Skip booklet index and go to page content

COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Redside Dace in Canada

COSEWIC
Assessment and Update Status Report
on the
Redside Dace
Clinostomus Elongatus
in Canada

Redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus).

Endangered
2007



COSEWIC
Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada
COSEWIC logo


COSEPAC

Comité sur la situation
des espèces en péril
au Canada


COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows:

COSEWIC 2007. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the redside dace Clinostomus elongatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 59 pp.
(Species at Risk Status Reports)

Previous Reports:

Parker, B., Mckee, P. and Campbell, R.R.  1987. COSEWIC status report on theredside dace Clinostomus elongatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-20 pp.

Production Note:

COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Erling Holm and Alan Dextrase for writing the update status report on the redside dace Clinostomus elongates in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada, overseen and edited by Dr. Robert Campbell, Co-chair, COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Species Specialist Subcommittee.

For additional copies contact:

COSEWIC Secretariat
c/o Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Ottawa ON
K1A 0H3

Tel.: 819–953–3215
Fax: 819–994–3684
E-mail: COSEWIC/COSEPAC@ec.gc.ca
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca

Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le méné long (Clinostomus elongatus) au Canada – Mise à jour.

Cover illustration:
Redside dace --Drawing by Anker Odum, from Scott and Crossman (1998) by permission.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2007
Catalogue No.: CW69-14/519-2007E-PDF
ISBN: 978-0-662-45990-3

 

Return to Table of Contents

Logo of COSEWIC

COSEWIC
Assessment Summary

Assessment Summary – April 2007

Common name:
Redside Dace

Scientific name:
Clinostomus Elongatus

Status:
Endangered

Reason for designation:
This species is especially sensitive to stream alterations that interfere with flow regimes and lead to increased siltation and water temperatures. It has been lost from 5 of its 24 historic locations, and may now be gone from an additional 5; continuing decline is evident in 8 of the 14 remaining locations. More than 80% of the Canadian distribution occurs in the 'Golden Horseshoe Region' of southwestern Ontario where urban development poses the most immediate threat to the continued existence of this species in Canada. The 6 stable populations are on the fringe of urban development in watersheds that are, as yet, relatively undisturbed, but more than 50% of these locations are in, or adjacent to, areas that are expected to be developed within the next 10 to 15 years.

Occurrence:
Ontario

Status history:
Designated Special Concern in April 1987. Status re-examined and designated Endangered in April 2007. Last assessment based on an update status report.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Logo of COSEWIC

COSEWIC
Executive Summary

Redside Dace
Clinostomus Elongatus

Species Information

The redside dace is a colourful minnow that reaches a maximum length of 12 cm. In the spring it develops a bright red stripe along the front half of the body and a brilliant yellow stripe above. It is distinguished from other Canadian cyprinids by its very large mouth, protruding lower jaw, and large pectoral fins on the male. It is one of two species in the genus Clinostomus which is currently believed to be most closely related to Richardsonius, a genus of western dace.

 

Distribution

The redside dace has a discontinuous distribution ranging from southeastern Minnesota in the west; north to the Lake Superior drainage in upper Michigan, and the north end of Lake Huron in Ontario; east to New York in the Susquehanna drainage; and south to West Virginia and Kentucky.

In Canada, it is found only in Ontario in tributaries of western Lake Ontario from Oshawa to Hamilton, in tributaries of the Holland River (Lake Simcoe drainage), in a tributary of the Grand River (Lake Erie drainage), and three tributaries of Lake Huron.

Historically in Ontario, the species was found in small (< 10 m wide), isolated tributaries of 24 watersheds. It was most likely extirpated from seven of these tributaries between 1940 and 1980. Although one population (Humber River) appears to have undergone a range expansion between 1950 and 1980, most of the remaining populations have been restricted to, or become fragmented into, small isolated sections of an earlier, wider distribution in most watersheds. There is recent (2000-2004) sampling evidence that two populations (West Don and Morrison Creek) are close to extirpation, or have been extirpated.

 

Habitat

The redside dace is found in pools and slow-flowing sections of relatively small, clear headwater streams with both pool and riffle habitats and a moderate to high gradient. These streams typically flow through meadows, pasture or shrub overstory, and have abundant overhanging riparian vegetation. Redside dace occupy pool habitats and spawn in riffles or the slow-flowing water at the bottom end of pools. Populations have been lost from several streams that have had major habitat changes associated with intensive urban development and the construction of reservoirs. Approximately one-half of the extant sites are in or near areas expected to be developed over the next 16 years. The beds of the streams inhabited by redside dace are either privately owned or, if navigable, are generally owned by the Crown. The majority of adjacent lands are privately owned, but those in urban subdivisions are usually returned to public ownership.

 

Biology

The redside dace is relatively short-lived, reaching a maximum age of 4 years, with most fish maturing at age 2. Redside dace spawn in gravel riffles in May when water temperatures reach 16-18 °C. The non-adhesive eggs are normally laid in the gravel nests of co-occurring minnow species such as creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) and common shiner (Luxilus cornutus) while these species are still on the nest. The fecundity of redside dace ranges from 409-1971 eggs/female. The redside dace is a surface feeder and often leaps several centimetres out of the water to capture aerial insects. It feeds primarily on terrestrial insects, especially adult flies (Diptera). No long distance movements have been reported for redside dace populations. In Ontario, the redside dace usually co-occurs with tolerant, common coolwater fishes such as creek chub, common shiner and blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus species complex). It occasionally co-occurs with various trout species that may compete with, and prey upon, redside dace.

 

Population Sizes and Trends

Absolute population sizes have not been estimated. Analysis of data on sampling at historical sites of occurrence indicates that redside dace have declined in most of the river systems in Canada with few exceptions. Large declines have occurred in 8 watersheds that were thought to have healthy or stable populations when the status was reviewed in 1985. This conclusion was based on the presence of healthy populations in the 1970s and 1980s. Redside dace populations are strongest in tributaries of the Humber River, the Rouge River and Sixteen Mile Creek. Search efforts have failed to find them, and they are likely extirpated, from the following streams: Pringle Creek, parts of Duffins Creek (main stem, Urfe Creek and Reesor Creek), Highland Creek, the lower Rouge River, middle sections of the Don River, German Mills Creek, Mimico Creek, Etobicoke Creek, a creek in Clarkson, and Mountsberg Creek, a tributary of Bronte Creek. Surveys also suggest declines in Lynde Creek, parts of the upper Rouge River, tributaries of the Credit River (Silver Creek and its tributaries, Huttonville Creek and Fletcher’s Creek), Fourteen Mile Creek, the upper parts of all three branches of Sixteen Mile Creek, Spencer Creek, the Holland River tributaries Kettleby Creek and Sharon Creek, the Grand River tributary Irvine Creek, the Saugeen River and its tributary Meux Creek. The West Don and Morrison Creek populations are likely close to extirpation. There is no possibility of rescue from populations in the U.S.

 

Limiting Factors and Threats

The major threats to redside dace in Ontario are habitat alteration and degradation, resulting in changes in water quality and quantity and riparian vegetation, associated with urban development and agricultural activities and the introduction of non-indigenous species.

 

Special Significance of the Species

Redside dace feed primarily on terrestrial insects thereby importing terrestrial energy into stream ecosystems. Redside dace may be useful as an indicator of ecosystem health as they are more sensitive to environmental disturbance than most fish species in the Ontario streams where they occur.

 

Existing Protection

The habitat of the redside dace receives general protection under the habitat provisions of the federal Fisheries Act. The harvest of redside dace is prohibited in Ontario as it is a specially protected fish under the Ontario Fisheries Regulations. The species is listed as Threatened in Ontario and as Endangered in Michigan and Indiana.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Logo of COSEWIC

COSEWIC History

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list.  On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.

COSEWIC Mandate

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.

COSEWIC Membership

COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government science members and the co-chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species. 

Definitions

Wildlife Species
A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.

Extinct (X)
A wildlife species that no longer exists.

Extirpated (XT)
A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.

Endangered (E)
A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.

Threatened (T)
A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.

Special Concern (SC)*
A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Not at Risk (NAR)**
A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

Data Deficient (DD)***
A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species' risk of extinction.

*
Formerly described as “Vulnerable” from 1990 to 1999, or “Rare” prior to 1990.

**
Formerly described as “Not In Any Category”, or “No Designation Required.”

***
Formerly described as “Indeterminate” from 1994 to 1999 or “ISIBD” (insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation) prior to 1994. Definition of the (DD) category revised in 2006.

 

The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Table of Contents

Update
COSEWIC Status Report
on the
Redside dace
Clinostomus elongatus
in Canada
2007

Species Information

Name and Classification

Class:
Actinopterygii
Order:
Cypriniformes
Family:
Cyprinidae (carp and minnow family)
Scientific name:
Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland, 1841)
English Common name:
redside dace
French Common name:
méné long


The genus Clinostomus is endemic to North America and consists of two described species (Nelson et al. 2004). A systematic study of the redside dace has not been completed and no subspecies have been described (Gilbert 1980). The other species in the genus, the rosyside dace, Clinostomus funduloides, consists of three described subspecies one of which may be close to species status (Gilbert and Lee 1980).

Coburn and Cavender (1992) include Clinostomus in the shiner group with such genera as Notropis, Luxilus, Pimephales, Opsopoeodus and Cyprinella. Clinostomus has specialized rows of comb-like scales on the breast of spawning males, a characteristic also found in genera such as Phoxinus, Couesius, Margariscus and Richardsonius (Cavender and Coburn 1992). Coburn and Cavender (1992) hypothesize that Clinostomus is the sister group to Richardsonius (e.g., redside shiner, Richardsonius balteatus) and these two are sister groups to the remaining members of the shiner group.


Morphological Description

The redside dace (Fig. 1) is one of Canada's most brightly coloured minnows and reaches a maximum total length of 12 cm. It has a large mouth (the jaw extends to below the pupil of the eye), with a protruding lower jaw. It has relatively small scales (59-75 lateral scales). The adult has a wide, red, mid-lateral stripe that extends from the head to below the dorsal fin. Above the red stripe, there is a bright yellow stripe that extends from the head to near the tail fin. Colours intensify during spring and fade during late summer and fall, at which time there may be a purplish sheen on the sides. Males are more brightly coloured and have larger pectoral fins than females. Prior to spawning, the male develops small tubercles that are particularly prominent on top of the head and pectoral fins (Schwarz and Novell 1958, Scott and Crossman 1973, Page and Burr 1991).


Figure 1: Redside Dace from East Humber River

Figure 1: Redside dace from East Humber River.

Photo by E. Holm, ROM.

The redside dace can be distinguished from other Canadian cyprinids by its very large mouth, protruding lower jaw, and large pectoral fins on the male. Other cyprinids that have red sides such as the northern redbelly dace (Phoxinus eos), the finescale dace (P. neogaeus), the blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus species complex), and the pearl dace (Margariscus margarita) develop a red stripe that extends farther back (to the tail vs. to below the dorsal fin). The large mouth and protruding lower jaw is evident on juvenile redside dace. Very small juveniles (ca. 20-25 mm) may also be distinguished from co-occurring shiners by having 5 (vs. 4) teeth in the throat (Fish 1932).


Genetic Description

No genetic study of redside dace has been published, although allozyme and mitochondrial DNA analyses of several populations in Canada and the United States are underway (Wilson pers. comm. 2005). Preliminary findings based on allozyme electrophoresis have shown that populations in Ontario, Ohio and New York share a common postglacial ancestry from a presumably Mississippian refugium during the late Pleistocene. Populations in Ontario are genetically divergent from each other despite their geographic proximity, suggesting that these populations have been reciprocally isolated from each other since soon after their founding. Levels of genetic diversity in the sampled populations were higher than comparison populations in Ohio, indicating that inbreeding within the sampled populations is not an immediate concern. The high within-population diversity combined with the disappearance of previously known populations, however, may indicate that rates of population decline are occurring more rapidly than can be detected with genetic markers (Wilson pers. comm. 2005). These are preliminary findings based on comparisons between only a few populations, and we lack knowledge of the level of differences between all Ontario populations. Therefore, it is premature to treat populations as separate/genetically distinct units.


Designatable Units

All Canadian populations are found within the Great Lakes-Western St. Lawrence Freshwater Ecological Area (COSEWIC 2003). There are no known distinctions between the populations within this area that warrant consideration of designatable units below the species level.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Distribution

Global Range

The global range of the redside dace is discontinuous (Fig. 2). It is found in streams of all five of the Great Lakes, the Susquehanna River, the Ohio River, and the upper Mississippi River drainages. It occurs in a wide band starting from northcentral New York continuing southwest through Maryland and West Virginia, west to Kentucky and north to Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Ontario, where it was recently discovered in the Two Tree River, a northern Lake Huron tributary near the outlet of Lake Superior. In the west, this species is found primarily in Wisconsin, but populations also have been documented in the surrounding states of Minnesota, Illinois (Sabaj 2001) and Iowa. The most northerly population is in the upper peninsula of Michigan, where it was first discovered in 1998 in the Lake Superior drainage (Latta 1998). Bailey et al. (2004) suggest that this is an introduced population. Conservation Data Centres in range jurisdictions of the United States were contacted in 1997 regarding trends in the range and population abundance of redside dace. The species has been extirpated from two states (IA, MD), has experienced range reductions in at least two states (MI, OH) and was reported as having a stable range in three states (KY, IN, PA). Four jurisdictions did not have information with respect to changes in range (NY, WI, MN, WV).


Canadian Range

The current Canadian distribution of redside dace is approximately 5% of the global range, and is limited to small, isolated populations in southern Ontario (Fig. Figure3 and Figure4). Most populations occur in tributaries to western Lake Ontario from Pringle Creek (west of Oshawa )in the east to Spencer Creek (northwest of Hamilton) in the west (Fig. 3). Populations are also known from the Lake Simcoe drainage (Holland River system), the Lake Erie drainage (Irvine Creek), and the Lake Huron drainage (Saugeen River system, Gully Creek and the Two Tree River) (Parker et al. 1988; Mandrak and Crossman 1992; ROM 2005). Details regarding trends in the Canadian range of redside dace are discussed in more detail under ‘Fluctuations and Trends’ in the Population Sizes and Trends section.

The redside dace was once found in small (< 10 m wide), isolated tributaries of 24 watersheds in Ontario. The redside dace was most likely extirpated from seven watersheds between 1940 and 1980. Although one population (Humber River) appears to have undergone a range expansion between 1950 and 1980, most of the populations in the remaining 16 watersheds have been restricted to, or become fragmented into, small isolated sections of an earlier, wider distribution. There is recent (2000-2004) sampling evidence that two of these populations (West Don River and Morrison Creek) are close to extirpation, or have been extirpated, and some populations such as that in the Saugeen River, have undergone range reductions of greater than 90%. Populations have also been apparently extirpated from portions of the Humber River, Credit River and Duffins Creek watersheds. Although the overall extent of occurrence in Canada has declined slightly (estimated at 46 900 km2 from Fig. 2), the area of occupancy [estimated at less than 4 km2 based on occupied stream length X steam width as determined from 1:50 000 (topographic maps), or as 441 km2 (based on overlaid grids of cell size one km2, total AO is the number of occupied squares that are intersected by streams)] has declined significantly (Table 1).


Figure 2: Global Range of the Redside Dace

Figure 2: Global range of the redside dace.

Map based on Gilbert 1980, updated with data from Lyons et al. 2000, MDNR 2004, Mandrak 2003, Cooper 1983, Meade et al. 1986, and NYDEC 2004. Global (930 000 km2) and Canadian: (46 900 km2). Extent of occurrences are outlined.

Unverified specimens that may represent misidentifications have been reported from Graham Creek, a Spencer Creek tributary (Fletcher Creek), and a tributary of Twenty Mile Creek (Lake Ontario drainage); upper Grand River near Belwood Lake (GRCA 1996), Nith River and Washington Creek (Grand River drainage) (Taylor 1988); Cobourg Creek (Lake Erie drainage); a creek near Sebringville (Thames River drainage); a Teeswater tributary, Greenock Creek (Saugeen River drainage); and Holmesville Creek (Maitland River drainage). Data are lacking to substantiate Coad’s (1995) statement that the redside dace has dispersed outside its natural range in southern Ontario as a bait fish (Coad pers. comm. 2003).


Figure 3: Distribution of Redside Dace in the “Golden Horseshoe” Through Time Showing Sampling Attempts that did not Capture Redside Dace

Figure 3: Distribution of redside dace in the “Golden Horseshoe” through time showing sampling attempts that did not capture redside dace.

Based on Holm and Andersen (2005).


Figure 4: Distribution of Redside Dace in Southwestern Ontario Through Time, Showing Sampling Attempts that did not Capture Redside Dace

Figure 4: Distribution of redside dace in southwestern Ontario through time, showing sampling attempts that did not capture redside dace.

Based on Holm and Andersen (2005).

 

Table 1: Trends in Occupied Range for Canadian Redside Dace Populations
Drainage and streamTrend in range IncreaseTrend in range StableTrend in range DeclineTrend in range ExtirpatedComments
Lake Ontario     
Pringle Creek  XX?May be extirpated
Lynde Creek  X Small range reduction
Carruthers Creek X?   
  Duffins Creek  XX?May be extirpated from two tributaries and main stem
Petticoat Creek  XX?Probably extirpated (not collected since 1954)
Highland Creek   XLast seen in 1952
Rouge River  X Remains widespread in watershed, small range reduction
Don River  X Large range contraction
Humber RiverXXX Range expansion in West Humber, stable in east Humber, contraction in main stem
Mimico Creek   XLast seen in 1949
Etobicoke Creek   XLast seen in 1949
Clarkson Creek   XLast seen in 1927
Credit River  XXExtirpated from Levi’s creek, range reduction in Silver Creek.
Morrison Creek  XX?May be extirpated
Sixteen Mile Creek  X Small range reduction
Fourteen Mile Creek  X Small range reduction
Bronte Creek  X Large range reduction
Spencer Creek  X Large range reduction
Niagara area stream   X?Probably extirpated – last seen in 1960
Lake Simcoe     
Holland River  X Large range reduction
Lake Erie     
Irvine Creek  X Large range reduction
Lake Huron     
Gully Creek X?  Presumed stable
Saugeen River  X 94% range reduction
Two Tree River X?  Presumed stable

The information on range and population trends comes from a database maintained by the Redside Dace Recovery Team (Holm and Andersen 2005) consisting of 644 records of redside dace captures and 364 attempts at former sites of occurrence.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Habitat

Habitat Requirements

The redside dace is found in pools and slow-flowing sections of relatively small headwater streams with both pool and riffle habitats and a moderate to high gradient (McKee and Parker 1982, Meade et al. 1986, Goforth 2000, Andersen 2002, Daniels pers. comm. 2005). Substrate varies from silt to boulders, but they are often associated with gravel (McKee and Parker 1982; Becker 1983; Holm and Crossman 1986, Daniels, pers. comm. 2005). Overhanging riparian vegetation in the form of grasses and shrubs as well as undercut banks and instream cover (boulders, large woody debris) are important components of redside dace habitat. Redside dace are typically found in stream segments that flow through open meadows, pasture or shrub overstory as opposed to closed canopy forest in Ontario (Andersen 2002, Parish 2004) and Wisconsin (Becker 1983). In Kentucky, redside dace are found in forested watersheds with canopy over the stream (Meade et al. 1986).

Redside dace typically occur in streams that are clear, and water clarity is often mentioned as being important to redside dace habitat (McKee and Parker 1982; Meade et al. 1986; Daniels and Wisniewski 1994; Goforth 2000). However, redside dace have been captured in Ontario in streams with moderate turbidity (Holm and Crossman 1986), and Coon (1993) suggested that redside dace may have a broader range of tolerances to temperature, turbidity and depth in areas where they are common. The redside dace is a visual feeder which probably explains its preference for clear water habitats (Daniels and Wisniewski 1994). Studies on the effect of turbidity on other fishes have shown that turbidity reduces foraging effectiveness in some species. For example, turbid water decreased growth in brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) because they became more active switching from drift feeding to active searching (Sweka and Hartman 2001). The volume and diversity of stomach contents in brown trout decreased progressively with increasing turbidity (Stuart-Smith et al. 2004). Bonner and Wild (2002) found that prey consumption by the Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi), the emerald shiner (N. atherinoides), red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), and sand shiner (N. stramineus) was reduced by elevated turbidity. Other species appear to be unaffected. Prey consumption by the peppered chub (Macrhybopsis teranema) and flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis) was unaffected by elevated turbidity (Bonner and Wild 2002).

Redside dace are considered to be a coolwater species (Coker et al. 2001). Becker (1983) stated that redside dace avoid warm water as well as very cold water. In Ontario, most streams where redside dace have been collected had summer temperatures less than 20 °C, although some streams were as warm as 23 °C (McKee and Parker 1982). In New York, redside dace have been collected at summer stream temperatures ranging from 13-30 °C, although most (80%) of the collections were at temperatures between 14 and 25 °C (Coon 1993). Coon (1993) suggested that the optimal summer temperature for redside dace was close to 20 °C.

Redside dace are normally found in smaller streams ranging from 1-10 m (mean= 5) in width (McKee and Parker 1982; Becker 1983), In New York, stream widths averaged 5-10 m (Daniels pers. comm. 2005). Occasional individuals have been captured in the larger main stems of Ontario rivers. It is not clear whether these individuals represent established populations, or strays from smaller tributary streams. With the exception of spawning time, redside dace reside in the deeper, slow-moving pool sections of streams. Reported stream depths for redside dace captures throughout their range vary from 0.1 – 2.0 m (McKee and Parker 1982; Becker 1983; Coon 1993, Daniels pers. comm. 2005). Coon (1993) suggested that suitable habitat for redside dace was provided by pools ranging from 11-100 cm in depth. Parish (2004) found that redside dace preferred streams with small width to depth ratios. Novinger and Coon (2000) observed that redside dace displayed a consistent preference for mid-water positions in the deepest part of pools. In New York, stream discharges at sites of redside dace capture ranged from 0.01-1.6 m3/s, with most (80%) collections occurring at discharges between 0.01 and 0.43 m3/s (Coon 1993). 

Redside dace spawn in shallow gravel riffles, usually as a nest associate of other cyprinid species (Koster 1939; Page and Johnston 1992; E. Holm, unpublished data). Parish (2004) found that Ontario streams with redside dace populations tended to have riffles with larger particle sizes than streams without redside dace, even though eggs are laid on gravel substrates.

There is no information available regarding winter habitat use, although presumably they overwinter in deep pool areas with little current. There is no information available regarding the habitat of redside dace larvae. Habitat use by juveniles has not been specifically studied, although juveniles are often collected in Ontario from the same pools as adult fish.


Habitat Trends

Loss of suitable habitat (or habitat modification) is likely the major factor contributing to redside dace declines in Ontario. Populations have been lost from several streams that have had major habitat changes associated with intensive urban development and the construction of reservoirs. Population declines associated with habitat loss have probably occurred in about one-half of Ontario’s redside dace streams, and only a few are considered to be relatively undisturbed. The species is now restricted to the relatively undisturbed headwaters of many streams where it was once widespread (McKee and Parker 1982).

As urbanization has proceeded over the last 50 years in the Greater Toronto Area, most redside dace populations have disappeared from developed areas or populations have become increasingly restricted to headwater areas (Fig. 5). Approximately one-half of the redside dace sites that have been shown to be extant over the last 15 years are within, or immediately adjacent to, areas that are scheduled to be developed over the next 16 years. The nature of stream habitat changes associated with urbanization is summarized below under Limiting Factors.


Figure 5: Distribution of Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in the Greater Toronto Area Over Time

Figure 5: Distribution of redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in the Greater Toronto Area over time.

Closed circles represent sites where redside dace were captured; open circles represent sites of former redside dace occurrence where sampling occurred, but no redside dace were captured; grey shading represents extent of urban area.

A draft recovery strategy has been prepared for redside dace in Ontario that is attempting to protect and restore redside dace habitats (Redside Dace Recovery Strategy 2005).


Habitat Protection/Ownership

The habitat of the redside dace receives general protection under the habitat provisions of the federal Fisheries Act. Adjacent lands receive policy level protection through the fish habitat and species at risk provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the provincial Planning Act. The PPS prohibits development or site alteration on adjacent lands (within 30 m of fish habitat) unless it can be shown through an Environmental Impact Study that the fish habitat in question will not be negatively impacted. Development and site alteration is not permitted in the significant habitat of Ontario Threatened and Endangered species. Recent amendments to the Planning Act now require municipal planning decisions to be consistent with the PPS. The provincial Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act may also indirectly protect redside dace habitat when applications for the construction or maintenance of dams and dredging activities are reviewed. Alteration in or near floodplain, wetland, and/or watercourses is regulated by Conservation Authorities through the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation.Aspects of the provincial Nutrient Management Act, Environmental Protection Act, Water Resources Act, Source Water Protection Act may also provide indirect protection for the habitat of redside dace.

The beds of the streams inhabited by redside dace are either privately owned or, if navigable, are generally owned by the Crown. The majority of adjacent land is privately owned and in agricultural production or in urbanizing landscapes. Lands immediately adjacent to streams in urban subdivisions are usually returned to public ownership.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Biology

Aspects of the biology of redside dace have been studied throughout much of its range (Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Ontario, Pennsylvania), but there have been few comprehensive studies. There are still several aspects of its life history that are not well understood.


Life Cycle and Reproduction

The redside dace is relatively short-lived, reaching a maximum age of 4 years (Koster 1939, Schwartz and Norvell 1958). The oldest reported Ontario specimens were 3 year olds (McKee and Parker 1982). Schwartz and Norvell (1958) captured a very low ratio of males to females (1:3.5) in Pennsylvania. The highest number of males (15-50%) occurred in March-June, after which they virtually disappeared. Most were 1-2 year olds. Of 227 individuals there were 118 Age I, 72 Age II, 31 Age III and 6 Age IV.

Redside dace grow quickly and achieve about 50% of their total growth during their first year (McKee and Parker 1982). Growth of fish from pooled Ontario streams analyzed by Parker and McKee (1982) was comparable to growth in populations studied from New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (Koster 1939; Schwartz and Norvell 1958; Becker 1983). Females grow faster, and reach a larger size than males (Koster 1939; McKee and Parker 1982). In a pooled sample of redside dace from Ontario, all 1 year old fish were immature, while most 2 year olds and all 3 year olds were mature (McKee and Parker 1982). Koster (1939) found that redside dace in a New York stream mature at age 2 and that fish apparently spawned every year after reaching maturity. Given that most fish mature at age 2 and live until age 4, generation time is estimated at 3 years.

Redside dace spawn in late May in New York when water temperatures reach 18 °C (Koster 1939). Parker and McKee (1982) captured redside dace in prespawning condition in early May in the East Humber River, Ontario, at water temperatures of 16-19 °C and suggested that spawning times and temperatures in Ontario are likely similar to those observed in New York. The authors have observed redside dace spawning activity in a western Lake Ontario tributary (Fourteen Mile Creek) from 10-29 May at temperatures ranging from 16-18.3 °C.

Eggs are normally laid in riffles in the gravel nests of other minnows (Cyprinidae). Koster (1939) described spawning by redside dace in the nests of creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) and common shiners (Luxilus cornutus) in New York. Redside dace spawning activity has also been observed in Ontario streams while these two common species were still active on the nest. Observations indicated that spawning in Fourteen Mile Creek usually occurred at the bottom end of pools, or in the upper part of riffles, where the current was 5-30 cm/sec (E. Holm, unpublished data). Johnston and Page (1992) also included minnows of the genus Nocomis as nest associates. Although the range of redside dace overlaps with two Ontario species in this genus (hornyhead chub [Nocomis biguttatus] and river chub [Nocomis micropogon]), redside dace spawning activity has not been observed in Nocomis nests in Ontario. By spawning in the nests of larger minnow species, which are better at excavating nests, the eggs of the redside dace presumably have a greater chance of survival because they receive better aeration and increased protection from predation (Johnston and Page 1992). Although the practice can result in the frequent production of hybrids (Koster 1939), hybridization does not appear to be a serious problem (Becker 1983). Most nest associates are capable of spawning independently (Johnston, pers. comm. 2001), but this has not been observed in redside dace. Although creek chub and common shiners are ubiquitous in southern Ontario streams, they initiate spawning at slightly cooler temperatures (12-17 °C) than the preferred spawning temperature for redside dace (18 °C) (Becker 1983), although redside dace spawning activity has been observed as low as 16 °C. The temperature differential and the shorter spawning period of redside dace may limit opportunities for communal nesting in some years.

Koster (1939) described the spawning behaviour observed in a New York stream in great detail and most of his observations are consistent with observations from Ontario streams (E. Holm, unpublished data). During the spawning period, males leave their resident pools, and travel short distances to spawning sites, especially in the middle of the day. Prior to spawning, males defend small territories (a few centimetres in each direction) immediately behind creek chub (or common shiner) nests. When ready to spawn, redside dace congregate in dense schools behind the nest. Females then individually move forward into the nest and are followed by groups of up to 4-6 males and spawning takes place. Eggs are broadcast and fertilized in the depression of the nest. Each individual spawns several times with a number of partners. The fecundity of redside dace reported in the literature ranges from 409-1971 eggs/female (Koster 1939; Becker 1983; McKee and Parker 1982). Eggs are non-adhesive and measure 1.2-2.4 mm in diameter (Koster 1939). Koster (1939) found that males remained in spawning condition for a period of 17 days in a New York stream.

There is no direct parental care of eggs, but indirect protection may be afforded by the nest and the presence of the male nest associate. The guarding male keeps the nest free of silt and deters egg predators. Koster (1939) found that male creek chub displayed tolerance to redside dace that had moved into their nest to spawn. Development of eggs and the larval stages of redside dace have not been described. Fish (1932) described a small (23 mm) juvenile, which can be distinguished from Notropis and Luxilus in having 5 (vs. 4) pharyngeal teeth.


Feeding/Nutrition

The redside dace is primarily a surface feeder (Schwartz and Norvell 1958). The large upturned mouth of the redside dace makes it ideally adapted to capturing prey from below. Redside dace often leap several centimetres out of the water to capture aerial insects (Koster 1939; Schwartz and Norvell 1958; Daniels and Wisniewski 1994). This type of feeding behaviour relies on vision and would obviously be facilitated in habitats with clear water. The mid-water position maintained by redside dace also helps to facilitate surface feeding.

The redside dace feeds primarily on terrestrial insects, especially adult flies (Diptera) (Schwartz and Norvell 1958; McKee and Parker 1982; Daniels and Wisniewski 1994). Schwartz and Norvell (1958) found that terrestrial insects made up 77% of the diet by volume in a Pennsylvania stream from March to October. Parker and McKee (1982) found that adult flies made up 85% of the food volume consumed by redside dace from Ontario streams in August and September. Adult flies also comprised 85% of the food consumed between April and November in two New York streams (Daniels and Wisniewski 1994). Dance flies (Empididae) of the genus Hilara were the most important prey. Dance flies were not found in drift samples suggesting that redside dace were importing terrestrial energy produced in riparian vegetation into the stream (Daniels and Wisniewski 1994). Although redside dace do consume benthic insects and other invertebrate prey, these organisms are of minor importance in the diet and are more commonly eaten when winged forms are absent (Schwartz and Norvell 1958; McKee and Parker 1982; Daniels and Wisniewski 1994). Terrestrial insects are important to all age classes, although the size of food items consumed increases with age (Schwartz and Norvell 1958).

Predation on redside dace has not been reported in the literature although it undoubtedly occurs. McKee and Parker (1982) identified several piscivorous fishes that were captured infrequently at or near redside dace capture sites – brook trout, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris). Piscivorous birds and mammals may also prey upon redside dace. Novinger and Coon (2000) suggest that the close association with cover (overhanging vegetation) and selection for deep water may guard redside dace against aerial attacks.


Physiology

Only one study has examined the physiological tolerances of redside dace. Novinger and Coon (2000) examined the critical thermal maxima and metabolic rates at various acclimation temperatures. The critical thermal maximum for redside dace from New York acclimated at 20 °C was 32.6 °C. This value is slightly higher than some common minnow species that overlap in range with redside dace, but the data may not be strictly comparable due to differences in determining the end points when estimating critical thermal maxima (Novinger and Coon 2000). Predicted final preferred and optimum temperatures for growth were 24.5 and 24.7 °C, respectively. Tolerance to low oxygen levels have not been examined in the laboratory, but McKee and Parker (1982) reported capturing redside dace from Ontario streams in August and September at dissolved oxygen levels between 4-11.5 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen levels were usually greater than 7 mg/L.


Dispersal/Migration

No long distance movements have been reported for redside dace populations. Koster (1939) only noted local movements between adjacent pools and riffles at spawning time in a New York stream. McKee and Parker (1982) noted that pools inhabited in the summer in the East Humber River, Ontario were unoccupied in the spring, suggesting the fish had congregated in spawning areas.


Interspecific Interactions

The fish communities that are normally associated with redside dace populations in Ontario typically consist of common, tolerant coolwater species such as creek chub, common shiner and blacknose dace. The relationship with creek chub and common shiner as nest associates appears particularly important to redside dace. Redside dace do not regularly co-occur with other species at risk.

Redside dace occasionally co-occur with native brook trout but the two are generally not found together. The influence of introduced rainbow trout and brown trout (Salmo trutta) on redside dace has not been investigated experimentally. In one study in the Susquehanna River in New York, however, redside dace, as well as other minnows, were extirpated after the introduction of 12-inch brown trout in 1998 (Stewart pers. comm. 2006).Their influence on redside dace may be conditional on the presence of other predators in the same habitat. Bryan et al. (2002) found that the joint presence of two introduced predators (virile crayfish (Orconectes virilis) and rainbow trout) negatively affected the Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata), a trout-like minnow. Treatments with only rainbow trout did not result in predation of spinedace, but there was a significant reduction of activity level. Treatments with both crayfish and rainbow trout resulted in a decrease in activity rates and a decrease in rates of movements into and out of refuges. An experimental examination of the interactions between rainbow trout and the closely related rosyside dace suggested that interactions between the two species were minimal (Rincon and Grossman 1998). Some authors have identified the redside dace as a problem in that it competes with trout for food and may limit trout production (Greeley 1938; Becker 1983).

The introduction of predatory northern pike (Esox lucius), basses and sunfishes (Centrarchidae) has coincided with the disappearance of the redside dace in at least two creeks (Spencer and Mountsberg). Habitat change from urbanization and agriculture in these two systems has been minimal.


Adaptability

The redside dace does not appear to be able to adapt to habitat alteration as many populations have been extirpated or have declined in the face of habitat change. Artificial propagation and re-introductions have not been attempted with redside dace to date.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Population Sizes and Trends

Population sizes have never been determined, but are probably much greater in parts of the United States than in Canada. For example, Greeley (1938) analyzed 701 collections in New York and found the redside dace at 27.1% of the sites in the Allegheny watershed and 13.8% of the sites in the Chemung (Susquehanna) watershed. About 50 years later, there had been little change in the distribution of redside dace in New York. Surveys in the Allegheny River found the redside dace at 47 (27%) of 174 sites. A small decline had occurred in only one creek (Daniels, pers. comm. 2005).


Search Effort

No targeted surveys were conducted for redside dace in Canada prior to 1979, whereas several recent surveys have targeted areas where redside dace are known from historical records or where suitable habitats existed. Many historical records of redside dace result from the extensive surveys by the Ontario Department of Planning and Development (ODPD) from 1946 to 1959 in several watersheds of southern Ontario. These and other surveys prior to 1970 were conducted with seine nets and traps. In the 1970s, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) conducted stream surveys which included systematic fish sampling using a variety of gear types (including backpack electrofishing) throughout most streams, rivers and their major tributaries in southern Ontario. In 1979, specific survey efforts were directed to sampling redside dace and 12 other species thought to be at risk for inclusion in a COSEWIC list of rare, threatened, endangered and extinct fishes of Canada (McKee and Parker 1982). The Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) sampled 69 sites in 1985 (38 sites with historical redside dace records) specifically searching for redside dace. For the last 8 years, numerous surveys have been conducted by the ROM, Conservation Authorities, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), OMNR and Ontario Streams throughout the range of redside dace in Ontario to confirm its distribution and investigate abundance at some sites. In addition to these specific search efforts, records of redside dace have been contributed by consultants, management agencies and students conducting work for other purposes. These have been documented in a database (Holm and Andersen 2005) and are summarized in Tables 1-22 of the Appendix. It is important to note that most of the recent records for redside dace are related to specific search efforts for this species, while most of the early records come from general survey work.

A repeat sampling event may suffer from a number of problems including unintentional sampling at the wrong location or in unsuitable habitat, differences in methods or effort, changed environmental conditions (e.g., water levels, current speed, temperature, timing, turbidity), misidentification of the species, and a shift in habitat location as the stream course moves naturally over time or has been intentionally altered. Therefore, some differences in results between the original sampling event and the repeat sampling event may result from factors other than a change in the status of the redside dace in the stream. 


Abundance

The total Canadian population size is unknown and would be very difficult to estimate accurately. Based on the number of successful collecting events and the total number of individuals collected, the healthiest populations occur or occurred in the Humber, Rouge, Don, Credit and Saugeen watersheds. Despite such healthy populations, the redside dace is still described as a rare species in these watersheds (Parker et al. 1988).


Fluctuations and Trends

Sampling has been adequate in most watersheds to qualitatively identify trends in abundance. This sampling indicates that declines or extirpations have occurred in 21 of 24 Canadian watersheds (see Table 1, Appendix: Tables 1-22). Abundance has probably remained relatively stable in three streams (Carruthers Creek, Gully Creek, and Two Tree River), and within the East Humber River of the Humber River watershed. There is evidence that a range expansion may have occurred in the West Humber River portion of this watershed. While range reduction and, presumably, declines in abundance have occurred in Sixteen Mile Creek, the main stem of the Humber River, the Rouge River and Fourteen Mile Creek, there are still fairly abundant populations remaining in large parts of these streams. The species has probably been extirpated from five streams (Highland, Mimico, Etobicoke and Clarkson creeks and a Niagara area stream). Redside dace may also be extirpated from all or parts of five additional streams (Petticoat, Pringle and Morrison creeks and parts of Duffins Creek and the Credit River). Large declines, or extirpations, have occurred in six creeks (Morrison, Bronte, Spencer, Irvine, Meux and Kettleby) that were presumed to have healthy or stable populations in 1985 (Holm and Crossman 1986 and Parker et al. 1988).

Lake Ontario Drainage

Pringle Creek: The redside dace has not been seen since 1959, despite efforts in 1985 (Holm and Crossman 1986) and 1999 (Andersen 2002) (Appendix: Table 1). Andersen (2002) concluded that the species is severely limited or extirpated from Pringle Creek.

Lynde Creek: The redside dace was first captured at 5 sites in the upper half of both branches of Lynde Creek in 1959 (Appendix Table 2a). In 1983 it was reported from 10 new sites in the east branch but visits to two ODPD sites in 1985 failed to catch the species. Sampling conducted between 1999 and 2001 (Andersen 2002, Andersen unpublished data) found them at only 1 of the 5 ODPD sites (Appendix Table 2a) but captured them at another 10 new sites in both branches (Appendix Table 2b). Results of these surveys suggest range contraction in the east branch, and the maintenance of range in the west branch. Two 1959 records in lower Lynde Creek (2.4 km NW of Whitby, listed by Crossman and Holm (1986), appear to be erroneous (see ROM Accession 525). One of them was sampled in 2000 and failed to yield redside dace (Anderson pers. comm. 2001).

Carruthers Creek: This is a local name for a small tributary of Lake Ontario just west of Ajax. The redside dace was first recorded from the lower reaches of this creek in 1978 (Natural Heritage Information Centre, Element Occurrence). Sampling in 2001 at two sites, located about 10 km farther upstream, resulted in the capture of 90 redside dace (Ruthven, pers. comm. 2000).Its presence at the 1978 site has not been confirmed since, although sampling effort is unknown.

Petticoat Creek: The redside dace has not been captured in Petticoat Creek since 1954, when it was recorded at two sites by the ODPD. Attempts in 1975, 2003, and 2005 at one of the sites and several attempts at other sites yielded no redside dace. Recently, many summer survey efforts have failed to find water, except in the lower reaches of Petticoat Creek (Lawrie, pers. comm. 2005). The lack of redside dace in this sampling, and the lack of reports of redside dace in a 50-year period, suggests that the species may be extirpated in Petticoat Creek.

Duffins Creek: Known from five tributaries and the main branch, the redside dace has only recently been found in three (Michell Creek in 2003, a Brougham Creek tributary in 1999, and Ganatsekiagon Creek in 1996). Despite continuing to be found at new sites, sampling conducted from 1979-2003 indicates a decline in frequency of occurrence at historical sites, as well as overall numbers of individuals captured (Appendix Table 3a, b). Significant decline or extirpation has occurred in Reesor Creek, Urfe Creek and the main channel of Duffins Creek.

Highland Creek: The redside dace was last seen in the lower reaches of Highland Creek in 1952 (ROM 15637). The species has not been captured since, despite at least 4 attempts (Appendix: Table 4), and it is likely extirpated from Highland Creek.

Rouge River: The redside dace is still widespread and has been recently captured in high numbers in the tributaries of the upper Rouge River. Results of sampling at 30 historical sites, however, have seen a steady decline in the number of sites with redside dace. Although numbers captured have been relatively high, there has also been considerable effort spent to get them (Appendix: Table 5a). The species continues to be found at new sites in the Rouge in fairly high numbers but search effort is unknown (Appendix: Table 5b). Although the redside dace was still present in 2003 in Morningside Creek, sampling in 1997 and 2003 yielded 4 times fewer individuals of redside dace, and a dramatic decline in relative abundance (4.5% in 1984 and 1985 vs. 0.1% in 1997 and 2003).

Don River: The redside dace has demonstrated a dramatic range contraction in both branches of the Don River, and may be near extirpation in the Don River West Branch. It was first captured in the lower East Branch in 1926 and again in 1935. In 1949, it was still widespread in the upper half of both sections, when the ODPD found them at 23 sites (Fig. 6). Although it appears to be maintaining itself in the upper East Don, considerable effort has yielded fewer individuals (Appendix: Table 6a) and they have been reported from very few new sites (Appendix: Table 6b). A larger decline in both number of sites and individuals captured has occurred in the West Don (Appendix: Table 7a, b). This population was still extant in 1998, but survey efforts in 2002-2003 suggest that the species may have disappeared.


Figure 6: Sampling in the Don Riverin 1949 Showing Presence of Redside Dace (solid circles)

Figure 6: Sampling in the Don Riverin 1949 showing presence of redside dace.

Open circles indicate its absence (area ~ 33 km X 37 km).


Figure 7: Summary of Results of Sampling Effort in the Don River (both branches)

Figure 7: Summary of results of sampling effort in the Don River (both branches).

Solid circles represent presence of redside dace in 1995-2004 (Dates of capture (format YYYYMMDD) in boxed labels). Open circles represent sites of past redside dace occurrence where more recent sampling for redside dace was unsuccessful (Dates of sampling in unboxed labels). Note that 3 unsuccessful sampling events in the West Branch occurred in 2002-2003 at the site that is marked with a solid circle (area ~ 32 km2).

Humber River: In 1946, a basin-wide survey was conducted by the ODPD. The redside dace was captured only in the East Humber River at 8 sites and at one site in Black Creek (TRCA 2000). After 1946, surveys suggest that the redside dace expanded its range into the main and west Humber branches. It was first found in the main branch near Bolton in 1959. Surveys in the 1970s reported the species from several more sites in the main Humber, and at two sites in the West Humber. In the 1980s, it was more widespread in the West Humber (Fig. 8). In the 1990s, it was found at a new site in the headwaters of the main Humber, but attempts in the rest of the main branch failed to catch any. Search efforts in the East Humber River at the 8 ODPD sites continue to yield redside dace, although at reduced numbers after 1994 (Appendix: Table 8a). In 1991, a juvenile was captured in Black Creek, near its mouth (ROM 62630). This juvenile indicates that between 1946 and 1991, the redside dace in Black Creek may have been present in low numbers, or it may have drifted downstream from the more healthy population in the East Humber. It continues to be found in high numbers at new sites in the Humber River as recently as 2003 (Appendix: Table 8b).

Mimico Creek: In 1935-1949, the redside dace occurred in the lower half of Mimico Creek where it was recorded at 4 sites. Several survey attempts since 1985 at these sites and others have failed to capture it (Appendix: Table 9), and it is presumed extirpated.

Etobicoke Creek: In the 1940s, the redside dace occurred in the lower and middle half of Etobicoke Creek and its tributaries (Appendix: Table 10a). No sampling is known from three sites in the middle reaches, which have become highly modified as a result of the expansion of Pearson Airport and adjacent development. Surveys at the two sites in lower Etobicoke Creek have failed to find it since the late 1940s despite considerable effort (Appendix: Table 10a, b), and it is presumed extirpated.

“Clarkson Creek”: No redside dace have been captured in the creeks in Clarkson since 1927. In 1985, two creeks in Clarkson were sampled at 9 sites, 7 in Sheridan Creek and 2 in Turtle Creek (Holm and Crossman 1986). Other attempts in these creeks in 1986 (ROM Accession 5021), 1994 (ROM Accession 6186), 1996 (ROM Accession 6420) and 2004 (Coker pers. comm. 2004) failed to capture redside dace.

Credit River: In the Credit River system, the redside dace is widely distributed, but rare. It has been documented from the main branch and several tributaries: Roger’s Creek, Silver Creek and three of its tributaries (Black Creek, Nichols Creek and Snows Creek), Huttonville Creek, Fletcher’s Creek and Levi’s Creek. Recent sampling attempts have discovered them ina tributary of Caledon Creek and Springbrook Creek.  The most comprehensive survey occurred in 1954 when the ODPD documented the redside dace at 12 sites. Sampling attempts from 1965 to 2003 at these sites indicate a decline in both frequency and number of individuals (Appendix: Table 11a). Repeated sampling in Levi’s Creek has yielded no redside dace, and repeated sampling in Silver Creek and its tributaries has yielded only a single specimen in 2005. Decline also appears to be occurring in most of the other creeks of the Credit River. Although a single redside dace was captured in 2003 in Fletcher’s Creek, many attempts, particularly those in the more heavily urbanized middle reaches, have yielded none. There is evidence that some of the decline has occurred very recently.Sampling since 1999 (8 attempts) conducted by Credit Valley Conservation has failed to capture redside dace in Huttonville Creek at a site where every sampling attempt before 2000 had yielded redside dace. Status of the population in the Caledon Creek tributary is unknown but the creek was dry when visited in 1999 (Grewal pers. comm.1999).


Figure 8: Distribution of Redside Dace in the Humber River Through Time

Figure 8: Distribution of redside dace in the Humber River through time.

Open circles are sampling sites for time period indicated at lower left. Closed circles indicate presence of redside dace. 1921-1938: Royal Ontario Museum; 1946: ODPD (summarized in Wainio and Hester (1972) and by Toronto Region Conservation Authority (2000); 1959: Wainio and Hester (1972); 1970-1999 Toronto Region Conservation Authority (2000) [area~ 45 km X 53 km].

Morrison Creek: In 1954, the redside dace was widespread in both branches of Morrison Creek where it was found at 6 of 7 sites sampled by the ODPD. Sampling attempts in 2000-2003 at 5 of these sites resulted in no redside dace (Appendix: Table 12a). Although two specimens were found at a new site in 2000 (Appendix: Table 12b), these were captured after electrofishing 1.7 km of stream. Two subsequent attempts in 2003, near or at that site, failed to capture any redside dace. The species is, therefore, either extirpated or near extirpation.

Sixteen Mile Creek: In 1957, the redside dace was widespread in the upper half of all three branches of Middle Sixteen Mile Creek. It was found at 9 sites in the west, 4 in the middle and 1 in the east branch (ODPD 1957). Sampling in 1995-2003 has failed to find the redside dace at the most upstream sites of all three branches, but they were found in the middle and lower reach of the west and in tributaries of the lower reach of the middle branch. Three sites in the upper reaches of Middle Sixteen Mile Creek where the redside dace was captured in 1957 and 1975 were sampled in 2001 and no redside dace were captured (Watson-Leung, pers. comm. 2001). Despite this apparent range contraction,the redside dace is still thriving in many tributaries of Sixteen Mile Creek. Sampling of historical sites has had a high rate of success recently (Appendix: Table 13a) and the species continues to be found at new sites (Appendix: Table 13b).

Fourteen Mile Creek: In 1957, redside dace were captured at 3 of 8 sites sampled by the ODPD. It occurred from near the mouth to near the headwaters. Surveys in 1985, however, found the redside dace at only 1 of 3 of these sites, and it is likely that it is no longer found near the mouth and in a small tributary entering Fourteen Mile Creek from the east. In 1998-2003 15 sampling events at 12 sites captured 288 individuals of redside dace (Appendix: Table 14a, b) indicating that a healthy population of redside dace still occurred throughout the remaining historical range of Fourteen Mile Creek.

Bronte (Twelve Mile) Creek: The redside dace was first captured in 1958 in surveys by the ODPD, but locality data of these sites are missing. Surveys conducted in the 1970s found them at five sites throughout most of Mountsberg (Badenoch) Creek and at six sites in the main branch in a 20 km stretch. At least five of the sites yielded over 10 specimens and two sites yielded 20 and 23 specimens each (Appendix: Table 15a). In 1995-2000, surveys at 7 of these sites resulted in the capture of only a single individual (Appendix: Table 15a) in the main branch. Most of these recent surveys have been in Mountsberg Creek, where the redside dace has virtually disappeared. Since 1979, the species has been captured at only one new site (Appendix: Table 15b) in the main branch.

Spencer Creek: Parker et al. (1988) suggested that the redside dace population in Spencer Creek was stable in 1985. This was based on 1970s surveys that found the species widespread in the upper half of Spencer Creek and a tributary, Flamborough Creek. Redside dace, however, appear to be now present only in very low numbers in a small stretch of the main branch of Spencer Creek. Sampling in 1993 at 11 sites within the historic range captured redside dace at four sites in a 1 km stretch of the main branch. It was not captured from three sites upstream or four sites downstream, or from a site in lower Flamborough Creek (Staton et al. 1993). Sampling in 1995 (Thompson et al. 1995) reported the redside dace from two sites in the main branch, and at a new site in Fletcher Creek, a cold-water tributary that flows into upper Spencer Creek. There is no voucher and this latter record may have been misidentified (Duncan pers. comm. 1998). Surveys in 1998, 2001 and 2004 found no redside dace at 3 sites of former occurrence (Appendix: Table 16a). Only a single individual was captured at a site close to the ones captured in 1993 after considerable fishing effort (Holm 1999).

Niagara Peninsula: The species was last observed in 1960 from a stream in the Niagara Peninsula (near the 7th Lock of the Welland Canal). This may have been Ten Mile Creek or a tributary of Twelve Mile Creek. These streams now run through St. Catharines, and it is unlikely that this population is still extant, although there has been no known sampling at the site.

Lake Simcoe Drainage

Holland River: In 1976-1980 the redside dace was recorded from three sites in a small Holland River tributary, Kettleby Creek. In 1994 it was found in another tributary, Sharon Creek at one site, and it was recorded from a third unnamed tributary of the South Holland Canal just west of Kettleby Creek at one site (Gamsby & Mannerow Limited, 1995). Extensive sampling between 1988 and 2003 in Kettleby Creek and Sharon Creek (Appendix: Tables 17 and 18) resulted in the capture of only a single redside dace at one site in Kettleby Creek. This sampling indicates that, in 2003, the range of the redside dace in the Holland River system appears to be greatly reduced from previous levels. No known attempts have been made in the unnamed tributary of the Holland Canal west of Kettleby Creek since the 1995 report.

Lake Erie Drainage

Irvine Creek: In the 1970s, the redside dace was widely distributed in Irvine Creek (ROM Accession 2701, Parker and McKee 1980). Extensive sampling at the 5 historical redside dace sites and many new sites in Irvine Creek in 1997-2005 (Holm 2003, Mandrak, pers. comm. 2005) suggests that it has disappeared from three of the sites (Appendix: Table 19a), although relatively high numbers were captured at three new sites in 2001-2003 (Appendix: Table 19b). There is recent evidence, however, that the abundance at a site where 25 individuals were captured in 2001 (Holm 2003) has now been significantly reduced. Three sampling events at that site in 2003-2005 yielded only two specimens (Barnucz, pers. comm. 2005).

Lake St. Clair Drainage

Thames River: A record exists for the Thames River from “a creek near Sebringville”, but a voucher specimen could not be found (Kott, pers. comm. 2000). Extensive sampling in streams tributary to the Thames River in the Sebringville area in 1997 by the ROM and the Upper Thames Region Conservation Authority found no redside dace. If the original record was valid, it appears unlikely that the species exists there now.

Lake Huron Drainage

Saugeen River: In 1953 and 1954, surveys by the ODPD recorded redside dace from five sites in a 13 km stretch in Meux Creek, at one site in the headwaters of the South Saugeen River, and at 20 sites in a stretch of approximately 40 km in the upper Saugeen River and its tributaries. In 1972, it was found at one additional site in the upper Saugeen River (Appendix: Table 20b) and in 2001, it was found at three additional sites in the headwaters of Meux Creek (Appendix: Table 21b). Surveys in 1985-2004 in the upper Saugeen River captured redside dace at only 3 sites in 2000 in a 2.4 km section in the headwaters of the Saugeen River (Appendix: Table 20a). Abundance of the redside dace in Meux Creek was still relatively high in 1985, when over 100 individuals were captured at 4 sites (Appendix: Table 21a). Extensive sampling in 2004, however, at all 5 ODPD sites resulted in the capture of only a single individual (Appendix: Table 21a). A 1992-1993 study by Cam Portt and Associates (Coker, pers. comm. 2001) found 15 individuals of redside dace prior to construction of a road crossing in Meux Creek, but none were captured after construction in 1993. A 1977 record of redside dace in Greenock Creek reported by Parker and McKee (1980) was considered invalid by Holm and Crossman (1986). This record is based on an observation of 2 specimens by the collector (D. Krewtzweiser) and documented on a Canadian Museum of Nature (CMN) catalog sheet (CMN1979-1205A); however, no voucher specimens exist. Sites near or at the described locality sampled in 1985 and 2004 did not yield any redside dace (Holm and Crossman 1986; Forder 2005). The failed attempts to capture redside dace in the South Saugeen, most of the upper Saugeen River and in Meux Creek indicate that its range has declined dramatically in the Saugeen River in the last 46 years. Of 26 sites, it has been recaptured at only 7 (27%) since 1954. Based on estimated occupied stream length, the range of the redside dace in the Saugeen River has declined from approximately 54 km to 3 km (6.5% of its estimated range in the early 1950s).

Gully Creek: A total of 8 redside dace were captured at two of three sites in 1980 in this small Lake Huron tributary (Appendix: Table 22). Attempts at both sites in 2001 captured six specimens at only one site. Additional sampling for rainbow trout in 1988 failed to catch any redside dace (Malhiot pers. comm. 2001).

Two Tree River: A total of 4 specimens have been captured in 2 of 4 sampling attempts indicating that the abundance of redside dace in the Two Tree River is low.


Rescue Effect

The redside dace is confined to small streams (often in headwater areas) and there is no confirmed record from the Great Lakes proper. Therefore, it is unlikely that any dispersal from even adjacent populations in Canada, much less the more healthy U.S. populations, is possible. The healthiest populations are in Ohio (SNR), Pennsylvania (S4) and New York (S3). Rescue from any of these states is improbable because it would require migration across the open expanses of the Great Lakes. While the Michigan populations are adjacent to the Detroit River, the redside dace is a declining species in the state where it is listed as endangered (Goforth 2000).

 

Return to Table of Contents

Limiting Factors and Threats

Redside dace populations have declined in many areas of their North American range (Page and Burr 1991). A variety of factors including deforestation, agriculture, urban development, coal mining, golf course development, pollution and introduced species have been implicated in these declines (Trautman 1981; McKee and Parker 1982; Becker 1983; Meade et al. 1986; Goforth 2000; Lyons et al. 2000). In Ontario, redside dace are subject to numerous threats that vary across its range. Parker et al. (1988) suggested that siltation and removal of bank cover in urban areas were important limiting factors. None of these threats has been empirically demonstrated, but there is sufficient evidence to identify probable cause and effect in some instances.

Given that more than 80% of Canada’s redside dace populations are found in the ‘Golden Horseshoe Region’ of Ontario, urban development represents the most immediate threat to the species in Canada. Several populations have been lost or remain only in headwater areas as urban development proceeds. About one-half of the extant redside dace locations are in, or adjacent to, areas expected to be developed over the next 15 years. The human population of the Greater Toronto Area is expected to increase by 1.3 million over the next 15 years (Federation of Ontario Naturalists 2001). In the Golden Horseshoe Region, the population is expected to increase by almost 4 million people by 2031 (MPIR 2004). The healthiest remaining populations are near the current extent of urban development, but are found in watersheds that are relatively undisturbed.

The underlying mechanisms associated with urban development that negatively impact redside dace are poorly understood, but likely relate to numerous factors. An important overriding factor may be changes to in-stream channel structure that result in widening of the channel and reductions in pool depth. Such changes are often associated with hydrological changes and increases in peak discharges that occur when the landscape is cleared of vegetation and hardened (OMNR 2001). These changes also contribute to siltation that may affect redside dace feeding success through reductions in water clarity, particularly during the construction phase.

Several studies have shown that the quality of streams and their biota can be negatively affected when impervious cover (e.g., roads, houses, parking lots) exceeds 10% of a stream’s catchment area (Booth and Jackson 1997, Wang et al. 2001, Environment Canada 2004, Stanfield et al. 2004). A study of streams in the Lake Ontario basin demonstrated that salmonid species only occurred in streams with a catchment that was less than 10% impervious cover (Stanfield et al. 2004). Wang et al. (2001) concluded that levels of connected imperviousness above 12% are associated with sharp declines in fish species richness, bank erosion and base flow. While such detailed landscape-based analysis has not yet been conducted for redside dace habitats in Ontario, a preliminary analysis by Parish (2004) also found that redside dace preferred stream channels that are not heavily influenced by urban drainage.

Direct changes to channel structure, through channelization that often occurs in urban areas, may also widen channels, reduce pool depth, increase peak discharges, and increase siltation. Removal of riparian vegetation, an important source of cover, would directly affect the production of terrestrial insects required by redside dace during a large portion of the year. Daniels and Wisniewski (1994) suggested that extensive alteration of riparian vegetation may be more important than instream habitat alterations in causing declines of redside dace populations. In-stream barriers and weirs may affect redside dace access to spawning areas and could be detrimental if metapopulation dynamics are important to redside dace populations. A rise in stream temperature is often associated with clearing of forests (Johnson and Jones 2000) and urban development (Leopold 1968), and may be detrimental to redside dace, particularly if the increase is sudden. Other developments may contribute to reductions in groundwater inputs that are important in regulating summer temperatures and base flows in streams.  Groundwater is probably also important to maintain winter habitat. Although the tolerance of redside dace to pollutants is unknown, urban developments pose the risk of exposing local populations to household chemicals and storm water run-off. Nutrients, metals, chlorides and bacteria counts were elevated in two Credit River tributaries (Fletcher’s and Silver creeks) where redside dace have disappeared or declined due primarily to loadings from urban runoff (CVC 2002).

Despite the fact that urban development is a primary factor affecting redside dace populations in Canada, declines in redside dace distribution and abundance have also been observed in agricultural settings (e.g., Saugeen River and Irvine Creek). While low intensity operations (e.g., hayfields) may not pose a problem, intensive agriculture (e.g., row cropping and intensive grazing) presents several threats to redside dace populations. Some of the factors that may affect redside dace are similar to those found in urban settings; however, specific mechanisms are poorly understood. Removal of riparian vegetation to increase crop production or allowing livestock access to streams can contribute to siltation, changes in channel structure and deplete supplies of terrestrial insect food. Some streams formerly occupied by redside dace and tributaries to streams currently occupied, have been channelized and converted to municipal drains. The extensive use of tile drains also increases flows after storm events and can serve as a conduit for sediment (Culley et al. 1983). Agricultural landscapes also provide the opportunity for episodic or chronic pollution events associated with the use of pesticides and fertilizers. A recent manure spill in Irvine Creek killed all fishes along several kilometres of stream, but no redside dace were identified (Coulson pers. comm. 1999).

The decline of redside dace in Mountsberg Creek and Spencer Creek followed the construction of reservoirs near the headwaters. These have altered the thermal regime and may have made temperatures unsuitable for redside dace (Featherstone pers. comm. 2000). Potential predators such as northern pike, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and black crappie were also newly captured in the creeks and may have had a deleterious effect on the redside dace.

The impacts of introduced species on redside dace have not been specifically studied, but declines in redside dace populations have been observed in Spencer Creek concomitant with the introduction of potential cyprinid competitors, such as rosyface shiners (Notropis rubellus), and predatory northern pike (Holm 1999). Resident brown trout and migratory rainbow trout have been introduced into several Toronto area streams with redside dace populations and redside dace occasionally naturally co-occur with brook trout. There is evidence that redside dace have co-existed with introduced salmonids in several Toronto area streams, but specific studies on the interactions between these species are required. Lyons et al. (2000) noted that redside dace disappeared in two Wisconsin streams after the introduction of brown trout, but no cause and effect relationship was established. Redside dace may be more susceptible to the impacts of introduced species when stream systems are affected by multiple stresses.

Activities associated with the extraction of aggregates may result in reduced base flows and increased stream temperatures (OMNR 2001). Redside dace disappeared in a Kentucky stream that was impacted by gravel extraction, septic seepage and agricultural activities (Meade et al. 1986). Similarly, withdrawals of surface water and groundwater (e.g., golf ourses; agricultural irrigation) in watersheds with redside dace populations may reduce flows to unacceptable levels and result in increased stream temperatures. The impacts of such extraction and withdrawal activities on redside dace populations have not been investigated but are expected to be negative.

The impact of bait harvest on populations of redside dace has not been studied. Populations restricted to a small length of stream may be particularly vulnerable to exploitation through bait harvesting. Redside dace are very vulnerable to seine nets, the most common gear used by baitfish harvesters in southern Ontario streams. However, due to restricted access, most streams are only harvested at road crossings. Redside dace are not a legal baitfish in Ontario (they are protected under the Ontario Fisheries Regulations), but there is potential for incidental harvest.

In Ontario, redside dace appear to achieve their highest abundance in open streams with riparian zones consisting of grasses, forbs and low shrubs. These habitats may be maintained by the presence of wetlands, land clearing, spring flooding, ice scour and beaver activity. Treed areas with complete canopy closure do not appear to provide optimal habitat. Succession to tree species and canopy closure in riparian areas may similarly reduce the quality of redside dace habitat. Andersen (2002) found that areas that supported redside dace in the 1950s when they were under agricultural use, did not support redside dace when they had reverted to forest. Current streamside restoration efforts on redside dace streams in Ontario are using native grasses and shrubs to revegetate riparian areas.

The impacts of climate change effects are difficult to predict. Climate change is expected to 1) have no effect, 2) reduce stream flows and increase stream temperatures or 3) increase the frequency of flooding events in southern Ontario within the range of redside dace (IPCC 2001). The last two changes are expected to be detrimental to populations of redside dace, although, if properly managed, higher rates of precipitation could increase available habitat. Although climate change may make conditions more suitable for redside dace in more northern portions of the province, the potential for colonizing new areas is low.

While it is unlikely that scientific collections have had a major impact on redside dace populations in Canada (few have been collected), collecting should be viewed as a potential threat. This is particularly true for populations that currently occupy a reduced length of stream and may be restricted to a small number of pools. Although redside dace are normally released when they are captured during monitoring projects, there are examples of studies where relatively large numbers of specimens have been collected. The OMNR generally prohibits lethal sampling when Scientific Collector’s Permits are issued.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Special Significance of the Species

The redside dace is an insectivore that feeds primarily on terrestrial insects (Scott and Crossman 1973; Daniels and Wisniewski 1994); therefore it provides a conduit for energy cycling between terrestrial and stream environments. Where redside dace are abundant, they may serve as prey for piscivorous fishes and fish-eating birds. Redside dace may be useful as an indicator of ecosystem health as they are more sensitive to environmental disturbance than most fish species in the Ontario streams where they occur. Becker (1983) suggested that the colour and active nature of redside dace would make it desirable as an aquarium fish.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Existing Protection or Other Status Designations

The harvest of redside dace is prohibited in Ontario as it is a specially protected fish under the Ontario Fisheries Regulations (made under the federal Fisheries Act). The redside dace was assessed by COSEWIC in 1987 as Special Concern (COSEWIC 2004) and a species of Special Concern under Schedule 3 of the federal Species at Risk Act. It is listed as Threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. It has been ranked as “at risk” at the provincial level and “may be at risk” at the national level by the General Status of Wild Species in Canada. The redside dace is considered apparently secure globally (G4) and is ranked as rare (S1 to S3) in most U.S. states where it occurs (Table 2). The sub-national rank for this species in Ontario is S3. The redside dace is listed as Endangered in the states of Indiana (IDNR 2002) and Michigan (Goforth 2000), and is a species of Special Concern in Wisconsin (Lyons et al. 2000).

 

Table 2: Global, National and Subnational Heritage Ranks for the Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus)
Rank levelRankJurisdictions
GlobalG4 
NationalN4United States
 N3Canada
SubnationalS4Pennsylvania
 S3S4Kentucky
 S3New York, Ontario, Wisconsin
 S1S2Michigan, West Virginia
 S1Indiana
 SXIowa, Maryland
 SNRMinnesota, Ohio

NatureServe 2006.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Technical Summary

Clinostomus elongatus

redside dace
méné long

Range of Occurrence in Canada: southern Ontario


Extent and Area Information

Extent of occurrence (EO)(km2) Calculated using polygons in ArcView 3.2 that encompass the global and Canadian distributions as defined by COSEWIC (see Fig. 2)
Global: 930 000
Canada: 46 900





Specify trend in EO

decline

Are there extreme fluctuations in EO?

No

Area of occupancy (AO) (km2)

≈ 4 km2 (based on occupied stream length X steam width as determined from 1:50 000 topographic maps)

441 km2 (based on overlaid grid of cell size one km2, total AO is the number of occupied squares that are intersected by streams)

Specify trend in AO

decline

Are there extreme fluctuations in AO?

No

Number of known or inferred current locations
(watersheds see Table 1)

14 -19



Specify trend in # of locations - extirpated from 6 and possibly extirpated from another 4

decline



Are there extreme fluctuations in number of locations?

No


Specify trend in area, extent or quality of habitat

decline


Population Information

Generation time (average age of parents in the population)
3 years


Number of mature individuals

Unknown

Total population trend:

decline

% decline over the last/next 10 years or 3 generations.

unknown


Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals?

unlikely


Is the total population severely fragmented?

yes


Specify trend in number of populations

decline

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of populations?

No

List populations with number of mature individuals in each: see Table 1- number of individuals unknown in all populations


Threats (actual or imminent threats to populations or habitats)

  • Urban development and its associated impacts (instream channel structure changes through peak flow increases and channelization, increases in siltation, removal of riparian vegetation, increases in water temperatures, reductions in groundwater inputs, increases in contaminants)
  • Introduced species (competitors and predators such as trout, bass, and pike)
  • Intensive agriculture and its associated impacts (removal of riparian vegetation, increases in siltation, channelization, pesticides, manure spills)
  • Water extraction (reduced flows, increased stream temperatures)
  • Stream barriers
  • Succession from field to dense forest (reductions in suitable riparian vegetation)
  • Climate change (potential for reducing stream flows or increasing flooding events)
  • Bait harvesting
  • Scientific collecting


Rescue Effect (immigration from an outside source)

Status of outside population(s)?
USA: Secure (N4)
[other jurisdictions or agencies]

Is immigration known or possible?

No

Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada?

Yes


Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada?

Unknown


Is rescue from outside populations likely?

No


Quantitative Analysis

Not Applicable


Current Status

National and Sub-national Heritage Ranks – see Table 2
Wild Species 2005 – National - 1, ON –1 (At risk) [Canadian Endangered Species Council 2006]

Ontario (COSSARO:
Threatened)

COSEWIC:
Special Concern 1987
Endangered 2007


Status and Reasons for Designation

Status: Endangered
Alpha-numeric code: B2ab(I,ii,iii,iv,v)

Reasons for Designation: This species is especially sensitive to stream alterations that interfere with flow regimes and lead to increased siltation and water temperatures. It has been lost from 5 of its 24 historic locations, and may now be gone from an additional 5; continuing decline is evident in 8 of the 14 remaining locations. More than 80% of the Canadian distribution occurs in the ‘Golden Horseshoe Region’ of southwestern Ontario where urban development poses the most immediate threat to the continued existence of this species in Canada. The 6 stable populations are on the fringe of urban development in watersheds that are, as yet, relatively undisturbed, but more than 50% of these locations are in, or adjacent to, areas that are expected to be developed within the next 10 to 15 years.


Applicability of Criteria

Criterion A (Declining Total Population):
Not Applicable – decline rate unknown

Criterion B (Small Distribution, and Decline or Fluctuation):
Meets criterion B2 as the area of occupancy is well below the threshold value. Criteria B2a, and B2b(i,ii,iii,iv,v) are also met as populations are fragmented, and continuing decline is observed in the extent of occurrence and occupancy, as well as the extent and quality of habitat, number of locations and number of mature individuals.

Criterion C (Small Total Population Size and Decline):
Not applicable – the number of mature individuals is unknown.

Criterion D (Very Small Population or Restricted Distribution):
Not Applicable – distribution and number of locations exceed threshold values.

Criterion E (Quantitative Analysis):
Not Applicable – no data available for quantitative analysis.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Acknowledgements and Authorities Contacted

Provisional, 6- and 2-month drafts of the report were prepared for cosewic by Erling Holm (Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queens Park, Toronto, ON M5S 2C6), and Alan Dextrase (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Box 7000, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5). The Freshwater Fishes Species Specialist Subcommittee of COSEWIC carried out revision of 2-month interim and final drafts, including recommendations for status and applicability of criteria.

Numerous individuals have assisted over the last 20 years in providing documents and data that were used in this report. Some of the major contributors are A. Zammit and D. Sutherland (Natural Heritage Information Centre); J. Clayton, D. Lawrie, B. Graham, and S. Jarvie (Toronto Region Conservation Authority); J. Andersen (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority); L. Stanfield, M. Malhiot, A. Timmerman, S. Gibson, G. Cull, A. McKee, M. Heaton, K. Mott, L. Norminton, P. Davids (OMNR); S. Laframboise and B. Coad (Canadian Museum of Nature); J. Weise, N. Mandrak, S. Staton, and J. Barnucz (Fisheries and Oceans Canada); G. Coker (Cam Portt and Associates); R. Steedman, D. Martin-Downs and G. Wichert (formerly at the University of Toronto); B. Morrison, L. Grewal and J. Clayton (Credit Valley Conservation); M. Sabaj (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia); C. Wilson and C. Reaume (Trent University); R. Daniels (New York State Museum); D. Carlson (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation); T. Coon (Michigan State University); C. Johnston (Auburn University); C. Ethier and L. Richardson (Grand River Conservation Authority); G. Senior (Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority); D. Clark (Ecotec Ltd), K. McIlwrick, S. Watson-Leung and K. Barrett (Halton Conservation); D. Featherstone (Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority); B. Duncan and S. Wiseman (Hamilton Region Conservation Authority); E. Kott (Wilfrid Laurier University); D. Forder and C. Weidenfelder (Ontario Streams); W. King (LGL Limited); T. Warren (Sir Sanford Fleming College); M. Ruthven and D. Parks (AMEC Earth and Environmental Ltd.); J. Lane (Dillon Consulting); P. Anderson (Natural Resources Information Solutions); R. Bilz (FRI Limited). The manuscript has benefited from the input of seven anonymous reviewers.

Funding was provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada


Information Sources

Andersen, J.J. 2001. unpublished data. Lynde Creek Aquatic Resource Management Plan, Fisheries Data (Sites with redside dace capture only).

Anderson, J.J., pers. comm. 2001. Conversation with E. Holm. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Oshawa, Ontario (now with Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, Ontario).

Andersen, J.J. 2002. Status of redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, in the Lynde and Pringle Creek watersheds of Lake Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116(1):76-80.

Bailey, R.M., W.C. Latta and G.R. Smith. 2004. An atlas of Michigan fishes with keys and illustrations for their identification. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 192. Ann Arbor Michigan. 215 pp.

Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Berkman, H.E., and C. F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environmental Biology of Fishes 18:285-294.

Bonner, T.H., and G.R. Wilde, 2002. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption by prairie stream fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131(6): 1203-1208.

Booth, D.B., and C.R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 1077-1090.

Bryan, S.D., A.T. Robinson, and M.G. Sweetser. 2002. Behavioral responses of a small native fish to multiple introduced predators. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:49-56.

Canadian Endangered Species Council. 2006. The general status of species in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Cavender, T.M., and M.M. Coburn. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships of North American Cyprinidae. Pp. 293-327, in R.L. Mayden (ed.). Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.

Coad, B.1995. Encyclopedia of Canadian Fishes. Co-published by Canadian Museum of Nature and Canadian Sportfishing Productions Inc. 928 pp.

Coad, B., pers. comm. 2003. Email correspondence to E. Holm. Research Scientist, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario.

Coburn, M M.,and Cavender, T.M. 1992. Interrelationships of North American cyprinid fishes. Pp. 328-373, in R.L. Mayden (ed.). Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.

Coker, G., pers. comm. 2001. Email Correspondence to, and Conversation with E. Holm. Biologist, Cam Portt and Associates, Guelph, Ontario.

Coker, G., pers. comm. 2004. Conversation with E. Holm. Biologist, Cam Portt and Associates, Guelph, Ontario.

Coker, G.A., C.B. Portt, and C.K. Minns. 2001. Morphological and Ecological Characteristics of Canadian Freshwater Fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2554.

Coon, T.G. 1993. Projected impact of wastewater discharge on redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, in Seeley Drain, Michigan. Unpublished MS. 34 pages.

Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the northeastern United States. Penn. State Univ. Press, University Park and London.

Copeland, S., pers. comm. 2002. Email correspondece to E. Holm. Ontario Streams, Belfountain, Ontario,

COSEWIC, 2003, Guidelines for Recognizing Designatable Units Below the Species Level, Fig. 2. National Freshwater Ecological Area, prepared by N.E. Mandrak, 03/06/03

COSEWIC, 2004.Canadian Species at Risk, November 2004. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 49 pp.

Coulson, D., pers. comm. 1999. Conversation with E. Holm. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Pembroke.

Culley, J.L., E.F. Bolton and V. Bernyk. 1983. Suspended solids and phosphorus loads from a clay soil: I plot studies. Journal of Environmental Quality, 12:493-503.

CVC (Credit Valley Conservation). 2002. Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program, 2001 Report.

Daniels, R.A., pers. comm. 2005. Email Correspondence to E. Holm. New York State Museum, Albany.

Daniels, R.A.and Wisniewski, S.J. 1994. Feeding ecology of redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus. Ecol. Freshwat. Fish 3: 176-183.

Duncan, B., pers. comm. 1998. Email correspondence with E. Holm. Ecologist Hamilton Region Conservation Authority.

Environment Canada. 2004. How much habitat is enough? A framework for guiding habitat rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (second edition). Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Ottawa, Ontario. 80 pp.

Featherstone, D., pers. comm. 2000. Conversation with E. Holm. Formerly with Halton Conservation, Milton, now with Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. Utopia, Ontario.

Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 2001. Urban sprawl in Ontario and how to stop it. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario, 4 p.

Fish, M.P.1932. Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fishes from Lake Erie and its tributary waters. U.S. Departement of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Volume 47 Bulletin 10.

Forder, D. 2005. Saugeen River Watershed redside dace Monitoring Project, 2004. Unpublished Report prepared for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Owen Sound District by Ontario Streams.

Gamsby & Mannerow Limited. 1995. Highway 9 Expansion from Weston Road to Regional Road 38 Aquatic Ecosystems Impact Assessment. Report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Central Region, Planning and Design.

Gilbert, C.R. 1980. Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland). redside dace. P. 148, in D.S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey. N.C. State Museum of Natural History Publication, Raleigh, i-r + 854 pp.

Gilbert, C.R.,and D.S. Lee. 1980. Clinostomus funduloides Girard. Rosyside Dace. P. 149, in D.S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey. N.C. State Museum of Natural History Publication, Raleigh, i-r + 854 pp.

Goforth. R.R.2000. Special Animal Abstract forClinostomus elongatus  (redside dace). Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 2 pp.

GRCA (Grand River Conservation Authority). 1996. computer printout received from L. Richarson.

Greeley, J.R. 1938. II. Fishes of the Area with Annotated List. Pp. 48-?? in A Biological Survey of the Allegheny and Chemung Watersheds. Supplemental to the 27th Annual Report, 1937. Albany New York.

Grewal, L., pers. comm. 1999. Conversation with E. Holm. Biologist, Credit Valley Conservation, Mississauga, Ontario.

Holm, E. 1999. The redside dace in Spencer Creek, Unpublished report on 1998 fieldwork by the Royal Ontario Museum and the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority. On file, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Authority, Royal Ontario Museum.

Holm, E. 2003. Biological inventory and assessment of redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in Irvine Creek, West Garafraxa Township. Unpublished report to the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph, Ontario. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum.

Holm, E., and, J.J. Andersen. 2005. Redside Database. A Microsoft Access database maintained by members of the Redside Dace Recovery Team.

Holm, E., and E.J. Crossman, 1986. A Report on a 1985 attempt to resurvey some areas within the Ontario distribution of Clinostomus elongatus, the Redside Dace and to summarize previous records. Royal Ontario Museum. 11 pages, 9 tables, 13 Figs.

IDNR (Indiana Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Endangered, threatened, rare and extirpated vertebrates and invertebrates in Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, IN. 11 pp.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Summary for policy makers. Climate change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability. A report of working group 11 of the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wq25Mfinal.pdf).

Johnston, C.E.,and L.M. Page. 1992. The evolution of complex reproductive strategies in North American minnows (Cyprinidae). Pp. 600-621, in R.L. Mayden (ed.). Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.

Johnston, C., pers. comm. 2001. Email correspondence with E. Holm. Research Associate, Auburn University.

Johnson, S.L., and J.A. Jones. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57 (Supplement 2):30-39.

Koster, W.J.1939. Some phases of the life history and relationships of the cyprinid, Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland). Copeia 1939 (4):201-208.

Latta, W.C. 1998. Status of some of the endangered, threatened, special concern and rare fishes of Michigan in 1998. Report prepared for the National Heritage Program, Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 32 pp.

Lawrie, D., pers. comm. 2005. Conversation with E. Holm. Toronto Region Conservation Authority,

Leopold, L.B 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning--A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. Geol Surv Circ 554.

Lyons, J., P.A. Cochran, and D. Fago. 2000. Wisconsin Fishes 2000: Status and Distribution. Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, Madison, WI.

Malhiot, M., pers. comm. 2001. Email correspondence with E. Holm. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Clinton.

Mandrak, N.E., pers. comm. 2003. Email correspondence including a database on the distribution of redside dace in Ohio. Research Scientist, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Central & Arctic Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Mandrak, N.E., and E.J. Crossman. 1992. A checklist of Ontario freshwater fishes annotated with distribution maps. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication.

Martin, D. 1985. Don River Biological Inventory Past, Present and Future Evaluation. Report prepared for the Toronto Area Watershed Management Strategy Study, Ontario Ministry of the Environment by the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 105 pp.

McKee, P.M., and B.J. Parker, 1982. The distribution, biology, and status of the fishes Campostoma anomalum, Clinostomus elongatus, Notropis photogenis (Cyprinidae), and Fundulus notatus (Cyprinodontidae) in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 60: 1347-1358.

Meade, L., D.L. McNeely, L. Kornman, and A. Surmont. 1986. New records of the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, with comments on its habitat requirements. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Sciences 47:121-125.

MDNR (Michigan Department of Natural Resources) 2004. Michigan Fish Atlas Maps University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Science at the University of Michigan (CGLAS/UM).  (http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/spatialdatalibrary/pdf_maps/fish_atlas/clielo.pdf)

MPIR (Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal). 2004. Places to grow: better choices, brighter future. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. 55 pp.

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: May 16, 2006 ).

Novinger, D.C., and T.H. Coon. 2000. Behaviour and physiology of the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, a threatened species in Michigan. Environmental Biology of Fishes 57:315-326.

OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2001. Natural channel systems: adaptive management of stream corridors in Ontario. Queens Printer for Ontario.

ODPD (Ontario Department of Planning and Development).1946-1959. Stream Survey Reports at Ontario Archives, and Royal Ontario Museum.

 Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea and J.D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

NYDEC (New York Department of Environmental Conservation). 2004. Databases (Historic.mdb Recent (after 1987).mdb) obtained from Douglas Carlson.

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

Parish, J. 2004. Redside Dace Recovery Strategy fluvial geomorpholgy study. Report Prepared for the Redside Dace Recovery Team by Parish Geomorphic. 22 p. + app.

Parker, B.J.,and P. McKee. 1980. Rare, threatened, and endangered fishes in Ontario. Status reports. A report for Department of Supply and Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and National Museum of Natural Sciences. Beak Consultants Limited, Mississauga, Ontario.

Parker, B.J., P. McKee, and R,R. Campbell. 1988. Status of the Redside Dace, Clinostomus elongatus, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(1):163-169.

Redside Dace Recovery Strategy. 2005. Recovery strategy for redside dace in Ontario. Draft Recovery Strategy, 23 pp.

Rincon, P.A.,and G.D. Grossman. 1998. The effects of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on the use of spatial resources and behavior of rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides). Arch. Hydrobiol. 141(3):333-352.

ROM (Royal Ontario Museum). 2005. Fish collection records. Toronto.

Ruthven, M., pers. comm. 2000. Field notes on fish sampling. Consulting Biologist, AMEC Earth & Environmental (Ontario), Mississauga.

Sabaj, M.H. 2000. Illinois status survey of the redside dace, Clinostomus elongatus, the newest addition to the state’s native fauna. Technical Report submitted to IL Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Heritage. 12 p. + Appendix.

Schwartz, F.J., and J. Norwell. 1958. Food growth and sexual dimorphism of the redside dace Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland) in Linesville Creek, Crawford County, Pennsylvania. Ohio J. Sci. 58(5):311-316.

Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman, 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. No. 184. pp. 1-966.

Stanfield, L., S.F. Gibson, and J.A. Borwick. 2004. Using a landscape approach to predict the distribution and density patterns of juvenile salmonines in the Lake Ontario basin. Aquatic Research and Development Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Canada-Ontario Agreement Project Report, 31 pp. + Figs. + Apps.

Staton, S., K. Smith, and B. Duncan. 1993. Spencer Creek Fisheries Habitat Study. Report prepared for the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority.

Stewart, D.J., pers. comm. 2006. Email Correspondence with E. Holm. SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

Stuart-Smith, R.D., A.M.M. Richardson, and R.W.G. White. 2004. Increasing turbidity significantly alters the diet of brown trout: a multi-year longitudinal study. Journal of Fish Biology 65 (2): 376-388.

Sweka, J.A., and K.J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in brook trout and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:386-393.

Taylor, J.T.1988. Letter to Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Cambridge District from University of Guelph

Thompson, D., E. Rankin, J. Breck, N. Scott, and L. Michalak. 1995. Spencer Creek Watershed Fisheries and Habitat Assessment. Report prepared for the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority.

TRCA (Toronto Region Conservation Authority). 2000. Database obtained from J. Clayton.

Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbia, Ohio.

Wang, L., J. Lyons,and P. Kanehl. 2001. Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Fish across Multiple Spatial Scales. Environmental Management Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 255–266.

Watson-Leung, S., pers. comm. 2001. Conversation with E. Holm. Conservation Halton, Milton, Ontario.

Wilson, C., pers. comm. 2005. Conversation/Email Correspondence with A. Dextrase. Research Scientist, Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation OMNR, Trent University.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Biographical Summary of Report Writers

E. Holm

Erling Holm is Assistant Curator (Ichthyology), Department of Natural History, ROM. He has co-authored 12 status reports, conducted fieldwork in Ontario, principally related to species at risk, and coordinates the ROM’s annual fish identification workshops. He is a member of the Sydenham River, Redside Dace and Eastern Sand Darter Recovery Teams.

A. Dextrase

Alan Dextrase has a B.Sc. in Fisheries Biology from the University of Guelph and an M.Sc. in Biology from Lakehead University. After graduating, Alan worked for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources as a fisheries biologist in northwestern Ontario for 10 years on the management of recreational and commercial fisheries and fish and wildlife habitat management. Since 1993, he has worked as a biologist for OMNR in Peterborough, Ontario, where he has worked on the management of invasive species and species at risk. He is currently the Senior Species at Risk Biologist in the Fish and Wildlife Branch. Alan has been a member of COSEWIC and the COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee since 1994 and is a member of several recovery teams for freshwater species at risk in Ontario.


Collections Examined

No museum collections were examined.

 

Return to Table of Contents

Appendix: Results of Early and Recent Sampling in Canadian Watersheds (Tables 1 - 22)

The information presented in the following 22 tables is summarized from data in the Redside Dace database (Holm and Andersen 2005), It consists of a table for each watershed in Canada where there is information on success of capture of redside dace at both historical and more recent sampling sites. Where known, the effort is summarized: gear (S-seine, E=electrofisher), number of sampling attempts, electrofisher seconds (Total e-secs), length of stream sampled (Total Run Length), and number of seine hauls (Total # hauls). In many cases, there is no information on the number of redside dace captured in a sampling event. In these cases, the number of individuals given is preceded by ≥. For example, if 29 sites were sampled, but there is no information on the number captured at any of the sites, the number of individuals is given as ≥ 29. In many cases, an historical site was visited more than once at different times, often by different individuals. Thus, if the number of sites sampled is 13 and the number of sampling events is 22, some of the sites were visited more than once.

List of Appendix Tables

 

Table 1: Results of Sampling in Pringle Creek at 1959 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites Sam-
pled
No. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of Speci-
mens
Gear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # HaulsTotal Area SeinedCom-
ments
195911100≥ 1S?1n/an/an/an/an/a
19851000S/E4100 344 
19991000E1n/an/an/an/aSAPO† protocol
*Gear
S=seine, E=electrofisher
n/a
not available
†SAPO
Stream Assessment Protocol of Ontario
The redside dace was not found at any additional sites in Pringle Creek since the 1959 survey.

 

Table 2a: Results of Sampling in Lynde Creek at 1959 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites Sam-
pled
No. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of Speci-
mens
Gear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # HaulsTotal Area SeinedCom-
ments
195955100≥5S ?5n/an/an/an/an/a
19852000S/E2189 4>17 
200051201E5    SAPO† protocol
*Gear
S=seine, E=electrofisher
†SAPO
Stream Assessment Protocol of Ontario

 

Table 2b: Number of Additional Sites where Redside Dace were Found in Lynde Creek Since 1959 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
198310≥10Tumey 1984, ROM 44166
1997-20011073Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (2001),
Ecotec (1999), Andersen 2002, ROM 71031, 72455
Sources for Table 1a and 2a
1959
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1985
ROM Accession 4910
2000
Andersen 2002

 

Table 3a: Results of Sampling in Duffins Creek Watershed at 1954 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal # Hauls
195488100≥8S ?8n/an/a
1978-1979425028n/a5n/an/a
1985845099S/E91528≥18
1999-20033133≥1E3>42100
*Gear
S=seine, E=electrofisher
n/a
not available

Sources for Table 3a
1954
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1978
ROM Accession 3752 (Ministry of Natural Resources stream surveys)
1979
CMN79-1077, 79-1079 (Parker and McKee 1980)
1985
ROM Accession 4910 (Holm and Crossman 1986), ROM Accesion 5267 (R. Steedman)
1999
ROM Accession 6771 (Ecotec)
2003
Forder 2003, Toronto Region Conservation Authority database (2003)

 

Table 3b: Number of Additional Sites where Redside Dace were Found in Duffins Creek Since 1954 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1973-19795≥51ROM Accession 2314 and 3751, 3752;
CMN 79-1080, CMN 79-1194, CMN 79-1196
1984-19852≥18ROM Accession 5267 (R. Steedman)
1996-20043≥10ROM Accessions 6750, 7100, 7217;
Ministry of Natural Resources, Salmonid Unit


Table 4: Results of Sampling in Highland Creek at Site where Redside Dace were Captured Prior to 1953
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal # Hauls
1928-1952111002S2n/a≥2
1976-19851000E/S?4>1004?
Sources for Table 4
1928
UMMZ 85643
1952
ROM 15637
1976
ROM Accession 3074 (Ministry of Natural Resources)
1981
ROM Accession 4415 (Metro Toronto Region Conservation Authority)
1984-1985
ROM Accession 5267 (R. Steedman)
There are no additional sites where redside dace were found since the 1952 survey.

 

Table 5a: Results of Sampling in Rouge River Watershed at 1954 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # Hauls
1954302997≥ 2929n/an/an/a
1982-198711982≥ 12015n/an/an/a
1992-19945360385>1567n/a≥4 ?
1999-200313431≥ 13822>3687>443.6≥1
200510001 50 
Sources for Table 5a
1954
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1982
ROM Accession 4556
1984-1985
ROM Accession 5267 (R. Steedman), ROM Accession 4830, ROM Accession 4749
1987
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files (Rouge .171)
1992
ROM Accession 6386 (G. Wichert)
1994
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora files (Rouge .80)
1999
ROM Accession 6750 (Sir Sanford Fleming Student)
2000
ROM Accession 6797, 6807 (Holm et al.), Toronto Region Conservation Authority database (2003)
2001
J. Andersen (pers. comm.). W. King (pers. comm.)
2002
Andersen et al. 2002 (Aurora MNR files), M. Cece and R. Roth (Marshall Macklin Monaghan), OMNR Aurora files
2003
Toronto Region Conservation Authority database (2003), W. King (pers. comm.)
2005
Comments from a reviewer (Andersen?) of the redside dace status update 2006

 

Table 5b: Number of Additional Sites in Rouge River Watershed where Redside Dace were Found Since 1954 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1972-198713≥ 123ROM Accessions 2163 (Ministry of Natural Resources),
4830, 4685, 5267 (R. Steedman), CMN79-1199, Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora files
1991-1998254ROM 58162; ROM Accessions 6386, and 6767; Ecotec,
Ministry of Natural Resources Stream Assessment Protocol of Ontario database
2000-2004773Toronto Region Conservation Authority database (2003), W. King (pers. comm.);
J. Andersen (pers. comm.); Forder (2003)


Table 6a: Results of Sampling in East Branch Don River at 1949 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time periodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # Hauls
1949141393≥13S ?14-n/a≥14
1970s2150≥1n/a2n/an/an/a
1984-19851265048E/S26>6 425>430≥5
1992623332E/S63 350n/a≥6
1995-2003856313E10>15 141>333.50
*Gear
S=seine, E=electrofisher
n/a
not available

Sources for Table 6a
1949
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1970s
ROM Accession 2094, Martin (1986)
1995-2003
TRCA database (2003); Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files (Dillon Consulting); ROM Accessions 6542, 6768, 6783, 6876, 7268,
1981-1985
Martin 1986, ROM Accessions 4497 (Martin/Whillans) and 5267 (R. Steedman)
1991-1992
ROM Accession 6386 (G. Wichert), 6768

 

Table 6b: Number of Additional Sites in East Don where Redside Dace were Found Since 1949 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
196611ROM Accession 1222
(Ontario Water Resources Commission)
199114ROM Accession 5864, 6876 (J. Lane)


Table 7a: Results of Sampling in West Branch Don River at 1949 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time periodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # Hauls
19491010100≥10S ?10-n/a≥10
1970s11100≥1n/a1n/an/an/a
1981-198581133E/S14>3940n/a≥1
199131336E/S33163n/a≥2
20023000E3>1279>42.5n/a
Sources for Table 7a
1949
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1970s
ROM Accession 2094, Martin (1986)
1995-2003
TRCA database (2003); Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files (Dillon Consulting); ROM Accessions 6542, 6768, 6783, 6876, 7268,
1981-1985
Martin 1986, ROM Accessions 4497 (Martin/Whillans) and 5267 (R. Steedman)
1991-1992
ROM Accession 6386 (G. Wichert), 6768

 

Table 7b: Number of Additional Sites where Redside Dace were Found Since 1949 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1991-199813ROM Accessions 5864 and 6768


Table 8a: Results of Sampling in East Humber River Watershed at 1946 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensEffort
No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal # HaulsTotal Area Seined
194688100≥778n/an/an/a
1972-19948787.5≥11620>3571≥8n/a
1996-199933100345711--
Sources for Table 8a
1946
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1972
Toronto Region Conservation Authority database
1979
CMN79-1015, 79-1016, 79-1020, 79-1021
1981
ROM Accession 4415
1984-1985
ROM Accession 5267 (R. Steedman)
1987
Toronto Region Conservation Authority database
1992
ROM Accession 6386 (G. Wichert)
1996
ROM Accession 6767 (OMNR), ROM Accession 6709 (TRCA)

 

Table 8b: Number of Additional Sites in East Humber Watershed where Redside Dace were Found Since 1946 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1952-195936ROM 15972, 17316; Wainio and Hester 1973
1972-198328≥112ROM records, Toronto Region Conservation Authority records.
Canadian Museum of Nature records, Wilfrid Laurier University records
1984-199420≥181ROM records (mostly R. Steedman), Toronto Region Conservation Authority records.
1995-200310189ROM Accessions 6709, 6767, 6774, 6959, records,
Toronto Region Conservation Authority records; Forder (2003); Holm (pers. observations)


Table 9: Results of Sampling in Mimico Creek at Sites where Redside Dace were Captured Prior to 1950
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal # Hauls
1935-194944100≥4S4n/an/a
1984-19854000S/E7≥2556≥21
1992-20023000S/E37986≥1
*Gear
S=seine, E=electrofisher

Sources for Table 9
1935
ROM 11712 (1 site)
1949
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys (3 sites)
1984-1985
ROM Accessions 49?? (4 sites), 5267 (R. Steedman 3 sites)
1992-2002
Toronto Region Conservation Authority database (2 sites), ROM Accession 6386 (G. Wichert, 1 site)
There are no additional sites in Mimico Creek where redside dace were found since the 1949 survey.

 

Table 10a: Results of Sampling in Etobicoke Creek at Two Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal # Seine Hauls
1928-193522100153-≥3
1984-198520003-≥7
1995-20041000321 301-
Sources for Table 10a
1928-1935
ROM and UMMZ records
1984-1985
ROM Accession 4923
1995-2004
ROM Accession 6645 and TRCA Watershed Monitoring database, 2003 and 2005

 

Table 10b: Number of Additional Sites in Etobicoke Creek where Redside Dace were Found Since 1928-1935 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1940s3≥3Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys


Table 11a: Results of Sampling in Credit River Watershed at 1954 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # Hauls
1954131292≥ 12S ?12  ≥ 13 ?
196513646≥ 6?13n/an/an/a
1982-198511327≥ 20E22> 4270> 340 
1992-199973437E/?9> 3592  
*Gear
S=seine, E=electrofisher

Sources for Table 11a
1954
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1965
Reed 1968 in Martin 1984
1982-1985
Martin 1984, ROM Accession 5267 (Steedman surveys), M Ruthven (pers. comm.)
1992-1999
Credit Valley Conservation records; ROM Accessions 6386 (G. Wichert), 6567, 6765, and 6769
2000-2003
Credit Valley Conservation; Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora files; Forder 2003

 

Table 11b: Number of Additional Sites in Credit River Watershed where Redside Dace were Found Since 1954 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1966-19753≥ 3Ministry of Natural Resources surveys, ROM 58236
1976-199511≥ 50CMN 79-1094, 79-1096, 80-0876; Martin (198?),
ROM Accessions 5267 (R. Steedman), 6765
(Credit Valley Conservation records)
1996-20054≥ 5ROM Accession 6428 (D. Featherstone),
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, (LGL Consulting),
S. Copeland (pers. comm. 2002)


Table 12a: Results of Sampling in Morrison Creek at 1957 Ontario Department of Planning and Devleopment Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # HaulsTotal Area Seined
195766100≥66n/an/an/an/a
19853133223100100 
Sources for Table 12a
1957
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1985
ROM Accession 4964 (Holm and Crossman 1986)
1991
A.Timmerman
1993, 1995
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files
2000
ROM Accession 6822 (Holm et al.)
2001
Conservation Halton
2002
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files
2003
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files (M. Heaton)

 

Table 12b: Number of Additional Sites in Morrison Creek where Redside Dace were Found Since 1957 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
19841≥1Proctor and Redfern
200012ROM 72282


Table 13a: Results of Sampling in Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed at 1957 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # Hauls
19571414100≥ 14S ?140-≥ 14
1972-19795240≥ 2?7n/an/an/a
1994-20034375≥ 43E6≥ 4334> 3250
*Gear
E=electrofisher, S=seine
n/a
not available

Sources for Table 13a
1957
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1972-1979
Halton Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources, Parker & McKee 1980
1994-2003
Halton Conservation; Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora; ROM Accessions 6621, 6960; Forder 2003

 

Table 13b: Number of Additional Sites in Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed where Redside Dace were Found Since 1957 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1972-19755≥ 17McIlwrick 1996; Ministry of Natural Resources stream surveys; ROM 29999
1995-20034≥ 9ROM Accessions 6621 and 6960 (Halton Conservation surveys), 7143 (LGL Ltd)


Table 14a: Results of Sampling in Fourteen Mile Creek at 1957 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal # HaulsTotal Area Seined
195733100≥ 3S ? n/an/an/a
198531338S/E33514>50
199011100≥6?2n/an/an/a
1998-20031110065S/E4?≥1≥150
*Gear
E=electrofisher, S=seine
n/a
not available

Sources for Table 14a
1957
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1985
ROM Accession 4964 (Holm and Crossman 1986.)
1990
ROM 60209
1998
ROM 71696
2000
ROM Accession 6825
2001
ROM Accession 6956
2003
Ministry of Natural Resources (M. Heaton)

 

Table 14b: Number of Additional Sites in Fourteen Mile Creek where Redside Dace were Found Since 1957 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
196012CMN60-0533A
19901≥ 1Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files
1998-200311223Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files; G. Coker, pers. comm.; ROM Accessions 6825, 6832, 6853, 6956; R. Bilz (pers. comm.); P. Anderson (pers. comm.); M. Heaton, pers. comm.); Cam Portt & Associates (pers. comm.)


Table 15a: Results Sampling in Bronte Creek Watershed at Sites where Redside Dace were Captured in 1972-1979
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGearNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # Hauls
1972-19791111100>100S/E22n/an/an/a
1995-200071141S/E10>3922>420≥2
Sources for Table 15a
1972, 1978
McIlwrick 1996, Halton Conservation watershed reports, B. Edmondson and A. Sorenson
1974
Ministry of Natural Resources Stream surveys
1979
Canadian Museum of Nature records, Paton and Sharp 1979
1995
ROM Accession 6770 (A Timmerman, Ministry of Natural Resources); Conservation Halton
1998
ROM Accession 6771 (Ecotec ); Conservation Halton
2000
ROM Accession 6797 (ROM and Halton Conservation); Conservation Halton

 

Table 15b: Number of Additional Sites in Bronte Creek Watershed where Redside Dace were Found Since 1979 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
199811ROM Accession 6771 (Ecotec)


Table 16a: Results of Sampling in Spencer Creek Watershed at 1970s Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGear*No. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal # HaulsTotal Area Seined
1970-197999100≥ 129 15   
1984437516 4   
1993111001     
1998-20043000 12> 1946> 13> 630
Sources for Table 16a
1970
Ministry of Natural Resources stream surveys, ROM records
1972
ROM 28384, 28387, 28388
1973
Ministry of Natural Resources stream surveys, ROM Accession 2448
1979
CMN 79-1085, 79-1087
1984
Holmes 1986  (Fig 6, Table 17)
1993
Staton et al. 1993
1998
ROM Accession 6597, 6622
2004
Hamilton Region Conservation Authority (S. Wiseman, email and attachment 25 April 2005)

 

Table 16b.  Number of additional sites in SpencerCreekwatershed where redside dace were found since 1970s surveys.
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
1993-19986≥ 34Staton et al. 1993, Thompson et al.1995, ROM Accession 6622


Table 17: Results of Sampling in Kettleby Creek at Sites where Redside Dace were Captured in 1976-1980
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal #HaulsTotal Area Seined
1976-198033100≥44n/an/an/an/a
1987-19912150124n/an/an/an/a
2000-2003313317> 8000> 526≥ 1≥ 60
Sources for Table 17
1976
Ministry of Natural Resources Stream survey
1980
ROM 41411, ROM Accessions 4413, 4402
1987-1988
ROM Accession 6988
1991
Gamsby & Mannerow Limited, 1995
2000
ROM Accession 6797 (Holm et al.)
2002-2003
ROM Accession 7280 (J. Andersen)
There are no additional sites where redside dace were found since 1976-1980 surveys

 

Table 18: Results of Sampling in Sharon Creek at One Site where Redside Dace was Captured in 1994
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # HaulsTotal Area Seined
19941110044n/an/an/an/a
2003100012018200  
Sources for Table 18
1994
Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora, files (Holland River 155)
2003
ROM Accession 7280 (J. Andersen)
There are no additional sites where redside dace were found since 1994 survey.

 

Table 19a: Results of Sampling in Irvine Creek at Five 1970s Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of Speci-
mens
No. of Sampling EventsGear*Total E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # HaulsTotal Area Seined
1974-197955100486E/Sn/an/an/an/a
1997-20035240815E/S>2832n/a8n/a
*Gear
E=electrofisher, S=seine
n/a
not available

Sources for Table 19a
1974
ROM Accession 2701 (Grand River Conservation Authority surveys)
1979
CMN79-1064
1997
ROM Accession 6534 (Holm & Boehm 1998)
1998
ROM Accession 6601 (Holm et al.)
2000
ROM Accession 6797 (Holm et al.)
2001
ROM Accession 6924 (Holm et al.)
2003
N. Mandrak, pers. comm.

 

Table 19b: Number of Additional Sites in Irvine Creek where Redside Dace were Found Since 1970s Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
2001-2003331ROM Accession 6797; N. Mandrak, pers. comm.


Table 20a: Results of Sampling in Upper Saugeen River at 1951 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # HaulsTotal Area Seined
19512424100n/a24n/an/an/an/a
198510000103 388 40≥4 033
2000933369≥483 151 603
2001200021 850 --
2004100001011 362800≥2n/a
Sources for Table 20a
1951
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1985
Holm and Crossman 1986
2000
ROM records
2001
Gibson 2001
2004
Forder 2005

 

Table 20b: Number of Additional Sites in Upper Saugeen River where Redside Dace were Found Since 1951 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
197213Ministry of Natural Resources stream surveys


Table 21a: Results of Sampling in Meux Creek, Saugeen River, at 1953 Ontario Department of Planning and Development Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites Sam-
pled
No. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of Redside DaceNo. of Sam-
pling Events
Gear*Total E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # HaulsTotal Area SeinedCom-
ments
195355100≥55S?n/an/an/an/a 
198544100≥1004E/S1519n/a24318 
19904250>414S 120≥2 50 m bag seine
199211100151n/an/an/an/an/a 
199310001n/an/an/an/an/a 
200110001En/a153--OSAP† Protocol
2004512015E/S65884004n/aRedside Dace Protocol
*Gear
S=seine, E=electrofisher
†OSAP
Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol
n/a
not available

Sources for Table 21a
1953
Ontario Department of Planning and Development surveys
1985
ROM Accession 4901
1990
C. Portt & Associates (ROM Accession 6873)
1992-1993
ROM Accession 7131 (BAR Environmental and Ministry of Natural Resources)
2001
S. Gibson, M.Sc. thesis, University of Toronto
2004
ROM Accession 7236 (Forder 2005)

 

Table 21b: Number of Additional Sites in Meux Creek where Redside Dace were Found Since 1953 Surveys
Time PeriodNumber of New SitesNumber of SpecimensSources
2001-20043≥10Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority Municipal Drain Classification Project (2001), Forder 2005


Table 22: Results of Sampling in Gully Creek at Two 1980 Sites
ResultsEffort
Time PeriodNo. of Sites SampledNo. of Sites with Redside Dace% of Sites with Redside DaceNumber of SpecimensGearNo. of Sampling EventsTotal E-secsTotal Run LengthTotal # Hauls
1980221008?2   
1999-200121507S/E3>635 ≥1
Sources for Table 22
1980
Ministry of Natural Resources stream surveys
1999
ROM Accession 6750 (Sir Sanford Fleming Student)
2001
S. Gibson
There are no additional sites where redside dace were found since the 1980 surveys.

 

Return to Table of Contents