Hello fellow NANFAns,
I have been chewing on this idea for over a year now, and I would like to get it in the cloud to see what people think of it. It is not something that could begin immediately, but I think it could be loads of fun. Here is the gist:
1. I presume that the majority of NANFA members live within the native range of Semotilus atromaculatus.
http://nas2.er.usgs.... &speciesid=649
2. Semotilus atromaculatus occupies nearly every first-order stream within its range.
3. Since it lives within first order streams, this species is easy to catch.
4. Therefore, the majority of NANFA members presumably live within a very short distance of a population of a fish that is easy to catch.
Why don't we make a collective effort to compare the life history of this species throughout its range? There are many interesting questions that the study could address, including those that deal with habitat alteration, climate change, Jordan's rule, and many others. To my knowledge, this could be the first study of its kind...ever. In case you need a refresher, a life history study examines demographic variables, such as species abundance, growth rate, and spawning duration (among others). Typically, a life history study is conducted on one species, in one stream, over the course of one year. Due to cost and other limitations, we don't get to compare the same species across multiple populations during the same year. Instead, we piecemeal different studies... say, one paper from Kansas in 1984, another from Kentucky in 1993... You get the idea. With a citizen science project, this limitation is lifted by the sheer number of participants across the country.
Requirements would be minimal, basically a local fishing license and a net. Training? Nothing fancy. Might need to learn Microsoft Excel. How does it work? Simple. Each member of the team selects a first order stream (something you can jump across, and can't drown in) to include in the study. The habitat is photographed and quantified to some degree (maybe use Google Earth to estimate tree cover). Each month (preferably on a scheduled date) a population sample is collected. We identify the creek chubs (possibly other species too), measure them, take a water temperature reading, a rough flow estimate, and maybe take a water sample. If we wanted to get fancy, we could weigh the fish, count scales, examine gut contents, and count eggs in females. The last four measurements would require killing and preserving the fish for examination indoors. I am curious to see how many people would be interested in participating, and to see how in-depth the study could be (assuming we had enough interest). Maybe folks won't want to commit to a long term study. Maybe they will object to killing the fish for research. Maybe this has already been done somehow. The details would need to be worked out as a group, because I will be sure to overlook some logistical glitch somewhere. Maybe we could involve high school students, but I wouldn't want to be liable if someone stepped on a madtom....
Anyway, I think it would be fun to try. It is certainly possible, probably publishable, and maybe even fundable (free stuff!)
Let me know what you think, including any objections you have to any particular aspect of the study.
Citizen Science Project Idea - Creek Chub Life History
Started by
Guest_Elassoman_*
, Oct 07 2012 10:32 PM
12 replies to this topic
#4
Guest_FirstChAoS_*
Guest_FirstChAoS_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:26 AM
Sounds like a neat idea. I would be willing to participate.
Sounds neat, I will need to find a stream nearbye that is fairly close with creek chub in it. Is small enough to jump over just a figure of speech? I see creek chub in some tiny streams but the jump worthy ones usually only have trout.
#5
Guest_redfire311_*
Guest_redfire311_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 October 2012 - 03:13 AM
Sounds like a great idea! I wish I were staying in the same place for a whole year, especially since I will be electroshocking streams about once a week until July and could easily do this on the side. I think the global warming thing could flag some funding attention for sure. Phenological studies have been done with just about every other vertebrate and plant taxa, why not fish? (Maybe they have, I haven't really looked)
#6
Guest_rjmtx_*
Guest_rjmtx_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:39 AM
Redfire, life history studies on fish are becoming more and more common. The lab I came out of at TX State has done a number of them on native fishes. I'd be interested in helping out on the study once it develops more. I'll go ahead and recommend 10 fish be taken from each site each month, and we need someone to accurately determine gonadal condition and GSI's. I don't know if I have the time to work up gonads, and I know I don't have a digital scope right now (but may have one in a year or two for other reasons), but if nothing more, I can probably contribute fish and some habitat assessments. Someone needs to look into the literature, too, to make sure we're not just reinventing the wheel here.
Edited by rjmtx, 08 October 2012 - 08:39 AM.
#7
Guest_Elassoman_*
Guest_Elassoman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:31 AM
Sounds neat, I will need to find a stream nearbye that is fairly close with creek chub in it. Is small enough to jump over just a figure of speech? I see creek chub in some tiny streams but the jump worthy ones usually only have trout.
FirstChaos brings up a good point, which is that the fish community will differ among the major drainages, so sampling might be affected by this. This is something to consider in the project design if this moves forward. Regarding the size of the stream; it is up for discussion. My initial idea was to stick to the smallest perennial streams possible, because they are closer to home and easy to sample (hopefully leading to better participation). This would limit the study to the "early" life history of the species, because we would be less likely to get the lunker adults in a tiny stream. If folks wanted to include second order streams, that would be great, but it would require more dedication and more standardized sampling protocol.
Happy to see some initial interest!
#8
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:04 AM
I like it. If you stay in the smallest streams then the whole microscope thing would not be needed. In my area the first order, jump acxrros em streams are also only 2 inches deep. There are creek chubs there for sure, but unlikely that any are sexally mature. I'll bet we could do somthing here and give you a Georgia data point.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#9
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:56 AM
The streams I've been in most recently are larger and cleaner in which creek chubs are scarce, i.e. the upper Flint and Paint Rock rivers in AL. But I know some funkier first order streams running in degraded woodlands along farm fields with lots of creek chubs. So yeah, we'd have to talk about setting up some sort of standard sampling protocols.
#10
Guest_Elassoman_*
Guest_Elassoman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:56 AM
I am encouraged by the offers to help. Rjmtx, you are correct, we need to get into the literature. I will break out Boschung and Mayden tonight. I know that life history studies have been conducted on this species, but I am hoping that they have been "typical" studies, i.e. one year, one stream. If so, then we still have a good prospect here, because the novelty comes from simultaneous analysis over a wide range.
Just looking at the member ids on the thread, it looks like it won't be too difficult to get data across a broad area...
Just looking at the member ids on the thread, it looks like it won't be too difficult to get data across a broad area...
#11
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:29 PM
While out looking for scarlet and silver shiners in the Flint River of Alabama today, we also collected 5 or 6 creek chubs in a flooded side channel. We're officially in on the project now, a student in my lab has volunteered to be responsible for generating and recording data. Anyone else?
#12
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:38 PM
I would love to participate, but need some guidance on actually preserving the specimens (where to buy jars, solutions, etc.). I am used to keepin em alive for aquariums, or just photo vouchering. I know just the stream. Maybe your student could teach us... what data are the keeping, etc.?
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#13
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:12 PM
You're absolutely right that we have to come up with some kind of protocol. We fix fish in a phosphate-buffered 10% formaldehyde solution, a.k.a. Sorensen's Solution. We measure standard length in mm and mass in grams after 48 hours of fixation, and typically remove gonads at that point. We use those half-sandwich bags ("snack bags") for each fish with an identifying number written in pencil in the bag, and keep bagged fish from a given month together in a jar of formaldehyde. Larger fish that we might catch in this project will probably get larger bags. Jars don't have to be anything fancy, either clean out food jars with a reusable lid from your kitchen, or buy boxes of Mason jars at the grocery/department store of your choice.
Getting access to sensitive balances for weights is one possible sticker, as is access to formaldehyde for most people. I can give formaldehyde to anyone kinda near me in north 'bama. And as to gonadal excision, that's something not everyone is necessarily up for; we could take in other fish in my lab at least up to a point. And all of this raises the question of exactly what are we trying to do.
Getting access to sensitive balances for weights is one possible sticker, as is access to formaldehyde for most people. I can give formaldehyde to anyone kinda near me in north 'bama. And as to gonadal excision, that's something not everyone is necessarily up for; we could take in other fish in my lab at least up to a point. And all of this raises the question of exactly what are we trying to do.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
