Gila coerulea

(Girard, 1856)

Blue Chub

G3Vulnerable (G3G4) Found in 2 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100631
Element CodeAFCJB13050
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusGila
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.
Taxonomic Comments
Formerly referred to as Tigoma bicolor, Cheonda coerlea, and Gila bicolor (Bailey and Uyeno 1964).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2012-02-07
Change Date2012-02-07
Edition Date2012-02-07
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G., and M. K. Clausen
Range Extent5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
Widely distributed and at least formerly one of the most abundant fishes in the Klamath and Lost river systems, Oregon and California; doing well in reservoirs despite the presence of introduced predatory fishes; threats include drought, water diversions, pollution, and introduced species.
Range Extent Comments
This species is widely distributed in the Klamath and Lost river systems, Oregon and California (Page and Burr 2011); The native distribution presumably was above Klamath Falls, but these fishes have colonized Iron Gate and Copco reservoirs downstream from the falls (Moyle 2002). The species has been introduced in other drainages in Oregon (Moyle 2002).
Occurrences Comments
TNHC (1996) Index of North American fishes mapped 13 collection locations.
Threat Impact Comments
Threats include a combination of factors: drought, water diversions, pollution, and introduced species. Drought creates additional stress to a system already stressed by other factors. Diversions of water from the rivers and reservoirs has dried up the preferred lowland habitats or allowed organic pollutants to become so concentrated that lakes such as the upper and lower Klamath lakes and Tule Lake become difficult for the native fishes to inhabit, even though they are tolerant of fairly extreme environmental conditions. The lakes of the upper Klamath drainage have become sumps for agricultural runoff, which carry fertilizers and animal waste, so they have become increasingly eutrophic and decreasingly favorable to fish life. In addition, the introduced fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) has proliferated in the lakes and canals in recent years, with unknown effects on native fishes (Moyle et al. 1995). A 1991-1995 Oregon study indicated numbers increased significantly in Upper Klamath Lake as fathead minnow numbers declined; in Agency Lake no significant change in abundance was noted as fathead minnows declined, however, fathead minnows composed 59 percent of the fish taken in Agency Lake compared to 27 percent of the fish taken in Upper Klamath Lake; the fathead minnow is still very abundant after a 5-year decline (Simon and Markle 1997). Blue chubs are doing well in reservoirs despite the presence of introduced predatory fishes (Moyle 1976).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Habitat includes rocky pools of creeks and small to large rivers, rocky shores of reservoirs and lakes (Page and Burr 2011). In upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, this chub is found along rocky shores or in open water; it avoids marshy shores (Moyle 1976). Individuals may move into deep lake waters in winter. This species tolerates low dissolved oxygen levels. It is known to spawn at the shoreline over substrates of rocks, large gravel, or volcanic rubble.

Ecology

Abundant in Upper Klamath Lake and other reservoirs (Lee et al. 1980).

Reproduction

In Upper Klamath Lake spawns in May and June in water temperatures from 15-18 C. In Paulina Lake, Oregon, introduced population spawns July-August. Reaches sexual maturity in 4th summer (Lee et al. 1980).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS2Yes
OregonS3Yes
Roadless Areas (2)
Oregon (2)
AreaForestAcres
North PaulinaDeschutes National Forest19,670
South PaulinaDeschutes National Forest9,074
References (16)
  1. Bailey, R.M. and T. Uyeno. 1964. Nomenclature of the blue chub and the tui chub, cyprinid fishes from western United States. Copeia 1964(1):238-239.
  2. Gaines, Eleanor (Oregon Natural Heritage Program). 1997. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. August 1997.
  3. 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.
  4. Master, L. L. 1996. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Progress Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 60 pp.
  5. Master, L. L. and A. L. Stock. 1998. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 36 pp.
  6. Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
  7. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.
  8. Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California. Second edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iv + 272 pp.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Page, L. M., K. E. Bemis, T. E. Dowling, H.S. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, K. E. Hartel, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, M. A. Neigbors, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, and H. J. Walker, Jr. 2023. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Eighth edition. American Fisheries Society (AFS), Special Publication 37, Bethesda, Maryland, 439 pp.
  14. 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.
  15. Simon, D. C., and D. F. Markle. 1977. Interannual abundance of nonnative fathead minnows <i>(Pimephales promelas</i>) in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 57(2):142-148.
  16. Texas Natural History Collections [University of Texas at Austin]. 1997. February 7-last update. North American Freshwater Fishes Index (Images, Maps and Information). Online. Available: http://www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/www.fish.tnhc/na/naindex.ht ml. Accessed 1997, April 4.