ArticlePDF Available

A Reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ Years of Increased Awareness

Authors:

Abstract

The American Fisheries Society Endangered Species Committee herein provides a list of all crayfishes (families Astacidae and Cambaridae) in the United States and Canada that includes common names; state and provincial distributions; a comprehensive review of the conservation status of all taxa; and references on biology, conservation, and distribution. The list includes 363 native crayfishes, of which 2 (< 1%) taxa are listed as Endangered, Possibly Extinct, 66 (18.2%) are Endangered, 52 (14.3%) are Threatened, 54 (14.9%) are Vulnerable, and 189 (52.1%) are Currently Stable. Limited natural range continues to be the primary factor responsible for the noted impediment of crayfishes; other threats include the introduction of nonindigenous crayfishes and habitat alteration. While progress has been made in recognizing the plight of crayfishes, much work is still needed.
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 365
Fisheries
American Fisheries Society www.sheries.org
Fish News
Legislative Update
Journal Highlights
Calendar
Job Center
Fisheries
Conservation Status
of Craysh Species
Paddlesh
Conservation
Case Study
VOL 32 NO 8
AUGUST 2007
372 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
A Reassessment of the Conservation Status of
Crayfishes of the United States and Canada
after 10+ Years of Increased Awareness
ABSTRACT: The American Fisheries Society Endangered Species Committee herein
provides a list of all crayfishes (families Astacidae and Cambaridae) in the United
States and Canada that includes common names; state and provincial distributions; a
comprehensive review of the conservation status of all taxa; and references on biology,
conservation, and distribution. The list includes 363 native crayfishes, of which 2
(< 1%) taxa are listed as Endangered, Possibly Extinct, 66 (18.2%) are Endangered,
52 (14.3%) are Threatened, 54 (14.9%) are Vulnerable, and 189 (52.1%) are
Currently Stable. Limited natural range continues to be the primary factor responsible
for the noted imperilment of crayfishes; other threats include the introduction of
nonindigenous crayfishes and habitat alteration. While progress has been made in
recognizing the plight of crayfishes, much work is still needed.
FEATURE:
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Una revaluación del estado de
conservación de langostinos en los
Estados Unidos y Canadá después de
más de 10 años de conciencia creciente
RESUMEN:. En el presente trabajo, El Comité para el Estudio de Especies
Amenazadas de la Sociedad Americana de Pesquerías presenta una lista de todos
los langostinos (familias Astacidae y Cambaridae) presentes en los Estados Unidos
y Canadá, que incluye nombres comunes, distribución estatal y municipal, una
revisión del estado de conservación de todos los taxa y referencias sobre su biología,
conservación y distribución. La lista incluye 363 langostinos autóctonos, de los
cuales dos taxa (< 1%) se catalogan como amenazados, posiblemente extintos; 66
(18.2%) se consideran en peligro; 52 (14.3%) están amenazados; 54 (14.9%) son
vulnerables; y 189 (52.1%) se encuentran actualmente en condición estable. El
principal factor responsable de la vulnerabilidad de los langostinos es su limitado
rango natural de distribución; otras amenazas incluyen la introducción de especies
foráneas de langostinos y la alteración del hábitat. Si bien se ha progresado en
cuanto al reconocimiento de las amenazas hacia los langostinos, aún existe mucho
trabajo por hacer.
Christopher A. Taylor,
Guenter A. Schuster,
John E. Cooper,
Robert J. DiStefano,
Arnold G. Eversole,
Premek Hamr,
Horton H. Hobbs III,
Henry W. Robison,
Christopher E. Skelton,
and Roger F. Thoma
Taylor is a research scientist at the
Illinois Natural History Survey,
Division of Biodiversity and Ecological
Entomology, Champaign, and can
be contacted at ctaylor@mail.inhs.
uiuc.edu. Schuster is a professor of
biological sciences at Eastern Kentucky
University, Richmond, and can be
contacted at Guenter.Schuster@eku.
edu. Cooper is curator of crustaceans
at the North Carolina Museum of
Natural Sciences, Raleigh. DiStefano
is a resource scientist with the Missouri
Department of Conservation, Columbia.
Eversole is a professor of forestry and
natural resources at Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina. Hamr is
an environmental science teacher
at Upper Canada College, Toronto,
Ontario. Hobbs III is a professor of
biology at Wittenberg University,
Department of Biology, Springfield,
Ohio. Robison is a professor of biology
at Southern Arkansas University,
Department of Biology, Magnolia.
Skelton is an assistant professor of
biological and environmental sciences
at Georgia College and State University,
Milledgeville. Thoma is a senior research
scientist with Midwest Biodiversity
Institute, Columbus, Ohio and an
adjunct assistant professor at The Ohio
State University Museum of Biological
Diversity, Columbus.
The Short Mountain crayfish (Cambarus
clivosus) a narrowly endemic species found
only in central Tennessee and ranked as
Threatened.
Photo by R. Thoma.
Cambarus cymatilis, a burrowing species
ranked as Endangered by the AFS Endangered
Species Crayfish Subcommittee.
Photo by C. Lukhaup.
The greensaddle crayfish (Cambarus manningi)
is a Currently Stable species found in rocky
creeks of the Coosa River drainage.
Photo by C. Lukhaup.
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 373
intrOduCtiOn
The term biodiversity has become inti-
mately intertwined with the conservation
movement of the last quarter-century, and
in North America no serious discussion of
biodiversity and conservation can neglect
the status of that continent’s freshwater
fauna. The presence of a highly diverse
aquatic fauna in a densely populated, eco-
nomically developed country such as the
United States demands the continued
attention of scholars, resource managers
and biologists, politicians, and private con-
servation groups. Current biological infor-
mation for species and species groups at risk
is crucial to making sound decisions on all
conservation fronts.
The plight of North American aquatic
biodiversity, particularly invertebrate bio-
diversity, was brought to the forefront with
the compilation of Natural Heritage / The
Nature Conservancy Global (G) conserva-
tion status ranks for that continents fauna
by Master (1990). Master (1990) found a
disproportionate number of aquatic organ-
isms in need of conservation attention
when compared to their terrestrial coun-
terparts. Since then a steady stream of lit-
erature has highlighted the need for action
and identified threats to the aquatic fauna
(e.g., Allan and Flecker 1993; Richter et
al. 1997; DeWalt et al. 2005). Through
the American Fisheries Society (AFS)
Endangered Species Committee and oth-
ers, the conservation status of North
America’s freshwater fish fauna has been
assessed at regular intervals (Deacon et al.
1979; Williams et al. 1989; Warren et al.
2000) while that of other aquatic taxa such
as freshwater mussels (Williams et al. 1993)
and crayfishes (Taylor et al. 1996) have only
recently received their first conservation
reviews. With the passing of a decade since
the first, and last, conservation review of
North American crayfishes, the purposes of
this article are to (1) reassess the conserva-
tion status and threats to native crayfishes
in the United States and Canada using
the best information available, (2) provide
updated state/provincial distributions, (3)
update the list of references on the biology,
conservation, and distribution of crayfishes
in the United States and Canada provided
in Taylor et al. (1996), and (4) assign stan-
dardized common names to those species
lacking them.
Crayfishes are placed in the order
Decapoda, which also includes crabs, lob-
sters, and shrimps. They are most closely
related to marine lobsters (Crandall et al.
2000) and differ from those organisms by
possessing direct juvenile development
rather than dimorphic larval stages. Also
known regionally as crawfish, mudbugs,
or crawdads, crayfishes are assigned to
three families and are native inhabitants
of freshwater ecosystems on every conti-
nent except Africa and Antarctica. Two
families, Astacidae and Cambaridae, occur
natively in North America and it is here
that crayfishes reach their highest level of
diversity. Approximately 77% (405 species
and subspecies) of the world’s 500+ species
occur in North America (Taylor 2002),
with the overwhelming majority of that
continent’s fauna (99%) assigned to the
family Cambaridae. With over two-thirds
of its species endemic to the southeastern
United States, the distribution of crayfish
diversity in North America closely follows
those observed in other freshwater aquatic
taxa such as fishes (Warren and Burr 1994
and mussels (Williams et al. 1993).
Crayfishes are important ecologically
as predators, bioprocessors of vegetation
and carrion, and as a critical food resource
for fishes and numerous other terrestrial
and aquatic organisms (Hobbs III 1993;
DiStefano 2005). In some aquatic habi-
tats they can comprise greater than 50%
of macroinvertebrate biomass (Momot
1995). They are equally important from
an economic standpoint, supporting
bait fisheries and a multi-million dollar
human food fishery (Huner 2002). Finally,
crayfishes in the family Cambaridae also
possess unique life-history traits such as
reproductive form alteration and burrow-
ing abilities that allow numerous species
to colonize seasonally wet and terrestrial
habitats (Hobbs 1981; Welch and Eversole
2006). Because the purpose of this article is
to report on the conservation status of the
North American fauna north of Mexico,
we refer readers interested in the economic
and ecological aspects of crayfish to previ-
ously published syntheses (Huner 1994;
Taylor et al. 1996; Holdich 2002).
ratiOnaLe and threatS
Taylor et al. (1996) pointed to the broad
disparity in the recognition of actual or
potential imperilment of crayfishes between
governmental agencies charged with pro-
tecting natural resources and non-profit
conservation organizations as a rationale
for their conservation assessment. At that
time, only four crayfish species (Pacifastacus
fortis, Cambarus aculabrum, Cambarus
zophonastes, and Orconectes shoupi) received
protection under the federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and 47 species
received varying levels of protection at the
state level. This was in stark contrast to the
197 species listed by Master (1990) as in
need of conservation attention. Taylor et
al. (1996) surmised that 48% of the U.S.
and Canadian crayfish fauna was imper-
iled. While some changes have been made
at the state level (see below), the number
Cambarus carolinus is a burrowing species
found along the margins of Appalachian
streams in North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.
Photo by A. Braswell.
The bottlebrush crayfish (Barbicambarus
cornutus) is currently stable and found in
the Green River drainage of Kentucky and
Tennessee.
Photo by G. Schuster.
Crayfishes have historically been classified
as opportunistic omnivores; however, our
expanding knowledge of crayfish ecology
indicates that they may be primary carnivores
in some streams.
Photo by C. Lukhaup.
374 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
and identity of species listed under the ESA
remains unchanged. This continuing dis-
parity serves as the underlying justification
for the current reassessment.
The causes of aquatic species losses and
population declines have been thoroughly
discussed in the literature and are usually
ascribed to four major categories: (1) loss,
degradation, or alteration of habitat; (2)
chemical pollution; (3) introduction of
nonindigenous organisms; and (4) overex-
ploitation (Allan and Flecker 1993; Richter
et al. 1997; Wilcove et al. 2000). For cray-
fishes, most of these threats are applicable.
As benthic invertebrates susceptible to fish
predation, the impoundment of lotic habi-
tat can affect crayfishes by increasing con-
centrations of major crayfish predators such
as centrarchid bass and sunfish and altering
both the physical and chemical structure
of streams (Williams et al. 1993). Crayfish
depend on gravel and boulder substrates,
woody debris, and vegetation for refuge
from predators (Stein 1977). Loss of such
habitat components through dredging and
channelization can drastically affect crayfish
populations by making them more suscepti-
ble to predation. Finally, draining wetlands
and dewatering of springs can have obvious
impacts on crayfishes dependent on those
types of habitats. The possible extinction
of Cambarellus alvarezi after the removal of
spring water from its only known location
in northern Mexico (Contreras-Balderas
and Lozano-Vilano 1996) serves as a prime
example of the negative consequences of
the latter type of habitat alteration.
Crustacea are known to be among the
most sensitive aquatic organisms when
exposed to pesticides and metals (Mayer
and Ellersieck 1986, Jarvinen and Ankley
1999). While acute toxicity tests (usu-
ally expressed as LC50 values) have been
performed using many crayfish species and
toxicants (Eversole and Seller 1996), field
studies examining the effects of chemical
or heavy metal pollutants on crayfishes are
lacking. The available data suggest signifi-
cant variability among genera, species, and
life stages (Berrill et al. 1985; NCDENR
2003, Peake et al. 2004, Wigginton and
Birge 2007). Recently Wigginton and Birge
(2007) reported higher mortality rates for
juvenile than adult crayfishes exposed
to cadmium, which they attributed to
increased cadmium uptake and calcium
metabolic disruption in the more rapidly
molting juveniles. Besser et al. (2006)
found evidence for heavy metal accumu-
lation, including cadmium, in crayfishes
found near mining sites while Allert et al.
(in press) noted increased sensitivity in
at least one species to these same metals.
These observations indicate that crayfish
may prove to be indicators of habitat deg-
radation from pollutants and that future
research is warranted.
The introduction of nonindigenous
organisms may represent the gravest of all
threats to this planet's biodiversity (Clavero
and García-Berthou 2005) and crayfish
could represent the proverbial posterchild
of the damage wrought by these species
(Lodge et al. 2000). In North America cray-
fishes are transported easily over land and
inadvertently introduced into aquatic habi-
tats when they are discarded as unused bait.
Such bait-bucket introductions have led to
dramatic range extensions of several species,
most notably the rusty crayfish (Orconectes
rusticus). The rusty crayfish is native to
the lower Ohio River drainage in Ohio,
Indiana, and Kentucky and the Maumee
River drainage in extreme southeastern
Michigan. Over the past 50 years the species
has been introduced across the upper mid-
western United States and Canada (Page
1985; Lodge et al. 2000). Once introduced,
O. rusticus rapidly expands its range and dis-
places native crayfishes (Taylor and Redmer
1996). This behavior has led to the com-
plete elimination of local populations and
reductions in total ranges of native species
in at least three midwestern states and one
Canadian province (Lodge et al. 2000; C.
A. Taylor, unpub. data). Possible displace-
ment mechanisms include faster individual
growth rates (Hill et al. 1993), differential
susceptibility to fish predation (DiDonato
and Lodge 1993), and hybridization (Perry
et al. 2001). Imperiled crayfishes also have
been affected by nonindigenous species.
The federally endangered Shasta crayfish,
(Pacifastacus fortis) has been displaced in
large portions of its native range by the
nonindigenous signal crayfish (P. lenius-
culus; Erman et al. 1993). Nonindigenous
crayfishes can also serve as disease vectors.
The introduction of three North American
species, Procambarus clarkii, O. limosus,
and Pacifastacus leniusculus, into western
Europe has contributed to massive die-offs
of native crayfishes in that region. A fun-
gus-like protist, Aphanomyces astaci (Class
Oomycetes), causes a lethal disease known
as the “crayfish plague” in native European
species while North American species are
immune to its effects. By carrying spores
of A. astaci, North American species act
as a plague vector between water bodies.
Outbreaks of the crayfish plague have been
occurring in Europe since the introduction
of the North American species in the late
1880s (Ackefors 1999; Holdich 1999) and
have led to 85% or greater reductions in
native crayfish populations in several coun-
tries (Fjälling and Fürst 1988; Ackefors
1999; Holdich 1999).
While the introduction of nonindig-
enous crayfishes through their use as bait
continues to represent a significant threat
to crayfish biodiversity, the Internet revo-
Procambarus escambiensis is an endemic
species found in narrow region of the Gulf
Coastal Plain of Alabama and Florida.
Photo by G. Schuster.
Numerous species of crayfishes spend all or a
significant portion of their lives in subterranean
burrows. Basic ecological information can be
very hard to collect for these species.
Photo by C. Lukhaup.
The eastern red swamp crayfish, Procambarus
troglodytes, is a Currently Stable species found
on the Atlantic Slope of Georgia and South
Carolina.
Photo by C. Lukhaup.
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 375
lution of the past 10 years has spawned an
equally disconcerting vector. Conservation
biologists have for years warned of the risk
posed from the release/escape of pets. From
monk parakeets in Chicago (Kleen et al.
2004) to burmese pythons in the Florida
Everglades (McGrath 2005), established
populations of organisms kept as pets have
become an unwelcome component of the
North American fauna. Currently over
a half-dozen Internet businesses (www.
google.com search conducted 03/23/07)
and numerous individuals on the Internet
auction site eBa (www.ebay.com) offer
for sale dozens of live crayfish species from
North America and around the world.
While the aquarium pet trade has been
around for more than half a century, cray-
fishes are a recent arrival to the aquarium
marketplace. The ease of 24-hour shopping
and overnight delivery to anywhere in the
world facilitated by the Internet has dra-
matically increased the potential for acci-
dental introductions of crayfishes.
While no known cases of overexploita-
tion of crayfish have been documented in
North America, it has been cited as a con-
tributing factor in the decline of at least one
Australian crayfish species. The Tasmanian
crayfish (Astacopsis gouldi) can reach sizes
in excess of 0.8 meters in length (> 5 kg
in weight), and its meat is valued by local
inhabitants. The species has experienced
local extirpations and population declines
throughout a significant portion of its range,
and over-harvesting has been implicated as
a contributing factor (Horwitz 1994). We
acknowledge that overexploitation is not
an imminent threat to United States and
Canadian crayfish populations; however,
we believe that it is prudent to acknowl-
edge this potential threat and be proactive
in future crayfish fishery decisions.
The above-listed threats are not unique
to crayfishes; however, they are compounded
by a single overarching factor—limited nat-
ural ranges (Taylor et al. 1996). Crayfishes
show a level of endemism not seen in other
aquatic groups. Approximately 43% of the
U.S. crayfish fauna is distributed entirely
within one state’s political boundaries, com-
pared to 16% for freshwater fishes and 15%
for unionid mussels (Lodge et al. 2000). In
their first conservation assessment, Taylor et
al. (1996) documented 11 crayfish species
known from single localities and another
20 known from 5 or fewer localities. While
taxa with restricted natural ranges are par-
ticularly vulnerable to habitat destruction
or degradation, the known displacement
abilities of nonindigenous crayfishes when
coupled with a high level of endemism rep-
resent a threat of unequalled severity.
prOgreSS and ChangeS
The conservation status of 30 taxa has
changed since the previous assessment
(Taylor et al. 1996). These changes have
been facilitated by an increased awareness
of crayfishes (Butler et al. 2003) and a sub-
sequent increase in field efforts undertaken
by federal (e.g.; Simon and Thoma 2003),
state (e.g.; Thoma and Jezerinac 2000;
Westhoff et al. 2006), and academic (e.g.;
Ratcliffe and DeVries 2004; Taylor and
Schuster 2004) personnel. These efforts
have provided new distributional records
that led to downgrading 25 taxa by at least
one conservation category. Simultaneously,
these efforts documented the introduction
of nonindigenous species into the ranges of
narrow endemics (Flinders and Magoulick
2005) and the subsequent reductions in
range sizes, leading to the upgrading of four
taxa. Promising signs of increased aware-
ness are the proposed changes in bait regu-
lations by several states in an attempt to
thwart the spread of nonindigenous cray-
fishes, as well as an increase in the num-
ber of crayfishes listed by state agencies as
endangered, threatened, or vulnerable/spe-
cial concern. Virginia now bans the sale of
crayfish as bait while Missouri has followed
the lead of other states and recently created
a prohibited species list for use by bait deal-
ers which includes several nonindigenous
crayfishes (B. Watson, VA Dept. Game and
Inland Fisheries, pers. com.; B. DiStefano,
pers. com.). Since 1996 at least two new
states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina,
have added the rusty crayfish to their lists of
banned species (www.fish.state.pa.us/news-
releases/2005/rusty_cray.htm; NCWRC
2006). North Carolina also banned the
transport, purchase, and possession of the
nonindigenous virile crayfish (O. virilis).
While the level of protection afforded to
species listed at the state level ranges from
bans on taking to token lists for future
research efforts, it is noteworthy that the
number of species listed at some level has
increased from 47 to 66 since 1996. Finally,
seven states (Arkansas, Missouri, New
Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia) now have at least one
field biologist in their respective natural
resource agencies whose position requires
them, at least on a part time basis, to moni-
tor and assess crayfish populations. Taken
together, these regulatory actions and field
efforts can be interpreted as nothing less
than progress in the domain of crayfish con-
servation. However, the majority of states
with highly diverse crayfish faunas and high
levels of endemism lack any protective
measures and adequate funding structures
to ascertain the statuses of their respective
faunas.
While little research is being conducted
in Canada at present, its crayfish fauna was
Members of the genus Fallicambarus, such as
the burrowing bog crayfish (F. burrisi) here, are
all burrowing species.
Photo by G. Schuster.
Due to their restricted ranges, specialized
habitats, and the development of groundwater
recharge areas, many obligate cave dwelling
crayfish species such as the Orlando cave
crayfish (Procambarus acherontis) are listed as
Endangered.
Photo by D. McShaffrey.
Meek’s crayfish (Orconectes meeki meeki)
is a common inhabitant of Ozark streams in
Missouri and Arkansas.
Photo by C. Taylor.
376 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
reviewed by Hamr (1998, 2003). This work
resulted in new provincial records for sev-
eral species. Most recently, the Framework
for Conservation of Species at Risk in
Canada (a federal and provincial initiative)
has classified the status of Canadian cray-
fish species based on existing information
(www.wildspecies.ca).
Taxonomic efforts since Taylor et al.
(1996) have resulted in the description
of 27 new crayfish species in the United
States. At slightly more than two new
species per year, these efforts clearly dem-
onstrate that undiscovered biodiversity
continues to exist in North America. Using
the best available information, 21 of these
27 species are recognized as requiring con-
servation attention in the following analy-
sis. Clearly, more field efforts will yield new
discoveries and improve the basis for future
conservation assessments.
methOdS and deFinitiOnS
Our review of the conservation status of
crayfishes includes all species and subspe-
cies from the United States and Canada
as recognized by Taylor et al. (1996) with
minor exceptions. Cambarus laevis and C.
ornatus are not recognized following Taylor
(1997), Procambarus ferrugineus is not rec-
ognized following Robison and Crandall
(2005), and Cambarus bartonii carinirostris
is recognized as C. carinirostris following
Thoma and Jezerinac (1999). Twenty-seven
taxa are also included that were described
subsequent to Taylor et al. (1996). Both
scientific and common names are given for
each taxon (Appendix 1). Common names
were taken from McLaughlin et al. (2005)
and other peer-reviewed literature, includ-
ing original species descriptions, and were
available for approximately 50% of cray-
fish taxa; those taxa that lacked common
names were assigned one after soliciting
input from all authors and active species
authorities. In most cases, we looked at the
original descriptions to try to find a name
that fit the spirit of what the author was
trying to convey with the specific epithet.
In other cases we simply used the English
translation of the specific epithet. In deter-
mining conservation status and distribu-
tion, a variety of sources was used including
state and federal endangered species lists,
government agency reports and websites,
research publications, and books. In addi-
tion, the observations and field experiences
of the authors, reviewers, and other biolo-
gists working with crayfishes were actively
solicited and incorporated.
The American Fisheries Society
Endangered Species Committee,
Subcommittee on Crayfishes has reviewed
the best available distributional and status
information and is responsible for the result-
ing conclusions. The assigned conservation
category is based on the status of the taxon
throughout its range without consider-
ation of political boundaries (Appendix 1).
Restricted range was the primary criterion
for assignment of endangered or threatened
status. Other threats, such as introductions
of nonindigenous crayfishes, unique habitat
requirements, and proximity to metropoli-
tan areas, were taken into account in cat-
egory assignments, but known range and
consequent rarity were uppermost in apply-
ing category definitions. Conservation sta-
tus categories generally follow Williams et
al. (1993) and are defined as: Endangered
(e)—a species or subspecies in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range—an asterisk (*) follow-
ing the letter eindicates the taxon is pos-
sibly extinct; Threatened (t)—a species
or subspecies likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of its
range; Vulnerable (V)—a species or subspe-
cies that may become endangered or threat-
ened by relatively minor disturbances to its
habitat and deserves careful monitoring of
its abundance and distribution; Currently
Stable (CS)—a species or subspecies whose
distribution is widespread and stable and
is not in need of immediate conservation
management actions. Following Warren
et al. (2000), the category of Vulnerable
replaces the category of Special Concern
used by Taylor et al. (1996) and Williams et
al. (1993). In addition, criteria responsible
for designating species as E, T, or V are noted
(Appendix 1). These criteria have been
formulated by the AFS Endangered Species
Committee as: (1) existing or potential
destruction, modification, or reduction of
a species’ habitat or range; (2) over-utiliza-
tion for commercial, sporting, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease; (4) other
natural or anthropogenic factors affecting a
species’ continued existence (e.g., hybrid-
ization, introduction of nonindigenous or
transplanted species, predation, competi-
tion); and (5) restricted range (Deacon et
al. 1979; Williams et al. 1989).
To allow state natural heritage programs
across the United States to make compari-
sons between AFS Crayfish Subcommittee
ranks and heritage ranks, we have also
included the conservation ranks for each
taxon following the system developed
over the past 25 years by The Nature
Conservancy/NatureServe and the Network
of Natural Heritage Programs (Master
1991; Appendix 1). This system ranks taxa
on a 1 to 5 (1 being the rarest) scale based
on best available information and consid-
ers a variety of factors including abundance,
distribution, population trends, and threats
(www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.
htm). Since our assessments are based on
the statuses of crayfishes across their entire
The St. Francis River crayfish, Orconectes
quadruncus is a species classified as Threatened
due to its narrow range and the establishment
of nonindigenous species near its range.
Photo by C. Lukhaup.
Over 50% of crayfish species are classified
as Currently Stable. The golden crayfish,
Orconectes luteus is one of those.
Photo by C. Lukhaup.
The Barren River crayfish, Orconectes
barrenensis, is a species that occurs under
gravel and cobble in creeks and rivers in
the Barren River drainage of Kentucky and
Tennessee.
Photo by C. Taylor.
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 377
native ranges, we use the G or Global scale
for conservation status rankings. Categories
follow Master (1991) and are defined as
follows: G1 = critically imperiled, G2 =
imperiled, G3 = vulnerable to extirpation
or extinction, G4 = apparently secure, G5
= demonstrably widespread, abundant, and
secure, GH = possibly extinct, known only
from historical collections, and GX = pre-
sumed extinct.
LiSt OF taXa (appendiX 1)
The list of crayfish species and subspe-
cies is arranged alphabetically by genus
and by species and subspecies within the
genus. Following the scientific name and
author(s), the common name is followed by
assigned conservation status using a letter
code: e = Endangered; e* = Endangered,
Possibly Extinct; t = Threatened; V
= Vulnerable; CS = Currently Stable.
Criteria used to determine conserva-
tion statuses are indicated by numerals 1
through 5 and correspond to those defined
in Methods. Global Heritage ranks (see
Methods) immediately follow listing cri-
teria. A dagger denotes a species complex
currently under taxonomic investigation.
Finally, the distribution of each taxon is
indicated by an alphabetical listing of U. S.
states and Canadian provinces where that
taxon occurs. Parentheses around states
indicate known or suspected introduc-
tions. Standard two-letter abbreviations
for states and provinces follow Williams et
al. (1989).
SummarY and COnCLuSiOnS
The list of crayfishes of the United
States and Canada includes 363 taxa.
Possibly Extinct, Endangered, Threatened,
or Vulnerable statuses are recognized for
174 taxa (47.9%). Of these, 2 (< 1%)
are possibly Extinct, 66 (18.2%) are
Endangered, 52 (14.3%) are Threatened,
and 54 (14.9%) are Vulnerable. Taxa clas-
sified as currently stable total 189 (52.1%).
The number of imperiled crayfishes (48%)
parallels the high levels of imperilment of
fishes and freshwater mussels, almost 33%
and 72%, respectively (Williams et al.
1989; Williams et al. 1993; Warren and
Burr 1994). These assessments support the
contention that aquatic diversity in North
America is in far worse condition than
its terrestrial counterpart (Master 1990,
Master et al. 2000).
For some crayfishes, limited natural
range (e.g., one locality or one drain-
age system) precipitates recognition as
Endangered or Threatened; but for many
others, status assignments continue to be
hampered by a paucity of recent distribu-
tional information. While progress has
been made in this arena, basic ecological
and current distributional information are
lacking for 60% of the U.S. and Canadian
fauna. In addition, threats highlighted
by Taylor et al. (1996) such as habitat
loss and the introduction of nonindig-
enous crayfishes continue to persist and
are greatly magnified by the limited dis-
tributions of many species. The threat of
nonindigenous species has even increased
(Lodge et al. 2000; Flinders and Magoulick
2005) due to actual introductions and
emerging conduits for potential introduc-
tions. As stated by Taylor et al. (1996),
lack of recent species-specific information,
whether distributional or biological, does
not warrant neglect by resource agencies.
Recognition of the potential for rapid dec-
imation of crayfish species, especially those
with limited ranges, should provide impe-
tus for proactive efforts toward conserva-
tion as espoused by the American Fisheries
Society (Angermeier and Williams 1994).
In publishing this list, the American
Fisheries Society Endangered Species
Committee summarizes for fisheries pro-
fessionals, natural resource agencies,
university researchers, conservation orga-
nizations, lawmakers, and citizens, the
conservation status of crayfishes in the
United States and Canada. The results
of this reassessment provide some signs of
improvement in the recognition of crayfish
conservation. Because the number of cray-
fish taxa in need of conservation attention
has changed little, suggested actions for
natural resource personnel mirror those
proposed by Taylor et al. (1996). These
include, but are not limited to: (1) criti-
cally examine the findings of this reassess-
ment and bring to our attention additional
information; (2) use the list as a planning
and prioritization tool for conducting
recovery efforts, status surveys, and bio-
logical research on imperiled crayfishes;
(3) support graduate research and training
in the distribution, taxonomy, and ecol-
ogy of crayfishes; (4) propagate education
of citizens; and (5) recognize the plight of
aquatic resources and act accordingly and
proactively.
additiOnaL inFOrmatiOn
We provide this section to aid the
reader in accessing additional informa-
tion on crayfishes of the United States
and Canada. The papers and Internet
resources, organized alphabetically by state,
are primarily taxonomic or distributional
in nature but also cover topics associated
with a variety of aspects of the biology of
crayfishes. Additional crayfish information
can also be found by following links found
on some of the websites listed below.
The digger crayfish (Fallicambarus fodiens) is
one of the most widespread crayfish species in
North America. It occurs from Ontario, Canada
to Texas.
Photo by C. Taylor.
While generally inhabiting lentic habitats, a
few members of the genus Procambarus, such
as P. lophotus shown here, can occur in high
gradient streams.
Photo by G. Schuster.
The signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus
leniusculus) is a widespread species found
in the Pacific Northwest and is harvested for
human consumption in parts of its range.
Photo by C. Taylor.
378 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
ALABAMA
Bouchard, R. W. 1976. Crayfishes and
shrimps. Pages 13-20 in H. Boschung,
ed. Endangered and threatened plants
and animals of Alabama. Bulletin of the
Alabama Museum of Natural History 2.
Harris, S. C. 1990. Preliminary consider-
ations on rare and endangered inverte-
brates in Alabama. Journal of the Alabama
Academy of Science 61:64-92.
McGregor, S. W., T. E. Shepard, T. D.
Richardson, and J. F. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
1999. A survey of the primary tributar-
ies of the Alabama and lower Tombigbee
rivers for freshwater mussels, snails, and
crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama
Circular 196.
Ratcliffe, J. A., and D. R. DeVries. 2004.
The crayfishes (Crustacea: Decapoda) of
the Tallapoosa River drainage, Alabama.
Southeastern Naturalist 3:417-430.
Schuster, G. A., and C. A. Taylor. 2004.
Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: liter-
ature review and museum database review,
species list with abbreviated annota-
tions and proposed conservation statuses.
Illinois Natural History Survey, Center of
Biodiversity Technical Report 2004(12).
Online resources
Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. Crayfish in Alabama.
Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/
watchable-wildlife/what/inverts/crayfish/.
ARKANSAS
Bouchard, R. W., and H. W. Robison. 1980.
An inventory of the decapod crustaceans
(crayfishes and shrimps) of Arkansas with
a discussion of their habitats. Arkansas
Academy of Science Proceedings
34:22-30.
Hobbs Jr., H. H., and H. W. Robison.
1988. The crayfish subgenus Girardiella
(Decapoda: Cambaridae) in Arkansas,
with the descriptions of two new spe-
cies and a key to the members of the
gracilis group in the genus Procambarus.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 101:391-413.
_____. 1989. On the crayfish genus
Fallicambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in
Arkansas, with notes on the fodiens com-
plex and descriptions of two new species.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 102:651-697.
Williams, A. B. 1954. Speciation and distribu-
tion of the crayfishes of the Ozark Plateaus
and Ouachita Provinces. University of
Kansas Science Bulletin 36: 803-918.
Online resources
U.S. Forest Service. Available at: www.fs.fed.
us/r8/ouachita/natural-resources/crayfish/
ouachita_crayfish.shtml.
CALIFORNIA
Eng, L. L., and R. W. Daniels. 1982. Life his-
tory, distribution, and status of Pacifastacus
fortis (Decapoda: Astacidae). California
Fish and Game 68:197-212.
Riegel, J. A. 1959. The systematics and
distribution of crayfishes in California.
California Fish and Game 45:29-50.
COLORADO
Unger, P. A. 1978. The crayfishes (Crustacea:
Cambaridae) of Colorado. Natural History
Inventory of Colorado 3:1-19.
FLORIDA
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz, eds. 1994. Rare
and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. IV.
Invertebrates. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Franz, R., and S. E. Franz. 1990. A review of
the Florida crayfish fauna, with comments
on nomenclature, distribution, and con-
servation. Florida Scientist 53:286-296.
Hobbs Jr., H. H. 1942. The crayfishes of
Florida. University of Florida Publications,
Biological Science Series 3. Gainesville.
Hobbs, Jr., H. H., and H. H. Hobbs III.
1991. An illustrated key to the crayfishes
of Florida (based on first form males).
Florida Scientist 54:13-24.
GEORGIA
Hobbs Jr., H. H. 1981. The crayfishes of
Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 318.
ILLINOIS
Brown, P. L. 1955. The biology of the cray-
fishes of central and southeastern Illinois.
Doctoral dissertation. University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Herkert, J. R. (editor). 1992. Endangered
and threatened species of Illinois: status
and distribution. Vol. 2 - animals. Illinois
Endangered Species Protection Board,
Springfield.
Page, L. M. 1985. The crayfishes and shrimps
(Decapoda) of Illinois. Illinois Natural
History Survey Bulletin 33:335-448.
INDIANA
Eberly, W. R. 1955. Summary of the distri-
bution of Indiana crayfishes, including
new state and county records. Proceedings
of the Indiana Academy of Science
64:281-283.
Page, L. M., and G. B. Mottesi. 1995. The
distribution and status of the Indiana
crayfish, Orconectes indianensis, with
comments on the crayfishes of Indiana.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
Science 104:103-111.
Simon, T. P. 2001. Checklist of crayfishes and
freshwater shrimp (Decapoda) of Indiana.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
Science 110:104-110.
IOWA
Phillips, G. S. 1980. The decapod crustaceans
of Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy
of Science 87:81-95.
KANSAS
Ghedotti, M. J. 1998. An annotated list of
the crayfishes of Kansas with first records
of Orconectes macrus and Procambarus acu-
tus in Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas
Academy of Science 101:54-57.
Over 70, 000 metric tons of the red swamp
crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) are harvested
each year for human consumption.
Photo by C. Taylor.
Since 1996 several species such as the rusty
gravedigger (Cambarus miltus) have had their
conservation statuses downgraded due to
intensive field surveys.
Photo by G. Schuster.
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 379
Williams, A. B., and A. B. Leonard. 1952. The crayfishes of Kansas.
University of Kansas Science Bulletin 34:961-1012.
KENTUCKY
Burr, B. M., and H. H. Hobbs, Jr. 1984. Additions to the crayfish fauna
of Kentucky, with new locality records for Cambarellus shufeldtii.
Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 45:14-18.
Rhoades, R. 1944. The crayfishes of Kentucky, with notes on varia-
tion, distribution, and descriptions of new species and subspecies.
American Midland Naturalist 31:111-149.
Taylor, C. A., and G. A. Schuster. 2004. The crayfishes of Kentucky.
Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 28.
LOUISIANA
Penn, G. H. 1950. The genus Cambarellus in Louisiana (Decapoda,
Astacidae). American Midland Naturalist 44:421-426.
_____. 1952. The genus Orconectes in Louisiana (Decapoda, Astacidae).
American Midland Naturalist 47:743-748.
_____. 1956. The genus Procambarus in Louisiana (Decapoda,
Astacidae). American Midland Naturalist 56:406-422.
_____. 1959. An illustrated key to the crawfishes of Louisiana with a
summary of their distribution within the state. Tulane Studies in
Zoology 7:3-20.
Penn, G. H., and G. Marlow. 1959. The genus Cambarus in Louisiana.
American Midland Naturalist 61:191-203.
Walls, J. G., and J. B. Black. 1991. Distributional records for some
Louisiana crawfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the
Louisiana Academy of Science 54:23-29.
Walls, J. G., and S. Shively. 2003. A working checklist of Louisiana
crawfishes (Crustacea, Decapoda, Cambaridae). Louisiana Fauna
Project Special Report 3 (Level 2): 1-8, Bunkie.
MAINE
Martin, S. M. 1997. Crayfishes (Crustacea: Decapoda) of Maine.
Northeastern Naturalist 4:165-188.
MARYLAND
Meredith, W. G., and F. J. Schwartz. 1959. The crayfishes of
Maryland. Maryland Tidewater News 15:1-2.
_____. 1960. Maryland crayfishes. Maryland Department of Research
and Education, Educational Series 46.
MICHIGAN
Creaser, E. P. 1931. The Michigan decapod crustaceans. Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 13:257-276.
MINNESOTA
Helgen, J. C. 1990. The distribution of crayfishes (Decapoda,
Cambaridae) of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Investigational Report 405.
MISSISSIPPI
Fitzpatrick Jr., J. F. 2002. The conservation status of Mississippi
crawfishes. Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Science
63:25-36.
MISSOURI
Pflieger, W. L. 1996. The crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department
of Conservation, Jefferson City.
Williams, A. B. 1954. Speciation and distribution of the crayfishes of
the Ozark Plateaus and Ouachita Provinces. University of Kansas
Science Bulletin 36: 803-918.
NEBRASKA
Engle, E. T. 1926. Crayfishes of the genus Cambarus in Nebraska and
eastern Colorado. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 42:87-104.
NEW JERSEY
Bouchard, R. W. 1982. The freshwater malacostracan crustaceans of
New Jersey. Pages 83-100 in W. J. Cromartie, editor. New Jersey’s
endangered and threatened plants and animals. Stockton State
College Center for Environmental Research, Pomona, New Jersey.
Francois, D. D. 1959. The crayfishes of New Jersey. Ohio Journal of
Science 59:108-127.
NEW YORK
Crocker, D. W. 1957. The crayfishes of New York State (Decapoda,
Astacidae). New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin
355.
Habitat alteration, such as stream channelization and
substrate removal can negatively impact crayfishes.
Channelization and high erosion rates at the
type-locality for the Yalobusha riverlet
crayfish (Hobbseus yalobushensis)
shown here may have contributed
to its extirpation at the site.
Photo by J. Fetzner.
380 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
NORTH CAROLINA
Cooper, J. E. 2002. North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae):
notes on distribution, taxonomy, life history, and habitat. Journal of
the North Carolina Academy of Science 118:167-180.
Cooper, J. E., and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Observations on North
Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Brimleyana
22:87-132.
Cooper, J. E., A. L. Braswell, and C. McGrath. 1998. Noteworthy
distributional records for crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in
North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society
114(1):1-10.
LeGrand Jr., H. E., S. P. Hall, S. E. McRae, and J. T. Finnegan.
2006. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Online resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The crayfishes
of North Carolina. Available at: www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_
WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/nc_crayfishes.html.
North Carolina Musuem of Natural Sciences. Available at: www.
naturalsciences.org/researach/inverts/cooper.html.
OHIO
Jezerinac, R. F. 1982. Life-history notes and distributions of crayfishes
(Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Chagrin River basin, northeast-
ern Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 82:181-192.
_____ 1986. Endangered and threatened crayfishes (Decapoda:
Cambaridae) of Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 86:177-180.
_____ 1991. The distribution of crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of
the Licking River watershed, eastcentral Ohio: 1972-1977. Ohio
Journal of Science 91:108-111.
Jezerinac, R. F., and R. F. Thoma. 1984. An illustrated key to the
Ohio Cambarus and Fallicambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) with
comments and a new subspecies record. Ohio Journal of Science
84:120-125.
Rhoades, R. 1944. Further studies on distribution and taxonomy of
Ohio crayfishes and the description of a new subspecies. Ohio
Journal of Science 44:95-99.
Thoma, R. F. and R. F. Jezerinac. 2000. Ohio crayfish and shrimp atlas.
Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution 7, Columbus.
Turner, C. L. 1926. The crayfishes of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey
Bulletin 13:144-195.
OKLAHOMA
Creaser, E. P., and A. I. Ortenburger. 1933. The decapod crusta-
ceans of Oklahoma. Publications of the University of Oklahoma
Biological Survey 5:14-47.
Dunlap Jr., P. M. 1951. Taxonomic characteristics of the decapod crus-
taceans of the subfamily Cambarinae in Oklahoma with descrip-
tions of two new species and two keys to species. Master’s thesis,
Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, Stillwater.
Jones, S. N., E. A. Bergey, and C. A. Taylor. 2005. Update to the
checklist of Oklahoma crayfishes. Proceedings of the Oklahoma
Academy of Science 85:43-46.
Reimer, R. D. 1969. A report on the crawfishes (Decapoda, Astacidae)
of Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science
48:49-65.
Taylor, C. A., S. N. Jones, and E. A. Bergey. 2004. The crayfishes
of Oklahoma revisited: new state records and checklist of species.
Southwestern Naturalist 49(2): 250-255.
OREGON
See Washington.
PENNSYLVANIA
Ortmann, A. E. 1906. The crawfishes of the state of Pennsylvania.
Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2:343-523.
Schwartz, F. J., and W. G. Meredith. 1960. Crayfishes of the Cheat
River watershed West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Part I. Species
and localities. Ohio Journal of Science 60:40-54.
Online resources
Nuttall, T. R. Pennsylvania crayfish reference collection. Available at:
www.lhup.edu/tnuttall/pennsylvania_crayfish_reference_.htm.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Eversole, A. G. 1995. Distribution of three rare crayfish species in
South Carolina. Freshwater Crayfish 8:113-120.
Eversole, A. G. and D. R. Jones. 2004. Key to the crayfishes of South
Carolina. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.
Hobbs III, H. H., J. H. Thorp, and G. E. Anderson. 1976. The
freshwater decapod crustaceans (Palaemonidae, Cambaridae) of
the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina. Unpublished report,
Savannah River Plant, National Environmental Research Park
Program.
Online resources
U.S. Forest Service. www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/forest/publications/Crayfish.
pdf.
TENNESSEE
Bouchard, R. W. 1972. A contribution to the knowledge of Tennessee
crayfish. Doctoral dissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Williams, C. E., and R. D. Bivens. 2001. Key to the crayfishes of
Tennessee, abstracted from H.H. Hobbs, Jr. (1976 sic), H.H. Hobbs,
Jr. (1981), and Bouchard (1978), and an annotated list of the
crayfishes of Tennessee. Unpublished report, Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, Talbott.
TEXAS
Albaugh, D. W., and J. B. Black. 1973. A new crawfish of the genus
Cambarellus from Texas, with new Texas distributional records
for the genus (Decapoda, Astacidae). Southwestern Naturalist
18:177-185.
Hobbs Jr., H. H. 1990. On the crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae)
of the Neches River basin of eastern Texas with the descriptions
of three new species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 103:573-597.
Penn, G. H., and H. H. Hobbs Jr. 1958. A contribution toward a
knowledge of the crawfishes of Texas (Decapoda, Astacidae). Texas
Journal of Science 10:452-483.
O.S. Systems, Inc.
Sonotronics, Inc.
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 381
UTAH
Johnson, J. E. 1986. Inventory of Utah crayfishes with notes on cur-
rent distribution. Great Basin Naturalist 46:625-631.
WASHINGTON
Miller, G. C. 1960. The taxonomy and certain biological aspects of the
crayfish of Oregon and Washington. Master’s thesis. Oregon State
College, Corvallis.
WEST VIRGINIA
Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The cray-
fishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia. Ohio Biological
Survey Bulletin New Series 10(1).
Lawton, S. M. 1979. A taxonomic and distributional study of the
crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia with diagnos-
tic keys to species of the genera Cambarus and Orconectes. Master’s
thesis. Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia.
Newcombe, C. L. 1929. The crayfishes of West Virginia. Ohio Journal
of Science 29:267-288.
Schwartz, F. J., and W. G. Meredith. 1960. Crayfishes of the Cheat
River watershed West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Part I. Species
and localities. Ohio Journal of Science 60:40-54.
WISCONSIN
Creaser, E. P. 1932. The decapod crustaceans of Wisconsin.
Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy Science, Arts, and Letters
27:321-338.
Hobbs III, H. H., and J. P. Jass. 1988. The crayfishes and shrimp of
Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
WYOMING
Hubert, W. A. 1988. Survey of Wyoming crayfishes. Great Basin
Naturalist 48:370-372.
CANADA
Bondar, C., Y. Zhang, J. S. Richardson, and D. Jesson. 2003. The
conservation status of freshwater crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus
in British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
Fisheries Management Report, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Crocker, D. W., and D. W. Barr. 1968. Handbook of the crayfishes
of Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario.
Guiasu, R. C., D. W. Barr, and D. W. Dunham. 1996. Distribution
and status of crayfishes of the genera Cambarus and Fallicambarus
(Decapoda: Cambaridae) in Onatario, Canada. Journal of
Crustacean Biology 16:373-383.
Hamr, P. 1998. Conservation status of Canadian freshwater cray-
fishes. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Ontario.
_____. 2003. Conservation status of burrowing crayfishes in Canada.
Report for the Endangered Species Unit, World Wildlife Fund
Canada. Upper Canada College Press, Toronto, Canada.
Taylor, R. M., P. Hamr, and A. Karstaad. 2005. Pages 222-317
in G. Winterton, ed. The comprehensive bait guide for eastern
Canada, the Great Lakes region and northeastern United States.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.
OTHER INTERNET RESOURCES
Fetzner Jr., J. W. 2007. Global crayfish resources at the Carnegie
Museum of Natural History. Available at: http://iz.carnegiemnh.
org/crayfish/.
Crandall, K.A., and J.W. Fetzner, Jr. 2007. Crayfish home page.
Available at: http://crayfish.byu.edu/.
Crayfish World. 2007. Available at: www.crayfishworld.com/science-
contents.htm.
International Association of Astacology. 2007. Home page.
Available at: http://147.72.68.29/crayfish/IAA/index.htm.
National General Status Working Group. 2007. Wild species: general
status of species in Canada. Available at: www.wildspecies.ca.
382 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
Appendix 1.
Species Common name AFS Listing Heritage Known distribution
status criteria rank
Family Astacidae
Pacifastacus connectens (Faxon) Snake River Pilose Crayfish CS G4 ID, OR
Pacifastacus fortis (Faxon) Shasta Crayfish E 4, 5 G1 CA
Pacifastacus gambelii (Girard) Pilose Crayfish CS G4,G5 (CA), ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA,
WY
Pacifastacus leniusculus klamathensis (Stimpson) Klamath Signal Crayfish CS G5 CA, ID, OR, WA. BC
Pacifastacus leniusculus leniusculus (Dana) Signal Crayfish CS G5 (CA), ID, (NV), OR, (UT), WA. BC
Pacifastacus leniusculus trowbridgii (Stimpson) Columbia River Signal Crayfish CS G5 (CA), ID, (NV), OR, MT, WA. BC
Pacifastacus nigrescens (Stimpson) Sooty Crayfish E* GX CA
Family Cambaridae
Barbicambarus cornutus (Faxon) Bottlebrush Crayfish CS G4 KY, TN
Bouchardina robisoni Hobbs Bayou Bodcau Crayfish V 5 G2,G3 AR
Cambarellus blacki Hobbs Cypress Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 FL
Cambarellus diminutus Hobbs Least Crayfish T 5 G3 AL, MS
Cambarellus lesliei Fitzpatrick and Laning Angular Dwarf Crawfish T 5 G3 AL, MS
Cambarellus ninae Hobbs Aransas Dwarf Crawfish V 5 G3 TX
Cambarellus puer Hobbs Swamp Dwarf Crayfish CS G5 AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, OK, TN,
TX
Cambarellus schmitti Hobbs Fontal Dwarf Crawfish CS G3 FL
Cambarellus shufeldtii (Faxon) Cajun Dwarf Crayfish CS G5 AL, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN,
TX
Cambarellus texanus Albaugh and Black Brazos Dwarf Crawfish CS G3,G4 TX
Cambarus acanthura Hobbs Thornytail Crayfish CS G4,G5 AL, GA, NC, TN
Cambarus aculabrum Hobbs and Brown Benton County Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 AR
Cambarus acuminatus Faxon Acuminate Crayfish †CS G4 MD, NC, SC, VA
Cambarus angularis Hobbs and Bouchard Angled Crayfish CS G3 TN, VA
Cambarus asperimanus Faxon Mitten Crayfish CS G4 GA, NC,SC, TN
Cambarus bartonii bartonii (Fabricius) Common Crayfish CS G5 AL, CT, DE, GA, ME, MD, MA,
NJ, NY, NC, PA, RI, SC, TN, VT,
VA, WV. NB, ON, QC
Cambarus bartonii cavatus Hay Appalachian Brook Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, KY, IN, OH, TN, VA, WV
Cambarus batchi Schuster Bluegrass Crayfish V 5 G3 KY
Cambarus bouchardi Hobbs Big South Fork Crayfish E 5 G2 KY, TN
Cambarus brachydactylus Hobbs Shortfinger Crayfish CS G4 TN
Cambarus brimleyorum Cooper Valley River Crayfish V 5 G3 NC
Cambarus buntingi Bouchard Longclaw Crayfish †CS G4 KY, TN
Cambarus carinirostris Hay Rock Crawfish CS G5 OH, PA, VA, WV
Cambarus carolinus (Erichson) Red Burrowing Crayfish CS G4 NC, SC, TN
Cambarus catagius Hobbs and Perkins Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish V 1, 5 G3 NC
Cambarus causeyi Reimer Boston Mountains Crayfish V 1, 5 G2 AR
Cambarus chasmodactylus James New River Crayfish CS G4 NC, VA, WV
Cambarus chaugaensis Prins and Hobbs Chauga Crayfish T 5 G2 GA, NC, SC
Cambarus clivosus Taylor and Soucek Short Mountain Crayfish T 5 G2 TN
Cambarus conasaugaensis Hobbs and Hobbs Mountain Crayfish V 5 G3 GA, TN
Cambarus coosae Hobbs Coosa Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, TN
Cambarus coosawattae Hobbs Coosawattee Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 GA
Cambarus cracens Bouchard and Hobbs Slenderclaw Crayfish E 5 G1 AL
Cambarus crinipes Bouchard Hairyfoot Crayfish CS G3 TN
Cambarus cryptodytes Hobbs Dougherty Plain Cave Crayfish T 5 G2,G3 FL, GA
Cambarus cumberlandensis Hobbs and Bouchard Cumberland Crayfish CS G5 KY, TN
Cambarus cymatilis Hobbs Conasauga Blue Burrower E 5 G1 GA, TN
Cambarus davidi Cooper Carolina Ladle Crayfish CS G4 NC
Cambarus deweesae Bouchard and Etnier Valley Flame Crayfish CS G4 KY, TN
Cambarus diogenes Girard Devil Crawfish †CS G5 AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN,
IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MS,
MO, NE, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA,
SC, SD, TN, TX VA, WI, WY. ON
Cambarus distans Rhoades Boxclaw Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, KY, TN
Cambarus doughertyensis Cooper and Skelton Dougherty Burrowing Crayfish E 5 G1 GA
Cambarus dubius Faxon Upland Burrowing Crayfish CS G5 KY, MD, NC, PA, TN, VA, WV
Cambarus eeseeohensis Thoma Grandfather Mountain Crayfish T 5 G2 NC
Cambarus elkensis Jezerinac and Stocker Elk River Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 WV
Cambarus englishi Hobbs and Hall Tallapoosa Crayfish V 5 G3 AL, GA
Cambarus extraneus Hagen Chickamauga Crayfish T 5 G2 GA, TN
Cambarus fasciatus Hobbs Etowah Crayfish T 1, 5 G3 GA
Cambarus friaufi Hobbs Hairy Crayfish CS G4 KY, TN
Cambarus gentryi Hobbs Linear Cobalt Crayfish CS G4 TN
Cambarus georgiae Hobbs Little Tennessee Crayfish V 5 G2 GA, NC
Cambarus girardianus Faxon Tanback Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, TN
Cambarus graysoni Faxon Twospot Crayfish CS G5 AL, KY, TN
Cambarus halli Hobbs Slackwater Crayfish V 5 G3,G4 AL, GA
Cambarus hamulatus (Cope) Prickly Cave Crayfish CS G3,G4 AL, TN
Cambarus harti Hobbs Piedmont Blue Burrower E 5 G1 GA
Cambarus hiwasseensis Hobbs Hiwassee Crayfish V 5 G3,G4 GA, NC, TN
Cambarus hobbsorum Cooper Rocky River Crayfish CS G3,G4 NC, SC
Cambarus howardi Hobbs and Hall Chattahoochee Crayfish CS G3 AL, GA, NC
Cambarus hubbsi Creaser Hubbs’ Crayfish CS G5 AR, MO
Cambarus hubrichti Hobbs Salem Cave Crayfish CS G4 MO
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 383
Cambarus hystricosus Cooper and Cooper Sandhills Spiny Crayfish V 5 G2 NC
Cambarus jezerinaci Thoma Spiny Scale Crayfish †CS G3 TN, VA
Cambarus johni Cooper Carolina Foothills Crayfish V 5 G3 NC
Cambarus jonesi Hobbs and Barr Alabama Cave Crayfish CS G3 AL
Cambarus latimanus (Le Conte) Variable Crayfish CS G5 AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, TN
Cambarus lenati Cooper Broad River Stream Crayfish T 5 G2 NC
Cambarus longirostris Faxon Longnose Crayfish †CS G5 AL, GA, NC, (SC), TN, VA
Cambarus longulus Girard Atlantic Slope Crayfish CS G5 NC, VA, WV
Cambarus ludovicianus Faxon Painted Devil Crayfish CS G5 AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, MO, OK, TN,
TX
Cambarus maculatus Hobbs and Pflieger Freckled Crayfish CS G4 MO
Cambarus manningi Hobbs Greensaddle Crayfish CS G4 AL, GA, TN
Cambarus miltus Fitzpatrick Rusty Grave Digger T 5 G1,G2 AL, FL
Cambarus monongalensis Ortmann Blue Crawfish CS G5 PA, VA, WV
Cambarus nerterius Hobbs Greenbrier Cave Crayfish E 5 G2 WV
Cambarus nodosus Bouchard and Hobbs Knotty Burrowing Crayfish CS G4 GA, NC, SC, TN
Cambarus obeyensis Hobbs and Shoup Obey Crayfish E 5 G1 TN
Cambarus obstipus Hall Sloped Crayfish V 5 G4 AL
Cambarus ortmanni Williamson Ortmann’s Mudbug CS G5 IN, KY, OH
Cambarus parrishi Hobbs Hiwassee Headwater Crayfish E 5 G1 GA, NC
Cambarus parvoculus Hobbs and Shoup Mountain Midget Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, KY, TN, VA
Cambarus polychromatus Thoma et al. Paintedhand Mudbug CS G5 AL, IL, IN, KY, MI, OH, TN
Cambarus pristinus Hobbs Pristine Crayfish E 5 G1 TN
Cambarus pyronotus Bouchard Fireback Crayfish E 5 G2 FL
Cambarus reburrus Prins French Broad Crayfish CS G3 NC
Cambarus reduncus Hobbs Sickle Crayfish CS G4,G5 NC, SC
Cambarus reflexus Hobbs Pine Savannah Crayfish CS G4 GA, SC
Cambarus robustus Girard Big Water Crayfish CS G5 CT, IL, IN, KY, MI, NY, NC, OH,
PA, TN, VA, WV, ON, QC
Cambarus rusticiformis Rhoades Depression Crayfish CS G5 (AL), IL, KY, TN
Cambarus sciotensis Rhoades Teays River Crayfish CS G5 KY, OH, VA, WV
Cambarus scotti Hobbs Chattooga River Crayfish T 5 G3 AL, GA
Cambarus setosus Faxon Bristly Cave Crayfish CS G4 AR, MO
Cambarus speciosus Hobbs Beautiful Crayfish E 1, 5 G2 GA
Cambarus sphenoides Hobbs Triangleclaw Crayfish CS G4 KY, TN
Cambarus spicatus Hobbs Broad River Spiny Crayfish V 5 G2 NC, SC
Cambarus striatus Hay Ambiguous Crayfish CS G5 AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, SC, TN
Cambarus strigosus Hobbs Lean Crayfish T 5 G2 GA
Cambarus subterraneus Hobbs Delaware County Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 OK
Cambarus tartarus Hobbs and Cooper Oklahoma Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 OK
Cambarus tenebrosus Hay Cavespring Crayfish †CS G5 AL, IL, IN, KY, OH, TN
Cambarus thomai Jezerinac Little Brown Mudbug CS G5 KY, OH, PA, TN, WV
Cambarus truncatus Hobbs Oconee Burrowing Crayfish T 5 G2 GA
Cambarus tuckasegee Cooper and Schofield Tuckasegee Stream Crayfish T 5 G2 NC
Cambarus unestami Hobbs and Hall Blackbarred Crayfish T 5 G2 AL, GA
Cambarus veitchorum Cooper and Cooper White Spring Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 AL
Cambarus veteranus Faxon Big Sandy Crayfish T 1, 5 G3 KY, VA, WV
Cambarus williami Bouchard and Bouchard Brawleys Fork Crayfish E 5 G1 TN
Cambarus zophonastes Hobbs and Bedinger Hell Creek Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 AR
Distocambarus carlsoni Hobbs Mimic Crayfish T 5 G2,G3 SC
Distocambarus crockeri Hobbs and Carlson Piedmont Prairie Burrowing Crayfish T 1, 5 G3 SC
Distocambarus devexus (Hobbs) Broad River Burrowing Crayfish T 5 G2 GA
Distocambarus hunteri Fitzpatrick and Eversole Saluda Burrowing Crayfish E 5 G1 SC
Distocambarus youngineri Hobbs and Carlson Newberry Burrowing Crayfish E 5 G1 SC
Fallicambarus burrisi Fitzpatrick Burrowing Bog Crayfish T 5 G3 AL, MS
Fallicambarus byersi (Hobbs) Lavender Burrowing Crayfish CS G4 AL, FL, MS
Fallicambarus caesius Hobbs Timberlands Burrowing Crayfish CS G4 AR
Fallicambarus danielae Hobbs Speckled Burrowing Crayfish T 5 G2 AL, MS
Fallicambarus devastator Hobbs and Whiteman Texas Prairie Crayfish V 5 G3 TX
Fallicambarus dissitus (Penn) Pine Hills Digger V 5 G4 AR, LA
Fallicambarus fodiens (Cottle) Digger Crayfish CS G5 AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA,
MD, MI, MS, MO, NC, OH, OK,
SC, TN, TX, VA, WV. ON
Fallicambarus gilpini Hobbs and Robison Jefferson County Crayfish E 5 G1 AR
Fallicambarus gordoni Fitzpatrick Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish T 5 G1 MS
Fallicambarus harpi Hobbs and Robison Ouachita Burrowing Crayfish V 5 G3 AR
Fallicambarus hortoni Hobbs and Fitzpatrick Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish E 5 G1 TN
Fallicambarus jeanae Hobbs Daisy Burrowing Crayfish V 5 G2 AR
Fallicambarus macneesei (Black) Old Prairie Digger V 1, 5 G3 LA, TX
Fallicambarus oryktes (Penn and Marlow) Flatwoods Digger V 1, 4, 5 G4 AL, LA, MS
Fallicambarus petilicarpus Hobbs and Robison Slenderwrist Burrowing Crayfish E 5 G1 AR
Fallicambarus strawni (Reimer) Saline Burrowing Crayfish T 5 G1,G2 AR
Faxonella beyeri (Penn) Sabine Fencing Crayfish CS G4 LA, TX
Faxonella blairi Hayes and Reimer Blair’s Fencing Crayfish CS G3 AR, OK
Faxonella clypeata (Hay) Ditch Fencing Crayfish CS G5 AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, MO, SC, TX
Faxonella creaseri Walls Ouachita Fencing Crayfish V 1, 5 G2 LA
Hobbseus attenuatus Black Pearl Riverlet Crayfish E 1, 5 G2 MS
Hobbseus cristatus (Hobbs) Crested Riverlet Crayfish T 1, 5 G3 MS
Hobbseus orconectoides Fitzpatrick and Payne Oktibbeha Riverlet Crayfish T 1, 5 G3 MS
Hobbseus petilus Fitzpatrick Tombigbee Riverlet Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 MS
Hobbseus prominens (Hobbs) Prominence Riverlet Crayfish CS G4,G5 AL, MS
384 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
Hobbseus valleculus (Fitzpatrick) Choctaw Riverlet Crayfish T 1, 5 G1 MS
Hobbseus yalobushensis Fitzpatrick and Busack Yalobusha Riverlet Crayfish E 1, 5 G3 MS
Orconectes acares Fitzpatrick Redspotted Stream Crayfish CS G4 AR
Orconectes alabamensis (Faxon) Alabama Crayfish V 5 G5 AL, MS, TN
Orconectes australis australis (Rhoades) Southern Cave Crayfish CS G4 AL, TN
Orconectes australis packardi Rhoades Appalachian Cave Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 KY
Orconectes barrenensis Rhoades Barren River Crayfish CS G4 KY, TN
Orconectes bisectus Rhoades Crittenden Crayfish E 5 G1 KY
Orconectes blacki Walls Calcasieu Crayfish T 1,5 G2 LA
Orconectes burri Taylor and Sabaj Blood River Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 KY, TN
Orconectes carolinensis Cooper and Cooper North Carolina Spiny Crayfish CS G4 NC
Orconectes causeyi Jester Western Plains Crayfish CS G5 CO, KS, (NM), OK, TX
Orconectes chickasawae Cooper and Hobbs Chickasaw Crayfish CS G5 AL, MS
Orconectes compressus (Faxon) Slender Crayfish CS G5 AL, KY, MS, TN
Orconectes cooperi Cooper and Hobbs Flint River Crayfish E 5 G1 AL, TN
Orconectes cristavarius Taylor Spiny Stream Crayfish CS G5 KY, OH, NC, TN, WV, VA
Orconectes deanae Reimer and Jester Conchas Crayfish CS G4 NM, OK
Orconectes difficilis (Faxon) Painted Crayfish CS G3 OK
Orconectes durelli Bouchard and Bouchard Saddle Crayfish CS G5 AL, KY, TN
Orconectes erichsonianus (Faxon) Reticulate Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, TN, VA
Orconectes etnieri Bouchard and Bouchard Ets Crayfish CS G4 MS, TN
Orconectes eupunctus Williams Coldwater Crayfish T 1, 4, 5 G2 AR, MO
Orconectes forceps (Faxon) Surgeon Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, TN, VA
Orconectes harrisonii (Faxon) Belted Crayfish V 5 G3 MO
Orconectes hartfieldi Fitzpatrick and Suttkus Yazoo Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 MS
Orconectes hathawayi Penn Teche Painted Crawfish V 5 G3 LA
Orconectes hobbsi Penn Pontchartrain Painted Crawfish CS G4 LA, MS
Orconectes holti Cooper and Hobbs Bimaculate Crayfish V 5 G3 AL
Orconectes hylas (Faxon) Woodland Crayfish CS G4 MO
Orconectes illinoiensis Brown Shawnee Crayfish CS G4 IL
Orconectes immunis (Hagen) Calico Crayfish CS G5 CO, (CT), IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, (ME),
(MA), MI, MN, MO, MT, NE,
(NH), NY, ND, OH, (RI), SD, TN,
(VT), WI, WY. MB, ON, PQ
Orconectes incomptus Hobbs and Barr Tennessee Cave Crayfish E 5 G1 TN
Orconectes indianensis (Hay) Indiana Crayfish CS G4 IL, IN
Orconectes inermis inermis Cope Ghost Crayfish CS G4 IN, KY
Orconectes inermis testii (Hay) Unarmed Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 IN
Orconectes jeffersoni Rhoades Louisville Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 KY
Orconectes jonesi Fitzpatrick Sucarnoochee River Crayfish †V 5 G3 AL, MS
Orconectes juvenilis (Hagen) Kentucky River Crayfish CS G4 IN, KY
Orconectes kentuckiensis Rhoades Kentucky Crayfish CS G4 IL, KY
Orconectes lancifer (Hagen) Shrimp Crayfish CS G5 AL, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, OK,
TN, TX
Orconectes leptogonopodus Hobbs Little River Creek Crayfish CS G4 AR, OK
Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque) Spinycheek Crayfish CS G5 CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ,
NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV. QC, NB
Orconectes longidigitus (Faxon) Longpincered Crayfish CS G4 AR, MO
Orconectes luteus (Creaser) Golden Crayfish CS G5 IA, IL, KS, MN, MO
Orconectes macrus Williams Neosho Midget Crayfish CS G4 AR, KS, MO, OK
Orconectes maletae Walls Kisatchie Painted Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 LA
Orconectes marchandi Hobbs Mammoth Spring Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 AR, MO
Orconectes margorectus Taylor Livingston Crayfish T 5 G2 KY
Orconectes medius (Faxon) Saddlebacked Crayfish CS G4 MO
Orconectes meeki brevis Williams Meek’s Short Pointed Crayfish T 5 G2 AR, OK
Orconectes meeki meeki (Faxon) Meek’s Crayfish CS G5 AR, MO
Orconectes menae (Creaser) Mena Crayfish T 5 G3 AR, OK
Orconectes mirus (Ortmann) Wonderful Crayfish CS G4 AL, TN
Orconectes mississippiensis (Faxon) Mississippi Crayfish V 5 G3 MS
Orconectes nais (Faxon) Water Nymph Crayfish CS G5 KS, MO, OK, TX
Orconectes nana Williams Midget Crayfish V 5 G3 AR, OK
Orconectes neglectus chaenodactylus Williams Gap Ringed Crayfish V 5 G3 AR, MO
Orconectes neglectus neglectus (Faxon) Ringed Crayfish CS G5 AR, CO, KS, MO, NE, (NY), OK,
(OR), WY
Orconectes obscurus (Hagen) Allegheny Crayfish CS G5 ME, MD, NY, OH, PA, VA, WV.
ON, QC,
Orconectes ozarkae Williams Ozark Crayfish CS G5 AR, MO
Orconectes pagei Taylor and Sabaj Mottled Crayfish CS G4 TN
Orconectes palmeri creolanus (Creaser) Creole Painted Crayfish CS G4 (GA), LA, MS
Orconectes palmeri longimanus (Faxon) Western Painted Crayfish CS G5 AR, KS, LA, OK, TX
Orconectes palmeri palmeri (Faxon) Gray-speckled Crayfish CS G5 AR, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN
Orconectes pardalotus Wetzel et al. Leopard Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 IL, KY
Orconectes pellucidus (Tellkampf) Mammoth Cave Crayfish CS G5 KY, TN
Orconectes perfectus Walls Complete Crayfish CS G4,G5 AL, MS
Orconectes peruncus (Creaser) Big Creek Crayfish T 4, 5 G2 MO
Orconectes placidus (Hagen) Bigclaw Crayfish CS G5 AL, IL, KY, TN
Orconectes propinquus (Girard) Northern Clearwater Crayfish CS G5 IL, IN, IA, MA, MI, MN, NY, OH,
PA, VT, WI. ON, QC
Orconectes punctimanus (Creaser) Spothanded Crayfish CS G4,G5 AR, MO
Orconectes putnami (Faxon) Phallic Crayfish CS G5 AL, IN, KY, TN
Orconectes quadruncus (Creaser) St. Francis River Crayfish T 4, 5 G2 MO
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 385
Orconectes rafinesquei Rhoades Rough River Crayfish V 1, 5 G3 KY
Orconectes rhoadesi Hobbs Fishhook Crayfish CS G4 TN
Orconectes ronaldi Taylor Mud River Crayfish T 5 G3 KY
Orconectes rusticus (Girard) Rusty Crayfish CS G5 (CT), (IL), IN, (IA), KY, (ME), (MA),
MI, (MN), (NH), (NJ), (NM), (NC),
(NY), OH, (PA), (TN), (VT), (VA),
(WV), (WI). (ON), (QC)
Orconectes sanbornii (Faxon) Sanborn’s Crayfish CS G5 KY, OH, (WA), WV
Orconectes saxatilis Bouchard and Bouchard Kiamichi Crayfish E 5 G1 OK
Orconectes sheltae Cooper and Cooper Shelta Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 AL
Orconectes shoupi Hobbs Nashville Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 TN
Orconectes sloanii (Bundy) Sloan Crayfish V 1, 4 G3 IN, OH
Orconectes spinosus (Bundy) Coosa River Spiny Crayfish CS G4 AL, GA, TN
Orconectes stannardi Page Little Wabash Crayfish V 1, 5 G3 IL
Orconectes stygocaneyi Hobbs Caney Mountain Cave Crayfish T 5 G1 MO
Orconectes theaphionensis Simon et al. Sinkhole Crayfish CS G4 IN
Orconectes tricuspis Rhoades Western Highland Crayfish CS G4 KY
Orconectes validus (Faxon) Powerful Crayfish CS G4,G5 AL, MS, TN
Orconectes virginiensis Hobbs Chowanoke Crayfish CS G4 NC, VA
Orconectes virilis Hagen Virile Crayfish CS G5 (AL), (AZ), AR, (CA), CO, (CT),
IL, IN, IA, KS, (ME), (MD), (MA),
MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, (NH), (NJ),
(NM), (NC), NY, ND, OH, OK,
(PA), (RI), SD, (TN), TX, UT, (VT),
(VA), (WA), (WV), WI, WY. AB,
MB, ON, PQ, SK
Orconectes willliamsi Fitzpatrick Williams Crayfish CS G4 AR, MO
Orconectes wrighti Hobbs Hardin Crayfish E 5 G2 MS, TN
Procambarus ablusus Penn Hatchie River Crayfish CS G4 MS, TN
Procambarus acherontis (Lonnberg) Orlando Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 FL
Procambarus acutissimus (Girard) Sharpnose Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, MS
Procambarus acutus (Girard) White River Crawfish †CS G5 AL, AR, (CA), (CT), DE, FL, GA,
IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, (ME), MD
(MA), MI, MN, MS, MO, NJ, NY,
NC, OH, OK, PA, (RI), SC, TN, TX,
VA, WV, WI
Procambarus advena (Le Conte) Vidalia Crayfish CS G3 GA
Procambarus alleni (Faxon) Everglades Crayfish CS G4 FL
Procambarus ancylus Hobbs Coastal Plain Crayfish CS G4,G5 NC, SC
Procambarus angustatus (Le Conte) Sandhills Crayfish E* GX GA
Procambarus apalachicolae Hobbs Coastal Flatwoods Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 FL
Procambarus attiguus Hobbs and Franz Silver Glen Springs Crayfish E 5 G1,G2 FL
Procambarus barbatus (Faxon) Wandering Crayfish CS G5 GA, SC
Procambarus barbiger Fitzpatrick Jackson Prairie Crayfish V 5 G2 MS
Procambarus bivittatus Hobbs Ribbon Crayfish CS G5 AL, FL, LA, MS
Procambarus blandingii (Harlan) Santee Crayfish CS G4 NC, SC
Procambarus braswelli Cooper Waccamaw Crayfish V 5 G3 NC, SC
Procambarus brazoriensis Albaugh Brazoria Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 TX
Procambarus capillatus Hobbs Capillaceous Crayfish V 5 G3 AL, FL
Procambarus caritus Hobbs Poor Crayfish CS G4 GA
Procambarus ceruleus Fitzpatrick and Wicksten Blueclaw Chimney Crawfish E 5 G1 TX
Procambarus chacei Hobbs Cedar Creek Crayfish CS G4 GA, SC
Procambarus clarkii (Girard) Red Swamp Crawfish CS G5 AL, (AZ), AR, (CA), FL, (GA), (HI),
(ID), IL, IN, KY, LA, (MD), MS, MO,
(NV), (NM), (NC), (OH), OK, (OR),
(SC), TN, TX, (UT), (VA), (WA)
Procambarus clemmeri Hobbs Cockscomb Crayfish CS G5 AL, LA, MS
Procambarus cometes Fitzpatrick Mississippi Flatwoods Crayfish E 5 G1 MS
Procambarus connus Fitzpatrick Carrollton Crayfish E 5 GH MS
Procambarus curdi Reimer Red River Burrowing Crayfish CS G5 AR, OK, TX
Procambarus delicatus Hobbs and Franz Bigcheek Cave Crayfish E 5 G1 FL
Procambarus dupratzi Penn Southwestern Creek Crayfish CS G5 AR, LA, OK, TX
Procambarus echinatus Hobbs Edisto Crayfish V 5 G3 SC
Procambarus econfinae Hobbs Panama City Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 FL
Procambarus elegans Hobbs Elegant Creek Crayfish CS G5 AR, LA, MS
Procambarus enoplosternum Hobbs Black Mottled Crayfish CS G4,G5 GA, SC
Procambarus epicyrtus Hobbs Humpback Crayfish V 5 G3 GA
Procambarus erythrops Relyea and Sutton Santa Fe Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1,G2 FL
Procambarus escambiensis Hobbs Escambia Crayfish E 5 G2 AL, FL
Procambarus evermanni (Faxon) Panhandle Crayfish CS G4 Al, FL, MS
Procambarus fallax (Hagen) Slough Crayfish CS G5 FL, GA
Procambarus fitzpatricki Hobbs Spinytail Crayfish T 5 G2 MS
Procambarus franzi Hobbs and Lee Orange Lake Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1,G2 FL
Procambarus geminus Hobbs Twin Crawfish CS G3,G4 AR, LA
Procambarus geodytes Hobbs Muddiver Crayfish CS G4 FL
Procambarus gibbus Hobbs Muckalee Crayfish T 4, 5 G3 GA
Procambarus gracilis (Bundy) Prairie Crayfish CS G5 IL, IN, IA, KS, MO, NE, OK, TX, WI
Procambarus hagenianus hagenianus (Faxon) Southeastern Prairie Crayfish CS G4 AL, MS
Procambarus hagenianus vesticeps Fitzpatrick Egyptian Crayfish V 5 G3 MS
Procambarus hayi (Faxon) Straightedge Crayfish CS G5 AL, MS, TN
Procambarus hinei (Ortmann) Marsh Crayfish CS G5 LA, TX
386 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
Procambarus hirsutus Hobbs Shaggy Crayfish CS G4 SC
Procambarus horsti Hobbs and Means Big Blue Springs Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G2 FL
Procambarus howellae Hobbs Ornate Crayfish CS G5 GA
Procambarus hubbelli (Hobbs) Jackknife Crayfish CS G4 AL, FL
Procambarus hybus Hobbs and Walton Smoothnose Crayfish CS G5 AL, MS
Procambarus incilis Penn Cut Crayfish CS G4 TX
Procambarus jaculus Hobbs and Walton Javelin Crayfish CS G4 LA, MS
Procambarus kensleyi Hobbs Free State Chimney Crawfish CS G4 LA, TX
Procambarus kilbyi (Hobbs) Hatchet Crayfish CS G4 FL
Procambarus lagniappe Black Lagniappe Crayfish T 5 G2 AL, MS
Procambarus latipleurum Hobbs Wingtail Crayfish V 5 G2 FL
Procambarus lecontei (Hagen) Mobile Crayfish V 5 G3,G4 AL, MS
Procambarus leitheuseri Franz and Hobbs Coastal Lowland Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 FL
Procambarus leonensis Hobbs Blacknose Crayfish CS G1,G2 FL
Procambarus lepidodactylus Hobbs Pee Dee Lotic Crayfish †CS G4 SC
Procambarus lewisi Hobbs and Walton Spur Crayfish V 5 G4 AL
Procambarus liberorum Fitzpatrick Osage Burrowing Crayfish CS G4 AR, OK
Procambarus litosternum Hobbs Blackwater Crayfish CS G4 GA
Procambarus lophotus Hobbs and Walton Mane Crayfish CS G5 AL, GA, TN
Procambarus lucifugus alachua (Hobbs) Alachua Light Fleeing Cave Crayfish T 1, 5 G2,G3 FL
Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus (Hobbs) Florida Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 FL
Procambarus lunzi (Hobbs) Hummock Crayfish CS G4 GA, SC
Procambarus lylei Fitzpatrick and Hobbs Shutispear Crayfish V 5 G2 MS
Procambarus machardyi Walls Caddo Chimney Crawfish E 5 G1,G2 LA
Procambarus mancus Hobbs and Walton Lame Crayfish CS G4 MS
Procambarus marthae Hobbs Crisscross Crayfish V 5 G3 AL
Procambarus medialis Hobbs Pamlico Crayfish V 5 G2 NC
Procambarus milleri Hobbs Miami Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 FL
Procambarus morrisi Hobbs and Franz Putnam County Cave Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 FL
Procambarus natchitochae Penn Red River Crayfish CS G5 AR, LA, TX
Procambarus nechesae Hobbs Neches Crayfish T 5 G2 TX
Procambarus nigrocinctus Hobbs Blackbelted Crayfish E 5 G1,G2 TX
Procambarus nueces Hobbs and Hobbs Nueces Crayfish E 5 G1 TX
Procambarus okaloosae Hobbs Okaloosa Crayfish CS G4 AL, FL
Procambarus orcinus Hobbs and Means Woodville Karst Cave Crayfish T 1, 5 G3 FL
Procambarus ouachitae Penn Ouachita River Crayfish CS G5 AR, MS
Procambarus paeninsulanus (Faxon) Peninsula Crayfish CS G5 AL, FL, GA
Procambarus pallidus (Hobbs) Pallid Cave Crayfish V 1, 5 G3,G4 FL
Procambarus parasimulans Hobbs and Robison Bismark Burrowing Crayfish CS G4 AR
Procambarus pearsei (Creaser) Carolina Sandhills Crayfish CS G4 NC, SC
Procambarus pecki Hobbs Phantom Cave Crayfish E 5 G1,G2 AL
Procambarus penni Hobbs Pearl Blackwater Crayfish V 5 G3 LA, MS
Procambarus petersi Hobbs Ogeechee Crayfish V 5 G3 GA
Procambarus pictus (Hobbs) Black Creek Crayfish T 1, 5 G2 FL
Procambarus planirostris Penn Flatnose Crayfish CS G4 LA, MS
Procambarus plumimanus Hobbs and Walton Croatan Crayfish CS G4 NC
Procambarus pogum Fitzpatrick Bearded Red Crayfish E 5 G1 MS
Procambarus pubescens (Faxon) Brushnose Crayfish CS G4,G5 GA, SC
Procambarus pubischelae deficiens Hobbs Hookless Crayfish CS G5 GA
Procambarus pubischelae pubischelae Hobbs Brushpalm Crayfish CS G5 FL, GA
Procambarus pycnogonopodus Hobbs Stud Crayfish CS G4,G5 FL
Procambarus pygmaeus Hobbs Christmas Tree Crayfish CS G4 FL, GA
Procambarus raneyi Hobbs Disjunct Crayfish CS G4 GA, SC
Procambarus rathbunae (Hobbs) Combclaw Crayfish T 5 G2 FL
Procambarus regalis Hobbs and Robison Regal Burrowing Crayfish V 5 G2,G3 AR
Procambarus reimeri Hobbs Irons Fork Burrowing Crayfish E 1, 5 G1 AR
Procambarus rogersi campestris Hobbs Field Crayfish V 1, 5 G3 FL
Procambarus rogersi expletus Hobbs and Hart Perfect Crayfish E 5 G1 FL
Procambarus rogersi ochlocknensis Hobbs Ochlockonee Crayfish V 5 G3 FL
Procambarus rogersi rogersi (Hobbs) Seepage Crayfish E 5 G1,G2 FL
Procambarus seminolae Hobbs Seminole Crayfish CS G5 FL, GA
Procambarus shermani Hobbs Gulf Crayfish CS G4 AL, FL, LA, MS
Procambarus simulans (Faxon) Southern Plains Crayfish CS G5 AR, CO, KS, LA, NM, OK, TX
Procambarus spiculifer (Le Conte) White Tubercled Crayfish †CS G5 AL, FL, GA, SC, TN
Procambarus steigmani Hobbs Parkhill Prairie Crayfish E 5 G1,G2 TX
Procambarus suttkusi Hobbs Choctawhatchee Crayfish V 5 G3,G4 AL, FL
Procambarus talpoides Hobbs Mole Crayfish CS G5 FL, GA
Procambarus tenuis Hobbs Ouachita Mountain Crayfish V 5 G3 AR, OK
Procambarus texanus Hobbs Bastrop Crayfish E 5 G1 TX
Procambarus troglodytes (Le Conte) Eastern Red Swamp Crawfish CS G5 GA, SC
Procambarus truculentus Hobbs Bog Crayfish CS G4 GA
Procambarus tulanei Penn Giant Bearded Crayfish CS G5 AR, LA
Procambarus verrucosus Hobbs Grainy Crayfish CS G4 AL, GA
Procambarus versutus (Hagen) Sly Crayfish CS G5 AL, FL, GA
Procambarus viaeviridis (Faxon) Vernal Crayfish CS G5 AL, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN
Procambarus vioscai paynei Fitzpatrick Payne’s Creek Crayfish CS G4 AL, MS, TN
Procambarus vioscai vioscai Penn Percy’s Creek Crayfish CS G5 AR, LA
Procambarus youngi Hobbs Florida Longbeak Crayfish T 5 G2 FL
Procambarus zonangulus Hobbs and Hobbs Southern White River Crawfish CS G5 AL, LA, (MD), MS, TX, (VA)
Troglocambarus maclanei Hobbs Spider Cave Crayfish V 5 G3,G4 FL
Vemco (Amirix Systems, Inc.)
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 387
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank S. Adams, A. Allert, L. Bergey, B. Butler, K. Crandall,
J. Cordeiro, J. Fetzner, J. Godwin, P. Hartfield, D. Peterson, G.
Walls, and C. Williams for reviewing this article, or portions
thereof, prior to submittal. Their constructive criticisms and com-
ments vastly improved the resulting manuscript. We acknowl-
edge the Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity
and Ecological Entomology and Eastern Kentucky University,
Department of Biological Sciences, for supporting our efforts.
REFERENCES
Ackefors, H. 1999. The positive effects of established crayfish intro-
ductions in Europe. Pages 49-61 in F. Gherardi and D. M. Holdich,
eds. Crayfish in Europe as alien species. How to make the best of a
bad situation? Crustacean Issues 11. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Allan, J. D., and A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in
running waters. Bioscience 43:32-43.
Allert, A. L., J.F. Fairchild, R.J. DiStefano, C. J. Schmitt, J. M.
Besser, W. G. Brumbaugh, and B. C. Poulton. Effects of lead-
zinc mining on crayfish (Orconectes hylas) in the Black River
watershed, Missouri, USA. Freshwater Crayfish (in press).
Angermeier, P. L., and J. E. Williams. 1994. Conservation of imper-
iled species and reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. Fisheries 19(1):26-29.
Berrill, M., L. Hollett, A. Margosian and J. Hudson. 1985. Variation
in tolerance to low environmental pH by the crayfish Orconectes
rusticus, O. propinquus and Cambarus robustus. Canadian Journal
of Zoology 63:2586-2589.
Besser, J. M., W. G. Brumbaugh, T. W. May, and C. J. Schmitt.
2006. Biomonitoring of lead, zinc, and cadmium in streams
draining lead-mining and non-mining areas, southeast
Missouri, USA. Environment Monitoring and Assessment
10.1007/s10661-006-9356-9.
Butler, R. S., R. J. DiStefano, and G. A. Schuster. 2003. Crayfish:
an overlooked fauna. Endangered Species Bulletin 28(2):10-11.
Clavero, M., and E. García-Berthou. 2005. Invasive species are
a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 20:110.
Contreras-Balderas, S., and M . de Lourdes Lozano-Vilano. 1996.
Extinction of most Sandia and Potosí valleys (Nuevo León,
Mexico) endemic pupfishes, crayfishes and snails. Ichthyological
Explorations of Freshwaters 7:33-40.
Crandall, K. A., D. J. Harris, and J. W. Fetzner, Jr. 2000. The mono-
phyletic origin of freshwater crayfish estimated from nuclear and
mitochondrial DNA sequences. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London B. 267:1679-1686.
Deacon, J. E., G. K. Kobetich, J. D. Williams, S. Contreras, and
other members of the AFS Endangered Species Committee.
1979. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of spe-
cial concern. Fisheries 4(2):29-44.
Dewalt R.E., Favret C., and Webb D.W. 2005. Just how imperiled are
aquatic insects? A case study of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Illinois.
Annals of the Entomological Society of America 98:941-950.
DiDonato, G. T., and D. M. Lodge. 1993. Species replacements
among Orconectes crayfishes in northern Wisconsin lakes: the role
of predation by fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 50:1484-1488.
DiStefano, R. J. 2005. Trophic interactions between Missouri
Ozarks stream crayfish communities and sport fish predators:
increased abundance and size structure of predators cause little
388 Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org
change in crayfish community densities.
Final Report, Missouri Department of
Conservation, Dingell-Johnson Project
F-1-R-054, Study S-41, Job 4. Columbia.
Erman, D. C., T. Light, and C. Myrick.
1993. Survey of the status of the Shasta
crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) in northeast-
ern California (1991 study year). Final
report to California Department of Fish
and Game, Sacramento.
Eversole, A. G., and B. C. Seller. 1996.
Comparison of relative crayfish toxicity
values. Freshwater Crayfish 11:274-285.
Fjälling, A., and M. Fürst. 1988.
Signalkräftan I Sverige 1969-1984.
Information fran Söetvattenslaboratoriet
Drottningholm 8.
Flinders, C. A., and D. D. Magoulick.
2005. Distribution, habitat use and life
history of stream-dwelling crayfish in the
Spring River drainage of Arkansas and
Missouri with a focus on the imperiled
Mammoth Spring crayfish (Orconectes
marchandi). American Midland Naturalist
154:358-374.
Hamr, P. 1998. Conservation status of
Canadian freshwater crayfishes. World
Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, ON.
_____. 2003. Conservation status of burrow-
ing crayfishes in Canada. Report for the
Endangered Species Unit, World Wildlife
Fund Canada. Upper Canada College
Press, Toronto.
Hill, A. M., D. M. Sinars, and D. M. Lodge.
1993. Invasion of an occupied niche by
the crayfish Orconectes rusticus: poten-
tial importance of growth and mortality.
Oecologia 94:303-306.
Hobbs Jr., H. H. 1981. The crayfishes of
Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 318.
Hobbs III, H. H. 1993. Trophic relation-
ships of North American freshwater
crayfishes and shrimps. Milwaukee Public
Museum Contributions in Biology and
Geology 85:1-110.
Holdich, D. M. 1999. The negative effects of
established crayfish introductions. Pages
31-47 in F. Gherardi and D. M. Holdich
eds. Crayfish in Europe as alien species.
How to make the best of a bad situation?.
Crustacean Issues 11. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
_____. (editor). 2002. Biology of freshwater
crayfish. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford,
UK.
Horwitz, P. 1994. Distribution and conserva-
tion status of the Tasmanian giant fresh-
water lobster Astacopsis gouldi (Decapoda:
Parastacidae). Biological Conservation
69:199-206.
Huner, J. V. (editor). 1994. Freshwater
crayfish aquaculture in North America,
Europe, and Australia: Families Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae. Food
Product Press, New York.
_____. 2002. Procambarus. Pages 541-584 in
D. M. Holdich ed. Biology of freshwater
crayfish, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford,
UK.
Jarvinen, A. W., and G. T. Ankley. 1999.
Linkage of effects of tissue residues: devel-
opment of a comprehensive database
for aquatic organisms exposed to inor-
ganic and organic chemicals. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Technical Publication Series, Pensacola,
Florida.
Kleen, V. M., L. Cordle, and R. A.
Montgomery. 2004. The Illinois breeding
bird atlas. Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication 26.
Lodge, D. M., C. A. Taylor, D. M. Holdich,
and J. Skurdal. 2000. Nonindigenous
crayfishes threaten North American
freshwater biodiversity: lessons from
Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
Master, L. 1990. The imperiled status
of North American aquatic animals.
Biodiversity Network News 3:1-2, 7-8.
_____. 1991. Assessing threats and setting
priorities for conservation. Conservation
Biology 5:559-563.
Master, L., B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and
G. A. Hammererson. 2000. Pages 93-
118 in B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J.
S. Adams eds. Precious heritage, the sta-
tus of biodiversity in the United States.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Mayer, F. L., and M. R. Ellersieck. 1986.
Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation
and data base for 410 chemicals and 66
species of freshwater animals. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Resource Publication 160,
Washington, DC. Available at: www.cerc.
usgs.gov/data/acute/acute.html.
McGrath, S. 2005. Attack of the alien
invaders. National Geographic magazine,
March 2005.
McLaughlin, P. A., et al. 2005. Common
and scientific names of aquatic inver-
tebrates from the United States and
Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries
Society Special Publication 31.
Momot, W. T. 1995. Redefining the role of
crayfish in aquatic ecosystems. Reviews in
Fisheries Science 3:33-63.
NCDENR (North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources).
2003. Standard operating procedures for
benthic macroinvertebrates. Division of
Water Quality, Water Quality Section,
Environmental Sciences Branch
Technical Report. NCDENR, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission). 2006. North
Carolina inland fishing, hunting and
trapping regulations digest, 1 July 2006 to
30 June 2007. NCWRC, Raleigh.
Page, L. M. 1985. The crayfishes and shrimps
(Decapoda) of Illinois. Illinois Natural
History Survey Bulletin 33:335-448.
Peake, D. R., G. J. Pond and S. E.
McMurray. 2004. Development of tol-
erance values for Kentucky crayfishes.
Kentucky Environmental and Public
Protection Cabinet, Department for
Environmental Protection, Division of
Water, Frankfort.
Perry, W. L., J. L. Feder, and D. M.
Lodge. 2001. Implications of hybridiza-
tion between introduced and resident
Orconectes crayfishes. Conservation
Biology 15:1656-1666.
Ratcliffe, J. A., and D. R. DeVries. 2004.
The crayfishes (Crustacea: Decapoda) of
the Tallapoosa River drainage, Alabama.
Southeastern Naturalist 3:417-430.
Richter, B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A.
Mendelson, and L. L. Master. 1997.
Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna.
Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.
Robison, H. W., and K. A. Crandall. 2005.
Status and genetics of Procambarus fer-
rugineus Hobbs and Robison. Final
Report to the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission, Little Rock.
Simon, T. P., and R. F. Thoma. 2003.
Distribution patterns of freshwater shrimp
and crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae)
in the Patoka River basin of Indiana.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
Science 112:175-185.
Stein, R. A. 1977. Selective predation, opti-
mal foraging, and the predator-prey inter-
actions between fish and crayfish. Ecology
58:1237-1253.
Taylor, C. A. 1997. The taxonomic status of
members of the subgenus Erebicambarus,
genus Cambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae),
east of the Mississippi River. Journal of
Crustacean Biology 17:352-360.
_____. 2002. Taxonomy and conservation of
native crayfish stocks. Pages 236-257 in
D. M. Holdich, ed. Biology of freshwater
crayfish. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford,
UK.
Taylor, C. A., and M. Redmer. 1996. The
dispersal of the crayfish Orconectes rusticus
in Illinois, with notes on species displace-
ment and habitat preference. Journal of
Crustacean Biology 16: 547-551.
Vemco (Amirix Systems, Inc.)
Fisheries vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 389
Taylor, C. A., and G. A. Schuster. 2004. The crayfishes of Kentucky.
Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 28.
Taylor, C. A., M. L. Warren Jr., J. F. Fitzpatrick Jr., H. H. Hobbs
III, R. F. Jezerinac, W. L. Pflieger, and H. W. Robison. 1996.
Conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada.
Fisheries 21(4):25-38.
Thoma, R. F., and R. F. Jezerinac. 1999. The taxonomic status
and zoogeography of Cambarus bartonii carinirostris Hay, 1914
(Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington 112:97-105.
Thoma, R. F., and R. F. Jezerinac. 2000. Ohio crayfish and shrimp
atlas. Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution 7,
Columbus.
Warren Jr., M. L., and B. M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes
of the United States: overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries
19(1):6-18.
Warren, Jr., M. L., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart Jr., R. C.
Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J. Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L.
Mayden, H. R. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native fresh-
water fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.
Welch, S. M., and A. G. Eversole. 2006. The occurrence of primary
burrowing crayfish in terrestrial habitat. Biological Conservation
130:458-464.
Westhoff, J. T., J. A. Guyot, and R. J. DiStefano. 2006. Distribution
of the imperiled Williams’ crayfish (Orconectes williamsi) in
the White River drainage of Missouri: associations with multi-
scale environmental variables. American Midland Naturalist
156:273-288.
Wigginton, A. J., and W. J. Birge. 2007. Toxicity of cadmium to
six species and two genera of crayfish and the effect of cadmium
on molting success. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26:
548-554.
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos.
2000. Leading threats to biodiversity. Pages 239-254 in B. A. Stein,
L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams eds. Precious heritage, the status of
biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris,
and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels
of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, W. Contreras-
Balderas, J. D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister,
and J. E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered,
threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.
... Major threats identified for C. pristinus are characteristic of rare species and include a limited range, habitat specialization, and small local densities (Taylor et al. 2007;Johansen et al. 2016). Anthropogenic disturbances such as surface mining and logging practices occur throughout the Cumberland Plateau and degrade aquatic habitat by increasing pollutants and changing water chemistry (i.e., increasing conductivity; McGrath et al. 2004;Schorr et al. 2006Schorr et al. , 2013Muncy et al. 2014;Gangloff et al. 2015) and are among leading threats to crayfish diversity (Taylor et al. 2007;Allert et al. 2013;Richman et al. 2015). ...
... Major threats identified for C. pristinus are characteristic of rare species and include a limited range, habitat specialization, and small local densities (Taylor et al. 2007;Johansen et al. 2016). Anthropogenic disturbances such as surface mining and logging practices occur throughout the Cumberland Plateau and degrade aquatic habitat by increasing pollutants and changing water chemistry (i.e., increasing conductivity; McGrath et al. 2004;Schorr et al. 2006Schorr et al. , 2013Muncy et al. 2014;Gangloff et al. 2015) and are among leading threats to crayfish diversity (Taylor et al. 2007;Allert et al. 2013;Richman et al. 2015). Occupancy for the Caney Fork form has been positively associated with streams with reduced conductivity, moderate depths, and a high degree of cobble substrates (Johansen 2018) suggesting that disturbances that alter these parameters will have a detrimental effect on C. pristinus population persistence (McGrath et al. 2004;Schorr et al. 2006). ...
Article
Full-text available
Assessments of genetic diversity for imperiled species can provide a baseline for determining the relative impacts of contemporary anthropogenic threats (e.g., habitat fragmentation) on population connectivity and identify historical factors contributing to population structure. We conducted a population genetics and phylogeographic assessment of the imperiled Pristine Crayfish (Cambarus pristinus) sampled throughout its range encompassing two morphologically distinct forms. Pristine Crayfish exhibit a disjunct distribution throughout lower order tributaries suggesting they are headwater-adapted species. The two morphologically distinct forms of the Pristine Crayfish are found in the upper Caney Fork (nominal Caney Fork form) and the Big Brush Creek and Cane Creek systems (Sequatchie form). We used 19 microsatellite loci and the cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene to assess population connectivity and genetic diversity of the Pristine Crayfish. Haplotypes recovered from the COI gene revealed that historic connectivity was maintained within each form of the Pristine Crayfish. However, the divergence between forms was higher (2.3%) than within forms (< 2.0%), suggesting each form is on an independent evolutionary trajectory, supporting recognition of the Sequatchie form as a distinct taxon. Microsatellite analyses for the Caney Fork form recovered a high degree of population isolation and support for six genetically isolated population. In addition, genetic diversity metrics per population and for the Caney Fork form were low suggesting that the Caney Fork form is at an increased risk of extinction under anthropogenic disturbances. We suggest that each form receive continued listing protection and conservation resources and that the Sequatchie form be treated as a unique taxon.
... Due to anthropogenic alterations to freshwater environments (i.e., logging, urban development, agriculture, pollution, spread of invasive species), however, native crayfish populations are declining throughout the United States and worldwide (Gherardi et al., 2011;Loughman & Fetzner, 2015;Richman et al., 2015;Chucholl, 2016;Taylor et al., 2019). Although crayfish diversity within the United States is greater than that of any other region, nearly half of these species currently require conservation attention (Taylor et al., 2007;Richman et al., 2015). Surprisingly, there is a lack of understanding many aspects of crayfish behavior, ecology, and life history (Moore et al., 2013;Bloomer et al., 2021). ...
Article
We studied the life history and ecology of the Greenbrier Crayfish, Cambarus smilax (Loughman, Simon & Welsh, 2011) in Thorny Creek and the West Fork of the Greenbrier River, West Virginia from August 2010 to July 2011. We gathered data on morphology, reproductive status, habitat preference, and the prevalence of claw regeneration for each monthly sampling event. We collected Form I males every single month at Thorny Creek location, and every single month besides December at West Fork Greenbrier location. Females exhibited active glair glands during May to July, with oviposition in June to August. Fecundity ranged from 71 to 179, with an average of 121 eggs per female. Cambarus smilax preferred different microhabitats at each of our two study sites. It was primarily collected in run microhabitats at Thorny Creed, but primarily collected at West Fork Greenbrier within pool microhabitats, potentially due to competitive displacement from C. chasmodactylus (James, 1966). Our study provides the first information regarding the life history of C. smilax and sheds light on the ecological implications of competition between locations with different crayfish communities.
Article
Freshwater crayfish rank among the most imperilled groups and play several critical roles in freshwater ecosystems, yet survey efforts remain limited throughout much of Canada and North America. Inadequate survey and monitoring efforts render our ecosystems vulnerable to the introduction and spread of harmful invasive species which can be difficult or impossible to control following establishment. During surveys targeting salamander larvae across Pelee Island, Ontario we incidentally captured crayfish and identified them to species. Three species were detected including two native species known only from collections in the 1960s (Creaserinus fodiens, Faxonius immunis) as well as the non-native White River Crayfish (Procambarus acutus) which has not been documented previously in Canada. Our oldest record of P. acutus is from 2015, and the species currently appears to be widespread and well established on Pelee Island and has also recently been recorded in Six Mile Lake on the Canadian Shield. We provide preliminary data on the aquatic habitats where each species was found on Pelee Island and strongly encourage additional monitoring efforts combined with targeted education efforts to prevent the spread of P. acutus to the Ontario mainland.
Article
This datasheet on Faxonius virilis covers Identity, Overview, Distribution, Dispersal, Diagnosis, Biology & Ecology, Environmental Requirements, Natural Enemies, Impacts, Uses, Prevention/Control, Further Information.
Article
This datasheet on Procambarus acutus acutus covers Identity, Overview, Distribution, Dispersal, Diagnosis, Biology & Ecology, Environmental Requirements, Natural Enemies, Impacts, Uses, Prevention/Control, Further Information.
Chapter
Integrating research into freshwater biodiversity and the role of keystone species, this fascinating book presents freshwater crayfish as representatives of human-exacerbated threats to biodiversity and conservation. It uses examples from these and other large decapod invertebrates to explore how communities function and are controlled, alongside the implications of human demands and conflicts over limited resources, notably the severe impacts on biodiversity. The discussion is structured around three key topics – the present situation of crayfish in world freshwater ecosystems, the applications of science to conservation management and knowledge transfer for successful crayfish management. It outlines the historic exploitation of crayfish, addressing the problems caused by invasive alien forms and explaining the importance of correct identification when dealing with conservation issues. Offering a global perspective on freshwater systems, the book ultimately highlights how the conservation of such large and long-lived species will help protect ecosystem quality in the future.
Chapter
Integrating research into freshwater biodiversity and the role of keystone species, this fascinating book presents freshwater crayfish as representatives of human-exacerbated threats to biodiversity and conservation. It uses examples from these and other large decapod invertebrates to explore how communities function and are controlled, alongside the implications of human demands and conflicts over limited resources, notably the severe impacts on biodiversity. The discussion is structured around three key topics – the present situation of crayfish in world freshwater ecosystems, the applications of science to conservation management and knowledge transfer for successful crayfish management. It outlines the historic exploitation of crayfish, addressing the problems caused by invasive alien forms and explaining the importance of correct identification when dealing with conservation issues. Offering a global perspective on freshwater systems, the book ultimately highlights how the conservation of such large and long-lived species will help protect ecosystem quality in the future.
Chapter
Integrating research into freshwater biodiversity and the role of keystone species, this fascinating book presents freshwater crayfish as representatives of human-exacerbated threats to biodiversity and conservation. It uses examples from these and other large decapod invertebrates to explore how communities function and are controlled, alongside the implications of human demands and conflicts over limited resources, notably the severe impacts on biodiversity. The discussion is structured around three key topics – the present situation of crayfish in world freshwater ecosystems, the applications of science to conservation management and knowledge transfer for successful crayfish management. It outlines the historic exploitation of crayfish, addressing the problems caused by invasive alien forms and explaining the importance of correct identification when dealing with conservation issues. Offering a global perspective on freshwater systems, the book ultimately highlights how the conservation of such large and long-lived species will help protect ecosystem quality in the future.
Chapter
Integrating research into freshwater biodiversity and the role of keystone species, this fascinating book presents freshwater crayfish as representatives of human-exacerbated threats to biodiversity and conservation. It uses examples from these and other large decapod invertebrates to explore how communities function and are controlled, alongside the implications of human demands and conflicts over limited resources, notably the severe impacts on biodiversity. The discussion is structured around three key topics – the present situation of crayfish in world freshwater ecosystems, the applications of science to conservation management and knowledge transfer for successful crayfish management. It outlines the historic exploitation of crayfish, addressing the problems caused by invasive alien forms and explaining the importance of correct identification when dealing with conservation issues. Offering a global perspective on freshwater systems, the book ultimately highlights how the conservation of such large and long-lived species will help protect ecosystem quality in the future.
Article
Full-text available
Historically, Cambarus bartonii carinirostris was considered a subspecies of Cambarus bartonii. Recent studies indicate that C. b. carinirostris is indistinguishable from the nominate species and should be relegated to synonymy with C. bartonii. In other studies this assignment is not accepted and subspecific status has been maintained for C. b. carinirostris when reporting on crayfish closely related to C. bartonii. Work in the area of northern Appalachian crayfishes has made it apparent to us that C. b. carinirostris should be elevated to full species status based on its unique meristic and morphometric characteristics.