diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-8.txt | 4139 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 62639 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 961556 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/34787-h.htm | 4367 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/bar_double.png | bin | 0 -> 162 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/bar_single.png | bin | 0 -> 160 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/i010.jpg | bin | 0 -> 91975 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/i021.jpg | bin | 0 -> 70142 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/i036.jpg | bin | 0 -> 104971 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/pl26.jpg | bin | 0 -> 121946 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/pl27.jpg | bin | 0 -> 120428 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/pl28.jpg | bin | 0 -> 135661 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/pl29.jpg | bin | 0 -> 134773 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/pl30.jpg | bin | 0 -> 127077 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/square.png | bin | 0 -> 195 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787-h/images/union_label.png | bin | 0 -> 1238 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787.txt | 4139 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 34787.zip | bin | 0 -> 62608 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
21 files changed, 12661 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text 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. diff --git a/34787-8.zip b/34787-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b27da6d --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-8.zip diff --git a/34787-h.zip b/34787-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9e5125f --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h.zip diff --git a/34787-h/34787-h.htm b/34787-h/34787-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dcaf80c --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/34787-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4367 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Fish Populations, Following a Drought, In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas, by James Everett Deacon. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + width: 60%; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 2em;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } /* page numbers */ + + .blockquot{margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; padding: 0 0 1em 0; text-indent: -2.5em;} + .pblockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} + .cover {background: #d0d0d0;} + .caption1 {font-weight: bold; font-size:2.00em; text-align: center;} + .caption2 {font-weight: bold; font-size:1.50em; text-align: center;} + .caption3 {font-weight: bold; font-size:1.15em; text-align: center;} + .caption4 {font-weight: bold; font-size:0.75em; text-align: center;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + + .caption {font-weight: bold;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +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 + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Cover" id="Cover">[Cover]</a></span></p> + +<div class="cover"> +<p> </p> +<img src="images/bar_double.png" width="100%" height="15" alt="double bar" /> +<div class="caption2"><div class="smcap">University of Kansas Publications<br /> +Museum of Natural History</div></div> +<hr style="width: 30%;" /><br /> +<div class="caption2">Volume 13, No. 9, pp. 359-427, pls. 26-30, 3 figs.</div><br /> +<div class="center"><img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar" /> <span class="caption2">August 11, 1961</span> <img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar" /></div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="caption1"> +Fish Populations, Following a Drought,<br /> +In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers<br /> +of Kansas</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + + +<div class="caption3"> +BY<br /> +<br /> +JAMES EVERETT DEACON<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +(Joint Contribution from the State Biological Survey and<br /> +the Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission)</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div class="caption2"> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Lawrence</span><br /> +1961 +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</a></span></p> +<div class="center"> +<p> </p> +<img src="images/bar_double.png" width="100%" height="15" alt="double bar" /> +<div class="caption2"><div class="smcap">University of Kansas Publications<br /> +Museum of Natural History</div></div> +<hr style="width: 30%;" /> +<div class="caption2">Volume 13, No. 9, pp. 359-427, pls. 26-30, 3 figs.</div> +<div class="center"><img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar" /> <span class="caption2">August 11, 1961</span> <img src="images/bar_single.png" width="28%" height="15" title="bar" alt="bar" /></div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="caption1"> +Fish Populations, Following a Drought,<br /> +In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers<br /> +of Kansas<br /> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div class="caption3"> +BY<br /> +<p> </p> +JAMES EVERETT DEACON<br /> +<br /> +(Joint Contribution from the State Biological Survey and<br /> +the Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission)<br /> +</div> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<div class="caption2"> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">Lawrence</span><br /> +1961 +</div> +</div> + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</a></span></p> +<div class="center"> +<div class="caption3"> +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History</span><br /> +<br /> +Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Henry S. Fitch,<br /> +Robert W. Wilson<br /> +</div> +<p> </p> + +Volume 13, No. 9, pp. 359-427, pls. 26-30, 3 figs.<br /> +<br /> +Published August 11, 1961<br /> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<span class="smcap">University of Kansas</span><br /> +Lawrence, Kansas<br /> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<div class="caption4"> +PRINTED IN<br /> +THE STATE PRINTING PLANT<br /> +TOPEKA, KANSAS<br /> +1961<br /> +<img src="images/union_label.png" width="71" height="26" alt="Look for the Union Label" title="Look for the Union Label" /><br /> +28-7576<br /> +</div> +</div> + + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">[Pg 361]</a></span></p> +<h1>Fish Populations, Following a Drought,<br /> +In the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers<br /> +of Kansas</h1> + +<h4>BY</h4> + +<h3>JAMES EVERETT DEACON</h3> + + +<hr style="width: 15%;" /> +<h2>CONTENTS</h2> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" summary="Contents"> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'><small>PAGE</small></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Introduction</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_363">363</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Description of Neosho River</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_366">366</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Description of Marais des Cygnes River</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_367">367</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Methods</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_368">368</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Electrical Fishing Gear</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_368">368</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Seines</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_369">369</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Gill Nets</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_370">370</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Sodium Cyanide</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_370">370</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Rotenone</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_370">370</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Dyes</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_370">370</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Determination of Abundance</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_371">371</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Names of Fishes</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_371">371</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Annotated List of Species</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_371">371</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Fish-fauna of the Upper Neosho River</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_405">405</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Description of Study-areas</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_405">405</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Methods</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_406">406</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Changes in the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station, 1957 through 1959</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_407">407</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Local Variability of the Fauna in Different Areas at the Upper Neosho Station, 1959</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_409">409</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Temporal Variability of Fauna in the Same Areas</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_411">411</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Population-Estimation</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_412">412</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Movement of Marked Fish</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_416">416</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Similarity of the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station to the Faunas of Nearby Streams</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_418">418</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Comparison of the Fish-faunas of the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_419">419</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Faunal Changes, 1957 Through 1959</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_420">420</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Conclusions</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_423">423</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Acknowledgments</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_425">425</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Literature Cited</span></td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_425">425</a></td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<hr style="width: 15%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">[Pg 362]</a></span></p> +<h2>TABLES</h2> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" summary="Tables"> +<tr><td align='left'></td><td align='left'><small>PAGE</small></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>1. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second (C. F. S.), Neosho River near Council Grove, Kansas</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_364">364</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>2. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Neosho River near Parsons, Kansas</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_364">364</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>3. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Marais des Cygnes River near Ottawa, Kansas</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_364">364</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>4. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Marais des Cygnes River at Trading Post, Kansas</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_365">365</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>5. Numbers and sizes of long-nosed gar</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_372">372</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>6. Numbers and sizes of short-nosed gar</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_374">374</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>7. Length-frequency of channel catfish from the Neosho River</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_388">388</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>8. Length-frequency of freshwater drum</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_402">402</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>9. Average number of individuals captured per hour</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_402">402</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>10. Numbers of fish seen or captured per hour</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_403">403</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>11. Numbers of occurrences and numbers counted</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_404">404</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>12. Percentage composition of the fish fauna at the Upper Neosho station in 1957, 1958 and 1959, as computed from results of rotenone collections</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_408">408</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>13. Relative abundance of fish</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_410">410</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>14. Changes in numbers of individuals</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_411">411</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>15. Data used in making direct proportion population-estimations</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_414">414</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>16. Data on movement of marked fish</td><td align='right'><a href="#Page_416">416</a></td></tr> +</table></div> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">[Pg 363]</a></span></p> +<h2>INTRODUCTION</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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 <i>et al.</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>These severe conditions provided a unique opportunity to gain +insight into the ability of several species of fish to adjust to marked +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">[Pg 364]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 1. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Neosho River near +Council Grove, Kansas. Drainage Area: 250 Square Miles</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th><span class="smcap">Water-year</span><a name="FNanchor_A_1" id="FNanchor_A_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_A_1" class="fnanchor">[A]</a></th><th>Average flow</th><th>Maximum</th><th>Minimum</th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1951</td><td align='right'> 498.0</td><td align='right'> 121,000</td><td align='right'> 3.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1952</td><td align='right'> 82.1</td><td align='right'> 4,850</td><td align='right'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1953</td><td align='right'> 5.37</td><td align='right'> 202</td><td align='right'> .1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1954</td><td align='right'> 8.53</td><td align='right'> 2,720</td><td align='right'> .1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1955</td><td align='right'> 31.2</td><td align='right'> 6,480</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1956</td><td align='right'> 10.1</td><td align='right'> 5,250</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1957</td><td align='right'> 68.5</td><td align='right'> 12,300</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='right'> 131.0</td><td align='right'> 5,360</td><td align='right'> .8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1959</td><td align='right'> 114.0</td><td align='right'> 7,250</td><td align='right'> 8.5</td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 2. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Neosho River near +Parsons, Kansas. Drainage Area: 4905 Square Miles.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th><span class="smcap">Water-year</span><a name="FNanchor_B_2" id="FNanchor_B_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_B_2" class="fnanchor">[B]</a></th><th>Average flow</th><th>Maximum</th><th>Minimum</th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1951</td><td align='right'> 8,290</td><td align='right'> 410,000</td><td align='right'> 124.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1952</td><td align='right'> 2,021</td><td align='right'> 20,500</td><td align='right'> 20.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1953</td><td align='right'> 173</td><td align='right'> 4,110</td><td align='right'> .3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1954</td><td align='right'> 430</td><td align='right'> 27,900</td><td align='right'> .1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1955</td><td align='right'> 645</td><td align='right'> 18,600</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1956</td><td align='right'> 180</td><td align='right'> 6,170</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1957</td><td align='right'> 1,774</td><td align='right'> 25,000</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='right'> 3,092</td><td align='right'> 27,200</td><td align='right'> 78.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1959</td><td align='right'> 1,609</td><td align='right'> 22,600</td><td align='right'> 139.0</td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 3. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Marais des Cygnes +River Near Ottawa, Kansas. Drainage Area: 1,250 Square Miles.</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th><span class="smcap">Water-year</span></th><th>Average flow</th><th>Maximum</th><th>Minimum</th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1951</td><td align='right'> 2,113</td><td align='right'> 142,000</td><td align='right'> 25.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1952</td><td align='right'> 542</td><td align='right'> 12,000</td><td align='right'> .2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1953</td><td align='right'> 36.5</td><td align='right'> 2,690</td><td align='right'> .2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1954</td><td align='right'> 73.6</td><td align='right'> 5,660</td><td align='right'> .5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1955</td><td align='right'> 75.7</td><td align='right'> 5,240</td><td align='right'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1956</td><td align='right'> 26</td><td align='right'> 1,590</td><td align='right'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1957</td><td align='right'> 442</td><td align='right'> 11,200</td><td align='right'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='right'> 775</td><td align='right'> 9,130</td><td align='right'> 5.6</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">[Pg 365]</a></span></p> + + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 4. Stream-flow in Cubic Feet per Second, Marais des Cygnes +River at Trading Post, Kansas. Drainage Area: 2,880 Square Miles.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th><span class="smcap">Water-year</span></th><th>Average flow</th><th>Maximum</th><th>Minimum</th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1951</td><td align='right'> 5,489</td><td align='right'> 148,000</td><td align='right'> 36.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1952</td><td align='right'> 1,750</td><td align='right'> 20,400</td><td align='right'> 3.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1953</td><td align='right'> 261</td><td align='right'> 7,590</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1954</td><td align='right'> 334</td><td align='right'> 12,500</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1955</td><td align='right'> 786</td><td align='right'> 16,100</td><td align='right'> .2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1956</td><td align='right'> 202</td><td align='right'> 10,000</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1957</td><td align='right'> 871</td><td align='right'> 14,700</td><td align='right'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='right'> 2,453</td><td align='right'> 20,400</td><td align='right'> 120.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'><a name="FNanchor_C_3" id="FNanchor_C_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_C_3" class="fnanchor">[C]</a>1959</td><td align='right'> 750</td><td align='right'> 10,900</td><td align='right'> 3.4</td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">[Pg 366]</a></span></p> +<h2>DESCRIPTION OF NEOSHO RIVER</h2> + + +<p>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).</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 495px;"> +<span class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. 1.</span> Neosho and Marais des Cygnes +drainage systems. Dots and circles indicate collecting-stations.</span> +<img src="images/i010.jpg" width="495" height="768" alt="Fig. 1." title="" /> +</div> + +<p><i>Neosho River, Upper Station.</i>—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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>A second section two miles downstream (on land owned by Herbert +White) was studied in the summer of 1959 (Sec. 3 and 10, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">[Pg 367]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p><i>Neosho River, Middle Station.</i>—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.</p> + +<p>According to Floyd Meats (landowner) this section of the river +was intermittent for part of the drought.</p> + +<p><i>Neosho River, Lower Station.</i>—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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>DESCRIPTION OF MARAIS DES CYGNES RIVER</h2> + + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">[Pg 368]</a></span> +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."</p> + +<p><i>Marais des Cygnes River, Upper Station.</i>—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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>There are four low-head dams between the upper and middle +Marais des Cygnes stations.</p> + +<p><i>Marais des Cygnes River, Middle Station.</i>—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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><i>Marais des Cygnes River, Lower Station.</i>—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.</p> + +<p>This section of the river ceased to flow only briefly in 1956.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>METHODS</h2> + + +<h3><i>Electrical Fishing Gear</i></h3> + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">[Pg 369]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3><i>Seines</i></h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><i>Trap, Hoop, and Fyke Nets.</i>—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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">[Pg 370]</a></span> +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.</p> + + +<h3><i>Gill Nets</i></h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Gill nets used were 125 feet long, six feet deep, with mesh sizes +of ¾ inch to 2½ inches. Nets, weighted to sink, were placed at right +angles to the current and attached at the banks with rope.</p> + + +<h3><i>Sodium Cyanide</i></h3> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3><i>Rotenone</i></h3> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3><i>Dyes</i></h3> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">[Pg 371]</a></span> +three hours, then transferred to a live-box in midstream for variable +periods (ten minutes to twelve hours) before release.</p> + + +<h3><i>Determination of Abundance</i></h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Tables 12-16 list all fish obtained at the upper Neosho station +by means of the shocker, seines, and rotenone.</p> + + +<h3><i>Names of Fishes</i></h3> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES</h2> + + +<p class="center"><b>Lepisosteus osseus</b> (Linnaeus)<br /> +Long-nosed Gar</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">[Pg 372]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.).</p> + +<p>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).</p> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">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.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th>Location</th><th align='center'>Date</th><th align='center'>Number</th><th align='center'>Average total<br />length (inches)</th><th align='center'>Range</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Middle Neosho</td><td align='center'>1957</td><td align='center'>19</td><td align='center'>22.2</td><td align='center'>14-32</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Middle Neosho</td><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='center'>57</td><td align='center'>22.2</td><td align='center'>14-40</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Middle Neosho</td><td align='center'>1959</td><td align='center'>64</td><td align='center'>21.6</td><td align='center'>13-43</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Lower Neosho</td><td align='center'>1957</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'>29.4</td><td align='center'>9-45</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Lower Neosho</td><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='center'>7</td><td align='center'>25.3</td><td align='center'>23-28</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Lower Neosho</td><td align='center'>1959</td><td align='center'>107</td><td align='center'>26.2</td><td align='center'>16-43</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>Because collecting was intensive and several methods were used, +I think that the population of gars was sampled adequately. Wallen +(<i>Fishes of the Verdigris River in Oklahoma</i>, 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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">[Pg 373]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Lepisosteus platostomus Rafinesque</b><br /> +Short-nosed Gar</p> + +<p>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, <i>L. platostomus</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">[Pg 374]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">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.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th>Location</th><th align='center'>Date</th><th align='center'>Number</th><th align='center'>Average total<br />length (inches)</th><th align='center'>Range</th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>Middle Neosho</td><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='center'>6</td><td align='center'>14.9</td><td align='center'>13.9-15.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>Middle Neosho</td><td align='center'>1959</td><td align='center'>9</td><td align='center'>13.6</td><td align='center'>11.0-16.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>Lower Neosho</td><td align='center'>1958</td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>21.0</td><td align='center'>20.3-21.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>Lower Neosho</td><td align='center'>1959</td><td align='center'>5</td><td align='center'>21.3</td><td align='center'>18.0-24.5</td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Dorosoma cepedianum</b> (LeSueur)<br /> +Gizzard Shad</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Cycleptus elongatus</b> (LeSueur)<br /> +Blue Sucker</p> + +<p>The blue sucker was taken rarely in the Neosho River and not at +all in the Marais des Cygnes in my study. Cross (personal com<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">[Pg 375]</a></span>munication) +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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Ictiobus cyprinella</b> (Valenciennes)<br /> +Big-mouthed Buffalo</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Ictiobus niger</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> +Black Buffalo<br /> +and<br /> +<b>Ictiobus bubalus</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> +Small-mouthed Buffalo</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">[Pg 376]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Carpiodes carpio carpio</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> +River Carpsucker</p> + +<p>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 <i>C. carpio</i> in the Neosho River probably was depleted by +drought, although many individuals survived in the larger pools.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>River carpsucker reach maturity at approximately 11 inches T. L.,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">[Pg 377]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;"> +<span class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. 2.</span> Length-frequency of river +carpsucker in the Neosho River, 1958 and 1959.</span> +<img src="images/i021.jpg" width="400" height="764" alt="Fig. 2." title="" /> +</div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>River carpsucker were collected more readily by use of the +shocker after dark than in daylight (Table 9, p. 402).</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Carpiodes velifer</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> +High-finned Carpsucker</p> + +<p>A specimen of <i>Carpiodes velifer</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">[Pg 378]</a></span> +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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Moxostoma aureolum pisolabrum</b> Trautman<br /> +Short-headed Redhorse</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Moxostoma erythrurum</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Golden Redhorse</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Cyprinus carpio</b> Linnaeus<br /> + +Carp</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">[Pg 379]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notemigonus crysoleucas</b> (Mitchill)<br /> + +Golden Shiner</p> + +<p>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 +<i>Notemigonus</i> was seined from a pond that is flooded frequently +by the river, but never was taken in the mainstream.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Semotilus atromaculatus</b> (Mitchill)<br /> + +Creek Chub</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Hybopsis storeriana</b> (Kirtland)<br /> + +Silver Chub</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">[Pg 380]</a></span></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Hybopsis x-punctata</b> Hubbs and Crowe<br /> + +Gravel Chub</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Phenacobius mirabilis</b> (Girard)<br /> + +Sucker-mouthed Minnow</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Young-of-the-year were taken at the lower Neosho station on 24 +June, 1959, and commonly thereafter in the summer.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notropis rubellus</b> (Agassiz)<br /> + +Rosy-faced Shiner</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">[Pg 381]</a></span> +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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notropis umbratilis</b> (Girard)<br /> + +Red-finned Shiner</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notropis camurus</b> (Jordan and Meek)<br /> + +Blunt-faced Shiner</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notropis lutrensis</b> (Baird and Girard)<br /> + +Red Shiner</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Fifty-nine dyed individuals were released in an eddy at the lower<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">[Pg 382]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notropis volucellus</b> (Cope)<br /> + +Mimic Shiner</p> + +<p>The mimic shiner was taken only rarely at the two lower Neosho +stations. This species, like <i>N. camurus</i>, is normally more common +in clear tributaries than in the Neosho River, and probably frequents +the mainstream only during drought.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notropis buchanani</b> Meek<br /> + +Ghost Shiner</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">[Pg 383]</a></span> +from the channel. The bottom-type over which the ghost shiner +was found varied from mud to gravel or rubble.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Notropis stramineus</b> (Cope)<br /> + +Sand Shiner</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Pimephales tenellus tenellus</b> (Girard)<br /> + +Mountain Minnow</p> + +<p>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 <i>Hybopsis x-punctata</i>, 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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Pimephales vigilax perspicuus</b> (Girard)<br /> + +Parrot Minnow</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">[Pg 384]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Pimephales notatus</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Blunt-nosed Minnow</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>P. notatus</i> +increased in abundance as the mountain minnow decreased.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Pimephales promelas</b> Rafinesque<br /> + +Fat-headed Minnow</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>In the Neosho River in 1957 to 1959, habitats of the species of +<i>Pimephales</i> seemed to be as follows: <i>Pimephales tenellus</i> (mountain +minnow) occurred primarily in moderately flowing gravel +riffles in the downstream portions of the river. <i>Pimephales vigilax</i> +(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. <i>Pimephales notatus</i> (blunt-nosed +minnow) had a wider range of habitats, occurring in quiet areas +and moderate currents both upstream and downstream. <i>Pimephales +promelas</i> (fat-headed minnow) occurred throughout both rivers +but was most abundant in the quiet water at the uppermost stations.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">[Pg 385]</a></span></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Campostoma anomalum</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Stoneroller</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The stoneroller prefers fast, relatively clear water over rubble +or gravel-bottom.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Ictalurus punctatus</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Channel Catfish</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">[Pg 386]</a></span> +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).</p> + +<p>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, <i>loc. cit.</i>), 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>I found adults in various habitats throughout the stream, but<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">[Pg 387]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">[Pg 388]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">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.)</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th align='center'>Length<br />in inches</th><th align='center'>Nov. 2 1957</th><th align='center'>June 2 1958<br />(shallow riffle)</th><th align='center'>June 7 1958<br />(deep riffle)</th><th align='center'>Sept. 9 1958</th><th align='center'>Sept. 11 1959</th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>1.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>2.0</td><td align='center'>3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>2.5</td><td align='center'>13</td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>3.0</td><td align='center'>4</td><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>3.5</td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>21</td><td align='center'>7</td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>14</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>4.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'>12</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>9</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>4.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>4</td><td align='center'>10</td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>5.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'>2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>5.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>7</td><td align='center'>26</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>6.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>58</td><td align='center'>2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>6.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>32</td><td align='center'>5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>7.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>16</td><td align='center'>5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>7.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>4</td><td align='center'>5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>8.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>22</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>8.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>45</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>9.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>81</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>9.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>41</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>10.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>21</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>10.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>11.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>11.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>12.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>12.5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>13.0</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +</table></div> + + + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">[Pg 389]</a></span> +adult did not attempt to bite but left as soon as I put my hand into +the hole.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>The sizes attained by young-of-the-year in 1957 differed in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">[Pg 390]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Ictalurus natalis</b> (LeSueur)<br /> + +Yellow Bullhead</p> + +<p>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 sta<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">[Pg 391]</a></span>tion +in 1959, one was recaptured about three hours after being released. +It had not moved from the area of release.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Ictalurus melas</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Black Bullhead</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">[Pg 392]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 768px;"> +<span class="caption">Fig. 3. Length-frequency of black bullhead at the upper Neosho station, 1957, +1958 and 1959.</span> +<img src="images/i036.jpg" width="768" height="525" alt="Fig. 3." title="" /> +</div> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Pylodictis olivaris</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Flat-headed Catfish</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">[Pg 393]</a></span> +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).</p> + +<p>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 <i>P. olivaris</i>.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">[Pg 394]</a></span> +sample of eggs, which proved to be in an early stage of development +(no vascularization evident).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>P. olivaris</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">[Pg 395]</a></span> +The specific kind of food eaten was correlated with abundance +of the food item in the stream (Minckley and Deacon, 1959:350-351).</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Noturus flavus</b> Rafinesque<br /> + +Stonecat</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Noturus gyrinus</b> (Mitchill)<br /> + +Tadpole Madtom</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Noturus nocturnus</b> Jordan and Gilbert<br /> + +Freckled Madtom</p> + +<p>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 Neo<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">[Pg 396]</a></span>sho +probably are "strays" from nearby tributaries. This species may +have utilized the mainstream as a refugium in the drought of +1952-'56.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Noturus exilis</b> Nelson<br /> + +Slender Madtom</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Noturus sp.</b><br /> + +Neosho Madtom</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Fundulus notatus</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Black-striped Topminnow</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Near the middle Neosho station, a large population was present +in an oxbow lake that is frequently flooded by the river.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Labidesthes sicculus</b> (Cope)<br /> + +Brook Silversides</p> + +<p>The brook silversides occurred rarely at the lower Marais des +Cygnes and at the middle and lower Neosho stations.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">[Pg 397]</a></span></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Micropterus dolomieui</b> Lacépède<br /> + +Small-mouthed Bass</p> + +<p>One individual was taken at the lower Neosho station in 1957.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Micropterus punctulatus punctulatus</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Spotted Bass</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">[Pg 398]</a></span></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Micropteras salmoides salmoides</b> (Lacépède)<br /> + +Large-mouthed Bass</p> + +<p>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).</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Lepomis cyanellus</b> Rafinesque<br /> + +Green Sunfish</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Lepomis megalotis</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Long-eared Sunfish</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Lepomis humilis</b> (Girard)<br /> + +Orange-spotted Sunfish</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">[Pg 399]</a></span> +common in areas where the current was slack, often over mud or +silt bottom.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Lepomis macrochirus</b> Rafinesque<br /> + +Bluegill</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Pomoxis nigromaculatus</b> (LeSueur)<br /> + +Black Crappie</p> + +<p>This species was represented by only one specimen, taken at the +lower Neosho station in 1957.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Pomoxis annularis</b> Rafinesque<br /> + +White Crappie</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Percina phoxocephala</b> (Nelson)<br /> + +Slender-headed Darter</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">[Pg 400]</a></span> +relatively large population in 1957. Slender-headed darters were +rare in the Neosho River in 1957 and did not become common +until 1959.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Percina caprodes</b> (Rafinesque)<br /> + +Logperch</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Percina copelandi</b> (Jordan)<br /> + +Channel Darter</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Etheostoma flabellare</b> Rafinesque<br /> + +Fan-tailed Darter</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">[Pg 401]</a></span></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Etheostoma spectabile</b> (Agassiz)<br /> + +Orange-throated Darter</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Aplodinotus grunniens</b> Rafinesque<br /> + +Freshwater Drum</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">[Pg 402]</a></span></p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 8. Length-frequency of Freshwater Drum from the Middle +Neosho Station in 1957, 1958 and 1959.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="" width="90%"> +<tr><th align='center'>Total length in inches</th><th align='center'>Aug. 19 1957</th><th align='center'>Aug. 19-26 1958</th><th align='center'>July 27-Aug. 4 1959</th></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'>4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>12</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>21</td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'>2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'> 9</td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>10</td><td align='center'>4</td><td align='center'>6</td><td align='center'>6</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>4</td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>12</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>13</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'></td><td align='center'>1</td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">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.</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th><span class="smcap">Species</span></th> +<th>Morning 5 hours<br />of effort expended<br />6:30 a.m. 12:30 p.m.</th> +<th>Afternoon 6 hours<br />of effort expended<br />12:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m.</th> +<th>Early night 18 hours<br />of effort expended<br />6:30 p.m. 12:30 a.m.</th> +<th>Late night 8 hours<br />of effort expended<br />12:30 a.m. 6:30 a.m.</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-nosed Gar</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0.3 (2)</td><td align='center'> 1.2 (21)</td><td align='center'> 1.1 (9)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Short-nosed Gar</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (3)</td><td align='center'> 0.4 (3)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Gizzard Shad</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.3 (2)</td><td align='center'> 0.1 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.1 (1)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black Buffalo</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.1 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Small-mouthed Buffalo</td><td align='center'> 0.4 (2)</td><td align='center'> 0.3 (2)</td><td align='center'> 0.8 (14)</td><td align='center'> 0.8 (6)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>River Carpsucker</td><td align='center'> 3.4 (17)</td><td align='center'> 3.3 (20)</td><td align='center'> 5.7 (102)</td><td align='center'> 4.9 (39)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Redhorse</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.6 (10)</td><td align='center'> 0.6 (5)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Carp</td><td align='center'> 1.8 (9)</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.7 (12)</td><td align='center'> 0.8 (6)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish</td><td align='center'> 1.6 (8)</td><td align='center'> 1.0 (6)</td><td align='center'> 10.2 (183)</td><td align='center'> 10.5 (84)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead</td><td align='center'> 2.2 (11)</td><td align='center'> 1.3 (8)</td><td align='center'> 2.4 (43)</td><td align='center'> 3.6 (29)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Spotted Bass</td><td align='center'> 0.4 (2)</td><td align='center'> 0.5 (3)</td><td align='center'> 0.3 (6)</td><td align='center'> 0.1 (1)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Green Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (3)</td><td align='center'> 0.1 (1)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-eared Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0.1 (2)</td><td align='center'> 0.4 (3)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-spotted Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>White Crappie</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (1)</td><td align='center'> 0.2 (5)</td><td align='center'> 0.4 (3)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Freshwater Drum</td><td align='center'> 1.0 (5)</td><td align='center'> 0.8 (5)</td><td align='center'> 5.6 (101)</td><td align='center'> 5.3 (42)</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Number captured per hour</td><td align='center'> 13.4</td><td align='center'> 9.3</td><td align='center'> 29.5</td><td align='center'> 33.8</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">[Pg 403]</a></span></p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">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.</span></h4> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th rowspan='3'><span class="smcap">Species</span></th><th colspan='8'>Marais des Cygnes River</th></tr> +<tr><th colspan='3'>Upper</th><th colspan='3'>Middle</th><th colspan='2'>Lower</th></tr> +<tr><th>1957</th><th>1958</th><th>1959</th><th>1957</th><th>1958</th><th>1959</th><th>1957</th><th>1958</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Gar</td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'> 1.3</td><td align='center'> 1.2</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> 2.7</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 2.2</td><td align='center'> 9.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Gizzard Shad</td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 9.9</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Buffalo</td><td align='center'> 2.0</td><td align='center'> 3.7</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 2.0</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 5.7</td><td align='center'> 6.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>River Carpsucker</td><td align='center'> 4.0</td><td align='center'> 4.9</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> 6.5</td><td align='center'> 2.2</td><td align='center'> 2.0</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> 3.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Shortheaded Redhorse</td><td align='center'> 3.3</td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Carp</td><td align='center'>10.6</td><td align='center'> 6.4</td><td align='center'> 2.4</td><td align='center'> 8.6</td><td align='center'> 5.0</td><td align='center'> 3.5</td><td align='center'> 6.0</td><td align='center'>10.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black Bullhead</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 3.9</td><td align='center'>17.2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 4.7</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 2.4</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> .5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Largemouth</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .3</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>White Crappie</td><td align='center'> 1.7</td><td align='center'> 5.1</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> 1.3</td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Freshwater Drum</td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'>24.5</td><td align='center'> 2.2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'> .2</td></tr> +<tr><th align='center'>Hours shocked</th><th align='center'>4½</th><th align='center'>4½</th><th align='center'>1⅔</th><th align='center'> 4</th><th align='center'> 4</th><th align='center'> 2</th><th align='center'>2⅚</th><th align='center'>4½</th></tr> +<tr><th rowspan='3' colspan='3'> </th><th colspan='8'>Neosho River</th></tr> +<tr><th colspan='3'>Middle</th><th colspan='3'>Lower</th></tr> +<tr><th>1957</th><th>1958</th><th>1959</th><th>1957</th><th>1958</th><th>1959</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Gar</td><td align='center'> 3.2</td><td align='center'> 4.2</td><td align='center'> 3.8</td><td align='center'> 5.3</td><td align='center'> 4.9</td><td align='center'> 8.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Gizzard Shad</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'> .4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Buffalo</td><td align='center'> 2.9</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> 1.2</td><td align='center'> 6.2</td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> 1.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>River Carpsucker</td><td align='center'> 5.5</td><td align='center'> 7.4</td><td align='center'> 2.9</td><td align='center'> 7.5</td><td align='center'> 13.3</td><td align='center'> 6.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Shortheaded Redhorse</td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Carp</td><td align='center'> 2.1</td><td align='center'> 2.1</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td><td align='center'> 3.4</td><td align='center'> 1.2</td><td align='center'> 1.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Channel Catfish</td><td align='center'> 2.6</td><td align='center'> 8.8</td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> 107.0</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Flathead</td><td align='center'> 7.6</td><td align='center'> 3.7</td><td align='center'> 2.7</td><td align='center'> 10.8</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> 1.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Bass</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td><td align='center'> .4</td><td align='center'> .1</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> .1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>White Crappie</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .9</td><td align='center'> .2</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> .7</td><td align='center'> .1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='3'>Freshwater Drum</td><td align='center'> 3.9</td><td align='center'> 3.3</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 15.9</td><td align='center'> 2.8</td><td align='center'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><th align='center' colspan='3'>Hours shocked</th><th align='center'>5⅔</th><th align='center'>55⅚</th><th align='center'>48½</th><th align='center'> 4⅙</th><th align='center'> 4</th><th align='center'>16⅚</th></tr> +</table></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">[Pg 404]</a></span></p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 11. Number of Occurrences</span> (Roman type) <span class="smcap">and Number Counted</span> +(<i>Italic type</i>) <span class="smcap">per Seining Unit. One Seining Unit Equals 30 Seine-Hauls</span> +(ten each with the 4-foot, 12-foot and 25-foot seine) <span class="smcap">of Which Six Randomly-chosen +Hauls Were Counted. Dashes Signify That the Species Occurred +in Uncounted Collections Only.</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th rowspan='3'><span class="smcap">Species</span></th><th colspan='6'>Marais des Cygnes stations</th><th colspan='2'>Neosho</th></tr> +<tr><th colspan='2'>Upper</th><th colspan='2'>Middle</th><th colspan='2'>Lower</th><th colspan='2'>Lower station</th></tr> +<tr><th>1957</th><th>1959</th><th>1957</th><th>1959</th><th>1957</th><th>1959</th><th>1957</th><th>1959</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Golden Shiner</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Creek Chub</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Silver Chub</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Gravel Chub</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 3.0<br /><i>2.3</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sucker-mouthed Minnow</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'>6</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>3<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>10.0<br /><i>43.0</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red-finned Shiner</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2.5<br /><i>5.0</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 4.7<br /><i>2.3</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Blunt-faced Shiner</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red Shiner</td><td align='center'>21<br /><i>6</i></td><td align='center'> 15</td><td align='center'> 8<br /><i>4</i></td><td align='center'> 19<br /><i>22</i></td><td align='center'> 16.0<br /><i>69.0</i></td><td align='center'> 15<br /><i>22</i></td><td align='center'> 27<br /><i>1119</i></td><td align='center'> 20.0<br /><i>102.0</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Mimic Shiner</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Ghost Shiner</td><td align='center'> 7.5</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 9.5<br /><i>96.5</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 17<br /><i>54</i></td><td align='center'> 11.7<br /><i>76</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sand Shiner</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> 8<br /><i>2</i></td><td align='center'> 1.5</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1<br /><i>.3</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Mountain Minnow</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 12<br /><i>25</i></td><td align='center'> 9.3<br /><i>13.6</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Blunt-nosed Minnow</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 1.0<br /><i>.5</i></td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 6<br /><i>4</i></td><td align='center'> 14.0<br /><i>7.6</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Parrot Minnow</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 12<br /><i>6</i></td><td align='center'> 19.0<br /><i>28.6</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Fat-headed Minnow</td><td align='center'>10.5<br /><i>1.5</i></td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 5<br /><i>2</i></td><td align='center'> 7<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 8.3<br /><i>3.0</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stoneroller</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 2.3<br /><i>1.0</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black Bullhead</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish</td><td align='center'> 4.5<br /><i>1.5</i></td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'> 13<br /><i>7</i></td><td align='center'> 5.0<br /><i>1.0</i></td><td align='center'> 10<br /><i>6</i></td><td align='center'> 12<br /><i>5</i></td><td align='center'> 6.3<br /><i>41.6</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> .3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stonecat</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 6.0<br /><i>.5</i></td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Neosho Madtom</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 3.3<br /><i>2.0</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Brook Silversides</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .5<br /><i>1.0</i></td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black-striped Topminnow</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>1.0<br /><i>1.0</i></td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>1.0<br /><i>.7</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Spotted Bass</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 3.7<br /><i>.3</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Largemouth</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'> 1<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'> 3<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1<br /><i>2</i></td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Green Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 9<br /><i>7.5</i></td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 9<br /><i>3</i></td><td align='center'> 17<br /><i>3</i></td><td align='center'> 11.0<br /><i>12.0</i></td><td align='center'> 3<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'> 7<br /><i>2</i></td><td align='center'> 10.0<br /><i>3.6</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-eared Sunfish</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 4.3<br /><i>.7</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-spotted Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 4.5<br /><i>6</i></td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'>2<br /><i>4</i></td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>2.5</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>12<br /><i>5</i></td><td align='center'>12.0<br /><i>5.0</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Bluegill</td><td align='center'> 1.5</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 6<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'> 3.5</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> .3<br /><i>.3</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>White Crappie</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 4<br /><i>7</i></td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Logperch</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> .3<br /><i>.7</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Slender-headed Darter</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'>13</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>6.5<br /><i>15.0</i></td><td align='center'>3<br /><i>1</i></td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'> 8.3<br /><i>3.0</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-throated Darter</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'>7</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>...</td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'> —</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Seining units</td><td align='center'> ⅔</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 3</td></tr> +</table></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">[Pg 405]</a></span></p> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>FISH-FAUNA OF THE UPPER NEOSHO RIVER</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>Description of Study-areas</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">[Pg 406]</a></span> +in average depth; the lower half is one and one-half feet in average depth and +has a slow current (Pl. 29, Fig. 1).</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>Methods</h3> + +<h4><i>Rotenone</i></h4> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h4><i>Shocker</i></h4> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">[Pg 407]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>Changes in the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station, +1957 Through 1959.</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">[Pg 408]</a></span></p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">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.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th align='center'><span class="smcap">Species</span></th><th align='center'> 1957</th><th align='center'> 1958</th><th align='center'> 1959</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Big-mouthed Buffalo...............</td><td align='center'>........</td><td align='center'> T<a name="FNanchor_D_4" id="FNanchor_D_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_D_4" class="fnanchor">[D]</a></td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Small-mouthed Buffalo.............</td><td align='center'>........</td><td align='center'>.......</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>River Carpsucker..................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 0.8</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Golden Redhorse...................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 3.0</td><td align='center'> 5.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Creek Chub........................</td><td align='center'>........</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 0.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red-finned Shiner.................</td><td align='center'> 1.3</td><td align='center'> 3.0</td><td align='center'> 0.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red Shiner........................</td><td align='center'> 6.5</td><td align='center'> 13.1</td><td align='center'> 12.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Ghost Shiner......................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'>........</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Blunt-nosed Minnow................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Fat-headed Minnow.................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stoneroller.......................</td><td align='center'> 0.8</td><td align='center'> 1.5</td><td align='center'> 3.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black Bullhead....................</td><td align='center'> 40.8</td><td align='center'> 30.5</td><td align='center'> 32.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Yellow Bullhead...................</td><td align='center'> 5.3</td><td align='center'> 8.8</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish...................</td><td align='center'> 28.4</td><td align='center'> 15.5</td><td align='center'> 18.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead..........................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stonecat..........................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Spotted Bass......................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 0.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Largemouth........................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Green Sunfish.....................</td><td align='center'> 3.1</td><td align='center'> 6.8</td><td align='center'> 6.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-eared Sunfish................</td><td align='center'> 8.8</td><td align='center'> 3.7</td><td align='center'> 1.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-spotted Sunfish............</td><td align='center'> 3.1</td><td align='center'> 8.9</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Bluegill..........................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>White Crappie.....................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'>.......</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Logperch.........................</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 2.1</td><td align='center'> 0.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Slender-headed Darter.............</td><td align='center'> 0.6</td><td align='center'> 0.6</td><td align='center'> 3.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-throated Darter............</td><td align='center'>........</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Total number of fish..............</td><td align='center'> 786</td><td align='center'> 965</td><td align='center'> 513</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Size of sample-area in acre-feet..</td><td align='center'> .002</td><td align='center'> .33</td><td align='center'> .33</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">[Pg 409]</a></span></p> + +<h3>Local Variability of the Fauna in Different Areas at the +Upper Neosho Station, 1959</h3> + +<p>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 <i>Pimephales</i>, +green sunfish, red-finned shiner, channel catfish, and stoneroller. +Other species combined comprise less than ten per cent of the +population.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">[Pg 410]</a></span> +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.</p> + + + +<h4><span class="smcap">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).</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th> </th><th>Area 1</th><th>Area 3</th><th>Area 5</th><th>Area 6</th><th>Rotenone</th><th>All areas</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Big-mouthed Buffalo</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T<a name="FNanchor_E_5" id="FNanchor_E_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_E_5" class="fnanchor">[E]</a></td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Small-mouthed Buffalo</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>River Carpsucker</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 10.6</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> .8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>River Carpsucker (yy)<a name="FNanchor_F_6" id="FNanchor_F_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_F_6" class="fnanchor">[F]</a></td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 3.7</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Short-headed Redhorse</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Golden Redhorse</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'> 3.2</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 5.7</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Carp</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Golden Shiner</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Creek Chub</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sucker-mouthed Minnow</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 11.2</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 3.4</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red-finned Shiner</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 4.0</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 8.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red Shiner</td><td align='center'> 18.2</td><td align='center'> 24.0</td><td align='center'> 7.8</td><td align='center'> 20.1</td><td align='center'> 12.1</td><td align='center'> 35.9</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sand Shiner</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 5.2</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 1.1</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Pimephales (yy)</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 6.7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Mountain Minnow</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Blunt-nosed Minnow</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 4.1</td><td align='center'> 11.7</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 3.4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Parrot Minnow</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Fat-headed Minnow</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 3.4</td><td align='center'> 12.1</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td><td align='center'> 2.6</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stoneroller</td><td align='center'> 27.7</td><td align='center'> 17.4</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> 5.8</td><td align='center'> 3.5</td><td align='center'> 5.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black Bullhead</td><td align='center'> 2.1</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 7.3</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 32.0</td><td align='center'> .6</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Yellow Bullhead</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish (j)<a name="FNanchor_G_7" id="FNanchor_G_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_G_7" class="fnanchor">[G]</a></td><td align='center'> 5.8</td><td align='center'> 7.6</td><td align='center'> 41.3</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 14.6</td><td align='center'> 4.2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish (yy)</td><td align='center'> 9.5</td><td align='center'> 7.0</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 4.3</td><td align='center'> 3.9</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead (j)</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 2.1</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead (yy)</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stonecat</td><td align='center'> 10.3</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td><td align='center'> .7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Spotted Bass</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> .6</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Largemouth</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Green Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 11.2</td><td align='center'> 3.5</td><td align='center'> 5.9</td><td align='center'> 12.2</td><td align='center'> 6.4</td><td align='center'> 10.1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-eared Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 5.4</td><td align='center'> 6.0</td><td align='center'> 5.1</td><td align='center'> 14.6</td><td align='center'> 1.9</td><td align='center'> 12.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-spotted Sunfish</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 1.4</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td><td align='center'> .5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Bluegill</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> 1.0</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>White Crappie</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Logperch</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Slender-headed Darter</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> 11.4</td><td align='center'> 1.1</td><td align='center'> 1.6</td><td align='center'> 3.1</td><td align='center'> 1.3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-throated Darter</td><td align='center'> .8</td><td align='center'> 1.8</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> .5</td><td align='center'> 2.5</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Freshwater Drum</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> T</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Total number of fish</td><td align='center'> 242</td><td align='center'> 484</td><td align='center'> 727</td><td align='center'> 924</td><td align='center'> 513</td><td align='center'> 17,796</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Area in square feet</td><td align='center'> 840</td><td align='center'> 6324</td><td align='center'> 12500</td><td align='center'> 10000</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Volume</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ....</td><td align='center'> ⅓ acre-foot</td><td> </td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">[Pg 411]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>Temporal Variability of Fauna in the Same Areas</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">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.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th rowspan='2'><span class="smcap">Species</span></th><th colspan='3'>Area 1</th><th colspan='3'>Area 3</th><th colspan='3'>Area 6</th></tr> +<tr><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>15</th><th>16</th><th>18</th><th>20</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Golden Redhorse</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Creek Chub</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sucker-mouthed Minnow</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 54</td><td align='center'> 42</td><td align='center'> 25</td><td align='center'> 31</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 6</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red-finned Shiner</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 31</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'> 4</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red Shiner</td><td align='center'> 44</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 211</td><td align='center'> 117</td><td align='center'> 170</td><td align='center'> 438</td><td align='center'> 186</td><td align='center'> 209</td><td align='center'> 62</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Blunt-nosed Minnow</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'> 19</td><td align='center'> 108</td><td align='center'> 91</td><td align='center'> 13</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Fat-headed Minnow</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 112</td><td align='center'> 156</td><td align='center'> 48</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stoneroller</td><td align='center'> 67</td><td align='center'> 39</td><td align='center'> 49</td><td align='center'> 84</td><td align='center'> 107</td><td align='center'> 55</td><td align='center'> 54</td><td align='center'> 67</td><td align='center'> 22</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black Bullhead</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Yellow Bullhead</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 3</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish</td><td align='center'> 14</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 36</td><td align='center'> 16</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 23</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish(yy)<a name="FNanchor_H_8" id="FNanchor_H_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_H_8" class="fnanchor">[H]</a></td><td align='center'> 23</td><td align='center'> 16</td><td align='center'> 17</td><td align='center'> 34</td><td align='center'> 34</td><td align='center'> 22</td><td align='center'> 40</td><td align='center'> 23</td><td align='center'> 28</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Flathead(yy)</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stonecat</td><td align='center'> 25</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 12</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Green Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 27</td><td align='center'> 17</td><td align='center'> 12</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'> 16</td><td align='center'> 17</td><td align='center'> 62</td><td align='center'> 62</td><td align='center'> 74</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-eared Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'> 12</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'> 22</td><td align='center'> 31</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Logperch</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> ...</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Slender-headed Darter</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 55</td><td align='center'> 45</td><td align='center'> 23</td><td align='center'> 15</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-throated Darter</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 9</td><td align='center'> 11</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> ...</td><td align='center'> 1</td></tr> +<tr><th align='center'>Total</th><th align='center'> 233</th><th align='center'> 115</th><th align='center'> 316</th><th align='center'> 438</th><th align='center'> 480</th><th align='center'> 626</th><th align='center'> 661</th><th align='center'> 657</th><th align='center'> 347</th></tr> +</table></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">[Pg 412]</a></span></p> +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>Population-Estimation</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">[Pg 413]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><h4><i>Area 1</i></h4> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">[Pg 414]</a></span> +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.</p></div> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 15. Data Used in Estimating Total Populations, by Direct +Proportions, in Areas 1, 3, and 6 at the Upper Neosho Stations.</span></h4> + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th rowspan='2'><span class="smcap">Species</span></th><th colspan='3'> Number captured first collection</th><th colspan='3'> Number marked and released</th><th colspan='3'> Number captured second collection</th><th colspan='3'>Number of marked fish recaptured</th><th colspan='3'>Estimated total population</th><th colspan='3'>Percent of marked fish recovered</th><th colspan='3'>Number per 500 square feet</th></tr> +<tr><th>1</th><th>3</th><th>6</th><th>1</th><th>3</th><th>6</th><th>1</th><th>3</th><th>6</th><th>1</th><th>3</th><th>6</th><th>1</th><th>3</th><th>6</th><th>1</th><th>3</th><th>6</th><th>1</th><th>3</th><th>6</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Golden Redhorse</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 5</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>5</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>2</td><td align='center'>5</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'> 100</td><td align='center'> 100</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>1.2</td><td align='center'>.4</td><td align='center'>0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sucker-mouthed Minnow</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 54</td><td align='center'> 31</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 51</td><td align='center'> 15</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 42</td><td align='center'> 12</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>17</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'> 126</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>33</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'> 10.0</td><td align='center'>—</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red Shiner</td><td align='center'> 44</td><td align='center'> 116</td><td align='center'> 186</td><td align='center'> 22</td><td align='center'> 106</td><td align='center'> 86</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 165</td><td align='center'> 202</td><td align='center'>5</td><td align='center'>18</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'>31</td><td align='center'> 972</td><td align='center'> 1284</td><td align='center'>23</td><td align='center'>17</td><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'> 18.2</td><td align='center'> 77.1</td><td align='center'> 64</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sand Shiner</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 25</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 25</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 35</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>12</td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>73</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>48</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>5.8</td><td align='center'>—</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Blunt-nosed Minnow</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 108</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 28</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'> 91</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>8</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>319</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>33</td><td align='center'>28</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> 16</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Fat-headed Minnow</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 112</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 101</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 156</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>19</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>830</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>19</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> 41.5</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stoneroller</td><td align='center'> 67</td><td align='center'> 84</td><td align='center'> 54</td><td align='center'> 58</td><td align='center'> 79</td><td align='center'> 33</td><td align='center'> 39</td><td align='center'> 107</td><td align='center'> 67</td><td align='center'>28</td><td align='center'>35</td><td align='center'>8</td><td align='center'>81</td><td align='center'> 242</td><td align='center'>276</td><td align='center'>48</td><td align='center'>44</td><td align='center'>24</td><td align='center'> 47.6</td><td align='center'> 19.2</td><td align='center'> 13.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish (j)<a name="FNanchor_I_9" id="FNanchor_I_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_I_9" class="fnanchor">[I]</a></td><td align='center'> 14</td><td align='center'> 37</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 9</td><td align='center'> 32</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 16</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'>6</td><td align='center'>13</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'>39</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>67</td><td align='center'>41</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>6.5</td><td align='center'>3.1</td><td align='center'>—</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish (yy)<a name="FNanchor_J_10" id="FNanchor_J_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_J_10" class="fnanchor">[J]</a></td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 34</td><td align='center'> 40</td><td align='center'> 22</td><td align='center'> 33</td><td align='center'> 39</td><td align='center'> 16</td><td align='center'> 34</td><td align='center'> 23</td><td align='center'>10</td><td align='center'>11</td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>35</td><td align='center'> 102</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>45</td><td align='center'>33</td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'> 20.6</td><td align='center'>8.1</td><td align='center'>—</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stonecat</td><td align='center'> 25</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 25</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 8</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'>4</td><td align='center'>1</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>50</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>0</td><td align='center'>16</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'> 29.4</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Green Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 27</td><td align='center'><a name="FNanchor_K_11" id="FNanchor_K_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_K_11" class="fnanchor">[K]</a>—</td><td align='center'> 62</td><td align='center'> 27</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 62</td><td align='center'> 17</td><td align='center'> —</td><td align='center'> 62</td><td align='center'>14</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>22</td><td align='center'>33</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>175</td><td align='center'>52</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>35</td><td align='center'> 19.4</td><td align='center'>—</td><td align='center'>8.8</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-eared Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 10</td><td align='center'> 12</td><td align='center'> 3</td><td align='center'> 22</td><td align='center'>10</td><td align='center'>3</td><td align='center'>6</td><td align='center'>16</td><td align='center'>6</td><td align='center'>37</td><td align='center'>76</td><td align='center'>50</td><td align='center'>60</td><td align='center'>9.4</td><td align='center'>.5</td><td align='center'>1.9</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<div class="pblockquot"><h4><i>Area 3</i></h4> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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%),<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">[Pg 415]</a></span> +long-eared sunfish (6.0%), sand shiner (5.2%), and golden redhorse (1.0%).</p> + +<p>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.)</p> + +<h4><i>Area 6</i></h4> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">[Pg 416]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p></div> + + +<h3>Movement of Marked Fish</h3> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Table 16. Data on Movement of Marked Fish at the Upper Neosho +Station, September, 1959.</span></h4> + +<div class='center'> +<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary=""> +<tr><th align='center'><span class="smcap">Species</span></th><th>Number marked</th><th>Number recaptured</th><th>Number moved upstream</th><th>Number moved downstream</th></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Golden Redhorse</td><td align='center'> 24</td><td align='center'> 16</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 2</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Sucker-mouthed Minnow</td><td align='center'> 68</td><td align='center'> 27</td><td align='center'> 7</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red-finned Shiner</td><td align='center'> 74</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Red Shiner</td><td align='center'> 1326</td><td align='center'> 152</td><td align='center'> 48</td><td align='center'> 25</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Blunt-nosed Minnow</td><td align='center'> 136</td><td align='center'> 32</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 10</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Fat-headed Minnow</td><td align='center'> 151</td><td align='center'> 40</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stoneroller</td><td align='center'> 177</td><td align='center'> 90</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Black Bullhead</td><td align='center'> 25</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish (j)<a name="FNanchor_L_12" id="FNanchor_L_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_L_12" class="fnanchor">[L]</a></td><td align='center'> 294</td><td align='center'> 36</td><td align='center'> 4</td><td align='center'> 7</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Channel Catfish (yy)<a name="FNanchor_M_13" id="FNanchor_M_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_M_13" class="fnanchor">[M]</a></td><td align='center'> 145</td><td align='center'> 34</td><td align='center'> 2</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Stonecat</td><td align='center'> 33</td><td align='center'> 6</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Green Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 124</td><td align='center'> 68</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Long-eared Sunfish</td><td align='center'> 33</td><td align='center'> 21</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Slender-headed Darter</td><td align='center'> 70</td><td align='center'> 1</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'>Orange-throated Darter</td><td align='center'> 13</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td><td align='center'> 0</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">[Pg 417]</a></span></p> + +<p>Blunt-nosed minnow, red shiner, and channel catfish (yearlings +and older) are more mobile than other species.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Golden redhorse showed a high rate of recapture. All individuals +marked were recaptured three hours after release in Areas 1 (two<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">[Pg 418]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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).</p> + + +<h3>Similarity of the Fauna at the Upper Neosho Station to the +Faunas of Nearby Streams</h3> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Several species found in the upper Neosho River also occur in +the area studied by Hall. Of these, only the creek chub was re<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">[Pg 419]</a></span>stricted +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>COMPARISON OF THE FISH FAUNAS OF THE<br /> +NEOSHO AND MARAIS DES CYGNES RIVERS</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The mimic shiner, spotted bass, smallmouth, and fan-tailed darter<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">[Pg 420]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>FAUNAL CHANGES, 1957 THROUGH 1959</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 min<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">[Pg 421]</a></span>now, +and Neosho madtom, prefers streams of moderate to large +size.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">[Pg 422]</a></span> +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).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">[Pg 423]</a></span> +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.</p> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>CONCLUSIONS</h2> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">[Pg 424]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>Carpiodes velifer</i>, +common shiner <i>Notropis cornutus</i>, horny-headed chub <i>Hybopsis +biguttata</i>, and johnny darter <i>Etheostoma nigrum</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>adults</i> produced in the +stream, and, if enough young could be removed, those remaining +in the streams might grow faster.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">[Pg 425]</a></span></p> +<h2>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</h2> + + +<p>The investigation here reported on was supported jointly by the +Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission and the State Biological +Survey of Kansas.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_A_1" id="Footnote_A_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_A_1"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> (Oct. 1-Sept. 30, inclusive)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_B_2" id="Footnote_B_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_B_2"><span class="label">[B]</span></a> (Oct. 1-Sept. 30, inclusive)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_C_3" id="Footnote_C_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_C_3"><span class="label">[C]</span></a> The gaging station was moved a short distance downstream to the Kansas-Missouri +state line.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_D_4" id="Footnote_D_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_D_4"><span class="label">[D]</span></a> T denotes less than one-half of one per cent of the population.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_E_5" id="Footnote_E_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_E_5"><span class="label">[E]</span></a> "T" designates species that comprised less than 0.5 per cent of the population.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_F_6" id="Footnote_F_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_F_6"><span class="label">[F]</span></a> (yy) signifies young-of-the-year.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_G_7" id="Footnote_G_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_G_7"><span class="label">[G]</span></a> (j) signifies yearlings or two-year-olds.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_H_8" id="Footnote_H_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_H_8"><span class="label">[H]</span></a> (yy) means young-of-the-year only.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_I_9" id="Footnote_I_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_I_9"><span class="label">[I]</span></a> (j) Denotes juveniles only.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_J_10" id="Footnote_J_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_J_10"><span class="label">[J]</span></a> (yy) Denotes young-of-year only.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_K_11" id="Footnote_K_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_K_11"><span class="label">[K]</span></a> A dash denotes incomplete or insufficient data.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_L_12" id="Footnote_L_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_L_12"><span class="label">[L]</span></a> (j) denotes juveniles only.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_M_13" id="Footnote_M_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_M_13"><span class="label">[M]</span></a> (yy) denotes young-of-year only.</p></div> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>LITERATURE CITED</h2> + + +<p><span class="smcap">Anonymous.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>1958. Drought: A report. United States Government Printing Office, +492400:1-45.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Bailey, R. M.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Harrison, H. M., Jr.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1948. Food habits of the southern channel catfish (<i>Ictalurus lacustris +punctatus</i>) in the Des Moines River, Iowa. Trans. Am. Fish. +Soc., 75:110-138.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Breder, C. M., Jr.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1936. Long-lived fishes in the aquarium. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc., 39:116-117.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Cross, F. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1954. Fishes of Cedar Creek and the South Fork of the Cottonwood +River, Chase County, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 57(3):303-314.</p></div> + +<p>——, and <span class="smcap">Minckley, W. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1958. New records of four fishes from Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., +61(1):104-108.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Davis, J.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1959. Management of channel catfish in Kansas. Univ. Kansas Misc. +Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist., 21:1-56.</p></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">[Pg 426]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Deacon, J. E.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1961. A new staining method for marking large numbers of small fish. +Prog. Fish Cult., 23(1):41-42.</p></div> + +<p>——, and <span class="smcap">Metcalf, A. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Fishes of the Wakarusa River, Kansas. Univ. of Kansas Publ., Mus. +Nat. Hist., 13(6):309-322.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Foley, F. C.</span>, <span class="smcap">Smrha, R. V.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Metzler, D. F.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1955. Water in Kansas. A report to the Kansas State Legislature. University +of Kansas, pp. 1-216.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Funk, J. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1957. Movement of stream fishes in Missouri. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., +85(1955), pp. 39-57.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Garrett, R. A.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1951. Kansas flood producing rains of 1951. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., +54(3):346-355.</p> + +<p>1958. <i>In</i> Kansas Agriculture 1956-57. Kansas State Board of Agriculture, +40th report, pp. 1-288.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hall, G. E.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1952. Observations on the fishes of the Fort Gibson and Tenkiller reservoir +areas, 1952. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci., 33:55-63.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Hasler, A. D.</span> and <span class="smcap">Wisby, W. J.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1958. The return of displaced largemouth bass and green sunfish to a +"home" area. Ecology 39(2):289-293.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Lack, D.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1954. The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford University +Press, Amen House, London E. C. 4. VIII + 1-343.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Marzolf, R. C.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1957. The production of channel catfish in Missouri ponds. Jour. Wildl. +Mgt., 21:22-28.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Mead, J. R.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1903. Origin of names of Kansas streams. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., +18:215-216.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Metcalf, A. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1959. Fishes of Chautauqua, Cowley and Elk Counties, Kansas. Univ. +Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist., 11:345-400.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Metzler, D. F.</span>, <span class="smcap">Culp, R. L.</span>, <span class="smcap">Stoltenberg, H. A.</span>, <span class="smcap">Woodward, R. L.</span>, <span class="smcap">Walton, +G.</span>, <span class="smcap">Chang, S. L.</span>, <span class="smcap">Clarke, N. A.</span>, <span class="smcap">Palmer, C. M.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Middleton, F. M.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1958. Emergency use of reclaimed water for potable supply at Chanute, +Kansas. Journ. Am. Water Works Assoc., 50(8):1021-1060.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Minckley, W. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1959. Fishes of the Big Blue River Basin, Kansas. Univ. Kansas Publ., +Mus. Nat. Hist., 11:401-442.</p></div> + +<p>——, and <span class="smcap">Deacon, J. E.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1959. Biology of the Flathead Catfish in Kansas. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., +88:344-355.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Muncy, R. J.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1958. Movements of Channel Catfish in Des Moines River, Boone County, +Iowa. Iowa St. Col. Jour. of Sci., 32(4):563-571.</p></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">[Pg 427]</a></span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Schelske, C. L.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Schoewe, W. H.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1951. The geography of Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., 54(3):263-329.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Trautman, M. B.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1957. The fishes of Ohio. Waverly Press, Inc., Baltimore, Md. XVII + +1-683.</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">Weaver, J. E.</span>, and <span class="smcap">Albertson, F. W.</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1936. Effects of the great drought on the prairies of Iowa, Nebraska, and +Kansas. Ecology 17(4):567-639.</p></div> + + +<p><br /> + <i>Transmitted March 30, 1961.</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<p> </p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 647px;"> +<span class="caption">PLATE 26</span> +<img src="images/pl26.jpg" width="647" height="1024" alt="Plate 26" title="" /> +<p><span class="smcap">Fig. 1.</span> Neosho River, Middle Station, Sec. 3 and 4, T. 24 S., R. 17 E., +looking upstream, July, 1958.<br /> +<br /> +<span class="smcap">Fig. 2.</span> Neosho River, Lower Station, Sec. 16, T. 29 S., R. 20 E., along gravel +bar, July, 1959.</p> +</div> + + +<p> </p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 591px;"> +<span class="caption">PLATE 27</span> +<img src="images/pl27.jpg" width="591" height="1024" alt="Plate 27" title="" /> +<p><span class="smcap">Fig. 1.</span> Marais des Cygnes River, Upper Station, Sec. 12, T. 17 S., R. 17 E., +looking downstream, June, 1960.<br /> +<br /> +<span class="smcap">Fig. 2.</span> Marais des Cygnes River, Middle Station, Sec. 6, T. 17 S., R. 20 E., +looking downstream, June, 1960.</p> +</div> + + +<p> </p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 616px;"> +<span class="caption">PLATE 28</span> +<img src="images/pl28.jpg" width="616" height="1024" alt="Plate 28" title="" /> +<p><span class="smcap">Fig. 1.</span> Electrical fishing gear used at night.<br /> +<br /> +<span class="smcap">Fig. 2.</span> Pool at the upper Neosho station in which rotenone was used, Sec. 33, +T. 15 S., R. 8 E., looking downstream, June, 1960.</p> +</div> + + +<p> </p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 618px;"> +<span class="caption">PLATE 29</span> +<img src="images/pl29.jpg" width="618" height="1024" alt="Plate 29" title="" /> +<p><span class="smcap">Fig. 1.</span> Area 1, upper Neosho station, Sec. 33, T. 15 S., R. 8 E., looking +upstream, June, 1960.<br /> +<br /> +<span class="smcap">Fig. 2.</span> Area 3, upper Neosho station, Sec. 10, T. 16 S., R. 8 E., looking +downstream, June, 1960.</p> +</div> + + +<p> </p> +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 636px;"> +<span class="caption">PLATE 30</span> +<img src="images/pl30.jpg" width="636" height="1024" alt="Plate 30" title="" /> +<p><span class="smcap">Fig. 1.</span> Area 5, upper Neosho station, Sec. 3, T. 16 S., R. 8 E., looking +upstream, June, 1960.<br /> +<br /> +<span class="smcap">Fig. 2.</span> Area 6, upper Neosho station, Sec. 3, T. 16 S., R. 8 E., looking +upstream, June, 1960.</p> +</div> + +<p> </p> + + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 16px;"> +<img src="images/square.png" width="16" height="17" alt="square symbol" title="" /> +</div> + +<h4>28-7576</h4> + + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<h3>UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS<br /> +<br /> +MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY</h3> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>* 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:</p> + +<p>Vol. 1.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>Nos. 1-26 and index. Pp. 1-638, 1946-1950.</p></div> + +<p>*Vol. 2.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>(Complete) Mammals of Washington. By Walter W. Dalquest. Pp. 1-444, 140 +figures in text. April 9, 1948.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 3.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>*1. The avifauna of Micronesia, its origin, evolution, and distribution. By Rollin +H. Baker. Pp. 1-359, 16 figures in text. June 12, 1951.</p> + +<p>*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.</p> + +<p>3. Phylogeny of the waxwings and allied birds. By M. Dale Arvey. Pp. 473-530, +49 figures in text, 13 tables. October 10, 1951.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Index. Pp. 651-681.</p></div> + +<p>*Vol. 4.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>(Complete) American weasels. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 1-466, 41 plates, 31 +figures in text. December 27, 1951.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 5.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>Nos. 1-37 and index. Pp. 1-676, 1951-1953.</p></div> + +<p>*Vol. 6.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>(Complete) Mammals of Utah, <i>taxonomy and distribution</i>. By Stephen D. +Durrant. Pp. 1-549, 91 figures in text, 30 tables. August 10, 1952.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 7.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>*1. Mammals of Kansas. By E. Lendell Cockrum. Pp. 1-303, 73 figures in text, +37 tables. August 25, 1952.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>3. The silky pocket mice (Perognathus flavus) of Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. +Pp. 339-347, 1 figure in text. February 15, 1954.</p> + +<p>4. North American jumping mice (Genus Zapus). By Phillip H. Krutzsch. Pp. +349-472, 47 figures in text, 4 tables. April 21, 1954.</p> + +<p>5. Mammals from Southeastern Alaska. By Rollin H. Baker and James S. +Findley. Pp. 473-477. April 21, 1954.</p> + +<p>6. Distribution of Some Nebraskan Mammals. By J. Knox Jones, Jr. Pp. 479-487. +April 21, 1954.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>8. A new subspecies of bat (Myotis velifer) from southeastern California and +Arizona. By Terry A. Vaughan. Pp. 507-512. July 23, 1954.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>10. A new bat (Genus Pipistrellus) from northeastern Mexico. By Rollin H. +Baker. Pp. 583-586. November 15, 1954.</p> + +<p>11. A new subspecies of pocket mouse from Kansas. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. +587-590. November 15, 1954.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>13. A new cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) from northeastern Mexico. By Rollin +H. Baker. Pp. 609-612. April 8, 1955.</p> + +<p>14. Taxonomy and distribution of some American shrews. By James S. Findley. +Pp. 613-618. June 10, 1955.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Index. Pp. 625-651.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 8.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>Nos. 1-10 and index. Pp. 1-675, 1954-1956.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 9.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>1. Speciation of the wandering shrew. By James S. Findley. Pp. 1-68, 18 +figures in text. December 10, 1955.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>4. Subspeciation in the meadow mouse, Microtus pennsylvanicus, in Wyoming. +By Sydney Anderson. Pp. 85-104, 2 figures in text. May 10, 1956.</p> + +<p>5. The condylarth genus Ellipsodon. By Robert W. Wilson. Pp. 105-116, 6 +figures in text. May 19, 1956.</p> + +<p>6. Additional remains of the multituberculate genus Eucosmodon. By Robert +W. Wilson. Pp. 117-123, 10 figures in text. May 19, 1956.</p> + +<p>7. Mammals of Coahuila, Mexico. By Rollin H. Baker. Pp. 125-335, 75 figures +in text. June 15, 1956.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>9. Extensions of known ranges of Mexican bats. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. +347-351. August 15, 1956.</p> + +<p>10. A new bat (Genus Leptonycteris) from Coahuila. By Howard J. Stains. +Pp. 353-356. January 21, 1957.</p> + +<p>11. A new species of pocket gopher (Genus Pappogeomys) from Jalisco, Mexico. +By Robert J. Russell. Pp. 357-361. January 21, 1957.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>13. New bog lemming (genus Synaptomys) from Nebraska. By J. Knox Jones, +Jr. Pp. 385-388. May 12, 1958.</p> + +<p>14. Pleistocene bats from San Josecito Cave, Nuevo León, México. By J. Knox +Jones, Jr. Pp. 389-396. December 19, 1958.</p> + +<p>15. New subspecies of the rodent Baiomys from Central America. By Robert +L. Packard. Pp. 397-404. December 19, 1958.</p> + +<p>16. Mammals of the Grand Mesa, Colorado. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. 405-414, +1 figure in text, May 20, 1959.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>22. Review of the insectivores of Korea. By J. Knox Jones, Jr., and David H. +Johnson. Pp. 549-578. February 23, 1960.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Index. Pp. 671-690.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 10.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>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.</p> + +<p>2. Comparative breeding behavior of Ammospiza caudacuta and A. maritima. +By Glen E. Woolfenden. Pp. 45-75, 6 plates, 1 figure. December 20, 1956.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>8. Natural history of the salamander, Aneides hardyi. By Richard F. Johnston +and Gerhard A. Schad. Pp. 573-585. October 8, 1959.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Index. Pp. 611-626.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 11.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>1. The systematic status of the colubrid snake, Leptodeira discolor Günther. +By William E. Duellman. Pp. 1-9, 4 figures. July 14, 1958.</p> + +<p>2. Natural history of the six-lined racerunner, Cnemidophorus sexlineatus. By +Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 11-62, 9 figures, 9 tables. September 19, 1958.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>5. A new tortoise, genus Gopherus, from north-central Mexico. By John M. +Legler. Pp. 335-343. April 24, 1959.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>8. Birds from Coahuila, México. By Emil K. Urban. Pp. 443-516. August 1, +1959.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Index Pp. 671-703.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 12.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>3. The baculum in microtine rodents. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. 181-216, 49 +figures in text. February 19, 1960.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>More numbers will appear in volume 12.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 13.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>1. Five natural hybrid combinations in minnows (Cyprinidae). By Frank B. +Cross and W. L. Minckley. Pp. 1-18. June 1, 1960.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>4. Autecology of the Copperhead. By Henry S. Fitch. Pp. 85-288, pls. 13-20, +26 figures in text. November 30, 1960.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>More numbers will appear in volume 13.</p></div> + +<p>Vol. 14.</p> + +<div class="pblockquot"><p>1. Neotropical Bats from Western México. By Sydney Anderson. Pp. 1-8. +October 24, 1960.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>More numbers will appear in volume 14.</p></div> + + + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +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-h.htm or 34787-h.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. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/34787-h/images/bar_double.png b/34787-h/images/bar_double.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f2422e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/bar_double.png diff --git a/34787-h/images/bar_single.png b/34787-h/images/bar_single.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1496c61 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/bar_single.png diff --git a/34787-h/images/i010.jpg b/34787-h/images/i010.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..89ac8af --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/i010.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/i021.jpg b/34787-h/images/i021.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9a51a11 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/i021.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/i036.jpg b/34787-h/images/i036.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..652ca70 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/i036.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/pl26.jpg b/34787-h/images/pl26.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2b63395 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/pl26.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/pl27.jpg b/34787-h/images/pl27.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a1c0c3c --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/pl27.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/pl28.jpg b/34787-h/images/pl28.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..82a114b --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/pl28.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/pl29.jpg b/34787-h/images/pl29.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4cf9d90 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/pl29.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/pl30.jpg b/34787-h/images/pl30.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..600d270 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/pl30.jpg diff --git a/34787-h/images/square.png b/34787-h/images/square.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..924bd3c --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/square.png diff --git a/34787-h/images/union_label.png b/34787-h/images/union_label.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..fcb3cd3 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787-h/images/union_label.png diff --git a/34787.txt b/34787.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4dbb9c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787.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: ASCII + +*** 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 x +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 deg. 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 deg. F.) +the fish was removed, struggling, from the nest, and returned to the +stream. The next day (23 June 1959, water temp. 84 deg. 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# Lacepede + +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# (Lacepede) + +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 Leon, + Mexico. 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 Leon, Mexico. By E. Raymond Hall. Pp. 531-538, + 1 figure in text. January 14, 1960. + + 21. Pleistocene pocket gophers from San Josecito Cave, Nuevo + Leon, Mexico. 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 + Michoacan, Mexico. 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 Guenther. 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, Mexico. 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, Mexico. 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, Mexico. 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 Mexico. 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.txt or 34787.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. diff --git a/34787.zip b/34787.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7ae48b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/34787.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eaae453 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #34787 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34787) |
