Disclaimer:

The Nonindigenous Occurrences section of the NAS species profiles has a new structure. The section is now dynamically updated from the NAS database to ensure that it contains the most current and accurate information. Occurrences are summarized in Table 1, alphabetically by state, with years of earliest and most recent observations, and the tally and names of drainages where the species was observed. The table contains hyperlinks to collections tables of specimens based on the states, years, and drainages selected. References to specimens that were not obtained through sighting reports and personal communications are found through the hyperlink in the Table 1 caption or through the individual specimens linked in the collections tables.

---

Common name: Tennessee Shiner

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994).

Size: 8.2 cm.

Native Range: Green, Cumberland, and Tennessee River drainages, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. In Green River drainage, restricted to extreme upper Green and upper Barren systems. Also in extreme upper Savannah River drainage, North Carolina and Georgia, and New River drainage, Virginia and North Carolina (latter may be result of bait bucket introduction) (Page and Burr 1991; see below).

Alaska	Hawaii	Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands	Guam Saipan

Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Explained
Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Means of Introduction: Unknown; probable bait bucket releases.

Status: Apparently established in the Chattahoochee River system of Georgia and the New River drainage of North Carolina (and possibly the New River drainage Virginia).

Impact of Introduction: The impacts of this species are currently unknown, as no studies have been done to determine how it has affected ecosystems in the invaded range. The absence of data does not equate to lack of effects. It does, however, mean that research is required to evaluate effects before conclusions can be made.

Remarks: There is some uncertainty concerning the native versus nonnative distribution of this species. In his summary table of North Carolina fishes, Menhinick (1991) regarded it as native but possibly introduced to the Savannah River drainage. If the presence of this species in the upper Savannah of North Carolina is the result of past introduction, then its occurrence in the upper Savannah of South Carolina possibly is also due to introduction. However, most authors believe it to be native to the Savannah. For example, Tsai and Raney (1974) stated that N. leuciodus may have entered the Savannah River drainage of the Atlantic Slope via stream capture. Similarly, Lee et al. (1980 et seq.) considered that its presence in the upper Savannah of Georgia and North Carolina to be the result of natural stream capture from the Tennessee River drainage. Page and Burr (1991) and Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) also considered it native to the Savannah. There is more consensus concerning its possible introduction into the New River drainage. For example, Menhinick (1991) listed this species as probably introduced to the New and Catawba drainages. In their summary table of Virginia fishes, Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) regarded it as introduced, but possibly native, to the New. They noted that it occurred in the New River drainage of North Carolina, and perhaps Virginia also. However, it should be emphasized that these researchers indicated there had been as yet no records of the fish being taken from the New drainage within Virginia borders. The species is known from the Little River system (New River drainage) in North Carolina, very near to the Virginia border, and this may explain why some authors have listed it as occurring in Virginia. For example, Page and Burr (1991) stated that the species occurred in the New River drainage of North Carolina and Virginia, and noted that its presence in that drainage may be the result of a bait bucket release. Lee et al. (1980 et seq.) also stated that the occurrence of this species in the New-Kanawha River drainage was believed to be due to human introduction. Hocutt et al. (1986) also regarded it as introduced (but possibly native) for the Kanawha (New) River drainage above the falls. However, they stated that the historical absence of this and other minnow species in earlier collections may have been due to inadequate sampling.

References: (click for full references)

Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, J. W. Foltz, and J. M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 430 pp.

Other Resources:

Author: Leo Nico, and Pam Fuller

Peer Review Date: 1/4/2010

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.