Gila pandora

(Cope, 1872)

Rio Grande Chub

G3Vulnerable Found in 5 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
MediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102451
Element CodeAFCJB13130
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
This species hybridizes with Rhinichthys cataractae (may be due to breeding-season crowding caused by drought and/or withdrawals of water for irrigation). Morphological variation among populations in Canadian River, Pecos River, and Rio Grande are believed to represent ecophenotypic variation (Sublette et al. 1990).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2013-09-06
Change Date1996-09-13
Edition Date2013-09-06
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G.
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 80
Rank Reasons
Small range in New Mexico, western Texas, and south-central Colorado; large decline in distribution and abundance; locally fairly common; primary threats are stream degradation and effects of non-native species.
Range Extent Comments
Formerly this species was widespread in creeks of the upper Rio Grande and Pecos watersheds in New Mexico and the Rio Grande and San Luis basin in southern Colorado, with an isolated population in the Davis Mountains, Texas (Little Aguja Creek [Nations Canyon Creek], Pecos River system, Jeff Davis County) (Sublette et al. 1990, Zuckerman and Langlois 1990, Calamusso and Rinne 1996, Bestgen et al. 2003, Rees et al. 2005, Hubbs et al. 2008). Now the range is reduced in the Pecos system, and likely the species has been extirpated from the mainstem Rio Grande and is now only found in tributary streams (Rees et al. 2005). A population in the headwaters of the Canadian River (Red River drainage), New Mexico, may be introduced or possibly native (Sublette et al. 1990); Page and Burr (2011) regarded it as introduced. An isolated, introduced population occurs in Dome Lake on the Gunnison National Forest, Colorado (Rees et al. 2005). Elevational range extends to at least 3,470 meters (Zuckerman and Langlois 1990).
Occurrences Comments
Several small subpopulations exist in Colorado, and many small subpopulations occur in New Mexico (Zuckerman and Langlois 1990, Calamusso and Rinne 1996, Bestgen et al. 2003, Rees et al. 2005).
Threat Impact Comments
Water diversion projects have resulted in flow regime changes in both tributary and mainstem rivers and streams (Rees et al. 2005). Construction of diversion dams and reservoirs has degraded and fragmented habitats and caused passage barriers (Rees et al. 2005). The introduction of non-native species (e.g., brown trout, brook trout, northern pike, common carp, white sucker) has increased predation and competition (Rees et al. 2005). Land use changes and local development (e.g., road building, timber harvesting, mining) and excessive grazing in riparian zones have degraded natural stream ecosystem function (Bestgen et al. 2003, Rees et al. 2005). Stream bank degradation can result in increased sedimentation, and additional sediment loads can fill pool and run habitats, cover benthic substrate, and smother benthic organisms (Rees et al. 2005). The change in sediment load also can result in streams becoming wider and shallower and result in higher than normal water temperatures (Rees et al. 2005).

Aquatic habitats of both the Rio Grande drainage and San Luis Closed Basin have been degraded by dewatering, sedimentation, fish culture and stocking, fishing, transbasin diversions, irrigation, input of domestic sewage effluent, stream channelization, and input of fertilizers and pesticides (Zuckerman and Langlois 1990).

Primary threats are stream dewatering and habitat modification due to channelization (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1996).

The potential is high for future declines in distribution and abundance; isolated populations are more susceptible to catastrophic events because recolonization from nearby populations is unlikely (Rees et al. 2005).

Jelks et al. (2008) categorized this species as Vulnerable due to (1) present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range; (2) disease or parasitism; and (3) other natural or anthropogenic factors that affect a taxon's existence, including impacts of nonindigenous organisms, hybridization, competition, and/or predation.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

This chub is most common in flowing pools of headwaters, creeks, and small rivers, often near inflow of riffles and in association with cover such as undercut banks, aquatic vegetation, and plant debris (Lee et al. 1980, Sublette et al. 1990, Rees et al. 2005, Page and Burr 2011). It also occurs in impoundments (see Sublette et al. 1990). Larger specimens can be found in pools and runs, and below instream structures, whereas young chubs can be found in beds of aquatic macrophytes (e.g., Nasturtium officinale) and under cover provided by overhanging banks (Zuckerman and Langlois 1990).In the Rio Grande Basin, Colorado, Bestgen et al. (2003) found most often found at sites where sand was the dominant substrate and least often found at sites with cobble substrate.

Stream populations spawn in riffle habitat without building nests and provide no parental care after egg laying (Koster 1957). Spawning also occurs in reservoirs but specific conditions are not known (Rees et al. 2005).

Reproduction

Spawning occurs in spring and early summer. Autumn spawning may occasionally occur when environmental conditions are suitable (Zuckerman and Langlois 1990, Rinne 1995, Bestgen et al. 2003).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
TexasS1Yes
ColoradoS1Yes
New MexicoS3Yes
WyomingSNAYes
Threat Assessments

Roadless Areas (5)
New Mexico (5)
AreaForestAcres
Contiguous To Black & Aldo Leopold WildernessGila National Forest111,883
Last Chance CanyonLincoln National Forest8,934
San Pedro ParksSanta Fe National Forest5,824
Virgin CanyonSanta Fe National Forest6,068
Wheeler Peak WildernessCarson National Forest2,677
References (28)
  1. Bestgen, K. R., R. I. Compton, K. A. Zelasko, and J. E. Alves. 2003. Distribution and status of Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 135, Larval Fish Laboratory, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523.
  2. Calamusso, B., and J. N. Rinne. 1996. Distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout and its co-occurrence with the Rio Grande sucker and Rio Grande chub on the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests. U. S. Forest Service Technical Report RM 272:157-167.
  3. Haak, A. L., and J. E. Williams. 2013. Using native trout restoration to jumpstart freshwater conservation planning in the interior west. Journal of Conservation Planning 9:38-52.
  4. Hubbs, Clark (Department of Zoology, University of Texas-Austin). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. April 1997.
  5. Hubbs, C., R. J. Edwards, and G. P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species. Texas Journal of Science, Supplement, 2nd edition 43(4):1-87.
  6. 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.
  7. Koster, W. J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 116 pp.
  8. 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.
  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. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1996. October 1-last update. Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange-VA Tech. Online. Available: http//www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nm.html. Accessed 1997, April 8.
  11. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2006. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, New Mexico. 526 pp + appendices.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Platania, Steven P. 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC, April 1997.
  17. Propst, David. L. 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Endangered Species Biologist. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Sante Fe, NM.
  18. Rees, D. E., R. J. Carr, and W. J. Miller. 2005. Rio Grande chub (<i>Gila pandora</i>): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
  19. Rinne, J. N. 1995b. Reproductive biology of the Rio Grande chub, <i>Gila pandora</i> (Teleostomi: Cypriniformes), in a montane stream, New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 40:107-110.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Sublette, J. E., M. D Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 393 pp.
  23. Swift, Sue (Rio Grande National Forest, USFS). 1997a. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps for Rio Grande Chub. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. April 1997.
  24. Texas Natural History Collections [University of Texas at Austin]. 1997. February 7-last update. Texas Freshwater Fishes Index (Images, Maps and Information). Online. Available: http://www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nm.html. Accessed 1997, April 14.
  25. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. 90-Day Findings on 29 Petitions. Federal Register 81(51): 14058-14072.
  26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. National Listing Workplan. Online. Available: https://www.fws.gov/project/national-listing-workplan
  27. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Three Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Federal Register 89(119):51864-51869.
  28. Zuckerman, L. D., and D. Langlois. 1990. Status of the Rio Grande sucker and Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Montrose, CO.