Summary

Did you know?

The Streamline Chub has been bred in captivity as a surrogate species to better understand the reproductive habits and behavior of the closely related and federally threatened Slender Chub (Erimystax cahni) (Shute and Rakes 2011).

State Ranking Justification

The Streamline Chub occurs in just a single watershed in New York. While the species has been consistently detected from the 1930s through today, with a stable to increasing population trend, it remains highly vulnerable to catastrophic events given the limited amount of occupied habitat. For example, the creation of the Allegheny Reservoir in the 1960s reduced the available habitat for the Streamline Chub in the Alleghany River roughly by half (Carlson et al. 2016), and two dams in Pennsylvania prevented this species from occupying the Conewango Creek until their removal in 2014 (Grasso 2023).

Short-term Trends

The number of records of Streamline Chub have increased in recent years. Since 2013, this species has been recorded from 122 sampling sites totaling 877 individuals. It is thought that the abundance in New York has increased (NYSDEC 2023; Grasso 2023). In addition, the distribution of this species in New York has increased since 2014 when the upstream passage between Conewango Creek and the Allegheny River was restored via dam removal (Grasso 2023). Subsequently, Streamline Chubs have been found in the New York portion of Conewango Creek in 2017 and 2020 (NYSDEC 2023).

Long-term Trends

Prior to 1993, there were records from 42 sampling sites in six waterbodies in New York. In the 1960s, impoundment of the Allegheny River removed about half of the available Steamline Chub habitat in New York (Carlson et al. 2016). The number of sampling sites where the species was detected dipped to 25 between 1993 and 2002. From 2003-2012 the number of sampling sites increased to 58, and the number of waterbodies remained stable at six. Since 2013, the number of sampling sites where the species was detected more than doubled to 122 and the species has been found in a new waterbody, the Conewango Creek. Upstream passage to the Conewango Creek was blocked by two civil war era dams in Pennsylvania, which were removed in 2014. Subsequently, Streamline Chubs have been found in the New York portion of Conewango Creek in 2017 and 2020 (NYSDEC 2023). While the increased number of records is indicative of an increasing population, improvements in sampling methodology (e.g. electrified trawling surveys) cannot be ruled out as a driver (pers comm Lisa Holst NYS DEC 2017) .

Conservation and Management

Threats

The Streamline Chub is restricted to Confined River ecological communities. Any activity which might lead to water contamination, siltation, warming of waterways, or the alteration of natural hydrology could directly and indirectly impact riparian habitats and Streamline Chub populations. Such threats might include roadway and agricultural runoff, industrial pollution, dams, bridge construction and maintenance, logging activities, and development near riparian habitats (NYS DEC 2005). In addition, siltation decreases the amount of sunlight that reaches aquatic plants (EPA 2005) and lowers the quality of habitats needed for a variety of aquatic species (NYS DEC 2005). Point source pollution, such as effluents from municipal and industrial facilities, contribute to the degradation and pollution of aquatic habitats (EPA 2022, NYS DEC 2005, Mahar and Landry 2013, Strayer et al. 2004).

Protect water quality and reduce contamination and hydrological alteration (such as agricultural or road runoff, shoreline development, and damming) (NYS DEC 2005). Protect stream quality by maintaining both a riparian buffer that includes herbaceous and/or woody vegetation along the shoreline, and a significant forested buffer. These buffers reduce sediment and contaminant runoff (EPA 2005, NYS DEC 2005, Souza et al. 2020), provide shade, regulate temperature, and provide organic matter to animals (Hughes and Vadas 2021). Riparian zones with herbaceous and woody vegetation have high “indicator scores” for macroinvertebrates and fishes (Hughes and Vadas 2021). Remove barriers to maintain or restore natural flow to waterways. Where removal is not possible, research alternatives that allow flow above and below a barrier.

In general, avoid stream crossings. If crossings are unavoidable, use Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize disturbance to streams. Time periods of disturbance when water flow is low or normal and install stream-crossing structures at a right angle to the stream (Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program 2018). Temporary methods to reduce runoff include water bars, gravel, geotextile fabric, rubber belt deflectors, open top culverts, strawbales, silt fencing, control blankets, and straw wattles (Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program 2018). Restore the disturbed area with native species as soon as possible. Areas that have been logged may also need ruts to be smoothed to reduce surface runoff (Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program 2018). Hughes and Vadas (2021) suggest that Best Management Practices may need to be applied to entire stream lengths and catchments to fully restore an aquatic ecosystem. If this is not possible, restore or manage a larger area around the directly disturbed area.

In general, tailor agricultural management plans to local conditions (e.g., soils, slope, land use). Often these plans aim to reduce pollution and increase farm productivity, but incentives could also be used to encourage sustainable farming practices. Proper management typically reduces runoff by 20-90% (EPA 2005). Consider using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an alternative to pesticide use. If pesticides and fertilizers are used, they should only be applied when needed, in the proper amount, and timed appropriately. In addition, rotate livestock to avoid overgrazing and to allow for vegetation regrowth. If needed, provide alternative water sources and shade to keep animals out of sensitive areas (EPA 2005).
Invasive species management can be time consuming and costly. Reduce the likelihood of non-native species being introduced into waterways. Boat-washing stations at boat launches can reduce transport of invasive plants and animals to new waterbodies. Educate anglers about the risk of releasing unused baitfish. If vulnerable species are present, consider a baitfish ban. Mechanical removal of some invasive plants may be needed in some rivers and streams. The use of pesticides to remove invasives can have a negative effect on ecosystems (McCormick et al. 2009) and should be a last resort to control invasive species.



Altering natural waterflow can degrade habitat and restrict species movement. Dams directly restrict or impede species movement, alter the flow of water, change the water temperature, and contribute to sedimentation (NYS DEC 2005, Zaidel et al. 2021).

Approximately 10% of introduced, non-native species could have an impact on the health of ecosystems (McCormick et al. 2009). Invasive plants tend to outcompete native plants and can change natural processes (NYS DEC 2005). There is an increased risk of runoff and erosion when these plants are along streams and rivers. Aquatic invasive plants and animals can alter the water chemistry, change the nutrient regime, or decrease the dissolved oxygen levels. Introduced fish can alter trophic relationships resulting in a change in native fish populations and decreased water quality (McCormick et al. 2009).

While modern day agricultural and silvicultural practices are an important aspect of the New York State economy, it is important to consider the effects on ecosystems and species. As these practices move closer to rivers, the natural riparian buffers are often removed. Riparian buffers maintain stream temperature and slow or prevent runoff of sediments from upland soil disturbances. Furthermore, they slow or reduce runoff from farm fields and pastures, such as contaminants from pesticides, fertilizers, manure, and sludge, into waterways (EPA 2005, NYS DEC 2005, Souza et al. 2020). Excessive fertilizer use can lead to algal blooms that can be deadly to aquatic life and overgrazing of livestock in fields could introduce pathogens, oxygen-demanding organics and solids, and invasive species to aquatic ecosystems (EPA 2005).

Climate change is another threat that is likely to have lasting effects on riverine systems. Irregular weather patterns can cause extreme drought, flooding, and temperature fluctuations. Heat waves are expected to be more intense (Frankson et al. 2022). The Northeast Region of the United States is expected to experience an increase in precipitation, more frequent storms, and higher than normal temperatures (EPA 2016, EPA 2022). Precipitation is expected to increase 10% to 15% in southern New York and 15 to 20% in northern New York by 2050 (Frankson et al. 2022). Extreme flooding can cause widespread erosion and runoff with added risk of contamination if flooding occurs at remediation sites, industrial sites, or wastewater treatment facilities (EPA 2016, EPA 2022). Temperature increases can significantly alter ecosystems. As water temperatures rise, the amount of dissolved oxygen decreases and evaporation increases potentially lowering lake and stream levels (EPA 2022). Any combination of these events could change species distributions (EPA 2022) and those that cannot adapt or migrate may be extirpated from some areas (NYS DEC 2005).

Conservation Strategies and Management Practices

Protect water quality and reduce contamination and hydrological alteration (such as agricultural or road runoff, shoreline development, and damming) (NYS DEC 2005). Protect stream quality by maintaining both a riparian buffer that includes herbaceous and/or woody vegetation along the shoreline, and a significant forested buffer. These buffers reduce sediment and contaminant runoff (EPA 2005, NYS DEC 2005, Souza et al. 2020), provide shade, regulate temperature, and provide organic matter to animals (Hughes and Vadas 2021). Riparian zones with herbaceous and woody vegetation have high “indicator scores” for macroinvertebrates and fishes (Hughes and Vadas 2021).
Remove barriers to maintain or restore natural flow to waterways. Where removal is not possible, research alternatives that allow flow above and below a barrier. In general, avoid stream crossings. If crossings are unavoidable, use Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize disturbance to streams. Time periods of disturbance when water flow is low or normal and install stream-crossing structures at a right angle to the stream (Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program 2018). Temporary methods to reduce runoff include water bars, gravel, geotextile fabric, rubber belt deflectors, open top culverts, strawbales, silt fencing, control blankets, and straw wattles (Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program 2018). Restore the disturbed area with native species as soon as possible. Areas that have been logged may also need ruts to be smoothed to reduce surface runoff (Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program 2018). Hughes and Vadas (2021) suggest that Best Management Practices may need to be applied to entire stream lengths and catchments to fully restore an aquatic ecosystem. If this is not possible, restore or manage a larger area around the directly disturbed area.
In general, tailor agricultural management plans to local conditions (e.g., soils, slope, land use). Often these plans aim to reduce pollution and increase farm productivity, but incentives could also be used to encourage sustainable farming practices. Proper management typically reduces runoff by 20-90% (EPA 2005). Consider using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an alternative to pesticide use. If pesticides and fertilizers are used, they should only be applied when needed, in the proper amount, and timed appropriately. In addition, rotate livestock to avoid overgrazing and to allow for vegetation regrowth. If needed, provide alternative water sources and shade to keep animals out of sensitive areas (EPA 2005).
Invasive species management can be time consuming and costly. Reduce the likelihood of non-native species being introduced into waterways. Boat-washing stations at boat launches can reduce transport of invasive plants and animals to new waterbodies. Educate anglers about the risk of releasing unused baitfish. If vulnerable species are present, consider a baitfish ban. Mechanical removal of some invasive plants may be needed in some rivers and streams. The use of pesticides to remove invasives can have a negative effect on ecosystems (McCormick et al. 2009) and should be a last resort to control invasive species.
Climate change is a global challenge. However, there are local actions that can help mitigate extreme weather events. Industrial and municipal infrastructure should be improved or replaced to be more resilient to flooding events (EPA 2016, NYS Comptroller 2023). Some suggested actions include installing or improving pumps to remove floodwater from facilities and installing protective structures, such as floodwalls. Ensure that existing bridges, dams, levees, seawalls, retaining walls, and wind barriers are prepared for extreme weather (NYS Comptroller 2023). Decrease runoff and erosion severity by installing large culverts, planting vegetation along riverbanks, and protecting and restoring wetlands (EPA 2016, NYS Comptroller 2023).

Research Needs

Little is known about the reproductive ecology of this species in the wild. Information on the Streamline Chub's dispersal capabilities, total population size, and connectivity with populations in Pennsylvania would help conservation planning.

Habitat

Habitat

Occurs in moderate-sized streams where it can be found in riffles, usually at lower end, and over bars in water 1-4 feet deep.

Associated Ecological Communities

• Confined river (guide)
  The aquatic community of relatively large, fast flowing sections of streams with a moderate to gentle gradient.

Associated Species

• Gravel Chub (Erimystax x-punctatus)
• Bluebreast Darter (Etheostoma camurum) (guide)
• Silver Chub (Macrhybopsis storeriana)

Range

New York State Distribution

The New York distribution of the Streamline Chub is limited to the extreme southwestern portion of the state in the Allegheny River and tributaries: Tunungwant Creek, Olean Creek, and Oswayo Creek (NYNHP 2023). Recent records from the Conewango Creek in Chautauqua County may represent recent dispersal from Pennsylvania following the removal of a civil war era dam in 2014 (Grasher 2023).

Global Distribution

This species is endemic to the United States. Range includes the Ohio River basin from western New York to northern Indiana, and south to northern Alabama. There is one record for Lake Erie in Ohio (Page and Burr 2011).

Best Places to See

• Allegheny River (Cattaraugus County)

Identification Comments

General Description

A silvery minnow with a subterminal mouth, long slender body, and 7-15 dark blotches along the side. The the dorsum can be greenish-olive (Smith 1985) and it also has a pale spot (white to gold) in front of and behind the dorsal fin (Page and Burr 1991).

Identifying Characteristics

The Streamline Chub is a long, slender fish up to 5.5" long with a silvery appearance. Members of Erimystax are deepest at the nape (top of head before dorsal fin), and flattened below. They have a well-developed barbel at the end of the subterminal mouth, a complete lateral line, and 7 anal rays (Page and Burr 1991). The Streamline Chub has 7-15 rounded or oblong blotches along with a white to gold spot at the front and back of the dorsal fin (Page and Burr 1991). The scales are darkly outlined with a series of dark dashes along the dorsum and there are often dark specks on the back and upper side and a gray lateral band (Page and Burr 1991). The caudal fin is moderately forked with blunted lobes (Smith 1985). Morphometrics of New York specimens provided in Smith (1985).

Characters Most Useful for Identification

While both the Streamline Chub and the closely related and similar-looking Gravel Chub (Erimystax x-punctata) have X or W shaped specks on the upper sides above the lateral line, only the Streamline Chub has a lateral row of dark blotches (Smith 1985). Specimens lacking lateral blotches occur in Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993), but it is unclear if this is also the case in New York.

Best Life Stage for Proper Identification

Adult fish are easiest to identify.

Behavior

Little is known about the behavior of the Streamline Chub but it is thought to be a fast-swimming sight hunter. Larvae are apparently benthic (Shute and Rakes 2001). In Pennsylvanian, the Streamline Chub spends more time in deeper water during the day, moving to faster, shallow riffles at night (Stauffer et al. 2016 as cited in Grasso 2023).

Diet

This species feeds on aquatic insect larvae midges, mayflies, caddisflies, etc) and periphyton (the mixture of algae and bacteria that grows on submerged surfaces) (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Best Time to See

It is thought that this species spans in May and June in New York (Smith 1985). In Tennessee, spawning occurs in April and May and thought to be triggered by high stream discharge when water temperatures approach 60°F (15°C) (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Similar Species

• Gravel Chub (Erimystax x-punctatus)
  While both the Streamline Chub and the closely related and similar-looking Gravel Chub (Erimystax x-punctata) have X or W shaped specks on the upper sides above the lateral line, only the Streamline Chub has a lateral row of dark blotches (Smith 1985).
• Bigeye Chub (Hybopsis amblops)
  The Bigeye Chub (Hybopsis amblops lacks lateral blotches and X-shaped marks on the upper side which are present on the Streamline Chub (Smith 1985).
• Silver Chub (Macrhybopsis storeriana)
  Like the Bigeye Chub, Silver Chubs (Machybopsis storeriana also lack lateral blotches and X-shaped marks on the upper side that are present in Streamline Chubs (Smith 1985).

Streamline Chub Images

Taxonomy

Streamline Chub
Erimystax dissimilis (Kirtland, 1841)

• Kingdom Animalia
  • Phylum Craniata
    • Class Actinopterygii (Ray-finned Fishes)
      • Order Cypriniformes (Minnows and Suckers)
        • Family Cyprinidae (minnows and carps)

Additional Resources

References

Carlson, Douglas M., Robert A. Daniels, and Jeremy J. Wright. 2016. Atlas of Inland Fishes of New York. New York State Museum Record 7. The New York State Education Department and Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, New York.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Protecting water quality from agricultural runoff. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/ag_runoff_fact_sheet.pdf.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Adapting to climate change northeast. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-07/documents/northeast_fact_sheet.pdf.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. Region 2 climate adaptation implementation plan. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/bh508-R02%20Climate%20Adaptation%20Implementation%20Plan%209.19.2022%20HQ%20OP%20Copy.pdf

Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes, 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.

Frankson, R., Kunkel, K.E., Champion, S.M., Stewart, B.C., Sweet, W, DeGaetano, A.T., & Spaccio, J. (2022). New York State Climate Summary 2022. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information. https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/ny/

Grasso, Kyle. 2023. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation species status assessment for Streamline Chub (updated January 2023).

Hughes, Robert M., and Robert L. Vadas Jr. 2021. Agricultural Effects on Streams and Rivers: A Western USA Focus. Water 13, no. 14: 1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141901

Mahar, Amy and Jenny Landry. 2013. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation species status assessment for Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater).

Mayden, R. L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publication (80):1-189.

McCormick, Frank H., Glen C. Contreras, and Sherri L. Johnson. 2009. "Effects of nonindigenous invasive species on water quality and quantity." A dynamic invasive species research vision: opportunities and priorities 29 (2009): 111-120.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2024. New York Natural Heritage Program Databases. Albany, NY.

New York State Comptroller. 2023. New York's local governments adapting to climate change: challenges, solutions, and costs. https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/local-government/publications/pdf/climate-change-2023.pdf

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005. A strategy for conserving New York's fish and wildlife resources. Final submission draft.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2023. NYS DEC Rare fishes shapefile 1850 to 2022 (updated August 9. 2023).

Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

Shute, J.R. and Rakes, P.L. 2011. Captive propagation of chubs of the genus Erimystax. American Currents 27:4.

Smith, C.L. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 522pp.

Souza, Francine N., Rodolfo Mariano, Tassio Moreia, and Sofia Campiolo. 2020. Influence of the landscape in different scales on the EPT community (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) in the Atlantic Forest region. Environmental monitoring and assessment 129: 391-391.

Strayer, David L., J.A. Dowling, W.R. Haag, T.L. King, J.B. Layzer, T.J. Newton and S.J. Nichols. 2004. Changing perspectives on Pearly Mussels, North America's most Imperiled Animals. BioScience 54:429-439.

Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program. 2018. New York State forestry voluntary best management practices for water quality. http://nysbmpguidelines.com/. Accessed on June 20, 2023.

Zaidel, Peter A., A. H. Roy, K. M. Houle, B. Lambert, B. H. Letcher, K. H. Nislow, C. Smith. 2021. Impacts of small dams on stream temperature. Ecological indicators 120:6-11.

Links

• Conservation Fisheries: Streamline Chub
• Fishbase: Streamline Chub
• Natureserve Explorer: Streamline Chub
• NYS DEC Fact Sheet: Streamline Chub

About This Guide

This guide was authored by: John Vanek

Information for this guide was last updated on: September 27, 2023

Please cite this page as:
New York Natural Heritage Program. 2024. Online Conservation Guide for Erimystax dissimilis. Available from: https://guides.nynhp.org/streamline-chub/. Accessed April 27, 2024.