Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Shortnose Sucker

Chasmistes brevirostris

Cope, 1879

Shortnose Sucker

G1Critically Imperiled (G1G2) Found in 32 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
Very high - highThreat Impact
shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris). 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.2.106479
Element CodeAFCJC03010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyCatostomidae
GenusChasmistes
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
Genetic introgression with Catostomus snyderi has occurred in the Lost River system and with C. rimiculus in Copco Reservoir (but gene pool relatively intact). Hybrids with Deltistes luxatus or Catostomus snyderi are common in Upper Klamath Lake (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2022-02-23
Change Date2022-02-23
Edition Date2022-02-23
Edition AuthorsHunting, K. (2022)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 5
Rank Reasons
Restricted to a small area in Oregon and California, where extensive habitat alteration has resulted in poor recruitment and ongoing declines.
Range Extent Comments
This species is endemic to the lakes of the upper Klamath Basin in southern Oregon and northern California, USA. Now limited to spawning populations in Upper Klamath and Clear Lakes and Gerber Reservoir and spawning in most major tributaries to these lakes (USFWS 2019). Based on expert opinion models (Santos 2015) and calculating range extent using the methods described in Masters et al (2012) for species occupying linear habitat features like streams and rivers, the range of this species covers about 8500 km2.
Occurrences Comments
The number of occurrences of this species has not been measured or estimated, and accurate determination is hampered by opportunistic spawning in lake margin seepage wetlands and other ephemeral water features. For purposes of this assessment, we are assuming the 3 known and possibly two additional spawning populations (USFWS 2019a) represent the 5 occurrences for this species.
Threat Impact Comments
Habitat loss is considered the primary cause of decline for this species and continues to hinder recovery (USFWS 2019b). Habitat loss eliminates wetland habitats for rearing and foraging and often blocks access to spawning streams and tributaries. Most of the lakes, rivers, and streams within the range of this species were reduced and fragmented to create agricultural lands and remain largely hydrologically disconnected today (USFWS 2019a). Nutrient loading from adjacent agricultural lands continues to result in toxic algal blooms and introduced nutrient levels detrimental to this species (National Research Council 2004). Most lakes and streams within the range of this species fail to meet California or Oregon water quality standards including lake and stream temperatures, dissolved oxygen, pH, and nutrients (USFWS 2019b). At the time of listing of this species (USFWS 1988), about 85% of the fish biomass in the Upper Klamath Basin were introduced fish species. Non-native predatory fish comprise a high percentage of the 20 fish species intentionally or accidentally introduced into the system and continue to depress populations (USFWS 2019). Climate change impacts to freshwater fish in California include changes in water quality (especially water temperature), changes in timing and duration of flows, and extended drought. Increased temperatures and variable water availability from uncertain precipitation and snow run-off patterns may be primary factors effecting this species (USFWS 2019b). In a comprehensive review of climate vulnerability of at-risk freshwater fish, Moyle et al (2013) assessed 164 taxa against exposure and sensitivity criteria within four generally accepted and relevant climate scenarios. This species was classified as “highly vulnerable”.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Adults and juveniles prefer shallow, turbid, and highly productive lakes that are cool, but not cold, in summer (generally 15 to 25°C), have adequate dissolved oxygen, (above 4 mg/l), and are moderately alkaline (Moyle 2002).

Spawning occurs in lake tributaries, in riffles or runs with gravel or cobble substrate, moderate flows, and depths of 11-130 cm (USFWS 2007). Historically, spawning occurred also along the margins of Upper Klamath Lake, but that now appears to be rare (Barry et al. 2007). Fry move into lakes soon after hatching. Shoreline river and lake habitats are important for larvae and young (especially emergent vegetation for larvae) (USFWS 2007).

Reproduction

Spawning occurs mainly from early April to early May (USFWS 2007). Sexual maturity is attained between years four and six (USFWS 2007). This species is long-lived, but apparently it has the shortest life span among the lakesuckers; a 33-year-old hybrid was captured in Copco Reservoir in 1987 (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS1Yes
OregonS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive (71-100%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive (71-100%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionPervasive - largeExtreme - moderateHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsPervasive - largeExtreme - moderateHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)

—

Roadless Areas (32)
California (13)
AreaForestAcres
Callahan FlowKlamath National Forest3,231
Callahan FlowModoc National Forest6,618
Condrey Mtn.Klamath National Forest2,923
Damon ButteModoc National Forest25,022
Dobie FlatModoc National Forest15,079
GriderKlamath National Forest10,647
JohnsonKlamath National Forest10,652
KangarooKlamath National Forest40,617
LavasModoc National Forest25,864
Mt. HoffmanModoc National Forest9,780
Mt. HoffmanKlamath National Forest802
Steele SwampModoc National Forest18,958
Tom MartinKlamath National Forest9,031
Oregon (18)
AreaForestAcres
AntlerFremont National Forest5,498
AspenWinema National Forest1,107
BadlandsWinema National Forest822
Brown Mt.Winema National Forest3,117
Buck CreekFremont National Forest9,887
CloverWinema National Forest365
Coleman RimFremont National Forest10,638
Deadhorse RimFremont National Forest13,496
Devil's GardenWinema National Forest512
Hanan TrailFremont National Forest8,111
MarshWinema National Forest1,226
Mt. ThielsenWinema National Forest1,153
N. BoundaryWinema National Forest769
OdessaWinema National Forest146
Sky Lakes AWinema National Forest3,940
Sky Lakes BWinema National Forest9,615
W. BoundaryWinema National Forest2,345
Yamsay Mt.Winema National Forest6,699
South Dakota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Indian CreekBuffalo Gap National Grassland24,666
References (37)
  1. Barry, P. M., A. C. Scott, B. S. Hayes, E. C. Janney, and C. D. Luton. 2007b. Investigations of adult Lost River, shortnose, and Klamath largescale suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, Oregon, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Annual Report. Klamath Falls, OR. 78 pp.
  2. Barry, P. M., B. S. Hayes, E. C. Janney, R. S. Shively, A. C. Scott, and C. D. Luton. 2007a. Monitoring of Lost River (<i>Deltistes luxatus</i>) and shortnose (<i>Chasmistes brevirostris</i>) suckers in Gerber and Clear Lake reservoirs, 2005-2006. U.S. Geological Survey Annual Report. Klamath Falls, OR. 26 pp.
  3. Bendire, C. E. 1889. The Lost River Sucker. Forest and Stream 32:444–445. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44319751
  4. California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). 1990. 1989 annual report on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. 188 pp.
  5. Cope, E. D. 1879. The fishes of the Klamath Lake, Oregon. The American Naturalist 13(12): 784-785. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41038851
  6. Falter, M. A., and J. J. Cech, Jr. 1991. Maximum pH tolerance of three Klamath Basin fishes. Copeia 1991:1109-1111.
  7. 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.
  8. Harris, P. M., and R. L. Mayden. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of major clades of Catostomidae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) as inferred from mitchondrial SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:225-237.
  9. Hewitt, D. A., E. C. Janney, B. S. Hayes, and A. C. Harris. 2018. Status and trends of adult Lost River (<i>Delistes luxatus</i>) and shortnose (<i>Chasmistes brevirostris</i>) sucker populations in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 2017. 2018. USGS Open-File Report 2018-1064. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2018/1064/ofr20181064.pdf
  10. Janney, E. C., and R. S. Shively. 2007. An updated analysis on the population dynamics of Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report. Klamath Falls, OR.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
  16. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.
  17. Moyle, P. B., J. D. Kiernan, P. K. Crain, and R. M. Quiñones. 2013. Climate change vulnerability of native and alien freshwater fishes of California: a systematic assessment approach. PLoS ONE 8(5):e63883. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063883
  18. National Research Council (NRC). 2004. Endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River basin: cause of decline and strategies for recovery. Summary. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 43 pp.
  19. 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.
  20. PacifiCorp. 2013. PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project Interim Operations Habitat Conservation Plan for Lost River and Shortnose Suckers. Prepared by PacifiCorp Energy, Inc., Portland, OR. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, OR. November 20, 2013. 146 pp. https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp/documents/en/pacificorp/energy/hydro/klamath-river/habitat-conservation-plans/2013Sucker-HCP(11-20-2013)V2F.pdf
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Santos, N. 2015. Species Range Layer for the Shortnose Sucker. Univ. of Cal. Davis. GIS data depicting HUC 12 watersheds occupied by shortnose sucker (expert opinion). California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biological Information and Observation System (BIOS), ds 1230. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?bookmark=326 (Accessed 16 Feb 2022).
  27. Scoppettone, G. G., and G. Vinyard. 1991. Life history and management of four endangered lacustrine suckers. Pages 359-377 in W. L. Minckley and J. E. Deacon (editors). Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
  28. Smith, G. R. 1992. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Catostomidae, freshwater fishes of North America and Asia. Pages 778-826 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Determination of endangered status for the shortnose sucker and Lost River shortnose sucker. Federal Register 53:27130-4.
  32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  33. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Lost River (<i>Deltistes luxatus</i>) and shortnose (<i>Chasmistes brevirostris</i>) sucker recovery plan. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. 108 pp.
  34. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Proposed determination of critical habitat for Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. Federal Register 59(230):61744-61759. 1 December 1994.
  35. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Shortnose sucker (<i>Chasmistes brevirostris</i>) 5-year review summary and evaluation. USFWS, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
  36. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019a. Species Status Assessment for the Endangered Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, OR. 91 pp.
  37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019b. Shortnose Sucker (<i>Chasmistes brevirostris</i>) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, OR. 10 pp.