2008 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 7(3):459–474 Status of the Imperiled Frecklebelly Madtom, Noturus munitus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae): A Review of Data from Field Surveys, Museum Records, and the Literature Micah G. Bennett1,2,*, Bernard R. Kuhajda1, and J. Heath Howell1 Abstract – Noturus munitus (Frecklebelly Madtom), is a diminutive catfish restricted to large rivers in the Mobile Basin and Pearl River drainages in the southeastern United States. We conducted surveys of 13 major tributaries of the Alabama, Cahaba, and Tombigbee river systems in the Mobile Basin to determine use of tributaries by N. munitus. Our surveys found only one specimen in Oakmulgee Creek, a large tributary to the Cahaba River and one of the few rivers in which stable populations of N. munitus remain. We combine results from our recent survey with a review of the literature and museum records for N. munitus throughout its range to present a consolidated status report. Our review indicates that N. munitus is currently greatly reduced from its former range, and is in decline in most of the drainages it still inhabits. We recommend federal protection for the species under the Endangered Species Act. We also provide suggestions for future research and management actions for the species. Introduction Madtoms (genus Noturus) are a group of diminutive catfishes endemic to North America, with over 50% of the 29 described species considered imperiled and with eight or more undescribed forms (Burr and Stoeckel 1999, Thomas and Burr 2004, Warren et al. 2000). One of these species is Noturus munitus Suttkus and Taylor (Frecklebelly Madtom), a boldly patterned, robust madtom with a disjunct distribution in the Pearl River drainage and the Mobile Basin (upper Tombigbee, Cahaba, and upper Coosa river drainages) (Fig. 1; Supplementary Table 1, available only online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/S593.s1; Boschung and Mayden 2004; Warren et al. 2000). Noturus munitus is usually found over gravel shoals in large and medium-sized rivers. Since its description (Suttkus and Taylor 1965), N. munitus has received some attention from researchers, with aspects of diet and reproductive condition having been examined to varying degrees (e.g., Miller 1984, Trauth et al. 1981), but no substantial life-history study has been conducted. This lack of data is likely due to the fish’s patchy distribution and the difficulty of sampling its preferred large-river habitat. Noturus munitus was once a candidate species for federal protection, but has not been reconsidered since Stewart’s (1989) status 1University of Alabama Ichthyological Collection, Department of Biological Sciences, Box 870345, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345. 2Current address - Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103-2010. *Corresponding author - micahgbennett@yahoo.com. 460 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 review recommended no federal protection at that time. While there is little peer-reviewed literature concerning the species, there have been several surveys conducted throughout its range since the federal review in the late 1980s. Herein we: 1) synthesize results from surveys for N. munitus from peer-reviewed literature, government and other unpublished reports, and museum records, 2) provide data from our recent surveys for N. munitus in the Alabama, Cahaba and Tombigbee river drainages, and 3) give suggestions for protection, management actions, and future research. Methods Literature review Several surveys for N. munitus have been conducted in the last decade, but most have not been published in peer-reviewed literature. Herein we present up-to-date and consolidated information on the status of N. munitus across its range, providing summaries of five field studies of N. munitus from both peer-reviewed journals and unpublished reports. We also compiled museum collection data from Auburn University (AU), Tulane University (TU), University of Alabama Ichthyological Collection (UAIC), and University of Florida (UF) databases to qualitatively examine relative historical and recent abundances (Table 1; Supplementary Table 1, available only online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/S593.s1). Figure 1. Collections of Noturus munitus (Frecklebelly Madtom) based on museum and survey records. Open circles = collections from 1950 to 1980. Filled triangles = collections from 1981 to present. 2008 M.G. Bennett, B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell 461 Table 1. Number of collections containing Noturus munitus over time based on museum records from Tulane University (TU) and the University of Alabama Ichthyological Collection (UAIC) at selected sites for which multiple records across decades were available. NC = no collections. Number of collections with N. munitus (specimens) River System Museum Locality 1960–70 1971–80 1981–90 1991–Present Alabama TU Alabama River at Wilcox Bar 2 of 24 (8) 0 of 35 0 of 33 0 of 35 Alabama River at Evans Upper Bar 1 of 27 (1) 0 of 33 0 of 34 0 of 38 Alabama River at Ohio Bar 1 of 7 (5) NC NC 0 of 1 Alabama River at Stein Island 3 of 11 (20) 0 of 9 0 of 8 0 of 12 Alabama River at Taits Bar 1 of 24 (8) 0 of 34 0 of 33 0 of 25 Alabama River at Yellow Jacket Bar 2 of 25 (7) 0 of 35 0 of 31 0 of 52 Upper Tombigbee TU Tombigbee River, 9 mi NW Columbus near Hwy 50 7 of 12 (826) 0 of 1 NC NC UAIC Tombigbee River near Vienna 2 of 4 (28) 3 of 6 (104) 0 of 4 NC Sipsey River at US Hwy 82 0 of 12 1 of 8 (2) 1 of 10 (1) 0 of 8 Buttahatchie River near mouth 0 of 1 0 of 2 0 of 1 2 of 3 (7) Bull Mountain Creek 0 of 1 1 of 3 (4) 0 of 3 0 of 1 Cahaba TU Cahaba River near Hwy 183/14 4 of 9 (21) NC NC 0 of 2 Cahaba River near Centreville 0 of 3 0 of 1 1 of 2 (1) NC UAIC Cahaba River near Hwy 183/14 NC 1 of 3 (1) 1 of 9 (1) 15 of 23 (220) Cahaba River at US Hwy 82 0 of 2 NC 0 of 6 6 of 19 (8) 462 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 Field survey From summer 2006 to spring 2007, we sampled six tributaries to the Alabama River in addition to a main channel site, three tributaries to the Cahaba River, and four to the Tombigbee River (Fig. 2, Table 2). Sample sites were selected based on drainage area (e.g., we chose the three largest Coastal Plain tributaries to the Cahaba River), presence of frequently cooccurring species (e.g., Crystallaria asprella (Jordan) [Crystal Darter]), and potential for gravel substrates based on previous known collections. All collections were made at night using a mesh seine (4.6 x 1.2 m or 3.0 x 1.2 m) and backpack electrofishing unit. Figure 2. Localities of 14 sampling sites for our 2006–2007 survey of Noturus munitus (Frecklebelly Madtom) in tributaries of large rivers in the Mobile Basin in central and west-central Alabama and extreme eastern Mississippi. Black triangles = absent. Gray square = present (Oakmulgee Creek). 2008 M.G. Bennett, B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell 463 Table 2. River specialist fish species and substrate composition at tributaries surveyed from summer 2006 to spring 2007. Sampling site codes: 1= Alabama River at Gardiner Island; 2 = Little Mulberry Creek; 3 = Pine Barren Creek; 4 = Pursley Creek; 5 = Cedar Creek; 6 = Bogue Chitto Creek; 7 = Mulberry Creek; 8 = Oakmulgee Creek; 9 = Affonee Creek; 10 = Haysop Creek; 11 = Sipsey Creek; 12 = Bull Mountain Creek; 13 = Yellow Creek; 14 = Coal Fire Creek. Substrate type listed in order of predominance. Substrate codes: Be = bedrock; C = cobble; Ch = chalk; De = detritus; G = gravel; M = mud; S = sand; Si = silt. Alabama River Cahaba River Upper Tombigbee River Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Macrhybopsis sp. cf. aestivalis X X X X (Giard) (Speckled Chub) M. storeriana X X X X (Kirtland) (Silver Chub) Notropis atherinoides X X X X X Rafinesque (Emerald Shiner) N. uranoscopus X X Suttkus (Skygazer Shiner) Carpiodes velifer X X X X (Rafinesque) (Highfin Carpsucker) Noturus munitus X Crystallaria asprella X X X X Percina lenticula X P. vigil X X X X X X (Hay) (Saddleback Darter) Substrate G, S G, S Be, S, G, S, S, G, Ch, Be G, S, G, S, S, M, S, M, G, S, Be, S, G, S, G, S, C, G Si Si,C Ch, Be Si De De M Si, C, G M M 464 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 Results Literature review Piller et al. (2004): Spring–Fall 1999, Pearl River. Piller and colleagues (2004) surveyed 53 historic collection sites for N. munitus in the main stem of the Pearl River as well as its tributaries (Fig. 1). No madtoms were found in the main channel, and only 13 specimens were found at eight sites in thirdand fourth-order tributaries. These low numbers show significant declines in the abundance and range of N. munitus due to human-induced changes (e.g., channelization, impoundment) that have altered fl ow regimes, channel morphology, and substrate composition in the river. Shepard et al. 1997: Summer–Fall, 1995–1997, Mobile Basin. Shepard et al. (1997) conducted one of the most extensive surveys of N. munitus in the Mobile Basin. They sampled at 113 sites, including the upper Tombigbee (67), Cahaba (42), Alabama (6), and upper Coosa (29) river drainages from 1995 to 1997, and collected the species at 47 sites, with over half of these from the Cahaba River. In the upper Tombigbee River drainage, Shepard et al. (1997) collected N. munitus at one site in the Sipsey River (4 specimens, mean catch-per-hour = 5.33), two sites in Luxapallila Creek near its mouth (21 specimens, mean catch-per-hour=1.09), and seven sites in the Buttahatchee River (62 specimens, mean catch-per-hour = 8.5). Shepherd et al. (1997) admit that more collections in the Sipsey River targeting N. munitus are needed, as its fl oodprone watershed makes sampling difficult, and the species is undoubtedly more common than their data indicate. The Buttahatchee River is clearly the stronghold for N. munitus in the system. Several historic sites for the madtom in tributaries throughout the upper Tombigbee River produced no specimens (e.g., Sipsey Creek, Bull Mountain Creek). In addition, Luxapallila Creek has been severely affected by channelization, and no specimens were collected at several sites upstream of the mouth. Shepard et al. (1997) made six collections on the main channel of Alabama River, but these produced no specimens. Only one of the gravel islands appeared potentially suitable (Wilcox Bar), but the fish abundance and diversity at the site was poor. They concluded that the species was likely extirpated from the system, and no surveys since have contradicted this finding. On the Cahaba River, Shepard et al. (1997) collected N. munitus at 27 of 42 sites. Downstream of the Fall Line, the species was fairly common on gravel bars with suitable stable substrates down to about five miles below the confl uence of Oakmulgee Creek, with catch-per-hour values ranging from 2 to 36 individuals/hour (mean = 11.5). Suitable habitat thus appears to be quite common in the Cahaba River, and the drainage stands out as one of the few areas in which N. munitus is still abundant. In the Etowah River, Shepard et al. (1997) made collections at 19 sites in the main stem, with N. munitus found at nine localities, and obtained data from University of Georgia researchers on another five localities for a total of 14 sites at which N. munitus was found. Their collection data showed N. 2008 M.G. Bennett, B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell 465 munitus to be fairly abundant upstream of Allatoona Reservoir up to the more montane regions of the drainage in Lumpkin County, GA, with several high catch-per-hour values (range = 2–24, mean = 7.6). Shepard et al. (1997) failed to collect any N. munitus at the six sites (nine collections) they sampled in the Conasauga River. While they did find suitable habitat for N. munitus at three sites, and the fauna included federally listed species such as the Cyprinella caerulea (Jordan) (Blue Shiner), and Percina antesella Williams and Etnier (Amber Darter), no N. munitus were found. Several historic sites had been severely degraded by sedimentation and no suitable habitat remained at those sites. Millican et al. (2006): Summer 2002–2005, Upper Tombigbee River. From 2002 to 2005, Millican et al. (2006) conducted extensive surveys of the Tombigbee River system, including all the tributaries in Mississippi in which N. munitus had previously been documented. Of 104 sampling sites, N. munitus was found at only 10 sites in the system, restricted to three areas: Luxapallila Creek (three sites), the Buttahatchee River (two sites), and the East Fork of the Tombigbee River (five sites). The total number of individuals collected over three years was only 18, and the average abundance per site where present was two individuals. These three streams were characterized by Millican et al. (2006) as having a relatively high proportion of gravel substrate (0.5–0.9) and a relatively low proportion of sand substrate (0.0– 0.4) in their most distal portions from the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. This recent survey of one of the most historically important systems for N. munitus documents the dramatic decline of the species in the main channel of the Tombigbee River since the construction of the Waterway (Boschung 1989). While the species persists in a small area of the former main channel (East Fork), it has been greatly reduced from its former range in the system (Shepard 2004). Freeman et al. (2003): 1998–2002, Upper Coosa River. Freeman et al. (2003) analyzed the historic distribution of N. munitus in the Conasauga and Etowah river drainages and conducted surveys for the fish at 10 shoals in the upper Etowah River to examine habitat associations. Noturus munitus was collected at all 10 sites and was statistically associated with shallow (<50 cm), fast-fl owing riffl e areas with Podostemum spp. (riverweed) and moveable substrate. Analysis of historical collections showed that the species is historically rare in the Etowah River, with 66 of the 97 collections containing fewer than 10 individuals, and is restricted to the main stem of the Etowah and lower portions of Amicalola Creek. In the Conasauga River, historic collections revealed only 13 sites (with 24 collections) at which N. munitus has been collected, restricted to the main stem of the river. In all except one collection, fewer than four individuals were collected. Records from the Georgia–Tennessee border are from 1969 and 1970, and repeated sampling since then has not produced additional specimens. Freeman et al. (2005): 1997–2005, Conasauga River. Freeman et al. (2005) conducted surveys of the Conasauga River from 1998 to 2005 as 466 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 part of a study mapping critical habitats in the drainage at 20 shoals on the river. Their study found N. munitus at about half the sites from 1997 to 1999; however, after 1999, no individuals were collected at any of the sites. They concluded that N. munitus is extirpated from the Conasauga River upstream of US/GA Highway 76/52, but its status below the bridge crossing is unknown. Noturus munitus has not been collected from the Conasauga River since 2000, and its status in the drainage is precarious. Museum records The results of our compilation of museum records reveal the same history of decline for N. munitus throughout its range as the above studies. In the four museum databases we examined, 134 collections of N. munitus were made from 1957 to 2007 (Supplementary Table 1, available only online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/S593.s1). Several collections from the Upper Tombigbee River contained more than 300 individuals before construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway; however, based on the data we examined, the last specimens were collected in the main channel in 1980 (although N. munitus persists in a small section of the East Fork of the main channel; Millican et al. 2006, see above). While some collections did contain several hundred individuals, the majority of collections contained fewer than 20 specimens. Noturus munitus was found in only 7 sites in the Alabama River, and only 50 specimens were reported in museum data. A total of 344 individuals were collected in the Cahaba River drainage at about 18 sites. The most individuals (2305) and sites (35) were found in the Upper Tombigbee River drainage. The Upper Coosa River drainage (Conasauga and Etowah rivers) contained 126 specimens at 16 sites. Time-series data shows a dramatic decline in numbers of collections of N. munitus at historic sites in both the Alabama and Upper Tombigbee rivers, contrasting with the persistence of collections in the Cahaba and Buttahatchee rivers containing N. munitus (Table 1). Field survey: summer 2006–spring 2007 In October 2005, we collected a single specimen of N. munitus in Oakmulgee Creek, the largest Coastal Plain tributary to the Cahaba River, more than three kilometers from its mouth. This finding prompted us to conduct a survey of large Mobile Basin tributaries in the upper Tombigbee, Alabama, and Cahaba rivers in central and west Alabama and extreme eastern Mississippi (Fig. 2) to determine how frequently N. munitus utilizes tributary habitat and if it might thereby persist in the Alabama River system. While we did collect several fish that are large-river specialists and found suitable gravel substrate in a few tributaries (Table 2), no N. munitus were collected in our study sites in the Alabama and Upper Tombigbee river drainages. The gravel substrate on Gardiner Island in the Alabama River was imbedded, and inappropriate for N. munitus, and water levels varied greatly during the few hours we sampled due to fl ow modifications from the reservoir downstream. Several of the creeks in the upper Tombigbee River system had apparently 2008 M.G. Bennett, B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell 467 experienced recent severe head cutting and suitable gravel substrate was no longer available. Sampling in other large Cahaba River tributaries failed to produce additional specimens. The results of this recent survey conducted for N. munitus confirms the conclusions of Shepard et al. (1997) and Shepard (2004) that the species is likely extirpated from the Alabama River. In addition, our findings highlight the lack of suitable habitat in several river drainages and the necessity of stable large-river gravel habitat for persistence of the species. Tributaries and their junctions with main river channels may provide suitable habitat for waifs when there is a healthy population in the main channel; however, tributary habitat is apparently not suitable for sustaining viable populations of N. munitus. This scenario seems to be the case from our data in the Cahaba River, where Oakmulgee Creek provides habitat for waifs, but does not support any sizeable population. Discussion Noturus munitus was once fairly abundant in appropriate habitat throughout its range, with night-time collections on large-river gravel shoals before the late 1960s regularly producing large collections of specimens in the hundreds (Supplementary Table 1, available only online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/S593.s1; Piller et al. 2004). One of the most extensive analyses of historic population trends was conducted by Piller et al. (2004) using museum collection data from the Pearl River from 1950 to 1988. They found a precipitous decline in the N. munitus population in the Pearl River after 1964, coinciding with many human-induced river modifications, despite the fact that sampling effort (number of samples per year) was higher after 1964. While this study focused only on the Pearl River, the same decline in abundance of N. munitus associated with river modification has occurred across its range, as the surveys discussed above document. Examination of available museum records reveals a similar pattern in the Alabama and Tombigbee rivers (Table 1), with few collections after 1970 producing specimens, in contrast to the Cahaba River collections, in which N. munitus seems to have remained fairly common. While these museum datasets undoubtedly omit some records, a general trend similar to the findings of Piller et al. (2004) is apparent. Construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which artificially connects the Tennessee River to the Gulf of Mexico through the Tombigbee River with 10 lock and dam structures, began in 1972 and has greatly affected the ecology of the river system, including the probable extirpation of N. munitus and other aquatic organisms from the majority of the main river channel (Boschung 1989, Millican et al. 2006, Roberts et al. 2007, Shepard 2004). Three dams were constructed on the Alabama River in late 1960s and early 1970s, which contributed to the likely extirpation of N. munitus from this river (Boschung and Mayden 2004, Shepard 2004, Shepard et al. 1997). There is one dam on the Etowah River forming the Allatoona Reservoir, which has likely affected N. munitus, but the species persists in low 468 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 numbers upstream of the reservoir. The Cahaba River, Conasauga River, and some tributaries to the upper Tombigbee River are the only remaining waters within the range of N. munitus that have escaped large-scale human modification through damming or channelization. However, populations in the Conasauga River are greatly reduced from their former extent and perhaps extirpated in the drainage, having been heavily impacted by poor land-use practices in the surrounding watershed (Shepard 2004, Shepard et al. 1997), and the species has not been seen in the drainage since 2000 (Freeman et al. 2005). Tributaries to the upper Tombigbee River have been affected by channel modification of the Tennessee-Tombigee Waterway due to head cutting and other geomorphic and fl ow modifications (e.g., Raborn and Schramm 2003, Roberts et al. 2007, Tipton et al. 2004), and only a few tributaries maintain necessary habitat for N. munitus in this system (Sipsey and Buttahatchee rivers, East Fork of the Tombigbee River, and Luxapallila Creek; Millican et al. 2006, Shepard 2004, Shepard et al. 1997). In the Cahaba River, N. munitus abundances seem to have remained stable throughout the modification periods in surrounding drainages, with the species being common and abundant below the Fall Line to about 20 km above the junction with the Alabama River (Table 1; Supplementary Table 1, available only online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/S593.s1; Shepard et al. 1997). However, channel geomorphology and substrate in the Cahaba River is likely being affected by head cutting due to impoundment of the Alabama River, similar to changes occurring in the upper Tombigbee River. Based on our recent field observations, we hypothesize that, in normally functioning systems, tributaries serve as habitats for population sinks as compared to the source populations of N. munitus in main river channels (Pulliam 1988). Many of the tributaries we surveyed contained several large-river specialist fishes (Table 2) with similar dietary and habitat requirements as N. munitus (e.g., C. asprella, Percina lenticula Richards and Knapp [Freckled Darter]). Roberts et al. (2007) found a high degree of dietary plasticity that helped allow C. asprella to persist in the heavily modified Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and hypothesized that tributary junctions serve as post-modification source habitats for C. asprella population sinks in the main channel. Madtoms, like darters, are prey generalists (Burr and Stoeckel 1999) and would likely exhibit similar plasticity in the face of river modification. However, since it appears that N. munitus cannot adapt to persist in the main channel after modification, tributaries cease to serve as habitat, either as sources or sinks. Differences in reproductive biology (i.e., nesting in madtoms) are likely causes for the different responses to modification. Suitable nest cavities are probably naturally uncommon in large Coastal Plain-river gravel shoals, and the most likely candidates for nest sites are empty mussel shells and woody debris. Channelization and other river modifications cause mussel decline (Brainwood et al. 2006, Neves and Williams 1994) and also remove woody debris through dredging and “de-snagging” (Shields and Smith 1992), making the two sources for nesting sites for N. 2008 M.G. Bennett, B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell 469 munitus even rarer. Since cavity nesting in madtoms appears to result from historical evolutionary constraints (Burr and Stoeckel 1999), adaptation to different modes of reproduction is unlikely. More study is needed on other specific aspects of biology that contribute to different responses to river modification. To further complicate conservation and the analysis of impacts, there appears to be some cryptic diversity within what is currently described as N. munitus. Populations in the upper Coosa River system in the Conasauga and Etowah rivers are morphologically distinct and widely considered a separate undescribed species (Boschung and Mayden 2004, Shepherd 2004, Warren et al. 2000). The upper Coosa River form is apparently in more rapid decline than other populations, but its protection is somewhat inhibited by lack of specific recognition (Butler and Mayden 2003). Thus, N. munitus has been extirpated from one of the drainages in which it was found (Alabama), has been greatly reduced in three other drainages (Pearl, upper Tombigbee, and upper Coosa), and occurs at high numbers drainage-wide in only one river (Cahaba) (Fig. 1). Conservation and future research needs The lack of published information on the genetic and morphological variation and population structure within N. munitus populations should be remedied. Without formal recognition of cryptic biodiversity within what is potentially a species complex, the evolutionary diversity within N. munitus may not be preserved. While the species as currently described meets federal listing criteria as threatened due to widespread habitat loss and decline, its broad range has been a rationale for denying protection in the past (Stewart 1989). Without a better understanding of historic and current gene fl ow and divergence in N. munitus—both within and among major river drainages— the species cannot be adequately managed for and conserved. More information is also needed on spawning and nesting habitat. While certain conclusions and inferences can be drawn from our current knowledge of madtom biology, nesting habitat is quite variable among Noturus species, and there is no substitute for visual documentation of spawning habitat and season duration (Burr and Stoeckel 1999). Additionally, attempts to infer nesting biology from sister species based on phylogeny (such as N. stigmosus Taylor [Northern Madtom], and N. placidus Taylor [Neosho Madtom]; Hardman 2004, Near and Hardman 2006) are hindered due to lack of data for those species as well (Burr and Stoeckel 1999). Finally, the potential for restoration of degraded river habitat and reintroduction of N. munitus should be rigorously assessed. Removal of large dams is being increasingly considered in an effort to restore river ecosystem function, but remains highly controversial (Bednarek 2001, Born et al. 1998, Poff and Hart 2002, Stanley and Doyle 2003). While dam removal has the potential to restore ecosystem function through a return of biological (e.g., species dispersal/migration), chemical (e.g., nutrient transport) and physical (e.g., sediment transport, fl ow regime) processes (Bednarek 2001, Hart et 470 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 al. 2002), dam removal constitutes a severe disturbance to the aquatic community, the magnitude of which will vary depending on the size of the dam, the length of time the dam has been in place, and the composition of the local biotic community, among other factors (Poff and Hart 2002, Stanley and Doyle 2003). In addition, removal of large dams may not be politically or economically feasible in some instances due to lack of public support and loss of public services such as hydroelectric power or public water supply (Poff and Hart 2002, Whitelaw and Macmullan 2002). Therefore, until more data is gathered on dam removal and it garners wider support, efforts should be focused on restoration of historic fl ow regime within the current framework of dams, as has been done for some large-river fishes such as Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque (Lake Sturgeon) (Auer 1996). While this management option comes with its own uncertainty, and should be rigorously evaluated (Irwin and Freeman 2002), dam mitigation, in which modifications are made to increase or vary minimum fl ow from dams to mimic natural conditions, has been shown to improve aquatic insect communities impacted by these structures (Bednarek and Hart 2005) and has potential to restore or maintain more natural fish assemblages (Irwin and Freeman 2002). Reintroduction of aquatic organisms is also controversial and is often only limitedly successful (Stockwell and Leberg 2002, but see Shute et al. 2005). Inappropriate selection of location and sizes of source populations which fails to consider local adaptation and allelic diversity can destroy co-adapted gene complexes at reintroduction sites where some native individuals remain (outbreeding depression), and inadequate size or genetic variability in source populations can cause inbreeding depression, all of which increase human-induced decline of the species of concern (Leberg 1993, Meffe and Vrijenhoek 1988, Stockwell and Leberg 2002, Templeton et al. 2000). In the case of N. munitus, if the Alabama River is ever restored to any extent, the Cahaba River is the best choice for a source population due to replicated patterns of similarity in fish faunas (both genetically and in community structure) between the Cahaba and Alabama rivers, likely the result of close proximity and similarities in underlying geology (Boschung and Mayden 2004). Individuals from other drainages should not be used to supplement populations in the upper Coosa River because these populations are certainly distinct (Butler and Mayden 2003, Shepherd 2004). If reintroduction of N. munitus is ever attempted, it should be undertaken with the above considerations in mind. In our assessment based on recent surveys, N. munitus warrants federal protection as a threatened species. While it remains widely distributed across the southeastern US, it has declined precipitously from historic abundance since the late 1960s and is currently found in abundance in only the Cahaba and Buttahatchee rivers. Further, its dependence on large-river gravel shoal habitat makes it vulnerable to river modification that will likely continue into the foreseeable future. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been widely criticized by scientists and policy-makers for more than a decade as 2008 M.G. Bennett, B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell 471 insufficient for species protection and recovery (Gibbons 1992, National Research Council 1995, Scott et al. 2005). While there may indeed be problems with the legislation, current data and methods used in evaluating species recovery may be inadequate, thus underestimating success (Bain et al. 2007, Campbell et al. 2002, Gerber and Hatch 2002, Male and Bean 2005). A recent study documenting the remarkable recovery of Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur (Shortnose Sturgeon) in the Hudson River shows that the ESA, with its combination of species and habitat protection and public involvement fully realized, has potential to effect recovery of species under its purview (Bain et al. 2007). Even with its potential shortcomings, the ESA offers the strongest existing enforceable protection against extinction and provides a framework for recovery for N. munitus. Conservation of N. munitus will depend upon our willingness to preserve the few remaining free-fl owing rivers in its range, our effectiveness as scientists to promote conservation and appreciation of such aquatic systems, and our ability to gain the necessary understanding and knowledge to do both. Acknowledgments Much-needed field assistance on our field surveys was provided by B.L. Fluker and J. Chesser. We thank C. Taylor, T. Shepard, and B. Albanese for access to unpublished reports. Comments by Guest Editor James Albert and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript. This research was supported by a grant from the Walter F. Coxe Research Fund (Birmingham Audubon Society) to M.G. Bennett and conducted under permits from the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, and the University of Alabama Animal Care and Use Committee. Literature Cited Auer, N.A. 1996. Response of spawning Lake Sturgeons to change in hydroelectric operation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:66–77. Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D.L. Peterson, K.K. Arend, K.E. Mills, and P.J. Sullivan. 2007. Recovery of a US endangered fish. PLoS ONE 2:1–9. Bednarek, A.T. 2001. Undamming rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management 27:803–814. Bednarek, A.T., and D.D. Hart. 2005. Modifying dam operations to restore rivers: Ecological responses to Tennessee River dam mitigation. Ecological Applications 15:997–1008. Born, S.M., K.D. Genskow, T.L. Filbert, N. Hernandez-Mora, M.L. Keefer, and K.A. White. 1998. Socioeconomic and institutional dimensions of dam removals: The Wisconsin experience. Environmental Management 22:359–370. Boschung, H.T. 1989. Atlas of fishes of the upper Tombigbee River Drainage, Alabama– Mississippi. Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings No. 19. 104 pp. Boschung, H.T., Jr., and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC. 736 pp. Brainwood, M., S. Burgin, and M. Byrne. 2006. Is the decline of freshwater mussel populations in a regulated coastal river in southeastern Australia linked with human modification of habitat? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16:501–516. 472 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 Burr, B.M., and J.N. Stoeckel. 1999. The natural history of madtoms (genus Noturus), North America’s diminutive catfishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 24:51–101. Butler, R.S., and R.L. Mayden. 2003. Cryptic biodiversity. Endangered Species Bulletin 28:24–26. Campbell, S.P., J.A. Clark, L.H. Crampton, A.D. Guerry, L.T. Hatch, P.R. Hosseini, J.J. Lawler, and R.J. O’Connor. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12:674–681. Freeman, B.J., C.A. Straight, P.A. Marcinek, S. Wenger, M.M. Hagler, and M.C. Freeman. 2003. Distribution and status of the “Coosa” Madtom (Noturus sp. cf. N. munitus) and Freckled Darter (Percina lenticula) in Georgia. Unpublished report submitted to US Geological Survey, Athens, GA. 59 pp. Freeman, B.J., J. Argentina, and M. Hagler. 2005. Identification and mapping of critical habitats in the Conasauga River corridor of Georgia and Tennessee: 2005 Annual Report. Unpublished report. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 110 pp. Gerber, L.R., and L.T. Hatch. 2002. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the US Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:668–673. Gibbons, A. 1992. Mission impossible: Saving all endangered species. Science 256:1386. Hart, D.D., T.E. Johnson, K.L. Bushaw-Newton, R.J. Horowitz, A.T. Bednarek, D.F. Charles, D.A. Kreeger, and D.J. Velinsky. 2002. Dam removal: Challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. BioScience 52:669–681. Hardman, M. 2004. The phylogenetic relationships among Noturus catfishes (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) as inferred from mitochondrial gene cytochrome b and nuclear recombination activating gene 2. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30:395–408. Irwin, E.R., and M.C. Freeman. 2002. Proposal for adaptive management to conserve biotic integrity in a regulated segment of the Tallapoosa River, Alabama, USA. Conservation Biology 16:1212–1222. Leberg, P. 1993. Strategies for population reintroduction: Effects of genetic variability on population growth and size. Conservation Biology 7:194–199. Male, T.D., and M.J. Bean. 2005. Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8:986–992. Meffe, G.K., and R.C. Vrijenhoek. 1988. Conservation genetics in the management of desert fishes. Conservation Biology 2:157–169. Miller, G.L. 1984. Trophic ecology of the Frecklebelly Madtom Noturus munitus in the Tombigbee River, Mississippi. American Midland Naturalist 111:8–15. Millican, D.S., M.E. Roberts, and C.M. Taylor. 2006. Fish biodiversity in the Tombigbee River system after extensive ecosystem fragmentation: Final report. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science Technical Report No. 118. Unpubl. report submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. 113 pp. National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington DC. Near, T.J., and M. Hardman. 2006. Phylogenetic relationships of Noturus stanauli and N. crypticus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae), two imperiled freshwater fish species from the southeastern United States. Copeia 2006(3):378–383. 2008 M.G. Bennett, B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell 473 Neves, R.J., and J.D. Williams. 1994. Status of the freshwater mussel fauna in the United States. Journal of Shellfish Research 13:345–346. Piller, K.R., H.L. Bart, and J.A. Tipton. 2004. Decline of the Frecklebelly Madtom in the Pearl River based on contemporary and historical surveys. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:1004–1013. Poff, N.L., and D.D. Hart. 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience 52:659–668. Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. The American Naturalist 132:652–661. Raborn, S.W., and H.L. Schramm, Jr. 2003. Fish assemblage response to recent mitigation of a channelized warmwater stream. River Research and Applications 19:289–301. Roberts, M.E., C.S. Schwedler, and C.M. Taylor. 2007. Dietary shifts in the Crystal Darter (Crystallaria asprella) after large-scale river fragmentation. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 16:250–256. Scott, J.M., D.D. Goble, J.A. Wiens, D.S. Wilcove, M. Bean, and T. Male. 2005. Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: The need for a new approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:383–389. Shepard, T.E. 2004. Frecklebelly Madtom. Pp. 220–222, In R.E. Mirarchi, J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E. O’Neil (Eds.). Alabama Wildlife, Vol. 2: Imperiled Alabama Mollusks and Fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL. Shepard, T.E., S.W. McGregor, P.E. O’Neil, and M.F. Mettee. 1997. Status survey of the Frecklebelly Madtom (Noturus munitus) in the Mobile River basin, 1995– 1997. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Open File Report. 42 pp. Shields, F.D., and R.H. Smith. 1992. Effects of large woody debris removal on physical characteristics of a sand-bed river. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2:145–163. Shute, J.R., P.L. Rakes, and P.W. Shute. 2005. Reintroduction of four imperiled fishes in Abrams Creek, Tennessee. Southeastern Naturalist 4:93–110. Stanley, E.H., and M.W. Doyle. 2003. Trading off: The ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:15–22. Stewart, J.H. 1989. Status review report on the Frecklebelly Madtom, Noturus munitus. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. 4 pp. Stockwell, C.A., and P.L. Leberg. 2002. Ecological genetics and the translocation of native fishes: Emerging experimental approaches. Western North American Naturalist 62:32–38. Suttkus, R.D., and W.R. Taylor. 1965. Noturus munitus, a new species of madtom, family Ictaluridae, from southern United States. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 78:169–178. Templeton, A.R., H. Hemmer, G. Mace, U.S. Seal, W.M. Shields, and D.S. Woodruf. 2000. Local adaptation, coadaptation, and population boundaries. Zoo Biology 5:115–125. Thomas, M.R., and B.M. Burr. 2004. Noturus gladiator, a new species of madtom (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) from Coastal Plain streams of Tennessee and Mississippi. Ichthyological Explorations of Freshwaters 15:351–368. Tipton, J.A., H.L. Bart, and K.R. Piller. 2004. Geomorphic disturbance and its impact on darter (Teleostomi: Percidae) distribution and abundance in the Pearl River drainage, Mississippi. Hydrobiologia 527:49–61. 474 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 3 Trauth, S.E., G.L. Miller, and J.S. Williams. 1981. Seasonal gonadal changes and population structure of Noturus munitus (Pisces: Ictaluridae) in Mississippi. Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin 28:66. [abstract]. Warren, Jr., M.L., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart, Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25:7–31. Whitelaw, E., and E. MacMullan. 2002. A framework for estimating the costs and benefits of dam removal. BioScience 52:724–730.