Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Tule Perch

Hysterocarpus traskii

Gibbons, 1854

Tule Perch

G5Secure Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105151
Element CodeAFCQK02010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderBlenniiformes
FamilyEmbiotocidae
GenusHysterocarpus
Synonyms
Hysterocarpus traskiGibbons, 1854
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
Monotypic genus; the only exclusively freshwater embiotocid. Includes subspecies pomo from the Russian River drainage, lagunae from the Clear Lake drainage basin, and traskii from the main Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage; the three subspecies show some genetic divergence (Baltz and Loudenslager 1984). Original spelling ends with -ii (Nelson et al. 2004).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2012-02-17
Change Date1996-09-25
Edition Date2012-02-17
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G.
Range Extent5000-200,000 square km (about 2000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 300
Range Extent Comments
Range includes Clear Lake; and the Russian, Sacramento-San Joaquin, and Pajaro-Salinas river drainages, California (Moyle 2002, Page and Burr 2011). Non-native populations are established in some areas, including Silverwood and Pyramid reservoirs in southern California (Moyle 2002).
Occurrences Comments
This species is represented by a fairly large number of occurrences (subpopulations).
Threat Impact Comments
Decline is apparently due primarily to habitat alterations (Moyle 1976, 2002). This species' viviparity seems to reduce its vulnerability to competition and predation from alien fishes, yet non-native fish species pose a continual potential threat (Moyle 2002). Decline in the Pajaro-Salinas and San Joaquin river drainages may have resulted from poor water quality and toxic chemicals (Moyle 2002). An apparent long-term decline in the San Francisco Estuary possibly is related to increased populations of centrarchids (Moyle 2002). Decline in the Russian River is probably related to habitat alteration caused by dams and decreased water quality from agricultural development; the latter also increases the potential for pesticide spills and other disasters (Moyle 2002).

This species seems to be able to persist in small numbers as long as suitable cover and water quality are present (Moyle 2002).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Habitat includes small to large, low-elevation rivers; lake; and estuarine sloughs. This species is found in a wide variety of habitats, including slow or swift-flowing water where conditions are clear or turbid, but usually it occurs in cool, well-oxygenated water with emergent aquatic vegetation, deep pools, and banks with complex cover (Moyle 1976, 2002).

Ecology

Gregarious.

Reproduction

Mating occurs July-September. Sperm stored until January when fertilization occurs. Viviparous; young born in May or June (Moyle 1976). Fecundity varies female size, 20-80 young (Lee et al. 1980). Young sexually mature a few weeks after birth. Lives up to 7 years.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaSNRYes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modifications———
7.2 - Dams & water management/use———
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases———

—

Roadless Areas (1)
California (1)
AreaForestAcres
City CreekSan Bernardino National Forest9,997
References (16)
  1. Baltz, D. M., and E. J. Loudenslager. 1984. Electrophoretic variation among subspecies of tule perch (<i>Hysterocarpus traski</i>). Copeia 1984:223-227.
  2. Baltz, D. M., and P. B. Moyle. 1981. Morphometric analysis of the tule perch (<i>Hysterocarpus traski</i>) populations in three isolated drainages. Copeia 1981:305-311.
  3. Baltz, D. M., and P. B. Moyle. 1982. Life history characteristics of tule perch (<i>Hysterocarpus traski</i>) populations in contrasting environments. Environmental Biology of Fishes 7:229-242.
  4. Brown, Larry (U.S. Geological Survey, WRD). 2000. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Anthony E. Zammit, TNC. June 2000.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. McGinnis, S. M. 1984. Freshwater fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. viii + 316 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, Peter B. (Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, UC-Davis). 2000. Review requested by Anthony E. Zammit, TNC. April 2000.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  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.