Plagopterus argentissimus

Cope, 1874

Woundfin

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 8 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
Critically endangeredIUCN
Very highThreat Impact
Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus). 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.2.102603
Element CodeAFCJB33010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusPlagopterus
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.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2022-07-07
Change Date1996-09-25
Edition Date2022-07-07
Edition AuthorsMiskow, E. NDNH (2022)
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 5
Rank Reasons
Formerly more widespread in the Colorado and Gila River systems in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, now essentially restricted to the Virgin River system; dams and water diversions have destroyed, fragmented, and degraded most of the historical habitat; declines are also associated with increases in non-native red shiner; threatened by ongoing drought and water development associated with ongoing human population growth.
Range Extent Comments
The historical range of the Woundfin included the Colorado and Gila River basins in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (USA), including at least the Colorado River from Yuma upstream into the Virgin River in Arizona, Nevada and Utah, and the Gila River from Yuma to the confluence of the Salt River. No barriers or habitat considerations would have limited the species to this specific area, so it is likely that the historical range extended farther upstream in the Verde, Salt, and Gila rivers in Arizona (USFWS 2000). In 1972, Woundfin were transplanted into four locations in the Gila River system, but populations were not established (USFWS 2008). In 1985, streams in the Gila River drainage were identified as reintroduction sites, and the Gila River drainage was designated as a nonessential experimental population. Additionally, in 1970, 200 Woundfin were stocked into the Paria River in Arizona in an attempt to establish a population (Minckley 1973).

Currently, Woundfin are found sporadically throughout the Arizona portion of the Virgin River mainstem (Mohave County). Experimental-nonessential designation in portions of the Verde, Gila, San Francisco, and Hassayampa rivers and Tonto Creek. No self-sustaining populations have been documented from releases in these localities. In Nevada, Woundfin are currently rare in river reaches downstream of Littlefield, Arizona and into the Nevada portion of the Virgin River. The current range of the Woundfin is restricted to a small segment of the Virgin River from the Arizona/Nevada border approximately 15 kilometers downstream near Riverside. A single specimen was collected from the Muddy River when the Muddy River was a tributary to the Virgin River in the 1960’s (Deacon and Bradley 1972). Historically, a single account of a Woundfin, used as bait, on the Colorado River was recorded in June of 1952 (Miller 1952).

This fish is functionally extirpated under current conditions in both the Arizona and Nevada sections of the Virgin River, and only rare occurrences are typically only found in Arizona and Nevada reaches after high flow events in the monsoon season or after stocking events in the upper Virgin River. Currently the only viable self-sustaining population of Woundfin occurs in Utah in a 26.2 km reach in the upper Virgin River between La Verkin Springs and the Washington Fields Diversion. The periodic and occasional distribution of Woundfin in the lower reaches of the Virgin River are from exceptional reproduction and recruitment years in the upper Virgin River (UDWR 2019).
Occurrences Comments
This species is effectively represented by single reproducing population that occurs in a 26.2 km section of the Virgin River between La Verkin Springs and the Washington Fields Diversion in Utah.
Threat Impact Comments
The Woundfin inhabits one of the fastest-growing parts of Utah, and associated extensive water development are an ongoing threat (Minckley and Deacon 1991). Most habitat destruction that threatened this species occurred between 90 and 110 years ago. Historical habitat has been lost due to human impacts including habitat fragmentation, introduction of nonnative species and de-watering due to agriculture, mining and urbanization. Water conveyance systems (diversions and canals) have contributed to the disappearance of the Woundfin throughout most of its historical range and continue to impact it in the Virgin River today.

Changes to flow patterns caused by dams and diversions have facilitated movement of Red Shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis, upstream in the Virgin River (USFWS 1994). The non-native Red Shiner largely has replaced the Woundfin and has introduced the Asian tapeworm, which now parasitize many of the remaining Woundfin (Heckmann et al 1986). Maintenance of a 26-kilometer Red-Shiner-free zone above the Washington Fields Diversion (WFD) in Utah has benefited the Woundfin, providing habitat to allow successful recruitment and persistence. However, the presence of Red Shiner below the WFD continues to be the primary threat today as it was in the late 1980s when red shiners became established in the upper river (USFWS 2008).

Primary threats to Woundfin are competition and predation from nonnative species (primarily Red Shiner) in the lower basin and degraded habitat conditions (reduced flow / high temperatures) throughout the range (USFWS 2008). Currently causes for declines in Woundfin numbers are attributed to the following suite of environmental conditions: continued drought with summer temperatures exceeding behavioral thermal maximum and critical thermal maximum; altered streamflow regimes, diversions, decreased turbidity, water management events, and a decline in optimum spawning and rearing habitat (USFWS 2008 and Huizinga and Fridell 2012).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

Woundfin are a small minnow often less than 8 cm, have two large spines in dorsal fin and bright silver sides. They have no scales, and their long snout has barbels located at the corner of the mouth. They can be distinguished from other similar taxa by the presence of barbels. Woundfin have wide, flat head and lacks the scales, males during breeding season can take on a "pinkish" coloration.

Diagnostic Characteristics

Streamlined silvery minnow with a sharp head and sharp dorsal spine, from which its common name was derived (Plagopterus "wound fin" argentissimus "most silvery" (Miller and Hubbs 1960). Rarely exceeds standard length of 75 mm. Flattened head and belly, streamlined torpedo shape, Woundfin has two large spines in dorsal fin and bright silver sides. They have no scales, and their long snout has barbels located at the corner of the mouth. They can be distinguished from Spikedace and Spinedace by the presence of barbels. Woundfin has wider, flatter head than Spikedace and lacks the scales seen in Spinedace. Dorsal fin-rays 8 or 9. Anal fin-rays usually 10. Pharyngeal teeth typically 1, 5-4, 1.... Coloration silvery over-all; sometimes with watery-yellow at bases of pectoral fins, and developing ventro-lateral, pinkish coloration in exceedingly “high,” reproductive males.” (AZ Fish & Game Dept.).

Habitat

Adult Woundfin are typically found within shallow to deep sandy runs, but use less optimal habitat as necessary. As a result of drift, young Woundfin (including larval, fry, and juvenile) use low velocity areas that provide cover and are highly productive (e.g., small inflows and shallow slackwater margins). As Woundfin grow they use higher velocity habitats. Woundfin also shift habitat use during high clarity or high temperature conditions, moving from preferred habitat to refuge areas with cover. For example, when water clarity is high, Woundfin have been observed congregating in deeper run or pool habitats. This shift in habitat use during stressful periods can limit the survival of all age classes by reducing their ability to forage (and consequently their fitness) and increasing risk of predation (Fridell 2016). The water temperatures preferred by Woundfin range from 11 – 24°C (51.8 – 75.2°F) (Schumann 1978). Deacon et al. (1987) found that Virgin River fishes lost equilibrium when exposed to temperatures of 31°C (87.8°F). Woundfin distribution is also influenced by streamflow regimes with include high and low flow episodic events creating changes in habitat and substrate. In years with limited sand substrate, Woundfin move in search of this substrate type (UDWR 2019).

Ecology

The life span of Woundfin in the Virgin River can be more than 3 years, historically the population has been dominated by young of the year and one year old fish with two year plus fish occasionally found. Since 1990, the age structure of Woundfin has shifted toward younger fish and older age classes made up less than 5% of the total population. Recent survey work (2012 to current) by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources found only an extremely small percentage of Woundfin lived beyond one plus years (UDWR 2019). Currently, the bulk of the wild Woundfin population consists of fish one year or less in age. However, under hatchery conditions, Woundfin regularly live to 4+ years as would be expected in hatchery/laboratory conditions with less stressors on this species.

Reproduction

Reproductive cycle probably is triggered by increasing temperature and declining spring runoff in late May often with the descending curve of the hydrograph (Matthews and Moseley 1990). In captivity, most spawn the second spring after hatching; most survive two reproductive seasons (Minckley and Deacon 1991). Woundfin are broadcast spawners and location is driven primarily by substrate composition rather than type of depth. No parental care is provided. Woundfin exhibit tight schooling behavior, particularly of females by males, is typical spawning behavior (Webb et al. 2015 and UDWR 2019). Fry generally appear by June, but continue to be produced throughout summer. It appears that generation time is predominately limited to 1 year, and individuals must achieve sufficient growth or more than 66 mm (2.6 in) total length prior to the spring spawning to contribute to the next generation (Fridell and Morvilius 2005). They have been successfully spawned in hatchery settings, and stocked fish have been shown to contribute to wild spawning events (USFWS 2008).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN1
ProvinceRankNative
ArizonaS1Yes
UtahS1Yes
NevadaS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2.3 - Abstraction of surface water (agricultural use)Pervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive - largeSerious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive - largeSerious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive (71-100%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (8)
Arizona (7)
AreaForestAcres
HackberryPrescott National Forest914
HackberryCoconino National Forest17,885
Lime CreekTonto National Forest42,568
Lower San FranciscoApache-Sitgreaves National Forests59,310
MazatzalTonto National Forest16,942
Mitchell PeakApache-Sitgreaves National Forests35,398
SunsetApache-Sitgreaves National Forests28,948
New Mexico (1)
AreaForestAcres
Lower San FranciscoGila National Forest26,460
References (30)
  1. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. <i>Plagopterus argentissimus</i>. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.
  2. Cross, J. N. 1978. Contributions to the biology of the woundfin, <i>Plagopterus argentissimus</i> (Pisces: Cyprinidae), an endangered species. Great Basin Naturalist 38:463-468.
  3. Deacon, J. E. 1988. The endangered woundfin and water management in the Virgin River, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Fisheries 13(1):18-24.
  4. Greger, P. D., and J. E. Deacon. 1988. Food partitioning among fishes of the Virgin River. Copeia 1988:314-323.
  5. Heckmann, R. A., J. E. Deacon, and P. D. Greger. 1986. Parasites of the woundfin minnow, <i>Plagopterus argentissimus</i>, and other endemic fishes from the Virgin River, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 46:662-676.
  6. Hendrickson, D. A., and J. E. Brooks. 1991. Transplanting short-lived fishes in North American deserts: review, assessment, and recommendations. Pages 283-98 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.
  7. Holden, Paul B. (Bio/West, Utah). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. April 1997.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Marsh, Paul C. (Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC.
  11. 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.
  12. Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 293 pp.
  13. Minckley, W. L., and J. E. Deacon. 1991. Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. xviii + 517 pp.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Sigler, W. F., and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah State Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, Utah, 203 pp.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Recovery plan for woundfin, <i>Plagopterus argentissimus</i>. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
  25. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Recovery plan for the Virgin River fishes. Salt Lake City, Utah. 45 pp.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. Woundfin Recovery Team. 1985. Recovery plan for woundfin (<i>Plagopterus argentissimus</i> Cope) (revision). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 81 pp.