Abstract
The goal of this study was to gather information about freshwater fishes in Letchworth State Park (42.615275° N, −77.992825° W), a portion of New York State‐owned land located in the Genesee River Watershed that lacks known data about its fish diversity. Fish collection took place between 2017 and 2019 in the Genesse River upstream and downstream of the falls using electrofishing, gill, hoop, and seine netting. This was the first attempt at a comprehensive survey of this portion of the river, which allowed for a baseline to be established regarding fish biodiversity in the region. The updated total number of species found in this portion of the Genesee River was 25, 22 of which were newly identified downstream of the falls in Letchworth State Park. We encourage further collection and continuation of this survey with consistent sampling techniques to raise awareness about the importance of freshwater fish diversity in stream ecosystems across the globe.
Keywords: biodiversity, conservation, fish survey, Genesee River, Letchworth State Park
We gathered fish species survey data from a region of the Genesee River in New York that has been insufficiently accessed to provide a baseline number of fish species in Letchworth State Park. We believe our fish species list can be used to identify trends in diversity in future studies and that our study will serve as preliminary data for the continuation of this work. We identified a total of 25 species of fish in this study, 22 of which were first collected within Letchworth State Park, below the falls.
Objectives.
Gather fish species survey data from a part of the Genesee River in Letchworth State Park that will serve as preliminary data for future studies.
Advocate for habitat protection, government or private funding, and the development of recovery and management programs in a popular public state park sponsored by NYSDEC.
Educate the public on the ecological and economic importance of biodiversity and of freshwater ecosystems, especially the Genesee River.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Freshwater biodiversity
Freshwater ecosystems are considered a source of consumable water that can be used for agricultural, commercial, and domestic purposes (Gleick, 2003). In terms of biological value, freshwater supplies some of the richest ecosystems on the planet. Though only 0.01% of freshwater can be found on the earth's surface, it supports a plethora of life, specifically 40% of global fish diversity (Dudgeon et al., 2006; McAllister et al., 1997). It is imperative, therefore, to protect the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems, given the dependence life has on services provided by rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands (Apostolaki et al., 2020).
This goal can be achieved through long‐term monitoring, as it is a valuable tool in the evaluation of species, species richness, and the quantification of diversity through the Simpson and Shannon indices. The Simpson index calculates the probability that any two individuals randomly selected from a specified habitat will belong to the same species. The Shannon diversity index quantifies diversity in a population by comparing the population's richness (number of species in a habitat) and evenness (number of unique species; Hill, 1973; Hurlbert, 1971). Both of those indices were employed in a study that found an increase in biodiversity in the Pinang River in Malaysia over the course of their study, despite land conversion to urban, agricultural, and recreational usage (Yunus et al., 2004). Another study utilized the Shannon index to quantify vegetation biodiversity and found that the increase in cultivated and residential areas has led to a decrease in vegetation and water yield in China's Min River (Ma et al., 2020). The interpretation of this data should lead to the formulation of specific policies to prevent further debilitation of natural habitats (Wooldridge et al., 1999). For those policies to effectively take place, community involvement is necessary and can be achieved by sharing information through public presentations. In this study, we propose an updated species list that will provide valuable data for biodiversity monitoring regarding the freshwater ecosystem within Letchworth State Park.
1.2. Letchworth State Park and the Genesee River: Review of previous fish surveys
This project's aim was to survey the Letchworth State Park portion of the Genesee River above and below the falls and establish a reliable baseline of fish species composition that seemed missing or unspecified from previous studies. Fish surveying is a technique frequently used in the United States to develop management plans or recovery programs, identify habitats, and assess fish distribution and abundance (Carlson et al., 2016; Carlson & Daniels, 2004). Prior to this study, Carlson & Daniels (2004) identified data needs in all 19 watersheds in New York and attempted to quantify fish assemblages in each of them, including the Genesee, but information on the fish species in Letchworth State Park was limited. It is unclear whether Carlson and Daniels collected data within the park, but they did comment on the two natural barriers that are impassable to fish: the Letchworth and Rochester waterfalls. Because of these barriers, the species composition of fishes varies for different sections of the river upstream and downstream of the waterfalls (Carlson & Daniels, 2004).
Five sections of the Genesee River, including Letchworth State Park, were regularly surveyed for trout and Smallmouth bass in 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2020, between March and October, by an Angler Diary Program, sponsored by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Region 9. Unlike Carlson and Daniel's (2004) comprehensive survey of fishes in the river and watershed, the Angler Diary program's aim was focused on the two species of interest, with only 1 bass recorded in 2020 (New York Department of Environmental Conservation [NYSDEC], 2018, 2020). This species overlapped with another smallmouth bass recorded 0.2–0.5 miles below the lower falls of the park in 1959 (Carlson et al., 2016). Furthermore, 7 species of fish were noted between the falls but were not listed in A Biological Survey of the Genesee River System (1927). The metadata file that accompanied the Atlas specified 6 of these 7 fish mentioned between the upper and lower falls (Carlson et al., 2016). Therefore, no consistent sampling was conducted past Portageville or within the park boundaries, and no consistent monitoring has been published by these initiatives (NYSDEC, 2018, 2020).
Based on the review of species data from previous surveys, we targeted the gap in fish species diversity in Letchworth State Park as the goal of this study. We used an atlas published in 2016 that included data from fishes recorded over three survey periods in the Genesee Watershed, including Carlson & Daniel's published 2004 survey, to interpret which fishes caught in our study were novel to our sampling site in the park. Review of the atlas identified the presence of 104 fish species in the Genesee Watershed and 89 fish species in the Genesee River (Appendix 1; Carlson et al., 2016). We then hypothesized that more species would be sampled in the survey we conducted at Letchworth State Park than had previously been documented.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study system
Letchworth State Park, founded in 1907, is an area of 14,500 acres in Upstate New York that encompasses 30 km of the Genesee River and surrounding lands, stretching from Portageville (42.5686° N, 78.0411° W) to Mt. Morris (42.7256° N, 77.8742° W), in regions 8 and 9 as designated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC, n.d.). It is known as the “Grand Canyon of the East,” with heights over 167 m and including three waterfalls (Cook, 2011; Ensminger et al., 2016; Spinola et al., 1998; https://dec.ny.gov/things‐to‐do/watchable‐wildlife/sites/letchworth‐state‐park; https://dec.ny.gov/about). Letchworth is in the Genesee River Watershed, which falls in Pennsylvania and New York states. A majority of the drain 6146 km2 of the drainage area is in New York State. The Genesee River is almost entirely within New York State, except for the first 24 km in Pennsylvania. The river is the main water source for the drainage area that flows north for about 225 km before empyting into Lake Ontario (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, n.d.). The park was named after the industrialist William Letchworth, who noticed the negative impacts logging was having in the region in the beginning of the nineteenth century and purchased the land in order to better preserve the natural landscape (Bow, 2013). Much of the infrastructure and many of the facilities present in the park today are due to the Civilian Conservation Corps program, created by the Emergency Conservation Act, signed by the former president Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, aiming to develop conservation projects toward Letchworth State Park (Cook, 2015).
2.2. Study design
Fishes were collected between August and November over 3 years (2017–2019) in three different locations labeled A, B, and C (Table 1, Figure 1). Site A was located upstream of the park in Portageville (42.571026° N, −78.040590° W) and sampling took place on either side of the bridge on County Rd. 436, which is the border of Sections 4 and 5 (sections described in the Review of DEC region 9 angler diaries). Site B was located within the park itself, downstream of the falls, and site C was downstream of the Mt. Morris dam, past Section 5 (42.738133° N, −77.882228° W). Permission to collect fishes throughout this study was granted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (License to Collect or Possess: #2029).
TABLE 1.
Methods of capture during fish survey.
| Year of sampling | Sites sampled | Method of collection | Number of fish species collected |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | B | Hoop netting | 8 |
| 2018 | A*, B, C* | Hoop netting*, seine netting, gill netting, electrofishing | 20 |
| 2019 | A, B | Hoop netting | 7 |
Note: List of the years sampling took place (1st column), which sites were sampled each year (2nd column), the techniques used (1st column), and the number of fishes collected yearly (4th column). *Asterisk denotes only hoop net capture technique took place at that site in 2018.
FIGURE 1.
Field study sites. The map on the left side represents the state of New York. The inset map (right side) represents the portion of the Genesse river that was sampled in Letchworth State Park and surrounding area's of the Genesee River. The fish icons represent where data were collected, at site A (42.571026° N, −78.040590° W) near Portageville, B (42.615275° N, −77.992825° W) inside park, and C (42.738133° N, −77.882228° W) near Mt. Morris. The black box inside the inset map represents Letchworth State Park. The maps also have a north arrow, a scale, and latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates which are indicated by the degree measurements and blue lines.
2.3. Field methods
Various methods were utilized to collect fishes across sites, including hoop, gill, and seine netting, and electrofishing (Table 1). Hoop netting is an entrapment technique that requires manual set up at the bottom of a creek or river and is then collected the next day (Hubert et al., 2012). Hoop and gill nets were chosen to capture larger fish, while seine and electrofishing were used to capture smaller fish. Electrofishing is the use of electric fields in water to shock fishes and then collect them (Snyder, 2003). The use of each method depended on the accessibility of the site and access to boats and equipment.
In 2017, only site B was sampled, and the method chosen was hoop netting, since its set up was possible given site B's accessibility by foot and it was the only equipment available through the institute. In 2018, electroshocking and gill and seine netting were made possible by NYSDEC. Access to challenging locations inside the park upstream of site B was possible via white‐water rafting trips sponsored by Adventure Calls, NY. Unfortunately, fishes were not caught during rafting excursions, but sampling success continued during that field season using hoop nets via foot access at sites A and C. In 2019, only hoop nets were used, and fishes were captured from sites A and B only. The way fishes were collected aimed to reduce sampling bias as nets were dropped overnight and we were unaware of which fishes would be collected the next morning.
Between 1 and 3 hoop nets were left out overnight during each field trip before collection the next day. Once collected, fishes were laid flat and photographed for data collection. The images were later reviewed to identify individual fish species by at least two investigators from NY and OH for all years. Identification was completed based on a set of distinctive biological features and exterior markings for each (Fish ID, n.d.; Kraft et al., 2006). In 2018, fish species captured during electrofishing and gill and seine netting at site B were identified during collection by the NYSDEC (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Fish collected in Letchworth State Park.
| Fish species | Scientific name | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | Field site | Novel to site B (Carlson et al., 2016) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rock bass | Ambloplites rupestris | X | X* | B, A* (*caught within section 5) | Y | |
| Yellow bullhead | Ameiurus natalis | X | B | Y | ||
| Central stone roller | Campostoma anomalum | X | B | |||
| Spotfin shiner | Cyprinella spiloptera | X | B | Y | ||
| Greenside darter | Etheostoma blennioides | X | B | Y | ||
| Rainbow darter | Etheostoma caeruleum | X | B | Y | ||
| Fan‐tailed darter | Etheostoma flabellare | X | B | Y | ||
| Cutlip minnow | Exoglossum maxillingua | X | B | Y | ||
| Northern hogsucker | Hypentelium nigricans | X | X | B | Y | |
| Pumpkinseed sunfish | Lepomis gibbosus | X | X | B | Y | |
| Bluegill | Lepomis macrochirus | X | X | X | B | Y |
| Smallmouth bass | Micropterus dolomieu | X | X | B | ||
| Largemouth bass | Micropterus salmoides | X | X | X | B | Y |
| White perch | Morone americana | X | B | Y | ||
| Black redhorse | Moxostoma duquesnei | X | B | Y | ||
| Golden redhorse | Moxostoma erythrurum | X | B | Y | ||
| Shorthead redhorse | Moxostoma macrolepidotum | X | X | X | B, C | Y |
| Greater redhorse | Moxostoma valenciennesi | X | C | |||
| Stone cat | Noturus flavus | X | B | Y | ||
| Yellow perch | Perca flavescens | X | B, C | Y | ||
| Logperch | Percina caprodes | X | B | Y | ||
| Bluntnose minnow | Pimephales notatus | X | B | |||
| White crappie | Pomoxis annularis | X | B | Y | ||
| Black crappie | Pomoxis nigromaculatus | X | B | Y | ||
| Longnose dace | Rhinichthys cataractae | X | B | Y |
Note: Common name, scientific name, year, location, and source of fish identification for fish collected between 2017 and 2019. The symbol “Y” indicates whether fish were identified during the most recent survey of the Genesee watershed between 1988 and 2015 at site B (Carlson et al., 2016). Symbol “X” denotes the identification of species at field sites “A,” “B,” and “C” (details in Figure 1). Corresponding “X” and letter “C” underline indicates that fish were caught from that field site that year.
2.4. Review of DEC region 9 angler diaries
Reports from 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2020 Angler Diarists were retrieved from the NYSDEC Region 9 office and smallmouth bass and trout data sampling was reviewed to determine where catch overlapped with our collection sites A and B (Cornett & Stratton, 2021; Cornett & Zanett, 2018; NYSDEC, 2018, 2020).
Anglers focused on data collection of all trout (Rainbow trout, Brown trout, and Brook trout) and Smallmouth bass throughout the Genesee River, dividing it into five sections: Section 1 from Pennsylvania to Wellsville, Section 2 catch and release, Section 3 from Wellsville to Route 86 below Belmont, Section 4 from Route 86 to Portageville, and Section 5 from Portageville to the Livingston County line in Letchworth State Park.
2.5. Public education
In order to educate the public on the importance of freshwater biodiversity in the Genesse River, research cohorts presented findings at the Humphrey Nature Center in Letchworth State Park in 2017 and 2019. Similar campus presentations were made annually at Houghton University during the 3 years of our project. We hope that these initiatives served as a step toward the conservation and protection of such a valuable ecosystem.
3. RESULTS
Each fall, between August and November of 2017, 2018, and 2019, fishes were captured in Letchworth State Park in New York State and surrounding areas with the goal of recording which fishes occupy that area of the Genesee River. Altogether, a total of 25 species were identified (Tables 1 and 2). All the collected species were previously found within the Genesee watershed (Carlson et al., 2016). Of these 25 species, 24 were found at site B. There was one fish species, the Greater redhorse, that was found at site C but was not caught at site B (Table 2).
3.1. Data in context
The last attempt to inventory all species in the Genesee Watershed analyzed three different survey periods and identified 104 fish species, 89 of which are in the Genesee River. Of the fishes present in the watershed, 77 were located above the falls and 98 were below the falls. Comparing those previous surveys with the present study, we concluded that all the species from our survey have been collected in the Genesee Watershed and River before, and 2 of them have been previously sampled at site B in Letchworth State Park. Moreover, one of the species collected in Letchworth State Park, Rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum), was also identified in the Genesse Watershed as newly introduced (Carlson et al., 2016).
A review of fish surveyed at sites A, B, and C from Carlson and Daniels 2016 Atlas were included to recognize overlap in fish species already identified at site B (Carlson et al., 2016).
Of the 104 Genesee Watershed fish species, two were collected near site B after 1977 (Bluntnose minnow, Central stoneroller). Other fish have been inconsistently observed at sites A and C, upstream and downstream of the falls, respectively: Cutlip minnow, Black redhorse (A, pre 1977); Greater redhorse, White perch, Stonecat, Shorthead redhorse, Bluegill, Rainbow darter, and Black crappie (C, post 1977); Pumpkinseed and Log perch (A pre 1977, C post 1977); Fantail darter, Golden redhorse, Smallmouth bass, Spotfin shiner (A, C post 1977); Yellow perch (A post 1977); Northern hogsucker, Largemouth bass (A post 1977; C pre 1977) and Rock bass, Greenside darter, and Longnose dace have only been sampled before 1977 at both sites (Carlson et al., 2016).
3.2. Public outreach
To increase protection strategies toward freshwater ecosystems, we tried to motivate the public by sharing information about the local fish biodiversity. In 2017, our presentation at Letchworth State Park was advertised in the Wellsville Daily Reporter, leading to a connection with a local rafting company, which increased accessibility to unreachable areas (Staff reports, 2017). We then expect increased community involvement in protecting the park, given public awareness about biodiversity.
4. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR LETCHWORTH STATE PARK
This novel biodiversity analysis was motivated by the inconsistency in the species monitored in preceding studies, along with the lack of precision regarding fish locations. The distinct nature of the present study is its pioneer role in recording fish species in the freshwater ecosystem within Letchworth State Park, a geographically unique area whose fish biodiversity has not yet been quantified. The data collected at Letchworth State Park allowed us to establish a baseline for fish biodiversity in the area, and we concluded that the increase in the number of sites sampled and methods of capture influences the maximum number of fish species caught.
Thus, we highlight the importance of our survey to ongoing assessments of freshwater biodiversity in stream ecosystems, not only in this area but globally. This preliminary study can, therefore, serve as a baseline for long‐term monitoring in future studies. We found that between our survey, review of the 2016 Atlas, and NYSDEC's diary program; 22 of the 24 species identified at Letchworth State Park's site B were first captured in this study (Table 2).
The greatest number of fishes identified in 2018 does not imply an actual increase in fish species that year, but it was the only year when the most effective method of sampling was utilized, and all three field sites (A, B, C) were visited. Electrofishing in 2018 led to the capture of most species of fishes because this technique's electrical current guides and immobilizes a greater number of fishes toward the directionality of the net (Dodds & Whiles, 2020). It is imperative to acknowledge that the change in the number of fish species over the years is due to divergent collection methods and variation in the sampling sites given weather restrictions. Thus, annual changes in fish species number are not indicative of an actual biodiversity change. Moreover, each capture technique specialized in catching fish of distinct sizes. Electrofishing and seine netting methods capture smaller fishes, while gill nets and hoop nets capture larger fishes (Hubert et al., 2012; Lapointe et al., 2006). Since each method was not used at every site or every year, maximum collection potential may not have been reached, and statistical analysis regarding population changes and biodiversity indices was not performed. However, our sites could be used in the future to measure physical and behavioral changes in fishes from the two populations separated by the Letchworth environmental barrier (upper and lower falls) by tracking marked individuals over time (Rodríguez, 2002). In order for this type of study to take place, consistent sampling sites and fishing techniques are necessary over time to assure repeatability, and statistical significance of future studies (Guillard and Verges, 2007). This way, population changes, species richness, and invasive species throughout the park can be more accurately analyzed (Lee Ii et al., 2008).
In the future, efforts should be made to continue monitoring fish biodiversity in the park. We recommend, therefore, sampling be conducted over a greater period of time, using the same methods at each site annually, so that the recommended Shannon and the Simpson indices could be applied. Ongoing consistent fish sampling could lead to a more robust and representative understanding of fish diversity in the park (Diversity Indices, 2024). Outreach efforts should also be stimulated as they led to increased networking, awareness, and subsequent sampling efforts. Pursuing these community partnerships would improve the data we could eventually collect if those relationships continued. Continued research in this field may also assist in advocacy for habitat protection, government or private funding, and the development of recovery and management programs in the popular public state park.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
R. Williams: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (equal); formal analysis (lead); funding acquisition (lead); investigation (lead); methodology (lead); project administration (lead); supervision (lead); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). D. Patterson: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). G. Gascoigne: Formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). N. J. Assad: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). J. Brillhart: Investigation (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). V. DiLeo: Formal analysis (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal).
FUNDING INFORMATION
This study did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors. Funding for this project was made possible through Houghton University, NY and the College of Wooster, Ohio.
PERMISSION
We received permission to complete this study from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Kim Lawson and Becca Crouch from Houghton College for organizing transportation for this project. We have much gratitude to the undergraduate students that were part of Dr. Williams' “Collaborative Research in Biology'” course at Houghton University. Without your involvement, this project would not have been possible. We would like to thank the staff at Letchworth State Park, especially Meg Janis and Amy McGinnis, for their patience, support, and guidance. We would like to thank the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation for granting us permission to complete this study. We would especially like to thank NYSDEC Region 9 Fisheries Unit Staff for reviewing our manuscript, providing feedback and guidance, and approval for resubmission. Additionally, we would like to thank the staff of Adventure Calls Outfitters for guiding us through white‐water rafting trips and improving our access to the park. Finally, we extend our thanks to Dr. Christina Horr for the recommendations made to our manuscript. We have much gratitude for your advice.
APPENDIX 1.
Atlas of Inland Fishes of New York
| Fish species | Scientific names | Genesee watershed | Genesee River |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alewife | Alosa pseudoharebgus | X | X |
| Allegheny pearl dace | Margariscus margarita | X | X |
| American brook lamprey | Lethenteron appendix | X | X |
| American eel | Anguilla rostrata | X | |
| Atlantic salmon | Salmo salar | X | X |
| Banded darter | Etheostoma zonale | X | X |
| Banded killifish | Fundulus diaphanus | X | X |
| Bigmouth shiner | Notropis dorsalis | X | X |
| Black bullhead | Ameiurus melas | X | X |
| Black crappie | Pomoxis nigromaculatus | X | X |
| Black redhorse | Moxostoma duquesni | X | X |
| Blackchin shiner | Notropis heterodo | X | X |
| Blacknose shiner | Notropis heterolepis | X | X |
| Blackside darter | Percina maculata | X | X |
| Bluegill | Lepomis macrochirus | X | X |
| Bluntnose minnow | Pimephales notatus | X | X |
| Bowfin | Amia calva | X | X |
| Brassy minnow | Hybognathus hankinsoni | X | |
| Bridle shiner | Notropis bifrenatus | X | |
| Brindled madtom | Noturus miurus | X | X |
| Brook silverside | Labidesthes sicculus | X | X |
| Brook stickleback | Culaea inconsans | X | X |
| Brook trout | Salvelinus fontinalis | X | X |
| Brown bullhead | Ameiurus nebulosus | X | X |
| Brown trout | Salmo trutta | X | X |
| Central mudminnow | Umbra limi | X | X |
| Central stoneroller | Campostoma anomalum | X | X |
| Chain pickerel | Esox niger | X | X |
| Channel catfish | Ictalurus punctatas | X | X |
| Chinook salmon | Oncorhynchus tshawytscha | X | X |
| Cisco | Coregonus artedi | X | |
| Coho salmon | Oncorhynchus kisutch | X | X |
| Common carp | Cyprinus carpio | X | X |
| Common shiner | Luxilus cornutus | X | X |
| Creek chub | Semotilus atromaculatus | X | X |
| Cutlip minnow | Exoglossum maxillingua | X | X |
| Eastern silvery minnow | Hybognathus regius | X | X |
| Emerald shiner | Notropis atherinoides | X | X |
| Fallfish | Semotilus corporalis | X | |
| Fantail darter | Etheostoma flabellare | X | X |
| Fathead minnow | Pimephales promelas | X | X |
| Freshwater drum | Aplodinotus grunniens | X | X |
| Gizzard shad | Dorosoma cepedianum | X | X |
| Golden redhorse | Moxostoma erythrurum | X | X |
| Golden shiner | Notemigonus crysoleucas | X | X |
| Goldfish | Carassius auratus | X | X |
| Grass pickerel | Esox americanus | X | |
| Greater redhorse | Moxostoma valenciennesi | X | X |
| Green sunfish | Lepomis cyanellus | X | X |
| Greenside darter | Etheostoma blennioides | X | X |
| Hornyhead chub | Nocomis biguttatus | X | X |
| Iowa darter | Etheostoma exile | X | |
| Johnny darter | Etheostoma nigrum | X | X |
| Lake sturgeon | Acipenser fulvescens | X | X |
| Lake trout | Salvelinus namaycush | X | X |
| Lake whitefish | Coregonus clupeaformis | X | |
| Largemouth bass | Micropterus salmoides | X | X |
| Logperch | Percina caprodes | X | X |
| Longnose dace | Rhinichthys cataractae | X | X |
| Longnose gar | Lepisosteus osseus | X | X |
| Longnose sucker | Catostomus catostomus | X | X |
| Margined madtom | Noturus insignis | X | X |
| Mimic shiner | Notropis volucellus | X | X |
| Mottled sculpin | Cottus bairdii | X | X |
| Muskellunge | Esox masquinongy | X | X |
| Northern hogsucker | Hypentelium nigricans | X | X |
| Northern pearl dace | Margariscus nachtriebi | X | X |
| Northern pike | Esox lucius | X | X |
| Northern redbelly dace | Chrosomus eos | X | |
| Pumpkinseed | Lepomis gibbosus | X | X |
| Quillback | Carpiodes cyprinus | X | X |
| Rainbow darter | Etheostoma caeruleum | X | X |
| Rainbow smelt | Osmerus mordax | X | |
| Rainbow trout | Oncorhynchus mykiss | X | X |
| Redside dace | Clinostomus elongatus | X | X |
| River Chub | Nocomis micropogon | X | |
| Round goby | Neogobius melanostomus | X | X |
| Rock bass | Ambloplites rupestris | X | X |
| Rosyface shiner | Notropis rubellus | X | X |
| Rudd | Scardinius erythrophthalmus | X | |
| Sand shiner | Notropis stramineus | X | X |
| Shorthead redhorse | Moxostoma macrolepidotum | X | X |
| Silver redhorse | Moxostoma anisurum | X | X |
| Slimy sculpin | Cottus cognatus | X | X |
| Smallmouth bass | Micropterus dolomieu | X | X |
| Splake | Salvelinus namaycush x Salvelinus fontinalis | X | |
| Spotfin shiner | Cyprinella spiloptera | X | X |
| Spottail shiner | Notropis hudsonius | X | X |
| Stonecat | Noturus flavus | X | X |
| Striped shiner | Luxilus chrysocephalus | X | X |
| Tadpole madtom | Noturus gyrinus | X | |
| Tessellated darter | Etheostoma olmstedi | X | X |
| Threespine stickleback | Gasterosteus aculeatus | X | X |
| Tiger muskellunge | Esox masquinongy x Esox lucius | X | |
| Tonguetied minnow | Exoglossum laurae | X | X |
| Trout‐perch | Percopsis omiscomaycus | X | X |
| Walleye | Sander vitreus | X | X |
| Western blacknose dace | Rhinichthys obtusus | X | X |
| White bass | Morone chrysops | X | X |
| White crappie | Pomoxis annularis | X | X |
| White perch | Morone americana | X | X |
| White sucker | Catostomus commersonii | X | X |
| Yellow bullhead | Ameiurus natalis | X | X |
| Yellow perch | Perca flavescens | X | X |
Note: Fish species in the Atlas of Inland Fishes of New York that were determined to be in the Genesee Watershed and in the Genesee River (Carlson et al., 2016). Symbol “X” denotes the presence of the species in the watershed or river that was recorded on a collection map and described in the Genesee Watershed subsection for each fish species.
Gascoigne, G. , Assad, J. , Patterson, D. , Brillhart, J. , DiLeo, V. , & Williams, R. (2024). An updated survey of freshwater fishes within Letchworth State Park and surrounding area's of the Genesee River. Ecology and Evolution, 14, e11333. 10.1002/ece3.11333
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [DRYAD] at DOI: 10.5061/dryad.jdfn2z3gq (Williams et al., 2024).
REFERENCES
- Apostolaki, S. , Akinsete, E. , Koundouri, P. , & Samartzis, P. (2020). Freshwater: The importance of freshwater for providing ecosystem services. In Encyclopedia of the World's biomes (pp. 71–79). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12117-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bow, C. E. (2013). Disturbance and landscape dynamics within the eastern deciduous forest ecosystem: a case study in Letchworth State Park.
- Carlson, D. M. , & Daniels, R. A. (2004). Status of fishes in New York: Increases, declines and homogenization of watersheds. The American Midland Naturalist, 152(1), 104–139. 10.1674/0003-0031(2004)152[;0104:SOFINY];2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Carlson, D. M. , Daniels, R. A. , & Wright, J. J. (2016). Atlas of inland fishes of New York. Published jointly by the New York State Education Department and Department of Environmental Conservation. ISBN 978‐1‐55557‐270‐9 [Google Scholar]
- Cook, T. S. (2015). Civilian conservation Corps in Letchworth State Park. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978‐1‐4671‐2328‐0 [Google Scholar]
- Cook, T. S. (2011). Nunda, Portage, and Genesee Falls. Arcadia Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Cornett, S. , & Stratton, L. (2021). Summary of the 2020 Genesee River Angler Diary Program. [Unpublished Document]. Bureau of Fisheries Technical Brief #tb20035. https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/tb9genesee.pdf
- Cornett, S. , & Zanett, J. (2018). Summary of the 2017 Genesee River Angler Diary Program. [Unpublished Document].
- Diversity Indices . (2024). https://bio.libretexts.org/@go/page/84119
- Dodds, W. K. , & Whiles, M. R. (2020). Chapter 23—Fish ecology, fisheries, and aquaculture. In Dodds W. K. & Whiles M. R. (Eds.), Freshwater ecology (Third ed., pp. 699–722). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-813255-5.00023-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Dudgeon, D. , Arthington, A. H. , Gessner, M. O. , Kawabata, Z.‐I. , Knowler, D. J. , Lévêque, C. , Naiman, R. J. , Prieur‐Richard, A. H. , Soto, D. , Stiassny, M. L. , & Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81(2), 163–182. 10.1017/S1464793105006950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ensminger, S. A. , & Bassett, D. K. (2016). A waterfall guide to Letchworth State Park: How to reach the best viewing areas for 25 waterfalls found in one of New York State's most spectacular Parks! Scott Ensminger.
- Fish ID . (n.d.). Wisconsin Sea Grant.
- Gleick, P. H. (2003). Water use. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 275–314. 10.1146/annurev.energy.28.040202.122849 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Guillard, J. , & Vergès, C. (2007). The repeatability of fish biomass and size distribution estimates obtained by hydroacoustic surveys using various sampling strategies and statistical analyses. International Review of Hydrobiology, 92(6), 605–617. 10.1002/iroh.200710948 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hill, M. O. (1973). Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 54, 427–432. 10.2307/1934352 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hubert, W. A. , Pope, K. L. , & Dettmers, J. M. (2012). Passive capture techniques. Nebraska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit ‐‐ Staff Publications. 111. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ncfwrustaff/111 [Google Scholar]
- Hurlbert, S. H. (1971). The non‐concept of species diversity: A critique and alternative parameters. Ecology, 52, 577–586. 10.2307/1934145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kraft, C. E. , Carlson, D. M. , & Carlson, M. (2006). Inland Fishes of New York (Online), Version 4.0. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
- Lapointe, N. , Corkum, L. , & Mandrak, N. (2006). A comparison of methods for sampling fish diversity in shallow offshore waters of large Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26, 503–513. 10.1577/M05-091.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Lee Ii, H. , Reusser, D. A. , Olden, J. D. , Smith, S. S. , Graham, J. , Burkett, V. , Dukes, J. S. , Piorkowski, R. J. , & Mcphedran, J. (2008). Integrated monitoring and information Systems for Managing Aquatic Invasive Species in a changing climate. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 575–584. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00955.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ma, K. , Huang, X. , Liang, C. , Zhao, H. , Zhou, X. , & Wei, X. (2020). Effect of land use/cover changes on runoff in the Min River watershed. River Research and Applications, 36(5), 749–759. 10.1002/rra.3608 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- McAllister, D. E. , Hamilton, A. L. , & Harvey, B. (1997). Global freshwater biodiversity: Striving for the integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Sea Wind: Bulletin of Ocean Voice International, 11(3). [Google Scholar]
- New York Department of Environmental Conservation . (n.d.). Letchworth State Park—NYS Dept. Of Environmental Conservation. https://dec.ny.gov/things‐to‐do/watchable‐wildlife/sites/letchworth‐state‐park
- New York Department of Environmental Conservation Angler Diary Program . (2018). Genesee Diary 2017 (working copy). NYSDEC. [Unpublished report].
- New York Department of Environmental Conservation Angler Diary Program . (2020). Genesee Diary 2020 (working copy). NYSDEC. [Unpublished report].
- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ‐ Genesee River Watershed (n.d.). https://dec.ny.gov/nature/waterbodies/watersheds/genessee‐river
- Rodríguez, M. A. (2002). Restricted movement in stream fish: The paradigm is incomplete, not lost. Ecology, 83(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10/1890/0012‐9658(2002)083[0001:RMISFT]2.0.CO;2 [Google Scholar]
- Snyder, D. E. (2003). Electrofishing and its harmful effects on fish, Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR‐‐2003‐0002 (p. 149). U.S. Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar]
- Spinola, R. M. , Serfass, T. L. , & Brooks, R. P. (1998). Radiotelemetry Study: River Otters Reintroduction at Letchworth State Park. Progress Report, 1. Hudson River Library No. 99‐0072.
- Staff reports . (2017). Houghton research team to present findings at Letchworth. Wellsville Daily Reporter.
- State of New York Conservation Department . (1927). A biological survey of the Genesee River system. Supplement to the 16th annual report. New York State Department of Conservation. SH35N48. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, R. , Gascoigne, G. , Patterson, D. , Brillhart, J. , Assad, J. , & Dileo, V. (2024). An updated survey of freshwater fishes within Letchowrth State Park and surrounding areas of the Genesee River [Dataset]. Dryad. 10.5061/dryad.jdfn2z3gq [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Wooldridge, C. F. , McMullen, C. , & Howe, V. (1999). Environmental management of ports and harbours—Implementation of policy through scientific monitoring. Marine Policy, 23(4–5), 413–425. 10.1016/S0308-597X(98)00055-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Yunus, A. J. M. , Nakagoshi, N. , & Ibrahim, A. L. (2004). Riparian land‐use and land cover change analysis using GIS in Pinang river watershed, Malaysia. Tropics, 13(4), 235–248. 10.3759/tropics.13.235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [DRYAD] at DOI: 10.5061/dryad.jdfn2z3gq (Williams et al., 2024).