146 



Fishes — Our Living Rfsoiiires 



Spottin chub 



Former distribution (pre-1930's) 



Fig. 3. An example of habitat frag- 

 mentation, decline, and isolation 

 of populations of a southeastern 

 freshwater fish, the endangered 

 spotfin chub ( Cyprmella 

 monacha). Former (pre-1930's) 

 and present range in yellow. 



Tangerine darter iPercina aiinmli- 

 aca). 



Mountain redbelly dace iPhoxiniis 

 areas). 



followed by the Coastal Plain subregions (Fig. 

 1 ). This geographic trend is correlated with both 

 a high level of diversity in the respective hydro- 

 logic regions and the quite localized or endem- 

 ic distributions of many species. Especially 

 important are a number of watersheds that har- 

 bor many species confined within those 

 drainages: these watersheds include the 

 Tennessee Ri\er. the Mobile Basin, the 

 Cumberland River, and the Roanoke and James 

 rivers (Warren and Burr 1994). Most jeopar- 

 dized species have restricted distributions, but 

 the number of more geographically widespread 

 species that are disappearing from large por- 

 tions of their ranges is increasing. 



Two species of southeastern fishes have 

 become extinct in the last century: the harelip 

 sucker {Moxostoma laceritm) and the whiteline 

 topminnow (Fundidus alboUneatus). At least 

 one other species, the least darter (Etheostoma 

 micwperca). has disappeared from the southern 

 portion of its range that falls within the region 

 covered here. The slender chub iEriniystax 

 cahni) has not been seen since 1987 and may be 

 near extinction. Two other species peripheral to 

 the Southeast are feared extinct: the Scioto 

 madtom {Notiinis tnnitmani) and the Maryland 

 daner (Etheostoma sellave: Etnier 1994). 



The declining status of freshwater fishes 

 among divergent taxonomic groups and across 



broad habitat types and geographic areas is 

 interpreted as evidence for widespread and per- 

 vasive threats to the entire North American fish 

 fauna (Moyle and Leidy 1992: Warren and Buit 

 1994). In the Southeast, fish declines are the 

 result of the same factors that cause global dete- 

 rioration of aquatic resources, primarily habitat 

 loss and degraded environmental conditions. 

 The principal causes of freshwater fish imperil- 

 ment in the Southeast and other areas of the 

 United States are dams and channelization of 

 large rivers, urbanization, agriculture, defor- 

 estation, erosion, pollution, introduced species, 

 and the cumulative effects of all these factors 

 (Moyle and Leidy 1992: Warren and Buit 

 1994). The most insidious threat to southeastern 

 fishes is sedimentation and siltation resulting 

 from poor land-use patterns that eliminate suit- 

 able habitat required by many bottom-dwelling 

 species. Cumulative effects of physical habitat 

 modifications have caused widespread frag- 

 mentation of many fish populations in the 

 Southeast (Fig. 3), presenting difficult chal- 

 lenges for those trying to reverse and restore 

 diminished fish stocks. 



Aquatic resources are often resilient and 

 capable of recovery, given favorable conditions. 

 Conservation of southeastern fishes will require 

 significant changes in land management and 

 socioeconomic factors (Moyle and Leidy 1992: 

 WaiTcn and Burr 1994), but such changes are 

 necessary to stem future losses of biodiversity. 

 The first step required is to improve public edu- 

 cation on the value and status of native aquatic 

 organisms. For resource managers and policy 

 makers, increased efforts must be made to 

 assume proactive management of entire water- 

 sheds and ecosystems: establish networks of 

 aquatic preserves: restore degraded habitats: 

 establish long-term research, inventory, and 

 monitoring programs on fishes: and adopt 

 improved environmental ethics concerning 

 aquatic ecosystems (Wanen and Burr 1994). 

 The southeastern fish fauna is a national trea- 

 sure of biodiversity that is imminently threat- 

 ened. If this precious heritage is to be passed on, 

 its stewardship must be improved through coop- 

 erative actions of all public and private sectors 

 within the region. 



References 



Burkhead. N.M.. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 

 321-409 in Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings 

 of a Symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing 

 Co.. Blacksburg.VA. 672 pp. 



Deacon. J.E.. G. Kobetich. J.D. Williams. S. Contreras, et 

 al. 1979. Fishes of North America endangered, threat- 

 ened, or of special concern: 1979, Fisheries 4(2):30-44. 



Etnier. D.A. 1994. Our southeastern fishes — what have we 

 lost and what are we likely to lose. Southeastern Fishes 

 Council Proceedings 29:5-9. 



Etnier. D.A.. and W.C. Stames. 1991. An analysis of 

 Tennessee's jeopardized tlsh taxa. Journal of the 

 Tennessee Academy of Science 66(41:129-133. 



