Scaphirhynchus albus - (Forbes and Richardson, 1905)
Pallid Sturgeon
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Scaphirhynchus albus (Forbes and Richardson, 1905) (TSN 161081)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103033
Element Code: AFCAA02010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Other Bony Fishes
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
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: Scaphirhynchus albus
Taxonomic Comments: Scaphirhynchus albus formerly was thought to be genetically identical to S. platorhynchus (Phelps and Allendorf 1983).

Data from 5 nuclear DNA microsatellite loci indicate that pallid and shovelnose sturgeon are genetically distinct at three sympatric localities; pallid sturgeon from two northern populations in the upper Missouri River are genetically distinct from a population in the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana, suggesting that northern and southern populations are reproductively isolated (Tranah et al. 2001). Shovelnose sturgeon from the three localities are genetically indistinguishable. Individuals identified morphologically as hybrids are genetically distinct from pallid sturgeon but genetically indistinguishable from shovelnose sturgeon; these results are the converse of the results based on mtDNA published elsewhere (Tranah et al. 2001).

Recent genetic data (Campton et al. 2000, Tranah et al. 2001, Heist and Schrey 2006) suggest that the pallid sturgeon comprises two distinct groups at the extremes of the species' range with a middle intermediate group representing the lower Missouri and middle Mississippi Rivers. This pattern is suggestive of a pattern of isolation by distance, with gene flow more likely to occur between adjacent groups than among geographically distant groups, and thus, genetic differences increase with geographical distance (USFWS 2007).
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 13Nov2007
Global Status Last Changed: 13Nov2007
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Large range and area of occupancy in larger channels of the Mississippi-Missouri river system and Atchafalaya River; range much reduced by dams in the upper Missouri River; habitat changes and barriers have resulted in limited natural recruitment and continuing declines in wild populations in the Missouri River basin; trend in the Mississippi River is unknown; recent increased sampling effort has revealed larger populations than were known at the time of federal listing; ongoing stocking of hatchery-produced sturgeons may eventually lead to increases in the spawning population.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (13Nov2007)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Arkansas (S1), Illinois (S1), Iowa (S1), Kansas (S1), Kentucky (S1), Louisiana (S1), Mississippi (S1), Missouri (S1), Montana (S1), Nebraska (S1), North Dakota (S1), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (09Jun1990)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R6 - Rocky Mountain
IUCN Red List Category: EN - Endangered
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix II
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Aug2008)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Range includes the Missouri River (from mouth to Fort Benton, Montana), lower Yellowstone River, lower Platte River, Mississippi River downstream from its junction with the Missouri River and upstream at least several kilometers from the Missouri River, and Atchafalaya River in central Louisiana (Reed and Ewing 1993, USFWS 2007). Occasional sightings have occurred near the mouths of various other large tributaries of the Mississippi River (e.g., Big Sunflower River and St. Francis River) and Missouri River (e.g., Kansas River and Platte River), but these instances may reflect fishes utilizing unusual flow conditions (USFWS 1989). The lower Yellowstone River and lower Platte River may be significant spawning tributaries (see USFWS 2007).

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Currently, pallid sturgeon habitat in the upper Missouri River basin is highly fragmented and reduced, comprising three sections of 280, 300, and 85 river-kilometers of flowing river conditions. Riverine conditions extend virtually uninterrupted for about 3,200 river-kilometers from Gavins Point Dam in the middle Missouri River via the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. The Atchafalaya River contains approximately 224 free-flowing river-kilometers. [USFWS 2007]

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by several distinct occurrences (subpopulations). USFWS (1993) recognized six "Recovery Priority Management Areas," which correspond with major continuous segments of the distribution that are more or less isolated from each other or that represent the major occupied river segments that are undivided by major barriers.

Population Size: 2500 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: The upper Missouri River supports a small, declining, wild population of a couple hundred adults; recruitment is very low or absent. The lower Missouri River contains a small wild population of probably fewer than 200 adults, with sporadic or limited recruitment. Population size in the Atchafalaya River may be a few thousand. Population size in the largest segments of the range--the Mississippi River--is unknown (USFWS 2007). According to Duffy et al. (1996), the total range-wide population size may be as few as 6,000 individuals or as many as 21,000.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Construction and operation of large dams and river channelization have eliminated and degraded preferred sturgeon habitat (Pflieger and Grace 1987). On the main stem of the Missouri River, approximately 36 percent of riverine habitat within the pallid sturgeon's range was eliminated by construction of six massive earthen dams between 1926 and 1952 (USFWS 1993); the dams are believed to block migrations, and the reservoirs probably inundated historical spawning and nursery areas. Another 40 percent has been channelized. The remaining 24 percent has been altered due to changes in water flows caused by dam operations (USFWS 1993). USFWS (2007) concluded that the species is still threatened by habitat loss and inadequate regulatory mechanisms in all or portions of the range. Habitat changes have severely reduced or eliminated successful reproduction. The low level of natural recruitment is a major concern and impediment to recovery.

Past commercial exploitation likely exceeded biological recruitment. Illegal commercial harvest is currently occurring in portions of the lower Missouri River and Mississippi River; pallid sturgeon exhibits lower ages and higher mortality rates in areas where shovelnose sturgeons are commercially harvested (Colombo et al., in press). This threat is likely to increase as caviar sources are reduced world-wide and caviar prices increase (USFWS 2007).

Limited data suggest that contaminants may have some affect on reproduction (USFWS 2007).

Significant hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon has been documented (USFWS 1989, Wills et al. 2002). However, it is unclear whether hybridization is actually a threat (USFWS 2007).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Natural reproduction is evident in some areas along the Missouri, Mississippi, and Atchafalaya rivers, but natural recruitment continues to be limited throughout the range (USFWS 2007). As a result, the wild population is declining. It remains to be seen whether or not ongoing releases of hatchery-reared juveniles will lead to increases in the spawning population.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Area of suitable riverine habitat has been reduced by at least 40 percent (i.e., about 60 percent of the historical range in the Mississippi River and lower Missouri River still has free-flowing river conditions, and the lower Missouri River continues to be negatively impacted by regulated flows and modified habitats) (USFWS 2007).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: Range includes the Missouri River (from mouth to Fort Benton, Montana), lower Yellowstone River, lower Platte River, Mississippi River downstream from its junction with the Missouri River and upstream at least several kilometers from the Missouri River, and Atchafalaya River in central Louisiana (Reed and Ewing 1993, USFWS 2007). Occasional sightings have occurred near the mouths of various other large tributaries of the Mississippi River (e.g., Big Sunflower River and St. Francis River) and Missouri River (e.g., Kansas River and Platte River), but these instances may reflect fishes utilizing unusual flow conditions (USFWS 1989). The lower Yellowstone River and lower Platte River may be significant spawning tributaries (see USFWS 2007).

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, LA, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, SD, TN

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AR Phillips (05107), St. Francis (05123)*
IA Fremont (19071), Harrison (19085), Monona (19133), Pottawattamie (19155), Woodbury (19193)
IL Madison (17119)*, Union (17181)*
KS Doniphan (20043), Douglas (20045)*, Leavenworth (20103), Wyandotte (20209)
KY Ballard (21007)*, Carlisle (21039), Fulton (21075), Hickman (21105)
LA Ascension (22005), Concordia (22029), East Baton Rouge (22033), East Carroll (22035)*, East Feliciana (22037), Iberville (22047), Jefferson (22051)*, Orleans (22071)*, Pointe Coupee (22077), St. Bernard (22087), St. Charles (22089), St. James (22093), St. Landry (22097), St. Martin (22099), Tensas (22107), West Baton Rouge (22121), West Feliciana (22125)
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), Jefferson (29099), Lafayette (29107), Lincoln (29113), Livingston (29117), Mississippi (29133), Moniteau (29135), Montgomery (29139), Osage (29151), Pemiscot (29155), Perry (29157), Platte (29165), Ray (29177), Saline (29195), Scott (29201), St. Charles (29183), St. Louis (29189), Ste. Genevieve (29186), Warren (29219)
MS Claiborne (28021), Issaquena (28055)*, Sharkey (28125), Yazoo (28163)
MT Blaine (30005), Chouteau (30015), Custer (30017), Dawson (30021), Fergus (30027), Garfield (30033), McCone (30055), Petroleum (30069), Phillips (30071), Prairie (30079), Richland (30083), Roosevelt (30085), Rosebud (30087), Valley (30105), Wibaux (30109)
ND Dunn (38025)*, Emmons (38029)*, McKenzie (38053), McLean (38055)*, Mercer (38057)*, Morton (38059)*, Mountrail (38061), Sioux (38085), Williams (38105)
NE Boyd (31015), Burt (31021), Cass (31025), Cedar (31027), Dakota (31043), Dixon (31051), Dodge (31053), Douglas (31055), Knox (31107), Nemaha (31127), Otoe (31131), Richardson (31147), Sarpy (31153), Saunders (31155), Thurston (31173), Washington (31177)
SD Bon Homme (46009), Brule (46015)*, Buffalo (46017)*, Charles Mix (46023)*, Clay (46027)*, Corson (46031)*, Dewey (46041), Gregory (46053)*, Hughes (46065), Lyman (46085), Potter (46107)*, Stanley (46117), Sully (46119), Walworth (46129)*, Yankton (46135)
TN Dyer (47045), Lake (47095)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
07 The Sny (07110004)+, Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+, Cahokia-Joachim (07140101)+, Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau (07140105)+, Whitewater (07140107)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Obion (08010202)+, Lower Mississippi-Helena (08020100)+, New Madrid-St. Johns (08020201), Lower St. Francis (08020203)+*, L'anguille (08020205)+*, Lower Mississippi-Greenville (08030100)+, Coldwater (08030204)+, Upper Yazoo (08030206), Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Deer-Steele (08030209)*, Lower Red (08040301)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Lower Big Black (08060202)+, Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge (08070100)+, Bayou Sara-Thompson (08070201)+, Lake Maurepas (08070204)+, Atchafalaya (08080101)+, Vermilion (08080103)*, Lower Mississippi-New Orleans (08090100)+, Eastern Louisiana Coastal (08090203)+, East Central Louisiana Coastal (08090301)+, West Central Louisiana Coastal (08090302)+
10 Upper Missouri-Dearborn (10030102)+, Bullwhacker-Dog (10040101)+, Arrow (10040102)+, Judith (10040103)+, Fort Peck Reservoir (10040104)+, Big Dry (10040105)+, Lower Musselshell (10040205)+, Lower Milk (10050012)+, Porcupine (10050016)+, Prarie Elk-Wolf (10060001)+, Redwater (10060002)+, Charlie-Little Muddy (10060005)+, Big Muddy (10060006)+, Lower Tongue (10090102)+, Lower Powder (10090209)+, Lower Yellowstone-Sunday (10100001)+, Rosebud (10100003)+, Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, O'fallon (10100005)+, Lake Sakakawea (10110101)+, Lower Little Missouri (10110205)+, Painted Woods-Square Butte (10130101), Upper Lake Oahe (10130102)+, Beaver (10130104)+, Lower Lake Oahe (10130105)+, Lower Cannonball (10130206)+, Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Medicine Knoll (10140103)+, Lower Niobrara (10150007)+, Lower James (10160011)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Vermillion (10170102)+*, Lower Platte (10200202)+, Salt (10200203)+, Lower Elkhorn (10220003)+, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+, Floyd (10230002)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Monona-Harrison Ditch (10230004)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Nishnabotna (10240004), Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, Independence-Sugar (10240011)+, Lower Republican (10250017)*, Lower Kansas (10270104)+, Upper Grand (10280101)+, Lower Osage (10290111)+, Lower Missouri-Crooked (10300101)+, Lower Missouri-Moreau (10300102)+, Lower Missouri (10300200)+
+ 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
Basic Description: A large fish (to 168 cm) with a flat, shovel-like snout.
General Description: A large fish (to 186 cm) with a heterocercal tail, a long slender caudal peduncle, a flat shovel-shaped snout, four fringed barbels on the snout, a ventral mouth, and large bony scutes on the head, back, and sides; 37-43 dorsal rays; 24-28 anal rays (Page and Burr 1991).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Similar to the shovelnose sturgeon but has no scalelike scutes on the belly, the bases of the outer barbels usually are posterior to the bases of the inner barbels, the inner barbels are shorter, the head is larger, the mouth is wider, the eye is smaller, and the color usually is paler (gray-white above and on sides) (Page and Burr 1991).

Wills et al. (2002) used meristic and morphometric characteristics to differentiate S. albus and S. platorhynchus at a high confidence level.

Reproduction Comments: Spawns from June to August (Kallemeyn 1981, USFWS 2007). Males are sexually mature in 3-4 years (Kallemeyn 1981). Females likely take at least several years to mature, and individuals probably spawn at intervals of several years. A 41-year-old 17-kg female contained an estimated 170,000 eggs; this is the oldest reported individual of this species (Keenlyne et al. 1992, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:139-140).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: In the lower Platte river, Nebraska, hatchery-reared, radio-tagged indviduals (age 6-7) moved upstream up to 20 kilometers from the release site, but most stayed between the release site and the mouth of the Platte River 65 kilometers downstream (Snook et al. 2002).

Swingle (2003) collected two presumed wild pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte River and subsequently followed their movements via telemetry. One of these, a gravid female collected in early May 2001, subsequently moved into the Missouri River in early June 2001, suggesting that the lower Platte River may be an important tributary for spawning.

Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, Low gradient, Moderate gradient
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: This species occupies large, turbid, free-flowing riverine habitat; it occurs in strong current over firm gravel or sandy substrate (USFWS 1989); it sometimes occurs in reservoirs (Kallemeyn 1981). Pallid sturgeons tend to select main channel habitats in the Mississippi River (Sheehan et al. 1998) and main channel areas with islands or sand bars in the upper Missouri River (Bramblett 1996). In the lower Platte River, Nebraska, hatchery-reared individuals (age 6-7) usually were downstream of sand bars where currents converge (Snook et al. 2002). Specific characteristics of spawning habitat have not been documented. Larvae drift downstream from the hatching site (Kynard et al. 2002).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore, Piscivore
Food Comments: Feeds opportunistically on aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, eggs of other fishes, and sometimes other fishes (USFWS 1989).
Length: 110 centimeters
Economic Attributes
Economic Comments: Formerly harvested commercially. Considered a fine eating fish. Roe is suitable for caviar. Large size makes it a desirable trophy sport fish.
Management Summary
Stewardship Overview: Needed conservation measures include the following (USFWS 2007): Identify and implement measures to eliminate or significantly reduce illegal and accidental harvest. Update the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) to include the most recent information regarding genetics, distribution, life history, abundance and trends, threats, and conservation measures. The revised recovery plan shall include objective and measurable downlisting and delisting criteria that when achieved eliminate or sufficiently minimize threats to the species, per the 5 U.S. Endangered Species Act listing factors, such that the pallid sturgeon no longer warrants listing as threatened or endangered. Continue study of issues where the extent of the threat is not well understood (such as hybridization and pollution/contamination). Reevaluate Recovery Priority Management Areas as they relate to conservation needs of the drainage populations. Consider identifying management units based on genetic data. Develop a science-based, independently reviewed program that evaluates implementation of recovery criteria as well as provides periodic reports of recovery success. Develop and implement standardized methodology to test for and quantify iridovirus in wild populations of Scaphirhynchus. Develop and implement methods to measure and monitor riverine habitats in the Mississippi River and their response to engineering actions. Develop and implement a standardized monitoring program for the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers (e.g., Missouri River Population Assessment Program) to ensure adequate demographic data are collected to assess the population structure of the pallid sturgeon in these reaches. Implement the Population Assessment Program (Drobish 2006) to monitor supplementation efforts and obtain adequate samples to thoroughly understand the demographic trends of the species. Implement rangewide standardized reporting requirements, i.e., catch-per-unit effort, to enable rangewide population status trend comparison. Identify spawning cues and habitats utilized by pallid sturgeon throughout its range. Conduct telemetry research to identify habitat utilization in unimpounded areas to better understand the true requirements of the species in terms of range and variety of habitats used.
Management Requirements: Tens to hundreds of thousands of juveniles are produced and released annually via artificial propagation and captive spawning of wild-caught adults in accordance with the pallid sturgeon stocking and augmentation plan (USFWS 2006). Hatchery-reared pallid sturgeons appear to be essential to preventing local extirpation in portions of the range and have been used to reestablish the species in a small portion of the range (USFWS 2007). However, it is too early to determine if these artificially propagated sturgeons will spawn and naturally reproduce, and thus it is unclear if these individuals are contributing to conserving natural self-sustaining populations (USFWS 2007).

Information about population structure and potential for introgression with shovelnose sturgeon is critical for management and recovery programs (Tranah et al. 2001).

Managed flooding of habitat acquired for the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge resulted in the creation of nursery habitat for juveniles that derived from natural spawning (Burton 2000).

See recovery plan (USFWS 1993).

Monitoring Requirements: Trawling is an effective sampling method in the lower Mississippi River (Hartfield 2003).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Group Name: Nonanadromous Sturgeons

Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Wintering Area, Spawning Area
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.
Alternate Separation Procedure: Generally each river or lake should be treated as a different occurrence, unless information on movements indicates otherwise, in which case an occurrence may encompass multiple lakes or rivers. For the largest bodies of water, use a separation distance of 200 km (measured in aquatic habitat, not over land) for both suitable and unsuitable habitat, but be careful not to separate a population's spawning and nonspawning habitats as different occurrences (i.e., do not use the 200-km separation distance without accounting for seasonal migrations, if any). Also, a smaller separation distance can be used if adequate study (radiotelemetry or recapture data) indicates that occupied locations separated by less than 200 km are not part of a single population.
Separation Justification: Separation distance is arbitrary but reflects the long-distance movements that have been documented in these fishes. For example, in the upper Mississippi River system, individual lake sturgeon had ranges of 3-198 km (median 56 km) (Knights et al. 2002). 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.

Some populations may, on at least a short-term basis, exhibit limited mobility. For example, in the Kettle River, Minnesota, a small population of lake sturgeon remained year-round in a 32-km section of river and appeared to mix very little with nearby populations, despite the absence of physical barriers at either end of the occupied reach (Borkholder et al. 2001). However, the authors believed that mixing probably did occur on a time scale of years.

Date: 09Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 03Jan2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Management Information Edition Date: 10Feb2003
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 13Nov2007
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).

  • Binkowski, F. P., and S. I. Doroshov (editors). 1985. North American Sturgeons: Biology and Aquaculture Potential. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 163 pp.

  • Birstein, V. J., J. R. Waldman, and W. E. Bemis. 1997. Sturgeon biodiversity and conservation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Reprinted from Environmental Biology of Fishes 48(1-4).

  • Bramblett, R. G. 1996. Habitats and movements of pallid and shovelnose sturgeon in the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers, Montana and North Dakota. Doctoral dissertation. Montana State University, Bozeman.

  • Burton, K. 2000. New hope for the pallid sturgeon. Endangered Species Bulletin 25:4-5.

  • Campton, D. E., A. L. Bass, F. A. Chapman, and B. W. Bowen. 2000. Genetic distinction of pallid, shovelnose, and Alabama sturgeon:emerging species and the US Endangered Species Act. Conservation Genetics 1:17-32.

  • Colombo, R. E., J. E. Garvey, N. D. Jackson, B. T. Koch, R. Brooks, D. P. Herzog, R. A. Hrabik, and T. W. Spier. In press. Harvest of Mississippi River sturgeon drives abundance and reproductive success: a harbinger of collapse? Journal of Applied Ichthyology.

  • Drobish, M. R. 2006. Pallid sturgeon assessment program, Volume 1.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Yankton, South Dakota.

  • Duffy, W. G., C. R. Berry, and K. D. Keenlyne. 1996. Biology of the pallid sturgeon with an annotated bibliography through 1994. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Technical Bulletin 5. South Dakota State University, Brookings.

  • Figg, D. E. 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report, July 1992-June 1993. 75 pp.

  • Hartfield, P. 2003. Sturgeon surveys in the lower Mississippi River. Endangered Species Bulletin 28(2):27.

  • Heist, E. J., and A. Schrey. 2006. Microsatellite tools for genetic identification of Scaphirhynchus. Interim Report. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

  • Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

  • 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.

  • Kallemeyn, L. 1981. A status report on the pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus. Draft.

  • Krieger, J., P. A. Fuerst, and T. M. Cavender. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of the North American sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16:64-72.

  • Kynard, B., E. Henyey, and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior, migration, and social behavior of pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, and shovelnose sturgeon, S. platorynchus, with notes on the adaptive significance of body color. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:389-403.

  • Matthews, W. J., and D. C. Heins, editors. 1987. Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman. viii + 310 pp.

  • 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. 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.

  • Phelps, S. R., and F. W. Allendorf. 1983. Genetic identityof pallid and shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus and S. platorynchus). Copeia 1983:696-700.

  • Reed, B.C. and M.S. Ewing. 1993. Status and distribution of pallid sturgeon at the Old River Control Complex, Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Report 514-0009 Lake Charles, Louisiana.

  • 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.

  • Sheehan, R. J., R. C. Heidinger, K. L. Hurley, P. S. Wills, and M. A. Schmidt. 1998. Middle Mississippi River pallid sturgeon habitat use project. Annual progress report (year 3). Fisheries Research Laboratory and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

  • Snook, V. A., E. J. Peters, and L. J. Young. 2002. Movements and habitat use by hatchery-reared pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte River, Nebraska. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28:161-174.

  • Swingle, B. S. 2003. Movements and habitat use by shovelnose and pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte River. Master's thesis. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

  • Tranah, G. J., H. L. Kincaid, C. C. Krueger, D. E. Campton, and B. May. 2001. Reproductive isolation in sympatric populations of pallid and shovelnose sturgeon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:367-373.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Recovery plan for the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismark, North Dakota.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Pallid sturgeon range-wide stocking and augmentation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 30 August 1989. Porposed rule to determine the pallid sturgeon to be an endangered species. Federal Register 54:35901-35904.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). [2007]. Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 5-year review summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator, Billings, Montana.

  • Wills, P. S., R. J. Sheehan, R. Heidinger, and B. L. Sloss. 2002. Differentiation of pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon using an index based on meristics and morphometrics. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28:249-258.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • 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.

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

  • 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 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 (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:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.