Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
2006 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 5(1):69–84
Distribution and Population Biology of the
Black Warrior Waterdog, Necturus alabamensis
MICHELLE C. DURFLINGER MORENO1,2, CRAIG GUYER1,*, AND MARK A. BAILEY3
Abstract - Streams were sampled throughout the Upper Black Warrior River basin to
(1) determine the current distribution of Necturus alabamensis (Black Warrior
Waterdog) and (2) identify its habitat requirements. Individuals were observed at 14
of 112 localities within 60 streams. Discriminant function analysis of stream characteristics
revealed that waterdog populations were associated with the presence of
ephemeropteran larvae on a local scale and with water depths of 1–4 m, large leaf
packs, and low percentage of fine sediments on a regional scale. Where present, N.
alabamensis occurs at relatively low population densities, and populations monitored
in our survey exhibited a 1:1 sex ratio with no apparent age-class structure or sexual
size dimorphism. We conclude that this species is rare on the basis of its restricted
geographic range, low abundance, and unpredictable occurrence in suitable habitat;
as such, N. alabamensis should be considered for federal protection.
In his revision of the genus Necturus, Viosca (1937) described a species
now known as Necturus alabamensis (Black Warrior Waterdog; Fig. 1). This
permanently aquatic salamander is restricted to scattered locations within
the Upper Black Warrior River drainage of northwestern Alabama (Ashton
and Peavy 1986, Bart et al. 1997). Most specimens of N. alabamensis have
been collected within the Bankhead National Forest in Lawrence, Winston,
and Walker counties, where the species often occurs in accumulated leaf
litter in stream beds from early November through early March (Neill 1963).
However, consistent captures are confined largely to Sipsey Fork. Therefore,
Black Warrior Waterdogs appear to be rare, not only because of their
restricted geographic range, but also because they may occur only at low
densities in a small number of streams within the range.
1Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849. 2Current
address - US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA
92008. 3Conservation Southeast, Inc., 7746 Boggan Level Road, Andalusia, AL
36420. *Corresponding author - firstname.lastname@example.org.
Figure 1. Adult Necturus alabamensis
(Black Warrior Waterdog). Photograph
© by Greg Sievert.
70 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
Despite their apparent rarity, Black Warrior Waterdogs currently are
not protected by state and/or federal regulations, largely because the
taxonomic status of N. alabamensis was confused until recently (Bart et
al. 1997). Moreover, the current distribution, habitat requirements, and
key life history characteristics of this species are not well known, making
identification of optimal stream habitat for conservation purposes difficult.
In this study, we delimit the current distribution of N. alabamensis
based on stream surveys throughout the presumed geographic range and
describe habitat characteristics associated with sites possessing this
species. We also characterize demographic parameters of the species at
Sipsey Fork, the best known population.
We surveyed 112 sites throughout the Upper Black Warrior River basin.
Ninety-nine sites were visited during the winters of 1991 and 1992. Of these,
22 sites were revisited from November 1994 through March 1995, and all
original 99 sites together with 13 new ones were surveyed in 1997. Sites
were examined for the presence of waterdogs by removing sections of
submerged leaf packs with a large dip net (6.35-mm mesh); sample contents
were placed on the stream bank and sifted for Necturus. This process was
repeated until the entire leaf pack had been processed or until 10 parcels of a
large leaf pack had been sampled.
In 1997, habitat characteristics were measured at each of the 112 localities.
We used stream crossings to access each site, and the samples were collected
along a 100-m transect oriented along the mid-line of each stream. Substrate
composition, stream depth, water temperature, and leaf pack length (longest
horizontal axis), width (greatest width perpendicular to length), and depth
were recorded at 10-m intervals. Substrate composition was determined by
estimating the linear distance along each 10-m interval that crossed rock,
sand, and sediments (fine organic and inorganic matter). These data were
converted into a percentage of each substrate type along the entire transect.
We then sampled leaf packs with dip nets, as described previously, recording
the presence of plethodontid salamanders, fish, crayfish, mollusks, and
aquatic insect larvae, as well as Necturus. Because several streams contained
more than one sampling site, we pooled within-stream samples, calculating
mean values for the variables described above. This pooling of data yielded 60
streams for use in further analyses (Appendix 1).
We intensively sampled Sipsey Fork, a third-order stream in the Black
Warrior River drainage near Alabama Highway 33 (T9S R8W S33 and 34,
Bailey and Guyer 1998). The stream originates in the Sipsey Wilderness,
flows through the Bankhead National Forest, and drains into Lewis Smith
Lake in Winston County. We selected a 100-m stream section starting from
2006 M.C. Durflinger, C. Guyer, and M.A. Bailey 71
the cement entry point for canoes and oriented upstream from that locality.
The total area for the site was approximately 834 m2.
We conducted a mark-recapture study of Necturus at Sipsey Fork during
January–May of 1999 through 2001, using the dip-net sampling technique, as
described previously. Samples were taken once each month during 1999 and
2000 and three times per week during 2001. During 1999 and 2000, 15 minnow
traps (32 cm x 62 cm) were placed on leaf packs or along submerged logs and
rocks throughout the study site. In 2001, a 3 x 11 trapping grid was established
with traps placed at 10-m intervals along 3 parallel transect lines, one in the
center of the stream and one along each bank. Traps were baited with wet cat
food placed inside perforated plastic 35-mm film containers, and bait was
replaced weekly. We recorded total length (TL; nearest 1.0 mm) and wet mass
(nearest 0.01 g) for all captured individuals. Large individuals (> 100 mm TL)
were identified as to sex (following Shoop 1965) and were given a unique mark
by clipping toes (no more than one toe per foot). Subadult and larval specimens
were not marked. All waterdogs were returned to their site of capture.
During 2001, the trapping grid was used to create sampling localities for
data describing the abiotic and biotic environment at the Sipsey Fork site.
The abiotic environment was characterized by recording substrate composition,
stream depth, water temperature, leaf-pack width, and leaf-pack depth
at each grid locality. Substrate composition was sampled within a 0.5 m2
metal frame used to estimate the percentage of area covered by rock, sand,
and fine sediments. To characterize the biotic environment, sections of leaf
packs and underlying substrate were removed with a dip net, as described
previously, for each 10-m interval along the three transects (stream center
and the two stream edges). The presences of plethodontid salamanders, fish,
crayfish, mollusks, and insect larvae were recorded. All insect larvae were
preserved in ethanol (70%) and subsequently identified to order.
To describe the current distribution of Necturus alabamensis, we determined
the map coordinates for the mouth of each stream examined. These
were georeferenced and processed as two categories in an Arc/Info Geographical
Information System database: sites known to contain waterdogs,
and sites not known to contain waterdogs.
We used discriminant function analysis (SPSS 1999) to determine
whether habitat characteristics at local and/or regional scales could be used
to predict sites that contained N. alabamensis versus those that did not. For
the local scale, 14 abiotic and biotic variables were used to create the
discriminant function (Table 1). To determine the separate contribution of
each habitat variable to the overall model, we used the stepwise procedure
(SPSS 1999). For variables that were significantly associated with Necturus,
we used box plots to determine the direction (positive or negative) of each
association. Finally, we used G-tests to determine whether the significant
predictor variables were associated with each other.
72 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
For regional scale analysis, 23 environmental variables (Table 1) were
partitioned into three sets: (1) abiotic features (5 variables); (2) biotic
features (13 variables); and (3) features of leaf packs (5 variables). Because
the original data were heavily skewed toward sites without
waterdogs (45 of 60 sites), we randomly selected 10 sites without
waterdogs for analysis. To decrease the probability that results were
affected by specific stream combinations, we repeated this random selection
process 20 times to create 20 trials. For each trial, we used stepwise
discriminant analysis separately on each of the three categories listed
above to examine the contribution of each variable to an overall model.
We then performed a discriminant analysis (separately for each trial) to
determine the significance of the overall model. This series of analyses
was then repeated, but restricted to the 14 variables analyzed at the local
scale (Table 1). To summarize overall trends from this series of analyses,
we used the combined probabilities test (Sokal and Rohlf 1969) to determine
the overall probability that a particular variable contributed to
discriminating sites with waterdogs from those without. This procedure
was repeated to evaluate whether all variables contributed to a significant
Table 1. Summary of variables used in the discriminant function analyses to determine characteristics
of sites with and without Necturus alabamensis. Columns indicate variables used (X)
for local analysis of Sipsey Fork site and regional analyses of abiotic, biotic, and leaf pack
features throughout the Upper Black Warrior River basin. A fifth discriminant function analysis
was performed at a regional scale for the variables indicated under local analysis. Measurements
of distance are in m; taxon variables represent presence or absence of that taxon at a
Local Regional analysis
Variable analysis Abiotic Biotic Leaf packs
Stream width X
Stream depth X X
% sand X X
% rock X X
% sediment X X
Unknown salamander X
Crayfish X X
Fish X X
Snail X X
Odonata X X
Plecoptera X X
Trichoptera X X
Ephemeroptera X X
# of leaf packs X
Leaf-pack length X
Leaf-pack width X X
Leaf-pack depth X X
Distance to bank X
2006 M.C. Durflinger, C. Guyer, and M.A. Bailey 73
overall model. Finally, we used G-tests to determine whether the significant
predictor variables were associated with each other.
The capture data were used to characterize the waterdog population at
Sipsey Fork. We used histograms to depict patterns of TL and mass within
the population. Kolomogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests
were used to compare the observed distributions to a normal distribution.
We used G-tests to compare the observed sex ratio to an expected 1:1 ratio
and independent-samples t-tests to compare the average TL and mass of
males and females.
Of the 60 streams and 112 localities sampled within the Upper Black
Warrior River basin, Necturus alabamensis were found at 14 localities (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Distribution of sites known to contain Necturus alabamensis (solid
circles) and sites not known to contain N. alabamensis (open circles). Solid line
indicates the Fall Line. Inset shows location of Upper Black Warrior River basin
(shaded) within Alabama.
74 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
Thus, Black Warrior Waterdogs were found at only 12% of localities and 24%
of streams sampled. The total number of visits and the number of N.
alabamensis captured varied among streams (Table 2). The average number of
visits to sites containing N. alabamensis was 7 (SD = 15.7; N = 14), and the
average number of times that at least one N. alabamensis was observed at these
sites during a visit was 4 (SD = 8.7; N = 14). Thus, the chance of observing N.
alabamensis at sites known to contain them was 0.57.
On a local scale, stepwise discriminant function analysis revealed that
the presence of ephemeropterans was significantly associated with the
presence of waterdogs (X2 = 7.7, df = 1, p = 0.001; Fig. 3A). However, an
Table 2. Summary of visitations to sites containing Necturus alabamensis. Columns indicate
the number of times a site was visited, the number of visits during which N. alabamensis was
observed, and the total number of N. alabamensis captured during all visits.
Number of Number of visits Number of
Site visits with waterdogs waterdogs
Blackburn Fork 5 2 2
Blackwater Creek 3 2 2
Browns Creek 1 1 1
Brushy Creek 5 3 3
Capsey Creek 1 1 1
Carroll Creek 1 1 1
Little Blackwater 4 2 2
Lost Creek 4 2 2
Lye Branch 1 1 1
Mulberry Fork 2 1 1
North River 3 1 1
Sipsey Fork 61 34 59
Slab Creek 1 1 1
Yellow Creek 2 1 1
Table 3. Sites misclassified by discriminant function analysis as containing Necturus
alabamensis. Township, range, and section as in Appendix 1.
Big Sandy Creek Tuscaloosa
Binton Creek Tuscaloosa
Bluewater Creek Fayette
Cabin Creek Cullman
Calvert Prong Blount
Cane Creek Fayette
Hurricane Creek Cullman
Inman Creek Winston
Lewis Smith Lake Winston
Little Sandy Creek Tuscaloosa
Mill Creek Jefferson
Pan Creek Winston
Rock Creek Winston
Rush Creek Cullman
Sandy Creek Winston
Splunge Creek Winston
Valley Creek Jefferson
2006 M.C. Durflinger, C. Guyer, and M.A. Bailey 75
analysis considering all 14 environmental variables simultaneously was not
significant (X2 = 7.8, df = 7, p = 0.35).
Figure 3. Association of A) Ephemeroptera with Necturus alabamensis at the Sipsey
Fork study site and of B) stream depth, C) sediments, D) leaf-pack length, E)
Ephemeroptera, and F) Trichoptera with N. alabamensis throughout the Upper Black
Warrior River basin. Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4. Larval N.
© by Greg Sievert.
76 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
For abiotic and biotic stream characteristics on a regional scale, stepwise
analysis followed by a combined probabilities test revealed that stream depth
and percent of stream substrate covered by fine sediments were negatively
associated with Necturus presence (Figs. 3B and C), whereas ephemeropteran
presence and leaf-pack length were positively associated with Necturus presence
(Figs. 3D and E). All variables were independent of one another. In each
Figure 5. Frequency distributions of A) total length and B) mass for larval (shaded
bars), adult female (white bars), and adult male (dark bars) Necturus alabamensis at
Sipsey Fork during 1999–2001.
2006 M.C. Durflinger, C. Guyer, and M.A. Bailey 77
of the three groups of variables, an analysis considering all variables
simultaneously was not significant (X2 = 5.5, df = 40, p = 0.40 for abiotic stream
features; X2 =14.1, df = 40, p = 0.44 for biotic stream features; X2 = 3.9, df = 40,
p = 0.70 for leaf-pack features). When stepwise analysis was restricted to the 14
variables examined for local habitats, the presences of trichopterans (X2 = 58.6,
df = 40, p = 0.05; Fig. 3F) and ephemeropterans (X2 = 113.7, df = 40, p = 0.001)
were found to be positively associated with the presence of Necturus. Furthermore,
presences of trichopterans and ephemeropterans were significantly and
positively associated with each other (G = 17.01, df = 1, p > 0.001). An analysis
considering all variables simultaneously also was significant (X2 = 82.1, df =
40, p = 0.001). The model correctly classified 28 of 45 sites (62%) without
waterdogs and 10 of 14 sites (71%) with them. The 17 streams currently lacking
specimen vouchers for N. alabamensis but classified by discriminant function
analysis as appropriate habitat were distributed in six counties throughout the
presumed range of the Black Warrior Waterdog (Table 3).
Fifty-two waterdogs were captured during 173,160 trap hours at Sipsey
Fork. Of these, 35 were adults (> 100 mm TL; 17 males and 18 females), 5
were subadults (< 100 mm TL; sex not determinable), and 12 were larvae
(Fig. 4). Only two individuals were recaptured, one in 2000 (marked in
1999), and one in 2001 (marked in 2000). Adult TL ranged from 145 to 210
mm and body mass ranged from 8.1 to 40.9 g. The frequency distributions
for length and mass did not differ from a normal distribution (D = 0.12, p =
0.20; W = 0.97, p = 0.54 for length; D = 0.11, p = 0.20; W = 0.96, p = 0.34 for
mass; Fig. 5). TL and body mass did not differ significantly between adult
males and females (t = 0.90, p = 0.38 for males; t = 0.62, p = 0.54 for
females). Numbers of adult males and females did not differ significantly
from an expected 1:1 sex ratio (G = 0.874; p = 0.50).
Although the Upper Black Warrior River basin is a network of more
than 150 first-, second-, and third-order streams, our survey of 112 localities
within 60 streams confirmed the presence of Necturus alabamensis at
only 14 localities (representing 14 streams). These localities span five
counties, indicating that this species is still widely distributed within its
presumed historical range (Ashton and Peavy 1986). However, our data
indicate that this species is present in 23% of streams and 12% of localities
within this range. Even for sites harboring known populations, waterdogs
are captured only 57% of the time that these localities are sampled. With
the exception of Sipsey Fork, our observations were generally limited to
one or two captures.
Over the period of intense sampling at Sipsey Fork, waterdogs were
captured at 5 of 30 trapping stations. These five stations were located within
deep pools containing leaf packs inhabited by aquatic insects, but also containing
sunken logs and large flat rocks. These habitat features are similar to
78 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
descriptions by Fedak (1971) for Necturus punctatus (Gibbes), Ashton (1985)
for N. lewisi (Brimley), and Shoop (1965) for N. beyeri Viosca.
Habitat analyses on a regional scale show similarities to those on a
local scale. Discriminant function analyses of abiotic and biotic stream
characteristics indicate that stream depth, percent of stream substrate covered
by fine sediments, leaf-pack length, and presence of
ephemeropterans (and perhaps trichopterans) are significantly associated
with the presence of N. alabamensis. Waterdog presence is negatively
associated with stream depth on a regional scale, but positively associated
with stream depth at a local scale. This seemingly incongruous pair of
results stems from the fact that variation in water depth at the local scale
is much less than that recorded for the regional scale. Therefore, our data
suggest that N. alabamensis occupies a narrow range of water depths
from 1–4 m. In deeper, more central portions of streams, water flow is
faster, possibly preventing development of leaf beds and decreasing food
availability. In shallower waters, temperature may be elevated and water
flow minimized, resulting in decreased levels of dissolved oxygen.
Ashton (1985) considered high level of dissolved oxygen to be an important
factor for habitat selection by N. lewisi. Based on their similar
morphologies and potentially similar physiology, we speculate that this
factor is also important for N. alabamensis.
The percentage of stream substrate covered by fine sediments was also
negatively associated with the presence of N. alabamensis. This association
suggests that waterdogs are vulnerable to increased levels of sedimentation
linked to certain types of land use (e.g., strip mining, intensive forestry, road
construction); such alterations in sedimentation rates are common within the
waterdog’s historic range (Hartfield 1990). Heavy sedimentation may
reduce food availability as well as adversely affect reproduction by smothering
nests and eggs (Ashton 1985). Dodd et al. (1988) documented that
sedimentation in the Upper Black Warrior River system led to decreased
abundance for many aquatic insects. These fine sediment particles may also
coat the gills of N. alabamensis, potentially reducing the efficiency of
The feeding habits of N. alabamensis are unknown, but discriminant
function analysis indicates that the presence of ephemeropterans and perhaps
trichopterans are significantly associated with the presence of Black
Warrior Waterdogs. Braswell and Ashton (1985) found that
ephemeropterans are important food items of N. lewisi, and the association
of Black Warrior Waterdogs with these aquatic insect taxa may indicate
trophic relationships. Alternatively, the association between N.
alabamensis and these aquatic insect larvae may indicate similar habitat
requirements. Both ephemeropteran and trichopteran larvae inhabit clear,
cold, free-flowing waters (Edmunds and Waltz 1995, Wiens 1996) as do
Black Warrior Waterdogs.
2006 M.C. Durflinger, C. Guyer, and M.A. Bailey 79
We observed a normal distribution of body length and mass in N.
alabamensis, as well as a lack of sexual dimorphism in body size. Therefore,
development time and age structure of N. alabamensis cannot be inferred
from these size data. The ranges of TL and body mass observed in our study
suggest that the Sipsey Fork population consists largely of sexually mature
individuals (46%). Studies of N. beyeri and N. maculosus (Rafinesque)
indicate that the average development time to sexual maturity is 5–6 years
(Bishop 1941, Petranka 1998). Average size for adult N. alabamensis (170–
190 mm) is similar to that of N. maculosus (175–200 mm; Pope 1944) and N.
beyeri (160–203 mm; Bishop 1943). The percentage of the population
comprising sexually mature individuals at Sipsey Fork is higher than that
observed in N. lewisi (34%) or N. punctatus (14%) (Fedak 1971). Similarly,
our observation of a 1:1 sex ratio of N. alabamensis at Sipsey Fork mirrors
that described for N. maculosus (Gibbons and Nelson 1968) and N.
punctatus (Meffe and Sheldon 1987). Our recapture data were too limited to
calculate population size. However, we captured Black Warrior Waterdogs
at a rate of 3 individuals per 10,000 trap hours, whereas Braswell and Ashton
(1985) captured N. lewisi at a rate of 6 individuals per 10,000 hours. Baited
minnow traps were used as the method of capture in both studies, so comparisons
should be reasonable. Both species appear to have extremely low
abundances or are extremely difficult to sample.
A species is defined as being rare by having a small geographic range,
restricted habitat use within that range, and small populations at those
locations where it is known to exist (Rabinowitz 1981). Following these
criteria, the restriction of Necturus alabamensis to the Upper Black Warrior
River basin, its patchy distribution within that range, and the small current
population sizes at those sites identify this species as rare relative to all three
components of rarity. These features document that N. alabamensis warrants
consideration for protection and that long-term monitoring of this species
and its key environmental variables will be required to retain it in the
landscape. Low levels of sediments and a periodic input of organic matter in
the form of dead leaves are optimal stream conditions for N. alabamensis.
However, increased levels of silviculture and mining in this region have the
potential to alter water chemistry, increase sediment loads, and decrease
organic input and leaf pack development within streams of the Upper Black
Warrior River basin (Dyer 1982, Knight and Newton 1977). The fact that N.
alabamensis appears locally abundant only at one site makes this species
particularly vulnerable to stochastic catastrophic events associated with
regional human activities. However, of the 45 sites without waterdogs, our
regional discriminant function model misclassified 17 sites, which suggests
that localities with suitable habitat features are available for translocation
projects or habitat management to encourage development of a broader
distribution of populations of similar density to that at Sipsey Fork.
80 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
We are grateful to Chris Adams, Erik Corredor, Matt Green, Marisa Lee-Sasser,
Keith Patton, Stacy Pugh-Towe, and Maggie Smith for assistance with field work.
Emmett Blankenship assisted with marking of animals. The staff at Camp McDowell,
especially Mark Johnston, provided us many courtesies that aided our ability to
perform research in the remote areas of the Bankhead National Forest. The text was
improved by suggestions from Jack Feminella, George Folkerts, and two anonymous
reviewers. However, all remaining faults are entirely our own. This research was
performed under Auburn University IACUC protocol numbers 9912-R-0835 and
Ashton, Jr., R.E. 1985. Field and laboratory observations on microhabitat selection,
movements, and home range of Necturus lewisi (Brimley). Brimleyana
Ashton, R.E., and J. Peavy. 1986. Black Warrior Waterdog. Pp. 63–64, In R.H. Mount
(Ed.). Vertebrate Animals of Alabama in Need of Special Attention. Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 124 pp.
Bailey, K.A., and C. Guyer. 1998. Demography and population status of the Flattened
Musk Turtle, Sternotherus depressus, in the Black Warrior River basin of
Alabama. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:77–83.
Bart, Jr., H.L., M.A. Bailey, R.E. Ashton, Jr., and P.E. Moler. 1997. Taxonomic and
nomenclatural status of the upper Black Warrior River Waterdog. Journal of
Bishop, S.C. 1941. The Salamanders of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin
Bishop, S.C. 1943. Handbook of Salamanders. Comstock Publishing Co., Inc.
Ithaca, NY. 555 pp.
Braswell, A.L., and R.E. Ashton, Jr. 1985. Distribution, ecology, and feeding habits
of Necturus lewisi (Brimley). Brimleyana 10:13–25.
Dodd, C.K., K.M. Enge, and J.N. Stuart. 1988. Aspects of the biology of the
Flattened Musk Turtle Sternotherus depressus in northern Alabama USA. Bulletin
of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences 34:1–64.
Dyer, K.L. 1982. Stream water quality in the coal region of Alabama and Georgia.
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Broomall, PA. General Technical Report NE-73. 109 pp.
Edmunds, Jr., G.F., and R.D. Waltz. 1995. Ephemeroptera. Pp. 126–163, In R.W.
Merritt and K.W. Cummins (Eds.). An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of
North America. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, IA. 862 pp.
Fedak, M.A. 1971. A comparative study of the life histories of Necturus lewisi
Brimley and Necturus punctatus Gibbes (Caudata: Proteidae) in North Carolina.
Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. Duke University, Durham, NC. 103 pp.
Gibbons, J.W., and S. Nelson, Jr. 1968. Observations of the mudpuppy, Necturus
maculosus, in a Michigan lake. American Midland Naturalist 80:562–564.
Hartfield, P. 1990. Status survey for mussels in the tributaries of the Black Warrior
River, Alabama. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. 8 pp.
2006 M.C. Durflinger, C. Guyer, and M.A. Bailey 81
Knight, A.L., and J.G. Newton. 1977. Water and related problems in coal-mine
areas of Alabama. US Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 76–
Meffe, G.K., and A.L. Sheldon. 1987. Habitat use by Dwarf Waterdogs (Necturus
punctatus) in South Carolina streams, with life history notes. Herpetologica
Neill, W.T. 1963. Notes on the Alabama Waterdog, Necturus alabamensis Viosca.
Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian
Institution Press. Washington DC. 587 pp.
Pope, C.H. 1944. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Chicago Area. Chicago Natural
History Museum Press, Chicago, IL. 275 pp.
Rabinowitz, D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. Pp. 205–217, In H. Synge (Ed.). The
Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Shoop, C.R. 1965. Aspects of reproduction in Louisiana Necturus populations.
American Midland Naturalist 74:357–367.
Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, CA. 776 pp.
SPSS, INC. 1999. SPSS Base 10.0 User’s Guide. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. 537 pp.
Viosca, Jr., P. 1937. A tentative revision of the genus Necturus with descriptions of
three new species from the southern Gulf drainage area. Copeia 1937:120–138.
Wiens, J.A. 1996. Wildlife in patchy environments: Metapopulations, mosaics, and
management. Pp. 53–84, In D.R. McCullough (Ed.). Metapopulations and Wildlife
Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. 429 pp.
82 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
Appendix 1. Sites sampled within the Black Warrior River basin of Alabama for use
in habitat analyses and analysis of current distribution of Necturus alabamensis. Site
number refers to locations pooled for habitat analyses at the regional scale (NS =
sites not sampled for analysis at regional scale but used for Necturus distribution).
Site letters refer to specific-localities sampled for Necturus and habitat data. TRS =
township, range, and section.
Site # Stream TRS County Necturus
1 Barbee Creek t18s r11w sec 20 Tuscaloosa No
2 Beckworth Creek t9s r1e sec 29 Cullman No
3a Big Mud Creek tl0s r3e sec 27 Marshall No
3b Big Mud Creek tl0s r3e sec 29 Blount No
4a Big Sandy Creek t24n r6e sec 14 Tuscaloosa No
4b Big Sandy Creek t24n r6e sec 20 Tuscaloosa No
5 Big Yellow Creek t17s r8w sec 17 Tuscaloosa No
6 Binton Creek t19s r11w sec l Tuscaloosa No
7a Blackburn Fork t13s r1e sec 30 Blount No
7b Blackburn Fork t13s r1w sec 13 Blount Yes
7c Blackburn Fork t14s r1e sec 5 Blount No
8a Blackwater Creek t13s r7w sec 15 Walker Yes
8b Blackwater Creek t13s r8w sec 13/24 Walker No
8c Blackwater Creek t13s r8w sec 16 Walker No
8d Blackwater Creek t12s r8w sec 32 Walker No
8e Blackwater Creek t14s r6w sec 23 Walker No
8f Blackwater Creek t12s r9w sec 17 Winston No
8g Blackwater Creek t11s r10w sec34 Winston No
8h Blackwater Creek t12s r9w sec 24 Walker No
8i Blackwater Creek t13s r8w sec 14 Walker No
9a Blevens Creek t9s r5w sec 17 Cullman No
9b Blevens Creek t9s r5w sec 29 Cullman No
9c Blevens Creek t10s r6w sec 11 Winston No
10 Blue Creek t18s r9w sec 15 Tuscaloosa No
11a Blue Springs Creek t11s r1w sec 22 Blount No
11b Blue Springs Creek t11s r1w sec 20 Blount No
12 Blue Water Creek t16s r9w sec13 Fayette No
13 Browns Creek t12s r9w sec 10/11 Winston Yes
14 Brushy Creek t9s r7w sec 23 Winston Yes
15a Buck Creek t24n r3e sec 22 Tuscaloosa No
15b Buck Creek t13s r8w sec 8 Walker No
16 Cabin Creek t9s r1e sec 17 Cullman No
17 Calvert Prong Creek t13s r1e sec6 Blount No
18 Cane Creek t15s r10w sec 32 Fayette No
19 Capsey Creek t9s r6w sec 18 Winston Yes
20 Carroll Creek t20s r10w sec 22 Tuscaloosa Yes
21a Clear Creek t10s r9w sec 8 Winston No
21b Clear Creek t11s r8w sec 19 Winston No
21c Clear Creek t16s r11w sec 2 Fayette No
21d Clear Creek t10s r3e sec 25 Marshall No
21e Clear Creek t10s r3e sec 34 Marshall No
22 Cripple Creek t18s r10w sec 6 Tuscaloosa No
2006 M.C. Durflinger, C. Guyer, and M.A. Bailey 83
Site # Stream TRS County Necturus
23a Crooked Creek t15s r3w sec 17 Jefferson No
23b Crooked Creek t10s r4w sec 6 Cullman No
23c Crooked Creek t11s r5w sec 3 Cullman No
23d Crooked Creek t9s r4w sec 32 Cullman No
23e Crooked Creek t20s r2w sec 2 Tuscaloosa No
24 Davis Creek t20s r2w sec 2 Tuscaloosa No
25 Dorsey Creek t13s r4w sec 20 Cullman No
26a Duck River t9s r1w sec 32 Cullman No
26b Duck River t10s r2w sec 25 Cullman No
27 Frost Creek t15s r9w sec 28 Walker No
28 Grant Creek t24n r4e sec 5 Tuscaloosa No
29a Gurley Creek t14s r2w sec 21 Jefferson No
29b Gurley Creek t14s r2w sec 23 Jefferson No
30 Guthrie Creek t15 r8w sec13 Walker Yes
31a Hurricane Creek t9s r1e sec 16 Cullman No
31b Hurricane Creek t9s r1e sec 21 Cullman No
32 Inman Creek t9s r7w sec 36 Winston No
33 Little Blackwater Creek t14s r6w sec 23 Walker Yes
34 Little Sandy Creek t22s r5e sec 26 Tuscaloosa No
35a Locust Fork t11s r3e sec 6 Blount No
35b Locust Fork t12s r3e sec 15 Blount No
35c Locust Fork t12s r1 w sec 29 Etowah No
35d Locust Fork t11s r3e sec 25 Etowah No
35e Locust Fork t11s r3e sec 14 Etowah No
35f Locust Fork t12s r3e sec 11 Etowah No
36a Lost Creek t14s r8w sec 7 Walker No
36b Lost Creek t14s r8w sec 27 Walker No
36c Lost Creek t14s r9w sec 2 Walker No
36d Lost Creek t13s r9w sec 29 Walker No
37 Lye Branch t24s r7e sec 5 Tuscaloosa Yes
38 Marriott Creek t12s r3w sec 33 Cullman No
39 Mill Creek t13s r9w sec 21 Walker No
40a Mud Creek t18s r6w sec 19 Jefferson No
40b Mud Creek t19s r6w sec 10 Cullman No
41 Mulberry Fork t11s r2w sec 13 Cullman Yes
42a North River t18s r10wsec 16 Tuscaloosa Yes
42b North River t15s r10w sec 32 Fayette No
42c North River t16s r10w sec 7 Fayette No
43 Pan Creek t10s r1e sec 7 Winston No
44a Rock Creek t9s r6w sec 23/26 Winston No
44b Rock Creek t9s r6w sec 23 Winston No
44c Rock Creek t11s r4w sec4 Cullman No
45 Rush Creek t9s r7w sec 10 Winston No
46a Ryan Creek tl0s r3w sec 31 Cullman No
46b Ryan Creek t11s r5w sec 3 Cullman No
46c Ryan Creek tl0s r3w sec 30 Cullman No
47a Sandy Creek tl0s r8w sec 11 Winston No
47b Sandy Creek tl0s r8w sec 10 Winston No
47c Sandy Creek tl0s r8w sec 5 Winston No
84 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 1
Site # Stream TRS County Necturus
47d Sandy Creek tl0s r8w sec 11 Winston No
48 Shoal Creek t18s r7w sec 22/27 Jefferson No
49 Short Creek t17s r5 w sec 18 Jefferson No
50a Sipsey Fork t9s r8w sec 8 Winston Yes
50b Sipsey Fork t9s r8w sec 34 Winston No
51a Slab Creek t9s r3e sec 33 Marshall Yes
51b Slab Creek tl0s r2e sec 12 Marshall No
52a Lewis Smith Lake t12s r7w sec 24 Winston No
52b Lewis Smith Lake t12s r7w sec 13 Winston No
53a Splunge Creek tl1s r9w sec 32 Winston No
53b Splunge Creek tl1s r10w sec24 Winston No
54 Sullivan Creek t13s r4w sec 33 Cullman No
55 Turkey Creek t15s r3w sec 13 Jefferson No
56a Valley Creek t18s r6w sec 23 Jefferson No
56b Valley Creek t18s r6w sec 10 Jefferson No
57 Village Creek t16s r5w sec 22 Jefferson No
58a Wolf Creek t14s r9w sec 34 Walker No
58b Wolf Creek t15s r9w sec 15 Walker No
59 Wynnville Creek t11s r2e sec 3 Blount No
60a Yellow Creek t19s r9w sec 22 Tuscaloosa Yes
60b Yellow Creek t20s r9w sec 2 Tuscaloosa No
NS Black Warrior River t11s r3e sec 6 Tuscaloosa No
NS Borden Creek t8s r8w sec 28 Lawrence No
NS Indian Creek t17s r8w sec 27 Walker No
NS Little Warrior River t13s r1w sec 13 Blount No
NS Little Warrior River t13s r1w sec 30 Blount No
NS Murphy Creek t13s r3w sec 11 Blount No
NS Thacker Creek t13s r3w sec 12 Cullman No