Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards, as per the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity.
Recovery strategy for the Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) in Canada
3. References and Appendix 1
ASRT (Ausable River Recovery Team). 2006. Recovery strategy for species at risk in the Ausable River: an ecosystem approach, 2005-2010. Draft Recovery Strategy submitted to RENEW Secretariat.
Bailey, R.M. 1959. Distribution of the American cyprinid fish Notropis anogenus. Copeia 1959 (2):119-123.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 1052 p.
Bouvier, L.D., Boyko, A.L., and Mandrak, N.E. 2010. Information in support of a Recovery Potential Assessment of Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2010/009. vi + 23 p.
Bowles, J.M. 2005. Walpole Island ecosystem recovery strategy – Draft 8. Prepared for Walpole Island Heritage Centre, Environment Canada and the Walpole Island Recovery Team. vii + 43 p.
Bryan, S.D., Robinson, A.T., and Sweetser, M.G. 2002. Behavioural responses of a small native fish to multiple introduced predators. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63: 49-56.
Carlson, D.M. 1997. Status of the Pugnose and Blackchin Shiners in the St. Lawrence River in New York, 1993-95. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12:131-139.
Cudmore, B., and Mandrak, N.E. 2011. The baitfish primer – a guide to identifying and protecting Ontario’s baitfishes. Fisheries and Oceans Canada 40 p.
DeMarais, B.D., and Minckley, W.L. 1993. Genetics and morphology of Yaqui Chub, Gila purpurea, an endangered cyprinid fish subject to recovery efforts. Biological Conservation 66:195-206.
Detenbeck, N.E., Galatowitsch, S.M., Atkinson, J., and Ball, H. 1999. Evaluating perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin. Wetlands 19:789-820.
Doka, S., Bakelaar, C., and Bouvier, L. 2006. Coastal wetland fish community assessment of climate change in the lower Great Lakes. In: Great Lakes coastal wetland communities: vulnerability to climate change and response to adaptation strategies. Edited by L. Mortsch, J. Ingram, A. Hebb, and S. Doka. Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Toronto, ON. pp. 101-128.
EERT (Essex-Erie Recovery Team). 2008. Recovery strategy for the fishes at risk of the Essex-Erie region: an ecosystem approach. Prepared for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. July 2008 – Draft.
Eddy, S., and Underhill, J.C. 1974. Northern fishes; with special reference to the upper Mississippi Valley. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 414 p.
Environment Canada. 2012. Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum. St. Lawrence Centre; Biological Information website. (accessed: March 2007).
Gilbert, J., Dunn, G., and Locke, B. 2007. Rondeau Bay ecological assessment report. Report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. May 2007.
Goldstein, R.M., and Simon, T.P. 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. pp. 123–202. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Edited by T.P. Simon. CRC Press, New York, NY, USA.
Hanna, E. 1984. Restoration of aquatic vegetation in Rondeau Bay, Lake Erie. The Plant Press 2: 99-101.
Holm, E., and Boehm, D. 1998. Sampling for fishes at risk in southwestern Ontario. Unpublished report prepared by the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum, for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Region and Aylmer District. Revised 2001.
Holm, E., and Mandrak, N.E. 2002. Update Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) status report on the Pugnose Shiner, Notropis anogenus, in Canada, InCOSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Pugnose Shiner, Notropis anogenus, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 15 p.
Lane, J.A., Portt, C.B., and Minns, C.K. 1996a. Spawning habitat characteristics of Great Lakes fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2368: v + 48 p.
Lane, J.A., Portt, C.B., and Minns, C.K. 1996b. Nursery habitat characteristics of Great Lakes fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2338: v + 42 p.
Lee, H.T., Bakowsky, W.D., Riley, J.L., Bowles, J., Puddister, M., Uhlig, P., and, McMurray, S. 1998. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario: first approximation and its application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
Lee, H.T., Leadbeater, D., Uhlig, P., and Ursic, K. 2001. Ecological land classification for Southern Ontario: training manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, SCSIS Training Manual TM-01.
Lemmen, D.S. and Warren, F.J. 2004. Climate change impacts and adaptation: a Canadian perspective. Natural Resources Canada: Ottawa, Ontario.
Leslie, J.K., and Timmins, C.A. 2002. Description of age 0 juvenile Pugnose Minnow, Opsopoeodus emiliae (Hay), and Pugnose Shiner, Notropis anogenus (Forbes), in Ontario. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2397: iii + 11 p.
Lougheed, V.L., Theÿsmeÿer, T., Smith, T., and Chow-Fraser, P. 2004. Carp exclusion, food-web interactions, and the restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh. Journal of Great Lakes Research 30: 44-57.
Lyons, J. 1989. Changes in the abundance of small littoral-zone fishes in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:2910-2916.
Mandrak, N.E., Barnucz, J., and Marson, D. 2006a. Survey of the fish assemblages of St. Lawrence Islands National Park in 2005. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2777: v + 17 p.
Mandrak, N.E., Barnucz, J., Marson, D. and Velema, G.J. 2006b. Targeted, wadeable sampling of fish species at risk in the Lake St. Clair watershed of southern Ontario, 2003. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2779: v + 26 p.
Marson, D., Mandrak, N.E., and Drake, D.A.R. 2009. Sampling of the fish communities in the Saugeen River watershed, 2005-2006. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2919: vii + 19 p.
Marson, D., Barnucz, J., and Mandrak, N.E. 2010. Fish community sampling in National Wildlife Areas in southwestern Ontario, 2002-2005. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2918: v + 47 p.
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life (web application). Version 7.1 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. (accessed: March 2009).
Nelson, M. 2006. Towards a recovery strategy for fishes at risk of the Essex-Erie region: synthesis of background Information. Prepared for the Essex-Erie Recovery Team. Draft 4 – September 2006.
Nelson, M.R. and S.K. Staton. 2007. Draft. Targeted surveys for endangered and threatened fishes of the Essex-Erie region. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2006. Lake Ontario Management Unit Report.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2011. Ontario fishing regulations – permitted baitfish species. accessed: November 2011).
Page, L.M., and Burr, B.M. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 p.
Parker, B., McKee, P., and Campbell, R.R. 1985. COSEWIC status report on the Pugnose Shiner, Notropis anogenus, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 14 p.
Parker, B., McKee, P., and Campbell, R.R. 1987. Status of the Pugnose Shiner, Notropis anogenus, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 101: 208-212.
Phillips, G.L., Schmid, W.D., and J.C. Underhill, J.C. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota region. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. 248 p.
Portt, C.B., G.A. Coker, N.E. Mandrak and D.L. Ming. 2008. Protocol for the detection of fish Species At Risk in Ontario Great Lakes Area (OGLA). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2008/026 v + 31 p.
Scott, W.B., and Crossman, E.J. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 966 p.
Smith, C.L. 1985. Inland fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. 522 p.
Surette, H.J. 2006. Processes influencing temporal variation in fish species composition in Point Pelee National Park. Thesis (M.Sc.). University of Guelph, Guelph, ON. 105 p.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. 782 p.
Vélez-Espino, L.A., Randall, R.G., Koops, M.A. 2008. Quantifying habitat requirements of four freshwater species at risk in Canada: Northern Madtom, Spotted Gar, Lake Chubsucker, and Pugnose Shiner. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2009/115. iv + 21 p.
Venturelli, P.A., Vélez-Espino, L.A., and Koops, M.A. 2010. Recovery potential modelling of Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2010/007. iv + 22 p.
Whittier, T.R., Halliwell, D.B., and Paulsen, S.G. 1997. Cyprinid distributions in Northeast USA lakes: evidence of regional-scale minnow biodiversity losses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 1593-1607.
4. Recovery team members
The following individuals were involved in the development of the recovery strategy for the Pugnose Shiner:
- Muriel Andreae, St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (distribution list only)
- Tom Beaubiah, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (distribution list only)
- Lynn Bouvier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Amy Boyko (Chair), Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Don Bucholtz, Ontario Parks (distribution list only)
- Andrea Doherty (Chair), Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Alan Dextrase, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
- Mark Ferguson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Trevor Friesen, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
- Kari Jean, Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority
- Brian Locke, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
- Dr. Nicholas Mandrak, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Brad McNevin, Quinte Conservation Authority (distribution list only)
- Mike Nelson, Essex Region Conservation Authority
- Dr. Scott Reid, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (formerly Trent University)
- Jeff Robinson, Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service)
- Katie Stammler, University of Western Ontario
- Shawn Staton, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Josh Van Wieren, Parks Canada Agency (St. Lawrence Islands National Park)
- Mari Veliz, Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority
- Shannon Wood, Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority
Definition of Status Rankings
- G-Rank (global)
- Rank assigned to an element based on its range-wide conservation status rank (G1 to G5, in decreasing order of priority). Elements ranked G1, G2, or G3 are considered imperilled. G-rank is assigned by NatureServe or the conservation data centre responsible for the element in question.
- N-Rank (national)
- Rank assigned to an element based on its national conservation status rank (N1 to N5, in decreasing order of priority). Elements ranked N1, N2, or N3 are considered imperilled.
- S-Rank (subnational)
- Rank assigned to element based on its provincial or state conservation status rank (S1 to S5, in decreasing order of priority. ,Elements ranked S1, S2 or S3 are considered imperilled).
Definition of Priority Ranking
- S1 (extremely rare)
- usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the province or very few remaining individuals; often especially vulnerable to extirpation.
- S2 (very rare)
- usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the province or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; often susceptible to extirpation.
- S3 (rare to uncommon)
- usually between 20 and 100 occurrences in the province; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances.
- S4 (common)
- apparently secure in Ontario; usually with more than 100 occurrences in the province.
- S5 (very common)
- demonstrably secure in Ontario.
For more information on status ranks visit the Natural Heritage Information Centre.
Important notice and disclaimer
DFO does not assume any responsibility for the quality of information, products or services listed in the Web sites provided above. Users should also be aware that information from external sources is available only in the language in which it was provided.
- Date Modified: