Notropis buchanani
Meek, 1896
Common Name:
Ghost Shiner
Synonyms and Other Names:
Identification:
Silvery or translucent with very little pigment; small mouth; compressed, relatively deep body; highly elevated anterior lateral line scales, and a long caudal peduncle. Breeding males become densely tuberculate on the top of the head, nape, and snout (Holm and Houston 1993). Becker (1983); Robison and Buchanan (1988); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Pflieger (1997).
Size:
6.4 cm
Native Range:
Mississippi River basin from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia to eastern Kansas, and western Oklahoma, and from Minnesota and Wisconsin south to northern Alabama and Louisiana; Gulf Slope drainages from Calcasieu River, Louisiana, to Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico (Lee et al. 1980 et seq.; Page and Burr 1991).
|
|
|
This map only depicts Great Lakes introductions.
|
|
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Notropis buchanani is overwintering and reproducing in Lakes Huron and St. Clair, Michigan (Cudmore-Vokey and Crossman 2000). Ghost shiner was first reported in Michigan waters in 2001 (Jude and Hensler 2001). A single specimen was taken from Sandusky Harbor, Lake Erie, Ohio, in June 1997 (S. Keppner, personal communication), however, the species is a protected species in Ohio (Johnson 1987) and an endangered species in Pennsylvania (Cooper 1985). N. buchanani is considered extirpated in Wisconsin (Becker 1983), and has not been collected in Minnesota since 1945 (Underhill 1957). The species is generally considered non-native in Canada, with the earliest record from Mollys Creek in 1972 (Kott and Fitzgerald 2000) but has become widespread in southwestern Ontario (Holm and Houston 1993). Alternatively, Kott and Fitzgerald (2000) provide evidence that the Ontario population is racially distinct from populations to the south, consistent with their hypothesis that the population expanded from a small glacial relict population.
Table 1. Great Lakes region nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state/province, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Notropis buchanani are found here.
Table last updated 10/18/2023
† Populations may not be currently present.
* HUCs are not listed for areas where the observation(s) cannot be approximated to a HUC (e.g. state centroids or Canadian provinces).
Ecology:
Notropis buchanani is commonly found in water less than 1 meter deep over substrates consisting of clay, silt, and detritus (Holm and Coker 1981). It is found near the confluence of large rivers or creeks where it inhabits quiet pools, eddies, or backwaters away from the current. Turbidity or siltation does not appear to limit the distribution of the Ghost Shiner, as it thrives both in areas of high and low turbidity (Holm and Houston 1993).
Great Lakes Means of Introduction:
Nonindigenous populations are probably due to bait bucket release; alternatively, these possibly represent expansion of native (glacial relict) populations.
Great Lakes Status:
Cryptogenic.
Great Lakes Impacts:
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. Current research on the environmental impact of Notropis buchanani in the Great Lakes is inadequate to support proper assessment.
There is little or no evidence to support that Notropis buchanani has socio-economic impacts in the Great Lakes.
There is little or no evidence to support that Notropis buchanani has significant beneficial effects in the Great Lakes.
Management:
Regulations (pertaining to the Great Lakes)
In Pennsylvania, the Ghost Shiner is an endangered species. The catching, taking, killing, possessing, importing to or exporting from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, selling or offering for sale or purchasing of any individual of an endangered species, alive or dead, or any part thereof, without a special permit, is prohibited (58 PA Code § 75.1). Note: Check federal, state/provincial, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.
Control
Biological
There are no known biological control methods for this species.
Physical
There are no known physical control methods for this species.
Chemical
Of the four chemical piscicides registered for use in the United States, antimycin A and rotenone are considered general piscicides, but no studies have been found of their effects on this species (GLMRIS 2012).
Increasing CO2 concentrations, either by bubbling pressurized gas directly into water or by the addition of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) has been used to sedate fish with minimal residual toxicity, and is a potential method of harvesting fish for removal, though maintaining adequate CO2 concentrations may be difficult in large/natural water bodies (Clearwater et al. 2008). CO2 is approved only for use as an anesthetic for cold, cool, and warm water fishes the US, not for use as euthanasia, and exposure to NaHCO3 concentration of 142-642 mg/L for 5 min. is sufficient to anaesthetize most fish (Clearwater et al. 2008).
It should be noted that chemical treatment will often lead to non-target kills, and so all options for management of a species should be adequately studied before a decision is made to use piscicides or other chemicals. Potential effects on non-target plants and organisms, including macroinvertebrates and other fishes, should always be deliberately evaluated and analyzed. The effects of combinations of management chemicals and other toxicants, whether intentional or unintentional, should be understood prior to chemical treatment. Other non-selective alterations of water quality, such as reducing dissolved oxygen levels or altering pH, could also have a deleterious impact on native fish, invertebrates, and other fauna or flora, and their potential harmful effects should therefore be evaluated thoroughly.
Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.
Remarks:
The Lake Erie species was identified by T. Cavender. According to Mills et al. (1993), a population of the Ghost Shiner Notropis buchanani was found in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes drainage in 1979 in backwaters of the Thames River (a tributary of Lake St. Clair), Kent County, Ontario. That introduction was thought to have been the result of a bait bucket release. In an apparent error, Page and Burr (1991) listed New Brunswick as part of this species' range. Voucher specimen: OSUM.
References
(click for full reference list)
Author:
Nico, L., G. Jacobs, J. Larson, T.H. Makled, and A. Fusaro
Contributing Agencies:
Revision Date:
1/17/2024
Peer Review Date:
8/2/2013
Citation for this information:
Nico, L., G. Jacobs, J. Larson, T.H. Makled, and A. Fusaro, 2024, Notropis buchanani Meek, 1896: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, and NOAA Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System, Ann Arbor, MI, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/greatlakes/FactSheet.aspx?Species_ID=590&Potential=N&Type=0&HUCNumber=DHuron, Revision Date: 1/17/2024, Peer Review Date: 8/2/2013, Access Date: 4/20/2024
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.