Cambarus aculabrum

Hobbs and Brown, 1987

Benton County Cave Crayfish

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
Critically endangeredIUCN
Very high - highThreat Impact
Benton County cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.112282
Element CodeICMAL07840
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryInvertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumArthropoda
ClassMalacostraca
OrderDecapoda
FamilyCambaridae
GenusCambarus
Concept Reference
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. and A.V. Brown. 1987. A new troglobitic crayfish from north western Arkansas. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 100(4): 1040-1048.
Taxonomic Comments
This species was inadvertently omitted from the first edition of the AFS checklist.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Excel v3.2x
Review Date2019-05-02
Change Date2005-06-09
Edition Date2019-05-02
Edition AuthorsFitzpatrick, J.F., Jr.; M. Morrison (2000); J. Cordeiro (2010); B. Wagner, D. Lynch, and P. Ardapple-Kindberg (2019)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent<100 square km (less than about 40 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 5
Rank Reasons
Like other stygobitic species, Cambarus aculabrum is adapted to a narrow range of specific environmental conditions. Cave and karst ecosystems are especially vulnerable to changes in water quality due to shifting land use practices, including agricultural and urban development, which are pervasive across the range of this species. C. aculabrum faces other threats, including habitat disturbance and alteration, and competition from invading surface-dwelling crayfish species. In addition, this species exhibits many life history traits, including low reproductive potential, that make it intrinsically vulnerable to competition, predation, and environmental disturbance.
Range Extent Comments
This species is known from three caves in Benton County, Arkansas (Hobbs 1989, USFWS 1996). An individual expelled from the groundwater during a high flow event in Washington County, Arkansas, was determined to belong to this species based on genetic sequencing (Graening et al. 2006). Another individual observed during similar circumstances in McDonald County, Missouri, in close proximity to Bear Hollow Cave was thought to potentially belong to this species as well (Graening et al. 2006).
Occurrences Comments
This species is known from four recharge areas. Three of these contain traversable caves, and the fourth is a temporary upwelling in a usually dry branch from which crayfish are expelled during high flow events (Hobbs 1989; USFWS 1996; Graening et al. 2006).
Threat Impact Comments
USFWS (1996) recovery plan listed the following factors causing decline of the species: habitat destruction, disturbance by cavers or trespassers, specimen collection, low reproductive potential, and competition and predation by non-stygobitic species. Graening et al. (2006) assessed continuing threats since the recovery plan. Habitat degradation from groundwater pollution is the primary reason for federal listing of the species and remains a serious threat. Organic pollutants are present in the groundwater basins of the two regularly surveyed caves. Mean concentrations of nitrate, phosphorous, and fecal bacteria consistently equal or exceed those of regional surface waters monitored by the National Water Quality Assessment Program for the Springfield Plateau Aquifer. Over 100 confined animal feeding operations (poultry and swine) and cattle ranching operations as well as over 60 residences on septic systems are within the recharge zone of one cave and two confined feeding operations and at least 200 residences on septic systems are within the recharge zone of the second cave (Graening et al., 2006). As for human disturbance, both caves with the largest populations were formerly popular recreational destinations. Vandalism and trespass continue to be serious management issues at both sites, even after erection of steel channel gates. Overcollection was historically considered a threat, but this has been greatly curtailed since federal listing of the species in 1993 (Graening et al., 2006). The caves are potentially threatened by water quality degradation, habitat alteration, disturbance by trespassers, collecting, competition, and predation. Land conversion for agriculture and residential development is a major threat across the range of this species (USFWS 1996).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Albinistic; eyes without pigment and much reduced; 2 terminal elements of first pleopod of male bent >90 degrees, central projection ca. 135 degrees; body strongly compressed (Hobbs and Brown 1987). [LENGTH: to 28.5 TCL, to 45 TL] [WIDTH: to 12]

Diagnostic Characteristics

Central projection at >90 degree angle to main axis of pleopod, with notch in apex; proximolateral groove near base of pleopod (Hobbs and Brown 1987).

Habitat

One of the caves from which this species is known is an Ozarkian solution channel and species has been observed along the side walls of a pool or at the stream margin (Robison and Allen, 1995). Cave streams in which this species lives are generally less than 50 cm deep.

Ecology

Co-occurs with the rare Ozark crayfish, AMBLYOPSIS ROSAE in one cave.

Reproduction

Reproductively active males in Dec and Jan; no other data. Spawning and actual mating periods unknown.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
ArkansasS1Yes
MissouriSNRYes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentRestricted - smallSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasRestricted - smallSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areasSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranchingLarge (31-70%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
3 - Energy production & miningSmall (1-10%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
3.2 - Mining & quarryingSmall (1-10%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsSmall (1-10%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsSmall (1-10%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useSmall (1-10%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5.3 - Logging & wood harvestingSmall (1-10%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6 - Human intrusions & disturbanceSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6.1 - Recreational activitiesSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsSmall (1-10%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useSmall (1-10%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesLarge - smallModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesLarge - smallModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge - restrictedSerious - slightHigh (continuing)
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterLarge - restrictedSerious - slightHigh (continuing)
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsSmall (1-10%)Serious - slightHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsSmall (1-10%)Serious - slightHigh (continuing)
9.4 - Garbage & solid wasteSmall (1-10%)Serious - slightHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationPervasive - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
11.3 - Temperature extremesPervasive - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
11.4 - Storms & floodingPervasive - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (1)
South Dakota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Indian CreekBuffalo Gap National Grassland24,666
References (10)
  1. Crandall, K. A., and S. De Grave. 2017. An updated classification of the freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a complete species list. Journal of Crustacean Biology 37(5):615-653.
  2. Graening, G.O., M.E. Slay, A.V. Brown, and J.B. Koppelman. 2006. Status and distribution of the endangered Benton Cave crayfish, <i>Cambarus aculabrum</i> (Decapoda: Cambaridae). The Southwestern Naturalist, 51(3): 376-439.
  3. Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American Crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480:1-236.
  4. Hobbs, H.H., Jr. and A.V. Brown. 1987. A new troglobitic crayfish from north western Arkansas. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 100(4): 1040-1048.
  5. Koppelman, J.B. and D.E. Figg. 1995. Genetic estimates of variability and relatedness for conservation of an Ozark Cave crayfish species complex. Conservation Biology, 9(5): 1288-1294.
  6. McLaughlin, P. A., D. K. Camp, M. V. Angel, E. L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R. C. Brusca, D. Cadien, A. C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L. G. Eldredge, D. L. Felder, J. W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R. W. Heard, E. A. Hendrycks, H. H. Hobbs III, J. R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D. R. Laubitz, S. E. LeCroy, R. Lemaitre, R. F. Maddocks, J. W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W. A. Newman, R. M. Overstreet, W. J. Poly, W. W. Price, J. W. Reid, A. Robertson, D. C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte, F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G. D. F. Wilson, and D. D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 31. 545 pp.
  7. Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
  8. Taylor, C. A., G. A. Schuster, J. E. Cooper, R. J. DiStefano, A. G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H. H. Hobbs III, H. W. Robison, C. E. Skelton, and R. F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):371-389.
  9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Cave crayfish (<i>Cambarus aculabrum</i>) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 37 pp.
  10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews for 67 Southeastern Species. Notice of initiation of reviews; <br/>request for information. Federal Register 88(91): 30324-30328.