Management Plan for the Bridle Shiner in Canada [Final] 2011: References
Aravindakshan, J., V. Paquet, M. Gregory, J. Dufresne, M. Fournier, D.J. Marcogliese, and D.G. Cyr. 2004. Consequences of xenoestrogen exposure on male reproductive function in Spottail Shiners (Notropis hudsonius). Toxicological Sciences 78: 156-165.
Auger, I. 2006. Évaluation du risque de l’introduction du myriophylle à épis sur l’offre de pêche et la biodiversité des eaux à touladi. Revue de la littérature. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction de la recherche sur la Faune, Québec. 88 p.
Baker, K. 2005. Nine year study of the invasion of western Lake Erie by the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus): changes in goby and darter abundance. Ohio Journal of Science 105: A-31.
Bernatchez, L. and M. Giroux. 2000. Les poissons d’eau douce du Québec et leur répartition dans l’Est du Canada. Broquet, Boucherville, Québec.
Boucher, J., M. Letendre, M. Bérubé, H. Fournier, Y. Mailhot, C. Côté, L. Nadon, and P-Y. Collin. 2006. Évaluation de l’impact de la pêche commerciale automnale aux poissons appâts sur cinq espèces de poissons à situation précaire en vertu de la Loi sur les espèces en péril (chevalier cuivré, brochet vermiculé, méné d’herbe, dard de sable, fouille-roche gris). Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Société Provancher d’histoire naturelle du Canada. 81 p.
Bourque, A. and G. Simonet. 2008. In From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. D.S. Lemmen, F.J.Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush, (Eds). Ottawa: Government of Canada. pp171-226.
CARA (Corporation de l’Aménagement de la Rivière L’Assomption). 2002. Inventaire ichtyologique d’espèces rares dans la partie sud du basin versant de la rivière L’Assomption, été 2002. Joliette, Québec. 42 p.
CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency). 2010. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [online]. CFIA. Available : http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/virsep/200709e.shtml, accessed February 2011.
Croley, T. E. 2003. Great Lakes climate change hydrologic assessment, I. J.C. Lake Ontario-St-Lawrence River regulation study. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration technical memorandum, GLERL-126.
Cudmore, B. and N.E. Mandrak. 2005. The baitfish primer: a guide to identifying and protecting Ontario’s baitfishes. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Bait Association of Ontario. 35 pp.
de Lafontaine, Y., N.C. Gilbert, F. Dumouchel, C. Brochu, S. Moore, E. Pelletier, P. Dumont, and A. Branchaud. 2002. Is chemical contamination responsible for the decline of the Copper Redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi), an endangered fish species, in Canada? The Science for Total Environment 298: 25-44.
Desroches, J.F., D. Pouliot, I. Picard, and R. Laparé. 2008. Nouvelles mentions pour six espèces de poissons d’eau douce rares au Québec. Le Naturaliste canadien 132(2): 62-66.
Dextrase, A.J. 1999. 1999 sampling for fishes at risk in the Rideau, Gananoque and St. Lawrence drainages. OMNR file report, 4 pp.
Dextrase, A. and N.E. Mandrak. 2006. Impacts of alien invasive species on freshwater fauna at risk in Canada. Biological Invasions 18(1): 13-24.
Doka, S., C. Bakelaar, and L. Bouvier. 2006. Chapter 6. Coastal wetland fish community assessment of climate change in the lower Great Lakes. pp. 101-128. In: L .Mortsch, J. Ingram, A. Hebb, and S. Doka (eds.), Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Communities: Vulnerability to Climate Change and Response to Adaptation Strategies, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Toronto, Ontario.
Edwards, A., N.E. Mandrak, and J. Barnucz. 2008 – Draft. Boat electrofishing survey of the St. Lawrence River and Lake St. Francis, 2004. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2831: vi + 74 pp.
Environment Canada. 2001. Threats to sources of drinking water and aquatic ecosystem health in Canada. National Water Research Institute, Burlington, Ontario. NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series No. 1. 72 pp.
FAPAQ (Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec). 2002. Rapport sur les impacts de la production porcine sur la faune et ses habitats. Vice-présidence au développement et à l’aménagement de la faune, Québec.
Fagherazzi, L., R. Guay and T. Sassi. 2005. Climate change analysis of the Ottawa River system. Report to the International Joint Commission – Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River study on discharge regulation.
Garceau, S., M. Letendre, and Y. Chagnon. 2007. Inventaire du fouille-roche gris (Percina copelandi) dans le bassin versant de la rivière Châteauguay. Étude réalisé par le ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction de l’aménagement de la faune de l’Estrie, de Montréal et de la Montérégie, Longueuil – Rapport technique 16-28, vi + 19 p. + appendices.
Garceau, S., J. Boucher, B. Dumas, and M. Letendre. In Press. Évaluation de l’impact de la pêche commerciale estivale aux poissons appâts sur cinq espèces de poissons à situation précaire en vertu de la Loi sur les espèces en péril (chevalier cuivré, brochet vermiculé, méné d’herbe, dard de sable, fouille-roche gris). Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec en collaboration avec le Comité de concertation et de valorisation du bassin de la rivière Richelieu et Pêches et Océans Canada. 36 p. + appendices.
Giguère, S., J. Morin, P. Laporte, and M. Mingelbier. 2005. Évaluation des impacts des fluctuations hydrologiques sur les espèces en péril, tronçon fluvial du Saint-Laurent (Cornwall à Trois-Rivières). Rapport final présenté à la Commission mixte internationale, dans le cadre de l’étude internationale sur le lac Ontario et le fleuve Saint-Laurent, par Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune et Service météorologique du Canada, et le ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec. 71 p.
Harrington, R.H. 1947. The breeding behaviour of the bridled shiner, Notropis bifrenatus. Copeia 1947: 186-192.
Harrington, R.H. 1948a. The life cycle and fertility of the bridled shiner, Notropis bifrenatus (Cope). The American Midland Naturalist 39: 83-92.
Harrington, R.H. 1948b. The food of the bridled shiner, Notropis bifrenatus (Cope). The American Midland Naturalist 40: 353-361.
Holm, E. and N.E. Mandrak. 1996. The status of the Eastern Sand Darter, Ammocrypta pellucida, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110(3): 462-469.
Holm, E., P. Dumont, J. Leclerc, G. Roy and E.J. Crossman. In Press. COSEWIC status report on the bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-19 pp.
Hubbs, C.L. and D.E.S. Brown. 1929. Materials for a distributional study of Ontario fishes. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute 17: 1-56.
Hudon, C. and R. Carignan. 2008. Cumulative impacts of hydrology and human activities on water quality in the St. Lawrence River (Lake Saint-Pierre, Quebec, Canada). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65(6): 1165-1180.
Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Jobling, S. and C.R. Tyler. 2003. Endocrine disruption in wild freshwater fish. Pure Applied Chemistry 75(11-12): 2219-2234.
La Violette, N., D. Fournier, P. Dumont, and Y. Mailhot. 2003. Caractérisation des communautés de poissons et développement d’un indice d’intégrité biotique pour le fleuve Saint-Laurent, 1995-1997. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Direction de la recherche sur la faune. 237 p.
Lefaivre, D. 2005. Effet des changements climatiques sur les niveaux d'eau du fleuve Saint-Laurent entre Montréal et Québec, Projections pour les années 2050. Report prepared for the Comité de concertation navigation Plan d'Action Saint-Laurent Phase 4, Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, Direction des Sciences océaniques, 34 p.
Lemmen, D.S. and F.J. Warren. 2004. Climate change impacts and adaptation: a Canadian perspective. Natural Resources Canada: Ottawa, Ontario.
Letendre, V. 1960. Les poissons d'eau douce. Tome 2. Clef des cyprinidés ou ménés du Québec. Ministère de la Chasse et des pêcheries. Le Jeune Naturaliste. No 9 et 10:178-212, Jolliette.
Lyons, J. 1989. Changes in the abundance of small littoral zone fishes in Lake Mendota, Wisconsin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67(12): 2910-2916.
Mandrak, N.E., J. Barnucz, and D. Marson. 2006. Survey of the fish assemblages of St. Lawrence Islands National Park in 2005. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2777: v + 17 pp.
Mapleston, A., L.A. Thompson, and S.J. Cooke. 2007. Inventory of fish considered to be at risk in the Rideau Canal System including Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus), Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatus), river redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory Research Report Series 07-02. Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Massé, G. and J.-R. Mongeau. 1974. Répartition géographique des poissons, leur abondance relative et bathymétrie de la région du lac Saint-Pierre. Ministère du Tourisme, de la Chasse et de la Pêche du Québec. District de Montréal, Service de l’aménagement de la faune. Rapport technique 06-01.
MDDEP (Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs). 2007. L'eau au Québec: une ressource à protéger [online]. Available: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/inter.htm, accessed July 2007.
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, accessed October 2009.
NCRAIS (National Center for Research on Invasive Species). 2009. Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species List [online]. NCRAIS. Available : http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ncrais/links.html, accessed October 2009.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2008. Ontario fishing regulations – permitted baitfish species [online]. OMNR. Available: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/198684.html, accessed February 2011.
Pariseau, R., H. Fournier, J.-P. Harnois, and G. Michon. 2007. Recherche de fouille-roche gris (Percina copelandi), et de mené d’herbe (Notropis bifrenatus) dans la rivière des Outaouais entre Carillon et Rapides-des-Joachims. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction de l’aménagement de la faune de l’Outaouais, Gatineau. 20 p.
Portt, C.B., G.A. Coker, N.E. Mandrak, and D.L. Ming. 2008. Protocol for the detection of fish species at risk in Ontario Great Lakes Area (OGLA). Canadian Science Advisory Document – Research Document 2008/026. v + 32 pp.
Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity. Diversity and Distributions 12: 425-433.
Robitaille, J. 2005. Rapport sur la situation du méné d’herbe (Notropis bifrenatus) au Québec. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. Direction du développement de la faune. 18 p.
Roy, L. 2002. Les impacts environnementaux de l’agriculture sur le Saint-Laurent. Le Naturaliste canadien 126(1): 67-77.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Galt House Publications Ltd. Oakville, ON. 966 pp.
Vachon, N. 2003. L’envasement des cours d’eau : processus, causes et effets sur les écosystèmes avec une attention particulière aux Castostomidés dont le chevalier cuivré (Moxostoma hubbsi). Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Direction de l’aménagement de la faune de Montréal, de Laval et de la Montérégie, Longueuil, Rapport technique 16-13. vi + 49 p.
List of Personal Communications
Côté, Chantal. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Secteur Faune Québec, Direction régionale de Laval, de Lanaudière et des Laurentides.
Jacobs, Brendan. Raisin Region Conservation Authority, Ontario.
Knack, Hillary. Parks Canada Agency. Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada.
La Violette, Nathalie. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Secteur Faune Québec, Direction de la recherche sur la faune.
Mandrak, Nicholas E. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Central and Arctic Region, Burlington, Ontario.
Équipe de rétablissement des cyprinidés et petits percidés (Quebec):
The following members of the Quebec Cyprinidae and Small Percidae Recovery Team were involved in the development of the management plan for the Bridle Shiner:
Michel Letendre (President)
Quebec Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
Julie Boucher (Coordinator)
Quebec Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
Marthe Bérubé
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Quebec Region
Pedro Nilo
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Quebec Region
Henri Fournier
Quebec Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
Chantal Côté
Quebec Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
Steve Garceau
Quebec Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
Marcel Comiré
Comité de concertation et de valorisation du bassin de la rivière Richelieu (COVABAR)
Geneviève Audet
Châteauguay Watershed Management Agency/Société de conservation et d’aménagement du bassin de la rivière Châteauguay (SCABRIC)
Réjean Malo
Parks Canada Agency
Jean Caumartin
Hydro-Québec - Environment/Production division
Ontario Freshwater Fish Recovery Team:
The following members of the Ontario Freshwater Fish Recovery Team were involved in the development of the management plan for the Bridle Shiner:
Shawn Staton (Chair)
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Central and Arctic Region
Carolyn Bonta
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority
Alan Dextrase
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Andrea Doherty
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Central and Arctic Region
Amy Boyko
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Central and Arctic Region
Brendan Jacobs
Raisin Region Conservation Authority
Hillary Knack
Parks Canada Agency
Dr. Nicholas Mandrak
Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Central and Arctic Region
Francis McDermott
Shabot Obaadjiwan Algonquin First Nations
Dr. Scott Reid
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Kirsten Querbach
Environment Canada (formerly from Parks Canada Agency)
National Designations:
COSEWIC Status – Status assigned to species by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). COSEWIC was established in 1977 and has been included in the Species at Risk Act as an independent body of experts, for the purpose of evaluating and assigning national conservation status to species at risk. This committee is an apolitical committee that includes representatives of federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as university and museum academics and independent biologists with expertise in relevant fields. Each species receives a status designation from COSEWIC following the completion and review of a species status report. Status reports contain information on the biology, range, abundance and possible threats to the species (for more information on national status definitions see http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/index.htm).
EXT (Extinct) – A species that no longer exists.
EXP (Extirpated) – A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere.
END (Endangered) – A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
THR (Threatened) – A wildlife species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction.
SC (Special Concern) – A wildlife species that may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
DD (Data Deficient) – A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species' risk of extinction.
NAR (Not At Risk) – A wildlife species that has been evaluated (by COSEWIC) and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.
Provincial Designations:
Quebec species at risk legislation: An Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species
Vulnerable Species – Any species whose survival is at risk even if its disappearance is not foreseen.
Threatened Species – Any species whose disappearance is foreseen.
For more information see: http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/lois/lois-faune.jsp.
Ontario:
Species at Risk in Ontario List Status – Ontario’s new Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA 2007) came into effect June 2007. Species thought to be at risk are assessed by The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). COSSARO is an independent body that reviews species based on the best available science, including community knowledge, and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. Species listed "at risk" are automatically placed on the official Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. (For more information see: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html).
For the purposes of this Act, COSSARO shall classify species in accordance with the following rules:
Extirpated (EXP) - A species is classified as an extirpated species if it lives somewhere in the world, lived at one time in the wild in Ontario, but no longer lives in the wild in Ontario.
Endangered (END) - A species is classified as an endangered species if it lives in the wild in Ontario but is facing imminent extinction or extirpation.
Threatened (THR) - A species is classified as a threatened species if it lives in the wild in Ontario, is not endangered, but is likely to become endangered if steps are not taken to address factors threatening to lead to its extinction or extirpation.
Special Concern (SC) - A species is classified as a special concern species if it lives in the wild in Ontario, is not endangered or threatened, but may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
COSSARO may also identify species as Extinct, Data Deficient or Not at Risk. These species do not receive protection under the ESA 2007 and are not included on the SARO list. More information can be found at : http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html.
NatureServe Global Ranks and Subnational/Provincial Ranks:
Global Rank (GRank) – Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of natural heritage programs (Conservation Data Centres), scientific experts and The Nature Conservancy (http://www.tnc.org) to designate a rarity rank based on the range-wide status of a species, subspecies or variety. The most important factors considered in assigning global ranks are the total number of known, extant sites worldwide, and the degree to which they are potentially or actively threatened with destruction. Other criteria include the number of known populations considered to be securely protected, the size of the various populations and the ability of the taxon to persist at its known sites. The taxonomic distinctness of each taxon has also been considered. Hybrids, introduced species and taxonomically dubious species and varieties, have not been included (for more information on global ranks see http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/granks.htm.
GX (Presumed Extinct [species]) — Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. Eliminated (ecological communities)—Eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of dominant or characteristic species.
GH (Possibly Extinct [species]) — Missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery. Presumed Eliminated - (historic, ecological communities) - Presumed eliminated throughout its range, with no or virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered, but with the potential for restoration, for example, American Chestnut (Forest).
G1 (Critically Imperilled) – At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.
G2 (Imperilled) – At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
G3 (Vulnerable) — At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
G4 (Apparently Secure) — Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
G5 (Secure) — Common; widespread and abundant.
GU (Unrankable) — Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. Whenever possible, the most likely rank is assigned and the question mark qualifier is added (e.g., G2?) to express uncertainty, or a range rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to delineate the limits (range) of uncertainty.
National (NRank) and Subnational/Provincial Rank (SRank) – The term “national” refers to the assignment of a rank at a country-scale. The term "subnational" refers to state or province-level jurisdictions (e.g., California, Ontario). Assigning national and subnational conservation status ranks for species and ecological communities follows the same general principles as used in assigning global status ranks. However, a subnational rank cannot imply that the species or community is more secure at the state/province level than it is nationally or globally (i.e., a rank of G1S3 cannot occur), and similarly, a national rank cannot exceed the global rank. Subnational ranks are assigned and maintained by state or provincial natural heritage programs and conservation data centers.
NX, SX (Presumed Extirpated) — Species or community is believed to be extirpated from the nation or state/province. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.
NH, SH (Possibly Extirpated [Historical]) — Species or community occurred historically in the nation or state/province, and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20-40 years. A species or community could become NH or SH without such a 20-40 year delay if the only known occurrences in a nation or state/province were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The NH or SH rank is reserved for species or communities for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences.
N1, S1 (Critically Imperilled) — Critically imperilled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province.
N2, S2 (Imperilled) — Imperilled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province.
N3, S3 (Vulnerable) — Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation.
N4, S4 (Apparently Secure) — Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
N5, S5 (Secure) — Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province.
NNR, SNR (Unranked) — Nation or state/province conservation status not yet assessed.
NU, SU (Unrankable) — Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends.
NNA, SNA (Not Applicable) — A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities.
N#N#, S#S# (Range Rank) — A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4).
Not Provided – Species is known to occur in this nation or state/province. Contact the relevant natural heritage program for assigned conservation status.