U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Initial Biotic Survey 

of Lisbon Bottom,

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

Biological Science Report

USGS/BRD/BSR-2000-0001

December 1999

by

Dale D. Humburg

Vincent J. Burke

Editors
Technical Report Series

The Biological Resources Division publishes scientific and technical articles and reports resulting from the

research performed by our scientists and partners. These articles appear in professional journals around

the world. Reports are published in two report series: Biological Science Reports and Information and

Technology Reports.

Series Descriptions

Biological Science Reports

ISSN 1081-292X

This series records the significant findings

resulting from sponsored and co-sponsored

research programs. They may include extensive data or theoretical analyses. Papers in

this series are held to the same peer-review

and high-quality standards as their journal

counterparts.

Information and Technology Reports

ISSN 1081-2911

These reports are intended for publication of

book-length monographs; synthesis documents; compilations of conference and workshop papers; important planning and reference materials such as strategic plans, standard operating procedures, protocols, handbooks, and manuals; and data compilations

such as tables and bibliographies. Papers in

this series are held to the same peer-review

and high-quality standards as their journal

counterparts.

Copies of this publication are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650). Copies also are

available to registered users from the Defense Technical Information Center, Attn.: Help Desk, 8725

Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 703-767-

9050).

Printed on recycled paper
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Initial Biotic Survey 

of the Lisbon Bottom,

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

Biological Science Report

USGS/BRD/BSR-2000-0001

December 1999

by

Dale D. Humburg

Vincent J. Burke

Editors
Suggested citation:

D.D. Humburg and Burke, V.J., editors. 1999. Initial Biotic Survey of Lisbon Bottoms, Big Muddy National Fish

and Wildlife Refuge. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Biological Science Report 

USGS/BRD/BSR2000-0001. 76 pp.

Acknowledgments

Much effort goes into creating a document for publication. In addition to the authors, reviewers provided invaluable comments, which improved each chapter. Susan Rhyne provided

technical edits and brought consistency to the document. Linda Goetting made changes to

the document. Brian Wissel produced the layout and created many of the graphics from

hand-drawn maps. Pamela Haverland supervised the production.

cover illustrations: Charles Schwartz, Wildlife Drawings. Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri
i

Contents

Page

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1: Physical Setting

Robert B. Jacobson, Mark S. Laustrup, Ellen Ehrhardt, Curt Niebur, and Raymond Arvidson...................1

Chapter 2: Post-flood Vegetation Communities

Joyce Mazourek, Dianne Martin, Dale D. Humburg, and Leigh H. Fredrickson ..........................................21

Chapter 3: Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Karen J. Bataille, Barry Poulton, Julie R. Grotemeyer, and Dale D. Humburg .............................................29

Chapter 4: Fishes of Missouri River, Chute, and Flood-Plain Habitats

Joanne Grady, Jim Milligan, Duane Chapman, Ellen Ehrhardt, Doug Dieterman, David Galat,

John Hooker, John Kubisiak, Aaron Delonay, Ed Little, Jack Robinson, and John Tibbs.............................39

Chapter 5: Waterbirds

Douglas L. Helmers, Dale D. Humburg, Amanda C. McColpin, Ellen Ehrhardt, John A. Vogel,

Karen J. Bataille, and Leigh H. Fredrickson.......................................................................................................55

Chapter 6: Herpetofauna

Vincent J. Burke, Rochelle B. Renken, J. Russell Bodie, Julie R. Grotemeyer, and Angie Zaga ..................63

Chapter 7: Mammals

Mary J. Ratnaswamy, Alison K. Williams, and Rochelle B. Renken ................................................................69
ii
iii

Tables

Chapter 2 Post-flood Vegetation Communities Page

1. Numbers of acres planted and percentage of the total hectares 

on Lisbon Bottom .................................................................................................................................22

2. Species present in the soil seed bank........................................................................................................25

Chapter 3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

1. Macroinvertebrate collection methods .......................................................................................................31

2. Invertebrate taxa collected, collection methods, and location .............................................................35

Chapter 4 Fishes of Missouri River, Chute, and Flood-Plain Habitats

1. Fisheries studies conducted in the Missouri River .....................................................................................47

2. Fish species collected in the Missouri River ...............................................................................................49

3. Larval fish taxa collected.............................................................................................................................52

Chapter 5 Waterbirds

1. Methods used to survey waterbirds in Missouri River flood-plain habitats .......................................59

2. Occurrence of waterbirds observed ..........................................................................................................60

Chapter 6 Herpetofauna

1. Herpetofaunal capture methods .................................................................................................................66

2. Reptile captures, sampling methods, and qualitative

estimates of abundance.....................................................................................................................67

3. Amphibian captures, sampling methods, and qualitative estimate of abundance ...........................67

Chapter 7 Mammals

1. Reference codes and sampling periods for mammal survey methods ................................................73

2. Mammal species and their relative abundance.......................................................................................73

3. Documented mammal species ......................................................................................................................74

Figures

Chapter 1 Physical Setting Page

1. Location of Lisbon Bottom and nearby streamgages 

on the Lower Missouri River ..........................................................................................................2

2. Location of Lisbon Bottom and Jameson Island within the Grand-Osage 

segment of the Missouri River ......................................................................................................3

3. Map of Lisbon Bottom as it appeared in summer 1997.....................................................................4

4. Graph of channel sinuosity, valley width, and segmentation of part 

of the Lower Missouri Valley ........................................................................................................5

5. Shaded relief image of Lisbon Bottom and topographic map -------------------------------------6
iv

6. False color images of Lisbon Bottom showing extensive changes to land 

cover from 1992 to 1997 ............................................................................................................7

7. Normal monthly precipitation and temperature at Columbia, Missouri...........................................8

8. Graphs of discharge characteristics at Boonville, Missouri.................................................................10

9. Duration hydrographs of Missouri River at Boonville, Missouri ..........................................................11

10. Hydrograph for Missouri River at Boonville, Missouri, for October 1991 to 

October 1997.................................................................................................................................12

11. Historical maps of the Missouri River near Lisbon Bottom, 1879-1978...........................................13

12. Selected bathymetric cross sections at Lisbon Bottom in the chute and 

main channel, December 2-3, 1997...........................................................................................17

Chapter 3 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates 

1. Sample sites on Lisbon Bottom and the Glasgow reach of the 

Missouri River ...................................................................................................................................32

Chapter 4 Fishes of Missouri River, Chute, and Flood-Plain Habitats

1. Locations of fisheries study sites in the Lisbon Bottom Unit .................................................................53

Chapter 6 Herpetofauna 

1. Trapping/census methods for herpetofaunal species...........................................................................65

Chapter 7 Mammals

1. Mammal sampling sites at Lisbon Bottom during 1996 and 1997...................................................75
v

Initial Biotic Survey of Lisbon Bottom

by

Dale D. Humburg

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65211

and

Vincent J. Burke

University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources

112 Stephens Hall, Columbia, Missouri 65211

Abstract. The 2,300-acre Lisbon Bottom Unit, located in central Missouri, became part of the Big Muddy

National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (NFWR) after the Great Flood of 1993 devastated the Units farmland

and network of levees. As a result, interdisciplinary studies were initiated through collaboration among various researchers, universities, and State and Federal conservation agencies to investigate the short-term effects

of the flood and to expand information about the Missouri River and flood-plain systems. The studies included in these chapters investigate diverse aspects of Lisbon Bottom Units physical setting and biota and provide baseline information that managers can use to assess restoration efforts on Lisbon Bottom and other units

of the Big Muddy NFWR.

Key words: amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, fisheries, flood

plain, geomorphology, hydrology, levee, Lisbon Bottom, mammals, Missouri River, riparian, side channel, vegetation, waterfowl, wetlands
vi
vii

The Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife

Refuge (NFWR) is an integral part of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Services (Services) dream of facilitating a

new vision for the Missouri River.

This river, which has played such an important

part in our Nations history, is currently listed among

the most endangered rivers in the United States. Once

so endowed with rich and abundant natural resources,

the Missouri River now serves primarily as a pathway

for navigation. But the new vision for the Missouri

River is one in which its rich natural resources can be

reestablished and coexist with the diverse and valuable economic endeavors that depend upon the Big

Muddy.

The opportunity for implementing the vision

for the Big Muddy NFWR came after the Great Flood

of 1993. This very destructive event left many areas

of the flood plain devastated and without future

agricultural value. Willing sellers came forth, lands

were purchased by the Service, and the Big Muddy

NFWR began. Through acquisition and easements, the

Service and other agencies, such as the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agricultures

Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the

Missouri Department of Conservation, are jointly

endeavoring to reestablish the ecological health of

the Missouri River.

The vision for the Big Muddy NFWR is to

acquire a total of 60,000 acres along the Kansas

City to St. Louis reach of the river. Flood plain and

river connections will be restored at 25 to 30 separate locations, forming habitat beads on a string

and renewing a part of the environmentally productive and valuable Missouri River system. Regenerating

bottomland forests and reestablishing wetlands and

river connections collectively will add the diversity of

habitat features needed to restore some of the natural functions of this valuable riverine system. The Big

Muddy NFWR truly will become a refuge in the

ecological and landscape sense of the word.

Central to the refuge is the Lisbon Bottom Unit.

This 2,300-acre area was severely damaged in the

Great Flood and was one of the first sites to become

part of the Big Muddy NFWR. Before the flood, the

area was considered prime farmland and was protected by a network of levees. All this was lost in the

flood. With the destruction of the levees came the

deposition of several feet of sand on this once productive farmland as well as the scouring out of land,

creating deep holes filled with water. The land, having lost its agricultural value, was perfect for inclusion

in the Big Muddy NFWR.

The vision for ecological recovery is paralleled by a vision of new knowledge. Lisbon Bottom

was included in studies that were initiated immediately after the flood to determine both the short-term

effects of the flood and also to improve our knowledge of river and flood-plain systems. These integrated studies have involved researchers from many

disciplines who have investigated the condition and

changes in water, soils, fish, and wildlife. Universities

and State and Federal conservation agencies have

cooperated to take advantage of the opportunity

presented by a renewed interest in river systems.

Information collected on Lisbon Bottom

already has provided the basis for management

planning on the Big Muddy NFWR. In less than 5

years, vegetation has rapidly recovered, flooding

recurred in 4 years, and a chute has developed

through what had been farmland for much of the century. Because data collection efforts were in place,

these dynamics have yielded clues to flood-plain

processes rather than becoming an unknown frustration to refuge managers.

In this publication, contributions from diverse

studies on Lisbon Bottom will indicate some of the iniExecutive Summary

Lisbon Bottom: A Baseline of New Knowledge

by

J. C. Bryant

Refuge Manager

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
tial information collected and provide a preview of

what the area will become. Information presented is

not intended to be a rigorous scientific analysis of

flood-plain processes and events. Instead, it represents the baseline of information now in place that will

be essential as future managers judge the success of

restoration efforts on Lisbon Bottom and other units of

the Big Muddy NFWR.

I fully expect that Lisbon Bottom will continue

to be a dynamic habitat restoration in progress.

Ongoing monitoring of flood-plain changes will be an

integral part of our vision for restoring the Missouri

River.

viii
1

Introduction

Lisbon Bottom consists of approximately 875

ha of river bottom along the Missouri River in Howard

County, Missouri, from approximately river mile1 (RM)

213 to RM 219 (Figs. 1-3). As used in this report, the

Lisbon Bottom area also includes the main channel of

the Missouri River adjacent to the Lisbon Bottom and

portions of the adjacent flood plain in Saline County,

Missouri.

Before regulation and structuring of the

Missouri River, riverine2 areas like Lisbon Bottom were

shifting mosaics of dynamic habitat patches that were

created and maintained by hydrologic and geomorphic processes. Flow regulation, navigation structures,

and bank-stabilization projects isolated Lisbon Bottom

from the river by decreasing the magnitude and frequency with which hydrologic and geomorphic

processes could alter habitat characteristics.

The flood of 1993 breached agricultural levees around Lisbon Bottom, thereby reestablishing a

connection to the Missouri River. Although still affected by flow regulation and the requirement to maintain navigation in the main channel, Lisbon Bottom

presents the opportunity to study ecosystem processes and dynamic geomorphology in a setting that more

closely mimics the natural riverine system than any

other site on the navigable Lower Missouri River.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the

physical setting and processes that structure the riverine ecosystem of Lisbon Bottom and similar areas of

the Lower Missouri River. The description compiles

available information on temporal and spatial

changes at the site, including the history of channel

changes and hydrology.

Physiography of Lisbon Bottom

Lisbon Bottom is located in a valley segment3

between the junctions of the Grand and Osage Rivers

(Figs. 1, 4). This segment is on the margin of the

Ozark Plateaus Physiographic Province and it is cut

into relatively uniform Paleozoic cherty limestone,

cherty dolomite, and minor quantities of sandstone

and shale. This segment is characterized by a relatively wide valley subsegment from the Grand River

junction to near Glasgow, Missouri (RM 224-250),

and a narrow valley subsegment from Glasgow to the

Osage River junction (RM 131-224). In the wide-valley subsegment and the segment upstream of the

Chapter 1

Physical Setting

by

Robert B. Jacobson

Mark S. Laustrup

Ellen Ehrhardt

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201

and

Curt Niebur

Raymond Arvidson

Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130

1River miles are the long-established addressing system for distances on the Missouri River. River miles increase upstream from 0 at the junction

of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers at St. Louis. A mile is equal to 1.6 km.

2The term riverine is used to describe the area encompassing the channel and adjacent flood-plain areas; the flood plain is considered to extend

to those areas that would potentially flood with an average frequency of at least once in 100 years in the absence of bank revetments and lev- ees.

3A valley segment is a length of a river valley between substantive tributaries and having relatively uniform physiographic and geologic characteristics. For the purposes of this report, a tributary is considered to be substantive if it adds greater than approximately 5% of the cumulative

drainage area and (or) drains an area of significantly different hydrologic response, sediment yield, or water-quality contribution.
Grand River junction, the Missouri Valley is nearly five

times wider than in the narrow-valley subsegment.

Downstream of the Osage River junction, the Missouri

River is increasingly affected by hydrologic characteristics and the addition of coarse sediment from the

Ozark Plateaus.

Lisbon Bottom is within the narrow-valley subsegment where the valley is about 3.5 km wide; it has

few alluvial terrace remnants and steep bedrock

bluffs. The narrow valley and bedrock walls act to

confine large floods and to promote scour and secondary currents where the channel impinges on the

valley walls. A more complete description of Missouri

River physiography can be found in Kelmelis (1994).

In its present-day stabilized morphology, the

Missouri River is characterized by alternating reaches4 of high and low sinuosity5 (Fig. 4). Reaches with

high sinuosity can be expected to have greater

hydraulic diversity  that is, variation in depth and

velocity  compared to low-sinuosity reaches

because of stronger secondary currents associated

with tighter bends. With a sinuosity ratio as high as

1.8 for a 6-km straight-line distance, the Lisbon

Bottom reach has some of the highest sinuosity

of the Grand-Osage segment.

Schmudde (1963) classified Missouri River

bottoms into two broad classes: long bottoms

and loop bottoms. Long bottoms are land areas

enclosed by river bends that are much longer in

the down-valley direction than they are in the

cross-valley direction. Loop bottoms are land

areas enclosed by river bends that are nearly

the same size in the long-valley and cross-valley

directions. Long bottoms also tend to have

lower surface gradients than loop bottoms.

Long bottoms correspond to low-sinuosity reaches and loop bottoms correspond to high sinuosity reaches.

Lisbon Bottom is a typical loop bottom. In the

natural channels, loop bottoms tend to migrate

downstream due to lateral erosion at the

upstream margins and deposition of sediments

on the downstream margins. Flood flows that

overtop the upstream margins would tend to

build up sandy natural levees, which might be

separated by interposed crevasses where concentrated flows cut through the levees.

Crevasses commonly occupied swales left from previous channel migration and so acted to guide flood

flows from the channel, across the loop bottom, and

toward the valley wall.

Because of this, there is a tendency for loop

bottoms to have wetlands along the downstream onehalf of the valley wall. At Lisbon Bottom small tributary basins also provide water for these low, wet

areas. Because levees and splays build up the

upstream margins of loop bottoms, natural loop bottoms have higher gradients than the channel, and they

tend to flood from downstream to upstream as water

backs up through old overflow channels.

As a result, when large floods overtopped

natural levees at the upstream margin, they would

typically encounter slackwater from backflooding.

The upstream margin of Lisbon Bottom has

natural levees in excess of 186 m above sea level

(a.s.l.); the downstream margin has elevations as low

as 181 m a.s.l. Ridges and swales oriented northwest

to southeast are apparent on the 1979 topographic

map of the bottom but have been partly obliterated

by erosion and deposition by the 1993 flood (Fig. 5).

2

4In the Missouri River, a reach is defined as a length of the river that contains one or more representations of bend and crossover macrohabitats. 5Sinuosity is the ratio of channel length to straight-line length between two points on the channel. It is an index of degree of channel curvature

and hydraulic complexity.
3
4
5

The slope of the bottom is approximately 0.8 mL/km

(0.0008 mL/m), compared to 0.2 mL/km (0.0002

m/m) in the channel. No surficial geology data6 are

available for Lisbon Bottom. The nature of the sediments, however, can be inferred from work at other

Missouri River bottoms and from published soil maps.

In general, the Missouri River valley is filled with a

sequence of glacial outwash overlain by alluvial sand,

gravel, and silt and clay (Kelmelis 1994). The total

thickness of deposits is 18-24 m (60-80 ft). Silt- and

clay-size sediment occurs in the upper 2-5 m (6 to 15

ft). In nonleveed settings, sandy sediments are dominant in natural levees toward the upstream margin of

the bottom, and silt and clay are dominant in areas

downstream and adjacent to the valley wall where

deposition is by low-velocity water.

The soils of Howard County including the

Lisbon Bottom area were mapped in the 1970s

(Grogger and Landtiser 1978) and have not been

remapped since. As a result of the floods of 1993-

96, the surface materials of Lisbon Bottom have

changed extensively in distribution; however, the

description of soils from 1978 is still valid. The surface soil consists of materials ranging from well-sorted sand to silty clay and ranging from zero pedogenic7 alteration to development of organic-rich A

horizons and weak B horizons. The soils of Lisbon

Bottom are classified as

entisols and mollisols, indicating the predominance of

weak pedogenic development and accumulation of

organic matter in wetter

environments.

The 1978 soil maps

showed a unit classified as

riverwash in lateral bars

along the left bank8 and

adjacent to the channel.

Sarpy sand (typic udipsamment) was mapped in natural levee positions along the

upstream, left bank RM

216-218, and in a long splay extending approximately one-half of the long axis of Lisbon Bottom,

adjacent to and east of the chute. This sand splay

indicates historic, high-energy deposition on Lisbon

Bottom similar to that which occurred in 1993 but

before 1978. Hodge loamy fine sand (typic udipsamment) was mapped on low-relief ridges and also

indicates deposition of bars or splays.

Hagni silt loam (mollic udifluvent) is stratified

silt loam and fine sandy loam and was mapped on

low ridges and intermediate elevations on the bottom.

Leta silty clay (fluvaquentic hapludoll) is the wettest

soil mapped at Lisbon Bottom and consists of fine sediments deposited in overflow channels, swales, and

low areas subjected to back flooding. Nodaway silt

loam (mollic udifluvent) was mapped on alluvial fans

from the tributary valleys of Buster Branch, Cooper

Creek, and unnamed smaller tributaries basins along

the eastern valley wall. These alluvial fans were

formed from reworked loess from the uplands located to the east of Lisbon Bottom; the fans provide

bench areas at somewhat higher elevations immediately adjacent to the valley wall.

The dominant effect of the 1993-96 floods

was to distribute a greater volume of sand over

Lisbon Bottom than the 1978 soils maps indicated.

6Surficial geology refers to those sediments that have been recently transported and deposited near the surface of the earth. Generally, surficial geology includes descriptions of sediments, weathering, and transport processes at depths greater than those considered in the study of

soils, but exclusive of bedrock. In alluvial settings like Lisbon Bottom, surficial geology includes the sequence of sediments the river, adjacent

slpes, and streams deposited. Surficial geologic characteristics are critical to understanding long-term history of rivers and for understanding

groundwater flow in the riverine environment.

7Pedogenesis refers to the integrated chemical, physical, and biological processes that form and differentiate soil horizons.

8Left and right bank refer to banks as seen while facing downstream.
6
7
8
9

The main sand splay covered more than 70% of the

area with 20 cm or more of sand and buried some

areas of Hagni silt loam and Leta silty clay as it filled

low-lying areas (Fig. 6). Sediments deposited by the

1993 flood have been extensively studied just downstream at Jameson Island (Fig. 2); additional information is available in Izenberg et al. (1996) and

Schalk and Jacobson (1997).

Climatology, Hydrology, and Regulation History

of the Grand-Osage Segment

The regional climate for Lisbon Bottom is temperate; average annual temperature is 12.2 degrees

Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit) and average annual

precipitation is 990 mm (39 in.) (NOAA 1997). Low

temperatures and low precipitation tend to coincide

in January, but peak precipitation tends to occur in

May, 2 months ahead of the peak temperature (Fig.

7).

The closest long-term, discharge-rated

streamgage is located at Boonville, Missouri. The U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) has operated this streamgage continuously since 1925. Between Lisbon

Bottom and Boonville, the Missouri River gains very little discharge; the drainage area increases by only

approximately 0.5%. Therefore, the Boonville

streamgage can be used to evaluate hydrologic characteristics at Lisbon Bottom. However, because the

valley and channel cross section and hydraulic roughness are different between Lisbon Bottom and

Boonville, the relative stages and areas inundated

are not expected to match, especially at flows above

bankfull.

At Boonville, approximately 56% of the total

drainage area of the Missouri River is regulated by

mainstem dams in South Dakota, North Dakota, and

Montana. In addition, discharge from the Platte and

Kansas Rivers is partially regulated, so as much as

86% of the total drainage area and 73% of the

median daily discharge at Boonville can be considered regulated. The remaining 14% of the drainage

area arises mainly from rivers draining western Iowa

and northwestern Missouri, including the Big Sioux,

Grand, and Chariton Rivers.

The hydrologic record at Boonville shows the

pervasive effect of flow regulation by the mainstem

reservoirs (Figs. 8-10). Mainstem reservoirs were

built and closed between 1937 and 1967. The period 1925-52 can be considered minimally regulated

at Boonville. During 1952-67 the reservoirs filled,

and after 1967 the mainstem reservoirs were managed to provide navigation flows, flood control, and

recreation. A typical operating cycle for the mainstem system maintains discharges of approximately

35,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)9 at Kansas City for

the period 1 April-1 December for navigation, with

alterations as necessary for flood control and other

purposes (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

1979; 1998).

The effect of regulation for navigation flows

can be seen in the trend in low flows (Fig. 8b) and in

abrupt decreases in discharge around 1 December

on short-term hydrographs (Fig. 10). On graphs of

flow duration, the effect of regulation is most evident

in loss of extremely low flows (Fig. 8d). When plotted as duration hydrographs (Fig. 9) it is clear that the

net effect of regulating flows at Boonville has been to

distribute the water flow more uniformly over the

year. Marked increases in low flows are apparent

during August-March and the two-peaked hydrograph characteristic of the unregulated river has

been nearly eliminated. The post-regulation pattern

of discharges shown in Fig. 9b may be altered somewhat when Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System

Master Manual (USACE 1979; 1998) is revised.

Geomorphic Dynamics and Management History

of the Lisbon Bottom

The historical record of channel changes at

Lisbon Bottom illustrates the natural processes of erosion and deposition and indicates the magnitude of

change imposed by river management. Historical

maps of channel positions in 1879 show that the

Grand-Osage segment was characterized by a wide

channel and numerous braided reaches characterized by bars and islands (Fig. 11). Schmudde (1963)

estimated that under natural conditions the river was

two to three times wider than after channel stabilization. Channel migration under natural conditions was

sufficient to rework as much as one-third of the flood

plain of the Missouri River in approximately 50 years

(Schmudde1963).

9Cubic feet per second are the customary units for discharge in rivers in the United States. Multiply by 0.0283 to convert to cubic meters per

second.
10
11
12
13
Engineering alterations to improve navigability of the Missouri River began as early as the 1830s.

In general, the sequence of alterations was clearing

woody debris; constructing wing dikes to narrow the

channel; constructing bank revetments to stabilize

banks; and constructing levees to prevent inundation

of urban, industrial, and agricultural lands.

Interested readers are referred to comprehensive

studies by Ferrel (1993; 1996) and Galat et al.

(1996).

Snagging and channel clearing were the first

efforts to improve navigability for keelboats and

steamboats. These efforts were systematic and intensive from 1885 to 1910 (Galat et al. 1996). On

1879 project maps (Missouri River Commission 1879),

Lisbon Bottom land cover is depicted as dense willows, sandbars, and a few small fields. During the

interval 1879-1920, the mainstem channel of the

Missouri River moved approximately 1570 m (5,150

ft) across the downstream one-third of Lisbon Bottom

(Fig. 11), leaving the town of Lisbon without river

access. Because 1890 maps (Missouri River

Commission 1892) seem to indicate a channel position

intermediate between those of 1879 and 1920, it

appears that movement of the channel was incremental.

Maps from 1920 (War Department 1920)

show channel revetment existed on the left bank RM

217.5-219 and three wing dikes existed on the left

bank RM 217-217.5; this project was completed by

1917. Downstream from RM 216 to RM 213.5, revetment was completed on the right bank by 1915. Also

in 1915, a natural chute was cut across Jameson

Island (RM 214.5); this chute was closed by revetment

and diking by October 1916 (War Department

1920). The entire left bank of Lisbon Bottom is noted

as heavy timber and willows in 1890; however, it is

unclear if the center of the bottom was heavily timbered at this time. No levees were mapped on Lisbon

Bottom in 1920.

More intensive channel structuring began

after authorization of the Navigation and Bank

Stability Project by the Flood Control Act of 1944

(Galat et al. 1996). Navigation maps from 1954

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1954) show the channel had been largely confined to its present form and

position. Two more dikes were added to the left bank

dike field and two short wing dikes and revetment

had been added to the right bank from RM 217.5-

218. In addition, two short wing dikes had been

added to the right bank at RM 216, and three dikes

and an additional closing revetment were added to

the upstream entrance of the Jameson Island chute at

RM 215. Nearly the entire right bank from RM

216.25 to 213.5 was protected by revetment in

1954. The 1954 maps depict Lisbon Bottom as a

mosaic of timber, willows, scattered timber, and cultivated land.

No levees were mapped along the main channel in 1954, but short levees existed near the valley

wall apparently to deal with interior drainage from

Buster Branch and valley-wall tributary basins. In

addition, no levees appear on USGS 7.5-minute

quadrangle maps that are based on 1969 aerial

photography, nor are levees apparent on the aerial

photography base (1972) used for the Howard

County soil survey (Grogger and Landtiser 1978).

Levees did exist around the outside margin of Lisbon

Bottom by 1986; however, these observations are

consistent with recollections of a former landowner

who stated that only low levees were constructed during the 1960s and that the main levees were not built

until the mid-1980s (Bill Lay, personal communication). In 1986 the levees in the Lisbon Bottom area

were incorporated as Howard County Levee District

#5.

By 1993, Lisbon Bottom was completely leveed along the left bank downstream as far as

Coopers Creek (Fig. 3). The levee was completed to

approximately 6-11 ft above ground level, with a

crown ranging 10-14 ft wide and side slopes ranging

from 1:3 to 1:5 (Bob Meyer, USACE, Jefferson City,

Missouri, personal communication). In April 1993 the

levee was inspected and qualified for the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers maintenance program. The levee

was built to a height that would protect Lisbon Bottom

up to a stage of 32.0 ft on the Glasgow gage, or

approximately 611 ft above sea level at RM 218.

Based on extrapolation from the streamgage at

Boonville10 this is equivalent to protection from flood

stages of 2-5-year recurrence interval.

Also 1993 had installed additional wing

dams along the right bank RM 217.5-219. Bank

revetment on the right bank extended RM 217.75-

14

10This estimate assumes (a) the construction reference plane (CRP) is a plane of equal flow duration along the river and (b) that the relation at

Boonville reasonably approximates the relation between discharge and stage at Lisbon Bottom.
15

216.75 and RM 216-213.5. On the left bank, revetments extended from upstream of RM 219 to the

wing dams at RM 218 and from RM 213.8 to 213.4.

The flood of 1993 broke the Lisbon Bottom

levee in multiple places. The exact process by which

the levee broke is unknown. Similar levees along the

Missouri River broke by various mechanisms, including

vertopping, liquefaction by seepage water, and

mechanical erosion on the upstream side (Schalk and

Jacobson 1996). During the 1993 flood, the peak

daily flow at Boonville was 721,000 cfs on 30 July

(Fig. 10). The estimated 500-year flow at Boonville

is 700,000 cfs (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas

City District, written communication).

In general, once a levee is broken the potential conditions exist for extensive erosion and deposition. A large discharge of water concentrated

through a narrow opening can result in high velocity,

high water-surface slope, and intense turbulence. If

the shear stresses produced in these situations are sufficient to erode through the cohesive top stratum composed of silt and clay, a threshold of erosion is

reached because the underlying noncohesive sand

can be more easily eroded.

Undermining sand promotes upstream and

downstream extension of levee-break scours and

maintains steep slopes on the scour margins (Jacobson

and Oberg 1997). Typically, a stripped area

extends along the downstream and lateral margins of

a scour hole; the stripped area is characterized by

erosion within the plow horizon of the surface soil and

underlying cohesive sediment. Depositional areas

occur downstream and lateral to the stripped area.

Sand deposits  sometimes of thicknesses exceeding

15 ft (5 m)  occur in the center where flow is concentrated and silt and clay deposits occur in slow and

slackwater areas within the flooded bottom.

Overflow from a flooded bottom typically

creates another levee break and scour at an overflow

exit. These scours can be as deep as entrance scours.

Exit scours typically expand upstream with time as the

steepened margin erodes. Most of the erosion

apparently occurs on the declining limb of the flood

hydrograph as the leveed area drains back into the

main channel. Galat et al. (1997) discuss the general distribution and properties of scours the 1993

flood caused along the Lower Missouri River

The 1993 flood left one large scour at the

upstream margin of Lisbon Bottom and three smaller

levee breaks and scours (Figs. 3, 5). Also, the flow

breached the cross-levee in numerous places, and at

least five exit scours developed along the downstream margin.

Subsequently, four of these scours were identified and studied as part of the Missouri River Postflood Evaluation Project (S-15, S-15A, NC-9, and S14; Fig. 3). Bathymetric maps of the main entrance

scour (S-15, Fig. 3) and one of the exit scours (S-14,

Fig. 3) document 8-9-m depths (Galat et al. 1997).

None of the levee breaks were repaired after the

1993 flood, so subsequent floods of lesser magnitude

were allowed to flow through the levees (Fig. 10).

Lisbon Bottom has been flooded multiple times

since the peak daily flow recorded on 30 July 1993.

At least nine discrete floods in excess of 200,000 cfs

occurred from August 1993 to January 1998 (Fig.

10). According to a flood frequency analysis the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers performed, bankfull stage

in this segment of the Missouri River is about 198,000

cfs (USACE, Kansas City District, written communication, 12 February 1997).

The largest discharge recorded at Boonville,

Missouri, between August 1993 and January 1998

was 353,000 cfs in May 1995. However, the most

significant discharge was the flood that peaked at

approximately 290,000 cfs in late May-June 1996.

The May 1995 flood inundated at least 80% of

Lisbon Bottom and resulted in substantial reworking of

sand deposits emplaced by the 1993 flood, but it did

not change the basic architecture of the scours.

However, May-June 1996 flood connected the

upstream entrance scour (S-15) with the nonconnected

scour at the interior levee (NC 9) and a small exit

scour near RM 214.7, thereby creating the chute

shown in Fig. 3.

Since formation in May-June 1996, the chute

has widened, migrated laterally, and increased in

complexity. When it was formed in 1996, the chute

was relatively straight and had a trapezoidal cross

section. A compact layer of clayey silt  probably

sediment that filled the 1879 channel  created a

significant clay plug near cross section 32 (Fig. 12);

this clay plug acted as a local base level in the early

evolution of the chute and slowed lateral migration.

By January 1998, the chute had developed

three distinct bends and complex channel structure

(Fig. 12). In the upstream portion (sections 20-28),

the chute is characterized by mid-channel bars and

extensive lateral flats on the left bank. The lateral

flats have a discontinuous layer of sand over com-
pacted fine sediment that predates the chute.

Downstream of cross section 28, the channel has

developed point bars and a meandering thalweg11

(Fig. 12).

Aerial photographs (Missouri Department of

Conservation files) taken of the chute from May 1996

to December 1997 indicate the mid-channel and lateral bars just begin to emerge when total discharge

of the river is approximately 75,000 cfs. As bars

emerge, it would be expected that a wide range of

shallow water and bare sandbar habitats would

become available for fish and birds; hence 75,000

cfs is a useful reference discharge for evaluating

habitat availability.

The long-term gage record at Boonville indicates that 75,000 cfs has been equaled or exceeded

approximately 50% of the time under post-regulation conditions. The discharge value at which bars

become emerged is approximate because the notches in the upstream revetment have been repaired several times in this interval, thereby changing the proportion of total discharge that flows into the chute.

Discharge measurements on 2 December

1997 indicated that the chute accommodated

approximately 21% of the total Missouri River discharge (26,000 cfs of 126,000 cfs). For comparison,

discharges of approximately 81,000 cfs just cover

most of the wing dams in the main channel.

Development of the chute has been associated with increased conveyance of floodwater through

Lisbon Bottom. Aerial photographs (Missouri

Department of Conservation files) during a 174,000-

cfs flood on 10 July 1995 indicated that approximately 50% of Lisbon Bottom was inundated. At that

time, the 174,000-cfs flow was sufficient to enter the

flood plain through the upstream levee breaks and

flow through low swales across the entire bottom.

On 14 April 1997 it was estimated from aerial photos that the bottom was also approximately

50% inundated by a discharge of 277,000 cfs. Thus,

the same approximate degree of inundation occurred

with a discharge that was 60% greater. In another

comparison, the 290,000-cfs discharge in May 1996

was estimated to have inundated 90% of the bottom

whereas the 274,000-cfs discharge in April 1997

was estimated at only 50% inundation. Both of these

comparisons indicate less inundation of the bottom

after formation of the chute. Presumably, this results

from increased efficiency (conveyance) of discharge

through the chute compared to nonchannelized overbank flooding.

The Future of Lisbon Bottom

The future ecological structure of Lisbon

Bottom depends on how physical hydrologic and

hydraulic processes are allowed to operate. These

physical processes can be divided into two distinct

domains: those associated with the annual hydrograph and those associated with changing geomorphology.

The first domain concerns time variation of

depth and velocity of flow as determined by regulation and stochastic hydroclimatic processes. This can

be referred to as the hydrologic dynamics. The second domain concerns how flow is distributed among

the channel, marginal habitats, and the flood plain as

determined by the geometry of the channel and

flood plain. Changes in these boundary conditions 

because of natural channel migration or changes in

structures  can be referred to as the geomorphic

dynamics.

Hydrologic dynamics are determined by a

combination of reservoir release policy and stochastic climatic processes. Since significant regulation of

the Missouri River began in 1952, hydrologic dynamics have produced the distribution of flows shown in

Fig. 8d.

Although it is possible that future reservoir

release policy will change to reflect changing societal values, it is probable that such changes will be

minor because of multiple, competing uses of the

Missouri River. Thus, Lisbon Bottom will likely continue

to have hydrologic characteristics similar to those

shown in Fig. 8d.

The floods of 1993 and 1996 were significant agents of geomorphic dynamic change.

Breaching the levees upstream and downstream at

Lisbon Bottom served to reconnect the flood plain to

the main channel. Before the 1993 flood, discharges

in excess of approximately 300,000 cfs were necessary to overtop levees and inundate any of the leveed area of Lisbon Bottom. After the 1993 flood,

some parts of Lisbon Bottom were connected to the

main channel at nearly all discharges.

Discharges as small as 150,000 cfs  a flow

16

11The thalweg is the line within the channel that connects the lowest elevations. The thalweg generally defines the line of greatest depth and

velocity.
17
equaled or exceeded about 8% of the time (30 days

per year) on average  were able to inundate as

much as 30% of Lisbon Bottom. With the formation

of the chute in May-June 1996, a large area of permanently inundated, lotic habitat was added to the

Missouri River at Lisbon Bottom.

Moreover, geomorphic dynamics have been

allowed to continue at Lisbon Bottom. After July

1993, floods have been allowed to erode and

deposit and have recreated some of the continuously

shifting patches of riverine habitat that existed

before engineering alteration of the Missouri River.

Ongoing channel adjustment in the chute has created

a pattern of mid-channel and lateral bars and a

channel that is free to migrate unconstrained by bank

structures. This unconstrained channel morphology has

created a physical habitat that is probably very similar to what existed in secondary channels before

regulation and structuring of the Missouri River.

The future of habitats in the chute depends

primarily on how the entrance and exit of the chute

are engineered to accommodate the needs of navigation and river stability. Navigation requirements

dictate that the chute must not be allowed to pirate

the main flow of the Missouri River; design changes

already were being made during spring and summer

1998. If discharges sufficient to transport significant

sediment are allowed to flow into the chute at least

annually, channel migration and habitat maintenance

can be expected to continue.

Critical questions persist regarding how much

sediment and large woody debris will flow into the

chute from the main channel. These factors may be

key elements in determining physical habitat quantity

and quality, but they are impossible to predict.

Documented channel widening, formation of

mid-channel bars, and increasing sinuosity indicate

that channel slope is tending to decrease along with

an increase in boundary flow resistance. If margins

of the channel become densely populated with willow

and cottonwood, flow resistance can be expected to

increase even more. These processes would be

expected to slow velocities in the chute, increase

hydraulic diversity, and increase sedimentation.

Formation of the chute has decreased inundation of Lisbon Bottom compared to the pre-June 1996

condition. The chute apparently has increased the

efficiency of flood flow across the Bottom, thereby

decreasing stages and inundation of other parts of

the Bottom. By increasing advection of water in the

downstream direction, the chute has decreased diffusive flow that might have otherwise contributed to

adjacent wetlands along Buster Branch (Fig. 3).

This would seem to be a natural and unavoidable result of growth and evolution of an upstream

entrance scour. If the management goal is extensive

inundation of wetlands, it may be better to manipulate downstream revetments and levees to increase

backwater flooding of the Bottom. As noted by

Schmudde (1963), this is the way that flood plains

naturally flooded on the Missouri River before regulation and structuring.

Similar to increased downstream advection of

floodwater, the presence of the chute will act to

increase downstream sediment transport. Instead of

accumulating in natural levees around the upstream

margin of Lisbon Bottom, sediment will tend to be

transported down or through the chute. If it is not

transported completely through the chute, sediment

can be expected to accumulate as lateral and midchannel bars and as flood-plain splays similar in

geometry to those created in the 1993 and 1995

floods.

Eventually, the chute can be expected to form

a flood plain of its own within the Lisbon Bottom if it

is allowed to migrate freely. A flood plain in equilibrium with the flows allowed to flow through the

chute would be expected to have diverse sandbar

and wetland habitats. Moreover, as the flood plain

and the margins of the chute become vegetated, it is

probable that flood velocities will slow and flow

directions will become more complex. With these

changes, the flow of water, sediment, and organic

materials through the chute will be complemented

with increased lateral transport onto the flood plain

and increased residence times of sediment and

organic materials. Thus, the high velocities and

increased flow conveyance noted in 1996 and 1997

can be interpreted as intermediary stages of a system that has been continuously evolving since 1993.

Lisbon Bottom presents a unique opportunity

to increase understanding of the links between physical processes and biotic responses on the Missouri

River. The near-natural physical evolution of the

flood plain and chute since July 1993 provides an

essential example of what can be accomplished in

habitat improvement using a least-cost, passive-management strategy.

The results of this ongoing experiment should

provide invaluable information for assessing how

18
19

much natural ecosystem structure and function can

exist while maintaining traditional uses of the Missouri

River.

Cited Literature

Ferrell, John. 1993. Big Dam Era  A Legislative 

History of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin

Program: Omaha, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, 228 pp.

Ferrel, John. 1996. Soundings  100 Years of the 

Missouri River Navigation Project: Kansas 

City, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 171 pp.

Galat, D.L., J.W. Robinson, and L.W. Hesse. 1996.

Restoring aquatic resources to the lower 

Missouri River: Issues and initiatives. Pages 

49-71 in D.L. Galat and A.G. Frazier, editors. Overview of River-Flood plain Ecology 

in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, v. 3 of

Kelmelis, J.A., editor, Science for flood plain 

management into the 21st century:

Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing 

Office.

Galat, D.L., J.F. Kubisiak, J.B. Hooker, and L.M. Sowa.

1997. Geomorphology, distribution, and connectivity of Lower Missouri River flood plain 

waterbodies scoured by the flood of 1993:

Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnolo. 26:869-878.

Grogger, H.E., and G.R. Landtiser. 1978. Soil 

Survey for Howard County Missouri: U.S.

Dept. Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,

Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, 94 

pp. plus maps.

Izenberg, N.R., R.E. Arvidson, R.A. Brackett, S.S.

Saatchi, G.R. Osburn, and J. Dohrenwend.

1996. Erosional and depositional patterns 

associated with the 1993 Missouri River 

floods inferred from SIR-C and TOPSAR 

radar data, Journal of Geological ResearchPlanets, SIR-C Special Issue. 101:23149-

23167.

Jacobson, R.B., and K.A. Oberg. 1997. Geomorphic 

Changes of the Mississippi River Flood Plain 

at Miller City Illinois, as a Result of the 

Floods of 1993: U.S. Geological Circular 

1120-J, 22 pp.

Kelmelis, J.A. 1994. Science for Flood Plain 

Management into the 21st Century  A blueprint for change, part V: Washington, DC,

Preliminary Report of the Scientific 

Assessment and Strategy Team, Interagency 

Flood plain Management Review Committee,

272 pp.

Missouri River Commission. 1879. Missouri River 

Commission Survey Maps  1879: Missouri 

River Commission, 1:63,360 original scale.

Published in digital form by Scientific 

Assessment and Strategy Team 1995,

http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/sast-home.html.

Missouri River Commission. 1892. Missouri River 

Maps: Missouri River Commission, 1:63,360 

scale.

NOAA. 1997. U.S. Climatological Averages and 

Normals: National Climatic Data Center, digital data, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/climatedata.html.

Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team (S.A.S.T.).

1997. High-resolution digital elevation 

model of Lisbon Bottom area: digital data, 5

m cell.

Schalk, G.K. and R.B. Jacobson. 1997. Scour, sedimentation, and sediment characteristics at six

levee-break sites in Missouri from the 1993 

Missouri River flood: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-

4110, 72 pp.

Schmudde, T.H. 1963. Some aspects of the Lower 

Missouri River flood plain: Annals of the 

Association of American Geographers.

53:60-73.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1954. 1954 Missouri

River Hydrographic Survey  Rulo, Nebraska

to the Mouth: 1:4800 scale.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Missouri River 

Main Stem Reservoir System Reservoir 

Regulation Manual  Master Manual: USACE,

Missouri River Division, 471 pp. + plates.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. MRR Master 

Manual: World Wide Web publication,

http://www.mrd.usace.army.mil/cemrd/pa

/master-manual.html.

War Department. 1920. Missouri River from the 

Mouth to Quidaro Bend: War Department,

U.S. Army Engineers, 1:12,000 scale.
20
21

Introduction

The majority of Lisbon Bottom, Howard

County, Missouri, was in cultivation before the 1993

flood with as much as 92% of the 814.65 ha in row

crops during recent years (Table 1)(Brian McDonald,

USDA). In 1993, when flood waters breeched the

Lisbon Bottom levee at river kilometer 351.6, most

croplands received depositions of silt and sand or

were eroded. These impacts left a large portion of

the land unfarmable, and in 1994 only 30% of the

Bottom was cultivated.

High water levels and the erosional and

depositional processes of the flood provided a

unique opportunity to evaluate the natural recolonization and establishment of vegetation in previously cropped sites. Development of plant communities

depends on the composition and persistence of the

soil seed bank and the life span and growth requirements of species present in the seed bank. The scouring action and deposition from the flood removed

residual crop material and natural vegetation, as well

as altering the composition and distribution of seeds

in the soil seed bank. Seeds of new species may have

been deposited, viable seeds of some species may

have been removed or buried, and dormant seeds

may have been exposed.

The purpose of this study was to examine the

composition of the soil seed bank and the post-flood

vegetation community on 24 sites located in the

Missouri River flood plain in order to examine the

post-flood vegetation response and to provide insight

into successional processes and flood-plain management (Mazourek 1998). This report focuses on the two

sites on Lisbon Bottom that were investigated for the

Missouri River Post-flood Evaluation (MRPE) project

MRPE-S-15 and MRPE-TLIS.

Methods

During summer 1994, seed bank samples

were collected from eight random locations within

scoured site MRPE-S-15. Samples were brought to a

University of Missouri-Columbia greenhouse where

the seedling emergence method (Welling et al. 1988)

was used to determine species composition of the soil

seed banks. The post-flood vegetation community

was evaluated during July, August, and September

each year from 1994 to 1997. Percent cover, average height, and number of individuals were recorded

for each species present within 12 randomly located

0.5 m-m2 rectangular (61 cm x 82 cm) quadrats. New

CHAPTER 2

Post-flood Vegetation Communities

by

Joyce Mazourek

University of Missouri-Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory

Route 1, Box 185, Puxico, Missouri 63960

Dianne Martin

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65211

Dale D. Humburg

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65211

and

Leigh H. Fredrickson

University of Missouri-Columbia, Gaylord Memorial Laboratory

Route 1, Box 185, Puxico, Missouri 63960
quadrats were located each year until permanent

quadrats were established in 1996. Quadrats were

stratified by water depth; six were located in the

shallow marsh zone (from the high water mark to the

waters edge at initial sampling in July) and six were

located in the deep marsh zone (from the waters

edge until the water was 60 cm deep).

The post-flood vegetation community also was

evaluated in temporary site MRPE-TLIS during 1996

and 1997. Percent cover, average height, and number of individuals were recorded for each species

present within six randomly located 0.5-m2 rectangular plots. Because the entire temporary site was considered shallow marsh, only six quadrats were sampled. Additional field surveys were conducted in

1996 and 1997 to document all species present in

the post-flood vegetation within MRPE-S-15 and TLIS.

To document species, equally spaced transects were

walked periodically in each site. Then voucher specimens of each plant species encountered during these

searches were collected and entered into a special

collection at the Dunn-Palmer Herbarium, University of

Missouri-Columbia. Nomenclature followed

Steyermark (1963) and Yatskievych and Turner

(1990).

Results

A total of 106 species was present in the seed

bank samples, vegetation quadrats, and field surveys

of MRPE-S-15 and MRPE-TLIS. Of the 106 species,

80 were present in the post-flood vegetation (surveys

and quadrats combined) of MRPE-S-15 and 59 were

present in the post-flood vegetation of MRPE-TLIS.

However, only 16 species germinated from seed bank

samples collected from MRPE-S-15 in 1994 and only

46 species were present in the sampling quadrats in

all years combined.

Sorensons coefficient of similarity (Warne

1992) was used to compare species in the seed bank

to those in the vegetation community during 1994 and

1995. Similarities were greatest in 1994 (52%) and

declined over time (1995:44%, 1996:39%,

1997:38%), suggesting species have been dispersed

into the basin since seed bank samples were collected. Eventually, as the vegetation community becomes

established, the similarity between the seed bank and

vegetation should become greater (Warne 1992)

due to on-site seed production by dominant species

unless periodic flood events occur.

The majority of species present in the vegetation quadrats during all-sampling periods and years

combined were annual wetland forbs (Table 2).

However, dominant species (determined by ranking

species by mean cover and by mean abundance) varied among years. For example, in 1994 cottonwood

(Populus deltoides, facultative woody) was the dominant species followed by carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata, annual facultative forb), Eclipta (Eclipta prostrata, annual facultative forb), and sedges (Cyperus

22

Table 1. Number of acres planted in corn, soybeans, and wheat and the percentage of the total hectares on

Lisbon Bottom in crop production by year ( # of hectares in production/814.65 ha).

Year Corn Soybeans Wheat % Cropped

1990 105.06 396.88 251.96 92.54

1991 76.37 433.91 144.72 80.40

1992 308.66 220.28 171.76 86.00

1993 292.92 301.34 104.41 85.76

1994 0.00 202.55 36.87 29.39

1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

*Values for wheat reflect the number of hectares harvested during that calendar year.
23

spp., annual and perennial wetland grasslike plants).

Cottonwood was not a dominant species in the

remaining years although this species was a consistent

component of the vegetation community. The dominant species in 1995 were similar to 1994 with the

addition of bidens (Bidens frondosa, annual wetland

forb). Wetland annual grasses (Panicum dichotomiflorum, fall panic grass1997 onlyand Eragrostris

hypnoide, lovegrass) were dominant in 1996 and

1997, followed by pigweed (Amaranthus rudis, annual wetland forb) and smartweeds (Polygonum lapathifolium and P. persicaria 1997 only).

Of the 59 species present in TLIS, only 24

were in the sample quadrats. The majority of these

species were annual wetland forbs. The dominant

species in the TLIS vegetation community varied somewhat among years as well. In 1996, pigweed, cottonwood, cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium, annual facultative forb), and sedges were the dominant species

and in 1997, pigweed, cocklebur, prairie dogbane

(Apocynum sibiricum, perennial facultative forb) and

toothcup (Ammannia coccinea, annual wetland forb)

were the dominants, followed by cottonwood and willow (Salix spp., wetland woody) as a group.

Disparities between the total number of

species encountered within each study area and the

number of species found in sample quadrats are due

to study objectives and design. Quadrats were sampled to quantify the general response of vegetation

in the flood plain after the 1993 flood. Surveys were

conducted to document every species in the proximity

of the study area, including species that may have

occurred only once and species that occurred outside

established sampling zones.

Discussion

The high number of annual wetland species

colonizing MRPE-S-15 and TLIS and the persistence of

cottonwood and willows in the post-flood vegetation

community are consistent with the ecological characteristics of these plants. Early successional species

tend to be annuals with wind- or animal-dispersed

seeds that retain viability for longer time periods.

Historically, the wind-dispersed cottonwood (Populus

deltoides) and willows (Salix spp.) were the first to colonize newly deposited alluvium in the Missouri River

flood plain (Wilson 1970, Johnson et al. 1976,

Bragg and Tatschl 1977). Not present were seeds

characteristic of transitional forests such as box elder

(Acer negundo), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), red

mulberry (Morus rubra), and American elm (Ulmus

americana) or terminal forest community such as hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), American elm, black walnut

(Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),

and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) (Weaver 1960,

Bragg and Tatschl 1977).

The current constriction of the river and water

management for navigation concentrate erosion and

deposition associated with major flood events on the

lower terraces adjacent to the river. Consequently,

future floods will likely continue to erode and deposit

silt and sand at the same locations, preventing development beyond the pioneer stage. Thus, the prediction of this study is that pioneer cottonwood-willow

stage will more likely persist on a scoured site like

MRPE-S-15 rather than develop into a transitional

forest. Although cottonwood and willow establishment has not been quantified in areas of Lisbon

Bottom away the river, their growth and development

have surpassed that in MRPE-S-15 and TLIS. This suggests that areas not subject to frequent flooding may

develop into transitional forest over time.

Cited Literature

Bragg, T.B. and A.K. Tatschl. 1977. Changes in floodplain vegetation and land use along the 

Missouri River from 1826 to 1972.

Environmental Management 1 (4) 343-348.

Johnson, W.C., R.L. Burgess, and W.R. Keammerer.

1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment on the Missouri River flood plain in 

North Dakota. Ecological Monographs 

46:59-84.

Mazourek, J.C. 1998. Dynamics of seed bank and 

vegetation communities in existing and potential emergent marshes in the Missouri River 

flood plain. M.S. thesis, University of MissouriColumbia. 127 pp.

Steyermark, J.A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State

University Press. Ames, Iowa. 1728 pp.

Warne, E. 1992. Seed bank and vegetation dynamics in small reconstructed wetlands. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 98 pp.

Weaver, J.E. 1960. Flood-plain vegetation of the 

central Missouri valley and contacts of woodland with prairie Ecological Monographs 

30:37-64.

Welling, C.H., R.L. Pederson, and A.G. van der Valk.
1988. Recruitment from the seed bank and 

the development of zonation of emergent 

vegetation during a drawdown in a prairie 

wetland. Journal of Ecology 76:483-496.

Wilson, R.E. 1970. Succession in stands of Populus

deltoides along the Missouri River in south

eastern South Dakota. American Midland 

Naturalist 83:330-342.

Yatskievych, G. and J. Turner. 1990. Catalogue of

the flora of Missouri. Monographs in systematic botany from the Missouri Botanical 

Garden. Volume 37. 345 pp.

24
25

Post-Flood Vegetation

Species Seed 1994 1995 1996 1997

Bank S-15 S-15 S-15 TLIS S-15 TLIS

Abutilon theophrasti *

Acer saccharinum X

Amaranthus rudis X* XX XX

Ambrosia artemisiifolia *

Ammannia coccinea X X XX

Apocynum sibiricum * *X

Asteraceae X

Bidens cernua *

Bidens frondosa X X

Bidens sp. *

Bidens triparta *

Blephilia ciliata *

Brassicaceae XXXX

Capsella

bursa-pastoris *

Carex hyalinolepis *

Chenopodium album * X

Cynanchum laeve X* X X

Cyperus aristatus X* X

Cyperus erythrorhizos X X X XX

Cyperus esculentus X X XX

Cyperus odoratus XXXX*

Cyperus sp. XXXXX X

Digitaria ischaemum X

Echinochloa crusgalli * **

Eleusine indica *

Eclipta prostrata XXXXX X*

Eragrostris cilianenses * X

Eragrostris frankii var.

frankii *

Eragrostris hypnoides XXXXX XX

Eragrostris pectinacea X

Erigeron annuus *

Erigeron 

philadelphicus *

Equisetum sp. *

Eupatorium serotinum X *

Galium aparine X

Galium triflorum X

Helianthus annuus X

Helianthus sp. X

Hordeum jubatum *

Table 2. Species present in the soil seed bank of MRPE-S-15 and species present in the post-flood vegetation of MRPE-S-15 and TLIS during 1994 through 1997. X denotes species present in quadrats and *

denotes species encountered during surveys.
Ipomea lacunosa X *

Ipomoea sp. *

Juncus interior *

Juncus tenuis f. tenuis *

Juncus torreyi *

Leersia oryzoides *

Lemna minor X

Leucospora multifida X X

Lepidium virginicum *

Leptochloa fascicularis *

Leptochloa filiformis X *

Lindernia dubia XXXX X

Lobelia inflata 0

Ludwigia peploides X *

Lycopus americanus X **

Lythum salicaria *

Mentha arvensis *

Mimulus ringens *

Mollugo verticillata XXXX X

Myosurus minimus *

Oenothera laciniata *

Panicum 

dichotomiflorum XXX XX

Panicum 

philadelphicum X

Penthorum sedoides X* X*

Phalaris arundinaceae * *

Phyla lanceolata X *

Plantago major * *

Polygonum amphibium 

var. coccineum * *

Polygonum hydropiper *

Polygonum 

lapathifolium XX* XX

Polygonum persicaria X *

Polygonum sp. X

Populus deltoides XXXX XX

Potentilla norvegica * *

Ranunculus sceleratus XXX* *

Rorippa palustris X *

Rorippa sessiliflora X *

Rorippa sinuata * *

Rorippa sylvestris * **

Rudbeckia hirta *

Rumex altissimus *

Rumex cripus *

26

Species Seed 1994 1995 1996 1997

Bank S-15 S-15 S-15 TLIS S-15 TLIS

Table 2. continued
27

Rumex maritimus var.

fueginus *

Rumex obtusifolius * *

Rumex sp. *

Sagittaria sp. *

Salix sp. X

Salix eriocephala ** X

Salix exigua X* X

Salix nigra X

Salix sp. X

Setaria faberi X *

Setaria pumila X

Setaria viridis X

Sibara virginica *

Sida spinosa * *

Solanum carolinense *

Sorghum halapense X X

Spirodela polyrhiza X

Sphenopolis obtusata *

Trifolium campestre *

Veronica

anagallis-aquatica *

Veronica peregrina XXX X

Xanthium sp. X

Xanthium strumarium X X

Unknown woody X

Species Seed 1994 1995 1996 1997

Bank S-15 S-15 S-15 TLIS S-15 TLIS

Table 2. continued
28
29

Introduction

The freshwater invertebrate fauna of the

United States, including insects but excluding parasitic

classes, consists of approximately 11,000 described

species (Pennak 1989). The fauna of the United

States is not particularly well known and the total

number of described species continues to increase.

Although freshwater habitats are highly fragmented and vary greatly in habitat condition, invertebrates have developed life history strategies

adapted to these varying conditions (Wiggins et al.

1980) and are found in virtually every freshwater

habitat type. Invertebrates play an important role in

the aquatic habitats they occupy. They are a primary

mechanism in the breakdown and processing of

organic matter (leaves, detritus, woody debris), providing food for filter feeders and other trophic levels

(Murkin 1989, Magee 1993) including fish, birds, herpetofauna, and other invertebrates.

Additionally, invertebrate communities are

sensitive indicators of water and habitat quality and

can provide important clues about the results of wetland management and habitat restoration. Despite

their importance, the invertebrate fauna of the Lower

Missouri River and its associated flood plain was

poorly known before flooding in 1993.

Macroinvertebrates as defined here include

freshwater invertebrates greater than 500 μm in

length as measured by filtering through or sampling

with a mesh size >500 μm. Aquatic insects are

defined as those orders or families associated with

aquatic habitats during one or all of their life stages

and follows Merritt and Cummins (1996).

The levee breaks at Lisbon Bottom, river mile

(RM) 213-219, created scours and inundated the

entire bottomland area for several weeks during

1993 and again in 1995, 1996, and 1997.

Questions arose regarding these newly created habitats and other aquatic habitats in the Missouri River

flood plain after the flood and provided the impetus

for the Missouri River Post-flood Evaluation (MRPE)

project.

Invertebrates were studied as part of this multidisciplinary effort to evaluate the role and relative

importance of flood-plain aquatic habitats to fish and

wildlife. Two additional invertebrate-related studies

were conducted in cooperation with the Columbia

CHAPTER 3

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

by

Karen J. Bataille

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201

Barry Poulton

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201

Julie R. Grotemeyer

Lincoln University, Center of Excellence

820 Chestnut, Jefferson City, Missouri 65109

and

Dale D. Humburg

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201
Environmental Research Center (CERC) and the Big

Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge):

(1) evaluating and characterizing aquatic invertebrate communities associated with different Missouri

River mainstem habitats and colonization substrates

and (2) studying food habits and feeding ecology of

two species of aquatic turtles present in a remnant

flood-plain wetland on Lisbon Bottom (see

Herpetofauna chapter, this volume). These data are

being combined with the MRPE data in this report to

provide a picture of the Refuge during 1994-97.

Sites

Three study sites (S-15, TLIS, BP) (Fig. 1) were

sampled on Lisbon Bottom and two study sites (MR-1

and MR-2) were sampled in the Glasgow reach of

the Missouri River between RM 214 (near Lisbon,

Missouri) and 228 (1 mile upstream from Glasgow,

Missouri). S-15, a 24-ha connected scour, was created in 1993 when the levee failed and rushing water

scoured a large hole and depression downstream of

the break.

Additional flooding and scouring during May

and June 1996 created a chute across the Bottom. S15 was connected to the river throughout the year

and chute development continued throughout the

duration of these studies. Water depths and current

speed varied with river levels.

TLIS, a 7-ha temporary wetland, ranged in

depth from 0-0.5 m (water within basin margins) and

normally flooded when river levels rose above flood

stage. Typically, this study site held water for only 4

weeks after floodwaters receded.

BP is a 0.5-ha wetland with relatively permanent water ranging in depth from 1.5 to 3 m. This site

is bordered with mature trees, and like TLIS, becomes

connected to the river at flood stage via a small overflow channel.

The mainstem river study sites were located on

rock revetments with current velocities of 0.2-0.7

m/sec (MR-1) and in depositional muck habitats in

slack water behind wing deflectors or connected scour

holes (MR-2).

Methods

S-15 (1994-97) and TLIS (1996-97) were

sampled using modified model week emergence

traps (LeSage and Harrison 1979), activity traps

(Murkin et al. 1983), artificial substrates, and sweep

nets (Table 1). Emergence traps were set continuously and samples were collected weekly. Biweekly

activity trap samples were collected by setting the

trap midway in the water column for a 24-hour period. Artificial substrates were used to detect the presence or absence of snails, and sweep net samples

were collected to supplement emergence trap and

activity trap sampling.

Six sample stations, consisting of one emergence trap, one activity trap, and one artificial substrate each, were placed in S-15 in 1994 by randomly selecting three shallow water (<90 cm) and

three deep water (90>183 cm) stations. Flooding

and strong water currents prevented consistent sampling of all six stations. Lost traps and site inaccessibility greatly reduced the number of samples collected at S-15. Three shallow water sample stations

were randomly placed within TLIS. Samples were collected with activity traps and artificial substrates

when water levels were deep enough (15-30 cm) to

allow the traps to be set. BP was sampled three times

during July 1997 as part of the aquatic turtle food

habits study, using a sweep net and Petite ponar grab

(Holme and McIntyre 1971) (Table 1).

Sweep net samples were collected at three

stations by dragging the net through the water column

for a 2-m distance perpendicular to the shoreline.

Ponar grab samples were collected 20 m inside the

shoreline stations, and four ponar grab samples were

collected at stations in the center of the pond. Water

depths were measured at each station. Two study

sites within the main river channel were sampled using

rock basket artificial substrate samplers, a kick net,

and a ponar grab in 1996 and 1997 as part of the

habitat/substrate quality study (Table 1).

The MR-1 and MR-2 stations used in 1996

(RM 228) were moved to a connected scour hole (RM

214) and a revetment (RM 218) at Lisbon Bottom in

1997 (Fig. 1). The 1997 portion of the study has not

been completed, and therefore only the 1996 results

from this project are included in this report.

Five rock basket artificial substrate samplers

were placed on the rock revetment (MR-1) for 6

weeks of colonization and retrieved in December

1996. One 100-organism field-picked invertebrate

sample was taken with a kick net in October and

December 1996 from MR-1 during stable or declining water levels. Five samples were taken from MR2 with a ponar grab in December 1996 in 2-3 m of

30
31

water depth.

Taxonomic level of identification varied

between studies; however, for this report, insects are

recorded at the family level and most other invertebrate taxa to phylum, class, or order.

Results and Conclusions

A great diversity of aquatic invertebrates

apparently uses habitats in Lisbon Bottom and the

Missouri River channel. In this study, 85 taxa representing five phyla (Nematoda, Annelida, Arthropoda,

Gastropoda, Pelecypoda) were collected. Aquatic

insects were the most common, constituting 88% of the

total number of taxa. S-15 accounted for 75% of the

insect taxa collected, whereas most of the other taxa

were collected in TLIS (52%) and MR-1 and MR-2

(46%). Although 75% of the total number of insect

taxa were collected in S-15, 16 families were unique

to the MR sites; 10 were unique to S-15, and TLIS

accounted for 4 unique families.

Approximately 50% of all insect orders (13)

contain species that are truly aquatic for all or most

of their life cycle, and representatives from each of

these aquatic orders were collected. Chironomidae,

Ceratopogonidae, and Corixidae were collected at

all of the study sites. Chironomidae was the only family collected with each type of sampling gear.

Although identification to the family level does not

allow complete separation of taxa based on life history events, some separation of families among habitat types is evident.

Eight Ephemeroptera families were collected

only in S-15 and MR-1. Among the Ephemeroptera

families collected, Heptageniidae, Baetidae, and

Caenidae were most common. Megaloptera and

Plecoptera, except Perlodidae, were collected only

from the MR sites; Trichoptera were collected at all

sites. Hymenoptera were collected in S-15 and TLIS

only. This may be due to their small size and to the

sampling techniques used here but not at other sites.

Although various sampling methods were

employed, some families may have been excluded.

Some families of Odonata, for example, were likely

underestimated or excluded in emergence trap samples because of small funnel size. Crayfish were not

Table 1. Macroinvertebrate collection methods with a reference code, brief description, and number of taxa

collected by each.

Years Sites No. of Taxa

Method Code Employed Employed Description Collected

Emergence Trap ET 1994-1997 S-15, TLIS Floating pyramid trap 49

basal area 0.5 m2

Activity Trap AT 1994-1997 S-15, TLIS 3.78-liter glass jar 18

fitted with a funnel

Sweep Net SN 1997 S-15, TLIS, Rectangular aquatic net 11

BP 800 x 900 μm mesh

Ponar Grab PG 1996-97 BP, MR-2 0.023 m2 benthic grab 30

sampler

Artificial Substrate AS 1994-1997 S-15, TLIS Square masonite plate 5

450 cm2 surface area

Rock Basket RB 1996-1997 MR-1 15 cm x 15 cm x 15 cm 27

basket w/7.62 cm limestone

Kick Net KN 1996 MR-1 Rectangular aquatic net 25

500-μm mesh
32
33

sampled in Lisbon Bottom during the MRPE project but

were collected with a kick net at MR-1 and a sweep

net in BP. Indeed, large numbers of crayfish have

been collected with a cast net as part of a fish population study at BP (Duane Chapman, personal communication).

Findings in this report should be carefully

interpreted. Three separate studies were combined

to create a taxa list of invertebrates and to provide

a sense of the diversity present during the early

development of the Refuge. These studies were not

designed to be compared with one another. The collection times and methods were similar between S-15

and TLIS but differed from BP and MR-1 and MR-2.

Flooding, chute development, limited duration of

flooding in TLIS, and the fact that the MR sites were

only sampled during stable or declining water levels

during one season (autumn and early winter) further

complicate interpretation beyond the intentions of this

report.

Initial sampling, however, during the first 4

years after the Great Flood of 1993 reflected a

diverse invertebrate fauna on Lisbon Bottom. This

work will provide baseline data and valuable information to managers and researchers in the future.

Cited Literature

Holme, N.A. and A.D. McIntyre, editors. 1971.

Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos. IBP

Handbook No. 16, Blackwell Scientific 

Publications, Oxford & Edinburgh 334 pp.

LeSage, L. and A.D. Harrison. 1979. Improved traps 

and techniques for the study of emerging 

aquatic insects. Entomological News 90:65-

78.

Magee, P.A. 1993. Detrital accumulation and pro

cessing in wetlands. In U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Leaflet 13.3.14, Washington, DC.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An 

Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North 

America. 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing 

Company, Dubuque, IA. 862 pp.

Murkin, H.R. 1989. The basis for food chains in prairie

wetlands. Pages 316-338 in A. Van der Valk,

editor. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State

University Press, Ames, IA.

Murkin, H.R., P.G. Abbot, and J.A. Kadlec. 1983. A 

comparison of activity traps and sweep nets 

for sampling nektonic invertebrates in wet

lands. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 2:99-

106.

Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the

United States. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

New York, NY.

Wiggins, G.B., R.J. Mackay, and I.M. Smith. 1980.

Evolutionary and ecological strategies of animals in annual temporary pools. Archive 

Hydrobiologie Supplement 58:97-206.

Recommended References

Atchison, G.J., R.W. Bachmann, J. G. Nickum, J. B.

Barnum, and M. B. Sandheinrich. 1986.

Aquatic biota associated with channel stabilization structures and abandoned channels in

the middle Missouri River. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 96 pp.

Barnum, J. B. and R. W. Bachmann. 1988. Benthic 

macroinvertebrate habitat associations of the

channelized middle Missouri River. Journal of

the Iowa Academy of Science. 95:60-65.

Carter, S. R.; K. R. Bazata, and D. L. Andersen. 1982.

Macroinvertebrate communities of the channelized Missouri River near two nuclear power

stations. in: L. W. Hesse; G. L. Hergenrader; H.

S. Lewis; S. D. Reetz, and A. B. Schlesinger 

editors. The Middle Missouri River: a collection

of papers on the biology with special reference to power station effects. Norfolk, NE: The

Missouri River Study Group.

Held, J. W. 1969. Some early summer foods of the

shovelnose sturgeon in the Missouri River.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.

98:514-517.

McMahon, J., J. Wolf, and M. Diggins. 1972.

Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera and 

Trichoptera in the benthos of unchannelized 

and channelized portions of the Missouri 

River. Proceedings of the South Dakota 

Academy of Science. 51:168-181.

Mizzi, J.E. 1994. Zooplankton, macroinvertebrate,

herpetile, and ichthyofaunal biodiversity of

riverine habitat on the upper Missouri River.

M.S. thesis, South Dakota State University,

Brookings. 117 pp.

Nord, A.E. and J.C. Schmulbach. 1973. A comparison

of the macroinvertebrate aufwachs in the 

unstabilized and stabilized Missouri River.
Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of

Science 52:127-139.

Sandheinrich, M.B. and G. J. Atchison. 1986.

Environmental effects of dikes and revetments

on large riverine systems. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station. National Technical Information 

Service # AD-A171 000; 1986; E-86-5. 51p.

Wolf, J., J. Mahahon, and M. Diggins. 1972.

Comparison of benthic organisms in semi-natural and channelized portions of the Missouri

River. Proceedings of the South Dakota 

Academy of Science 51:160-168.

Acknowledgments

Invertebrate work would not have been possible without the assistance of K. Klubek, J. Dowe, and

many technicians who survived the challenging wet

and dry conditions present in the Missouri River bottom. Support for this work was provided through the

Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia

Environmental Research Center, Lincoln University, the

University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service, and Ducks Unlimited.

34
35

Table 2. Invertebrate taxa collected in a temporary wetland (TLIS, 45 taxa), connected scour (S-15, 60 taxa),

beaver pond (BP, 11 taxa), Missouri River revetment (MR-1, 34 taxa), and Missouri River depositional muck

(MR-2, 30 taxa) at Lisbon Bottom during1994-1997. Collection methods included activity trap (AT), emergence trap (ET), artificial substrate (AS), sweep net (SN), ponar grab (PG), rock basket (RB), and kick net (KN).

Level of identification varied among studies.

Taxon Collection Method Location

Nematoda AT, AS, PG S-15, MR-2

Annelida AT S-15

Oligochaeta AT, SN, PG TLIS, BP

Haplotaxida

Tubificidae PG MR-2

Hirudinea PG MR-2

Arthropoda

Crustacea

Cladocera AT S-15, TLIS

Copepoda AT S-15, TLIS

Decapoda

Cambaridae SN, KN BP, MR-1

Palaemonidae SN, PG BP

Arachnoidea

Hydracarina AT, RB S-15, TLIS, MR-2

Insecta

Collembola

Poduridae AT TLIS

Entomobryidae AT, PG S-15, TLIS, MR-2

Ephemeroptera

Baetidae AT, ET, PG, RB, KN S-15, TLIS, MR-1

Isonychiidae PG, RB, KN MR-1

Heptageniidae ET, SN, AS, PG, RB, KN S-15, MR-1

Ephemerellidae RB, KN MR-1

Tricorythidae SN, RB S-15, MR-1

Caenidae AT, RB, PG, KN S-15, MR-1, MR-2

Leptophlebiidae RB MR-1

Ephemeridae PG, KN MR-1, MR-2

Odonata

Anisoptera AT S-15

Gomphidae PG, RB, KN MR-1, MR-2

Corduliidae RB, KN MR-1

Zygoptera

Calopterygidae KN MR-1

Coenagrionidae ET, RB, KN S-15, MR-1

Orthoptera

Tetrigidae ET S-15

Tettigoniidae ET S-15, TLIS

Plecoptera

Pteronarcyidae KN MR-1

Taeniopterygidae RB, KN MR-1

Capniidae RB, KN MR-1
Perlidae RB, KN MR-1

Perlodidae ET, PG, RB, KN S-15, TLIS, MR-1, MR-2

Hemiptera

Gerridae SN BP

Corixidae AT, SN, PG, KN S-15, TLIS, BP, MR-1, MR-2

Saldidae AT S-15

Ochteridae AT S-15

Megaloptera

Sialidae RB, KN MR-1

Corydalidae RB, KN MR-1

Neuroptera

Sisyridae ET S-15

Trichoptera

Philoptamidae PG, RB, KN MR-1, MR-2

Polycentropididae ET, PG, RB, KN S-15, MR-1, MR-2

Hydropyschidae ET, PG, RB, KN S-15, TLIS, MR-1, MR-2

Hydroptilidae ET, PG S-15, TLIS, MR-2

Leptoceridae ET, SN, PG, RB S-15, BP, MR-1, MR-2

Lepidoptera

Pyralidae ET, PG S-15, TLIS, MR-2

Gelechiidae ET S-15, TLIS

Cosmopterigidae ET S-15

Olethreutidae ET S-15

Noctuidae ET S-15, TLIS

Coleoptera

Gyrinidae ET S-15

Carabidae ET S-15, TLIS

Hydrophilidae ET, SN, RB S-15, BP, MR

Staphylinidae ET, AT, SN S-15, TLIS, BP

Scirtidae ET, PG, RB S-15, MR-2

Elmidae PG, RB MR-1, MR-2

Chrysomelidae ET S-15, TLIS

Curculionidae ET S-15, TLIS

Anthicidae ET S-15, TLIS

Heteroceridae SN S-15

Hymenoptera

Scelionidae ET S-15

Icheumonidae ET S-15, TLIS

Braconidae ET S-15, TLIS

Mymaridae ET S-15, TLIS

Eulophidae ET S-15, TLIS

Pteromalidae ET S-15, TLIS

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae ET, SN, PG S-15, TLIS, BP, MR-2

Chaoboridae ET, PG, KN S-15, TLIS, MR-1, MR-2

Chironomidae ET, AT, SN, PG, AS, RB KN S-15, TLIS, BP, MR-1,2

Tanypodinae ET S-15, TLIS, MR-1, MR-2

Orthocladinae ET S-15, TLIS, MR-1, MR-2

36

Table 2. continued

Taxon Collection Method Location
37

Chironominae ET S-15, TLIS, MR-1, MR-2

Culicidae ET, AT S-15, TLIS

Psychodidae ET S-15, TLIS

Simulidae AT, RB S-15, MR-1

Tipulidae ET, PG S-15, TLIS, MR-2

Dolichopodidae ET S-15, TLIS

Empididae ET, PG, RB S-15, TLIS, MR-1, MR-2

Stratiomyiidae ET TLIS

Tabanidae ET TLIS

Ephydridae ET S-15, TLIS

Muscidae ET S-15, TLIS

Anthomyiidae ET S-15, TLIS

Phoridae ET S-15, TLIS

Scathophagidae ET TLIS

Syrphidae ET S-15, TLIS

Gastropoda

Hydrobiidae PG MR-2

Physidae AS, PG TLIS, MR-2

Pelecypoda

Sphaeriidae PG, AS, KN S-15, MR-1, MR-2

Table 2. continued

Taxon Collection Method Location
38
39

Chapter 4

Fishes of Missouri River, Chute, and Flood-Plain Habitats 

by

Joanne Grady

Jim Milligan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia Fishery Resources Office

608 East Cherry Street, Room 200, Columbia, Missouri 65201

Duane Chapman

Ellen Ehrhardt

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201

Doug Dieterman

University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources

302 Anheiser-Busch Natural Resources, Columbia, Missouri 65211

David Galat

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

University of Missouri-Columbia, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

112 Stephens Hall, Columbia, Missouri 65211

John Hooker 

John Kubisiak

University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources

302 Anheiser-Busch Natural Resources, Columbia, Missouri 65211

Aaron Delonay

Ed Little

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201

Jack Robinson 

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201

and 

John Tibbs

University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources

302 Anheiser-Busch Natural Resources, Columbia, Missouri 65211
40

Introduction

The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy

National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is

approximately 2,200 acres and is the first complete

unit of the Refuge. Primary objectives of the Refuge

are to create and restore diverse riverine aquatic

habitats and reconnect the Missouri River to its flood

plain where feasible. Management seeks to accomplish these objectives by encouraging natural processes of erosion, deposition, and succession to the greatest extent possible.

One of the most salient aquatic features of

the Lisbon Bottom Unit is a newly created 2-mile-long

free-flowing chute, or side channel (Fig. 1). This chute

began forming as a levee breech scour hole during

the Great Flood of 1993. The chute continued to

develop during the 1995 flood and finally cut

through to a flowing side channel during the 1996

flood. Extensive erosion and bank sluffing continued

during 1997 due to sustained high flows that occurred

throughout most of the year. The chute has progressively become wider and deeper with a developing

meander pattern and channel bars have begun to

form. Lisbon Bottom also contains several seasonal

and permanent wetlands and is subject to periodic

flooding at high Missouri River stages.

Eight studies have been completed or are

ongoing to evaluate Missouri River fishes associated

with various habitat components of Lisbon Bottom and

adjacent Missouri River reaches (Table 1). Several

are part of much larger investigations to evaluate fish

use of flood-created habitat features, basinwide fish

assessment, and endangered or candidate species

concerns.

At the Lisbon Bottom Unit or in the Missouri

River adjacent to the unit 54 fish species were collected (Table 2). Eight of these species have either a

protected status under State or Federal laws or biologists consider them to potentially qualify for protected status. The status of the following fish is listed

in Table 2: pallid sturgeon x shovelnose sturgeon

hybrid, paddlefish, northern pike, sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, ghost shiner, western silvery minnow, plains

minnow, and blue sucker. Equally important to note

are fish species that were not collected. The flathead

chub, currently listed as State endangered and proposed for Federal listing, were not collected in any of

the studies.

Common fish species, collected in all seven

sampling studies, included gizzard shad, common

carp, river carpsucker, and freshwater drum.

Paddlefish, skipjack herring, silver carp, white sucker,

redfin shiner, western silvery minnow, bullhead minnow, and black bullhead were each collected in only

one of the seven studies.

Pflieger (1971) developed a guild system for

the fishes of Missouri based on distribution patterns

and centers of abundance. Fish were assigned to one

of four primary faunal groups: Ozark, Big River,

Lowland, and Prairie. Two secondary groups (Ozarkprairie and Ozark-lowland) were defined for species

equally abundant and distributed in two of the primary areas. Two Ozark-prairie species, shorthead

redhorse and white sucker, were collected on or near

the Lisbon Bottom Unit.

Big River species are found primarily in the

Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The environmental factors controlling fish distribution in these rivers appear

to be substrate, current velocity, and turbidity. On or

near the Lisbon Bottom Unit 18 Big River species were

collected (Table 2).

Lowland species are intolerant of siltation and

high turbidity. They inhabit standing or slow-moving

water with sand, fine gravel, and organic debris substrates. Two Lowland species, bullhead minnow and

mosquitofish, were collected in connected scours on

the Lisbon Bottom Unit.

Prairie species have broader ecological tolerances than the Ozark and Lowland species. They are

largely absent in high gradient streams and cool,

clear waters. Prairie species make up a significant

proportion of Missouri and Mississippi River fishes.

Seven Prairie species were collected on or near the

Lisbon Bottom Unit (Table 2).

The last group, Wide-ranging, was defined as

the species more widespread than the other faunal

groups with broader environmental tolerances. Most

Wide-ranging species occur at least occasionally in

all sections of the state. Nineteen Wide-ranging

species were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom

Unit (Table 2).

Kubisiak (1997) found that isolated scours in

the Lower Missouri River were dominated by Wideranging species. Connected scours also held Wideranging species but they contained Prairie species

and were dominated by Big River species. Faunal

group diversity and species richness were compared

between isolated (Study 1) and connected (Studies 4,

5, 7, and 8) scours of the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Species
41

richness was similar with 22 species collected in isolated scours and an average of 24.8 species collected in connected scours. Isolated scour fish catches

were dominated by Wide-ranging fish (59%) with

14% Big River fishes and 14% Prairie fishes.

Connected scours had a larger percentage of Big

River fish (32%) and fewer Wide-ranging (36%) and

Prairie (13%) species than the isolated scours. In the

combined studies, Wide-ranging fish dominated the

connected scours.

A similar comparison was made of fish from

chute habitats and the Missouri River. Chute habitats

include the Lisbon Bottom Chute, the chute between

the right bank and island located at river mile 219,

and a shallow channel running between a large sandbar complex and the channel border adjacent to

Lisbon Bottom. Species richness in the chutes (35

species) was greater than that of the adjacent river

(23 species). Big River species (40%) dominated the

chute samples, followed by Wide-ranging at 31%

and Prairie at 14%.

The river samples contained equal numbers of

Wide-ranging species (35%) and Big River species

(35%) with 17% Prairie species. Differences in fish

guild diversity and species richness may be due to

numerous factors including sampling effort and sampling season. River samples were collected only in

Study 3 in October; chute samples were collected in

July, August, and October. Fish may have been using

the chute in July and August to spawn, feed, or

escape high river levels.

The Lisbon Bottom Chute is a truly unique feature of the Lower Missouri River. It is the first naturally created side channel to develop since the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers tamed the river. The Corps

eliminated 89% of the islands in the Missouri River

between 1879 and 1954 (Funk and Robinson 1974).

The chutes between the islands and the shore were

shallower with less current than the main channel.

These areas provided diversity to the Missouri River

fish habitat, serving as nursery and feeding areas.

The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish

and Wildlife Refuge will continue to be studied in an

effort to understand the complex role these areas

play in river systems.

Cited Literature

Funk, J.L. and J.W. Robinson. 1974. Changes in the 

channel of the Lower Missouri River and 

effects on fish and wildlife. Aquat. Ser. 11,

Missouri Department of Conservation,

Jefferson City. 52 pp.

Kubisiak, J. 1997. Lower Missouri River flood-scoured

basins as fish nursery: the influence of connectivity. M.S. thesis, University of MissouriColumbia. 171 pp.

Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri

fishes. University of Kansas Publications,

Museum of Natural History 20(3):255-570.

The following summaries are labeled Study 1

through 8. This format is consistent throughout the

report tables. Table 1 provides a summary of principal investigators or authors, sampling dates, sampling

gears, habitats sampled, types of fish data available,

and physical/chemical data collected in association

with fish sampling. Table 2 contains a summary of fish

species collected by each study. Table 3 contains a

summary of larval fish taxa collected in Studies 4 and

8. Fig. 1 provides a graphic depiction of the area

with sampling locations for each study indicated by

the appropriate study number.

Study #1: Fish assemblages in a permanent and temporary wetland at Lisbon Bottom.

Sites:

Two flood-plain wetlands were investigated

during this study, one permanent and one seasonal.

When the river is high, Missouri River water passed

through the permanent wetland, Beaver Pond, to the

seasonal wetland below it, Kingfisher Pond. During

flooding, the ponds and surrounding inundated young

willows and cottonwoods were connected. The ponds

dried rapidly in July, and Kingfisher Pond dried completely in early August. Kingfisher Pond was a shallow

basin with gradually sloping banks, whereas BP was

a scour hole with steeper banks. Woody debris and

rooted dead willows provided structure in both

ponds. The water retreated below much of the littoral structure in the ponds during the study.

Large Fish Survey:

On four occasions, BP was sampled with 3.2-

cm (1.25-in.) bar mesh, 1.22-m (4-ft) diameter

unbaited hoop nets with attached 2.54-cm (1-in.)
42

mesh, 9.14-m (30-ft) long wings between early July

and mid-September. White crappie constituted over

half the catch and was an average size of 260 mm,

quite respectable for this species. Other species captured, in order of abundance, were river carpsucker,

bigmouth buffalo, bighead carp, channel catfish,

black crappie, largemouth bass, common carp,

bluegill, and flathead catfish. The only recaptured

fish was a single largemouth bass. Gar and grass

carp were observed in the pond, but none were

caught in the nets.

Although Kingfisher Pond was not sampled for

large fish, some potentially useful observations were

made during and after the fish die off as Kingfisher

Pond was drying. No large centrarchids of any kind

were visible among the dead and dying fish. The vast

majority of large fish in this pond when the fish kill

occurred were common carp and buffalo. Grass carp

and carpsucker were also abundant. This fish assemblage is quite different from that captured in BP. It is

curious that only one common carp was captured in BP

by using a gear normally effective for carp, yet they

were prominent among dead fish at the temporary

wetland.

Small Fish Cast Net Survey:

Shallow habitats in Kingfisher and BPs were

each sampled on five occasions (1, 2, 7, 8, and 16

July 1997) using a small mesh (1/4-in., 3-ft radius)

cast net. The net was thrown every 20 m around the

edge of the ponds, with no attempt to capture fish or

schools of fish which may have been seen. The area

sampled by the net was estimated and fish density

was estimated. Fish density in shallow areas of

Kingfisher Pond was very high (5.92 ± 2.6/m2, mean

± standard deviation) and higher than in BP (1.19 ±

0.8/m2).

Fish species captured differed between the

ponds. Gizzard shad were the most abundant fish in

both ponds, but they began dying in Kingfisher Pond

in the middle of the study. Young buffalo and carp

were abundant in Kingfisher Pond (capture rates 1.19

± 0.78/m2 and 1.13 ± 0.50/m2, respectively), but

these species were not caught in cast nets in BP. Few

centrarchids were caught in Kingfisher Pond until the

last day when 26 of 101 fish caught were crappies.

Crappies occupying the deeper portion of the pond

may have entered the catch on that date because the

entire pond was then accessible to the cast net technique due to drying. In contrast, centrarchids, mostly

crappies, made up more than half of the non-shad

fish caught in cast nets in BP, and the remainder primarily consisted of red shiners and bluntnose minnows.

Study #2: Population structure and habitat use of

benthic fishes along the Missouri and Yellowstone

Rivers.

Native fishes have been identified as the

group most jeopardized by past and present management practices along the Missouri River. More than

20 species are listed as rare, threatened, or of special concern by State or Federal agencies. Eight of the

nine fishes considered at risk by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service occupy shallow water or benthic

habitats. This research compares population characteristics and habitat use of 26 benthic fish species

among least-impacted, impounded, and channelized

river segments found along 2,341 miles of the

Missouri River and the lower 70 miles of the

Yellowstone River.

Possible differences in viability of benthic fish

populations among these segments offer an opportunity to elucidate causal factors for their decline and

provide recommendations for their recovery. To date,

two of three field seasons have been completed.

Only results of the first field season have been summarized. In 1996, 25,692 fishes representing at least

78 taxa and two hybrids were collected in the

Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. All target taxa were

collected except pallid sturgeon. Fifteen taxa were

collected throughout the Missouri and Lower

Yellowstone Rivers, six species were primarily collected in least-impacted and inter-reservoir segments,

and two species were collected only in channelized

segments.

Habitat use patterns of most taxa were

skewed to shallow depths and slow velocities.

Turbidity and water temperature patterns were variable among study segments. As part of this larger

study, the Lisbon Bottom Chute and adjacent Missouri

River were sampled (Fig. 1). In the Lisbon Bottom

Chute and adjacent Missouri River 24 fish species

were collected (Table 2).

For more information see the following reports:
43

Dieterman, D.J., M.P. Ruggles, M.L. Wildhaber, and 

D.L. Galat, editors. 1996. Population structure

and habitat use of benthic fishes along the 

Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. 1996 

Annual Report of Missouri River Benthic Fish 

Study PD-95-5832 to U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Young, B.A., T.L. Welker, D. Scarnecchia, M.L.

Wildhaber, and C.R. Berry, editors. 1997.

Population structure and habitat use of benthic

fishes along the Missouri and Lower 

Yellowstone Rivers. 1997 Annual Report of

Missouri River Benthic Fish Study PD-95-5832

to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation.

Study #3: Annual fisheries monitoring report: Lisbon

Bottom Unit, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife

Refuge.

The Columbia Fisheries Resources Office

(FRO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated

fishery survey and monitoring work on the chute in

1997. From river mile 219 to 213, 12 sampling stations were established in the chute and adjacent

Missouri River. Field surveys were conducted in July,

August, and September with seine, benthic trawl,

hoop net, and drifted gill net gears.

Depth, velocity, substrate, and some water

quality parameters were also measured at sampling

stations. Drifted gill nets were used in July but were

destroyed in high water. Due to continuing high water,

gill nets were not used during August and October.

Paired sets of a large unbaited hoop net (first hoop

1.2-m diameter (4 ft), 4.8-m long (16 ft), #15 nylon

netting, 3.7-cm bar mesh (1.5 in.)) and a small unbaited hoop net (first hoop 0.6-m diameter (2 ft), 3-m

long (10 ft), #12 nylon netting, 1.8-cm bar mesh (.75

in.)) were set at Stations 1-4 every month. Nets were

reset in the same location when checked daily. Six

additional hoop net stations below, above, and outside the chute were sampled in October to compare

the Lisbon Bottom Chute fish populations with the

adjacent Missouri River. Future Lisbon Bottom sampling will include these comparative sample sites.

Benthic trawl hauls were made in the center of

the Lisbon Bottom Chute. The benthic trawl was

equipped with a roller rock lead line and consisted of

the following dimensions: 2-m (6.4-ft) wide, 0.5-m

(1.6-ft) high, 5.5-m (18-ft) long, 0.32-cm (1/8-in.)

inner mesh, 3.81-cm (1.5-in.) outer chafing mesh,

16.5-cm (6.5-in.) cod-end opening. Sampling began

at the head end of the chute. Progressing downstream, three to six hauls were made to the bottom of

the chute. Bottom trawl samples were not collected in

October due to time spent on efforts to compare the

chute with the river.

Seine samples at Lisbon Bottom and Jamison

Island were collected using a 7.6-m (25-ft) long, 2.4-

m (8-ft) deep drag seine with 6-mm (1/4-in.) mesh.

Due to high water, seining was restricted to Stations 5-

7 in the chute. Lower water levels may provide more

seinable habitat in the future. Jamison Island seining

was conducted only in July due to the extensive time

spent sampling Lisbon Bottom.

A total of 1,225 fish comprising 34 species

was collected in Lisbon Bottom Chute during the 1997

surveys. Federal listing candidate species sicklefin

and sturgeon chub were collected as were species of

concern, plains minnow and blue sucker. A 28-in. long

pallid x shovelnose sturgeon hybrid weighing 2.75 lb

was also collected. Hybrid pallid sturgeon receive

the same protection under the endangered species

listing as pure stock relatives. Another relatively rare

specimen was a nearly 3-ft long American eel. By

seining the Jamison Island area, 148 fish of 10

species were collected.

The Kansas City District Corps of Engineers

(Corps) will construct river control structures in the

chute in 1998 to maintain the integrity of the navigation channel. Columbia FRO will continue monitoring

this area to evaluate impacts of the Corps project on

habitat and fishes of the Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big

Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.

For more information see the following report:

Grady, J.M. and Milligan, J. 1998. Annual Fisheries 

Monitoring Report - Lisbon Bottom Unit, Big 

Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.

Report in progress.

Study #4: The influence of connectivity on fish reproduction and larval nursery in Lower Missouri River

scours.

Lower Missouri River scours created by the

1993 flood have been categorized as continuous,

periodic, and isolated according to their pattern of
44

water exchange with the river. Continuous and periodic scours represent a continuum of connectivity

based on the timing and duration of their connection.

The potential differences are being evaluated in

adult and larval fish use of representative Lower

Missouri River scours based on connectivity and developing a model to predict the availability of flood

plain-habitat for reproduction and larval nursery.

Sampling occurred from April to August during 1995 and 1996. The entrance scour (S-15) on

Lisbon Bottom was sampled as part of this study (Fig.

1). In the Lisbon Bottom entrance scour 15 species

and five larval taxa groups were collected (Tables 2

and 3). Representing 13 families, 31 species of adult

fish were captured in the study as a whole using gill

nets. Goldeye, shortnose gar, gizzard shad, and common carp constituted over 75% of the adult catch

among all scour categories. The 14 most abundant

adult species captured were present in all three scour

categories.

Larval fish were sampled with a buoyant sled

net. Larval fish assemblages differed among all scour

categories. Isolated scours contained nine taxa and

had a more lacustrine assemblage dominated by

Centrarchids. Isolated scours were devoid of goldeye,

blue sucker, Carpiodes sp., Stizostedion sp., and many

Cyprinidae. Periodic and continuous scours contained

18 and 19 taxa, respectively, but catch differed for

Clupeids, Hiodontids, and some Cyprinids. The main

factors determining larval fish assemblages in periodic scours were timing and duration of scour connectivity. Additionally, in both periodic and continuous

scours, the percentage of scour area exchanging

water with the river influenced catch for some taxa.

The presence of protolarvae (the earliest larval

stage) is being used to determine taxa-specific

appearance ranges in relation to date and temperature. Results indicate that although adult fish assemblages of scours are similar, fish reproductive and larval nursery function of scour holes is influenced by

their connectivity with the river. The relationship

between the presence of larval fish and the timing

and duration of a scours connectivity is predictable

for many species. A model has been developed incorporating river hydrology; the connectivity factors of

timing, duration, and exchange; and taxa-specific

appearance times. This model will help to determine

availability and suitability of larval fish nursery in

flood-plain basins under consideration for restoration.

For more information see the following report:

Hooker, J.B. 1998.The influence of connectivity on fish

reproduction and larval nursery in Lower 

Missouri River scours. M.S. thesis, University of

Missouri-Columbia. Report in progress.

Study #5: Lower Missouri River flood-scoured basins

as fish nursery: the influence of connectivity.

The effect of connectivity on composition,

abundance, and biomass of small fishes was evaluated among 13 flood-created scours on an annual scale

for four categories: isolated, periodically connected,

ditch connected, and continuously connected sites. The

entrance scour (S-15) on the Lisbon Bottom Unit was

sampled as part of this study (Fig. 1). Daily exchange

of water between scours and the river was evaluated

using an index of water exchange. Comparisons of

maximum depth, water clarity, and temperature

paired isolated and ditch categories, whereas connected scours (i.e., site 5 on map) were more like the

Missouri River channel.

Turbidity and nutrient concentrations were

positively correlated with water exchange; chlorophyll-a was negatively correlated. Fish taxa richness

and biomass were higher in continuous and periodically connected scours than in ditch connected or isolated sites. Fish catch was greater in shallow water

than in deep water. Fish distribution patterns closely

followed Pfliegers Missouri fishes guild pattern with

Wide-ranging and Lowland common in all scours

whereas Prairie and Big River fishes were restricted

to periodic and continuous scours (Pflieger 1971).

In the Lisbon Bottom entrance scour 32 fish

species were collected (Table 2). Connectivity with the

Missouri River channel is an important factor defining

the near-shore small fish assemblage in scours.

Shallow, nonflowing habits in scours were heavily

used. A shortage of this habitat may be a recruitment

bottleneck to small fishes in the Llower Missouri River.

Cited Literature

Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri

fishes. University of Kansas Publications,

Museum of Natural History 20(3):255-570.

For more information see the following report:
45

Kubisiak, J. 1997. Lower Missouri River flood-scoured

basins as fish nursery: the influence of connectivity. M.S. thesis, University of MissouriColumbia. 171 pp.

Study #6: Pallid sturgeon movement and habitat use

in the Lower Missouri River.

The Columbia Environmental Research Center

is currently in the third year of an ongoing project

developing biotelemetric methods and habitat assessment capabilities to document movement and habitat

use of large river fishes in the Lower Missouri River.

Over the past three field seasons, 32 pallid sturgeon

and 8 hybrid sturgeon have been surgically implanted with longlife ultrasonic transmitters. Sturgeon used

in this study have included both translocated and

native fish.

An extensive network of automated receivers

is used to segment the Missouri River into 25-mile

stretches, to monitor fish passage at selected locations, and to document the sturgeons rapid longrange movement. Precise locations of sturgeon within

each river stretch are determined periodically by

field crews in boats and documented using GPS.

Physical habitat characteristics are recorded and

selected sites that sturgeon frequent are mapped

using acoustic bathymetric survey equipment.

A remote monitoring site was established on

the Missouri River at the lower end of the Lisbon

Bottom Chute. An ultrasonic receiver was continuously in operation during 1997 and detected tagged

sturgeons passage and monitored use of the Jameson

Island/Lisbon Bottom area. Tagged fish were detected and did use the area for periods of time in 1997,

most notably in the spring. Sturgeon frequented river

habitats with sand substrate, higher current velocities,

and the downstream confluence of the chute, although

no direct observations were made of sturgeon within

the chute. A remote monitoring site will again be

employed in the Lisbon Bottom area to monitor the

remaining 20 tagged sturgeons activity and habitat

use at large in the Missouri River. Estimated transmitter life will allow monitoring of sturgeon through

October 1998.

Study #7: Adult fish use of connected newly scoured

holes in the Missouri River flood plain.

Four connected Missouri River scour holes created during the 1993 flood were sampled during

1995-97. This summary is for just the scour holes that

are closely associated with the Lisbon Bottom area

and the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife

Refuge. These four sites are part of a larger study

effort funded in part by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency and the Missouri Department of

Conservation. The dates of sampling and the locations

are as follows:

River mile 214.0 L (S-14) was an exit

scour that had no rock revetment in front. It 

was sampled 15 times from 29 June 1995 to

17 September 1996 and 735 fish were 

collected.

River mile 214.5 R (S-13) was an 

entrance scour that has a dike field in front. It

was sampled 36 times between 3 July 1995 

and 16 September 1997 and 1,874 fish were

collected.

River mile 217.9 R (S-15b) was an exit

scour with no structure in front. It was sampled

five times from 27 June 1995 to 16 May 

1996 and 548 fish were collected.

River mile 218.0 L (S-15) was an 

entrance scour with a revetment with two 

notches in front. It was sampled four times 

from 16 July 1996 to 16 September 1996 

and 116 fish were collected.

Fish collections were made with 45.8-m (150-

ft) by 1.8-m (6-ft) deep monofilament experimental

gill nets fished for approximately 4 h at the surface

in randomly selected blocks within each scour. Each

45.8-m (150-ft) net consisted of six 7.6-m (25-ft)

panels of monofilament arranged in a 2.54-cm (1-

in.), 5-cm (2-in.), and 7.6-cm (3-in.) mesh configuration.

A 10-min surface electrofishing run was made

around each net after it had been set for at least 2

h. A 45.8-m (150-ft) long, 2.4-m (8-ft) deep multifilament gill net consisting of 15.3-m (50-ft) sections of

2.54-cm (1-in.), 5-cm (2-in.), and 7.6-cm (3-in.) mesh

was fished on the bottom to sample benthic fish. Fish

caught at each location were identified to species,

measured to the nearest millimeter, and weighed to

the nearest half ounce, later converted to grams.

At all sites sampled, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and Secchi disk measurements were

recorded. These four sites were visited 58 times and

3,205 fish representing 34 species were caught. The
most numerous six species accounted for almost 85%

of the fish caught: gizzard shad (43%), goldeye

(14%), carp (12%), shortnose gar (9%), freshwater

drum (4%), and river carpsuckers (3%). The species

occurrence may vary within each scour hole. This information will be available in the final report.

For more information see the following report:

Robinson, J.W. 1998. Missouri River Post-Flood Fishery

Investigation Lisbon Bottom Area. Report in 

progress.

Study #8: Larval, juvenile, and adult small fish use of

scour basins connected to the Lower Missouri River.

Composition and abundance of larval, juvenile, and adult small fishes and physical habitat were

evaluated in eight scours connected to the Missouri

River. Sites were classified based on mode of formation as entrance or exit scours. One entrance scour (S13) and one exit scour (S-14) were sampled on the

Lisbon Bottom Unit (Fig. 1). There were no differences

in maximum depth, near-shore depth, and water

exchange between entrance and exit scours.

Morphometric data indicated that accelerated sediment deposition occurred when scours were

isolated from the flood-plain via ring levees that prevented flow-through during overbank flooding. Total

catch of larva, juvenile, and adult small fishes differed among scours and was related to water depth

but unrelated to scour category.

Abundance and taxa richness of older larval

fishes, juvenile, and adult small fishes differed among

scours, were related to water depth, but were unrelated to scour category. Abundance and taxa richness

of older larval fishes, juvenile, and adult small fishes

were highest in scours with shallow maximum depths.

In the Lisbon Bottom scour holes 18 fish species and

seven larval taxa groups were collected (Tables 2

and 3). Approximate spawning times for 17 common

fish taxa were estimated from the timing of peak protolarval catches and water temperature.

Maintenance of the connection between the river and

flood plain to retain scours and high habitat diversity

is recommended. Spawning temperatures may be

used to couple peaks in river stage with water temperature to maximize fish recruitment in Lower

Missouri River scours.

For more information see the following report:

Tibbs, J.E. and D.L. Galat. 1997. Larval, juvenile, and

adult small fish use of scour basins connected

to the Lower Missouri River. Final Report to 

Missouri Department of Conservation. Missouri

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,

University of Missouri-Columbia. 133 pp.

46
47

Study

Number

Author

or

Contact

Title Dates 

Sampled

Gears 

Useda

Habitats

Sampledb

Fish Data

Availablec

Physical/Chemical

Parametersd

Fish assemblages in a

permanent and

a temporary

wetland at

Lisbon Bottom

Population structure and habitat

use of benthic

fishes along the

Missouri and

Lower

Yellowstone

Rivers

Annual Fisheries

Monitoring

Report-Lisbon

Bottom Unit, Big

Muddy National

Fish and

Wildlife Refuge

The influence of

connectivity on

fish reproduction

and larval nursery in Lower

Missouri River

scours

Lower Missouri

River floodscoured basins

as fish nursery:

the influence of

connectivity

Chapman

&

Ehrhardt

Dieterman

& Galat

Grady &

Milligan

Hooker

Kubisiak

1 07/97-

09/97

C, F P, W C, G, L, T, W C, D, N, T

2

3

4

5

07/96

and

10/97

B, E,

G, S, T

B, C, M, T A, C, G, L,

W

C, D, N, S, T, V

07/97-

10/97

04/95-

08/95

04/96-

08/96

04/96-

09/96

B, D,

H, S

G, V

S

B, C, L,

M, O, T

S

L, S

C, G, L, N,

W

C, L, N, V

C, L, N, W

C, D, N, R, S, T, V

D, N, R, T, V

D, N, O, R, T, Z

a Gears used include (B) benthic trawl; (C) cast net; (D) drifted gill net; (E) boat-mounted electrofishing; (F) fykenet; (G) stationary

gill net; (H) hoop net; (M) small-fish sled; (RA) telemetry-automated detection; (RB) telemetry-manual location; (S) seine; (T) drifting

trammel net; (V) larval sled.

b Habitats sampled include (B) main-channel border; (C) main-channel bar; (L) Lisbon Bottom Chute border; (M) main river channel; (O) other side-channel border; (P) permanent wetland; (S) flood scour; (T) Lisbon Bottom Chute; (W) seasonal wetland.

c Fish data available include (A) age and growth; (C) catch per unit effort; (G) GPS sampling coordinates; (L) body length; (N)

number of fish; (T) tag recovery; (V) larval fish data; (W) wet weight.

d Physical/chemical parameters include (C) conductivity; (D) depth; (N) turbidity; (O) dissolved oxygen; (R) river stage; (S) substrate; (T) temperature; (V) velocity; (Z) water chemistry parameters.

Table 1. Fisheries studies conducted in the Missouri River (RM 213-219), Lisbon Bottom Chute, and other

water bodies associated with the Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.
48

Adult fish use of

connected

newly scoured

holes in the

Missouri River

flood plain

7 Robinson 6/95-

9/97

E, G B, S, T C, N, L, W D, O, R, S, T, Z

Pallid sturgeon

movement and

habitat use in

the Lower

Missouri River

Little &

Delonay

6 10/95-

10/98

RA, RB B, C, L,

M, O, T

G, L, N, T,

W

D, R, S, T, V

Larval, juvenile,

and adult small

fish use of scour

basins connected to the Lower

Missouri River

Tibbs &

Galat

8 04/96-

09/96

M, V S C, N, V D, N, O, T, Z

Table 1. continued

Study

Number

Author

or

Contact

Title Dates 

Sampled

Gears 

Useda

Habitats

Sampledb

Fish Data

Availablec

Physical/Chemical

Parametersd

a Gears used include (B) benthic trawl; (C) cast net; (D) drifted gill net; (E) boat-mounted electrofishing; (F) fykenet; (G) stationary

gill net; (H) hoop net; (M) small-fish sled; (RA) telemetry-automated detection; (RB) telemetry-manual location; (S) seine; (T) drifting

trammel net; (V) larval sled.

b Habitats sampled include (B) main-channel border; (C) main-channel bar; (L) Lisbon Bottom Chute border; (M) main river channel; (O) other side-channel border; (P) permanent wetland; (S) flood scour; (T) Lisbon Bottom Chute; (W) seasonal wetland.

c Fish data available include (A) age and growth; (C) catch per unit effort; (G) GPS sampling coordinates; (L) body length; (N)

number of fish; (T) tag recovery; (V) larval fish data; (W) wet weight.

d Physical/chemical parameters include (C) conductivity; (D) depth; (N) turbidity; (O) dissolved oxygen; (R) river stage; (S) substrate; (T) temperature; (V) velocity; (Z) water chemistry parameters.
49

Common Scientific Species Status Faunal Group Study Numbers Number of

Name Name (Pflieger Studies

1971)e Found

1 2 3 4 5 7 8

Shovelnose

Sturgeon

Pallid Sturgeon

x Shovelnose

Sturgeon

Hybrid

Paddlefish

Longnose Gar

Shortnose Gar

American Eel

Rainbow Smelt

Skipjack Herring

Gizzard Shad

Goldeye

Northern Pike

Grass Carp 

Bighead Carp 

Silver Carp

Common Carp

Goldfish

Speckled Chub

Sturgeon Chub

Sicklefin Chub

Silver Chub

Emerald Shiner

Redfin Shiner

River Shiner

Red Shiner

Bigmouth Shiner

Scaphirhynchus

S. platorynchus x

alba

Polyodon spathula

Lepisosteus osseus

Lepisosteus

platostomus

Anguilla rostrata

Osmerus mordax

Alosa chrysochloris

Dorosoma cepedianum

Hiodon alosoides

Esox lucius

Ctenopharyngodon

idella

Hypophthalmicthys

nobilis

Hypophthalmicthys

molitrit

Cyprinus carpio

Carassius auratus

Hybopsis aestivalis

Macrhybobpsis

gelida

Macrhybopsis

meeki

Hybopsis storeriana

Notropis

atheinoides

Notropis umbratilis

Notropis blennius

Notropis lutrenis

Notropis dorsalis

Federal Endangered

State Watch Lisht

Federal Species of

Special Concern

Nonindigenous

Introduction

State Rare

Exotic

Exotic

Exotic

Exotic 

Exotic

State Rare Federal

Species of Special

Concern

State Rare Federal

Species of Special

Concern

Big River

Big River

Big River

Wide-ranging

Big River

Wide-ranging

Big River

Wide-ranging

Big River

Unclassified

Unclassified

Big River

Big River

Big River

Big River

Big River

Wide-ranging

Big River

Prairie

Prairie

























































































































































2

1

1

3

5

1

2

1

7

6

1

4

3

1

7

1

4

2

3

4

5

1

3

6

2

Table 2. Fish species collected in the Missouri River (RM 213-219), Lisbon Bottom Chute, and other water

bodies associated with the Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.
Sand Shiner

Ghost Shiner

Western Silvery

Minnow

Plains Minnow

Hybognathus

Minnow

Suckermouth

Minnow

Bluntnose Minnow

Bullhead Minnow

Blue Sucker

Bigmouth Buffalo

Smallmouth

Buffalo

River Carpsucker

Quillback

White Sucker

Shorthead

Redhorse

Black Bullhead

Channel Catfish

Blue Catfish

Flathead Catfish

Mosquitofish

Striped Bass

White Bass

Hybrid Striped

Bass

Largemouth Bass

Green Sunfish

Bluegill

White Crappie

Black Crappie

Walleye

50

Notropis dorsalis

Notropis buchanani

Hybognathus

argyritis

Hybognathus placitus

Hybognathus spp.

Phenacobius

mirabilis

Pimephales notatus

Pimephales vigilax

Cycleptus elongatus

Ictiobus cyprinellus

Ictiobus bubalus

Carpiodes carpio

Carpiodes cyprinus

Catostomus commersoni

Moxostoma

macrolepidotum

Ameiurus melas

Ictalurus punctatus

Ictalurus furcatus

Pylodictis olivaris

Gambusia affinis

Morone saxatilis

Morone chrysops

Morone chrysops x

Micropterus

Lepomis cynaellus

Lepomis macrochirus

Pomoxis annularis

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Stizostedion vitreum

State Watch List

Federal Species of

Special Concern

Federal Species of

Special Concern

State Watch List

Federal Species of

Special Concern

Nonindigenous

Introduction

Prairie

Prairie

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Prairie

Wide-ranging

Lowland

Big River

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Prairie

Prairie

Ozark-prairie

Ozark-prairie

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Big River

Wide-ranging

Lowland

Big River

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Wide-ranging

Big River

Big River

















































 









































































































































5

2

1

3

1

2

5

1

3

3

5

7

2

1

2

1

7

4

4

2

2

4

3

5

5

4

4

3

2

Table 2. continued 

Common Scientific Species Status Faunal Group Study Numbers Number of

Name Name (Pflieger Studies

1971)e Found

1 2 3 4 5 7 8
51

Sauger

Freshwater Drum

Stizostedion

canadense

Aplodinotus grunniens



 















 

5

7

Common Scientific Species Status Faunal Group Study Numbers Number of

Name Name (Pflieger Studies

1971)e Found

1 2 3 4 5 7 8

Table 2. continued 

Total Number of Fish Species Collected for Study 22 24 36 15 32 34 18

e Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes. Occ. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas

20:225-570
Larval Fish Taxa - Not Identified to Species Study Numbers

4 8

Carpiodes spp. 

silver-speckled chub group  

sturgeon-sicklefin chub group  

unidentified Cyprinidae 

red shiner-sand shiner group  

emerald shiner group (emerald shiner, plains minnow,

and Western silvery minnow)  

creek chub-stoneroller goup 

Hypopthalmicthys sp.  

Ictiobus sp. 

Ictiobinae sub family (Carpiodes sp. and Ictiobus sp.)  

Lepomis sp. 

Micropterus sp. 

Morone sp. 

Pomoxis sp. 

Stizostedion sp.  

unidentified larval fish 

Table 3. Larval fish taxa collected in the entrance (S-15) and exit (S-14) scours created by the Flood of 1993

on the Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. (Note: These fish could not be

identified to species and therefore were not included in Table 2. Larval fish that could be identified to species

were included in Table 2.)

52
53

Fig. 1. Locations of fisheries study sites in the Lisbon Bottom area. Circled numbers correspond to study numbers. Gears

used include (B) benthic trawl; (C) cast net; (D) drifted gill net; (E) boat-mounted electrofishing; (F) fykenet; (G) stationary gill net; (H) hoop net; (M) small-fish sled; (RA) telemetry-automated detection; (RB) telemetrymanual location; (S)

seine; (T) drifting trammel net; (V) larval sled. Habitats sampled include (B) main-channel border; (C) main-channel bar;

(L) Lisbon Bottom Chute border; (M) main river channel; (O) other side-channel border; (P) permanent wetland; (S) flood

scour; (T) Lisbon Bottom Chute; (W) seasonal wetland. Fish data available include (A) age and growth; (C) catch per

unit effort; (G) GPS sampling coordinates; (L) body length; (N) number of fish; (T) tag recovery; (V) larval fish data;

(W) wet weight. Physical/chemical parameters include (C) conductivity; (D) depth; (N) turbidity; (O) dissolved oxygen;

(R) river stage; (S) substrate; (T) temperature; (V) velocity; (Z) water chemistry parameters.

Figure 1. Locations of fisheries study sites in the Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy

National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Circled numbers correspond to study numbers in Table 1.
54
55

Introduction

Waterbirds such as waterfowl, herons, shorebirds, and seabirds depend on wetlands and deepwater habitats for foraging, breeding, and roosting.

Their high mobility and selection of ephemeral habitats allow them to exploit wetlands across large

areas. As a consequence, the presence and abundance of waterbirds provide information about the

relative use of available wetland habitat types.

Missouri lies within a migration corridor of current and

historical importance to waterbirds that moves

through the interior of North America (Bellrose 1980).

Missouris riparian systems, including the extensive

Missouri River flood plain, are used by more than 100

species of waterbirds during spring and fall migration, as well as throughout the breeding season

(Fredrickson and Reid 1986).

Severe flooding in 1993 broke levees,

scoured farm fields, and deposited large volumes of

sand throughout the Missouri River flood plain, including Lisbon Bottom (SCS 1993, SAST 1994). In 1994,

CHAPTER 5

Waterbirds 

by

Douglas L. Helmers

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 250, Columbia, Missouri 65203

Dale D. Humburg

Missouri Department of Conservation

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201

Amanda C. McColpin

University of Missouri-Columbia

Columbia, Missouri 65211

Ellen Ehrhardt

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201

John A. Vogel

University of Missouri-Columbia

Columbia, Missouri 65211

Karen J. Bataille

Missouri Department of Conservation

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201

and

Leigh H. Fredrickson

University of Missouri-Columbia

Gaylord Memorial Laboratory

Route 1 Box 185, Puxico, Missouri 63960
the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), in

partnership with State and Federal agencies and universities, initiated the Missouri River Post-flood

Evaluation (MRPE) to study the recovery of wildlife

habitat after the flood and to evaluate land acquisition and easement programs of highly damaged

agricultural lands.

MRPE study sites include two types of areas

scoured by 1993 flooding: (1) those proximate and

directly connected (S), at least seasonally, to the

Missouri River and (2) nonconnected sites (NC)

scoured during flooding but not proximate or directly

connected to the river. Temporary wetlands (T) surveyed include temporary basins in cultivated fields

and those unfarmed since 1993. Finally, remnant

wetlands (R) include large oxbows, wooded sloughs,

and cutoff stream channels.

One of the goals of MRPE was to determine

the seasonal distribution of waterbirds in the Missouri

River flood plain and to determine the relative values

of various wetland and aquatic habitat types for

waterbirds. Flood-damaged sites on Lisbon Bottom

that were subsequently included in the Big Muddy

National Fish and Wildlife Refuge were among the

original MRPE study areas. Four complementary projects at different scales were developed to examine

waterbird use of flood-altered habitats. The objective here is to characterize species richness and

abundance of waterbirds among habitat types on

Lisbon Bottom during the first 4 years after a major

flood disturbance. Results will provide baseline data

for the nascent refuge.

Study Area

Lisbon Bottom is located in central Missouri at

approximately river mile 224 of the Missouri River

(Chapter 1, Fig. 1). Five MRPE study sites occur on

Lisbon Bottom. They include three connected scour

sites (S-14, S-15, and S-15a), one nonconnected site

(NC-9), and one temporary wetland (T-LIS) (Chapter

1, Fig. 3). Repeated, prolonged flooding culminated

in the development of site S-15 into a flowing side

chute (CH) in June 1996, thus eliminating NC-9, which

was incorporated into S-15 as the chute developed.

Methods

Waterbird species composition and abundance among different wetland types on Lisbon

Bottom were determined mid-March to mid-October

1994-97 using biweekly helicopter surveys, intensive

ground surveys, flush counts, and call-responses (Table

1). Helicopter surveys provide an extensive assessment of waterbird use of flood-plain habitats in which

all sites can be visited within a narrow time frame.

The drawback to helicopter surveys is that some bird

groups, such as shorebirds, are difficult to identify to

species in the brief time and from the height required

by this technique.

Ground surveys, on the other hand, take

longer to complete and fewer sites can be surveyed;

however, birds can be identified to species and activities assessed. Some birds, such as rails and bitterns,

are secretive and unlikely to be observed during a

typical helicopter or ground survey. Flush counts and

call-response surveys were conducted to assess wetland use by this bird group. The combined results of

these complementary techniques are presented to

provide baseline data on species richness for Lisbon

Bottom. The total birds observed across all habitats

and years are presented as only as an indication of

their relative abundance during the survey periods.

This study recognizes that biases associated with the

different techniques limit the use of abundance and

density estimates.

Helicopter Surveys

From mid-March to mid-October 1994-97,

biweekly helicopter surveys were used to determine

the number and distribution of birds among Missouri

River flood-plain habitats. Bell Jet Ranger (206 B)

helicopter surveyed four of the five MRPE sites on

Lisbon Bottom that were among 140 sites between

Hartsburg, Missouri, and Sioux City, Iowa (Table 1).

All waterbirds using each site (excluding red-winged

blackbirds) were counted by two observers from

opposite sides of the helicopter at less than 30 m

(100 ft) over each basin. Birds were identified to

species or species group. The same pattern and coverage were consistently used on each site for all surveys.

Ground Surveys

Ground surveys of waterbirds were conducted on 20 randomly selected sites on the Missouri River

flood plain, including two sites on Lisbon Bottom

(Table 1) between mid-March and mid-October

56
57

1994-97. Weekly morning surveys were conducted

between sunrise and 4 h after sunrise in 1994.

Waterbird surveys during 1995-97 were expanded

to approximately twice a week at each site during

early morning (0.5 h before to 1.5 h after sunrise)

and midday (1 h before to 1 h after the midpoint of

sunrise and sunset). One observer conducted a complete visual survey at each site by viewing the site

from several vantage points using binoculars (7X or

8X) and a spotting scope (15-30X). All waterbirds

using a site (including red-winged blackbirds) were

recorded. In addition, any raptors using the site or its

immediate margins were recorded.

Flush Counts

Flush count surveys were conducted on 24

MRPE study sites, including 2 of the Lisbon Bottom

sites, to determine chronology of use by rails, bitterns,

and snipe during 1996 and 1997 (Table 1). Weekly

surveys were conducted between 0600 and 1000 h

from early March to late April for spring migration

and from mid-August to mid-October for fall migration. Flush counts were performed by two to four

observers, separated from each other by 2-3 m,

walking in tandem through wetland vegetation. Study

sites at Lisbon Bottom were completely surveyed during each visit and all rails, bitterns, and snipe were

recorded.

Call-Response Surveys

Call-response surveys (Gibbs and Melvin

1993), used to determine densities of breeding rails,

were conducted on 24 MRPE sites, including two on

Lisbon Bottom. Surveys consisted of three visits per

site and were conducted in early, mid, and late May

between 0.5 h before sunrise and 4 h after sunrise.

Recordings of three rail species (king rail, sora, and

Virginia rail) were played on a portable cassette

recorder located 0.075 m above the ground. Survey

stations were randomly located in each basin at least

100 m apart. Maximum sound pressure 1 m from the

speaker was 80 dB. Taped calls lasted approximately 50 s and consisted of 10 s of male advertisement vocalizations alternating with 10 s of silence.

Responses were recorded during the periods of

silence and for 30 seconds after the end of the tape.

Results and Discussion

Among all techniques on Lisbon Bottom during

1994-97, 62 species (8 orders) of waterbirds were

recorded (Table 2). Total numbers of species

observed were 31 in 1994 (first year post-flood), 37

in 1995, 39 in 1996, and 35 in 1997. Shorebirds

(Charadriiformes) and waterfowl (Anseriformes)

accounted for the greatest numbers of species (20

and 11, respectively) as well as the greatest numbers

of individuals.

The most abundant species during the March

through October survey period were blue-winged

teal, killdeer, least sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper, American white pelican, great blue heron,

Canada goose, and pectoral sandpiper (Table 2).

Large numbers of unidentified small sandpipers

observed from the helicopter likely were predominated by least and semipalmated sandpipers.

More than 80 waterbird species were

observed on MRPE study sites including 69 on nonconnected scours, 70 on connected scours, and 45 on

temporary wetlands (Galat et al. 1998). Most

species (62) were also observed on Lisbon Bottom;

however, differences in techniques and number of surveys (Table 1) compromise direct comparisons of

species richness between basin types and years

because detection rates may differ by technique and

survey frequency likely would affect the number of

species observed.

However, surveys were consistently conducted

on S-15 during 1994-97, allowing comparison of

species richness before and after chute development.

During the prechute period (21⁄2 years) 50 species of

waterbirds on S-15 and 37 species were observed

after the chute formed (11⁄2 years). Of those species,

29 were observed before and after chute development. However, 21 species were observed only

before the chute was created (primarily shorebirds

and dabbling ducks), and 8 species were observed

only after the chute was created (primarily gulls,

terns, and raptors). Changes in species richness and

species composition likely were due to loss of shallow

water habitat within the chute and the high velocity of

flow. Whereas the formation of a chute may potentially improve habitat for riverine fishes, this change

may decrease habitats available for many species of

waterbirds.

These baseline data reflect waterbird species

present on Lisbon Bottom during the first 4 years after
the 1993 flood. The development of a chute from a

scour on Lisbon Bottom has provided a unique opportunity to observe changes in waterbird community

composition resulting from habitat alterations during

floods. In addition, changes in vegetation composition

and structure within basins and in the surrounding

flood plain and modification of basin morphology

from future flood events may affect waterbird use of

Lisbon Bottom. Waterbird data acquired by the MRPE

project will be the basis for evaluating the impact of

habitat succession on Lisbon Bottom.

Cite Literature

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of

North America, 3rd ed. Stackpole,

Harrisburg, PA.

Fredrickson, L. H. and F. A. Reid. 1986. Wetlands 

and riparian habitats: a nongame management overview. Pages 59-96 in J. B. Hale, L. B.

Best, and R. L. Clawson, editors. Management

of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a developing art. Proc. Symp. 47th Midwest Fish and

Wildlife Conference.

Galat D.L., L.H. Fredrickson, D.D. Humburg, K.J.

Bataille, J.R. Bodie, J.Dohrenwend, G.T.

Gelwicks, J.E. Havel, D.L. Helmers, J.B. Hooker,

J.R. Jones, M.F. Knowlton, J. Kubisiak, J.

Mazourek, A. C. McColpin, R. B. Renken and R.

D. Semlitsch. 1998. Flooding to restore 

connectivity of regulated, large-river wetlands: Natural and controlled flooding as 

complementary processes along the lower 

Missouri River. BioScience 48: in press.

Gibbs, J. P. and S. M. Melvin. 1993. Call-response 

surveys for monitoring breeding populations 

of grebes, bitterns, and rails. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 50:27-34.

Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team. 1994.

Science for flood plain management into the 

21st century. Washington, D.C. U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Impacts of the 

1993 flood on Missouris agricultural land.

Columbia, Missouri. U.S. Department of

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

58
59

Table 1. Methods used to survey waterbirds in Missouri River flood-plain habitats on the Big Muddy National Refuge, Lisbon Bottom, 1994-1997. Site name beginning with NC is the nonconnected scour. Site names begiconnected scours. The site CH represents the chute formed in June 1996. Site name beginning with T is the land. Numbers in parentheses indicate the total number of surveys conducted.

Site TypeSurvey MethodHelicopter SurveysGround SurveysFlush CountsCall Response Surveys

NC

NC-9

S

S-14 (15)S-15 (15)S-15 (14)

S 

S-14 (15)S-15 (15)

S-15a

(15)

S-15 (26)

S

S-14 (15)

S-15 (8)

S-15a (15)

S-15 (13)

S-15 (9)S-15 (4)

Year 1994 1995 1996 199

CH

CH (7)

CH (28)

CH (9)

T

T-Lis (31)T-Lis (18)

T-Lis (4)

S

S-14 (15)

S-15a (15)

CH

Ch (1

CH (4CH (2CH (1
60

Table 2. Occurrence (+=present, =absent) of waterbirds observed on the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Ref

March through mid-October 1994-1997. Habitats surveyed included NC= conconnected scour, S= connected scour, CH= ing in June 1996, and T= temporary wetland. Numbers indicate individuals observed across all survey techniques, habi

PodicipedformesPied-billed GrebePelicaniformesAmerican White PelicanDouble-crested CormorantCiconiiformesBlack-crowned Night-HeronGreen HeronGreat EgretGreat Blue HeronAnseriformesCanada GooseMallardGadwallGreen-winged TealAmerican PigeonNorthern PintailNorthern ShovelerBlue-winged TealUnknown DabblersWood DuckLesser ScaupScaup spp.Common MerganserFalconiformesTurkey VultureBald EagleRed-tailed HawkNorthern HarrierOsprey 

Species Total 94 95 96 

NC S S S CH T 

Podilymbus podicepsPelecanus erythrorhynchosPhalacrocorax auritusNycticorax nycticoraxButorides virescensArdea albusArdea herodiasBranta canadensisAnas platyrhynchosAnas streperaAnas creccaAnas americanaAnas acutaAnas clypeataAnas discorsAnas spp.Aix sponsaAythya affinisAythya spp.Mergus merganserMergus merganserCathartes auraHaliaeetus leucocephalusButeo jamaicensisCircus cyaneusPandion haliaetus



++++



5

345

87

12

16

332330100

996528

7

72

1869

3320

3

31

1

19

2411



++



+++++



+



+++



+



+



+++



+++++++++++



+



++





+



+++++



++



+



+



+



+



+++



+



++++



+



+



+



+



+



+


61

American KestrelGruiformesVirginia RailSoraAmerican CootCharadriiformesSemipalmated PloverKilldeerBlack-bellied PloverAmerican Golden-ploverMarbled GodwitGreater YellowlegsLesser YellowlegsYellowlegs spp.Solitary SandpiperSpotted SandpiperShort-billed DowitcherStilt SandpiperCommon SnipeSanderlingSemipalmated SandpiperWestern SandpiperLeast SandpiperBairds SandpiperPectoral SandpiperBuff-breasted SandpiperAmerican AvocetUnknown sm. shorebirdUnknown med. shorebirdFranklins GullBonapartes GullRing-billed Gull

Falco sparveriusRallus limicolaPorzana carolinaFulica americanaCharadrius semipalmatusCharadrius vociferusPluvialis squatorolaPluvialis dominicaLimosa fedoaTringa melanoleucaTringa flavipesTringa spp.Tringa solitariaActitis maculariaLimnodromus griseusCalidris himantopusGallinago gallinagoCaldris albaCalidris pusillaCalidris mauriCalidris minutillaCalidris bairdiiCalidris melanotosTryngites subruficollisRecurvirostra americanaCalidris spp.Larus pipixcanLarus philadelphiaLarus delawarensis



+



+



111

116

98

1293

9

12

1

12181712

109

6

10

12

487

12

660

43

226

43

5

1147

157

29

14



++



+



++++++



++++++++++





++++



+++



++



+++++



++



+



+++



++



+



+



++



++



++

+



++++



+++



++++



+



+++



+



+



+



+



+



+



Species Total 94 95 96 

NC S S S CH T 

Table 2. continued
62

Herring GullCommon TernLeast TernCaspian TernBlack TernUnknown TernCoraciiformesBelted KingfisherPasseriformesBank SwallowCliff SwallowBarn SwallowPurple MartinUnknown SwallowsYellow-headed BlackbirdRed-winged Blackbird

Larus argentatusSterna hirundoSterna antillarumSterna caspiaChlidonias nigerSterna spp.Ceryle alcyonRiparia ripariaHirundo pyrrhonotaHirundo rusticaProgne subisXanthocephalus xanthocephalusAgelaius phoeniceus



+



5

Species Total 94 95 96 

NC S S S CH T 

1

10

52

1015

5

62

1

85

1

434

1

21

8650



+



+++



+++

36



+



+



21



+



+++



+



+



29



+



+



+

11

Total Individuals and Species 

+



+



+



31

Table 2. continued
63

Introduction

Traditionally, reptiles (Subphylum Vertebrata,

Class Reptilia) and amphibians (Subphylum

Vertebrata, Class Amphibia) have been studied and

taught collectively under the taxonomically artificial

descriptor herpetofauna. Grouping the two classes

and training individual scientists with dual expertise

appear to extend back to the Greek origins of the

word herpetofauna (herpet translated as creepy

thing). Because sampling the two groups was often

done in concert and the researchers involved had

expertise with both classes, the process here will be in

the traditional manner of describing both classes in a

single chapter.

Modern herpetofauna in Missouri are represented by the extant reptile orders Testudines (turtles)

and Squamata (lizards and snakes) and the extant

amphibian orders Caudata (salamanders) and

Missouri Salientia (frogs and toads). Within these

orders, Missouri has substantial diversity at the familial level: 22 known families of herpetofauna contain

approximately 107 species (after Collins 1990,

Johnson 1987, and Zug 1993). Thus, Missouris herpetofauna represent approximately 25% of the

amphibian and reptile diversity recorded in the contiguous United States.

From a biogeographical perspective, the herpetofaunal species of Missouri and adjacent states

provide potential inhabitants for Lisbon Bottom and

other flood-plain habitats. However, many herpetofauna in Missouri have declined over the past several

decades and their ranges may not currently intersect

Lisbon Bottom. Thus, recovery of the site itself may

not lead to immediate recolonization by species with

reduced or fragmented ranges.

CHAPTER 6

Herpetofauna 

by

Vincent J. Burke

University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources

112 Stephens Hall, Columbia, Missouri 65211

Rochelle B. Renken

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201

J. Russell Bodie

University of Missouri-Columbia, Division of Biological Sciences

Columbia, Missouri 65211-7400

Julie R. Grotemeyer

Lincoln University, Center of Excellence

303 Founders Hall, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

and

Angie Zaga

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201
In spite of the above caveat, Lisbon Bottom has a

potential to be an important site for herpetofauna

because it represents one of only several sites in the

Missouri River flood plain with the potential to recover many of the ecological processes of bottomland

flood plains.

Sites

In general terms, during the studies there were

eight wet and four dry habitat types at Lisbon

Bottom that had the potential to be important to herpetofaunal life cycles. The wet areas were (1) the

Missouri River main channel, (2) scours from the floods

of 1993 and 1995, (3) Milligans Chute (which began

as a scour but was transformed over time into a secondary river channel), (4) the deeper pondlike areas,

(5) the frequently dry (either remnant or new) channels (including their prolonged wet depressions), (6)

wet depressions not associated with the channels, (7)

a small creek that may be an agricultural outflow that

enters the Bottom near the bluff line (labeled Angies

Swamp) and (8) ditches, including what appears to

be a borrow pit area along the road that descends

from the town of Lisbon to the Bottom.

The wet habitats vary substantially with

regard to their hydroperiods. The wet habitats at

Lisbon Bottom can be either isolated or connected to

the Missouri River, temporary, seasonal, remnant or

permanent wetlands (Galat et al. 1997). Each of

these habitats may provide different functions for

reptile and amphibian species inhabiting the flood

plain.

The main dry habitat types likely to be

encountered by herpetofauna are (1) forested areas,

(2) regenerating willow/cottonwood habitats, (3)

sandy areas that comprise the southern half of the

Bottom, and (4) the mud flats adjacent to wet areas.

The dry habitats at Lisbon Bottom have been less

studied with regard to herpetofauna. It should be

remembered that the dry habitats are occasionally

under several feet of flowing water, thus their designation is relative to other habitats and terming them

dry is a misnomer during floods. Nevertheless, their

general condition of being dry may provide critical

habitats to herpetofauna during much of the year.

Quantitative sampling for amphibians and

reptiles was conducted in four of the wet habitat

types. The two sites with the greatest duration of

sampling were a depressed area (a temporary wetland that the Missouri Department of Conservation

identified as Lisbon Temporary) and Milligans

Chute (including the period before it was a channel).

The other areas quantitatively sampled were a deep

pond (Beaver Pond), another depressed area

labeled Julies Pond, and the small creek/outflow

referred to as Angies Swamp that enter Lisbon

Bottom but appear to have little or no flow and retain

standing water during dry periods. Qualitative observations were made frequently over the north half of

the Bottom on the portion east of Milligans Chute (Fig.

1).

Trapping/Census Methods

To census herpetofaunal species, researchers

employed a variety of methods (Table 1, Fig. 1).

Terrestrial drift fences (TDF) were established adjacent to Milligans Chute (when it was a scour site, but

continued thereafter) and the temporary depression

described earlier (Lisbon Temporary). These drift

fences were equipped with wire-mesh funnel traps

and checked every second day during the spring and

summer from 1994 to 1997 at Milligans Chute (and

its precursor scour) and from 1996 to 1997 at the site

termed Lisbon Temporary. Anuran calling surveys

(ACS) were conducted at the same two sites during

1996 and 1997.

The creek/outflow area (Angies Swamp) and

Julies Pond were sampled approximately every 2

weeks during the summer 1997 as part of a larger

effort to determine the extent of deformed amphibian occurrence on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

lands. These sites were seined (SEI) with a 0.5-cm

mesh seine and captures of both amphibians and reptiles were recorded. Additionally, opportunistic captures by hand at the two sites were recorded.

Sampling of turtles at Beaver Pond was conducted approximately every 2 weeks during the

spring and summer of 1997. Turtle species were captured either with standard turtle hoop traps (THT), a

modified catfish hoop trap (CHT), or with winged fyke

nets (WFN). In addition, both the Lisbon Temporary

site and Milligans Chute were sampled using THTs

and WFNs.

Incidental observations during visits to Lisbon

Bottom were used to supplement quantitative observations. For example, anurans often are abundant on

areas such as mud flats. Herpetologists who have

conducted research at Lisbon weighed these qualita64
65
tive considerations when assessing how common

species were in the Bottom.

Reptile Observations

Only seven reptile species were observed at

Lisbon Bottom over 4 years (Table 2). These observations included two snake species and five turtle

species. It is noteworthy that no lizards were

observed, although six lizard species have ranges

that overlap Lisbon Bottom. Several snake species

and the painted turtle, Chrysemys picta, have ranges

that overlap the Bottom, but were neither captured

nor observed.

66

Table 1. Herpetofaunal capture methods with reference codes, period in which each method was used, and

brief descriptions.

Method Code Years Employed Description

Anuran Call Survey ACS 1996-97 Counts using auditory recognition of breeding 

frog and toad vocalizations.

Catfish Hoop Trap CHT 1997 91-cm diameter, sardine-baited traps with a 

mesh size of 3.8 cm and an approximately 

20-cm round opening.

Hand Capture OCH 1994-97 Opportunistic captures by hand.

Seine SEI 1997 9.1-m long seine with 0.5-cm mesh.

Terrestrial

Drift Fence TDF 1994-97 7.5-m long, 46-cm high aluminum valley tin drift

fences equipped with wire mesh funnel traps.

Turtle Hoop Trap THT 1994-97 60-cm and 1-m diameter sardine or dead freshfish baited traps with either 2.5-cm or 5-cm mesh

and a 15 to 25-cm wide, thin slat opening at 

either one or both ends.

Winged Fyke Net WFN 1996-97 Conventional or elongated, baited and unbaited

hoop traps, sometimes with two throat openings 

(an initial and a secondary opening), differentiated from THT because of the use of attached 

nets used to guide turtles into the trap.
67

Amphibian Observations

A total of 12 species of amphibians was

encountered at Lisbon Bottom over a 4-year period

(Table 3). All of the observed species were either

frogs or toads. Regular sightings of anurans in the

dry habitats suggest these areas are commonly used

by this amphibian group.

Lisbon Bottom is within the known ranges of six

species of salamanders, thus the absence of any salamander observations is noteworthy. The lack of salamander observations may be due to their absence

from the area (perhaps because of years of agricultural use of the site), the timing of sampling (lack of

autumn sampling), or the greater difficulty in observing these more cryptic species.

A total of 153 anurans was examined for

deformities at Julies Pond and Angies Swamp. Of

these, two showed abnormalities: one an apparent

injury to a hind leg and the other (R. catesbeiana) a

slightly crooked mouth.

Summary

Observations at Lisbon Bottom suggest that

the site is inhabited by at least 19 species of herpetofauna. All of the wet areas that have been

examined at Lisbon Bottom appear to be inhabited

by herpetofauna and some sites appear to be particularly species rich. How the site and the species

composition will change over time is uncertain, but it is

hoped that efforts here to describe the site during this

early period of its reversion to a wild state will provide a baseline for future examinations. Continued

Table 2. Reptile captures, sampling methods, and qualitative estimates of abundance. Species for which

more than five individuals were observed were considered to be regularly observed and species for which

less than five individuals were observed were categorized as rare.

Capture Observation

Species Common Name Method Frequency

Nerodia sipedon sipedon Northern water snake TDF Rare

Storeria dekayi wrightorum Midland brown snake TDF Rare

Apalone mutica Smooth softshell turtle THT Regular

Apalone spinifera Spiny softshell turtle THT Rare

Chelydra serpentina Common snapping turtle SEI, THT, WHT Regular

Graptemys pseudogeographica False map turtle THT, WFN Regular

Trachemys scripta elegans Redeared slider turtle THT, OCH, WHT Regular

Species

Acris crepitans blanchardi

Bufo americanus

Bufo cognatus

Bufo woodhousei

Hyla chrysoscelis

Pseudacris crucifer

Pseudacris triseriata

Rana blairi

Rana catesbeiana

Rana clamitans melanota

Rana utricularia

Common Name

Blanchards cricket frog

American toad

Great Plains toad

Woodhouses toad

Gray treefrog

Spring peeper

Western chorus frog

Plains leopard frog

Bullfrog

Green frog

Southern leopard frog

Capture

Method

TDF

TDF

TDF

TDF, ACS

TDF, ACS

TDF, ACS

TDF, ACS

TDF, ACS

SEI

TDF

TDF, ASC, SEI, OCH

Observation

Frequency

Regular

Regular

Rare

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Rare

Rare

Regular

Table 3. Amphibian captures, sampling methods, and qualitative estimate of abundance. Species for which

more that five nonlarval individuals were observed were listed as regularly observed and species for which

less that five nonlarval invididuals were observed were categorized as rare.
monitoring of herpetofauna at this ecological site will

provide new insights into minimal-management

restoration in flood-plain systems.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to

the large number of people and organizations who

assisted with herpetofaunal studies at Lisbon Bottom,

especially Duane Chapman, Phil Crockett, Matt

Kowalski, Brett Matak, Tim Miller, Richard Stark, Brent

Thomas, John Vogel, and the U.S. Geological Surveys

Columbia Environmental Research Center.

Cited Literature

Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians

and reptiles, 3rd ed. Society for the Study of

Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological 

Circular 19:141.

Galat, D.L., J.F. Kubisiak, J.B. Hooker, and L.M. Sowa.

1997. Geomorphology, distribution and connectivity of Lower Missouri River flood-plain

waterbodies scoured by the flood of 1993.

Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 26:869-878.

Johnson, T. R. 1982. The Amphibians and Reptiles of

Missouri. Missouri Department of

Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 368 pp.

Zug, G. R. 1993. Herpetology: An Introductory 

Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,

New York, NY.

Recommended References

Cope, E. D. Recent reptiles and fishes. Hayden Survey

Preliminary Report. U.S. Geological Survey,

Wyoming. 8:1871. 432-442 pp.

Cope, E.D. Cretaceous vertebrates of the upper 

Missouri. Proceedings of the Academy of

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1877;

1877:266 p. ISBN: 0097-3157.

Henning, W.L. 1938. Amphibians and reptiles of a 

2,200-acre tract in central Missouri. Copeia 

1938:91-92.

Johnson, T.R. 1981. Missouri turtles. Missouri 

Conservationist 42:11-22.

Johnson, T.R. 1981. Missouris frogs and toads.

Missouri Conservationist 43:11-22.

Metter, D. E., W. R. Morris and D. A. Kangas. 1970.

Great Plains anurans in central Missouri.

Copeia 1970:780-781.

Mizzi, J.E. 1994. Zooplankton, macroinvertebrate,

herpetile, and ichthyofaunal biodiversity of

riverine habitat on the Upper Missouri River.

M.S., South Dakota State University,

Brookings. 117 p.

Schroeder, E. E. 1966. Age determination and population structure in Missouri bullfrogs. Missouri

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit; DJ 

Report - Missouri Cooperative Wildlife 

Research Unit. 94 pp.

Smith, J.W. 1996. Wildlife use of the Missouri and 

Mississippi River Basins-an ecological 

overview. Pages 91-11 in David L. Galat, and

Ann G. Frazier, editors. Overview of riverflood plain ecology in the Upper Mississippi 

River Basin. Kelmelis, John A., series editor,

Science for flood-plain management into the 

21st century; v. 3). Washington, D.C., U.S.

Government Printing Office. 149 pp.

Wills, Y.L., D.L. Moyle, and T.S. Baskett. Emergence,

breeding, hibernation, movement and transformation of the bullfrog, Rana catesbieana,

in Missouri. Copeia 1956:30-41.

68
69

Introduction

Lisbon Bottom in Howard County, Missouri,

represents a recently acquired 875-ha portion of the

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in the

Lower Missouri River flood plain (Jacobsen et al.

1998). Major flooding in 1993 deposited silt and

sand that rendered much of this formerly cultivated

area unfarmable (Mazourek et al. 1998). Natural

revegetation of the site has been proceeding since

the 1993 flood (Mazourek et al. 1998). Lisbon

Bottom thus represents an unusual opportunity to

study vertebrate fauna in a recently altered landscape. Here the diversity of mammal species at

Lisbon Bottom is described as determined by correlating data from studies conducted for other purposes.

Mammals are integral components of most

terrestrial ecosystems (Vaughn 1986) and probably

serve many important functions in habitats within

Lisbon Bottom as well. Small mammals influence plant

species composition in regenerating flood-plain areas

by seed predation and dispersal. In addition, small

mammals also serve as a source of prey for larger

mammals, birds, and reptiles (Vaughn 1986).

Medium-sized and large mammals may contribute to

ecosystem function and biodiversity by affecting vegetation structure and succession (Mcinnes et al. 1992)

or regulating prey species abundance (Redford

1992). Thus, knowledge about mammal diversity at

Lisbon Bottom will provide important information to

managers of this refuge.

Mammal diversity at Lisbon Bottom, defined

here as species richness, is likely to represent a subset of the total mammalian species richness observed

in Missouri. Missouri is known to contain 66 mammal

species from eight orders (i.e., Artiodactyla,

Carnivora, Chiroptera, Didelphimorphia, Insectivora,

Lagomorpha, Rodentia, and Xenarthra; Schwartz and

Schwartz 1981). Standard sampling methods used to

detect mammals vary depending on the body size of

the target species (i.e., small mammal, mediumsized mammal, or large mammal).

Small mammals as defined here include New

World rats and mice (Cricetidae:Cricetinae), Old

World rodents (Muridae), voles (Cricetidae

Microtinae), shrews (Soricidae), and moles (Talpidae).

Small mammals can successfully establish populations

in almost any habitat and quickly colonize new habitats. Most small mammals have a short life span and

a high reproductive output. Small mammals exploit a

variety of food resources: rats and mice are omnivorous, voles are herbivorous, and shrews and moles are

insectivorous and carnivorous.

Medium-sized mammals as defined here

include squirrels (Sciuridae); weasels, minks, skunks,

and otters (Mustelidae); beavers (Castoridae); rabbits (Leporidae); raccoons (Procyonidae); opossums

(Didelphidae); foxes and coyotes (Canidae); and

bobcats (Felidae). Large mammals are defined here

as white-tailed deer (Cervidae). Medium-sized and

large mammals are typically more mobile and less

abundant than small mammals and thus are more difficult to accurately survey. Beavers, rabbits, and deer

CHAPTER 7

Mammals

by

Mary J. Ratnaswamy

Alison K. Williams

University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Natural Resources

302 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, Missouri 65211

and

Rochelle B. Renken

Missouri Department of Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center

1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201
70

are entirely herbivorous. Sciurids are herbivorous or

omnivorous, depending on species. Opossums are

omnivorous. The remaining mammals (Mustelidae,

Procyonidae, Canidae, and Felidae) belong to Order

Carnivora and exploit animal prey to various

degrees.

This section presents results of several surveys

conducted between 1996 and 1997 that document

the presence of small, medium-sized, and large mammal species at Lisbon Bottom.

Survey Sites

Small mammal species were live-trapped in

three habitat types: mature forest (Populus deltoides,

Acer negundo, Acer saccharinum), regenerating forest

(sapling or shrub-sized P. deltoides, Salix spp.), and

open field (unidentified herbaceous species). All

small mammal trapping areas were located east of

Milligans Chute (Fig. 1). Medium-sized mammals

were live-trapped in the mature forest habitat located on the northern half of Lisbon Bottom (Fig. 1).

Visual observations of mammal sign were made within mature forest, regenerating forest, and field areas

throughout Lisbon Bottom, as well as along the mud

flats adjacent to Milligans Chute (Fig. 1).

Survey Methods

Small mammals  Sherman live traps (3 x

3.5 x 9 in.) placed in a 30 x 30-m grid (Table 1) were

used to sample small mammals within mature forest,

regenerating forest, and open field habitats during

fall 1996 (294 trap-nights in each habitat) and

spring 1997 (294 trap-nights in each habitat).

During fall 1997 (Table 1), mature forest and regenerating forest habitats were sampled using a 90 x

90-m grid of Sherman live traps (500 trap-nights in

each habitat). All Sherman traps were baited with a

peanut butter and oatmeal mixture. Small mammals

were identified to species and tagged with uniquely

numbered ear tags (National Band and Tag

Company). Relative abundance of each species was

ranked as common (10 or more captures) or rare

(<10 captures).

Medium-sized mammals  Ten Tomahawk

livetraps (32 x 10 x 12 in.) were baited with sardines,

placed in mature forest habitat, and set periodically

for a total of 224 trap-nights between April and

August 1997. Relative abundance for all species was

ranked as common or rare based on the number of

captures, as for small mammals. All raccoons were

released after being affixed with radio-collars

(Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc.) and uniquely numbered ear tags (National Band and Tag Co.).

Raccoons were monitored via radiotelemetry for

approximately 6-7 months following release to

determine their fidelity to Lisbon Bottom and the

flood-plain habitat. Other species captured in

Tomahawk live traps were released unmarked.

Additional methods.  Between April and

November 1997, visual surveys for animal sign

(tracks, scat, and tunnels) were conducted opportunistically to document the presence of mammal species

at Lisbon Bottom that would not be trappable in

Sherman or Tomahawk live traps. Visual observations

were collected along dirt paths in mature forest,

regenerating forest, and field habitats east of

Mulligans Chute, as well as along the muddy eastern

edge of Mulligans Chute.

Results and Discussion

Small mammals.  Nine species of small

mammals were captured at Lisbon Bottom based on

2,764 trap-nights of effort using Sherman live traps

(Table 2). Three species were found to be common

using Sherman live traps: white-footed mice

(Peromyscus leucopus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and house mice (Mus musculus). However,

Peromyscus spp. mice were far more abundant than

house mice. Six species were found to be relatively

rare using this technique: prairie voles (Microtus

ochrogaster), southern bog lemmings (Synaptomys

cooperi), western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys

megalotis), least shrews (Cryptotis parva), Elliots

short-tailed shrews (Blarina hylophaga), and mink

(Mustela vison). Live trapping is not the most effective

way to sample for shrew species; thus, the low numbers of individuals captured may have been a function of sampling method. Also, the capture of one

mink in a Sherman live trap was an unusual event

because these traps are not designed to capture animals that large.

Medium-sized mammals.  Three species of

medium-sized mammals were captured at Lisbon

Bottom after 224 trap-nights of effort with

Tomahawk live traps during 1997 (Table 2). Two of

the medium-sized mammals were found to be relatively common based on this method: raccoons
71

(Procyon lotor) and Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana). A third species, domestic dog (Canis familiaris), was captured on only one occasion and

assigned a ranking of relatively rare. Overall, trap

success rate with Tomahawk traps was 13.4% (30

mammal captures/224 trap-nights). Physical examinations revealed evidence of lactation in opossums

and pregnancy in raccoons during April.

Radiotelemetry monitoring of nine raccoons (4M:5F)

suggested that they commonly move between Lisbon

Bottom and adjacent upland habitats.

Additional observations.  Visual observations of animal sign revealed the presence of an

additional seven mammal species (comprising one

small mammal species, five medium-sized mammal

species, and one large mammal species) at Lisbon

Bottom during 1997 (Table 3): beaver (Castor

canadensis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis

latrans), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), river otter

(Lontra canadensis), and white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus). Cottontail rabbit and whitetailed deer sign were observed in numerous locations,

suggesting their distribution is ubiquitous throughout

Lisbon Bottom. The presence of beaver, bobcats, coyotes, eastern moles, and river otters was documented

by observing their sign in one or two locations, but the

distribution and relative abundance of these species

on Lisbon Bottom are unknown. The occurrence of

coyotes on Lisbon Bottom appeared probable based

on scat and tracks but confirmatory evidence (e.g.,

sightings, calls) is needed to eliminate confusion with

domestic dog.

Summary

Overall, 19 species of mammals were documented at Lisbon Bottom. Nine species of small mammals were captured in Sherman live traps during

1996 and 1997. Three of these species were relatively common based on number of captures (P. leucopus, P. maniculatus, and M. musculus) and six small

mammal species were relatively rare (B. hylophaga,

C. parva, M. ochrogaster, M. vison, R. megalotis, and

S. cooperi).

Two species of medium-sized mammals were

common based on captures in Tomahawk live traps

during 1997 (D. virginiana and P. lotor) and one

medium-sized mammal (C. familiaris) was determined

to be relatively rare. Radio-collared raccoons (P.

lotor) were found to move between Lisbon Bottom and

adjacent habitats. An additional seven mammal

species were detected at Lisbon Bottom based on

visual observations (C. latrans, C. canadensis, L. rufus,

O. virginianus, L. canadensis, S. aquaticus, and S. floridanus).

Further sampling effort may result in the

detection of additional mammal species at Lisbon

Bottom (e.g., muskrats, Ondatra zibethicus; striped

skunks, Mephitis mephitis). Alternate sampling methods such as mist nets can be used to detect the occurrence of bats (Chiroptera) at Lisbon Bottom.

Ultimately, mammal species composition is likely to

respond over time to major habitat changes associated with vegetation succession at Lisbon Bottom.

Acknowledgments

Mammal sampling was facilitated by C.

Coyle, T. Farrand, H. McCammon, K. Smith, and D.

Walton. We appreciate the logistical and financial

support provided by the Missouri Department of

Conservation; U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia

Environmental Research Center; and University of

Missouri-Columbia School of Natural Resources. This

study was greatly aided by assistance from Bill

Mauck, Ron Drobney, J. C. Bryant, John Smith, Doug

Helmers, and Al Vogt. We thank William Lay and

James Lewis for access to their property.

Cited Literature

Jacobson, R. B., M. S. Laustrup, E. Ehrhart, C. Nieber,

and R. Arvidson. 1999. Physical setting of

Lisbon Bottom in the Big Muddy Wildlife 

Refuge. Pages 1-20 in D.D. Humburg and V.J.

Burke (editors), Initial biotic survey of Lisbon 

Bottom, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife

Refuge. Biological Science Report 

USGS/BRD/BSR-2000-0001. 76 pp.

Mazourek, J., D. Martin, D. D. Humburg, and L.

Fredrickson. 1999. Post-flood vegetation.

Pages 21-28 in D.D. Humburg and V.J. Burke

(editors), Initial biotic survey of Lisbon Bottom,

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.

Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR2000-0001. 76 pp.

Mcinnes, P. F., R. J. Naiman, J. Pastor, and Y. Cohen.

1992. Effects of moose browsing on vegetation and litter of the boreal forest, Isle Royale

Michigan, USA. Ecology 73:2059-2075.
Redford, K.H. 1992. The empty forest.

BioScience 42:412-422.

Schwartz, C.W. and E.R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild 

mammals of Missouri, revised edition.

University of Missouri Press and Missouri

Department of Conservation, Columbia.

356 pp.

Vaughn, T. A. 1986. Mammalogy. 3rd ed. Saunders

College Publishing, NY. 576 pp.

Recommended References

Blair, W. F. 1939. Some observed effects of streamvalley flooding on mammalian populations in

eastern Oklahoma. Journal of Mammalogy.

20:304-306.

Blem, L. B. and C. R. Blem. 1975. The effect of flooding on length of residency in the white-footed

mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. American 

Midland Naturalist 94:232-236.

Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenheider. 1980. A field 

guide to the mammals - North America north 

of Mexico. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston. 289 pp.

McCarley, H. 1959. The effect of flooding on a 

marked population of Peromyscus. Journal of

Mammalogy. 40:57-63.

Murie, O. J. 1974. A field guide to animal tracks,

Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company,

Boston. 375 pp.

Ruffer, D. G. 1961. Effect of flooding on a popula

tion of mice. Journal of Mammalogy.

42:494-502.

Stickel, L. F. 1948. Observations of the effect of

flood on animals. Ecology 29:505-507.

Stokes, D. W. and L. Q. Stokes. 1986. A guide to animal tracking and behavior. Little, Brown and

Company, Boston. 418 pp.

72
73

Table 1. Reference codes and sampling periods for mammal survey methods used at Lisbon Bottom during

1996 and 1997.

Code Sampling Periods Method Description

SHR Nov. 1996 Sherman live traps; 49 traps/grid, 5-m spacing, 6 nights

May 1997 Sherman live traps; 49 traps/grid, 5-m spacing, 6 nights

Sept. 1997 Sherman live traps; 100 traps/grid, 10-m spacing, 5 nights

TOM April-Aug. 1997 Tomahawk live traps; 10 traps; periodic trapping

SCAT April-Nov. 1997 Visual observation of scat

SIGHT April-Nov. 1997 Visual observation of animals

TRCK April-Nov. 1997 Visual observation of tracks

TUNN April-Nov. 1997 Visual observation of tunnels

Table 2. Mammal species and their relative abundance documented at Lisbon Bottom during 1996 and

1997 based on captures in Sherman live traps (SHR; 2764 trap-nights) or Tomahawk live traps (TOM; 224

trap-nights). Relative abundance was assessed as follows: R = Rare (1-9 captures); and C = Common (10

or more captures).

Species Common Name Code Abundance

Blarina hylophagaa Elliots short-tailed shrew SHR R

Canis familiaris Domestic dog TOM R

Cryptotis parva Least shrew SHR R

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum TOM C

Microtus ochrogaster Prairie vole SHR R

Mus musculus House mouse SHR C

Mustela vison Mink SHR R

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse SHR C

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse SHR C

Procyon lotor Raccoon TOM C

Reithrodontomys megalotis Western harvest mouse SHR R

Synaptomys cooperi Southern bog lemming SHR R

aProbably B. hylophaga rather than B. brevicauda based on Fritzell (in litt.); morphological data will be collected to confirm identification.
Table 3. Mammal species documented at Lisbon Bottom during 1997 based on visual observations of animals (SIGHT), scat (SCAT), tracks (TRCK), or tunnels (TUNN).

Species Common Name Code

Blarina hylophagaa Elliotss short-tailed shrew SIGHT

Canis latransb Coyote TRCK, SCAT

Castor canadensis Beaver TRCK

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum TRCK

Lynx rufus Bobcat TRCK

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer TRCK

Lontra canadensis River otter TRCK

Mustela vison Mink TRCK

Procyon lotor Raccoon TRCK

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole TUNN

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail rabbit SCAT

aProbably B. hylophaga rather than B. brevicauda based on Fritzell (in litt.); morphological data will be collected to confirm identification.

bAdditional evidence (e.g., sightings) desirable to exclude domestic dogs.

74
75

Fig. 1. Mammal sampling sites at Lisbon Bottom, Missouri, during 1996 and 1997. Small mammal trapping

grids were placed in three habitats during Nov. 1996 and May 1997: mature forest (F1), regenerating forest (R1), and open field (D1). During Sept. 1997, small mammal trapping grids were set in mature forest (F2)

and regenerating forest (R2). Medium-sized mammals were trapped in mature forest between April and Aug.

1997 (FOR-T). Visual surveys for mammal sign were conducted in mature forest habitat (FOR-T), regenerating forest (REG-V), field habitats (FD-V), and mud flats (MUD-V).
76

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

As the Nation=s principal conservation agency,

the Department of the Interior has responsibility

for most of our nationally owned public lands and

natural resources. This responsibility includes fostering the sound use of our lands and water

resource; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and

cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of

life through outdoor recreation. The Department

assesses our energy and mineral resources and

works to ensure that their development is in the

best interests of all our people by encouraging

stewardship and citizen participation in their

care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities.