INTERNSHIP IN CROP, SOIL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL … · of the internship and desired timeline for completing the various requirements of the internship. 3. After the project is ... other

CSES Internship Requirements revised 10-30-13

INTERNSHIP IN CROP, SOIL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CSES 462V

The internship program is based upon the principle that what students learn in the workplace can be a valuable supplement to what they learn in the classroom. By combining work and study, students gain greater insight into each and may be better prepared for employment in their chosen careers. The CSES internship is designed to fit needs of the individual student, but, for full credit, the student must meet minimal requirements listed below and the internship must have a substantive academic component to it beyond simply going to work for someone. In cooperation with an employer, the course will be supervised by an internship committee made up of three instructors from the CSES faculty representing Crop Management, Environmental, Soil, and Water Science, and Weed Science. At least two of the instructors will be located at UA-Fayetteville. Requirements for academic credit: 1. Learning objectives for an internship project will be initially agreed upon by a CSES internship

committee, an employer (sponsor), and the student. A written pre-proposal is required to initiate the internship and must be approved by the committee prior to the conclusion of the spring semester if it is a summer internship. An outline of what the pre-proposal should include and an example of a well-prepared pre-proposal are attached. Only after the pre-proposal has been approved by the committee will the student be enrolled in CSES 462V. If it is anticipated that the student will not complete all of the requirements prior to the end of a term (Spring/Fall/Summer), the student may postpone enrolling in the internship course until the following term.

2. All students enrolling in the internship course for a given term will meet together as a group with one or

more of the internship committee instructors prior to the term of enrollment to discuss the requirements of the internship and desired timeline for completing the various requirements of the internship.

3. After the project is approved by the internship committee, the student will work directly with one

instructor who is a member of the internship committee. The student must submit a full proposal to the instructor within two to three weeks after beginning employment for review and approval by the internship committee. The student should work with the instructor to develop an appropriate format for the proposal, particularly if the academic component of the internship is something other than a mini-research project. An outline to follow for the proposal format is attached along with an example of a well-prepared proposal.

4. Upon completion of the internship employment, the student must submit a final written report to the

instructor. This report will be distributed to the internship committee for review and evaluation. The final report should follow a similar format as the internship proposal. An example of a well-prepared final report is attached.


5. In addition to the final written report, the student will make an oral presentation which summarizes his/her internship to the CSES Colloquium class, CSES Seminar, the internship committee, or another appropriate audience to be decided upon by the committee and the student.

6. The internship committee will evaluate the student's performance and determine the letter grade for the

course based upon fulfillment of all requirements. The semester credit hours available for internship will be a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 3 hours.

Enrollment in the internship course (CSES 462V) is by instructor’s consent only. Therefore, any student wishing to enroll in the internship class must contact one of the internship committee members listed below for a copy of all current requirements and approval to enroll. Internship Committee Crop Management: Dr. Larry C. Purcell Altheimer Laboratory Phone: 575-3983 Email: [email protected] Weed Science: Dr. Jason K. Norsworthy Altheimer Laboratory Phone: 575-8740 Email: [email protected] Environmental, Soil, and Water Science: Dr. Kristofor R. Brye 123 AGRI Building Phone: 575-5742 Email: [email protected]


REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERNSHIP (CSES 462V)

Before the student can enroll in the course (CSES 462V), he/she must prepare and submit a pre-

proposal (see attached outline and example provided) to the internship committee for approval. Once the pre-proposal is approved and the student begins employment, the student must submit a full proposal (see attached outline and sample provided) explaining in detail what academic activities will be completed as part of the internship. The full proposal is due to the internship instructors no later than three (3) weeks into the job/internship. Frequently, a student is hired by a firm, agency, or company and has little if any idea what activities will be available to fulfill the academic requirements for the internship. The pre-proposal and subsequent proposal requirements allow the student to have a realistic time frame in which to assess the academic component of the internship and report to his/her internship advisor. Preparation of both the pre-proposal and proposal should be done in consultation with the instructor for proper formatting and effective communication of the academic component of the internship and to facilitate preparation of the final report.

The course grade will be assigned based upon the following distribution:

Pre-proposal 10% Proposal 20% Oral Report 35% Final Written Report 35%

Academic Honesty As a core part of its mission, the University of Arkansas provides students with the opportunity to further their educational goals through programs of study and research in an environment that promotes freedom of inquiry and academic responsibility. Accomplishing this mission is only possible when intellectual honesty and individual integrity prevail.

The University policy for Academic Honesty will be followed in this class. It is our intention that no student will receive any credit for this class if a dishonest act (i.e., plagiarism) on his/her part is evident relative to the work in this class.

Each University of Arkansas student is required to be familiar with and abide by the University's Academic Integrity Policy which may be found at http://provost.uark.edu/. Students with questions about how these policies apply to a particular course or assignment should immediately contact their instructor.


INTERNSHIP PRE-PROPOSAL FORMAT

CSES 462V (1-3 hours) K.R. Brye, J.K. Norsworthy, L.C. Purcell

A. Title: Provide a brief, clear, specific designation of the subject. B. Submitted By: List full name, summer address, phone number, and email address where you can be

contacted. C. Company Sponsor: List company's full name, immediate supervisor's name, address, and phone #. D. Date of Pre-proposal Submission to Committee: E. Dates of Internship: Indicate the starting and ending dates F. Credit Hours: List the number of semester hours of credit for which you are enrolling (1 to 3 hrs). G. Brief Description of Proposed Activities: In 2-3 sentences, briefly describe what you plan to do.

Though specifics might not be possible at the time the pre-proposal is prepared and submitted, students should at least briefly describe how the internship will extend beyond a summer job and what the student anticipates would be the academic product or documentation of their internship (i.e., a term paper, weekly log of activities/responsibilities, or a research component).


EXAMPLE PRE-PROPOSAL

Internship Pre-Proposal

CSES 462V (1-3 hours)

A. Title: Comparison of Ozark Bass Found in Upper White River Basin to Previous Data on Other Rock Bass Species Based on Age and Size

B. Submitted By: Name Mailing address Phone number Email address

C. Sponsor: Individual’s name Company/Organization Address Phone number

D. Date of Submission to Committee: 3 May, 2013

E. Dates of Internship: May 13 through August 15, 2013

F. Credit Hours Requested: I am requesting three hours of credit for my upcoming summer 2013 internship experience. I will be working approximately 40 hours per week with the Fisheries Department of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission in Mountain Home, Arkansas. During the fall semester of 2013, I will give a presentation at the University of Arkansas about my experiences and research opportunity.

G. Brief Description of Proposed Activities: During my internship, I will learn techniques in fish sampling, fish aging, and data collection. Fish sampling techniques will include electrofishing and gill and hoop netting, among others. I will assist with stream habitat and restoration projects through the Cold Water Habitat and Stream Team programs. My specific research project will be comprised of estimating size and age distribution of Ozark Bass (a species of Rock Bass endemic to the Upper White River Basin) on Crooked Creek, the Buffalo River, and other small streams and recording the measured information to compare to previous data from other Rock Bass species. This will be beneficial in the future to determine catch limitations and gage Ozark Bass’s viability in the White River Basin. I’ll also be measuring prominent water quality indicators.


INTERNSHIP PROPOSAL FORMAT CSES 462V (1-3 hours)

K.R. Brye, J.K. Norsworthy, L.C. Purcell *** DUE BY 3 WEEKS AFTER BEGINNING EMPLOYMENT/INTERNSHIP ***

SECTION 1 (Pre-proposal; this will be the first page of the full proposal)

A. Title: Provide a brief, clear, specific designation of the subject. B. Submitted By: List full name, summer address, phone number, and email address. C. Company Sponsor: List company's full name, immediate supervisor's name, address, and phone #. D. Date of Pre-proposal Submission to Committee: E. Dates of Internship: Indicate the starting and ending dates F. Credit Hours: List the number of semester hours of credit for which you are enrolling (1 to 6 hrs). G. Brief Description of Proposed Activities: In 2-3 sentences, briefly describe what you plan to do.

Though specifics might not be possible at the time the pre-proposal is prepared and submitted, students should at least briefly describe how the internship will extend beyond a summer job and what the student anticipates would be the academic product or documentation of their internship (i.e., a term paper, weekly log of activities/responsibilities, or a research component).

SECTION 2 (start this section at the top of page 2; may be longer than 1 page)

H. LITERATURE REVIEW: This section should consist of a summary of knowledge about the general topic of the internship. Pertinent publications, with emphasis on their relationship to the proposed project, should be cited and described.

I. JUSTIFICATION: This should describe the importance/necessity of the work in this area.

SECTION 3 (start this section at the top of a new page after SECTION 2; may be longer than 1 page)

J. OBJECTIVE(S): A clear, complete, and logically arranged statement of the specific aims of the proposed project should be articulated.

K. METHODS AND MATERIALS/PROCEDURES: A statement of the essential working plans and

methods to be used in attaining each of the stated objectives should be described. Procedures should correspond to the objectives and follow the same order. Procedures should include items such as: the sampling plan, experimental design, and analyses anticipated (see attached example).

SECTION 4 (start this section at the top of a new page after SECTION 3; may be longer than 1 page)

L. REFERENCES: An alphabetical listing of all publications referenced in the proposal constructed in a consistent and complete format.


EXAMPLE PROPOSAL

A. Title: Growth and Mortality of Ozark Bass (Ambloplites constellatus) in Upper White River Basin

Streams Compared to Other Ambloplites Species

B. Submitted By: Name Mailing address Phone number Email address

C. Sponsor: Individual’s name Company/Organization Address Phone number

D. Date of Submission to Committee: June 20, 2013

E. Dates of Internship: May 31 through August 15, 2013

F. Credit Hours Requested: 3 hours

G. Brief Description of Proposed Activities: During my internship, I will learn techniques in fish

sampling, fish aging, and data collection. Fish sampling techniques will include electrofishing and gill

and hoop netting, among others. I will assist with stream habitat and restoration projects through the

Cold Water Habitat and Stream Team programs. My specific research project will be comprised of

estimating size and age distribution of Ozark Bass (a relative of Rock Bass endemic to the Upper White

River Basin) on Crooked Creek, the Buffalo River, and other small streams and recording the measured

information to compare to previous data from other similar species. This will be beneficial in the future

to determine catch limitations and gage Ozark Bass’s viability in the White River Basin. I’ll also be

measuring prominent water quality indicators.


H. LITERATURE REVIEW:

In the past, Ozark Bass, Rock Bass, and Shadow Bass were classified as a single specie, A. rupestris. In

1977, A. rupestris was split into 3 different species, and the Ozark Bass was renamed Ambloplites

constellatus (Cashner and Suttkus, 1977). Minimal data has been published on growth or other population

characteristics due to the recent split and the limited range of the Ozark Bass. Whisenant and Maughan,

(1989) provided some of the only data available for the Ozark Bass including size at age. One of the

project’s objectives was to collect baseline data for the Ozark Bass to see if increased use had impacted the

sport fisheries of the Buffalo River. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission has electrofishing data

including catch per unit effort and length frequency on Ozark Bass dating back to 1992, but no age data was

collected (Todd, personal communication).

According to Buchanan and Robison (1988), the Ozark Bass is endemic to the Upper White River Basin.

The Upper White River Basin is located in southern Missouri, north central and northwestern Arkansas over

karst topography (Upper White River Basin Foundation, 2012). Ozark Bass generally inhabit stream pools

that have high dissolved oxygen, continuous flow and low turbidity (Buchanan and Robison, 1988). The

current average precipitation for Arkansas is 126.6 centimeters, and the average annual air temperature is

16.6° C with the summer temperatures as follows: June- 25.8° C, July- 27.7° C, August- 27° C (United

States Geological Survey, 2005; Climate Zone, 2003).

Partly because of the porous karst, pressure from urbanization has become a recent concern (Upper

White River Basin Foundation, 2012). Climate change models for the southeastern United States predict an

increase in number and duration of droughts, higher average annual temperature, as well as heavy rain

events (Environmental Protection Agency, 2013); therefore the Ozark Bass’ habitat may be adversely

affected. Since the Ozark Bass has a limited range, monitoring current population characteristics of the

Ozark Bass would be beneficial in evaluations of future potential impacts on the population. More short


term, population data aids fisheries biologists in evaluating current regulations to ensure that overfishing

does not occur.

I. JUSTIFICATION:

The Ozark Bass (Ambloplites constellatus) is endemic to the Upper White River Basin, and a limited

amount of data has been collected on the Ozark Bass population (Buchanan and Robinson, 1988). Data

collected will be part of a long-term study of Ozark Bass by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to

gather baseline data and to determine effectiveness of current harvest regulations in the Upper White River

Basin. Baseline data are needed as reference for future expected changes in local fish populations in

response to climate change or other impacts to the watershed.

Determination of length at age is required for calculation of growth and survival rates which determine

population characteristics of Ozark Bass (Ricker, 1975). Length at age is an estimate of average size of fish

at annual increments. Growth of Ozark Bass will be compared to existing data for Shadow Bass

(Ambloplites ariommus) and Rock Bass (Ambloplites rupestris). Collecting age distribution data is

important to determine mortality rates. Growth and mortality rates are useful for comparing different fish

populations and evaluating harvest regulations (Ricker, 1975).

Conductivity, pH, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen will be measured before each collection as

ancillary data. If differing growth or mortality rates occur between samples, measured water quality

indicators may disclose reasons for conflicting data. Conductivity correlates with total dissolved solids and

nutrient availability (Stan Todd, District 2 Fisheries Management Biologist, personal communication).

Nutrient availability is a determining factor in fish growth (Todd, personal communication). Temperature

also impacts growth rates due to the direct relationship between temperature and chemical reaction rates

(Todd, personal communication). Extreme levels of dissolved oxygen and high or low pH can cause stress


to the fish, causing more energy expenditure and less energy available for growth (Todd, personal

communication). The sagittal otoliths will be used to determine age of Ozark Bass collected due to ease of

readability and accuracy when compared to other aging methods (Maceina et al., 2007). Otoliths increase in

size with fish size and leave dense rings during periods of slow growth. There is typically a primary annular

ring that can be used to determine age in fish (Jearld, 1985).


J. OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this study is to collect and analyze population length frequencies and size at age data

for Ozark Bass found in the Upper White River Basin to establish growth and mortality rates. Growth and

mortality rates will be compared among sample locations and different Ambloplites spp. The hypotheses are

that growth and mortality rates will be equal among streams and species.

K. METHODS AND MATERIALS:

Ozark Bass will be collected by boat electrofishing in the Upper White River Basin, including the

Buffalo River and Crooked Creek, and potentially others. During the electrofishing process, direct current

(DC) electricity is directed through the water via cathodes and anodes (Kolz et al., 2000). The cathode can

either be a metal boat hull or separate electrodes used near the boat when using a fiberglass hull (Kolz et al.,

2000). With DC electrofishing, the cathodes repel the fish, and the anodes attract the fish causing electro-

narcosis when the fish approaches the anode (Kolz et al., 2000). While fish are anesthetized, nets will be

used to collect Ozark Bass. See Figure 1 for a visual reference.

Collections will take place during the summer when water levels permit. Water levels must be less than

1.524 meters (5 feet) stage at Highway 65 in the Lower Wilderness Area of the Buffalo River and less than

3.048 meters (10 feet) stage at Kelly’s Crossing on Crooked Creek for sampling to occur. Summer was

chosen for the study because water levels are lower and fish are more concentrated, more active and easily

caught during the warmer months of the year.

Ozark Bass sampling will be conducted in pools and other deep habitat reachable by boat. Each run (i.e.,

the length of actual shocking time between measuring fish) will be conducted for approximately ten minutes

or the entire pool, if less time is required. Weights to the nearest 2 grams and lengths to the nearest


millimeter will be recorded in the field. Ten fish per each centimeter size group will be saved for otolith

retrieval. If the maximum of ten fish in any given size group is collected, extra fish collected in the same

size group thereafter will be weighed, measured, and released. Growth of Ozark Bass can be affected by

water quality; thus, pH, conductivity, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen will be measured and

recorded in the field (see Figure 2). This data will be reserved in the instance that there are dramatic

conflicts in data from stream to stream.

Sagital otoliths, two disc shaped bones found in the heads of boney fish that are used to estimate age,

will be collected from the brain cavities of the Ozark Bass (see Figure 3) (University of Alaska-Fairbanks).

Although the goal for collecting otoliths will be up to ten fish per each centimeter size group, in some

instances, ten fish may not be possible in each size group due to availability. Otoliths will be taken back to

the Arkansas Game and Fish laboratory for aging. Age data will be determined by using microscopes to

observe the number of annuli found on the otoliths. Age will be recorded. Population age distribution will

be estimated based on population length frequency and an age-key, generated from length and age of known

aged fish (i.e. the otolith readings) (Quist et al., 2012). Growth and mortality will be estimated from

population age distribution (Ricker, 1975). Growth and mortality rates will be statistically compared with

similar data from different locations and with other species of the same genus.


L. REFERENCES:

Buchanan, T., and Robison, H. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas, p. 360-364.

Cashner, R.C., and Suttkus, R.D. 1977. Ambloplites constellatus, a new species of rock bass from the Ozark upland of Arkansas and Missouri with a review of western rock bass populations. American Midland Naturalist, v. 98, p.147-161.

Climate Zone. 2003. Little Rock[Online]. Available at http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/arkansas/little-rock/ (verified June 18, 2013).

Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Climate Impacts in the Southeast[Online]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html#impacts (verified June 6, 2013).

Jearld, A. 1985. Age Determination. Nielsen, L. and Johnson, D., eds., In Fisheries Techniques. Southern Printing Company, Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia, p. 301-324.

Kolz, A.L., Reynolds, J., Temple, A., Boardman, J., and Lam, D. 2000. Principles and Techniques of Electrofishing. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, p. 3-1, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 11-2.

Maceina, M.J., Boxrucker, J., Buckmeier, L.D., Gangl, R.S., Lucchesi, D.O., Isermann, D.A., Jackson, J.R., and Martinez, P.J. 2007. Current Status and Review of Freshwater Fish Aging Procedures Used by State and Provincial Fisheries Agencies with Recommendations for Future Direction. Fisheries, v. 32, p. 329-340.

Maughan, O.E., and Whisenant, K.A. 1989. Smallmouth Bass and Ozark Bass in Buffalo National River. Western Region National Park Service Department of the Interior, San Francisco, California, p. 1-58.

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and Interpretation of Biological Statistics of Fish Populations. Bulletin of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, p. 29-74.

Quist, M.C., Pegg, M.A., and DeVries, D.R. 2012. Age and Growth. Zale, A.V., Parrish, D.L., and Sutton, T.M., eds., Fisheries Techniques, 3rd ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. p. 677-721.

United States Geological Survey. 2005. Arkansas [Online]. Available at http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/precip/pageprecip_ar3.pdf (verified June 18, 2013).

http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/arkansas/little-rock/�

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html#impacts�

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/precip/pageprecip_ar3.pdf�


University of Alaska-Fairbanks. What Is An Otolith?[Online]. Available at http://elearning.uaf.edu/cc/otolith/whatis.htm (verified June 18, 2013).

Upper White River Basin Foundation. 2012. The Upper White River: An Overview [Online]. Available at http://www.whiteriverbasin.org/basinoverview.php (verified June 18, 2013).

http://elearning.uaf.edu/cc/otolith/whatis.htm�

http://www.whiteriverbasin.org/basinoverview.php�


Figure 1. Collecting Ozark Bass via electrofishing at nighttime.

Figure 2. Gathering water quality data at the Buffalo River Lower Wilderness Area.


Figure 3. Collecting otoliths from the brain cavity of an Ozark Bass.


INTERNSHIP FINAL WRITTEN REPORT AND PRESENTATION

Guidelines

The final report should contain much of the same information from the proposal and with the same basic format/structure. The main title of the document should be “INTERNSHIP FINAL REPORT”. A secondary sub-title matching your internship title should follow the main title. All of the information from sections 1, 2, and 3 of the proposal should be incorporated in the final report document. However, there may be revisions to this information that may need to be made based on what was actually done or what happened during the internship as it developed.

Section 4 should be titled “Results and Discussion”, or something else appropriate if a mini-research project was not conducted for the internship. It is suggested that this section be divided up objective by objective as specified in the proposal (i.e., each objective listed as a sub-section heading). Under each objective, a description of what was done to accomplish the objective, what was learned, and how this information or skill will assist in reaching future goals should be provided. These descriptions should be specific and include details, which may necessitate taking notes throughout the internship or keeping a journal of daily/weekly activities. Graphs or tables of data collected, pictures, or other relevant images/figures are encouraged to include. If included, images/figures should be numbered consecutively as they are referenced in the text and be accompanied by at least a brief caption describing what is contained on the image/figure.

Section 5 should be a complete list of references cited in your final report document. The final report should be turned into the committee within four (4) weeks after the specified ending date of the internship. The presentation should be prepared in PowerPoint and highlight the activities of your internship, including some background information, a justification for your internship (i.e., why you did one), and a description of your methods, results, and conclusions (i.e., what did you learn and/or how will the internship help you in the future). Figures of summarized data may be necessary to prepare, include, and discuss. Pictures of what you did and where you did it would be appropriate to include as well. The presentation will need to be scheduled in a timely manner, but no earlier than one (1) week after submitting the final report to the committee for their review.

EXAMPLE FINAL REPORT

INTERNSHIPFINALREPORT

A. Title:GrowthandMortalityofOzarkBassAmbloplitesconstellatusinUpperWhiteRiverBasinStreamsComparedtoOtherAmbloplitesSpeciesandBetweenCrookedCreekandtheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiver

B. SubmittedBy: NameMailingaddressPhonenumberEmailaddress

C. Sponsors: Individual’s name Company/Organization Address Phone number

D. DateofSubmissiontoCommittee:August15,2013

E. DatesofInternship:May31throughAugust8,2013

F. CreditHoursRequested:3hours

G. BriefDescriptionofActivities:Duringmyinternship,Ilearnedtechniquesinfishsampling,fishaging,anddatacollection.Fishsamplingtechniquesincludedboatelectrofishingandbackpackshocking.IassistedwithstreamhabitatandrestorationprojectsthroughtheColdWaterHabitatandStreamTeamprograms.MyspecificresearchprojectwascomprisedofestimatingsizeandagedistributionofOzarkbass(arelativeofRockbassendemictotheUpperWhiteRiverBasin)onCrookedCreekandtheBuffaloRiver.Thedatawasusedtodeterminegrowthandmortalityratesandwascomparedtopreviousdatafromothersimilarspeciesandbetweenwaterbodies.ThiswillaidArkansasGameandFishCommissionbiologistsinthefuturetodeterminecatchlimitationsandgageOzarkbass’viabilityintheWhiteRiverBasin.Ialsomeasuredprominentwaterqualityindicators.

2

H. LITERATUREREVIEW:Inthepast,Ozarkbass,Rockbass,andShadowbasswereclassifiedasasinglespecies,Ambloplitesrupestris.In1977,A.rupestriswassplitinto3differentspecies,andtheOzarkbasswasrenamedAmbloplitesconstellatus(CashnerandSuttkus,1977).MinimalpublisheddataisavailableongrowthorotherpopulationcharacteristicsduetothesplitandthelimitedrangeoftheOzarkbass.WhisenantandMaughan(1989)providedsomeoftheonlydataavailablefortheOzarkbass,includingmeansizeatage(Table1).OneoftheirobjectiveswastocollectbaselinedatafortheOzarkbasstoseeifincreasedrecreationalpressuresandanglingefforthadimpactedthesportfisheriesoftheBuffaloRiver.AGFChascollectedelectrofishingdataonOzarkbasssince1992;however,noagedatawascollected(Todd,personalcommunication).

AccordingtoBuchananandRobison(1988),theOzarkbassisendemictotheUpperWhiteRiverBasin.TheUpperWhiteRiverBasinislocatedinsouthernMissouri,northcentralandnorthwesternArkansasoverkarsttopography(UpperWhiteRiverBasinFoundation,2012).Ozarkbassgenerallyinhabitstreampoolsthathavehighdissolvedoxygen,continuousflowandlowturbidity(BuchananandRobison,1988).ThecurrentmeanprecipitationforArkansasis126.6centimeters,andthemeanannualairtemperatureis16.6°Cwiththesummertemperaturesasfollows:June‐25.8°C,July‐27.7°C,August‐27°C(UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2005;ClimateZone,2003).

TheWhiteRiverBasinFoundation(2012)pointsoutseveralconcernsintheWhiteRiverwatershedincludingtheeaseofgroundwatercontaminationinthekarstgeologyofthearea,increasedurbanizationandalterationofwatershedhydrology,andincreasingconfinedanimalfeedingoperations.ClimatechangemodelsforthesoutheasternUnitedStatespredictanincreaseinnumberanddurationofdroughts,highermeanannualtemperature,aswellasheavyraineventswithshorterduration(EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,2013).Changesinwatershedhydrology,whetherfromincreasedurbanizationorclimatechangecouldpotentiallyalterstreammorphology,andthereforeimpacttheOzarkbass’habitat.Populationdataaidsfisheriesbiologistsinevaluatingcurrentregulationstoensurethatoverfishingdoesnotoccur.RecentlimitationsonharvestpertainingtoothersportfishesinBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreekmayhaveincreasedharvestoftheOzarkbassinthosestreams.Currently,thereisacreellimitoftenfishandnosizelimitforOzarkbass,Rockbass,andShadowbasscombined(ArkansasGameandFishCommission,2013).SincetheOzarkbasshasalimitedrange,monitoringcurrentpopulationcharacteristicsoftheOzarkbassisbeneficialinevaluationofcurrentandfuturepotentialimpactsonthepopulation.

3

I. JUSTIFICATION:

TheOzarkbassAmbloplitesconstellatusisendemictotheUpperWhiteRiverBasin,andalimitedamountofdatahasbeencollectedontheOzarkbasspopulation(BuchananandRobinson,1988).Datacollectedduringthisstudyispartofalong‐termattemptbytheArkansasGameandFishCommission(AGFC)togatherbaselinedataontheOzarkbasspopulationandtodeterminetheefficacyofcurrentharvestregulationsforthatspeciesintheUpperWhiteRiverBasin.Baselinedatawillbeusedinthefuturetodeterminewhetherthelocalfishpopulationschangeinresponsetoclimatechangeorotherimpactstothewatershed.

Growthratesandmortalityrates,importantmetricsofanyfishpopulation,areusefulforcomparingdifferentfishpopulationsandevaluatingharvestregulations(Ricker,1975).Agedistributiondataiscollectedtoaidinthedeterminationoflengthatage,whichisrequiredforthecalculationofgrowthratesandmortalityrates(Ricker,1975).Lengthatageisanestimateofmeansizeoffishatannualincrements.ThesagittalotolithswereusedtodeterminetheageofOzarkbasscollectedduetoeaseofreadabilityandaccuracywhencomparedtootheragingmethods(Maceinaetal.,2007).Otilithsincreaseinsizewithfishsizeandleavedenseringsduringperiodsofslowgrowth.Theseannularringscanbeusedtodetermineageinfish(Jearld,1985).Inthisstudy,growthofOzarkbasswerecomparedtoexistingdataforShadowbassA.ariommusandRockbassA.rupestris,andmortalityrateswerecomparedbetweensampledsites.

Conductivity,pH,watertemperature,anddissolvedoxygenweremeasuredbeforeeachcollectionasancillarydata.Ifdifferinggrowthormortalityratesoccurredbetweensamples,measuredwaterqualityindicatorscouldpotentiallydisclosereasonsforconflictingdata.Conductivitycorrelateswithtotaldissolvedsolidsandnutrientavailability(StanTodd,District2FisheriesManagementBiologist,personalcommunication).Nutrientavailabilityisadeterminingfactorinfishgrowth(Todd,personalcommunication).Temperaturealsoimpactsgrowthratesduetothedirectrelationshipbetweentemperatureandchemicalreactionrates(Todd,personalcommunication).ExtremelevelsofdissolvedoxygenandhighorlowpHcancausestresstothefish,causingmoreenergyexpenditureandlessenergyavailableforgrowth(Todd,personalcommunication).

4

J. OBJECTIVES:TheobjectiveofthisstudywastocollectandanalyzepopulationlengthfrequenciesandsizeatagedataforOzarkbassfoundintheUpperWhiteRiverBasintodeterminegrowthandmortalityrates.GrowthrateswerecomparedtodifferentAmbloplitesspp.,andmortalityrateswerecomparedamongsamplelocations.Thehypotheseswerethatgrowthrateswouldbesimilaramongspeciesandmortalityrateswouldbeequalamongstreams.K. METHODSANDMATERIALS:OzarkbasswerecollectedbyboatelectrofishingintheUpperWhiteRiverBasin,includingtheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek(seeFigure1).Duringtheelectrofishingprocess,pulseddirectcurrent(DC)electricitywasdirectedthroughthewaterviacathodesandanodes(Kolzetal.,2000).Thecathodecaneitherbeametalboathullorseparateelectrodesusedneartheboatwhenusingafiberglasshull(Kolzetal.,2000).WithDCelectrofishing,thecathodesrepelthefish,andtheanodesattractthefishcausingelectro‐narcosiswhenthefishapproaches(Kolzetal.,2000).Whilefishwereanesthetized,netswereusedtocollectOzarkbass(Figure2).

Collectionstookplaceduringthesummerwhenwaterlevelspermitted.TheBuffaloRiverwassampledJune10th,11th,and12th,andCrookedCreekwassampledJune21stand24th.Waterlevelshadtobelessthan1.524meters(5feet)stageatHighway65intheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiverandlessthan3.048meters(10feet)stageatKelly’sCrossingonCrookedCreekforsamplingtooccur.Summerwaschosenforthestudybecausewaterlevelsarelowerandfisharemoreconcentrated,moreactiveandeasilycaughtduringthewarmermonthsoftheyear.

Ozarkbasssamplingwasconductedinpoolsandotherdeephabitatreachablebyboat.Eachrun(i.e.,thelengthofactualshockingtimebetweenmeasuringfish)wasconductedforapproximatelytenminutes.Weightstothenearest±2gramsandtotallengthstothenearestmillimeterwererecordedinthefield.Tenfishpereachcentimetersizegroupweresavedforotolithretrieval,ifavailable.Ifthemaximumoftenfishinanygivensizegroupwerecollected,extrafishcollectedinthesamesizegroupthereafterwereweighed,measured,andreleased.Growthoffishcanbeaffectedbywaterquality;thus,pH,conductivity,watertemperature,anddissolvedoxygenweremeasuredandrecordedinthefield(seeFigure3).Thisdatawasreservedintheinstancethatthereweredramaticconflictsindatafromstreamtostream.Sagittalotoliths,twodiscshapedbonesfoundintheheadsofboneyfishthatareusedtoestimateage,werecollectedfromthebraincavitiesoftheOzarkbass(seeFigure4)(UniversityofAlaska‐Fairbanks).Althoughthegoalforcollectingotolithswasuptotenfishpereachcentimetersizegroup,insomeinstances,tenfishwerenotpossibleineachsizegroupduetoalackofavailability.OtolithsweretakenbacktotheAGFClaboratoryforaging.Otolithsweregluedtoglassslidesand,ifneeded,sectionedwithaBuehlerIsometlow‐speedsaw.Agedatawasdeterminedbyusingmicroscopestoobservethenumberof

5

annulifoundontheotoliths.Agewasrecorded.Populationagedistributionwasestimatedbasedonpopulationlengthfrequencyandanage‐lengthkey,generatedfromlengthsandagesofknownagedfish(i.e.theotolithreadings)(Quistetal.,2012).Growthandmortalityrateswereestimatedfrompopulationagedistribution(Ricker,1975).Mortalityrateswerestatisticallycomparedwithsimilardatafromdifferentlocations;growthrateswerecomparedamongspecies.

6

L.RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONOnehundredandthirty‐nineOzarkbassweresampledintheBuffaloRiverLowerWildernessArea,57werecollectednearMiddleCreek,45aboveLeatherwoodCreek,and37belowLeatherwoodCreek.SixrunsoccurrednearMiddleCreek,fiveaboveLeatherwoodCreek,andfivebelowLeatherwoodCreek(Figures5to7).Totaltimeelectrofishingwas257minutes.Atotalof188OzarkbassweresampledinCrookedCreek,86fishwerecollectedattheEducationCentersite(61minutesofsampling)and102atthePyattsite(47minutesofsampling).FiverunsoccurredatboththeEducationCenterlocationandatthePyattsite(Figures8and9).Lengthandcatchperuniteffort(CPUE,fishperhour)datafromtheOzarkbasssamplesfromtheLowerWildernessAreaontheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreekwerecompiledintoalengthfrequencygraphusingMicrosoftExcel(Figure10).MeanCPUEofOzarkbassintheBuffaloRiverwas31.2fishperhour,withthe95%confidenceintervalof26.3fishperhourto36.25fishperhour.TheshortestfishsampledfromtheBuffaloRiverwas61mm,andthelongestfishwas256mm.ThereisanoticeabledeclineinnumberoffishfromtheBuffaloRivercaughtperhourover22cm,withnofishcollectedinthe24centimeterclass.ThemeanCPUEofOzarkbassinCrookedCreekwas101.5fishperhour.The95%confidenceintervalforthepopulation’smeanwas71.9fishperhourto131.1fishperhour.SizesoffishsampledfromCrookedCreekrangedfromaminimumof88mmtoamaximumof260mm.Therewasadecreaseinthenumberoffishcaughtperhourabove21cm.Figure10clearlydepictsthattherewasagreaternumberoffishcaughtperhourfromCrookedCreekthantheBuffaloRiver.SinceCPUEisdirectlyrelatedtodensity,therewasagreaterdensityoffishinCrookedCreek.AdifferentwaytorepresentsizedistributionoftheOzarkbassthatwerecollectedisthroughrelativestockdensity(RSD).RSD,showninFigure11andTables2and3,groupsfishintovarioussizeclassesthataredeterminedbasedonthesizeofthecurrentworldrecordfish.SincethereisminimaldataforOzarkbass,soRSDsizeclassdataforRockbasswereused.SizesincludeStock,Quality,Preferred,Memorable,andTrophy.Thecorrespondinglengthfortheseclassesare≥100mmforStock,≥180mmforQuality,≥230mmforPreferred,≥280mmforMemorable,and≥330mmforTrophy.FishunderStocksize(<100mm)werenotincludedintheFigure11becausethosefishwerenotsignificantwhenconsideringtheimpactsofanglingpressureontheOzarkbasspopulation.Relativeabundance,inpercentages,ofeachsizeclassandthe95%confidenceintervalsfortherelativeabundancepercentagesareshowninTable2fortheBuffaloRiverandTable3forCrookedCreek.

7

MeanlengthofOzarkbassgreaterthanstocksizesampledfromtheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiverwas164mmwitha95%confidenceintervalof156mmto171mm.TheminimumlengthoffishgreaterthanStocksizewas107mm,andthemaximumlengthoverStocksizesampledwas256mm.

ThemeansizeofOzarkbasssampledfromCrookedCreekthatweregreaterthanStocksizewas164mmwitha95%confidenceintervalof158mmto169mm.ThesmallestsizedfishgreaterthanStocksizewas103mm,andthelargestfishwas260mm.AccordingtoFigure11andTables2and3,thepercentageoffishfoundineachsizecategorydecreaseswithincreasingsizecategoryintheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.TheRSDgraphdepictsthatthereisasimilarsizedistributionoffishbetweentheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.Differentialgrowthpatternsbetweensexeshavebeenobservedinsomefish,suchaslong‐earedsunfishLepomismegalotisfoundintheBuffaloRiver(Todd,personalcommunication);therefore,genderofeachOzarkbasswasrecordedduringtheBuffaloRiversamplingsothatcomparisonsofgrowthratesbysexcouldbemade.Figure12depictsthatbothgendersappearedtogrowatasimilarrate;thus,nofurtherattemptwasmadetodifferentiatemalesfromfemales.Figure13graphicallydepictsalogarithmicrelationshipbetweenweightandlengthdatafromtheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.AStudent’st‐testwasperformedtocheckforasignificantdifferencebetweenslopesofthelogtransformedlengthsandweightsdatafromtheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek;slopeswerenotsignificantlydifferentatanalpha(α)levelof.05.Hence,alldatawerecombined,andonelengthweightrelationshipgraphwascreatedtorepresentbothsetsofdata.AsthelengthsoftheOzarkbassincreasedtheweightsalsoincreased.TheequationW=1E‐05L3.0848isalogarithmicregressioncreatedbyMicrosoftExceltofitthesampleddataset.R2representshowwellthelinedescribesthevariabilityinthedata.Inthiscase99%ofthevariabilityinweightofOzarkBasswasexplainedbylength.Relativeweight(Wr)isacomparisonbetweentheweightofasampledfishcomparedtoastandardweightgeneratedfromastandardweightequationforthatspecies.Wrgivesanindexofconditionorplumpnessforthesampledfish.TheequationforWris:

Wr=

∗ ∗ 100(AndersonandGutreuter,1983)

AShadowbassstandardweightequationwasusedduetotheunavailabilityofstandardsforOzarkbass.Theparametersusedwereα=‐5.1461andβ=3.2110(MareskaandJackson,2002).Shadowbassareadifferentspeciesoffish,soOzarkbassmaynothavetheexactsamestandards;however,Shadowbassdatasufficedasacomparisontoolbetweenthetwosampledareas.

8

ThemeanWrofOzarkBassintheBuffaloRiverwas85,withavarianceof36.05.CrookedCreek’srelativeweightwas92,andthecreekhadavarianceof50.45.MinimumrelativeweightfortheBuffaloRiverwas70andmaximumrelativeweightwas100.MinimumrelativeweightforCrookedCreekwas72,whilemaximumrelativeweightwas114.BasedontheWrresults,OzarkbassinCrookedCreekappearedtobeinslightlybetterconditionthanthoseintheBuffaloRiver.ThiswouldsuggestthatfoodavailabilitywasgreaterinCrookedCreekthaninBuffaloRiver.ThismaypartiallyexplainthehigherdensityofOzarkBassinCrookedCreek.Otolithswereretrievedandagedfrom117OzarkbassduringtheBuffaloRiversamplingand127OzarkbassfromtheCrookedCreeksampling.Fromtheagedatacollected,anage‐lengthkeywasderived,whichallowedustocalculatetheageofsampledfishthatwerenotkeptforotolithretrieval.Then,thelengthsoffishineachindividualagegroupwereaveragedtogether.Table4andTable5showthemeanlength,variance,andnumberoffishineachagecategoryfrombothstreams.Table1showsthemeanlengthatagedataandnumberoffishcollectedfromtheBuffaloRiverbyWhisenantandMaughan(1989)in1980and1981.Whencomparingthetwosetsofdata,WhisenantandMaughan’slengthdataappearstobeclassifiedunderthewrongageclasses.Forexample,ifallofWhisenantandMaughan’slengthdatawereshiftedtooneageclassolder,thenbothdatasetswouldshowsimilargrowthamongOzarkbass.ScaleswereusedtodetermineageofOzarkbasscollectedbyWhisenantandMaughan,andthismightbethereasonforinaccurateageclassification.ThenumberoffishthatWhisenantandMaughanwereabletoobtainwhilesamplingwasdrasticallygreaterthantheOzarkbasscollectedinthisstudy.ThisledustobelievetherearelessOzarkbassavailableforsamplingintheBuffaloRivernowthanwhenWhisenantandMaughandidtheircollections.TheNationalParkServicehasunpublisheddatarecordsofthenumberofvisitorstotheBuffaloNationalRiversince1973(Figure14)(Hodges,2013).ThenumberofvisitorstotheBuffaloRiverhasdoubledsinceWhisenantandMaughancollectedlengthatagedataonOzarkbass;inferringthatincreasedvisitationtotheBuffaloRiverhasledtoadecreaseinthenumberofOzarkbassintheriver.Figure15showsthelengthatageforbothsampledwaterbodies.VonBertalanffyequationswerefittedtothegraphtorepresentgrowthcurvesforthesampledareas.ThevonBertalanffyequationisasfollows:Lt=L∞[1‐e‐k(t‐to)],withLtequalingthelengthatacertainage,L∞equalingthelongestlengththatfishinthepopulationwillevergrow,kequalingagrowthconstant,toequalingthehypotheticalageofthefishatlengthzero,andtequalingtheageofthefish(Pineetal.,2012).ThetermsinourequationfortheBuffaloRiverareaequaled258mmformaximumlengthattainable(L∞),0.346forthegrowthconstant(k),and‐0.087forlengthatzeroage(to).ThetermsinourequationfortheCrookedCreeksampleequaled260mmformaximumlengthattainable(L∞),0.299forgrowthrate(k),and‐0.328forlengthatzeroage(to).Figure15portraysthatastheageofOzarkbassincreased,thegrowthratesslowedandbecamemoresimilaratbothsamplesites;therefore,growthratesbetweenCrookedCreeksamplesitesandBuffaloRiversamplesiteswerecomparable.

9

GrowthdataforRockbasscollectedfromOsageForkbytheMissouriDepartmentofConservationandforShadowbasscollectedfromtheSpringRiverbytheAGFCwerecompiledintoFigure15tocomparegrowthbetweenspecies(Johnsonetal.,2011;Pratt,2013).Shadowbassweredepictedasinitiallygrowingfaster;howeverthismighthavebeenduetoerrorsinmeasurementofsmallfishortimeofyearfishwerecollected.Asageincreased,thegrowthrateofShadowbassbecameanalogoustothatofOzarkbass.Rockbass,however,grewfasterandlargerthanbothOzarkbassandShadowbass.LengthsatagewereestimatedusingthevonBertalanffyequation,andgrowthrateswerethencalculatedfromthoseestimates.ThegrowthmodelsfortheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreekindicatedthatgrowthratesforOzarkbassweresimilarbetweenwaterbodies;however,resultsinTables6and7showthattheOzarkbassintheBuffaloRiverinitiallygrewfasterthantheCrookedCreekfish.Growthratesslowedinbothwaterbodiesatapproximatelyagefive,andthegrowthrateofCrookedCreekfishslightlysurpassedthatoftheBuffaloRiverfishafteragefive.Sizeselectivemortality(angling)mighthavebeenafactorintheslowergrowthrateestimatesoftheolderfishintheBuffaloRiver,asanglerstendtokeepthefastergrowing,betterconditionedfish,leavingonlytheslowergrowingfishinthelargersizes.GrowthratesbetweenthePyattsamplingsiteandEducationCentersitewerealsocompared,andlikethegrowthratesfoundonCrookedCreekandtheBuffaloRiver,thetwosamplesitesweresimilar.WaterqualityindicatorscollectedatlocationsontheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreekwerefoundtohavesimilarvalues,asshowninTable8.MortalityratesfortheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreekwerecalculatedusingtheChapman‐Robsonmethod.Mortalityrateswerecalculatedforthreedifferentagecategories:twotonineyearsold,twotofiveyearsold,andfivetonineyearsold.ThereasonforbreakingthepopulationintodifferentagegroupsisduetotheBuffaloRiver’sLengthAtAgegraphindicatingadeviationfromthevonBertalanffygrowthmodelafterage‐5(Figure16).Age‐1fishwerenotincludedinthecalculationssincefishyoungerthanage‐2werenotfullyrecruitedtothesamplinggear,andthereforetheirnumberswereprobablyunderestimated.Tables9and10showthemortalityrate,variance,andnumberoffishsampledforeachagecategoryatbothsampledareas.ThetwosamplingsitesonCrookedCreekwerefurtherbrokendowntoshowindividualsitemortalityratesbecausethereweredifferencesinsizedistributionatthetwosamplingsites.MoreandlargerfishwerecollectedatthePyattsite,implyingthattherewasagreatermortalityrateattheEducationCentersite.WesuspectthattheEducationCentersiteonCrookedCreekhasgreateranglingpressurethanthePyattsite.Tables11and12showmortalityrate,variance,andnumberoffishsampledineachagecategoryforPyattandtheEducationCenter.AStudent’st‐testwasperformedtocheckforasignificantdifferencebetweenthemortalityratesineachagecategoryontheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.CrookedCreekwasfurthertestedbystatisticalcomparisonbetweensamplesitesandtheBuffaloRiver.Thet‐testshowedasignificantdifferencebetweenmortalityratesinallagecategoriesonthe

10

BuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek,betweenthePyattsiteandEducationCentersite,andtheBuffaloRiverandPyattsite.ComparisonbetweentheBuffaloRiverandEducationCentersiterevealednosignificantdifferenceinthemortalityrateofOzarkbassinthetwotofiveagecategory.AsignificantdifferencewasshownintheotheragecategoriesinthecomparisonbetweentheBuffaloRiverandtheEducationCentersite.TheresultsoftheStudent’st‐testonmortalityratesbetweenthesampledareasdisclosesthefollowingresults:1)Overall,thelowestmortalityrateofOzarkbassfoundamongthesampledareaswasatthePyattsamplesite.2)TheEducationCentersitehadthehighestmortalityrate,exceptwhencomparingthesite’stwotofiveagecategorytotheBuffaloRiver.3)TheBuffaloRiver’smortalityratewasbetweentheEducationCenterandPyattsites’mortalityrates,exceptinthetwotofiveagecategorywhencomparedtotheEducationCentersite.4)ThemortalityratesoftheBuffaloRiverandtheEducationCentersiteinthetwotofiveagecategorywerenotstatisticallydifferent.5)Mortalityratesweresignificantlyhigheratallsitesinthefiveandupagecategorywhencomparedtotheotheragecategories.Totalmortalityismadeupoffishingmortality(e.g.anglersharvestingfishandfishdeathduetohooking)andnaturalmortality(e.g.predators,disease,andwaterqualityissues).ApossiblereasonforlowmortalityatthePyattsamplesiteislesstotalmortalitythantheothersampledareaswhichcouldbeduetoloweranglingpressure.HighermortalityattheEducationCentersitemighthavebeenduetohigherlevelsoffishingmortality(e.g.anglingpressure)duetotheeaseofaccessibilityandpopularityofthesitebyanglers.Increasedmortalityinthefiveandupagecategoryatallsampledareasleadsustobelievethatanglersareharvestinglarger,betterconditionedfish.AsFigure14depicts,therehasbeenatwo‐foldincreaseinvisitorstotheBuffaloRiversince1980,andnumberofOzarkbasshaslikelydecreasessinceWhisenantandMaughan’sstudy.Hence,anglingpressureislikelyresponsibilityforthehighmortalityoftheage‐5+fish.Sincelittledatahasbeencollectedtoknowforcertainthatanglersarethemaincausefordifferingmortalitybetweenstreamsandhighmortalityinthefiveandupagecategory,creelsurveysareplannedfortheBuffaloRiverandpossiblyCrookedCreekinthenearfuturetoassessanglerimpactstothefisheries.Thecreelsurveyswillgatherdataaboutnumberofanglersutilizingthewaterbodiesandothervaluabledatawhenconsideringanglingpressures.ThisstudyhasgatheredpreliminarydatathatwillbeusedasbaselinedataandmaypossiblyleadtofutureregulationspertainingtoOzarkbassintheUpperWhiteRiverBasin.

11

M.REFERENCES:Anderson,R.O.andS.J.Gutreuter.1983.Length,weightandassociatedstructuralindices.Nielsen,L.andJohnson,D.,eds.,FisheriesTechniques.SouthernPrintingCompany,Inc.,Blacksburg,Virginia,chap.15.ArkansasGameandFishCommission.2013.StatewideLengthsandDailyLimits[Online].Availableathttp://www.agfc.com/fishing/Pages/FishingDailyLimits.aspx(verifiedAugust2,2013).Buchanan,T.,andRobison,H.1988.FishesofArkansas.TheUniversityofArkansasPress,Fayetteville,Arkansas,p.360‐364.Cashner,R.C.,andSuttkus,R.D.1977.Ambloplitesconstellatus,anewspeciesofrockbassfromtheOzarkuplandofArkansasandMissouriwithareviewofwesternrockbasspopulations.AmericanMidlandNaturalist,v.98,p.147‐161.ClimateZone.2003.LittleRock[Online].Availableathttp://www.climate‐zone.com/climate/united‐states/arkansas/little‐rock/(verifiedJune18,2013).EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2013.ClimateImpactsintheSoutheast[Online].Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts‐adaptation/southeast.html#impacts(verifiedJune6,2013).Hodges,S.2013.PersonalCommunication.NationalParkService.Unpublished.Jearld,A.1985.AgeDetermination.Nielsen,L.andJohnson,D.,eds.,InFisheriesTechniques.SouthernPrintingCompany,Inc.,Blacksburg,Virginia,p.301‐324.Johnson,R.L.,Henry,S.D.,Barkley,S.W.2010.DistributionandPopulationCharacteristicsofShadowBassofTwoArkansasOzarkStreams.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement.30:6,p.1522‐1528.Kolz,A.L.,Reynolds,J.,Temple,A.,Boardman,J.,andLam,D.2000.PrinciplesandTechniquesofElectrofishing.U.S.FishandWildlifeService,Shepherdstown,WestVirginia,p.3‐1,10‐1,10‐2,10‐3,11‐2.Maceina,M.J.,Boxrucker,J.,Buckmeier,L.D.,Gangl,R.S.,Lucchesi,D.O.,Isermann,D.A.,Jackson,J.R.,andMartinez,P.J.2007.CurrentStatusandReviewofFreshwaterFishAgingProceduresUsedbyStateandProvincialFisheriesAgencieswithRecommendationsforFutureDirection.Fisheries,v.32,p.329‐340.Mareska,J.F.,andD.C.Jackson.2002.UseofshadowbassstockcharacteristicstoevaluatenaturalandscenicwaterwaysinMississippi.ProceedingsoftheAnnualConferenceSoutheasternAssociationofFishandWildlifeAgencies.54(2000):p.167‐178.

12

Maughan,O.E.,andWhisenant,K.A.1989.SmallmouthBassandOzarkBassinBuffaloNationalRiver.WesternRegionNationalParkServiceDepartmentoftheInterior,SanFrancisco,California,p.1‐58.Pine,W.E.,Hightower,J.E.,Coggins,L.G.,Lauretta,M.V.,Pollock,K.H.1983.Designandanalysisoftaggingstudies.Nielsen,L.andJohnson,D.,eds.,FisheriesTechniques.SouthernPrintingCompany,Inc.,Blacksburg,Virginia,p.521‐564.Ricker,W.E.1975.ComputationandInterpretationofBiologicalStatisticsofFishPopulations.BulletinofFisheriesResearchBoardofCanada,Ottawa,Canada,p.29‐74Pratt,AJ.2013.PersonalCommunication.MissouriDepartmentofConservation.Unpublisheddata.Quist,M.C.,Pegg,M.A.,andDeVries,D.R.2012.AgeandGrowth.Zale,A.V.,Parrish,D.L.,andSutton,T.M.,eds.,FisheriesTechniques,3rded.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Maryland.p.677‐721.Todd,S.2013.PersonalCommunication.ArkansasGameandFishCommission.UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey.2005.Arkansas[Online].Availableathttp://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/precip/pageprecip_ar3.pdf(verifiedJune18,2013).UniversityofAlaska‐Fairbanks.WhatIsAnOtolith?[Online].Availableathttp://elearning.uaf.edu/cc/otolith/whatis.htm(verifiedJune18,2013)UpperWhiteRiverBasinFoundation.2012.TheUpperWhiteRiver:AnOverview[Online].Availableathttp://www.whiteriverbasin.org/basinoverview.php(verifiedJune18,2013)

13

Table1.MeancalculatedtotallengthofOzarkbassofdifferentages,calculatedfromseasonalcatchdatainBuffaloRiver,Arkansas(MaughanandWhisenant,1989).

Table2.RSDforBuffaloRiver.RelativeStockDensity‐BuffaloRiverRSDSizeCategory RelativeAbundance 95%ConfidenceIntervalsStocktoQuality(100mmto179mm)

60.5% 59.7%to61.3%

QualitytoPreferred(180mmto229mm)

36.1% 35.3%to36.9%

PreferredtoMemorable(230mmto279mm)

3.4% 3.1%to3.7%

Stocksize(<100mm) 14.4% 13.9%to14.9%MemorabletoTrophy(280mmto329mm)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Trophy(≥330mm) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Table3.RSDforCrookedCreek.RelativeStockDensity‐CrookedCreekRSDSizeCategory RelativeAbundance 95%ConfidenceIntervalsStocktoQuality(100mmto179mm)

59.4% 58.9%to60.0%

QualitytoPreferred(180mmto229mm)

36.7% 36.1%to37.2%

PreferredtoMemorable(230mmto279mm)

3.9% 3.7%to4.1%

Stocksize(<100mm) 4.3% 4.0%to4.5%MemorabletoTrophy(280mmto329mm)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Trophy(≥330mm) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Season Year #OfFish

Age‐1

Age‐2

Age‐3

Age‐4

Age‐5

Age‐6

Age‐7

Age‐8

Summer ‘80 1090 ‐‐‐‐‐ 90.4 117.1 148.6 178.6 209.7 228.2 256.4

Fall ‘80 287 ‐‐‐‐‐ 107.2 128.9 157.4 182.7 209.8 243.6 ‐‐‐‐‐

Winter ‘80 340 59.4 94.7 138.4 171.5 194.7 211.4 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐Spring ‘81 300 53.4 93.5 138.0 170.1 182.9 206.4 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐

Summer ‘81 788 51.4 91.7 135.9 172.2 197.7 224.0 231.0 ‐‐‐‐‐

14

Table4.GrowthdataforBuffaloRiver.BuffaloRiverLengthAtAgeAge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9MeanLength 76.3 130 183 207 216 214 208 ‐‐‐‐‐ 258Variance 109 189 117 117 81.3 433 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐NumberofFish 21 46 20 9 16 3 1 0 1Table5.GrowthdataforCrookedCreek.

Table6.2012‐13growthratesinCrookedCreeksamplesitescombined.CROOKEDCREEKAGE LENGTHATAGE(mm) 2012‐13GROWTHRATE(mm/year)1 86.2 44.12 130.3 32.93 163.2 24.64 187.8 18.35 206.1 13.76 219.8 10.27 230.0 7.68 237.6 5.79 243.3 ‐‐‐‐‐Table7.2012‐13growthratesinBuffaloRiversamplesites.BUFFALORIVER(LOWERWILDERNESSAREA)AGE LENGTHATAGE(mm) 2012‐13GROWTHRATE(mm/year)1 80.8 51.82 132.6 36.73 169.3 25.94 195.2 18.45 213.6 136 226.6 9.27 235.8 6.58 242.3 4.69 246.9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐

CrookedCreekLengthAtAgeAge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9MeanLength 83.6 128 173 195 205 206 230 238 253Variance 14.8 156 81.9 76.7 60.3 124 113 32 40.5NumberofFish 5 40 32 8 23 3 2 2 2

15

Table8.WaterqualityrecordsforsamplesitesonBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.

Table9.MortalityratesfortheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiver.LowerWildernessAreaofBuffaloRiverMortalityRatesAge Mortality(%) Variance Numberoffish2‐9 49.3 .001 1192‐5 47.0 .003 1115‐9 65.0 .007 23Table10.MortalityratesforCrookedCreeksamplesitescombined.CrookedCreekMortalityRatesAge Mortality(%) Variance Numberoffish2‐9 45.8 .001 1842‐5 41.0 .002 1725‐9 60.6 .003 43.4Table11.MortalityratesforCrookedCreekatEducationCentersamplesite.EducationCenterSampleSiteofCrookedCreekMortalityRatesAge Mortality(%) Variance Numberoffish2‐9 51.7 .002 802‐5 47.0 .004 785‐9 77.1 .008 18Table12.MortalityratesforCrookedCreekatPyattsamplesite.PyattSampleSiteofCrookedCreekMortalityRatesAge Mortality(%) Variance Numberoffish2‐9 39.6 .001 792‐5 23.0 .007 725‐9 57.0 .008 19

WaterQualityIndicatorsLocation pH Temperature

(°C)Conductivity(μS)

DissolvedOxygen

MiddleCreek,BuffaloRiver 8.1 25.9 208 7.84LeatherwoodShoals,BuffaloRiver

8.1 28.9 212 9

ElephantHead,BuffaloRiver 8.7 28.3 217 8.4EducationCenter,CrookedCreek

8.4 27.5 332 8.5

16

Figure1.LocationofCrookedCreekandBuffaloRiverinMarionCounty,AR.

Figure2.CollectingOzarkbassviaelectrofishingatnighttime.

17

Figure3.GatheringwaterqualitydataattheBuffaloRiverLowerWildernessArea.

Figure4.CollectingotolithsfromthebraincavityofanOzarkbass.

18

Figure5.BuffaloRiversamplearea#1.


19


Figure8.CrookedCreekEducationCentersamplearea.

20

Figure9.CrookedCreekPyattsamplearea.

Figure10.Catch‐per‐unit‐effort(CPUE,catchperhour)persizegroupfortheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CatchperHour

Sizegroup(cm)

LengthFrequencyofOzarkBassBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek,June2013

CrookedCreek

BuffaloRiver

21

Figure11.RelativestockdensityfortheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.

Figure12.Length‐weightrelationshipbysexfortheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiver.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

RSDS‐Q RSDQ‐P RSDP‐M RSDM‐T RSD‐T

Percent

RSDIncrementalCatagories

RelativeStockDensity(RSD)ofOzarkBassBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek,June2013

BuffaloRiver

CrookedCreek

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Weight(g)

Length(mm)

Length‐WeightRelationship,OzarkBassBySexBuffaloRiver,June2013

Female

Male

Unknown

22

Figure13.Length‐weightrelationshipfortheLowerWildernessAreaoftheBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek.

Figure14.NationalParkServicevisitordata(Hodges,2013).

W=1E‐05x3.0848

R²=0.99088

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1.5 51.5 101.5 151.5 201.5 251.5 301.5

Weight(g)

Length(mm)

LengthWeightRelationshipofOzarkBassfromBuffaloRiverandCrookedCreek,June2013

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NumberofVisitors

Year

VisitorsBuffaloRiverNationalPark,1973‐2011

23

Figure15.vonBertalanffygrowthcurvesforOzarkbass,Shadowbass,andRockbass.

Figure16.vonBertalanffygrowthcurveforBuffaloRiver.

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

125.0

150.0

175.0

200.0

225.0

250.0

275.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Length(mm)

Age(years)

GrowthModels(vonBertalanffy)forAmbloplitesinBuffaloRiver,CrookedCreek,andSpringRiver

BuffaloRiver(OzarkBass)

CrookedCreek(OzarkBass)

SpringRiver(ShadowBass)

OsageFork(RockBass)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Length(mm)

Age(years)

LengthatAgeofOzarkBassBuffaloRiver,June2013

MeanLength

vonBertalanffyEstimate

CSES Internship Requirements revised 10‐30‐13

Oral Report Evaluation Form CSES 462v: Internship 35% of Course Grade

Speaker ______________________________________________ Date _____________ Evaluator ____________________________________________ Points Comments _____ Title (5 points)

Identifies the Subject Indicates the Purpose of the Presentation Provides Keywords

_____ Organization (30 points) Adequate Introduction Objective Given Ideas Developed in a Logical Order Time Allotment Used Wisely Clearly Stated Conclusion

_____ Presentation (30 points) Professional Delivery Appropriate Enthusiasm Proper Grammar and Terminology Eye Contact Limited Distracting Mannerisms

_____ Visual Aids (25 points) Clear and Appealing Appropriate and Effective Easily Interpreted Communicated Topic

_____ Subject Comprehension (l0 points) Ability to Answer Questions

_____ Total Points

Documents

INTERNSHIP IN CROP, SOIL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL … · of the internship and desired timeline for completing the various requirements of the internship. 3. After the project is ... other