Understanding the impacts of 

surface-groundwater 

conditions on stream fishes 

under altered baseflow 

conditions

Shannon K. Brewer1

Garey Fox2

Yan Zhou2

Justin Alexander3

1 U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK

2 Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State 

University, Stillwater, OK

3 Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management, Oklahoma 

State University, Stillwater, OK

Cooperator Science Series # 136-2020
ii

About the Cooperator Science Series:

The Cooperator Science Series was initiated in 2013. Its purpose is to facilitate the archiving and 

retrieval of research project reports resulting primarily from investigations supported by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), particularly the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The online 

format was selected to provide immediate access to science reports for FWS, state and tribal 

management agencies, the conservation community, and the public at large.

All reports in this series have been subjected to a peer review process con sistent with the agencies 

and entities conducting the research. For U.S. Geological Survey authors, the peer review process 

(http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html) also includes review by a bureau approving 

official prior to dissemination. Authors and/or agencies/institutions providing these reports are solely 

responsible for their content. The FWS does not provide editorial or technical review of these reports. 

Comments and other correspondence on reports in this series should be directed to the report authors 

or agencies/institutions. In most cases, reports published in this series are preliminary to publication, 

in the current or revised format, in peer reviewed scientific literature. Results and interpretation of 

data contained within reports may be revised following further peer review or availability of additional 

data and/or analyses prior to publication in the scientific literature.

The Cooperator Science Series is supported and maintained by the FWS, National Conservation 

Training Center at Shepherdstown, WV. The series is sequentially numbered with the publication year 

appended for reference and started with Report No. 101-2013. Various other numbering systems 

have been used by the FWS for similar, but now discontinued report series. Starting with No. 101 for 

the current series is intended to avoid any confusion with earlier report number s. 

The use of contracted research agencies and institutions, trade, product, industry or firm names or 

products or software or models, whether commercially available or not, is for informative purposes 

only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Contractual References:

This document fulfills reporting requirements for research funded by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

State Wildlife Grant Program (F13AF01327) administered by Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation (OK F-88-R). Previously published documents that partially fulfilled any portion of this 

contract are referenced within, when applicable. (USGS IPDS #: IP -106826).

Recommended citation:

Brewer, S. K., G. Fox, Y. Zhou, and J. Alexander. 2020. Understanding the impacts of surfacegroundwater conditions on stream fishes under altered baseflow conditions. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS -136-2020, Washington, D.C.

https://doi.org/10.3996/css49046075

For additional copies or information, contact:

Shannon Brewer

U.S. Geological Survey

Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Auburn University

Auburn, Alabama 36849

E-mail: skbrewer@usgs.gov
1

Understanding the impacts of surface-groundwater conditions on 

stream fishes under altered baseflow conditions

Photograph obtained from smug mug

Shannon K. Brewer1, Garey Fox2, Yan Zhou2, and Justin Alexander3

1U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 2 Department 

of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 

3 Department of 

Natural Resources Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Persistence of aquatic fauna depends on the conditions and connectivity of surface water 

and groundwater. In light of altered baseflows and both current and future predicted 

increases in stream temperatures, it is important to assess current thermal conditions, 

examine thermal responses of aquatic fauna, and evaluate water-management practices. 

Our study objectives were to determine (1) how changes in baseflow levels in the 

Kiamichi River influence hyporheic exchange, which correspondingly influences 

temperature at the reach scale; (2) temperature tolerances of stream fishes as a means for

predicting how habitat complexity influences stream-fish populations; and (3) assess how 

dam releases influence the downstream temperature and dissolved oxygen regime during 

the low-flow period. We quantified hyporheic exchange at four reaches and, as expected, 

found higher groundwater exchange via transient storage occurred at the upstream sites. 

The net groundwater flux estimation was negative for the majority of reaches indicating 

that surface water is lost to groundwater during summer (i.e., losing), baseflow 

conditions. We determined critical thermal maximum (CTMax) for 17 stream fishes and 

thermal tolerances ranged 32-38°C. We determined the average thermal tolerance for two 

habitat fish guilds to calculate changes in thermal stress due to hypothetical reservoir 

release scenarios. We developed a process-based Water Quality Analysis Simulation 

Program model to predict downstream temperature conditions over 74-km of river in 

response to reservoir releases that corresponded to discharges of 0.00 (control), 0.34,

0.59, 0.76, 1.13, and 1.50 m3/s. Based on the dissolved oxygen conditions observed in 

2015 and 2017 and biological oxygen demand sampling results, reservoir releases did not 

directly reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Kiamichi River (though dissolved 

oxygen concentrations are limited to current water-release strategies by the managing 

agency). We simulated three scenarios using three water-release temperatures: 27.64°C, 

26.00°C and 24.07°C that corresponded to average reservoir temperatures at gate 

locations on the dam. We compared the predicted temperature time series with CTMax of 

two fish-habitat guilds to quantify the cumulative time when stream fishes experienced 

severe thermal stress downstream from Sardis Reservoir. According to our simulations,

reservoir releases would be capable of regulating downstream water temperature during 
3

the summer baseflow period. The 0.00 m3/s scenario resulted in 130 h of thermal stress

for benthic fishes, and 73 h for mid-column fishes. As expected, thermal relief increased 

with increasing release magnitude and decreasing release water temperature. The 0.34 

m3/s release scenario reduced thermal stress (range is simulations from the top and 

bottom gate) by 11-18% for mid-column fishes and 8-12% for benthic fishes with an 

effective distance (where the cumulative time above CTMax was reduced by half) of 1-2

km for both guilds. The 0.59 m3/s release scenario reduced thermal stress by 18-25% for 

mid-column fishes and 12-20% for benthic fishes with effective distances of 4-8 km and 

2-7 km, respectively. Three releases representing pre-dam flow magnitudes (0.76, 1.13 

and 1.50 m3/s released from top gate) reduced thermal stress up to 46% for mid-column 

fishes and 41% for benthic fishes with an effective distance of 13-16 km, respectively.

Lastly, we quantified temperature-induced stress via whole-body cortisol concentration of 

six stream fishes in response to prolonged thermal exposure at two temperatures (27°C 

and 32°C). We found no difference in cortisol levels between temperatures for any of the 

six species, indicating acclimation to elevated temperatures during the test period. 

However, Highland Stoneroller Campostoma spadiceum expressed cortisol 

concentrations greater than typical basal levels at both temperatures, suggesting stress 

from factors other than temperature (i.e., captivity). Our results suggest different 

reservoir-release options could improve downstream thermal-fish habitat during the 

summer baseflow period.
4

BACKGROUND

Human modifications of rivers, particularly flow modifications, are resulting in the loss 

of aquatic organisms. Aquatic systems are channelized, dammed, dredged, leveed, and 

pumped to maximize flood protection, maintain and expand water supplies, and generate 

power (Wootton, 1990). Across much of Europe, Asia, the United States, and Mexico, 

the prevalence of stressors on freshwater resources put human water security and 

biodiversity at risk (Vӧrӧsmarty et al., 2010). Water resource development that fragments

rivers is a prominent stressor on biodiversity (Vӧrӧsmarty et al., 2010). Flows and habitat 

are fragmented by dams in more than 50% of the world’s large rivers (Nilsson et al., 

2005) thereby affecting the persistence of downriver organisms (Olden and Naiman, 

2010). In addition to river fragmentation, dams affect instream habitat by degrading water 

quality (Olden and Naimen, 2010), disrupting natural flows (Poff et al., 1997), and 

altering thermal (Olden and Naimen, 2010) and sediment regimes (Wohl et al., 2015). 

Reservoirs are typically operated to focus on our growing human water demands despite 

the importance of natural flow patterns to biota (Poff, 1997). 

Efforts to improve conditions in rivers regulated by impoundments have increased 

in recent years (Tharme, 2003). In fact, more than 30 scientific approaches have been 

documented to facilitate environmental flow efforts (Annear et al., 2002; McManamay et 

al., 2016) and many efforts have been ecologically successful. For example, 

implementation of environmental flows for over 13 years in the Upper Nepean River 

system, Sydney, Australia, improved macroinvertebrate assemblages at restored sites 

(Growns, 2016), and Kiernan et al. (2012) show that restoration of seasonal high 

discharge events in Putah Creek, California, created favorable spawning and rearing 

habitat. However, the flow-biota relationships observed in many regulated rivers reflects 

the water-quality conditions of the discharging reservoir (Olden and Naiman, 2010), and 

consequently there are many examples of environmental flow efforts failing to provide 

the perceived benefits due to other release-related factors such as sediment (Yarnell et al.

2015), temperature (McManamay et al. 2013), or contaminants (Schwindt et al. 2014). 

Thus, improving flow conditions without consideration of reservoir water quality or other 

limiting factors may maintain or improve river hydrologic connectivity, but do little to 
5

improve or may even worsen environmental conditions (Krause et al., 2005; Poff et al., 

2017).

Though research efforts to improve downriver conditions have focused primarily 

on hydrologic alteration (Bunn and Arthington, 2002), the significance of riverine water 

quality on biota, especially temperature, is widely acknowledged (Magnuson et al., 1979; 

Poole and Berman, 2001; Caissie, 2006). Water releases from dams and diversions often 

alter the thermal gradients for an extensive distance downstream (Ellis and Jones, 2013) 

thereby affecting species’ phenology (e.g., Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka, Quinn 

et al., 1997), decreasing growth (e.g., Brown Trout Salmo trutta, Saltveit, 1990; Murray 

cod Maccullochella peelii, Nick et al. 2017), reducing reproduction rate (e.g., Rainbow 

Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, Pankhurst, 1997), and even resulting in species’ extirpation 

(e.g., freshwater mussels, Vaughn and Taylor, 1999; fishes, Olden and Naiman, 2010). 

Given the coupling between the water quantity and quality, it is critical to identify 

environmental flow solutions that balance both human and ecological needs (Brewer et 

al., 2016) and to begin to address the multiple limiting factors affecting some ecosystems 

(Poff et al. 2017). The specific study objectives were to determine (1) how changes in 

baseflow levels in the Kiamichi River influence hyporheic exchange, which 

correspondingly influence temperature at the reach scale; (2) temperature tolerances of 

stream fishes as a means to predicting how habitat complexity influences stream-fish 

populations; and (3) how dam releases influence the downstream temperature and 

dissolved oxygen regime during the low-flow period.

METHODS

Study Area

The Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion is located in southeast Oklahoma. The ecoregion 

comprises pine, oak, and hickory forest and land use in the region consists primarily of 

agriculture, logging, ranching, and recreation (Woods 2005). Streams within the region 

have steep valleys and primarily bolder and cobble substrates (Splinter et al. 2011). The 

Kiamichi River, a tributary of the Red River, originates near Pine Mountain in the 

Ouachita Mountains near the Arkansas border. From its source in LeFlore County, 
6

Oklahoma, the Kiamichi River flows approximately 285 km (177 miles) to its confluence 

with the Red River south of Hugo, Oklahoma.

Hyporheic exchange and stream temperatures

We quantified hyporheic exchange and the thermal profile of reaches across the study 

area. We used transient storage tracer tests with Rhodamine WT tracers under varying 

baseflow levels to quantify total transient groundwater storage. Water level and 

temperature loggers were positioned in the stream for measuring temperature gradients. 

Cross-section surveys were performed at numerous transects within each reach to 

document changes in bed topography and channel morphology. Direct push piezometers 

were used for monitoring pressures in the near-streambed shallow groundwater in an 

attempt to separate surface and hyporheic storage following Stofleth et al. (2008).

Rhodamine WT concentrations were measured using a fluorometer. 

Seepage Runs

Seepage run is a field technique used for estimating net water fluxes between surface 

water and groundwater (see Zhou et al. 2018). The seepage run consists of measuring 

streamflow at multiple transects along the river. The discharge difference between 

transects is assumed to be the result of groundwater discharge to the stream or loss of 

stream water to groundwater. 

Tracer Test and OTIS-P

Tracer tests were performed using Rhodamine WT tracers to quantify the transient

storage characteristics. For each site, a tracer was injected at one upstream location and 

sampled at three downstream monitoring locations. The collected samples were read 

using a fluorometer and the collected concentration data analyzed using the OTIS-P

model to quantify the transient storage characteristics.

OTIS (One-Dimensional Transport with Inflow and Storage) is a model used to 

characterize the rate of transport of water-borne solutes in stream and river systems that 

simultaneously solves equations (1) and (2) given the appropriate parameters of the 

model (Runkel, 1998). 
7

where A is the main channel cross-sectional area (L2), As is the storage zone crosssectional area (L2

), C is the main channel solute concentration (M L-3), Cs is the storage 

zone solute concentration (M L-3), D is the dispersion coefficient in the main channel (L2

T

-1

), Q is the flow rate in the main channel (L3 T

-1

), and s is the storage zone exchange 

coefficient (T-1) (Runkel, 1998).

In this research, OTIS was inversely (known as OTIS-P) used to estimate main 

channel and transient storage zone parameters based on data collected from soil pipe 

tracer tests of Wilson et al. (2015) described below. Typically, for a conservative tracer 

and constant flow rate the A, D, As and s are inversely estimated from tracer 

breakthrough curves (Stofleth et al., 2008). OTIS-P uses a nonlinear regression method in 

fitting the advection–dispersion equations (equations 1 and 2) to observed data by 

minimizing the squared error between observed and modeled concentrations where A is 

the main channel cross-sectional area (L2), As is the storage zone cross-sectional area 

(L2), C is the main channel solute concentration (M L-3), Cs is the storage zone solute 

concentration (M L-3), D is the dispersion coefficient in the main channel (L2 T

-1

), Q is 

the flow rate in the main channel (L3 T

-1

), and s is the storage zone exchange coefficient 

(T-1) (Runkel, 1998).

Influence of dam releases on stream temperatures and dissolved oxygen

WASP Modeling 

We modeled the thermal regime of an extensive segment of the Kiamichi River (Figure 

1) using the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP). 

Hourly averaged weather data for 2013 were obtained from the Oklahoma Mesonet for 

three nearby sites (Talihina, Clayton and Antlers), including air temperature, dew point, 
8

net solar radiation and wind speed. Data were obtained from two existing gages (Clayton 

and Antlers, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gages 07335790 and 07336200, 

respectively) including hourly averaged gage height and flow rate data for 2013. River 

water temperature data were collected at four sites on the Kiamichi River via the 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, at sites designated as Payne Riffle, Pine 

Spur Riffle, Robins Riffle and NDN Riffle (Figure 1). These data included hourly 

averaged temperature data from 4/1/2013 to 9/1/2013. 

The WASP is a dynamic compartment-modeling program for aquatic systems, 

including both the water column and the underlying benthos. The time-varying processes 

of advection, dispersion, point and diffuse mass loading, and boundary exchange are 

represented in the basic program. The WASP Temperature Module can be used to predict 

water column temperature based upon atmospheric conditions and heat exchange 

between the surface, subsurface and benthic layers of the water body. We began using 

WASP to predict temperature at four observation sites (Payne Riffle, Pine Spur Riffle, 

Robins Riffle and NDN Riffle) based on weather data, flow data and boundary 

temperature data (i.e., the observed water temperature data at Payne Riffle and NDN

Riffle sites). 

In the WASP Temperature Module, the stream water temperature is computed 

based on the following 1D advection-diffusion equation: 

∂Ts

∂t = −

∂

∂x

(VxTs) +

∂

∂x (Dx

∂Ts

∂x ) +

HnAs

ρwCpV

+ S (3)

where Ts is the stream water temperature (oC), Vx is the advective velocities (m/s), Dx is 

the diffusion coefficients (m2/s), V is the segment volume (m3), As is the segment surface 

area (m2), ρw is the density of water (997 kg/m3), Cp is the specific heat of water (4179 

J/kg oC), Hn is the net surface heat flux (W/m2), S is the loading rate include boundary, 

direct and diffuse loading (oC /s). 

The net surface heat flux includes the effects of a number of processes (Cole et al., 1994) 

computed as:

Hn = Hs + Ha + He + Hc − (Hsr + Har + Hbr) (4)

where Hn is the net heat flux across the water surface (W/m2), Hs is the incident short 

wave solar radiation (W/m2), Ha is the incident long wave atmospheric radiation (W/m2), 

Hsr is the reflected short wave solar radiation (W/m2), Har is the reflected long wave 
9

radiation (W/m2), Hbr is the back radiation from the water surface (W/m2), He is the 

evaporative heat loss (W/m2), Hc is the heat conduction (W/m2).

The WASP model used a one-dimensional kinematic wave flow option where 

flow velocity, depth and width were calculated as an exponential function of flow rate, 

with their multipliers and exponents specified by user. Based on Acoustic Doppler 

Current Profiler (ADCP, SonTek RiverSurveyor M9) transect measurements, a set of 

multipliers and exponents was estimated based on the least sum of square of standard 

error approach to obtain the optimal and realistic flow dynamics. The regression 

equations are displayed below and plotted in Figure 2.

Velocity = 0.0389Q

0.4000 (5)

Depth = 0.7034Q

0.1638 (6)

Width = 36.528Q

0.4362 (7)

We represented the river within WASP by 74, 1-km segments. Because weather 

conditions were similar across the study area, we used meteorological data from one 

mesonet site (Clayton, OK) to calibrate our WASP model. Discharge monitored at USGS 

gage near Clayton (07335790) was used as hydrology input. Monitored stream water 

temperature data at Indian Highway (NDN, Figure 1) were used as the upstream 

boundary. The completed WASP model structure is illustrated in Figure 3. 

Reservoir Release Simulation

The validated WASP model was used to predict downstream temperature in response to 

hypothetical reservoir operations during the validation period: 7/22/2017 to 9/1/2017. We 

first simulated stream water temperature without a release. This simulation served as a 

control and evaluated the thermal stress that would have been experienced by fishes in 

the absence of any water release. Next, multiple realistic release scenarios were simulated 

to assess their effects on both downstream water temperatures and fish-habitat guilds

(Table 1). Five constant release levels were chosen: (1) 0.34 m3/s represented the current 

longer-term release that was previously provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) to provide limited relief to sensitive 

freshwater mussels during a drought (note, this release does not provide connectivity 

from Sardis Reservoir to Lake Hugo); (2) 0.59 m3/s represented the release that was 
10

hypothesized to adequately restore wetted primary mussel habitat (i.e., provide 

connectivity and coverage of primary beds) at Clayton; (3) 0.76 m3/s (~26 cfs), 1.13 m3/s 

(~40 cfs)and 1.50 m3/s (~53 cfs) were chosen to represent the pre-dam median flows of 

August, September and July, respectively (Fisher et al. 2012). Three water temperatures, 

27.64 oC, 26.00 oC and 24.07 oC, were applied in simulations as the lateral thermal 

boundary condition to represent releases from three gates at different depths of the 

reservoir (5, 10 and 20 m). Beginning water-release scenario temperatures were estimated 

by averaging summertime water temperature data for depths corresponding to the gates 

located at 5 m, 10 m and 20 m when the conservation pool is full (lake profile data from 

1999 to 2015, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2016,).

To evaluate the benefits of the reservoir release on the receiving stream, we 

developed two metrics. Releases were aimed at keeping the stream temperatures below a 

thermal tolerance for fishes. For these initial simulations, the initial thermal tolerances 

(T*) of organisms were assumed to be 30°C (until the thermal experiments were 

completed). The metrics were based on the principle of average excessive heat energy 

and average heat flux:

Time averaged excessive heat energy: 

he(m) =

1

n

∑ [V(n, m) ∗ ρ ∗ ∆T(n, m) ∗ Cp]

n

i=1

(8)

Time averaged excessive heat flux: 

hef(m) =

1

n

∑ [Q(n, m) ∗ ρ ∗ ∆T(n, m) ∗ Cp]

n

i=1

(9)

Time averaged reservoir release heat flux: 

hif(m) =

1

n

∑ [Qr(n, m) ∗ ρ ∗ ∆T(n, m) ∗ Cp]

n

i=1

(10)

Where Q = Qn + Qr(11)

n is time step during the experiment period, m is the segment number, V is volume of 

water in the segment, Q is the flow rate in the stream (subscript n indicates natural flow 

and subscript r indicates reservoir release),  is the water density, Cp is the specific heat 

capacity of water, and T is a temperature difference.

The first metric, called the energy reduction percentage (ER), was based on the 

reduction of excessive heat energy above this thermal tolerance (i.e., to what extent is the 
11

excessive temperature or heat energy in the stream reduced). The excessive heat energy 

was calculated using equation (8) for the no reservoir release or base scenario, defined as 

he0, and for the scenarios with a reservoir release, defined as her, based on times when the 

temperature in the stream exceeded the thermal tolerance (i.e., T = Ts – T*). The ER was 

then calculated as:

ER (m) = (he0- her)/ he0 (12)

The second metric, called the energy reduction efficiency (ERE), was used to 

evaluate the relative benefit of the temperature reduction due to specific reservoir releases 

relative to the heat flux invested into the stream from the reservoir. For this metric, the 

invested heat flux from the reservoir (hif) was calculated using equation (10) based on the 

temperature difference between the stream and the reservoir release temperature (i.e., T

= Ts – Tr) and then compared to excessive flux reduction. The ERE was calculated as:

ERE (m) = (hef0 – hefr) / hif (13)

Predicted temperature time series were contrasted against CTMax to identify the 

time when stream fishes from different habitat guilds (Table 1) experienced severe 

thermal stress. A cumulative time when stream fish experienced severe thermal stress 

(hereafter cumulative time above CTMax) was calculated for each fish-habitat guild in 

every 1-km segment simulated in the Kiamichi River WASP temperature model. The 

results were plotted as a function of distance from the Sardis Reservoir confluence and 

cumulative time above CTMax. The areas bounded by the curve of cumulative time 

above CTMax (km•h) were calculated to quantify the thermal stress experienced by the 

two fish guilds downstream of Sardis Reservoir. The reduction rates of thermal stress 

against that of the control were calculated to quantify the ‘cooling effect’ of each release 

scenario. The distance where the cumulative time above CTMax was reduced by half was 

calculated as the effective distance indicating the dissipation of the cooling effect. This 

metric is intended to provide a conservative approach to examining the tradeoff of water 

use versus cooling as we acknowledge that cooler water pockets exist within the stream 

and our model is predicting at the one-dimensional scale. 

Stream Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Data Collection, and DO Modeling
12

Stream temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration data were collected using 

10 temperature data loggers (HOBO U22 Water Temperature Pro v2 Data Logger) and 

10 DO data loggers (HOBO U26 Dissolved Oxygen Data Logger) deployed along the 

river (Figure 4). Temperature loggers were placed in approximately 1-m deep water in 

areas of pools that would receive adequate mixing of stream water (i.e., main channel). 

Loggers were anchored to the stream bottom on a paving stone attached via a cable. The 

HOBO logger was contained within a white polyvinyl chloride (PCV) housing to prevent 

any direct solar radiation. Prior to use, holes were drilled in the PCV to allow flow 

through while deployed. DO data loggers were calibrated initially in the laboratory using 

a 0% oxygen solution and 100% oxygen saturation and calibrated in the field, monthly,

according to the factory recommendation. Briefly, a pre-calibrated DO meter, barometer, 

and thermometer (YSI Pro 2030) were used to record current conditions at each logger’s 

location. These data were recorded and used as a correction factor when offloading data 

into HOBOware Pro v. 3.7.4.

The WASP model was set up based on the Streeter-Phelps BOD (biochemical 

oxygen demand)-DO equations to predict downstream DO concentration.

∂D

∂t = k1Lt − k2D (14)

D =

k1La

k2−k1

(e

−k1t−e−k2t

) + Dae

−k2t

(15)

Where D is the saturation deficit, D=DOsat-DO (mg/L), k1 is the deoxygenation rate (s-1) , 

k2 is the reaeration rate (s-1), La is the initial oxygen demand also called ultimate BOD 

(mg/L), Lt is the oxygen demand at time t, Lt = Lae

−k1t

(mg/L), Da is the initial oxygen 

deficit (mg/L). 

Temperature tolerances of stream fishes

CTMax is a useful technique to assess thermal tolerances in fishes. It was originally 

developed by Cowles and Bogert (1944) on lizards and later adapted for use on 

freshwater fishes (Becker and Genoway 1979). CTMax is an accepted method for 

measuring temperature tolerance in fishes (Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997). During 
13

CTMax studies, the water temperature increases at a fast-enough rate (1°C per min - 1°C 

per h, Becker and Genoway 1979) to prevent acclimation and continues to increase until 

the fish reaches loss of equilibrium (LOE), onset of spasms (OS), or death (D) 

(Lutterschmidt and Hutchinson 1997). Given the time to acclimate to rising temperatures, 

stream fishes may tolerate higher temperature than many CTMax studies suggest (Becker

and Genoway 1979). Also, streams experience diel temperature fluctuations where stream 

temperature decreases during the evening, which could allow fish to better cope with an 

overall thermal increase (i.e., a nocturnal thermal refuge). A study that both increases 

temperature at a natural rate and incorporates a diel component would simulate a more 

realistic physiological response to temperature. Therefore, we also performed a longerterm temperature stress study that mimics a natural stream environment and measured

cortisol as an indicator of stress (see Long-term Thermal Stress).

Fish Collection and Acclimation

Fishes were collected 2015-2018, transported to, and acclimated to laboratory conditions. 

We collected fishes using a seine (2.44 m in length, 1.83 m in height, with 0.3175 cm 

diameter mesh) that was pre-soaked in VidaLife (Western Chemical Inc., Ferndale, WA) 

to minimize handling stress (i.e., reduces friction on the fish). Collected fish were 

transported in stream water treated with non-iodized salt to 1% (10 g/L) to reduce stress 

(Swann and Fitzgerald 1992). Fishes remained in hauling containers for up to 12 h until 

the temperature of the hauling water reached that of the holding tanks, approximately 

20.0°C. Fishes were then transferred to 190-L holding tanks covered with a screen on the

top. We added airstones to all holding tanks to maintain dissolved oxygen >5 mg/L. 

Over the first 96 h, fishes were left undisturbed to recover from transportation stress. 

Brown Trout Salmo trutta and Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss recover from acute 

emersion and confinement within 24-48 h (Pickering and Pottinger 1989). Fishes 

remained in holding tanks where they were acclimated to laboratory conditions over a 2-

week period. 

Following the initial 96 h, fish were fed and water-quality conditions were 

checked daily. We fed fish flakes (Wardley Advanced Nutrition Perfect Protein Tropical 

Fish Flake Food, Hartz Mountain Corporation, Secaucus, NJ) and bloodworms (Fish 
14

Gum Drops Floating Fish Food Bloodworms, San Francisco Bay Brand, Newark, CA) 

once daily to satiation (i.e., until fishes ceased eating). Unconsumed food was removed 

from aquaria daily via siphon. Ammonia, pH, and chloramine were checked twice daily. 

The temperature of the holding tanks was maintained at approximately 20.0°C. Ammonia 

was maintained <0.5 ppm. This level was only observed when new fish were added to the 

holding tanks, and for the first few days of lab acclimation. For the duration of 

acclimation and experimentation, ammonia was <0.25 ppm, pH was 8-8.5, and 

chloramine was zero. Water changes of approximately 30% were performed daily after 

the first 96 h of acclimation.

Critical Thermal Maximum of Fish-Habitat Guilds used in WASP Modeling 

Each of 10 stream fishes was assigned to one of three habitat guilds and CTMax was 

averaged for that guild (Alexander 2017). Habitat guilds were assigned as benthic, midcolumn or surface occupants (Pflieger, 1997; Miller and Robison, 2004; Cashner et al., 

2010) (Table 1). The benthic guild consisted of five species that typically used habitat on

the stream bottom. The mid-column guild consisted of four pelagic species that typically 

occupied the water column. The surface guild was represented by one species which 

occupied the surface of slackwater habitats. The CTMax for each guild ranged from 34.0 

°C to 38.3°C for the thermally sensitive benthic guild and more tolerant surface guild, 

respectively (Table 1). The CTMax of the 10 species assigned to habitat guilds was 

determined following the methods outlined below for the Kiamichi River Assemblage.

The species were chosen based on 1) abundance, 2) conservation status (i.e., Orangebelly 

Darter Etheostoma radiosum, Blackside Darter Percina maculata, Oklahoma’s 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005), and 3) data gaps. We used these 

fishes, rather than all species where CTMax was determined because we needed to 

develop the reservoir scenarios for the WASP model in conjunction with this effort. We 

continued our CTMax efforts in parallel to have a more robust species-thermal profile for 

the Kiamichi River.

Critical Thermal Maximum of the Kiamichi Assemblage
15

We determined the CTMax of 17 stream fishes (Table 2) using an incomplete block 

design with an associated survival control (i.e., the control was not included in the final 

analyses). Each block consisted of up to six species, each represented by one individual

fish. Our goal was to replicate the experiment ten times for each species. We set up a 

system that routed water from a 189.27-L sump to six 37.85-L acrylic aquaria (Figure 5). 

Two airstones were added to the sump system to maintain dissolved oxygen above 5 

mg/L. Water in the sump system was heated with a 5000-W Smartone heater (OEM 

Heaters, Saint Paul, MN). We randomly assigned species to aquaria, but haphazardly 

assigned individual fish to each aquarium (one fish per aquarium). We maintained a 

survival control using a separate sump system where fish experienced the same handling 

as the treatment fish but were held at their acclimation temperature for the duration of 

each trial. Most fishes were held at 20.0°C for 24 h prior to the start of the experiment to 

allow acclimation to testing conditions and recovery from handling stress (Hutchison and 

Maness 1979; Pickering and Pottinger 1989). We primarily focused on adult, smallbodied fishes because they are often less tolerant of higher temperatures (Pörtner and 

Farrell 2008) and would be more likely to represent thermal population bottlenecks.

However, we did include juveniles of two subspecies/unique strains of Smallmouth Bass 

Micropterus dolomieu in our trials. Although we have information on the thermal 

tolerances of the nominal subspecies (Northern Smallmouth Bass), we lack information 

on these bass lineages and thus, included them in our trials. We recognize that neither 

species occupies the Kiamichi River, but the Ouachita strain is endemic to the Ouachita 

Mountain ecoregion and is of interest to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation. The Neosho subspecies (endemic to the Ozark Highlands and Boston 

Mountains) was also included as a comparison. The two juvenile basses were acclimated 

to both 25°C and 20°C because they would be anticipated to tolerate warmer 

temperatures and they hatch/develop under warmer-water conditions (but also completing 

trials at 20 °C allowed them to also be directly compared to the other species).

All CTMax trials were completed using one critical endpoint, loss of equilibrium 

(LOE) (Becker and Genoway 1979; Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997; Beitinger et al. 

2000). During our trials, we increased water temperature 2°C/h until fish experienced 

LOE. We defined LOE as the point at which an individual lost the ability to maintain 
16

dorso-ventral orientation (Becker and Genoway 1979). None of our control fish 

experienced LOE.

We used robust Bayesian estimation (Kruschke 2013) to estimate CTMax values 

among the assemblage of stream fishes (17 fishes) where CTMax was determined (Table 

2). We fit a single-factor linear model with a covariate in a hierarchical framework, 

where species was the factor j and total length was the covariate x. This model structure 

is a Bayesian generalization of an analysis of covariance that imposes sum-to-zero 

constraints on group-level parameters (Kruschke 2015). Species CTMax were modeled as 

deflections around the group mean, where we used broad normal priors for both grouplevel parameters and the total length slope. For these data, we used a t distribution with a 

shifted exponential prior on the normality parameter ν (Kruschke 2013) to accommodate 

heavy tails in CTM observations i. Because an equal-variance among groups assumption 

was not reasonable, we modeled each species standard deviation (SD) j separately. We

also included a grouping factor for trial k to account for correlated CTM observations 

using a broad normal prior (Gelman and Hill 2007). 

We used a set of contrasts (Kruschke 2015) to compare differences in CTMs 

based on both thermal groupings and taxonomy (Table 3). Initially, we divided the stream 

fishes into two thermal groups, low and high, based on their rank relative to the estimated 

group mean CTM. We then further divided stream fishes into four subgroups (low-low, 

low-high, high-low, and high-high) based on the mean estimated CTM of the initial 

groupings. For the contrasts, we compared the low and high groups and their associated 

subgroups (i.e. low-low versus low-high; low-high versus high-high). We also compared 

both the two darter genera (Etheostoma and Percina) and darters to minnows (Highland 

Stoneroller, Notropis, Pimephales, and Steelcolor Shiner; Table 2). Lastly, we compared 

each species individually to all other members of their genera when applicable (Table 3). 

The differences in CTMs were evaluated using 90% highest density intervals (HDIs), 

where we considered the difference important if the interval did not overlap zero.

We performed the analysis using the program JAGS (Plummer 2003) called from 

the statistical software R (version 3.5.1, R Core Team, 2018) with the package runjags 

(Denwood and Plummer 2016). Posterior distributions for parameters were estimated 

with Markov chain Monte Carlo methods using 50,000 iterations after a 10,000-iteration 
17

burn-in phase. We assessed convergence using both the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin statistic 

(R ̂; Gelman and Rubin 1992) and effective sample size (ESS; Kruschke 2015), where 

values <1.1 and >15,000, respectively, indicate adequate mixing of chains. Total length 

was standardized to a mean of zero and a variance of one such that group-level 

deflections are interpreted as estimated species CTM at mean total length, and the total 

length slope represents the estimated change in CTM with a one SD change in total 

length. 

Long-term Thermal Stress

We determined whole-body cortisol concentration of six stream fishes (Table 4) in

response to thermal exposure using a split-plot design that was blocked by trial. We used 

a 2x6 factorial treatment structure with two levels of temperature (27.0°C and 32.0°C) 

and six levels of species (Table 2). We set up four identical sump systems that routed 

water from a 189.27-L sump to six 37.85-L acrylic aquaria (Figure 5). Two airstones 

were added to each sump system to maintain dissolved oxygen above 5 mg/L. Water in 

each sump system was heated with a 1700 W Smartone heater (OEM Heaters, Saint Paul, 

MN). We randomly assigned temperature treatments to sumps (whole plots). Within each 

sump, we randomly assigned species to aquaria (our sub-plots). We used 27.0°C as the 

control temperature because it commonly occurs in our study area during the summer. 

The control temperature was below the thermal tolerance of our initial group of species 

whose CTMax was tested (Table 1). We used 32.0°C as the experimental temperature 

because it was 2.0°C less than CTMax of the most thermally-sensitive species initially 

tested, but this temperature was anticipated to be stressful to stream fishes. Each 

temperature-species combination was replicated 10 times.

Fishes were assigned to treatment aquaria, and then acclimated to the new 

conditions prior to starting each trial. We randomly assigned species to each of six 

aquaria in each sump system for each trial, and then we haphazardly selected three 

individual adult fish (pseudoreplicates) to place in each aquarium. We only used adults in 

these trials because they are often less tolerant of higher temperatures (Pörtner and 

Farrell, 2008). All fishes were held at 20.0°C for 24 h prior to the start of the experiment 
18

to allow acclimation to testing conditions and recovery from handling stress (Hutchison 

and Maness, 1979; Pickering and Pottinger, 1989).

We used a 12h:12h diel cycle to gradually heat each sump to its treatment 

temperature and maintained a 2.5°C nightly refuge during the trials. During each trial, we

increased water temperature 2.5°C over 12 h (0700-1900), daily, and decreased water 

temperature 1.5°C over 12 h (1900-0700), nightly. The net water temperature increase 

was 1.0°C/d until the treatment temperature of 27.0°C (control) or 32.0°C (experimental) 

was reached. All sumps were provided with a 2.5°C nightly (1900-0700) thermal refuge 

but returned to the treatment temperature each day. We maintained each sump at this 

thermal regime for 14 d. After 14 d at the treatment temperatures, we sacrificed all fishes 

by freezing them in liquid nitrogen. The fish samples were then stored at -80°C until 

homogenization.

Whole-body Cortisol Concentration

To quantify whole-body cortisol, we weighed and homogenized individuals, extracted 

cortisol, and performed an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We measured

whole-body cortisol because sampling blood in my study fishes was impractical and 

holding water was shared among species in each trial (Belanger et al., 2016; Zuberi et al., 

2014). Fish samples were weighed (0.001 g), partially thawed, and homogenized in 1x 

phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (1-part fish tissue, 5-parts 1x PBS). We combined 1 mL 

of homogenate with 5 mL diethyl ether in a glass centrifuge tube and vortexed for 1 min 

to extract cortisol. We then centrifuged samples at 3,500 rpm for 5 min and removed the 

organic layer containing cortisol. We repeated the extraction process three times for each 

sample. Following extraction, diethyl ether was allowed to evaporate overnight in a fume 

hood, leaving behind only proteins. We reconstituted samples with 1 mL of 1x PBS and 

incubated them overnight at 4°C. We performed ELISAs according to manufacturer’s 

instructions to determine cortisol concentrations using a human salivary cortisol kit 

(Salimetrics LLC, College Station, PA). Each kit included cortisol standards, blanks, and 

high and low controls. We assayed samples in triplicate. We used a Cytation 5 cell 

imaging multi-mode reader (Biotek U.S., Winooski, VT) with Gen5 software (version 

3.03, Biotek U.S., Winooski, VT) to measure sample optical density. We quantified 
19

whole-body cortisol concentrations of our samples using a 4-parameter sigmoid minus 

curve fit based on optical density of cortisol standards. High and low controls included in 

the kit verified values for standards. Cortisol concentrations were normalized by weight 

of the whole-body sample and reported as absolute cortisol concentrations (ng/g body 

weight). Values of pseudoreplicates were averaged to represent conditions in each 

aquarium.

We used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to analyze the whole-body 

cortisol concentrations following a split-plot design with trial as a blocking factor, sump 

as the whole plot and aquarium as the subplot. In our model, whole-body cortisol 

concentration was the dependent variable, and temperature, species, and the temperaturespecies interaction were fixed effects. We checked for homogeneity of variance of the 

fixed effects. We used sump and trial as random effects in our model to control for 

differences among sumps and trials that were not directly of interest. The random effects, 

sump and trial, were assumed normally distributed as N(0, τ2), where τ2 was the 

population variance among levels of sump and N(0, β2), where β2 was the population 

variance among levels of trial. We performed a Tukey Kramer Honest Significant 

Difference (HSD) post hoc test when an effect was significant. We assessed significance 

at α ≤ 0.05. These analyses were performed in SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, 

NC).

RESULTS

Hyporheic exchange and stream temperatures

Seepage Runs

The distance and number of transects were chosen to minimize error, accommodate 

access points, and avoid tributary confluences. ADCP error was minimized at ≤ ± 0.015 

m3/s). We found using three transects was sufficient to minimize error (error ≤ ± 1.5E-5 

m2/s) in groundwater flux across sites, while allowing us to avoid tributary inflows. 

We completed six seepage runs on the Kiamichi River at six locations (Figure 4: 

Indian Riffle, Robins Riffle, Confupstrm, Confdownstrm, Pine Spur, and Payne Riffle). 
20

At each reach, we measured discharge using an ADCP at three transects spaced 500-m 

apart. We established a discharge-distance relationship and the slope of the regression 

represented the net flux between surface water and groundwater at each reach. According 

to groundwater flux estimations, the upstream reaches tended to have a higher recharge 

rate than downstream reaches (Table 5). The net groundwater flux estimation was 

negative for most of the reaches, indicating loss of stream water (surface waters) to 

groundwater (losing reaches).

Tracer Test and OTIS-P

We performed tracer tests at 4 locations along the river between Pine Spur Riffle, and 

Robins Riffle (Figure 1) to quantify hyporheic exchange longitudinally. We finished data 

analyses and model fitting for data collected at Pine Spur Riffle (PS). Model predictions 

via OTIS-P were contrasted to monitored concentration (Figure 6). Parameter estimates 

via the OTIS-P simulations indicated model convergence was successful for both the first 

(PS2) and second reaches (PS3). The maximum residual sum of squares (i.e., describes 

the quality of the estimator) had a mean square error (MSE) < 0.2 suggesting good model 

fit of the breakthrough curve (i.e., concentration curve versus time). The fraction of 

median travel time due to storage (Fmed200) of PS2 was higher than PS3 (70.23 > 63.56), 

indicating the groundwater exchange through transient storage was higher upstream.

Influence of dam releases on stream temperatures and dissolved oxygen

WASP model

Predicted values of velocity, depth, and width were confirmed to be within a realistic 

range when compared to data collected using an ADCP at riverine locations. Because of 

minor differences in the weather between the four sites, the weather data were set 

constant along the river using observations from the Clayton Mesonet site in the middle 

of the modeled reach. 

Simulated temperatures simulated by the WASP model more closely matched 

measured values after accounting for groundwater (Figure 7 and 8). The model tended to 
21

predict cooler than expected temperatures during warmer periods (Figure 7) until 

groundwater inflow was incorporated in the model (Figure 8). Specifically, we 

introduced a dispersive groundwater exchange process to the model. We set groundwater 

temperature at 15°C (average air temperature during the research period). The modeled 

predictions were closer to measured values at the upstream sites and the error increased in 

the downstream direction. The model was improved at all sites by including a surrogate 

for groundwater in the model (Tables 6 and 7).

Reservoir Release Simulation

According to our initial simulation results, a reservoir release has a significant effect of 

regulating downstream water temperature during the summer baseflow period (i.e., also 

known as drought flow, referencing the portion of streamflow that comes from the sum of 

deep subsurface flow and delayed shallow subsurface flow) (Figure 9).

The WASP predicted temperatures were used to calculate energy reduction (ER)

and energy reduction efficiency (ERE) with respect to spatial distance downstream from 

the Indian HWY site (Figures 10-12). We show excess energy is reduced at various 

release temperatures, and as expected, with the coolest release temperature reducing the 

most excess energy. However, the temperatures generally converge regardless of 

temperature release at approximately 100-km downstream (due to other heat processes). 

The trend is the same across figures but is represented by different processes (Figures 10-

12). 

In the absence of a reservoir release (i.e., the control scenario), downstream fishes 

were expected to experience an approximately uniform thermal stress throughout the 

simulated reach of Kiamichi River (Figure 13). The control scenario indicated the benthic 

guild was expected to experience 130 h of thermal stress, while mid-column guild was 

expected to experience 73 h thermal stress. The surface guild never experienced 

temperatures exceeding their CTMax; thus, temperatures were expected to be tolerated by 

that fish guild so that guild was not investigated further. 

As expected, the thermal relief increased as indicated by thermal stress (Table 8), 

reduction rate of thermal stress (Table 9) and effective distance (Table 10) with the 

increase of the release magnitude and the depth of the release location (i.e., the lower 
22

release locations had cooler water, Figure 14). In recent years, the only time a release has 

been provided for ecological purposes, only 0.34 m3/s was released from the top gate 

(Gates et al., 2015). This release scenario only reduced thermal stress by 11% for midcolumn fishes and 8% for benthic fishes. The effective distance (i.e., distance where 

cumulative time above CTMax was reduced by half) of the release was only 1 km for 

both guilds. A release hypothesized in the literature (0.59 m3/s released from the top gate) 

to provide relief for downstream mussel habitat (Spooner et al., 2005) reduced thermal 

stress by 18% for mid-column fishes and 12% for benthic fishes. The effective distance 

increased to 4 and 2 km for mid-column fishes and benthic fishes, respectively. Three 

releases that represented pre-dam flow magnitudes (0.76, 1.13 and 1.50 m3/s released 

from top gate) reduced thermal stress up to 33% for mid-column fishes and 29% for 

benthic fishes. The effective distance increased to approximately 10 km for both fish 

guilds. In comparison, the 0.34 m3/s release was expected to cause an increase in thermal 

stress of up to 20% for both guilds. Consideration of different release locations (and 

access to cooler water) improved the cooling results and downstream effects considerably 

(Figure 14). Surface releases resulted in ~30% reduction rate in thermal stress at the 

highest modeled flow release. Similar results could be achieved at half that flow volume 

if the lowest available gate on the dam was used to initiate the release. The three release 

scenarios that represented pre-dam flow magnitudes (0.76, 1.13 and 1.50 m3/s) reduced 

thermal stress by 21-46% for mid-column fishes and 15-41% for benthic fishes, 

depending on water temperatures associated with the gate location on the dam. The 

effective distance (i.e., where thermal stress was reduced by 50%) extended to 16-km 

downriver of the Jack Fork Creek confluence if releases were made from the deepest gate 

on the dam and the greatest flow magnitude simulated (1.50 m3/s). The other pre-dam 

flow magnitudes (0.76, 1.13 m3/s) increased the effective distance to 5-12 km for the 

mid-column guild, and 5-10 km for the benthic guild, depending on release temperature 

(i.e., gate location).

Stream Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Data Collection 

The DO time series observed in 2015 represented summer conditions of a relatively 

warm year with few water releases (Figure 15). The DO concentrations observed at the 
23

confluence were above 5 mg/L uniformly more than 95% time. The DO concentrations 

observed at the sites located downstream of the dam influence were above 5 mg/L during 

releases, except for the most downriver site. At Payne, DO had a major shift where 

variances increased substantially during a low-flow period starting 10/13/2017. Because 

there were no dam releases during that period, and the site immediately upstream (Pine 

Spur) showed suitable DO conditions, it seems the low DO (near 2 mg/L) at night were 

likely related to an algae bloom. Algae blooms are relatively common from May through 

October and negatively affect the DO conditions at night when the plants experience high 

rates of respiration (i.e., use oxygen). Another possible explanation is that the loggers 

fouled at that location, which is a common limitation of polarographic membrane-type 

sensors (Wagner et al., 2000).

The DO concentration time series observed in 2017 represented DO patterns 

during a higher-flow period because of considerable water releases from Sardis Reservoir 

due to repeated storm events (Figure 16). The DO concentrations observed at the Jack 

Fork-Kiamichi rivers confluence were above 5 mg/L during these release scenarios but

dropped significantly following releases. 

The BOD sampling also supported our findings that DO was only low 

immediately following discharge events. BOD samples reflected low values (less than 2 

mg/L) during the decreasing of discharge (while discharge was above 1.0 m3/s) and 

higher values (2.9 mg/L and 3.8 mg/L observed at most upstream and downstream sites, 

respectively) immediately following the return to low-flow conditions (when discharge 

dropped below detectable limit). 

Temperature tolerances of stream fishes

We summarized CTMax values from the existing literature (Table S1). Most studies 

focused on sport fish and common species. However, a few studies did determine thermal 

tolerances of diminutive fishes (e.g., Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum and Southern 

Redbelly Dace Chrosomus erythrogaster).

Critical Thermal Maximum of the Kiamichi River Assemblage 
24

CTMax values differed significantly between thermal groupings, between taxonomic 

groups, and between species and subspecies of the same genera. The estimated group 

mean CTMax was 34.72 °C (90% HDI: 34.60, 34.83), and estimated CTM among the 

stream fishes ranged from 32.43 to 38.26 °C (Table 2). Kiamichi Shiner Notropis 

ortenburgeri had the lowest estimated thermal tolerance, and Blackspotted Topminnow 

Fundulus olivaceus had the highest. Although darters tended to have a lower thermal 

tolerance than minnows, the difference in estimated CTMax values was not significant 

(Table 2 and Table 3). Similarly, 4 of 10 stream fishes, along with six darters, in the low 

thermal guild (raw mean CTMax ± SD: 34.09 ± 0.66 °C) were minnows, and Logperch 

Percina caprodes was included in the high thermal guild (raw mean CTMax ± SD: 35.71 

± 1.24 °C) along with three minnows, both Smallmouth Bass subspecies/genetic lineages, 

and Blackspotted Topminnow (Table 2). The difference in estimated CTMax values 

between the low and high thermal guilds was significant (Table 3). When broken into 

four different thermal guilds, the low-low guild comprised Kiamichi Shiner, Etheostoma, 

Blackside Darter, and Channel Darter (Table 2), and the low-high guild comprised Dusky 

Darter, Bigeye Shiner, Emerald Shiner, Slenderhead Darter, and Steelcolor Shiner (Table 

3). The high-low guild comprised Pimephales, Neosho Smallmouth Bass, Highland 

Stoneroller, and Logperch, and the high-high group comprised Ouachita Smallmouth 

Bass and Blackspotted Topminnow. Thermal tolerances were significantly different 

between the four thermal guilds, where the magnitude of the difference in estimated 

CTMax was ~1°C higher between the guilds in the high thermal group compared to the 

low thermal group. Among all darter species, Etheostoma had a significantly lower 

thermal tolerance than Percina. Among members of Percina, Blackside Darter Percina 

maculate and Channel Darter Percina copelandi had a significantly lower thermal 

tolerance, and Logperch had a significantly higher thermal tolerance. Estimated CTMax 

did not differ significantly between Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum and Orangebelly 

Darter Etheostoma radiosum. Among members of Notropis, Bigeye Shiner Notropis 

boops and Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides had a significantly higher thermal 

tolerance, and Kiamichi Shiner had a significantly lower thermal tolerance. Estimated 

CTMax did not differ significantly between Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus and 

Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax. As expected, estimated CTMax was higher for 
25

both genetically-distinct Smallmouth Bass populations at the higher acclimation 

temperature (Table 2). Neosho Smallmouth Bass had a significantly lower thermal 

tolerance than Ouachita Smallmouth Bass at both acclimation temperatures; however, the 

magnitude of the difference was ~0.5 °C higher at the higher acclimation temperature. 

Estimated CTMax decreased with increasing total length in the assemblage-level analysis 

(slope: -0.31, 90% HDI: -0.47, -0.15). The 90% HDI for the total length slope in the 

Smallmouth Bass analysis overlapped zero and was subsequently removed. 

Model diagnostics indicated adequate mixing of chains and good fit. R ̂was 1.0 

and ESS was >15,000 for all model coefficients in both analyses. Posterior predictive 

plots indicated good fit using a t-distribution (ν = 11.2 and ν = 9.5 for the assemblage 

analysis and Smallmouth Bass-only analysis, respectively).

Whole-body Cortisol Concentration

Assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were not met by our model. Natural-log 

transformation of whole-body cortisol concentrations improved skewness. However, 

unequal variances of the fixed effects were still apparent; thus, were modeled to account 

for heteroscedasticity. 

Whole-body cortisol concentrations varied among the species we examined, but 

not between the two treatment temperatures. The fixed effect of species was significant in 

our model (F5, 36.86 = 62.46, P <0.01) indicating a significant difference in stress response 

for at least one species. Interestingly, the fixed effect of temperature (F1, 17.57 = 0.84, P = 

0.37), and the interaction of the fixed effects were not significant (F5, 36.86 = 0.55, P = 

0.74). Results from Tukey Kramer HSD indicated there were differences in whole-body 

cortisol concentrations among species (Figure 17). Highland Stoneroller Campostoma 

spadiceum had the highest cortisol concentration (67.61 ng/g body weight at the 

treatment temperature, 56.38 ng/g body weight at the control temperature) regardless of 

temperature (P <0.01). Channel Darter had the lowest cortisol concentration (1.64 ng/g 

body weight at the treatment temperature, 2.07 ng/g body weight at the control 

temperature), significantly different from Steelcolor Shiner (P = 0.02) and Bluntnose 

Minnow (P = 0.04), but not significantly different from Orangebelly Darter (P = 0.79) or 

Blackspotted Topminnow (P = 0.46). Cortisol concentrations in all other species were 
26

statistically similar among one another (Figure 17) and ranged 3.45-9.12 ng/g body 

weight in treatment fishes and 3.04-5.55 ng/g body weight in control fishes.

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The impoundment of Sardis Lake significantly altered the downstream thermal regime of 

the Kiamichi River and increased thermal stress by up to 20% for benthic and midcolumn fish species. However, we show the only flow released to benefit biota in recent 

years (0.34 m3/s, Gates et al. 2015) was insufficient to recover the downstream thermal 

regime to even near pre-dam conditions, and that flow does not connect the entire length 

of river between Sardis Reservoir and Lake Hugo. In addition to providing little 

improvement to thermal conditions, this scenario also prevents fish movement via lack of 

connectivity across the riverscape. If the desired outcome is to improve habitat for fishes 

and freshwater mussels, flow releases would benefit from consideration of the results 

presented in this report. We demonstrate that thermal improvements via flow releases 

could improve conditions for fishes for a considerable distance downriver of the 

confluence. The benefits of thermal improvement via cooling is observed across the 

entire 74-km river segment but providing a 50% reduction in thermal stress for fishes 

varied by volume of water released and release location. Monitoring of dissolved oxygen 

is recommended to establish better relationships with water releases as there have not 

been any releases of water at those locations to sufficiently evaluate the resulting 

dissolved oxygen conditions. Specifically, the water-management agency does not 

currently make water releases from the lower gates so the dissolved oxygen conditions 

we observed cannot account for that uncertainty. 

Dissolved oxygen concentration is also an essential component of aquatic 

ecosystems that are affected by the magnitude of release. However, based on the instream DO concentrations observed in 2015 and 2017 and BOD sampling results, the 

observed reservoir releases did not directly reduce DO concentrations in the Kiamichi 

River. DO concentration of reservoir water tended to decrease with depth (Townsend, 

1999), as shown in existing lake profile data (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2016, 

unpublished data 1999-2015). As a result, hypolimnetic release with low DO 
27

concentration may degrade fish habitat by reducing DO concentration downstream of the

dam (Hoback and Barnhart, 1996; Marshall et al., 2006), especially when releases are 

made continuously during extremely hot years. In this study, the reservoir was likely to 

have released water from the upper gate expected to have the highest DO, which did not 

introduce any moderate or severe DO stress. However, DO conditions at depth may 

change (e.g., climate change, different use of water volumes over time), and releases of 

larger magnitudes can affect downstream DO concentrations by causing resuspension of 

oxygen demanding materials. DO monitoring efforts are recommended to ensure 

suboptimal conditions are not created if hypolimnetic releases are used as a management 

option.

The DO observations revealed some unexpected patterns at certain sites. For 

example, the DO variances increased substantially during a low-flow period at the Payne 

site starting 10/13/2015 (Figure 15). Because there were no dam releases during that 

period, and the site immediately upstream (Pine Spur) showed suitable DO conditions, it 

seems the low DO at Payne (near 2 mg/L) at night were likely related to local conditions 

such as an algae bloom (Jacobsen and Marín, 2008) (see page 23). In 2017, the DO at the 

confluence dropped to less than 1 mg/L following releases while the sites upstream and 

downstream of the confluence were less effected. Possible causes for these changes in 

DO include aquatic ecosystems disturbed by high flows causing reduced capacity for 

photosynthesis, or dam releases transporting or resuspending oxygen demanding 

materials whose effects are felt after the flood crest (Graczyk and Sonzogni 1991).

The DO concentrations observed at the Jack Fork-Kiamichi rivers confluence 

were above 5 mg/L during these release scenarios but dropped significantly following 

releases. This was likely to result from disturbed aquatic ecosystems by high flows with 

reduced capacity of photosynthesis and influx or resuspension of oxygen demanding 

materials as a result of the storm water input (Graczyk and Sonzogni 1991). This pattern 

was also observed on upstream sites but dissipated downstream and was not observed at 

the downstream sites. 

The WASP model offered a more comprehensive method to predict water 

temperature (compared to published regression equations, Spooner et al. 2005), taking 

into account the heat transfer mechanisms (i.e., solar radiation, bottom heat conduction 
28

and evaporation), which we then used to simulate reservoir releases. However, we found 

a continued discrepancy between the predicted and observed water temperatures when 

discharge decreased to base-flow conditions in the summer months, and two processes 

may be responsible. First, as discharge decreased, groundwater replenishment accounted 

for much of the available water source. As a result, the thermal regime of the river was 

also largely influenced by groundwater temperature. Second, the WASP model did not 

account for the heating of bank and bottom sediments when the water level was low. In 

the model, the bank temperature was set to a constant value. Yet, when discharge was

low, the temperature of the surrounding river bank and bottom was likely higher due to 

more bank area being directly exposed to solar radiation. As a result, more heat exchange 

than simulated will occur on the river bank and bottom interface that may replenish the 

heat loss that occurred in the current simulation. This missing process could not be added 

to the current model, but we compensated by using a higher stream bottom temperature

and that provided much more accurate temperature comparisons. 

The root mean square errors (RMSE, difference between predicted and observed 

values) representing the prediction modeled temperature discrepancy averaged about 1.6 

°C and were similar to other research using deterministic thermal models (e.g., Caissie et 

al., 2007); therefore, we believe our model performance is acceptable based on the 

research objective. The WASP model is one dimensional and represents average water 

temperature of each model segment, but the actual thermal heterogeneity within the 

stream would offer some patches of warmer or cooler water (Ebersole et al., 2001). Thus, 

although the error associated with the thermal predictions could be problematic for fishes 

during extremely hot periods if absolute (i.e., there was no thermal patchiness), it was 

expected to be less than the spatial variance created by fine-scale thermal heterogeneity 

(Kanno et al., 2014) that provides thermal refugia for fishes. Moreover, the importance of 

our WASP model was to understand the magnitude of effect that could be achieved with 

different reservoir releases (i.e., what is the net gain for stream fishes from using a certain 

volume of water and a certain release gate). 

The predicted stream water temperature time series initially had greater diurnal 

variance when compared to the observed temperatures. Two main factors may have 
29

contributed to the prediction discrepancy. The first potential source of bias was 

associated with the stream water temperature being monitored at the bottom of the river 

while the Kiamichi temperature model predicted average stream water temperature across 

the entire stream segment volume due to the one-dimensional simplification. An 

additional contributing factor is the model limitation in accounting for the buffering 

effect of stream bottom in response to atmospheric heating conditions. For a shallow 

stream, a portion of the incoming radiation heat is absorbed by the stream bottom, which

in turn heats up the stream water slowly, creating a heat buffer. In contrast, the model 

only allowed incoming radiation heat to be absorbed only by water column. To try to 

account for the incoming radiation heat absorbed by stream bottom, we used a high light 

extinction coefficient, allowing the water column to absorb a larger portion of incoming 

radiation heat. One consequence of this solution was increased diurnal variance due to 

faster heat transfer. However, for this research, the absolute accuracy of the temperatures

was less critical than the relative differences across the water-release scenarios (i.e., the 

effect of different release options), and for the scenarios modeled, the error rate was 

acceptable. Evaluating the effects of dam releases was completed to examine how 

thermal conditions could be improved under different release scenarios.

The 1-D WASP model predicts water temperature as an average over a model 

segment, and to provide decision-making tools to evaluate dam releases over a 74-km 

reach consisting of 1 km stream segments, a one-dimensional model is probably the 

preferred option because of its high data efficiency. The model predictions are likely 

conservative as the thermal conditions predicted do not account for the patchy stream 

environment. This is probably beneficial given CTMax represents morbid conditions for 

fishes that does not allow fishes to acclimate and, of course, all models have some 

inherent error. It is important to recognize that even when CTMax values are not 

exceeded, fish may still experience reduced growth and survival due to exposure to 

suboptimal temperatures (Coutant, 1976). From the perspective of fish habitat, there may 

still be cooler-water patches available that provide refuge during thermally-stressful 

conditions and predicting those is not possible with a 1-D model. This study used a 1-D 

model, but if improved resolution of thermal conditions is desired, a two-dimensional 

model could be developed. However, significantly higher data requirement (e.g., vertical 
30

temperature stratification profiles) and computational cost is expected for 2-D models. 

Use of a 2-D model would likely be most beneficial for identifying greater resolution of 

thermal conditions at freshwater mussel beds, as an example, where organisms are 

generally sessile. A 2-D model would also be useful if there is interest in examining 

thermal refugia related to other land-use practices (i.e., maintaining riparian corridors, 

fencing cattle to prevent DO decreases). Lastly, increased thermal resolution of some 

stream segments might be useful to agencies developing monitoring strategies to target 

areas during severe drought or other thermally-stressful periods.

Interestingly, none of the fishes in this study showed increased cortisol 

concentrations resulting from the experimental temperature. Disregarding Highland 

Stoneroller, which is specifically discussed below, whole-body cortisol levels among the 

species in this study ranged from 3.4-7.1 ng/g body weight in response to control 

temperature and 2.2-10.1 ng/g body weight in response to treatment conditions. 

Sutherland et al. (2008) found similar basal whole-body cortisol values for Whitetail 

Shiner Cyprinella galactura (5-20 ng/g body weight, depending on age) and Spotfin 

Chub Erimonax monachus (10 ng/g body weight). Li et al. (2009) found whole-body 

cortisol levels of 6.3 ng/g body weight in Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

immediately sacrificed after seining from aquaculture ponds. The similarity of cortisol 

concentrations in our study to previous studies implies only a basal stress response at 

each temperature. The lack of significant temperature effect to acclimation to water 

temperatures may relate to a slow rate of temperature increase. Slower rates of 

temperature increase allow acclimation to occur (Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997). 

The net increase in temperature of 1°C/d that we used likely allowed acclimation to 

occur. A stress response may not be elicited until much higher temperatures.

Cortisol concentrations found in Highland Stoneroller in this study (70.8 ng/g 

body weight in response to control temperature, 75.8 ng/g body weight in response to 

experimental temperature) imply that individuals of this species were exhibiting stress 

response higher than basal levels and equal in magnitude at each treatment level. This 

level of stress appears to relate to species-specific intolerance of confinement in the 

laboratory setting. Confinement can cause increased levels of plasma cortisol (Clearwater 

and Pankhurst 1997, Murray et al. 2017). Due to their exaggerated stress response in 
31

captivity, it may be advisable to avoid using Highland Stoneroller to determine sources of 

stress in a laboratory setting. For the same reason, it may also be advisable to question the 

validity of lab-determined CTMax for Highland Stoneroller and Central Stoneroller 

Campostoma anomalum, a closely related species.

A variety of factors relates to species-specific thermal tolerances (e.g., life 

history, dispersal ability); however, at the most basic level, we lack information on the 

thermal tolerances of many warmwater stream fishes (Smale and Rabeni 1995, 

Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997, Beitinger et al. 2000). Understanding the thermal 

tolerances of species and assemblages will allow improved predictions of how species 

persist or thrive under changing stream temperatures. With water temperatures currently 

approaching the CTM of multiple species, further increases may threaten the health and 

persistence of many stream fishes. Increasing atmospheric temperatures will cause a 2-

3°C water temperature increase in the south-central United States over the next 50-100 

years (Morrill et al., 2005; van Vliet et al., 2013). Dewatering of streams also causes 

water temperature increases and reduction of suitable habitat for stream fishes (Luttrell et 

al., 1999; Bonner and Wilde, 2000). Dewatering can occur as a result of limited reservoir 

releases, overexploitation of groundwater and surface water, or extended drought 

(Muehlbauer et al., 2011). The resulting increases in water temperature stress fish and put 

them at risk for reduced or delayed reproduction (Tveiten and Johnsen, 1999; Auer, 

2004), increased susceptibility to disease (Yin et al., 1995), weight loss (Whitledge et al., 

2002), and even death (Allan & Castillo, 2007).

Because stream fishes have different thermal tolerances, it is difficult to evaluate 

assemblage-level responses to thermal changes in aquatic systems. A fundamental 

challenge is to reduce assemblage data in a way that is meaningful to detect patterns 

among fish assemblage members or groups. An increasingly common approach for 

simplifying assemblage data is to group species information based on common traits. 

Although useful for allowing generalization of ecological relationships and reducing data 

dimensionality, use of guilds or traits can be arbitrary and result in classifications that 

may not be ecologically meaningful. Fish exhibit behaviors, physiological characteristics, 

and life-history strategies which correspond to their sensitivity to and exploitation of 

water temperatures. For example, temperature influences reproductive effort (e.g., 
32

Pumpkinseed Sunfish Lepomis gibbosus, Masson et al. 2015), egg size, and the timing of 

ovulation in some fishes (e.g., Common Wolffish Anarhichas lupus, Tveiten and Johnsen 

1999). Whereas general patterns in how fishes respond to changing temperatures are 

evident, different populations exhibit differences in these and other traits. Generalization 

of thermal sensitivity based on shared habitat (such as used in our WASP model), 

surrogate-species relationships, proxies to estimate the fundamental thermal niche (e.g., 

swimming performance, aerobic scope, Allen-Ankins and Stoffels 2017), or other 

estimated field-based parameters (e.g., realized thermal maxima, Stuart-Smith et al. 2017; 

Day et al. 2018) may not best represent similar thermal responses among species 

assemblages. Although multiple techniques may be useful for estimating species 

responses to changing thermal environments, laboratory estimates of thermal tolerances 

are useful because they isolate the species’ response due specifically to changing 

temperature. It is surprising that our CTMax values covered such a broad range (32-38

 ̊C) suggesting sensitivity of some assemblage members is much higher than others. This

information may be useful for determining which species may be useful in monitoring for 

thermal stresses (e.g., minnow) including those associated with water releases (or lack 

thereof) and climate change. We found a mix of minnows and darters in the lowest 

thermal guild suggesting taxonomy is generally not a good way to examine thermal 

responses by fishes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is a contribution of the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit (U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, 

Oklahoma State University, and Wildlife Management Institute cooperating). We thank 

Jim Burroughs, Desiree Moore, Nicole Farless, Kyle James, and Don Groom for 

technical assistance. Josh Perkin and Jeff Quinn provided helpful comments to improve 

the quality of this report. We also thank numerous private landowners for allowing us 

access to streams of the Ouachita Mountains. The National Science Foundation (Grant 

No. OIA-1301789) and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (Grant No. 

F13AF01327) provided project funding. The author Y Zhou was supported in part by a 

scholarship from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) (Grant CSC No. 
33

201306306300023). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes 

only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. This study was performed 

under the auspices of Oklahoma State University protocol #AG-165 and AG-1514.
34

REFERENCES

Acreman, M., Dunbar, M.J., 2004. Defining environmental river flow requirements? A review. 

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 8(5): 861-876. 

Alexander, J.R., 2017. Determining the effects of thermal increases on stream fishes of the 

Ouachita Mountain ecoregion, Master’s Thesis: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, 

OK.

Allan, J.D., Castillo, M.M., 2007. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters. 

Springer Science & Business Media.

Allen-Ankins, Stoffels, R., 2017. Contrasting fundamental and realized niches: two fishes with 

similar thermal performance curves occupy different thermal habitats. Freshwater 

Science 36:635-652.

Annear, T. et al., 2002. Instream flows for riverine resource stewardship. Instream Flow Council, 

Cheyenne, WY. 

Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Poff, N.L., Naiman, R.J., 2006. The challenge of providing 

environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 16(4): 

1311-1318. 

Becker, C.D., Genoway, R.G., 1979. Evaluation of the critical thermal maximum for determining 

thermal tolerance of freshwater fish. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 4: 245-256. 

Beitinger, T.L., Bennett, W.A., McCauley, R. 2000. Temperature tolerances of North American 

freshwater fishes exposed to dynamic changes in temperature. Environmental Biology of 

Fishes 58: 237-275.

Beitinger, T.L., Bennett, W.A., McCauley, R.W., 2000. Temperature tolerances of North 

American freshwater fishes exposed to dynamic changes in temperature. Environ. Biol. 

Fishes 58: 237–275.

Beitinger, T.L., Fitzpatrick. L., 1979. Physiological and ecological correlates of preferred 

temperature in fish. American Zoologist 19: 319-329.
35

Brewer, S.K. et al., 2016. Advancing environmental flow science: developing frameworks for 

altered landscapes and integrating efforts across disciplines. Environmental management, 

58: 175-192. 

Bunn, S.E., Arthington, A.H., 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered 

flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental management, 30(4): 492-507. 

Caissie, D., 2006. The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshwater Biology, 51(8): 1389-

1406. 

Caissie, D., Satish, M.G., El-Jabi, N., 2007. Predicting water temperatures using a deterministic 

model: Application on Miramichi River catchments (New Brunswick, Canada). Journal 

of Hydrology, 336(3): 303-315. 

Cashner, R., Matthews, W., Marsh-Matthews, E., Unmack, P., Cashner, F., 2010. Recognition 

and redescription of a distinctive stoneroller from the Southern Interior Highlands. 

Copeia, 2010(2): 300-311. 

Clearwater, S.J., Pankhurst, N.W., 1997. The response to capture and confinement stress of 

plasma cortisol, plasma sex steroids and vitellogenic oocytes in the marine teleost, red 

gurnard. Journal of Fish Biology, 50:429-441. 

Cole, T.M., Buchak, E., 1994. ACE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, 

hydrodynamic and water quality model, Version 2.0, User Manual,@ Draft Instruction 

Report, Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Cole, T., Wells, S., 2002. CE_QUALW2: a two-dimensional, laterally averaged hydrodynamic 

and water quality model, version 3.1. User manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, 

Instruction Report EL-02–1, Washington, DC. 

Coulter, D., Sepúlveda, M., Troy, C., Höök, T., 2014. Thermal habitat quality of aquatic 

organisms near power plant discharges: potential exacerbating effects of climate 

warming. Fisheries management and ecology, 21(3): 196-210. 

Coutant, C.C., 1976. Thermal effects on fish ecology, book chapter: 891-896. 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70119547
36

Cowles, R.B., Bogert, C., 1944. A preliminary study of the thermal requirements of desert 

reptiles. Iguana 83:53. 

Day et al., 2018. Species’ thermal ranges predict changes in reef fish community structure during 

8 years of extreme temperature variation. Divers Distrib. 2018;1036-1046.

Denwood, M., Plummer, M., 2016. runjags: interface utilities, model templates, parallel 

computing methods and additional distributions for MCMC models in JAGS. Available:

https://www.r-project.org/conferences/DSC-2003/Proceedings/Plummer.pdf (December 

2018).

Eberle, M.E., Stark, W.J., 2000. Status of the Arkansas darter in south-central Kansas and 

adjacent Oklahoma. Prairie Naturalist, 32(2): 103-114. 

Ebersole, J., Liss, W., Frissell, C., 2001. Relationship between stream temperature, thermal 

refugia and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss abundance in arid‐land streams in the 

northwestern United States. Ecology of freshwater fish, 10(1): 1-10.

Ellis, L.E., Jones, N.E., 2013. Longitudinal trends in regulated rivers: a review and synthesis 

within the context of the serial discontinuity concept. Environmental Reviews, 21(3): 

136-148. 

Fisher, W.L., Seilheimer, T.S., Taylor, J.M., 2012. , Biological assessment of environmental 

flows for Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1114, 43 p., 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1114/.

Gates, K.K., Vaughn, C.C., Julian, J.P., 2015. Developing environmental flow recommendations 

for freshwater mussels using the biological traits of species guilds. Freshwater Biology, 

60(4): 620-635.

Gelman, A., Hill, J., 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/ hierarchical models. 

Cambridge University Press.

Gelman, A., Rubin, D., 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. 

Statistical Science 7:457-472. 

Graczyk, D.J., Sonzogni, W.C., 1991. Reduction of dissolved oxygen concentration in Wisconsin 

streams during summer runoff. Journal of environmental quality, 20(2): 445-451. 
37

Hoback, W.W., Barnhart, M.C., 1996. Lethal limits and sublethal effects of hypoxia on the 

amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society, 15(1): 117-126.

Hutchison, V.H., Maness, J.D., 1979. The role of behavior in temperature acclimation and 

tolerance in ectotherms. Am. Zool. 19: 367–384.

Jacobsen, D., Marín, R., 2008. Bolivian Altiplano streams with low richness of 

macroinvertebrates and large diel fluctuations in temperature and dissolved oxygen. 

Aquatic Ecology, 42(4): 643-656. 

Kanno, Y., Vokoun, J., Letcher, B., 2014. Paired stream–air temperature measurements reveal 

fine‐scale thermal heterogeneity within headwater brook trout stream networks. River 

research and applications, 30(6): 745-755. 

Krause, P., Boyle, D., Bäse, F., 2005. Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological 

model assessment. Advances in geosciences, 5: 89-97. 

Kruschke, J. K., 2013. Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental 

Psychology: 142:573-603. 

Kruschke, J.K., 2015. Doing Bayesian analysis: a tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Elsevier, 

Amsterdam.

Li, P., Ray, B., Gatlin, D. M., Sink, T., Chen, R., Lochmann, R., 2009. Effect of handling and 

transport on cortisol response and nutrient mobilization of Golden Shiner, Notemigonus 

crysoleucas. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 40: 803-809.

Lutterschmidt, W., Hutchison, V., 1997. The critical thermal maximum: history and 

critique. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75: 1561-1574.

Magnuson, J.J., Crowder, L.B., Medvick, P.A., 1979. Temperature as an ecological resource. 

American Zoologist, 19(1): 331-343. 

Marshall, D.W. et al., 2006. Effects of hypolimnetic releases on two impoundments and their 

receiving streams in southwest Wisconsin. Lake and Reservoir Management, 22(3): 223-

232.
38

Masson, G, Valente, E., Fox, M.G., Copp, G.H., 2015. Thermal influences on life-history traits 

and reproductive effort of introduced pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis Gibbosus in the 

River Moselle Basin (northeastern France). River Res. Applic., 31: 563– 575.

McManamay, R.A., Brewer, S.K., Jager, H.I., Troia, M.J., 2016. Organizing environmental flow 

frameworks to meet hydropower mitigation needs. Environmental management, 58(3): 

365-385. 

Miller, R.J., Robison, H.W., 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press.

Murray, L., Rennie, M.D., Svendsen, J.C., Enders, E.C., 2017. Respirometry increases cortisol 

levels in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss: implications for measurements of 

metabolic rate. Journal of Fish Biology, 90: 2206-2213.

Nelson, K.C., Palmer, M.A., 2007. Stream temperature surges under urbanization and climate 

change: data, models, and responses. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, 43(2): 440-452. 

Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M., Revenga, C., 2005. Fragmentation and flow regulation 

of the world's large river systems. Science, 308(5720): 405-408. 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), 2004 June - 2006 June. Fluvial 

geomorphology analysis of the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Federal Aid Grant No. T-19-

P1. 293 p. Available from

https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/swg/T19P1.PDF. Accessed 2018 

March 13.

Oklahoma's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2005. 

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/CWCS.htm, Accessed June 2014.

Olden, J.D., Naiman, R.J., 2010. Incorporating thermal regimes into environmental flows 

assessments: modifying dam operations to restore freshwater ecosystem integrity. 

Freshwater Biology, 55(1): 86-107. 

OWRB, 2017. Lakes of Oklahoma. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma City, OK.
39

Pankhurst, N., 1997. Temperature effects on the reproductive performance of fish. Global 

warming: implications for freshwater and marine fish, 61: 159. 

Perkin, J.S., Gido, K.B., Johnson, E., Tabor, V.M., 2010. Consequences of stream fragmentation 

and climate change for rare Great Plains fishes. Final Report to USFWS Great Plains 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative Program. 

Pflieger, W., 1997. The fishes of Missouri, rev. ed. Missouri Department of Conservation, 

Jefferson City, MO. 

Pickering, A.D., Pottinger, T.G., 1989. Stress responses and disease resistance in salmonid fish: 

Effects of chronic elevation of plasma cortisol. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 7: 253–258. 

Pigg, J., 1974. Fishes in the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma, Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy 

of Science, 54: 121-130.

Pluhowski, E.J., 1970. Urbanization and its effect on the temperature of the streams on Long 

Island, New York. 627D. 

Plummer, M., 2003. JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs 

sampling. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical 

Computing, 124, No. 125.10.

Available: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/runjags/index.html (December 2018)

Poff, N.L., 1997. Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and 

prediction in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 

16(2): 391-409. 

Poff, N.L. et al., 2010. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new 

framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology, 

55(1): 147-170. 

Poole, G.C., Berman, C.H., 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural 

heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation. Environmental 

management, 27(6): 787-802. 

Pörtner, H.O., Knust, R., 2007. Climate change affects marine fishes through the oxygen 

limitation of thermal tolerance. Science 315: 95-97.
40

Pyron, M., Vaughn, C.C., Winston, M.R., Pigg, J., 1998. Fish assemblage structure from 20 

years of collections in the Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist: 336-

343. 

Quinn, T.P., Hodgson, S., Peven, C., 1997. Temperature, flow, and the migration of adult 

sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Columbia River. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54(6): 1349-1360. 

Richter, B.D., Warner, A.T., Meyer, J.L., Lutz, K., 2006. A collaborative and adaptive process 

for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Research and Applications, 

22(3): 297-318. 

Runkel R.L., 1998. One-dimensional transport with inflow and storage (OTIS): a solute transport 

model for streams and rivers. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98-4018, 73 p.

Rust, S., W.L. Fisher, Marston, R.A., 2006. Final report: Fluvial geomorphology analysis of the 

Kiamichi River, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 

Saltveit, S.J., 1990. Effect of decreased temperature on growth and smoltification of juvenile 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a Norwegian regulated 

river. River Research and Applications, 5(4): 295-303. 

Sanford II, D.R., Boyd, S., 2012. Watershed Assessment for the Kiamichi Basin of Oklahoma. 

Seager, R., Vecchi, G.A., 2010. Greenhouse warming and the 21st century hydroclimate of 

southwestern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(50): 

21277-21282. 

Splinter D.K., Dauwalter D.C., Marston R.A., and Fisher W.L. 2011. Watershed morphology of 

highland and mountain ecoregions in eastern Oklahoma. Professional Geographer 

63:131‒43. 

Spooner, D.E., Vaughn, C.C., Galbraith, H.S., 2005. Physiological determination of mussel 

sensitivity to water management practices in the Kiamichi River and review and 

summarization of literature pertaining to mussels of the Kiamichi and Little River 

watersheds, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.
41

Stofleth J.M., Shields F.D., Fox G.A., 2008. Hyporheic and total transient storage in small, sandbed streams. Hydrological Processes 22:1885–1894. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6773.

Stuart-Smith et al., 2017. Thermal limits to the geographic distributions of shallow‐water marine 

species. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1: 1846.

Sutherland, A., Maki, J., Vaughan, V., 2008. Effects of suspended sediment on whole-body 

cortisol stress response of two southern Appalachian minnows, Erimonax Monachus and

Cyprinella Galactura. Copeia, 2008: 234-244.

Swann, L., Fitzgerald, S., 1992. Use and application of salt in aquaculture. NCRAC Extension 

Fact Sheets. 9. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ncrac_factsheets/9 

Tharme, R.E., 2003. A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in 

the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River 

research and applications, 19(5‐6): 397-441. 

Townsend, S.A., 1999. The seasonal pattern of dissolved oxygen, and hypolimnetic 

deoxygenation, in two tropical Australian reservoirs. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & 

Management, 4(1‐2): 41-53. 

Vaughn, C.C., Atkinson, C.L., Julian, J.P., 2015. Drought-induced changes in flow regimes lead 

to long-term losses in mussel-provided ecosystem services. Ecology and Evolution. 5(6): 

1291–1305.

Vaughn, C.C., Taylor, C., 1999. Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case 

study of an extinction gradient. Conservation Biology, 13: 912-920.

Vörösmarty, C.J., Salisbury, G., Lammers, J., 2010. Global water resources: Vulnerability from 

climate change and population growth. Science 289: 284-288.

Wagner, R.J., Mattraw, H.C., Ritz, G.F., Smith, B.A. 2000. Guidelines and standard procedures 

for continuous water-quality monitors: Site selection, field operation, calibration, record 

computation, and reporting. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00-4252, 53.

Webb, B.W., Zhang, Y., 1999. Water temperatures and heat budgets in Dorset chalk water 

courses. Hydrological Processes, 13(3): 309-321.
42

Wilson G.V., Neiber J.L., Fox G.A., 2013. Internal erosion during soil pipeflow: State of the 

science for experimental and numerical analysis. Transactions of the ASABE 56(2): 465-

478.

Wohl et al., 2015. The natural sediment regime in rivers: Broadening the foundation for 

ecosystem management, BioScience, 65: 358–371.

Woods A.J., Omernik J.M., Butler D.R., Ford J.G., Henley J.E., Hoagland B.W. and Al. E.,

2005. Ecoregions of Oklahoma (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, 

and photographs). U.S.Geological Survey), Vol. 9/1/2013, Reston, VA.

Wool, T.A., Ambrose, R.B., Martin, J.L., Comer, E.A., Tech, T., 2006. Water quality analysis 

simulation program (WASP). User’s Manual, Version, 6. 

Wootton, R., 2012. Ecology of teleost fishes, 1. Springer Science & Business Media.

Zhou, Y., et al., 2018. Groundwater flux estimation in streams: a thermal equilibrium approach. 

Journal of Hydrology 561:822-83.
43

Table 1. Critical thermal maxima (CTMax) was obtained from Alexander (2017). CTMax was determined by increasing temperature 

2 °C/h above acclimated temperature (20.0°C) for 10 fish species that occupied the Ouachita Mountain ecoregion. The average value 

of species within each of three habitat guilds was used to determine a fish-habitat guild. Species were assigned to each habitat guild 

using existing ecological information (references provided). The CTMax for each guild was used to determine when fish will 

experience thermal stress as part of our WASP model simulations.

Habitat 

Guild

Guild 

CTMax 

(

oC)

Common Name

Scientific 

Name

n

CTMax 

(

oC)

Typical Habitat Reference

Surface 38.30

Blackspotted 

topminnow

Fundulus 

olivaceus

10 38.30

Surface water, 

backwaters, edgewaters

Pflieger, 1997

Midcolumn

34.72

Bigeye shiner

Notropis 

boops

10 34.42 Mid-column, run, pool Pflieger, 1997

Bluntnose minnow

Pimephales 

notatus

10 35.26

Mid-column, 

backwaters, pools

Miller and Robison, 

2004

Highland stoneroller

Campostoma 

spadiceum

10 34.78

Mid-column, riffle, run, 

pool

Cashner et al., 2010

Steelcolor shiner

Cyprinella 

whipplei

10 34.42

Mid-column, riffle, run, 

pool

Pflieger, 1997

Benthic 34.34

Channel darter

Percina 

copelandi

10 34.09 Benthic, riffle, run, pool

Miller and Robison, 

2004

Common logperch

Percina 

caprodes

10 35.00 Benthic, riffle, run, pool

Miller and Robison, 

2004
44

Dusky darter

Percina 

sciera

10 34.30 Benthic, riffle, run, pool

Miller and Robison, 

2004

Orangebelly darter

Etheostoma 

radiosum

10 33.97 Benthic, riffle, run, pool

Miller and Robison, 

2004

Slenderhead darter

Percina 

phoxocephala

10 34.32 Benthic, riffle, run, pool

Miller and Robison, 

2004
45

Table 2. Critical thermal maxima (CTMax) of 17 stream fishes that occupy Ouachita Mountain streams. Most fishes were acclimated 

to 20.0°C and exposed to a 2.0°C/h increase in temperature until loss of equilibrium. *The two unique strains of Smallmouth Bass 

(SMB) were also acclimated to 25.0°C because tested individuals were juveniles and more tolerant of thermal stress. 

Scientific name Common name

CTM ( ̊C), 90% HDI Thermal 

group

Thermal 

subgroup

Notropis ortenburgeri Kiamichi Shiner 32.50 (32.04, 33.02) Low Low-low

Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter 33.52 (33.09, 33.91) Low Low-low

Etheostoma radiosum Orangebelly Darter 33.84 (33.60, 34.08) Low Low-low

Percina maculata Blackside Darter 33.87 (33.49, 34.32) Low Low-low

Percina copelandi Channel Darter 33.98 (33.61, 34.34) Low Low-low

Percina sciera Dusky Darter 34.36 (34.02, 34.70) Low Low-high

Notropis boops Bigeye Shiner 34.43 (33.95, 34.91) Low Low-high

Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner 34.49 (34.09, 34.88) Low Low-high

Percina phoxocephala Slenderhead Darter 34.55 (34.28. 34.83) Low Low-high

Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor Shiner 34.71 (34.11, 35.24) Low Low-high

Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow 34.73 (34.22, 35.21) High High-low
46

Micropterus dolomieu velox Neosho Smallmouth Bass 34.92 (34.40, 35.50) High High-low

Campostoma spadiceum Highland Stoneroller 35.08 (34.71, 35.42) High High-low

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose Minnow 35.13 (34.90, 35.41) High High-low

Percina caprodes Logperch 35.61 (35.14, 36.06) High High-low

Micropterus dolomieu Ouachita Smallmouth Bass 36.24 (35.64, 36.77) High High-high

*Micropterus dolomieu velox Neosho Smallmouth Bass 35.84 (34.93, 36.75) NA NA

*Micropterus dolomieu Ouachita Smallmouth Bass 37.71 (36.81, 38.63) NA NA

Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted Topminnow 38.28 (37.82, 38.71) High High-high
47

Table 3. Multiple comparison tests of critical thermal maximums (CTMax) based on thermal 

groupings and taxonomy, where contrast describes the test (see Methods and Table 2 for a 

detailed description of contrasts and groupings). The 90% highest-density interval (HDI) 

represents the posterior distribution of the credible difference (i.e., the effect size) in CTMax 

( ̊C), where asterisks indicate HDIs that do not overlap zero. Most of the stream fishes were 

acclimated to 20°C, but genetically-distinct populations of Smallmouth Bass (SMB) were 

acclimated to both 20°C and 25°C (*).

Contrast 90% HDI

Low versus high *-1.91, -1.45

Low-low versus low-high *-1.23, -0.68

High-low versus high-high *-2.55, -1.72

Darters versus minnows -0.41, 0.03

Etheostoma versus Percina *-1.17, -0.45

Johnny Darter versus Orangebelly Darter -0.76, 0.11

Blackside Darter versus Percina *-1.18, -0.25

Channel Darter versus Percina *-1.08, -0.18

Dusky Darter versus Percina -0.53, 0.23

Logperch versus Percina *0.95, 1.90

Slenderhead Darter versus Percina -0.23, 0.40

Bigeye Shiner versus Notropis *0.33, 1.52

Emerald Shiner versus Notropis *0.48, 1.55

Kiamichi Shiner versus Notropis *-2.54, -1.34

Bluntnose Minnow versus Bullhead Minnow -0.15, 1.01

Neosho SMB versus Ouachita SMB *-2.08, -0.44
48

*Neosho SMB versus Ouachita SMB *-2.79, -0.95
49

Table 4. Whole-body cortisol concentrations from chronic thermal stress trials were measured on six fishes: 

Blackspotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus, Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus, Channel Darter Percina 

copelandi, Highland Stoneroller Campostoma spadiceum, Orangebelly Darter Etheostoma radiosum, and Steelcolor 

Shiner Cyprinella whipplei. Fishes were expected to exhibit stress responses associated with habitat guilds defined 

by documented habitat use. Experimental fishes were collected from the Kiamichi River in autumn 2016 and spring 

2017. Fish were acclimated to laboratory conditions of 20.0°C and exposed to a 1.0°C/d increase in temperature until 

reaching the treatment temperatures (i.e., 27.0°C control; 32.0°C experimental). Fish remained at treatment

temperatures for 14 days but were all provide a thermal refuge of 2.5°C each night during trials.

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Guild Typical Habitat Reference

Blackspotted 

Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus Surface

Surface water, 

backwaters, 

edgewaters

Pflieger, 1997

Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Mid-column Mid-column, 

backwaters, pools

Miller and 

Robison, 2004

Channel Darter Percina copelandi Benthic Benthic, riffle, run, 

pool

Miller and 

Robison, 2004

Highland Stoneroller Campostoma 

spadiceum Mid-column Mid-column, riffle, run, pool

Cashner et al., 

2010

Orangebelly Darter1 Etheostoma radiosum Benthic Benthic, riffle, run, 

pool

Miller and 

Robison, 2004

Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei Mid-column Mid-column, riffle, 

run, pool Pflieger, 1997

1Oklahoma Species of Greatest Conservation Concern
50

Table 5. Estimated groundwater fluxes from our seepage run data. Sites are listed in downstream 

order and the distance downstream was measured from the start of the reach in interest (i.e.,

Indian).

Reach Downstream distance (km) Net Groundwater Flux (m2/s)

Indian 0.00 -4.45E-05

Robins 9.69 -6.42E-05

ConfUpstrm 34.28 3.76E-05

ConfDwnstrm 34.28 -3.00E-06

Pine Spur 59.88 -4.82E-05

Payne 73.34 -5.10E-06
51

Table 6. Statistics evaluating the predicted versus observed water temperatures using the WASP 

model without conceptualized groundwater inflow: sample size (n), R squared (R2), squared

errors of prediction (SSE), mean squared error (MSE), and Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency 

coefficient (NSE). Statistics for each of four sites are included in the table. 

Indian HWY Pool Robins Pool Pine Spur Pool Payne Pool

n 3696 3696 3696 3696

R

2

0.911 0.896 0.628 0.643

SSE 10516.398 19746.481 108988.067 104742.476

MSE 2.8E+00 5.3E+00 2.9E+01 2.8E+01

NSE 0.906 0.829 0.201 0.173
52

Table 7. Statistics evaluating predicted versus observed water temperatures using the WASP 

model with conceptualized groundwater inflow: sample size (n), R squared (R2), squared errors 

of prediction (SSE), mean squared error (MSE), and Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient 

(NSE). Statistics for each of four sites are included in the table. 

Indian HWY Pool Robins Pool Pine Spur Pool Payne Pool

n 3673 3673 3673 3673 

R

2

0.999 0.942 0.817 0.786 

SSE 170.048 8819.775 41059.483 48092.314 

MSE 0.05 2.40 11.18 13.09

NSE 0.999 0.933 0.710 0.641
Table 8. Thermal stress of fishes was evaluated by calculating the area under the curve of 

cumulative time above CTMax downstream of the release (km•h). The CTMax used to represent 

the thermal tolerances of a mid-column fish habitat guild was 34.72°C and the value used to 

represent the thermal tolerances of the benthic guild was 34.34°C. The thermal tolerances of 

fishes included in each guild were: mid column- Bigeye Shiner, Bluntnose Minnow, Highland 

Stoneroller, and Steelcolor Shiner; benthic- Channel Darter, Common Logperch, Dusky Darter, 

Orangebelly Darter, and Slenderhead Darter. Release scenarios were simulated based on the 

combination of five different release magnitude (0.34, 0.59, 0.76, 1.13 and 1.50 m3/s) and three 

gate levels (5, 10 and 20 m deep representing release water temperature of 27.64°C, 26.00°C,

and 24.07°C, respectively).

Mid-column Guild Benthic Guild

Depth of water release 

from dam (m)

Control 5 10 20 Control 5 10 20

Discharge (m3/s) 2914 5206

0.34 2607 2516 2401 4808 4679 4557

0.59 2392 2290 2197 4579 4360 4153

0.76 2309 2214 2118 4401 4162 3949

1.13 2119 1980 1831 4027 3776 3534

1.50 1953 1785 1583 3698 3409 3077
Table 9. The reduction rate of thermal stress compared to the control with no release (calculated 

as the ratio of thermal stress reduction to the thermal stress of the control). The CTMax used to 

represent the thermal tolerances of a mid-column fish habitat guild was 34.72°C and the value 

used to represent the thermal tolerances of the benthic guild was 34.34°C The thermal tolerances 

of fishes included in each guild are provided in Table 8. Release scenarios were simulated based 

on the combination of five different release magnitude (0.34, 0.59, 0.76, 1.13 and 1.50 m3/s) and 

three gate levels (5, 10 and 20 m deep representing release water temperature of 27.64°C,

26.00°C and 24.07°C, respectively). 

Mid-column Guild Benthic Guild

Depth of water release 

from dam (m)

5 10 20 5 10 20

Discharge (m3/s)

0.34 11% 14% 18% 8% 10% 12%

0.59 18% 21% 25% 12% 16% 20%

0.76 21% 24% 27% 15% 20% 24%

1.13 27% 32% 37% 23% 27% 32%

1.50 33% 39% 46% 29% 35% 41%
Table 10. The distance downstream of the Jack Fork Creek and Kiamichi River where the 

cumulative time above CTMax was reduced by half (provided in km). The CTMax used to 

represent the thermal tolerances of a mid-column fish habitat guild was 34.72°C and the value 

used to represent the thermal tolerances of the benthic guild was 34.34°C. The thermal tolerances 

of fishes included in each guild are provided in Table 8. Release scenarios were simulated based 

on the combination of five different release magnitude (0.34, 0.59, 0.76, 1.13 and 1.50 m3/s) and 

three gate levels (5, 10 and 20 m deep representing release water temperature of 27.64°C, 

26.00°C and 24.07°C, respectively). 

Mid-column Guild Benthic Guild

Depth of water release from dam (m) 5 10 20 5 10 20

Discharge (m3/s)

0.34 1 1 2 1 1 2

0.59 4 6 8 2 5 7

0.76 5 7 8 5 7 7

1.13 9 11 12 8 9 10

1.50 10 13 16 10 11 13
56

Figure 1. Map of the Kiamichi River showing our study reach (thick gray line). Mesonet stations 

and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages are represented by triangle and diamond 

markers, respectively. Cross markers indicate monitoring sites where stream water temperature 

data were collected. 
Figure 2. Regression between velocity (V), depth (D) and stream width (W) and discharge (Q). Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

(ADCP) transect measurement results are represented by markers (x) and regression equations are represented by the solid line.
58

Figure 3. Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) Temperature Module Structure. The WASP temperature module uses 

a partial differential equation (shown in the bottom) to calculate stream water temperature based on upstream boundary condition 

(shown in the top left) and surface heat transport processes (shown in the top right). 
59

Figure 4. A map of our study area that shows the locations of dissolved oxygen (DO) loggers 

(green markers) and temperature loggers (red markers). The closely located loggers near the 

confluence are shown in subfigure (e.g., there are 5 DO data loggers and 3 stream temperature 

data loggers located just downstream of Sardis Reservoir on Jack Fork Creek).
60

Figure 5. Sump system for testing critical thermal maximum (CTMax) and long-term thermal 

stress. A pump discharges water into the 37.85-L aquariums and a gravity fed system discharges 

water into the 189.27-L sump. During CTMax trials, water is heated in the sump by a 5000-W 

Smartone heater (OEM Heaters, Saint Paul, MN). During long-term thermal stress trials, water is 

heated in the sump by a 1700-W Smartone heater (OEM Heaters, Saint Paul, MN).
61

Figure 6. The relationship between tracer concentrations over time. (a) The first location (PS1, 

blue squares) was used to make predictions at the downstream sites (PS2, PS3) that would 

account for unknown mixing caused by river characteristics (i.e., hyporheic exchange, flow 

characteristics). (b) The blue and red crosses represent the actual measured concentration at PS2 

and PS3, respectively. The blue and red curves are the corresponding OTIS-P modeled 

predictions associated with the raw data at each site (PS2 and PS3). These predictions are 

estimated tracer concentrations after accounting for hyporheic exchange. 
62

Figure 7. Predicted stream temperature without groundwater inflow using the WASP model. 

Calibration data are represented by the partly transparent markers whereas the model-predicted 

stream temperature is represented by the solid line. 
63

Figure 8. Predicted stream temperature with groundwater inflow using the WASP model. 

Calibration data are represented by the partly transparent markers whereas the model-predicted 

stream temperature is represented by the solid line.
64

Figure 9. Initial predictions of stream temperature by the WASP model. The control discharge

(i.e., without reservoir release) is represented by the black solid line and reservoir releases of 

29°C, 27°C, and 25°C are represented by orange, blue, and red lines, respectively. The number 

before each site name is the distance in km from the start of the research river reach (Indian 

HWY is located at 0). 
65

Figure 10. Predicted excessive energy. he0 is initial excessive energy above the target 

temperature limit; her is excessive energy after reduction using reservoir release of 25°C, 27°C,

and 29°C. He0 indicates no water release. At the reservoir release confluence (x=35), excessive 

energy was substantially reduced by released water. However, the difference in excessive energy 

for each temperature of released water diminishes with downstream distance.
66

Figure 11. Predicted energy reduction (ER) as a function of distance downstream for a reservoir 

release temperature of 25°C (her25), 27°C (her27), and 29°C (her29). Similar to the previous 

figure, energy reduction (ER) happens at the reservoir release confluence (x=35).
67

Figure 12. Predicted energy reduction efficiency (ERE) as a function of distance downstream for 

a reservoir release temperature of 25°C, 27°C, and 29°C. Energy reduction happens at the 

reservoir release confluence (x=35). Initially, cooler released water results in a higher energy 

reduction efficiency (ERE) due to greater temperature difference from natural stream water. 

However, after the intersection point downstream, warmer released water results in a higher ERE 

because water with less temperature difference from natural stream water was released to reduce 

excessive energy to a similar level. 
68

Figure 13. The cumulative time above thermal critical maxima (CTMax) of three fish guilds 

versus downstream distance from the reservoir confluence calculated with the occurred release 

removed from the model. This simulation served as a control and evaluated the thermal stress 

that would have been experienced by fishes in the absence of the water release. The surface guild 

never experienced temperatures exceeding their CTMax (showing as y = 0 h that overlays with 

x-axis).
69

Figure 14. The cumulative time above critical thermal maxima (CTMax) for two fish-habitat

guilds: mid-column and benthic guilds. The cumulative time about CTMax is shown 10-km 

upstream of the Jack Fork Creek and Kiamichi River confluence (indicated as 0 on the X axis). 

Each water-release scenario (second Y axis) is simulated showing the cumulative time above 

CTMax from the confluence downriver for 40 km. Each water-release scenario was simulated 

using three different upstream thermal boundary conditions (i.e., water temperature from the 

dam) that reflect the gate locations where releases could occur from the dam (5, 10 and 20 m), 

represented by a, b and c, respectively. The temperatures of simulated water releases at each gate 

location were: 27.64 °C, 26.00 °C and 24.07 °C, respectively. 
70

Figure 15. Monitored dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations at sites upstream of the confluence 

(Kiamichi River and Jack Fork Creek), at the confluence, and downstream of the confluence. 

Data were collected during summer 2015 representing DO conditions during a baseflow period 

with minimal water released from Sardis Dam. 
71

Figure 16. Monitored dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations at sites upstream of the confluence 

(Kiamichi River and Jack Fork Creek), at the confluence, and downstream of the confluence. Data 

were collected during summer 2017 representing DO conditions during a higher flow period with 

considerable released water from Sardis Dam. 
72

Figure 17. Average (± standard error) whole-body cortisol concentrations from chronic thermal 

stress trials on six stream fishes: Blackspotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus, Bluntnose 

Minnow Pimephales notatus, Channel Darter Percina copelandi, Highland Stoneroller 

Campostoma spadiceum, Orangebelly Darter Etheostoma radiosum, and Steelcolor Shiner 

Cyprinella whipplei. Experimental fishes were collected from the Kiamichi River in autumn 2016 

and spring 2017. Fish were acclimated to laboratory conditions of 20.0°C and exposed to a 1.0°C/d 

increase in temperature until reaching the treatment temperatures (i.e., 27.0°C control; 32.0°C 

experimental). Fish remained at treatment temperatures for 14 days but were provided a thermal 

refuge of 2.5°C each night during trials. Letters over each bar indicate species differences in wholebody cortisol concentration from the Tukey Kramer Honest Significant Difference post-hoc 

analysis.
APPENDIX 1. 

Published critical thermal maximum temperature (CTMax; °C), acclimation temperature (°C), 

optimal temperature (°C), or upper incipient lethal limit (UILL, °C) in fishes that occupy or are 

closely related to species in the Kiamichi River. Tests in the laboratory (L) or field (F) are 

reported and “-“ indicate this information was not reported. 

73 
Table A1. Published critical thermal maximum (CTMax), optimal temperature, or upper incipient lethal limit in fishes that occupy or are closely 

related to species in the Kiamichi River. Tests in the laboratory (L) or field (F) are reported and blanks indicate this information was not reported.

Species Life Stage CTMax (◦C) Field (F) or 

Lab (L)

CTMax 

(◦C)2

Optimal 

Temp (◦C)

Upper Incipient 

Lethal (◦C) References 

Creek Chub

*

21-21.9 * * *31.8 Carlander1973; Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1969 

Creek Chub

*

22.8 * * *32.1 Carlander1974; Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1969 

Creek Chub

*

25-26 * * *32.6 Carlander1975; Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1969 

Creek Chub Adult

* * * * *

Brett 1944; Hart 1947, as cited in McMahon 1982

Creek Chub Adult 5

* * *

24.7 Brown1974; Hart 1947, as cited in Brown 1974, 

Creek Chub Adult 10 * * *27.3 Brown1974; Hart 1947, as cited in Brown 1974 

Creek Chub Adult 15 * * *29.3 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 20 * * *30.3 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 25 * * *30.3 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 10 * * *27.5 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 15 * * *29 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 20 * * *30.5 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 25 * * *31.5 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 30 * * *31.5 Brown1974

Creek Chub Adult 7.2 * * *31.1 Brown1974

Creek Chub Nesting

* * *

26.7

*

Brown1974

Creek Chub Spawning

* * *

14

*

Brown1974

Creek Chub Hatching

* * * * * Clark 1943; Moshenko and Gee 1973; Copes 1978

Creek Chub Adult 5

* * * *

Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 10 * * * *Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 15 * * * *Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 20 * * * *Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 25 * * * *Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 10 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973
Creek Chub Adult 15 * * * *

Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 20 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 25 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub Adult 30 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Creek Chub

* * * * * * McFarlane et al 1976, as cited in Wismer and Christie1987

Creek Chub Adult

* * * * * Miller 1964; Moshenko and Gee 1973, as cited in McMahon 1982

Creek Chub Spawning

*

F *12.8

*

Scott&Crossman1973

Creek Chub *26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Creek Chub

*

5

* * *

24.7 Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Creek Chub

*

10 * * *27 Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Creek Chub

*

17.1-17.5 * * *30.5 Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Creek Chub

*

15 * * * * Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Creek Chub

*

25 * * * * Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Creek Chub Hatching

* * * * * Washburn 1945, as cited in McMahon 1982

Johnny Darter

* * * *

20

* Floye et al 1984, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Johnny Darter

* *

F * * * Hankinson 1919 cited in Carlander 1997

Johnny Darter

*

15 * * * * Ingersoll and Clauseen 1984, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Johnny Darter

*

15 * * * * Ingersoll and Clauseen 1984, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Johnny Darter

*

15 L 30.7

* *

Kowalski1978

Johnny Darter

*

15 L 31.4

* *

Kowalski1978

Johnny Darter

*

15 * * * * Kowalski et al. 1978, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Johnny Darter

* *

F * * * Lutterbie 1976 cited in Carlander 1997

Johnny Darter

*

20 * * * * Lydy and Wissing 1988, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Johnny Darter Hatching

*

F *24

*

Scott&Crossman1973

Johnny Darter

*

26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Johnny Darter

*

20-30 * * * *Smith and Fausch 1997, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Johnny Darter

* *

F * * *Speare 1958 cited in Carlander 1997

Johnny Darter

* *

F * * * Speare 1965 cited in Carlander 1997

Johnny Darter

* *

F * * * Winn 1958 cited in Carlander 1997
Sauger

**

*

*

7.2

*

Brown1974

Sauger

**

*

*

21.1

*

Brown1974

Sauger

**

*

*

20

*

Brown1974

Sauger

**

*

*** Coutant 1977 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

*

*** Dendy 1948 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

*

*

19.2

*

Carlander1977

Sauger

**

*

*

29

* EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Sauger Spawning

*

*

*

10

* EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Sauger Incubation

*

*

*

15

* EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Sauger Juvenile 26

*

**

31 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Sauger

**

*

*

19

* EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Sauger Adult

*

*

*

19.2

* Feruson, 1958 as cited in Hokanson, K.E.F., 1977

Sauger

**

*

*** Gammon 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Sauger

**

F

*

28

* Gammon 1973, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

Sauger Adult

*

*

*

28

* Gammon, 1971 as cited in Hokanson, K.E.F., 1977

Sauger

**

*

*** Hokanson 1977 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

*

*** Hokanson 1977 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

*

*** Hokanson 1977 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

F

*** Hokanson 1977 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

F

*** Hokanson 1977 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

*

*** Hokanson 1977 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger Juvenile

*

L

**

20.9 Hokanson et al 1977

Sauger Spawning

*

*

*

15

*

Hokanson et al 1977

Sauger Incubation

*

*

*

15

*

Hokanson et al 1977

Sauger Spawning

*

*

***

Hokanson et al 1977, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Sauger

**

F

***

Medlin 1990 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

F

***

Nelson 1968 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

*

***

Nelson 1968 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

*

***

Nelson 1968 cited in Carlander 1997

Sauger

**

F

***

Priegel 1969 cited in Carlander 1997
Sauger

* * * *

22.6

*

Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Jobling 1981

Sauger

* * * *

21.3

*

Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Jobling 1981

Sauger Juvenile 10.1 L

* *

26.36 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Sauger Juvenile 12 L

* *

26.7 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1988

Sauger Juvenile 13.9 L

* *

28.4 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1989

Sauger Juvenile 16 L

* *

28.6 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1990

Sauger Juvenile 18.3 L

* *

28.7 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1991

Sauger Juvenile 19.9 L

* *

29.5 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1992

Sauger Juvenile 22 L

* *

29.9 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1993

Sauger Juvenile 23.9 L

* *

30.4 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1994

Sauger Juvenile 25.8 L

* *

30.4 Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1995

Sauger Spawning

* * *

9

*

Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1996

Sauger Juvenile

*

L

* * *

Smith and Koenst 1975, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1997

Sauger Juvenile 25.8 * * *30.4 Smith, L.L., and Koenst, W.M., 1975 

Sauger

* *

F *21

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Sauger

* *

F *11

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Sauger

* *

F * * *Eaton and Scheller 1996

Sauger Spawning

* * * * *

Bell 1990

Sauger 

* * * *

25

* U.S. EPA 1976

Sauger Spawning

* * *

12

* U.S. EPA 1977

Sauger Embryo Survival

* * *

18

* U.S. EPA 1978

Sauger 

* *

F 31.2

* * U.S. EPA 1979

Southern Redbelly 

Dace *

26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995

Spottail Shiner Adult

* * *

20

*

Crowder1981

Spottail Shiner Adult

* * *

18

*

Crowder1981

Spottail Shiner Spawning

*

F *20

*

Carlander1969

Spottail Shiner

*

25 L

*

28.5

*

Kellogg&Gift11983

Spottail Shiner Juvenile 25 L

*

29.9

*

Kellogg&Gift11983

Spottail Shiner Juvenile 25 L

*

29

*

Kellogg&Gift11983
Spottail Shiner 6-8 Wk 20 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1983

Spottail Shiner 6-8 Wk 22.5 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1984

Spottail Shiner 6-8 Wk 25 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1985

Spottail Shiner 6-8 Wk 27.3 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1986

Spottail Shiner 6-8 Wk 29.6 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1987

Spottail Shiner 6-8 Wk 32.2 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1988

Spottail Shiner 6-8 Wk 34.7 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1989

Spottail Shiner Juvenile 25 L

* * *

Kellogg and Gift 1990

Spottail Shiner Spawning none F *18

*

Mansfield 1984

Spottail Shiner

* * * *

14

*

Meldrim and Gift, 1971 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Spottail Shiner Adult

*

L

*

9

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Spottail Shiner Adult 21.7 L

*

14.3

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1977

Spottail Shiner Adult

* * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1978

Spottail Shiner Adult

* * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1979

Spottail Shiner

* * * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1980

Spottail Shiner

* *

F * * * Trembley 1960 cited in Carlander 1969

Spottail Shiner Juvenile

* * *

20.1

*

Marcy1976

Spottail Shiner

* * * *

13

*

Brandt1980

Spottail Shiner

* * * *

16

*

Brandt1980

Spottail Shiner

* * * *

20

*

Brandt1980

Spottail Shiner Adult 15 L

*

13.9

*

Brown1974

Spottail Shiner Hatching

*

F *20

* Wismer and Christie 1987

Spottail Shiner Fry

* * * * * Wismer and Christie 1987

Spottail Shiner

* *

F * * * Wismer and Christie 1987

Spottail Shiner

* *

F * * * Wismer and Christie 1987

Spottail Shiner

*

7.2 L

* * * Wismer and Christie 1987

Spottail Shiner

*

11.1 L

* * * Wismer and Christie 1987

Spottail Shiner Juvenile 9

* * * * Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1978a., as cited in Jinks et al. 1981

Spottail Shiner Juvenile 17 * * * * Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1978a., as cited in Jinks et al. 1982

Spottail Shiner Juvenile 23-24 * * * * Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1978a., as cited in Jinks et al. 1983
Spottail Shiner Juvenile 26

*

*** Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1978a., as cited in Jinks et al. 1984

Spottail Shiner

**

*

*** Prince and Mengel 1981, as cited in Wismer and Christie 9187

Spottail Shiner Adult winter

*

*

10.2

* Reutter and herdendorf 1974, as cited in Houston 1982

Spottail Shiner Adult spring

*

*** Reutter and herdendorf 1974, as cited in Houston 1982

Spottail Shiner Spawning

*

*

*** Talmage 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Spottail Shiner Adult

*

*

*

20

*

Talmage&Coutant1980

Stoneroller

*

7.5

*

*** Chagnon and Hlohowskyj 1989, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Stoneroller

*

23

*

*** Chagnon and Hlohowskyj 1989, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Stoneroller

**

*

*

29

* Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1975

Stoneroller

*

9L

*

15.2

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Stoneroller

*

6L

*

13.4

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1980

Stoneroller

*

24L

*

25.3

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1981

Stoneroller

*

27L

*

28.6

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1982

Stoneroller

*

21L

*

23.6

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1983

Stoneroller

*

12L

*

20.7

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1984

Stoneroller

*

15L

*

21.7

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1985

Stoneroller

*

18L

*

22.3

* Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1986

Stoneroller

*

12L

*

16.5

* Cherry et al., 1977

Stoneroller

*

18L

*

21

* Cherry et al., 1978

Stoneroller

*

21L

*

22.4

* Cherry et al., 1979

Stoneroller

*

24L

*

25.1

* Cherry et al., 1980

Stoneroller

*

27L

*

28.2

* Cherry et al., 1981

Stoneroller

*

30L

*

27.4

* Cherry et al., 1982

Stoneroller

*

15L

*** Cherry et al., 1983

Stoneroller

*

10

*

*** Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Stoneroller Spawning

*

*

*** Miller 1964 cited in Carlander 1969

Stoneroller

*

24F

***

Mundahl 1990, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Stoneroller

*

26

*

***

Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Stoneroller Spawning

*

*

***

Smith 1935 cited in Carlander 1969

Stoneroller

**

*

*

26.8

*

Stauffer et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1977
Stoneroller

**

*

***

Stauffer et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1977

Stoneroller

**

*

*

27

* Stauffer et al., 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Stoneroller Spawning

*

*

*

21

* Carlander 1969

Stoneroller Hatching

*

*

*

24.3

* Carmichael 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Stoneroller Hatching

*

*

*

17.7

* Carmichael 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1988

Stoneroller Hatching

*

*

*

13.9

* Carmichael 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1989

Stoneroller Spawning

*

*

*

24.3

* Carmichael 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1990

Stoneroller Spawning

*

*

*

17.7

* Carmichael 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1991

Stoneroller Spawning

*

*

*

13.9

* Carmichael 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1992

Stoneroller

**

*

*

28.5

* Opuszynski 1971, as cited in Houston 1982

Stoneroller

**

*

*

26.2

* Cherry et al., 1977

White Crappie

**

F

*** Al

-Rawi 1971 cited in Carlander 1977

White Crappie

**

F

*** Agersborg 1930, as cited in Brown 1974

White Crappie

**

F

*** Proffitt and Benda 1971, as cited in Brown 1974

White Crappie

**

*

***

Bell 1990

White crappie Adult

*

*

***

Biesinger, personal communication, as cited by Edwards et al. 

1982

White crappie Juvenile 29

*

*** Brungs and Jones 1977, as cited in Edwards et al. 1982

White crappie Juvenile 27

*

*** Brungs and Jones 1977, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

White crappie Juvenile

*

*

*** Brungs and Jones 1977, as cited in Edwards et al. 1984

White Crappie

**

F

***

Eaton and Scheller 1996

White Crappie Juvenile

*

L

**

33 Kleiner and Hikanson 1973, as cited in Brown 1974

White Crappie Spawning

*

*

*

20

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Crappie Spawning

*

*

*

20

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Crappie

**

*

***

Gammon 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

White Crappie

**

*

*** Gammon 1973, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Crappie Nesting

*

F

*** Hansen 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

White Crappie Hatching

*

*

***

Morgan 1954, as cited in Brown 1974

White Crappie

**

F

*

23

* NA

White Crappie Spawning

*

F

*

16

* NA
White Crappie

* *

F *24

*

O'Brien et al. 1984

White Crappie Adult

* * *

19.8

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

White Crappie Adult

* * *

18.3

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

White Crappie Adult

* * *

10.4

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

White Crappie Adult

*

L 32.8 19.4

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

White Crappie Adult

*

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

White Crappie Adult

*

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

White Crappie Adult

*

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

White Crappie Spawning

*

F * * *Siefert 1968 cited in Carlander 1977

White Crappie Hatching

* * * * * Siefert 1968 cited in Carlander 1977

White Crappie Embryo 

* * * * *

Siefert 1968, as cited in Edwards et al. 1982

White Crappie Hatching

* * * * * Swingle 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

White Crappie

* * * *

28

*

U.S. EPA 1976

White Crappie Spawning

* * *

18

*

U.S. EPA 1976

White Crappie Embryo Survival

* * *

23

*

U.S. EPA 1976

White Crappie

* *

F * * * Witt 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

White Crappie

* *

F * * * Walburg 1969, as cited in Brown 1974

White Crappie

*

summer F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Crappie

*

fall F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Crappie

*

winter F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Crappie

* * * * * * Marcy 1976

White Crappie

* *

F 32.3

* * Marcy 1977

White Crappie

* *

F * * * Marcy 1978

White Sucker

* * * * * * Marcy 1979

White Sucker

* *

F 28 27.8

* Marcy 1980

White Sucker 1&2 Yr

*

L

* * *

Adelman 1980, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Juvenile 5

* * *

26 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Juvenile 10 * * *28 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Juvenile 15 * * *29 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Juvenile 20 * * *29 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987
White Sucker Juvenile 25-26 * * *

31 Brett 1944, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker 1-2Yr 5

* * *

26.3 Brett 1944, as cited in Brown 1975

White Sucker 1-2Yr 10 * * *27.7 Brett 1944, as cited in Brown 1976

White Sucker 1-2Yr 15 * * *29.3 Brett 1944, as cited in Brown 1977

White Sucker 1-2Yr 20 * * *29.3 Brett 1944, as cited in Brown 1978

White Sucker 1-2Yr 25 * * *28.3 Brett 1944, as cited in Brown 1979

White Sucker Juvenile

* * * *

31.4 Huntsman 1946, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Juvenile

* * * *

33.3 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Juvenile 32.2 * * *35 Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Juvenile 7.2 * * *30 Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Juvenile 11.1 * * *31 Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1975

White Sucker

* * * *

18.3

*

Cooper and Fuller 1945, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker

* *

F * * *Hile and Juday 1941, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker

* *

F *23.9

*

Trembley 1960, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Spawning

*

F * * *Trautman 1957, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Spawning

* * * * *

Trautman 1957, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Spawning

* * * * * Webster 1941, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Larvae

* * * * *

McCormick et al. 1972, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Fry 21 F * * *Trembley 1960, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Juvenile

*

L

* * *

Huntsman 1946, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker Adult

*

F * * *Horak and Tanner 1964, as cited in Brown 1974

White Sucker

* *

F *18.3

*

Cooper and Fuller 1945, as cited in Coutant 1977

White Sucker Spawning

* * * * *

Corbett and Powels 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Larvae

* * * * * Corbett and Powels 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Spawning

* * *

16.8

* Corbett and Powles 1983

White Sucker Larvae

* * * * * Corbett and Powles 1983

White Sucker Larvae

* * * *

30.2 Crippen and Fahmy 1981

White Sucker

* *

F * * *Eaton and Scheller 1996

White Sucker Larvae 15 * * *31 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Juvenile 15 * * *29 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1988
White Sucker Larvae 21 * * *

30 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1989

White Sucker Spawning

* * *

10

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1990

White Sucker Hatching

* * *

15

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1991

White Sucker

* * * *

24

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1992

White Sucker Juvenile

*

L

* * *

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1993

White Sucker Spawning

* * *

11.16

* Fuiman 1979, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Adult (1-2Yr) 5

* * * * Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

White Sucker Adult (1-2Yr) 10 * * * * Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1974

White Sucker Adult (1-2Yr) 15 * * * * Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1975

White Sucker Adult (1-2Yr) 20 * * * * Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1976

White Sucker Adult (1-2Yr) 25 * * * * Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1977

White Sucker

* * * * * * Haymes 1984, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker

* *

F *20.6

*

Hile and Juday 1941, as cited in Coutant 1977

White Sucker Adult

*

F *21.1

*

Horak and Tanner 1964, as cited in Coutant 1977

White Sucker Larvae

* * *

23.8

*

Marcy, B.C., 1976

White Sucker Spawning

* * *

23.4

*

Marcy, B.C., 1976

White Sucker

* *

L

*

15.2

* McCormick 1977

White Sucker Newly Hatched 21.1 L

* *

28.2 McCormick et al 1977

White Sucker Swim-Up 21.1 L

* *

30.5 McCormick et al 1978

White Sucker Swim-Up 15.8 L

* *

30.7 McCormick et al 1979

White Sucker Swim-Up 10 L

* *

28.1 McCormick et al 1980

White Sucker Newly Hatched 15.2 L

* *

30 McCormick et al 1981

White Sucker Newly Hatched 8.9 L

* *

28.6 McCormick et al 1982

White Sucker Newly Hatched 21.1 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1983

White Sucker Newly Hatched 21.1 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1984

White Sucker Newly Hatched 15.2 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1985

White Sucker Newly Hatched 15.2 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1986

White Sucker Newly Hatched 8.9 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1987

White Sucker Newly Hatched 8.9 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1988

White Sucker Newly Hatched 21.1 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1989
White Sucker Newly Hatched 10 L

* * *

McCormick et al 1990

White Sucker Larvae 10-Sep * * *28.8 McCormick et al 1991

White Sucker Larvae 15-16 * * *31.1 McCormick et al 1992

White Sucker Larvae 21 * * *31.7 McCormick et al 1993

White Sucker

* *

F * * *Michaud 1981

White Sucker

* * * * * * Michaud 1981, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker Spawning

* * *

17.8

*

Raney 1943 cited in McCormick 1977

White Sucker

*

23 * *24.1

*

Renyolds and Casterlin 1978

White Sucker Adult

*

L

*

22.4

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974, as cited in Coutant 1977

White Sucker Adult 19 L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

White Sucker Spawning

*

F * * *Scott and Crossman 1973, p540

White Sucker Hatching

*

L

* * *

Scott and Crossman 1973, p540

White Sucker

*

26 * * * * Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

White Sucker

* * * *

26.7

* Stauffer et al 1976, as cited in Reynolds and Casterlin 1978

White Sucker

* * * *

28

*

U.S. EPA 1976

White Sucker Spawning

* * *

10

*

U.S. EPA 1976

White Sucker Embryo Survival

* * *

20

*

U.S. EPA 1976

White Sucker Adult

* * *

21

* Wyman 1981, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

White Sucker

* *

F *27

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Sucker

* *

F *19

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Sucker

* * * *

14.4

* Marcy 1976

White Sucker Juvenile

* * * * * Brown 1974

Bigmouth Shiner

*

26 * * * * Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Bluegill

* *

F 36 31.7

* Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2001

Bluegill

* * *

36 32.5

* Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2002

Bluegill

* * * * * * Anderson 1958 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill Adult

* * * * * Anderson 1959; Emig 1966, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Bluegill

*

12.1 * * * *Banner and Van Arman 1973 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

19 * * * *Banner and Van Arman 1973 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

26 * * * *Banner and Van Arman 1973 cited in Carlander 1977
Bluegill

*

32.9

*

***

Banner and Van Arman 1973 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

26

*

*** Banner and Van Arman 1973 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*** Banner and Van Arman 1973, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Bluegill Embryo

*

*

*** Banner and Van Arman 1973, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Bluegill Fry

*

*

*** Banner and Van Arman 1973, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Bluegill

**

*

**

33.8 Banner and Van Arman, 1973 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 

1979

Bluegill

**

*

*

23.9

*

Banner and Van Arman, 1973 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 

1980

Bluegill

**

*

*

31.2

* Beitinger 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*** Beitinger 1974 cited in Coutant 1978

Bluegill

**

*

*** Beitinger, T.L., 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

**

*

*** Beitinger, T.L., 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1980

Bluegill

**

*

***

Bell 1990

Bluegill Spawning

*

*

***

Bell 1990

Bluegill

*

15

*

***

Brett, J.R., 1956 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

20

*

***

Brett, J.R., 1956 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

30

*

***

Brett, J.R., 1956 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill Adult

*

*

***

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

**

*

***

Anderson 1959,as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

**

*

**

33.8 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

**

*

41.4

*

38.3 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

**

*

*

30

* Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

**

F

*** Byrd 1951, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill Spawning

*

*

*** Stevenson et al 1969, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill Spawning

*

*

*** Clugston 1966, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill Spawning

*

*

*** Breder 1936, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

**

*

*** Speakmand and Krenkel 1972, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

**

*

*** Proffitt and Benda 1971, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

**

*

*** Buck and Thoits 1970 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*** Cairns 1956, as cited in Brown 1974
Bluegill

* * * * *

35.5 Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * * *

33 Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * * *

33.8 Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * * *

34 Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * *

41.5

* *

Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * *

18.7

*

Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * *

19.6

*

Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

6

* * * * Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

30 * * * * Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * *

32

*

Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1975

Bluegill

*

6

* * * *

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

9

* * * *

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

12 * * * *Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

15 * * * *Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

18 * * * *Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

21 * * * *Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

24 * * * *Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

27 * * * *Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

30 * * * *Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

* * * * *

36 Cherry et al., 1977

Bluegill

* * * * * * Childers 1967 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * * * * Childers 1967 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

26 * * * *Cox 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Bluegill

*

26 * * * *Cox 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Bluegill

*

26 * * * *Cox 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Bluegill

* * * * * *

Cravens 1981, as cite in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

* * * * *

28.5 Cvancara et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

* * * * * * Durham 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* *

F * * * Eaton and Scheller 1996

Bluegill Adult 15 * * *31 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987
Bluegill Juvenile 12

*

**

27 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill Adult 20

*

***

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill Adult 25

*

**

33 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1988

Bluegill Juvenile 26

*

**

36 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1989

Bluegill Adult 30

*

**

34 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1990

Bluegill Juvenile 33

*

**

37 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1991

Bluegill Spawning

*

*

*

25

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1992

Bluegill Hatching

*

*

*

24

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1993

Bluegill

**

*

*

32.3

* Fry and Pearson 1952 / Ferguson 1958, as cited in 

Bluegill

**

*

*** Ferguson, R.G., 1958 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Bluegill

*

21.5

*

*** Hallam 1959 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill Fry

*

*

*** Hardin and Bovee 1978, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Bluegill Adult 15

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Bluegill

*

20

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Bluegill

*

25

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1974

Bluegill

**

*

37.3

** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1975

**

*

*** Van Arman, 1973 as cited in Beitinger and Magnuson, 1979

Bluegill1-2 Yr 22-23

*

*** Hathaway 1927, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

*

10

*

*** Hathaway 1928 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

30

*

*** Hathaway 1928 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

21.5

*

*** Hickman and Dewey 1973, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

*

25

*

***

Holland et al. 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Bluegill

*

30

*

***

Holland et al. 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2001

Bluegill

*

35

*

***

Holland et al. 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2002

Bluegill

*

35

*

43.4

**

Holland et al. 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2003

Bluegill

*

25

*

37.8

**

Holland et al. 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2004

Bluegill

*

30

*

40

**

Holland et al. 1974, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2005

Bluegill

**

*

*** Kitchell et al. 1974 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*** Kitchell et al. 1974 cited in Carlander 1978

Bluegill Juvenile

*

*

***

Lemke 1977, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982
Bluegill

*

10

*

***

Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Bluegill Juvenile

*

*

***

McCauley and Casselman 1980,cited in Wismer and Christie 

1987

Bluegill Subadult

*

*

***

McCauley and Casselman 1980,cited in Wismer and Christie 

1988

Bluegill

**

*

***

McCauley and Casselman 1980,cited in Wismer and Christie 

1989

Bluegill Adult 26

*

*

31

* Medvick, P.A., et al., 1981 as cited in Cravens 1982

Bluegill

*

16F 31.5

**

Murphy et al. 1976

Bluegill

*

24F 37.5

**

Murphy et al. 1976

Bluegill

*

32F 41.4

**

Murphy et al. 1976

Bluegill

*

16F

***

Murphy et al. 1976

Bluegill

*

24F

***

Murphy et al. 1976

Bluegill

*

32F

***

Murphy et al. 1976

Bluegill

**

*

*

31.3

*

Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*

31.2

*

Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*

29

*

Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*

32.6

*

Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*

29

*

Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*

30.2

*

Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

**

*

*

31.5

*

Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

*

29

*

***

Neill and Magnuson 1974 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

33

*

***

Neill and Magnuson 1974 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill Young

*

*

***

Neill and Magnuson 1974, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

**

*

*

30.7

*

*

Bluegill

**

*

*

24.6

*

*

Bluegill

*

27L

**

35.8 Peterson and Schutsky 1976

Bluegill

*

13L

**

29.3 Peterson and Schutsky 1976

Bluegill

*

1L

**

23.3 Peterson and Schutsky 1976

Bluegill

**

*

*

27.4

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

*

22.8L 38.3

**

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Bluegill Adult

*

*

***

Reutter and Herdendorf, 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 

1979
Bluegill

* * * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf, 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 

1979

Bluegill

* * * *

32.3

*

Reynolds and Casterlin 1976 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill Adult

* * * * * Reynolds and Casterlin 1976, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Bluegill

* * * *

30.5

* Reynolds et al. 1976 cited in Coutant 1977

Bluegill

* * * * * * Salmon Research Trust of Ireland 1960 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

26 * * * * Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Bluegill

* * * * * * Stevenson et al. 1969 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

15 * * * * Stevenson et al. 1969 cited in Carlander 1978

Bluegill

*

20 * * * * Stevenson et al. 1969 cited in Carlander 1979

Bluegill

*

30 * * * * Stevenson et al. 1969 cited in Carlander 1980

Bluegill

* * * * * *

Stuntz and Magnuson 1976, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

* * * * * *

Swingle 1949 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

* * * * * *

Swingle 1949 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill Juvenile 25 * *31.2

*

Talmage and Coutant 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

* * * *

31

*

Talmage and Coutant 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

* * * *

31.4

*

Talmage and Coutant 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill Juvenile 25 * * * *Talmage and Coutant 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

* * * * * *

Talmage and Coutant 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill Juvenile

* * * * *

Talmage and Coutant 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Bluegill

* * * * * *

Trembley 1960 cited in Carlander 1977

Bluegill

*

24.4 * * * * Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Bluegill

* * *

35 32

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Bluegill

* * * *

25

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Bluegill

* * * *

34

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Bluegill

*

summer F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Bluegill

*

fall F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Bluegill

*

winter F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Brassy minnow Spawning

*

F *12.8

*

Scott and Crossman 1973, p416

Channel Catfish

* * *

35 32.8

*

Scott and Crossman 1973, p417
Channel catfish Fry

*

*

*** McMahon and Terrell 1982

Channel Catfish Juvenile (44-57D) 26

*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Channel Catfish Juvenile (44-57D) 30

*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1974

Channel Catfish Juvenile (44-57D) 34

*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1975

Channel Catfish Juvenile (11.5 

Mo) 25*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1976

Channel Catfish Juvenile (11.5 

Mo) 30*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1977

Channel Catfish Juvenile (11.5 

Mo) 35*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1978

Channel Catfish

*

26

*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1979

Channel Catfish

*

30

*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1980

Channel Catfish

*

34

*

*** Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in NAS/NAE 1981

Channel catfish Juvenile

*

*

*** Andrews et al. 1972; Andrews and Stickney 1972

Channel Catfish

**

*

***

Bell 1990

Channel Catfish Spawning

*

*

***

Bell 1990

Channel Catfish Hatching

*

*

***

Bell 1990

Channel Catfish

*

10

*

***

Bennett et al. 1998, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

20

*

***

Bennett et al. 1998, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

30

*

***

Bennett et al. 1998, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

35

*

***

Brown 1942; Clemens and Sneed 1957, as cited in 

Channel Catfish Embryo

*

*

***

McMahon and Terrell 1982

Channel Catfish Juvenile 26

*

**

36.6 Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish Juvenile 34

*

**

37.8 Allen and Strawn 1968, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Juvenile 30

*

**

38 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish Juvenile 25

*

**

35.5 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1988

Channel Catfish Juvenile 30

*

**

37 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1989

Channel Catfish Juvenile 35

*

**

38 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1990

Channel Catfish Adult 15

*

**

30.4 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Adult 20

*

**

32.8 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Adult 25

*

**

33.5 Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish

*

7.2

*

**

32.8 Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974
Channel Catfish

*

11 * * *35 West 1966, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Larvae

* * * * * West 1966, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Fry

* * * * * West 1966, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Fry

* * *

29

* Drew and Tilton 1970, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Juvenile

* * * * *

Tiemeir and Deyoe 1967, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Juvenile

* * * * *

Hokanson 1969, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Juvenile

* * * * *

Kilambri et al. 1970, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Juvenile

* * * * *

NTAC 1968, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Fingerling

* * * * *

Andrews et al. 1972, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Spawning

* * *

22

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish Spawning

* * * * *

Katz 1954, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Spawning

*

F * * *McClellan 1954, as cited in Brown

Channel Catfish Spawning

* * * * *

Sneed and Hokanson 1969, as cited in Brown 1974

Channel Catfish Hatching

* * * * *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish Larvae

* * * * *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish Juvenile

* * * * *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish

*

12 * *17

*

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

16 * *21

*

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

20 * *22

*

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

24 * *28

*

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

28 * *26

*

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

12 *34.5

* *

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

16 *34.2

* *

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

20 *35.5

* *

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

24 *37.7

* *

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

28 *39.2

* *

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

32 *41

* *

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

32 * *30

*

Cheetham et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

12 * * * *Cheetham st al. 1976, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

16 * * * *Cheetham st al. 1976, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000
Channel Catfish

*

20 * * * *Cheetham st al. 1976, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

24 * * * *Cheetham st al. 1976, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

28 * * * *Cheetham st al. 1976, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

32 * * * *Cheetham st al. 1976, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

* * * *

30.5

*

Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1975

Channel Catfish

*

30 * *30.5

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

6

* *

18.9

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

9

* *

20.4

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

12 * *19.9

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

15 * *21.7

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

18 * *22.9

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

21 * *26.1

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

24 * *29.4

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

27 * *29.5

*

Cherry et al., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

* * * * * *

Cravens 1981, as cite in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish

*

20 * * * *Currie et al. 1998, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

25 * * * *Currie et al. 1998, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

30 * * * *Currie et al. 1998, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

* *

F * * *Eaton and Scheller 1996

Channel Catfish Spawning

* * *

27

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish Spawning

* * * * *

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish

* * * * * *

Gammon 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Channel Catfish

* * * * * * Gammon 1973, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

Channel Catfish Adult 15 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Channel Catfish Adult 20 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Channel Catfish Adult 25 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Channel Catfish

* * * * * *

Leidy and Jenkins, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Channel Catfish

*

10 * * * *Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Channel Catfish

* *

F *15.2

*

Marcy 1976

Channel Catfish

* * * * * * McClellan 1954 cited in Carlander 1969
Channel Catfish

* * * * *

35 Moss and Scott 1961 cited in Carlander 1969

Channel Catfish

* * * * * *

Proffitt 1969 cited in Coutant 1977

Channel Catfish

* * * *

25.2

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

Channel Catfish

* * * *

25.3

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

Channel Catfish

*

22.7 L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Channel Catfish

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Channel Catfish Adult

* * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf, 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 

1979

Channel Catfish Adult

* * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf, 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 

1979

Channel Catfish

*

22.7 *38

* *

Reutter and Herdendorf, 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 

1979

Channel catfish Adult

* * * * * Schrable et al. 1969; Chen 1976

Channel Catfish Spawning

*

F *26.7

*

Scott and Crossman 1973, p 607

Channel Catfish Hatching

*

F * * *Scott and Crossman 1973, p 607

Channel Catfish

* * * *

32.5

*

Stauffer et al., 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

* * * *

32

*

Stauffer et al., 1974 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Channel Catfish

*

15 * * *30.3 Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Channel Catfish

*

20 * * *32.8 Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1970

Channel Catfish

*

25 * * *33.5 Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1971

Channel Catfish

*

15 * * * *Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1972

Channel Catfish

*

20 * * * *Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1973

Channel Catfish

*

25 * * * *U.S. EPA 1976

Channel Catfish

* * *

32 35

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Channel Catfish

* * * *

27

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Channel Catfish

* * * *

29

* Watenpaugh and Beitinger 1985, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Channel Catfish

*

20 * * * * West 1966, as cited in McMahon and Terrell 1982

Channel catfish Fry

* * * * *

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Channel Catfish

*

summer F *36

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Channel Catfish

*

fall F *32

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Channel Catfish

*

winter F *14

* NA

Channel Catfish

* *

F 35 32.8

* NA
Channel Catfish Spawning

* * *

23.9

*

Carlander 1969

Channel Catfish

* * * * *

36.1 Jinks1981

Channel Catfish

* * * * *

36.4 Jinks1981

Common Shiner

*

25-26 * * * * Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1969

Common Shiner Adult 10 L

*

29

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 15 L

*

30.5

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 20 L

*

31

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 25 L

*

31

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 25 L

*

31

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 30 L 31 31

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 5

* *

26.7

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 10 * *28.6

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 15 * *30.3

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 20 * *31

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 25 * *31

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 7.2 * *30.6

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult 11.1 * *31.1

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Spawning

* * *

25.5

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Spawning

* * *

15.6

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Spawning

* * *

21.1

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Spawning

* * *

28

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Spawning

* * *

18

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult

* * *

32

*

Carlander 1969, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Inshore Migration

* * *

15.5

*

Dodson and Young 1917, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Spawning

* * *

18

* Dodson and Young 1917, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Common Shiner Adult (Mostly 2 

Yr) 5* * * *

Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult (Mostly 2 

Yr) 10 * * * *

Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult (Mostly 2 

Yr) 15 * * * *

Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult (Mostly 2 

Yr) 20 * * * *

Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973
Common Shiner Adult (Mostly 2 

Yr) 25 * * * *

Hart 1947, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult 10 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult 15 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult 20 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult 25 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult 25 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult 30 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Common Shiner Adult 25 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1980

Common Shiner Adult 30 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1980

Common Shiner

*

15 L 30.6

* * Kowalski et al. 1978, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Common Shiner

*

15 L 31.9

* * Kowalski et al. 1978, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Common Shiner

*

15 * * * * Kowalski et al. 1978, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Common Shiner

*

15 * * * * Kowalski et al. 1978, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2001

Common Shiner

* * * * * * Miller 1964 cited in Carlander 1969

Common Shiner

* * * *

21

*

Nurnberger 1931 cited in Carlander 1969

Common Shiner

*

15 * * * *Schubauer et al 1980, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Common Shiner Spawning

*

F *18.3

*

Scott and Crossman 1973, p450

Common Shiner Spawning

*

F *28.3

*

Scott and Crossman 1973, p450

Common Shiner

*

26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Common Shiner

*

5

* *

27

*

Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Common Shiner

*

10 * *29

*

Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Common Shiner

*

15 * *30.3

* Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Common Shiner

*

20 * *32.3

* Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Common Shiner

*

25 * *33.5

* Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969

Largemouth Bass

*

8

* * * *

Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Largemouth Bass

*

16 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Largemouth Bass

*

24 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Largemouth Bass

*

32 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Freshwater Drum * * *35.3

* *

Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2001
Freshwater Drum * * * *

26.1

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum * * * *22

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum * * * *31

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum * *F * * *Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum Spawning

* * *

21

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum Spawning

* * *

23.9

*

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum * * * * * *Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum Hatching

* * * * *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum Larvae

* * *

28

*

Cada and Hergenrader 1980

Freshwater Drum * * * *22.2

*

Dendy 1948 cited in Coutant 1977

Freshwater Drum * *F * * *Eaton and Scheller 1996

Freshwater Drum * * * *21

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum Incubation

* * *

22

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Freshwater Drum * * * * * *Gammon 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Freshwater Drum *29-35 * * *32.8 Cvancara et al. 1977

Freshwater Drum * * * *30.3

* Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Freshwater Drum * * * * * *Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Freshwater Drum Young

* * *

31.3

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

Freshwater Drum Adult

* * *

26.5

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

Freshwater Drum Adult

* * *

19.6

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

freshwater drum Adult 21.2 L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

freshwater drum Adult

* * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

freshwater drum Yoy

* * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Freshwater Drum * *F *30

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Freshwater Drum * *F *11

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Freshwater Drum * *F 32.6 32.5

*

Jinks1981

Freshwater Drum * * * * *32.8 Jinks1981

Gizzard Shad

* * *

35.3 32.3

*

Jinks1981

Gizzard Shad Spawning

*

F * * * Bodola 1966, as cited in Scott and Crossman 1973, p135

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 25 * * *34.5 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987
Gizzard Shad Underyearling 30 * * *

36 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 35 * * *36.5 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad Spawning

* *

31.7

* *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad Spawning

* *

35.7

* *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad

* * *

37.5

* *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad

* * * * * *

Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad Adult

* * * * *

Clark 1969; Brungs and Jones 1977

Gizzard Shad

* *

F * * *Eaton and Scheller 1996

Gizzard Shad

* * * * * *

Ellis 1984, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad Adult

* * * * *

Gammon 1973, as cited in Williamson and Nelson 1985

Gizzard Shad

*

summer * * * * Gammon 1973, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 25 F * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 30 F * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 35 F * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 25 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 30 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Gizzard Shad Underyearling 35 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Gizzard Shad Adult

* * * * * Hart 1952;Strawn 1958, as cited in Williamson and Nelson 1985

Gizzard Shad Hatching

*

L

* * * Miller 1960,as cited in Scott and Crossman 1973, p135

Gizzard Shad Adult

* * * * *

Proffitt and Benda 1971, as cited in Williamson and Nelson 1985

Gizzard Shad Adult 15.9 *31.7

* *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Gizzard Shad Adult

* * * * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Gizzard Shad

* * * * * *

Talmage and Coutant 1980, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard Shad

* * * * * *

This Study

Gizzard Shad

* * * * * *

This Study

Gizzard Shad

* * * * * * Wyman 1981, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Gizzard shad

*

summer F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Gizzard shad

*

fall F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Gizzard shad

*

winter F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Gizzard Shad

* *

F 34 32.3

*

Yoder and Gammon 1977
Gizzard Shad Underyearling

* *

31

* * Talmage 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Golden Shiner

* * *

35.3

* * Talmage 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1988

Golden Shiner

*

22 * * *40 Beltz et al 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Golden Shiner

*

17.1-17.5 * * *31.6 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1969

Golden Shiner

*

22.8 * * *32.7 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1970

Golden Shiner

*

25-26 * * *33.2 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1971

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

30.4 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1972

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

31.6 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1973

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

30.3 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1974

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

32.8 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1975

Golden Shiner 3.49 In

* * * *

33.4 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1976

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

33.2 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1977

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

31.8 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1978

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

33.5 Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1979

Golden Shiner

*

10 * * * *Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1980

Golden Shiner

*

15 * * * *Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1981

Golden Shiner

*

20 * * * *Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1982

Golden Shiner

*

25 * * * *Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1983

Golden Shiner

*

30 * * * *Brett 1944 cited in Carlander 1984

Golden Shiner

*

10 L

* *

29.3 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

*

15 L

* *

30.5 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

*

20 L

* *

31.8 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

*

25 L

* *

33.2 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

*

30 L

* *

34.7 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

*

22 *39.5

* * Alpaugh 1972, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

*

22 *40

* * Alpaugh 1972, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

26.7 Nickum 1966, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

35 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Golden Shiner

* * * * * * Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

* *

F * * * Bailey 1955, as cited in Brown 1974
Golden Shiner

* * *

800

* * Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Golden Shiner

* * * *

28.9

* Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

* * * *

15.6

* Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Golden Shiner

* * * * * * Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

* * * * * * Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Golden Shiner

* * * * * *

Eaton and Scheller 1996

Golden Shiner

* *

F * * *Forney 1957 cited in Carlander 1969

Golden Shiner

* * * *

21

*

Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Golden Shiner Adult 10 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Golden Shiner Adult 15 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Golden Shiner Adult 20 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Golden Shiner Adult 25 * * * *Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1973

Golden Shiner Adult 30 * * * *Hutchison 1976

Golden Shiner

* * *

33

* *

Hutchison 1976

Golden Shiner

* * *

35

* *

Hutchison 1976

Golden Shiner

* * *

36

* *

Hutchison 1976

Golden Shiner

* * *

38

* *

Hutchison 1976

Golden Shiner

* * *

39

* *

Hutchison 1977

Golden Shiner

* * *

40

* * Leidy and Jenkins 1977, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Golden Shiner

*

10 * * * * Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Golden Shiner

* *

F *24

* Marcy 1976

Golden Shiner

* * * *

18

*

McAllister

Golden Shiner

* * *

30.5 23.9

*

R&R1976

Golden Shiner

* *

L

*

16.8

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Golden Shiner

* *

L

*

23.7

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Golden Shiner

*

14.4 L

*

22.3

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Golden Shiner

* *

L

*

21

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Golden Shiner Spawning

*

F *20

*

Scott and Crossman 1973, p436

Golden Shiner

*

26 * * * * Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Golden Shiner

*

15 * * * * Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1969
Golden Shiner

*

20 * * * * Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1970

Golden Shiner

*

25 * * * * Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1971

Golden Shiner

*

30 * * * * Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1972

Golden Shiner

* * * *

20 35 Swingle 1952 cited in Carlander 1969

Golden Shiner

* * * *

27

*

Talmage 1978

Golden Shiner

* * * * *

35 Trembley 1960 cited in Carlander 1969

Golden Shiner

* *

F 30.9

* *

Trembley 1960 cited in Carlander 1970

Golden Shiner

*

10 *30

* *

Brown1974

Golden Shiner

*

15 *15

* *

Brown1974

Green Sunfish

* * *

34 19.8

*

Brown1975

Green Sunfish

* *

F 34 32.6

*

Brown1976

Green Sunfish

* * * *

28.2

* Beitinger et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1977

Green Sunfish Adult

* * * * * Beitinger et al. 1975, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Green Sunfish

* * * *

26.8

* Beltz et al 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Green Sunfish

* * * *

22.7

*

Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish

*

20 (1day) * * * *Carrier and Beitinger 1988a, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Green Sunfish

*

20 (5 day) * * * *Carrier and Beitinger 1988a, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Green Sunfish

*

20 (10 day) * * * *Carrier and Beitinger 1988a, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Green Sunfish

*

6

* *

15.9

*

Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish

*

30 * *30.6

*

Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish

*

6

* * * * Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish

*

27 * * * * Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish

* * * *

30.6

*

Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1975

Green Sunfish Hatching

* * * * * Childers 1967 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish Spawning

* * * * * Childers 1967, as cited in Stuber et al 1982

Green Sunfish

* *

F * * * Eaton and Scheller 1996

Green Sunfish Spawning

*

F * * * Hunter 1963, as cited in Brown 1974

Green Sunfish Spawning

* * * * * Hunter 1963, as cited in Stuber et al. 1982

Green Sunfish

* * * *

27.3

* Jones and Irwin 1965 cited in Coutant 1977

Green Sunfish

* * * * * * Jude 1973 cited in Carlander 1977
Green Sunfish

*

10 * * * * Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Green Sunfish

* * * * * * Proffitt and Benda 1971 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish Spawning

* * *

29.1

* Salyer 1958 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish Fry

* * * * * Siewert 1973;Soutant 1977

Green Sunfish

* * * * * * Sigler and Miller 1963 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish Adult

*

F * * * Sigler and Miller 1963; Proffitt and Benda 1971

Green Sunfish

*

26 * * * * Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Green Sunfish Hatching

* * * * * Strawn 1958 cited in Carlander 1977

Green Sunfish

*

20 * * * * Witford 1970, as cited in Brown 1974

Green Sunfish

*

30 * * * * Witford 1970, as cited in Brown 1975

Hornyhead Chub

*

26 * * * * Scott and Crossman 1973, p785

Iowa Darter Hatching

*

F * * * Scott and Crossman 1973, p785

Largemouth Bass

* * *

35.5 34.7

* Badenhuizen 1969 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* *

F 35.5 34.7

* Badenhuizen 1969 cited in Carlander 1978

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Badenhuizen 1969 cited in Carlander 1979

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Badenhuizen 1969 cited in Carlander 1980

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * *

Bell 1990

Largemouth Bass Spawning

* * * * *

Bell 1990

Largemouth Bass Hatching

* * * * *

Bell 1990

Largemouth Bass

* *

F * * * Bennett 1954a cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Bennett 1954b cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Bennett, G.W., 1965 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

*

20-21 * * * *Black 1953

Largemouth Bass

*

20-21 * * *28.9 Black, E.C., 1953 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Breder 1936 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

20 * * * *Brett, J.R., 1956 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

*

25 * * * *Brett, J.R., 1956 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

*

30 * * * *Brett, J.R., 1956 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass 9-11 Mo 20 * * *32 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass 9-11 Mo 25 * * *33 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987
Largemouth Bass 9-11 Mo 30 L

* *

33.7 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass

*

30 L

* * * Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass Adult 20 L

* *

32.5 Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass

*

20 L

* * *

Hart 1952, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass Adult 25 * * *34.5 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Adult 30 * * *36.4 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Under Yearling 30 * * *36.4 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass

*

35 * * *36.4 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass

*

22 * * *31.5 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass

*

7.2 L

* *

30.6 Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass

*

11.1 L

* *

36 Trembley 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass

*

15 * * *35 Brown 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

29.1

* *

Largemouth Bass Fry

* * * * * Strawn 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass Eggs

* * * *

32.5 Strawn 1961, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass Spawning

* * * * * Clugston 1966, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass Fry

* * * * * Fry 1950, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass Juvenile 25 * * * * Meldrim and Gift 1971, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass

* *

F * * * Trembley 1960, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass

* * * * *

36.7 Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass Spawning

* * *

21

*

Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass Spawning

* * *

20

*

Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Carlson and Hale 1972 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

30.4 36 Cherry et al. 1982

Largemouth Bass

* *

F * * * Chew 1974 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* *

F * * * Clugston 1966 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

30

* Clugston 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

27

*

Coutant 1975 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * *

Coutant and DeAngelis 1983, as cited in Wismer and Christie 

1987
Largemouth Bass

* * * * * *

Coutant, C.C., 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

* * * * *

35.6 Cvancara et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

27.7

*

Dendy 1948 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

* *

F * * *Eaton and Scheller 1996

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Eddy and Surber 1947 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass Subadult

* * * * *

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Juvenile

* * * * *

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Spawning

* * * * *

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Juvenile 20 * * *33 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Juvenile 25 * * *35 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Juvenile 30 * * *36 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Juvenile 35 * * *36 EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Spawning

* * *

20

*

EPA 1974, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

32

* Ferguson 1958 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Ferguson 1958 cited in Coutant 1978

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Ferguson 1958 cited in Coutant 1979

Largemouth Bass

*

8

* * * *

Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

16 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

24 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

32 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

8

* * * *

Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

16 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

24 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

32 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

32 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

32 * * * *Fields et al. 1987, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

30 or 36 * * * *Guest 1985, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

30 or 36 * * * *Guest 1985, as cited in Currie et al. 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

10 * * * * Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

20 * * * * Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977
Largemouth Bass

*

20

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

20-21.8

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

25

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

25

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

30

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

30

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

30

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

30

*

*** Hart 1952 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass9-11 Mo Age. 20

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

20

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1978

Largemouth Bass9-11 Mo Age. 25

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1979

Largemouth Bass

*

25

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1980

Largemouth Bass9-11 Mo Age. 30

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1981

Largemouth Bass

*

30

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1982

Largemouth Bass Under Yearling 30

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1983

Largemouth Bass Under Yearling 35

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1984

Largemouth Bass

*

22

*

*** Hart 1952, as cited in NAS/NAE 1985

Largemouth Bass

*

10

*

*** Hathaway 1927, as cited in Currie et al 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

22-23

*

*** Hathaway 1927, as cited in Currie et al 1998

Largemouth Bass

*

30

*

*** Hathaway 1927, as cited in Currie et al 1998

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Johnson 1971 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Jurgens and Brown 1954 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Kramer and Smith 1960, as cited in Brown 1974

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Lawrence 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

*

10

*

*** Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

21.3

*

Marcy 1976

Largemouth Bass Juvenile

*

*

***

McCauley and Casselman 1980, cited in Wismer and Christie 

1987

Largemouth Bass Subadult

*

*

***

McCauley and Casselman 1980, cited in Wismer and Christie 

1987

Largemouth Bass Spawning

*

*

**

32.1 McCormick and Wegner 1981 
Largemouth Bass Spawning 20

L

*** McCormick and Wegner 1981 

Largemouth Bass Spawning 24

*

*** McCormick and Wegner 1982

Largemouth Bass Spawning 27

*

*** McCormick and Wegner 1983

Largemouth Bass Spawning 30

*

*** McCormick and Wegner 1981 

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Miller and Kramer 1971 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Miller and Kramer 1971 cited in Carlander 1978

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Miller and Kramer 1971 cited in Carlander 1979

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Mraz 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Mraz 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Mraz 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Mraz 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Mraz 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Neil and Magnnson, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

30.9

* Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

32

* Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1978

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

29.1

* Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1979

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

29

* Neill 1971 cited in Coutant 1980

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Nelson 1974 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Nelson 1974 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Otto 1973, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

30

*

Reynolds and Casterlin 1976 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

29.5

*

Reynolds and Casterlin, 1978 cited in Talmage and Coutant, 

1979

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

30.1

*

Reynolds et al. 1976 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*

30.2

*

Reynolds et al. 1976 cited in Coutant 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

***

Reynolds et al., 1976 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth bass

*

22L

*** Reynolds, W., and Casterlin, M.E., 1978

Largemouth Bass

**

*

*** Salyer 1958 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

**

*

***

Smagula and Adelman 1982, as cited in Wismer and Christie 

1987

Largemouth Bass Fry

*

*

***

Smagula and Adelman 1982, as cited in Wismer and Christie 

1987
Largemouth Bass

*

26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Largemouth Bass

*

20 * * * *Smith and Scott 1975, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Largemouth Bass

*

28 * * * *Smith and Scott 1975, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Largemouth Bass

*

20 *36.7

* * Smith and Scott, 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

*

28 *40.1

* * Smith and Scott, 1975 as cited in Spotila, J.R., et al., 1979

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Strawn 1961 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Strawn 1961 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * *

32.5 Strawn 1961 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Swingle 1952 cited in Carlander 1969

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * * Swingle 1956 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

27.1

* Talmage and Coutant 1979, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * *

Trembley 1960 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * * * * *

Trembley 1960 cited in Carlander 1977

Largemouth Bass

* * *

34 32

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

21

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

27

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Largemouth Bass Fingerling 11.1 L

* *

35 Venables et al 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Fingerling 15 L

* *

35 Venables et al 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Fingerling 20 L

* *

40 Venables et al 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Fingerling 25 L

* *

40 Venables et al 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Fingerling 30 L

* *

40 Venables et al 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass Spawning 35 L

* *

26.7 Venables et al 1978, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Largemouth Bass

* * * *

32

*

Venables et al., 1978 as cited in Talmage&Coutant, 1979

Largemouth Bass

*

summer F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Largemouth Bass

*

fall F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Quillback Large

* * * * *

Coutant 1977a, as cited in Wismer and Christie 1987

Quillback

*

24 * * * *Mundahl 1990, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Quillback Adult 23.3 L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Quillback

* * * * * *

Yoder and Gammon 1976

Quillback

* * * * * *

Yoder and Gammon 1976
Red Shiner 

*

20 (day 1) * * * *Carrier and Beitinger 1988a, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Red Shiner 

*

20 (day 5) * * * *Carrier and Beitinger 1988a, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Red Shiner 

*

20 (day 10) * * * *Carrier and Beitinger 1988a, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Red Shiner 

*

25 * * * *King et al. 1985, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Red Shiner 

*

10 * * * *Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Red Shiner 

*

15 * * * *Maness and Hutchinson 1980, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Red Shiner 

*

25 * * * *Matthews and Maness 1979, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Red Shiner 

*

30 * * * *Rutledge and Beitinger 1989, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Red Shiner 

*

26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Red Shiner 

*

22 * * * *Takle et al. 1983, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

River Carpsucker

*

summer * * * * Gammon 1973, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

River Carpsucker

*

summer F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

River Carpsucker

*

fall F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

River Carpsucker

*

winter F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

Sand Shiner

*

15 * * * *Kowalski et al. 1978, as cited in Beitinger et al. 2000

Sand Shiner

*

26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

24

*

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

31

*

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

27

*

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

13

*

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

16

*

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

30

*

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

23

*

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth bass Juvenile

* * * * * Barans and Tubb 1973, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

18

* Barans and Tubb 1976 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * *

Bell 1990

Smallmouth Bass Spawning

* * * * *

Bell 1990

Smallmouth Bass Hatching

* * * * *

Bell 1990

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Brown 1960 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Brown 1960 cited in Carlander 1977
Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Brown 1960 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

31.3

*

Cherry et al. 1975 cited in Coutant 1975

Smallmouth bass

* * * * * * Cherry et al. 1975, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * *

35 Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

30.3

*

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

15 L

* * *

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

18 L

* * *

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

21 L

* * *

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

24 L

* * *

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

27 L

* * *

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

30 L

* * *

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

33 L

* * *

Cherry et al., 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Christie and Regier 1973 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth bass Adult

*

F * * * Clancey 1980, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth bass Adult

* * * * * Coble 1975, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth bass Embryo

* * * * * Coble 1975, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth bass Juvenile

* * * * * Coble 1975, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

smallmouth bass

* * * * * * Crippen and Fahmy 1981

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F * * * Eaton and Scheller 1996

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Emig 1966 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

28

*

Ferguson 1958 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * *

Ferguson 1958 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

21.3

*

Hile and Juday 1941, as cited in Brown 9174

Smallmouth bass Juvenile

* * * * *

Horning and Pearson 1973, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Hubbs and Bailey 1938 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth bass Fry

* * * * * Larimore and Duever 1968, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Lowrey 1958 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

10 * * * *Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

Smallmouth bass Adult 2.2 * * * *Mathur et al. 1981, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth bass Adult 30 * * * *Mathur et al. 1981, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983
Smallmouth bass Fry

*

L

* * * Munther 1970; Shuter et al. 1980, as cited in Edwards et al. 1983

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Neves 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Neves 1975 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth bass Adult

*

L

* * * Peek 1965; Shuter et al. 1980; Wrenn 1980

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Rawson 1945 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Rawson 1945 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

26.6

*

Reutter and Herdendorf 1974 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* *

L

* * *

Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

31.1

*

Reynolds and Casterlin 1976 cited in Coutant 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

none F * *30 Shuter et al. 1980

Smallmouth Bass

*

none F *29

*

Shuter et al. 1980

Smallmouth Bass

*

none F *18

*

Shuter et al. 1980

Smallmouth Bass

*

none F *21

*

Shuter et al. 1980

Smallmouth Bass

*

none F * *30 Shuter et al. 1980

Smallmouth Bass

*

26 * * * *Smale and Rabeni 1995, as cited in Beitinger et al 2000

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F * * * Smitherman and Ramsey 1972 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F * * * Smitherman and Ramsey 1972 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Trautman 1957 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * *

Trembley 1960 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

*

12.8 * * * *Trembley 1960, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F * * *Trembley 1960, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Turner and MacCrimmon 1970 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth bass Spawning

* * * * * Turner and MacCrimmon 1970 cited in Carlander 1977
Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

29

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

17

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

23

*

U.S. EPA 1976

Smallmouth Bass

* * * * * * Webster 1954 cited in Carlander 1977

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F * *37 Wrenn 1980

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F * *38 Wrenn 1980

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F * *35 Wrenn 1980

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F *31

* Wrenn 1980

Smallmouth Bass

* *

F *32

* NA

Smallmouth Bass

* * *

35 32.32.2

* NA

Smallmouth Bass

*

12.8 * * *32.2 Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Egg 19 * * *29 Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Egg 16.1 * * *23.1 Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Spawning

* * * * * Henderson and Foster 1956, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Egg 12.8 * * * * Webster 1945, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Spawning

* * * * *

Nesley 1913, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Spawning

* * * * *

Hubbs and Bailey 1938, cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Spawning

* * * * * Wiebe 1935, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Incubation

* * * * * Webster 1945, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass Juveniles

* * * * *

Peek 1965, as ctied in Brown 9174

Smallmouth Bass Juveniles

* * * * *

Hokanson 1969, as cited in Brown 1974

Smallmouth Bass

* * * *

21.4

*

Carlander 1977

Suckermouth Minnow *10 * * * *Lutterschmidt and Hutchison 1997a, as cited in Beitinger 2000

White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997
White Bass

* * * * * *

Barans and Tubb 1973 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

*

summer L

* * * Barans and Tubb 1973, as cited in Joder and Gammon 1976

White Bass

*

fall L

* * * Barans and Tubb 1973, as cited in Joder and Gammon 1976

White Bass

*

winter L

* * * Barans and Tubb 1973, as cited in Joder and Gammon 1976

White Bass

*

spring L

* * * Barans and Tubb 1973, as cited in Joder and Gammon 1976

White Bass

* *

F * * * Commercial Fisheries Review 1961 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* *

F * * * Eaton and Scheller 1996

White Bass Adults

* * * * *

Gammon 1973, as cited in Hamilton and Nelson 1984

White Bass

* * * * * * Gammon 1973, as cited in Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Bass Adults

*

L

* * *

Horrall 1961, as cited in Hamilton and Nelson 1984

White Bass Hatching

*

L

* * *

Horrall 1961; Ruelle 1971; Siefert et al. 1974,

White Bass

* *

F * * * McCormick 1978 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* *

F * * * McCormick 1978 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* *

F * * * McCormick 1978 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* * * * * * McCormick 1978 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

* *

F * * * Nelson 1980 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass

*

21.7 L

* * * Reutter and Herdendorf 1976

White Bass Spawning

* * * * * Riggs 1955; Webb and Moss 1968; Ruells 1971

White Bass

* *

F * * * Vincent 1967 cited in Carlander 1997

White Bass Incubation

* * * * *

Yellayi and Kilambi 1970, as cited in Hamilton and Nelson 1984

White Bass

*

summer F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Bass

*

fall F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Bass

*

winter F * * *Yoder and Gammon 1976

White Bass

* *

F 31.4 29.9

*

Yoder and Gammon 1976