Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Tui Chub

Siphateles bicolor

(Girard, 1856)

Tui Chub

G4Apparently Secure Found in 11 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
PSESA Status
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101469
Element CodeAFCJB13030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusSiphateles
USESAPS
Synonyms
Gila bicolor(Girard, 1856)
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
Geographic isolation in endorheic drainages in the western U.S. has led to formation of many distinctive forms (at least 13 subspecies), but relationships are unclear (Lee et al. 1980) and most forms remain undescribed (Moyle et al. 1989). There are many isolated populations that are morphologically similar (Moyle et al. 1989).

Harris (2000) found a close genetic relationship between tui chubs in the Cow Head, Warner, and Goose Lake basins and recognized them as a single species, S. thalassinus, with two lineages (Goose Lake basin; Pluvial Warner basin, including Cow Head and Warner basins). Nelson et al. (2004) and Catalog of Fishes (as of March 2013) recognized thalassinus as a subspecies of Siphateles bicolor. Harris (2000) also recognized as distinct species Siphateles obesa and S. eurysomas, which were retained in Siphateles bicolor by Nelson et al. (2004) and the Catalog of Fishes (as of March 2013).

Genetic analysis from multiple studies (Harris 2000, Wilcox et al. 2000, and Rosenfeld 2000) supports Hubbs and Miller's (1972) description of Newark Valley Tui Chub. Genetic results in Wilcox (2000) suggest at least 4 distinct species of Siphateles inhabit Nevada which included Siphateles bicolor newarkensis. Gordon et al. (2000) found significant differentiation for multiple characters revealed three divergent groups corresponding to S. b. isolata from Independence Valley (based solely on the mtDNA data), S. b. euchila/newarkensis from Newark and Little Smokey Valley, and the populations of S. b. obesa from the greater Lahontan basin (including Fish Lake Valley, Big Smokey Valley, Railroad and Hot Creek valleys and Little Fish Lake).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2012-02-07
Change Date1996-09-13
Edition Date2012-02-07
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G.
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Range Extent Comments
Range includes the Columbia River drainage in Washington and Oregon, and extends south in the Klamath River and upper Pit River drainages, and interior drainages of California and Nevada, to the Mohave River in southern California (Page and Burr 2011). Regarded as introduced in Idaho (C. Harris, pers. comm., 2000).
Occurrences Comments
This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations).
Threat Impact Comments
Most populations are abundant within their limited ranges, but restricted geographic range makes them vulnerable to local extinction (Moyle et al. 1989). The species is declining in some areas due to habitat degradation and introduced species.
Ecology & Habitat

Description

A highly variable minnow with a deep compressed body, fairly deep caudal peduncle, small rounded fins, and a small terminal to slightly subterminal mouth that does not extend to the eye; dorsum dusky olive to dark green, sides brassy brown (often mottled in adult), venter silver-white to yellow; fins clear to dusky-olive; dusky stripe along side in young; large individual may have red-orange lower sides and yellow to copper fins with red, pink, or orange base; 41-64 lateral scales; usually 8 dorsal rays, 7-8 anal rays; grows to 45 cm (Page and Burr 1991).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Has usually more dorsal rays than do Alvord and Borax Lake chubs (usually 8 vs. usually 7). Not as slender as the blue chub and has a smaller mouth (mouth extends to front of eye in blue chub); averages fewer lateral scales than in blue chub (58-71 in blue chub) (Page and Burr 1991).

Habitat

This species usually occurs in weedy shallows of lakes or in mud- or sand-bottomed pools of slow-moving headwaters, creeks, and small to medium rivers (Moyle 1976, Page and Burr 2011). In lakes, tui chubs spend winter in deep water; move to shallow water in spring. In summer, this chub also occurs in deep water and in surface waters over deep water. Spawning usually occurs in shallow water where eggs settle to the bottom or adhere to aquatic vegetation. Young remain close to shore near heavy vegetation for most of summer (Sigler and Sigler 1987).

Ecology

May serve as a forage fish for large trout and largemouth bass. In some situations may overpopulate lakes and reservoirs and compete with trout.

Reproduction

Spawning peaks in June at low to mid-60s F in Pyramid Lake, ends by late July in Lake Tahoe. Multiple spawning by one female may be common. Eggs hatch in 10-12 days. Females mature usually at 2-3 years, males usually at 2 years.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN4
ProvinceRankNative
WashingtonS2Yes
IdahoSNANo
OregonS4Yes
CaliforniaSNRYes
NevadaS4Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modifications———
7.2 - Dams & water management/use———
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases———
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases———

—

Roadless Areas (11)
California (7)
AreaForestAcres
Glass MountainInyo National Forest52,867
Hoover - Cattle CkHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest598
Hoover - Green Ck NoHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest7,155
Mt. JacksonHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest20,721
Raymond PeakEldorado National Forest2,518
Robinson PeakHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest5,835
WattersonInyo National Forest6,922
Nevada (2)
AreaForestAcres
Boundary Peak (NV)Inyo National Forest21,851
Jobs Peak (NV)Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest1,342
Oregon (2)
AreaForestAcres
Brown Mt.Winema National Forest3,117
Maiden PeakDeschutes National Forest26,432
References (34)
  1. Allen, Chris (Fisheries Biologist, USFWS). 2000. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Anthony E. Zammit, ABI. March 2000.
  2. Baugh, T. M., J. W. Pedretti, and J. E. Deacon. 1986. Status and distribution of the Fish Creek Springs tui chub, <i>Gila bicolor euchila</i>. Great Basin Naturalist 46:441-444.
  3. Bills, F. T. 1977. Taxonomic status of the isolated populations of tui chub referred to <i>Gila bicolor oregonensis</i> (Snyder). M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
  4. Chen, Y., S. Reid, and B. May. 2009. Genetic relationships of tui chub populations in the northwestern Great Basin and conservation implications for the Cow Head tui chub. Conservation Genetics 10:101-114.
  5. Clemmer, Glenn (Nevada Natural Heritage Program). 1997. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. 1997.
  6. Eschmeyer, W. N. and R. Fricke (editors). 2012. Catalog of Fishes electronic version (12 January 2012). http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
  7. Gaines, Eleanor (Oregon Natural Heritage Program). 1997. Review and annotation of fish and mussel watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Ruth Mathews, TNC. August 1997.
  8. Harris, P. M. 2000. Systematic studies of the genus <i>Siphateles </i>(Ostariophysi: Cyprinidae) from western North America. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
  9. Hubbs, C. L. and R. R. Miller. 1972. Diagnoses of new Cyprinid fishes of isolated waters in the Great Basin of western North America. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 17(8):101-106.
  10. 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.
  11. Master, L. L. 1996. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Progress Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 60 pp.
  12. 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.
  13. Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14(6):22-38.
  14. Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
  15. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.
  16. 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.
  17. Moyle, Peter B. (Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, UC-Davis). 2000. Review requested by Anthony E. Zammit, TNC. April 2000.
  18. NatureServe. No Date. Full species reconciliation of subspecies-by-watershed source data for freshwater fish, mussel and crayfish for use in the watershed distribution databases.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Simons, A. M.and R. L. Mayden. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of the western North American phoxinins (Actinopterygii; Cyprinidae) as inferred from mitrochrondrial 12S and 16S ribosomal RNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9(2):308-329.
  27. Simpson, J. and R. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. The University Press of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 238 pp.
  28. Starnes, W. C. 1995. Taxonomic validation for fish species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Category 2 species list. 28 pp.
  29. 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.
  30. Taylor, T. L., and J. E. Williams. 1985. Recovery plan for the Mohave tui chub (<i>Gila bicolor mohavensis</i>). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 74 pp.
  31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Four Species. Federal Register 87(162):51635-51639.
  32. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub. Federal Register 90(97):21720-21735.
  33. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 30 March 1998. Proposed endangered status for the Cowhead Lake tui chub. Federal Register 63(60):15152-15157.
  34. Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. The University of Washington Press, Seattle. 220 pp.