Noturus placidus
Taylor, 1969
Neosho Madtom
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
Near threatenedIUCN
HighThreat Impact
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103697
Element CodeAFCKA02200
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNNear threatened
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderSiluriformes
FamilyIctaluridae
GenusNoturus
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 Date2012-04-18
Change Date1996-09-19
Edition Date2012-04-18
Edition AuthorsBusby, W. H., and G. Hammerson
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent5000-200,000 square km (about 2000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 80
Rank Reasons
Numerous small, linear populations in a few rivers in eastern Kansas and (in small numbers) in southwestern Missouri and northeastern Oklahoma; threatened by water development/river alteration by humans.
Range Extent Comments
Range includes part of the Arkansas River drainage: Spring River in southwestern Missouri and southeastern Kansas; Cottonwood and Neosho rivers in eastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma; lower Illinois River in east-central Oklahoma (at least formerly) (Bryan et al. 2004, Wildhaber 2006, Page and Burr 2011). This madtom is now found primarily in the Neosho and Cottonwood rivers of Kansas; it persists at low densities in a short stretch of the Neosho (Grand) River in Oklahoma upstream from Lake o' the Cherokees and in the Spring River in extreme southwestern Missouri and southeastern Kansas (Wilkinson et al. 1996).
Occurrences Comments
Approximately 30 extant occurrences have been documented in three mega-populations in three states. Potential habitat has been well-inventoried.
Threat Impact Comments
Much of the historical habitat has been inundated or isolated by reservoirs and low-head dams; additional habitat has been degraded by in-stream gravel mining, feedlot operations, historical lead-zinc mining, sedimentation, and flow manipulation (Wildhaber 2008). Competition with other species was not likely limiting Neosho madtom populations (Wildhaber 2006).
Threatened by water development/river alteration (inundation by impoundments, release of cold water below dams, water withdrawals, and dredging for sand and gravel). Vulnerable to effects of drought and pollution (e.g., excessive nutrient influx, farm chemicals, heavy metals released by mining).
Threats include: reservoir construction; gravel dredging; dewatering for municipal and agricultural purposes; and deteriorating water quality due to zinc-lead mining, agricultural runoff, and increased urbanization and industrialization (Pflieger 1997).
Dam construction and sedimentation from clearing of land have led to declines in Neosho madtom numbers in Oklahoma and Kansas. Localized threats include construction of dams and impoundments, unrestricted sand and gravel removal, and habitat degradation due to agricultural runoff containing pesticide chemicals and waste from livestock. Source: Missouri Department of Conservation.
Jelks et al. (2008) categorized this species as Threatened due to present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range.
Threatened by water development/river alteration (inundation by impoundments, release of cold water below dams, water withdrawals, and dredging for sand and gravel). Vulnerable to effects of drought and pollution (e.g., excessive nutrient influx, farm chemicals, heavy metals released by mining).
Threats include: reservoir construction; gravel dredging; dewatering for municipal and agricultural purposes; and deteriorating water quality due to zinc-lead mining, agricultural runoff, and increased urbanization and industrialization (Pflieger 1997).
Dam construction and sedimentation from clearing of land have led to declines in Neosho madtom numbers in Oklahoma and Kansas. Localized threats include construction of dams and impoundments, unrestricted sand and gravel removal, and habitat degradation due to agricultural runoff containing pesticide chemicals and waste from livestock. Source: Missouri Department of Conservation.
Jelks et al. (2008) categorized this species as Threatened due to present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range.
Ecology & Habitat
Description
Small (total length 8.7 cm), mottled dark- and light-brown, with dark bars on the tail fin; dorsal and anal fins have dusky streaks but are not black-tipped; dark blotch on adipose fin does not extend to margin (Cross and Collins 1995).
Habitat
This madtom inhabits permanent flow of medium-sized to moderately large, medium-gradient streams, moderate to strong currents; usually in fairly clear water under rocks in riffles with small, loosely packed gravel-pebble; sometimes in pools adjacent to riffles or near tree trunks in slack water downstream from riffles; nonriffle occurrences may be most frequent during periods of low flow when riffles are not inundated (Wenke et al. 1992, Pflieger 1997). Breeding adults use substrates that are more loosely compacted than those used by nonbreeding adults; juveniles use shallower areas with slower flow and looser substrates than do adults (Bulger and Edds 2001). Loosely compacted gravel bars are important components of the habitat (Bulger and Edds 2001). Eggs are deposited in cavities under large objects in the substrate (Wildhaber 2008).
Ecology
Overall density generally is not more than 12 per 100 square meters (Wenke et al. 1992).
Reproduction
Spawning occurs May through July (Wildhaber 2008); usually during peak stream flow (Moss 1981, Cross and Collins 1995). One or both adults guard eggs. Three age classes have been reported, but Bulger and Edds (2001) found only two age classes, suggesting that madtoms breed at age 1 then die.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
| Province | Rank | Native |
|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma | S1 | Yes |
| Missouri | S1 | Yes |
| Kansas | S2 | Yes |
Threat Assessments
| Threat | Scope | Severity | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 - Energy production & mining | Unknown | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 3.2 - Mining & quarrying | Unknown | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 7 - Natural system modifications | Pervasive - large | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 7.2 - Dams & water management/use | Pervasive - large | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 9 - Pollution | Pervasive - large | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 9.2 - Industrial & military effluents | Pervasive - restricted | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluents | Pervasive - large | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 11 - Climate change & severe weather | Pervasive - restricted | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
| 11.2 - Droughts | Pervasive - restricted | Extreme - moderate | High (continuing) |
Roadless Areas (1)
South Dakota (1)
| Area | Forest | Acres |
|---|---|---|
| Indian Creek | Buffalo Gap National Grassland | 24,666 |
References (28)
- Bryan, J. L., M. L. Wildhaber, and D. B. Noltie. 2004. Threatened fishes of the world: <i>Noturus placidus</i> Taylor, 1969 (Ictaluridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 70:80.
- Bulger, A.G., and D.R. Edds. 2001. Population structure and habitat use in Neosho madtom (<i>Noturus placidus</i>). Southwestern Naturalist 46:8-15.
- Cross, F. B., and J. T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. Second Edition, revised. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. xvii + 315 pp.
- Cross, Frank B. (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC.
- Echelle, Anthony A. (University of Oklahoma). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC.
- Grady, J. M., and W. H. LeGrande. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships, modes of speciation, and historical biogeography of the madtom catfishes, genus <i>Noturus </i>Rafinesque (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae). Pages 747-777 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.
- 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.
- 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.
- Lundberg, J. G. 1992. The phylogeny of ictalurid catfishes: a synthesis of recent work. Pages 392-420 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.
- Matthews, William J. and Anthony A. Echelle (University of Oklahoma). 1997. Overlapping review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps for <i>Notropis girardi</i>, <i>Noturus placidus</i> and <i>Etheostoma cragini</i>. Reviews requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC in 1996 and 1997.
- Miller, R. J., and H. W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 450 pp.
- Moss, R. E. 1981. Life history information for the Neosho madtom, <i>Noturus placidus</i>. Report to Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 38 pp.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Pflieger, William L. (Missouri Department of Conservation). 1997b. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. April 1997.
- Pflieger, W. L. 1997a. The fishes of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Taylor, W.R. 1969. A revision of the catfish genus <i>Noturus</i> (Rafinesque) with an analysis of higher groups in the Ictaluridae. Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 282. 315 pp.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
- Wenke, T. L., M.E. Eberle, G. W. Ernsting, and W. J. Stark. 1992. Winter collections of the Neosho madtom (<i>Noturus placidus</i>). Southwestern Naturalist 37:330-3.
- Wildhaber, M. 2008. Neosho madtom: a small fish with complex problems. Endangered Species Bulletin 33(3):43-45.
- Wildhaber, M. L. 2006. The role of reproductive behavior in the conservation of fishes: examples from the Great Plains riverine fishes. The Conservation Behaviorist 4(1):15-19.
- Wilkinson C., D. Edds, J. Dorlac, M. L. Wildhaber, C. J. Schmitt, and A. Allert. 1996. Neosho madtom distribution and abundance in the Spring River. Southwestern Naturalist 41:78-81.