Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Sacramento Perch

Archoplites interruptus

(Girard, 1854)

Sacramento Perch

G2Imperiled (G2G3) Found in 4 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
Very high - mediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104724
Element CodeAFCQB07010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCentrarchiformes
FamilyCentrarchidae
GenusArchoplites
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
The only living member of the genus; the most "primitive" living member of the Centrarchidae (Lee et al. 1980).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2011-10-20
Change Date2011-10-20
Edition Date2011-10-20
Edition AuthorsT. Hopkins, P. Moyle, and G. Hammerson
Threat ImpactVery high - medium
Range Extent1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 5
Rank Reasons
Formerly widely distributed and common in much of California; now restricted to just a couple remaining native populations in California, which are small but persistent; native habitat is dominated by introduced species, which threaten Sacramento perch through competition and predation; reasonably secure in several watersheds outside native range. Based on native populations, rank would be G1 (G2G3 if introduced populations are considered).
Range Extent Comments
The Sacramento perch is only native centrarchid west of the Rocky Mountains. It was originally widely distributed throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage, in the Pajaro and Salinas rivers, and in Clear Lake (Lake County), California (Moyle 2002). Persisting native populations exist in Clear Lake (small population) and Alameda Creek (in gravel pit ponds adjacent to the creek and in Calaveras Reservoir) (Moyle 2002). However, the species has been introduced in other locations within the native range (often upstream of native habitats) (Moyle 2002), and in several areas outside the native range in California, including the upper Klamath basin (California and Oregon), Pit River watershed, Walker River watershed, Mono Lake watershed, and Owens River watershed; it may also persist in Sonoma Reservoir (Moyle 2002).

The species has been introduced and currently is established in Nevada (several drainages) and Utah (Garrison Reservoir) (Moyle 2002). Introduced populations in several other states apparently no longer exist (Moyle 2002).
Occurrences Comments
This species is represented by only a couple remaining native populations, plus several introduced populations that may be reasonably secure (Moyle 2002). Most introduced pond and reservoir populations are not expected to persist over the long term because of changing conditions (Moyle 20020.
Threat Impact Comments
Formerly this fish was widespread and abundant in California, but the population declined rapidly probably due to factors such as habitat destruction, egg predation by non-native fishes, and interspecific competition with introduced centrarchids, especially black crappie; competition may be the most important cause of the decline (Moyle 1976, 2002). Most introduced populations are isolated and vulnerable to genetic bottlenecks and extirpation.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Native habitat included sloughs, sluggish rivers, and lakes with beds of rooted and emergent vegetation; now this fish is found mostly in warm, turbid, moderately alkaline reservoirs or farm ponds, generally where other centrarchids are absent (Moyle 2002). This fish is tolerant of a wide range in water turbity, temperature, salinity, and alkalinity, and large populations may occur in shallow, turbid reservoirs with no aquatic plants (Moyle 2002). In moderately clear water, young stay in or close to submerged vegetation in shallow areas (Moyle 2002). Prior to spawning, males establish small territories in shallow areas (20-75 cm) heavily vegetated with aquatic macrophytes, filamentous algae, or other cover (Moyle 2002). Eggs are deposited in shallow depressions constructed by males (Moyle 2002).

Reproduction

Sexually mature in 2nd or 3rd summer. In California, spawning occurs late March-early August, peak in May-June; timing of breeding depends on temeprature. Spawning begins in mid-June in Pyramid Lake, or when water temperature reaches 68 F. Eggs hatch in about 50 hours at 21.7 C. Male remains with eggs until hatching and for about 2 more days following hatching (Moyle et al. 1989).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
NevadaSNANo
NebraskaSNANo
ColoradoSNANo
UtahSNANo
CaliforniaS1Yes
ArizonaSNANo
OregonSNANo
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)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Extreme or 71-100% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

—

Roadless Areas (4)
California (4)
AreaForestAcres
Glass MountainInyo National Forest52,867
NessieInyo National Forest830
Rock Creek WestInyo National Forest3,626
Wheeler RidgeInyo National Forest15,744
References (19)
  1. 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.
  2. La Rivers, I. 1962. Fishes and Fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Fish and Game Commission, Carson City, Nevada. 782 pp.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 293 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, Peter B. (Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, UC-Davis). 2000. Review requested by Anthony E. Zammit, TNC. April 2000.
  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. Pisciotto, Joe (Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game). 1997. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Recovery plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta native fishes. USFWS, Portland, Oregon.