An analysis of faunal variations in different parts of the same stream
system was made for Big Caney River and Grouse Creek. Collecting was
more extensive in these streams, and sampling was done over a wider
range of habitat, than in the Arkansas and Walnut rivers.
The fish taken in the first five seine hauls at each station were
counted and the number of each species was recorded as a percentage of
the total number of fish taken. These percentages were calculated for
the main stream and for each tributary in an attempt to discern possible
intra-stream faunal patterns. In Table 6 lower, middle, and upper
segments of each stream have been segregated and the average of all
stations within each segment is shown.
The results are subject to several sources of error, some of which are
discussed below:
(1) Seining techniques could not be entirely standardized. One station
might present a series of long narrow riffles and narrow, shallow pools
in which only a small seine could be used effectively; another station
might consist of a large, deep, isolated pool in which a larger seine
was needed for effective sampling. In practice, the five seine hauls
were made with any of several seines ranging from ten to twenty feet in
length.
(2) Seines are species-selective, due partly to the preference of
certain fishes for special habitat niches. Fishes that are often found
under stones or in weedy pools require special collecting techniques and
frequently were not represented in the initial five hauls. If work
subsequent to the first five hauls indicated that such fish were a
prominent part of the fauna at a particular station, these results were
considered before percentages were calculated.
(3) Temporal variations occur in populations at the same station. There
were both seasonal and diurnal differences in relative numbers of
species taken in these collections. This was noted especially at station
C-5 where collecting was done both at night and by day. Spawning by
certain species during the course of the study complicated estimates of
their relative abundance.
(4) In tabulating percentages of fishes obtained an arbitrary element is
often unavoidable in deciding whether a station, especially a station on
a tributary, should be considered as part of the lower, middle, or upper
segment of a river system.
Despite these disadvantages it is felt that table 6 has factual basis
permitting some reliable interpretation.
TABLE 6.--RELATIVE ABUNDANCE IN PER CENT OF FISHES IN
COLLECTIONS FROM THREE STREAM SEGMENTS.
====================================================================
| Big Caney River Grouse Creek
|------------------------+-----------------------
| Lower | Middle | Upper | Lower | Middle | Upper
-------------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+------
_L. osseus_ | .7 | .5 | | .6 | .02 |
_D. cepedianum_ | .3 | | | | .02 |
_Carpiodes carpio_ | .06 | | | 1.0 | |
_I. bubalus_ | .6 | .45 | | 1.4 | |
_I. cyprinella_ | | | | .1 | |
_I. niger_ | .01 | | | | |
_M. erythrurum_ | .2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | .03 | .5 | 1.1
_M. melanops_ | .1 | .01 | | | .1 |
_Cyprinus carpio_ | .7 | | | 1.3 | .2 |
_C. anomalum_ | .6 | 5.9 | 18.0 | | .1 |
_N. boops_ | .6 | .6 | 5.1 | | 1.3 |
_N. buchanani_ | | | | .01 | |
_N. camurus_ | 6.4 | 5.5 | .4 | | |
_N. lutrensis_ | 8.8 | 1.0 | .5 | 6.4 | 11.4 | 15.2
_N. percobromus_ | | | | 1.1 | |
_N. rubellus_ | .4 | 1.4 | 3.9 | | |
_N. umbratilis_ | 17.6 | 28.3 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 5.5
_N. volucellus_ | .3 | .4 | | | .3 |
_P. mirabilis_ | .3 | | | | |
_P. notatus_ | 3.5 | 5.7 | 13.0 | | .9 | 6.6
_P. vigilax_ | .8 | | | | |
_P. promelas_ | | | | | | 2.9
_P. tenellus_ | .7 | .5 | | .01 | |
_G. affinis_ | 14.6 | .4 | .4 | 20.8 | 10.2 | 1.0
_F. notatus_ | .1 | | | 6.6 | 17.2 | 1.4
_I. melas_ | .9 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 2.3 | 18.0
_I. natalis_ | | | .5 | .5 | .8 |
_P. olivaris_ | .01 | | | .01 | |
_I. punctatus_ | .3 | | | .4 | |
_E. spectabile_ | 1.9 | 4.9 | 18.0 | .4 | .3 | .3
_P. copelandi_ | .8 | .1 | | .01 | |
_P. phoxocephala_ | .1 | | | .1 | |
_P. caprodes_ | .4 | .6 | .2 | .2 | .2 | .4
_M. salmoides_ | .06 | | | | 1.1 | .3
_M. punctulatus_ | .5 | 1.7 | .4 | | |
_P. annularis_ | 3.9 | .8 | | 2.9 | 4.2 | .3
_L. cyanellus_ | 3.4 | .8 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 30.5
_L. humilis_ | 10.6 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 31.4 | 17.7 | 14.8
_L. megalotis_ | 12.4 | 22.3 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 14.0 | 1.7
_L. macrochirus_ | .3 | | | .2 | 1.3 |
_A. grunniens_ | .1 | | | | |
_L. sicculus_ | 7.1 | 1.6 | .4 | 7.7 | 10.2 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_Big Caney River_
The "lower segment" of Big Caney River is immediately upstream from
Hulah Reservoir, and is not the lowermost portion of the entire river
basin, but merely the lower part of the river in the area studied. A
conspicuous characteristic of the lower segment was the general
restriction of the deep-bodied suckers and the carp to this part of the
stream. Other fishes that were most common in the lower section were
_Pimephales vigilax_, _Percina phoxocephala_, _Gambusia affinis_, and
_Aplodinotus grunniens_. _Labidesthes sicculus_ and _Lepisosteus osseus_
ranged into the middle section of the stream, but were present in larger
numbers downstream. _Ictalurus punctatus_, _Pomoxis annularis_, and
_Lepomis macrochirus_ were taken chiefly in downstream habitats;
however, stocking has confused the distributional pattern of these
species. _Notropis lutrensis_, although found throughout the system,
progressively declined in numbers taken in the middle and upper
sections. Approximately 18 species were usually taken in downstream
collections.
No species were found exclusively in the middle section of the Big Caney
system. _Micropterus punctulatus_, _Notropis umbratilis_, and _Lepomis
megalotis_ tended to be most common in the middle section of the main
stream. These three species were taken together at stations C-5, C-6,
C-8, and C-10.
The upper section yielded no species that did not occur also in another
section. Fishes most abundant in the upper section included: _Campostoma
anomalum_, _Etheostoma spectabile_, _Notropis boops_, _Notropis
rubellus_, _Pimephales notatus_, and _Lepomis cyanellus_. _Ictalurus
natalis_ also seemed more common upstream than in lower parts of the
basin.
_Campostoma anomalum_ was one of the most common fishes taken at many of
the stations on small upland tributaries. In downstream collections its
relative abundance was less, although it was often concentrated on
riffles.
In the Big Caney system as a whole _Notropis umbratilis_ was the most
abundant species. Several species were present throughout the system in
proportions varying, sometimes greatly, from station to station.
_Lepomis megalotis_ and _Lepomis humilis_ were erratic in occurrence,
and the numbers of _Notropis camurus_ and _Ictalurus melas_ varied
without pattern.
_Grouse Creek_
The fauna of the main stream of Grouse Creek fluctuated more in number
and kinds of fish from station to station than did the fauna of Big
Caney River. Again, the deep-bodied suckers showed downstream
proclivities. In addition, _Notropis buchanani_, _Pimephales tenellus_,
_Percina copelandi_, _Percina phoxocephala_, _Notropis percobromus_ and
_Pylodictis olivaris_ were taken only at the lowermost station (G-1). At
stations G-2 and G-3 the creek is sluggish and often turbid, meandering
between high mud banks in a flood plain. At these stations _Fundulus
notatus_, _Gambusia affinis, La_-_bidesthes sicculus_, _Ictalurus
melas,_ and _Lepomis humilis_ were the most common fishes. Shiners
(_Notropis_ spp.) and _Lepomis megalotis_ were rarely taken. Hall
(1953:36) states that _Gambusia affinis_, _Fundulus notatus_, and
_Labidesthes sicculus_ are usually associated with overflow pools,
oxbows, and vegetated backwaters.
Those fishes mentioned in the preceding paragraph remained common in
the middle section of the stream. In addition _Notropis lutrensis_,
_Notropis umbratilis_, and _Lepomis megalotis_ were important members
of the fauna.
In the uppermost section shiners (_Notropis_ spp.) were common. In the
few upstream stations that were still in good condition with clear
flowing water, the fauna resembled that of the upstream stations on Big
Caney River. Most upstream stations on Grouse Creek were located on
highly intermittent streams that are treated below.