Part V: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity and the Index of Well-Being to Monitor Fish Communities in
Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee River Basins of the Blue Ridge Ecoregion of Georgia
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section Stream Survey Team April 15, 2011
1
Table of Contents Introduction...............................................................................3 Figure 1: Map of Blue Ridge Ecoregion.............................................6 Table 1: Listed Fish in the Blue Ridge Ecoregion..................................7 Table 2: Metrics and Scoring Criteria.................................................8 Table 3: Iwb Metric and Scoring Criteria...........................................10 Figure 2: Multidimensional scaling ordination plot................................11 Table 4: High Elevation criteria......................................................12 References...............................................................................13 Appendix A.............................................................................A1 Appendix B.............................................................................B1
2
Introduction
The Blue Ridge ecoregion (BRM), one of Georgia's six Level III ecoregions (Griffith et al. 2001), forms the boundary for the development of this fish index of biotic integrity (IBI). Encompassing approximately 2,639 mi2 in northeast Georgia, the BRM includes portions of four major river basins -- the Chattahoochee (CHT, 142.2 mi2), Coosa (COO, 1257.5 mi2), Savannah (SAV, 345.3 mi2), and Tennessee (TEN, 894.2 mi2) -- and all or part of 16 counties (Figure 1). Due to the relatively small watershed areas and physical and biological parameters of the CHT and SAV basins within the BRM, and the resulting low number of sampled sites, IBI scoring criteria have not been developed for these basins. Therefore, only sites in the COO and TEN basins, meeting the criteria set forth in this document, should be scored with the following metrics.
The metrics and scoring criteria adopted for the BRM IBI were developed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (GAWRD), Stream Survey Team using data collected from 154 streams by GAWRD within the COO (89 sites) and TEN (65 sites) basins. Fish communities in streams with watershed areas less than one square mile cannot be assessed using this SOP due to inherently low diversity within headwater streams. Benthic macroinvertebrate assessments may serve as an alternate biological assessment tool for these streams (contact GA Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) at 404-675-1646 for guidance regarding the appropriateness of benthic macroinvertebrate assessment).
The GAWRD collected a total of 88 of the 108 species known to inhabit wadeable BRM streams in the COO and TEN basins (Appendix A). Species of concern in the BRM include one federally endangered species (Etowah darter, Etheostoma etowahae), three federally threatened species (blue shiner, Cyprinella caerulea; goldline darter, Percina aurolineata; Cherokee darter, Etheostoma scotti), one federal species of concern (sicklefin redhorse, Moxostoma sp.), and 21 state-listed species (GAWRD--Nongame Conservation Section, 2010; Table 1).
Inherent differences in species richness warranted separate scoring criteria for the COO and TEN basins. Scoring information related to tolerance rankings, feeding guilds, and
3
species categories are included in Appendix A. Table 2 shows the scoring criteria developed for the thirteen BRM IBI metrics (for metric descriptions refer to GAWRD 2005, Part I, http://www.georgiawildlife.org/node/913). Maximum Species Richness (MSR) graphs are included in Appendix B.
Scores for the BRM IBI ranged from 12 to 56 (potential range 8 to 60) with a median of 36. Based on IBI classes (GAWRD 2005, pg 40), 12 (10 COO, 2 TEN) sites ranked EXCELLENT, 37 (22 COO, 15 TEN) ranked GOOD, 45 (26 COO, 19 TEN) ranked FAIR, 39 (18 COO, 21 TEN) ranked POOR, and 21 (13 COO, 8 TEN) ranked VERY POOR. Fish abundance data was standardized for each site, and sites were grouped based on community similarities. We used Primer 6.0 statistical software for ecological data to determine Bray Curtis similarities between sites (Clarke and Gorley 2001; Clarke and Warwick 2006). We categorized each site by basin and IBI class as determined by the metrics presented here, and averaged fish community data across these categories. Figure 2 illustrates the relative ability of the current metrics to separate sites based on fish community health. The modified Index of well-being (Iwb) scores for the BRM (Table 3) ranged from 2.8 to 9.7 with a median of 7.5.
Regional Diversity High elevation and high gradient watersheds are common in the BRM, and fish diversity is relatively high when compared to other ecoregions in Georgia. However, some BRM streams represent unique systems where high elevation effects (e.g., cooler water temperatures, widely fluctuating flows, and steep gradient) pose insurmountable barriers to colonization by many fishes. These physical characteristics, plus trout dominance from stocking, often result in low fish diversity. Due to these natural and anthropogenic characteristics affecting diversity, 27 COO and TEN sites were excluded from this analysis in addition to the BRM sites located in the CHT and SAV basins. We designated these 27 sites as high-elevation/trout-dominated (HETD) streams.
The IBI is designed to assess biotic integrity through the use of fish community metrics representing species richness, species composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition (Fausch et al 1984). Due to the low diversity of the HETD
4
streams, the attributes of fish communities represented in this BRM IBI are not appropriate for assessing biotic integrity of HETD streams. Criteria for using this BRM IBI, based on river basin, elevation, number of native species, and trout population characteristics, are presented in Table 4. Fish samples not meeting these criteria should be assessed using alternative methods.
5
Figure 1. Level III Blue Ridge ecoregion (outlined in red) in Georgia. Major river basins include the Chattahoochee, Coosa, Savannah, and Tennessee
Fannin
Towns
M urr ay
Union
Gilm er
Gordon Pickens Bartow Cherokee
Wh ite DawLsuomn pkin
Fo rsyth
Habersha m
Rabun Stephens
Altamaha
Chattahoochee Coosa Flint Ochlockonee
Ocmulgee Oconee Ogeechee Saint Marys
Satilla Savannah Suwannee Tallapoosa Tennessee
6
Table 1. State and federal rankings for fish found in the Coosa and Tennessee portions of the Blue Ridge ecoregion of Georgia (Georgia Department of Natural Resources Nongame Conservation Section, 2010).
Species
State
Federal
Basin
Blotched chub (Erimystax insignis)*
E
TEN
Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea)*
E
T
COO
Bridled darter (Percina kusha)*
E
COO
Burrhead shiner (Notropis asperifrons)*
T
COO
Cherokee darter (Etheostoma scotti)*
T
T
COO
Coosa chub (Macrhybopsis sp. Coosa chub)
E
COO
Dusky darter (Percina sciera)
R
TEN
Etowah darter (Etheostoma etowahae)*
E
E
COO
Fatlips minnow (Phenacobius crassilabrum)*
E
TEN
Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata)*
E
T
COO
Greenfin darter (Etheostoma chlorobranchium)*
T
TEN
Holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum)*
E
COO
Lined chub (Hybopsis lineapunctata)*
R
COO
Olive darter (Percina squamata)
E
TEN
River redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum)*
R
COO/TEN
Rock darter (Etheostoma rupestre)
R
COO
Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp. sicklefin redhorse)
E
C
TEN
Silver shiner (Notropis photogenis)
E
TEN
Tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca)
E
TEN
Trispot darter (Etheostoma trisella)*
E
COO
Wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum)
E
TEN
Status: E = endangered; R = rare; T = threatened; C = candidate Basin: COO = Coosa; TEN = Tennessee *Collected by GAWRD-SST
7
Table 2. Index of Biotic Integrity metrics for wadeable streams within the Coosa and Tennessee portions of the Blue Ridge ecoregion of Georgia, that are not high-elevation, trout-dominated (see Table 4). Scoring criteria include slopes of each trisection line (and coordinates where slope of trisection line becomes zero) for metrics 1 6 and numerical breaks for metrics 7 - 13.
Metric Species Richness Metrics 1. Number of native species
Basin Group
Scoring Criteria
5/3 Breaks
3/1 Breaks
COO y = 5.12x + 10.20 (1.91, 20.00) y = 2.56x + 5.10 (1.91, 10.00)
TEN y = 3.94x + 7.78 (1.72,14.67) y = 1.97x +3.89 (1.72, 7.33)
2. Number of benthic fluvial specialist species
COO TEN
y = 1.38x + 2.75 (2.35, 6.00) y = 0.69x + 1.38 (2.35, 3.00) y = 1.01x + 2.00 (1.31, 3.33) y = 0.50x + 1.00 (1.31, 1.67)
3. Number of native sunfish speciesa
COO TEN
y = 0.94x + 1.87 (0.84, 2.67) y = 0.47x + 0.93 (0.84, 1.33) y = 0.64x + 1.27 (2.17, 2.67) y = 0.32x + 0.63 (2.17, 1.33)
Number of native centrarchid speciesb
COO TEN
y = 1.21x + 2.40 (1.86, 4.67) y = 0.60x + 1.20 (1.86, 2.33) y = 0.87x + 1.72 (1.82, 3.33) y = 0.44x + 0.86 (1.82, 1.67)
4. Number of native insectivorous cyprinid species
COO TEN
y = 1.16x + 2.28 (2.04, 4.67) y = 0.58x + 1.14 (2.04, 2.33) y = 1.21x + 2.40 (2.39, 5.33) y = 0.61x + 1.20 (2.39, 2.67)
5. Number of native round-bodied sucker species
COO TEN
y = 0.67x + 1.57 (2.28, 3.33) y = 0.33x + 0.78 (2.28, 1.67) y = 0.60x + 1.20 (2.43, 2.67) y = 0.30x + 0.60 (2.43, 1.33)
6. Number of sensitive speciesa
COO TEN
y = 0.67x + 1.30 (2.05, 2.67) y = 0.33x + 0.65 (2.05, 1.33) y = 0.87x + 1.73 (1.84, 3.33) y = 0.43x + 0.87 (2.05, 1.67)
Number of intolerant speciesb
COO TEN
y = 0.83x + 1.63 (5.20, 6.00) y = 0.42x + 0.82 (5.20, 3.00) y = 1.00x + 2.00 (1.33, 3.33) y = 0.50x + 1.00 (1.33, 1.67)
8
Table 2 continued. Metric
Species Composition Metrics
7. Evenness
Basin Group
COO TEN
8. % of individuals as Lepomis species
COO TEN
9. % of individuals as insectivorous cyprinids 10. % of individuals as generalist feeders and herbivoresa
% of individuals as top carnivoresb
COO TEN
COO TEN
COO
TEN
11.
% of individuals as benthic fluvial specialists
Abundance and condition metrics 12. Number of individuals per 200 meters
COO TEN
COO TEN
13. % of individuals with external anomalies
COO
TEN
a used at sites with an upstream drainage basin area < 15 square miles b used at sites with an upstream drainage basin area 15 square miles
9
5 74.6 70.5
Scoring Criteria 3
65.3 74.6 57.0 70.5
1 < 65.3 < 57.0
11.4 9.3
22.7 11.4 18.5 9.3
> 22.7 > 18.5
31.2 29.4
15.6 31.2 14.7 29.4
< 15.6 < 14.7
38.1 < 53.2
64.6 38.1 < 71.9 53.2
> 64.6 > 71.9
4.8 6.6 5.4 7.8
3.0 4.8 > 6.6 8.4 3.1 5.4 > 7.8 10.2
< 3.0 > 8.4 < 3.1 > 10.2
54.0 61.4
34.6 54.0 39.8 61.4
< 34.6 < 39.8
825.9 737.1
487.8 825.9 440.7 737.1
< 487.8 < 440.7
> 47 subtract 4 points from total score > 71 subtract 4 points from total score
Table 3. Index of well-being (Iwb) scoring criteria and integrity classes for wadeable streams within the Coosa and Tennessee portions of the Blue Ridge ecoregion of Georgia that are not high-elevation, trout-dominated (see Table 4).
Score 8.3 9.1
7.5 - 8.3 8.8 - 9.1
6.6 - 7.5 8.0 - 8.8
5.6 - 6.6 7.7 - 8.0
DBA (mi2) < 15 > 15
< 15 > 15
< 15 > 15
< 15 > 15
Integrity Class
Excellent
Attributes
Comparable to the best regional conditions; all expected species for basin and ecoregion are present given the habitat and stream size; species, including the most intolerant, are present and represented by a full array of size classes; species diversity is high; number of individuals and total biomass are high and evenly distributed; each level of the food web is represented, indicating a balanced trophic structure.
Good
Species richness somewhat below expectation; evenness scores decrease as species diversity falls, especially due to loss of the most intolerant species; high number of individuals in the sample, with several species of benthic fluvial specialists and insectivorous cyprinids present; some decrease in total biomass as trophic structure shows signs of stress.
Species richness and diversity decline as several expected species are absent; number of individuals declines; total biomass continues to decline with some levels of the Fair food web in low abundance or missing; trophic structure skewed toward generalist feeders and/or Lepomis species as the abundance of insectivorous cyprinid and benthic fluvial specialist species decreases.
Number of individuals is low; species richness and diversity are very low, with benthic fluvial specialist and insectivorous cyprinid species in low abundance or Poor absent; sample dominated by generalist feeders, herbivores, and Lepomis species; increase in the proportions of non-native species and hybrids; growth rates depressed as sample is heavily skewed to the smaller size classes; total biomass low.
< 5.6 < 7.7
< 15 > 15
Very Poor
Sample represented by few individuals, mainly generalist feeders and Lepomis species; some sites dominated by non-native species; total biomass very low.
10
Figure 2. Multidimensional scaling ordination plot of average Bray Curtis similarities for Coosa (COO) and Tennessee (TEN) basins. Sites are grouped by fish community similarities and averaged across basin and IBI class.
11
Table 4. Criteria for determining if streams in the Blue Ridge ecoregion (BRM) of Georgia should be scored using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) described in this document. Sites meeting all of the components of criteria 1 OR criteria 2 should not be scored using the BRM IBI outlined in this document.
Criteria
Elevation
DBA (mi2)
Number Native Species
% Trout by Number
1
> 1400' (COO) > 1800' (TEN)
< 15
5
20%
2
50% Trout by Weight
12
References
Boschung, H.T. and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution. Washington D.C. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A).
Clarke, K.R. and R.M. Warwick. 2001. Change in marine communities: An approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, Second Edition. PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK.
Clarke, K.R. and R.N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER Version 6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK.
Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, Tennessee. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A).
Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr, and P.R. Yant. 1984. Regional Application of an Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Stream Fish Communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 113:39 55.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Conservation Section. 2010. Protected Speces of Georgia. Available from: http://georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/text/html/protected_ species/Fish.html
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, S. Lawrence, and T. Foster. 2001. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Georgia (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey.
Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society. Methesda, Maryland. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A).
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. (Cited as a work rather than as individual species accounts in the interest of space, Appendix A).
Lyons, J. 1992. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to Measure Environmental Quality in Warmwater Streams of Wisconsin. North Central Forest Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report NC-149.
Straight, C.A., B. Albanese, and B.J. Freeman. Updated 2009 March 25. Georgia Museum of Natural History. Available from: http://fishesofgeorgia.uga.edu
Vannote, R.L, G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. The River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol 37: 130 137.
Appendix A
Coosa and Tennessee Blue Ridge Ecoregion Fish List Including Tolerance Rankings, Feeding Guilds, Species Categories, and Federal and State Rankings
GWRD Stream Survey Team
A1
Marcinek April 2011
Fishes of the Coosa and Tennessee River Basins within the Blue Ridge Ecoregion of Georgia.
Species
Chestnut Lamprey* Ichthyomyzon castaneus
Southern Brook Lamprey* Ichthyomyzon gagei
Mountain Brook Lamprey* Ichthyomyzon greeleyi
Least Brook Lamprey Lampetra aepyptera
Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus
Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum*
Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense
Central Stoneroller* Campostoma anomalum
Largescale Stoneroller* Campostoma oligolepis
Rosyside Dace* Clinostomus funduloides
Blue Shiner* Cyprinella caerulea
Alabama Shiner* Cyprinella callistia
Whitetail Shiner* Cyprinella galactura
Tricolor Shiner* Cyprinella trichroistia
Blacktail shiner* Cyprinella venusta
Common Carp* Cyprinus carpio
Blotched Chub* Erimystax insignis
Tolerance Feeding Species
Ranking
Guild Category
Petromyzontidae
PR
Drainage Basin COO, TEN
Federal Status
State Satus
HB
COO
INT
HB
TEN
INT
HB
COO
Lepisosteidae CR
COO, TEN
Clupeidae OM
COO, TEN
OM
COO, TEN
Cyprinidae
HB
TEN
HB
COO, TEN
IN
TEN
INT
IN
BFS
COO
T
E
IN
BFS
COO
IN
BFS
TEN
IN
COO
IN
COO
GE
EXOTIC
OM
BFS
TEN
E
GWRD Stream Survey Team
A2
Marcinek April 2011
Species Bigeye Chub* Hybopsis amblops
Lined Chub* Hybopsis lineapunctata
Striped Shiner* Luxilus chrysocephalus
Warpaint Shiner* Luxilus coccogenis
Bandfin Shiner* Luxilus zonistius
Mountain Shiner* Lythrurus lirus
Coosa Chub Macrhybopsis sp. Coosa Chub
Bluehead Chub* Nocomis leptocephalus
River Chub* Nocomis micropogon
Golden Shiner* Notemigonus crysoleucas
Burrhead Shiner* Notropis asperifrons
Rainbow Shiner* Notropis chrosomus
Tennessee Shiner* Notropis leuciodus
Longnose Shiner Notropis longirostris
Yellowfin Shiner* Notropis lutipinnis
Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis
Mirror Shiner* Notropis spectrunculus
Silverstripe Shiner* Notropis stilbius
Telescope Shiner Notropis telescopus
Coosa Shiner* Notropis xaenocephalus
GWRD Stream Survey Team
Tolerance Ranking
Feeding Guild
IN
Species Category
BFS
Drainage Basin TEN
Federal Status
State Satus
INT
IN
BFS
COO
R
IN
COO, TEN
IN
TEN
IN
COO**
INT
IN
COO
INT
IN
BFS
COO
E
OM
COO, TEN**
OM
COO**, TEN
GE
COO, TEN
INT
IN
COO
T
HWI
IN
COO
IN
TEN
IN
BFS
COO
IN
COO, TEN
IN
TEN
E
IN
BFS
TEN
IN
COO
IN
TEN
IN
A3
COO
Marcinek April 2011
Species Riffle Minnow* Phenacobius catostomus
Fatlips Minnow* Phenacobius crassilabrum
Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax
Blacknose Dace* Rhinichthys atratulus
Longnose Dace* Rhinichthys cataractae
Creek Chub* Semotilus atromaculatus
White Sucker* Catostomus commersoni
Alabama Hogsucker* Hypentelium etowanum
Northern Hogsucker* Hypentelium nigricans
Spotted Sucker* Minytrema melanops
Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
River Redhorse* Moxostoma carinatum
Black Redhorse* Moxostoma duquesnei
Golden Redhorse* Moxostoma erythrurum
Blacktail Redhorse* Moxostoma poecilurum
Sicklefin Redhorse Moxostoma sp. sicklefin redhorse
Snail Bullhead* Ameiurus brunneus
Black Bullhead* Ameiurus melas
Yellow Bullhead* Ameiurus natalis
GWRD Stream Survey Team
Tolerance Ranking
INT
Feeding Guild
IN
Species Category
BFS
Drainage Basin COO
Federal Status
State Satus
INT
IN
BFS
TEN
E
OM
COO
IN
BFS
COO, TEN
HWI
IN
BFS
TEN
GE
COO, TEN
Catostomidae
IN
BFS
TEN
IN
BFS
COO
IN
BFS
COO, TEN
IN
BFS
COO, TEN
IN
BFS
TEN
INT
IN
BFS
COO, TEN
R
INT
IN
BFS
COO, TEN
IN
BFS
COO, TEN
IN
BFS
COO
INT
IN
BFS
TEN
C
E
Ictaluridae GE
COO, TEN**
GE
COO, TEN
GE
COO, TEN
A4
Marcinek April 2011
Species Brown Bullhead* Ameiurus nebulosus
Flat Bullhead* Ameiurus platycephalus
Channel Catfish* Ictalurus punctatus
Speckled Madtom* Noturus leptacanthus
Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris
Rainbow Trout* Oncorhynchus mykiss
Brown Trout* Salmo trutta
Brook Trout* Salvelinus fontinalis
Southern Studfish* Fundulus stellifer
Mosquitofish* Gambusia sp.
Mottled Sculpin* Cottus bairdi
Banded Sculpin* Cottus carolinae
White Bass Morone chrysops
Striped Bass Morone saxatilis
Shadow Bass* Ambloplites ariommus
Rock Bass* Ambloplites rupestris
Redbreast Sunfish* Lepomis auritus
Green Sunfish* Lepomis cyanellus
GWRD Stream Survey Team
Tolerance Ranking
Feeding Guild GE
Species Category
Drainage Basin COO, TEN
Federal Status
State Satus
GE
TEN**
GE
COO, TEN
BI
BFS
COO
CR
COO, TEN
Salmonidae CR
EXOTIC
CR
EXOTIC
INT
CR
COO**, TEN
Fundulidae IN
COO
Poeciliidae GE
COO, TEN
Cottidae
GE
BFS
COO, TEN
GE
BFS
COO, TEN
Percichthyidae CR
COO**, TEN
CR
COO
Centrarchidae
INT
CR
SF
COO
INT
CR
SF
TEN
IN
SF
COO**, TEN**
GE
A5
SF
COO, TEN
Marcinek April 2011
Species Warmouth* Lepomis gulosus
Bluegill* Lepomis macrochirus
Longear Sunfish* Lepomis megalotis
Redear Sunfish* Lepomis microlophus
Spotted Sunfish* Lepomis punctatus x miniatus
Redeye Bass* Micropterus coosae
Smallmouth Bass* Micropterus dolomieu
Spotted Bass* Micropterus punctulatus
Largemouth bass* Micropterus salmoides
White crappie Pomoxis annularis
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Greenside darter* Etheostoma blennioides
Holiday darter* Etheostoma brevirostrum
Greenfin darter* Etheostoma chlorobranchium
Coosa darter* Etheostoma coosae
Etowah darter* Etheostoma etowahae
Greenbreast darter* Etheostoma jordani
Redline darter* Etheostoma rufilineatum
Rock darter Etheostoma rupestre
GWRD Stream Survey Team
Tolerance Ranking
Feeding Guild CR
Species Category
SF
Drainage Basin COO, TEN
Federal Status
State Satus
IN
SF
COO, TEN
IN
SF
COO, TEN
IN
SF
COO, TEN
IN
SF
COO
CR
COO, TEN**
CR
TEN
CR
COO, TEN
CR
COO, TEN
CR
COO, TEN
CR
COO, TEN
Percidae
IN
BFS
TEN
INT
IN
BFS
COO
E
IN
BFS
TEN
T
IN
BFS
COO
INT
IN
BFS
COO
E
E
INT
IN
BFS
COO
IN
BFS
TEN
IN
BFS
COO
R
A6
Marcinek April 2011
Species
Cherokee darter* Etheostoma scotti
Tolerance Ranking
Feeding Guild
IN
Species Category
BFS
Drainage Basin COO
Federal Status
T
State Satus
T
Speckled darter* Etheostoma stigmaeum
IN
BFS
COO
Trispot darter*
INT
IN
BFS
COO
E
Etheostoma trisella
Wounded darter
INT
IN
BFS
TEN
E
Etheostoma vulneratum
Banded darter* Etheostoma zonale
IN
BFS
TEN
Yellow perch* Perca flavescens
CR
EXOTIC
Tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca
IN
BFS
TEN
E
Goldline darter* Percina aurolineata
INT
IN
BFS
COO
T
E
Gilt darter* Percina evides
INT
IN
BFS
TEN
Mobile logperch* Percina kathae
IN
BFS
COO
Blackbanded darter* Percina nigrofasciata
BI
BFS
COO
Bronze darter* Percina palmaris
BI
BFS
COO
Dusky darter Percina sciera
BI
BFS
TEN
R
Olive darter Percina squamata
INT
BI
BFS
TEN
R
Bridled darter* Percina kusha
INT
BI
BFS
COO
E
*Collected by GAWRD Stream Survey Team Pollution Tolerance: HWI = headwater intolerant; INT = intolerant Feeding Guild: CR = carnivore; GE = generalist; HB = herbivore; OM = omnivore; IN = invertivore; BI = benthic invertivore; PR = parasitic Species Category: BFS = benthic fluvial specialist; SF = sunfish species; Drainage Basin: COO = Coosa; TEN = Tennessee; EXOTIC = introduced to Georgia; ** introduced to basin Status: E = endangered; T = threatened; R = rare; C = of concern
GWRD Stream Survey Team
A7
Marcinek April 2011
Appendix B
Blue Ridge Ecoregion Maximum Species Richness Graphs, Metrics 1 - 6, for the Coosa and Tennessee Basins
B1
Number Native Species
EXAMPLE. Maximum species richness graph. Maximum species richness (denoted by dashed line) drawn by eye, and the area below trisected to determine the cutoffs for scoring breaks (Lyons 1992). Sites falling on the line are scored up. Actual graphs are truncated at the y-axis, as sites with drainage basin areas < 1 mi2 are not to be scored using these criteria .
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B2
Number Native Species
Metric 1 Coosa. Total number of native species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B3
Number Native Species
Metric 1 Tennessee. Total number of native species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B4
Number Benthic Fluvial Specialist Species
Metric 2 Coosa. Total number of benthic fluvial specialist species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B5
Number Benthic fluvial Specialist Species
Metric 2 Tennessee. Total number of benthic fluvial specialist species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B6
Number Native Sunfish Species
Metric 3a Coosa. Total number of native sunfish species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B7
Number Native Sunfish Species
Metric 3a Tennessee. Total number of native sunfish species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B8
Number Native Centrarchid Species
Metric 3b Coosa. Total number of native centrarchid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B9
Number Native Centrarchid Species
Metric 3b Tennessee. Total number of native centrarchid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B10
Number Native Insectivorous Cyprinid Species
Metric 4 Coosa. Total number of native insectivorous cyprinid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B11
Number Native Insectivorous Cyprinid Species
Metric 4 Tennessee. Total number of native insectivorous cyprinid species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B12
Number Native Round-bodied Sucker Species
Metric 5 Coosa. Total number of native round-bodied sucker species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B13
Number Native Round-bodied Sucker Species
Metric 5 Tennessee. Total number of native round-bodied sucker species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B14
Number Sensitive Species
Metric 6a Coosa. Total number of sensitive species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B15
Number Sensitive Species
Metric 6a Tennessee. Total number of sensitive species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B16
Number Intolerant Species
Metric 6b Coosa. Total number of intolerant species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B17
Number Intolerant Species
Metric 6b Tennessee. Total number of intolerant species in the Blue Ridge ecoregion plotted against the transformed drainage basin area. Maximum species richness denoted by dashed line.
Drainage Basin Area (log10 mi2) B18