The
Bigmouth Chub is one of eight endemic fishes in the New River. It is a special fish in a special place. Bigmouth Chub is a member of the genus, Nocomis, which was first described in
1856 by Charles Frédéric Girard, a
student of Louis Agassiz. However, it wasn’t until 1971 that the
Bigmouth Chub was described as Nocomis
platyrhynchus. By that time the
distributions of other Nocomis were
well described and the Bigmouth Chub had this difficult-to-explain allopatric
distribution with its closest relatives, the River Chub Nocomis micropogon and the Bull Chub Nocomis raneyi. The Bigmouth Chub was all alone in the upper
New River, surrounded by other Nocomis.
Distribution of Nocomis platyrhynchus, Nocomis micropogon and Nocomis raneyi. Nagle and Simons 2012. |
These and
other Nocomis species arose from a
common ancestral Nocomis. Let’s call
him “Bob.” Apparently the “Bob” chub
moved into the ancient Teays River several million years ago. (I don’t really know when, no one does for sure. One day this may be answered by students of Nocomis).
Populations of the “Bob” chub became
vicariant, or isolated from other chubs to an extent that prevents or
interferes with genetic interchange. The Teays River originated in the Tertiary
Period and at that time drained much of eastern North American in the
pre-glacial period. However, the
original route of the ancient Teays was altered by glacial advances which
created a massive ice dam blocking the northward-flowing Teays. “Bob” experienced dramatic geologic and
cycles of glaciation through evolutionary time that permitted the speciation of
Nocomis platyrhynchus. In allopatric speciation there is an
extrinsic barrier to gene flow, which for the Bigmouth Chub was the Kanawha Falls at downstream limit and the Atlantic drainage divide at the upstream
limits. The upper Teays followed the route of the present-day New River from
near Blowing Rock, North Carolina.
Consequently, the descendents of “Bob” found refugia in the upper New
River drainage during the Pleistocene and differentiated there.
Today, the
Bluehead Chub Nocomis leptocephalus also
occurs in the upper New River. This species is widely distributed in piedmont
streams from Mississippi to Virginia and may be five unique species (Nagle
and Simons 2012). Ichthyologists believe
that Nocomis leptocephalus entered
the New River drainage from the Roanoke drainage via a process called stream
capture. By the time of the stream capture,
reproductive isolation mechanisms between the two Nocomis were in place so they would not interbreed.
Bigmouth Chub. Photo by Edward Burress. |
The
species name, platyrhynchus, refers
to large mouth gape of the Bigmouth Chub.
The species exhibits sexual dimorphism.
The breeding adults have distinctive pink ventral coloration,
olive-orange caudal fin, and yellow pectoral and pelvic fins. For an underwater view, watch the Bigmouth Chub swim in
Walker Creek. Nonbreeding females and
juveniles have a dark horizontal lateral body stripe. Bigmouth Chub inhabit medium- to large-sized
tributaries and the mainstem New River.
These streams have a moderate gradient, warm, usually clear water, and a
good mix of gravel to boulder substrates.
They may be found in both swift water and pools. In a late summer investigation by Lobb and
Orth (1988), the Bigmouth Chub were found only in riffles and adjacent runs and
they avoided the shallowest depths and were always observed near the
streambed.
The most
distinctive feature of the breeding male Bigmouth Chub is an enlarged nuptial crest
and numerous tubercles on the head and snout.
The tubercles are rarely seen in small individuals (< 60mm SL) and
the tubercle pattern is not fully developed until individuals exceed 100mm.
Head of the breeding male Bigmouth Chub. |
In the
photo, note the pink coloration on ventral side of head and belly region. Also,
the tubercles do not extend to the occipital region in the Bigmouth Chub. The
male Bluehead Chub has larger and fewer tubercles and no tubercles on the
snout. Therefore, potential mates can be
recognized by presence or absences of tubercles on the snout in addition to
coloration differences.
Tubercle
functions are the source of much speculation.
Tubercles possibly serve to warn other individuals who may infringe on the male's territory during nest building. If
the visual warning doesn’t work, head butting might.
Tubercles may assist in attracting a female mate or in maintaining
contact during the spawning act.
Tubercles are shed after spawning.
During the
spring, the male Bigmouth Chub uses his big mouth to construct spawning mounds in areas of small to
large gravel, shallow water (15-75 cm), and moderate water velocity (10-70
cm/sec). The gravel mound is an
impressive alteration of the streambed and is constructed over many days and
nights by a single breeding male. The male may collect pebbles from as far as 10 meters from the nest. Most mounds measured by Lobb and Orth (1988) were between 50-90 cm wide and 40-70 cm high and consisted of large gravels. The
behavior of mound construction is remarkably similar in the closely related
Bigmouth Chub, River Chub, and Bull Chub.
Eugene Maurakis described this characteristic three-stage
progression.
Bigmouth Chub three-stage mound construction (a) concavity; (b) platform; and (c) mound with spawning trough. Source: Maurakis et al. 1991. |
Bigmouth
Chub constructs the gravel mound in three distinct stages (a) excavated cavity
with channel parallel to current; (b) platform constructed with particles from
lateral margins; and (c) mound with a spawning trough in upstream
location. These three behavioral
synapomorphies are unique to these three Nocomis and support their derivation from a common
ancestor, “Bob.” The spawning trough is where a single male and female
breed. The mound, modifies the local
flow field creating an eddy behind the mound and slow current in the trough
where eggs and sperm are deposited. The
large gravel mound enhances survival of embryos and larvae, which would otherwise
be eaten by numerous egg predators. The
mound is such a perfect spawning location that other minnows are frequently
observed spawning in the vicinity of the Bigmouth Chub gravel mound. The Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum, Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus, Rosefin Shiner Lythrurus ardens, Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus, and Mountain Redbelly Dace Chrosomus oreas are some of the common nest associates with the
Bigmouth Chub.
Photos of gravel mound nests of the Bigmouth Chub.
Top view
by Brandon Peoples (left) and side view by Del Lobb (right).
|
The Bigmouth
Chub is the result of millions of years of evolution, changing climate, and
river erosion. Recent molecular analyses
suggest that it might be subsumed into Nocomis
micropogon (Nagle and Simons 2012). More
study is needed of this minnow and the many other minnows that dominate our
local streams. Today we know very little
about this endemic minnow and its history and role in its New River home. It’s not a simple story to untangle. You can blame it on the Pleistocene!
References
Lachner, E.A., and R.E. Jenkins. 1971.
Systematics,
distribution, and evolution of the chub
genus Nocomis Girard (Pisces,
Cyprinidae) of eastern United States, with descriptions of new species. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 85:1-97.
Lobb, M.D., III, and D.J. Orth.
1988. Microhabitat use by the Bigmouth Chub Nocomis
platyrhynchus in the New River, West Virginia. The
American Midland Naturalist 120(1):32-40.
Lobb, M.D., III, and D.J. Orth.
1991. Habitat use by an assemblage of fish in
a large warmwater stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 120(1):65-78.
Maurakis,
E.G. 1998. Breeding behaviors in Nocomis platyrhynchus and Nocomis raneyi (Actinopterygii:
Cyprinidae). Virginia Journal of Science
49(4):227-236.
Maurakis, E.G., W.S. Woolcott, and
M.H. Sabaj. 1991.
Reproductive-behavioral phylogenetics of Nocomis species-groups. The American Midland Naturalist 126:103-110.
Nagle, B.C., and A.M. Simons.
2012. Rapid diversification in the North
American minnow genus Nocomis. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 63(3):639-649. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2012.02.013
doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2012.02.013
Great little article.
ReplyDelete