Northern sunfish (Lepomis peltastes): COSEWIC assessment and status report 2016
Northern Sunfish - Saskatchewan - Nelson River populations
Not at Risk
2016
Northern Sunfish - Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence populations
Special Concern
2016
Table of Contents
- Document Information
- Assessment Summary
- Executive Summary
- Technical Summary
- Preface
- Wildlife Species Description and Significance
- Distribution
- Habitat
- Biology
- Population Sizes and Trends
- Threats and Limiting Factors
- Protection, Status and Ranks
- Acknowledgements and Authorities Contacted
- Information Sources
- Biographical Summary of Report Writers
- Collections Examined
List of Figures
- Figure 1. Northern Sunfish, Lepomis peltastes
- Figure 2. Approximate global distribution of Northern Sunfish Lepomis peltastes
- Figure 3. Canadian distribution of Northern Sunfish. Symbols indicate locations and dates of records.
- Figure 4. Distribution of Northern Sunfish in northwestern Ontario (Saskatchewan-Nelson DU). Symbols indicate locations and dates of records.
- Figure 5. Distribution of Northern Sunfish in southern Ontario and Québec (Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU). Symbols indicate locations and dates of records.
List of Appendices
- Appendix 1: Northern Sunfish records from Ontario and Québec.
- Appendix 2: Threats Calculator for Saskatchewan-Nelson DU.
- Appendix 3: Threats Calculator for Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU.
Document Information
COSEWIC
Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada
COSEPAC
Comité sur la situation
des espèces en péril
au Canada
COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows:
COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Sunfish Lepomis peltastes, Saskatchewan - Nelson River populations and the Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence populations, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xv + 51 pp. (Species at Risk Public Registry website).
Previous report(s):
Meredith, G.N. and Houston, J.J. P. 1987. COSEWIC status report on the Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 17 pp
Production note:
COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Tim Birt for writing the status report on the Northern Sunfish (Lepomis peltastes) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by John Post, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Subcommittee.
Please note that the Northern Sunfish was assessed in 1987 under the name Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis.
For additional copies contact:
COSEWIC Secretariat
c/o Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0H3
Tel.: 819-938-4125
Fax: 819-938-3984
E-mail: COSEWIC E-mail
Website: COSEWIC
Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Crapet du Nord (Lepomis peltastes), populations de la rivière Saskatchewan et du fleuve Nelson et populations des Grands Lacs et du haut Saint-Laurent, au Canada.
Cover illustration/photo:
Northern Sunfish -- Cover photo courtesy of Konrad Schmidt.
COSEWIC Assessment Summary
Assessment Summary – May 2016
- Common name
- Northern Sunfish - Saskatchewan - Nelson River populations
- Scientific name
- Lepomis peltastes
- Status
- Not at Risk
- Reason for designation
- This is a small-bodied member of the sunfish family that inhabits shallow vegetated areas of warm lakes, ponds, and slow-flowing rivers. Though relatively rare, it is broadly distributed, and is subject to low threats.
- Occurrence
- Ontario
- Status history
- The species was considered a single unit and designated Not at Risk in April 1987. When the species was split into two separate units in April 2016, the "Saskatchewan - Nelson River populations" unit was designated Not at Risk.
COSEWIC Assessment Summary
Assessment Summary – May 2016
- Common name
- Northern Sunfish - Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence populations
- Scientific name
- Lepomis peltastes
- Status
- Special Concern
- Reason for designation
- This is a small-bodied member of the sunfish family that inhabits shallow vegetated areas of warm lakes, ponds, and slow-flowing rivers. Its spatial distribution is relatively small and likely patchy. It is suspected that the index of area of occupancy and abundance of the species has declined. Threats are variable across its range with some areas of declining habitat quality and other areas with improving habitat quality. Overall, the threats of siltation, contaminants, and invasive species were assessed as high. The species is likely to become Threatened unless these threats are effectively ameliorated.
- Occurrence
- Ontario, Quebec
- Status history
- The species was considered a single unit and designated Not at Risk in April 1987. When the species was split into two separate units in April 2016, the "Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence populations " unit was designated Special Concern.
COSEWIC Executive Summary
Northern Sunfish - Lepomis peltastes
Saskatchewan - Nelson River populations
Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence populations
Wildlife Species Description and Significance
Northern Sunfish is a small (length usually less than 13 cm), but otherwise typical, sunfish (Centrarchidae) with a deep, laterally compressed body. It has an upwardly angled opercular flap with a red/orange posterior margin. Breeding males are very colourful, having a reddish breast and bright blue wavy lines radiating posteriorly from the eye and opercle, often into the breast. Adult males retain juvenile characteristics including dark vertical bands and spotting on the dorsal and anal fins. A Northern Sunfish produces grunting sounds when courting. This can be an indicator of habitat quality because of its low tolerance of siltation and turbidity.
Distribution
In Canada, Northern Sunfish range includes northwestern Ontario, south and central Ontario, and southern Québec. In the United States, the Northern Sunfish occurs in Minnesota, eastern Wisconsin, northeastern Illinois, northern Indiana, northern Ohio, northwestern Pennsylvania, northwestern New York, and the lower peninsula of Michigan. Because Northern Sunfish is found in Canada in two National Freshwater Biogeographic Zones it is assessed as two designatable units.
Habitat
The species prefers shallow, vegetated areas of warm lakes, ponds, and slowly flowing watercourses. Northern Sunfish usually occurs in clear waters and is considered intolerant of siltation. Substrate usually consists of sand and gravel, as in the Thames River.
Biology
Northern Sunfish spawns during June and July. Eggs are deposited in a saucer-shaped depression in the substrate excavated by the male. Parental care lasts for a period of approximately 1 week and terminates when fry achieve the free swimming stage. Nesting is often colonial. The species is a generalist feeder, consuming mostly insects taken throughout the water column. It also eats small fishes and fish eggs. Northern Sunfish appears to disperse little and is considered a poor colonizer.
Population Size and Trends
Available data do not support quantitative estimates of abundance and population trends, although the species has never been considered common in Canada. Canadian occurrence records extend from 1924, but sampling has been sporadic and effort is often not known, particularly prior to 1995. Population declines are suspected in Québec and parts of southern Ontario because of habitat degradation. Very few Northern Sunfish have been collected in Québec since the early 1980s.
Threats and Limiting Factors
The most important threats, particularly for the Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence DU, include siltation and elevated levels of turbidity and contaminants emanating from agricultural and other forms of development. Less important and potential threats include invasive non-native species (particularly Round Goby), collection for the ornamental fish trade, and bycatch in the bait and recreational fisheries. The Saskatchewan-Nelson DU is threatened by invasive largemouth and smallmouth basses and Green Sunfish, whose ranges are expanding in northwestern Ontario. The most important limiting factor is probably the species’ low dispersal capacity, which slows recovery following depopulation and diminishes potential for population rescue. Northern Sunfish is also limited by low tolerance of turbidity.
Protection, Status, and Ranks
Northern Sunfish is not listed under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) or the Ontario Endangered Species Act. In Québec, the species is included on the Liste des espèces susceptibles d’être désignées menacées ou vulnérables (list of wildlife species likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable) as mandated by the “Loi sur les espèces menacées ou vulnérables” (RLRQ, c E-12.01) (LEMV) (Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species) (CQLR, c E-12.01). Because sunfishes are considered sport fish, Northern Sunfish and its habitat are protected under the federal Fisheries Act. Northern Sunfish is not protected by federal legislation in the United States. Global NatureServe rank is Apparently Secure (G4). National rank in Canada is Vulnerable (N3) and in the United States the rank is Apparently Secure (N4). Subnational ranks in Canada are Imperilled (S2) in Québec and Vulnerable (S3) in Ontario. Northern Sunfish is not ranked in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.
Technical Summary - DU1
- Scientific Name:
- Lepomis peltastes
- English Name:
- Northern Sunfish Saskatchewan-Nelson River populations
- French Name:
- Crapet du Nord Populations de la rivière Saskatchewan et du fleuve Nelson
- Range of occurrence in Canada (province/territory/ocean):
- Northwest Ontario and Saskatchewan-Nelson Basin in Ontario.
Demographic Information
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Generation time (usually average age of spawners) | 4 yrs |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of mature individuals? | No |
Estimated percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [5 years or 2 generations] | Unknown |
[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the last [10 years, or 3 generations]. | Unknown |
Projected or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the next [10 years, or 3 generations]. | Unknown |
[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over any [10 years, or 3 generations] period, over a time period including both the past and the future. | Unknown |
Are the causes of the decline a. clearly reversible and b. understood and c. ceased? | N/A |
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals? | Unknown |
Extent and Occupancy Information
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Estimated extent of occurrence | 22,100 km² |
Index of area of occupancy (IAO) (Always report 2x2 grid value). 208 km² (discrete) >>2000 km2 (continuous) |
208 km² |
Is the population "severely fragmented" ie. is >50% of its total area of occupancy in habitat patches that are (a) smaller than would be required to support a viable population, and (b) separated from other habitat patches by a distance larger than the species can be expected to disperse? |
|
Number of locations (use plausible range to reflect uncertainty if appropriate) (Note: See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.) |
Many >>10 using siltation and contaminants as principal threat |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in extent of occurrence? | No |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in index of area of occupancy? | No |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of subpopulations? | No |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of "locations"? (Note: See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.) |
No |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in [area, extent and/or quality] of habitat? | Uncertain Ranges of potential predators/competitors expanding. |
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of subpopulations? | No |
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of "locations"? (Note: See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.) |
No |
Are there extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence? | No |
Are there extreme fluctuations in index of area of occupancy? | No |
Number of Mature Individuals (in each subpopulation)
Population | N Clones (index of Mature Individuals) |
---|---|
Subpopulations (give plausible ranges) | N Mature Individuals |
Northwestern Ontario | Unknown |
Total | Unknown |
Quantitative Analysis
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Probability of extinction in the wild is at least. | Not Done |
Threats (actual or imminent, to populations or habitats, from highest impact to least)
i. Invasive species (Green Sunfish and black basses are expanding ranges; severity of threat unknown)
Was a threats calculator completed for this species and if so, by whom? Yes, by John Post, Tim Birt, Nick Mandrak, Jim Grant, Scott Reid, Marc-Antoine Couillard
Moderator: Dwayne Lepitzki
Rescue Effect (immigration from outside Canada)
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Status of outside population(s) most likely to provide immigrants to Canada. | Possibly Declining Erratic distribution in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Some recent extirpations in Wisconsin. Secure in Michigan. |
Is immigration known or possible? | Possible, but very unlikely |
Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada? | Probably |
Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada? | Yes |
Are conditions deteriorating in Canada? | Possibly Invasive native species are expanding ranges |
Are conditions for the source population deteriorating? | Yes |
Is the Canadian population considered to be a sink? | No |
Is rescue from outside populations likely? | No |
Data-Sensitive Species
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Is this a data sensitive species? | No |
Status History
COSEWIC: The species was considered a single unit and designated Not at Risk in April 1987. When the species was split into two separate units in April 2016, the "Saskatchewan – Nelson River populations" unit was designated Not at Risk.
Status and Reasons for Designation:
- Status:
- Not at Risk
- Alpha-numeric codes:
- Not applicable
- Reasons for designation:
- This is a small-bodied member of the sunfish family that inhabits shallow vegetated areas of warm lakes, ponds, and slow-flowing rivers. Though relatively rare, it is broadly distributed, and is subject to low threats.
Applicability of Criteria
- Criterion A (Decline in Total Number of Mature Individuals):
- Not applicable. Population trends are unknown.
- Criterion B (Small Distribution Range and Decline or Fluctuation):
- Not applicable. Although the IAO is below the threshold for Endangered, the number of locations greatly exceeds the threshold and the population is not severely fragmented.
- Criterion C (Small and Declining Number of Mature Individuals):
- Not applicable. The number of mature individuals is unknown.
- Criterion D (Very Small or Restricted Population):
- Not applicable. The number of mature individuals is unknown.
- Criterion E (Quantitative Analysis):
- Not done.
Technical Summary - DU2
- Scientific Name:
- Lepomis peltastes
- English Name:
- Northern Sunfish Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence populations
- French Name:
- Crapet du Nord Populations des Grands Lacs et du haut Saint-Laurent
- Range of occurrence in Canada (province/territory/ocean):
- Southern Ontario and Southern Québec; Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence Basin
Demographic Information
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Generation time (usually average age of spawners) | 4 yrs |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of mature individuals? | Probably, inferred in Québec |
Estimated percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [5 years or 2 generations] | Unknown |
[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the last [10 years, or 3 generations]. | Unknown |
Projected or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the next [10 years, or 3 generations]. | Unknown |
[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over any [10 years, or 3 generations] period, over a time period including both the past and the future. | Unknown |
Are the causes of the decline a. clearly reversible and b. understood and c. ceased? |
|
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals? | Unknown |
Extent and Occupancy Information
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Estimated extent of occurrence | 136,700 km² |
Index of area of occupancy (IAO) (Always report 2x2 grid value). 764 km² (discrete) >2000 km2 (continuous) |
764 km² |
Is the population "severely fragmented" ie. is >50% of its total area of occupancy in habitat patches that are (a) smaller than would be required to support a viable population, and (b) separated from other habitat patches by a distance larger than the species can be expected to disperse? |
|
Number of locations (use plausible range to reflect uncertainty if appropriate) (Note: See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.) |
Many >>10 using siltation and contaminants as principal threat |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in extent of occurrence? | Probably Inferred in Québec |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in index of area of occupancy? | Probably Inferred in Québec |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of subpopulations? | Possibly in Québec |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of "locations"? (Note: See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.) |
Possibly in Québec |
Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in [area, extent and/or quality] of habitat? | Water quality deteriorating in some subwatersheds, improving in others. |
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of subpopulations? | No |
Are there extreme fluctuations in number of "locations"? (Note: See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.) |
No |
Are there extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence? | No |
Are there extreme fluctuations in index of area of occupancy? | No |
Number of Mature Individuals (in each subpopulation)
Population | N Clones (index of Mature Individuals) |
---|---|
Subpopulations (give plausible ranges) | N Mature Individuals |
Southern/Eastern Ontario, Southern Quebec | Unknown |
Total | Unknown |
Quantitative Analysis
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Probability of extinction in the wild is at least. | Not Done |
Threats (actual or imminent, to populations or habitats, from highest impact to least)
- Siltation
- Contaminants
- Invasive species (Round Goby)
Was a threats calculator completed for this species and if so, by whom? Yes, by John Post, Tim Birt, Nick Mandrak, Jim Grant, Scott Reid, Marc-Antoine Couillard
Moderator: Dwayne Lepitzki
Rescue Effect (immigration from outside Canada)
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Status of outside population(s) most likely to provide immigrants to Canada. | Possibly Declining Secure in Michigan. |
Is immigration known or possible? | Possible, but very unlikely |
Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada? | Probably |
Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada? | Yes |
Are conditions deteriorating in Canada? | Yes, in some subwatersheds; No, in others |
Are conditions for the source population deteriorating? | Yes |
Is the Canadian population considered to be a sink? | No |
Is rescue from outside populations likely? | No |
Data-Sensitive Species
Summary Items | Information |
---|---|
Is this a data sensitive species? | No |
Status History
COSEWIC: The species was considered a single unit and designated Not at Risk in April 1987. When the species was split into two separate units in April 2016, the "Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations" unit was designated Special Concern.
Status and Reasons for Designation:
- Status:
- Special Concern
- Alpha-numeric codes:
- Not applicable
- Reasons for designation:
- This is a small-bodied member of the sunfish family that inhabits shallow vegetated areas of warm lakes, ponds and slow flowing rivers. Its spatial distribution is relatively small, and likely patchy. It is suspected that the index of area of occupancy and abundance of the species has declined. Threats are variable across its range with some areas of declining habitat quality and other areas with improving habitat quality. Overall, the threats of siltation, contaminants, and invasive species were assessed as high. The species is likely to become Threatened unless these threats are effectively ameliorated.
Applicability of Criteria
- Criterion A (Decline in Total Number of Mature Individuals):
- Not applicable. Population trends are unknown.
- Criterion B (Small Distribution Range and Decline or Fluctuation):
- Not applicable. Although the IAO is below the threshold for Endangered, the number of locations greatly exceeds the threshold and the population is not severely fragmented.
- Criterion C (Small and Declining Number of Mature Individuals):
- Not applicable. The number of mature individuals is unknown.
- Criterion D (Very Small or Restricted Population):
- Not applicable. The number of mature individuals is unknown.
- Criterion E (Quantitative Analysis):
- Not done.
Preface
The status of Northern Sunfish was assessed in 1987 (Meredith and Houston 1987). At that time, the taxon was considered to be a subspecies of Longear Sunfish, Lepomis megalotis; it has since been elevated to a full species (Page et al. 2013) which is assessed in this report.Northern Sunfish was designated Not at Risk due to its occurrence in numerous waterbodies in Ontario and Québec, although it was not considered to be abundant outside Quetico Park. Surveys conducted since 1987 indicate a larger Canadian range than was previously known; however, some concern exists regarding the status of populations in Québec. Sporadic and limited search effort prevents quantitative estimation of abundance trends, particularly in Québec, where the species is certainly rare.
COSEWIC History
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.
COSEWIC Mandate
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.
COSEWIC Membership
COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government science members and the co-chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.
Definitions (2015)
- Wildlife Species
- A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.
- Extinct (X)
- A wildlife species that no longer exists.
- Extirpated (XT)
- A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.
- Endangered (E)
- A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
- Threatened (T)
- A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.
-
Special Concern (SC)
(Note: Formerly described as "Vulnerable" from 1990 to 1999, or "Rare" prior to 1990.) - A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
-
Not at Risk (NAR)
(Note: Formerly described as "Not In Any Category", or "No Designation Required.") - A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.
-
Data Deficient (DD)
(Note: Formerly described as "Indeterminate" from 1994 to 1999 or "ISIBD" [insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation] prior to 1994. Definition of the [DD] category revised in 2006.) - A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species' risk of extinction.
The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.
Wildlife Species Description and Significance
Name and Classification
- Class:
- Actinopterygii
- Order:
- Perciformes
- Family:
- Centrarchidae
- English Name:
- Northern Sunfish Saskatchewan-Nelson River populations
- Scientific Name:
- Lepomis peltastes
- English Common Name:
- Northern Sunfish
- French Common Name:
- Crapet du Nord
Historically, the taxonomic treatment of Northern Sunfish has been inconsistent. Some taxonomists (e.g. Gruchy and Scott 1966; Scott and Crossman 1973; Jennings 2013) considered the taxon to be a subspecies of Longear Sunfish (i.e. Lepomis megalotis peltastes;) while others (e.g. Trautman 1981; Bailey et al. 2004; Hubbs et al. 2004; Page and Burr 2011) ascribed it full species status (L. peltastes). Holm et al. (2010) treated populations in Ontario simply as L. megalotis. Northern Sunfish is presently considered to be a full species, distinct from Longear Sunfish (Page et al. 2013), which does not occur in Canada. In the northern U.S., the ranges of the two species do not overlap except in eastern Illinois, where Smith (1979) was unable to find intergrades and, perhaps, in northeast Ohio, where Trautman (1981) also found no intergrades. The two forms differ considerably in morphology (see following section). The Canadian range of Northern Sunfish lies within two major drainages: the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence basin and the Saskatchewan-Nelson basin.
Morphological Description
A rather typical member of the genus Lepomis, Northern Sunfish has a deep, laterally compressed body (Figure 1). It can be distinguished from the similar Longear Sunfish, L. megalotis, by its smaller size (up to 17 cm in L. peltastes; 23.6 cm in L. megalotis) and shorter opercular flap, which angles upward and has a red/orange posterior margin (Bailey et al. 2004; Holm et al. 2010). Trautman (1981) noted differences in meristic characters, specifically, lateral line scales (35-37 in L. peltastes; 39-44 in L. megalotis) and pectoral fin rays (usually 13 in L. peltastes; 14 in L. megalotis). Adult male Northern Sunfish retain juvenile characteristics including dark vertical bands and spotting on the dorsal and anal fins (Trautman 1981). Breeding males are very colourful, having a reddish breast and bright blue wavy lines radiating posteriorly from the eye and opercle, often extending into the breast. Morphological differences between Northern Sunfish and Pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), a superficially similar species native to Canadian waters, include more prominent red pigmentation on the opercular flap and dark spots on the dorsal and anal fins in the latter species (Holm et al. 2010).
Population Spatial Structure and Variability
No information is available regarding variation in Northern Sunfish across the Canadian portion of its range. A survey of allozyme variation in populations from Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois revealed low heterozygosity relative to Longear Sunfish populations sampled widely in the eastern U.S. Principal components analysis was not able to differentiate Northern and Longear Sunfishes based on allozyme variation (Jennings and Philipp 1992a). Scott and Crossman (1973) indicated there is little morphological variation across the Canadian range.
Special Significance
This species is too small to be commonly targeted by sport fishers. Males in breeding condition are among the most brilliantly coloured of North American fishes. Both sexes produce sound during the breeding season, presumably to attract mates (Gerald 1971; Hubbs et al. 2004). Due to its low tolerance of poor water conditions, Northern Sunfish is considered to be an indicator species of habitat quality (Jennings 2013).
Distribution
Global Range
The Canadian portion of the range of Northern Sunfish includes northwestern Ontario, southern and eastern Ontario, and southern Québec (Page and Burr 2011; Figure 2). In the United States, Northern Sunfish is distributed across northern Ohio, Indiana, northeastern Illinois, lower peninsula of Michigan, and eastern Wisconsin. A disjunct portion of the range occurs in north-central Minnesota; several additional disjunct, and likely relict, populations are present in southern Minnesota, central/western Wisconsin, southern Illinois and Iowa (extirpated in Iowa).
Canadian Range and Designatable Units
Canadian populations of Northern Sunfish are concentrated in two geographic areas (Figure 3). In northwestern Ontario, Northern Sunfish is present in waters of the Nelson River watershed from Quetico Provincial Park westward through the Rainy River area to Lake of the Woods (Gruchy and Scott 1966; Scott and Crossman 1973). Records also exist from several sites in the vicinity of Lake of the Woods (Figure 4). A gap of approximately 800 km separates populations in northwestern Ontario from those in southern Ontario, where the species is present in waters flowing into Lake Huron, Georgian Bay, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (Figure 5). In southern Ontario, the species is known from major watersheds including the Detroit, Thames, Sydenham, Ausable, Saugeen, Grand, Maitland, Trent, Moira, Ottawa, and St. Lawrence rivers. Recent records from the Trent River near Trenton, the Moira River, and lakes north of Kingston have narrowed the gap between populations in southern Ontario and eastern Ontario/Québec.
In Québec, records are limited to tributaries of the St. Lawrence River from Delisle River to Lac St-Pierre (Figure 5). The majority of records from Québec are from the Châteauguay River and lower Outaouais River, with fewer records from the St. Lawrence River around Montréal and Lac St-Pierre. A single record from 1970 exists from Lac Brome (Yamaska River).
Previously, Northern Sunfish was not known from tributaries of Lake Ontario, hence, a gap separating southern Ontario populations from Québec populations was thought to exist (Meredith and Houston 1987). Sampling conducted since the last COSEWIC status update (Meredith and Houston 1987) has revealed populations in this area, particularly in the Moira River and nearby waters. The range is, therefore, more continuous between Québec and southern Ontario than was previously thought.
Designatable units (DUs) must satisfy criteria of discreteness and significance. An argument for discreteness of northwestern Ontario populations and those in southern Ontario and Québec can be made based on two factors. Firstly, northwestern Ontario populations occupy the Saskatchewan-Nelson River Freshwater Biogeographic Zone while populations in southern Ontario/Québec occupy the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence Zone. Fish in the two areas likely have different postglacial dispersal histories (Meredith and Houston 1987; Mandrak and Crossman 1992). Habitat differences, and hence selective pressures, are more likely to be significant between rather than within biogeographic zones. Local adaptations may differentiate populations in the two biogeographic zones (although none is known). Secondly, the unoccupied 800 km gap separating these population clusters likely constitutes a barrier to gene flow.
The significance of the population clusters is less evident. Research on these populations is very limited, hence there is no evidence indicating genetic or ecologic differentiation, i.e. local adaptation has not been demonstrated. The wide disjunction between populations in northwestern Ontario and those in southern Ontario and Québec suggests different recolonization routes from refugial areas following the Wisconsinan glaciation. Canadian populations of Northern Sunfish are likely derived from the Mississippian Refugium; populations in northwestern Ontario likely dispersed through the Warren Route while those in southern Ontario and Quebec likely dispersed through the Chicago and Lower Peninsula of Michigan routes (Mandrak and Crossman 1992). Two DUs are recognized and named according to the biogeographic regions they now occupy, i.e. the Saskatchewan-Nelson DU (populations from northwestern Ontario) and the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU (populations from southern Ontario and Québec). Although the significance of separate DUs is equivocal, recognizing them is consistent with treatment by COSEWIC of other freshwater organisms occupying this area (e.g. COSEWIC 2014).
Extent of Occurrence and Area of Occupancy
Using the minimum convex polygon method, the Canadian extent of occurrence (EOO) was determined to be 536,200 km2. The index of area of occupancy (IAO), calculated using the 2X2 km grid method, is 972 km2 (discrete measurement) or >>2000 km2 (continuous measurement). The discrete estimate of IAO includes the summed areas of grid squares containing Northern Sunfish records while the continuous estimate is based on summed areas of continuous stretches of watercourses between the grid squares containing records. For the Saskatchewan-Nelson DU, EOO is 22,100 km2 and IAO is 208 km2 (discrete) and >>2000 km2 (continuous). For the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU, EOO is 136,700 km2 and IAO estimates are 764 km2 (discrete) and >>2000 km2 (continuous).
Discrete and continuous estimates of IAO are included as only rough approximations of minimum and maximum values, respectively. But both are likely overestimates of the area required for the most limiting life stage for this colonial nest-spawning fish species. Discrete values are clearly underestimates because Northern Sunfish almost certainly are present in grid squares within the range that were not sampled and therefore not counted. On the other hand, continuous estimates probably overestimate actual IAO values, because some fraction (potentially a large fraction) of grid squares representing watercourse areas in between squares that contain records do not support Northern Sunfish.
Continuous IAO estimates for both DUs are much greater than 2000 km2. Precise estimates were not made. Instead, grid squares within each DU were counted until the threshold value for quantitative criteria (i.e. 2000 km2) was reached. For the Saskatchewan-Nelson DU, continuous grid squares were counted for all watercourses except for Shoal Lake and Lake of the Woods. Because of the large sizes of these waterbodies, a complete count of grid squares would yield a continuous estimate of IAO much greater than 2000 km2. For the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU, the 2000 km2 threshold was reached by summing grid squares from the Ausable, Maitland, Sydenham, and Thames rivers. Inclusion of the remaining areas within the range of the DU would have yielded an estimate far greater than 2000 km2.
Due to inconsistent sampling, quantitative comparisons of EOO and IAO through time are not possible. However, the small number of records from Québec combined with the intensity of sampling effort since the last COSEWIC Status Update (Meredith and Houston 1987) suggests that both measures of distribution may have declined. Despite considerable sampling effort throughout the Québec range (see Search Effort), recent records of Northern Sunfish exist only from the Châteauguay and Outaouais watersheds. IAO may also be declining in southern Ontario, especially in the upstream portions of the Thames, Grand, and Maitland rivers where most records date from before 1984 (Appendix 1).
Search Effort
Most, or all, records are derived from general fish surveys rather than targeted searches for Northern Sunfish. Since the previous COSEWIC Status Report, considerable search effort has been expended in Ontario by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) personnel (see COSEWIC 2013a). Similarly, in Québec, widespread sampling effort (mostly seining and electrofishing) has been undertaken, largely by the Réseau de Suivi Ichtyologique (RSI). The RSI network began in 1995 and has sampled much of the range of Northern Sunfish in Québec including Lac St-Pierre, Lac St-Louis, and Lac St-François over multiple years (outlined in COSEWIC 2013b and references therein). In recent years considerable effort over multiple years has also been expended in watersheds that are not known to support Northern Sunfish such as the St-François River (electrofishing surveys by Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune in 1993 and 2006) and the Richelieu River (see COSEWIC 2013b). Only 7 Northern Sunfish specimens have been reported from Québec since the previous COSEWIC Status Report: 5 from the Outaouais River and 2 from the Châteauguay River. Appendix 1 contains available Canadian records of Northern Sunfish from 1924 - 2014.
Habitat
Habitat Requirements
Northern Sunfish is most often found in shallow areas of warm lakes, ponds, and watercourses with little current. Vegetation is frequently present. Northern Sunfish is usually found in clear waters and is intolerant of turbidity and siltation (Smith 1979; Trautman 1981; Hubbs et al. 2004). Substrate usually consists of sand and gravel, as in the Thames River (Keenleyside 1978; Hall-Armstrong et al. 1996), although larger substrate material is typical in the Moira and Trent watersheds (Scott Reid, pers. comm.). Spawning occurs in shallow areas with sandy or gravel substrate (Holm et al 2010) and nursery areas consist of shallow areas with mixed vegetation and mineral substrate (Hall-Armstrong et al. 1996).
Habitat Trends
Habitat in northwestern Ontario is in remote and generally undeveloped areas including Quetico Provincial Park and is, therefore, generally stable. This contrasts with the situation in southern Ontario and Québec where habitat degradation has been widespread. In both areas, large-scale forest clearing (systematic clearing in southern Ontario began in the nineteenth century, Elliot 1998), development, and agricultural practices have resulted in serious water quality issues, notably siltation and elevated levels of turbidity and contaminants (e.g. Staton et al. 2003; Simoneau 2007; Berryman 2008). In recent years, habitat stewardship projects have been undertaken, mostly in southwestern Ontario, to encourage best management practices with the objective of reducing sediment and nutrient inputs from agricultural municipal sources (Erin Carrol, pers. comm. 2015). In Québec, some improvement in habitat quality has been achieved, including reduction of PCB concentrations in the Yamaska River (Berryman 2008). Regulations governing nutrient management and agricultural intensity may mitigate damage related to agriculture (BAPE 2003).
In Ontario, a network of 36 conservation authorities monitors watershed health and some disseminate results via report cards issued at 5-year intervals. Water quality criteria evaluated in report cards include levels of phosphorus and E. coli, and the diversity of benthic invertebrate communities. For example, the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, which monitors 14 watersheds including the Sydenham River, reported in 2013 that total phosphorus in all watersheds exceeded provincial guidelines in all cases. Similarly, E. coli levels were higher than provincial guidelines in all but one monitored watershed. Overall water quality has improved over the last 5 years in three watersheds, held steady in seven watersheds, and deteriorated in two watersheds (SCRCA 2013). Over the same time interval, surface water quality reported by the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority remained stable (i.e. fair to poor) in most watersheds but improved in the Bannockburn and Main Bayfield watersheds (Brock and Veliz 2013). Between 2007 and 2012, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority reported improving water quality in 12 watersheds, unchanged water quality in 16 watersheds, and no watershed with declining water quality (UTRCA 2012). Time-series data reflecting change in water quality in the Grand River watershed are not available as a report card; however, a water management plan documents familiar problems of elevated phosphate, nitrate, and turbidity, accompanied by low dissolved oxygen levels, particularly in central and lower regions of the watershed (Grand River Watershed Water Management Plan 2014). These inputs arise from point and nonpoint sources. While the number of watersheds that are experiencing improvement or deterioration in water quality is unavailable, the water management plan indicates that phosphate levels below wastewater treatment plants are substantially reduced relative to those recorded in the 1970s. Overall, it appears that Northern Sunfish habitat quality in southwestern Ontario, as indicated by total phosphorus, E. coli, and benthic invertebrate communities, is generally rated as fair or poor with some watersheds improving or holding stable and others deteriorating.
Biology
Life Cycle and Reproduction
Northern Sunfish spawns in June and July in Canada in typical sunfish fashion. Territorial males excavate roughly circular nests, often in colonies, in gravel or cobble substrate at a minimum water depth of 12 cm (Jennings and Philipp 1994). Spawning in Michigan occurs at temperatures above 23.3°C (Hubbs and Cooper 1935). Some females release all of their eggs in single nests while others divide their eggs across nests of several males (Jennings and Philipp 1992b). Adhesive eggs, approximately 1 mm in diameter are deposited in the nest and guarded by the male until hatching (3-5 days; Keenleyside 1978). Young are attended to for a few additional days until the yolk sac is absorbed and free swimming is achieved (Jennings 2013). Mature females produce 1,417 - 4,213 eggs (Carlander 1977).
Alternative reproductive tactics are employed by Northern Sunfish; territorial and small cryptically coloured sneaker males have been observed in the Thames River (Keenleyside 1972). Sneaker males gain fertilizations by entering the nests of larger territorial males and releasing sperm when females shed their eggs. In colonial breeding situations, territorial males may also “steal” fertilizations from neighbouring males. Goddard and Mathis (1997a) reported that prospecting females prefer males with larger opercular flaps.
Information on growth rates in Canadian populations is limited. A small study of fish sampled in 1995 from Mahon Lake in Quetico Provincial Park revealed a maximum age of 7 years and mean total length of 78 mm. Growth appears to slow considerably beyond age 2 years, at which time mean total length is 63 mm (Brian Jackson, pers. comm.). Hubbs and Cooper (1935) reported growth increments of 2.0-3.0 cm annually for the first 3 years in Michigan. Jennings (2013) reported similar findings in a small sample of 2- and 3-year-old fish from Beverly Lake in Wisconsin. Maturity is reached at 3-4 years of age and average length of 14 cm. The largest specimen reported by Scott and Crossman (1973) was 15 cm in length and maximum age is probably 8 years. Holm et al.(2010) reported a length of 17 cm for the largest specimen known from Ontario.
Female Northern Sunfish usually mature at 3 or 4 years of age (Jennings 2013). Mature males can be smaller (minimum 4.2 cm), especially individuals that adopt the sneaker life-history tactic. Very little information on longevity is available. The limited age distribution of the sample collected at Beverly Lake, Wisconsin, (n=26) suggests a short lifespan. Generation time (i.e. average age of spawners) is estimated to be 4 years.
Physiology and Adaptability
Little is known specifically about the physiology and adaptability of Northern Sunfish. It is active within a temperature range of 7-37.8°C and has little salinity tolerance (Carlander 1977). It is intolerant of siltation and has disappeared from many sites in Ohio, particularly from larger watercourses, as turbidity and siltation have increased (Trautman 1981).
Northern Sunfish is diurnal; it occupies clear waters and likely has good vision. The brilliant colouration in males indicates that visual communication is important during courtship. Similarly, visual displays are used to signal aggression. Production of sound during courtship and mating also suggests that Northern Sunfish, like many fishes, has auditory perception.
Dispersal and Migration
Movement appears to be limited. Spawning sites are thought to be in close proximity to habitat used at other times of year (Carlander 1977; Keenleyside 1978). Berra and Gunning (1972) suggested that the closely related Central Longear Sunfish (L. m. megalotis) in three Louisiana streams occupy small home ranges (average length of 42 m) during the warm months but that many individuals abandon these areas during the cold months. Patterns of seasonal dispersal of Northern Sunfish in Canada are not known.
Interspecific Interactions
Northern Sunfish hybridizes with Green Sunfish (L. cyanellus), Orangespotted Sunfish (L. humilis) (Trautman 1981), Bluegill (L. macrochirus) (Scott and Crossman 1973), and Pumpkinseed (Keenleyside 1978; Bolnick 2009). Keenleyside (1978) found evidence that Pumpkinseed and Northern Sunfish partition nesting habitat in the Thames River; Pumpkinseed nests were situated in backwater areas with silty substrate while most Northern Sunfish nests were located at sites with some flow and gravel substrate. Northern Sunfish is found in warmwater stream and lake habitats and is associated with somewhat different species assemblages in each situation. Common species in lake habitats include Bluegill, Pumpkinseed, and Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) (Jennings 2013). Stream habitats containing Northern Sunfish frequently support diverse fish communities (Lyons 1984; Jennings 2013).
Northern Sunfish is an opportunistic feeder but is primarily an insectivore (Scott and Crossman 1973; Jennings 2013). It feeds on a variety of mature and immature insects captured throughout the water column as well as small fishes and fish eggs.
Numerous species include Northern Sunfish in their diets including wading birds and predatory fishes, especially basses (Micropterus spp.) (Goddard and Mathis 1997b; Bromilow 2014).
Population Sizes and Trends
Sampling and Abundance
Northern Sunfish has been recorded in Ontario in every decade since the 1920s with increasing frequency in recent decades due to more thorough sampling. In Québec, only 29 records exist; the first observations were in 1941. Most records date from the 1960s and 1970s and few observations exist since 1983 (Appendix 1). Although there is a long time series of Canadian records, the sampling employed does not support estimation of abundance.
Fluctuations and Trends
In the relatively remote areas of northwestern Ontario, the species appears to be widespread, although sampling has not been exhaustive. Populations in this DU are subject to less pressure from agricultural and other forms of development than populations in the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU. Furthermore, some of the range in this area lies within Quetico Provincial Park where the species is largely protected from these influences. Populations of this DU are probably stable, although the spread of invasive species may be having negative impact on Northern Sunfish (see Invasive Species in Threats section).
Population trends for the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU are unclear. Trends in water quality are variable, even within watersheds. Water quality has been stable in recent years in many subwatersheds such as the Lower North Sydenham and Bear Creek Headwaters (SCRCA 2013). Other subwatersheds (e.g. Middle East Sydenham and Bannockburn) have experienced improved water quality in recent years (SCRCA 2013; Brock and Veliz 2013 respectively), while others (e.g. Brown Creek) have experienced deteriorating water quality (SCRCA 2013). Unfortunately, the sampling data are not informative regarding population trends through time.
Populations in Québec appear to be at greatest risk. Habitat degradation is severe in the Châteauguay and Yamaska rivers due to siltation and contaminant inputs (Simoneau 2007; Berryman 2008) and the species is considered to be rare (Jean-Franҫois Desroches, pers.comm.; Louis Bernatchez, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, the data available are not sufficient to infer quantitative population trends. For example, more than 50 percent (20 of 39) of Northern Sunfish records from Québec are from the Châteauguay watershed (Appendix 1). Electrofishing surveys conducted in that watershed in 1993 to measure fish diversity produced two Northern Sunfish at a single station. In 2006, additional electrofishing was conducted in the Châteauguay targeting Channel Darter (Percina copelandi). Although many stations were sampled, Northern Sunfish was not found (Marc-Antoine Couillard, pers. comm.). The small number of Northern Sunfish collected in recent years suggests a decline in IAO and EOO. The RSI network collected no Northern Sunfish despite sampling extensively over multiple years at locations that yielded Northern Sunfish historically (e.g. Lac St-Pierre, Lac, St-Louis, Lac St-François). Similarly, extensive sampling in the Yamaska River between 1987 and 1997 failed to find Northern Sunfish (Holm et al. 2001; COSEWIC 2013b). Even in the Châteauguay River, the watershed that has yielded the largest proportion of Québec records, the number of fish reported is small considering the magnitude of sampling that has been done. The weight of evidence suggests the species is declining in Québec. This is consistent with results from the threats calculator (Appendix 3), which indicates ongoing declines driven mainly by agricultural pollution.
Rescue Effect
Northern Sunfish is present in states bordering Canadian populations including Minnesota, Michigan (lower peninsula), Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. The species has declined across much of Ohio (Trautman 1981), Michigan (Hubbs et al. 2004), and Illinois (Smith 1979). There is a gap separating populations in Minnesota from those in northwestern Ontario. Considering the low dispersal propensity of the species (Carlander 1977; Keenleyside 1978), there is little opportunity for rescue from the U.S. or between Canadian subpopulations in western Ontario and southern Ontario/Québec.
Threats and Limiting Factors
Overall threats impacts were assessed as low in DU1 and high-medium in DU2. Discussion of specific threats follow.
Turbidity and Sediment Loading
The most important threat to Northern Sunfish, particularly in the Great Lakes – Upper St, Lawrence DU, is habitat degradation caused by siltation and contaminants such as chloride (Appendix 2; Appendix 3). The species is sensitive to these stressors (Scott and Crossman 1973; Carlander 1977) and Trautman (1981) has described its widespread decline and replacement by Green Sunfish in Ohio as a result of these factors. In Canada, this threat is most acute in watercourses in southern Ontario and southern Québec, where the intensity of agriculture and other forms of development such as urbanization is high. These problems are well documented in the Sydenham River where most forest cover has been removed and approximately 85% of the watershed has been converted to agricultural use including widespread use of tile drainage (Staton et al. 2003). Turbidity was monitored by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy over a 30-year period (1967-1996) and was found to be high, particularly in the north branch. In addition, high levels of suspended solids were accompanied by nutrient loading, particularly phosphate and nitrogen (Staton et al. 2003). Success of recent efforts to mitigate silt loading in the Sydenham River and other watersheds remains to be determined (Erin Carroll, pers. comm.).
Rivers in southern Québec are also affected by intensive agricultural development and urbanization. Land use in the Châteauguay watershed is dominated by increasingly intensive agriculture (72% of the surface area; Simoneau 2007). Similarly, approximately 47% of the Yamaska River watershed is devoted to intensive agriculture (Berryman 2008) and contains significant urban areas. Consequently, water quality in much of both systems is poor with high levels of turbidity and contaminants.
Invasive Species
The most likely invasive species to threaten Northern Sunfish in the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU is Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus), which was first reported in Lake St. Clair in 1990. The species has spread throughout the Great Lakes (Kornis et al. 2012) and the St. Lawrence, and has invaded watersheds occupied by Northern Sunfish including the Trent, Moira (Scott Reid, pers. comm.), Sydenham, Ausable, Thames, and Grand rivers (Poos et al. 2010). Although Round Goby has had negative impact on benthic species (e.g. nest predation), its impact on Northern Sunfish remains to be determined.
Expansion of the ranges of predatory Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides), and Smallmouth Bass (M. dolomieu) may threaten Northern Sunfish in the Saskatchewan-Nelson DU (Crossman and Buerschaper 1976; Brown et al. 2009a, b). Green Sunfish is also experiencing range expansion in northwestern Ontario. This species is more tolerant of elevated turbidity than Northern Sunfish and has replaced the latter in some Ohio watercourses where turbidity has increased (Trautman 1981). Green Sunfish is an aggressive competitor, and when introduced elsewhere, has frequently been implicated in significant disruption of native fish communities (e.g. Lemly 1985; Olden and Poff 2005). The ultimate impact of these range extensions is not known. Another invasive species that may negatively affect Northern Sunfish in northwest Ontario is Rusty Crayfish (Orconectes rusticus). This large, aggressive species originates from the Ohio Valley and may degrade habitat used by Northern Sunfish by consuming large amounts of aquatic vegetation (Brian Jackson, pers. comm.).
Angling and Bait Fishery
Angling for Northern Sunfish is not prohibited in Ontario. Although the species is small, and therefore not generally targeted by anglers, it is sometimes caught incidentally by anglers fishing for basses or larger sunfishes. It is easily captured and is potentially harmed or killed in the process. Overall, the impact of angling in not known.
Annual sales of baitfishes in Ontario of approximately $14 million reflect the large-scale use of live bait by anglers (some 100 million fishes harvested; OMNR and BAO 2006). In addition to commercial sales, many anglers catch their own baitfishes (Drake and Mandrak 2014). Although regulations prohibit collection of species at risk for the bait industry, a certain level of bycatch of non-target species occurs. In a survey of retail bait outlets, Drake and Mandrak (2014) did not record Northern Sunfish among non-target species caught as bycatch, although three centrarchid species were noted. Furthermore, Northern Sunfish frequently co-occurs with Redfin Shiner (Lythrurus umbratilis), a legal baitfish species, suggesting the potential for bycatch. However, since the latter is seldom targeted by baitfishers, the risk of capturing Northern Sunfish as bycatch is probably low, but not zero (Andrew Drake, pers. comm. 2015). Use of live bait poses the additional threat of potential for introduction of invasive non-native species including pathogens.
Ornamental Fish Trade
A potential threat to Northern Sunfish is the ornamental fish trade (Meredith and Houston 1987). Breeding males are brilliantly pigmented and, therefore, desirable aquarium fish for some hobbyists. The species’ small size and interesting behaviour add to its attraction. Longear Sunfish is offered for sale by at least one supplier of aquarium fishes in Taiwan. Although the origin of the stock is unknown, it could actually be Northern Sunfish. The scope and severity of this threat are unknown, but probably very low.
Limiting Factors
Perhaps the most important limiting factor for Northern Sunfish is its restricted movement within, and presumably, among watersheds. The species is considered to be a poor colonizer and is slow to repopulate habitat following its removal (Carlander 1977). Its low tolerance of poor water quality can also be considered a limiting factor.
Number of Locations
Siltation and pollution, the most important threats, emanate from numerous point and non-point sources. The number of locations can therefore be considered to be the number of watersheds occupied. This number is uncertain; however, there are clearly many more than ten (threshold for quantitative criteria).
Protection, Status and Ranks
Legal Protection and Status
Northern Sunfish was previously assessed by COSEWIC as Not at Risk (Meredith and Houston 1987). It is, therefore, not currently listed under the Canadian Species at Risk Act. Northern Sunfish can be legally taken as a sport fish and is subject to catch and possession limits. It is therefore protected under the federal Fisheries Act, particularly in waters supporting other game and/or commercial species.
In Ontario, Northern Sunfish is considered a “Sunfish” under provincial fishing regulations, so catch limits apply. Destruction or alteration of riparian areas and wetlands are regulated and protected under the following: Conservation Authorities Act, Provincial Planning Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and Water Resources Act. The Ontario Conservation Authorities Act is intended to protect aquatic habitat through the creation of conservation authorities, which promote integrated watershed management and conservation through projects such as tree planting, wetland creation, and erosion control (see Habitat Trends).
In Québec, it is included (as L. megalotis) on the Liste des espèces susceptibles d’être désignées menacées ou vulnérables (list of wildlife species likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable) in accordance with the Loi sur les espèces menacées ou vulnérables (RLRQ, c E-12.01) (LEMV) (Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species) (CQLR, c E-12.01).
In the United States, it is not on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Non-Legal Status and Ranks
Northern Sunfish is not listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and has no American Fisheries Society status. NatureServe (NatureServe 2014) rankings of Northern Sunfish in various jurisdictions are shown below.
- Global
- G5 (Secure
- Canada
- N3 (Vulnerable)
- Ontario
- S3 (vulnerable)
- Québec
- S2 (imperilled)
- U.S. - N5
- Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania - SNR (Not Ranked)
Michigan ranks L. megalotis as S5 (widespread and common) while Wisconsin ranks the species as S2. These ranks presumably refer to L. peltastes as L. megalotis does not occur in either state.
Habitat Protection and Ownership
Recent changes to the federal Fisheries Act relating to habitat raise uncertainty about future protection of this species. Most of the land base in watersheds supporting Northern Sunfish in southern Ontario and Québec is privately owned, although some is publicly owned (e.g. Pinery Provincial Park, Point Pelee National Park). Much of northwestern Ontario is crown land, notably Quetico Provincial Park.
Acknowledgements and Authorities Contacted
Information provided by the following authorities/agencies is acknowledged: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Burlington, Winnipeg, Sault Ste. Marie), Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Royal Ontario Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, Parks Canada, Upper Thames Conservation Authority, St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, Quinte Conservation Authority, and Quetico Provincial Park. Brian Jackson provided unpublished length/age data from Quetico Provincial Park. Dr. John Lyons (Wisconsin DNR) is acknowledged for permission to use the global distribution map (Figure 2). Several individuals provided thorough reviews of an earlier version of the report, including Nick Mandrak, James Grant, Mark Ridgway, and personnel from DFO, MFFP, and MNRF. Jenny Wu and Alain Filion prepared the maps and calculated EOO and IAO.
Authorities Contacted
Muriel Andraea, St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
Louis Bernatchez, Université Laval
Lynn Bouvier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Erin Carroll, St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
Brian Code, Canadian Museum of Nature
Marc Antoine Couillard, Ministère des Forêts de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec
Jean-Franҫois Desroches, CEGEP Sherbrooke
Andrew Drake, University of Toronto
Margaret Docker, University of Manitoba
Isabelle Gauthier, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec
James Grant, Concordia University
Erling Holm, Royal Ontario Museum
John Jimmo, St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
Nick Mandrak, University of Toronto
Brad McNevin, Quinte Conservation Authority
Patrick Nantel, Parks Canada
Tom Pratt, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Scott Reid, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
John Schwindt, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
Doug Watkinson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Information Sources
Bailey, R.M., W.C. Latta, and G.R. Smith. 2004. An Atlas of Michigan Fishes with Keys and Illustrations for their Identification. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 192:1-215.
BAPE (Bureau d’audiences publique sur l’environnement). 2003. Rapport 179. Consultation publique sur le développement durable de la production porcine au Québec, Rapport principal. L’inscription de l’industrie porcine dans le développement durable. Québec: BAPE.
Bernatchez, L., pers. comm. 2014. Email communication. December 2014. Laval University, Québec.
Berra, T.M., and G.E. Gunning. 1972. Seasonal movement and home range of longear sunfish, Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque) in Louisiana. American Midland Naturalist 88:368-375.
Berryman, D. 2008. État de l’écosystème aquatique du basin versant de la rivière Yamaska: faits saillant 2004-2006, Québec, ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs, Direction du suivi de l’état de l’environnement, ISBN 978-2-550-53592-8 (PDF), 22 pp.
Bolnick, D.I. 2009. Hybridization and speciation in centrarchids in Centrarchid Fishes: Diversity, Biology, and Conservation. S.J. Cooke and D.P. Philipp eds. Wiley-Blackwell & Sons, Chichester, U.K. xvii + 539 pp.
Brock, H. and M. Veliz. 2013. Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Watershed Report Card 2013. Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. Exeter, Ontario. 102 pp.
Bromilow, M. 2014. (On-Line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed January 06, 2015.
Brown, T.G., B. Runciman, S. Pollard, A.D.A. Grant, and M.J. Bradford. 2009a. Biological synopsis of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2887: v + 50 pp.
Brown, T.G., B. Runciman, S. Pollard, and A.D.A. Grant. 2009b. Biological synopsis of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2884: v + 27 pp.
Carlander, K.D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 2. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa.
Carroll, E. pers. comm. 2015. Telephone and email communication. January 2015. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, Strathroy, Ontario.
COSEWIC. 2013a. COSEWIC Status Report on Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
COSEWIC. 2013b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatusin Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. xi + 30 pp.
COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC Status Report on Channel Darter Percina copelandi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. x + 55 pp.
Couillard, M.-A. pers. comm. 2015. Email communication. June 2015. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Québec (Qc).
Crossman, E.J. and P. Buerschaper. 1976. Quetico Fishes. Royal Ontario Museum Publiations in Life Science. 86 pp.
Desroches, F., pers. comm. 2014. Email communication. December 2014. CEGEP, Sherbrooke, Québec.
Drake, D.A.R., pers. comm. 2015. Email communication. January 2015. University of Toronto, Scarborough.
Drake, D.A.R. and N.E. Mandrak. 2014. Ecological risk of live bait fisheries: a new angle on selective fishing. Fisheries 39:201-211.
Elliot, K.A. 1998. The forests of southern Ontario. The Forestry Chronicle 74:850-854.
Gerald, J.W. 1971. Sound production during courtship in six species of sunfish (Centrarchidae). Evolution 25:75-87.
Goddard, K., and A. Mathis. 1997a. Do opercular flaps of male longear sunfish Lepomis megalotisserve as sexual ornaments during female mate choice? Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 9:223-231.
Goddard, K. and A. Mathis. 1997b. Microhabitat preferences of longear sunfish: low light versus submerged cover. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49:495-499.
Grand River Watershed Water Management Plan. 2014 (PDF: 10 Mb). Prepared by the Project Team, Water Management Plan. Grand River Conservation Authority, Canbridge, ON. 137 pp + appendices.
Gruchy, C.G. and W.B. Scott. 1966. Lepomic megalotis, the Longear Sunfish, in Western Ontario. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 23:1457-1459.
Hall-Armstrong, J., A.G. Harris, and R.F. Foster. 1996. Fish Use of Wetlands in Northwestern Ontario: A Literature Review and Bibliography. Northwest Sci. & Technol., Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, Ontario. TR-90 54 pp + Appendices.
Holm, E., P. Dumont, J. Leclerc, G. Roy, and E.J. Crossman. 2001. COSEWIC status report on the bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 19 pp.
Holm, E., N. Mandrak and M. Burridge. 2010. The ROM Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. 464 pp.
Hubbs, C.L. and G.P. Cooper. 1935. Age and growth of the long-eared and green sunfishes in Michigan. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 20:669-696.
Hubbs, C.L., K.F. Lagler, and G.R. Smith. 2004. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. 276 pp.
Jackson, B. Personal communication. January 2016. Biologist, Quetico Provincial Park, Ontario.
Jennings, M.J. 2013. Longear Sunfish, Lepomis megalotis. Online account in: J. Lyons, editor. Fishes of Wisconsin E-Book. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, and U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI. accessed on 1 January 2015.
Jennings, M.J. and D.P. Philipp. 1992a. Genetic variation in the longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:1673-1680.
Jennings, M.J. and D.P. Philipp. 1992b. Female choice and male competition in longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis. Behavioral Ecology 3:84-94.
Jennings, M.J. and D.P. Philipp. 1994. Biotic and abiotic factors affecting early life history intervals of stream-dwelling sunfish. Environmental Biology of Fishes 39-153-159.
Keenleyside, M.H.A. 1972. Intraspecific intrusions into nests of spawning longear sunfish (Pisces: Centrarchidae). Copeia 1972:272-278.
Keenleyside, M.H.A. 1978. Reproductive isolation between Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) and Longear Sunfish (L. megalotis)(Centrarchidae) in the Thames River, southwestern Ontario. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 35:131-135.
Kornis, M.S., N. Mercado-Silva, and M.J. Vander Zanden. 2012. Twenty years of invasion: a review of round goby Neogobius melanostomus biology, spread and ecological implications. Journal of Fish Biology 80:235-285.
Lemly, A.D. 1985. Suppression of native fish populations by green sunfish in first-order streams of Piedmont North California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:705-712.
Lyons, J. 1984. Fishes of the upper Trout River, Vilas County, Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 72:201-211.
Mandrak, N.E. and E.J. Crossman. 1992. Postglacial dispersal of freshwater fishes into Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:2247-2259.
Meredith, G.N. and J.J. Houston. 1987. COSEWIC status report on the Northern Sunfish Lepomis peltastes in Canada in Status Report on the Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 17 pp.
NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. (Accessed January 6, 2015).
Olden, J.D. and N.L. Poff. 2005. Long-term trends of native and non-native fish faunas in the American Southwest. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28:75-89.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) and BAO (Bait Association of Ontario) 2006. The commercial bait industry in Ontario: statistical report, 2005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Page, L.M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N Lea, N.E. Mandrak, R.L. Mayden, and J.S. Nelson. 2013. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 7th Edition, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34.
Page, L.M. and B.M Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico. 2nd Edition, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, New York. 663 pp.
Poos, M., A.J. Dextrase, A.N. Schwalb, and J.D. Ackerman. 2010. Secondary invasion of the round goby into high diversity Great Lakes tributaries and species at risk hotspots: potential new concerns for endangered freshwater species. Biological Invasions 12:1269-1284.
Reid, S. 2015. Email communication. January 2015. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario.
Scott, W.B. and E.J Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 181.
Simoneau, M. 2007. État de l’écosystème aquatique du basin versant de la rivière Châteauguay: faits saillant 2001-2004, Québec, ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environment et des Parcs, Direction du suivi de l’état de l’environment, ISBN 978-2-550-50193-0 (PDF), 16 pp.
Smith, P.W. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Champaign.
SCRCA. 2013. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Watershed Report card 2013. Available at http://www.scrca.on.ca/about-us/2013-watershed-report-cards/.
Staton, S.K., A. Dextrase, J.L. Metcalf-Smith, J. DiMaio, M. Nelson, J. Parish, B. Kilgour, and E. Holm. 2003. Status and trends of Ontario’s Sydenham River ecosystem in relation to aquatic species at risk. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88:283-310.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. Columbus. 966 pp.
UTRCA. 2012. Upper Thames River Conservation Watershed Report Cards.
Biographical Summary of Report Writers
Tim Birt is a Research Associate and Adjunct Assistant Professor at Queen’s University. His research activities are currently focused on population genetics and evolution of seabirds. He has also worked with fishes, especially Atlantic Salmon. Tim has authored or co-authored three COSEWIC status reports.
Collections Examined
None.
Appendix 1: Northern Sunfish records from Ontario and Québec.
Many entries represent more than one individual captured. Sources include: Canadian Museum of Nature (CMN), Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec (MFFP), and St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA).
Date | Specimen ID | Watercourse | Source |
---|---|---|---|
08-Jul-60 | CMNFI 1965-0030.2 | Burditt Lake | CMN |
17-Jun-70 | CMNFI 1970-0141.3 | Rainy River District | CMN |
08-Jul-60 | 21643 | Burditt Lake | ROM |
09-Jun-69 | 26748 | Cirrus Lake | ROM |
26-Jun-67 | 26835 | Darky Lake | ROM |
Aug-67 | 26923 | Lake of The Woods | ROM |
22-Aug-69 | 26951 | Caviar Lake | ROM |
08-Sep-70 | 27354 | Bart Lake | ROM |
06-Jun-71 | 27776 | Quetico Lake | ROM |
18-Jul-71 | 27855 | Melin Lake | ROM |
23-Jul-71 | 27857 | Mahon Lake | ROM |
23-Jul-71 | 27858 | Mahon Lake | ROM |
25-Jun-75 | 28659 | Little Roland Lake | ROM |
15-Jul-73 | 30216 | Lake No 190 | ROM |
08-Jun-74 | 30542 | Kakagi Lake | ROM |
03-Jun-76 | 32231 | Corn Lake | ROM |
31-Jul-70 | 33067 | Weld Lake | ROM |
02-Aug-70 | 33068 | Ryckman Lake | ROM |
05-Jul-78 | 35953 | Deacon Lake | ROM |
19-Jul-79 | 36408 | Unnamed Lake | ROM |
20-Aug-79 | 38015 | Shoal Lake | ROM |
29-Jul-80 | 41604 | Redhorse Lake | ROM |
17-Jul-83 | 52259 | Birch Lake | ROM |
17-Jul-83 | 52262 | Birch Lake | ROM |
03-Aug-83 | 52263 | Tourist Lake (Nl) | ROM |
03-Aug-83 | 52264 | Tourist Lake (Nl) | ROM |
27-Aug-85 | 57621 | Wawapus Lake | ROM |
27-Aug-85 | 57623 | Wawapus Lake | ROM |
06-Jun-87 | 89429 | Shingwak | ROM |
07-Aug-80 | - | Darby Creek | ROM |
20-Jul-88 | - | Osipasinni Lake | ROM |
19-Jul-88 | - | Osipasinni Lake | ROM |
19-Jul-88 | - | Osipasinni Lake | ROM |
15-Jul-85 | - | Kramer Lake | ROM |
19-Jul-88 | - | Osipasinni Lake (Nl) | ROM |
20-Jul-88 | - | Osipasinni Lake (Nl) | ROM |
20-Jul-88 | - | Osipasinni Lake (Nl) | ROM |
06-Aug-87 | - | (NL) Lake VF 55-08 | ROM |
28-Jul-86 | - | Noonan Lake | ROM |
27-Aug-85 | - | Wawapus Lake | ROM |
18-Jul-88 | - | Osipasinni Lake (Nl) | ROM |
06-Aug-87 | - | (NL) Lake VF 55-08 | ROM |
05-Jul-84 | - | Lowry Lake | ROM |
02-Jul-88 | - | Hectorine Lake | ROM |
02-Aug-83 | - | Sandhill Lake | ROM |
09-Jul-87 | - | Forrest Lake | ROM |
20-Jun-83 | - | Newman Lake | ROM |
11-Jun-83 | - | Backlawrence Lake (Nl) | ROM |
09-Jun-83 | - | Little Moose Lake (Nl) | ROM |
05-Jul-84 | - | Lowry Lake | ROM |
16-Jul-85 | - | Kramer Lake | ROM |
30-Jun-87 | - | Beggs | ROM |
08-Jul-87 | - | Forrest Lake | ROM |
07-Jul-87 | - | Forrest Lake | ROM |
01-Jul-87 | - | Beggs | ROM |
19-Aug-87 | - | Moosehorn | ROM |
10-Jul-86 | - | Manitumeig Lake | ROM |
19-May-85 | - | Loonhaunt Lake | ROM |
21-May-85 | - | Loonhaunt Lake | ROM |
2008-2014 | 15-4430-54221 | Burditt Lake | MNRF |
2008-2014 | 15-4632-54287 | Loonhaunt Lake | >MNRF |
2008-2014 | 15-6052-53411 | Sarah Lake | MNRF |
Date | Specimen ID | Watercourse | Source |
---|---|---|---|
26-Jul-12 | 2012-CH-ESD-SYD260712-005A | Sydenham River | DFO |
21-Aug-12 | 2012-FMOS-SR210812-011A | Sydenham River | DFO |
01-Aug-12 | 2012-GPND010812-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
01-Aug-12 | 2012-GPND010812-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
02-Aug-12 | 2012-GPND020812-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
02-Aug-12 | 2012-GPND020812-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
03-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND030712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
03-Aug-12 | 2012-GPND030812-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
03-Aug-12 | 2012-GPND030812-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
04-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND040712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
05-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND050712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
11-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND110712-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
13-Jun-12 | 2012-GPND130612-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
13-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND130712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
13-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND130712-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
15-Jun-12 | 2012-GPND150612-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
18-Jun-12 | 2012-GPND180612-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
18-Jun-12 | 2012-GPND180612-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
18-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND180712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
19-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND190712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
19-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND190712-003A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
20-Jun-12 | 2012-GPND200612-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
23-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND230712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
24-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND240712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
25-Jun-12 | 2012-GPND250612-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
30-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND300712-001A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
31-Jul-12 | 2012-GPND310712-002A | Beaver Creek | DFO |
23-Jul-12 | 2012-LCS-HURON230712-001A | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Jul-12 | 2012-LCS-HURON240712-002A | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Jul-12 | 2012-LCS-HURON240712-004A | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
19-Sep-12 | 2012-SLCC190912-112A | East Sydenham River | DFO |
25-Jun-13 | 2013-AC-MON-CEDAR250613-001B | Cedar Creek | DFO |
07-Aug-13 | 2013-PNM-LSCD070813-006A | East Otter Creek | DFO |
09-Jul-13 | 2013-PNM-LSCD090713-001C | West Otter Creek | DFO |
09-Jul-13 | 2013-PNM-LSCD090713-002C | West Otter Creek | DFO |
19-Jun-13 | 2013-SLCC-DTR190613-121A | Detroit River | DFO |
19-Jun-13 | 2013-SLCC-DTR190613-122A | Detroit River | DFO |
23-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-01-BS | Ausable Channel | DFO |
23-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-01-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-02-BEF | Ausable Channel | DFO |
23-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-02-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-03-BEF | Ausable Channel | DFO |
23-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-03-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-04-BEF | Ausable Channel | DFO |
23-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-04-HN | Ausable Channel | DFO |
23-Sep-02 | AUCR02-01-04-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-01-BS | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-01-HN | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-01-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-02-BEF | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-02-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-03-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-04-HN | Ausable Channel | DFO |
24-Sep-02 | AUCR02-02-04-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-01-BS | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-01-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-02-BS | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-02-HN | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-02-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-03-BEF | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-03-HN | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-03-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
25-Sep-02 | AUCR02-03-04-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-01-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-02-BEF | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-02-BS | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-02-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-03-BEF | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-03-HN | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-03-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-04-HN | Ausable Channel | DFO |
26-Sep-02 | AUCR02-04-04-WT/MT | Ausable Channel | DFO |
07-Jul-04 | AUCR04BP070704005 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
14-Jul-04 | AUCR04BP140704009 | Little Ausable River | DFO |
21-Jul-04 | AUCR04BP210704016 | Ausable River | DFO |
23-Jul-04 | AUCR04BP230704019 | Ausable River | DFO |
12-Jul-04 | AUCR04BS120704006 | Ausable River | DFO |
15-Jul-04 | AUCR04BS150704011 | Ausable River | DFO |
15-Jul-04 | AUCR04BS150704012 | Ausable River | DFO |
09-Jul-04 | AUCR04SN090704017 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
09-Jul-04 | AUCR04SN090704018 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
12-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN120804001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804002 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804003 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804004 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804005 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804006 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804007 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804008 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804009 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804010 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804011 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804012 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Aug-04 | AUCR04SN180804013 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
19-Oct-04 | AUCR04SN191004002 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
20-Oct-04 | AUCR04SN201004001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
09-Aug-07 | AUS07-090807-001 | Ausable River | DFO |
09-Aug-07 | AUS07-090807-003 | Ausable River | DFO |
14-Aug-07 | AUS07-140807-002 | Ausable River | DFO |
23-Jul-07 | AUS07-230707-001 | Ausable River | DFO |
25-Jul-07 | AUS07-250707-001 | Ausable River | DFO |
26-Jul-07 | AUS07-260707-003 | Ausable River | DFO |
29-Aug-07 | AUS07-290807-004 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
28-Aug-02 | AUSR02-001 | Ausable River | DFO |
29-Aug-02 | AUSR02-002 | Ausable River | DFO |
29-Aug-02 | AUSR02-004 | Ausable River | DFO |
28-Aug-02 | AUSR02-005 | Ausable River | DFO |
28-Aug-02 | AUSR02-007 | Ausable River | DFO |
29-Aug-02 | AUSR02-008 | Ausable River | DFO |
29-Aug-02 | AUSR02-016 | Ausable River | DFO |
28-Aug-02 | AUSR02-018 | Ausable River | DFO |
28-Aug-02 | AUSR02-022 | Ausable River | DFO |
13-Sep-02 | BEF02-MCK-001 | Muddy Creek | DFO |
18-Jul-02 | BEF02-SYD-004 | Sydenham River | DFO |
20-Aug-02 | BEF02-SYD-005 | Sydenham River | DFO |
08-Aug-02 | BEF02-SYD-006 | Sydenham River | DFO |
21-Aug-02 | BEF02-SYD-007 | Sydenham River | DFO |
20-Aug-03 | DTR03038C | Detroit River | DFO |
23-Aug-03 | DTR03039 | Detroit River | DFO |
25-Aug-03 | DTR03TC003 | Turkey Creek | DFO |
25-Aug-03 | DTR03TC004 | Turkey Creek | DFO |
23-Jun-09 | ESDPG-SYD09-230609-001 | Sydenham River | DFO |
23-Jun-09 | ESDPG-SYD09-230609-002 | Sydenham River | DFO |
23-Jun-09 | ESDPG-SYD09-230609-005 | Sydenham River | DFO |
24-Jun-09 | ESDPG-SYD09-240609-004 | Fansher Creek | DFO |
25-Jun-09 | ESDPG-SYD09-250609-006 | Sydenham River | DFO |
08-Jul-09 | GPND09-080709-001 | Beaver Creek | DFO |
09-Jul-08 | GRRGP08-090708-005B | Grand River | DFO |
09-Jul-08 | GRRGP08-090708-006B | Grand River | DFO |
20-Oct-04 | GSD04BP201004004 | Sydenham River | DFO |
22-Aug-02 | HMM02-001 | Hillman Marsh | DFO |
06-Aug-02 | MOXD02-MTR-001 | Belgrave Creek | DFO |
07-Aug-02 | MOXD02-MTR-002 | Maitland River | DFO |
29-Jul-02 | MOXD02-THR-002 | Fish Creek | DFO |
30-Jul-02 | MOXD02-THR-003 | Medway Creek | DFO |
30-Jul-02 | MOXD02-THR-004 | Fish Creek | DFO |
31-May-05 | OAC05-053105-001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
31-May-05 | OAC05-053105-003 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
28-Jun-05 | OAC05-062805-001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
28-Jun-05 | OAC05-062805-002 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
28-Jun-05 | OAC05-062805-003 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
02-Aug-05 | OAC05-080205-001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
03-Aug-05 | OAC05-080305-001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
03-Aug-05 | OAC05-080305-002 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
03-Aug-05 | OAC05-080305-004 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
04-Aug-05 | OAC05-080405-001 | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
27-Jul-10 | PDAH-PNM-2010-270710-004B | Sydenham River | DFO |
27-Jul-10 | PDAH-PNM-2010-270710-005B | Sydenham River | DFO |
29-Jul-10 | PDAH-PNM-2010-290710-001A | Otter Creek | DFO |
01-Jun-10 | PDAH-PNS-2010-010610-001A | Old Ausable Channel | DFO |
18-Jul-05 | PFBK05-071805-002 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
20-Jul-05 | PFBK05-072005-006 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
11-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101105-001 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
11-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101105-007 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
12-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101205-001 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
12-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101205-002 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
12-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101205-004 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
12-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101205-005 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
13-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101305-003 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
13-Oct-05 | PFBK05-101305-006 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
15-Nov-05 | PFBK05-111505-001 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
15-Nov-05 | PFBK05-111505-002 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
15-Nov-05 | PFBK05-111505-003 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
15-Nov-05 | PFBK05-111505-006 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
15-Nov-05 | PFBK05-111505-007 | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
20-Jul-05 | PFBK05-200705-005b | Pefferlaw Brook | DFO |
16-Aug-10 | PG10-160810-001A | Sydenham River | DFO |
16-Aug-10 | PG10-160810-001B | Sydenham River | DFO |
17-Aug-10 | PG10-170810-001A | Sydenham River | DFO |
17-Aug-10 | PG10-170810-001B | Sydenham River | DFO |
18-Aug-10 | PG10-180810-001A | Sydenham River | DFO |
20-Aug-10 | PG10-200810-001A | East Sydenham River | DFO |
27-Aug-10 | PG10-270810-001A | East Sydenham River | DFO |
11-Jul-07 | RCR07-071107-002c | Sydenham River trib. | DFO |
14-Jul-07 | RCR07-071407-0a1c | Grand River | DFO |
07-Aug-07 | RCR07-080707-003a | Maitland River | DFO |
07-Aug-07 | RCR07-080707-003d | Maitland River | DFO |
07-Aug-07 | RCR07-080707-003e | Maitland River | DFO |
16-Sep-03 | SYD091603-1BPEF | East Sydenham River | DFO |
16-Sep-03 | SYD091603-1SN | East Sydenham River | DFO |
16-Sep-03 | SYD091603-2SN | East Sydenham River | DFO |
23-Sep-10 | SYDTR10-230910-002A | Sydenham River | DFO |
04-Jul-05 | TWR05-070405-002 | Teeswater River | DFO |
04-Jul-05 | TWR05-070405-002silvia | Teeswater River | DFO |
26-Oct-05 | TWR05-102605-001 | Teeswater River | DFO |
23-Aug-59 | CMNFI 1959-0334.9 | Lac St-Pierre | CMN |
08-Oct-60 | CMNFI 1960-0508A.9 | Muskoka District | CMN |
09-Aug-72 | CMNFI 1972-0179.17 | Bear Creek | CMN |
12-Aug-72 | CMNFI 1972-0197.14 | Sydenham River | CMN |
13-Aug-72 | CMNFI 1972-0201.17 | Bear Creek | CMN |
14-Aug-72 | CMNFI 1972-0207.12 | Fish Creek | CMN |
02-Aug-73 | CMNFI 1974-0046.12 | Fish Creek | CMN |
04-Aug-73 | CMNFI 1974-0056.9 | Thames River | CMN |
04-Aug-73 | CMNFI 1974-0058.3 | Thames River | CMN |
16-Aug-79 | CMNFI 1979-1009.1 | Maitland River | CMN |
13-Sep-79 | CMNFI 1979-1118.10 | Thames River | CMN |
22-Jul-82 | CMNFI 1982-0588.7 | East Sydenham River | CMN |
24-Jul-82 | CMNFI 1982-0604.6 | Gregory Creek | CMN |
16-Aug-79 | CMNFI 1986-0107.1 | Maitland River | CMN |
16-Aug-79 | CMNFI 1986-0108.1 | Maitland River | CMN |
16-Aug-79 | CMNFI 1986-0109.1 | Maitland River | CMN |
16-Aug-79 | CMNFI 1986-0110.1 | Maitland River | CMN |
16-Aug-79 | CMNFI 1986-0111.1 | Maitland River | CMN |
19-Jun-86 | CMNFI 1987-0223.8 | Cedar Creek | CMN |
02-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
07-Aug-13 | - | Trent River | MNRF |
08-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
10-Sep-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
10-Sep-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
10-Sep-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
15-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
15-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
19-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
19-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
19-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
19-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
20-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
21-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
23-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
23-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
23-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
24-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
24-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
24-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
24-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
25-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
25-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
26-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
27-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
27-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
27-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
29-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
29-Aug-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
31-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
31-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
31-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
31-Jul-13 | - | Moira River | MNRF |
02-Sep-11 | - | Trent River | MNRF |
21-Jun-41 | 4061 | Rivière Aux Outardes | MFFP |
21-Jun-41 | 24210 | Ruisseau Norton | MFFP |
11-Jul-41 | 19902 | Lac des Deux Montagnes | MFFP |
14-Sep-46 | 13084 | Rivière Delisle | MFFP |
31-Jul-63 | 26 | Rivière des Anglais | MFFP |
08-Sep-64 | 497 | Lac des Deux Montagnes | MFFP |
10-Sep-64 | 457 | Lac des Deux Montagnes | MFFP |
10-Sep-64 | 466 | Lac des Deux Montagnes | MFFP |
Jun-65 | 4033 | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
30-Jul-65 | 4656 | Rivière à la Raquette | MFFP |
18-Aug-65 | 3970 | Rivière Ouest | MFFP |
05-Aug-70 | 399 | Lac Brome | MFFP |
03-Aug-73 | 12294 | Lac St-Louis | MFFP |
30-Jul-74 | 12226 | Lac St-Louis | MFFP |
07-May-75 | 15435 | Ruisseau St-Jean | MFFP |
09-May-75 | 15454 | Ruisseau St-Jean | MFFP |
22-Jul-75 | 622 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
24-Jul-75 | 629 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
20-Jul-76 | 321 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
26-Jul-76 | 858 | Coulée Des Poissant | MFFP |
26-Jul-76 | 867 | Ruisseau Turcot | MFFP |
26-Jul-76 | 869 | La Grande Décharge | MFFP |
27-Jul-76 | 849 | Ruisseau Pouliot | MFFP |
27-Jul-76 | 855 | Le Grand Marais | MFFP |
12-Aug-76 | 45 | Ruisseau Howe-Holmes | MFFP |
12-Sep-83 | 13098 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
13-Sep-83 | 3898 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
13-Sep-83 | 13100 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
16-Sep-83 | 3832 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
13-Jun-88 | - | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
01-Jan-89 | - | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
01-Jan-90 | - | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
01-Jan-92 | - | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
16-Sep-92 | - | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
01-Nov-92 | - | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
01-Nov-92 | - | Rivière des Outaouais | MFFP |
Nov-92 | 290 | Lac St. Paul | MFFP |
13-Sep-93 | 12837 | Rivière Châteauguay | MFFP |
1950 | 0422CS | Thames River | ROM |
1924 | 08153 | Georgian Bay | ROM |
10-Aug-36 | 09286 | Ausable River | ROM |
15-Jul-36 | 09319 | Sydenham River | ROM |
15-Jul-36 | 09352 | Sydenham River | ROM |
15-Jul-36 | 09353 | Sydenham River | ROM |
13/08/1936 | 09413 | Medway Creek | ROM |
04-Aug-55 | 17566 | Fanshawe Lake | ROM |
10-Aug-51 | 17887 | Blacks Creek | ROM |
10-Aug-34 | 18183 | Bayfield River | ROM |
1958 | 20121 | Sauble River;Tara Creek;Sauble River Tributary | ROM |
1950 | 22582 | Thames River | ROM |
17-Aug-53 | 23869 | Avon River | ROM |
26-Aug-53 | 23870 | Avon River | ROM |
Aug-50 | 24693 | Thames River | ROM |
1947 | 24764 | Ausable River | ROM |
1956 | 24839 | Saugeen River | ROM |
23-Jul-49 | 24948 | Nith River | ROM |
31-May-63 | 25752 | Maitland River;South Maitland River | ROM |
07-Jul-69 | 26797 | Ausable River | ROM |
29-Jun-69 | 26799 | Lake Huron | ROM |
23-Jul-73 | 29885 | Delisle River | ROM |
24-Jul-73 | 29943 | Delisle River | ROM |
20-Jul-73 | 29945 | Delisle River | ROM |
30-Jul-73 | 29967 | Boyle Drain | ROM |
24-Jul-73 | 29970 | Middle Maitland River | ROM |
22-Jul-73 | 29975 | Middle Maitland River | ROM |
08-Aug-73 | 29977 | Little Maitland River | ROM |
30-Jul-73 | 29980 | Middle Maitland River | ROM |
07-Jun-73 | 30053 | Raisin River | ROM |
07-Jun-73 | 30030 | Raisin River Tributary | ROM |
08-Aug-73 | 30033 | Little Maitland River | ROM |
11-Aug-73 | 30035 | Little Maitland River | ROM |
17-Jun-73 | 30205 | Middle Maitland River | ROM |
22-Aug-73 | 30236 | Maitland River | ROM |
28-Jul-73 | 30253 | Maitland River | ROM |
14-Aug-73 | 30287 | Flat Creek | ROM |
27-Jul-73 | 30291 | Kenny Creek | ROM |
22-Aug-73 | 30316 | Maitland River | ROM |
15-Aug-73 | 30327 | Maitland River | ROM |
16-Aug-73 | 30407 | Horner Creek | ROM |
17-Aug-73 | 30409 | Maitland River | ROM |
15-Aug-74 | 30759 | Little Ausable River | ROM |
04-Jun-74 | 30807 | Stoney Creek | ROM |
04-Jun-74 | 30814 | Stoney Creek | ROM |
11-Jul-74 | 30864 | Unnamed Creek | ROM |
21-Jul-74 | 30904 | - | ROM |
18-Aug-74 | 30924 | Unknown | ROM |
20-Aug-74 | 30937 | Waubuno Creek | ROM |
05-Oct-77 | 36528 | Severn River | ROM |
02-Jun-82 | 42077 | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
30-Jun-87 | 54904 | Detroit River | ROM |
13-Aug-36 | 55433 | Medway Creek | ROM |
10-Aug-89 | 56965 | Sydenham River | ROM |
Aug-80 | 60235 | Severn River | ROM |
28-Sep-97 | 71024 | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
28-Sep-97 | 71028 | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
28-Sep-97 | 71090 | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
27-Nov-97 | 71169 | Flat Creek | ROM |
12-Nov-98 | 71815 | Fish Creek | ROM |
20-Aug-98 | 71973 | Otonabee River | ROM |
16-Jun-00 | 72369 | Avon River | ROM |
16-Jun-00 | 72422 | Avon River | ROM |
15-Jun-00 | 72423 | Black Creek tributary | ROM |
19-Jun-01 | 72609 | Sydenham River | ROM |
1983 | 75813 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75814 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75815 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75816 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75817 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75818 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75819 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75820 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75821 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75822 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75823 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75824 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75825 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75826 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75827 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75828 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75829 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 75830 | Thames River | ROM |
Sep-83 | 75831 | Middle Thames River | ROM |
10-Jun-03 | 75862 | Moira River | ROM |
28-Aug-02 | 76688 | Ausable River | ROM |
29-Aug-02 | 76947 | Ausable River | ROM |
28-Aug-02 | 76956 | Ausable River | ROM |
29-Aug-02 | 76980 | Ausable River | ROM |
04-Jul-05 | 77267 | Teeswater River | ROM |
28-Aug-02 | 77413 | Ausable River | ROM |
28-Aug-02 | 77432 | Ausable River | ROM |
29-Aug-02 | 77667 | Ausable River | ROM |
10-Jun-97 | 78730 | Big Creek | ROM |
1983 | 78811 | Thames River | ROM |
1983 | 78812 | Thames River | ROM |
25-Aug-03 | 79781 | Turkey Creek | ROM |
01-Jul-05 | 80239 | Rivière Châteauguay | ROM |
20-Aug-03 | 80802 | Detroit River | ROM |
02-Jun-04 | 81484 | Belle River | ROM |
20-Jul-05 | 82612 | Pefferlaw Brook | ROM |
27-Aug-08 | 82973 | Gloucester Pool | ROM |
26-Oct-05 | 85023 | Teeswater River | ROM |
18-Jul-05 | 89222 | Pefferlaw Brook | ROM |
20-Jul-05 | 89225 | Pefferlaw Brook | ROM |
27-Jul-10 | 89332 | Sydenham River | ROM |
11-Oct-05 | 89416 | Pefferlaw Brook | ROM |
02-Jul-02 | 93089 | Fansher Creek | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | 96447 | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
30-Jul-02 | 99759 | Fish Creek | ROM |
16-Sep-03 | - | East Sydenham River | ROM |
25-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
29-Jul-02 | - | Fish Creek | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
30-Jul-02 | - | Medway Creek | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
25-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
10-Sep-03 | - | North Sydenham River | ROM |
23-Sep-02 | - | Ausable Channel | ROM |
25-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
15-Sep-03 | - | East Sydenham River | ROM |
24-Jul-80 | - | North Thames River | ROM |
28-Sep-97 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
04-Nov-99 | - | Spring Creek | ROM |
15-Jun-04 | - | Fansher Creek | ROM |
28-Jul-04 | - | Whirl Creek | ROM |
25-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
25-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
25-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
23-Jul-80 | - | Flat Creek | ROM |
11-Sep-03 | - | North Sydenham River | ROM |
26-Apr-00 | - | Government Drain 5/6 | ROM |
11-Sep-03 | - | North Sydenham River | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | - | Ausable Channel | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
15-Sep-03 | - | East Sydenham River | ROM |
28-Jul-04 | - | Black Creek | ROM |
02-Jun-75 | - | Medway Creek | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
17-Jun-75 | - | Sydenham River | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
16-Sep-03 | - | East Sydenham River | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
07-Jun-82 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | - | Ausable Channel | ROM |
06-Jun-82 | - | Little Bear Creek | ROM |
31-May-82 | - | Middle Thames River | ROM |
23-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
07-Jun-82 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
16-Sep-03 | - | East Sydenham River | ROM |
25-Sep-02 | - | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
23-Sep-02 | - | Ausable Channel | ROM |
23-Sep-02 | - | Ausable Channel | ROM |
16-Jun-01 | Released | Sydenham River | ROM |
16-Jun-01 | Released | Sydenham River | ROM |
16-Jun-01 | Released | Black Creek | ROM |
15-Jun-00 | Released | Black Creek | ROM |
28-Sep-97 | Released | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
18-Jun-01 | Released | Sydenham River | ROM |
17-Jun-01 | Released | Sydenham River | ROM |
08-Jul-02 | - | East Sydenham River | ROM |
23-May-02 | - | Black Creek | ROM |
26-Jun-02 | - | Bear Creek | ROM |
11-Jul-02 | - | Sydenham River East Branch | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | 96443 | Ausable Channel | ROM |
26-Sep-02 | 96452 | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
24-Sep-02 | 99507 | Old Ausable Channel | ROM |
06-Aug-02 | 99512 | Belgrave Creek | ROM |
07-Aug-02 | 99514 | Maitland River | ROM |
21-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER210714-002C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
21-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER210714-003C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
21-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER210714-005C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
22-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER220714-001A | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
22-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER220714-002C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
23-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER230714-003C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
23-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER230714-004C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
23-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER230714-005C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
23-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER230714-006C | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
24-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-COLDWATER240714-002B | Coldwater Creek | DFO |
07-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-LPB070714-003C | Long Point Bay | DFO |
15-Jul-14 | 2014-AC-MON-NAN150714-003A | Nanticoke Creek | DFO |
25-Jun-14 | 2014-AC-MON-RONDEAU250614-002C | Rondeau Bay | DFO |
2008-2014 | 18-3741-49489 | Bob's Lake | MNRF |
2008-2014 | 17-6026-49666 | Gloucester Pool | MNRF |
24-Jul-01 | - | Hardy Creek | SCRCA |
26-Jul-01 | - | Sydenham River | SCRCA |
4-Oct-02 | - | Sydenham River | SCRCA |
4-Oct-02 | - | Sydenham River | SCRCA |
12-Jul-04 | - | Coldstream Reservoir | SCRCA |
13-Jul-04 | - | Bridgeview Reservoir | SCRCA |
13-Jul-04 | - | Reservoir #1 | SCRCA |
15-Jul-04 | - | Area Reservoir | SCRCA |
6-Aug-04 | - | Strathroy Reservoir | SCRCA |
6-Aug-04 | - | Sydenham River | SCRCA |
21-Sep-05 | - | Sydenham East Br. | SCRCA |
20-Jul-09 | - | Sydenham East Br. | SCRCA |
20-Jul-09 | - | Sydenham River | SCRCA |
20-Jul-09 | - | Sydenham River | SCRCA |
21-Jul-09 | - | Spring Creek | SCRCA |
Appendix 2: Threats Calculator for Saskatchewan-Nelson DU
Threats Assessment Worksheet
- Species or Ecosystem Scientific Name:
- Northern Sunfish, Lepomis peltastes-SK-Nelson DU
- Element ID
- -
- Elcode
- -
- Date:
- 27/01/2015
- Assessor(s):
- John Post, Tim Birt, Nick Mandrak, Jim Grant, Scott Reid, Marc-Antoine Couillard Moderator: Dwayne Lepitzki
- References:
- Teleconference 12 Feb 2015
Threat Impact | Threat Impact (descriptions) | Level 1 Threat Impact Counts: high range |
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts: low range |
---|---|---|---|
A | Very High | 0 | 0 |
B | High | 0 | 0 |
C | Medium | 0 | 0 |
D | Low | 1 | 1 |
- | Calculated Overall Threat Impact: | Low | Low |
# | Threat | Impact (calculated) |
Scope (next 10 Yrs) |
Severity (10 Yrs or 3 Gen.) |
Timing | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Residential and commercial development | - | - | - | - | - |
1.1 | Housing and urban areas | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
1.2 | Commercial and industrial areas | - | - | - | - | not applicabl |
1.3 | Tourism and recreation areas | - | - | - | - | not applicable. No planned and KNOWN development in the next 10 yrs |
2 | Agriculture and aquaculture | - | - | - | - | - |
2.1 | Annual and perennial non-timber crops | - | - | - | - | not applicable. Considers physical impacts of agriculture on sunfish habitat (e.g. changes due to removal of riparian vegetation, channelization etc). Does not consider pollution/turbidity issues (see below). |
2.2 | Wood and pulp plantations | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
2.3 | Livestock farming and ranching | - | - | - | - | not applicable. No tramping known of. |
2.4 | Marine and freshwater aquaculture | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
3 | Energy production and mining | - | - | - | - | - |
3.1 | Oil and gas drilling | - | - | - | - | not applicable. No fracking |
3.2 | Mining and quarrying | - | - | - | - | not applicable. Major mining out of range for this species. |
3.3 | Renewable energy | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
4 | Transportation and service corridors | - | - | - | - | - |
4.1 | Roads and railroads | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
4.2 | Utility and service lines | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
4.3 | Shipping lanes | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
4.4 | Flight paths | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
5 | Biological resource use | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | - |
5.1 | Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
5.2 | Gathering terrestrial plants | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
5.3 | Logging and wood harvesting | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
5.4 | Fishing and harvesting aquatic resources | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | Potential collection for aquarium trade and bait fishery bycatch but more likely a threat for other DU. Likely some angling mortality |
6 | Human intrusions and disturbance | Negligible | Small (1-10%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | - |
6.1 | Recreational activities | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
6.2 | War, civil unrest and military exercises | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
6.3 | Work and other activities | Negligible | Small (1-10%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | Exposure to fisheries scientific collection in 1-2% of the lakes. |
7 | Natural system modifications | - | - | - | - | - |
7.1 | Fire and fire suppression | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
7.2 | Dams and water management/use | - | - | - | - | Some hydroelectric development. Likely new dams will be constructed in the next 10 yrs. but only a small number. Existing dams alter water regimes but unlikely to negatively impact Northern Sunfish. |
7.3 | Other ecosystem modifications | - | - | - | - | not applicable. siltation and elevated levels of turbidity accounted for under 9. |
8 | Invasive and other problematic species and genes | - | - | - | - | - |
8.1 | Invasive non-native/alien species | - | - | - | - | Impact of Round Goby invasion unknown but not applicable to this DU. |
8.2 | Problematic native species | - | - | - | - | hybridization is not an issue for this species. Is possible but impact is unknown |
8.3 | Introduced genetic material | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
9 | Pollution | D-Low | Small (1-10%) | Moderate - Slight (1-30%) | High (Continuing) | - |
9.1 | Household sewage and urban waste water | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Moderate - Slight (1-30%) | High (Continuing) | Chloride and pollutants are a major threat to this species. Urban development is generally highly correlated with increased concentrations of pollution but not high for this DU. Needs to be researched in terms of the actual level of impact of salt on this species. |
9.2 | Industrial and military effluents | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Moderate (11-30%) | High (Continuing) | - |
9.3 | Agricultural and forestry effluents | Negligible | Small (1-10%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | Sedimentation is a big threat. Contaminants emanating from agricultural and other forms of development. Endocrine disruptors are present and problematic from pulp and paper mills. Present but unknown impact in this DU. Forestry effluents are negligible but remain a small threat more for this DU than the Eastern Ont DU. This threat is related more to forestry than agriculture. Negligible impact since forestry uses buffer zones to reduce impact. |
9.4 | Garbage and solid waste | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
9.5 | Air-borne pollutants | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
9.6 | Excess energy | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
10 | Geological events | - | - | - | - | - |
10.1 | Volcanoes | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
10.2 | Earthquakes/ tsunamis | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
10.3 | Avalanches/landslides | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
11 | Climate change and severe weather | - | - | - | - | - |
11.1 | Habitat shifting and alteration | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
11.2 | Droughts | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
11.3 | Temperature extremes | - | - | - | - | not applicable. Warmer temperature likely positively affect this species. Centrarchids shifting northward - indication of warming of lakes. |
11.4 | Storms and flooding | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
Classification of Threats adopted from IUCN-CMP, Salafsky et al. (2008).
Glossary
- Impact
- The degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of each threat is based on Severity and Scope rating and considers only present and future threats. Threat impact reflects a reduction of a species population or decline/degradation of the area of an ecosystem. The median rate of population reduction or area decline for each combination of scope and severity corresponds to the following classes of threat impact: Very High (75% declines), High (40%), Medium (15%), and Low (3%). Unknown: used when impact cannot be determined (e.g., if values for either scope or severity are unknown); Not Calculated: impact not calculated as threat is outside the assessment timeframe (e.g., timing is insignificant/negligible or low as threat is only considered to be in the past); Negligible: when scope or severity is negligible; Not a Threat: when severity is scored as neutral or potential benefit.
- Scope
- Proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years. Usually measured as a proportion of the species' population in the area of interest. (Pervasive = 71–100%; Large = 31–70%; Restricted = 11–30%; Small = 1–10%; Negligible < 1%).
- Severity
- Within the scope, the level of damage to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within a 10-year or three-generation timeframe. Usually measured as the degree of reduction of the species' population. (Extreme = 71–100%; Serious = 31–70%; Moderate = 11–30%; Slight = 1–10%; Negligible < 1%; Neutral or Potential Benefit > 0%).
- Timing
- High = continuing; Moderate = only in the future (could happen in the short term [< 10 years or 3 generations]) or now suspended (could come back in the short term); Low = only in the future (could happen in the long term) or now suspended (could come back in the long term); Insignificant/Negligible = only in the past and unlikely to return, or no direct effect but limiting.
Appendix 3: Threats Calculator for Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence DU
Threats Assessment Worksheet
- Species or Ecosystem Scientific Name:
- Northern Sunfish, Lepomis peltastes_Great Lakes-St. Lawrence DU
- Date:
- 27/01/2015
- Assessor(s):
- John Post, Tim Birt, Nick Mandrak, Jim Grant, Scott Reid, Marc-Antoine Couillard Moderator: Dwayne Lepitzki
- References:
- Teleconference 12 Feb 2015
Threat Impact | Threat Impact (descriptions) | Level 1 Threat Impact Counts: high range |
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts: low range |
---|---|---|---|
A | Very High | 0 | 0 |
B | High | 1 | 0 |
C | Medium | 0 | 1 |
D | Low | 1 | 1 |
- | Calculated Overall Threat Impact: | High | Medium |
# | Threat | Impact (calculated) |
Scope (next 10 Yrs) |
Severity (10 Yrs or 3 Gen.) |
Timing | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Residential and commercial development | - | - | - | - | - |
1.1 | Housing and urban areas | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
1.2 | Commercial and industrial areas | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
1.3 | Tourism and recreation areas | - | - | - | - | not applicable. No planned and KNOWN development in the next 10 yrs. |
2 | Agriculture and aquaculture | D-Low | Restricted - Small (1-30%) | Moderate (11-30%) | High (Continuing) | - |
2.1 | Annual and perennial non-timber crops | D-Low | Restricted - Small (1-30%) | Moderate (11-30%) | High (Continuing) | Considers physical impacts of agriculture on sunfish habitat (e.g. changes due to removal of riparian vegetation, channelization etc). Does not consider pollution/turbidity issues (see below). Intensification of row crops in Southern Ontario. Lessening in livestock farming. Intensification of pork production in Quebec but most of range has already been affected. Less in low intensity beef production replaced with hog farming. Remaining range of this DU is most likely to be impacted (Guelph to west of Lake St. Clair) for conversion to row crop to soy bean. Some of Quebec range may be historical given the lack of recent surveying in those areas to confirm presence. Regardless, threat is included based on precautionary principle. Farmers will likely try to cultivate up to water edge. Headwater transformation to tile drains as well as some drain maintenance (channelization of habitat). Threats impact is moderate. Decline in beef production has occurred in the past 10 yrs. Expert opinion is that beef cattle production is unlikely to increase in the Quebec area over the next 10 yrs. Hog farming likely to continue to intensify. Threat impact is pollution rather than habitat loss or modification. |
2.2 | Wood and pulp plantations | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
2.3 | Livestock farming and ranching | - | - | - | - | No trampling known of. |
2.4 | Marine and freshwater aquaculture | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
3 | Energy production and mining | - | - | - | - | - |
3.1 | Oil and gas drilling | - | - | - | - | not applicable. No fracking |
3.2 | Mining and quarrying | - | - | - | - | not applicable. Major mining out of range for this species. |
3.3 | Renewable energy | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
4 | Transportation and service corridors | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | - |
4.1 | Roads and railroads | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | Some road development planned in the next 10 yrs. in and around the Montreal area. |
4.2 | Utility and service lines | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
4.3 | Shipping lanes | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
4.4 | Flight paths | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
5 | Biological resource use | Negligible | Large (31-70%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | - |
5.1 | Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals | - | - | - | - | Not applicable. |
5.2 | Gathering terrestrial plants | - | - | - | - | Not applicable. |
5.3 | Logging and wood harvesting | - | - | - | - | Not applicable. |
5.4 | Fishing and harvesting aquatic resources | Negligible | Large (31-70%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | Active licensed bait fishery in southern Ontario. Collection for aquarium trade also a threat. Live bait more or less prohibited in Quebec with new restrictive regulations pending. Likely some level of angling mortality. |
6 | Human intrusions and disturbance | Negligible | Large (31-70%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | - |
6.1 | Recreational activities | Negligible | Small (1-10%) | Negligible (<1%) | High (Continuing) | Boating is a threat in Ontario and Quebec. |
6.2 | War, civil unrest and military exercises | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
6.3 | Work and other activities | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Extreme (71-100%) | High (Continuing) | - |
7 | Natural system modifications | - | - | - | - | - |
7.1 | Fire and fire suppression | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
7.2 | Dams and water management/use | - | - | - | - | Beauharnois dam planned for development but unknown impact. Trent River and Moira River populations fragmented but unaffected by flow regime. Likely a few new dams will be constructed in the next 10 yrs. Existing dams alter water regimes but unlikely to negatively impact Northern Sunfish. Dams stabilize flow patterns that benefit the species. No known effect of the Beauharnois dam. |
7.3 | Other ecosystem modifications | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Extreme (71-100%) | High (Continuing) | Phragmites present in Ontario as well as Quebec. Small range of this DU exposed to Phragmites. Impact is system modification from aquatic to terrestrial. Siltation and elevated turbidity accounted for under 9. |
8 | Invasive and other problematic species and genes | Unknown | Pervasive (71-100%) | Unknown | High (Continuing) | - |
8.1 | Invasive non-native/alien species | Unknown | Restricted (11-30%) | Unknown | High (Continuing) | Impact of Round Goby invasion unknown but applicable to this DU. Some cases have shown RG to be beneficial. Threat impact is therefore unknown. |
8.2 | Problematic native species | Unknown | Pervasive (71-100%) | Unknown | High (Continuing) | Hybridization in Southern Ontario but no documented trends of decline in population. Therefore threat severity is unknown. Sterilization has not been recorded. More research on impacts of hybridization for this species is necessary. |
8.3 | Introduced genetic material | - | - | - | - | not applicable. |
9 | Pollution | BC High-Medium | Large (31-70%) | Serious - Moderate (11-70%) | High (Continuing) | - |
9.1 | Household sewage and urban waste water | C-Medium | Large (31-70%) | Moderate (11-30%) | High (Continuing) | Chloride and pollutants are a major threat to this species. Urban development is generally highly correlated with increased concentrations of pollution but not high for this DU. Needs to be researched in terms of the actual level of impact of chloride on this species. Higher pollution impact for this DU due to proximity to urban centres. Nature of concentrations in effluent is different in this DU in comparison to the Sask-Nelson River DU. Turbidity influences severity of threat for pollutants |
9.2 | Industrial and military effluents | Negligible | Negligible (<1%) | Moderate (11-30%) | High (Continuing) | PCB' s in Yamaska but levels declining. Possibility of Oil Refinery development. London range impacted by industrial effluent (general manufacturing) in the range of 100's of spills |
9.3 | Agricultural and forestry effluents | BC High-Medium | Large (31-70%) | Serious - Moderate (11-70%) | High (Continuing) | Sedimentation is a big threat. Contaminants emanating from agricultural and other forms of development. Endocrine disruptors are present from pulp and paper mills. Present but unknown impact in this DU. Forestry effluents are negligible. Threat is related more to agriculture than forestry for this DU. |
9.4 | Garbage and solid waste | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
9.5 | Air-borne pollutants | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
9.6 | Excess energy | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
10 | Geological events | - | - | - | - | - |
10.1 | Volcanoes | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
10.2 | Earthquakes/ tsunamis | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
10.3 | Avalanches/landslides | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
11 | Climate change and severe weather | - | - | - | - | - |
11.1 | Habitat shifting and alteration | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
11.2 | Droughts | - | - | - | - | not applicable |
11.3 | Temperature extremes | - | - | - | - | not applicable. Warmer temperature likely positive for this species. Centrarchids shifting northward- indication of climate warming. |
11.4 | Storms and flooding | - | - | - | - | Changes to flow regimes. Northern Sunfish relies on low water flow. In one area, storm felled trees, resulted in additional woody debris, decreased flow, increased siltation, unknown impact. |
Classification of Threats adopted from IUCN-CMP, Salafsky et al. (2008).
Page details
- Date modified: