Three tributaries to the Ouachita River in eastern Clark County, Arkansas, empty into the river within a collective distance of about 9 km. The streams drain basins derived from the Wilcox formation, partially overlain by terrace and alluvial deposits. Despite their proximity, the streams are very different: L\u27Eau Frais has a gravel substrate and was recognized by the French as a cool water stream, Tupelo Creek is a bottomland stream from which numerous Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) emerge, and Saline Bayou was named due to its marked salinity. We studied the assemblages of fishes in these 3 very different drainages to evaluate the occurrence of species and the degree of similarity of the ichthyofaunas. L\u27Eau Frais differed from the other streams in a greater occurrence of lampreys (Petromyzontidae), including a disjunct population of Lampetra appendix, and suckers (Catostomidae), including the relatively uncommon Blacktail Redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum). Tupelo Creek had an assemblage of species characteristic of a bottomland stream, and Saline Bayou had the least diverse fish fauna

Jordan, Scott

Robison, Henry W.

Self, Lesley

Tumlison, C. Renn

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 60 Article 212006Ichthyofaunal Assemblages in Three Approximatebut Ecologically Diverse Streams in Clark County,ArkansasC. Renn TumlisonHenderson State University, tumlison@hsu.eduScott JordanHenderson State UniversityLesley SelfHenderson State UniversityHenry W. RobisonSouthern Arkansas UniversityFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and theZoology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu.Recommended CitationTumlison, C. Renn; Jordan, Scott; Self, Lesley; and Robison, Henry W. (2006) "Ichthyofaunal Assemblages in Three Approximate butEcologically Diverse Streams in Clark County, Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 60 , Article 21.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/211131lcntiiyof«iuri<]iAsscm dluges in 1firee .r roxnxiatebut Ecologically Diverse Streams in Clark County, ArkansasRenn Tumlison',Scott Jordan ,Lesley Self > and Henry W. RobisoniDepartment ofBiology,Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR71999Department ofBiology,Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 717542Correspondence: tumlison@hsu.eduAbstract.— Three tributaries to the Ouachita River in eastern Clark County, Arkansas, empty into the river within a collectivedistance of about 9 km. The streams drain basins derived from the Wilcox formation, partiallyoverlain by terrace and alluvialdeposits.Despite their proximity, the streams are very different: L'Eau Frais has a gravel substrate and was recognized by the French as a coolwater stream, Tupelo Creek is a bottomland stream from which numerous Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) emerge, and Saline Bayouwas named due to its marked salinity. We studied the assemblages of fishes in these 3 very different drainages to evaluate the occurrenceof species and the degree of similarity of the ichthyofaunas. L'Eau Frais differed from the other streams ina greater occurrence oflampreys (Petromyzontidae), including a disjunct populationofLampetra appendix, and suckers (Catostomidae), including the relativelyuncommon Blacktail Redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum). Tupelo Creek had an assemblage of species characteristic of a bottomlandstream, and Saline Bayou had the least diverse fish fauna.Key words: —Ichthyofaunas, Ouachita River, Clark County, Arkansas, L'Eau Frais, Tupelo Creek, Water Tupelo, Nyssa aquatica, SalineBayou, Lampreys, Lampetra appendix, Blacktail Redhorse, Moxostoma poecilurum.IntroductionA small portion of Clark County, Arkansas, lies east ofthe Ouachita River. The area is within the West Gulf CoastalPlain just south of the Ouachita Mountains natural division(Foti 1974). Geologically, the region is composed primarilyofalluvium deposited during the Holocene by L'Eau Frais Creek,Tupelo Creek, and Saline Bayou. The latter 2 streams drainbasins lying almost entirely within alluvial deposits. Alluviumforms the banks ofL'Eau Frais, but much of its upper reachesdrain exposed strata of the Wilcox group deposited during theEocene (Haley 1993).These 3 tributaries enter the Ouachita River withina distanceofabout 9 km along the river (Fig. 1). Despite their proximity,they are ecologically very different.L'Eau Frais Creek was named by early French pioneers whonoted the "cool (or fresh) water." Atabout 37 kminlength, thisstream is the longest of the 3 we studied, and itflows throughoutthe year. Habitats within the stream include pools and riffles thatflow over a substrate of sand and gravel withscattered depositsofdetritus and mud.In contrast, Tupelo Creek represents a bottomland stream ofabout 14 km in length. It is named for the Water Tupelo (Nyssaaquatica) trees that are common along its banks. Pools andIes occur inthe stream, but summertime lows often reduce the/ to a trickle. The substrate is composed ofmud and detritusiscattered gravel inriffle areas.Journal ofthe Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60, 2006Fig. 1. Location ofSaline Bayou, Tupelo Creek, and L'Eau FraisCreek inClark and Hot Spring Counties, Arkansas. Dots alongstreams represent locations of sample sites.131Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 21Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2006132_Saline Bayou has a substrate of mud, gravel, sand, anddetritus. It is about 18 km long and the stream looks somewhatsimilar toL'Eau Frais except for fewer sand bars. The stream hasa longhistory as a source of salt. In the late 1700s, Louis Badins(2003) referred to the salty stream as la petite saline, whichlater became known as Saline Bayou. In 1804, WilliamDunbarobtained a sample ofsaline water after digging in the bed ofadrygully near Arkadelphia. Ten quarts of the water were evaporated,which produced a "saline mass weighing when dry 8 ounces"(Rowland 1930). One of the earliest salt works inArkansas wasestablished in 1811 at Blakelytown (near modern Arkadelphia)on a site along Saline Bayou where natives had made salt foryears.The substrates of the streams are strongly related to thesoils within their basins. Sardis-Guyton-Ouachita soils form thealluvium through which the streams flow. These are flood-plainsoils of silty clay loam. Upper slopes of the basins drained bySaline Bayou and Tupelo Creek have Gurdon-Stough-Amy soils,which also are of silty clay loam. Higher slopes of the drainageof L'Eau Frais Creek have Saffell-Sacul-Pikeville soils, whichare deep gravelly and sandy loam soils (Hoelscher 1987).Questions concerning the diversity of fish species in thesetributaries arose after the discovery of an isolated population ofthe American Brook Lamprey (Lampetra appendix) in L'EauFrais Creek (Tumlison and Tumlison 1999). Thisis a northeasternspecies formerly known to occur no farther south than the WhiteRiver in Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Cool, clearstreams withgravelly substrates are required byL.appendix, andthose conditions are met onlyinL'Eau Frais. We began surveysto determine whether other unique species or associations ofspecies occurred in these streams.Materials and MethodsFishes were collected by seining (3.2 mm mesh, 1.2 X3 mnet) throughout the year. Collections were made at availableaccess points along Hwy 7 and at bridges for minor roads. Weattempted to sample proportionately to the number ofaccess sitesand made collections on 25 occasions at 5 sites on L'Eau Frais,16 times at 2 sites on Tupelo Creek, and 10 times at 2 sites onSaline Bayou. Historical records (Robison and Buchanan 1988)are included with the specimens obtained during the course ofthis study. Because the objective of our study was to determinespecies composition, we did not count the numbers ofindividualsencountered. Instead, we focused on sampling each habitat typeencountered ineach stream. Voucher specimens were depositedin the vertebrate collections at Henderson State University.Because some species of fishes (e.g., suckers) tend to entertributaries ofrivers for spawning, we tested water quality duringthe spring and late summer to determine whether variation amongstreams was consistent between high and low flow periods. Wemeasured temperature, pH, salinity and conductivity becausethese parameters are related. Saline waters, expected to occurin Saline Bayou, tend tohave a high pH and highconductivityThe level of tolerance by fishes to these parameters wouldlikel;affect their likelihoodof occurrence among the streams.Species withlow tolerance tochange best serve as indicator:of environmental degradation and pollution. Because most othe species found in our study occur in Oklahoma, we used th<classification of Jester et al. (1992) to evaluate the compositioiof fish communities found during our study. Chi-square tesfrwere used to compare the frequencies of species withintolerancelevels between pairs of streams.Results and DiscussionA total of 64 species, representing 13 families, wascollected during the study (Table 1). The samples includedseveral cosmopolitan species witha mixture ofupland (OuachitaMountains) and lowland (GulfCoastal Plain) components. L'EauFrais and Tupelo Creeks each had 47 species, but we found only36 species inSaline Bayou. L'Eau Frais and Tupelo shared 37species in common, L'Eau Frais and Saline shared 27 species,and Tupelo and Saline shared 28 species. The lower numberof shared species between Saline and the other streams likelyreflects the lower number of species found in Saline.Twenty-six species (40.6%) were shared by all streams,which likely means that those species are tolerant of the rangeof conditions present in all 3 streams. However, 24 species(37.5%) were unique to 1ofthe 3 streams. Of these, 9 specieswere collected only from L'Eau Frais Creek, 8 species only fromTupelo Creek, and 7 species only from Saline Bayou.The most important observation was the occurrence ofLampetra appendix in L'Eau Frais because it represents asouthwestern extralimitalpopulation of a northeastern species.Interestingly, 3 of the 4 species of lampreys found in Arkansaswere collected from L'Eau Frais. Most species of lampreysrequire gravel riffles for spawning, and the ammocoete larvaeneed silty to sandy areas withdetritus in which to feed and grow(Robison and Buchanan 1988). Both species of Ichthyomyzonalso were found inTupelo Creek, but no species of lamprey wastaken from Saline Bayou.L'Eau Frais also had the richest diversity (4 species) ofcatostomids, 3 of which were unique to the stream. TupeloCreek had 2 species of suckers, 1of which was unique, but nosuckers were found in Saline Bayou. Most species of suckersprefer relatively clear streams withgravelly or sandy substrates(Robison and Buchanan 1988), which explains the distributionwe observed. We note that the specimens ofMinytrema melanopsand both species ofMoxostoma were small and likely representspawn within the streams.The 2 bottomland species Elassoma zonatum andAphredoderus sayanus were taken from all streams. We observedthat both species were more common inTupelo Creek; the mostbottomland innature of the streams sampled. Further, the speciesFundulus dispar, Lepomis marginatus, Notropis maculatus, andJournal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60, 2006132Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 21http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/21133-teronotropis hubbsi were found only inTupelo Creek. Theseoecies prefer mud and detritus bottoms (Robison and Buchanan988), which is consistent with the habitat ofTupelo.The 2 species collected only in Saline Bayou, Menidiaeryllina and Lepisosteus osseus, are of interest because theyre tolerant of brackish water and occur in coastal estuarineituations (Robison and Buchanan 1988).InL'Eau Frais and Tupelo Creeks, the majority of species68%) were intolerant to changes in water quality (combiningcategories of intolerant and moderately intolerant, Table 2). Incontrast, the majority of species inSaline Bayou (55.6%) weretolerant of change. Chi-square analysis indicated no significantdifference (P > 0.05) between L'Eau Frais and Tupelo Creeksin tolerance of the species to changes in water quality, butcomparison of Tupelo and Saline, and L'Eau Frais and Saline,indicated that tolerances of species present were significantlydifferent (P< 0.001).In all streams, most species were somewhat intolerant ofhabitat change, withthe species inSaline Bayou averaging mosttolerant. Chi-square analysis indicated no difference betweenspecies inL'Eau Frais and Tupelo Creeks intolerance to changeinhabitat (P >0.05), but comparisons between L'Eau Frais andSaline, and Tupelo and Saline, were significantly different (P <0.001).Parameters of water quality do seem to explain thedifferences found among streams. Monthly temperatures ofall streams from February through Aprilof 2006 were within2°C of each other, increasing from about 10°C to 21°C. Afterdiminished flowduring summer, temperatures on 16 September2006 remained about the same forL'Eau Frais (22°C), but hadclimbed inTupelo (25°C), and Saline (27°C).On 24 April2006, pH of all streams ranged from 6.2-6.5.On 16 September 2006 pH had increased slightly inL'Eau Frais(6.7) and Tupelo (6.9), but markedly inSaline (9.2). Withhigherflow on 24 April, salinity was 0 in the former two streams andonly 0.1 % in Saline Bayou, but on 16 September only SalineBayou had increased -to a salinity of 1%. Patches of salt wereevident at that time along dried sections of the stream.Conductivity remained under 120 on 24 April and16 September for both L'Eau Frais and Tupelo. In contrast,conductivity inSaline Bayou was measured as 180 on 24Apriland increased to 1,900 //mhos on 16 September.The increase in salt content of water in Saline Bayouexplains the basic pH and the high conductivity. The lowerdiversity ofspecies inthat stream likelyresulted fromconditionsthat seasonally exceed tolerances of many freshwater species offishes (Moyle and Cech 2004).Acknowledgments.— We thank the Arkansas Game andFish Commission for Scientific Collecting Permits 101520041and 111420051, issued to the senior author.Literature CitedBadins L. 2003. Observations summaires sur le Ouachita.Translated and annotated by S. D. Dickinson. Arkadelphia(AR):Clark County Historical Association and the Pete ParksCenter for regional studies, Ouachita Baptist University. 49P.Foti TL. 1974. Natural divisions of Arkansas. In: ArkansasNatural Area Plan. LittleRock (AR): Arkansas Dept. ofPlanning. 11-34 p.Haley BR. 1993. Geologic map of Arkansas. ArkansasGeological Commission and United States GeologicalSurvey.Hoelscher JE. 1987. Soil survey of Clark and Hot Springcounties, Arkansas. UnitedStates Department ofAgriculture,SoilConservation Service. 266 p.Jester DB,AAEchelle, WJ Matthews, J Pigg, CM Scott, andKDCollins. 1992. The fishes of Oklahoma, their grosshabitats, and their tolerance of degradation in water qualityand habitat. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy ofScience 72:7-19.Moyle PB and JJ Cech Jr. 2004. Fishes: An introduction toIchthyology. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. 726P-Robison HWand T.M.Buchanan. 1988. Fishes ofArkansas.Fayetteville (AR): University ofArkansas Press. 536 p.Rowland D. 1930. Life,letters and papers of WilliamDunbar.Jackson (MS): Press of the Mississippi Historical Society.410 p.Tumlison R and C Tumlison. 1999. An extralimitalpopulationof Lampetra appendix (Petromyzontidae) in southwesternArkansas. Southwestern Naturalist 44:106-108.Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.60, 2006133Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 21Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 20061Table 1. Occurrence (X)of species of fishes in three proximate tributaries to the Ouachita River, Clark County, Arkansas. Toleranceindicate (tolerance to change inwater quality, tolerance to change in habitat), where I= intolerant, MI= moderately intolerant, MT =moderately tolerant, and T = tolerant (tolerance data from Jester et al. 1992).Tolerance L'Eau Frais Tupelo SalineFamily: PetromyzontidaeIchthyomyzon castaneus (MI,I)(I,D(I,DXXXXX000Ichthyomyzon gageiLampetra appendix 0Family: LepisosteidaeLepisosteus osseus (T,T) 0 0 XFamily: EsocidaeEsox americanus (MI,MI) X X XFamily: CyprinidaeCampostoma anomalumLuxilus chrysocephalus(MI,MI)(MI,MI)(MI,MI)XXXXXXXXXXLythrurus umbratilisNotemigonus crysoleucas (T,T)(MI,I)(MI,I)(I,D0 0Notropis boops 000XXXXXX0Notropis maculatusPteronotropis hubbsi00Cyprinella venustaCyprinella whippleiOpsopoeodus emiliae(MT,MT)(MI,MI)(MI,MI)(MT,MT)(MI,MI)XXXXXXX0Pimephales notatus 00XSemotilus atromaculatus 0Family: CatostomidaeErimyzon oblongus (MI,I)(I,D(MI,I)(MI,MI)(MI,MI)X 0 0HypentiliumnigricansMinytrema melanopsMoxostoma erythrurumMoxostoma poecilurum0 X 0XXX0000X 0Family: IctaluridaeAmeiurus natalis (T,MT)(I,D(MI,I)(I,D(MI,MI)0 00XNoturus eleutherus X 00Noturus gyrinusNoturus miurusXXXXXX00Noturus nocturnusFamily: AphredoderidaeAphredoderus sayanus (MT,MI) X X XFamily: FundulidaeFundulus catenatusFundulus chrysotus(MI,I)(MI,I)(T,I)(MT,MI)(MT,MI)000X 00 XFundulus disparFundulus notatusXXX0XXXXFundulus olivaceousJournal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.60, 2006134134Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 21http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/211135Iable 1. (cont.)Tolerance L'Eau Frais Tupelo SalineFamily: PoeciliidaeGambusia qffinis (T,T) XXXFamily: AtherinidaeLabidesthes sicculus (MT,MI) XXXMenidia beryllina (T, MT) 0 0 XFamily: CentrarchidaeCentrarchus macropterus (I,I) X 0 0Lepomis cyanellus (T,T) XXLepomis gulosus (MT, MT) XLepomis macrochirus (MT,MT) XXLepomis marginatus (MT,MI) 0 0Lepomis megalotis (MT,MT) XXXLepomis microlophus (MT,MT) 0 0 XLepomis punctatus (MT,I) XXXLepomis symmetricus (I,I) 0 X XMicropterus punctulatus (MI,MI) X 0 0Micropterus salmoides (MT,MT) XXPomoxis annularis (T,MT) 0 0 XPomoxis nigromaculatus (MT,MT) 0 0 XFamily: ElassomatidaeElassoma zonatum (I,I) X X XFamily: PercidaeAmmocrypta vivax (MI,I) X X 0Etheostoma blennioides (I,I) XEtheostoma chlorosomum (MI,I) XXEtheostoma collettei (MI,I) XEtheostoma gracile (MT, I) XXEtheostoma parvipinne (I,I) X X 0Etheostoma proeliare (MI,I) XEtheostoma radiosum (MI,MI) XXEtheostoma stigmaeum (MI,MI) X X 0Etheostoma whipplei (MI,MI) XEtheostoma zonale (1,1) X X 0Percina copelandi (MI,I) 0X0Percina maculata (MI,I) X X 0Percina sciera (MI,MI) XJournal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.60, 2006135Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 21Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2006Table 2. Frequencies of fish species inL'Eau Frais Creek, Tupelo Creek, and Saline Bayou inrelation to their tolerance of changes iihabitat and water quality. Tolerance assignments were based on Jester et al. (1992). Total numbers of fishes (n) and their distributioiamong categories are given. The percent of fishes in each category are shown parenthetically. T = tolerant, MT= moderately tolerantMI=moderately intolerant, andI= intolerant.Tolerance to changes inwater qualityL'Eau Frais (n =47)Tupelo (n =47)Saline (n = 36)Tolerance to changes inhabitatL'Eau Frais (n= 47)Tupelo (n = 47)Saline (n= 36)T(%) MT(%) MI(%) I(%)3(6.4) 12(25.5) 23(48.9) 9(19.1)3(6.4) 12(25.5) 24(51.1) 8(17.0)6(16.7) 14(38.9) 13(36.1) 3 (8.3)T(%) MT(%) MI(%) I(%)3(6.4) 6(12.8) 19(40.4) 19(40.4)2(4.3) 5(10.6) 17(36.2) 23(48.9)3(8.3) 11(30.6) 12(33.3) 10(27.8)Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60, 2006136136Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 21http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/21

Ichthyofaunal Assemblages in Three Approximate but Ecologically Diverse Streams in Clark County, Arkansas

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK