Erimyzon sucetta
lake chubsucker
Type Locality
South Carolina (Lacepede
1803).
Etymology/Derivation of Scientific Name
Erimyzon, Greek,
meaning “to suck”; sucetta, from the French sucet, “a sucker,”
or “sucking fish” (Pflieger 1975).
Synonymy
Cyprinus sucetta
Lacepède 1803:606 in Eschmeyer 1990.
Erimyzon sucetta Hay
1881:513, 1883:74; Cook 1959:85.
Characters
Maximum size: 394mm TL
(Carlander 1969).
Life colors: Back with
cresentic scale marks; color pattern (except in young with two dark stripes)
consists of narrow vertical bars (Hubbs et al. 1991). The back and upper
sides are dark green or olive green to brown, becoming lighter on the sides.
The undersides of the body are silvery white. Scale margins are outlined in
black, giving the sides a cross-hatched appearance. Fins are dusky, although
the caudal fin may have a reddish tinge. Young fish have very faint vertical
bars on the sides and a wide, black horizontal stripe running from the base
of the tail to the snout. The band becomes faint or absent in large
individuals (Ross 2001).
Counts: 80 or more
pharyngeal teeth (short and fragile) per arch (Becker 1983); 34-38 (usually
36 to 38) longitudinal scale rows; 4 to 18 dorsal fin rays (Hubbs et al.
1991); 7 anal rays, 15 pectoral rays, and 9 pelvic rays (Ross 2001).
Body shape: Laterally
compressed (Ross 2001); eye larger (eye approximately one half snout length;
Hubbs et al. 1991); intestine long with several coils (Goldstein and Simon
1999).
Mouth position:
Subterminal and oblique (Hubbs et al. 1991).
External morphology:
Lateral line always absent; air bladder with two chambers; dorsal fin base
less than one-fourth standard length (Hubbs et al. 1991); rounded dorsal fin
that originates at the point of greatest body depth (Ross 2001). Breeding
males with 3 or 4 large tubercles on each side of snout (Boschung and Mayden
2004).
Distribution (Native and Introduced)
U.S. distribution:
Occurs widely in the Mississippi, Gulf of Mexico, and southeastern Atlantic
seaboard drainages to Virginia (Hubbs et al. 1991).
Texas distribution:
Ranges in state, primarily through eastern portion from the Red River to the
Brazos; a disjunct population has been recorded in the upper Guadalupe River
(Hubbs et al. 1991).
Abundance/Conservation status (Federal, State, NGO)
Not listed as threatened or
endangered by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(2006). Populations in the
southern United States are currently secure (Warren et al. 2000).
Habitat Associations
Macrohabitat: Occupies
ponds, oxbows, sloughs, impoundments, and similar waters of little or no
flow (Wall and Gilbert 1980). More common in lake and ponds as opposed to
streams (Ross 2001).
Mesohabitat: Clear
water, having bottoms of sand or silt mixed with organic debris; aquatic
vegetation usually present (Wall and Gilbert 1980; Werner et al. 1978;
Trautman 1981). Stream habitats are characterized by moderate to slow
currents in relatively deep pools (Meffe and Sheldon 1988). E. sucetta
was a new species collected from Longtown Creek (tributary of the South
Canadian River), in Oklahoma, in a clear, vegetated pool with rocky
substrate (Pigg and Gibbs 1995). Species can tolerate low oxygen thresholds
in winterkill lakes; in Michigan, lake chubsucker had a toleration level of
approximately 0.4-0.3 ppm (Cooper and Washburn 1949).
Biology
Spawning season: Based
on laboratory studies, March to May (later stage larvae prefer temperatures
of 28-34 degrees C; Negus et al. 1987).
Spawning habitat:
Phytolithophils; nonobligatory plant spawner that deposit eggs on
submerged items, have late hatching larvae with cement glands in free
embryos, have larvae with moderately developed respiratory structures, and
have larvae that are photophobic (Simon 1999; Balon 1981). Cooper (1935)
indicated that eggs were scattered over aquatic vegetation including moss,
filamentous algae, and grass stubble. Carr (1942) reported an association
between lake chubsuckers and largemouth bass nests and in which lake
chubsuckers laid their eggs in active largemouth bass nests and the
developing eggs would be protected from predators by largemouth bass.
Reproductive strategy:
Fecundity: Eggs
demersal and adhesive, averaging 2 mm in diameter; hatching occurs in 6-7
days at 23-30 degrees C and in 4-5 days at 20-22 degrees C (Fuiman 1979,
1982; Kay et al. 1994). Individuals of 259-347 mm TL produce an average of
18,478 mature eggs (Shireman et al. 1978). Fertilized eggs hatch in about 72
hours at 22-25 degrees C (Hiltabran 1967).
Age at maturation:
Cooper (1935) found that both sexes reach maturity in their third summer of
life.
Migration:
Growth and population
structure: Individuals grow rapidly during the first 3 or 4 summers of
life, after which the growth rate drops quickly (Cooper 1935). Based on
North Carolina populations, TL after one year is 61mm; TL for 2-6
years: 145mm, 198mm, 240mm, 261mm and 278mm, respectively (Carlander 1969).
Protolarvae are 5-6 mm TL at hatching (Kay et al. 1994).
Longevity:
Approximately 8 years (Carlander 1969).
Food habits:
Invertivore/herbivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Major food items in
streams include midge larvae (Dipteran), detritus and algae, small clams,
and water mites (Sheldon and Meffe 1993). Pond-reared fish consumed items
including detritus, filamentous algae, zooplankton (cladocerans, copepods,
ostracods), and midge larvae (Shireman et al. 1978). Copepods, cladocerans,
and midge larvae (Dipteran) and pupae were also an important prey of a lake
population of chubsuckers (Ewers and Boesel 1935).
Phylogeny and morphologically similar fishes
Erimyzon sucetta is
most closely related to Erimyzon oblongus (Smith 1992) and the two
species are known to hybridize (Hanley 1977).
Lake chubsuckers are
difficult to distinguish from creek chubsuckers. The origin of the dorsal
fin is usually over the point of greatest body depth in creek chubsuckers.
Compared to lake chubsuckers, creek chubsuckers have more cylindrical
bodies, lighter colored fins, and less deeply emarginated caudal fins (Ross
2001).
Host Records
Protozoa: myxobolus globosus, M.oblongus; Trematoda; Cestoda;
Nematoda; Acanthocephala; Crustacea (Hoffman1967).
Gyrodactylus lacustricolae
(Harris et al. 2004).
Commercial or Environmental Importance
Bennett and Childers (1966)
state that lake chubsuckers are good forage for predators, and largemouth
bass feed readily upon the fry; the authors propose that the species be
stocked as forage fish in artificial ponds, quarry pits, and small lakes,
for those owners interested in bass fishing.
[Additional
literature noting collection of this species from Texas locations includes,
but is not limited to the following: Hubbs (1957).]
References
Balon E. K. 1981. Additions and amendments to the classification of
reproductive styles in fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 6:377-389.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison. 1052 pp.
Bennett, G.W., and W.F. Childers. 1966. The lake chubsucker as a forage
species. Progressive Fish Culturist 28(2):89-92.
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater fishery biology. Vol.1. The
Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Carr, M.H. 1942. The breeding habits, embryology, and larval development of
large mouth black bass in Florida. Proc. New England Zool. Club. 20:43-77.
Cook, F.A. 1959. Freshwater fishes in Mississippi. Mississippi Game and Fish
Commision, Jackson.
Cooper G.P. 1935. Some results of forage fish investigations in Michigan.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 65:132-142.
Cooper, G.P., and G.N. Washburn. 1949. Relation of dissolved oxygen to
winter mortality of fish in lakes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 76(1946):23-33.
Eschmeyer, W.N. 1990. Catalog of genera of recent fishes. California Academy
of Sciences, San Francisco.
Fuiman, L.A. 1979. Descriptions and comparisons of catostomid fish larvae:
north Atlantic drainage species. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 108(6):560-603.
Fuiman, L.A. 1982. Family Catostomidae, suckers, pp. 345-435. In:
Identification of larval fishes of the Great Lakes Basin with emphasis on
the Lake Michigan drainage. N.A. Auer, ed. Spec. Publ., no. 82-83, Great
Lake Fisheries Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Goldstein, R.M., and T.P. Simon. 1999. Toward a united definition of guild
structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. pp.
123-202 in T.P. Simon, editor. Assessing the sustainability and
biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Harris, P.D., A.P.Shinn, J. Cable and T.A. Bakke. 2004. Nominal species of
the genus Gyrodactylus von Nordman 1832 (Monogenea: Gyrodactylidae),
with a list of Principal host species. Systematic Parasitology 59:1-27,
2004.
Hay, O.P. 1881. On a collection of fishes from eastern Mississippi. Proc.
U.S. Nat. Mus. 3:488-515.
Hay, O.P. 1883. On a collection of fishes from the lower Mississippi Valley.
Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 2:57-75.
Hiltabran, R.C. 1967. Effects of some herbicides on fertilized fish eggs and
fry. Transactions American Fisheries Society 96(4):414-416.
Hoffman G.L. 1967. Parasites of North American Freshwater Fishes. University
of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 486 pp.
Hubbs, C. 1957. Distributional patterns of Texas fresh-water fishes. The
Southwestern Naturalist 2(2/3):89-104.
Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garret. 1991. An annotated checklist of
freshwater fishes of Texas, with key to identification of species.
Texas Journal of Science, Supplement 43(4):1-56.
Kay, L.K., R. Wallus, and B.L. Yeager. 1994. Reproductive Biology and Early
Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage. Vol. 2. Catostomidae.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Lacepède, B.G. 1803. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. Vol. 5. Paris, France.
Lesueur, C. A. 1829. Canthuras nigro-maculatus. pp 65 In:
Cuvier, G. and A. Valenciennes. [1829] 1969. Histoire
naturelle des poissons. Vol. 3. A. Asher and Co., Amsterdam. 500 pp.
Meffe, G.K., and A.L. Sheldon. 1988. The influence of
habitat structure on fish assemblage composition in southeastern blackwater
streams. American Midland Naturalist 120(2):225-240.
Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 372 pp.
Pigg, J., and R. Gibbs. 1995. Occurrences of catostomid
fishes (suckers) in the North Canadian River and Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma.
Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 75 :7-12.
Ross, S. T. 2001. The Inland Fishes of Mississippi. University Press of
Mississippi 624 pp.
Sheldon, A.L. and G.K. Meffe. 1993. Multivariate analysis of feeding
relationships of fishes in backwater streams. Env. Biol. Fish. 37:161-171.
Shireman, J.V., R.L. Steeler, and E.E. Colle. 1978. Possible use of lake
chubsucker as a baitfish. Prog. Fish-Cult. 40(1):33-34.
Simon, T. P. 1999. Assessment of Balon’s reproductive guilds with
application to Midwestern North American Freshwater Fishes, pp. 97-121.
In: Simon, T.L. (ed.). Assessing the sustainability and biological
integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press. Boca Raton,
Florida. 671 pp.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division, Diversity and
Habitat Assessment Programs. County Lists of Texas' Special Species. [30 May
2006]. Available online at
http://gis.tpwd.state.tx.us/TpwEndangeredSpecies/DesktopModules/AcountyCodeKeyForWebESDatabases.pdf
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Rev. ed. Ohio State Univ. Press,
Columbus.
Wall, B.R. Jr. and Gilbert C.R. 1980. Emrimyzon sucetta (Lacepede),
Lake chubsucker. pp. 399 in D.S. Lee et al. Atlas of North American
Freshwater Fishes. N.C. State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh, i-r+854 pp.
Warren, L. W., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner,
D. A. Etnier, B. J. Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S.
T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation
status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States.
Fisheries, Conservation. 25(10):7-29.
|