feedback
Jump to Oregon Chub: In detail
iTranslate page

Oregon Chub

Oregonichthys crameri

Abstract

Oregon Chub Oregonichthys crameri has most recently been assessed for The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2012. Oregonichthys crameri is listed as Least Concern.


The Red list Assessmenti

Last assessed

18 April 2012

Scope of assessment

Global

Population trend

Increasing

Number of mature individuals

Population in detail

Habitat and ecology

Wetlands (inland)

Habitat and ecology in detail

Geographic range

+−
Leaflet | Powered by Esri | Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, EPA, NPS

  • Extant (resident)

  • Extinct

NatureServe 2013. Oregonichthys crameri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2
Geographic range in detail

Taxonomy

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Actinopterygii

Order

Cypriniformes

Family

Leuciscidae

Genus

Oregonichthys

Scientific name

Oregonichthys crameri

Authority

(Snyder, 1908)

Synonyms

Hybopsis crameri Snyder, 1908

Common names

English

Oregon Chub

Taxonomic sources

Markle, D.F. , Pearsons, T.N. and Bills, D.T. 1991. Natural history of Oregonichthys (Pisces: Cyprinidae), with a description of a new species from the Umpqua River of Oregon. Copeia 1991(2): 277-293.

Identification Information

Taxonomic notes

Assessment Information

IUCN Red List Category and Criteria

Least Concern 

ver 3.1

Date assessed

18 April 2012

Year published

2013

Year last seen

Previously published Red List assessments

  • 1996 — Vulnerable (VU)
  • 1994 — Vulnerable (V)
  • 1990 — Vulnerable (V)
  • 1988 — Rare (R) as Hybopsis crameri
  • 1986 — Rare (R) as Hybopsis crameri

Regional assessments

    Assessor(s)

    NatureServe

    Reviewer(s)

    Smith, K. & Darwall, W.R.T.

    Contributor(s)

    Facilitator(s) / Compiler(s)

    Hammerson, G.A. & Ormes, M.

    Partner(s) / Institution(s)

    Authority / Authorities

    Justification

    This species is downlisted from its previous assessment of VU (in 1996). The population experienced a severe decline in the 1950s and 1960s after the completion of flood control projects, resulting in its disappearance from most of its range. Since then, its status has improved. Currently most of its populations are stable or increasing. The species still has a somewhat small extent of occurrence, but it is now listed as Least Concern in view of the large number of subpopulations and locations, fairly large population size, and increasing trend in distribution and abundance.

    Geographic Range

    Native

    Extant (resident)

    United States

    Number of locations

    Upper depth limit

    Lower depth limit

    Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²)

    Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO)

    Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO)

    Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²)

    Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO)

    Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO)

    Continuing decline in number of locations

    Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations

    Range Description

    Range includes portions of the Willamette River system of the Columbia River drainage in western Oregon (see map in Scheerer 2002, Page and Burr 2011). In the early 1990s, populations were found predominantly in the Middle Fork Willamette River (Middle Fork), with a few, small populations found in the mid-Willamette River, Santiam River, and Coast Fork Willamette River (Coast Fork). The species is now well distributed throughout the Willamette Basin (in Polk, Marion, Linn, Lane, and Benton counties, Oregon), with populations in the Santiam River (nine sites), Mid-Willamette River (six sites), McKenzie River (four sites), Middle Fork (16 sites), and Coast Fork (three sites) (see USFWS 2010).

    Population

    Current population trend

    Increasing

    Number of mature individuals

    Population severely fragmented

    Continuing decline of mature individuals

    Extreme fluctuations

    No. of subpopulations

    Continuing decline in subpopulations

    Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations

    All individuals in one subpopulation

    No. of individuals in largest subpopulation

    Description

    Scheerer (2002) mapped 17–18 sites where this species was collected during 1991-2000; these represented at least a half dozen distinct occurrences; well over 100 sites in the Willamette Valley did not yield any Oregon chubs.

    Currently, there are 38 populations, of which 19 contain more than 500 adults each (see USFWS 2010).

    Total adult population size exceeds 100,000 (see USFWS 2010).

    At one point, this species had disappeared from most (98%) of the historical range; it experienced a severe decline in the 1950s and 1960s after completion of flood control projects in the Willamette River Basin. Subsequently, status has improved; species is now relatively abundant and well distributed throughout much of its presumed historical range (USFWS 2010).

    Sixteen of the 19 current populations have a stable or increasing trend (see USFWS 2010). Three generations span approximately 10–15 years.

    Habitat and Ecology

    System

    Habitat type

    Wetlands (inland)

    Generation length (years)

    Congregatory

    Movement patterns

    Not a Migrant

    Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat

    Habitat and Ecology

    This is a floodplain species. Preferred habitat is slow-moving pools, sloughs, backwaters, ponds, and reservoirs; often associated with aquatic vegetation (30-70% cover) and depositional substrates; occupied streams may be covered by thin ice in winter (Lee et al. 1980, Markle et al. 1991, Page and Burr 2011).

    Spawning occurs over plants in still water; spawners formerly may have been carried to pond and slough breeding habitats during winter and spring flooding (Markle et al. 1991). Males defend territories in or near aquatic vegetation such as Fontinalis (see USFWS 1993).

    Classification scheme

    HabitatsSeasonSuitabilityMajor importance
    5. Wetlands (inland)5.1. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Rivers/Streams/Creeks (includes waterfalls)-SuitableYes
    5.3. Wetlands (inland) - Shrub Dominated Wetlands-SuitableYes
    5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlands-SuitableYes
    5.7. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)-SuitableYes

    Threats

    Natural system modifications

    • Dams & water management/use
    • Other ecosystem modifications

    Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases

    • Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases

    Pollution

    • Domestic & urban waste water
    • Agricultural & forestry effluents

    Climate change & severe weather

    • Droughts

    Threats

    The decline possibly was due to the effects of dam construction, flood control structures, and/or introduced fishes (Markle et al. 1991, USFWS 1993). In the early 1990s, most remaining populations occurred near rail, highway, and power transmission corridors and within public park and campground facilities; these populations were threatened by (1) direct mortality from potential chemical spills and overflow from chemical toilets in campgrounds, (2) competition with and predation by non-native fishes (e.g., bass, crappie, mosquitofish) (Scheerer 2002), and (3) loss of habitat from siltation caused by logging and construction activities, unauthorized fill activities, and changes in water level or flow conditions from construction, diversions, or natural desiccation (USFWS 1993). This species does best in habitats isolated from non-native fishes; increased connectivity of floodplain habitats in a system where non-native fishes are widespread may be detrimental to the conservation and recovery of this species (Scheerer 2002).

    Threats to existing habitats include manipulation of flows (can lead to desiccation), nutrient and pesticide runoff, and vegetative succession in shallow pond environments. The chief threat to existing populations is invasion by non-native fishes, which may occur as a result of flood events, intentional introductions, or through connections between isolated chub habitats and adjacent watercourses. However, the status of the species has improved since listing (i.e., more populations have been established and are being managed to minimize threats), so the relative effect of the threat of predatory non-native fishes has declined. Monitoring for non-native fish invasions and adaptively managing in response to such invasions is necessary for the long-term viability of this species. Source: USFWS (2010).

    Classification scheme

    ThreatsTimingStressesScopeSeverityInvasive speciesVirus
    7. Natural system modifications7.2. Dams & water management/use7.2.3. Abstraction of surface water (agricultural use)Ongoing
    		Unknown
    7.2.11. Dams (size unknown)Ongoing
    		Unknown
    7.3. Other ecosystem modificationsOngoing
    		Unknown
    8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases8.1.1. Unspecified speciesOngoing
    		Majority (50-90%)
    8.1.2. Named speciesOngoing
    		Majority (50-90%)Unspecified CENTRARCHIDAE
    9. Pollution9.1. Domestic & urban waste water9.1.1. SewageOngoing
    		Majority (50-90%)
    9.1.2. Run-offOngoing
    		Majority (50-90%)
    9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents9.3.2. Soil erosion, sedimentationOngoing
    		Majority (50-90%)
    11. Climate change & severe weather11.2. DroughtsOngoing
    		Whole (>90%)

    Use and Trade

    Use and Trade

    Conservation Actions

    Conservation Actions

    Currently, this species is of relatively low conservation concern and does not require significant additional protection or major management, monitoring, or research actions.

    Conservation actions classification scheme

    Conservation Actions NeededNotes
    1. Land/water protection1.2. Resource & habitat protection

    Research classification scheme

    Research NeededNotes
    1. Research1.2. Population size, distribution & trends

    Bibliography

    Coburn, M.M. and Cavender, T.M. 1992. Interrelationships of North American cyprinid fishes. In: R.L. Mayden (ed.), Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes, pp. 328-373. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

    IUCN. 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2013.1). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 12 June 2013).

    Lee, D.S., Gilbert, C.R., Hocutt, C.H., Jenkins, R.E., McAllister, D.E. and Stauffer, J.R., Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

    Markle, D.F., Pearsons, T.N. and Bills, D.T. 1991. Natural history of Oregonichthys (Pisces: Cyprinidae), with a description of a new species from the Umpqua River of Oregon. Copeia 1991: 277-293.

    Nelson, J.S., Crossman, E.J., Espinosa-Perez, H., Findley, L.T., Gilbert, C.R., Lea, R.N. and Williams, J.D. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

    Page, L.M. and Burr, B.M. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Page, L.M. and Burr, B.M. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Pearsons, T.N. 1989. Ecology and decline of a rare western minnow: the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri). M.S. thesis, Oregon State University.

    Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. and Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society.

    Scheerer, P.D. 2002. Implications of floodplain isolation and connectivity on the conservation of an endangered minnow, Oregon chub, in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 1070-1080.

    Scheerer, P.D. and McDonald, P.J. 2003. Age, growth, and timing of spawning of an endangered minnow, the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri), in the Willamette basin, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 84: 68-79.

    Thomas, J.W., et al. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. The report of the Scientific Analysis Team, Spotted Owl EIS Team. USDA Forest Service, Portland Oregon.

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Determination of endangered status for the Oregon chub. Federal Register 58(199): 53800-53803.

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; reclassification of the Oregon chub from endangered to threatened. Federal Register 75(78): 21179-21189.

    External Data

    Images and External Links

    iNaturalist.org observations

    Search sites for species

    GooglePicSearchCalPhotosFishBaseNatureServe ExplorerGBIF - Global Biodiversity Information Facility Encyclopedia of LifeCatalogue of Life (Species2000)

    CITES Legislation from Species+

    Data Source

    The information below is from the Species+ website.

    Studies and Actions from Conservation Evidence

    Data Source

    The information below is from the Conservation Evidence website.

    Search terms: "Oregonichthys crameri", "Leuciscidae"

    My Account

    Log in

    You must log in to access advanced IUCN Red List functionality. Please enter your e-mail address and password below.

    Forgot your password?
    or
    By registering/signing up through either Facebook, Google or Twitter account, you are hereby acknowledging that you have read, and also accept the Privacy policy
    Register for an account

    To save searches and access a historical view of information you have downloaded you are required to register for an account.

    Register now

    原文

    翻訳を改善する