Amphibians and reptiles (herpetofauna) have been linked to specific microhabitat characteristics, microclimates, and water resources in riparian forests. Our objective was to relate variation in herpetofauna abundance to changes in habitat caused by a beetle used for Tamarix biocontrol (Diorhabda carinulata; Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and riparian restoration. During 2013 and 2014, we measured vegetation and monitored herpetofauna via trapping and visual encounter surveys (VES) at locations affected by biocontrol along the Virgin River in the Mojave Desert of the southwestern United States. Twenty‐one sites were divided into four riparian stand types based on density and percent cover of dominant trees (Tamarix, Prosopis, Populus, and Salix) and presence or absence of restoration. Restoration activities consisted of mechanically removing non‐native trees, transplanting native trees, and restoring hydrologic flows. Restored sites had three times more total lizard and eight times more yellow‐backed spiny lizard (Sceloporus uniformis) captures than other stand types. Woodhouse's toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii) captures were greatest in unrestored and restored Tam‐Pop/Sal sites. Results from VES indicated that herpetofauna abundance was greatest in the restored Tam‐Pop/Sal site compared with the adjacent unrestored Tam‐Pop/Sal site. Tam sites were characterized by having high Tamarix cover, percent canopy cover, and shade. Restored Tam‐Pop/Sal sites were most similar in habitat to Tam‐Pop/Sal sites. Two species of herpetofauna (spiny lizard and toad) were found to prefer habitat components characteristic of restored Tam‐Pop/Sal sites. Restored sites likely supported higher abundances of these species because restoration activities reduced canopy cover, increased native tree density, and restored surface water.
Translocation is one of the most commonly proposed management actions for securing and recovering native fish species. However, the success of native fish translocations has varied widely due to several limiting factors, including the presence of nonnative fishes. The Blue River Native Fish Restoration Project involved construction of a fish passage barrier, removal of nonnative fish, translocation of three native fish species (Spikedace Meda fulgida, Loach Minnow Rhinichthys cobitis, and Roundtail Chub Gila robusta), and monitoring to determine the success of these actions. After construction of a physical fish passage barrier, the three focal species were stocked several times upstream of the barrier. Nonnative fish were removed annually using multiple gear types, including spearfishing, backpack electrofishing, and trapping. Monitoring data demonstrated a significant shift in the fish assemblage from one with a substantial component of nonnative fishes to one that was exclusively native fishes. Persistence, reproduction, increased abundance, and dispersal were documented for all three focal species within the study area, meeting criteria for establishment success. All nonnative fishes, including the primary targets of removal efforts—Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus and Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus—were successfully suppressed, if not eradicated entirely, during the study period. Our results illustrate the importance of long‐term monitoring to track and successfully achieve native fish recovery goals. In addition, our results demonstrate that nonnative fish can be mechanically removed from warmwater streams if initial abundance is low, distribution is restricted, and fish passage barriers are in place. Results from this study may be informative for managers hoping to improve the conservation status of warmwater stream fishes through creation of a fish passage barrier, nonnative species removal, and native fish translocation efforts.
ii DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery PlanDecember 1998iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTSOriginal preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.