Pantosteus santaanae

Snyder, 1908

Santa Ana Sucker

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 4 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
HighThreat Impact
Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae). 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.2.103583
Element CodeAFCJC02190
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyCatostomidae
GenusPantosteus
Synonyms
Catostomus santaanae(Snyder, 1908)
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
Unmack et al. (2014) elevated the subgenus Pantosteus to generic status based on a comparison of molecular, morphological, and paleontological data. Page et al. (2023) accepted this elevation, but others (e.g., Bangs et al. 2018) retain as a subgenus pending additional morphological and molecular analyses.

Over the range as a whole, this species exhibits a large amount of variability in several characters; however, there is little differentiation among populations from the four river drainages (Smith 1966). May be hybridizing with the Owens sucker (Catostomus fumeiventris) in the Santa Clara River drainage, where fumeiventris was accidently introduced (Moyle 1976). See Smith (1992) for a study of the phylogeny and biogeography of the Catostomidae.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2022-02-22
Change Date2000-11-22
Edition Date2022-02-22
Edition AuthorsHunting, K. (2022)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
This species has a very limited range and consists of largely disjunct populations subject to on-going serious threats. Continued active habitat restoration provides hope of stabilizing populations as the beneficial effects begin to manifest in the short-term.
Range Extent Comments
This sucker is native to the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and (possibly) Santa Clara river systems of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, southern California, USA (Moyle 2002). Presently, native noncontiguous populations occur in the following locations (1) lower and middle Santa Ana River in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties (2) lower Big Tujunga Creek in the Los Angeles River drainage in Los Angeles County, and (3) East, West, and North forks of the San Gabriel River and San Dimas Wash in Los Angeles County (USFWS 1999, 2000, 2011). The population in the Santa Clara River drainage, Ventura and Los Angeles counties, may be introduced, but Moyle (2002) considered it possibly native; this population does not have federal status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1999, 2000, 2011). Using the method for calculating range in Master et al (2012) for fish species and other taxa that use linear habitats like stream and rivers, this species occupies 12, HUC 12 watersheds (Santos 2015), for a total area of 1,427.6 square kilometers.
Occurrences Comments
In the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana drainages, there are 9 historical occurrences, of which 6 are extant (USFWS 2011). One or more additional possibly introduced occurrences exist in the Santa Clara River drainage.
Threat Impact Comments
This species' range and abundance has been reduced substantially when compared to historical levels. Dams and diversions have eliminated virtually all natural flows, and current populations subsist in lined or highly modified channels with flows consisting almost entirely of treated waste water from urban sources. Water temperature and quality are impaired and continue to contribute to depressed populations. Impacts from invasive plant species continue to reduce overall habitat suitability. Climate change effects, especially drought, are expected to increase over time.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Habitat includes clear, cool rocky pools and runs of creeks and small to medium rivers (Page and Burr 2011). Usually this sucker is found shallow streams less than 7 meters wide, with high water quality and water temperatures less than 22 C, in unpolluted water; streams flood periodically and have high turbidity at times (Moyle 2002). Generally it is associated with coarse substrates of boulder, rubble, and gravel, but sometimes it occurs on sand/mud bottoms (Moyle 2002). Generally it does not inhabit reservoirs (Moyle 20020. Often this sucker is associated with algae but not with macrophytes (Moyle 2002). It prefers permanent streams with pools and riparian vegetation that provide cover and refuge from floods.

Ecology

Population sizes normally fluctuate drastically in conjunction with periodic, severe flooding; adapted for rapid population recovery following these events (Greenfield et al. 1970).

Reproduction

In the Santa Clara River, matures during 2nd summer, breeds from March or April through early July (peak late May-early June), dies at end of 3rd or 4th summer (Moyle 1976; Lee et al. 1980). Recent study indicates that the spawning season may be more protracted in the San Gabriel River, beginning as early as November (see USFWS 2000). Fecundity high; ranges from 4,423 eggs in a 78 mm SL female to 16,151 eggs in a 158 mm SL female (Moyle 1976).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
6 - Human intrusions & disturbanceRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6.1 - Recreational activitiesRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive - largeSerious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive - largeSerious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive - largeSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive - largeSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionPervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterPervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.2 - Industrial & military effluentsPervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsPervasive - largeModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (4)
California (4)
AreaForestAcres
Pleasant ViewAngeles National Forest26,395
Red MountainAngeles National Forest8,034
San DimasAngeles National Forest7,160
WestforkAngeles National Forest4,407
References (26)
  1. Bangs, M.R., M.R. Douglas, S.M. Mussmann, and M.E. Douglas. 2018. Unraveling historical introgression and resolving phylogenetic discord within Catostomus (Osteichthys: Catostomidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology 18(1): 86.
  2. Greenfield, D. W., S. T. Ross, and G. D. Deckert. 1970. Some aspects of the life history of the Santa Ana sucker, <i>Catostomus</i> (<i>Pantosteus</i>) <i>santaanae</i> (Snyder). California Fish and Game 56:166-179.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
  7. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.
  8. Moyle, P. B., J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of California. Final report submitted to California Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. 222 pp.
  9. Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California. Second edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iv + 272 pp.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Santos, N. 2015. Species Range Layer for the Santa Ana Sucker. Univ. of Cal. Davis. GIS data depicting HUC 12 watersheds occupied by Santa Ana sucker (expert opinion). California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biological Information and Observation System (BIOS), ds 1215. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?bookmark=326
  17. Smith, G. R. 1966. Distribution and evolution of the North American catostomid fishes of the subgenus <i>Pantosteus</i>, genus <i>Catostomus</i>. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publication 129:1-33.
  18. 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.
  19. Snyder, J.O. 1908. Description o<i>f Pantosteus santa-anae</i>, a new species of fish from the Santa Ana River, California. Proceedings of United States National Museum. 59: 23–28. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15708500.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Unmack, P.J., T.E. Dowling, N.J. Laitinen, C.L. Secor, R.L. Mayden, D.K. Shiozawa, and G.R. Smith. 2014. Influence of introgression and geological processes on phylogenetic relationships of western North American mountain suckers (<i>Pantosteus</i>, Catostomidae). PLoS One 9(3), p.e90061.
  23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 12 April 2000. Threatened status for the Santa Ana sucker. Federal Register 65(71):19686-19698.
  24. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Santa Ana sucker (<i>Catostomus santaanae</i>) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 74 pp.
  25. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Draft Recovery Plan for the Santa Ana sucker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. v + 61 pp. https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/TEspecies/Recovery/documents/Draft%20Recovery%20Plan%20for%20the%20Santa%20Ana%20Sucker.pdf
  26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 26 January 1999. Proposed threatened status for the Santa Ana sucker. Federal Register 64(16):3915-3823.