The 30-year recovery effort for the Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae): Analysis of current distribution, population trends, and conservation status of this threatened species

  • Gary O. Graening
  • Danté B. Fenolio
  • Matthew L. Niemiller
  • Arthur V. Brown
  • Jonathan B. Beard
Article

Abstract

Here we review the thirty year recovery effort and conservation status of the Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae. We summarized the historic and current range of the species, and report county range extensions for both A. rosae and its confamilial Typhlichthys subterraneus. Ozark cavefish survey data spanning almost a century were analyzed for temporal trends using the Mann-Kendall Test/Sen’s Slope Estimator Method. Results were inconclusive because variance was high and the majority of data sets were not sufficiently large to detect a trend. However, the two largest populations (Cave Springs Cave and Logan Cave, Benton Co., Arkansas) have stabilizing or increasing survey counts. While the number of active cavefish sites has decreased over 50% since 1990, the number of surveyed individuals has not. Reasons for endangerment were reanalyzed since federal listing; the primary threat has shifted from overcollection to habitat degradation. We analyzed the progress of recovery task implementation, and we critically evaluated the basis of delisting criteria. Recovery Task 1, the hydrogeologic delineation of subterranean habitats, is almost complete. Recovery Task 2 prescribes protection and management for Recovery Caves, and important progress has been made. Recovery Task 3 involves the development and implementation of monitoring programs in Recovery Caves. Several important studies have been performed, and indicate that many cavefish populations are experiencing chronic, low-level exposure to a suite of anthropogenic contaminants. Delisting conditions are largely unattainable as currently worded. We suggest that recovery criteria be amended such that habitat protection goals are attainable, that the list of Recovery Caves can be periodically updated, and that the recovery population goal is increased and distributed between more sites.

Keywords

Amblyopsis rosae Amblyopsidae Endangered species Groundwater pollution Ozark cavefish Population dynamics Recovery plan Trend analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding over the last three decades for study and protection of this species has been provided by many agencies in the tri-state region. Funding for our study program was provided by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Missouri Department of Conservation, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, with some matching in-kind funding by University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and The Nature Conservancy. Many colleagues assisted with surveys, and we attempt to list them all, alphabetically: T. and C. Aley, J. Beard, D. Bowman, C. Brickey, E. Corfey, W. Elliott, D. Figg, D. Fletcher, J. Gardner, S. Hensley, B. and B. Howard, D. Kampwerth, K. Lister, D. Novinger, P. Polechla, T. Poulson, W. Puckette, D. Rimbach, M. Slay, T. Snell, J. Stewart, J. Stout, S. Todd, C. Vaughn, B. Wagner, and L. Willis. A special thanks goes to Tom Aley for providing hydrogeologic data on cavefish habitat. The MAKESENS software was made available courtesy of the Finnish Meteorological Institute at Helsinki. We would also like to thank S. Todd and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Adams G, Johnson J (2001) Metabolic rate and natural history of Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae, in Logan Cave, Arkansas. Environ Biol Fish 62:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adornato TG (2005) Assessment of contamination in caves located at the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma, Project # 1261-2N46. Final report submitted to the Oklahoma Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  3. Aley TJ (1978) Impacts of the proposed relocation of U.S. Highway 71 form Fayetteville north to McKissic Creek upon groundwater resources and cave fauna: final report and supplemental report. Contract study for the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  4. Aley TJ (1992) Delineation of groundwater recharge basins at two potential sites for a northwest Arkansas regional airport. Contract study for the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Authority. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  5. Aley TJ (2005) Groundwater recharge area delineation and vulnerability mapping of Star Cave and nearby hydrogeologically associated springs, Delaware County, Oklahoma. Contract study for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  6. Aley TJ, Aley C (1979) Prevention of adverse impacts on endangered, threatened, and rare animal species in Benton and Washington counties, Arkansas. Phase 1. Report, Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  7. Aley TJ, Aley C (1987) Water quality protection studies, Logan Cave, Arkansas. Contract study for Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  8. Aley TJ, Aley C (1990) Hydrogeology of Ozark cavefish caves in Oklahoma, Phase I. Contract study for The Nature Conservancy. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  9. Aley TJ, Aley C (1991) Hydrogeology of Ozark cavefish caves in Oklahoma, Phase 2. Final Report to The Nature Conservancy, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  10. Aley TJ, Aley C (1997) Groundwater recharge area delineation, hydrobiological assessment, and vulnerability mapping of four Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) populations in Missouri. Contract study for the Missouri Department of Conservation. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  11. Aley TJ, Aley C (1998a) Recharge area study – Bear Hollow Cave, Benton County, Arkansas. A final report submitted to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  12. Aley TJ, Aley C (1998b) Recharge area study of springs supplying water to the Neosho National Fish Hatchery. Contract study for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  13. Aley TJ, Aley C (1999) Recharge area delineation and hazard area mapping for Long and McGee’s caves in the Eucha Nature Preserve and for Twin Cave in the Twin Cave Preserve, Delaware County, Oklahoma Contract study to The Nature Conservancy. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  14. Aley TJ, Moss P (2001) Northwest Arkansas regional airport access corridor groundwater tracing investigations. Contract study for Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Authority. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  15. Aley TJ, Moss P (2002) Groundwater recharge area delineation and vulnerability mapping of five Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) populations in Missouri. Contract study for Missouri Department of Conservation. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  16. Aley TJ, Thomson KC (2002) A study of septic field performance and recharge area delineations for twelve spring systems, Greene County, Missouri. Contract study for Greene County, Missouri. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  17. Aley TJ, Moss P (2004) Hydrogeologic study in the Clear Creek and Rainier Branch Watersheds. Contract study for the City of Springfield, Missouri. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  18. Aley TJ, Aley C (2005) Groundwater recharge area delineation and vulnerability mapping of four Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) populations in Missouri. Contract study for Missouri Department of Conservation. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  19. Aley TJ, Aley C (2007) Groundwater recharge area delineation and vulnerability mapping of two Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) populations in Lawrence County, Missouri. Contract study for Missouri Department of Conservation. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  20. Aley TJ, Aley C (2008) Groundwater recharge area delineation and vulnerability mapping of Viebrock Well and a hydrologically associated spring providing habitat for Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) populations in Greene County, Missouri. Contract study for Missouri Department of Conservation. Ozark Underground Laboratory, Protem, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  21. Aley TJ, Aley C, Moss P, Hertzler P (2008) Hydrogeological characteristics of delineated recharge areas for 40 biologically significant cave and spring systems in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Illinois. Pages 154–167 in W. Elliott, editor. Proceedings of the 18th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri. 320ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Bergey E, Fenolio DB, Graening GO (2003) Aquatic cave invertebrate survey, Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge and Associated Areas. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Oklahoma Biological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  23. Bergstrom DE (1997) The phylogeny and historical biology of Missouri’s Amblyopsis rosae (Ozark cavefish) and Typhlichthys subterraneus (southern cavefish). Master’s Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  24. Bergstrom DE, Noltie DB, Holtsford TP (1995) Ozark cavefish genetics: the phylogeny of Missouri’s Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) and southern cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus). Final Report, Endangered Species Project SE-01-27: Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri – Ozark cavefish genetics. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  25. Bidwell JR, Becker C, Hensley SL, Stark RC (2008) Occurrence of organic wastewater and other contaminants in cave streams in eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  26. Black JH (1971) The cave life of Oklahoma. A preliminary study (excluding Chiroptera). Okla Undergr 4(1–2):2–53Google Scholar
  27. Brahana JV, Phelan TL (2002) Rationale and application – delineating the ground-water recharge boundaries of Rootville Cave, Benton County, Arkansas. Draft Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  28. Branson BA (1967) Fishes of the Neosho River System in Oklahoma. Am Midl Nat 78:126–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bretz JH (1956) Caves of Missouri. Missouri Geological Survey and Water resources. Volume 39Google Scholar
  30. Brown AV (1991) Status survey of Amblyopsis rosae in Arkansas. A final report submitted to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Little Rock, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  31. Brown JZ (1996) Population dynamics and growth of Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Benton County, Arkansas. Thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  32. Brown AV, Willis LD (1984) Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) in Arkansas: populations, incidence, habitat requirements and mortality factors. Final Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  33. Brown AV, Todd C (1987) Status review of the threatened Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae). Proc Arkansas Acad Sci 41:99–100Google Scholar
  34. Brown JZ, Johnson JE (2001) Population biology and growth of Ozark cavefishes in Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas. Environ Biol Fish 62:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Brown AV, Brown KB, Willis LD, Jackson DC, Brussock PP (1982) Distribution and abundance of the Ozark Cavefish Amblyopsis rosae (Eigenmann) in Missouri. Final report submitted to the Missouri Department of Conservation. Ecolab, Inc., Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  36. Brown AV, Pierson W, Brown K (1994) Organic carbon resources and the payoff-risk relationship in cave ecosystems. In: 2nd International Conference on Groundwater Proceedings. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, pp 67–76Google Scholar
  37. Brown AV, Graening GO, Vendrell P (1998) Monitoring cavefish populations and environmental quality in Cave Springs Cave, Arkansas. Publication no. MSC-214. Arkansas Water Resources Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  38. Buchanan TM (1974) Threatened native fishes of Arkansas. In: Arkansas Natural Area Plan. Arkansas Department of Planning, Little Rock, Arkansas, pp 67–92Google Scholar
  39. Canaday BD, Vitello CB (1996) Ozark cavefish public outreach and habitat management project. In: Proceedings of the 1995 National Cave Management Symposium. Indiana Karst Conservancy, Indianapolis, Indiana, pp 62–65Google Scholar
  40. Cloutman D, Olmsted L (1976) The fishes of Washington County, Arkansas. Publication No. 39, Arkansas Water Resources Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  41. Crunkilton R (1985) Subterranean contamination of Maramec Spring by ammonium nitrate and urea fertilizer and its implication on rare cave biota. Missouri Speleologist 25:151–158Google Scholar
  42. Culver DC (1986) Cave faunas. In: Soule MD (ed) Conservation Biology-the Science of Scarcity and Diversity, Sinauer Associates, Sunderand, pp 427–443Google Scholar
  43. Eigenmann C (1898) A new blind fish. In: Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science for 1897, Abstracts, p. 231Google Scholar
  44. Eigenmann C (1909) Cave vertebrates of North America, a study in degenerative evolution. Carnegie I Wash Pub 104:1–241Google Scholar
  45. Elliott WR (2000) Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota. In: Wilkens H, Culver DC, Humphreys W (eds) Subterranean ecosystems. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 671–695Google Scholar
  46. Ellison LE, O’Shea TJ, Bogan MA, Everette AL, Schneider DM (2003) Existing data on colonies of bats in the United States: summary and analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey’s bat population database. In: O’Shea TJ, Bogan MA (eds) Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR—2003-0003, pp 127–237Google Scholar
  47. Fenolio DB, Graening GO, Collier BA, Stout JF (2006) Coprophagy in a cave-adapted salamander; the importance of bat guano examined through stable isotope and nutritional analyses. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 273:439–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Franklin IR (1980) Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Soule M, Wilcox B (eds) Conservation Biology: an evolutionary – ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp135–149Google Scholar
  49. Garman S (1889) Cave animals from southwestern Missouri. B Harvard Mus Compar Zool 17:15–242Google Scholar
  50. Gillip, JA (2007) The effects of land-use change on water quality and speleogenesis in Ozark cave systems — a paired cave study of Civil War and Copperhead Caves, Northwestern Arkansas. Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  51. Graening GO (2005) Trophic structure of Ozark cave streams containing endangered species. J Oceanol Hydrobiol Stud 34:3–17Google Scholar
  52. Graening GO, Brown AV (1999) Cavefish population status and environmental quality in Cave Springs Cave, Arkansas. A report submitted to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Publication No. 276, Arkansas Water Resources Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  53. Graening GO, Brown AV (2000a) Trophic dynamics and pollution effects in Cave Springs Cave, Arkansas. A report submitted to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Publication No. MSC-285. Arkansas Water Resources Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  54. Graening GO, Brown AV (2000b) Status survey of aquatic cave fauna in Arkansas. Final report to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Pub. # MSC-286. Arkansas Water Resources Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  55. Graening GO, Brown AV (2001) Protection of Cave Springs Cave biota and groundwater basin. Final report to Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Pub. # MSC-297, Arkansas Water Resources Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  56. Graening GO, Brown AV (2003) Ecosystem dynamics and pollution effects in an Ozark cave stream. J Am Water Res Assoc 39:1497–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Graening GO, Slay ME, Brown AV (2001) Subterranean biodiversity in the Ozark Plateaus of Arkansas. Final report to Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  58. Graening GO, Hobbs III HH, Slay ME, Elliott WR, Brown AV (2006a) Status update for bristly cave crayfish, Cambarus setosus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) and range extension into Arkansas. SWNatur 51(3):382–391Google Scholar
  59. Graening GO, Fenolio DB, Hobbs HH III, Jones S, Slay ME, McGinnis SR, Stout JF (2006b) Range extension and status update of the Oklahoma cave crayfish, Cambarus tartarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Southwest Nat 51:94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Graening GO, Slay ME, Brown AV, Koppelmann J (2006c) Status and distribution of the endangered Benton cave crayfish, Cambarus aculabrum (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Southwest Nat 51:376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Graening GO, Niemiller ML, Fenolio DB, Mandrekar K, Trauth SE, Romero A (in review) A new cavefish, Typhlichthys sp. nov. (Percopsiformes: Amblyopsidae) from the Interior Highlands, USA. Proc Biol Soc WashGoogle Scholar
  62. Graening GO, Harvey MJ, Puckette WL, Stark RC, Sasse DB, Hensley SL, Redman RK (in review) Conservation status of the endangered Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) - a 35 year assessment. Endangered Species ResearchGoogle Scholar
  63. Greenwood J (1996) Basic techniques. In: Sutherland W (ed) Ecological census techniques: A handbook. Cambridge University Press, pp 63–106Google Scholar
  64. Hall G (1956) Additions to the fish fauna of Oklahoma with a summary of introduced species. Southwest Nat 1:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hankin DG, Reeves GH (1988) Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual observation methods. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 45:834–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hipel KW, McLeod AI (1994) Time series modeling of water resources and environmental systems. Elsevier, Inc., Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  67. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2007) 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Prepared by the Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  68. Jones S, Taber C (1985) A range revision for western populations of the southern cavefish Typhlichthys subterraneus (Amblyopsidae). Am Midl Nat 113:413–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Keith JH, Poulson TL (1981) Broken-back syndrome in Amblyopsis spelaea, Donaldson-Twin Caves, Indiana. Cave Research Foundation 1979 Annual Report, pp 45–48Google Scholar
  70. Kendall MG (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30:81–93Google Scholar
  71. Kuhajda BR, Mayden RL (2001) Status of the federally endangered Alabama cavefish, Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni (Amblyopsidae), in Key Cave and surrounding caves, Alabama. Environ Biol Fish 62:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lewis JJ (1991) The effects of cave restoration on some aquatic cave communities in the central Kentucky karst. In: Proceedings of the 1991 National Cave Management Symposium, Bowling Green, Kentucky, pp 346–350Google Scholar
  73. Lewis JJ (1996) The devastation and recovery of caves affected by industrialization. Proceedings of the 1995 National Cave Management Symposium, pp 214–227Google Scholar
  74. Looney J (1972) Lake Eucha caves. Okla Undergr 5:22–26Google Scholar
  75. Looney M (1969) Cave Springs Ranch Cave. Okla Undergr 2:50–51Google Scholar
  76. Looney M (1984) Blind fish revisited. Okla Undergr 11:31–32Google Scholar
  77. Lynch M, Conery J, Burger R (1995) Mutational accumulation and the extinction of small populations. Am Nat 146:489–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. MacArthur RL, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  79. Mann HB (1945) Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Marquart D (1979) The troglobitic crayfish of Missouri. Master’s thesis, Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  81. McClenachan L (2009) Historical declines of goliath grouper populations in South Florida, USA. Endangered Species Research 7:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Means M (1993) Population dynamics and movement of Ozark Cavefish in Logan Cave NWR, Benton County, Arkansas, with additional baseline water quality information. Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  83. Means M, Johnson J (1995) Movement of threatened Ozark cavefish in Logan National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas. Southwest Nat 40:308–313Google Scholar
  84. Mehlhop-Cifelli P (1990) A survey and species determinations of cave crayfish (Cambarus spp.) in Oklahoma. Report for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Project E-5-1, No. N-200680. Oklahoma City, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  85. Mohr C (1950) Ozark cave life. B Natl Speleol Soc 12:3–11Google Scholar
  86. Niemiller ML, Fitzpatrick BM (2008) Phylogenetics of the southern cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus): implications for conservation and management. In: Proceedings of the 18th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri, pp 79–88Google Scholar
  87. Noltie DB, Wicks CM (2001) How hydrogeology has shaped the ecology of Missouri’s Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae, and southern cavefish, Typhlichthys subterraneus: insights on the sightless from understanding the underground. Environ Biol Fish 6:171–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 10(10):430Google Scholar
  89. Perrow M, Cote I, Evans M (1996) Fish. In: Sutherland W (ed) Ecological census techniques: A handbook. Cambridge University Press, pp 178–182Google Scholar
  90. Pflieger WL (1997) The fishes of Missouri, revised edition. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  91. Poulson TL (1960) Cave adaptation in Amblyopsid fishes. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  92. Poulson TL (1963) Cave adaptation in amblyopsid fishes. Am Midl Nat 70:257–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Poulson TL (1985) Evolutionary reduction by neutral mutations: plausibility arguments and data from amblyopsid fishes and linyphiid spiders. Natl Speleol Soc Bull 47:109–117Google Scholar
  94. Proudlove GS (2001) The conservation status of hypogean fishes. Environ Biol Fish 62:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Proudlove GS (2006) Subterranean fishes of the world. International Society for Subterranean Biology, Moulis, FranceGoogle Scholar
  96. Puckette WL (1986) The impact of the operation of Grand Lake on the gray bat and Ozark cavefish: a brief survey. Report for Benham-Holway Power Group. Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  97. Romero A (1998a) Threatened fishes of the world: Amblyopsis rosae (Eigenmann, 1898) (Amblyopsidae). Environ Biol Fish 52:434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Romero A (1998b) Threatened fishes of the world: Typhlichthys subterraneus (Girard, 1860) (Amblyopsidae). Environ Biol Fish 53:74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Romero A, Conner M (2007) Status report for the southern cavefish, Typhlichthys subterraneus, in Arkansas. Final report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  100. Salmi T, Määttä A, Anttila P, Ruoho-Airola T, Amnell T (2002) Detecting trends of annual values of atmospheric pollutants by the Mann-Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates—the Microsoft Corporation Excel Version 1997 template application MAKESENS. Publications on air quality. No. 31. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  101. Schubert ALS, Nielsen CD, Noltie DB (1993) Habitat use and gas bubble disease in southern cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus). Int J Speleol 22:131–143Google Scholar
  102. Sen PK (1968a) Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. J Am Stat Assoc 63:1379–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sen PK (1968b) On a class of aligned rank order tests in two-way layouts. Ann Math Stat 39:1115–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Smith V (1980) Life history aspects of the southern cavefish. Master’s thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  105. Swofford DL (1982) Genetic variability, population differentiation, and biochemical relationships in the family Amblyopsidae. Master’s Thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  106. Tafanelli R, Russell J (1972) An extension of the range of the blind cavefish Amblyopsis rosae (Eigenmann). Southwest Nat 17:310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Taylor BL, Dizon AE (1999) First policy then science: why a management unit based solely on genetic criteria cannot work. Mol Ecol 8:S11–S16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Tercafs R (1992) The protection of the subterranean environment. Conservation principles and management tools. In: Camacho AI (ed) The Natural History of Biospeleology, Monografias del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, pp 481–524Google Scholar
  109. Thompson WL, White GC, Gowan C (1998) Monitoring vertebrate populations. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  110. Trajano E (2001) Ecology of subterranean fishes: an overview. Environ Biol Fish 62:113–160Google Scholar
  111. Tryon CP (1971) The Gulf. Report for the Poplar Bluff Ranger District, Clark National Forest. Rolla, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  112. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Data quality assessment: statistical methods for practitioners. EPA QA/G-9S. Coopublished with the Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  113. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1984a) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed threatened status for the Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae). Fed Reg 49:3889–3891Google Scholar
  114. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1984b) Determination of threatened status for the Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae). Fed Reg 49:43965–43969Google Scholar
  115. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) Draft revision of a recovery plan for the Ozark Cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae). Prepared by L. D. Willis, Jr.; revised by J. H. Stewart. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  116. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Ozark cavefish (pamphlet). Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, Columbia, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  117. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Benton County, AR. Notice of availability: final comprehensive conservation plan and finding of no significant impact. Fed Reg 73:52668–62770Google Scholar
  118. Vandike JE (1989) Delineation of recharge areas for seven Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) sites in the Springfield Plateau of southwestern Missouri. Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  119. Vandike JE (1992a) Delineation of the recharge area of Ben Lassiter Cave, Newton County, Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Rolla, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  120. Vandike JE (1992b) Pesticide and herbicide monitoring of groundwater at two Ozark cavefish sites in southwestern Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Rolla, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  121. Vaughn C, Certain D (1992) Survey and species determination of cave crayfish in Oklahoma. Federal Aid Project E-5. Final Report, Section 6, Endangered Species Act. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  122. Weingartner D (1977) Production and trophic ecology of two crayfish species cohabiting an Indiana cave. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  123. Williams R (1991) Water quality and groundwater recharge for the Cave Springs complex and associated streams near Cave Springs, Arkansas. Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  124. Willis Jr LD (1984) Distribution and habitat requirements of the Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae. Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  125. Willis Jr LD, Brown AV (1985) Distribution and habitat requirements of the Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae. Am Midl Nat 114:311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Woods LP, Inger RF (1957) The cave, spring, and swamp fishes of the family Amblyopsidae of central and eastern United States. Am Midl Nat 58:232–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary O. Graening
    • 1
  • Danté B. Fenolio
    • 2
  • Matthew L. Niemiller
    • 3
  • Arthur V. Brown
    • 4
  • Jonathan B. Beard
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesCalifornia State University at SacramentoSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Conservation ResearchAtlanta Botanical GardenAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  5. 5.Springfield Plateau Grotto and Missouri Caves & Karst ConservancySpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations