Deltistes luxatus

(Cope, 1879)

Lost River Sucker

G2Imperiled (G2?) Found in 32 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
Very high - highThreat Impact
Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus). 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.2.102932
Element CodeAFCJC12010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyCatostomidae
GenusDeltistes
Synonyms
Catostomus luxatus
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 previously was included in the genera Chasmistes and Catostomus. Chasmistes and Deltistes are closely related to the older, more diverse, widespread genus Catostomus; Deltistes has unique triangular gill rakers and a ventral mouth with papillose lips and a terminal mouth (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).

Deltistes luxatus has hybridized with Chasmistes brevirostris and Catostomus snyderi (Lee et al. 1980).

Harris and Mayden (2001) used molecular data to examine phylogenetic relationships of major clades of Catostomidae. In all trees, Scartomyzon was paraphyletic and embedded in Moxostoma, and Catostomus was never recovered as monophyletic (Xyrauchen was embedded within Catostomus). They concluded that the phylogenetic relationships and taxonomic composition of taxa presently included in Moxostoma and Scartomyzon are in need of further study, as are the relationships and composition of the genera Catostomus, Chasmistes, Deltistes, and Xyrauchen, and the phylogenetic affinites of Erimyzon and Minytrema.

See also Smith (1992) for a study of the phylogeny and biogeography of the Catostomidae.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2022-02-25
Change Date2022-02-25
Edition Date2022-02-25
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
This species population size and area of occupancy have been substantially reduced when compared to historical levels. The legacy effects of habitat modification and continued poor water quality combined with the effects of climate change (e.g., more pronounced droughts) continue to depress populations. Recent conservation measures have improved habitat conditions, but further improvements are needed.
Range Extent Comments
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, lake margin seeps, and spawning in most major tributaries to these lakes (USFWS 2019b). Based on expert opinion models for California (Santos 2015) and information in USFWS (2019) for Oregon, and using the methods described in Masters et al (2012) for fish species and other taxa using rivers and streams (HUC 12 watersheds), the range of this species is about 6500 km2.
Occurrences Comments
This species is represented by two populations that are sustaining themselves without the input of larvae or older suckers from other areas (USFWS 2007). However, USFWS (2019) recognizes three distinct populations and points to genetic analysis by Dowling et al (2016) as a basis for defining conservation of populations.
Threat Impact Comments
Historical threats include: sucker mortality and habitat changes that resulted from the draining of the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath "basins" in the 1920s; adverse water quality, deriving in part from excessive nutrient inputs from agricultural sources, and causing algal blooms that in turn have resulted in massive sucker mortality; low water levels in Upper Klamath Lake caused by water removal for irrigation, hydroelectric generation, wildlife refuges, and instream flows for downstream fish populations (Kann and Walker 1999); diking and draining of wetlands bordering lakes (wetlands served as fish nursery habitat and probably buffered lakes from agricultural pollutants); and loss of spawning habitat due to damming of rivers (e.g., Chiloquin Dam constructed in 1928 on the Sprague River, Oregon, cut off access to 95% of historical spawning habitat for the Upper Klamath Lake population and precluded accumulation of suitable spawning gravels below the dam) (USFWS 1988, 1993, 2007; Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991; Perkins et al. 2000; Moyle 2002). Exotic fishes such as fathead minnow are abundant in some areas, but their effects on Lost River suckers are poorly known. The sport fishery in the 1960s and 1970s may have contributed to the decline (fishing for this species is now prohibited).

USFWS (2007) assessed threats as follows (abbreviated):

The rate of habitat change has slowed markedly, but only a small fraction of the original habitat remains, and much of the remaining habitat is in a degraded condition. Restoration efforts are beginning to reverse the trend, but will probably require many years to produce a substantially increased and stable habitat base for the Lost River sucker.

Adverse water quality is the most critical threat, and substantial improvement is not expected in the near future. Within the foreseeable future, there is a high probability of multiple mortality events that would greatly reduce population sizes. It is possible that infrequent recruitment would be unable to offset declines from such die-offs. However, though previous mortality events in Upper Klamath Lake resulted in substantial population losses, the sucker population was not extirpated and now again shows evidence of improvement. Thus, recruitment, although low, has enabled the Upper Klamath Lake population to survive, despite the impact of multiple mortality events.

Drought is a threat because of its potential to cut off spawning habitat, reduce rearing habitat, and increase disease, parasitism, and predation. Historically the species has persisted through periods of prolonged drought, but recent extended droughts are unprecedented.

Fish entrainment in water diversions and restricted passages are threats. Entrainment at Link River Dam and associated hydropower diversions likely poses a risk to the sucker. The threat there could be reduced if the hydropower diversions were screened or eliminated, and if discharges at the dam could be modified to reduce entrainment. Passage to spawning habitat in the Sprague River is still impeded by Chiloquin Dam, but that structure is planned for removal in the near future. Elsewhere in the upper basin, some entrainment of suckers is occurring, but mostly larvae are entrained, and USFWS does do not consider this a substantial threat at the population level.

Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not regarded as a threat.

Disease, parasites, and predation/competition by exotic fishes pose some risk, although the degree to which they affect the species is not quantified. Disease and parasites alone may not pose a significant risk, but paired with the impacts of adverse water quality, they can substantially affect sucker survival.

Application of existing Endangered Species Act authorities, especially section 7, is probably maintaining existing sucker habitats and leading to reductions in mortality and improvements in habitat. However, given the continued vulnerability of the species to existing seasonal habitat conditions, these regulations have not been sufficient to substantially reduce the primary threat to the species.

Hybridization occurs among sucker species in the Klamath Basin, but it is not regarded as a significant threat.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Habitat includes deep-water lakes and impoundments, and swift water and deep pools of small to medium rivers. Suckers can be found throughout the reservoirs they inhabit, but they appear to prefer shorelines with emergent vegetation that can provide cover from predators and invertebrate food (Moyle 2002). Suckers move from lakes into tributary streams to spawn in riffles or runs with gravel or cobble substrate, moderate flows, and depths of 21-128 cm (USFWS 2007). Spawning also occurs along shore of Upper Klamath Lake (e.g., at spring inflows). Juveniles move downstream into lakes soon after hatching. Larval suckers prefer shallow, nearshore, and emergent vegetated habitat in both the lakes and rivers (NRC 2004). See USFWS (1988, 1993).

Reproduction

Spawning occurs in March, April, and May (Moyle 1976). Larvae peak in numbers about 3 weeks after peak spawning (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991). Sexual maturity in Upper Klamath Lake occurs between the ages of 6 to 14 years, with most maturing at age 9 (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990).
Long-lived; may attain 45 years.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS2Yes
OregonS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive - restrictedSerious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive - restrictedSerious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (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 (44)
  1. 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.
  2. Bendire, C. E. 1889. The Lost River Sucker. Forest and Stream 32:444–445. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44319751
  3. Buettner, M., and G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history and status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Completion report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field Station, NV. 119 pp.
  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. Dowling, T. E., D. F. Markle, G. J. Tranah, E. W. Carson, D. W. Wagman, and B. P. May. 2016. Introgressive hybridization and the evolution of lake-adapted catostomid fishes. PLoS ONE 11.
  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. Hoy, M. S., and C. O. Ostberg. 2015. Development of 20 TaqMan assays differentiating the endangered shortnose and Lost River suckers. Conservation Genetics Resources 7(3):673–676.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Kann, J., and W. W. Walker. 1999. Nutrient and hydrologic loading to Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 1991-1998. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
  14. 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.
  15. Martin, B. A., and M. K. Saiki. 1999. Effects of ambient water quality on the endangered Lost River Sucker in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:953-961.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.
  19. Meyer, J. S., and J. A. Hansen. 2002. Subchronic toxicity of low dissolved oxygen concentrations, elevated pH, and elevated ammonia concentrations to Lost River suckers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:656-666.
  20. Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
  21. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. Perkins, D. L., J. Kann, and G. G. Scoppettone. 2000. The role of poor water quality and fish kills in the decline of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
  30. 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.
  31. Santos, N. 2015. Species Range Layer for the Lost River Sucker. Univ. of Cal. Davis. GIS data depicting HUC 12 watersheds occupied by Lost River 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.
  32. 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.
  33. Scoppettone, G. G., S. Shea, and M. E. Buettner. 1995. Information on population dynamics and life history of shortnose suckers (<i>Chasmistes brevirostris</i>) and Lost River suckers (<i>Deltistes luxatus</i>) in Tule and Clear Lakes. National Biological Service, Reno Field Station. 91 pp.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Lost River (<i>Deltistes luxatus</i>) and Shortnose (<i>Chasmistes brevirostris</i>) Sucker Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp.
  40. 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.
  41. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Lost River sucker (<i>Deltistes luxatus</i>) 5-year review summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
  42. 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.
  43. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019b. Lost River Sucker (<i>Deltistes luxatus</i>) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, OR. 10 pp.
  44. Williams, J.E, J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989b. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.