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