Gila seminuda

Cope and Yarrow, 1875

Virgin River Chub

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
Very highThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102842
Element CodeAFCJB13170
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusGila
Synonyms
Gila robusta seminudaCope and Yarrow, 1875Gila seminuda (=robusta)
Concept Reference
DeMarais, B. D., T. E. Dowling, M. E. Douglas, W. L. Minckley, and P. C. Marsh. 1992. Origin of Gila seminuda (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) through introgressive hybridization: implications for evolution and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:2747-2751.
Taxonomic Comments
Gila seminuda formerly was included as one named and one unnamed subspecies of Gila robusta. DeMarais et al. (1992) raised seminuda (including the Muddy [Moapa] River population) to species status, an action that has been accepted by the American Fisheries Society (Nelson et al. 2004) and USFWS. The origin of G. seminuda may have included hybridization between G. elegans and G. robusta (DeMarais et al. 1992, Gerber et al. 2001).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2022-07-05
Change Date1997-09-11
Edition Date2022-07-05
Edition AuthorsMiskow, E. NDNH (2022)
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 5
Rank Reasons
A number of factors limit the range of the Virgin River Chub: non-native fish, drought, altered stream-flow regimes, diversions, elevated water temperature, decreased turbidity, water management events, and a decline of optimum spawning and rearing habitat (Hardy et al. 2003, USFWS 2008a, Huizinga and Fridell 2012). Collectively, these factors have severely impaired ecosystem function in the Virgin River Basin, causing precipitous declines in Virgin River Chub. Additionally, these stressors and perturbations may be further exacerbated by extreme natural events, changing climatic trends, and periods of extended drought. Virgin River Chub monitoring data indicate that adult populations continue to persist and when conditions are favorable and are able to reproduce and recruit into the population. Over the past 15 years, with the exception of a few outlier years, drought conditions have persisted in the Virgin River Basin. Extreme water years, both high and low, can act as environmental stressors on native fish populations, limiting reproduction, recruitment, and survival.
Range Extent Comments
The Virgin River Chub currently occurs in the mainstem Virgin River, upstream of La Verkin Springs in southwestern Utah, downstream to the confluence of Beaver Dam Wash in Arizona with very small numbers occurring sporadically downstream of Beaver Dam Wash in the Nevada portion of the Virgin River (USA). The occurrence of Virgin River Chub is uncommon in the lower Virgin River and is largely dependent on reproduction and downstream drift from the chub population above the Washington Fields Diversion (UDWR 2020). Additionally, a 30 km reach in the Muddy River between Warm Springs Bridge and Wells Siding Diversion persists in Nevada (USFWS 2000, Page and Burr 2011, UDWR 2019).
Occurrences Comments
This species is represented by what can be regarded as two major populations, one in the upper Virgin River mainly in southwestern Utah, and an isolated population in the Muddy River in southeastern Nevada.
Threat Impact Comments
On-going threats to the Virgin River Chub include widespread modification and reduction of habitat; de-watering by agricultural diversion, drought, and water development; increased temperature, salinity, and turbidity of the Virgin River; increasing human population in surrounding area.

Introductions of non-native fish and parasites, particularly the Red Shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis have been particularly problematic in the lower portions of the Virgin River in both Arizona and Nevada. The Red Shiner has been eliminated in the Utah portion of the Virgin River above the Washington Field Diversion. Most of the habitat destruction that threatens the species occurred between 80 and 100 years ago. Hoover Dam was completed in 1935 creating Lake Mead, which inundated the lower 80 kilometers of the Virgin River and the lower 8 kilometers of the Muddy River. Subsequent stocking of nonnative species (illicit or authorized) in Lake Mead to develop a sport fishery and their unrestricted access to the lower reaches of the Virgin and Muddy Rivers introduced a new threat. Additional water development projects on tributaries to the Virgin River (Santa Clara, Ash Creek, and Beaver Dam Wash) continued through the latter half of the 1900s. In more recent times, the Quail Lake project (completed in 1985) and Sand Hollow Reservoir (completed in 2002) have replaced older diversion structures in the upper river and further modified Virgin River hydrology (USFWS 2008).

Errors in detoxification during an attempt to eradicate red shiners via rotenone poisoning resulted in lethal concentrations of piscicide passing through an additional 50 kilometers of stream; chubs subsequently produced through natural recruitment in poisoned reaches exhibited deviations from the original pattern of genetic variation (DeMarais et al. 1993).

Decline of the Muddy River population may have been related to cumulative effects of parasitism; changes in flow, water quality, and substrate; channelization; and the establishment of non-native fish species (USFWS 1995).

Potential threats include further water removal, desalinization, urban growth, sedimentation, pollution, and channel alteration. The naturally limited range of this species makes it vulnerable to extensive losses from localized events. One concern with non-native fish control efforts is the use of fish barriers to isolate stream reaches and prevent upstream fish migration. While fish barriers prevent upstream nonnative fish movement, they also reduce genetic diversity by preventing Virgin River chub subpopulations in the upper and lower basins from exchanging genetic material. In response, the USFWS recommended periodic relocation of chub from the lower basin to the upper basin to maintain genetic fitness.
Ecology & Habitat

Description

A medium sized small scaled silvery minnow in the Cyprinidae family. Average total length is approximately 200 mm with a maximum total length of 450 mm, sexual mature individuals are tuberculated on top of their head and have a reddish orange coloring on their ventral side and the pectoral, pelvic and anal fins. The back and portions of the belly have small, and or deeply embedded scales that are difficult to see and may be absent in some individuals, hence the name seminuda (partially clothed).

Habitat

Some segregation of age classes of habitat type has been observed, however no preference among age classes has been detected with regards to substrate type (Golden and Holden 2005). Adult chub prefer deep water habitats of slow to moderate velocity, with boulders and other instream cover (Hardy et al. 1989, Fridell and Morvilius 2005, and Golden and Fridell, 2008). Populations appear to be stratified with adults utilizing deeper pools and juveniles found in deeper runs or even shallow pools. Adults have been found to opportunistically utilize runs for foraging. Virgin River Chub appear to be nocturnally active, this strategy is thought to provide greater opportunity for foraging and survival of young during low stream flow, high water temperatures, and high clarity conditions (UDWR 2019).

Ecology

The Virgin River Chub are long lived species, up to 10 years or more have been recorded. Growth is predicated on environmental conditions and spawning time. They reach sexual maturity in as little as 1-2 years, and as small as 95-110 mm. Due to their longevity and ability to endure many stochastic and environmental changes, Virgin River Chub have a higher tolerance and plasticity to a wider range of conditions strengthening their survival unlike many other native fishes in the Virgin River system.

Reproduction

The Virgin River Chub typically spawns late spring, however spawning events have been recorded during summer and as late as early fall, chub congregate in areas of high to medium velocity with fine gravels, typically downstream of riffles, runs and at times plunge pools. Upon hatching, chub fry drift downstream and tend to hold in areas such as slow moving eddys and slower backwater habitats (UDWR 2019) .
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
UtahS2Yes
ArizonaS1Yes
NevadaS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive - largeExtreme - moderateHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive - largeExtreme - moderateHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionUnknownSerious - moderateModerate - low
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsUnknownSerious - moderateModerate - low
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (1)
Utah (1)
AreaForestAcres
CottonwoodDixie National Forest6,754
References (36)
  1. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. <i>Gila seminuda</i>. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.
  2. Bestgen, K. R., and D. L. Propst. 1989. Distribution, status, and notes on the ecology of <i>Gila robusta</i> (Cyprinidae) in the Gila River drainage, New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 34:402-412.
  3. Clemmer, Glenn (Nevada Natural Heritage Program). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. 1997.
  4. Courtenay, W. R., Jr., J. R. Deacon, D. W. Sada. R. C. Allan and G. L. Vinyard. 1985. Comparative status of fishes along the course of the pluvial White River, Nevada. Southwestern Naturalist 30(4):503-524.
  5. Cross, J. N. 1978. Status and ecology of the Virgin River roundtail chub, <i>Gila robusta seminuda</i> (Osteichthyes: Cyprinidae). Southwestern Naturalist 23:519-28.
  6. DeMarais, B. D., T. E. Dowling, and W. L. Minckley. 1993. Post-perturbation genetic changes in populations of endangered Virgin River chubs. Conservation Biology 7(2):334-341.
  7. DeMarais, B. D., T. E. Dowling, M. E. Douglas, W. L. Minckley, and P. C. Marsh. 1992. Origin of <i>Gila seminuda</i> (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) through introgressive hybridization: implications for evolution and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:2747-2751.
  8. Douglas, M. E., W. L. Minckley, and H. M. Tyus. 1989. Qualitative characters, identification of Colorado River chubs (Cyprinidae: genus <i>Gila</i>) and the "art of seeing well." Copeia 1989:653-662.
  9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. Water quality inventory and management plan for southwestern Utah (area wide waste treatment management plan). Five County Association of Governments, St. George, Utah. Nov. 1977.
  10. Greger, P. D., and J. E. Deacon. 1988. Food partitioning among fishes of the Virgin River. Copeia 1988:314-323.
  11. Holden, Paul B. (Bio/West, Utah). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. April 1997.
  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. 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.
  14. Miller, W. H., H. M. Tyus, and C. A. Carlson. 1982. Fishes of the upper Colorado system: present and future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 131 pp.
  15. Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 293 pp.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Rinne, John N. (Rocky Mountain Research Station, USFS). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. May 1997.
  22. Rosenfeld, M. J., and J. A. Wilkinson. 1989. Biochemical genetics of the Colorado River <i>Gila</i> complex (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Southwestern Naturalist 34(2):232-244.
  23. Scoppettone, G. G., P. H. Rissler, M. B. Nielsen, and J. E. Harvey. 1998. Status of <i>Moapa coriacea</i> and <i>Gila seminuda </i>and status information on other fishes of the Muddy River, Clark County, Nevada. Southwestern Naturalist 43:115-122.
  24. Sigler, W. F., and J. W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin: a natural history. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada. xvi + 425 pp.
  25. Sigler, W. F., and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah State Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, Utah, 203 pp.
  26. Smith, G. R., R. R. Miller, and W. D. Sable. 1979. Species relationships among fishes of the genus <i>Gila</i> in the Upper Colorado River drainage. Pages 613-623 In R.M Linn, ed. Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, 9-12 November 1976, New Orleans, Louisiana. USDI National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 5.
  27. 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.
  28. Sublette, J. E., M. D Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 393 pp.
  29. Taylor, F. R., L. A. Gillman, and J. W. Pedretti. 1989. Impact of cattle on two isolated fish populations in Pahranagat Valley, Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 49:491-495.
  30. Tyus, H. M., and W. L. Minckley. 1988. Migrating Mormon crickets, <i>Anabrus simplex</i> (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae), as food for stream fishes. Great Basin Naturalist 48(1):25-30.
  31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Recovery plan for the Virgin River fishes. Salt Lake City, Utah. 45 pp.
  33. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. The Virgin River fishes. Woundfin (<i>Plagopterus argentissimus</i>).Virgin River chub (<i>Gila seminuda</i>). 5-year review: summary and evaluation. USFWS, Utah Field Office, West Valley City, Utah.
  34. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 24 August 1989. Determination of endangered status for the Virgin River chub. Federal Register 54(163): 35305-35311.
  35. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 24 November 1999. Notice of availability of the final environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for designation of critical habitat for the woundfin (P<i>lagopterus argentissimus</i>) and Virgin River chub <i>(Gila seminuda</i>) within the Virgin River basis [sic]. Federal Register 64(226):66192-66193.
  36. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 26 January 2000. Designation of critical habitat for the woundfin and Virgin River chub. Federal Register 65(17):4140-4156.