Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

 Technical Report 

2007-T001

May 2007

Development of a Life History Database for 

Upper Mississippi River Fishes
Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Technical Reports

provide Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

partners with scientific and technical support.

All reports in this series receive anonymous peer review.

Cover graphic by Mi Ae Lipe-Butterbrodt

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement

or recommendation for use by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
Development of a Life History Database for 

Upper Mississippi River Fishes

by

Matt O’Hara, Brian S. Ickes, Eric Gittinger, Steve DeLain, 

Terry Dukerschein, Mark Pegg, and John Kalas

Report submitted to

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Rock Island

Clock Tower Building

PO Box 2004

Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

May 2007
Suggested citation:

O’Hara, M., B. S. Ickes, E. Gittinger, S. DeLain, T. Dukerschein, M. Pegg, and J. Kalas 2007. Development of a life history 

database for Upper Mississippi River fishes. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La 

Crosse, Wisconsin. LTRMP 2007-T001. 10 pp. + Appendixes A–B. 

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650). Also available to registered users from the Defense Technical 

Information Center, Attn: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 

703-767-9050).
iii

Summary

Life history theory can help identify where attention may be most profitably focused in monitoring 

and research. By incorporating life history information, researchers can explore and test associations 

at different levels of ecological organization and recast standard monitoring observations to gain new 

perceptions into population and community dynamics. A database of fish life history information 

was therefore developed from peer-reviewed literature sources and standardized Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program (LTRMP) data sources for Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) fishes. 

Presently, this database presents life history data on 108 life history traits for 230 fish species and hybrids. 

Data were compiled under standards developed by the authors. These standards define the type and 

quality of information to be incorporated in the future; in effect, the database will be a living product, 

receiving enhancements as new data become available. The database is constructed to permit seamless 

interface to the LTRMP fisheries database maintained at the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences 

Center in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The life history database and fisheries data browser are available at 

http://www.umesc.er.usgs.gov/data_library/fisheries/graphical/fish_front.html.

The fish life history database will prove an important resource for testing prevailing ecological and 

river theories with existing empirical data, investigating anthropogenic controls on functional attributes 

of ecosystems, developing indicators of ecosystem health, identifying and assessing fish passage 

alternatives, ascribing ecosystem service values to UMRS fisheries resources, and serving LTRMP data in 

ways meaningful to managers, scientists, and the public. This report summarizes the development of this 

database, including database standards and metadata, and provides some examples of its utility.

v

Contents

Page

Summary..................................................................................................................................................... iii

Preface ....................................................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1

Background ............................................................................................................................................1

Rationale.................................................................................................................................................2

Objectives...............................................................................................................................................3

Methods.........................................................................................................................................................3

Database Development Strategy.............................................................................................................3

Database Quality Assurance Standards..................................................................................................4

Data Sources...........................................................................................................................................4

Database Format.....................................................................................................................................5

Metadata........................................................................................................................................................5

Attribute Classes.....................................................................................................................................5

Attribute Class Membership...................................................................................................................6

Demonstration of the Database.....................................................................................................................7

Functional Feeding Guilds .....................................................................................................................7

Proportional Biomass of Nonnative Species..........................................................................................8

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................8

References.....................................................................................................................................................9

Appendix A. Attribute Definitions and Codes......................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B. Data Citations......................................................................................................................B-1

Figures

Number Page

1. Composition (A, Presence/Absence) and structure (B, Abundance) of fish community sampled 

based on feeding guilds present in total catch by regional trend area of the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program, Upper Mississippi River System .........................................................................8

2. Percentage of total number (A) and percentage of total biomass (B) of fish collected annually that 

were nonnative fish species from Long Term Resource Monitoring Program fish sampling, 1989–

2002........................................................................................................................................................9

vii

Preface

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) was authorized under the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) as an element of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 

Environmental Management Program. The LTRMP is being implemented by the Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, a U.S. Geological Survey science center, in cooperation with the five 

Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides guidance and has overall Program responsibility. The mode 

of operation and respective roles of the agencies are outlined in a 1988 Memorandum of Agreement. 

The UMRS encompasses the commercially navigable reaches of the Upper Mississippi River, as 

well as the Illinois River and navigable portions of the Kaskaskia, Black, St. Croix, and Minnesota 

Rivers. Congress has declared the UMRS to be both a nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally 

significant commercial navigation system. The mission of the LTRMP is to provide decision makers with 

information for maintaining the UMRS as a sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiuse character. 

The long-term goals of the Program are to understand the system, determine resource trends and effects, 

develop management alternatives, manage information, and develop useful products. 

This report supports Strategy 2.2.8 as specified in Goal 2, Monitor Resource Changes, of the LTRMP 

Operating Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). This report was developed with funding provided 

by the LTRMP. 

Development of a Life History Database for 

Upper Mississippi River Fishes

Matt O’Hara1, Brian S. Ickes2, Eric Gittinger3, Steve DeLain4, 

Terry Dukerschein5, Mark Pegg1, and John Kalas5

1

Illinois Natural History Survey

Illinois River Biological Station

704 North Schrader Avenue

Havana, Illinois 62644

2

U.S. Geological Survey

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

3

Illinois Natural History Survey

Great Rivers Field Station

8450 Montclair

Brighton, Illinois 62012

4

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Lake City Field Station

1801 South Oak Street

Lake City, Minnesota 55041

5

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Pool 8 Field Station 

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

Introduction

Background

Life history traits can be defined as a suite 

of characteristics particular to a species that 

describe its association to the environment 

in which it evolved or currently exists. These 

characteristics can be conceptualized as particular 

to the physiology, behavior, and general ecology 

of the species. Examples of general life history 

trait categories include reproductive strategies, 

habitat associations, feeding affinities, phylogenetic 

associations, and physiological tolerances. 

Generally, species exhibit physiological 

adaptations and behavioral associations that 

define a niche, or suite of conditions meeting 
2

critical life history needs and characterize the 

general association of a species to its environment. 

When suites of species share particular classes 

of life history traits, ecologists can group these 

species into guilds, allowing investigations 

into functional, structural, and compositional 

patterns and associations. Because life history 

traits are fundamental determinants of population 

performance, the investigation of life history 

strategies is central to both theoretical ecology and 

resource management (Winemiller and Rose 1992).

This report summarizes the development of a 

life history database for Upper Mississippi River 

System (UMRS) fishes. In the following sections, 

we provide a rationale for its development within 

the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 

(LTRMP), describe it, outline standards for its 

development, and demonstrate how it can be 

linked to the LTRMP fisheries database and used 

to address a host of new questions relevant to 

management and science in the basin. The life 

history database and fisheries data browser are 

available at http://www.umesc.er.usgs.gov/

data_library/fisheries/graphical/fish_front.html

Rationale

The LTRMP fish component has been 

collecting fish data for more than a decade 

on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. 

A standardized probabilistic sampling design 

(Gutreuter et al. 1995) yields species occurrence, 

abundance estimates, and length observations 

to assess ecological status and trends in relative 

abundance for more than 130 fish species over 

1,200 km of river (U.S. Geological Survey 1999; 

Ickes et al. 2005b). 

Data and publications from the LTRMP 

support the information needs of a diverse federal 

and state natural resource agency partnership. The 

partnership uses LTRMP data to

1. detect trends in population and community 

level responses (Ickes et al. 2005b; Kirby 

and Ickes 2006); 

2. assess ecosystem integrity (U.S. 

Geological Survey 1999) and biotic 

responses to management activities 

(Gutreuter 2004); 

3. inform game and nongame conservation 

initiatives (Ickes et al. 2005b);

4. evaluate changes in the presence, 

distribution, and population dynamics 

of exotic species (Chick and Pegg 2001; 

Chick et al. 2005; Ickes et al. 2005b); 

5. develop and test models (Barko et al. 2005; 

Ickes et al. 2005b; Kirby and Ickes 2006); 

and 

6. plan targeted research (e.g., Gutreuter 

2004; Koel 2004). 

To date, however, LTRMP fisheries data 

have been limited in how they can meet the many 

management and scientific challenges they are 

expected to address. This is because the monitoring 

program measures only the most basic population 

and community responses. What is needed is a 

way to recast existing and future data to inform 

a wider set of applied management and scientific 

perspectives.

To meet the many needs of natural resource 

management agencies and scientists within the 

UMRS, we identified the development of a central 

life history database as a crucial need for the 

LTRMP. Such a database would serve several 

important functions.

First, the compilation of life history 

information will open new windows for addressing 

applied management and research questions within 

the UMRS. For example, by linking the life history 

database to the LTRMP fisheries database, we can 

investigate spatiotemporal patterns in functional, 

structural, and compositional traits of UMRS fish 

communities, and associations of such traits to 

habitat characteristics and rehabilitation efforts 

within the UMRS. Such investigations require 

recasting relative abundance data into alternative 

metrics that may be more sensitive to the question 

being asked of the data. For example, growth 

models coded in the life history database can be 

used to convert abundance and length observations 

into biomass. Biomass is arguably a more sensitive 

indicator of production responses to extreme events 

such as floods and droughts, habitat losses, and 

habitat rehabilitation efforts. Converted biomass 

observations can be used in single species research 

or can be further categorized into functional (e.g., 

feeding, reproductive) guilds to model community 

responses to changes in the river system. 

Second, life history information will provide a 

foundation for the initial development and testing 

of a large river Index of Biological Integrity (Karr 
3

1994; Lyons et al. 2001) or other tools designed 

to assess ecosystem condition. For example, 

species observations can be reclassified based on 

physiological performance or tolerance criteria 

coded within the life history database. Thus recast, 

biological indicators of environmental conditions 

could be further refined and developed.

Third, the compilation of life history 

information will have several direct and immediate 

management applications. For example, managers 

will have access to an information source that can 

be used in designing, testing, and implementing 

longitudinal and lateral fish passage technologies 

(Ickes et al. 2001; 2005a). 

Finally, the life history database will allow the 

LTRMP to more effectively serve program data to 

a wider audience in conjunction with the recently 

developed Graphical Fish Database Browser 

(http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/data_library/fisheries/

graphical/fish_front.html). Life history attributes 

can be linked to summarized status and trends 

information served by the Graphical Fish Database 

Browser, providing a biological context for trend 

interpretation. Effectively serving program data in 

multiple formats that communicate resource status 

and trends to diverse audiences is a key priority 

within the LTRMP.

Compiling accurate and reliable life history 

data can be difficult. Care must be taken to 

ensure that ascribed life history attributes and 

classes reflect the traits of the species. Several 

factors make constructing a life history database 

challenging. 

First, life history data can be found in many 

readily accessible media formats, but data quality 

can vary substantially among data sources. Thus, 

care must be taken and assurances made that any 

assembled data reflect the ecological traits of the 

species in the system under consideration. Second, 

whereas some life history traits are effectively 

immutable across systems, many others can be 

system-specific (Leggett and Carscadden 1978). 

For example, a species trophic status could be 

much different in a species-poor northern lake 

compared to a species-rich temperate river, whereas 

swimming performance at a given temperature 

may be largely the same regardless of the system 

in which the observation was made. Thus, for 

many life history traits, care must be taken to 

avoid simply adopting data from another system. 

Finally, popular species (e.g., game fish) tend to be 

studied much more than rare or nongame species. 

Consequently, data are often fundamentally lacking 

for many species. Gaps in the database indicate 

species in need of life history research.

Objectives

Recognizing these limitations, we sought 

to develop a database with a robust set of life 

history traits. We established standards for 

data sources and data quality to provide the 

best possible assurance that traits coded in the 

database closely reflect the ecological attributes 

of UMRS fish species. These standards will allow 

us to continually add new information over time, 

resulting in an ever-expanding, consistent, and 

high-quality source of life history information for 

UMRS fishes. Specific objectives of this project are 

1. develop guidelines describing the types 

and quality of data to be entered into the 

database;

2. identify, compile, and incorporate quality 

data sources into the database;

3. document data types, formats, and codes 

(e.g., metadata); and

4. demonstrate how the life history database 

can be used in concert with the central 

LTRMP fisheries database.

Methods

Database Development Strategy

Our objectives in developing data standards 

were to 

1. create guidelines describing the type and 

quality of data to be put in the database,

2. assure that qualifiers and classifiers in data 

from divergent sources could be reliably 

combined, and 

3. enable building a consistent living 

document that can be augmented through 

time as new information becomes 

available. 
4

Database Quality Assurance Standards

Because of difficulties in accurately ascribing 

life history traits, we identified two primary types 

of data as robust sources of life history information 

that should be used to develop the initial database. 

We identified the first source as any database 

generated from peer-reviewed field or lab studies 

with documented data management protocols 

covering the UMRS. For the database documented 

in this report, we derived life history attributes 

directly from the LTRMP fisheries database, but 

potentially any data source with broad coverage 

of the UMRS and generated under these standards 

could be used in the future. Such databases were 

viewed to have greatest utility for a wide variety of 

system-variant life history attributes. We believed 

UMRS databases should be a primary source of 

information initially because data from the system 

under study should best reflect such system-variant 

life history traits. Developing data for such life 

history traits requires analysis and summarization 

of the LTRMP or other qualifying data. One 

example used in the compilation of the life history 

database was the development of growth models 

(length/weight regressions) for every species in 

the LTRMP fisheries database for which it was 

possible. The resulting model coefficients were 

then coded into the life history database.

 We determined that the second qualifying 

source of information should be peer-reviewed 

scientific literature. We agreed that primary 

scientific literature would provide the best and 

most reliable data for system-invariant life history 

traits, such as swimming performance indicators, 

phylogenetics, and chemical tolerances. 

After determining qualifiers about where the 

information should come from and the types of 

information needed, the next step was to develop 

and standardize a process of integrating qualifying 

information into one consistent life history 

database for UMRS fishes. 

Within the quality control constraints described 

above, we proceeded to compile, code, and 

incorporate life history data, such as taxonomic 

nomenclature, feeding and reproductive guilds, 

distributional associations, population metrics, and 

habitat preferences into a UMRS fish life history 

database. In a series of discussions occurring over 

several months, the team determined a suite of 

attributes to include in the life history database 

(Appendix A, Tables A-1–A-9). 

Data Sources 

Previously, researchers gathered assorted 

life history data with relevance to UMRS fish 

species for use in particular research projects. We 

assembled data from these sources and requested 

authorization for their use in our effort. Life history 

data for UMRS species presented in Winemiller 

and Rose (1992) served as the original broad base 

of information for our database. Dr. Mark Pegg 

(Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois River 

Biological Station, Havana) provided additional 

data from doctoral work conducted on the Missouri 

River. Dr. Pegg’s data were available in spreadsheet 

form and contained life history attribute data 

assembled from various peer-reviewed scientific 

sources for most UMRS fish species. Life history 

data from Dr. Todd Koel (National Park Service, 

Yellowstone National Park) and Dr. David Galat 

(U.S. Geological Survey, University of Missouri, 

Columbia), subsequently cited in peer-reviewed 

publications, were also incorporated to the database 

(Galat and Zweimuller 2001; Koel 2004). 

As an initial assessment of the above data 

sources, we created a cross-linked data table to 

assess redundant life history attributes and data. 

Combining these sources resulted in numerous 

redundant data fields, which we subsequently 

evaluated for concurrency. This was done by 

cross-comparing data values in all redundant fields. 

Data fields with missing values were omitted 

from the cross-comparison. In >90% of the cases, 

data from the various sources were identical or 

closely concurrent and redundant data fields were 

consolidated. We defined concurrence as a <10% 

difference in attribute value for any given species. 

Finally, if species data were absent from all but one 

data source for a given attribute, we chose to accept 

the nonmissing data from the relevant data source 

for our database. Such instances were rare.

In addition to data sources cited previously, 

many additional attributes were derived directly 

from LTRMP data sources. Attribute names, 

methods of calculation, and additional details are 

outlined in the Metadata section of this report.
5

Database Format

We used Microsoft Access 2003 to develop the 

database because this program permits the user to 

make customized database queries and facilitates 

data export to a variety of programs. Access 2003 

also facilitates data entry by permitting the user to 

import a variety of software formats that can be 

linked to the database.

Initially, data were imported to the life history 

database in tabular form from each assembled 

data source. Attributes were organized into nine 

tables, each representing a data theme. These 

themes include distribution, growth, economic 

value, phylogeny, photos, reproduction, preference 

and guild, miscellaneous, and references. In total, 

108 life history attributes are represented in the 

database (Appendix A, Tables A-1–A-9). Each 

theme table contains 230 rows of data, 1 row for 

each species represented by the full database. 

Additionally, each table contains a data field titled 

“Fishcode,” a 4-digit alphanumeric field that 

provides the relational link among all database 

tables. “Fishcode” is a unique fish species code 

used in standard LTRMP monitoring protocols 

(Gutreuter et al. 1995). Use of “Fishcode” in the 

life history database provides a common relational 

link not only among tables in the life history 

database but also to the entire LTRMP fisheries 

component database. In this way, all life history 

attributes and data in the life history database 

can be relationally linked to the LTRMP fisheries 

database, comprising greater than 4 million fish 

observations from 1993 to present. 

Metadata

The LTRMP fish life history database is 

represented by a series of tables in a Microsoft 

Access 2003 database. Tables within the database 

can be dichotomized into two types; data tables and 

data legends. When viewing data tables within the 

database, membership in either the data tables or 

data legends category is determined by a naming 

prefix of the form XXXXX_YYYYYYYY, where 

XXXXX represents either “Legend” or “Data 

table,” and “_” represents a naming convention 

divider. The naming suffix YYYYYYY represents 

the name of the attribute class to which the data 

table belongs when the prefix is “Data table,” 

or the name of the data attribute the data legend 

supports when the prefix is “Legend.” “Data table” 

contains life history data organized into classes 

containing similar life history attributes. Nine 

“Data tables” are represented in the database and 

are collectively comprised of 108 individual life 

history attributes. Each “Data table” is common in 

that 230 fish species are represented in each table 

and each table contains the attribute “Fishcode” 

as a common linking field. “Legends” contain 

text translations for numeric codes representing 

categorical attributes within “Data tables.” Thirteen 

attribute “Legends” are represented along with a 

“Master_Legend” that describes each attribute, 

associated legends, acceptable data codes, and data 

class membership. 

Attribute Classes

Data attributes are organized into nine attribute 

classes with each attribute class represented by a 

single table within the database. Attributes within 

each attribute class are similar in the types of life 

history traits they describe. Below, we identify and 

briefly outline each attribute class. In the following 

sections, we identify individual attributes within 

each class, describe each attribute, and document 

coding standards.

Distribution: (seven attributes represented; 

Appendix A, Table A-1) To relate information 

on the known historical and contemporary 

distribution of fishes in the UMRS. 

Economic Value: (two attributes represented; 

Appendix A, Table A-2) To provide data to 

recast LTRMP observations into economic 

valuation units. Economic valuation criteria 

were derived from Southwick and Loftus 

(2003).

Growth: (22 attributes; Appendix A, 

Table A-3) Collectively these attributes are 

meant to represent population performance 

and societal preference. Growth attribute class 

include growth model coefficients, maximum 

observed lengths, juvenile and adult growth 

rates, and proportional stock size designations. 

LTRMP Fish Photos: (11 attributes; 

Appendix A, Table A-4) To document type 

specimens from the UMRS and to facilitate and 

compliment LTRMP data serving initiatives. 
6

Attributes within this class photographically 

document species, track photo attributions, and 

aid in photographic database management.

Taxonomy: (10 attributes; Appendix A, 

Table 5) To provide information on 

phylogenetic and taxonomic associations, and 

species status in the UMRS. 

Preference and Guild: (27 attributes; 

Appendix A, Table A-6) To provide data on 

species physiological performance, tolerance 

to environmental conditions, environmental 

preferences, and ecological guild memberships 

(Balon 1975). 

Reproduction: (eight attributes; Appendix A, 

Table A-7) To provide data on species 

reproductive capacity, timing, and mode. 

Miscellaneous: (seven attributes; Appendix A, 

Table A-8) To present data on attributes that 

are not easily categorized. This attribute class 

contains information on species exploitation 

status in the UMRS, species migratory 

behavior and affinity, conservation status, and 

rank abundance. 

References: (three attributes; Appendix A, 

Table A-9) To document and cross-reference 

data and literature sources used to populate the 

LTRMP life history database. 

Attribute Class Membership

Individual attributes in the “Distribution” 

attribute class provide information on geographic 

distribution for UMRS fish species. Specifically, 

“Distribution” attributes include midrange latitude, 

mean range latitude, and ubiquity. (Appendix A, 

Table A-1). Attributes for historical distributions, 

contemporary distribution, species description, 

and historical distribution reference are under 

development and will be added to the database 

later.

Individual attributes in the “Economic Value” 

attribute class provide information on monetary 

values for UMRS fish species. The data are 

presented in US dollar amounts. Specifically, 

“Economic Value” attributes include replacement 

value mass and replacement value counts 

(Appendix A, Table A-2).

Individual attributes in the “Growth” 

attribute class provide information on growth 

parameters at various life stages for UMRS 

fish species. Specifically, “Growth” attributes 

include length × weight regression intercept, 

length × weight slope coefficient, length × weight 

equation source, number of observations used to fit 

length × weight models, minimum length used to 

fit length × weight models, maximum length used 

to fit length × weight models, larval growth rates, 

young-of-the-year growth rate, adult growth rate, 

mean annual growth, length at maturity, maximum 

age, juvenile length cutoff, maximum observed 

LTRMP length, maximum literature length, 

substock, stock, quality, preferred, memorable, and 

trophy size classes (Appendix A, Table A-3).

Individual attributes in the “LTRMP Fish 

Photos” attribute class provide a photo and its 

documentation for UMRS fish species. Specifically, 

“LTRMP Fish Photos” attributes include “have 

photo,” photo filename1, photo filename2, photo 

type locality, photo date, photo credit, photo credit 

affiliation, photo credit phone, photo credit e-mail, 

photo description, and photo copyright. Each of 

these parameters is described in detail, including 

acceptable codes when applicable and data source, 

in the Attribute Definitions and Codes section 

(Appendix A, Table A-4).

Individual attributes in the “Taxonomy” 

attribute class provide information on phylogentic 

and taxonomic associations for UMRS fish species. 

Specifically, “Taxonomy” attributes include 

common name, taxonomic order, family name, 

family rank, scientific name, taxomonic rank, 

LTRMP, animal, native, and identification status. 

Each of these parameters is described in detail, 

including acceptable codes when applicable and 

data source, in the Attribute Definitions and Codes 

section (Appendix A, Table A-5).

Individual attributes in the “Preference and 

Guild” attribute class provide information on 

species physiological performance, tolerance 

to environmental conditions, environmental 

preferences, and ecological guild memberships. 

Specifically, “Preference and Guild” attributes 

include r-guild, r-guild1, r-guild2, r-guild3, 

f-guild1, f-guild2, f-guild3, trophic guild, fluvial 

dependence, migratory, ecological tolerance, 

large river species, current preference, substrate 

preferences, silt tolerance, spawning substrate, 

turbidity tolerance, swim factor, shape factor, 

water column preference, adult habitat, freshwater/

marine, adult trophic level, relative anadromy, 
7

egg buoyancy habitat guild, and The Nature 

Conservancy global rank. Each of these parameters 

is described in detail, including acceptable codes 

when applicable and data source, in the Attribute 

Definitions and Codes section (Appendix A, 

Table A-6).

Individual attributes in the “Reproduction” 

attribute class provide information on reproductive 

capacity, timing and mode for UMRS fish species. 

Specifically, “Reproduction” attributes include 

maximum fecundity, mean fecundity, mean 

ovum diameter, range ovum diameter, spawning 

duration, spawning bouts, parental care, and mean 

incubation. Each of these parameters is described in 

detail, including acceptable codes when applicable 

and data source, in the Attribute Definitions and 

Codes section (Appendix A, Table A-7).

Individual attributes in the “Miscellaneous” 

attribute class provide information on species 

exploitation, species migratory behavior 

and affinity, conservation status, and rank 

abundance for UMRS fish species. Specifically, 

“Miscellaneous” attributes include exploit rank, 

Wilcox migratory, Wilcox pass dams, Wilcox Ucrit, 

conservation status and LTRMP 10 -year rank. Each 

of these parameters is described in detail, including 

acceptable codes when applicable and data source, 

in the Attribute Definitions and Codes section 

(Appendix A, Table A-8).

Individual attributes in the “References” 

attribute class documentation, cross-reference data 

and literature sources used to populate the LTRMP 

life history database. Specifically, “References” 

attributes include reference identification number, 

point of contact, and source citation (Appendix A, 

Table A-9).

Demonstration of the Database

Besides giving researchers and managers a 

quick reference to life history traits of UMRS 

fishes, this database’s main contribution is to 

integrate life history information with basic 

monitoring data, permitting a wider array of 

analytical and data modeling perspectives. 

By incorporating life history information into 

LTRMP analyses, researchers can explore and 

test associations at different levels of ecological 

organization and can recast standard monitoring 

observations to gain new insights into fisheries 

population and community dynamics across the 

UMRS. In this section, we provide two brief 

examples of ways the life history database has 

recently been used to gain new insights into 

fisheries dynamics in the UMRS. 

Functional Feeding Guilds

Our first example used the life history database 

to recast standardized monitoring observations into 

functional feeding guilds. Thus, each species in the 

central LTRMP database was reclassified according 

to its functional feeding guild class, as represented 

in the life history database, and patterns among 

LTRMP study reaches were explored. The question 

at hand concerns identifying spatial patterns in 

functional feeding traits, expressed as differences 

in total abundance, as an integrated descriptor 

of spatial differences in energy sources and food 

web pathways. In other words, are there spatial 

differences in the functional composition 

(presence/absence) or functional structure 

(abundance) of UMRS fish communities that may 

reflect different energy pathways in the system? To 

investigate this question, we used the life history 

database to ascribe functional feeding traits to 

each species in the central LTRMP database and 

then produced plots of percent composition and 

abundance of each feeding guild class by LTRMP 

study area. Feeding guild composition results are 

presented in Figure 1a, whereas feeding guild 

structure results are presented in Figure 1b. 

From a compositional perspective, Figure 1a 

shows the six study reaches monitored by the 

LTRMP are remarkably similar in their functional 

feeding guild composition. Similar proportions 

of each guild class are observed across all six 

study reaches, which span nearly 1,200 km 

of river. Conversely, Figure 1b shows spatial 

patterns in feeding guild structure (proportional 

abundance) and demonstrates pronounced spatial 

differences. Invertivory dominates in the northern 

study reaches, whereas planktivory dominates 

in the southern study reaches. These differences 

may reflect variations in local or regional energy 

sources, energy pathways (e.g., food webs and 

trophic linkages), or differences in habitat integrity. 

Factors correlated with these differences are yet to 

be identified, but this example demonstrates how 
8

Feeding Guild

(Presence/Absence)

Regional Trend Area

Pool 4 Pool 8 Pool 13 Pool 26 La Grange

 Pool

Open River

Percent of Total Catch 5

10

15

20

25

Herbivore

Omnivore

General Invertivore 

Benthic Invertivore 

Piscivore

Planktivore

A

Feeding Guild 

(Abundance)

Regional Trend Area

Pool 4 Pool 8 Pool 13 Pool 26 La Grange

 Pool

Open River

Percent of Total Catch

0

20

40

60

80

B

Figure 1. Composition (A, Presence/Absence) and structure (B, 

Abundance) of fish community sampled based on feeding guilds 

present in total catch by regional trend area of the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program, Upper Mississippi River System.

the life history database can be used to open new 

insights and identify new questions.

Proportional Biomass of Nonnative Species

Our second example uses the life history 

database to investigate spatial differences and 

trends in the proportion of nonnative species 

that comprise the UMRS fish community. Two 

perspectives are pursued. The first reclassifies 

UMRS species as either native or nonnative based 

on data in the life history database. Abundance was 

tallied by class and the proportion of nonnative 

abundance per year was calculated and plotted for 

each LTRMP study reach (Figure 2a). The second 

also reclassifies UMRS species as either native or 

nonnative based on data in the life history database, 

but first converts abundance into biomass using 

regression models for each species that are coded 

into the life history database. Relative biomass 

was tallied for each class, used to calculate the 

proportion nonnative fish for each year, and plotted 

for each LTRMP study reach (Figure 2b). 

Based on abundance, Figure 2a suggests 

that nonnative species are typically a small 

proportion of the UMRS fish community. 

Interannual variability is evident though, and 

the proportion of nonnatives has been as high as 

60% over the period of observation for all trend 

areas combined. From an abundance perspective, 

nonnative species are typically a small proportion 

of total fish abundance (<10%; Figure 2a). From 

a biomass perspective, however, a substantially 

different story emerges (Figure 2b). As a fraction 

of total biomass, nonnative species are observed 

annually to represent 30% to 60% of the fish 

community observed by LTRMP standardized 

sampling protocol. Moreover, Pool 8 appears to 

have a notably smaller portion of its fish biomass 

sequestered in nonnative species, whereas other 

study areas have proportionally greater nonnative 

biomass comprising their fish communities. 

Finally, since 1993, the proportion of nonnative 

biomass to total fish biomass has been declining in 

all six LTRMP study reaches. 

Conclusions

The examples presented above represent just 

the most basic ways in which the life history 

database can be used to extend the scope and utility 

of standardized LTRMP monitoring data, but also 
9

Figure 2. Percentage of total 

numbers (A) and percentage 

of total biomass (B) of fish 

collected annually that 

were nonnative fish species 

from Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program fish 

sampling, 1989–2002. 

Pre‐1993 data collected using 

fixed‐site design, whereas 

post‐1992 data collected 

using stratified random 

sampling design. Data 

from these two sampling 

periods may not be directly 

comparable. Total biomass 

was calculated by converting 

abundance into biomass 

using regression models for 

each species. 

suggest such uses are potentially promising for 

extending our understanding of fish population and 

community dynamics in the UMRS. We suspect 

that this database will play a prominent role in 

future program research, as well as in developing 

new and novel ways to serve program data. Finally, 

we expect this database to have immediate utility 

for UMRS managers as they seek information 

relevant to the day-to-day management of diverse 

UMRS fisheries resources. 

References

Balon, E. K. 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: 

proposal and definition. Journal of Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 32:821–864.

Barko, V. A., B. S. Ickes, D. P. Herzog, R. A. 

Hrabik, J. H. Chick, and M. A. Pegg. 2005. 

Spatial, temporal, and environmental trends 

of fish assemblages within six reaches 

of the Upper Mississippi River System. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin. Technical Report LTRMP 2005-

T002. 27 pp.

Chick, J. H., and M. A. Pegg. 2001. Invasive 

carp in the Mississippi River Basin. Science 

292:2250–2251.

Chick, J. H., B. S. Ickes, M. A. Pegg, V. A. 

Barko, R. A. Hrabik, and D. P. Herzog. 2005. 

Spatial structure and temporal variation of 

fish communities in the Upper Mississippi 

River. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

A

B
10

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin. LTRMP 2005-T004. 15 pp.

Galat, D. L., and I. Zweimuller. 2001. Conserving 

large-river fishes: Is the highway analogy 

an appropriate paradigm? Journal of North 

American Benthological Society 20(2):266–

279.

Garrod, D. J., and J. W. Horwood. 1984. 

Reproductive strategies and the response to 

exploitation. Pages 367–384 in G.W. Potts 

and R.J. Wootton, editors. Fish reproduction. 

Academic Press. London and New York.

Gutreuter, S., R. Burkhardt, and K. Lubinski. 

1995. Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program procedures: Fish monitoring. 

National Biological Service, Environmental 

Management Technical Center, Onalaska, 

Wisconsin, July 1995. LTRMP 95-P002-1. 

42 pp. + Appendixes A–J.

Gutreuter, S. 2004. Challenging the assumption 

of habitat limitation: An example from 

centrarchid fishes over an intermediate spatial 

scale. River Research and Applications 

20(4):413–425.

Ickes, B. S., J. H. Wlosinski, B. C. Knights, 

and S. J. Zigler. 2001. Fish passage through 

dams in large temperate floodplain rivers: 

an annotated bibliography. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental 

Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. 

LTRMP web-based report available online at

http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp_fish/fish_

passage_biblio.html#lit (Accessed June 2001.)

Ickes, B. S., J. Vallazza, J. Kalas, and B. Knights. 

2005a. River floodplain connectivity and 

lateral fish passage: A literature review. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin, June 2005. 25 pp.

Ickes, B. S., M. C. Bowler, A. D. Bartels, D. J. 

Kirby, S. DeLain, J. H. Chick, V. A. Barko, 

K. S. Irons, and M. A. Pegg. 2005b. Multiyear 

synthesis of the fish component from 1993 to 

2002 for the Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 

La Crosse, Wisconsin. LTRMP 2005-T005. 

60 pp. + Appendixes A–E. + CD-ROM.

Karr, J. R. 1994. Defining disturbance. University 

of South Carolina Press, Columbia. 390 pp. 

Kirby, D. J., and B. S. Ickes. 2006. Temporal and 

spatial trends in the frequency of occurrence, 

length-frequency distributions, rate of gain, and 

relative abundance of Upper Mississippi River 

fish. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin. LTRMP 2006-T002. 68 pp.

Koel, T. M. 2004. Spatial variation in fish 

species richness of the Upper Mississippi 

River System. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 133:984–1003.

Leggett, W. C., and J. E. Carscadden 1978. 

Latitudinal variation in reproductive 

characteristics of American shad (Alosa 

sapidissima): Evidence for population specific 

life history strategies in fish. Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35:1469–

1478.

Lyons, J., R. R. Piette, and K. W. Niermeyer. 2001. 

Developments, validation, and application 

of a fish-based index of biotic integrity 

for Wisconsin’s large warmwater rivers. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

130(6):1077–1094.

Pegg M. A., and C. L. Pierce. 2002. Fish 

community structure in the Missouri and 

lower Yellowstone rivers in relation to flow 

characteristics. Hydrobiologia 479:155–167.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Ecological 

status and trends of the Upper Mississippi 

River System 1998: A report of the Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, 

Wisconsin. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

Winemiller, K. O., and K. A. Rose 1992. Patterns 

of life-history diversification in North 

American fishes: Implications for population 

regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 49:2196–2218.
A-1

Appendix A

Attribute Definitions and Codes

Table A-1. Attribute name, description, and source citation for data attributes in the Distribution Attribute Class for the Long Term 

Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. Data source is identified in Appendix B.

Attribute name Description Data source

Historical Distribution Map of historical distribution from non-LTRMP data sources Under development

Contemporary Distribution Map of contemporary distribution from LTRMP data sources Under development

Species Description Text description of the species (ecology, biology, social 

significance)

Under development

Historical Distribution 

Reference

Reference source for historical distribution map Under development

Midrange Latitude Midrange latitude based on range maps or verbal accounts Pegg and Pierce (1)

Mean Range Latitude Mean range in latitude based on range maps or verbal 

accounts

Winemiller and Rose (2)

Ubiquity Closed ratio numeric index of the species ubiquity in LTRMP 

samples 1993–2002 (10-year period)

Ickes (3)

Table A-2. Attribute name, description, and data source for data attributes in the Economic Value Attribute Class for the Long Term 

Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. Data source is identified in Appendix B.

Attribute name Description Data source

Replacement Value Mass Dollar amount of replacement valuation during investigation 

of fish kill by pounds (year 2004 US dollars)

Southwick et al. (9) 

Replacement Value Counts Dollar amount of replacement valuation during investigation 

of fish kill by each fish (year 2004 US dollars)

Southwick et al. (9) 
A-2

Table A-3. Attribute name, description, and data source for data attributes in the Growth Attribute Class for the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. Data source is identified in Appendix B.

Attribute name Description Data source 

LW Intercept Parameter for standard length/weight equations - also known 

as the size of squamation

Ickes (4)

LW Slope Parameter for standard length/weight equations - the rate of 

weight gain per unit length

Ickes (4)

LW Source Source of growth model Ickes (4) or Gutreuter et al. (10)

LW Nobs For empirically derived models, the number of observations 

(individual fish) used in the linear regression

Ickes (4)

LW Min Length For empirically derived models, the minimum length used in 

the development of regression models

Ickes (4)

LW Max Length For empirically derived models, the maximum length used in 

the development of regression models

Ickes (4)

Larval Growth Mean increment during the first month following hatching Pegg and Pierce (1)

YOY Growth Mean increment during the first year following hatching or 

independent life for viviparous fishes

Pegg and Pierce (1)

Adult Growth Mean annual length increment over an average adult life span Pegg and Pierce (1)

Mean Annual Growth Mean calculated fraction (in millimeters Total Length) gained 

per year in a normal adult life span

Pegg and Pierce (1)

Age at Maturity The mean age at maturation Simon (5)

Length at Maturity The modal length (mm) at maturation Pegg and Pierce (1)

Maximum Age Maximum age Pegg and Pierce (1)

Juvenile Length Cutoff Length, in mm, below which an individual is considered a 

juvenile 

Barko et al. (6)

Maximum Observed 

LTRMP Length

Maximum length observed over the period of record by the 

LTRMP

Ickes (7)

Maximum Literature 

Length

The maximum length reported Pegg and Pierce (1)

Substock Length (mm) below which an individual is classified as 

“Substock” size

Anderson and Neumann (8)

Stock Length (mm) below, but above Substock size, at which an 

individual is classified as “Stock” size

Anderson and Neumann (8)

Quality Length (mm) below, but above Stock size, at which an 

individual is classified as “Quality” size

Anderson and Neumann (8)

Preferred Length (mm) below, but above Quality size, at which an 

individual is classified as “Preferred” size

Anderson and Neumann (8)

Memorable Length (mm) below, but above Preferred size, at which an 

individual is classified as “Memorable” size

Anderson and Neumann (8)

Trophy Size Classes Length (mm) above which an individual is classified as 

“Trophy”

Anderson and Neumann (8)
A-3

Table A-4. Attribute name, description, and codes and meanings for data attributes in the Fish Photos Attribute Class for the Long Term 

Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. “N/A” means that the information is not applicable to that attribute.

Attribute name Description Codes and meanings

Have Photo Is there a photo in the archives for this species? Y = Yes 

N = No

Photo Filename1 Directory path and file name of primary photo N/A

Photo Filename2 Directory path and file name of secondary photo N/A

Photo Type Locality Where primary photo was taken N/A

Photo Date Date primary photo was taken N/A

Photo Credit Who took the primary photo or who is otherwise accredited? N/A

Photo Credit Affiliation Agency affiliation of photo credit N/A

Photo Credit Phone Phone number of individual credited with the primary photo N/A

Photo Credit E-mail Email address of person credited with the photo N/A

Photo Description Brief text description of the primary photo N/A

Photo Copyright Is the photo copyright protected? Y = Yes

N = No

Table A-5. Attribute name, description, codes and meaning, and data source for data attributes in the Taxonomy Attribute Class 

for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. “N/A” means that the information is not 

applicable to that attribute. Data source is identified in Appendix B. 

Attribute name Description Codes and meanings Data source 

Common Name Common name used in LTRMP Fish Component 

procedures

N/A Gutreuter et al. (10)

Taxonomic Order Taxonomic order N/A Nelson et al. (13)

Family Name Taxonomic family N/A Nelson et al. (13)

Family Rank Taxonomic rank of phylogenetic Family N/A Nelson et al. (13)

Scientific Name Binomial (genus and species) taxonomy N/A Nelson et al. (13)

Taxonomic Rank Taxonomic rank of phylogenetic species N/A Nelson et al. (13)

LTRMP Species collected by the LTRMP Y = Yes 

N = No 

Gutreuter et al. (10)

Animal Type of animal Fish Simon (5)

Native Native or nonnative species Native

Nonnative

Simon (5)

ID Status Status of the identification (Species or Hybrid) Species 

Hybrid

N/A
A-4

Table A-6. Attribute name, description, codes and meaning, data source, and source citation for data attributes in the Preference 

and Guild Attribute Class for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. “N/A” means that 

the information is not applicable to that attribute. Data source is identified in Appendix B.

Attribute name Description Codes and meanings Data source 

R-Guild Balon’s Reproductive Guild (A.) Nonguarders

(A.1) Open Substratum Spawners

(A.2) Brood Hiders

(A.1.1) Pelagophils

(A.1.2) Lithopelagophils

(A.1.3) Lithophils

(A.1.4) Phytolithophils

(A.1.5) Phytophils

(A.1.6) Psammophils

(A.2.3) Lithophils 

(A.2.4) Speleophils

(B.) Guarders

(B.1) Substratum Choosers

(B.1.3) Lithophils 

(B.1.4) Phytophils

(B.2) Nest

(B.2.3) Lithophils

(B.2.4) Ariadnophils

(B.2.5) Phytophils

(B.2.7) Speleophils

(C.) Bearers

(C.1) External Bearers

(C.1.4) Gill Chamber brooders

(C.2) Internal Bearers

(C.2.4) Viviparous

Simon (5)

R-Guild1 Reproductive Guild (Does this species 

guard its eggs?)

N/A Simon (5)

R-Guild2 Reproductive Guild (How are eggs 

dispersed?)

N/A Simon (5)

R-Guild3 Reproductive Guild (Substrate eggs 

dispersal mode)

N/A Simon (5)

F-Guild1 Adult Feeding Guild (Feeding 

preferences)

N/A Simon (5)

F-Guild2 Adult Feeding Guild (Area of river 

system in which primary feeding mode 

occurs)

N/A Simon (5)

F-Guild3 Adult Feeding Guild (Feeding mode) N/A Simon (5)

Trophic Guild Trophic guild N/A Pegg and Pierce 

(1)

Fluvial Dependence Is this species dependent upon on 

a flowing water environment as its 

habitat?

N/A Simon (5)

Migratory Is this species migratory? 0 = No

1 = Yes 

Simon (5)

Ecological Tolerance Relative Ecological Tolerance N/A Simon (5)

Large River Species Is the species classified as a Large River 

Species?

0 = No

1 = Yes 

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)
A-5

Table A-6. (continued)

Attribute name Description Codes and meanings Data source 

Current Preference Water current preference 1 = Fast

2 = Moderate

3 = Slow-none

4 = General

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Substrate Preference Substrate preference as a component of 

adult habitat (not reproduction)

1 = Cobble

2 = Gravel

3 = Sand

4 = Silt

5 = General

6 = Vegetation

7 = Structure

8 = Pelagic

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Silt Tolerance Relative tolerance to silt 1 = High

2 = Medium

3 = Low

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Spawning Substrate Spawning substrate preference 1 = Cobble

2 = Gravel

3 = Sand

4 = Silt

5 = General

6 = Vegetation

7 = Structure

8 = Pelagic

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Turbidity Tolerance Relative tolerance to turbidity 1 = High

2 = Medium

3 = Low

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Swim Factor Swim factor N/A Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Shape Factor Shape factor N/A Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Water Column 

Preference

Water column preference of adult fishes 1 = Benthic

2 = Epibenthic

3 = Pelagic

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Adult Habitat Adult habitat preference 1 = Caves or Springs

2 = Small cold water streams

3 = Small warm water streams

4 = River backwater and lakes

5 = Estuaries

6 = Marine benthic

7 = Marine pelagic

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Freshwater/Marine Marine or freshwater classification F = Freshwater

M = Marine

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Adult Trophic Level Trophic status based on summarized 

diet information for adult fish

1 = Detrivore/Herbivore

2 = Omnivore

3 = Invertivore

4 = Piscivore

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Relative Anadromy Relative migratory behavior (fractional 

numbers accepted)

1 = Anadromous

2 = Sedentary

-1 = Catadromous

Winemiller and 

Rose (2)
A-6

Table A-6. (continued)

Attribute name Description Codes and meanings Data source 

Egg Buoyancy Relative buoyancy of eggs in the 

environment

N/A Winemiller and 

Rose (2)

Habitat Guild Adult habitat guild (see report for 

source data and descriptions of guild 

traits)

N/A West Consultants 

(13)

TNC Global Rank The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) 

Global Rank

G1 = the species is globally and 

critically imperiled

G2 = the species is globally or 

nationally imperiled

G3 = the species is either rare or 

uncommon

G4 = the species is globally 

widespread, abundant, or apparently 

secure, but with cause for long-term 

concern

G5 = the species is demonstrably, 

widespread, abundant, and secure 

globally

Simon (5)
A-7

Table A-7. Attribute name, description, codes and meaning, and data source for data attributes in the Reproduction Attribute Class for the Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. “N/A” means the information is not applicable to that attribute. Data 

source is identified in Appendix B.

Attribute name Description Codes and meanings Data source

Maximum fecundity Largest batch fecundity 

reported

N/A Winemiller and Rose (2)

Mean fecundity Mean batch fecundity for a 

local population

N/A Winemiller and Rose (2)

Mean ovum diameter The mean diameter of mature 

(fully yolked) ovarian oocytes

N/A Winemiller and Rose (2)

Range ovum diameter The range of diameters for 

mature ovarian oocytes 

reported for a local population

N/A Winemiller and Rose (2)

Spawning duration Number of days that spawning 

or early larvae were reported

N/A Winemiller and Rose (2)

Spawning bouts The mean number of times an 

individual female was reported 

to spawn during a year

N/A Winemiller and Rose (2)

Parental care Relative amount of parental 

care provided to larvae and 

juveniles

0 = No special placement of 

zygotes, no parental care of 

zygotes or larvae, no nutritional 

contribution to larvae

1 = zygote are placed in a 

special habitat (i.e., scattered on 

vegetation or buried in gravel), a 

brief period of protection by one 

sex (<1 month) 

2 = both zygotes and larvae 

are maintained in nest, a long 

period of protection by one 

sex (>1 month) or brief care 

by both sexes, brief period of 

nutritional contribution to larvae 

(= brief gestation [<1 month]) 

with nutritional contribution in 

viviparous

3 = Lengthy protection by one of 

the sexes 

4 = Lengthy protection by both 

sexes 

Winemiller and Rose (2)

Mean incubation Mean time to hatch (hours) N/A Winemiller and Rose (2)
A-8

Table A-8. Attribute name, description, codes and meaning, data source, and source citation for data attributes in the 

Miscellaneous Attribute Class for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database. “N/A” means 

that the information is not applicable to that attribute. Data source is identified in Appendix B.

Attribute name Description Codes and meanings Data source

Exploit Rank Exploitation rank (relative intensity of 

exploitation)

0= Not xxploited

1 = Primary target

2 = Exploited as by catch

Ickes et al. (12)

Wilcox Migratory Is this species known or suspected to be 

migratory in the Upper Mississippi River 

System (UMRS)?

0 = No

1 = Yes

2 = Likely

Wilcox et al. 

(11)

Wilcox Pass Dams Has this species been observed to migrate 

through UMRS navigation dams?

0 = No

1 = Yes

Wilcox et al. 

(11)

Wilcox Ucrit Critical swimming velocity estimated or 

compiled from numerous peer-reviewed 

studies

N/A Wilcox et al. 

(11)

Conservation Status Does this species possess federal or state 

conservation status in the UMRS Basin?

0 = No

1 = Yes

Ickes et al. (12)

LTRMP 10-year rank Rank abundance (total program catch) over 

all six LTRMP study reaches during the 

10-year period from 1993 to 2002

1 = Most abundant species Ickes et al. (12)

Table A-9. Attribute name and description for data attributes in the References Attribute Class for the Long Term Resource 

Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish life history database.

Attribute name Description 

ID Unique ID number for reference

Point of Contact Contact accountable for data

Source Citation Original source for data
B-1

Appendix B

Data Citations

Table B-1. Expanded citation and bibliographic data for data citations used in Appendix A tables.

Identifier Citation

Pegg and Pierce (1) Pegg, M. A., and Pierce, C. L. 2002. Fish community structure in the Missouri and 

Yellowstone rivers in relation to flow characteristics. Hydrobiologia 479:155–167.

Winemiller and Rose (2) Winemiller, K. O., and K. A. Rose. 1992. Patterns of life history diversification in North 

American fishes: Implications for population regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 49(10):2186–2218.

Ickes (3) Calculated from the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) database as Nobs/

Npot * Pobs/Ppot; where Nobs is the total number of years a species was observed in the six 

LTRMP study reaches between 1993 and 2002 (range: 0–60), Npot is the total number of 

years x reach combinations in which a species was potentially observed (=60), Pobs is the 

number of LTRMP study reaches in which a species was observed at least once over the period 

1993–2002 (range: 0–6), and Ppot is the number of LTRMP study reaches in which a species 

could potentially be observed (=6).

Ickes (4) Parameters for log-log ordinary least squares length-weight regression derived from the Long 

Term Resource Monitoring Program. Log10(length) = Intercept + Slope * Log10(weight).

Simon (5) Simon, T. P., editor. 1999. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water 

resources using fish communities. Boca Roton, Florida. CRC Press. 671 pp.

Barko et al. (6) Barko, V. A., B. S. Ickes, D. P. Herzog, R. A. Hrabik, J. H. Chick, and M. A. Pegg. 2005. 

Spatial, temporal, and environmental trends of fish assemblages within six reaches of the 

Upper Mississippi River System. U.S Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Sciences Center, 

La Crosse, Wisconsin, February 2005. Technical Report LTRMP 2005-T002. 27 pp.

Ickes (7) Calculated as the maximum observed length observed by the Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program over the period of record (1989 to 2004).

Anderson and Neumann (8) Anderson, R. O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural indices. 

Pages 447–482 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, second 

edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Southwick et al. (9) Southwick, R. I., and A. J. Loftus. 2003. Investigation and monetary values of fish and 

freshwater mussel kills. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 177 pp.

Gutreuter et al. (10) Gutreuter, S., R. Burkhardt, and K. Lubinski. 1995. Long Term Resource Monitoring 

Program Procedures: Fish Monitoring. National Biological Service, Environmental 

Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, July 1995. LTRMP 95-P002-1. 42 pp. + 

Appendixes A–J.

Wilcox et al. (11) Wilcox, D. B., E. L. Stefanik, D. E. Kelner, M. A. Cornish, D. J. Johnson, I. J. Hodgins, 

S. J. Zigler, and B. L. Johnson. 2004. Improving fish passage through navigation dams on 

the Upper Mississippi River System. Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 

Navigation Study ENV Report 54. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District. 

110 pp. + Appendixes A–D.

Ickes et al. (12) Ickes, B. S., M. C. Bowler, A. D. Bartels, D. J. Kirby, S. DeLain, J. H. Chick, V. A. Barko, 

K. S. Irons, and M. A. Pegg. 2005. Multiyear synthesis of the fish component from 1993 

to 2002 for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper 

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin. LTRMP 2005-T005. 60 pp. + 

Appendixes A–E + CD-ROM.

West Consultants (13) West Consultants, Inc. 2000. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway cumulative 

effects study. Volume 2: Ecological Assessment. Contract Number DACW25-97-R-0012. 

Final report to the Department of Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District. 295 pp.

Nelson et al. (14) Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and 

J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico, Sixth Edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate 

for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, 

Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, D.C. 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

May 2007

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES 

COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Development of a Life History Database for Upper Mississippi River Fishes 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S) Matt O’Hara1, Brian S. Ickes2, Eric Gittinger3, Steve DeLain4, Terry Dukerschein5, Mark Pegg1, and 

John Kalas5

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 1

Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois River Biological Station, 704 North Schrader, Havana, Illinois 62644 2

U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 2630 Fanta Reed Road, La Crosse, Wisconsin 

54603 3

Illinois Natural History Survey, Great Rivers Field Station, 8450 Montclair Avenue, Brighton, Illinois 62012

4

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Lake City Field Station, 1801 South Oak Street, Lake City, Minnesota 

55041 5

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Pool 8 Field Station, 2630 Fanta Reed Road, La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

 U.S. Geological Survey 

 Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

 2630 Fanta Reed Road

 La Crosse, Wisconsin, 54603

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

2007-T001

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Release unlimited. Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 

(1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650). Also available to registered users from the Defense Technical Information Center, 

Attn: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 703-767-9050).

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

Abstract: This report summarizes the development of a life history database for Upper Mississippi River System fishes. It provides the rationale for its development 

within the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, describes it, outlines standards for its development, and demonstrates how it can be linked to the LTRMP 

fisheries database and used to address a host of new questions relevant to management and science in the basin. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Analysis, fish community, LTRMP, Mississippi River, species, UMRS 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

 10 pp. + Appendixes A–B

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY 

CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) for the Upper Mississippi

River System was authorized under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as 

an element of the Environmental Management Program. The mission of the LTRMP

is to provide river managers with information for maintaining the Upper Mississippi 

River System as a sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character.

The LTRMP is a cooperative effort by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

Development of a Life History Database for Upper Mississippi River Fishes