S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.

T-^W FINAL REPORT Fishes of the Chicago Waterways: New Data from the Newly Acquired Dennison Collection of Fishes and Review of Collection Records in the Illinois Natural History Collection of Fishes. Prepared by: Michael E. Retzer Benjamin Batten Center for Biodiversity Illinois Natural History Survey Champaign, IL For: Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant March 15, 2004 INHS Internal Series Identification Number 2004(6) a University Account No. 1-494548-375004-191100 Account Description com na 16rg2282-0683

I. Introduction The waterways of Chicago have a long history of alteration and abuse (Forbes and Richardson 1920, Smith 1971). The high population density led to severe water quality problems that were not addressed in a meaningful way until the 1970's with the advent of effective water quality treatment (Lerczak et al. 1992). In addition, the connection between Lake Michigan and the Illinois and Mississippi River drainages has resulted in a movement of fishes between the basins. This movement includes the dispersal of nonindigenous species from one basin to the other. Movement of invasive species in either direction has the potential of drastically impacting one of the basins. Collection records based on vouchered specimens provide solid data on distributions and changes in distributions of native and non-native fish species and hybrids in a region. Herein, we report on the results of the acquisition of a collection of fishes donated by Mr. Samuel Dennison. Mr. Dennison had built a collection of fishes from approximately 1970 to 2000 as part of his duties working for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. This area includes the lower Des Plaines River, Chicago canal system, and Lake Michigan. Mr. Dennison had vouchered some of his early materials to the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) in the mid- 1990's. More recently, he donated a substantial collection to the Survey in order that the specimens be permanently vouchered and available to the scientific community, resource managers and the general public. Most of this material was collected during the late 1990s. We also comment on the current state of the fish community based on this material and other recent INHS fish collection records. II. Methods and Materials Specimens were processed in accordance with commonly accepted natural history collection procedures. The materials were stored in mostly unsorted but unique collections (a unique collection being a mixture of species captured at the same site on the same date). About 25% of the specimens were stored originally in Carosafe. While this storage medium is safe to handle, specimens lose color and texture when in this medium for a long period. Another 25% of collections were stored in formalin and these were soaked in water to remove the formalin. All specimens were switched to 70% ethanol for long-term storage. About 50% of the materials were found to be in alcohol. Collections were sorted by species and catalogued into the INHS collection and incorporated into permanent holdings. Initial identifications were made by an undergraduate student worker and verified by the staff ichthyologist. Basic information (ie. location, date collected) for the catalogued materials is available by web access of the fish collection at the INHS web site (www.inhs.uiuc.edu).

Localities of collection sites were also plotted into the Survey's system for mapping purposes (see Fig. 1, map provided by Frank Hutto, INHS; Appendix 1 for a list of site locations). In addition, how collections were made in the field were recorded and this supplemental information is available from the INHS fish collection. In general, electro-shocking and seining were the methods employed. III. Results 153 samples from 40 sites containing 49 species, and 8 hybrids (4600 specimens) were processed (Appendix 1, 2, see map). Of the 49 species, 38 were native and 11 were non-indigenous species. The five most common species, in terms of abundance of individuals, were the bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), emerald shiner (Notropis athernoides), yellow perch, (Perca flavescens), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) (Appendix 2). All of these species are indigenous to the area. The five species found at the most number of sites were the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). The common carp is a non-indigenous species to the area. The eight hybrid crosses identified consisted primarily of crosses between the species of sunfishes (Lepomis) although there were two minnow combination and a cross between the non-indigenous white perch (Morone americana) and indigenous yellow bass (Morone mississippiensis) (catalogue number INHS 97039, Appendix 2). General Observations IV. Discussion Given the past problems with water pollution in the Chicago waterways, the area now supports a relatively diverse although altered fish fauna. Indeed, if all INHS records since 1990 for Cook County are examined, there are records for 64 native species. However, the community is dominated by a few species (ie. bluegill, green sunfish, common carp) that are generally considered to be tolerant of lower water quality and habitats. In the Dennison collections, most species are rarely represented in collections (Appendix 2). A high number of rare species also means that many of them are at a higher risk of extirpation from the area. Even within the Chicago waterways, there are differences in the fish faunas between the lower Des Plaines River, Chicago canal system, and Lake Michigan. Not surprisingly, the fish community of the lower Des Plaines drainage is in better condition in terms of the percentage of non-indigenous species and hybrid types than the Chicago canal

system. The percent of non-indigenous species as of the total number of species in the Des Plaines is 10% and that of the Chicago canal system is 26%. The proportion of hybrid types to total number of species is 14% and 18%, respectively. The Chicago canal system is a bit of an anomaly because it simply did not exist previously. The system's connection between Lake Michigan and the Illinois River automatically establishes a mixed fauna. It is difficult to judge whether or not this mixed fauna "natural" since no fauna existed there 100+ years ago. The Dennison collection contained only one collection from Lake Michigan proper, which contained a fairly diverse collection of 17 species. However, the collection also had in it a high number (five species; 29%) of non-indigenous species (Appendix 2). Other INHS fish collection records since 1990 indicate that 44 species occur in Lake Michigan in Cook County. Of these, 11 (25% of the total number of species) are nonindigenous species, four of these being stocked salmonid species. A few species considered sensitive species, such as the yellow perch (Percaflavescens) and spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) do occur although in low numbers (Smith 1979). Two species are listed as state threatened: longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) and banded killifish (Fundulus dispar). The longnose sucker is likely to occur throughout Lake Michigan but would only stray into inland waters of Illinois. The banded killifish occurs in the Wolf and Powder Horn lakes of southern Cook County. In Illinois, the killifish occurs only in one other area, the glacial lakes in Lake County (Smith 1979, INHS collection records). The proportion of non-indigenous species (22%) in the Chicago area is very high relative to other drainages in the state (MER, unpublished data). The presence of non-indigenous species suggests a significantly altered fish community. The high number of hybrids also is considered to be a signal of a highly disturbed system (Karr et al. 1986). But the occurrence of hybrids is not unexpected as the much of the system is comprised of fairly uniform canals and ditches. Lack of habitat diversity would be likely lead to reduced reproductive barriers among species. Non-indigenous species The connection now between the Lake Michigan-Atlantic Ocean and Illinois-Mississippi rivers has added an extra sense of urgency with the movement of non-indigenous species between the two systems. Of particular concern are the occurrences of the white perch (Morone americana), oriental weatherfish (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) and round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) in Chicago waterways. These are non-indigenous species that are recent invaders to the area. The possible movement of two Asian carp species of the genus Hypopthalmichthys from the Illinois River to Lake Michigan is also a serious concern; however, neither of these species was found to be present in the Dennison material. Interestingly, a third Asian carp, the grass carp (Ctenopharygodon idella) is known to exist in Lake Michigan (INHS 59326, a Dennison specimen previously

vouchered), but this single record suggests that the species remains rare in the area, at least for the time being. The white perch, indigenous to the Atlantic Coast of North America, arrived in Lake Ontario during the 1940's (Johnson and Evans 1990). From there, the species spread to the other Great Lakes, arriving in Lake Michigan (including Illinois waters) during the mid to late 1980's (Savitz et. al. 1989). Indeed, the species passed through the Chicago waterways into the lower Illinois River by 1991 (Irons et al. 2002) and the Mississippi River by 1993-94 (Burr et al. 1996). The greatest concern is that Morone americana will compete and hybridize with the other Morone species. There is evidence that the white perch eats the eggs of walleye, white bass and other fishes (Schaeffer and Margraf 1987). Irons et al. (2002) reported hybridization between yellow bass and white perch. One specimen from the Dennison collection also contained a yellow bass and white perch hybrid. Hybridization could indicate that the yellow bass gene pool is threatened by the influx of white bass genes. Madenjian et al. (2000) demonstrated that white bass recruitment in Lake Erie declined after the invasion of white perch. While temperatures may limit populations in parts of the Great Lakes, a study by Johnson and Evans (1990) suggests that much of Lake Michigan has temperatures suitable for the species. They predicted in 1990 that coupled with the proper habitat, they might flourish in Lake Michigan. Records from the Dennison collection and other INHS records suggest that this prediction has proven to be true. Worse yet, the species appears to have become more common than the other two native Morone species (yellow bass, M. mississippiensis and white bass, M. chrysops). In the Dennison samples, 68 specimens of white perch were collected from 10 sites versus nine specimens from four sites for M. mnississippiensis and three specimens from two sites for M. chrysops. The oriental weatherfish is native to eastern Asia and has established populations in eight states including Illinois. The species is a fairly recent invader to the area with the earliest verifiable record dating to 1987 (INHS 61129, Burr et al. 1996). At this point, these populations do not seem to be expanding (Burr et al. 1996). The Dennison materials verify their continued existence in the Chicago waterways and indicate that the population has maintained its limited geographic range. Regardless, its ability to survive in small streams suggests that it has the ability to survive in streams throughout the upper Midwest. Because it is a common species in the aquarium trade, populations could be expected to occur anywhere in the Midwest. The species could become a competitor with native species, particularly darters and catfishes. They would occupy similar habitats and possibly consume the same prey items (Laird and Page 1996). The round goby is an invader from Eurasia that is native of the Black and Caspian seas (Charlebois et al. 2001). The goby was first found in the great lakes in 1990, and later spread to all of them as well as several tributaries (Charlebois et al. 2001). The first

incidence of the round goby in Illinois was found on 31 July 1994 (INHS 32982) In Lake Michigan. The fish was then found just one month later inland in the Calumet River (INHS 34877). The Dennison material and other data confirms the presence of the round goby, but does not seem to show evidence of expansion of the round goby into the Des Plaines River from the Chicago canal system. Competition between the round goby and native fish is a major concern. According to a recent study, it is believed that the round goby has caused a local extinction of the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) in the Calumet Harbor area of Lake Michigan (Janssen and Jude 2001). This scenario is likely to occur throughout Lake Michigan. A number of salmonid species occur in the area, particularly throughout Lake Michigan (Laird and Page 1996). Although the brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) are native to Lake Michigan, the others, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and brown trout (Salmo trutta) are non-indigenous to the area. What differentiates these species from the other non-indigenous species is that they are intentionally stocked in Lake Michigan, and none except perhaps the brown trout would be able to maintain self-sustaining populations in southern Lake Michigan (Smith 1979). Given their cold-water requirements, any escape into the Illinois River system will not result in any permanent populations being established, although their presence in the lake adds to the artificiality of the lake ecosystem. V. Summary We report on the results of the acquisition of a collection of fishes donated by Mr. Sam Dennison. Mr. Dennison had built a collection of fishes during 1970-2000 as part of his duties working for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. 153 samples from 40 sites containing 49 species and 8 hybrids (4600 specimens) were processed. From these specimens and other vouchered materials in the INHS fish collection, a picture of the current community of fishes is examined. The lower Des Plaines River possesses the most diverse fish fauna while the canal system community has a more limited native fish community and high numbers of non-indigenous species and hybrids. No asian carp species were found in collections but white perch were found in high numbers. Round gobies and oriental weatherfish were also identified in collections. VI. Literature Cited Burr, B. M., D. J. Eisenhour, K. M. Cook, C. A. Taylor, G. L. Seegert, R. W. Sauer, and E. R. Atwood. Nonnative fishes in Illinois waters: What do the records reveal? Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science. 89(73-91).

Charlebois, L.D., Corkum, D. J. Jude, and C. Knight. 2001. The round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus) invasion: current research and future needs. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 27:263-266. Forbes, S. A. and R. E. Richardson. 1909. The fishes of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey. Urbana. 357 p. Janssen, J. and D. J. Jude. 2001. Recruitment failure of mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi in Calumet Harbor, southern Lake Michigan, induced by the newly introduced round goby Neogobius melanostomus. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 27:263-266. Johnson, T. B. and D. O. Evans. 1990. Size-dependent winter mortality of young-of-theyear white perch: climate warming and invasion of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society. 119:301-313. Irons, K. S., T. M. O'Hara, M. A. Mclelland, and M. A. Pegg. 2002. White perch occurrence, spread, and hybridization in the middle Illinois River, Upper Mississippi River system. Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science. 95:207-214. Laird. C. A. and L. M. Page. 1996. Non-native fishes inhabiting the streams and lakes of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin. 35:1-51. Lerczak, T. V., R. E. Sparks and K. D. Blodgett. 1992. The long-term Illinois River fish population monitoring program. Annual Report F-101-R-3. Illinois Natural History Survey, River Research Laboratory of the Forbes Biological Station, Havana. Madenjian, C. P., R. L. Knight, M. T. Bur, and J. L. Forney. 2000. Reduction in recruitment of white bass in Lake Erie after invasion of white perch. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 129:1340-1353. Savitz, J. C. Aiello and L.G. Bardygula. 1989. The first record of the white perch (Morone americana) in Illinois waters of Lake Michigan. Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science. 82:57-58. Schaeffer, J. S. and F. J. Margraf. 1987. Predation of fish eggs by white perch, Moione americana, in western Lake Erie. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 18(77-80). Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams: A classification based on their fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance of native species. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes No. 76. Smith. P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press. Urbana. 314 p.

Figure 1. Locations of collection sites of all specimens from the Chicago waterways vouchered in the INHS fish collection from the Chicago waterways. Only includes records obtained since 1990.

4i 4 0 0.7 0 0 0 iie 0 DUPAGE COOK * Ye WILL

Ono000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000> oooooo.ocd 0= P OO C O J C O wo w w w NO ^ N) NO nu ^ N ^ ^ M r M.O N ^ N^ ^ t\ o (D Wo -i Mo n l cw N) I^ o 0 W o W -4I MD Mn 10 GW i -A 10 (DO 1- a) L cn 1. (A) N 1 o 0 O olcj 0 x (nb0)or i Z w - r - -n o0 -n a~) a 0. o0 0 0 0 0 a) z - (D.r D 0 0n 0 0. 3 c C n 0 CD C Q W l 0J a;c C' D = -. i II 0M0 0 0 0< m0 0 C, 0, 0 o m 0 -o CDD00 c > n m " c rc 0 CD 0 a m U) CD g CnD < 5D m<= - - 0mo 0 ' - - - So a o 0 0 o C 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 < CL C 0 a = < 0= 0 CD C -- 0 3 S 'C, 0 I. CD 0D CD CD 0 C 3 o0 g a 8 C CD S, CD 3 D 3 CD CD < D 3C C CD 03 p cd 0 S3 < < 0 0 i C L< *" -o 5 5 W 0" E -- 0 03 n -, <o 0 rd *C r S3 : 3 0 D 0 X3 0 0 03: 3: 0 CD 0l CDC 0 n00 S3 - CC 3o o o Poou^0 G SC o c 0 D CDC CD 0 0m 030 0; a 0 CD CD C[ C 00 0 CD 00 CD a 0 3 a 0 - C Z C) < C) C) C) C) C) C) r 000 =W D m)0 CCl0C 3 U) 0 0 0 0 a0a00wrw0 f C 0C0 )Rm2:MMMM mym=m Wm M0 0 0w0w3 w - -0 0 CD 000 Ew a ) q FCA 0 0 C0 CCD 0 C wcdca OCmw ) 03CDZ 0 CD M CD 0 3 C C lw W CD 00 C) 0 0 00 0 0Rw L CD CDD CD CD 2. CD CD w0o g 0 0 =3 5< CD 0a). - D 0 0 D - C.! " ' 2 Z 3 Z1 Z Z Z Z 0 0 Z:3 :3 Z : Z Z 3 : Z Z : : Z 3 Z3 D =3 2 D Z C CDC c CD C 2 - CD UDM 0 ~ CD 000 CD 0 D CDo<o0 0 0 C MCDM MM C CD CD m 0000 mm 000I D C MM< 1 D CD CD m ~I 1 7 ' ~J 0tl C) tl10 n O 10010 ~ CI tl ~ I~I~ I0 f f I I-r i(n D CD 4^ ^ 03 ^ 0 C G0 ^ 03 0 0.~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 CA i r CA) r.mmmm.^ 0 0... o r \i(, Ah,G3 r \ mmm..mm C A) -t. o, mcn CA N. m m m m m m mn m m m m m mn m m m m m M m m m rn m m mn n mr mn n mr mt mn n mn i mn mr mn m (U) W) E ))(n ) n ) U U()UW C)U ) W U) WU) U ) (1)(U) 1) E 6( W ) W ( ) ( ) U) U)U ) ) ( CD o... o C CD CD. (. CD CD. o C CD o C CD D D o oo.. CD CD CD CD CD (CD o o D CD p p o D CDo 0 0 0 --------------------- 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 CA) Cn Nz (D co C.- o CA) N o 4ýL - Lb W -.4. (^ - -A& N -L 0 k h N) C W (A' PX 4 - (A "*. -"* N. W o N ) Wo N C C CA) C (D - -CA ) 0 Ul ZW C Cr (3) OD CZ C/) m z :Em cn (1) r'm <C/) z :Cým cn *m z z (1)m m 0/ zz m mrnm$ wz *m~r < (1z 3Mc cn (n m cl mm*"" z U/) < z m' ww z m

endix 2 Continued. CWt - 14 CWI-15 CWI-16 CWI-17 CWI - 18 CWI - 19 CWI - 20 CWI - 21 CWI - 22 CWI - 23 CWI - 24 CWI - 25 CWI - 26 CWI - 27 CWI - 28 CWI- 29 CWI - 30 1 1 _ 1 1 1 83 1 66 14 36 2 1 2 1 1 1 6 14 24 1 17 18 3 20 38 13 7 33 2 108 383 7 3 1 4 4 7 2 9 1 8 6 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 12 22 S1 1 2 2 1 3 2 61 2 22 9 3 _ 6 8 26 3 1 5 2 4 4 6 5 136 1 1 2 1 1 22 10 2 1 10 3 6 4 2 4 62 70 1 8 4 2 2 1 1 3 3-1 1 1 1 23 2 5 1 15 _1 _ 1 ~4 26 29 29 87 21 218 41 394 29 61 70 7 226 196 79 46 23 6 12 8 9 9 7 6 9 4 11 3 5 9 10 6 5 2

Appendix 2. Fishes from Chicago waterways identified in the Dennison collection. I = Non-indienous, h = hybrid, CWI is the station code, see Appendix 1 for station location. Family species CWI- 1 CWI -2 CWI -3 CWI -4 CWI -5 CWI -6 CWI-7 CW- 8 CWI-9 CWI -10 CWI-11 CWI -12 CWI-13 Clupeldae Alosa pseudoharengus (I) 1 Dorosoma cepedianum 7 1 31 31 10 24 1 1 1 Salmonidae Oncorhynchus kisutch (I) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (I) 1 Salmo trutta (I) 1 1 2 Osmeridae Osmerus mordax (I) 1 Esocidae Esox lucius 1 Cyprinidae Carassius auratus (1) 5 1 2 1 1 Cypnnella spiloptera 1 9 38 2- Cypnnus carpio (I) 2 4 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 Notemigonus crysoleucas 6 1 9 18 Notropis atherinoides 17 3 12 244 1 8 61 1 Notropis hudsonrus 2 4 1 Notropis ludibundus 18 1 Pimephales notatus 18 73 3 2 109 717 34 11 3 10 57 58 Pimephales promelas 4 1 7 99 Rhinichthys cataractae 1 Semotilus atromaculatus 24 Cyprinella spiloptera x Cypnnella lutrensis (h) Cypnnus carpio x Carassius auratus (h) 1 Catostomidae Carpiodes cypinus 1 Catostomus commersoni 1 1 3 1 Cobitididae Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (1) Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Ameiurus natalis 1 6 1 Ictalurus punctatus 1 Noturus gynnus Percopsidae Percopsis omiscomaycus 2 Fundulidae Fundulus notatus 4 61 Poeciliidae Gamousia affinis Atherinidae Labidesthes sicculus 8 Gasterosteldae Culaea inconstans 25 Gasterosteus aculeatus (1) 1 2 2 1 Moronidae Morone americana (I) 5 2 12 1_5 1 1 3 Morone chrysops 2 Morone mississippiensis 1 2 Movone americana x Morone mississippiensis (h) Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris 2 2 1 23 Lepomis cyanellus 3 1 18 36 1 2 2 18 Lepomis ibbosus 22 2 5 1 1 1 1 Lepomis qulosus Lepomis humilis 1 3 20 Lepomis macrochirus 6 75 10 2 2 1 3 1 6 13 Micropterus dolomieu 4 1 1 Micropterus salmoides 4 3 2 20 1 28 2 2 1 3 14 1 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 2 1 7 1 Lepomis cyanellus x Lepomis gibbosus (h) Lepomis macrochirus x Lepomis cyanellus (h) Lepomis macrochirus x Lepomis humilis (h) Lepomis macrochirus x Lepomis gibbosus (h) 1 Lepomis hybrid (h) 3 5 1 2 1 2 Percidae Etheostoma nigrum 3 Perca flavascens 129 _ 10 Percina maculata Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens 1 1 Gobiidae Neogobius melanostomus (1) 7 3 1 Total number of fish per site 52 356 46 16 269 10 1243 66 68 22 85 124 247 Total number of species per site 7 1 7 9 1 0 17 6 22 13 15 9 11 1 7 21

Appendix 2 Continued. CW - 31 CW - 32 CWI- 33 CWI - 34 CW - CWICWI - 36 CWI - 37 CWI - 38 CWI- 39 CWI - 40 Total no. specimens Total no. occurrences 1 1 1 1_ 114 16 2_ 2 1 2 3 2 1 5 4 3 4 2 1 12 2 18 11 262 10 1 1 1 2 1 32 20 2 2 45 8 21 406 11 8 4 3 119 9 28 1 _6 1691 26 9 26 168 10 1 2 2 34 5 8 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 _1 17 10 2 4 3 1 2 2 1 1 16 10 1 1 7 6 1 1 2 1 1 _156 8 9 22 4 S25 47 4 25 1 16 3 25 6 _ 68 9 3_ 2 1 9 4 1 1 29 5 1 5 1246 17 1 65 17 1 1 2 S 1 67 1 119 11 3 1 1 277 23 1 7 4 1 1 2 2 20 2 134 28 12 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 -I 1 3 51 14 t _,_6 _19 3-140 280 4 3 _2 2 113 33 31 20 13 78 144 41 35 52 7 6 13! 3 I 3 4 3 7 12 4 6