Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
2008 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 7(3):413–428
Reproductive and Early Life History of Nonindigenous
Red Shiner in the Chattahoochee River Drainage, Georgia
Steven J. Herrington1,2,* and Dennis R. DeVries1
Abstract - This study quantified the reproductive and early life-history characteristics
of nonindigenous populations of Cyprinella lutrensis (Red Shiner) introduced
into two tributaries of the Chattahoochee River, GA. Red Shiners had a maximum
age of at least two years and a peak breeding season from May through July, with
intermittent spawning in both populations. The presence of small individuals late in
the year suggests the potential for Red Shiners to spawn in their first summer of life
in both study streams. Whereas these life histories are similar to those previously
described for this species, these results suggest the potential for nonindigenous Red
Shiners to successfully expand and establish populations in additional areas within
the Chattahoochee River drainage.
Cyprinella lutrensis Baird and Girard (Red Shiner) is a small cyprinid
indigenous to the midwestern US (Page and Burr 1991), with nonindigenous
populations recorded from at least 12 states (Fuller et al. 1999).
Introductions have resulted from aquarium release (Jenkins and Burkhead
1994, Moore et al. 1976), bait release (Hubbs and Lagler 1964, Jennings
and Saiki 1990, Wallace and Ramsey 1982), fish-farm/pond escape (Hubbs
1954), stocking as forage (Shapovalov et al. 1959), dispersal from other
nonindigenous populations (Holden and Stalnaker 1975, Minckley 1973,
Moyle 2002), and other unknown pathways (Fuller et al. 1999). The majority
of these introductions have been in the western US, where Red Shiners
have been found to prey upon (Brandenburg and Gido 1999, Ruppert et al.
1993), compete with (Douglas et al. 1994, Greger and Deacon 1988), and
transmit parasites to (Deacon 1988, Heckmann et al. 1986, USFWS 1998)
Nonindigenous Red Shiners have recently established populations in
southeastern US waters. In addition to the effects noted above, this species
readily hybridizes with congeners (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Robison and
Buchanan 1988, Smith 1979), occasionally leading to large hybrid swarms
of continually backcrossing parentals and hybrids (Hubbs and Strawn 1956,
Page and Smith 1970). This situation can lead to the eventual replacement
of the hybrids and hybridizing parental species with Red Shiner (Page and
Smith 1970). Nonindigenous Red Shiners have the potential to hybridize
with at least eight native congeners in Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina
1Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, AL 36849.
2Current address - The Nature Conservancy, 10394 NW Longleaf Drive, Bristol, FL
32321. Corresponding author - email@example.com.
414 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
waters where it currently has established populations (Boschung and
Mayden 2004, Menhinick 1991). It has already been reported to hybridize
with C. venusta Girard (Blacktail Shiner; Boschung and Mayden 2004), C.
callitaenia Bailey and Gibbs (Bluestripe Shiner; Wallace and Ramsey 1982),
and the federally threatened C. caerulea Jordan (Blue Shiner; Burkhead and
Huge 2002) in the southeastern US.
While nonindigenous Red Shiner populations have been well-studied
in the western US since the mid-1950s (Douglas et al. 1994, Greger and
Deacon 1988, Hubbs 1954, Karp and Tyus 1990), there has been virtually
no research on its ecology and potential effects on native fishes in
the southeastern US. Considering the high fish diversity in these waters
(Lydeard and Mayden 1995), it is likely that Red Shiners interact with
native fishes on some ecological level. A primary step in understanding
these dynamics is examining the life history of the Red Shiner in its
nonindigenous range. Here we describe the life cycle and reproductive
ecology of two nonindigenous populations the species in the Chattahoochee
River drainage in Georgia.
Review of Red Shiner life history
The Red Shiner is a small (maximum total length [TL] = 9 cm) cyprinid
with an average lifespan of 2–3 years (Becker 1983). It occurs in
a variety of environments, ranging from small, headwater creeks, to large
rivers and reservoirs, occupying habitats ranging from shallow, swift water
to deep, backwater pools (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Herrington 2004,
Matthews 1985). Red Shiners feed opportunistically on stream and terrestrial
invertebrates, as well as algae and other plant material (Herrington
2004, Ross 2002, Sublette et al. 1990).
The Red Shiner matures rapidly and can reproduce within its first summer
of life (Marsh-Matthews et al. 2002). It is moderately fecund (Becker
1983, Burkhead and Huge 2002), but maximizes its reproductive potential
with an extended spawning season from late April through October, allowing
for rapid population increases (Farringer et. al. 1979, Jennings and Saiki
1990, Moyle 2002). The Red Shiner is also reproductively plastic, having
the ability to broadcast spawn in riffl es (Minckley 1972) or in vegetation
and brush (Smith 1979), crevice spawn (Gale 1986), and spawn over sunfish
nests (Minckley 1959, Pfl ieger 1997). It tolerates environmental extremes
such as low oxygen, high temperature, high acidity, and high turbidity better
than most North American cyprinids (Matthews and Hill 1977, Matthews
and Maness 1979). These life-history traits allow the Red Shiner to thrive in
harsh environmental conditions that preclude more sensitive species (Smith
1979, Sublette et al. 1990). In addition, it is considered a behaviorally aggressive
species (Karp and Tyus 1990, Minckley 1973) that can hybridize
with congeners (Etnier and Starnes 1993) and may out-compete native fishes
in degraded ecosystems (Page and Smith 1970).
2008 S.J. Herrington and D.R. DeVries 415
Red Shiners were collected from Proctor Creek (Fulton County,
GA, 33°47'39"N, 84°28'28"W) and Nickajack Creek (Cobb County, GA,
33°48'12"N, 84°31'17"W), both tributaries of the Chattahoochee River
in Georgia. Both streams are in the Piedmont physiographic province
(Mettee et al. 1996) and are separated from one another by 8 km. Proctor
Creek is a second-order stream at 231 m above sea level with a drainage
area of 35 km2. It is characterized by clear water and sand substrates, with
distinct riffle and pool habitats averaging 6 m wide and 0.6 m deep. Proctor
Creek flows through a residential and urban landscape with a history
of chemical and sewage waste pollution from the surrounding industry of
Atlanta, GA (DeVivo 1995). Nickajack Creek is a third-order stream at
227 m above sea level with a drainage area of 81.6 km2. It is characterized
by clear water and sand and gravel substrates, with distinct riffle and
pool habitats averaging 10 m wide and 0.9 m deep. Nickajack Creek flows
through primarily residential landscape in greater northwest Atlanta, GA
Fish diversity varies markedly between the two streams. Proctor Creek
has low fish diversity (≈10 spp.), with Red Shiner dominant and often the
only cyprinid captured in recent surveys (Couch et al. 1995, DeVivo 1995).
In contrast, Nickajack Creek has relatively high fish diversity (≈23 spp.;
Herrington 2004). Although Red Shiners are numerically dominant, five other
cyprinid species are common to Nickajack Creek, including Campostoma
pauciradii Burr and Cashner (Bluefin Stoneroller), Nocomis leptocephalus
Girard (Bluehead Chub), Luxilus zonistius Jordan (Bandfin Shiner), Notropis
buccatus Cope (Silverjaw Minnow), and Notropis longirostris Hay (Longnose
Shiner) (Couch et al. 1995).
Reproductive and somatic characteristics
Red Shiners were collected monthly from each stream from 0900 to 1200
hours in all available habitats (i.e., riffl es, pools, and instream structure)
between May 2002 and May 2003 using a backpack electrofisher (Model
LR-24; Smith-Root, Inc. Water temperature was measured on the day of fish
collection using a digital thermometer. Fish were euthanatized in MS-222
(tricaine methanesulfonate), fixed in a 10% unbuffered formalin solution,
and stored in 70% ethanol for 6–9 days before being transferred to Gilson’s
Fluid (see below). Sex, standard length (SL), and mass were quantified in
the laboratory. Sex was determined by examining gonads of dissected specimens.
The SL of all specimens was measured (nearest 0.1 mm) using digital
calipers. Total, eviscerated somatic, and gonad wet masses of specimens >30
mm SL were determined by blotting them dry and weighing them (nearest
Seasonal changes in gonad mass for both sexes were quantified using
the gonadosomatic index (GSI), calculated as 100 times the gonad mass of
416 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
a specimen divided by its eviscerated somatic mass (Strange 1996). After
dissection, ovaries were stored separately in modified Gilson’s Fluid for
approximately three months to aid in egg separation before subsequent
measurement and counting (Kelso and Rutherford 1996). All mature ova
were counted, and sizes were measured from a sample of mature females
from each study stream. Ovaries were removed from the Gilson’s Fluid,
rinsed with tap water, and transferred to Petri dishes. Mature and immature
ova were separated using forceps and fine dissection probes. Ova were considered
mature if they were large, opaque, and yellowish in color; in contrast,
immature ova were small, thin, and translucent in color (sensu Heins
and Baker 1993). Once separated, mature ova were positioned so as not
to be touching one another and photographed using a digital camera with
Win/TV 4.05 image capture software (Happauge Computer Works 1996).
Images were analyzed using ImageTool 2.0 (UTHSCSA 1996) to calculate
the total number of eggs and diameter of each ovum per image. Diameters
of mature ova were estimated by averaging maximum and minimum dimensions,
as ova were occasionally irregularly shaped due to preservation
(sensu Heins and Baker 1993).
Deviations of the stream-specific sex ratio of Red Shiners from 1:1
and differences in sex ratios between streams were tested with chi-square
analyses with Yate’s correction for continuity. Length-frequency distributions
were used to estimate age-classes and the presence of age-0 recruits
to the populations (MacDonald 1987). Between-stream differences
in breeding and non-breeding season GSI values were analyzed using
separate 2-way ANOVAs with Bonferroni’s multiple comparison tests for
males and females. Breeding season was determined by examining trends
in gonad development and GSI for both sexes. Months with mature gonads
and high GSI values for fish were considered the breeding season,
while months with immature gonad development and low GSI values
were considered the non-breeding season. Differences in total number of
mature ova per specimen between study streams was analyzed using ANCOVA
with SL as a covariate to account for differences in total mature
ova related to fish size. To quantify the relationship between mean ovum
diameter and SL, we first averaged the 30 largest mature ova of 19 and 27
female Red Shiners from Proctor and Nickajack creeks, respectively, resulting
in one mean diameter value per specimen, which we regressed on
SL. Between-stream differences in mean ovum diameters of Red Shiners
were analyzed using either a t-test or an ANCOVA with SL as a covariate.
Differences in eviscerated somatic body mass per stream were log10+1
transformed to achieve normality and then analyzed using ANCOVA with
SL as a covariate. All statistical comparisons were performed with SPSS
11.5 (SPSS Inc. 2002) and Programs for Ecological Methodology 6.1
(Kenney and Krebs 2002) at the P ≤ 0.05 significance level.
2008 S.J. Herrington and D.R. DeVries 417
Both sexes of Red Shiner from both streams were captured in shallow,
swift-fl owing riffl es during April 2002 through November 2002, then
in deeper, slower-fl owing water in pooling areas during December 2002
through March 2003, and again in riffl es during April 2003 through May
2003. Water temperatures were similar between streams over the sample
period (Fig. 1). A total of 1540 and 612 Red Shiners were collected from
Proctor and Nickajack creeks, respectively, of which 926 and 404, respectively,
were dissected and sexed during the study period. The male-to-female
sex ratio did not differ from 1:1 (chi-square = 0.57, P > 0.50) in Proctor
Creek; but was significantly skewed towards females in Nickajack Creek
(at 0.63:1, chi-square = 19.60, P < 0.001). Sex ratios differed significantly
between streams (chi-square = 16.91, P < 0.001).
The largest Red Shiner individuals (SL) collected were 75.9 mm in Proctor
Creek (June 2002) and 67.7 mm in Nickajack Creek (May 2003). The
smallest Red Shiners (SL) collected were 12.3 mm in Proctor Creek (August
2002) and 12.8 mm in Nickajack Creek (January 2003). Sexually mature
males had prominent breeding colors, tubercles, and enlarged, opaque white
testes, consistent with descriptions for central Great Plains US populations
Figure 1. Monthly temperature of Proctor and Nickajack Creeks between May 2002
and May 2003.
418 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
(see Matthews 1995). Males exhibited breeding conditions as early as April
and as late as November in both streams. The smallest mature males (SL)
were 30.1 mm in Proctor Creek (May 2002) and 31.6 mm in Nickajack Creek
(June 2002). Females were considered sexually mature if mature ova were
Figure 2 (above and opposite page). Monthly length-frequency histograms of Cyprinella
lutrensis (Red Shiner) in Proctor and Nickajack Creeks between May 2002
and May 2003.
2008 S.J. Herrington and D.R. DeVries 419
present in their ovaries. Females were sexually mature as early as April and
as late as September in both streams. The smallest mature females (SL) were
30.5 mm in Proctor Creek (May 2003) and 34.1 mm in Nickajack Creek
Length-frequency distributions indicated two age-0 modes in both
streams in certain months, though their appearance differed by location
(Fig. 2). In Proctor Creek during August 2002, one mode was near 16 mm
420 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
while the other was near 22 mm. The first mode appeared in early July 2002,
indicating that spawning began in June, while the second mode appeared in
early August 2002, indicating a second distinct spawning event that occurred
in July. Age-0 modes were not apparent in Nickajack Creek until October
2002, with one near 20 mm and another near 32 mm. These size classes
roughly matched those in Proctor Creek in October 2002, so it is likely that
these modes were present but undetected in Nickajack Creek from June
2002 through September 2002 samples. Therefore, spawning events likely
occurred during similar times in both streams. Length-frequency histograms
also showed a maximum age of at least two years for Red Shiners in both
streams, with presence of age-1 and age-2 year classes best exhibited in 2
May 2002 histograms (Fig. 2).
Analysis of GSI values for both sexes indicate at least a three-month
breeding season in both streams. GSI values were high relative to other
months from May 2002 through July 2002 (i.e., the breeding season)
(Fig. 3). These GSI values decreased in August 2002 through early September,
and remained low until the following March (i.e., the non-breeding
season). GSI values subsequently increased in April 2003 and again in May
2003 (Fig. 3).
May through July was considered the breeding season and September
through March was considered the non-breeding season for subsequent breeding-
season analyses. August 2002 and April 2003 were transitional months in
gonadal development for Red Shiners and therefore were not included in the
analyses. Although temporal patterns of gonadal investment were similar for
Red Shiners in both streams, proportional investment differed by both stream
and season. Females from Proctor Creek had significantly higher mean GSI
values during both the breeding (p < 0.001) and non-breeding (p < 0.001)
seasons than those from Nickajack Creek (F3, 18 = 94.2, p < 0.001). Similarly,
males from Proctor Creek had significantly higher mean GSI values during
both the breeding (p < 0.01) and non-breeding (p < 0.05) seasons than those
from Nickajack Creek (F3, 18 = 80.1, p < 0.05).
Females contained three distinct size classes of ova: (1) very small, thin,
and translucent (immature ova); (2) small and semi-translucent (immature
ova); and (3) large, opaque, and yellowish (mature ova). The total number
mass, and diameter of mature ova differed by stream. The mean number of
mature ova per female (adjusted for SL) was higher in Proctor Creek (mean
= 925, SD = 374, range = 365–1542) than Nickajack Creek (mean = 305, SD
= 119, range = 127–591) (ANCOVA: F1, 43 = 128.7, P < 0.001). Ova mass
per female (adjusted for SL) also was higher in Proctor Creek (mean = 0.43
g, SD = 0.17) than Nickajack Creek (mean = 0.14 g, SD = 0.06) (ANCOVA:
F1, 43 = 130.0, P < .001). There was no relationship between mean ovum diameter
and SL from Proctor (F = 0.80; P = 0.384) or Nickajack Creek (F =
0.09; P = 0.770). Ovum diameters per female were ≈7% larger in Nickajack
Creek (mean = 0.70 mm, SE = 0.01) than Proctor Creek (mean = 0.65 mm,
SE = 0.01) (t1, 45 = 5.60, P = 0.022).
2008 S.J. Herrington and D.R. DeVries 421
Eviscerated somatic masses (ESMs) of Red Shiners differed between
streams and between seasons. Females from Proctor Creek had higher
SL-adjusted ESMs during the breeding (mean = 2.22 g, SD = 1.31) than
Figure 3. Monthly gonadosomatic index (GSI) values of female and male Cyprinella
lutrensis (Red Shiner) from Proctor and Nickajack Creeks between May 2002 and
May 2003. Error bars indicate standard deviations.
422 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
the non-breeding season (mean = 1.19, SD = 0.96); (ANCOVA: F1, 310 =
22.35, P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in SLadjusted
ESMs between the breeding (mean = 1.80 g, SD = 1.37) and
non-breeding (mean = 1.86 g, SD = 0.73) seasons for females from Nickajack
Creek (ANCOVA: F1, 176 = 0.22, P = 0.637). Males from Proctor Creek
had higher SL-adjusted ESMs during the breeding (mean = 2.55g, SD =
1.72) than the non-breeding (mean = 1.06 g, SD = 0.57) season (ANCOVA:
F1, 252 = 41.5, P < 0.001). Similarly, males from Nickajack had higher SLadjusted
ESMs during the breeding (mean = 1.80 g, SD = 0.42) than the
non-breeding (mean = 1.57 g, SD = 0.84) season (ANCOVA: F1, 125 = 27.2,
P < 0.001). Females from Proctor Creek had higher SL-adjusted ESMs
than those from Nickajack Creek during the breeding season (ANCOVA:
F1, 237 = 68.9, P < 0.001) as well as during the non-breeding season (ANCOVA:
F1, 249 = 12.1, P = .001). Although males from Proctor Creek had higher
SL-adjusted ESMs than those from Nickajack Creek during the breeding
season (ANCOVA: F1, 179 = 60.8, P < 0.001), males from Nickajack Creek
had higher SL-adjusted ESMs than those from Proctor Creek during the
non-breeding season (ANCOVA: F1, 198 = 17.3, P < .001).
The reproductive and early life histories of Red Shiners in Proctor and
Nickajack creeks were similar to those previously reported elsewhere for this
species (Farringer et. al. 1979, Jennings and Saiki 1990, Marsh-Matthews et
al. 2002). Although direct observations of reproductive behavior were not
made, spawning probably occurred in riffl es given that reproductively mature
Red Shiners were almost exclusively captured in this habitat during the
breeding season (Herrington 2004). Red Shiners likely broadcast-spawned
over gravel substrates in riffl es, as reproductively mature individuals were
almost never found in pools, and riffl es seldom contained debris needed for
typical crevice spawning . In addition, eggs (presumably Red Shiner, based
on size and appearance) were present in substrate samples examined from
riffl es during the breeding season in both streams (Herrington 2004). This
spawning mode is relatively uncommon for Red Shiner in its native (Pfl ieger
1997) and introduced (Minckley 1972) ranges.
Where known, all members of the genus Cyprinella spawn in crevices
(Mayden 1989). Because many of the Cyprinella spp. that currently are or
may become sympatric with Red Shiner in the southeastern US have only
been reported to spawn in crevices, it is possible that sympatric congeners
may not be susceptible to hybridization resulting from reproductive segregation
from broadcast-spawning Red Shiners described herein. However, a
hybrid between Red Shiner and Bluestripe Shiner, a species of Cyprinella
only reported to spawn in crevices (Wallace and Ramsey 1981), has been
described from the Chattahoochee River (Wallace and Ramsey 1982). In
spawning substrate choice experiments, Vives (1993) reported that Red
Shiners do not preferentially crevice spawn over other spawning modes.
2008 S.J. Herrington and D.R. DeVries 423
Vives (1993) also proposed that other Cyprinella spp. only known to spawn
in crevices may have the ability to spawn in other ways, citing previously
unreported observations of broadcast spawning of C. formosa Girard (Beautiful
Shiners) and C. spiloptera Cope (Spotfin Shiners). Hybridization of
natives with nonindigenous Red Shiner therefore appears possible given
the previously reported hybrids, reproductive plasticity of Red Shiner, and
potential reproductive plasticity of other Cyprinella species.
Although the Red Shiner population in Proctor Creek had a 1:1 sex ratio,
the population from Nickajack Creek was skewed towards females. Skewed
sex ratios can result from factors such as sexual differences in activity
(Semlitsch et al. 1981), habitat use (Keenlyne 1972), and sampling error or
bias. Red Shiners appeared to have a maximum age of at least two years and
an extended spawning season, with peak spawning periods from early May
through July. These results are similar to other native and introduced populations
throughout its range (Becker 1983, Farringer et al. 1979, Moyle 2002,
Ross 2002, Smith 1979). April was a period of gonadal investment while
August was a period of gonadal reduction; however, it was possible that
reproduction continued late into the summer as sexually mature individuals
of both sexes were present, albeit sporadically, in September collections
from both streams. Interestingly, Red Shiners <15 mm were collected as
late as December 2002 in Nickajack Creek. According to Saksena (1962),
Red Shiner eggs hatch in 3–4 days and larvae reach 15 mm SL in 34 days
under laboratory conditions between 25 and 27.8 °C. The temperatures of
Nickajack Creek on 8 September and 8 October 2002 were 26 and 23 °C,
respectively, and a dramatic decrease in temperature was not measured until
November 2002. Small individuals collected in December 2003 thus might
have hatched between September and October 2002.
Similar suggestions of late autumnal spawning in natural populations
have been made by Fausch and Bestgen (1997) and Matthews (1998) based
on collections of individuals 14–15 mm SL in late winter and early spring.
Marsh-Matthews et al. (2002) found newly-hatched Red Shiner larvae in
experimental stream tanks in Oklahoma as late as 25 October 1999 at a
temperature of 15 °C, approximately the temperature recorded in Nickajack
Creek on 7 November 2002. Those offspring were parented by Red Shiners
hatched earlier that season (18–19 May 1999) that had reached sexual maturity
by 29 August 1999, of which three females, 28–31 mm SL, contained
mature to ripe ova (Marsh-Matthews et al. 2002). Because similar-sized,
sexually mature Red Shiners were present in both Proctor and Nickajack
creeks by September 2002 (Fig. 2), it is possible that age-0 Red Shiners can
spawn within their first summer of life in these streams.
The presence of three size classes of ova suggests intermittent spawning
throughout the breeding season, a typical pattern for the genus and species
(Boschung and Mayden 2004, Mayden 1989). Average batch fecundity of
Red Shiners (i.e., number of mature ova) in this study was similar to those
reported throughout its native range. For example, Laser and Carlander
424 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
(1971) examined Red Shiners in Iowa and reported batch fecundity to be
485–684 eggs, whereas Red Shiners from Texas had a range of 164–912 (Islam
1972), similar to the range of 127–591 for Red Shiners from Nickajack
Creek. Although Red Shiners from Proctor Creek often had considerably
higher values (range = 365–1542) than these native populations, fecundities
were variable and their ranges overlapped substantially. Average egg diameters
in Proctor and Nickajack creeks were smaller compared to those in its
native range. Red Shiners had average mature ovum diameters of 0.8 mm in
Kansas (Cavin 1962), 1.0 mm in Missouri (Gale 1986), and 1.2 mm in New
Mexico populations (Sublette et al. 1990), compared with 0.65 and 0.70 mm
in Proctor and Nickajack creeks, respectively. These differences probably
refl ect preservation effects (which differed across studies) as storage media
such as concentrated alcohol can significantly reduce mass (and therefore
size) of ova in fishes (Heins and Baker 1999).
Red Shiners from Proctor Creek had higher GSI values, egg masses, total
number of mature ova, and ESMs than those from Nickajack Creek during
both the breeding and non-breeding seasons. As expected, ESMs for Red
Shiners in both streams were generally higher in breeding versus non-breeding
seasons, given that available food resources (i.e., aquatic and terrestrial
invertebrates) tend to be more abundant in warmer than cooler months (Merritt
and Cummins 1996). Although the differences in somatic masses were
generally small, differences for GSI values, egg masses, and total number of
mature ova were large. These results suggested that Red Shiners from Proctor
Creek were in better physiological condition than those from Nickajack
Creek during all seasons.
Nonindigenous Red Shiners occur in at least seven tributaries in the
upper Chattahoochee River drainage (Couch et al. 1995) and appear to be
expanding in distribution (S.J. Herrington, unpubl. data). Considering its
generalist ecology, this species might be able to establish populations in both
high- and low-diversity systems within this drainage, and will likely spread
farther south into new areas. Given their current persistence and success in
the upper Chattahoochee River system, Red Shiners pose a serious conservation
threat to the high diversity of fishes in the southeastern US. Further
research examining other aspects of this species’ ecology and its interactions
with native fishes are necessary to better understand its patterns and effects
on native biota in these systems.
We would like to thank the Alabama Fisheries Association for funding support
and Jonathan Armbruster, F. Stephen Dobson, Jack Feminella, Craig Guyer, William
Matthews, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript.
We would also like to thank Jonathan Armbruster, David Bayne, and Wendy Seesock
for loaning field equipment; Karen Herrington, Rob Carpenter, Brian Helms, Jeff Jolley,
John Knight, Paul Pera, Nick Tripple, and Dave Werneke for field support; and
Courtney Ford and Sam Pack for laboratory assistance.
2008 S.J. Herrington and D.R. DeVries 425
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,
WI. 1052 pp.
Boschung, H.T., Jr., and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institute
Press, Washington, DC. 736 pp.
Brandenburg, W.H., and K.B. Gido. 1999. Predation by nonnative fish on native
fishes in the San Juan River, New Mexico and Utah. Southwestern Naturalist
Burkhead, N.M., and D.H. Huge. 2002. The case of the Red Shiner: What happens
when a fish goes bad? United States Geological Survey. Available online at http://
shiner_research.html. Accessed October 26, 2007.
Cavin, L.M. 1962. Natural history of the cyprinid fishes Notropis lutrensis (Baird
and Girard) and Notropis camurus (Jordan and Meek). M.Sc. Thesis. University
of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 50 pp.
Couch, C.A., J.C. DeVivo, and B.J. Freeman. 1995. What fish live in the streams of
metropolitan Atlanta? US Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment
Program, Atlanta, GA. Fact sheet FS-091-95. 4 pp.
Deacon, J.E. 1988. The endangered Woundfin and water management in the Virgin
River, Utah, Arizona, Nevada. Fisheries 13:18–29.
DeVivo, J.C. 1995. Impact of introduced Red Shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis, on stream
fishes near Atlanta, Georgia. Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources
Douglas, M.E., P.C. Marsh, and W.L. Minckley. 1994. Indigenous fishes of western
North America and the hypothesis of competitive displacement: Meda fulgida
(Cyprinidae) as a case study. Copeia 1994:9–19.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN. 681 pp.
Farringer III, R.T., A.A. Echelle, and S.F. Lehtinen. 1979. Reproductive cycle of
the Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis, in central Texas and south central Oklahoma.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:271–276.
Fausch, K.D., and K.R. Bestgen. 1997. Ecology of fishes indigenous to the central
and southwestern Great Plains. Pp. 131–166, In F.L. Knopf and F.B. Samson
(Eds.). Ecology and Conservation of Great Plains Vertebrates. Ecological Studies
125. Spinger-Verlag, New York, NY. 339 pp.
Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes Introduced
into Inland Waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special
Publication 27, Bethesda, MD. 613 pp.
Gale, W.F. 1986. Indeterminate fecundity and spawning behavior of captive Red
Shiners—fractional, crevice spawners. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Greger, P.D., and J.E. Deacon. 1988. Food partitioning among fishes of the Virgin
River. Copeia 1988:314–323.
Happauge Computer Works. 1996. Win/TV 4.05. Happauge, NY.
Heckmann, R.A., P.D. Greger, and J.E. Deacon. 1986. Parasites of the Woundfin
Minnow, Plagopterus argentissimus, and other endemic fishes from the Virgin
River, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 46:662–676.
Heins, D.C., and J.A. Baker. 1993. Reproductive biology of the Brighteye Darter,
Etheostoma lynceum (Teleostei: Percidae), from the Homochitto River, Mississippi.
Ichthyological Explorations of Freshwaters 4:11–20.
426 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
Heins, D.C., and J.A. Baker. 1999. Evaluation of ovum storage techniques for reproductive
studies of fishes. Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 8:65–69.
Herrington, S.J. 2004. Ecology and impacts of nonindigenous Red Shiner in the
Chattahoochee River drainage, Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auburn University,
AL. 157 pp.
Holden, P.B., and C.B. Stalnaker. 1975. Distribution and abundance of mainstream
fishes of the middle and upper Colorado River basins, 1967–1973. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 104:217–231.
Hubbs, C.L. 1954. Establishment of a forage fish, the Red Shiner (Notropis lutrensis),
in the lower Colorado River system. California Fish and Game 40:287–294.
Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes region. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 213 pp.
Hubbs, C., and K. Strawn. 1956. Interfertility between two sympatric fishes, Notropis
lutrensis and Notropis venustus. Evolution 10:341–344.
Islam, M.A. 1972. The effect of temperature on the reproduction of Red Shiner,
Notropis lutrensis (Baird and Girard). Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX. 66 pp.
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 1079 pp.
Jennings, M.R., and M.K. Saiki. 1990. Establishment of Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis,
in the San Joaquin Valley, California. California Fish and Game 76:46–57.
Karp, C.A., and H.M. Tyus. 1990. Behavioral interactions between young Colorado
squawfish and six fish species. Copeia 1990:25–34.
Keenlyne, K. 1972. Sexual differences in the feeding habits of Crotalus horridus
horridus. Journal of Herpetology 6:234–237.
Kelso, W.E., and D.A. Rutherford. 1996. Collection, preservation, and identification
of fish eggs and larvae. Pp. 255–302, In B.R. Murphy and D.W. Willis (Eds.).
Fisheries Techniques, 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Kenney, A.J., and C.J. Krebs. 2002. Ecological methodology software 6.1. Exeter
Software, Setauket, NY.
Laser, K.D., and K.D. Carlander. 1971. Life history of Red Shiners, Notropis lutrensis,
in the Skunk River, central Iowa. Iowa State Journal of Science 45:557–
Lydeard, C., and R.L. Mayden. 1995. A diverse and endangered aquatic ecosystem of
the southeastern United States. Conservation Biology 9:800–805.
MacDonald, P. D. M. 1987. Analysis of length-frequency distributions. Pp. 371–384,
In R.C. Summerfelt and G.E. Hall (Eds.). Age and Growth of Fish. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA. 544 pp.
Marsh-Matthews, E., W.J. Matthews, K.B. Gido, and R.L. Marsh. 2002. Reproduction
by young-of-year Red Shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) and its implications for
invasion success. Southwestern Naturalist 47:605–610.
Matthews, W.J. 1985. Distribution of midwestern fishes on multivariate environmental
gradients, with emphasis on Notropis lutrensis. Journal of Fish Biology
Matthews, W.J. 1995. Geographic variation in nuptial colors of Red Shiner
(Cyprinella lutrensis; Cyprinidae) within the United States. Southwestern Naturalist
Matthews, W.J. 1998. Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology. Chapman and Hall, New
York, NY. 790 pp.
2008 S.J. Herrington and D.R. DeVries 427
Matthews, W.J., and L.G. Hill. 1977. Tolerance of the Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis
(Cyprinidae) to environmental parameters. Southwestern Naturalist 22:89–98.
Matthews, W.J., and J.D. Maness. 1979. Critical thermal maxima, oxygen tolerances,
and success of cyprinid fishes in a southwestern river. American Midland Naturalist
Mayden, R.L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis
on the genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Miscellaneous Publications
of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 80:1–189.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of
North America, 3rd Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.
Mettee, M.F., P.E. O’Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile
basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, AL. 820 pp.
Minckley, W.L. 1959. Fishes of the Big Blue River basin, Kansas. Publications of the
University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 11:401–442.
Minckley, W.L. 1972. Notes on the spawning behavior of Red Shiner, introduced into
Burro Creek, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 17:101–103.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department, Phoenix,
AZ. 293 pp.
Moore, R.H., R.A. Garrett, and P.J. Wingate. 1976. Occurrence of the Red Shiner,
Notropis lutrensis, in North Carolina: A probable aquarium release. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 105:220–221.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Los
Angeles, CA. 612 pp.
Page, L.M., and B.R. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes in North
America North of Mexico. Houghton Miffl in, Boston, MA. 432 pp.
Page, L.M., and R.L. Smith. 1970. Recent range adjustments and hybridization of
Notropis lutrensis and Notropis spilopterus in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois
Academy of Science 63:264–272.
Pfl ieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri, 2nd Edition (revised). Missouri Department
of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 343 pp.
Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas
Press, Fayetteville, AR. 536 pp.
Ross, S.T. 2002. The inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi,
Jackson, MS. 624 pp.
Ruppert, J.B., R.T. Muth, and T.P. Nesler. 1993. Predation on fish larvae by adult
Red Shiner, Yampa and Green rivers, Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist
Saksena, V.P. 1962. The post-hatching stages of Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis. Copeia
Semlitsch, R.D., K.L. Brown, and J.P. Caldwell. 1981. Habitat utilization, seasonal
activity, and population size structure of the Southeastern Crowned Snake Tantilla
coronata. Herpetologica 37:40–46.
Shapovalov, L., W.A. Dill, and A.J. Cordone. 1959. A revised check list of the
freshwater and anadromous fishes of California. California Fish and Game
Smith, P.W. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
428 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3
SPSS Inc. 2002. SPSS base 11.5 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
Strange, R.J. 1996. Field examination of fishes. Pp. 433–446, In B.R. Murphy and
D.W. Willis (Eds.). Fisheries Techniques, 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD. 732 pp.
Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. New
Mexico Department of Fish and Game, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,
NM. 393 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Little Colorado River Spinedace,
Lepidomeda vittata, recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,
NM. 32 pp.
The University of Texas Health Science Center (UTHSCSA). 1996. Image tool 2.0.,
San Antonio, TX.
Vives, S.P. 1993. Choice of spawning substrate in Red Shiner with comments on
crevice spawning in Cyprinella. Copeia 1993:229–232.
Wallace, R.K., Jr., and J.S. Ramsey. 1981. Reproductive behavior and biology
of the Bluestripe Shiner (Notropis callitaenia). American Midland Naturalist
Wallace, R.K., Jr., and J.S. Ramsey. 1982. A new cyprinid hybrid, Notropis lutrensis
x N. callitaenia, from the Apalachicola drainage in Alabama. Copeia 1982:214–