Macrhybopsis gelida - (Girard, 1856)
Sturgeon Chub
Synonym(s): Hybopsis gelida
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Macrhybopsis gelida (Girard, 1856) (TSN 163866)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106309
Element Code: AFCJB53020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Minnows and Carps
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Macrhybopsis gelida
Taxonomic Comments: This species was removed from the genus Hybopsis and placed in the resurrected genus Macrhybopsis by Mayden (1989) and Coburn and Cavender (1992); this change was adopted in the 1991 AFS checklist (Robins et al. 1991).

Macrhybopsis aestivalis is closely related to M. gelida, though the latter in unquestionably distinct (Starnes 1995).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 30Apr2012
Global Status Last Changed: 04May2001
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Historically occurred in the Mississippi, Missouri, and Yellowstone rivers and 30 tributaries of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers; has declined in range and abundance due to human-caused habitat changes (e.g., dams), but recent surveys using better sampling gear indicate that the species is more common and widespread than previously believed; extant populations appear to be relatively stable but warrant close attention.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (04May2001)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arkansas (SNR), Illinois (S1), Iowa (SH), Kansas (S1), Kentucky (S1), Missouri (S3), Montana (S2S3), Nebraska (S1), North Dakota (S2), South Dakota (S2), Tennessee (S1), Wyoming (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R6 - Rocky Mountain
IUCN Red List Category: VU - Vulnerable
American Fisheries Society Status: Vulnerable (01Aug2008)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Historically, the range included 14 states of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and their larger tributaries, including approximately 2,100 miles (33,600 km) of the main stem Missouri River and about 1,150 miles (1,840 km) of the Mississippi River, plus the Yellowstone River in Montana and North Dakota and 30 tributaries to the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers (USFWS 2001). Currently this species occupies about 1,155 miles (1,850 km) (55 percent) of the historical range in the Missouri River and is extant in 11 of 30 tributaries to the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers that have suitable habitat; viable populations also exist in the middle Mississippi River and the Wolf Island area of the lower Mississippi River (USFWS 2001).

Distribution maps are included in Lee et al. (1980), USFWS (2001), and Rahel and Thel (2004).

Area of Occupancy: 2,001-10,000 1-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is known historically known from over 190 sites. The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria, but a map in USFWS (2001) indicates that extensive occurrences exist in several areas throughout the historical range.

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Total population size is unknown. Recent benthic trawl surveys indicate that this species makes up a significant part of the Missouri fish fauna at three sampled locations (USFWS 2001). In many areas, this fish represents only a small percentage of the sampled fish population (Jackson 2002, Rahel and Thel 2004).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Decline resulted mainly from human-induced changes in river conditions, particularly the development and operation of reservoirs on large rivers (Rahel and Thel 2004). Dams have flooded river habitat, altered temperature and flow regimes, reduced sediment transport and turbidity, fragmented populations, and reduced movement opportunities. By fragmenting the habitat and chub populations, dams exacerbate the loss of fish populations caused by drought, channel dewatering due to irrigation, or poor water quality (Rahel and Thel 2004). For example, extended drought may extirpate a population. and impoundments may block recolonization pathways from potential source populations in mainstem rivers (Kelch 1994). Also, existing habitat fragments may be too small to support successful spawning and development (e.g., see Bonner and Wilde 2000). When impoundments are numerous, sturgeon chub eggs and fry may become entrained in reservoirs and encounter heavy predation (Rahel and Thel 2004). Water diversion for irrigation potentially threatens chub populations where eggs and fry enter and become stranded in canals (Rahel and Thel 2004).

Channelization has reduced habitat diversity and reduced overbank flooding. Sand and gravel excavation have removed habitat and restricted fish movements in some areas. Dredging for channel maintenance and sand/gravel extraction will continue in new areas.

Pollution from industry and agriculture may have altered water quality. "Coalbed methane development in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana poses a potential threat to sturgeon chub populations in the Powder and Tongue river basins because discharged water can have high salinity and toxic concentrations of trace elements" (Rahel and Thel 2004).

Ongoing water depletion from industry and agriculture is a concern. Further water depletion is likely to occur in the future due to energy development in the Upper Missouri River Basin, increased interbasin transfer of water, and increased municipal, industrial, and irrigation use.

Severe drought in the early 1990s may have eliminated populations in some Missouri River tributaries (Kelch 1994). Populations in the mainstem Missouri River may be too small and too widespread to naturally recolonize these tributaries even if suitable habitat is available.

This species also may be negatively impacted by the numerous species of non-native fishes that have been introduced into the habitat (USFWS 1995). These fishes flourish in dam-altered waters with reduced turbidity, and they may compete with and prey on sturgeon chubs (Rahel and Thel 2004). However, the degree and effect of predation on sturgeon chub populations are unknown. Similarly, the effects of potential non-native competitors are unknown.

Diseases are not known to pose a significant threat to the sturgeon chub.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain but likely relatively stable. Three generations span not more than 10 years.

Most of the decline occurred in the mid- to late 1900s with the construction of large impoundments; remaining populations are fragmented but appear to be viable (Rahel and Thel 2004). Populations apparently are stable in distribution and abundance in Missouri (see Figg and Bessken 1995). Sturgeon chub appears to be stable in the middle Mississippi River (Jackson 2002).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Range has declined compared to historical distribution, but use of better sampling methods (benthic trawls) indicates that the species is more common and widespread than previously believed (USFWS 2001).

USFWS (2001) estimated that the species occupies about 55 percent of its historic range in the mainstem Missouri River and has been extirpated from 19 of 30 tributaries to the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers that likely contained the species.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Better information is needed on current distribution and abundance.

Protection Needs: Restoration of turbid conditions probably is impractical where dams currently exist, so "maintaining the remaining unimpounded reaches of turbid prairie rivers in a free-flowing state would appear to be a conservation priority" (Rahel and Thel 2004).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Historically, the range included 14 states of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and their larger tributaries, including approximately 2,100 miles (33,600 km) of the main stem Missouri River and about 1,150 miles (1,840 km) of the Mississippi River, plus the Yellowstone River in Montana and North Dakota and 30 tributaries to the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers (USFWS 2001). Currently this species occupies about 1,155 miles (1,850 km) (55 percent) of the historical range in the Missouri River and is extant in 11 of 30 tributaries to the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers that have suitable habitat; viable populations also exist in the middle Mississippi River and the Wolf Island area of the lower Mississippi River (USFWS 2001).

Distribution maps are included in Lee et al. (1980), USFWS (2001), and Rahel and Thel (2004).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AR, IA, IL, KS, KY, MO, MT, ND, NE, SD, TN, WY

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IL Jackson (17077)
KS Atchison (20005)*, Douglas (20045)*, Geary (20061)*, Leavenworth (20103), Shawnee (20177)*, Wabaunsee (20197)*, Wyandotte (20209)
KY Ballard (21007)*, Carlisle (21039)*, Hickman (21105)
MO Andrew (29003), Atchison (29005), Boone (29019), Buchanan (29021), Callaway (29027), Cape Girardeau (29031), Carroll (29033), Chariton (29041), Clay (29047), Cole (29051), Cooper (29053), Franklin (29071), Gasconade (29073), Holt (29087), Howard (29089), Jackson (29095), Lafayette (29107), Mississippi (29133), Moniteau (29135), Montgomery (29139), Osage (29151), Perry (29157), Platte (29165), Ray (29177), Saline (29195), Scott (29201), St. Charles (29183), St. Louis (29189), Ste. Genevieve (29186), Warren (29219)
MT Blaine (30005), Cascade (30013), Chouteau (30015), Custer (30017), Dawson (30021), Fergus (30027), McCone (30055), Petroleum (30069), Phillips (30071), Powder River (30075), Prairie (30079), Richland (30083), Roosevelt (30085), Rosebud (30087), Valley (30105), Wibaux (30109)
ND Billings (38007), Bowman (38011), Dunn (38025), Golden Valley (38033), McKenzie (38053), Mountrail (38061)*, Slope (38087), Stark (38089)*, Williams (38105)
NE Burt (31021), Cass (31025), Cedar (31027), Dakota (31043), Dawson (31047)*, Dixon (31051), Dodge (31053), Douglas (31055), Hamilton (31081)*, Knox (31107)*, Merrick (31121)*, Nemaha (31127), Nuckolls (31129)*, Otoe (31131), Platte (31141)*, Red Willow (31145)*, Richardson (31147), Sarpy (31153), Saunders (31155), Thurston (31173), Washington (31177), Webster (31181)*
SD Brule (46015), Charles Mix (46023)*, Corson (46031)*, Custer (46033), Haakon (46055), Harding (46063), Jackson (46071), Jones (46075), Lyman (46085), Mellette (46095), Pennington (46103), Shannon (46113), Tripp (46123), Walworth (46129)*, Ziebach (46137)
TN Tipton (47167)
WY Big Horn (56003), Campbell (56005), Johnson (56019), Sheridan (56033), Washakie (56043)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
05 Lower Ohio (05140206)+*
07 Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+, Cahokia-Joachim (07140101)+, Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau (07140105)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Bayou De Chien-Mayfield (08010201)+*, New Madrid-St. Johns (08020201)*, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)*, Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge (08070100)*
10 Upper Missouri-Dearborn (10030102)+, Marias (10030203)+, Teton (10030205)+, Bullwhacker-Dog (10040101)+, Arrow (10040102)+, Judith (10040103)+, Fort Peck Reservoir (10040104)+, Lower Milk (10050012)+, Prarie Elk-Wolf (10060001)+, Redwater (10060002)+, Charlie-Little Muddy (10060005)+, Big Muddy (10060006)+, Upper Bighorn (10080007)+, Nowood (10080008)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)*, Lower Tongue (10090102)+, Upper Powder (10090202)+, Salt (10090204)*, Crazy Woman (10090205), Clear (10090206)+, Middle Powder (10090207)+, Little Powder (10090208)+, Lower Powder (10090209)+, Mizpah (10090210)+, Lower Yellowstone-Sunday (10100001)+, Rosebud (10100003)+, Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, O'fallon (10100005)+, Lake Sakakawea (10110101)+, Upper Little Missouri (10110201)+, Boxelder (10110202)+, Middle Little Missouri (10110203)+, Beaver (10110204)+, Lower Little Missouri (10110205)+, Angostura Reservoir (10120106)*, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Middle Cheyenne-Elk (10120111)+, Lower Cheyenne (10120112)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)*, Painted Woods-Square Butte (10130101)*, Upper Lake Oahe (10130102)+*, Lower Lake Oahe (10130105), Knife (10130201)*, Upper Heart (10130202)+*, Lower Heart (10130203)*, Grand (10130303)*, Lower Moreau (10130306)*, Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Upper White (10140201)+, Middle White (10140202)+, Little White (10140203)+, Lower White (10140204)+, Keya Paha (10150006)*, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)*, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)*, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)*, Middle Platte-Buffalo (10200101)+*, Middle Platte-Prairie (10200103)+*, Lower Platte-Shell (10200201)+*, Lower Platte (10200202)+, Salt (10200203)+, Loup (10210009)+*, Lower Elkhorn (10220003)+, Logan (10220004)+*, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, Independence-Sugar (10240011)+, Upper Republican (10250004)+*, Middle Republican (10250016)+*, Lower Republican (10250017)+*, Lower Smoky Hill (10260008)+*, Upper Kansas (10270101)*, Middle Kansas (10270102)+*, Lower Kansas (10270104)+, Little Chariton (10280203)+, Lower Missouri-Crooked (10300101)+, Lower Missouri-Moreau (10300102)+, Lamine (10300103)+, Lower Missouri (10300200)+
14 Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)*, Blacks Fork (14040107)*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Sturgeon chub, Cyprinidae.
General Description: The sturgeon chub is a small minnow with a slender, streamlined body, flattened underside, long snout, small dorsal eyes, large clear fins, and a small, inferior mouth with a conspicuous barbel at each corner; the dorsal fin has eight rays, and its origin is closer to the tip of the snout than to the base of the caudal fin; the caudal fin is deeply forked; anal fin has 8 rays (Stewart 1981, Baxter and Stone 1995, Cross and Collins 1995, Pflieger 1997). The number of scales in the lateral series ranges from 37 to 46. Scales on the back and side are keeled (Page and Burr 1991). Adults are dusky or light brown dorsally with silvery sides, and brown speckling on the back (Page and Burr 1991, Baxter and Stone 1995, Cross and Collins 1995, Pflieger 1997). Males and females look alike, even during the breeding season.

This is a small fish, typically 43-64 mm (1.7 to 2.5 inches) in total length (Pflieger 1997) but sometimes reach 121 mm (4.7 inches) (Dieterman et al. 1997).

The adaptation of sturgeon chub to high turbidity is evident by their reduced eyes, numerous cutaneous taste buds, and a brain morphology that indicates well developed chemosensory perception (Davis and Miller 1967).

Diagnostic Characteristics: This species is similar to the sicklefin chub (M. meeki) but has straight-edged fins (versus sickle-shaped) (Page and Burr 1991).
Reproduction Comments: Reproduction is poorly known (Rahel and Thel 2004). Spawning occurs apparently in late spring and early summer (Lee et al. 1980, Stewart 1981, Cross and Collins 1995, Pflieger 1997). Spawners possibly broadcast eggs in the water column during high flows (Rahel and Thel 2004). Individuals mature sexually at age 2 (Stewart 1981). Few live more than 2 years; maximum known age is 4 years (Stewart 1981, Pflieger 1997).

This species sometimes hybridizes with sicklefin chub and speckled chub (see USFWS 2001).

Ecology Comments: An analysis by Rahel and Thel (20040 indicated that changes in first-year survival "will have major impacts on population dynamics." Additionally, they found that the reproductive value of second- and third-year females is high.

This species often is found in groups, and there is no evidence of territoriality (Rahel and Thel 2004).

No symbiotic or mutualistic interactions have been documented (Rahel and Thel 2004).

Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Larvae apparently drift downstream during their first several days of development, so presumably some adults move upstream prior to spawning (Rahel and Thel 2004).

Dispersal characteristics are unknown.

Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes shallow sand and gravel runs of warm, turbid, medium to large rivers; this species colonizes tributaries when flow and turbidity are sufficient (Gould 1997, Page and Burr 2011). Sturgeon chubs often are associated with main channels, high turbidity, moderate to strong currents over sand or fine gravel, sand/gravel bars, but they also have been found in sustained current over rock or gravel riffles; generally they occur in areas lacking vegetation or other cover; adults and young exhibit to major differences in habitat (see Rahel and Thel 2004 for literature review and further details). Spawning habitat has not been identified (Rahel and Thel 2004).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet probably is dominated by aquatic insects, including benthic forms (Stewart 1981, Cross and Collins 1995, Gould 1997). Feeding in turbid water is undoubtedly aided by this fish's highly developed cutaneous sense organs (Davis and Miller 1967).
Phenology Comments: Activity patterns are poorly known (Rahel and Thel 2004).
Length: 7 centimeters
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: This small minnow is not an economically valuable species.
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: "Management actions important for the conservation of sturgeon chub include restoring natural flow regimes with spring flood pulses to promote development of sandbar habitat, reconnecting side channel and floodplain habitats lost due to channelization, and restoring turbidity levels that favor sturgeon chub over nonnative predators and competitors. Given the difficulties of removing existing dams, maintaining the remaining unimpounded reaches of turbid prairie rivers in a free-flowing state should be a conservation priority. Preventing nonnative fisheries establishment within these remaining unimpounded prairie river segments is important as well. Attention also needs to be given to maintaining flows in streams that were historically perennial. Perennial flows are threatened by extraction of groundwater for agricultural and municipal uses, especially in the Ogallala-High Plains aquifer. Conversely, potentially toxic water produced from coalbed methane production may need to be tested, stored, and/or treated in some manner."

Ongoing and proposed conservation measures, such as those intended to mitigate fish and wildlife resources lost due to construction and operation of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and those aimed at benefiting pallid sturgeon, are likely to have a beneficial impact on sicklefin chub and sturgeon chub populations (see USFWS 2001 and Rahel and Thel 2004 for details).

Restoration Potential: Feasibility of restoration through population supplementation or translocation is unknown (Rahel and Thel 2004). Efforts to re-establish extirpated populations of sturgeon chub in the Little Missouri River at the South Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota did not appear to be successful (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).
Monitoring Requirements: Continued monitoring of extant populations is warranted (Rahel and Thel 2004). Trawling in fast, deep water may show this species to be more numerous than indicated by shoreline seining in the same area (USFWS 2001, Rahel and Thel 2004). See Rahel and Thel (2004) for a discussion of inventory and monitoring tools and practices.
Management Research Needs: Better information is needed on reproductive biology, population dynamics and trends, and limiting factors (Rahel and Thel 2004).
Biological Research Needs: Better information is needed on movement patterns.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small Cyprinids

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat. For some species (e.g., slender chub), an impoundment may constitute a barrier. For others (e.g., flame chub) a stream larger than 4th order may be a barrier.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Data on dispersal and other movements generally are not available. In some species, individuals may migrate variable distances between spawning areas and nonspawning habitats.

Separation distances (in aquatic kilometers) for cyprinids are arbitrary but reflect the presumption that movements and appropriate separation distances generally should increase with fish size. Hence small, medium, and large cyprinids, respectively, have increasingly large separation distances. Separation distance reflects the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of aquatic habitat would represent truly independent populations over the long term.

Because of the difficulty in defining suitable versus unsuitable habitat, especially with respect to dispersal, and to simplify the delineation of occurrences, a single separation distance is used regardless of habitat quality.

Occupied locations that are separated by a gap of 10 km or more of any aquatic habitat that is not known to be occupied represent different occurrences. However, it is important to evaluate seasonal changes in habitat to ensure that an occupied habitat occurrence for a particular population does not artificially separate spawning areas and nonspawning areas as different occurrences simply because there have been no collections/observations in an intervening area that may exceed the separation distance.

Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
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: 30Apr2012
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., J. Jefferson, and J. D. Reichel
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 30Apr2012
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

References
Help
  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Bailey, R. M. and M. O. Allum. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications 119:1-131.

  • Baxter, G. T., and M. D. Stone. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 290 pp.

  • Baxter, G.T. and M.D. Stone. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 290 pp.

  • Beauvais, G. P. 1999. The status of rare vertebrates in the Bighorn landscape. Unpublished report prepared by WYNDD for the Wyoming Field Office of The Nature Conservancy.

  • Bonner, T. H., and G. R. Wilde. 2000. Changes in the Canadian River fish assemblage associated with reservoir construction. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15:189-198.

  • Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986a. Distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series No. 4, Frankfort, Kentucky. 398 pp.

  • Coburn, M. M., and T. M. Cavender. 1992. Interrelationships of North American cyprinid fishes. Pages 328-373 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.

  • Cross, F. B., and J. T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. Second Edition, revised. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. xvii + 315 pp.

  • Davis, B .J., and R. J. Miller. 1967. Brain patterns in minnows of the genus Hybopsis in relation to feeding habits and habitat. Copeia 1967:1-39.

  • Dieterman, D. J., M. P. Ruggles, M. L. Wildhaber, and D. L. Galat, editors. 1997. Population structure and habitat use of benthic fishes along the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone rivers. 1996 Annual Report of Missouri River Benthic Fish Study PD-95-5832 to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/benfish/pdfdocs/benth96.pdf

  • Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.

  • Figg, D. E., and C. M. Bessken. 1995[?]. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report: July 1994 - June 1995. v + 104 pp. [perhaps date is 1996]

  • Gardner, W. M., and R. K. Berg. 1982. An analysis of the instream flow requirements for selected fishes in the Wild and Scenic portion of the Missouri River. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Great Falls.

  • Gelwicks, G. T., K. Graham, D. Galat, and G. D. Novinger. 1996. Final report: status survey for sicklefin chub, sturgeon chub, and flathead chub in the Missouri River, Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia.

  • Gould, W. R. 1997. A summary of information on sturgeon chub in Montana. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 3:125- 130.

  • Jackson, A. L. 2002. Status and characteristics of the sturgeon chub, Macrhybopsis gelida, and sicklefin chub, Macrhybopsis meeki, of the middle Mississippi River. M.S. thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

  • Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

  • Kelch, S. W. 1994. Lotic fish-community structure following transition from severe drought to high discharge. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9:331-341.

  • 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. i-x + 854 pp.

  • Mayden, R. L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publication (80):1-189.

  • National Biological Service. 1996. The sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, flathead chub, w. silvery minnow, plains minnow, and blue sucker. Annotated bibliography through July 1996. Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, National Biological Service, Biology Department, Montana State University.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Pflieger, W. L. 1997a. The fishes of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.

  • Pflieger, W. L. and T. B. Grace. 1987. Changes in the fish fauna of the lower Missouri River, 1940-1983. Pages 166-181 in W. J. Matthews and D. C Heins (editors). Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

  • Rahel, F. J. and L. A. Thel. 2004. Sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/sturgeonchub.pdf

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • Robison, H. W. and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.

  • Ross, S. T. (with W. M. Brennaman, W. T. Slack, M. T. O'Connell, and T. L. Peterson). 2001a. The Inland Fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi: Mississippi. xx + 624 pp.

  • Skinner, S. 1993. Minnows. Wyoming Wildlife 57(8): 10-15.

  • Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 314 pp.

  • Starnes, W. C. 1995. Taxonomic validation for fish species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Category 2 species list. 28 pp.

  • Stewart, D. D. 1981. The biology of the sturgeon chub (Hybopsis gelida Girard) in Wyoming. Master's thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 18 April 2001. 12-month finding for a petition to list the sicklefin chub (Macrhybopsis meeki) and the sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) as endangered. Federal Register 66(75):19910-19914.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Status report on sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida) a candidate endangered species. Ecological Services, Bismark, North Dakota.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Notice of 90-day finding on the petition to list the sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub as endangered. Federal Register 60(11):3613-3615.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Updated status review of sicklefin chub and sturgeon chub in the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver CO.

  • Werdon, S. J. 1992. Population status and characteristics of Macrhybopsis gelida, Platygobio gracilis and Rhinichthys cataractae in the Missouri River basin. M.S. thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996a. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996b. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia: Export of freshwater fish and mussel records west of the Mississippi River in 1997. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996c. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia: Export of freshwater fish and mussel records from the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1997. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

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 November 2016.
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 © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, 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. 2017. 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.