The Whitetail
Shiner Cyprinella galactura (Cope 1868)
is now a common minnow in the New River drainage. However, this species did not appear in any
fish collections from the New River during the first half of the 20th
century (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The only other Cyprinella
native to the New River is the Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera. The New River has relatively few native fish for a river of its size, but it does support several endemic fishes. During
the last ice age, the New River was an upland refugia for fishes as the glaciers
moved southward. After the glaciers
retreated, fishes colonized the New River drainage from uplands and lowlands, but dispersal from lowlands was inhibited by Kanawha Falls. Consequently, many large river fishes such as
the shads Dorosoma, carpsuckers Carpiodes, buffalofishes Ictiobus, and redhorses Moxostoma, never naturally colonized the New
drainage. However, many non-native fishes, including the
Whitetail Shiner, are now established in the New River drainage (Buckwalter
2016).
Whitetail Shiner (top is live specimen from New River, bottom is same specimen after
fixing in formalin) photo by
DJ Orth
|
The Whitetail
Shiner is one of 32 species of Cyprinella,
the second largest North American genus of Cyprinidae after the Notropis, or true shiners. The Whitetail Shiner is easily distinguishable
by the pale white spots at the base of the caudal fin. Otherwise it resembles the Satinfin C. analostana, Spotfin C. spiloptera, and Steelcolor C. whipplei shiners. Like these shiners,
it has a terminal to slightly subterminal mouth and a terete body, only slightly
compressed. The membranes of the last
3-5 dorsal fin rays are pigmented. The name Cyprinella means
little carp-like fish and galactura
refers to the pale “white” spots on the caudal fin. All species of Cyprinella are recognized by the large, vertically oriented,
diamond-shaped scales, each outlined with black pigment. The head of breeding
males is covered with many tubercles. Breeding
specimens are more colorful with red or orange coloration on snout and fins. For other images of the Whitetail Shiner, click here for photo by Uland Thomas, here for photo by Lance Merry, or here for photo of breeding male by Isaac Szabo. These photos provide examples of different specimens with different coloration of snout and fins.
All species of Cyprinella are crevice spawners. Males establish dominance hierarchies around crevice nesting territories. Females deposit eggs inside small crevices of rocks and submerged logs or roots and males fertilize the eggs and defend the young until they embryos hatch. In this photo, Lance Merry captured several males in breeding coloration during agonistic encounters.
Whitetail Shiner occurs in highland streams both east (Ozark Plateau and Ouachita mountains) and west (Tennessee and Cumberland drainages) of the former Mississippi Embayment, a relict feature from a warmer geologic period. In these clear and cool streams the Whitetail Shiner occupies deep pools near riffles, often associated with large boulders and rocky banks. Whitetail Shiners adapt well to life in aquaria and will readily feed on flake fish food; consequently, this species has been propagated by Conservation Fisheries, Inc., for use as a freshwater mussel host.
The Whitetail
Shiner appears to be able to persist in streams that are altered by excessive
sedimentation (Sutherland 2007), whereas other crevice-spawning minnows appear
more sensitive to stream sedimentation (Jelks and Burkhead 2001). Sediment movement and deposition is a
pervasive issue in flowing waters and fine sediment additions result in higher
suspended loads after runoff and higher sediment deposition on streambeds. Because of the dynamic nature, the influence
on fine sediments on crevice-spawning minnows has seldom been
investigated. The experimental
apparatus invented by Andrew Sutherland (2007) consisted of slow moving
motor-driven paddles in experimental tanks to keep the fine (less than 45-μm) sediments suspended. Experiments on the effects of suspended
solids on Whitetail Shiners demonstrated a reduction in larvae produced as
suspended solids increased (Sutherland 2007).
Additional experiments on Whitetail Shiners demonstrated an additional
deleterious effect on suspended sediments on gill health and growth rates
(Sutherland et al. 2007). These findings
suggest that gill damage and subsequent impairment of respiratory function may explain
the reduced growth. The mainstem New
River, where the new population flourished, has a reduced sediment load due to Claytor Dam, which serves as an effective sediment trap.
How would those
very first Whitetail Shiners manage to find appropriate mates in this large
river? The answer lies in the non-random
and innate behaviors of these fishes.
They are not random wanderers in the river; rather, they have distinct
habitat preferences, shoaling tendencies, specific spawning requirements, and
acoustic signals. Whitetail Shiners
also communicate with each other with species-specific calls in addition to
visual signals. Catherine Phillips and
Carole Johnston of the Fish Biodiversity Lab at Auburn University observed
behaviors of Whitetail Shiners associated with different behaviors in lab experiments. They discovered that males make low
frequency sounds as courtship signals as well as during agonistic encounters
with other males; however, females did not produce sounds (Phillips and
Johnston 2008b). This mixture of sound signaling with visual
displays ensures that male Whitetail Shiners attract spawning ready mates. Sound may assist in species recognition or
mate selection. Phillips and Johnston
(2008b) further examined these acoustic signals in populations from Arkansas
and Tennessee; they discovered that different populations shared the “same
acoustic repertoire (producing knocks, short knocks, and pulse bursts),
significant amounts of geographical variation were found.” Although the disjunct populations were similar morphologically, the acoustic signals were divergent.
Claytor Lake and Dam (dam located in upper right area of photo) Photo by Rui M. |
Threats to
populations of Whitetail Shiners are not fully studied; IUCN rates them as a “least
concern” species. However, where they
do occur they are easy to observe with a mask and snorkel or capture with a
minnow seine. Just don’t dump these or other minnows into
non-local streams!
References
Buckwalter, J.D. 2016. Invasion success
and species traits of New River stream fishes. Master’s thesis. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 94 pp.
Burkhead, N. M., and H. Jelks. 2001.
Effects of suspended sediment on the reproductive success of the tricolor shiner,
a crevice-spawning minnow. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 130:959–968.
Easton, R. S., and D. J. Orth. 1994.
Fishes of the main channel New River, West Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science
45:265-277.
Jenkins, R.E. and Burkhead, N.M. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pp.
Mayden, R.L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies
of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus CYPRINELLA (Teleostei:
Cypriniformes). University of Kansas Museum Natural History Miscellaneous
Publication 80:1-189.
NatureServe. 2013. Cyprinella
galactura. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013:
e.T202079A15364032. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-1.RLTS.T202079A15364032.en. Downloaded on 04 January 2016.
Phillips, C.T., and C.E. Johnston. 2008a. Sound production and associated behaviors in Cyprinella galactura. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 82:265-275 DOI 10.1007/s10641-007-9279-5
Phillips, C.T., and C.E. Johnston. 2008b. Geographical divergence of acoustic
signals in Cyprinella galactura, the
whitetail shiner (Cyprinidae). Animal Behaviour 75:617-626.
doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.022
Sutherland, A.B. 2007. Effects of increased suspended sediment
on the reproductive success of an upland crevice-spawning minnow. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 136:416-422. DOI:
10.1577/T06-046.1
Sutherland, A.B., and J.L. Meyer. 2007. Effects of increased
suspended sediment on growth rate and gill condition of two southern
Appalachian minnows. Environmental Biology of Fishes
80:389–403 DOI 10.1007/s10641-006-9139-8
No comments:
Post a Comment