Meda fulgida

Girard, 1856

Spikedace

G2Imperiled Found in 57 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103103
Element CodeAFCJB22010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusMeda
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 MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2012-04-13
Change Date1999-12-23
Edition Date2012-04-13
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G., J. Griffin, and S. S. Vives
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 20
Rank Reasons
Small range in streams in Arizona and New Mexico; occupies only 10 percent of historical range; declining; threatened by effects nonnative aquatic species and alteration or diminishment of stream flows.
Range Extent Comments
Range includes the upper Gila River basin, Arizona and New Mexico (Page and Burr 2011). Historically, this species was common throughout much of the Verde, Agua Fria, Salt, San Pedro, San Francisco, and Gila (upstream from Phoenix) river systems (USFWS 2012); to elevations of 1800-1900 meters. Range and abundance are now much reduced. Spikedace are now restricted to portions of the upper Gila River (Grant, Catron, and Hidalgo counties, New Mexico); Aravaipa Creek (Graham and Pinal counties, Arizona); Eagle Creek (Graham and Greenlee
counties, Arizona); and the Verde River (Yavapai County, Arizona) (see USFWS 2012).

The species is now common only in Aravaipa Creek in Arizona and one section of the Gila River south of Cliff, New Mexico. The Verde River is presumed occupied; however, the last captured fish from this river was from a 1999 survey. Spikedace from the Eagle Creek population have not been seen for over a decade, although they are still thought to exist in numbers too low for the sampling efforts to detect. The Middle Fork Gila River population is thought to be very small and has not been seen since 1991, but sampling is localized and inadequate to detect a sparse population. Source: USFWS (2012, which see for original source citations).

In 2007, spikedace were translocated into Hot Springs and Redfield canyons, in Cochise County, Arizona, and these streams were subsequently augmented. Both Hot Springs and Redfield canyons are tributaries to the San Pedro River. Spikedace were also translocated into Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde River in Gila County, Arizona, in 2007, and were subsequently augmented in 2008 and 2011. In 2008, spikedace were translocated into Bonita Creek, a tributary to the Gila River in Graham County, Arizona, and were repatriated to the upper San Francisco River in Catron County, New Mexico. Augmentations with additional fish will occur for the next several years at all sites, if adequate numbers of fish are available. Monitoring at each of these sites is ongoing to determine if populations ultimately become self-sustaining. Source: USFWS (2012, which see for original source citations).

Extent of occurrence appears to be roughly 50,000 square kilometers, based on USFWS (2012:10922).
Occurrences Comments
USFWS (2012) designated critical habitat in 8 units, some of which comprised separate stream segments. These could be interpreted as representing not more than 10 locations (with respect to threats, as defined by IUCN). However, the number of occurrences or locations currently with at least good viability probably does not exceed 5.
Threat Impact Comments
The two primary threats are competition with and predation by nonnative aquatic species and alteration or diminishment of stream flows. These threats are persistent, and research indicates that the combination of the two is leading to spikedace declines . The ongoing drought and climate conditions aggravate the loss of water in some areas, and future water development projects have been identified. The opportunities for range expansion is limited by dams, reservoirs, dewatering, and nonnative species distribution. Source: USFWS (2012).

Range and abundance have been severely reduced by habitat destruction and alteration (dam construction, stream channelization, water diversion, groundwater pumping, excessive sedimentation, destruction and alteration of riparian vegetation), and probably competition with exotic fishes (red shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis) (Douglas et al. 1994; USFWS, Federal Register, 8 March 1994; USFWS 1999). Introduced predatory fishes (e.g., channel catfish, flathead catfish, green sunfish, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass) also pose a threat (Miller 1961, Minckley and Deacon 1968, FWS 1985).

Watershed changes and the introduction and establishment of non-native fishes occurred concurrently in the Gila River drainage, making it difficult to determine the relative importance of factors involved in the decline. However, the inverse relationship between numbers of red shiner and spikedace, first identified as a potential problem in 1953 (Hubbs 1954), suggests that the red shiner may be a causal factor in the temporal and spatial declines of the spikedace (Minckley 1973, 1985; Propst et al. 1986). In one case, in the San Francisco River, spikedace were rare before red shiner became common and water diversion and low flows have been implicated in spikedace declines (Anderson 1978, Bestgen and Propst 1987). Anderson (1978) noted an inverse relationship between numbers of spikedace and predatory ictalurid species, which he hypothesized were important in the reduction of spikedace. Marsh et al. (1989) provided direct evidence that red shiners displace spikedace both in natural situations and laboratory experiments. Spikedace were displaced to areas of slower current velocities in an artificial stream with red shiners versus when red shiners were absent. In field collections, spikedace were displaced to higher current velocities in the presence of red shiners versus when red shiners were absent. Marsh et al. (1989) attributed this seeming contradiction to differences in available velocities in the laboratory versus field situation.

The importance in retaining a natural flow regime in southwestern streams has been emphasized by Propst et al. (1986), Meffe and Minckley (1987), and Minckley and Meffe (1987). Native fishes usually survive flooding, whereas non-native fishes generally do not. Propst et al. (1986) suggested that natural flooding was also important in maintaining suitable substrate for spikedace, but there is no direct evidence to support this hypothesis. Propst et al. (1986) suggested that erosion and siltation, which result in filling of interstitial spaces of gravel riffles occupied by spikedace, may interfere with successful egg deposition and incubation and thus recruitment.
Ecology & Habitat

Description

The following description is from Girard (1857), Miller and Hubbs (1960) and Minckley (1973). Adult spikedace are typically less than 70 mm in total length (TL), slim, and slightly compressed laterally. Scales are present only as small plates deeply embedded in the skin. The dorsal fin has a short base with usually seven rays, the first two being spinose, the anterior one being grooved to receive the second. The first spinous ray of the dorsal fin is stronger than the second, almost as long, and sharply pointed. Anal fins usually have 9 rays. Medial edges of the pelvic fins are adnate to the belly. The eyes and mouth are both relatively large and barbels are absent. Pharyngeal teeth are typically 1,4-4,1. The sides are silvery with vertically elongated black specks. The dorsum is olive-gray to brownish, usually mottled with darker pigmentation while the belly is white.

Breeding males have a golden or brassy sheen, especially on the head and at bases of fins. Gilbert and Scofield (1898) and Miller and Hubbs (1960) noted the presence of rose or reddish colors. Even in the nonbreeding season the sides have been described as appearing "...like burnished silver..." (Miller and Hubbs 1960). Both sexes have breeding tubercles, but they are better developed, and therefore more visible, in males. Abarca (1990) suggested the following method for distinguishing between sexes: for males the eye diameter is greater than the distance between the distal end of the pectoral fin (when folded back parallel with the long axis of the body) and the origin of the pelvic fins; for females the eye diameter is equal to or less than the distance between the distal end of the pectoral fin and origin of the pelvic fins.

Larvae have a nearly vertical mouth that makes them relatively easy to distinguish from other cyprinid larvae of the lower Colorado River Basin (Winn and Miller 1954).

The spikedace is a member of the tribe Plagopterini (Miller and Hubbs 1960). Other species of this tribe in Arizona are the woundfin (PLAGOPTERUS ARGENTISSIMUS), Little Colorado River spinedace (LEPIDOMEDA VITTATA), and Virgin River spinedace (LEPIDOMEDA MOLLISPINIS MOLLISPINIS). These fishes, plus the introduced carp (CYPRINUS CARPIO) and goldfish (CARASSIUS AURATUS), are the only cyprinid fishes in Arizona and New Mexico with fin rays modified as spines.

Diagnostic Characteristics

Characters that easily distinguish the spikedace from other Plagopterini in Arizona and New Mexico are the following: woundfin has a single barbel at each side of the upperjaw and an anal fin with 10 rather than 9 soft rays; Little Colorado River and Virgin River spinedace have visible scalation and the first spinose ray of the dorsal fin is weaker and obviously shorter than the second; carp and goldfish have long dorsal fins with more than 11 soft rays.

Habitat

Habitat includes permanent, flowing, unpolluted water of low gradient streams having pool, riffle, run, and backwater areas; sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness; abundant aquatic insects; natural hydrologic conditions, including recurrent flooding; few or no predatory or competitive non-native species present; a healthy riparian community; and moderate to high bank stability (USFWS, Federal Register, 8 March 1994; USFWS 1999). In larger rivers, spikedace often are found in the vicinity of tributary mouths. Adults favor slow to swift velocities (0-100 cm/sec) in shallow water (3-38 cm) with shear zones where rapid flow borders slower flow, areas of sheet flow at the upper ends of mid-channel sand/gravel bars, and eddies at downstream riffle edges. Juveniles favor slow to moderate flow (0-60 cm/sec) in shallow water (3-70 cm) with moderate amounts of instream cover; shallow stream margins and backwater areas, over silt, sand, or gravel bottoms, adjacent to pools. Periodic spates that scour and clean sands and gravels are essential to feeding and reproduction (Sublette et al. 1990). See Barber and Minckley (1966), Anderson (1978), Propst and Bestgen (1986), Propst et al. (1986), and Sublette et al. (1990) for further details. This species may partition habitat with red shiner in areas where the two species co-occur (Rinne 1991).

Spawning occurs over shallow (less than 15 cm deep), sand-gravel-bottomed riffles where water flow is moderate (Minckley 1973, Sublette et al. 1990). Eggs develop in sand or gravel at spawning site (Sublette et al. 1990). Stability of the substrate is likely important during times of egg deposition and hatching (Minckley 1981). Larvae occur in areas of slow to moderate flow (0-30 cm/sec) in shallow water (3-30 cm) with abundant instream cover.

Habitat utilization in the Cliff-Valley reach of the Gila River was studied by Propst et al. (1986). Juveniles (26-35 mm TL) were found to occupy an average depth of 16.1 cm and average current speed of 16.8 cm/s. Adults (>36 mm TL) in the same reach occupied an average depth of 19.3 cm and current of 49.1 cm/s. Spikedace occupied swifter waters in the warmer months of June to November than in the cooler months of December to May. Although habitat availability was not recorded, Propst et al. (1986) believed this to be a real shift. Sixty-percent of larval spikedace were captured over sand-dominated substrate, 18% over gravel, and 18% over cobble substrates. Juveniles were found over gravel substrates (46%), sand-dominated substrates (45%), and cobble substrates (9%). Adults were captured over gravel substrates (47%), cobble substrates (32%), and sand-dominated substrates (19%).

Rinne and Kroeger (1988) observed spikedace in Aravaipa Creek at an average depth of 20 cm and current speed of 35 cm/s over gravel and pebble substrates (3-64 mm diameter). Schools of 10 of more fish were found in deeper and slower water than solitary fish. Seasonal differences were documented in use of depths but not currents. Spikedace collected in December, February, and August occupied shallower depths than those collected in April, May, and September. Rinne and Kroeger stated these differences showed no discernible pattern and were probably related to availability.

Ecology

The spikedace is associated with a native fish fauna that includes roundtail chub (Gila robusta), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis), and desert sucker (Catostomus clarkii). Historically, it was also associated with the woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus), bonytail (Gila elegans), squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), all now extirpated from the Gila River basin.

Due to difficulties in tagging small fishes, movement patterns of spikedace adults are unquantified.

Minckley (1981) showed that populations of spikedace in Aravaipa Creek increased following years of relatively high flow.

Reproduction

Males evidently are not territorial but remain evenly spaced throughout a patrolled area. Females generally enter the area from downstream and are chased by males. The chase terminates when the female either strikes the bottom, or halts, in a group of males. Eggs are presumed to be spawned at this time (Barber et al. 1970, Minckley 1973).

Breeding color and tubercles may appear as early as December and last until August (Minckley 1981). Breeding may be triggered by a combination of temperature and stream discharge (Propst et al. 1986), as also documented for Rhinichthys osculus (John 1963). Gonads generally increase in size in February. Spawning first occurs in March when water temperatures reach approximately 19 C and proceeds until June (Minckley 1973, Anderson 1978), but mature ovaries have been noted in September (Minckley 1981). Propst et al. (1986) identified April as the peak breeding period and stated that spawning was completed by mid-May. Older females spawn earlier than younger females (Anderson 1978).

Number of eggs per female ranges from 80 to 300 or more depending on female size. Anderson (1978) examined a sample of 29 females from the Gila River, 10 km south of Cliff, New Mexico; these ranged in size from 38 to 70 mm TL, with 88 to 246 mature ova per female. Anderson (1978) computed the relationship between female body size and fecundity as follows: number of ova = -152.85 + 5.61 TL (r = 0.844). Ovum diameter at spawning is near 1.5 mm. Age II females spawn at least twice per season, but most reproductive effort is by age I females (Barber et al. 1970, Anderson 1978, Sublette et al. 1990).

Young first appear in April and May and reach 41 to 47 mm TL by November. Standard length (tip of snout to end of hypural plate) is related to total length by the following equation: SL = 0.85 TL - 0.12, r X r = 0.99, n = 100 (Marsh 1988). Total length averages 47 mm TL at the end of the first year, and 59 to 74 mm at the end of the second year. Sexual maturity occurs at about 40 mm in both sexes (Barber et al. 1970), and most become sexually mature in their second summer of life. Longevity typically is one to two years. Few live through their fourth summer and the largest individuals rarely exceed 70 mm (TL?) (Minckley 1973). Anderson (1978) reported an 81 mm TL female. Growth continues in the winter in Aravaipa Creek (Barber et al. 1970) but not in the cooler Gila River in New Mexico (Anderson 1978).
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
New MexicoS1Yes
ArizonaS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureUnknownSerious - slightHigh (continuing)
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranchingRestricted - smallSerious - slightHigh (continuing)
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 - moderateHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsUnknownSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Serious - slightHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive (71-100%)Serious - slightHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (57)
Arizona (37)
AreaForestAcres
Arnold MesaPrescott National Forest12,286
Arnold MesaTonto National Forest249
Ash CreekPrescott National Forest7,663
Black CanyonPrescott National Forest10,683
BoulderTonto National Forest40,359
Boulder CanyonCoconino National Forest4,554
Butterfly Roadless AreaCoronado National Forest42,296
Campbell BlueApache-Sitgreaves National Forests7,003
CenterfireApache-Sitgreaves National Forests13,130
Cimarron HillsCoconino National Forest5,303
FritschePrescott National Forest14,190
GaliuroCoronado National Forest28,333
GaliuroCoronado National Forest28,333
Grief HillPrescott National Forest12,535
HackberryCoconino National Forest17,885
HackberryPrescott National Forest914
Happy ValleyCoronado National Forest7,972
Hell HoleApache-Sitgreaves National Forests15,512
HellsgateTonto National Forest6,171
Hot AirApache-Sitgreaves National Forests31,712
Lower San FranciscoApache-Sitgreaves National Forests59,310
Lower San FranciscoApache-Sitgreaves National Forests59,310
MazatzalTonto National Forest16,942
Mitchell PeakApache-Sitgreaves National Forests35,398
MuldoonPrescott National Forest5,821
NolanApache-Sitgreaves National Forests6,780
Oracle RoadlessCoronado National Forest22,365
Painted BluffsApache-Sitgreaves National Forests43,118
PipestemApache-Sitgreaves National Forests34,598
SalomeTonto National Forest2,932
Salt HouseApache-Sitgreaves National Forests21,848
Santa TeresaCoronado National Forest8,929
Santa TeresaCoronado National Forest8,929
SunsetApache-Sitgreaves National Forests28,948
Upper Rincon RoadlessCoronado National Forest2,991
Walker MountainCoconino National Forest6,382
WinchesterCoronado National Forest13,459
New Mexico (20)
AreaForestAcres
Apache MountainGila National Forest17,506
Aspen MountainGila National Forest23,784
Canyon CreekGila National Forest9,824
Contiguous To Black & Aldo Leopold WildernessGila National Forest111,883
Contiguous To Blue Range WildernessGila National Forest1,980
Contiguous To Gila Wilderness & Primitive AreaGila National Forest79,049
Devils CreekGila National Forest89,916
Dry CreekGila National Forest26,719
Eagle PeakGila National Forest34,016
Elk MountainGila National Forest6,550
Frisco BoxGila National Forest38,979
Gila BoxGila National Forest23,759
Hell HoleGila National Forest19,553
Lower San FranciscoGila National Forest26,460
Meadow CreekGila National Forest34,167
Mother HubbardGila National Forest5,895
NolanGila National Forest13,051
T BarGila National Forest6,823
Taylor CreekGila National Forest16,639
Wagon TongueGila National Forest11,411
References (63)
  1. Abarca, F.J. 1989. Potential food habit overlap between spikedace (<i>Meda fulgida</i>) and red shiner (<i>Cyprinella lutrensis</i>). Arizona State University, Tempe. M.S. thesis.
  2. Abarca, F. J. 1990. Graduate student. Arizona State University. Conversation with S. P. Vives. March 28, 1990.
  3. Anderson, R.M. 1978. The distribution and aspects of the life history of <i>Meda fulgida</i> in New Mexico. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. M.S. thesis. 62 pp.
  4. Arizona Game and Fish Commission. 1988. Threatened native wildlife in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Publication, Phoenix, Arizona. 32 pp.
  5. Baltz, D. M., and P. B. Moyle. 1984. The influence of riparian vegetation on steam fish communities of California. Pp. 183-187 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian systems. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  6. Barber, W. E., and W. L. Minckley. 1966. Fishes of Aravaipa Creek, Graham and Pinal Counties, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 11:313-24.
  7. Barber, W.E., and W.L. Minckley. 1983. Feeding ecology of a southwestern cyprinid fish, the spikedace, <i>Meda fulgida</i> Girard. Southwestern Naturalist 28:33-40.
  8. Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila spikedace, <i>Meda fulgida</i>, in Arizona. Copeia 1970:9-18.
  9. Bestgen, K. R. 1985. Results of identification of collections of larval fish made in the upper Salt and Gila Rivers, AZ. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 10, 1985.
  10. Bestgen, K. R., and D. L. Propst. 1987. Red shiner vs. native fishes: replacement or displacement? Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 18:209.
  11. Bestgen, K. R., D. L. Propst, and C. W. Painter. 1987. Transport Ecology of larval fishes in the Gila River, New Mexico. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 16-18:174.
  12. Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Fisheries habitat management on public land. Washington, D.C.
  13. Douglas, M. E., P. C. Marsh, and W. L. Minckley. 1994. Indigenous fishes of western North America and the hypothesis of competitive displacement: <i>Meda fulgida</i> (Cyprinidae) as a case study. Copeia 1994:9-19.
  14. Gilbert, C. H., and N. B. Scofield. 1898. Notes on a collection of fishes from the Colorado Basin in Arizona. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 20:487-499.
  15. Girard, C. 1857. Researches upon the cyprinoid fishes inhabiting the fresh waters of the United States of America, west of the Mississippi Valley, from specimens in the museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 8:165-213.
  16. Hardy, T. B., B. Bartz, and W. Carter. 1990. Instream flow recommendations for the fishes of Aravaipa Creek, Arizona. Submitted to the Nature Conservancy. Twelve-Nine, Inc., Logan, Utah.
  17. Hecht, B. 1984. Sequential changes in bed habitat condidtions in the upper Carmel River following the Marble-Cone fire of August, 1977. Pp. 134-141 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian systems. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  18. Hendrickson, D. A. 1990. Non-game Research Biologist. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.
  19. Hubbs, C. L. 1954. Establishment of a forage fish, the red shiner (<i>Notropis lutrensis</i>), in the lower Colorado River system. California Fish and Game 40:287-94.
  20. 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.
  21. John, K. R. 1963. The effect of torrential rains on the reproductive cycle of <i>Rhinichthys osculus</i> in the Chiricahua Mountians, Arizona. Copeia 1963:286-291.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Marsh, P. C. 1988. Spikedace (<i>Meda fulgida</i>) recovery plan draft. Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, prepared for Region II, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 55 pp.
  25. Marsh, P. C. Associate Research Professor. Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
  26. Marsh, P. C., F. J. Abarca, M. E. Douglas, and W. L. Minckley. 1989. Spikedace (<i>Meda fulgida</i>) and loach minnow (<i>Tiaroga cobitis</i>) relative to introduced red shiner (<i>Cyprinella lutrensis</i>). Final report to Arizona Game and Fish Dept., Phoenix, AZ.
  27. 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.
  28. Meffe, G. K., and W. L. Minckley. 1987. Persistence and stability of fish and invertebrate assemblages in a repeatedly disturbed Sonoran desert stream. American Midland Naturalist 117:177-191.
  29. Miller, R. R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 46:365-404.
  30. Miller, R. R., and C. L. Hubbs. 1960. The spiny-rayed cyprinid fishes (Plagopterini) of the Colorado River system. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications 115:1-39.
  31. Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 293 pp.
  32. Minckley, W. L. 1981. Ecological studies of Aravaipa Creek, central Arizona, relative to past, present, and future uses. Final Report. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona. Contract Number YA-512-CT6-98. 362 pp.
  33. Minckley, W. L. 1985. Native fishes and natural aquatic habitats in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region II west of the Continental Divide. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 158 pp.
  34. Minckley, W. L. 1991. Professor of Zoology. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
  35. Minckley, W. L., and G. K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by flooding in stream-fish communities of the arid American southwest. Pp. 93-104 in W.J. Matthews and D.C. Heins (eds.). Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 310 pp.
  36. Minckley, W. L., and J. E. Deacon. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of "endangered species." Science 159:1424-32.
  37. 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.
  38. New Mexico State Game Commission. 1985. Regulation Number 624, as amended 28 March 1985. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. Propst, D. 1986. Distribution, status and biology of the spikedace in the Gila River Basin, New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.
  44. Propst, David. L. 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Endangered Species Biologist. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Sante Fe, NM.
  45. Propst, D. L., and K. R. Bestgen. 1986. Microhabitat utilization patterns of spikedace in New Mexico. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 18(1986):242-243.
  46. Propst, D. L., K. R. Bestgen, and C. W. Painter. 1986. Distribution, status, and biology of the spikedace (<i>Meda fulgida</i>) in New Mexico. Endangered Species Report, No. 15, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 93 pp.
  47. Rinne, J. N. 1991. Habitat use by spikedace, <i>Meda fulgida</i> (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in southwestern streams with reference to probable habitat competition by red shiner, <i>Notropis lutrensis</i> (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Southwestern Naturalist 36:7-13.
  48. Rinne, J. N., and E. Kroeger. 1988. Physical habitat use by spikedace, <i>Meda fulgida</i> in Aravaipa Creek, Arizona. Proceedings of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 68:282-290.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. Rucks, M. G. 1984. Composition and trend of riparian vegetation on five perennial streams in southeastern Arizona. Pp. 97-107 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.). California riparian systems. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  52. Schreiber, D. C., and W. L. Minckley. 1981. Feeding interrelationships of native fishes in a Sonoran Desert stream. Great Basin Naturalist 41:409-426.
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. Sublette, J. E., M. D Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 393 pp.
  56. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 10 December 1999. Proposed designation of critical habitat for the spikedace and the loach minnow. Federal Register 64(237):69323-69355.
  57. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposal to determine the spikedace to be a threatened species and to determine its critical habitat. Federal Register 50(117):25390-25398.
  58. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Determination of threatened status for the spikedace. Federal Register 51(126):23769-80.
  59. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Determination of threatened status for the spikedace. Federal Register 51:23769-23781.
  60. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  61. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status and designation of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow, proposed rule. Federal Register 75(208):66482-66552.
  62. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Endangered status and designations of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow. Federal Register 77(36):10810-10932.
  63. Winn, H. E., and R. R. Miller. 1954. Native postlarval fishes of the lower Colorado River basin, with a key to their identification. California Fish and Game 40:273-85. 4 plates.