Creaserinus fodiens - (Cottle, 1863)
Digger Crayfish
Synonym(s): Fallicambarus fodiens (Cottle, 1863) ;Fallicambarus hedgpethi ;Fallicambarus uhleri
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Fallicambarus fodiens (Cottle, 1863) (TSN 97608) ;Fallicambarus hedgpethi (Hobbs, 1948) (TSN 97610) ;Fallicambarus uhleri (Faxon, 1884) (TSN 97616)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106957
Element Code: ICMAL15120
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Crustaceans - Crayfishes
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Crustacea Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Creaserinus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480:1-236.
Concept Reference Code: B89HOB01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Fallicambarus fodiens
Taxonomic Comments: Fallicambarus has traditionally been divided into two subgenera (Fallicambarus and Creaserinus). While these two subgenera form monophyletic groups, each is more closely related to other genera than to each other (Ainscough et al. 2013), with the subgenus Fallicambarus more allied with members of Procambarus and the subgenus Creaserinus more closely allied with species of Faxonius. Crandall and De Grave (2017) thus elevate the subgenus Creaserinus to full generic rank and retain the contained species.

This is a complex, extremely variable species, that includes F. hedgpethi (Hobbs, 1948) and F. uhleri (Faxon, 1884); which were synonomized by Hobbs and Robison (1989).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Feb2016
Global Status Last Changed: 19Feb1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species has a large geographic range and is currently stable thoughtout most of its distribution. It is found in a range of habitat types and displays a certailn level of tolerance to contaminants. Localized declines are likely due to habitat degradation, however there are no known major threats impacting the global population. An apparent hiatus in the range is caused by the Appalachian Mountains, extending to the sea between the Flint and Savannah rivers in Georgia; Hobbs's extensive study of the state (Hobbs, 1981) make it probable that the gap is real. This is the most widely distributed Fallicambarus species, occurring as far north as southern Ontario and is apparently stable except at the northern edge of its range where it is declining.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (19Feb1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (22Feb2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S3), Arkansas (S5), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S3), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S5), Maryland (S4), Michigan (S4), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (S2S3), North Carolina (S5), Ohio (S4), Oklahoma (S2), Pennsylvania (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S5), Texas (SNR), Virginia (S3), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S1S2)
Canada Ontario (S4)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
American Fisheries Society Status: Currently Stable (01Aug2007)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: "From southern Ontario southwestward to Aransas County, Texas, and southeastward to the Appalachicola Basin, also present in the Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont from Beaufort County, South Carolina, to Somerset and Dorchester counties, Maryland." (Hobbs and Robison, 1989). Apparent hiatus in the range caused by the Appalachian Mountains, extending to the sea between the Flint and Savannah rivers in Georgia; Hobbs's extensive study of the state (Hobbs, 1981) make it probable that the gap is real. Jezerinac et al. (1995) reported a third apparently disjunct population along the Ohio River in west-central West Virginia.

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Hobbs et al. (1976) documented it, tentatively, in the Savannah River Plant Park (on the Savannah River) in southwest South Carolina. In the Cumberland Plateau it occurs in the Tennessee River system west of Sequatchie Valley and lower Black Warrior and Sipsey River systems where it is uncommon (Bouchard, 1974). In Alabama, this species is known from 17 records from the Tennessee, Tombigbee, and Alabama River systems (Mirarchi et al., 2004, appendix 1.2, pub. separately; Schuster and Taylor, 2004) as well as the Black Warrior, Cahaba, Chattahoochee, Escambia, Mobile, Perdido, and Tallapoosa drainages (Schuster et al., 2008). It is restricted to the Coastal Plain in Georgia (Skelton, 2010). In Kentucky, it is known from the Salt River drainage west to the Mississippi Embayment and seems to be the most common between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers (Taylor and Schuster, 2004). In Missouri, it is known from a few localities along the boundary between the Lowland Faunal Region and adjacent Ozarks and from a widely separate locality along the lower Gasconade River but is likely moer widely distributed in eastern Missouri than data suggest (Pflieger, 1996). In Maryland, it is distributed in the Coastal Plain in the lower Potamac River and in the southern portion of the Delmarva Peninsula and is considered stable (Killian et al., 2010). In Ohio it is found primarily in glaciated portioins across much of the north and east central part of the state with additional records from remaining valley segments of the preglacial Teays River (Thoma and Jezerinac, 2000). In West Virginia, it is only known from four populations in teh vicinity of the Kanawha River/ Ohio River confluence (Loughman and Welsh, 2010). Jezerinac and Thoma (1984) previously listed Ohio distribution as the northern glaciated region mostly and in Jackson Co. in the unglaciated part of the state. Simon and Thoma (2003) documented it in the Patoka River basin of Indiana where it was fairly common. In South Carolina it occurs in all the drainages in the eastern half of the state in the coastal plain in Bamberg, Lexington, Marion, Sumter, and Williamsburg Counties (Eversole and Jones, 2004). Specimens identified by Hobbs (1942) as Cambarus species incertis from the Wscambia River floodplain have been shown to represent this species based on additional material from near Jay, Santa Rosa Co., Florida. It is widespread across eastern Texas (Johnson and Johnson, 2008). In Canada, it occurs at the extreme northern edge of its range only in southern Ontario and is restricted to a few isolated patches of suitable wetland habitat in southern Ontario (Guiasu, 2007); with 34 documented populations from the southern shores of Georgian Bay extending as far north as the southeastern shores of Georgian Bay and east to the northeast shore of Lake Scugog to Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River in the west (Giasu et al., 1996; Hamr, 2006).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Hamr (2006) found burrow density ranged from 0.1 to 5.4 per sq. m in Canadian populations.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: In Indiana, it was found infrequently at 24 of 176 sites in a survey of Clay, Greene, Knox, Owen, Sullivan, and Vigo Cos. (Burskey and Simon, 2010). In West Virginia, it is only known from four populations in teh vicinity of the Kanawha River/ Ohio River confluence with the most viable being Greenbottom Wildlife Management Area (Loughman and Welsh, 2010).

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Habitat destruction and degradation are the main threats to all Fallicambarus crayfishes. Also, the more widely distributed species can be vulnerable to loss of suitable habitats or habitat fragmentation at range edges; as well as habitat modification for agriculture and wetland destruction. The second most important cause for imperilment is pollution (including air, water and soil pollution as these species spend time burrowing and in temporary waters). Because burrowing crayfish tend to prefer warmer climates and the milder and shorter winters currently found in southeastern areas of the U.S. and because they live in semi-terrestrial habitats sometimes far removed from permanent water todies, they are often prevented from expanding their ranges and, theoretically may be susceptible to the effects of global warming. Lastly, competition from introduced crayfish species (Orconectes rusticus, Procambarus clarkii, Cambarus robustus) is considered a threat to the species in this genus (Guiasu, 2007). However, because it has been found that Fallicambarus fodiens exhibits lower aggression towards other crayfish species than related Cambarus spp. when living in close aggregations of mud burrows, it may be more suscepible to displacement from more aggressive exotic crayfish when found together (Guiasu et al., 2005).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: This is by far the most widely distributed species within the genus (Guiasu (2007). At the northern edge of its range in southern Ontario, it is being reduced by the loss of wetlands and due to rapid expansion of cities and towns in the area. Habitat fragmentation is resulting in tiny pockets of suitable habitat (Guiasu, 2007).

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Not intrinsically vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Simon and Morris (2008) found this species to be much more tolerant of high concentrations of sediment contaminants in the Patoka River watershed, Indiana, than aquatic tertiary burrowing species.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) "From southern Ontario southwestward to Aransas County, Texas, and southeastward to the Appalachicola Basin, also present in the Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont from Beaufort County, South Carolina, to Somerset and Dorchester counties, Maryland." (Hobbs and Robison, 1989). Apparent hiatus in the range caused by the Appalachian Mountains, extending to the sea between the Flint and Savannah rivers in Georgia; Hobbs's extensive study of the state (Hobbs, 1981) make it probable that the gap is real. Jezerinac et al. (1995) reported a third apparently disjunct population along the Ohio River in west-central West Virginia.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MO, MS, NC, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MO Bollinger (29017), Butler (29023), Camden (29029), Cape Girardeau (29031), Dunklin (29069), Gasconade (29073), Iron (29093), Reynolds (29179), Ripley (29181), Stoddard (29207)
SC Charleston (45019), Colleton (45029), Dillon (45033), Horry (45051)
WV Cabell (54011), Mason (54053)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Little Pee Dee (03040204)+, Waccamaw (03040206)+, South Carolina Coastal (03050202)+, Salkehatchie (03050207)+
05 Raccoon-Symmes (05090101)+
07 Whitewater (07140107)+
08 Upper St. Francis (08020202)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+
10 Lake of the Ozarks (10290109)+, Lower Gasconade (10290203)+
11 Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: a crayfish
General Description: Eyes small, but pigmented and faceted; dactyl of chela with deep excision in basal part of opposable margin; first pelopod of male terminating in 2 elements, both bent at at least 90 degrees to main axis of pleopod; mesial surface of chela of 2nd cheliped with conspicuous tufts of setae; male with hooks only on ischia of 3rd pereiopods; color pattern quite varied; telson divided. Morphology of principal characters quite variable (Hobbs and Robison, 1989). [LENGTH: to 30 TCL; to 55 TL] [WIDTH: to 15]
Diagnostic Characteristics: Male with 1st pleopod terminating in 2 elements, both bent at least 90 degrees; basal part of opposable margin of dactyl of chela with distinct excision; ventral surface of merus of chela with 2 rows of tubercles; mesial surface of palm of 2nd cheliped bearded; abdomen broadly joined to thorax.
Reproduction Comments: Norrocky (1991) found breeding (Form I) and nonbreeding (Form II) males present throughout the year in Ohio. Eggs were extruded, developed eyed embry stage by mid-October and overwintered in this condition. Hatching occurred in late March to mid-April. Molting to adult occurred in teh following summer or autumn.
Ecology Comments: Usually constructs mud chimney above entrance to burrow (Crocker, 1968).
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, Riparian, TEMPORARY POOL
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil
Habitat Comments: All species in the genus Fallicambarus are primary burrowers (Guiasu, 2007). Found in ditches ponds and marshes as a primary and secondary burrower. Missouri records are from seasonally flooded areas in lowlands and along the flood plains of streams; but it was found in surface waters from January through May spending most of its life in burrows and for much of the year underground (Pflieger, 1996). In Indiana, it is positively associated with high quality flooded areas adjacent to slow-flowing deep streams (Burskey and Simon, 2010).
Phenology Comments: Norrocky (1991) found occupany in th esame burrow by Form I males and females from April to late October in Ohio with maximum age 6 years
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: No known economic value.
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Crayfishes

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens, including live specimens or recently dead shells (i.e., soft tissue still attached without signs of external weathering or staining), at a given location with potentially recurring existence. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information.
Separation Barriers: Separation barriers are based on hydrological discontinuity. Additional physical barriers, particularly for secondary and tertiary burrowers, include presence of upland habitat between water connections of a distance greater than 30 m. Migration of primary burrowers is generally not hindered by presence of upland habitat unless conditions are very xeric (dry and desert-like) (Smith, 2001).
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 2 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Freshwater cave (troglobitic) species may occur from near entrances to very deep in cave systems. For cave species, each cave where an observation or collection was recorded (see Minimum EO Criteria, above) constitutes an element occurrence regardless of separation distance unless caves are part of a single hydrological system (see below). Occurrences are additionally separated by underground physical barriers to movement. Multiple caves within a single hydrological cave system are considered to be a single element occurrence when they are less than one km apart. Multiple caves within a single hydrological cave system are considered separate element occurrences when hydrological connections have not been determined or when separated by a distance of at least one km.
Separation Justification: Habitat for these creatures is primarily separated according to each species' burrowing ability. All crayfish are able to burrow to some extent and this ability will help determine the range of habitats in which a species can be found. Burrowing in the Astacidae is limited to streambed and bank excavation (Hobbs, 1988). The Cambaridae, as a whole are much more adept at burrowing than the Astacidae. As a result, they possess a greater habitat range than the Astacidae including dry water bodies (Hogger, 1988).

The burrowers can be classified into three categories: primary burrowers, secondary burrowers, and tertiary burrowers. Primary burrowers tend to remain in their burrows continuously and live in areas without permanent water except during breeding when they must migrate to a nearby water source (Hogger, 1988). The prairies of eastern and central Mississippi and western Alabama are an example of primary burrower habitat (Hogger, 1988). Secondary burrowers remain in burrows during dry periods but emerge when habitats are inundated seasonally. Such habitat includes lentic systems flooded periodically but dry in summer (Huner and Romaire, 1979) and permanent and temporary ponds and swamps in the southern United States. Tertiary burrowers do not burrow except during infrequent drought conditions and/or during breeding season. Both flowing and standing water can be tertiary burrower habitat.

Because primary burrowers, and to a lesser extent secondary burrowers, can occupy xeric habitats, separation barriers for such species do not include presence of upland habitat except in extremely dry conditions. Survival during dry periods, particularly for secondary burrowers, is dependent upon construction of a burrow regardless of season. Several different types have been described (Smith, 2001) depending on species, soil, and depth of water table.

Published information about movement in relation to migration distance is lacking but Cooper (1998, personal communication) and Fitzpatrick (1998, personal communication) both recommend a separation distance of one km between element occurrences. Dispersal patterns are best known for invasive species which likely have the greatest dispersal capability, therefore, separation distances have been determined for all crayfish based on these studies. Guan and Wiles (1997) provided evidence from the River Great Ouse in the United Kingdom that the range of movement for the majority of the invasive Pacifastacus leniusculus was within 190 m. Bubb et al. (2004) also studied P. leniusculus in England using radio-tagging and found median maximal upstream and downstream movement distances were 13.5 m (range 0-283 m) and 15 m (range 0-417 m), respectively. Barbaresi et al. (2004) found that ranging speed in the invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard) to be slow (0.3 to 76.5 m/day) with the widest ranging individual traveling 304 m. Lewis and Horton (1996) found that 21% of tagged Pacifastacus leniusculus in an Oregon harvest pond moved >1000 m in one year while the majority moved <500 m. As such minimum separation distance (unsuitable and suitable) has been set at the NatureServe standard minimum of two km.

Exposed pools and streams in caves represent "karst windows" into more extensive underground streams. No information on the distance cave crayfish can disperse in underground streams is yet available.

Date: 18Oct2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: Primary burrowers include the following taxa: Cambarus (Cambarus) carolinus, C. (C.) diogenes diogenes, C. (Depressicambarus) catagius, C. (D.) cymatilis, C. (D.) deweesae, C. (D.) harti, C. (D.) reflexus, C. (D.) pyronotus, C. (D.) striatus, C. (D.) strigosus, C. (D.) truncatus, C. (Glareocola), C. (Jugicambarus) batchi, C. (J.) carolinus, C. (J.) causeyi, C. (J.) dubius, C. (J.) gentryi, C. (J.) monongalensis, C. (J.) nodosus, C. (Lacunicambarus), C. (Tubericambarus), Distocambarus, Fallicambarus, Procambarus (Acucauda), P. (Distocambarus), P. (Girardiella) barbiger, P. (G.) cometes, P. (G.) connus, P. (G.) curdi, P. (G.) gracilis, P. (G.) hagenianus hagenianus, P. (G.) hagenianus vesticeps, P. (G.) liberorum, P. (G.) pogum, P. (Hagenides) [except P. pygmaeus]
Secondary burrowers include the following taxa: Cambarus (Cambarus) ortmanni, C. (Depressicambarus) latimanus, C. (D.) reduncus, Hobbseus, Procambarus (Cambarus) clarkii, P. (Girardiella) kensleyi, P. (G.) reimeri, P. (G.) simulans, P. (G.) steigmani, P. (G.) tulanei, P. (Hagenides) pygmaeus, P. (Leconticambarus) [excepting P. alleni and P. milleri], P. (Ortmannicus) [excepting the cave dwelling species], P. (Tenuicambarus)
Tertiary burrowers include the following taxa: Barbicambarus, Bouchardina, Cambarus (Cambarus) angularis, C. (C.) bartonii carinirostris, C. (C.) bartonii cavatus, C. (C.) howardi, C. (C.) sciotensis, C. (Depressicambarus) englishi, C. (D.) graysoni, C. (D.) halli, C. (D.) obstipus, C. (D.) sphenoides, C. (Erebicambarus) ornatus, C. (E.) rusticiformis, C. (Exilicambarus) cracens, C. (Hiaticambarus), C. (Jugicambarus) asperimanus, C. (J.) bouchardi, C. (J.) crinipes, C. (J.) distans, C. (J.) friaufi, C. (J.) obeyensis, C. (J.) parvoculus, C. (J.) unestami, C. (Puncticambarus) [excepting the cave dwelling species], C. (Veticambarus), Cambarellus, Faxonella, Orconectes [excepting the cave dwelling species], Pacifastacus, Procambarus (Capillicambarus), P. (Girardiella) ceruleus, P.

Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 01Jul2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02Feb2009
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J. (2009); FITZPATRICK, J.F. (1992)

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Bouchard, R.W. 1974. Geography and ecology of crayfishes of the Cumberland Plateau and Cumberland Mountains, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. Part II. The genera Fallicambarus and Cambarus. Freshwater Crayfish 2:585-605

  • Burskey, J.L. and T.P. Simon. 2010. Reach- and watershed-scale associations of crayfish within an area of varying agricultural impact on west-central Indiana. Southeastern Naturalist 9 (special issue 3):199-216.

  • Cooper, J.E. 2010. Annotated checklist of the crayfishes of North Carolina, and correlations of distributions with hydrologic units and physiographic provinces. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science 126(3):69-76.

  • Crandall, K. A., and S. De Grave. 2017. An updated classification of the freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a complete species list. Journal of Crustacean Biology (2017):1-39.

  • Crocker, D.W. and D.W. Barr. 1968. Handbook of the Crayfishes of Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 158 pp.

  • Eversole, A.G. and D.R. Jones. 2004. Key to the crayfish of South Carolina. Unpublished report. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. 43 pp.

  • Franz, R. and S.E. Franz. 1990. A review of the Florida crayfish fauna, with comments on nomenclature, distribution, and conservation. Florida Scientist, 53: 286-296.

  • Giasu, R.C., D.W. Barr, and D.W. Dunham. 1996. Distribution and status of crayfishes of the genera Cambarus and Fallicambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Crustacean Biology 16:373-383.

  • Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation and diversity of the crayfishes of the genus Fallicambarus Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), with an emphasis on the status of Fallicambarus fodiens (Cottle, 1863) in Canada. Crustaceana, 80(2): 207-223.

  • Guiasu, R.C., N. Saleh, E. Mozel, and D.W. Dunham. 2005. Low aggression in juvenile burrowing crayfish, Fallicambarus fodiens (Cottle, 1863) (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana, 78(4): 421-428.

  • Hamr, P. 1999. Conservation Status of Burrowing Crayfish in Canada. Unpublished report prepared for World Wildlife Canada and Environment Canada. 16 pp + appendices.

  • Hamr, P. 2006. The distribution and conservation status of burrowing crayfishes Fallicambarus fodiens and Cambarus diogenes in Canada. Freshwater Crayfish 15:271-282.

  • Hobbs, H. H. Jr. and H. W. Robison, 1989. On the crayfish genus Fallicambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in Arkansas, with notes on the fodiens complex and descriptions of two new species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 102(3):651-697.

  • Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1942. The crayfishes of Florida. University of Florida Press, Biological Science Series, 3(2): 179 pp.

  • Hobbs, H.H. III, J.H. Thorp, and G.E. Anderson. 1976. The freshwater decapod crustaceans (Palaemonidae, Cambaridae) of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina. Publication of the Savannah River Plant National Environmental Research Park Program, Savannah, Georgia. 63 pp.

  • Hobbs, H.H., III, J.P. Jass, and J.V. Huner. 1989. A review of global crayfish introductions with particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana, 56: 299-316.

  • Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 318: 1-549.

  • Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480:1-236.

  • Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1-549.

  • Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, Vol. 10, No. 1. Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University, and Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Programs, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 193 pp.

  • Jezerinac, R.F. and R.F. Thoma. 1984. An illustrated key to the Ohio Cambarus and Fallicambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) with comments and a new subspecies record. Ohio Journal of Science, 84: 120-125.

  • Jezerinac, Raymond F., G. Whitney Stocker and Donald C. Tarter. 1995. The Crayfishes (Decopoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia. Ohio Biological Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University. In cooperation with West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Programs. 193 pp.

  • Johnson, S.K. and N.K. Johnson. 2008. Texas Crawdads. Crawdad Club Designs: College Station, Texas. 160 pp.

  • Kilian, J.V., A.J. Becker, S.A. Stranko, M. Ashton, R.J. Klauda, J. Gerber, and M. Hurd. 2010. The status and distribution of Maryland crayfishes. Southeastern Naturalist 9 (special issue 3):11-32.

  • Loughman, Z.J. and S.A. Welsh. 2010. Distribution and conservation standing of West Virginia crayfishes. Southeastern Naturalist 9 (special issue 3):63-78.

  • McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien, A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard, E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R. Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M. Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte, F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil. 2004d. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.

  • Norrocky, M.J. 1991. Observations on the ecology, reproduction and growth of the burrowing crayfish Fallicambarus (Creaserinus) fodiens (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in north-central Ohio. American Midland Naturalist 125(1):75-86.

  • Page, Lawrence M. and Gabriela B. Mottesi. 1995. The Distribution and Status of the Indiana Crayfish, Orconectes indianensis, with Comments on the Crayfishes of Indiana. 104(1-2) Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. 103-111.

  • Pflieger, W.L. [B. Dryden, editor]. 1996. The Crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 152 pp.

  • Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.

  • Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3): 493-504.

  • Simon, T.P. and C.C. Morris. 2008. Biological response signature of oil brine threats, sediment contaminants, and crayfish assemblages in an Indiana watershed, USA. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 56(1):96-110.

  • Simon, T.P. and R .E Thoma. 2003 . Distribution patterns of freshwater shrimp and crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in the Patoka River basin of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 112 :175-185.

  • Simon, Thomas P. 2001. Checklist of the Crayfish and Freshwater Shrimp (Decapoda) of Indiana. Proceedings of teh Indiana Academy of Science. 110:104-110.

  • Skelton, C.E. 2010. History, status, and conservation of Georgia crayfishes. Southeastern Naturalist 9 (special issue 3):127-138.

  • Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication, 28: viii + 210 pp.

  • Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs III, H.W. Robison, C.E. Skelton, and R.F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):371-389.

  • Taylor, Christopher A. and Guenter A. Schuster. 2007. Final report: compilation of Alabama crayfish museum holdings and construction of a geo-referenced database. Illinois Natural Histroy Survey, Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Entomology Technical Report 2007(26). 14 pages.

  • Thoma, R.F. and R.E. Jezerinac. 2000. Ohio crayfish and shrimp atlas. Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution 7:1-28.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.