The following project proposal was submitted to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Board in October 2000, and the first year of funding (1 July 2001 – 30 June 2002) was approved.  Results from the first year’s work are provided HERE.  The remaining 2 years are subject to approval by the Board (our hopes are high that this project will continue to be funded until its estimated completion on 30 June 2004).  This project is implemented through the Natural Heritage Program of the NC Division of Parks and Recreation; Surveys, analyses, and reports are conducted by staff in the Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

STATUS INVENTORY OF UNCOMMON CRAYFISH IN NORTH CAROLINA

Introduction

The Natural Heritage Program of the Division of Parks and Recreation requests a grant to conduct inventories of uncommon crayfish in North Carolina over a 3-year period.  In particular, surveys will be conducted for 21 species that may be in need of conservation.  About half of these species occur in the mountains, while the other half occur in the coastal plains.

 

Significance of the Project

Crayfish play important roles in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, both as food sources for many animals and as consumers of plant and animal material.  Crayfish are linked directly and indirectly to the ecosystems in which they live.  Because they are omnivorous (i.e., consume both plant and animal food, living or dead), and because they are consumed by animals from various trophic levels, crayfish form multiple links in aquatic and terrestrial food webs (Lodge et al. 1994, Charlebois and Lamberti 1996, Nystrom et al. 1996).  Thus, crayfish are involved in the transfer of large amounts of energy in these systems.  Crayfish process nutrients and make them available to other animals by (1) breaking down large material via shredding into smaller sizes, and (2) converting nutrients into biomass.  Crayfish feed on aquatic vegetation (e.g., macrophytes, algae, and periphyton), macroinvertebrates (e.g., aquatic insects, mollusks, small crustaceans), and small vertebrates (e.g., amphibians, small/juvenile fish).  Crayfish also consume nonliving organic matter such as leaf litter or terrestrial animal carcasses from the riparian zone or shore and decaying aquatic plant and animal matter (Lodge and Hill 1994).  Crayfish in turn are consumed by invertebrates (including other crayfish), fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Lodge and Hill 1994). Crayfish perform an important role as a member of symbiosis with many invertebrates and as host to various aquatic parasites (Lodge and Hill 1994).  Crayfish also experience competition, both between species and among different sizes of individuals within a population (Lodge and Hill 1994). 

 

Despite the magnitude of their ecological roles, we have much to learn about crayfish distributions, life histories, and taxonomy.  In the United States and Canada, approximately 350 taxa of crayfish are recognized (Taylor et al. 1996, J.E. Cooper, pers. comm.).  However, many species still await description (J.E. Cooper, pers. comm.).  For example, several current species are now recognized to be species complexes consisting of more than a single taxon.  The greatest diversity of crayfishes occurs in the Southeast (Hobbs III 1991, Taylor et al. 1996), and North Carolina harbors at least 37 (possibly up to 46) native and 3 introduced species of Cambarus, Procambarus, Orconectes, and Fallicambarus (Cooper and Braswell 1995, J.E. Cooper, pers. comm.).  Many of these species have naturally small native ranges and are therefore vulnerable to environmental change.  About half of the described crayfishes in North Carolina are of undetermined conservation status due to a deficiency of data on the distribution and abundance of these animals.  Additionally, there are perhaps as many as a dozen native species yet to be described (J.E. Cooper, pers. comm.).  Of those species for which we have at least some information, the Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Crustaceans suggests that 8 species be listed as significantly rare (suggested state special concern), and that 13 species be put on a watch list (Clamp 1999).  These species and 3 newly described species (1 proposed special concern and 2 proposed watch list) are listed accordingly by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (LeGrand et al. 2001).  Thus, at least 67% of the crayfishes occurring in North Carolina may need some form of protection.  Other species have either recently been described or are currently under investigation, and it is too early to say whether these species should also be awarded protective status.  New information about current distributions has recently been reported (Cooper and Braswell 1995, Cooper et al. 1998).  Yet there are still many geographical gaps across the state where surveys have either not been conducted at all, or not thoroughly or recently.  The proposed listing of certain crayfishes by the Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Crustaceans (Clamp 1999) is a first step; the authors admit that these decisions have been made based on limited data and that more extensive surveys may provide new information that could alter the conservation of any of these species. 

 

Because we have limited historical data with which to compare current distributions, it is hard to determine whether land-use practices and other effects of human actions (e.g., introductions of nonindigenous crayfishes) have negatively affected the crayfish in North Carolina.  However, crayfish can be affected by both water and habitat quality.  Changes in water quality that interfere with respiration (e.g., drastic temperature changes, acidification, pollution) can be detrimental to crayfish populations.  Many crayfish are oxygen regulators and can survive changes in oxygen levels (Reiber 1995), but some are oxygen conformers and are less likely to successfully contend with these changes (Hobbs III 1991).  Water pollution, caused by sources such as sewage, agricultural and urban runoff, acidification, and auto exhaust, can result in bioaccumulation of pesticides and trace heavy metals (e.g., lead, copper, and cadmium).  This can harm animals that consume crayfish in addition to directly causing negative effects on crayfish (e.g., mutation, reproductive failure, death) (Taylor et al. 1995, Daveikis and Alikham 1996, Anderson et al. 1997, Zaranko et al. 1997).  Habitat destruction also can negatively affect crayfish populations.  Land use practices (e.g., agriculture, logging, and development) can alter habitat resulting in fewer areas available as shelter to crayfish (Smith et al. 1996, Richter et al. 1997).  For example, siltation and runoff can decrease macrophyte (a source of food and shelter) availability, and channelization can alter streambed sculpture.  The introduction of non-indigenous crayfishes to areas currently occupied by native crayfish can result in competition or even extirpation of natives and can have impacts on other components of the ecosystem (e.g., fishes, amphibians, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes, and algae) (Charlebois and Lamberti 1996, Perry 1998, Lodge et al. 2000a).  Nonindigenous crayfishes can affect natives via competition, predation, genetic dilution, and by serving as disease vectors.  Further, introductions of nonindigenous crayfishes can enhance the negative effects of environmental change on native species because non-natives are often more tolerant to environmental degradation.  Lodge et al. (2000a) consider nonindigenous crayfish introductions to be the single greatest threat to native crayfish biodiversity worldwide.  In Europe, nonindigenous crayfishes have contributed to serious declines and even local extinctions of its 5 native species.  In several areas of North America, combinations of environmental degradation and introductions of non-native crayfishes have led to declines in native species, and to the extinction of at least one native crayfish in northern California (Lodge et al. 2000a). During recent decades, at least 3 exotic crayfish species have been introduced into North Carolina; therefore, we are concerned about potential impacts to our ecosystems and native crayfish species.  Based on species-specific hydrologic basin distributions and what is known about habitat preferences of native crayfishes, it may be possible to correlate crayfish distributions with anthropogenic activities affecting water and stream quality.

 

Much of our information about the current status of crayfishes in North Carolina comes from previous surveys.  Many of these surveys for crayfish were conducted as parts of larger inventories for multiple types of animals (e.g., State Parks, Game Lands, and county inventories conducted by NC Wildlife Resources Commission personnel; surveys for amphibians conducted by NC State Museum of Natural Sciences personnel; basin-wide water quality surveys conducted by Division of Water Quality personnel).  Since the proposed project will be taxa specific, we should increase the quality of knowledge relative to (1) quantification, (2) substantial life history and ecology information, (3) seasonality, and (4) sufficient data on burrowing crayfish.  Given that undescribed species exist and that we have much to learn about the distributions of crayfishes in North Carolina, it is imperative that we continue to improve our knowledge of crayfish by filling in the distributional gaps with further inventories.

 

Project Implementation

We propose to carry out an extensive inventory for crayfish species occurring on the proposed special concern and watch lists in North Carolina.  We will also collect information for all other crayfish taxa that we encounter during this statewide inventory.  Because this inventory will be conducted solely for crayfish, methods specific to crayfish collection will be employed, and 100% of effort will be directed toward crayfish, thus increasing the quality of the data collected.  This information will build upon data collected during previous surveys, and should give us a better understanding of crayfish in North Carolina.

 

Species occurring on the proposed special concern and watch lists, the species for which we will survey, are listed below.  We will focus efforts on those species occurring on the special concern list.  Each of these species either has an extremely limited range (see individual distribution maps) or is rare where it occurs.  Several of these species are endemic to North Carolina.  Certain species have been recently surveyed to some extent (e.g., Greensboro burrowing crayfish in 1993, Hiwassee headwaters crayfish and Hiwassee crayfish in 1994-5), but we could benefit from more extensive and more recent information.  However, most effort will be spent surveying crayfishes about which we know the least.

 

 

Proposed Special Concern

Cambarus (Cambarus) lenati (Broad River stream crayfish)

Cambarus (Depressicambarus) catagius (Greensboro burrowing crayfish)*

Cambarus (Puncticambarus) chaugaensis (Oconee stream crayfish)

Cambarus (Puncticambarus) georgiae (Little Tennessee River crayfish)

Cambarus (Puncticambarus) parrishi (Hiwassee headwaters crayfish)

Cambarus (Puncticambarus) spicatus (Broad River spiny crayfish)

Orconectes (Crockerinus) virginiensis (Chowanoke crayfish)

Orconectes (Procericambarus) carolinensis (North Carolina spiny crayfish)

Procambarus (Ortmannicus) braswelli (Waccamaw crayfish)

 

 

Proposed Watch List

Cambarus (Cambarus) davidi (Carolinda ladle crayfish)

Cambarus (Cambarus) sp. A (howardi?) (Chattahoochee crayfish)

Cambarus (Hiaticambarus) chasmodactylus (New River crayfish)

Cambarus (Jugicambarus) carolinus (red burrowing crayfish)*

Cambarus (Jugicambarus) nodosus (Knotty burrowing crayfish)*

Cambarus (Puncticambarus) hiwaseensis (Hiwassee crayfish)

Cambarus (Puncticambarus) reburrus (French Broad River crayfish)

Cambarus (Tubericambarus) acanthura (spinytail crayfish)*

Orconectes (Procericambarus) cristavarius (no common name)

Orconectes (Procericambarus) spinosus (Tennessee River spiny crayfish)

Procambarus (Ortmannicus ancylus (Edisto crayfish)

Procambarus (Ortmannicus blandingii (Santee crayfish)

Procambarus (Ortmannicus) medialis (Tar River crayfish)

Procambarus (Ortmannicus) pearsei (Sandhills crayfish)

Procambarus (Ortmannicus) plumimanus (Croatan crayfish)

*denotes primary burrower

†denotes endemic species

Those listed in red were added to the significantly rare animal list by the NHP (LeGrand et al. 2001) after this project began.

 

 

For each of the target species, this project aims to (1) fill in gaps in the known distribution, (2) quantify abundance and size of each life history form collected per unit search time, (3) note specific habitats from which animals were collected (may differ temporally with life history form), (4) record species associates present and relative abundances, and (5) quantify seasonal and diel (night vs. day) differences.  This information should provide a basis for decisions about protection status of each species inventoried.

 

In addition, we will record as much information as possible during these surveys for common species and species that were recently described or are currently under investigation.  Further, we will record information about the 3 exotic species currently known to occur in North Carolina if/as we encounter each: Procambarus (Scapulicambarus) clarkii (red swamp crayfish), Orconectes (Gremicambarus) virilis (virile crayfish), and Orconectes (Procericambarus) rusticus (rusty crayfish).  Any information gained will be useful for nonindigenous crayfish management (see Lodge et al. 2000b).

 

Inventories will be conducted in areas where target species are suspected to occur (major arteries and their tributaries, lakes/reservoirs, and floodplains).  In addition, we will extend the search area to define distribution perimeters.  Selected sites will be re-sampled seasonally.  Methods will include (from most to least often used): (1) walking, snorkel, or SCUBA (hand or net collection); (2) trapping (pitfall traps and minnow traps, checked nightly); (3) digging from burrows; (4) searches in streams and floodplains at night (with flashlights) and/or on rainy days; (5) electrofishing.  We will note relative efficiencies of collection methods for each species.  To maximize productivity, inventories will be conducted statewide according to weather, stream, and lake conditions, and scheduling of other projects.  GPS units will be used to precisely map all inventory areas, and the habitat conditions at each site will be described.  A limited number of specimens of crayfish collected during this project will be stored in 70% ethanol and maintained as part of reference collections owned by the Nongame & Endangered Species Program or donated to the NC Museum of Natural Sciences.  If future taxonomy studies need good samples for genetic testing, these specimens should be of high enough quality to be used.  Further, many crayfish parasites (mostly ostracods) are proposed to be listed as endangered, threatened, special concern, or put on a watch list (Clamp 1999).  Specimens of crayfish collected during this inventory will be made available to persons interested in examining them for commensals.

 

These data will be stored in an aquatic database maintained by the Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program, and made available to other agencies (e.g., the Natural Heritage Program, NC Museum of Natural Sciences, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).  Reports containing analyses, GIS maps, and any survey limitations will be printed and made available to interested parties.  Annual and final reports will be provided to the Natural Heritage Program.  Personnel from the Wildlife Resources Commission’s Nongame Program will supervise the inventories and prepare the annual and final reports, and prepare data for incorporation into the Natural Heritage Program’s database.

References

 

Anderson, M.B., J.E. Preslan, L. Jolibois, J.E. Bollinger, W.J. George. 1997. Bioaccumulation of lead nitrate in red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii). Journal of Hazardous Materials 54:15-29.

 

Charlebois, P.M., and G.A. Lamberti. 1996. Invading crayfish in a Michigan stream: direct and indirect effects on periphyton and macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:551-563.

 

Clamp, J.C. 1999. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater and terrestrial crustacean fauna. Technical report of the Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Crustaceans.

 

Cooper, J.E., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Observations on North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22:87-132.

 

Cooper, J.E., A.L. Braswell, and C. McGrath. 1998. Noteworthy distributional records for crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 114:1-10.

 

Daveikis, V.F., and M.A. Alikhan. 1996. Comparative body measurements, fecundity, oxygen uptake, and ammonia excretion in Cambarus robustus (Astacidae, Crustacea) from an acidic and a neutral site in northeastern Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1196-1203.

 

Hobbs, H.H. III. 1991. Decapoda. Pp. 823-858 In J.H. Thorp and A.P. Covich, eds. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

 

LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan.  2001.  Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of North Carolina.  North Carolina Natural Hertitage Program.  Raleigh, NC.  95 pp.

 

Lodge, D.M., and A.H. Hill. 1994. Factors governing species composition, population size, and productivity of cool-water crayfishes. Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 69:111-136.

 

Lodge, D.M., M.W. Kershner, J.E. Aloi, and A.P. Covich. 1994. Effects of an omnivorous crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) on a freshwater littoral food web. Ecology 75:1265-1281.

 

Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe.  Fisheries 25(8):7-20.

 

Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic crayfish introductions: New policies needed.  Fisheries 25(8):21-23.

 

Nystrom, P., C. Bronmark, and W.Graneli. 1996. Patterns in benthic food webs: a role for omnivorous crayfish? Freshwater Biology 36:631-646.

 

Perry, W.L. 1998. Ecological and Genetic Impact of a Nonindigenous Freshwater Crayfish (keywords: Orconectes rusticus, hybridization, zebra mussel, invasives, directional introgression). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, IN.

 

Reiber, C. 1995. Physiological adaptations of crayfish to the hypoxic environment. American Zoologist 35:1-11.

 

Richter, B.D., D.P. Braun, M.A. Mendelson, and L.L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.

 

Smith, G.R.T., M.A. Learner, F.M. Slater, and J. Foster. 1996. Habitat features important for the conservation of the native crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes in Britain. Biological Conservation 75:239-246.

 

Taylor, R.M., G.D. Watson, and M.A. Alikhan. 1995. Comparative sub-lethal and lethal acute toxicity of copper to the freshwater crayfish Cambarus robustus (Cambaridae, Decapoda, Crustacea) from an acidic metal-contaminated lake and a circumneutral uncontaminated stream. Water Research 29:401-408.

 

Taylor, C.A., M.L. Warren, Jr., J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., H.H. Hobbs III, R.F. Jezerinac, W.L. Pflieger, and H.W. Robison. 1996. Conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 21:25-38.

 

Zaranko, D.T., R.W. Griffiths, and N.K. Kaushik. 1997. Biomagnification of polychlorinated biphenyls through a riverine food web. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16:1463-1471.

 

NC Crayfishes Home