diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:02:19 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:02:19 -0700 |
| commit | 5622e828cd8f4173d3895fa969b7237835863e23 (patch) | |
| tree | 28f1fa1fb7ea32cbbfa61a4fe45011c415b490bc /34787-8.txt | |
Diffstat (limited to '34787-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-8.txt | 4139 |
1 files changed, 4139 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/34787-8.txt b/34787-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..972e459 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4139 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Fish Populations, Following a Drought, in +the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas, by James Everett Deacon + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Fish Populations, Following a Drought, in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas + +Author: James Everett Deacon + +Release Date: December 30, 2010 [EBook #34787] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISH POPULATIONS, FOLLOWING *** + + + + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS + MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + Volume 13, No. 9, pp. 359-427, pls. 26-30, 3 figs. + August 11, 1961 + + + Fish Populations, Following a Drought, + In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers + of Kansas + + BY + + JAMES EVERETT DEACON + + + (Joint Contribution from the State Biological Survey and + the Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission) + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + LAWRENCE + 1961 + + + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Henry S. Fitch, + Robert W. Wilson + + Volume 13, No. 9, pp. 359-427, pls. 26-30, 3 figs. + Published August 11, 1961 + + + UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS + Lawrence, Kansas + + + PRINTED IN + THE STATE PRINTING PLANT + TOPEKA, KANSAS + 1961 + + 28-7576 + + + + + Fish Populations, Following a Drought, + In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers + of Kansas + + BY + + JAMES EVERETT DEACON + + + + +CONTENTS + + + PAGE + INTRODUCTION 363 + + DESCRIPTION OF NEOSHO RIVER 366 + + DESCRIPTION OF MARAIS DES CYGNES RIVER 367 + + METHODS 368 + Electrical Fishing Gear 368 + Seines 369 + Gill Nets 370 + Sodium Cyanide 370 + Rotenone 370 + Dyes 370 + Determination of Abundance 371 + Names of Fishes 371 + + ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES 371 + + FISH-FAUNA OF THE UPPER NEOSHO RIVER 405 + Description of Study-areas 405 + Methods 406 + Changes in the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station, + 1957 through 1959 407 + Local Variability of the Fauna in Different Areas + at the Upper Neosho Station, 1959 409 + Temporal Variability of Fauna in the Same Areas 411 + Population-Estimation 412 + Movement of Marked Fish 416 + Similarity of the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station + to the Faunas of Nearby Streams 418 + + COMPARISON OF THE FISH-FAUNAS OF THE NEOSHO AND MARAIS + DES CYGNES RIVERS 419 + + FAUNAL CHANGES, 1957 THROUGH 1959 420 + + CONCLUSIONS 423 + + ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 425 + + LITERATURE CITED 425 + + + + +TABLES + + + PAGE + 1. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second (C. F. S.), Neosho + River near Council Grove, Kansas 364 + + 2. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Neosho River near + Parsons, Kansas 364 + + 3. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Marais des Cygnes + River near Ottawa, Kansas 364 + + 4. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Marais des Cygnes + River at Trading Post, Kansas 365 + + 5. Numbers and sizes of long-nosed gar 372 + + 6. Numbers and sizes of short-nosed gar 374 + + 7. Length-frequency of channel catfish from the Neosho River 388 + + 8. Length-frequency of freshwater drum 402 + + 9. Average number of individuals captured per hour 402 + + 10. Numbers of fish seen or captured per hour 403 + + 11. Numbers of occurrences and numbers counted 404 + + 12. Percentage composition of the fish fauna at the Upper + Neosho station in 1957, 1958 and 1959, as computed + from results of rotenone collections 408 + + 13. Relative abundance of fish 410 + + 14. Changes in numbers of individuals 411 + + 15. Data used in making direct proportion + population-estimations 414 + + 16. Data on movement of marked fish 416 + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +This report concerns the ability of fish-populations in the Neosho and +Marais des Cygnes rivers in Kansas to readjust to continuous stream-flow +following intermittent conditions resulting from the severest drought in +the history of the State. + +The variable weather in Kansas (and in other areas of the Great Plains) +markedly affects its flora and fauna. Weaver and Albertson (1936) +reported as much as 91 per cent loss in the basal prairie vegetative +cover in Kansas near the close of the drought of the 1930's. The average +annual cost (in 1951 prices) of floods in Kansas from 1926 to 1953 was +$35,000,000. In the same period the average annual loss from the +droughts of the 1930's and 1950's was $75,000,000 (in 1951 prices), +excluding losses from wind- and soil-erosion. Thus, over a period of 28 +years, the average annual flood-losses were less than one-half the +average annual drought-losses (Foley, Smrha, and Metzler, 1955:9; +Anonymous, 1958:15). + +Weather conditions in Kansas from 1951 to 1957 were especially +noteworthy: 1951 produced a bumper crop of climatological events +significant to the economy of the State. Notable among these were: +Wettest year since beginning of the state-wide weather records in 1887; +highest river stages since settlement of the State on the Kansas River +and on most of its tributaries, as well as on the Marais des Cygnes and +on the Neosho and Cottonwood. The upper Arkansas and a number of smaller +streams in western Kansas also experienced unprecedented flooding +(Garrett, 1951:147). This period of damaging floods was immediately +followed by the driest five-year period on record, culminating in the +driest year in 1956 (Garrett, 1958:56). Water shortage became serious +for many communities. The Neosho River usually furnishes adequate +quantities of water for present demands, but in some years of drought +all flow ceases for several consecutive months. In 1956-'57, the city of +Chanute, on an emergency basis, recirculated treated sewage for potable +supply (Metzler _et al._, 1958). The water shortage in many communities +along the Neosho River became so serious that a joint project to pump +water from the Smoky Hill River into the upper Neosho was considered, +and preliminary investigations were made. If the drought had continued +through 1957, this program might have been vigorously promoted. Data on +stream-flow in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes (1951-'59) are presented +in Tables 1-4. + +These severe conditions provided a unique opportunity to gain insight +into the ability of several species of fish to adjust to marked changes +in their environment. For this reason, and because of a paucity of +information concerning stream-fish populations in Kansas, the study here +reported on was undertaken. + + TABLE 1. STREAM-FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, NEOSHO RIVER + NEAR COUNCIL GROVE, KANSAS. DRAINAGE AREA: 250 SQUARE MILES. + + ========================================================= + WATER-YEAR[A] | Average flow | Maximum | Minimum | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + 1951 | 498.0 | 121,000 | 3.0 | + 1952 | 82.1 | 4,850 | .7 | + 1953 | 5.37 | 202 | .1 | + 1954 | 8.53 | 2,720 | .1 | + 1955 | 31.2 | 6,480 | 0 | + 1956 | 10.1 | 5,250 | 0 | + 1957 | 68.5 | 12,300 | 0 | + 1958 | 131.0 | 5,360 | .8 | + 1959 | 114.0 | 7,250 | 8.5 | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + + TABLE 2. STREAM-FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, NEOSHO RIVER + NEAR PARSONS, KANSAS. DRAINAGE AREA: 4905 SQUARE MILES. + + ========================================================= + WATER-YEAR[B] | Average flow | Maximum | Minimum | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + 1951 | 8,290 | 410,000 | 124.0 | + 1952 | 2,021 | 20,500 | 20.0 | + 1953 | 173 | 4,110 | .3 | + 1954 | 430 | 27,900 | .1 | + 1955 | 645 | 18,600 | 0 | + 1956 | 180 | 6,170 | 0 | + 1957 | 1,774 | 25,000 | 0 | + 1958 | 3,092 | 27,200 | 78.0 | + 1959 | 1,609 | 22,600 | 139.0 | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + + TABLE 3. STREAM-FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, MARAIS DES CYGNES + RIVER NEAR OTTAWA, KANSAS. DRAINAGE AREA: 1,250 SQUARE MILES. + + ========================================================= + WATER-YEAR | Average flow | Maximum | Minimum | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + 1951 | 2,113 | 142,000 | 25.0 | + 1952 | 542 | 12,000 | .2 | + 1953 | 36.5 | 2,690 | .2 | + 1954 | 73.6 | 5,660 | .5 | + 1955 | 75.7 | 5,240 | .7 | + 1956 | 26 | 1,590 | .7 | + 1957 | 442 | 11,200 | .7 | + 1958 | 775 | 9,130 | 5.6 | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + + TABLE 4. STREAM-FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, MARAIS DES CYGNES + RIVER AT TRADING POST, KANSAS. DRAINAGE AREA: 2,880 SQUARE MILES. + + ========================================================= + WATER-YEAR | Average flow | Maximum | Minimum | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + 1951 | 5,489 | 148,000 | 36.0 | + 1952 | 1,750 | 20,400 | 3.0 | + 1953 | 261 | 7,590 | 0 | + 1954 | 334 | 12,500 | 0 | + 1955 | 786 | 16,100 | .2 | + 1956 | 202 | 10,000 | 0 | + 1957 | 871 | 14,700 | 0 | + 1958 | 2,453 | 20,400 | 120.0 | + [C]1959 | 750 | 10,900 | 3.4 | + ---------------+--------------+------------+------------+ + + [A] (Oct. 1-Sept. 30, inclusive) + + [B] (Oct. 1-Sept. 30, inclusive) + + [C] The gaging station was moved a short distance downstream + to the Kansas-Missouri state line. + + + + +DESCRIPTION OF NEOSHO RIVER + + +The Neosho River, a tributary of Arkansas River, rises in the Flint +Hills of Morris and southwestern Wabaunsee counties and flows southeast +for 281 miles in Kansas, leaving the state in the extreme southeast +corner (Fig. 1). With its tributaries (including Cottonwood and Spring +rivers) the Neosho drains 6,285 square miles in Kansas and enters the +Arkansas River near Muskogee, Oklahoma (Schoewe, 1951:299). Upstream +from its confluence with Cottonwood River, the Neosho River has an +average gradient of 15 feet per mile. The gradient lessens rapidly below +the mouth of the Cottonwood, averaging 1.35 feet per mile downstream to +the State line (Anonymous, 1947:12). The banks of the meandering, +well-defined channel vary from 15 to 50 feet in height and support a +deciduous fringe-forest. The spelling of the name originally was +"Neozho," an Osage Indian word signifying "clear water" (Mead, +1903:216). + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. Neosho and Marais des Cygnes drainage + systems. Dots and circles indicate collecting-stations.] + + +_Neosho River, Upper Station._--Two miles north and two miles west of +Council Grove, Morris County, Kansas (Sec. 32 and 33, T. 15 S., R. 8 E.) +(Pl. 28, Fig. 2, and Pl. 29, Fig. 1). Width 20 to 40 feet, depth to six +feet, length of study-area one-half mile (one large pool plus many small +pools connected by riffles), bottom of mud, gravel, and rubble. Muddy +banks 20 to 30 feet high. + +According to H. E. Bosch (landowner) this section of the river dried +completely in 1956, except for the large pool mentioned above. This +section was intermittent in 1954 and 1955; it again became intermittent +in the late summer of 1957 but not in 1958 or 1959. + +A second section two miles downstream (on land owned by Herbert White) +was studied in the summer of 1959 (Sec. 3 and 10, T. 16 S., R. 8 E.) +(Pl. 29, Fig. 2 and Pl. 30, Figs. 1 and 2). This section is 20 to 60 +feet in width, to five feet in depth, one-half mile in length (six small +pools with intervening riffles bounded upstream by a low-head dam and +downstream by a long pool), having a bottom of gravel, rubble, bedrock, +and mud, and banks of mud and rock, five to 20 feet in height. + + +_Neosho River, Middle Station._--One mile east and one and one-half +miles south of Neosho Falls, Woodson County, Kansas (Sec. 3 and 4, T. 24 +S., R. 17 E.) (Pl. 26, Fig. 1). Width 60 to 70 feet, depth to eleven +feet, length of study-area two miles (four large pools with connecting +riffles), bottom of mud, gravel and rock. Mud and rock banks 30 to 40 +feet high. + +According to Floyd Meats (landowner) this section of the river was +intermittent for part of the drought. + + +_Neosho River, Lower Station._--Two and one-half miles west, one-half +mile north of Saint Paul, Neosho County, Kansas (Sec. 16, T. 29 S., R. +20 E.). Width 100 to 125 feet, depth to ten feet, length of study-area +one mile (two large pools connected by a long rubble-gravel riffle), +bottom of mud, gravel, and rock. Banks, of mud and rock, 30 to 40 feet +high (Pl. 26, Fig. 2). + +This station was established after one collection of fishes was made +approximately ten miles upstream (Sec. 35, T. 28 S., R. 19 E.). The +second site, suggested by Ernest Craig, Game Protector, provided greater +accessibility and a more representative section of stream than the +original locality. + + + + +DESCRIPTION OF MARAIS DES CYGNES RIVER + + +The Marais des Cygnes River, a tributary of Missouri River, rises in the +Flint Hills of Wabaunsee County, Kansas, and flows generally eastward +through the southern part of Osage County and the middle of Franklin +County. The river then takes a southeasterly course through Miami County +and the northeastern part of Linn County, leaving the state northeast of +Pleasanton. With its tributaries (Dragoon, Salt, Pottawatomie, Bull and +Big Sugar creeks) the river drains 4,360 square miles in Kansas +(Anonymous, 1945:23), comprising the major part of the area between the +watersheds of the Kansas and Neosho rivers. The gradient from the +headwaters to Quenemo is more than five feet per mile, from Quenemo to +Osawatomie 1.53 feet per mile, and from Osawatomie to the State line +1.10 feet per mile (Anonymous, 1945:24). The total length is +approximately 475 miles (150 miles in Kansas). The river flows in a +highly-meandering, well-defined channel that has been entrenched from 50 +to 250 feet (Schoewe, 1951:294). "Marais des Cygnes" is of French +origin, signifying "the marsh of the swans." + + +_Marais des Cygnes River, Upper Station._--One mile south and one mile +west of Pomona, Franklin County, Kansas (Sec. 12, T. 17 S., R. 17 E.) +(Pl. 27, Fig. 1). Width 30 to 40 feet, depth to six feet, length of +study-area one-half mile (three large pools with short connecting +riffles), bottom of mud and bedrock. Mud banks 30 to 40 feet high. + +According to P. Lindsey (landowner) this section of the river was +intermittent for most of the drought. Flow was continuous in 1957, 1958 +and 1959. + +There are four low-head dams between the upper and middle Marais des +Cygnes stations. + + +_Marais des Cygnes River, Middle Station._--One mile east of Ottawa, +Franklin County, Kansas (Sec. 6, T. 17 S., R. 20 E.) (Pl. 27, Fig. 2). +Width 50 to 60 feet, depth to eight feet, length of study-area one-half +mile (one large pool plus a long riffle interrupted by several small +pools), bottom of mud, gravel, and rock. Mud and sand banks 30 to 40 +feet high. + +This section of the river was intermittent for much of the drought. In +the winter of 1957-'58 a bridge was constructed over this station as a +part of Interstate Highway 35. Because of this construction many trees +were removed from the stream-banks, the channel was straightened, a +gravel-bottomed riffle was rerouted, and silt was deposited in a +gravel-bottom pool. + + +_Marais des Cygnes River, Lower Station._--At eastern edge of Marais des +Cygnes Wildlife Refuge, Linn County, Kansas (Sec. 9, T. 21 S., R. 25 +E.). Width 80 to 100 feet, depth to eight feet, length of study-area +one-half mile (one large pool plus a long riffle interrupted by several +small pools), bottom of mud, gravel, and rock. Mud banks 40 to 50 feet +high. + +This section of the river ceased to flow only briefly in 1956. + + + + +METHODS + + +_Electrical Fishing Gear_ + +The principal collecting-device used was a portable (600-watt, 110-volt, +A. C.) electric shocker carried in a 12-foot aluminum boat. Two 2 × +2-inch wooden booms, each ten feet long, were attached to the front of +the boat in a "V" position so they normally were two feet above the +surface of the water. A nylon rope attached to the tips of the booms +held them ten feet apart. Electrodes, six feet long, were suspended from +the tip and center of each boom, and two electrodes were suspended from +the nylon rope. The electrodes extended approximately four feet into the +water. Of various materials used for electrodes, the most satisfactory +was a neoprene-core, shielded hydraulic hose in sections two feet long. +These lengths could be screwed together, permitting adjustment of the +length of the electrodes with minimum effort. At night, a sealed-beam +automobile headlight was plugged into a six-volt D. C. outlet in the +generating unit and a Coleman lantern was mounted on each gunwale to +illuminate the area around the bow and along the sides of the boat (Pl. +3a). In late summer, 1959, a 230-volt, 1500-watt generating unit, +composed of a 115-volt, 1500-watt Homelite generator was used. It was +attached to a step-up transformer that converted the current to 230 +volts. The same booms described above were used with the 230-volt unit, +with single electrodes at the tip of each boom. + +A 5.5-horsepower motor propelled the boat, and the stunned fish were +collected by means of scap nets. Fishes seen and identified but not +captured also were recorded. On several occasions fishes were collected +by placing a 25-foot seine in the current and shocking toward the seine +from upstream. + +The shocker was used in daylight at all six stations in the three years, +1957-'59. Collections were made at night in 1958 and 1959 at the middle +Neosho station and in 1959 at the lower Neosho station. + + +_Seines_ + +Seines of various lengths (4, 6, 12, 15, 25 and 60 feet), with +mesh-sizes varying from bobbinet to one-half inch, were used. The +4-, 12-, and 25-foot seines were used in the estimation of relative +abundance by taking ten hauls with each seine, recording all species +captured in each haul, and making a total count of all fish captured in +two of the ten hauls. The two hauls to be counted were chosen prior to +each collection from a table of random numbers. Additional selective +seining was done to ascertain the habitats occupied by different +species. + +_Trap, Hoop, and Fyke Nets._--Limited use was made of unbaited trapping +devices: wire traps 2.5 feet in diameter, six feet long, covered with +one-inch-mesh chicken wire; hoop nets 1.5 feet to three feet in +diameter at the first hoop with a pot-mesh of one inch; and a fyke net +three feet in diameter at the first hoop, pot-mesh of one inch with +wings three feet in length. All of these were set parallel to the +current with the mouths downstream. The use of trapping devices was +abated because data obtained were not sufficient to justify the effort +expended. + + +_Gill Nets_ + +Gill-netting was done mostly in 1959 at the lower Neosho station. Use of +gill nets was limited because frequent slight rises in the river caused +nets to collect excessive debris, with damage to the nets. + +Gill nets used were 125 feet long, six feet deep, with mesh sizes of +3/4 inch to 2-1/2 inches. Nets, weighted to sink, were placed at right +angles to the current and attached at the banks with rope. + + +_Sodium Cyanide_ + +Pellets of sodium cyanide were used infrequently to collect fish from a +moderately fast riffle over gravel bottom that was overgrown with +willows, making seining impossible. The pellets were dissolved in a +small amount of water, a seine was held in place, and the cyanide +solution was introduced into the water a short distance upstream from +the seine, causing incapacitated fish to drift into the seine. Most of +these fish that were placed in uncontaminated water revived. + + +_Rotenone_ + +Rotenone was used in a few small pools in efforts to capture complete +populations. This method was used to check the validity of other +methods, and to reduce the possibility that rare species would go +undetected. Rotenone was applied by hand, and applications were +occasionally supplemented by placing rotenone in a container that was +punctured with a small hole and suspended over the water at the head of +a riffle draining into the area being poisoned. This maintained a toxic +concentration in the pool for sufficient time to obtain the desired +kill. Rotenone acts more slowly than cyanide, allowing more of the +distressed fish to rise to the surface. + + +_Dyes_ + +Bismark Brown Y was used primarily at the upper Neosho station to stain +large numbers of small fish. The dye was used at a dilution of 1:20,000. +Fishes were placed in the dye-solution for three hours, then +transferred to a live-box in midstream for variable periods (ten minutes +to twelve hours) before release. + + +_Determination of Abundance_ + +In the accounts of species that follow, the relative terms "abundant," +"common," and "rare" are used. Assignment of one of these terms to each +species was based on analysis of data that are presented in Tables 9-16, +(pages 402, 403, 404, 405, 408, 410, 411, 414-415, and 416). The number +of fish caught per unit of effort with the shocker (Table 10) and with +seines (Table 11) constitute the main basis for statements about the +abundance of each species at all stations except the upper Neosho +station. Species listed in each Table (10 and 11) are those that were +taken consistently by the method specified in the caption of the table; +erratically, but in large numbers at least once, by that method; and +those taken by the method specified but not the other method. + +For the species listed in Table 10, the following usually applies: +abundant=more than three fish caught per hour; common=one to three fish +caught per hour; rare=less than one fish caught per hour. + +Tables 12-16 list all fish obtained at the upper Neosho station by means +of the shocker, seines, and rotenone. + + +_Names of Fishes_ + +Technical names of fishes are those that seem to qualify under the +International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Vernacular names are +those in Special Publication No. 2 (1960) of the American Fisheries +Society, with grammatical modifications required for use in the +University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History. + + + + +ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES + + +#Lepisosteus osseus# (Linnaeus) + +Long-nosed Gar + +The long-nosed gar was abundant at the lower and middle Neosho stations +and the lower Marais des Cygnes station. Numbers increased slightly in +the period of study, probably because of increased, continuous flow. The +long-nosed gar was not taken at the upper Neosho station. At lower +stations the fish occurred in many habitats, but most commonly in pools +where gar often were seen with their snouts protruding above the water +in midstream. Gar commonly lie quietly near the surface, both by day and +by night, and are therefore readily collected by means of the shocker. +Twice, at night, gar jumped into the boat after being shocked. + +Young-of-the-year were taken at the middle and lower stations on both +the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes rivers, and all were near shore in +quiet water. Many young-of-the-year were seined at the lower Neosho +station on 18 June 1959, near the lower end of a gravel-bar in a small +backwater-area having a depth of one to three inches, a muddy bottom, +and a higher temperature than the mainstream. Forty-three of these young +gar averaged 2.1 inches in total length (T.L.). + +Comparison of sizes of long-nosed gar taken by means of the shocker and +gill nets at the lower and middle Neosho stations revealed that: the +average size at each station remained constant from 1957 to 1959; the +average size was greater at the lower than at the middle station; and, +with the exception of young-of-the-year, no individual shorter than 13 +inches was found at the middle station and only one shorter than 16 +inches was taken at the lower station (Table 5). + +Because collecting was intensive and several methods were used, I think +that the population of gars was sampled adequately. Wallen (_Fishes of +the Verdigris River in Oklahoma_, 1958:29 [mimeographed copy of +dissertation, Oklahoma State University]) took large individuals in the +mainstream of the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and small specimens from +the headwaters of some tributaries. Because I took young-of-the-year at +the lower Neosho station, it is possible that long-nosed gar move +upstream when small and then slowly downstream to the larger parts of +rivers as the fish increase in size. This pattern of size-segregation, +according to size of river, merits further investigation. + +Ripe, spent, and immature long-nosed gar (38 males and 10 females) were +taken in three gill nets, set across the channel, 150 to 500 yards below +a riffle, at the lower Neosho station on June 16, 17, and 18, 1959. On +23 June, 1959, 12 males and two females were taken in gill nets set 50, +150, and 400 yards above the same riffle. Operations with the shocker +between 24 June and 10 July, 1959, yielded 29 males and three females. +The fish were taken from many kinds of habitat in a three-mile section +of the river. + +Direction of movement as recorded from gill nets shows that of 67 gar +taken, 45 had moved downstream and 22 upstream into the nets. Only ten +of the above gar were taken from the nets set above the riffle; six of +the ten were captured as they moved downstream into the nets. + +On one occasion I watched minnows swimming frantically about, jumping +out of the water, and crowding against the shore, presumably to avoid a +long-nosed gar that swam slowly in and out of view. I have observed +similar activity when gar fed in aquaria. Stomachs of a few gar from the +Neosho River were examined and found to contain minnows and some channel +catfish. + +Long-nosed gar have a relatively long life span (Breder, 1936). This +longevity and their ability to gulp air probably insure excellent +survival through periods of adverse conditions. The population of +long-nosed gar probably would not be drastically affected even in the +event of a nearly complete failure of one or two successive hatches. +Maturity is attained at approximately 20 inches, total length. + +Collections at the middle Neosho station in 1958 indicate that the +long-nosed gar is more susceptible to capture at night than in daytime +(Table 9, p. 402). + + TABLE 5. NUMBERS AND SIZES OF LONG-NOSED GAR CAPTURED + BY SHOCKER AND GILL NETS AT THE MIDDLE AND LOWER NEOSHO + STATIONS IN 1957, 1958 AND 1959. + + Average total + Location Date Number length (inches) Range + + Middle Neosho 1957 19 22.2 14-32 + Middle Neosho 1958 57 22.2 14-40 + Middle Neosho 1959 64 21.6 13-43 + Lower Neosho 1957 14 29.4 9-45 + Lower Neosho 1958 7 25.3 23-28 + Lower Neosho 1959 107 26.2 16-43 + + +#Lepisosteus platostomus Rafinesque# + +Short-nosed Gar + +Only one short-nosed gar was taken in 1957, at the lower station on the +Neosho River. In 1958 this species was taken at the lower station on the +Marais des Cygnes and in 1958 and 1959 at the lower and middle stations +on the Neosho. More common in the Neosho than the Marais des Cygnes, _L. +platostomus_ occurs mainly in large streams and never was taken in the +upper portions of either river. Although short-nosed gar were about +equally abundant at the middle and lower stations on the Neosho, the +average size was greater at the lower station (Table 6). This kind of +segregation by size is shared with long-nosed gar, and was considered in +the discussion of that species. Short-nosed gar were taken only in quiet +water. Both species were collected most efficiently by means of gill +nets and shocker. While shocking, I saw many gar only momentarily, as +they appeared at the surface, and specific identification was +impossible. The total of all gar seen while shocking indicated that gar +increased in abundance from 1957 to 1959 (see Tables 5 and 6). Judging +from the gar that were identified, the increase was more pronounced in +short-nosed gar than in long-nosed gar. + +At the lower Neosho station in 1959, two ripe females and one spent +female were taken in gill nets (16, 23 and 17 June, respectively) and +were moving downstream when caught. No males were taken in the nets. +Subsequently, by means of the shocker (26 June-8 July), two spent and +two ripe males were captured in quiet water of the mainstream that +closely resembled areas in which the gill nets were set. No females were +taken by means of the shocker. + + TABLE 6. NUMBERS AND SIZES OF SHORT-NOSED GAR CAPTURED BY SHOCKER AND + GILL NETS AT THE MIDDLE AND LOWER NEOSHO STATIONS IN 1958 AND 1959. + + Average total + Location Date Number length (inches) Range + + Middle Neosho 1958 6 14.9 13.9-15.5 + Middle Neosho 1959 9 13.6 11.0-16.0 + Lower Neosho 1958 3 21.0 20.3-21.6 + Lower Neosho 1959 5 21.3 18.0-24.5 + + +#Dorosoma cepedianum# (LeSueur) + +Gizzard Shad + +Gizzard shad declined in abundance from 1957 to 1959. The largest +population occurred at the middle station on the Marais des Cygnes in +1957. Shad were mainly in quiet water; often, when the river-level was +high, I found them predominately in backwaters or in the mouths of +tributary streams. Examination of nine individuals, ranging in size from +seven inches to 13.5 inches T. L., indicated that maturity is reached at +10 to 11 inches T. L. Spawning probably occurred in late June in 1959 +("ripe" female caught on 26 June); young-of-the-year were first recorded +in mid-July. + + +#Cycleptus elongatus# (LeSueur) + +Blue Sucker + +The blue sucker was taken rarely in the Neosho River and not at all in +the Marais des Cygnes in my study. Cross (personal communication) +obtained several blue suckers in collections made in the mainstream of +the Neosho River in 1952; both young and adults occupied swift, deep +riffles. The species seemingly declined in abundance during the drought, +and at the conclusion of my study (1959) had not regained the level of +abundance found in 1952. + + +#Ictiobus cyprinella# (Valenciennes) + +Big-mouthed Buffalo + +Big-mouthed buffalo were found in quiet water at all stations, but were +rare. A ripe female, 21.5 inches long, was taken at the lower station on +the Neosho on 16 June, 1959. + + +#Ictiobus niger# (Rafinesque) + +Black Buffalo + +and + +#Ictiobus bubalus# (Rafinesque) + +Small-mouthed Buffalo + +Black buffalo were not taken at the upper station on the Neosho and were +rare at other stations. Small-mouthed buffalo were taken at all stations +and were common in the lower portions of the two streams. While the +shocker was being used, buffalo were often seen only momentarily, +thereby making specific identification impossible; both species were +frequently taken together, and for this reason are discussed as a unit. +Both species maintained about the same level of abundance throughout my +study. + +The two species were taken most often in the deeper, swifter currents of +the mainstream, but were sometimes found in pools, creek-mouths and +backwaters. On several occasions in the summer of 1959, buffalo were +seen in shallow parts of long, rubble riffles, with the dorsal or caudal +fins protruding above the surface. Ernest Craig, game protector, said +buffalo on such riffles formerly provided much sport for gig-fishermen. +He stated that the best catches were made at night because the fish were +less "spooky" then than in daytime. In my collections made by use of the +shocker, buffalo were taken more frequently at night (Table 9, p. 402). + +On 19 June, 1959, I saw many buffalo that seemed to be feeding as they +moved slowly upstream along the bottom of a riffle. The two species, +often side by side, were readily distinguishable underwater. +Small-mouthed buffalo appeared to be paler (slate gray) and more +compressed than the darker black buffalo. To test the reliability of +underwater identifications, I identified all individuals prior to +collection with a gig. Correct identification was made of all fish +collected on 19 June. The smallest individual obtained in this manner +was 18.5 inches T. L. On 26 August, 1959, 16 small-mouthed buffalo were +captured and many more were seen while the shocker was in use in the +same riffle for one hour and ten minutes. One small-mouthed buffalo was +caught while the shocker was being used in the pool below that riffle +for one hour and fifty minutes. No black buffalo were taken on 26 +August. + +Spawning by buffalo was not observed but probably occurred in spring; +all mature fish in my earliest collections (mid-June of each year) were +spent. Small-mouthed buffalo reach maturity at approximately 14 inches +T. L. + + +#Carpiodes carpio carpio# (Rafinesque) + +River Carpsucker + +River carpsucker were abundant throughout the study at all stations. +Adults were taken most frequently in quiet water, but depth and +bottom-type varied. The greatest concentrations occurred in mouths of +creeks during times of high water; occasionally, large numbers were +taken in a shallow backwater near the head of a riffle at the middle +Neosho station. River carpsucker feed on the bottom but seem partly +pelagic in habit. They were taken readily by means of the shocker and +gill nets at all depths. The population of _C. carpio_ in the Neosho +River probably was depleted by drought, although many individuals +survived in the larger pools. + +When stream-flow was restored, carpsucker probably moved rapidly +upstream but had a scattered distribution in 1957. Trautman (1957:239) +states that in the Scioto River, Ohio, river carpsucker moved upstream +in May and downstream in late August and early September. Numbers found +at the middle and lower Neosho stations suggest similar movements in the +Neosho River in 1957. In midsummer they were common at the middle +station but rare at the lower station; however, they became abundant at +the lower station in November. The abundance in late fall at the lower +Neosho station might have resulted either from downstream migration or +from continued upstream movement into thinly populated areas. No +indication of seasonal movement was found in 1958 or 1959. + +River carpsucker reach maturity at approximately 11 inches T. L., and +spawning occurs in May or June. A ripe male was taken from a +gravel-bottomed riffle, three feet deep, at the middle station on the +Neosho station on 10 June 1959. + +The size-distribution of individuals taken at the middle Neosho station +is presented in Fig. 2. The collection in early July of 1958 indicates +that one size-group (probably the 1957 year-class) had a median length +of approximately seven inches. The modal length of this group was nine +inches in June, 1959. A second, predominant size-group (Fig. 2) seemed +to maintain almost the same median size throughout all the collection +periods, although specimens taken in the spring of 1959 were slightly +smaller than those obtained in 1958. This apparent stability in size may +have been due to an influx of the faster-growing individuals from a +smaller size-group, coupled with mortality of most individuals more than +14 inches in length. + +Young-of-the-year were taken at every station. Extensive seining along a +gravel bar at the lower Neosho station indicated that the young are +highly selective for quiet, shallow water with mud bottom. In these +areas, young-of-the-year carpsucker were often the most abundant fish. + +River carpsucker were collected more readily by use of the shocker after +dark than in daylight (Table 9, p. 402). + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. Length-frequency of river carpsucker + in the Neosho River, 1958 and 1959.] + + +#Carpiodes velifer# (Rafinesque) + +High-finned Carpsucker + +A specimen of _Carpiodes velifer_ taken at the lower station on the +Neosho in 1958 provided the only record of the species in Kansas since +1924. Many specimens, now in the University of Kansas Museum of Natural +History, were taken from the Neosho River system by personnel of the +State Biological Survey prior to 1912. The species has declined greatly +in abundance in the past 50 years. + + +#Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum# Trautman + +Short-headed Redhorse + +The short-headed redhorse occurred at all stations. It was common at the +middle and lower stations on the Neosho, rare at the upper station on +the Neosho, abundant at the upper station on the Marais des Cygnes in +1957, and rare thereafter at all stations on the Marais des Cygnes. +Short-headed redhorse typically occur in riffles, most commonly at the +uppermost end where the water flows swiftly and is about two feet deep. +An unusually large concentration was seen on 13 June, 1959, in shallow +(six inches), fast water over gravel bottom at the middle station on the +Neosho River. + +Thirty-nine individuals were marked by clipping fins at the middle +Neosho station in 1959. Four were recovered from one to 48 days later: +two at the site of original capture (one 48 days after marking), one +less than one-half mile downstream, and one about one mile downstream +from the original site of capture. + +At the middle Neosho station in 1958, this species was taken more +readily by use of the shocker at night than by day (Table 9, p. 402). + + +#Moxostoma erythrurum# (Rafinesque) + +Golden Redhorse + +The golden redhorse was abundant at the upper Neosho station, rare at +the middle Neosho station, and did not occur in collections at other +stations. This species was taken most frequently over gravel- or +rubble-bottoms in small pools below riffles, and was especially +susceptible to collection by means of the shocker. + +Twenty-nine golden redhorse of the 1957 year-class, taken at the upper +Neosho station on 9 September 1958, were 6.2 to 8.6 inches in total +length (average 7.4 inches); 26 individuals of the same year-class +caught on 21 August 1959 were 9.3 to 13.5 inches in total length +(average 10.9 inches). + + +#Cyprinus carpio# Linnaeus + +Carp + +The carp decreased in abundance from 1957 to 1959 at the upper and +middle Marais des Cygnes station and at the middle and lower Neosho +stations. Carp were more abundant in the Marais des Cygnes than in the +Neosho, although the largest number in any single collection was found +in one pool at the upper Neosho station in 1958. + +Carp were taken most commonly in quiet water near brush or other cover. +At the middle Neosho station, collecting was most effective between the +hours of 6:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. and least effective between 12:30 p.m. +and 6:30 p.m. (Table 9, p. 402). Ripe males were taken as early as +19 April (16.1 inches, 19.4 inches T. L.) and as late as 30 July (16 +inches T. L.) at the middle Neosho station. Ripe females were taken as +early as 19 April at the middle Neosho station (19.2 inches T. L.) and +as late as 7 July at the lower Neosho station (16 inches T. L.). +Young-of-the-year were taken first at the middle Marais des Cygnes on 8 +July 1957. They were recorded on later dates at the upper Marais des +Cygnes and at the lower and middle Neosho stations. + + +#Notemigonus crysoleucas# (Mitchill) + +Golden Shiner + +The golden shiner was taken rarely at the upper Marais des Cygnes +station in 1958 and 1959 and at the middle Marais des Cygnes station in +1957 and 1958. At the middle Neosho station _Notemigonus_ was seined +from a pond that is flooded frequently by the river, but never was taken +in the mainstream. + + +#Semotilus atromaculatus# (Mitchill) + +Creek Chub + +The creek chub was taken only at the upper stations on both rivers. It +increased in abundance at the upper Neosho station from 1957 to 1959, +and was not taken in the upper Marais des Cygnes until 1959. + + +#Hybopsis storeriana# (Kirtland) + +Silver Chub + +A single specimen from the lower Marais des Cygnes station provides the +only record of the species from the Marais des Cygnes system in Kansas, +and is the only silver chub that I found in either river in 1957-1959. +The species is taken often in the Kansas and Arkansas rivers. + + +#Hybopsis x-punctata# Hubbs and Crowe + +Gravel Chub + +The gravel chub, present only at the lower and middle Neosho stations, +occupied moderate currents over clean (free of silt) gravel bottom. The +gravel chub was not taken in 1957, was rare at both Neosho stations in +1958, became common at the lower Neosho station in part of 1959, but was +never numerous at the middle Neosho station. Dr. F. B. Cross recorded +the species as "rare" in 1952 at a collection site near my middle Neosho +station, but larger numbers were taken then than in any of my +collections at that station. The population was probably reduced by +drought, and recovery was comparatively slow following restoration of +flow. + +Young-of-the-year and adults were common in collections from riffles at +the lower Neosho station from 1 July through 8 July, 1959. I obtained +only one specimen in intensive collections in the same area on 25, 26, +and 27 August. Seemingly the species had moved off shallow riffles into +areas not sampled effectively by seining. + + +#Phenacobius mirabilis# (Girard) + +Sucker-mouthed Minnow + +The sucker-mouthed minnow was common at the middle Marais des Cygnes +station but was not taken at the upper and lower stations until 1959, +when it was rare. At the middle and lower Neosho stations this fish +increased in abundance from 1957 to 1959; at the upper station, +sucker-mouthed minnows were not taken until 1959 when collections were +made on the White farm. There, the species was common immediately below +a low-head dam, but was not taken in extensive collections on the Bosch +Farm in 1959. + +The species was most common immediately below riffles, or in other areas +having clean gravel bottom in the current. On 5 June, 1959, many +individuals were taken at night (11:30 p.m.) on a shallow gravel riffle +(four inches in depth) where none had been found in a collection at 5:00 +p.m. on the same date. + +Young-of-the-year were taken at the lower Neosho station on 24 June, +1959, and commonly thereafter in the summer. + + +#Notropis rubellus# (Agassiz) + +Rosy-faced Shiner + +In 1958, the rosy-faced shiner was taken rarely at the lower stations on +both streams. This species is common in smaller streams tributary to the +lower portions of the two rivers, and probably occurs in the mainstream +only as "overflow" from tributaries. Possibly, during drought, +rosy-faced shiners found suitable habitat in the mainstream of Neosho +and Marais des Cygnes rivers, but re-occupied tributary streams as their +flow increased with favorable precipitation, leaving diminishing +populations in the mainstream. + + +#Notropis umbratilis# (Girard) + +Red-finned Shiner + +The red-finned shiner, most abundant at the upper Neosho station, +occurred at all stations except the upper Marais des Cygnes. This fish +seems to prefer small streams, not highly turbid, having clean, hard +bottoms. It is a pool-dwelling, pelagic species. + + +#Notropis camurus# (Jordan and Meek) + +Blunt-faced Shiner + +The blunt-faced shiner was taken only in 1957, at the middle Neosho +station, where it was rare. This species, abundant in clear streams +tributary to the Neosho River (field data, State Biological Survey) may +have used the mainstream as a refugium during drought. The few specimens +obtained in 1957 possibly represent a relict population that remained in +the mainstream after flow in tributaries was restored by increased +rainfall. + + +#Notropis lutrensis# (Baird and Girard) + +Red Shiner + +The red shiner, abundant in 1952 (early stage of drought), was +consistently the most abundant fish in my collections in the Marais des +Cygnes and at the lower and middle Neosho stations. However, the +abundance declined from 1957 to 1959 at the two Neosho stations. At the +upper Neosho station the species was fourth in abundance in 1957, and +third in 1958 and 1959 (Table 12). + +The red shiner is pelagic in habit and occurs primarily in pools, though +it frequently inhabits adjacent riffles. Collections by seining along a +gravel bar at the lower station showed this fish to be most abundant in +shallow, quiet water over mud bottom, or at the head of a gravel bar in +relatively quiet water. At the lower end of the gravel bar in water one +to four feet deep, with a shallow layer of silt over gravel bottom and a +slight eddy-current, red shiners were replaced by ghost shiners or river +carpsucker young-of-the-year as the dominant fish. + +Fifty-nine dyed individuals were released in an eddy at the lower end +of a gravel bar at the middle Neosho station on 5 June, 1959. Some of +these fish still were present in this area when a collection was made 30 +hours later. No colored fish were taken in collections from quiet water +at the upper end of the gravel bar. A swift riffle intervening between +the latter area and the area of release may have impeded their movement. +Forty-six individuals, released at the head of the same gravel bar on 10 +June, 1959, immediately swam slowly upstream through quiet water and +were soon joined by other minnows. These fish did not form a +well-organized school, but moved about independently, with individuals +or groups variously dropping out or rejoining the aggregation until all +colored fish disappeared about 50 feet upstream from the point of +release. + +Evidence of inshore movement at night was obtained on 8 June, 1959, in a +shallow backwater, having gravel bottom, at the head of a gravel bar at +the middle Neosho station. A collection made in the afternoon contained +no red shiners, but they were abundant in the same area after dark. + +In Kansas, red shiners breed in May, June, and July. Minckley +(1959:421-422) described behavior that apparently was associated with +spawning. Because of its abundance, the red shiner is one of the most +important forage fishes in Kansas streams, and frequently is used as a +bait minnow. + + +#Notropis volucellus# (Cope) + +Mimic Shiner + +The mimic shiner was taken only rarely at the two lower Neosho stations. +This species, like _N. camurus_, is normally more common in clear +tributaries than in the Neosho River, and probably frequents the +mainstream only during drought. + + +#Notropis buchanani# Meek + +Ghost Shiner + +Field records of the State Biological Survey indicate that the ghost +shiner was common in the mainstream of the lower Neosho River during +drought. In 1957, the species was abundant at the lower and middle +stations on the Neosho River and at the lower Marais des Cygnes station. + +Collections at all stations show that the species has a definite +preference for eddies--relatively quiet water, but adjacent to the +strong current of the mainstream rather than in backwater remote from +the channel. The bottom-type over which the ghost shiner was found +varied from mud to gravel or rubble. + + +#Notropis stramineus# (Cope) + +Sand Shiner + +The sand shiner was taken rarely in the Neosho and commonly in the +Marais des Cygnes in 1952. In my study the species occurred at all +stations, but not until 1959 at the upper and lower Neosho stations. +Sand shiners were found with equal frequency in pools and riffles. +Spawning takes place in June and July. + + +#Pimephales tenellus tenellus# (Girard) + +Mountain Minnow + +The mountain minnow was common at the lower and middle Neosho stations +throughout the period of study, and increased in abundance from 1957 to +1959. It was taken only in 1959 at the upper Neosho station, where it +was rare. This species does not occur in the Marais des Cygnes River. +The largest numbers were found in 1959 at the lower Neosho station, +where this fish occurred most commonly in moderate current over clean +gravel bottom. The mountain minnow, like _Hybopsis x-punctata_, was +common in late June and early July but few were found in late August, +1959. The near-absence of this species in collections made in late +August is responsible for the apparent slight decline in abundance from +1957 to 1959, as shown in Table 11. Metcalf (1959) found mountain +minnows most commonly in streams of intermediate size in Chautauqua, +Cowley and Elk counties, Kansas. The predilection of this species for +permanent waters resulted in an increase in abundance during my study. +With continued flow, this species possibly will decrease in abundance in +the lower mainstream of the Neosho River. I suspect that the species is, +or will be (with continued stream-flow), abundant in tributaries of +intermediate size in the Neosho River Basin. + + +#Pimephales vigilax perspicuus# (Girard) + +Parrot Minnow + +The parrot minnow was not taken in the Marais des Cygnes River and was +absent at the upper Neosho station until 1959. This species was common +at the lower and middle Neosho stations throughout the period of study +and increased in abundance from 1957 to 1959. + +At the lower Neosho station, this fish preferred slow eddy-current over +silt bottom, along the downstream portion of a gravel bar. The parrot +minnow was taken less abundantly in the latter part of the summer, 1959, +than in early summer, but the decline was less than occurred in the +mountain minnow. + + +#Pimephales notatus# (Rafinesque) + +Blunt-nosed Minnow + +The blunt-nosed minnow was common, and increased in abundance in both +rivers from 1957 to 1959. The largest numbers were found at the upper +Neosho station in 1959, and a large population also was present at the +lower Neosho station in 1959. + +Pools having rubble bottom, bedrock, and small areas of mud were +preferred at the upper Neosho station. At the lower Neosho station the +fish was most common in quiet water at the lower end of a gravel bar. +The parrot minnow also was common in this general area; nevertheless, +these two species were seldom numerous in the same seine-haul, +indicating segregation of the two. The blunt-nosed minnow was taken +frequently in moderate current over clean gravel bottom, especially in +late summer, 1959, when _P. notatus_ increased in abundance as the +mountain minnow decreased. + + +#Pimephales promelas# Rafinesque + +Fat-headed Minnow + +The fat-headed minnow was taken at all stations except at the lower one +on the Marais des Cygnes, and was most abundant at the upper Neosho +station. Intensive seining at the lower Neosho station indicated that +this species preferred quiet water and firm mud bottom. + +In the Neosho River in 1957 to 1959, habitats of the species of +_Pimephales_ seemed to be as follows: _Pimephales tenellus_ (mountain +minnow) occurred primarily in moderately flowing gravel riffles in the +downstream portions of the river. _Pimephales vigilax_ (parrot minnow) +was mostly in the quiet areas having mud bottom at the downstream end of +gravel bars, and less commonly on adjacent riffles, at the lower +station. _Pimephales notatus_ (blunt-nosed minnow) had a wider range of +habitats, occurring in quiet areas and moderate currents both upstream +and downstream. _Pimephales promelas_ (fat-headed minnow) occurred +throughout both rivers but was most abundant in the quiet water at the +uppermost stations. + + +#Campostoma anomalum# (Rafinesque) + +Stoneroller + +The stoneroller was most abundant at the upper Neosho station and was +not taken at the lower Marais des Cygnes station. This fish increased in +abundance from 1957 to 1959, but was never common at the middle Marais +des Cygnes or the middle and lower Neosho stations. + +The stoneroller prefers fast, relatively clear water over rubble or +gravel-bottom. + + +#Ictalurus punctatus# (Rafinesque) + +Channel Catfish + +The abundance of channel catfish was greatly reduced as a result of the +drought of 1952-1956. With the resumption of normal stream-flow in 1957, +the small numbers of adult channel catfish present in the stream +produced unusually large numbers of young. These young of the 1957 +year-class, which reached an average size of about nine inches by +September 1959, will provide an abundant adult population for several +years. + +The reduction in number of channel catfish in streams can be related to +the changed environment in the drought. When stream levels were low in +1953 (Tables 1-4), fish-populations were crowded into a greatly reduced +area. An example of these crowded conditions was observed by Roy +Schoonover, Biologist of the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission, +in October, 1953, when he was called to rescue fish near Iola, Kansas. +The Neosho River had ceased to flow and a pool (less than one acre) +below the city overflow dam was pumped dry. Schoonover (personal +communication) estimated that 40,000 fish of all kinds were present in +the pool. About 30,000 of these were channel catfish, two inches to 14 +inches long, with a few larger ones. Fish were removed in the belief +that sustained intermittency in the winter of 1953-1954 would result in +severe winterkill. These conditions almost certainly were prevalent +throughout the basin. + +In addition to winterkill, crowding probably resulted in a reduced rate +of reproduction by channel catfish, and by other species as well. This +kind of density-dependent reduction of fecundity is known for many +species of animals (Lack, 1954, ch. 7). In fish, it is probably +expressed by complete failure of many individuals to spawn, coupled with +scant survival of young produced by the adults that do spawn. +Reproductive failure of channel catfish in farm ponds, especially in +clear ponds, is well known, and is often attributed to a paucity of +suitable nest-sites (Marzolf, 1957:22; Davis, 1959:10). + +In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes rivers, the intermittent conditions +prevalent in the drought resulted in reduced turbidity in the remaining +pools. Many spawning sites normally used by channel catfish were +exposed, and others were rendered unsuitable because of the increased +clarity of the water. In addition, predation on young channel catfish is +increased in clear water (Marzolf; Davis, _loc. cit._), and would of +course be especially pronounced in crowded conditions. The population +was thereby reduced to correspond to the carrying capacity of each pool +in the stream bed. + +The return of normal flow in 1957 left large areas unoccupied by fish +and the processes described above were reversed. The expanded habitat +favored spawning by nearly the entire adult population, and conditions +for survival of young were excellent. As a result, a large hatch +occurred in the summer of 1957. (Several hundred small channel catfish +were sometimes taken by use of the shocker a short distance upstream +from a 25-foot seine, set in a riffle). Subsequent survival of the 1957 +year-class has been good. By 1959, few of the catfish spawned in 1957 +had grown large enough to contribute to the sport fishery, but they are +expected to do so in 1960 and 1961. + +The 1957 year-class was probably the first strong year-class of channel +catfish since 1952. Davis (1959:15) found that channel catfish in Kansas +seldom live longer than seven years. The 1952 year-class reached age +seven in 1959. The extreme environmental conditions to which these fish +were subjected in drought caused a higher mortality than would occur in +normal times. The adult population in the two rivers probably was +progressively reduced throughout the drought, and the reduction will +continue until the strong 1957 year-class replenishes it. For these +reasons, fishing success was poor in 1957-1959. + +Juvenile channel catfish were more abundant in the Neosho than in the +Marais des Cygnes in 1958 and 1959, although both streams supported +sizable populations. In the Marais des Cygnes the upper station had +fewer channel catfish than the middle and lower stations. In the Neosho, +populations were equally abundant both upstream and downstream. The +habitat of channel catfish in streams has been discussed by Bailey and +Harrison (1948). + +I found adults in various habitats throughout the stream, but most +abundantly in moderately fast water at the lower and middle Neosho +stations. At the upper Neosho station where riffles are shallow, +yearlings and two-year-olds were numerous in many of the small pools +over rubble-gravel bottom. Cover was utilized where present, but large +numbers were taken in pools devoid of cover. Young-of-the-year were +nearly always taken from rubble- or gravel-riffles having moderate to +fast current at both upstream and downstream stations. + +Collections showed that young of 1957 were abundant on riffles +throughout the summer and until 17 November, 1957. Subsequent +collections were not made until 11 May, 1958, at which time 1957-class +fish still were abundant on riffles at the lower Neosho station; on that +date, the larger individuals were in deeper parts of the riffles than +were smaller representatives of the same year-class. + +In a later collection (2 June, 1958), numbers present on the riffles +were greatly reduced and the larger individuals were almost entirely +missing. Some of the smaller individuals were still present in the +shallower riffle areas. Table 7 compares sizes of the individuals +obtained on 2 June with sizes collected from deep riffles at the middle +Neosho station on 7 June, 1958. The larger size of the group present in +deep riffles is readily apparent. The yearlings almost completely +disappeared from subsequent collections on riffles. + +A bimodal size-distribution of young-of-the-year was noted also in 1958 +and 1959; but, no segregation of the two sizes occurred on riffles in +summer. Marzolf (1957:25) recorded two peaks in spawning activity in +Missouri ponds. Two spawning periods may account for the bimodal size +distribution of young-of-the-year observed in my study. + +In 1959, young-of-the-year began to appear in the latter part of June +and became abundant by the first part of July. Individuals as small as +one inch T. L. were taken in gravel-bottomed riffles on 1 July, 1959. + +Yearling individuals at the lower and middle Neosho stations showed a +pronounced tendency to move into shallow, moderately fast water over +rubble or gravel bottom at night, where they were nearly ten times more +abundant than in daytime (Table 9). Adults probably have the same +pattern of daily movement as yearlings, except that at night the adults +move to deeper riffles. Bailey and Harrison (1948:135-136) demonstrated +that channel catfish feed most actively from sundown to midnight. + +Channel catfish (especially two-year-olds and adults) were abundant on +a rubble-riffle during the day in some collections at the lower Neosho +station in 1959. + + TABLE 7. LENGTH-FREQUENCY OF CHANNEL CATFISH FROM THE NEOSHO RIVER, + 1957, 1958 AND 1959. (NUMBERS IN VERTICAL COLUMNS INDICATE THE + NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS OF A CERTAIN SIZE COLLECTED ON THAT DATE.) + + June 2 June 7 + 1958 1958 + Length Nov. 2 (shallow (deep Sept. 9 Sept. 11 + in inches 1957 riffle) riffle) 1958 1959 + + 1.5 1 + 2.0 3 + 2.5 13 2 1 2 + 3.0 4 11 3 4 + 3.5 3 21 7 1 14 + 4.0 11 12 9 + 4.5 4 10 1 + 5.0 2 11 2 + 5.5 1 7 26 + 6.0 58 2 + 6.5 1 32 5 + 7.0 16 5 + 7.5 1 4 5 + 8.0 22 + 8.5 45 + 9.0 81 + 9.5 41 + 10.0 21 + 10.5 8 + 11.0 4 + 11.5 1 + 12.0 3 + 12.5 1 + 13.0 1 + +Near the end of the spawning season in 1959, I found spawning catfish at +the lower Neosho station. Ripe females were taken between 9 June and 30 +June, 1959; and, on 19 June I found a channel catfish nest with eggs +(water temp. 79° F.). The nest-site was a hole in the base of a clay +bank; the floor was clean gravel with a small mound of gravel at the +entrance. The nest-opening, five to six inches in diameter, widened +almost immediately into a chamber about two and one-half feet long and +one foot wide. Normally the water was about six inches deep in the +mainstream as it ran over a riffle adjacent to the catfish nest. When +I put my hand into the opening the fish bit vigorously, but became +quiescent when I stroked its belly. I then felt the rounded gelatinous +mass of eggs on the bottom of the nest. On June 22 (water temp. 86° F.) +the fish was removed, struggling, from the nest, and returned to the +stream. The next day (23 June 1959, water temp. 84° F.) the eggs had +hatched and the young were in a swarm in the nest. The adult did not +attempt to bite but left as soon as I put my hand into the hole. + +Marzolf (1957:25) reports that young remain in the nest from seven to +eight days after hatching. My seining records show a marked increase in +abundance of small young-of-the-year on the first of July. Probably the +time of hatching of the nest described above correlated well with +hatches of other nests. + +One and sometimes two channel catfish were found in other holes in +the stream-bank or bottom. The fish occasionally attacked my hand +vigorously, but at other times remained quiet or left without attacking. +No other channel catfish eggs were found, although one hole under a rock +in the middle of the river had one or two individuals in it each time it +was checked until 11 July, 1959. A local fisherman informed me of his +belief that these holes are occupied only in the spawning season. + +Observations that I made in a pond owned by Dr. E. C. Bryan of Erie +indicated that channel catfish, when disturbed in the early stages of +guarding the eggs, either eat the eggs and abandon the nest or leave the +nest exposed to predation by other animals. In the later stages of +nesting, the fish, if removed, will return to guard the nest. After the +eggs hatch the guarding response probably diminishes and the fish leaves +the nest readily. + +At the lower Neosho station, several "artificial" holes were dug into +the clay bank and two pieces of six-inch pipe were forced into the bank. +Nearly all these holes were occupied by catfish for a short period in +June; many of the holes were enlarged, either by the current or by fish. +I suspect that fish enlarged some holes, because in the spawning season +several males were observed that had large abrasions atop their heads, +around their lips, and to a lesser extent on their sides. These could +have been caused by butting and scraping the sides, roof and floor of a +hole. I found it possible to enlarge the holes by rapidly moving my hand +while it was inside a hole. + +The growth-rate of channel catfish in the Neosho was approximately the +same at all stations, and the large 1957 year-class grew to an average +size of about nine inches by mid-September, 1959 (Table 7). Channel +catfish mature at a total length of 12 to 15 inches. Thus, most +individuals of the 1957 year-class in the Neosho River probably will +mature in their fourth or fifth summer (1960 or 1961 spawning season). + +The sizes attained by young-of-the-year in 1957 differed in the two +rivers. Six hundred and thirty-three young taken in the Marais des +Cygnes River attained an average size of 4.7 inches (range two to six +inches) by mid-September. (Age was determined by length-frequency and +verified by examining cross-sections of fin-spines from the larger +individuals). One hundred and fifty young from the Neosho River averaged +3.0 inches (range 2 to 3.7 inches) on 2 November. Gross examination of +the riffle-insect faunas indicated a larger standing crop in the Neosho +than in the Marais des Cygnes River. Thus, the slower growth of young +channel catfish in the Neosho seemed not to be correlated with food +supply. Bailey and Harrison (1948:125-130) found that young channel +catfish in the Des Moines River, Iowa, fed almost exclusively on aquatic +insect larvae. My observations indicate that this is true in the Neosho +and Marais des Cygnes rivers also. + +Young produced in 1958 in the Neosho River attained an average total +length of three inches by 26 August, and young produced in 1959 attained +an average size of 3.5 inches by 11 September. Both groups probably +continued growth until October, and may have averaged four inches total +length at that time. + +The 1958 and 1959 year-classes were much less abundant than were the +1957 young. Therefore, it seems likely that the growth of the 1957 young +in the Neosho River was depressed because of crowding. The 1959 +year-class was larger than the small 1958 year-class, thus conforming to +a general expectation that strong year-classes will be followed by weak +year-classes. + +Reproduction by channel catfish in 1957 seemed greater in the Neosho +River than in the Marais des Cygnes River (Table 10); this coincided +with a greater change in volume of flow in the Neosho River than in the +Marais des Cygnes River (Tables 1-4). The 1957 year-class seemed more +crowded, and grew more slowly, in the Neosho than in the Marais des +Cygnes River. + + +#Ictalurus natalis# (LeSueur) + +Yellow Bullhead + +Yellow bullhead were taken only at the middle station on the Marais des +Cygnes and upper station on the Neosho. The yellow bullhead is more +restricted to streams than is the black bullhead. Both species decreased +in abundance during a period of continuous flow (1957 to 1959) following +drought at the upper Neosho station. Collections in 1958-'59 indicated +an increase in average size. Of four individuals marked and released at +the upper Neosho station in 1959, one was recaptured about three hours +after being released. It had not moved from the area of release. + + +#Ictalurus melas# (Rafinesque) + +Black Bullhead + +The black bullhead was abundant at the upper stations on each river, +especially in backwaters having mud-bottom. The species was not taken in +the mainstream of the lower and middle Neosho stations, but was taken at +the middle Neosho station in a pond that is often flooded by the river. +Although the fish was common or abundant in nearly all pools at the +upper Neosho station, it was most abundant in one pool that had a bottom +predominately of mud. + +At the middle Marais des Cygnes station, 109 individuals were collected +and fin-clipped on 8, 9 and 24 July 1957. Three of the 19 marked on 8 +July were recaptured in the same area on 9 July. The area was poisoned +on 13 September, 1957, and 130 black bullhead were taken, none of which +had been marked. + +In 1959, 96 black bullhead were taken at the upper Neosho station (five +in Area 1 and 91 at the White Farm). In these collections, 25 were +marked (fin-clipped or dyed) and six were recaptured. Four of the six +had not left the area of capture one and two days after being released. +The fifth fish recaptured was one of five individuals that had been +displaced one pool downstream. When recaptured seven days later, this +fish had moved upstream over two steep riffles (two to three inches +deep, 75 feet and 166 feet long) past the site of original capture to +the next pool. The sixth fish, marked at the same time but returned to +the original pool, was recaptured nine days after original capture and +had moved upstream over a long riffle (two to three inches deep, 166 +feet long) and a short riffle into the second pool above the original +site of its capture. + +Rotenone was applied to a small (.04 acre-feet) backwater ditch having a +soft mud bottom at the upper Marais des Cygnes station on 25 July, 1957; +1526 black bullhead, one green sunfish and one white crappie were +collected. A sample of 60 bullhead averaged 4.6 inches T.L. (range 3.5 +to 6.6 inches) and 540 individuals averaged .7 ounce each. These fish +probably represented the 1956 year-class. + +The upper Neosho station had a large population of black bullhead, +strongly dominated by fish less than four inches T. L. (range 1.5 to 3.8 +inches), in the spring of 1957. Most were approximately two inches T. +L. and probably represented the 1956 year-class. Growth, according to +length-frequency, following restoration of stream-flow, shows a regular +increase in length of this dominant 1956 year-class (Fig. 3). A scarcity +of young, especially in 1958 and 1959, is apparent in Fig. 3. This may +be due to the fact that a strong year-class usually is followed by one +or several weak year-classes. However, it more probably reflects the +fact that black bullhead are characteristically pond fish, and as such +are not so well adapted to reproduction in flowing streams as are many +other species. Metcalf (1959) found this species most abundantly in the +intermittent headwaters of Walnut River and Grouse Creek in Cowley +County, Kansas. + + [Illustration: FIG. 3. Length-frequency of black bullhead + at the upper Neosho station, 1957, 1958 and 1959.] + + +#Pylodictis olivaris# (Rafinesque) + +Flat-headed Catfish + +The flathead is the largest sport-fish occurring in Kansas. Several +weighing more than 40 pounds are caught from streams each year, and the +species reportedly attains sizes in excess of one hundred pounds. +Several aspects of the biology of the flathead in Kansas have been +discussed by Minckley and Deacon (1959). + +The abundance of flathead declined slightly from 1957 through 1959, +counting fish of all sizes. This trend is attributable to a large hatch +in 1957; the 1957 year-class strongly dominated the population +throughout my study. Natural mortality in that year-class was +compensated by increased average size of the individuals (to six inches +in autumn, 1958, and 11 inches in autumn, 1959). + +The numbers of flathead caught at the upper stations on the Neosho and +Marais des Cygnes rivers differed from the general trend in that the +species was rare in 1957 and increased slightly by 1959. Flathead are +most numerous in large streams, and in the drought they probably were +almost extirpated from the headwaters. After 1957, continuous flow and +increased volume of flow were accompanied by a gradual increase in +numbers of flathead in the upstream parts of the two rivers. The species +was most abundant at the middle and lower Neosho stations, where 10.5 +per cent of all fish shocked in 1957 and 1958 were _P. olivaris_. + +The habitat of the flathead varied with size of the individuals. +Young-of-the-year inhabited swift riffles having rubble bottom; +individuals four to 12 inches in total length were distributed +throughout the stream; those more than 12 inches in total length were +most commonly in pools in association with cover (rocks, or drifts of +fallen timber). + +Male flathead mature at 15 to 18 inches total length, females at 18 to +20 inches. The spawning season in 1959 probably began in early June and +extended to mid-July. I attempted to find spawning fish on 19 June and +for one month thereafter. On 19 June nine holes were dug into a 75-yard +section of a clay bank adjacent to a long, shallow, rubble riffle. +A flathead was first found in one of these holes on 22 June, and +others were frequently found in this and one other hole until mid-July. +Although channel catfish were often found in nearby holes, that +species was never present in the two holes used by flatheads. The +holes occupied by flathead (as well as those used by channel catfish) +characteristically had silt-free gravel bottoms and a ridge of clean +gravel across the entrance. + +A nest containing a flathead and eggs was located on 11 July. In +checking the hole I first put my foot into the entrance, then slowly +advanced my hand into the hole, feeling along the bottom with my fingers +until they entered the open mouth of a large catfish. I backed off +slowly and then felt beneath the fish. The fish was directly above the +egg-mass, seemingly touching the eggs with its belly. As I touched the +front of the egg-mass the fish struck viciously, taking my entire fist +into its mouth. It continued striking until I removed my hand from the +hole after obtaining a small sample of eggs, which proved to be in an +early stage of development (no vascularization evident). + +When the nest was checked again on 13 July the eggs and fish were gone. +As in the case of channel catfish, I suspect that disturbance of a +flathead in the early stages of guarding the nest results in destruction +of the nest either by the guardian fish or by predation resulting from +its absence. + +The hole occupied by the above fish was one that I had dug seven to nine +inches in diameter and extending two and one-half to three feet into the +bank. At the time this fish occupied the hole its depth was +approximately the same as originally, but the entrance had been enlarged +to 14 inches in diameter, and the chamber widened to 32 inches. The +holes were checked later in the summer and all were heavily silted or +had been undercut by action of the current. + +The number of flathead of catchable size was not reduced as severely +during my study as was the number of large channel catfish. Flathead +have a longer life-span than channel catfish; therefore, it is not +surprising that, of flathead and channel catfish that survived the +drought, a higher proportion of flathead persisted throughout the next +three years, in which my study was made. In drought, when fish were +concentrated in residual pools, the piscivorous (fish eating) habit of +flatheads may have favored their survival. + +The growth rate of flathead taken from the Neosho River in 1957 and 1958 +was reported by Minckley and Deacon (1959:351-352). Individuals hatched +in 1955 and 1956 and collected in 1957 had attained average sizes of 9.5 +inches and 4.8 inches, respectively, by the end of the 1956 +growing-season. + +Flatheads of the 1956 and 1957 year-classes attained average sizes of +8.7 and 3.2 inches, respectively, by the end of the 1957 growing season. +These data indicate that growth was retarded in the summer of 1957. Many +species, including _P. olivaris_, had an exceptionally large hatch in +1957, associated with increased water levels in that year. Despite the +great increase in amount of water, I suppose that young-of-the-year and +yearlings were subjected to crowding resulting from exceptional hatches. +This caused reduction in growth of young flathead, and probably in +several other species. + +Food of flatheads 4.0 inches and shorter was nearly all insect larvae; +that of fish 4.1 to 10 inches was insect larvae, fishes and crayfish; +and that of larger flatheads was mostly fish and crayfish. The specific +kind of food eaten was correlated with abundance of the food item in the +stream (Minckley and Deacon, 1959:350-351). + + +#Noturus flavus# Rafinesque + +Stonecat + +The stonecat was not taken at the upper Marais des Cygnes station, and +was less abundant at the middle Marais des Cygnes station than at other +stations. The abundance of the stonecat was greatest at the lower Marais +des Cygnes station in 1957 and at the upper Neosho station in 1959. The +species increased in abundance from 1957 to 1959 in the Neosho River, +where the principal habitat was riffles over rubble bottom. + +Thirty-three stonecats were marked at the upper Neosho station in 1959. +Five of these were recaptured three hours after release, all near the +point of release. One individual was taken from a riffle, fin-clipped, +and released at the foot of the next riffle downstream. When recaptured +four days later, this fish was still in the area of release. +Young-of-the-year were taken on July 1, 1959, at the lower Neosho +station. + + +#Noturus gyrinus# (Mitchill) + +Tadpole Madtom + +Trautman (1957:444-445) describes the habitat of the tadpole madtom as +"low-gradient lowland streams, springs, marshes, oxbows, pothole lakes, +and protected harbors and bays of Lake Erie, where conditions were +relatively stable, the water was usually clear, the bottom was of soft +muck which generally contained varying amounts of twigs, logs, and +leaves, and where there usually was an abundance of such rooted aquatics +as pondweeds and hornwort. The species seemed to be highly intolerant to +much turbidity and rapid silting,..." The tadpole madtom was obtained +only at the middle Marais des Cygnes station in a small, deep, +mud-bottomed pool in 1957 after water levels, and probably turbidity, +had been low for five years. The occurrence provides the westernmost +record station in Kansas. Cross and Minckley (1958:106) reported the +species from the lower part of the Marais des Cygnes in Kansas. + + +#Noturus nocturnus# Jordan and Gilbert + +Freckled Madtom + +The freckled madtom was taken only at the middle Neosho station on 19 +April, 1958. This species occurs most frequently in small streams, and +individuals living in the mainstream of the Neosho probably are +"strays" from nearby tributaries. This species may have utilized the +mainstream as a refugium in the drought of 1952-'56. + + +#Noturus exilis# Nelson + +Slender Madtom + +The slender madtom was taken only at the middle Marais des Cygnes +station in the fall of 1957. This species prefers permanent riffles of +clear streams (Deacon and Metcalf, 1961:317). My specimen possibly +strayed from a nearby tributary; or, it was a relict from a population +living in the mainstream during drought. + + +#Noturus sp.# + +Neosho Madtom + +A description of this species, which is endemic to Neosho River, has +been prepared but not yet published by Dr. W. Ralph Taylor. I found the +Neosho madtom only at the middle station in 1958 and 1959, and at the +lower station in 1959, where the species was common in shallow water +having moderate current over clean gravel bottom. Specimens were most +effectively collected by digging into the gravel above the seine and +allowing the gravel to wash into the seine. In 1952, Cross (1954:311) +found this species in abundance in riffles at the confluence of the +South Fork and Cottonwood River, and at several other localities in the +Neosho mainstream (personal communication). The Neosho madtom is nearly +restricted to gravel riffles having moderate flow; therefore, it may be +drastically reduced by intermittency of flow. I found none in 1957 and +few in 1958. By 1959, the third summer of continuous flow, the Neosho +madtom was again common. + + +#Fundulus notatus# (Rafinesque) + +Black-striped Topminnow + +The black-striped topminnow was rare in the mainstream at the lower +Marais des Cygnes and the middle and lower Neosho stations, where it was +found in quiet water near shore. + +Near the middle Neosho station, a large population was present in an +oxbow lake that is frequently flooded by the river. + + +#Labidesthes sicculus# (Cope) + +Brook Silversides + +The brook silversides occurred rarely at the lower Marais des Cygnes and +at the middle and lower Neosho stations. + + +#Micropterus dolomieui# Lacépède + +Small-mouthed Bass + +One individual was taken at the lower Neosho station in 1957. + + +#Micropterus punctulatus punctulatus# (Rafinesque) + +Spotted Bass + +The spotted bass occurs in Kansas only in the southeastern part of the +state--in southern tributaries of the Osage system, in Spring River +drainage, and in relatively clear streams of the Flint Hills. At my +stations on the Neosho River, this fish was more abundant in 1957 than +in 1958 or 1959. + +Spotted bass were taken most frequently over rubble bottom or near +boulders in moderate current. Collections made in the evening or early +morning more often contained spotted bass than collections made at other +times of day (Table 9). Data from a few specimens that were marked, +released, and recaptured indicated that the species is relatively +sedentary; therefore, the greater abundance in the morning and evening +collections probably indicates increased activity during these periods, +possibly in connection with feeding. The spawning season in 1957 may +have continued as late as 10 July when a ripe female 11.3 inches T. L. +was taken. Young-of-the-year were taken on 24 June in moderate current +over gravel bottom and in quiet water over mud bottom. + +Spotted bass normally form a small part of the game-fish fauna in the +lower Neosho River. The species attains greater abundance in smaller, +clear streams of the Arkansas River Basin in Kansas (Cross, 1954, and +unpublished data of State Biological Survey of Kansas). During the +drought, the lower Neosho probably assumed many characteristics of a +smaller stream in normal times. Flow was reduced or entirely interrupted +and turbidity was lessened. These conditions resulted in faunal changes +in which spotted bass were more prominent than in years of normal flow. +During this period of reduced flow, some fishermen turned from +catfishing to bass-fishing; I think this constitutes evidence for an +increase in numbers of bass, accompanied by a decrease in numbers of +channel catfish. With the return of continuous flow and a consequent +rise in turbidity, bass declined in abundance in the mainstream. + + +#Micropteras salmoides salmoides# (Lacépède) + +Large-mouthed Bass + +The large-mouth was rare at all stations. It prefers quiet water near +cover; to become abundant, the large-mouth probably requires clearer +water than is afforded by most Kansas streams. This species, like +spotted bass, declined in abundance during the period of study. +Nevertheless, young-of-the-year were taken in 1957 and 1958 (earliest +date of capture, 7 June in 1958). + + +#Lepomis cyanellus# Rafinesque + +Green Sunfish + +Green sunfish were taken at all stations, but most abundantly at the +upper Neosho station where the number captured increased slightly from +1957 to 1959. Young-of-the-year and adults were most common in shallow +backwater. At the upper Neosho station green sunfish inhabit quiet +pools, where recaptures of marked fish indicated that the species is +notably sedentary in habit. Hasler and Wisby (1958) have shown that +green sunfish exhibit a homing reaction. + +This fish provides some sport for fishermen, especially in the smaller +streams, but I found few green sunfish that were larger than six inches +T. L. at any station. + + +#Lepomis megalotis# (Rafinesque) + +Long-eared Sunfish + +Long-eared sunfish were taken at all stations but were notably more +abundant in the Neosho River, where the largest population occurred at +the upper station. In all three years of the study, large samples were +obtained by means of rotenone in the same pool at the upper Neosho +station. There were fewer long-eared sunfish present each year, and +average size increased slightly. Collections in other pools at this +station indicated that long-eared sunfish maintained a high level of +abundance throughout my study. + +Long-eared sunfish occurred in pools having bottoms of gravel or bedrock +at the upper Neosho station, or near shore over rubble or gravel in slow +to moderate current at the middle Neosho station. + + +#Lepomis humilis# (Girard) + +Orange-spotted Sunfish + +The orange-spotted sunfish occurred at all stations; it was most +abundant in the Neosho River, especially at the uppermost station. This +fish was taken in a variety of habitats, but was most common in areas +where the current was slack, often over mud or silt bottom. + + +#Lepomis macrochirus# Rafinesque + +Bluegill + +Bluegill were taken at all stations but were rare. This species occurred +exclusively in pools, usually near cover (brush or trees in the water). +Bluegill are predominately pond-fish in Kansas, and populations in +rivers may consist partly of individuals that escaped from ponds in time +of overflow. I know of no stream in Kansas that has a population large +enough to contribute significantly to the sport fishery. + + +#Pomoxis nigromaculatus# (LeSueur) + +Black Crappie + +This species was represented by only one specimen, taken at the lower +Neosho station in 1957. + + +#Pomoxis annularis# Rafinesque + +White Crappie + +White crappie were taken at all stations, but were common only at the +upper and middle stations on the Marais des Cygnes and the upper Neosho +station. At the last station, this fish was abundant in a single large +pool that contained much more water during drought than any other area +at this station. There was little dispersal into several smaller pools, +below the large pool, which were sampled in 1957, 1958 and 1959. White +crappie were not taken in the lower pools until 1959, and then were +rare. Most crappie were taken in quiet water near cover or near shore. + +Young-of-the-year were found in 1957, 1958 and 1959, but never +abundantly. At the lower Neosho station in 1959, ripe individuals were +collected on 19 June, a spent female on 24 June, and young-of-the-year +on 1 July. The young were present in quiet, shallow water over mud +bottom at the lower end of a gravel bar. Large white crappie (10-14 +inches T. L.) were common at the middle and lower Neosho stations in +1957 and in April, 1958. Large fish were almost entirely absent from +later collections. Average size, maximum size and abundance declined +during the period of study. + + +#Percina phoxocephala# (Nelson) + +Slender-headed Darter + +The slender-headed darter was taken at all stations but was more +abundant in the Neosho than in the Marais des Cygnes. The lower Marais +des Cygnes, however, was the only station with a relatively large +population in 1957. Slender-headed darters were rare in the Neosho River +in 1957 and did not become common until 1959. + +The largest population was found at the upper Neosho station in 1959. +This darter occurs most frequently in swift water over gravel bottom, +but was taken in various habitats, including an intermittent pool at the +upper Neosho station on 7 September, 1957. + +At the middle and lower Neosho stations, considerably greater numbers +were taken in June, July, and early August than in May or late August. +The abundance in my collections diminished from a peak in early July, to +scarcity in late August. + +Young-of-the-year were taken at the lower Neosho station on 1 July, 1959 +(and subsequently), in moderately fast water over gravel. On 21 August, +1958, a ripe female (eggs stripped easily) was the only slender-headed +darter present in a collection from riffles at the middle Neosho +station. + + +#Percina caprodes# (Rafinesque) + +Logperch + +Logperch were not taken in the Marais des Cygnes. They were rare in the +Neosho, where they were taken most frequently at the upper station in +water two to three feet deep, over gravel bottom, in moderate to slight +current. This species was present in intermittent pools at the upper +Neosho station in 1957. + + +#Percina copelandi# (Jordan) + +Channel Darter + +One specimen was taken at the lower Neosho station in 1959. Because no +others ever have been found in the mainstream of the Neosho River, I +suspect that my specimen is a "stray" from one of the smaller +tributaries, where channel darters are locally common. + + +#Etheostoma flabellare# Rafinesque + +Fan-tailed Darter + +The fan-tailed darter is represented in my collections by one specimen, +obtained in the mainstream of the Neosho River at the lower station in +1957. Records of this species in Kansas are almost confined to the +smallest, clear, permanent streams of the southeastern part of the +state. My specimen may represent a small population that retreated to +the mainstream of the Neosho during drought. + + +#Etheostoma spectabile# (Agassiz) + +Orange-throated Darter + +Orange-throated darters were common at the upper Marais des Cygnes and +upper Neosho stations in 1959, rare at the middle and lower Neosho +stations, and absent from the middle and lower Marais des Cygnes +stations. The species was found almost exclusively on upstream riffles +over gravel-rubble bottom. The population in the upper Neosho was +decimated by drought, and the fish did not become common until the +summer of 1959, the third year after resumption of normal stream-flow. + +Deacon and Metcalf (1961:320) indicated that long periods of +intermittency result in depletion or elimination of populations of the +orange-throated darter in the Wakarusa River, Kansas. A limited number +of orange-throated darters probably survived in the few permanent pools +in the upper Neosho and provided the brood-stock necessary to repopulate +this section of the stream. + + +#Aplodinotus grunniens# Rafinesque + +Freshwater Drum + +Drum were taken at all stations, but were most abundant at the middle +and lower Neosho stations. A high level of abundance also was found in +1957 at the middle Marais des Cygnes station. The abundance of drum +declined from 1957 to 1959, but the average size increased because of a +dominant 1957 year-class that was moderately reduced by natural +mortality in 1958-'59. Although the population was composed largely of +young-of-the-year and adults in 1957, it was dominated by yearling +individuals in 1958. By 1959 the number had declined considerably and +the population consisted mostly of juveniles and adults. Fish of the +1957 year-class reached a length of approximately ten inches by +mid-summer of 1959 (Table 8). + +Adults were taken in a variety of habitats, but most often in quiet +water. On the other hand, yearlings were extremely abundant in 1958 near +shore in shallow, moderately fast water over rubble bottom at night. +Drum were rare in the same areas in daylight (Table 9). +Young-of-the-year occur in shallow, quiet water, usually over +mud-bottom. + +The freshwater drum matures at about 12 inches T. L. Ripe males were +taken as late as 23 June 1959; however, the height of the spawning +season probably is in May. + + TABLE 8. LENGTH-FREQUENCY OF FRESHWATER DRUM FROM THE MIDDLE + NEOSHO STATION IN 1957, 1958 AND 1959. + + Total length Aug. 19 Aug. 19-26 July 27-Aug. 4 + in inches 1957 1958 1959 + + 2 1 + 3 1 + 4 4 + 5 1 + 6 12 + 7 21 1 + 8 3 14 2 + 9 3 3 2 + 10 4 6 6 + 11 2 4 1 + 12 2 + 13 2 + 14 1 + + TABLE 9. AVERAGE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS CAPTURED PER HOUR, USING THE + SHOCKER, AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY AND NIGHT AT THE MIDDLE NEOSHO + STATION IN 1958. NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES INDICATE TOTAL NUMBER + CAPTURED. + + ====================================================================== + | Morning | Afternoon | Early night | Late night | + | 5 hours | 6 hours | 18 hours | 8 hours | + SPECIES | of effort | of effort | of effort | of effort | + | expended | expended | expended | expended | + | 6:30 a.m. | 12:30 p.m. | 6:30 p.m. | 12:30 a.m. | + | 12:30 p.m. | 6:30 p.m. | 12:30 a.m. | 6:30 a.m. | + ----------------+------------+------------+-------------+------------+ + Long-nosed Gar | 0 | 0.3 (2) | 1.2 (21) | 1.1 (9) | + Short-nosed Gar | 0.2 (1) | 0 | 0.2 (3) | 0.4 (3) | + Gizzard Shad | 0.2 (1) | 0.3 (2) | 0.1 (1) | 0.1 (1) | + Black Buffalo | 0 | 0.2 (1) | 0.1 (1) | 0 | + Small-mouthed | | | | | + Buffalo | 0.4 (2) | 0.3 (2) | 0.8 (14) | 0.8 (6) | + River | | | | | + Carpsucker | 3.4 (17) | 3.3 (20) | 5.7 (102) | 4.9 (39) | + Redhorse | 0 | 0.2 (1) | 0.6 (10) | 0.6 (5) | + Carp | 1.8 (9) | 0.2 (1) | 0.7 (12) | 0.8 (6) | + Channel Catfish | 1.6 (8) | 1.0 (6) | 10.2 (183) | 10.5 (84) | + Flathead | 2.2 (11) | 1.3 (8) | 2.4 (43) | 3.6 (29) | + Spotted Bass | 0.4 (2) | 0.5 (3) | 0.3 (6) | 0.1 (1) | + Green Sunfish | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (3) | 0.1 (1) | + Long-eared | | | | | + Sunfish | 0 | 0 | 0.1 (2) | 0.4 (3) | + Orange-spotted | | | | | + Sunfish | 0.2 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | + White Crappie | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (5) | 0.4 (3) | + Freshwater Drum | 1.0 (5) | 0.8 (5) | 5.6 (101) | 5.3 (42) | + Number captured | | | | | + per hour | 13.4 | 9.3 | 29.5 | 33.8 | + ----------------+------------+------------+-------------+------------+ + + TABLE 10. NUMBERS OF FISH SEEN OR CAPTURED PER HOUR BY USE OF THE + SHOCKER. EXCLUDES FISH TAKEN BY SHOCKING INTO A SEINE ON RIFFLES; + YOUNG-OF-THE-YEAR CHANNEL CATFISH AND FLATHEAD CATFISH PREDOMINATED + IN SAMPLES TAKEN BY THAT METHOD. + + ==================================================================== + | Marais des Cygnes River | + |-----------------+-----------------+-----------+ + SPECIES | Upper | Middle | Lower | + -------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ + | 1957| 1958| 1959| 1957| 1958| 1959| 1957| 1958| + -------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ + Gar | .7 | 1.3 | 1.2 | .6 | 2.7 | ... | 2.2 | 9.4 | + Gizzard Shad | .9 | .2 | ... | 9.9 | 2.5 | ... | ... | .5 | + Buffalo | 2.0 | 3.7 | .6 | .8 | 2.0 | ... | 5.7 | 6.4 | + River Carpsucker | 4.0 | 4.9 | .6 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 3.9 | + Shortheaded | | | | | | | | | + Redhorse | 3.3 | .9 | .6 | .8 | .2 | ... | ... | ... | + Carp |10.6 | 6.4 | 2.4 | 8.6 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 6.0 |10.4 | + Black Bullhead | ... | ... | ... | 3.9 |17.2 | ... | ... | ... | + Channel Catfish | .5 | .9 | ... | 4.7 | 2.5 | ... | 1.8 | .7 | + Flathead | .2 | ... | 2.4 | .5 | ... | ... | 1.8 | .5 | + Largemouth | 1.0 | ... | ... | .3 | .2 | ... | ... | ... | + White Crappie | 1.7 | 5.1 | .6 | 1.3 | .7 | ... | ... | .2 | + Freshwater Drum | .9 | 1.6 | .6 |24.5 | 2.2 | ... | .7 | .2 | + | | | | | | | | | + Hours shocked |4-1/2|4-1/2|1-2/3| 4 | 4 | 2 |2-5/6|4-1/2| + -------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ + | Neosho River | + |-----------------------------------------------| + | Middle | Lower | + |-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ + | 1957 | 1958 | 1959 | 1957 | 1958 | 1959 | + -------------------|-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ + Gar | 3.2 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 8.4 | + Gizzard Shad | .5 | .2 | .4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | .4 | + Buffalo | 2.9 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 6.2 | .9 | 1.5 | + River Carpsucker | 5.5 | 7.4 | 2.9 | 7.5 | 13.3 | 6.3 | + Shortheaded | | | | | | | + Redhorse | 1.9 | .6 | 1.6 | .7 | ... | 1.6 | + Carp | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 1.1 | + Channel Catfish | 2.6 | 8.8 | .9 | 107.0 | .5 | .7 | + Flathead | 7.6 | 3.7 | 2.7 | 10.8 | .2 | 1.2 | + Bass | 1.6 | .4 | .1 | .2 | .2 | .1 | + White Crappie | ... | .9 | .2 | 1.8 | .7 | .1 | + Freshwater Drum | 3.9 | 3.3 | .8 | 15.9 | 2.8 | .7 | + | | | | | | | + Hours shocked | 5-2/3 | 55-5/6| 48-1/2| 4-1/6 | 4 | 16-5/6| + | | | | | | | + -------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ + + TABLE 11. NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES (Roman type) AND NUMBER COUNTED + (_Italic type_) PER SEINING UNIT. ONE SEINING UNIT EQUALS 30 + SEINE-HAULS (ten each with the 4-foot, 12-foot and 25-foot seine) + OF WHICH SIX RANDOMLY-CHOSEN HAULS WERE COUNTED. DASHES SIGNIFY + THAT THE SPECIES OCCURRED IN UNCOUNTED COLLECTIONS ONLY. + + ====================================================================== + | Marais des Cygnes stations | Neosho + +-----------+----------+-----------+--------------- + SPECIES | Upper | Middle | Lower | Lower station + +-----+-----+----+-----+-----------+------+-------- + |1957 |1959 |1957| 1959| 1957 |1959| 1957 | 1959 + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Golden Shiner | ... | ... |--- | ... | ... | ...| ... | ... + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Creek Chub | ... | --- |... | ... | ... | ...| ... | ... + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Silver Chub | ... | ... |... | ... | --- | ...| ... | ... + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Gravel Chub | ... | ... |... | ... | ... | ...| ... | 3.0 + | | | | | | | | _2.3_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Sucker-mouthed | --- | 6 |... | 3 | ... | 1 | 2 | 10.0 + Minnow | | | | _1_ | | | | _43.0_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Red-finned Shiner | ... | ... |... | 1 | 2.5 | 2 | ... | 4.7 + | | | | | _5.0_| | | _2.3_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Blunt-faced Shiner | ... | ... |--- | ... | ... | ...| ... | ... + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Red Shiner |21 | 15 | 8 | 19 | 16.0 | 15 | 27 | 20.0 + |_6_ | |_4_ |_22_ |_69.0_|_22_|_1119_|_102.0_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Mimic Shiner | ... | ... |... | ... | ... | ...| --- | ... + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Ghost Shiner | 7.5 | 1 |... | 1 | 9.5 | 2 | 17 | 11.7 + | | | | |_96.5_| | _54_| _76_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Sand Shiner | --- | 7 |... | 8 | 1.5 | 3 | ... | 1 + | | | | _2_ | | | | _.3_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Mountain Minnow | ... | ... |... | ... | ... | ...| 12 | 9.3 + | | | | | | | _25_| _13.6_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Blunt-nosed Minnow | --- | 2 |... | 8 | 1.0 | 1 | 6 | 14.0 + | | | | | _.5_| | _4_| _7.6_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Parrot Minnow | ... | ... |... | ... | ... | ...| 12 | 19.0 + | | | | | | | _6_| _28.6_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Fat-headed Minnow |10.5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | ... | ...| ...| 8.3 + |_1.5_| |_2_ | _1_ | | | | _3.0_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Stoneroller | --- | 6 |--- | ... | ... | ...| --- | 2.3 + | | | | | | | | _1.0_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Black Bullhead | ... | ... |... | ... | .5 | ...| ... | ... + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Channel Catfish | 4.5 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 5.0 | 10 | 12 | 6.3 + |_1.5_| |_1_ | _7_ | _1.0_| _6_| _5_| _41.6_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Flathead | --- | 1 |--- | --- | 1.0 | ...| --- | .3 + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Stonecat | ... | ... |--- | ... | 6.0 | ...| --- | 1.0 + | | | | | _.5_| | | + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Neosho Madtom | ... | ... |... | ... | ... | ...| ... | 3.3 + | | | | | | | | _2.0_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Brook Silversides | ... | ... |... | ... | .5 | ...| ... | 1.7 + | | | | | _1.0_| | | + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Black-striped | ... | ... |... | ... | 1.0 | 2 | ... | 1.0 + Topminnow | | | | | _1.0_| | | _.7_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Spotted Bass | ... | ... |... | ... | ... | ...| 2 | 3.7 + | | | | | | | | _.3_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Largemouth | ... | ... | 1 | 3 | ... | ...| 1 | ... + | | |_1_ | _1_ | | | _2_| + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Green Sunfish | 9 | 8 | 9 | 17 | 11.0 | 3 | 7 | 10.0 + |_7.5_| |_3_ | _3_ |_12.0_| _1_| _2_| _3.6_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Long-eared Sunfish | ... | ... |... | ... | .5 | ...| 6 | 4.3 + | | | | | | | | _.7_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Orange-spotted | 4.5 | --- | 2 | 3 | 2.5 | ...| 12 | 12.0 + Sunfish |_6_ | |_4_ | | | | _5_| _5.0_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Bluegill | 1.5 | 1 |... | 6 | 3.5 | 1 | 1 | .3 + | | | | _1_ | | | | _.3_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + White Crappie | ... | ... | 4 | 4 | ... | ...| ... | ... + | | |_7_ | | | | | + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Logperch | ... | ... |... | ... | ... | ...| 1 | .3 + | | | | | | | | _.7_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Slender-headed | --- | 13 |... | 2 | 6.5 | 3 | 1 | 8.3 + Darter | | | | |_15.0_| _1_| | _3.0_ + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Orange-throated | --- | 7 |... | ... | ... | ...| 1 | --- + Darter | | | | | | | | + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + Seining units | 2/3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 + -------------------+-----+-----+----+-----+------+----+------+-------- + + + + +FISH-FAUNA OF THE UPPER NEOSHO RIVER + + +Collections at the upper Neosho station were more intensive than at any +other station, especially in 1959. Rotenone was used in the summers of +1957, 1958 and 1959, to obtain large samples of the population in one +section of the stream. In September, 1959, the shocker was used in other +sections in order to estimate populations in particular pools and +riffles, to measure variability in the fauna between areas having +slightly different habitat, and to record movement of marked individuals +in a short section of the stream. + + +Description of Study-areas + +Two sections of the stream, each about one-half mile long (See p. 366), +were studied. Additional description of particular areas is presented +below. Area 1 and the pools in which rotenone was used are on the Bosch +Farm approximately two miles upstream from the White Farm where Areas 2, +3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are situated. + +Area 1 has a length of 210 feet, an average width of four feet, and a +maximum depth of two feet. The upper half is a swift, rubble riffle four +inches in average depth; the lower half is one and one-half feet in +average depth and has a slow current (Pl. 29, Fig. 1). + +Area 3 has a length of 186 feet, an average width of 34 feet, and a +maximum depth of two and one-half feet. This area includes a shallow +riffle at both upstream and downstream ends of a pool 73 feet long and +approximately one foot in average depth (Pl. 29, Fig. 2). + +Area 5 has a length of 250 feet, an average width of 50 feet, and a +maximum depth of two and one-half feet. This is a shallow, quiet pool +over rubble and bedrock bottom except for a small area of mud bottom +(backwater) above the point where a short riffle drains into this pool +from Area 6 (Pl. 30, Fig. 1). + +Area 6 has a length of 200 feet, an average width of 50 feet, and a +maximum depth of one and one-half feet. This is a shallow, quiet pool +over bedrock bottom, except for a small area of mud bottom at one side +of the upper end of the pool. A short, steep, rubble-riffle is included +in this area at the upstream end (Pl. 30, Fig. 2). + +Areas 2, 4, and 7 resemble at least one of the areas described above but +were sampled less intensively. Data from areas 2, 4, and 7 are included +in discussion of the total fauna of the upper Neosho river but are +excluded from the discussion of representative parts of that fauna. + + +Methods + +_Rotenone_ + +Rotenone was applied to an intermittent pool in 1957. In 1958 and 1959 +rotenone was applied to the upper end of a pool and mixed by agitating +the water. The concentration in the pool was maintained by slowly +introducing part of the rotenone into the riffle at the head of the +pool. This was the most effective means of obtaining a large sample of +fish from the deeper, slowly flowing water of the upper Neosho. Pools in +which rotenone was used had areas of as much as one-half acre and depths +in excess of six feet. + + +_Shocker_ + +In 1959 the shocker was used extensively in several areas of the upper +Neosho. Because of the small size of the stream, "tennis-racket" +electrodes were used effectively by two men--one carrying the electrodes +and one picking up fish and placing them in a live-box. In fast water, +many fish floated into a seine placed across the lower end of the area. +A large segment of the population was collected in this manner. Areas in +which fish were collected by means of the shocker included riffles, and +pools having flowing water no more than three feet in maximum depth. The +bottom-type was usually gravel, rubble or bedrock, but a small amount of +mud bottom was present in many pools. + +Because of the necessity of wading, we could not use the shocker +effectively in water more than three feet deep. In addition, turbidity +of the water prevented effective collection of stunned fish in the +deeper pools. Therefore, rotenone was more effective in deep water than +was the shocker. In shallow, swift riffles and pools, the shocker +yielded more reliable samples than did rotenone, because of difficulty +in maintaining adequate concentrations of rotenone where flow was swift. + +The relative abundance of each species in the upper Neosho was +calculated from cumulative results obtained by use of the shocker in +seven areas in 1959. Population estimates were made by collecting fish +with the shocker, marking them by clipping fins or staining them in +Bismark Brown Y at a concentration of 1:20,000 (Deacon, 1961), returning +them to the stream, and making a second collection three hours (Areas 1 +and 3) or 24 hours (Area 6) later. The same area was shocked again +within two to eight days. Collections throughout the one-half-mile +section yielded information on movement. + + +Changes in the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station, 1957 Through 1959. + +The following discussion is based principally on collections made with +rotenone in 1957, 1958 and 1959 (Table 12). Other supplementary data aid +in understanding the changes that occurred after the resumption of +normal flow at the upper Neosho station. + +The population in 1957 was strongly dominated by black bullhead and +young-of-the-year channel catfish. Other common species were long-eared +sunfish, red shiner, yellow bullhead, orange-spotted sunfish and green +sunfish. This fauna, with the exception of young-of-the-year +individuals, was a fauna produced during the years of drought. Deacon +and Metcalf (1961:318-321) found a similar fauna in streams of the +Wakarusa River Basin that had been seriously affected by drought. + +The black bullheads taken in 1957 were predominately yearlings. It is +likely that by 1956 the total fish population in the upper Neosho had +been decimated by drought. The ponded conditions prevalent in that year +were conducive to production and survival of young black bullheads. Fig. +3 shows that this dominant 1956 year-class reached an average length of +approximately 6.5 inches by August, 1959. + +Reproduction by black bullheads was limited in 1957, 1958, and 1959, and +slight reduction in relative abundance occurred from 1957 to 1958. The +relative abundance in 1959 remained nearly stable. If stream-flow +remains essentially continuous for the next few years, the number of +black bullheads probably will decline as individuals of the 1956 +year-class reach the end of their life-span. + +Reference has been made to the large hatch of channel catfish in 1957, +in a discussion of that species. Conditions for survival of young +channel catfish at the upper Neosho station in 1957 were good because +there was continuous flow over many gravel-rubble riffles, which were +largely unoccupied by other fish, in the spring and summer of 1957. + + TABLE 12. PERCENTAGE-COMPOSITION OF THE FISH-FAUNA AT THE UPPER + NEOSHO STATION IN 1957, 1958 AND 1959, AS COMPUTED FROM COLLECTIONS + OBTAINED BY USING ROTENONE. + + ============================================================ + SPECIES | 1957 | 1958 | 1959 + ----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- + Big-mouthed Buffalo...............| ...... | T[D] | T + Small-mouthed Buffalo.............| ...... | ..... | T + River Carpsucker..................| T | 0.8 | 1.8 + Golden Redhorse...................| T | 3.0 | 5.7 + Creek Chub........................| ...... | T | 0.8 + Red-finned Shiner.................| 1.3 | 3.0 | 0.8 + Red Shiner........................| 6.5 | 13.1 | 12.1 + Ghost Shiner......................| T | T | ...... + Blunt-nosed Minnow................| T | T | T + Fat-headed Minnow.................| T | T | 1.4 + Stoneroller.......................| 0.8 | 1.5 | 3.5 + Black Bullhead....................| 40.8 | 30.5 | 32.0 + Yellow Bullhead...................| 5.3 | 8.8 | 2.5 + Channel Catfish...................| 28.4 | 15.5 | 18.5 + Flathead..........................| T | T | T + Stonecat..........................| T | T | 1.4 + Spotted Bass......................| T | T | 0.8 + Largemouth........................| T | T | T + Green Sunfish.....................| 3.1 | 6.8 | 6.4 + Long-eared Sunfish................| 8.8 | 3.7 | 1.9 + Orange-spotted Sunfish............| 3.1 | 8.9 | 2.5 + Bluegill..........................| T | T | T + White Crappie.....................| T | ..... | T + Logperch......................... | T | 2.1 | 0.8 + Slender-headed Darter.............| 0.6 | 0.6 | 3.1 + Orange-throated Darter............| ...... | T | 2.5 + Total number of fish..............| 786 | 965 | 513 + Size of sample-area in acre-feet..| .002 | .33 | .33 + ----------------------------------+--------+-------+-------- + + [D] T denotes less than one-half of one per cent of the population. + +Channel catfish also showed a slight decline in relative abundance after +1957, resulting from mortality in the 1957 year-class. With continuous +flow, channel catfish will probably remain abundant, although annual +reproductive success probably will be less than in 1957. + +The big-mouthed buffalo, small-mouthed buffalo, creek chub and +orange-throated darter were not taken in 1957, but appeared in +collections in 1958. The river carpsucker, golden redhorse, red shiner, +fat-headed minnow, stoneroller, stonecat, and slender-headed darter also +increased in abundance between 1957 and 1959. The increased abundance of +all these species in 1958 and 1959 resulted in a more diversified fauna, +with lesser predominance by any single species, than in 1957 (Table 12); +this change is related to the increased, permanent flow in 1958 and +1959. + + +Local Variability of the Fauna in Different Areas at the Upper Neosho +Station, 1959 + +The shallow areas in which the shocker was used in 1959 are the +prevalent habitat in the upper Neosho River. The relative abundance of +fishes found in these areas is presented in Table 13. The red shiner was +most abundant and was followed (in decreasing order) by long-eared +sunfish, minnows of the genus _Pimephales_, green sunfish, red-finned +shiner, channel catfish, and stoneroller. Other species combined +comprise less than ten per cent of the population. + +Table 13 also shows the variability in relative abundance of different +species among areas that have the same general kind of habitat. The +species composition is similar in all areas. The sample obtained with +rotenone in 1959 is included in Table 13 to show differences in the +fauna of deep, slowly flowing areas and shallower areas with stronger +current. The differences in relative abundance indicate the kind of +habitat that each species is able to utilize most fully. + +Golden redhorse and black bullhead were most abundant in large, deep, +quiet pools (5.7 per cent and 32 per cent of the total population) +and were more abundant in Area 5 (3.2 per cent and 7.3 per cent +respectively) than in any of the other shallow areas. Area 5 has greater +average depth, more mud bottom, and less riffle area than areas 1, 3 and +6. + +The golden redhorse and black bullhead have specific habitat preferences +that are not evident in the above discussion. My collections indicate +that the golden redhorse prefers deep water having some current, whereas +the black bullhead prefers little or no current. + +Species that prevailed in or near riffles were: creek chub, +sucker-mouthed minnow, stoneroller, channel catfish (young-of-the-year +only), flathead (young-of-the-year only), stonecat, slender-headed +darter, and orange-throated darter. Of these species, the sucker-mouthed +minnow, slender-headed darter and orange-throated darter reached their +greatest abundance at Area 3, where the riffle is shallow, slow, and has +a bottom composed of flat limestone rubble. + +The riffle at Area 1 is, for the most part, deeper and faster than at +Area 3 and has a bottom composed of gravel and small rocks. The creek +chub, stoneroller, channel catfish (young-of-the-year), flathead +(young-of-the-year), and stonecat reached their greatest abundance in +Area 1. All species that showed a preference for riffles were rare or +absent in Area 5 where no riffle-habitat was sampled. The +riffle-dwelling species that were present in collections made with +rotenone in the deeper pools were taken from the riffle into which +rotenone was introduced. + +The river carpsucker, blunt-nosed minnow, fat-headed minnow, channel +catfish (yearlings and two-year-olds), flathead (yearlings and +two-year-olds), green sunfish and long-eared sunfish showed a preference +for shallow, quiet water. All of these species were more common in +collections from Areas 5 and 6 than in collections from other areas. + + TABLE 13. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH (PER CENT OF TOTAL POPULATION + MADE UP BY EACH SPECIES), IN THE FIRST COLLECTION MADE IN EACH OF + FOUR DIFFERENT SHALLOW AREAS BY MEANS OF THE SHOCKER, IS SHOWN IN + VERTICAL COLUMNS 1-4. RESULTS OF THE USE OF ROTENONE IN A FIFTH, + DEEPER AREA ARE SHOWN IN COLUMN 5. COLUMN 6 COMBINES DATA FROM + ALL COLLECTIONS MADE BY USING THE SHOCKER IN SEVEN SHALLOW AREAS + (INCLUDING COLUMNS 1-4). + + ====================================================================== + | Area | Area | Area | Area | | All + | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | Rotenone | areas + ------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+------ + Big-mouthed Buffalo | .... | .... | T[E] | .... | T | T + Small-mouthed Buffalo | .... | .... | .6 | .... | T | T + River Carpsucker | .... | T | 10.6 | T | 1.8 | .8 + River Carpsucker (yy)[F]| .... | .8 | T | 3.7 | .... | 1.0 + Short-headed Redhorse | .... | .... | .6 | .... | .... | T + Golden Redhorse | .8 | 1.0 | 3.2 | .... | 5.7 | T + Carp | .... | .... | .... | .... | .... | T + Golden Shiner | .... | .... | .... | .... | .... | T + Creek Chub | 1.6 | T | T | T | .8 | T + Sucker-mouthed Minnow | .... | 11.2 | T | 3.4 | .... | 1.4 + Red-finned Shiner | .... | .... | .... | 4.0 | .8 | 8.1 + Red Shiner | 18.2 | 24.0 | 7.8 | 20.1 | 12.1 | 35.9 + Sand Shiner | .... | 5.2 | .... | 1.1 | .... | T + Pimephales (yy) | .... | .... | .... | .... | .... | 6.7 + Mountain Minnow | .... | .... | .... | T | .... | T + Blunt-nosed Minnow | .... | .8 | 4.1 | 11.7 | T | 3.4 + Parrot Minnow | .... | .... | .... | .... | .... | T + Fat-headed Minnow | T | T | 3.4 | 12.1 | 1.4 | 2.6 + Stoneroller | 27.7 | 17.4 | .6 | 5.8 | 3.5 | 5.1 + Black Bullhead | 2.1 | T | 7.3 | T | 32.0 | .6 + Yellow Bullhead | T | T | .... | T | 2.5 | T + Channel Catfish (j)[G] | 5.8 | 7.6 | 41.3 | T | 14.6 | 4.2 + Channel Catfish (yy) | 9.5 | 7.0 | T | 4.3 | 3.9 | 2.5 + Flathead (j) | .... | .8 | 2.1 | T | T | T + Flathead (yy) | 1.6 | T | .... | .... | .... | T + Stonecat | 10.3 | 1.4 | .... | .... | 1.4 | .7 + Spotted Bass | .... | T | .6 | T | .8 | T + Largemouth | .... | .... | T | .... | T | T + Green Sunfish | 11.2 | 3.5 | 5.9 | 12.2 | 6.4 | 10.1 + Long-eared Sunfish | 5.4 | 6.0 | 5.1 | 14.6 | 1.9 | 12.8 + Orange-spotted Sunfish | T | T | 1.4 | 1.8 | 2.5 | .5 + Bluegill | .... | .... | 1.0 | .... | T | T + White Crappie | .... | .... | .... | .... | T | T + Logperch | T | T | T | T | .8 | T + Slender-headed Darter | T | 11.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 1.3 + Orange-throated Darter | .8 | 1.8 | T | .5 | 2.5 | T + Freshwater Drum | .... | .... | T | .... | .... | T + Total number of fish | 242 | 484 | 727 | 924 | 513 |17,796 + Area in square feet | 840 | 6324 |12500 |10000 | .... | .... + Volume | .... | .... | .... | .... | 1/3 | + | | | | |acre-foot | + ------------------------+------+------+------+------+----------+------ + + [E] "T" designates species that comprised less than 0.5 per cent + of the population. + + [F] (yy) signifies young-of-the-year. + + [G] (j) signifies yearlings or two-year-olds. + + +Temporal Variability of Fauna in the Same Areas + +The variability of the population in successive collections from the +same area is presented in Table 14. Supplementary data obtained in Areas +2, 4 and 7 support conclusions discussed below for Areas 1, 3 and 6. The +abundance of some species maintained a constant level, whereas that of +others varied. + + TABLE 14. NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED BY MEANS OF THE SHOCKER + AT VARYING INTERVALS IN SEPTEMBER, 1959. THE NUMBER AT THE TOP OF + EACH COLUMN IS THE DATE WHEN THE COLLECTION WAS MADE. + + ====================================================================== + | Area 1 | Area 3 | Area 6 + SPECIES +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- + | 3 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 15 | 16 | 18 | 20 + ----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- + Golden Redhorse | 2 | 2 | ... | 5 | 5 | 2 | ... | ... | 3 + Creek Chub | 4 | 3 | 7 | 1 | ... | ... | 1 | 2 | ... + Sucker-mouthed | | | | | | | | | + Minnow | ... | ... | ... | 54 | 42 | 25 | 31 | 7 | 6 + Red-finned | | | | | | | | | + Shiner | ... | ... | 1 | ... | ... | 4 | 31 | 13 | 4 + Red Shiner | 44 | 7 | 211 | 117 | 170 | 438 | 186 | 209 | 62 + Blunt-nosed | | | | | | | | | + Minnow | ... | ... | ... | 4 | 10 | 19 | 108 | 91 | 13 + Fat-headed | | | | | | | | | + Minnow | 1 | ... | ... | 1 | 2 | 3 | 112 | 156 | 48 + Stoneroller | 67 | 39 | 49 | 84 | 107 | 55 | 54 | 67 | 22 + Black Bullhead | 5 | ... | 1 | 2 | 1 | ... | ... | 3 | 7 + Yellow Bullhead | 1 | 1 | ... | 2 | 1 | ... | 1 | ... | 3 + Channel Catfish | 14 | 7 | ... | 36 | 16 | ... | 3 | 1 | 23 + Channel | | | | | | | | | + Catfish(yy)[H]| 23 | 16 | 17 | 34 | 34 | 22 | 40 | 23 | 28 + Flathead | ... | ... | ... | 4 | 8 | 1 | 2 | ... | 1 + Flathead(yy) | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ... | ... | ... + Stonecat | 25 | 8 | 12 | 7 | 7 | 5 | ... | ... | ... + Green Sunfish | 27 | 17 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 17 | 62 | 62 | 74 + Long-eared | | | | | | | | | + Sunfish | 13 | 12 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 22 | 31 + Logperch | 1 | ... | ... | 2 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... + Slender-headed | | | | | | | | | + Darter | ... | 1 | 2 | 55 | 45 | 23 | 15 | 1 | 1 + Orange-throated | | | | | | | | | + Darter | 2 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 5 | ... | 1 + ----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- + Total | 233 | 115 | 316 | 438 | 480 | 626 | 661 | 657 | 347 + ----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- + + [H] (yy) means young-of-the-year only. + +Stoneroller, channel catfish (young-of-the-year), green sunfish, and +long-eared sunfish formed the most stable element of the population, in +that the numbers of these species varied less in successive collections +than did numbers of other species. + +The number of orange-throated darters remained constant at Areas 1 and +3, and the number of stonecats changed little in successive collections +from Area 3. I suspect that an apparent decline in stonecats at Area 1 +on September 4 was due to a slow rate of dispersal from the point of +release (see pages 413, 414). + +Some species (sucker-mouthed minnow, red-finned shiner, slender-headed +darter, and fat-headed minnow) decreased significantly in successive +samples from the same area because of mortality in handling or movement +out of the area of initial capture. + +The decrease in abundance of the sucker-mouthed minnow may have been due +to some mobility of the species. Evidence for mortality caused by +handling was obtained for the red-finned shiner and probably accounts +for the reduction of this species in Area 6. The red-finned shiner is +also probably a mobile species. The reduction in abundance of the +slender-headed darter seems unexplainable because no evidence was +obtained for either movement or mortality. + +Fat-headed minnows also declined markedly in successive collections from +Area 6, the only area in which the species was common. No marked +fat-headed minnows were taken outside the area of release, indicating +low mobility of the species. I cannot certainly account for their +decline; possibly there was latent mortality due to shocking. + +The numbers of red shiners, blunt-nosed minnows, and juvenile channel +catfish varied erratically in successive collections, probably as a +result of movement. This problem is discussed for all species in a later +section. + + +Population-Estimation + +The direct-proportion method was used to estimate fish populations in +Areas 1, 3 and 6. Reliable results could not be obtained for all species +because of scarcity, mortality in handling, mobility, or other factors. + +A high rate of mortality due to handling was observed in Area 1 for the +red shiner and in Area 6 for river carpsucker (young-of-the-year), +sucker-mouthed minnows, red-finned shiner, red shiner, blunt-nosed +minnow, and stoneroller. In Area 3, in contrast, there was little +mortality in the same species during the twelve-hour interval that fish +were held in traps prior to release as marked individuals. + +The following species were common in at least one area, but probably are +sufficiently mobile (see page 416) to invalidate estimates of static +populations in small areas: red shiner, red-finned shiner, and channel +catfish (yearlings and older). Other species were rare and are indicated +as "T" in Table 13. + +Those species for which population-estimates seem warranted include: +golden redhorse, sucker-mouthed minnow, red shiner, sand shiner, +fat-headed minnow, stoneroller, stonecat, channel catfish +(young-of-the-year), green sunfish, long-eared sunfish, slender-headed +darter, and orange-throated darter. I consider the estimate valid if a +high percentage of the marked fish is recaptured. Results are presented +in Table 15, and ordinarily will not be referred to in the following +discussion of the population in each of the three areas. + + +_Area 1_ + +The order of abundance at Area 1, in terms of the estimated population +per 500 square feet, was as follows: stoneroller (47.6), stonecat +(29.4), channel catfish (young-of-the-year) (20.6), green sunfish +(19.4), red shiner (18.2), long-eared sunfish (9.4), channel catfish +(yearlings and older) (6.5), golden redhorse (1.2). Insufficient data +make inclusion of other species unreliable. + +A comparison of the order of abundance between the estimated total +population and the percentage composition in the first collection from +each area shows significant correlations. The percentage-composition of +the fish fauna at Area 1 was calculated as follows: stoneroller (27.7%), +red shiner (18.2%), green sunfish (11.2%), stonecat (10.3%), channel +catfish (young-of-the-year) (9.5%), channel catfish (yearlings and +older) (5.8%), long-eared sunfish (5.4%), golden redhorse (0.8%). It can +be seen that the stoneroller, green sunfish, long-eared sunfish and +golden redhorse follow each other in the same order in both +calculations. The stonecat is shown to be more common than channel +catfish (young-of-the-year) in both calculations, but both species +appear to be more abundant than green sunfish and red shiner in +calculations of the total population and less abundant in the +percentage-composition in the first collection. I think that the order +of abundance as shown by percentage-composition is the more accurate +figure for Area 1. The abundance of the red shiner is known to have been +affected by mortality in collecting. Furthermore, as will be shown +later, the species is so mobile that its abundance often changes +markedly in a short time. Therefore, it is not surprising to find the +red shiner in widely varying positions of relative and absolute +abundance. However, the green sunfish maintains stable populations and +should remain in about the same position of abundance in relation to +other species (such as the stonecat and channel catfish +young-of-the-year) that also maintain stable populations. The +differences in order of abundance obtained by the two methods for green +sunfish and channel catfish young-of-the-year are not great. However, in +the estimation of total population the abundance of the stonecat seems +significantly greater, in relation to other species, than in the +calculation of percentage-composition. I believe that this difference +can be attributed to the relatively low number of marked fish +recaptured, which is probably due to a slow rate of dispersal from the +point of release. Stonecats were released in relatively quiet water, and +if they remained there they might be missed in subsequent collections, +because they lack air-bladders and tend to remain on the bottom when +shocked. Therefore, the calculated total population of the stonecat in +Area 1 may be too high. + + + TABLE 15. DATA USED IN ESTIMATING TOTAL POPULATIONS, BY DIRECT + PROPORTIONS, IN AREAS 1, 3, AND 6 AT THE UPPER NEOSHO STATIONS. + + ====================================================================== + | Number | Number | Number + | captured first | marked and |captured second + SPECIES | collection | released | collection + +----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+---- + | 1 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 + ----------------------+----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+---- + Golden Redhorse | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 + Sucker-mouthed Minnow | 0 | 54 | 31 | 0 | 51 | 15 | 0 | 42 | 12 + Red Shiner | 44 | 116 | 186 | 22 |106 | 86 | 7 | 165 | 202 + Sand Shiner | 0 | 25 | 10 | 0 | 25 | 7 | 0 | 35 | 10 + Blunt-nosed Minnow | 0 | 4 | 108 | 0 | 3 | 28 | 0 | 10 | 91 + Fat-headed Minnow | 1 | 1 | 112 | 1 | 1 |101 | 0 | 2 | 156 + Stoneroller | 67 | 84 | 54 | 58 | 79 | 33 | 39 | 107 | 67 + Channel Catfish(j)[I] | 14 | 37 | 3 | 9 | 32 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 1 + Channel Catfish(yy)[J]| 3 | 34 | 40 | 22 | 33 | 39 | 16 | 34 | 23 + Stonecat | 25 | 7 | 0 | 25 | 7 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 0 + Green Sunfish | 27 |[K]--| 62 | 27 | -- | 62 | 17 | -- | 62 + Long-eared Sunfish | 13 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 3 | 22 + ----------------------+----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+---- + ====================================================================== + Number of | Estimated | Percent of | Number + marked fish | total | marked fish | per 500 + recaptured | population | recovered | square feet + ----+----+----+----+-----+------+-----+-----+----+------+------+------ + 1 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 6 + ----+----+----+----+-----+------+-----+-----+----+------+------+------ + 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 100 | 100 | -- | 1.2 | .4 | 0 + 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 126 | -- | -- | 33 | 0 | 0 | 10.0 | -- + 5 | 18 | 14 | 31 | 972 | 1284 | 23 | 17 | 11 | 18.2 | 77.1 | 64 + -- | 12 | 1 | 0 | 73 | -- | -- | 48 | -- | 0 | 5.8 | -- + 0 | 1 | 8 | 0 | -- | 319 | -- | 33 | 28 | 0 | -- | 16 + 0 | 0 | 19 | -- | -- | 830 | 0 | 0 | 19 | -- | -- | 41.5 + 28 | 35 | 8 | 81 | 242 | 276 | 48 | 44 | 24 | 47.6 | 19.2 | 13.8 + 6 | 13 | 0 | 11 | 39 | -- | 67 | 41 | 0 | 6.5 | 3.1 | -- + 10 | 11 | 1 | 35 | 102 | -- | 45 | 33 | 3 | 20.6 | 8.1 | -- + 4 | 1 | -- | 50 | -- | 0 | 16 | 14 | -- | 29.4 | -- | 0 + 14 | -- | 22 | 33 | -- | 175 | 52 | -- | 35 | 19.4 | -- | 8.8 + 10 | 3 | 6 | 16 | 6 | 37 | 76 | 50 | 60 | 9.4 | .5 | 1.9 + ----+----+----+----+-----+------+-----+-----+----+------+------+------ + + [I] (j) Denotes juveniles only. + + [J] (yy) Denotes young-of-year only. + + [K] A dash denotes incomplete or insufficient data. + + +_Area 3_ + +The order of abundance of the species at Area 3, in terms of the +estimated population per 500 square feet, was as follows: red shiner +(77.1), stoneroller (19.2), sucker-mouthed minnow (10.0), channel +catfish (young-of-the-year) (8.1), sand shiner (5.8), channel catfish +(yearlings and older) (3.1), long-eared sunfish (0.5), golden redhorse +(0.4). Insufficient data make inclusion of other species unreliable. + +For comparison with the estimates of total population, the +percentage-composition in the first collection gives the following +results: red shiner (24.0%), stoneroller (17.4%), sucker-mouthed minnow +(11.2%), channel catfish (yearlings and older) (7.6%), channel catfish +(young-of-the-year) (7.0%), long-eared sunfish (6.0%), sand shiner +(5.2%), and golden redhorse (1.0%). + +For the most part, the species have the same order of abundance in both +methods of analysis. Those that are apparently out of order are channel +catfish (yearlings and older) and long-eared sunfish. The first species +is mobile (excepting young-of-the-year) and commonly fluctuates widely +in numbers in the same area; the second species was treated differently +in that only adults were considered in the population-estimation +whereas both young and adults were considered in calculating +percentage-composition. (I found that I could not confidently +distinguish between young-of-the-year of green sunfish, long-eared +sunfish and orange-spotted sunfish after staining.) + + +_Area 6_ + +The order of abundance of the species at Area 6, in terms of the +estimated population per 500 square feet, was as follows: red shiner +(64.0), fat-headed minnow (41.5), blunt-nosed minnow (16.0), stoneroller +(13.8), green sunfish (8.8), long-eared sunfish (1.9). Insufficient data +make inclusion of other species unreliable. + +Calculations of percentage-composition give the following results: red +shiner (20.1%), long-eared sunfish (14.6%), green sunfish (12.2%), +fat-headed minnow (12.1%), blunt-nosed minnow (11.7%), stoneroller +(5.8%). The two species of sunfish form a more significant part of the +population in the latter analysis because young are included. Only +adults were considered in the estimation of total population. + +The fact that estimates of the total population and the +percentage-composition agree in most respects lends support to the +validity of both methods of analysis. It should be re-emphasized that +differences in the order of abundance in the various areas reflect the +ability of each species to utilize each particular kind of habitat. + + +Movement of Marked Fish + + TABLE 16. DATA ON MOVEMENT OF MARKED FISH AT THE UPPER NEOSHO + STATION, SEPTEMBER, 1959. + + ====================================================================== + | Number | Number | Number | Number + SPECIES | marked | recaptured | moved | moved + | | | upstream | downstream + ------------------------+--------+------------+----------+-------------- + Golden Redhorse | 24 | 16 | 0 | 2 + Sucker-mouthed Minnow | 68 | 27 | 7 | 0 + Red-finned Shiner | 74 | 0 | 0 | 0 + Red Shiner | 1326 | 152 | 48 | 25 + Blunt-nosed Minnow | 136 | 32 | 1 | 10 + Fat-headed Minnow | 151 | 40 | 0 | 0 + Stoneroller | 177 | 90 | 1 | 0 + Black Bullhead | 25 | 6 | 2 | 0 + Channel Catfish (j)[L] | 294 | 36 | 4 | 7 + Channel Catfish (yy)[M] | 145 | 34 | 2 | 0 + Stonecat | 33 | 6 | 0 | 0 + Green Sunfish | 124 | 68 | 1 | 0 + Long-eared Sunfish | 33 | 21 | 0 | 0 + Slender-headed Darter | 70 | 1 | 0 | 0 + Orange-throated Darter | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 + ------------------------+--------+------------+----------+------------ + + [L] (j) denotes juveniles only. + + [M] (yy) denotes young-of-year only. + +Some measure was gained of the amount of movement exhibited by several +species of fish. Results are biased in favor of a conclusion that a +species is sedentary because a large percentage of the recaptures were +made in collections taken in the same immediate area three hours after +release of marked fish, the total area checked was not large (one mile), +and collecting was limited to an eleven-day period. Nevertheless, some +species were shown to be definitely mobile and others exhibited +pronounced sedentary tendencies. The results of experiments on movement +are presented in Table 16. Marked fish (dyed and fin-clipped) were taken +as long as seven days after being marked. Only those species in which +more than ten individuals were marked are included. + +Blunt-nosed minnow, red shiner, and channel catfish (yearlings and +older) are more mobile than other species. + +The mobility of channel catfish has been discussed by Muncy (1958) and +Funk (1957). My records show that of 36 marked channel catfish that were +recaptured, 11 were taken in areas other than the one into which they +had been returned. A pronounced mobile tendency on the part of the red +shiner and blunt-nosed minnow is shown by the fact that of 152 marked +red shiners recaptured, 73 had moved from the area of release; and of 32 +marked blunt-nosed minnows recaptured, 11 had moved from the area of +release. The fact that the habitat occupied by these species is not +precise (ranging from swift riffles to quiet pools) supports a +conclusion that the species are mobile. + +The fat-headed minnow, stoneroller, channel catfish (young-of-the-year), +green sunfish and long-eared sunfish form a sedentary element of the +population. With the exception of the fat-headed minnow, the sedentary +group also maintained relatively stable numbers in Areas 1, 3 and 6 +throughout the study (Table 14). It is interesting to note that, in +contrast to the mobile group, the species forming the sedentary group +have rather well-defined habitat preferences. + +A third group of species, represented by the red-finned shiner, +stonecat, slender-headed darter and orange-throated darter, was +characterized by having a low rate of recapture. I suspect that +mortality is a factor contributing to the failure to recapture +red-finned shiners, because in one collection only four of 31 red-finned +shiners captured were successfully marked and released, in another case +70 of 818. The red-finned shiner occurs most often in pools but is also +taken in other areas, is pelagic, and probably is a mobile species. + +The stonecat, slender-headed darter and orange-throated darter are +generally restricted to riffle-habitats, and are probably sedentary. The +low number of recaptures for these three species probably is due either +to a slow rate of dispersal from the point of release or to latent +mortality resulting from shock. Table 14 shows that these three species +maintain comparatively stable populations, but there seems to be a +tendency for a reduction in numbers with continued collecting, even +though all fish captured were returned to the stream. + +Golden redhorse showed a high rate of recapture. All individuals marked +were recaptured three hours after release in Areas 1 (two fish) and 3 +(five fish). Nine individuals were taken from Area 4 on 11 September; +seven of these were marked and released in the next pool downstream +(Area 3). On 15 September, two fish were retaken in Area 3 and two were +retaken in Area 2, the next pool downstream. The species was common in +Area 5 also where five of eight marked individuals were recaptured two +days after release. It seems that the golden redhorse is somewhat +restricted in movement, at least for short periods. + +The sucker-mouthed minnow and black bullhead showed some movement--less +than such mobile species as red shiners and channel catfish, but more +than the sedentary group. Seven of 27 marked sucker-mouthed minnows were +taken in areas adjacent to the one to which they had been returned. Two +of six black bullheads that were recaptured had moved. The black +bullhead moved the greater distance. The extent of short-term movement +by several of the species in the Upper Neosho correlates well with +redistribution subsequent to drought in the Wakarusa River, discussed by +Deacon and Metcalf (1961). + + +Similarity of the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station to the Faunas of +Nearby Streams + +The fauna that I found to be characteristic at the upper Neosho station +has affinity with the upland tributary-fauna described by Metcalf (1959) +for Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas. The primary difference +is a nearly complete absence at my station of the Ozarkian element of +the population. Some species (red-finned shiner, long-eared sunfish, and +spotted bass) listed by Metcalf as characteristic of the mainstream of +smaller rivers occur at the upper Neosho station in greater abundance +then elsewhere in the Neosho. This difference is probably due to the +fact that the upper Neosho station is somewhat larger and slightly more +turbid than Metcalf's "upland tributaries." + +Hall (1952) reported on the distribution of fishes in the vicinity of +Fort Gibson Reservoir, an impoundment on the Grand (Neosho) River in +Oklahoma. He separated the fishes into three groups according to +habitat-preference: species restricted to upland tributaries on the east +side of Grand (Neosho) River, species restricted to lowland tributaries +on the west side of Grand (Neosho) River, and species occurring in the +Grand River proper and/or tributaries on one or both sides. + +Several species found in the upper Neosho River also occur in the area +studied by Hall. Of these, only the creek chub was restricted to upland +tributaries on the east side of Grand (Neosho) River. The sucker-mouthed +minnow and red-finned shiner were restricted to the lowland tributaries +on the west side of Grand (Neosho) River in the Fort Gibson Reservoir +Area. Golden redhorse, stoneroller, yellow bullhead, spotted bass, green +sunfish, long-eared sunfish, and orange-throated darter were present in +collections from the Grand River proper and/or tributaries on both sides +of the river, most commonly in tributaries. + +Hall's data show that black bullhead, large-mouthed bass, white crappie, +and logperch occurred most frequently in or near the quiet water of the +reservoir. In my study these fish were most common in the larger, quiet +pools at the upper Neosho station. + + + + +COMPARISON OF THE FISH FAUNAS OF THE NEOSHO AND MARAIS DES CYGNES RIVERS + + +The Marais des Cygnes River has less gradient (especially in the +upstream portions), fewer and shorter riffles, and more mud bottom than +does the Neosho River. Stream-flow during drought was reduced to a +proportionately greater degree in the Neosho River than it was in the +Marais des Cygnes River. Average flow of the Neosho River near Parsons +(drainage area: 4905 square miles), Kansas, was less than average flow +of the Marais des Cygnes River at Trading Post (drainage area: 2880 +square miles), Kansas, in 1953, 1955 and 1956. In normal times the +Neosho River carries a larger volume of water than the Marais des +Cygnes. The Neosho River has a greater variety of habitat-conditions and +a more diversified fish-fauna than the Marais des Cygnes. + +The following species were taken in the Neosho River but not in the +Marais des Cygnes River: blue sucker, high-finned carpsucker, golden +redhorse, gravel chub, mimic shiner, mountain minnow, parrot minnow, +Neosho madtom (the only endemic in either river), mosquitofish, spotted +bass, smallmouth, black crappie, logperch and fan-tailed darter. Most of +the above species are usually found in association with gravel-bottom, +which is prevalent in Neosho River. The blue sucker, high-finned +carpsucker, gravel chub, mountain minnow, and parrot minnow normally +occur in the larger streams in Kansas. The last three species became +more abundant in the Neosho River following resumption of flow. The +golden redhorse also increased in abundance from 1957 to 1959, but was +most numerous at the upper Neosho station, whereas the other species +occurred mainly at the lower stations. + +The mimic shiner, spotted bass, smallmouth, and fan-tailed darter are +characteristic of upstream habitats with clear water (tributaries, +rather than the mainstream), and were taken in the Neosho River only in +1957 or became less abundant from 1957 to 1959. + +The silver chub, slender madtom and tadpole madtom were taken in the +Marais des Cygnes River only in 1957 and were not taken in the Neosho +River. + +The following species, common to both rivers, were more abundant in the +Neosho: long-nosed gar, short-nosed gar, river carpsucker, creek chub, +sucker-mouthed minnow, red-finned shiner, red shiner, ghost shiner, +blunt-nosed minnow, fat-headed minnow, stoneroller, yellow bullhead, +channel catfish, flathead, stonecat, largemouth, long-eared sunfish, +slender-headed darter, and freshwater drum. These species, collectively, +reflect the more diversified habitats (more gravel-bottom, more +riffle-areas, more gradient, greater range of stream-size sampled) in +the Neosho River. + +The following species, common to both rivers, were more abundant in the +Marais des Cygnes: gizzard shad, carp, sand shiner, black bullhead and +white crappie. These species (with the exception of sand shiner) +emphasize the fact that the Marais des Cygnes is a sluggish stream with +large areas of mud bottom. Differences in the abundance of the sand +shiner in the two rivers are part of taxonomic and distributional +studies being conducted by Mr. Bernard C. Nelson. + +The following species were not consistently more abundant in one river +than the other: big-mouthed buffalo, black buffalo, small-mouthed +buffalo, short-headed redhorse, green sunfish, orange-spotted sunfish +and orange-throated darter. These species, excepting the orange-throated +darter and short-headed redhorse, occurred in a wide variety of +habitats. + + + + +FAUNAL CHANGES, 1957 THROUGH 1959 + + +The following species increased in abundance from 1957 to 1959 (Tables +10 and 11): long-nosed gar, short-nosed gar, river carpsucker, creek +chub, gravel chub, sucker-mouthed minnow, mountain minnow, blunt-nosed +minnow, parrot minnow, stoneroller, stonecat, Neosho madtom, green +sunfish, slender-headed darter, and orange-throated darter. + +These species can be separated into three groups, characteristic of +different habitats but having in common a preference for permanent flow. +One group, composed of long-nosed gar, short-nosed gar, river +carpsucker, gravel chub, mountain minnow, parrot minnow, and Neosho +madtom, prefers streams of moderate to large size. + +A second group composed of creek chub, sucker-mouthed minnow, +stoneroller, and orange-throated darter occurs most abundantly in small, +permanent streams. The green sunfish may be included here on the basis +of its abundance at the upper Neosho station; however, this is a pioneer +species and does not require permanent flow. + +The third group is characteristic of continuously flowing water, but in +both upstream and downstream situations. The species in this group +(blunt-nosed minnow, stonecat, and slender-headed darter), increased in +response to a resumption of permanent flow, but did not respond as +quickly as did channel catfish, flatheads and freshwater drum, which are +discussed subsequently. + +The fact that riffle-insects were abundant throughout my study convinces +me that food was not a limiting factor in the re-establishment of the +fish-fauna on riffles of the Neosho River. + +The following species decreased in abundance during my study (Tables 10 +and 11): gizzard shad, carp, rosy-faced shiner, blunt-faced shiner, red +shiner, mimic shiner, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, channel catfish, +flathead, slender madtom, tadpole madtom, freckled madtom, spotted bass, +largemouth, black crappie, fan-tailed darter, and freshwater drum. + +Among the species that decreased, three groups, characteristic of +different habitats, can be distinguished. The first group occurs most +commonly in ponded conditions or in slowly flowing streams. Species in +this group are: shad, carp, black bullhead, tadpole madtom, largemouth, +black crappie, and white crappie. Bullhead, bass and crappie commonly +occur in farm ponds and lakes in Kansas and seem less well adapted to +streams. It is therefore not surprising to find that these species +decreased in abundance when flow was resumed. + +A second group, composed of rosy-faced shiner, blunt-faced shiner, mimic +shiner, slender madtom, freckled madtom, spotted bass, and fan-tailed +darter, normally is characteristic of clear tributaries rather than the +mainstream of rivers. These species probably used the mainstream as a +refugium during drought; with the resumption of flow, conditions became +unsuitable for these populations in the mainstream. At the same time, +conditions probably became favorable to the re-establishment of these +species in tributaries. Metcalf (1959:396) listed the rosy-faced shiner, +blunt-faced shiner and mimic shiner as species that were characteristic +of upland tributaries in the Flint Hills and Chautauqua Hills of +Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk counties in Kansas. The slender madtom and +fan-tailed darter are more common in clear streams of southeast Kansas +than in other areas of the state (Cross, personal communication and data +of the State Biological Survey of Kansas). Both species are recorded by +Hall (1952:57-58) only in upland tributaries on the east side of Grand +(Neosho) River in the Fort Gibson Reservoir area of Oklahoma. Neither +species was taken in faunal studies of the Verdigris River in Oklahoma +(Wallen, 1958), in the Verdigris and Fall rivers in Kansas (Schelske, +1957), or by Metcalf (1959). + +The spotted bass is not so restricted in its distribution and its +habitat-requirements as are other species in this group; but, in Kansas, +spotted bass are most abundant in clear creeks in the southeast part of +the state. + +The freckled madtom was taken in most of the studies cited above and is +most common in the smaller streams of the southeast one-fourth of Kansas +and the northeast one-fourth of Oklahoma. Schelske (1957:47) reports +that the freckled madtom was taken only in March, April, October and +November in the Verdigris River, Kansas. My only record of this species +was obtained in the Neosho River in April, 1958. + +The third group is composed of channel catfish, flathead, and freshwater +drum. This group represents that element of the population that +responded most quickly to the resumption of continuous flow. The fact +that adult channel catfish and flatheads live in pools and do not +require flowing water to spawn gives these species a survival advantage +as well as a reproductive advantage over obligatory riffle fishes (such +as most darters) in the highly variable conditions found in Kansas +streams. These factors resulted in unusually high reproductive success +in 1957. Subsequent survival of fry was excellent; however, some +mortality in the highly-dominant 1957 year-class became apparent in the +1958 and 1959 collections, accounting for a numerical decline in these +species. The ability to respond immediately to increased flow is an +adaptive feature that allows these species to maintain high levels of +abundance in the highly fluctuating streams of Kansas. + +The continuous flow that occurred in 1957 in the Neosho and Marais des +Cygnes rivers, for the first time in four years, provided the necessary +habitat for survival of young catfish hatched in that year. The nearly +complete absence of other species on the riffles, and the abundant +populations of riffle-insects that I observed in the summer of 1957, +were undoubtedly factors contributing to the survival of young. + +The decrease in abundance of the red shiner may be partially due to an +increase in the numbers of other species that are well adapted to +conditions of permanent flow. At the completion of my study, the red +shiner was still the most abundant minnow in both rivers. In 1957 this +species was common in many habitats, including swift riffles, that were +later occupied by madtoms, darters, the gravel chub, mountain minnow and +sucker-mouthed minnow. + +The basic pattern of change was clearly an increase in the species that +are characteristic of permanently flowing waters, and a decrease in the +species that are characteristic of ponds or small, clear streams. + + +PLATE 26 + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. Neosho River, Middle Station, Sec. 3 and 4, + T. 24 S., R. 17 E., looking upstream, July, 1958.] + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. Neosho River, Lower Station, Sec. 16, + T. 29 S., R. 20 E., along gravel bar, July, 1959.] + + +PLATE 27 + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. Marais des Cygnes River, Upper Station, + Sec. 12, T. 17 S., R. 17 E., looking downstream, June, 1960.] + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. Marais des Cygnes River, Middle Station, + Sec. 6, T. 17 S., R. 20 E., looking downstream, June, 1960.] + + +PLATE 28 + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. Electrical fishing gear used at night.] + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. Pool at the upper Neosho station in which + rotenone was used, Sec. 33, T. 15 S., R. 8 E., looking downstream, + June, 1960.] + + +PLATE 29 + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. Area 1, upper Neosho station, Sec. 33, + T. 15 S., R. 8 E., looking upstream, June, 1960.] + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. Area 3, upper Neosho station, Sec. 10, + T. 16 S., R. 8 E., looking downstream, June, 1960.] + + +PLATE 30 + + [Illustration: FIG. 1. Area 5, upper Neosho station, Sec. 3, + T. 16 S., R. 8 E., looking upstream, June, 1960.] + + [Illustration: FIG. 2. Area 6, upper Neosho station, Sec. 3, + T. 16 S., R. 8 E., looking upstream, June, 1960.] + + + + +CONCLUSIONS + + +The fauna of the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes rivers is capable of a +wide range of adjustment in response to marked environmental changes. As +these rivers become low and clear they take on many of the faunal +characteristics of smaller tributaries and ponds. Species such as black +bullhead, spotted bass, largemouth, white crappie, red shiner, +rosy-faced shiner, blunt-faced minnow, mimic shiner, and slender madtom +assume a more prominent position in the total population. Other species +such as channel catfish, flathead, freshwater drum, blue sucker, and +such riffle-dwelling species as the gravel chub, Neosho madtom, and +slender-headed darter hold a less prominent position in the total +population. + +When permanent flow is re-established the more mobile and the more +generalized species (with respect to habitat) are able to utilize the +available space immediately. As a result, these species increase rapidly +in numbers. This increase occurs both by movement from more permanent +waters and by reproduction. Channel catfish, flathead, freshwater drum, +and river carpsucker are mobile species (Funk, 1957; Trautman, 1957) and +long-nosed gar probably are mobile. Individuals that move supplement +those that survive in residual pools, and provide brood stock adequate +to produce a large year-class in the first year of permanent flow. + +The five species last mentioned are found in diverse kinds of streams, +indicating that they are adaptable to varying habitats. A sixth species, +the red shiner, although probably less mobile, is able to utilize +opportunistically nearly any kind of habitat in Plains streams. +Although this species seldom is abundant in riffles, it was, in 1957, +abundant in both pool and riffle situations at all my stations. These +riffles were almost unoccupied by other species in 1957 until +mid-summer, when hatches of channel catfish and flatheads occurred. +Although adult channel catfish and flatheads live well in pools, the +young occupy mainly riffles. This age- and size-segregation, in +different habitats, was an advantage to the rapid re-establishment of +these species in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes rivers in 1957. + +Species that occupy restricted habitats, especially riffle-dwellers such +as the Neosho madtom, gravel chub, and slender-headed darter, were +slowest to increase following drought. These species seem less capable +of adapting to the variable conditions prevalent in the Neosho and +Marais des Cygnes rivers than species that have more generalized +habitat-requirements. + +In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes rivers nearly all species that were +found in years just prior to the drought of 1952-1956 were again found +in the last year of my survey; however, some species that live in a +restricted habitat may eventually be extirpated in these two rivers. The +high-finned carpsucker _Carpiodes velifer_, common shiner _Notropis +cornutus_, horny-headed chub _Hybopsis biguttata_, and johnny darter +_Etheostoma nigrum_ all have specific habitat requirements and have +disappeared or become restricted to one tributary in the Wakarusa River +System (Deacon and Metcalf, 1961). The disappearance or reduction of +these species implies long-term changes in the environment. + +Suckers, minnows and catfishes constitute the main fauna of the Neosho +and Marais des Cygnes rivers, because these families contain many +species that have generalized habitat-requirements. Many of these fish +are able to live successfully in either ponds or flowing waters and +others are capable of long migrations. Because these fish predominate in +the streams of Kansas, attempts should be made to utilize them more +effectively. + +In years such as 1957, large numbers of young channel catfish could be +collected and used to stock new ponds and lakes. So doing would not +affect the numbers of _adults_ produced in the stream, and, if enough +young could be removed, those remaining in the streams might grow +faster. + +Suckers and carp are abundant in the two rivers and mostly are unused at +present, because current regulations preclude the use of methods +effective for the capture of these species. + + + + +ACKNOWLEDGMENTS + + +The investigation here reported on was supported jointly by the Kansas +Forestry, Fish and Game Commission and the State Biological Survey of +Kansas. + +I thank Messrs. W. L. Minckley, D. A. Distler, J. McMullen, A. L. +Metcalf, L. J. Olund, M. Topping, B. Nelson and Claude Hastings for +assistance in the field, and Mr. Ernest Craig, Game Protector, Erie, +Kansas, for valuable suggestions and co-operation. I am especially +grateful to Associate Professor Frank B. Cross for his pre-drought data, +guidance, and criticism throughout the course of the work. I thank the +many landowners who allowed me access to streams, and am especially +indebted to Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Meats and Mr. and Mrs. Oliver Craig for +their hospitality and assistance. + +Assistant Professor Kenneth B. Armitage and Associate Professor Ronald +L. McGregor read the manuscript and gave helpful advice. Mrs. Maxine +Deacon typed the manuscript and assisted in other ways. + + + + +LITERATURE CITED + + +ANONYMOUS. + + 1945. Kansas State Board of Agriculture. River basin problems and + proposed reservoir projects for a state plan of water resources + development: Div. of Water Resources, 63(264):1-62, Figs. 1-16. + + 1947. Kansas State Board of Agriculture. The Neosho River basin plan + of state water resources development: Div. of Water Resources, + 66(280):1-132, Figs. 1-10. + + 1958. Drought: A report. United States Government Printing Office, + 492400:1-45. + +BAILEY, R. M., and HARRISON, H. M., JR. + + 1948. Food habits of the southern channel catfish (_Ictalurus + lacustris punctatus_) in the Des Moines River, Iowa. Trans. Am. + Fish. Soc., 75:110-138. + +BREDER, C. M., JR. + + 1936. Long-lived fishes in the aquarium. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., + 39:116-117. + +CROSS, F. B. + + 1954. Fishes of Cedar Creek and the South Fork of the Cottonwood + River, Chase County, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., + 57(3):303-314. + +----, and MINCKLEY, W. L. + + 1958. New records of four fishes from Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. + Sci., 61(1):104-108. + +DAVIS, J. + + 1959. Management of channel catfish in Kansas. Univ. Kansas Misc. + Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist., 21:1-56. + +DEACON, J. E. + + 1961. A new staining method for marking large numbers of small fish. + Prog. Fish Cult., 23(1):41-42. + +----, and METCALF, A. L. + + Fishes of the Wakarusa River, Kansas. Univ. of Kansas Publ., Mus. + Nat. Hist., 13(6):309-322. + +FOLEY, F. C., SMRHA, R. V., and METZLER, D. F. + + 1955. Water in Kansas. A report to the Kansas State Legislature. + University of Kansas, pp. 1-216. + +FUNK, J. L. + + 1957. Movement of stream fishes in Missouri. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., + 85(1955), pp. 39-57. + +GARRETT, R. A. + + 1951. Kansas flood producing rains of 1951. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., + 54(3):346-355. + + 1958. _In_ Kansas Agriculture 1956-57. Kansas State Board of + Agriculture, 40th report, pp. 1-288. + +HALL, G. E. + + 1952. Observations on the fishes of the Fort Gibson and Tenkiller + reservoir areas, 1952. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 33:55-63. + +HASLER, A. D. and WISBY, W. J. + + 1958. The return of displaced largemouth bass and green sunfish to a + "home" area. Ecology 39(2):289-293. + +LACK, D. + + 1954. The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford University + Press, Amen House, London E. C. 4. VIII + 1-343. + +MARZOLF, R. C. + + 1957. The production of channel catfish in Missouri ponds. Jour. + Wildl. Mgt., 21:22-28. + +MEAD, J. R. + + 1903. Origin of names of Kansas streams. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., + 18:215-216. + +METCALF, A. L. + + 1959. Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas. Univ. + Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist., 11:345-400. + +METZLER, D. F., CULP, R. L., STOLTENBERG, H. A., WOODWARD, R. L., +WALTON, G., CHANG, S. L., CLARKE, N. A., PALMER, C. M., and +MIDDLETON, F. M. + + 1958. Emergency use of reclaimed water for potable supply at Chanute, + Kansas. Journ. Am. Water Works Assoc., 50(8):1021-1060. + +MINCKLEY, W. L. + + 1959. Fishes of the Big Blue River Basin, Kansas. Univ. Kansas Publ., + Mus. Nat. Hist., 11:401-442. + +----, and DEACON, J. E. + + 1959. Biology of the Flathead Catfish in Kansas. Trans. Am. Fish. + Soc., 88:344-355. + +MUNCY, R. J. + + 1958. Movements of Channel Catfish in Des Moines River, Boone County, + Iowa. Iowa St. Col. Jour. of Sci., 32(4):563-571. + +SCHELSKE, C. L. + + 1957. An ecological study of the fishes of the Fall and Verdigris + rivers in Wilson and Montgomery counties, Kansas, March 1954, + to February 1955. Emporia State Research Studies, 5(3):31-56. + +SCHOEWE, W. H. + + 1951. The geography of Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., + 54(3):263-329. + +TRAUTMAN, M. B. + + 1957. The fishes of Ohio. Waverly Press, Inc., Baltimore, Md. XVII + + 1-683. + +WEAVER, J. E., and ALBERTSON, F. W. + + 1936. Effects of the great drought on the prairies of Iowa, Nebraska, + and Kansas. Ecology 17(4):567-639. + + + _Transmitted March 30, 1961._ + + + 28-7576 + + + + +UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS + +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY + + +Institutional libraries interested in publications exchange may obtain +this series by addressing the Exchange Librarian, University of Kansas +Library, Lawrence, Kansas. Copies for individuals, persons working in a +particular field of study, may be obtained by addressing instead the +Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. There +is no provision for sale of this series by the University Library, which +meets institutional requests, or by the Museum of Natural History, which +meets the requests of individuals. However, when individuals request +copies from the Museum, 25 cents should be included, for each separate +number that is 100 pages or more in length, for the purpose of defraying +the costs of wrapping and mailing. + + * An asterisk designates those numbers of which the Museum's + supply (not the Library's supply) is exhausted. Numbers published + to date, in this series, are as follows: + + Vol. 1. Nos. 1-26 and index. Pp. 1-638, 1946-1950. + + *Vol. 2. (Complete) Mammals of Washington. By Walter W. Dalquest. + Pp. 1-444, 140 figures in text. April 9, 1948. + + Vol. 3. *1. The avifauna of Micronesia, its origin, evolution, and + distribution. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 1-359, 16 figures + in text. June 12, 1951. + + *2. A quantitative study of the nocturnal migration of birds. + By George H. Lowery, Jr. Pp. 361-472, 47 figures in text. + June 29, 1951. + + 3. Phylogeny of the waxwings and allied birds. By M. Dale + Arvey. Pp. 473-530, 49 figures in text, 13 tables. + October 10, 1951. + + 4. Birds from the state of Veracruz, Mexico. By George H. + Lowery, Jr., and Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 531-649, + 7 figures in text, 2 tables. October 10, 1951. + + Index. Pp. 651-681. + + *Vol. 4. (Complete) American weasels. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 1-466, + 41 plates, 31 figures in text. December 27, 1951. + + Vol. 5. Nos. 1-37 and index. Pp. 1-676, 1951-1953. + + *Vol. 6. (Complete) Mammals of Utah, _taxonomy and distribution_. + By Stephen D. Durrant. Pp. 1-549, 91 figures in text, + 30 tables. August 10, 1952. + + Vol. 7. *1. Mammals of Kansas. By E. Lendell Cockrum. Pp. 1-303, + 73 figures in text, 37 tables. August 25, 1952. + + 2. Ecology of the opossum on a natural area in northeastern + Kansas. By Henry S. Fitch and Lewis L. Sandidge. + Pp. 305-338, 5 figures in text. August 24, 1953. + + 3. The silky pocket mice (Perognathus flavus) of Mexico. + By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 339-347, 1 figure in text. + February 15, 1954. + + 4. North American jumping mice (Genus Zapus). By Phillip H. + Krutzsch. Pp. 349-472, 47 figures in text, 4 tables. + April 21, 1954. + + 5. Mammals from Southeastern Alaska. By Rollin H. Baker and + James S. Findley. Pp. 473-477. April 21, 1954. + + 6. Distribution of Some Nebraskan Mammals. By J. Knox Jones, + Jr. Pp. 479-487. April 21, 1954. + + 7. Subspeciation in the montane meadow mouse, Microtus + montanus, in Wyoming and Colorado. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 489-506, 2 figures in text. July 23, 1954. + + 8. A new subspecies of bat (Myotis velifer) from southeastern + California and Arizona. By Terry A. Vaughan. Pp. 507-512. + July 23, 1954. + + 9. Mammals of the San Gabriel mountains of California. + By Terry A. Vaughan. Pp. 513-582, 1 figure in text, + 12 tables. November 15, 1954. + + 10. A new bat (Genus Pipistrellus) from northeastern Mexico. + By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 583-586. November 15, 1954. + + 11. A new subspecies of pocket mouse from Kansas. By E. + Raymond Hall. Pp. 587-590. November 15, 1954. + + 12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, Cratogeomys + castanops, in Coahuila, Mexico. By Robert J. Russell and + Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 591-608. March 15, 1955. + + 13. A new cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) from northeastern + Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 609-612. April 8, 1955. + + 14. Taxonomy and distribution of some American shrews. By + James S. Findley. Pp. 613-618. June 10, 1955. + + 15. The pigmy woodrat, Neotoma goldmani, its distribution and + systematic position. By Dennis G. Rainey and Rollin H. + Baker. Pp. 619-624, 2 figures in text. June 10, 1955. + + Index. Pp. 625-651. + + Vol. 8. Nos. 1-10 and index. Pp. 1-675, 1954-1956. + + Vol. 9. 1. Speciation of the wandering shrew. By James S. Findley. + Pp. 1-68, 18 figures in text. December 10, 1955. + + 2. Additional records and extension of ranges of mammals + from Utah. By Stephen D. Durrant, M. Raymond Lee, and + Richard M. Hansen. Pp. 69-80. December 10, 1955. + + 3. A new long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) from northeastern + Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker and Howard J. Stains. + Pp. 81-84. December 10, 1955. + + 4. Subspeciation in the meadow mouse, Microtus + pennsylvanicus, in Wyoming. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 85-104, 2 figures in text. May 10, 1956. + + 5. The condylarth genus Ellipsodon. By Robert W. Wilson. + Pp. 105-116, 6 figures in text. May 19, 1956. + + 6. Additional remains of the multituberculate genus + Eucosmodon. By Robert W. Wilson. Pp. 117-123, 10 figures + in text. May 19, 1956. + + 7. Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. + Pp. 125-335, 75 figures in text. June 15, 1956. + + 8. Comments on the taxonomic status of Apodemus peninsulae, + with description of a new subspecies from North China. + By J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 337-346, 1 figure in text, + 1 table. August 15, 1956. + + 9. Extensions of known ranges of Mexican bats. By Sydney + Anderson. Pp. 347-351. August 15, 1956. + + 10. A new bat (Genus Leptonycteris) from Coahuila. By Howard + J. Stains. Pp. 353-356. January 21, 1957. + + 11. A new species of pocket gopher (Genus Pappogeomys) from + Jalisco, Mexico. By Robert J. Russell. Pp. 357-361. + January 21, 1957. + + 12. Geographic variation in the pocket gopher, Thomomys + bottae, in Colorado. By Phillip M. Youngman. Pp. 363-387, + 7 figures in text. February 21, 1958. + + 13. New bog lemming (genus Synaptomys) from Nebraska. By J. + Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 385-388. May 12, 1958. + + 14. Pleistocene bats from San Josecito Cave, Nuevo León, + México. By J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 389-396. December 19, + 1958. + + 15. New subspecies of the rodent Baiomys from Central America. + By Robert L. Packard. Pp. 397-404. December 19, 1958. + + 16. Mammals of the Grand Mesa, Colorado. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 405-414, 1 figure in text, May 20, 1959. + + 17. Distribution, variation, and relationships of the montane + vole, Microtus montanus. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. 415-511, + 12 figures in text, 2 tables. August 1, 1959. + + 18. Conspecificity of two pocket mice, Perognathus goldmani + and P. artus. By E. Raymond Hall and Marilyn Bailey + Ogilvie. Pp. 513-518, 1 map. January 14, 1960. + + 19. Records of harvest mice, Reithrodontomys, from Central + America, with description of a new subspecies from + Nicaragua. By Sydney Anderson and J. Knox Jones, Jr. + Pp. 519-529. January 14, 1960. + + 20. Small carnivores from San Josecito Cave (Pleistocene), + Nuevo León, México. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 531-538, + 1 figure in text. January 14, 1960. + + 21. Pleistocene pocket gophers from San Josecito Cave, Nuevo + León, México. By Robert J. Russell. Pp. 539-548, 1 figure + in text. January 14, 1960. + + 22. Review of the insectivores of Korea. By J. Knox Jones, + Jr., and David H. Johnson. Pp. 549-578. February 23, 1960. + + 23. Speciation and evolution of the pygmy mice, genus Baiomys. + By Robert L. Packard. Pp. 579-670, 4 plates, 12 figures in + text. June 16, 1960. + + Index. Pp. 671-690. + + Vol. 10. 1. Studies of birds killed in nocturnal migration. By + Harrison B. Tordoff and Robert M. Mengel. Pp. 1-44, + 6 figures in text, 2 tables. September 12, 1956. + + 2. Comparative breeding behavior of Ammospiza caudacuta and + A. maritima. By Glen E. Woolfenden. Pp. 45-75, 6 plates, + 1 figure. December 20, 1956. + + 3. The forest habitat of the University of Kansas Natural + History Reservation. By Henry S. Fitch and Ronald R. + McGregor. Pp. 77-127, 2 plates, 7 figures in text, + 4 tables. December 31, 1956. + + 4. Aspects of reproduction and development in the prairie + vole (Microtus ochrogaster). By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. + 129-161, 8 figures in text, 4 tables. December 19, 1957. + + 5. Birds found on the Arctic slope of northern Alaska. By + James W. Bee. Pp. 163-211, plates 9-10, 1 figure in text. + March 12, 1958. + + 6. The wood rats of Colorado: distribution and ecology. By + Robert B. Finley, Jr. Pp. 213-552, 34 plates, 8 figures + in text, 35 tables. November 7, 1958. + + 7. Home ranges and movements of the eastern cottontail in + Kansas. By Donald W. Janes. Pp. 553-572, 4 plates, + 3 figures in text. May 4, 1959. + + 8. Natural history of the salamander, Aneides hardyi. By + Richard F. Johnston and Gerhard A. Schad. Pp. 573-585. + October 8, 1959. + + 9. A new subspecies of lizard, Cnemidophorus sacki, from + Michoacán, México. By William E. Duellman, Pp. 587-598, + 2 figures in text. May 2, 1960. + + 10. A taxonomic study of the Middle American Snake, Pituophis + deppei. By William E. Duellman. Pp. 599-610, 1 plate, + 1 figure in text. May 2, 1960. + + Index. Pp. 611-626. + + Vol. 11. 1. The systematic status of the colubrid snake, Leptodeira + discolor Günther. By William E. Duellman. Pp. 1-9, + 4 figures. July 14, 1958. + + 2. Natural history of the six-lined racerunner, Cnemidophorus + sexlineatus. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 11-62, 9 figures, + 9 tables. September 19, 1958. + + 3. Home ranges, territories, and seasonal movements of + vertebrates of the Natural History Reservation. By Henry + S. Fitch. Pp. 63-326, 6 plates, 24 figures in text, + 3 tables. December 12, 1958. + + 4. A new snake of the genus Geophis from Chihuahua, Mexico. + By John M. Legler. Pp. 327-334, 2 figures in text. + January 28, 1959. + + 5. A new tortoise, genus Gopherus, from north-central Mexico. + By John M. Legler. Pp. 335-343. April 24, 1959. + + 6. Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk counties, Kansas. + By Artie L. Metcalf. Pp. 345-400, 2 plates, 2 figures in + text, 10 tables. May 6, 1959. + + 7. Fishes of the Big Blue River Basin, Kansas. By W. L. + Minckley. Pp. 401-442, 2 plates, 4 figures in text, + 5 tables. May 8, 1959. + + 8. Birds from Coahuila, México. By Emil K. Urban. + Pp. 443-516. August 1, 1959. + + 9. Description of a new softshell turtle from the + southeastern United States. By Robert G. Webb. Pp. + 517-525, 2 plates, 1 figure in text. August 14, 1959. + + 10. Natural history of the ornate box turtle, Terrapene ornata + ornata Agassiz. By John M. Legler. Pp. 527-669, 16 pls., + 29 figures in text. March 7, 1960. + + Index Pp. 671-703. + + Vol. 12. 1. Functional morphology of three bats: Eumops, Myotis, + Macrotus. By Terry A. Vaughan. Pp. 1-153, 4 plates, + 24 figures in text. July 8, 1959. + + 2. The ancestry of modern Amphibia: a review of the evidence. + By Theodore H. Eaton, Jr. Pp. 155-180, 10 figures in text. + July 10, 1959. + + 3. The baculum in microtine rodents. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 181-216, 49 figures in text. February 19, 1960. + + 4. A new order of fishlike Amphibia from the Pennsylvanian + of Kansas. By Theodore H. Eaton, Jr., and Peggy Lou + Stewart. Pp. 217-240, 12 figures in text. May 2, 1960. + + More numbers will appear in volume 12. + + Vol. 13. 1. Five natural hybrid combinations in minnows (Cyprinidae). + By Frank B. Cross and W. L. Minckley. Pp. 1-18. + June 1, 1960. + + 2. A distributional study of the amphibians of the Isthmus of + Tehuantepec, México. By William E. Duellman. Pp. 19-72, + pls. 1-8, 3 figures in text. August 16, 1960. + + 3. A new subspecies of the slider turtle (Pseudemys scripta) + from Coahuila, México. By John M. Legler. Pp. 73-84, + pls. 9-12, 3 figures in text. August 16, 1960. + + 4. Autecology of the Copperhead. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. + 85-288, pls. 13-20, 26 figures in text. November 30, 1960. + + 5. Occurrence of the Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, in + the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. By Henry S. Fitch + and T. Paul Maslin. Pp. 289-308, 4 figures in text. + February 10, 1961. + + 6. Fishes of the Wakarusa River in Kansas. By James E. Deacon + and Artie L. Metcalf. Pp. 309-322, 1 figure in text. + February 10, 1961. + + 7. Geographic Variation in the North American Cyprinid Fish, + Hybopsis gracilis. By Leonard J. Olund and Frank B. Cross. + Pp. 323-348, pls. 21-24, 2 figures in text. February 10, + 1961. + + 8. Descriptions of Two Species of Frogs, Genus Ptychohyla; + Studies of American Hylid Frogs, V. By William E. + Duellman. Pp. 349-357, pl. 25, 2 figures in text. + April 27, 1961. + + 9. Fish populations, following a drought in the Neosho and + Marais des Cygnes rivers of Kansas. By James Everett + Deacon. Pp. 359-427, pls. 26-30, 3 figs. August 11, 1961. + + More numbers will appear in volume 13. + + Vol. 14. 1. Neotropical Bats from Western México. By Sydney Anderson. + Pp. 1-8. October 24, 1960. + + 2. Geographic Variation in the Harvest Mouse. Reithrodontomys + megalotis, on the Central Great Plains and in Adjacent + Regions. By J. Knox Jones, Jr., and B. Mursaloglu. + Pp. 9-27, 1 figure in text. July 24, 1961. + + 3. Mammals of Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. By Sydney + Anderson. Pp. 29-67, pls. 1 and 2, 3 figures in text. + July 24, 1961. + + More numbers will appear in volume 14. + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Fish Populations, Following a Drought, +in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas, by James Everett Deacon + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FISH POPULATIONS, FOLLOWING *** + +***** This file should be named 34787-8.txt or 34787-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/7/8/34787/ + +Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |