7794

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7794
• Author: Williams, J. E., et al.
• Title: American Fisheries Society Guidelines for Introduction of Threatened and Endangered Fishes
• USFW Year: 1988
• USFW - Doc Type: Fisheries
• Copyright Material: YES

Table 1. (Continued)

Introductions

~

Genetic reserve

Biological
control
agent

Supplement
existing
population

Establish
new
population

Taxon"

No
introduction

Information
and
education

Artificial propagation

San Marcos gambusia
Gambusia georgei
Clear Creek gambusia
Gambusia heterochir
Pecos gambusia
Gambusia nobilis
Sonoran topminnow
Peociliopsis occidenta/is
Unarmored threespine
stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
williamsoni
Slackwater darter
Etheostoma boschungi
Fountain darter
Etheostoma fonticola
Watercress darter
Etheostoma nuchale
Bayou darter
Etheostoma rubrum
Amber darter
Percina antesella
Conasauga logperch
Percina jenkinsi
Snail darter
Percina tenasi

x

x

x

"Common names follow those given in the recovery plans.
bTranslocation only to be conducted in case of an emergency.

i
I
I
1

(1985, and personal communication) reported that beginning
in 1982, numerous reintroductions involving millions of
young razorback suckers, Xyrauchen texanus, have been
conducted in Arizona. It wasn't until 1985, however, that
the first razorbacks reintroduced into the wild survived.
Although none of these are considered established, a vital
first step toward this goal has been achieved. Minckley and
Brooks (1985) documented an approximate 30% success rate
for attempts to establish a variety of rare Arizona fishes.
Excellent discussions of the techniques and problems as-
sociated with introducing rare fishes following chemical
treatment to eliminate exotics can be found in Meffe (1983)
and Rinne et al. (1981).
We examined recovery plans for 39 endangered or threat-
ened fishes in the United States to determine the prevalence
of, and reasons for, introductions in the recovery efforts
(Table 1). Only those species with recovery plans signed
and approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service were ana-
lyzed. Recovery programs for 32 of the 39 fishes (82%) call
for one or more forms of introductions in addition to habitat
protection, research, monitoring and other types of recovery
actions. Recovery plans for endangered or threatened fishes
without proposed introductions were unusual. They include
two cyprinids (Borax Lake chub, Gilo boraxobius, and Kendall

September - October 1988

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Xh

x

x

x

x

warm springs dace, Rhinichthys osculus thennalis), two cave-
fishes (Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis rosae, and Alabama cave-
fish, Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni), and three darters (slackwater,
Etheostoma baschungi; fountain, E. fonticola; and snail darters,
Percina tanasl). A fourth darter, the Bayou darter, E. rubrum,
has provisions for introductions only if the loss of the
existing population appears imminent. Introductions of
fountain and snail darters occurred prior to recovery plan
development.
Typically, those species without proposed introductions
have a highly restricted range, with habitats that are quite
unusual and hard to duplicate. In such cases, it is prudent
to focus recovery efforts on protecting the existing habitat
rather than expanding the species beyond its natural range.
Fishes from homogeneous habitats, such as warm springs,
may contain little of the genetic variability that could assist
the species in adapting to new environments (Vrijenhoek
et a1. 1985). Additional problems can arise when phenotypic
changes occur in introduced stock as a result of relocating
a species into habitat that differs greatly from the species'
natural habitat. Such problems were encountered when the
Devil's Hole pupfish, Cyprinodon diabolis, was introduced
from its limestone cavern known as Devil's Hole to a cement
refuge below Hoover Dam. Because the refuge was in an

7