Gila orcuttii

(Eigenmann and Eigenmann, 1890)

Arroyo Chub

G1Critically Imperiled Found in 13 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G1Critically ImperiledGlobal Rank
VulnerableIUCN
Very highThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105585
Element CodeAFCJB13120
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNVulnerable
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusGila
Synonyms
Gila orcutti(Eigenmann and Eigenmann, 1890)
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
Hybridizes with G. bicolor mohavensis and with Lavinia symmetricus under stressed conditions (Lee et al. 1980). Placed with the closely related G. purpurea in the subgenus Temeculina.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2024-03-21
Change Date2024-03-21
Edition Date2024-03-21
Edition AuthorsHunting, K.
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
This species exhibits a relatively small range limited to the southern California coastal plain where its range and abundance have been significantly reduced by habitat degradation associated with urbanization and impacts from introduced non-native fish species (on-going threats). Durable conservation measures are in place that when fully implemented will support remaining populations and possibly lead to population stability in areas where it is now declining.
Range Extent Comments
The range extent of this species includes occupied coastal plain streams from southern San Luis Obispo County south through Los Angeles and Orange Counties and east to extreme western Riverside County, California, USA. Based on descriptions in Moyle et al (2015), Santos (2015), and analysis of recent observation data (GBIF 2024), this species range includes parts of 13 HUC 8 watersheds comprising about 29,000 km2. O’Brien and Barabe (2022) describe a native (excluding introduced populations) distribution of 7 watersheds extending over about 16,800 km2.
Occurrences Comments
There are currently 8 described populations of this species (O’Brien and Barade 2022, Benjamin et al 2016) within its California, USA, range. For purposes of this assessment, those populations are considered the occurrences.
Threat Impact Comments
The primary threat to this species is dams and passage barriers created through road construction, culverts, and other barriers which eliminate access to suitable upstream spawning areas. Historical and remaining habitat for this species are within the highly urbanized southern California Coastal Plain where pollutants from urban roads and housing have reduced water quality with likely detrimental lethal and sub-lethal impacts on this species. Competition and predation from non-native invasive species and loss of genetic diversity through hybridization with these non-native invasive species are identified threats. Several introduced species have been identified in occupied streams and watersheds occupied by this species (see Moyle et al 2015). The effects of climate change are likely to affect this species although the severity of these impacts is unknown. In a comprehensive review of climate vulnerability of at-risk freshwater fish, Moyle et al (2013) assessed 164 taxa against exposure and sensitivity criteria within four generally accepted and relevant climate scenarios. This species was classified as “less vulnerable”.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Habitat for this species includes headwaters, creeks, and small to medium rivers, and often intermittent streams (Page and Burr 2011), permanent, small to moderate-sized, moderate to high gradient streams with more than 50% of the habitat as runs and pools < 10 cm deep and reaches of permanent water more than 2 km long and often spawns in stream pools. In natural habitat this species prefers slow moving sections of streams with sand or mud substrate. This species is physiologically adapted to hypoxic conditions and wide temperature fluctuations (Castleberry and Cech 1986, Moyle et al 2015).

Reproduction

Spawns March-May (Moyle 1976, Lee et al. 1980), March-April according to Moyle et al. (1989). Lives 3-4 years.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areasPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (13)
California (13)
AreaForestAcres
Dry LakesLos Padres National Forest17,043
Hixon FlatSan Bernardino National Forest8,095
La BreaLos Padres National Forest14,031
Magic MountainAngeles National Forest15,542
MatilijaLos Padres National Forest5,218
NordhoffLos Padres National Forest12,031
Pleasant ViewAngeles National Forest26,395
Red MountainAngeles National Forest8,034
San Gabriel AddAngeles National Forest2,527
Santa CruzLos Padres National Forest21,182
Sespe - FrazierLos Padres National Forest106,910
TequepisLos Padres National Forest9,080
White LedgeLos Padres National Forest18,632
References (24)
  1. Benjamin, A., B. May, J.O. O’Brien, and A.J. Finger. 2016. Conservation Genetics of an Urban Desert Fish, the Arroyo Chub. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 145:277-286.
  2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. Covered Species by Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Sacramento, CA. 60 pp. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=108719&inline
  3. Castleberry, D. T., and J. J. Cech, Jr. 1986. Physiological responses of a native and an introduced desert fish to environmental stressors. Ecology 67:912-918.
  4. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2024. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2024).
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
  9. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. Moyle, P.B., R. M. Quiñones, J. V. Katz and J. Weaver. 2015. Arroyo Chub (<i>Gila orcuttii</i>) Account in Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=104270&inline
  13. 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.
  14. O’Brien, J.W., and R.M. Barabe. 2022. Status and Distribution of the Arroyo Chub within its Native Range. California Fish and Wildlife 108(1):93-107.
  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. Richards, C., and D. L. Soltz. 1986. Feeding of rainbow trout (<i>Salmo gairdneri</i>) and arroyo chubs (<i>Gila orcutti</i>) in a California mountain stream. Southwestern Naturalist 31:250-253.
  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. Santos, N. 2015. Species Range Layer for the Arroyo Chub. Univ. of Cal. Davis. GIS data depicting HUC 12 watersheds occupied by Arroyo Chub (expert opinion). California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biological Information and Observation System (BIOS), ds 1225. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?bookmark=326
  22. 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.
  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. Swift, C. C., T. R. Haglund, M. Ruiz, and R. N. Fisher. 1993. The status and distribution of the freshwater fishes of southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 92(3):101-167.