberland River drainage), we observed multiple instances in which male Redband Darters buried themselves in fine gravel (Fig. 4). This behavior appeared to be in response to an approaching observer and not related to spawning, as no female Redband Darters were within visible range of the males. The observed males only buried the colorful ventral half of their bodies and remained buried for extended periods of time (>10 minutes). Discussion Results of the status survey indicated a possible 58.6% decrease in the number of known localities for Redband Darter based on the 70 sampled localities, which suggests the previous assumption that Redband Darter is a stable species that does not need additional conservation measures is invalid. The Cumberland River drainage populations show the most drastic decline with respect to localities where the Southeastern Naturalist 535 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 Figure 3. Graph of net differences between the number of specimens collected in the most recent historical collections and the number of specimens collected during this study. Survey site numbers are above or below data in the graph and data sites are provided in Appendix 1. Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 536 species was present. Given that there are only 48 known localities within the Cumberland River drainage, the potential loss of 26 of these is concerning (Figs. 1, 2). Additionally, when evaluated in the context of the genetically distinct lineages, it is alarming that Redband Darter was absent from 22 of the 35 sampled localities that represent the Cumberland Clade. Loss of populations of this distinct genetic lineage may contribute to reduced overall genetic health and long-term species stability. Interestingly, the average number of individuals collected at historical localities where Redband Darter is still present has increased relative to recent historical collections, suggesting that although there has been a loss of localities, the species may be more abundant at sites where they remain than in the recent past. However, if numbers are compared across all historic localities, including those where Redband Darter was absent, there is a notable decline in the average number of individuals collected compared to historical collection numbers. This trend holds when comparing numbers in each of the river systems and is largely due to the large number of historical localities for which no individuals were observed in the current study (Fig. 3). However, a more rigorous, quantitative sampling strategy is needed to further explore abundance and density across the range of the focal species and to confirm these observations. Anthropogenic land-use practices in the region have likely contributed both to loss of populations and declines in abundance. In the Cumberland River system where declines are most drastic, primary land uses in the Stones River and the Caney Fork River of the Eastern Highland Rim and the Outer Nashville Basin portions of the range of the Redband Darter include pasture and cropland, while Figure 4. Examples of burying behavior observed for male Etheostoma luteovinctum (Redband Darter) in Dry Fork Creek (Site 123, Stones River in the Cumberland River drainage), additional locality information is listed in Appendix 1. (Photograph © M. Hoger). Southeastern Naturalist 537 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 primary land uses in the Stones River of the Inner Nashville Basin include land cleared for urban development, as well as pasture and cropland (Arnwine et al. 2003, 2005). The surveyed streams from which Redband Darter was absent or present in low numbers were commonly surrounded by agricultural fields with direct cattle access to streams and a lack of riparian zones between the fields and streams. The occurrence of agricultural land use negatively affects intolerant benthic species, such as darters (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, Gammon and Gammon 1990, Lammert and David 1999). Particularly, livestock access leads to increased sedimentation through erosion of stream banks and increased nitrate and ammonia in impacted reaches. Such factors are known to negatively affect fish communities by degrading instream habitat (Gammon et al. 2003). Decreased riparian-zone width resulting in increased habitat homogeneity and increased sediment load also has been associated with decreases in abundance of benthic fishes (Richardson and Jowett 2002). For Redband Darters in particular, increased sedimentation may compromise or eliminate the small amounts of clean, loose gravel substrate found in these streams that are necessary for spawning (Paxton 1998) and predator avoidance. The potential impacts of agriculture are further highlighted by the geographic distribution of such activities relative to historical localities that no longer appear to support Redband Darters. For example, in the upper Caney Fork River where the potential loss of 15 of 19 sampled historical localities was observed, some of the heaviest agricultural impacts were also observed. Layman et al. (1993) made the same observations, citing “widespread habitat degradation from agriculture” as a concern for species of darters in the Caney Fork River, and studies by Arnwine et al. (2003, 2005) demonstrate that the distribution of such land use relative to the distribution of Redband Darters in this system greatly overlap. Similarly, noted declines in the Stones River are likely associated with habitat degradation from agricultural practices, but also appear to be linked to recent increases in urbanization. For example, at multiple surveyed historical localities in the Stones River from which Redband Darter was absent, observations of the conversion of streams to concrete drainage ditches for suburban/urban runoff were noted in recently developed areas. Urbanization typically leads to an increase in impervious surface area, which has been linked to the absence of sensitive species (Stranko et al. 2010) such as darters. Increased impervious surface area delivers increased runoff to streams and is associated with altered flow regimes, increased temperatures, and increased sediment loads (Horner et al. 1994). These factors are linked to degradation of habitat important to the life cycles of freshwater fishes (Berkman and Rabeni 1987, Rabeni and Smale 1995). Stable flow regime has been associated with increased species richness (Schlosser 1985, Tabit and Johnson 2002), whereas unstable flow regimes and increased sediment load has negative effects on sensitive benthic species (Berkman and Rabeni 1987) and results in decreased species richness, Simpson’s diversity, and abundance (Richardson and Jowett 2002). Additionally, increased temperatures have negative effects on darter survival (Smith and Fausch 1997) as well as darter egg production and juvenile growth (Bonner et al. 1998). Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 538 The five newly identified localities for Redband Darter, sites 122–126 (Appendix 1), were comprised of typical Redband Darter habitat (Paxton 1998). The land-use practices at these localities were typical of the Outer Nashville Basin and the Eastern Highland Rim (Arnwine et al. 2003, 2005). Sites 122, 123, and 126 are contained within the previously known range for the species and are possibly a result of recent colonization or inadequate previous sampling. Sites 124 and 125 in the Middle and West Fork Stones River, however, represent a substantial range expansion for the species and likely reflect lack of prior sampling in the area. A review of museum records representing collections made in these systems (see Fig. 5; collections represent all from the UT collections and Fishnet2) revealed no prior collection records for these sites. However, the possibility of recent introductions or range expansion cannot be ruled out. Behavior Burying behavior in gravel substrate is typically noted in female darters that utilize an egg-burying spawning behavior and is a documented behavior for members of the subgenus Oligocephalus, which includes the Redband Darter (Page 1983). Burying has been seldom documented in males or during non-spawning activities. However, burying behavior not related to spawning has been noted for both sexes of species that occupy sandy substrates including Ammocrypta (Jordan and Copeland 1877), Crystallaria (Page 1983), and Etheostoma vitreum (Cope) (Glassy Darter; (Winn and Picciolo 1960). Ellis and Jaffa (1918) noted that Etheostoma cragini (Arkansas Darter) C.H. Gilbert buries itself headfirst in silt. Etheostoma spectabile (Agassiz) (Orangethroat Darter) is another brightly colored member of the subgenus Oligocephalus, and males of the species were documented burying themselves in gravel substrate; Simon and Wallus (2006) hypothesized that this behavior was unrelated to spawning, but rather a means of avoiding predators. The observed burying behavior of Redband Darter males observed in the absence of females and when approached by a snorkeler is consistent with an anti-predator response behavior. This is the first known observation of male Redband Darters burying only their colorful mating displays and is a valuable contribution to the known information on darter behavior. Implications for future conservation strategies Results herein highlight a possible 58.6% decrease in the number of known localities for Redband Darter. In light of the recent downgrade in conservation status for this species (Jelks et al. 2008), this finding highlights the need for recurring, long-term monitoring of sensitive species, and the need to base species status designations on recently collected data. While results suggest there has been a recent decline in localities and abundance of the Redband Darter within the Tennessee River system, the species has a larger overall range in this system, and collections of other historical localities not sampled herein are needed to determine its status in this system. However, the potential loss of over half the historic localities in the Cumberland River indicates that persistence of Redband Darters in the upper Stones and Caney Fork rivers, Southeastern Naturalist 539 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 representing a major portion of its historical range, is threatened (Fig. 1). This finding is of further concern because a large number of the absent localities are contained within the genetically divergent Cumberland Clade (Figs. 1, 2; Wagner 2012). In fact, Redband Darters were only present at 12 out of the 31 localities contained within the range of this genetically distinct group. To preserve genetic diversity in the species, future conservation efforts should focus on preservation of the populations in the Cumberland Clade. Given the primary land uses occurring within the Cumberland River portion of the range of the Redband Darter, future conservation efforts should concentrate on the implementation and enforcement of approved agricultural practices that prevent runoff, such as fencing cattle away from streams and maintaining riparian buffer zones between the streams and agricultural fields. These changes may reduce Figure 5. Newly identified localities in the Middle and West Fork Stones Rivers for Etheostoma luteovinctum (Redband Darter), and all fish-collection sites from the UT collections and Fishnet2 where Redband Darter has not been collected in Rutherford County, TN. Symbols used are explained in the legend. Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 540 turbidity and decrease the levels of sedimentation that negatively impact Redband Darters. Increasing the amount of riparian buffer zones, both upstream and onsite, can improve benthic species richness and density by reducing sediment loads and decreasing instream temperatures via increased shade (Duehr et al. 2006, Lee et al. 2001). Decreasing sedimentation will help ensure individuals have access to loose cobble and gravel substrates that provide suitable spawning and predator-avoidance areas as suggested by the behavior of individuals noted in Dry Fork Creek. Efforts should also focus on minimizing runoff and stabilizing flow regimes in urbanized areas. Because dams act as migrational barriers (Beneteau et al. 2009, Haponski et al. 2007), the removal of dams that fragment the range of the Redband Darter, would increase potential for recolonization or colonization of new areas after extirpation due to stream intermittency or the degradation of habitat associated with anthropogenic activities. Additional seasonal monitoring is also needed to more thoroughly evaluate potential variation in site use by season, and a more quantitative status survey is needed to provide more rigorous estimates of abundance, density, and current distribution of this species. However, in light of the apparent declines in the Cumberland River, we suggest the Redband Darter again be recognized as a species of special concern in Tennessee. Acknowledgments We thank N. Lang and D. Etnier for locality data, and the Austin Peay State University Graduate School and Center for Excellence for Field Biology for financial support and equipment. We also thank S. Settle, M. Fulbright, and N. Parker for help in the field. Literature Cited Arnwine, D.H., K.J. Sparks, and G.M. Denton. 2003. Probabilistic monitoring in the Inner Nashville Basin with emphasis on nutrient and macroinvertebrate relationships. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville, TN. Arnwine, D.H., R.R. James, and K.J. Sparks. 2005. Regional characterization of streams in Tennessee with emphasis on diurnal dissolved oxygen, nutrients, habitat, geomorphology, and macroinvertebrates. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control, Nashville, TN. Beneteau, C.L., N.E. Mandrak, and D.D. Heath. 2009. The effects of river barriers and range expansion of the population genetic structure and stability in Greenside Darter (Etheostoma blennioides) populations. Conservation Genetics 10:477–487. Berkman, H., and C. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environmental Biology of Fishes 18:294–285. Bonner, T.H., Brandt, T.M., Fries, J.N., and B.G. Whiteside. 1998. Effects of temperature on egg production and early life stages of the Fountain Darter. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127(6):971–978. Deacon, J.E., G. Kobetich, J.D. Williams, and S. Contreras. 1979. Fishes of North America: Endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Fisheries 4:29–4 4. DeLorme Mapping Company. 2007. Tennessee Atlas and Gazetteer. DeLorme Mapping Company, Yarmouth, ME. Southeastern Naturalist 541 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 Duehr, J.P., Siepker, M.J., Pierce, C.L., and T.M. Isenhart. 2006. Relation of riparian buffer strips to in-stream habitat, macroinvertebrates, and fish in a small Iowa stream. Iowa Academy of Science 113:49–55. Eisenhour, D.J., B.M. Burr, K.M. Cook, and C.A. Taylor. 1996. Conservation status review of the Saddled Madtom, Noturus (Rabida) sp. (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) in the Duck River system, Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 7(2):41–46. Ellis, M.M., and B.B. Jaffa. 1918. Notes on Craigin’s Darter, Catonotus craigini (Gilbert). Copeia 59:73–75. Environmental Systems Resource Institute (ESRI). 2011. ArcMap 10.0. Redlands, CA. Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. Gammon, J.R., and C.W. Gammon. 1990. Fish communities and habitat of the Eel River in relation to agriculture. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Greencastle, IN. Gammon, J.R., W.C. Faatz, and T.P. Simon. 2003. Patterns in water quality and fish assemblages in three central Indiana streams with emphasis on animal feed-lot operations. Pp. 373–417, In T.P. Simon (Ed.). Biological Response Signatures Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Haponski, A.E., T.A. Marth, and C.A. Stepien. 2007. Genetic divergence across a low-head dam: A preliminary analysis using Logperch and Greenside Darters. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:117–126. Hoger, M.S. 2012. Interseasonal movements of Etheostamatinae darters in Yellow Creek and Whiteoak Creek, Tennessee. M.Sc. Thesis. Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN. Hollingsworth, P.R., Jr., and T.J. Near. 2009. Temporal patterns of diversification and microendemism in Central Highland endemic Barcheeck Darters (Percidae: Etheostomatinae). Evolution 63:228–629. Horner, R.R., J.J. Skupien, E.H. Livingston, and H.E. Shaver. 1994. Fundamentals of urban runoff management: Technical and institutional issues. Terrene Institute, Washington, DC, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Jelks, H.L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz-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 H.E. Copeland. 1877. The sand darter. American Naturalist 11:86–88. Keck, B.P., and T.J. Near. 2013. A new species of Nothonotus darter (Teleostei: Percidae) from the Caney Fork in Tennessee, USA. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 54(1):3–21. Lammert, M., and A.J. David. 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 23(2):257–270. Layman, S.R., A.M. Simons, and R.M. Wood. 1993. Status of the Dirty Darter, Etheostoma olivaceum, and Bluemask Darter, Etheostoma (Doration) sp., with notes on fishes of the Caney Fork River System, Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 68(2):65–70. Lee, K.E., R.M. Goldstein, and P.E. Hanson 2001. Relation between fish communities and riparian-zone conditions at two spatial scales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1465–1473. Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 542 Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of Darters. TFH Publications, Neptune City, NJ. Paxton, C.J. 1998. The life history and ecology of the Redband Darter, Etheostoma (Oligocephalus) luteovinctum. Gilbert and Swain (Osteichthyes: Percidae). M.Sc. Thesis. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Rabeni, C.F., and M.A. Smale. 1995. Effects of siltation on stream fishes and the potential mitigating role of the buffering riparian zone. Hydrobiologia 303:211–219. Richardson, J., and I.G. Jowett. 2002. Effects of sediment on fish communities in East Cape streams, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 36(2):431–442. Rios, N.E., and H.L. Bart. 2010. GEOLocate (Version 3.22). Tulane University Museum of Natural History, Belle Chasse, LA. Sabaj Perez, M.H. (Editor). 2013. Standard symbolic codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology: An online reference. Verson 4.0 (28 June 2013). Available online at http://www.asih.org. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Washington, DC. Schlosser, I.J. 1985. Flow regime, juvenile abundance, and the assemblage structure of stream fishes. Ecology 66(5):1484–1490. Simon, T.P., and R. Wallus. 2006. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage. Volume 4. Pp. 619.Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. Skalski, G.T., J.B. Landis, M.J. Grose, and S.P. Hudman. 2008. Genetic structure of Creek Chub, a headwater minnow, in an impounded river system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:962–975. Smith, R.K., and K.D. Fausch. 1997. Thermal tolerance and vegetation preference of Arkansas Darter and Johnny Darter from Colorado Plains Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126(4):676–686. Starnes, W.C., and D.A. Etnier. 1986. Drainage evolution and fish biogeography of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers drainage realm. Pp. 325–361, In C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley (Eds.). The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Stranko, S.A., S.E. Gresens, R.J. Klauda, J.V. Kilian, P.J. Ciccotto, M.J. Ashton, and A.J. Becker. 2010. Differential effects of urbanization and non-natives on imperiled stream species. Northeastern Naturalist 17(4):593–614. Tabit, C.R., and G.M. Johnson. 2002. Influence of urbanization on the distribution of fishes in a southeastern upper piedmont drainage. Southeastern Natural ist 1(3):253–268. Wagner, M.D. 2012. Conservation and phylogeography of the Redband Darter, Etheostoma luteovinctum (Percidae). M.Sc. Thesis. Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN. 135 pp. Winn, H.E., and A.R. Picciolo. 1960. Communal spawning of the Glassy Darter, Etheostoma vitreum (Cope). Copeia 3:186–192. Southeastern Naturalist 543 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 Appendix 1. Locality information for all historical and new georeferenced localities for E. luteovinctum (Redband Darter). Current (Curr; 2011–2012) and historic (Hist) abundance data is included for sampled localities. Institutional abbreviations follow Sabaj Perez (2013). NS = not sampled, N. Lang = unpublished data received from Nick Lang, andTVA = data received from Tennessee Valley Authority. Site Type Presence County River system and drainage Latitude, longitude Curr Hist Year Source 1 Historical Present Davidson Eatons Cr., Cumberland R. 36.2221, -86.8655 10 1 2008 N. Lang 2 Historical Present Davidson Sulphur Cr., Cumberland R. 36.2204, -86.9159 10 5 2008 N. Lang 3 Historical Present Cannon Marshall Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.9507, -86.1016 10 2 2008 N. Lang 4 Historical Present Coffee Meadow Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5818, -85.9617 1 15 2009 YPM 5 Historical Present Coffee Mud Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5960, -86.0128 10 1 1937 UMMZ 6 Historical Present Warren Caney Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6312, -85.9258 7 5 2008 N. Lang 7 Historical Present Cannon Trib. to Shanborne Branch, Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8317, -85.9957 6 8 2008 N. Lang 8 Historical Present Davidson Stoners Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 36.2018, -86.5915 1 3 2008 N. Lang 9 Historical Present Davidson McCrory Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 36.1445, -86.6570 10 3 2007 N. Lang 10 Historical Present Rutherford Trib. to Cripple Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.7634, -86.2192 9 10 2007 N. Lang 11 Historical Present Rutherford Dry Fork, Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.9297, -86.2388 10 4 1965 CU 12 Historical Present Rutherford Rocky Fork Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.9225, -86.5619 10 8 2005 TU 13 Historical Present Bedford Sinking Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4841, -86.5815 4 8 2008 N. Lang 14 Historical Present Bedford Weakley Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5928, -86.5870 5 2 1937 UMMZ 15 Historical Present Bedford Bell Buckle Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5927, -86.3589 10 8 1995 INHS 16 Historical Present Bedford Trib. to Duck R., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4660, -86.2959 10 1 1997 TVA 17 Historical Present Bedford Trib. to Bell Buckle Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5916, -86.3609 10 8 1995 INHS 18 Historical Present Coffee Welker Branch, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5451, -86.0672 5 9 2007 N. Lang 19 Historical Present Marshall Collins Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4340, -86.7790 12 10 2007 N. Lang 20 Historical Present Maury Trib. to Hampshire Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5979, -87.2919 6 3 1986 INHS 21 Historical Present Maury Grassy Branch, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7446, -86.8937 7 3 1967 UMMZ 22 Historical Present Maury McCormick Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7438, -86.9391 8 12 2009 YPM 23 Historical Present Maury Bear Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6353, -86.9713 14 10 2001 NCSM 24 Historical Present Marshall Trib. to Town Cr., Elk R., Tennessee R. 35.3538, -86.8422 12 3 1994 UT 25 Historical Absent Davidson Browns Cr., Cumberland R. 36.1278, -86.7671 0 5 1991 UT 26 Historical Absent Wilson Spring Cr., Cumberland R. 36.0884, -86.2266 0 5 2000 N. Lang 27 Historical Absent Cannon Duke Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6630, -86.0898 0 2 1989 INHS 28 Historical Absent Coffee West Fork Hickory Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5690, -85.9433 0 8 2008 N. Lang 29 Historical Absent Coffee West Fork Hickory Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5420, -85.9636 0 4 1987 INHS Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 544 Site Type Presence County River system and drainage Latitude, longitude Curr Hist Year Source 30 Historical Absent Coffee West Fork Hickory Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5602, -85.9455 0 10 2008 N. Lang 31 Historical Absent Coffee West Fork Hickory Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5697, -85.9542 0 1 1980 INHS 32 Historical Absent Warren Dog Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.7338, -85.9145 0 8 1996 INHS 33 Historical Absent Warren Dry Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6628, -85.9501 0 1 2004 UT 34 Historical Absent Warren Garner Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6439, -85.9002 0 3 1994 UT 35 Historical Absent Warren Garner Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6657, -85.8807 0 21 1986 FMNH 36 Historical Absent Warren Henegar Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6621, -85.8806 0 3 1982 UT 37 Historical Absent Warren West Fork Hickory Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5864, -85.9363 0 5 2008 N. Lang 38 Historical Absent Warren Miller Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.7582, -85.9454 0 1 1993 INHS 39 Historical Absent Warren North Prong Barren Fork, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6380, -85.8807 0 7 2003 UT 40 Historical Absent Wilson Saunders Fork, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.9769, -86.0706 0 1 1964 TU 41 Historical Absent Warren Dog Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.7387, -85.9181 0 15 1993 INHS 42 Historical Absent Cannon Brawleys Fork, Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8064, -86.1551 0 44 1968 USNM 43 Historical Absent Cannon Locke Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8320, -86.1361 0 5 2008 N. Lang 44 Historical Absent Cannon East Fork Stones R., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8323, -86.0353 0 8 2008 N. Lang 45 Historical Absent Cannon Brawleys Fork, Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8019, -86.1510 0 3 1968 UT 46 Historical Absent Davidson Trib. to Stones Creek, Stones R., Cumberland R. 36.1948, -86.5741 0 43 1978 INHS 47 Historical Absent Rutherford Bradley Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.9513, -86.2188 0 1 2008 YPM 48 Historical Absent Rutherford Cripple Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8244, -86.2528 0 6 1978 INHS 49 Historical Absent Rutherford East Fork Stones R., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8826, -86.2725 0 1 2005 UT 50 Historical Absent Rutherford McKnight Branch, Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.8783, -86.1637 0 1 1978 INHS 51 Historical Absent Bedford Fall Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5643, -86.5165 0 2 2009 YPM 52 Historical Absent Bedford Hurricane Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5432, -86.4508 0 10 2007 N. Lang 53 Historical Absent Bedford North Fork Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5993, -86.5357 0 1 1969 KU 54 Historical Absent Coffee Cisco Branch, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6330, -86.0918 0 4 1994 UT 55 Historical Absent Coffee Garrison Fork, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6268, -86.2390 0 3 1968 UT 56 Historical Absent Coffee Norton Branch, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6426, -86.2190 0 27 1971 UT 57 Historical Absent Coffee Trib. to Carroll Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4097, -86.1986 0 25 1969 USNM 58 Historical Absent Marshall Big Rock Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5047, -86.7676 0 2 2006 YPM 59 Historical Absent Marshall Big Rock Creek, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4016, -86.8087 0 8 2008 N. Lang 60 Historical Absent Marshall Wilson Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6001, -86.6598 0 108 2006 TVA 61 Historical Absent Marshall Spring Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6455, -86.6837 0 8 2008 N. Lang 62 Historical Absent Maury Dry Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5396, -86.8626 0 7 2005 TU 63 Historical Absent Maury Flat Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6425, -86.8541 0 14 2008 YPM Southeastern Naturalist 545 M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 Site Type Presence County River system and drainage Latitude, longitude Curr Hist Year Source 64 Historical Absent Maury Flat Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6653, -86.8302 0 4 1979 KU 65 Historical Absent Marshall Trib. to Town Cr., Elk R., Tennessee R. 35.3500, -86.8454 0 8 2008 N. Lang 66 Historical NS Davidson Eatons Cr., Cumberland R. 36.2568, -86.8850 67 Historical NS Coffee Meadow Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5887, -85.9817 68 Historical NS Dekalb Smith Fork, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 36.0345, -85.9400 69 Historical NS Warren Locke Branch, Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.6218, -85.8043 70 Historical NS Warren West Fork Hickory Cr., Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.5938, -85.9313 71 Historical NS Warren Caney Fork R., Cumberland R. 35.7081, -85.7317 72 Historical NS Bedford Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4803, -86.3248 73 Historical NS Bedford Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5489, -86.6407 74 Historical NS Bedford Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4749, -86.4013 75 Historical NS Bedford Garrison Fork, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5832, -86.2610 76 Historical NS Bedford North Fork Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5845, -86.5503 77 Historical NS Bedford North Fork Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5845, -86.5963 78 Historical NS Bedford Sinking Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5354, -86.5902 79 Historical NS Bedford Trib. to Sinking Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.3990, -86.5921 80 Historical NS Bedford Little Sinking Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4435, -86.5778 81 Historical NS Bedford Hurricane Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5572, -86.4994 82 Historical NS Bedford Little Hurricane Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5207, -86.4549 83 Historical NS Bedford Hurricane Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5544, -86.4331 84 Historical NS Bedford Trib. to Hurricane Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5406, -86.4507 85 Historical NS Bedford Wartrace Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6066, -86.3528 86 Historical NS Bedford Wartrace Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5886, -86.3391 87 Historical NS Bedford Bear Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6349, -87.0026 88 Historical NS Bedford Sinking Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4832, -86.6054 89 Historical NS Bedford Sinking Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5193, -86.5848 90 Historical NS Bedford Sugar Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.481, -86.51001 91 Historical NS Bedford Wartrace Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6292, -86.3562 92 Historical NS Bedford Bell Buckle Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5804, -86.3488 93 Historical NS Bedford Trib. to Garrison Fork, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5763, -86.2733 94 Historical NS Bedford Garrison Fork, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4923, -86.3440 95 Historical NS Coffee Shanklin Branch, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4940, -86.0149 96 Historical NS Coffee Duck R., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4864, -86.0911 97 Historical NS Coffee Parks Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5508, -86.0825 Southeastern Naturalist M.D. Wagner , M.S. Hoger, and R.E. Blanton 2014 Vol. 13, No. 3 546 Site Type Presence County River system and drainage Latitude, longitude Curr Hist Year Source 98 Historical NS Marshall Dunlap Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7238, -87.2787 99 Historical NS Marshall Big Rock Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4193, -86.8076 100 Historical NS Marshall Big Rock Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4964, -86.7611 101 Historical NS Marshall Big Rock Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5379, -86.7690 102 Historical NS Marshall Big Rock Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4513, -86.7869 103 Historical NS Marshall East Rock Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5541, -86.7586 104 Historical NS Marshall Caney Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6145, -86.7658 105 Historical NS Marshall Lick Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6813, -86.6630 106 Historical NS Marshall Spring Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6033, -86.6962 107 Historical NS Marshall Belfast Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4368, -86.7029 108 Historical NS Marshall Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5926, -86.6966 109 Historical NS Maury Wartrace Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5886, -86.3391 110 Historical NS Maury Bear Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6347, -86.9634 111 Historical NS Maury Snow Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6946, -87.1880 112 Historical NS Maury Sugar Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.4865, -87.1827 113 Historical NS Maury Carters Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7172, -86.9956 114 Historical NS Maury Titan Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7400, -86.9566 115 Historical NS Maury Trib. to Knob Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7421, -87.0596 116 Historical NS Maury Johnson Branch, Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7162, -86.9549 117 Historical NS Maury Fountain Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5446, -86.9653 118 Historical NS Maury Dry Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.5392, -86.8624 119 Historical NS Maury Carters Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.7263, -86.9894 120 Historical NS Maury Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6759, -87.2891 121 Historical NS Marshall Town Cr., Elk R., Tennessee R. 35.3314, -86.8419 122 New Present Cannon Shelton Branch, Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.7357, -86.1675 1 123 New Present Davidson Dry Fork Cr., Stones R., Cumberland R. 36.1827, -86.5950 5 124 New Present Rutherford Middle Fork Stones R., Stones R., Cumberland R. 35.6938, -86.3391 10 125 New Present Rutherford Trib. to West Fork Stones R., Stones R., 35.6913, -86.4844 10 Cumberland R. 126 New Present Maury Pumpkin Cr., Duck R., Tennessee R. 35.6426, -86.8594 1