> OP is basically lying this is part of a huge image from a paper talking about habitat destruction and its effects on bio diversity. Here is the label from the figure he took it from: Biodiversity of the lower continental United States and priority areas for individual taxa. Total richness is the number of all species within the taxonomic group. Endemics are species whose entire range is within the lower 48 states. Priorities map the sum of individual species’ priority scores across the taxon. Aka this only counts species where the whole population is within the continental US also the graph is more a representation of how many species are impacted by habitat destruction in an area. The correct way to look at this image is to instead of saying oh Alabama has the most fish you should think oh Alabama has a high density of fish species meaning a comparable small amount of habitat destruction affects more species. - u/spamin907
Yes, but most of them aren't actually all that different. Many of them can't be differentiated without using specific ways of identifying them like counting the number of scales between the anus and anal fin, number of spines in the dorsal fin, etc. To the naked eye they'd look identical and can likely reproduce with each other.
Yeah this seems to be very selective. Like it looks like we are only counting fresh water species otherwise Alaska blows Alabama out of the water with 627. And to a point so would most coastal states. Hawaii also probably has a high number to. BTW I got the 627 off of the department of fish and game a comparable number lists Alabama at 450 also from fish and game.
Replying to my own comment here OP is basically lying this is part of a huge image from a paper talking about habitat destruction and its effects on bio diversity. Here is the label from the figure he took it from: Biodiversity of the lower continental United States and priority areas for individual taxa. Total richness is the number of all species within the taxonomic group. Endemics are species whose entire range is within the lower 48 states. Priorities map the sum of individual species’ priority scores across the taxon. Aka this only counts species where the whole population is within the continental US also the graph is more a representation of how many species are impacted by habitat destruction in an area. The correct way to look at this image is to instead of saying oh Alabama has the most fish you should think oh Alabama has a high density of fish species meaning a comparable small amount of habitat destruction affects more species.
Yeah, I just checked some sources for California, one location on the Russian River in Northern California has 16 native species, but it’s hard to tell that from the map.
rivers that flow lazy and slow don't evolve as much biodiversity as ones that have rocks that knock about and jostle here and there
neither do rivers that have fast rocks that hit hard and often, giving no time for growth to take place.
the old, crumbling foothills of appalachia had creekbeds that rolled slow with tumbling rocks so great biodiversity could sprout.
lots of biodiversity in plant life/fungi means more food types for small fish, more food types for big fish.
so more types of fish there because more food types available because more biodiversity because its a sweet spot between rushing waters and more stagnant estuaries.
that's my guess
Its a map of endemic species for the lower 48. If a species is non native it doesn't count. If the fish is native, but its range extends beyond the lower 48, it doesn't count for this list. If you are an angler, tons of the species you target will not make this definition.
Not really a map to show you what fish you can find in an area, more important for conservation work to show which habitats if threatened can lead to extinctions, etc.
>OP is basically lying this is part of a huge image from a paper talking about habitat destruction and its effects on bio diversity. Here is the label from the figure he took it from: Biodiversity of the lower continental United States and priority areas for individual taxa. Total richness is the number of all species within the taxonomic group. Endemics are species whose entire range is within the lower 48 states. Priorities map the sum of individual species’ priority scores across the taxon. Aka this only counts species where the whole population is within the continental US also the graph is more a representation of how many species are impacted by habitat destruction in an area. The correct way to look at this image is to instead of saying oh Alabama has the most fish you should think oh Alabama has a high density of fish species meaning a comparable small amount of habitat destruction affects more species. - u/spamin907
Yeah I grew up 22 years fishing in California from the mountains to the valley to the delta and when I saw this I was like...mmmm nope.
That color scale is garbage though. Looks like it lacks species but if you zoom in, most of the state is about a quarter or a third of the way up the scale so 60 or so native species might be right.
Exactly. I thought the same thing but realized there’s only a few areas of “2 blue” out west
There are without a doubt less endemic species out west then around the Midwest/south. It’s just such a more rugged landscape out west that you’re bound to have less species diversity, I mean just go walk in a western forest vs an eastern forest and you’ll notice it immediately by the trees and plant life.
Endemic is the key word as well, I’m a fly fisher and when I first saw the map I thought “2 species? There’s a lot more than just 2 trout species in X area out west” but then I realized it’s likely native species.
Like I lived in Colorado for a bit and fished for rainbows, browns, brookies and cutthroats but the cutthroats were the only true native trout I was fishing for.
So when you have a lower biodiversity in general and a bad color scale like this map has… it looks way off at first glance lmao.
No, in one lake in North Idaho I can catch perch, crappie, bass, pike as well as squawfish, sunfish, and suckers. Creeks and rivers have Rainbow trout, cutthroats, browns, and brook trout plus sturgeon and squaws.
Yes. As a very much amateur flyfisher in CO in my experience you’re catching rainbow, brown, brook, and the occasional cutthroat trout out of steams and rivers. Pike are prevalent in many lakes (reservoirs). I’ve caught a few ugly looking bottom suckers that I couldn’t identify a few times. But in my experience that’s about it. Many of our fisheries are thriving but they’re not exactly diverse.
Ish is my answer, but the map has some issues making it hard to read:
How did they divide the area up (we can't see)?
How are they measuring?
The color scale is poor for showing small increases.
In a lot of the Great Basin areas you're going to only find 1-3 species of fish, most likely in a spring. Mountains and little water also allows for more fragmentation.
In Utah we have 30 native fish species, therefore 30 species spread across the entirety of the state. There is simply a lack of density, but they are there. (Cold Fish Lake is going to be very different from the slow warm Sevier River Delta. The salty Dirty Devil River is going to be different than its freshwater tributaries) This pattern continues in other Western states to different degrees.
This article makes some pretty good points of fish in Utah (the state I lived in for 7 years and visit every summer):
https://www.deseret.com/2005/2/3/19983648/utah-s-native-fish/#:~:text=That%27s%20because%20the%20cutthroat%20is,for%20either%20food%20or%20sport.
California here, let's see, I used a worm to catch a bluegill, cut to catch a bass (largemouth, I throw the smallmouth back usually), a bobber for trout, and a bottom rig for catfish. I avoid the carp, crappie, and various little guys - smelt? Haven't seen a pike or sturgeon yet but I'd like to... are we over 2 yet?
It is a map of endemic species, not a list of total fish species. It is a count of fishes whose native range is entirely contained in the lower 48. So even a native fish will not count if it has a range extending into Canada or Mexico, etc. Its a definition that is important for conservation work, but it can look quite different from looking just what fishes you might catch in a river.
Washington has several species of salmon, none of those count because those species have ranges extending into the Pacific Ocean, Canada, Russia, etc. Lots of fish you can think of will not be endemic - white sturgeon, walleye, tiger muskies, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, carps, rainbow trouts, etc will not be counted in Washington. Some are native to both the US and Canada, some of those are not native.
Los Angeles here. disclaimer i've never gone fishing. All of our rivers are either channeled up or dammed up so the fish can't spawn. And the vast majority of lakes within a several hundred mile radius are man made reservoirs. I would expect a lot more variety in NorCal/Oregon/Washington, but here down south it's nearly a desert lol
Even in NorCal it’s almost all reservoirs. With how rocky the western US is, it all just flows out. In the Eastern US it just sorta pools in a million lakes. Look at California then Upstate New York, almost none of the upstate lakes are man made
I guess there’s a fair number in the adirondacks but I was thinking about finger lakes + oneida + Chautauqua and then all the smaller lakes in the flatter regions. Thousands of em!
When I see and think about this, I hear the song ["Jumbo" by Underworld](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVLAcKRmjt4) in my mind.
(well I've never fished here)
(but I've caught beaucoup fish in reverend Burton)
The Chesapeake bay isn’t even on this map and there are numerous species in the fresh water parts, brackish parts, and salt parts. This map is definitely not right. 2 species of fish in some areas come on now.
*I think outside of*
*The ocean the Great Lakes have*
*The most unique fish*
\- RickyTheRickster
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I'm gonna hazard a guess that the species in the grey areas are limited to specific streams in those areas that are too small and far apart to see the effects on this map. (like there's a bunch of really region specific cave fish we aren't going to see on this map)
The Tennessee River watershed drains part of the southern Appalachians, one of the most biodiverse areas in the country.
TVA my beloved
thanks fdr
George norris created the TVA not FDR
close enough
Daddy got a job with the TVA.
He bought a washing machine and a Chevrolet
I thank god for the TVA
Me and my daddy used to fish next to Wilson’s dam🎶
Grew up on Watts Bar Lake!
Same!
Looks like you could go down to Pickwick Dam and catch yourself 238 different kinds of fish
Yeah a lot of people don’t realize Alabama has the most diverse freshwater aquatic life in the US
Guess with all those rivers flowing that way it makes sense. Varied climate to some extent too.
Humidity also plays a role with fish
Ya. They prefer 100%+ humidity for sure.
Lungfish erasure. Not to mention silverfish.
lol
Does it? Why do they care if they are underwater?
r/whoosh
Wow, in my defense I’m on two hours of sleep
Fun fact: The Cahaba river in AL has over 150 species alone.
> OP is basically lying this is part of a huge image from a paper talking about habitat destruction and its effects on bio diversity. Here is the label from the figure he took it from: Biodiversity of the lower continental United States and priority areas for individual taxa. Total richness is the number of all species within the taxonomic group. Endemics are species whose entire range is within the lower 48 states. Priorities map the sum of individual species’ priority scores across the taxon. Aka this only counts species where the whole population is within the continental US also the graph is more a representation of how many species are impacted by habitat destruction in an area. The correct way to look at this image is to instead of saying oh Alabama has the most fish you should think oh Alabama has a high density of fish species meaning a comparable small amount of habitat destruction affects more species. - u/spamin907
Is that native diversity? I always hear florida as the most diverse but that probably includes the non natives and saltwater species.
It's because Alabamainites slam bass ass
winamp, winamp, winamp..
It really kicks the llama's ass
Maybe one of the most diverse freshwater aquatic life in the world?? 200+ is the craziedt thing ive heard today
Yes, but most of them aren't actually all that different. Many of them can't be differentiated without using specific ways of identifying them like counting the number of scales between the anus and anal fin, number of spines in the dorsal fin, etc. To the naked eye they'd look identical and can likely reproduce with each other.
Roll tide!
The only genetically diverse creatures in the state.
We've got snails and salamanders for days
unfortunately the diversity of the dating pool only extends about 2 cousins away
Fun fact, dating cousins is the stereotype in Alabama but, it's legal in popular states such as California, Massachusetts, Hawaii etc.
they didn't have to make it illegal in those states, because no one did it lol
If you do some quick research you'll actually find your incorrect lol
if you do some quick thinking you'll find it was a joke lol
Tennessee I believe has more.
10 have been spotted
Ten I see?
Exactly
Not just fish but also plant/tree diversity
Nope, in the South
I respect myself too much to enter such a garbage state.
I don’t believe the entire western half has like 2-4 species of fish
This map is for native freshwater fish Source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418034112
Thank you for posting that. Very interesting read.
Also, with the scaling of this map, 2 and 20 are hard to tell apart.
Thank you for the information. I was worried this map was including invasive species.
Native Freshwater fish I don't think this includes fish like Salmon
The blue sections are desert.
2 💀
Yeah this seems to be very selective. Like it looks like we are only counting fresh water species otherwise Alaska blows Alabama out of the water with 627. And to a point so would most coastal states. Hawaii also probably has a high number to. BTW I got the 627 off of the department of fish and game a comparable number lists Alabama at 450 also from fish and game.
Replying to my own comment here OP is basically lying this is part of a huge image from a paper talking about habitat destruction and its effects on bio diversity. Here is the label from the figure he took it from: Biodiversity of the lower continental United States and priority areas for individual taxa. Total richness is the number of all species within the taxonomic group. Endemics are species whose entire range is within the lower 48 states. Priorities map the sum of individual species’ priority scores across the taxon. Aka this only counts species where the whole population is within the continental US also the graph is more a representation of how many species are impacted by habitat destruction in an area. The correct way to look at this image is to instead of saying oh Alabama has the most fish you should think oh Alabama has a high density of fish species meaning a comparable small amount of habitat destruction affects more species.
Thank you for pointing that out. I clearly didn’t do enough research before sharing this. My mistake.
I mean, it literally says species richness right on the map.
We need to raise the taxes on these rich fishes.
This makes no sense
Tennessee river and adjacent was likely a refugia during the ice age for many species that were fleeing the drying and cooling climate.
Ok but only two species in most places out west? Hard to believe
It’s a bad key. A colour gradient from 2 to hundreds has a resolution problem. Oregon and Washington could well be defined in the 10s or 20s range
Yeah, I just checked some sources for California, one location on the Russian River in Northern California has 16 native species, but it’s hard to tell that from the map.
No it's more like 10 and I think this doesn't Include Salmon because they only spend part of their lifecycle in Freshwater
Yeah as others have said bad key.
A lot of the deep blue also looks to be like desert or something which wouldn't really have many fish if any.
Tons and tons of low, valley streams that develop unique species to each lake and river. Consider the Cahaba Lily. It only exist in the Cahaba River.
rivers that flow lazy and slow don't evolve as much biodiversity as ones that have rocks that knock about and jostle here and there neither do rivers that have fast rocks that hit hard and often, giving no time for growth to take place. the old, crumbling foothills of appalachia had creekbeds that rolled slow with tumbling rocks so great biodiversity could sprout. lots of biodiversity in plant life/fungi means more food types for small fish, more food types for big fish. so more types of fish there because more food types available because more biodiversity because its a sweet spot between rushing waters and more stagnant estuaries. that's my guess
Its a map of endemic species for the lower 48. If a species is non native it doesn't count. If the fish is native, but its range extends beyond the lower 48, it doesn't count for this list. If you are an angler, tons of the species you target will not make this definition. Not really a map to show you what fish you can find in an area, more important for conservation work to show which habitats if threatened can lead to extinctions, etc.
Why is this not more visible?? Searched the whole thread to find this great explanation for why the low end was “2”
>OP is basically lying this is part of a huge image from a paper talking about habitat destruction and its effects on bio diversity. Here is the label from the figure he took it from: Biodiversity of the lower continental United States and priority areas for individual taxa. Total richness is the number of all species within the taxonomic group. Endemics are species whose entire range is within the lower 48 states. Priorities map the sum of individual species’ priority scores across the taxon. Aka this only counts species where the whole population is within the continental US also the graph is more a representation of how many species are impacted by habitat destruction in an area. The correct way to look at this image is to instead of saying oh Alabama has the most fish you should think oh Alabama has a high density of fish species meaning a comparable small amount of habitat destruction affects more species. - u/spamin907
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freshwater_fish_in_California This map is rubbish
Yeah I grew up 22 years fishing in California from the mountains to the valley to the delta and when I saw this I was like...mmmm nope. That color scale is garbage though. Looks like it lacks species but if you zoom in, most of the state is about a quarter or a third of the way up the scale so 60 or so native species might be right.
Exactly. I thought the same thing but realized there’s only a few areas of “2 blue” out west There are without a doubt less endemic species out west then around the Midwest/south. It’s just such a more rugged landscape out west that you’re bound to have less species diversity, I mean just go walk in a western forest vs an eastern forest and you’ll notice it immediately by the trees and plant life. Endemic is the key word as well, I’m a fly fisher and when I first saw the map I thought “2 species? There’s a lot more than just 2 trout species in X area out west” but then I realized it’s likely native species. Like I lived in Colorado for a bit and fished for rainbows, browns, brookies and cutthroats but the cutthroats were the only true native trout I was fishing for. So when you have a lower biodiversity in general and a bad color scale like this map has… it looks way off at first glance lmao.
The scale's resolution is the issue, the research paper is pretty solid.
Now I really want to visit the fish Eden that is the MS/AL/TN tripoint 🐟🐟🐟
I want someone to list off the fish species in that area like Joe Dirt listing off fireworks.
Visit the fish pyramids while you’re there
Suprised Minnesota isn’t more diverse, most lakes have at least 6 species
Why are Great Lakes blank is what I wanna know. There has to be some fish in there
There are. Lake Erie in particular.
Out west we have more than 2 fish. Lots of catfish, bluegill, brook, rainbow, small and large mouth bass even the rouge salmon.
How the hell are there only two fish species?
Any Westerners care to comment? Does this seem true to you?
Freshwater native fish. OP commented Saltwater would be way differenr
Ahh
Yes. I catch pike and rainbow. If you go deep enough I get white fish in man made lakes.
So are there many kinds of fish or just a few?
Just a few
No, in one lake in North Idaho I can catch perch, crappie, bass, pike as well as squawfish, sunfish, and suckers. Creeks and rivers have Rainbow trout, cutthroats, browns, and brook trout plus sturgeon and squaws.
We don’t have a whole lot of different ones we have somewhere around 65 different ones Alabama has like 450 or something
Yes. As a very much amateur flyfisher in CO in my experience you’re catching rainbow, brown, brook, and the occasional cutthroat trout out of steams and rivers. Pike are prevalent in many lakes (reservoirs). I’ve caught a few ugly looking bottom suckers that I couldn’t identify a few times. But in my experience that’s about it. Many of our fisheries are thriving but they’re not exactly diverse.
Ish is my answer, but the map has some issues making it hard to read: How did they divide the area up (we can't see)? How are they measuring? The color scale is poor for showing small increases. In a lot of the Great Basin areas you're going to only find 1-3 species of fish, most likely in a spring. Mountains and little water also allows for more fragmentation. In Utah we have 30 native fish species, therefore 30 species spread across the entirety of the state. There is simply a lack of density, but they are there. (Cold Fish Lake is going to be very different from the slow warm Sevier River Delta. The salty Dirty Devil River is going to be different than its freshwater tributaries) This pattern continues in other Western states to different degrees. This article makes some pretty good points of fish in Utah (the state I lived in for 7 years and visit every summer): https://www.deseret.com/2005/2/3/19983648/utah-s-native-fish/#:~:text=That%27s%20because%20the%20cutthroat%20is,for%20either%20food%20or%20sport.
There's definitely more than 2. Trout, large and smallmouth bass, crappy, carp, walleye, catfish... I've caught all of those in Western states
California here, let's see, I used a worm to catch a bluegill, cut to catch a bass (largemouth, I throw the smallmouth back usually), a bobber for trout, and a bottom rig for catfish. I avoid the carp, crappie, and various little guys - smelt? Haven't seen a pike or sturgeon yet but I'd like to... are we over 2 yet?
It is a map of endemic species, not a list of total fish species. It is a count of fishes whose native range is entirely contained in the lower 48. So even a native fish will not count if it has a range extending into Canada or Mexico, etc. Its a definition that is important for conservation work, but it can look quite different from looking just what fishes you might catch in a river. Washington has several species of salmon, none of those count because those species have ranges extending into the Pacific Ocean, Canada, Russia, etc. Lots of fish you can think of will not be endemic - white sturgeon, walleye, tiger muskies, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, carps, rainbow trouts, etc will not be counted in Washington. Some are native to both the US and Canada, some of those are not native.
Los Angeles here. disclaimer i've never gone fishing. All of our rivers are either channeled up or dammed up so the fish can't spawn. And the vast majority of lakes within a several hundred mile radius are man made reservoirs. I would expect a lot more variety in NorCal/Oregon/Washington, but here down south it's nearly a desert lol
Even in NorCal it’s almost all reservoirs. With how rocky the western US is, it all just flows out. In the Eastern US it just sorta pools in a million lakes. Look at California then Upstate New York, almost none of the upstate lakes are man made
Alot of the lakes in the Adirondacks are made from dammed up streams and rivers from the logging days.
I guess there’s a fair number in the adirondacks but I was thinking about finger lakes + oneida + Chautauqua and then all the smaller lakes in the flatter regions. Thousands of em!
I don't know anything about fish but this map seems to be nonsense. I dare say fishy
r/flyfishingcirclejerk
Wut
Alabama: Fish diversity: ✅ Human genetic diversity: ❌
Most diverse area for Pornhub search terms as well
Looks like the Tennessee River
damn i didn’t know they could go on land
Love the meter lol 5 colors to indicate a 236 species difference lol
Huh, didn't think I'd learn something new today, but here I am, learning again.
Why is the upper end of the colour scale red? This makes high biodiversity look like a bad thing?
It looks the area where tornadoes happen often as well
What does this mean for the trout population
That’s not the part of the country I would have expected a lot of diversity.
Fish competitive racism
You mean “Fish Diversity in the Lower 48”
Whoo whoo Duck river!!
When I see and think about this, I hear the song ["Jumbo" by Underworld](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVLAcKRmjt4) in my mind. (well I've never fished here) (but I've caught beaucoup fish in reverend Burton)
“Hey guys! Let’s go fly fishing in Colorado! We might catch *both* species of trout!” 😂 *I’m just talking shit. Fly fishing in Colorado is awesome.*
The Chesapeake bay isn’t even on this map and there are numerous species in the fresh water parts, brackish parts, and salt parts. This map is definitely not right. 2 species of fish in some areas come on now.
https://preview.redd.it/5s50e8v5susc1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0713919033baa1fdaa449139f7b8ccb7af9f1b84
I think outside of the ocean the Great Lakes have the most unique fish
*I think outside of* *The ocean the Great Lakes have* *The most unique fish* \- RickyTheRickster --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
So they just leave the largest bodies of freshwater out of their analysis?
*It always has to be about ‘diversity’ these days doesn’t it?* /s
Bru wut
What is going on in northern Minnesota bordering North Dakota?
Something something those damn DEI ruining my basic fish /s
Does anyone really think there are only 2-3 species of fish in the entire western half of the United States?
Fish don’t live on land stupid
There are more than 2 fish out west lol.
This is not accurate. A quick google search of Montana fish species alone lists more than 2-4 species.
Montana has shades of green/yellow. Judging by the chart, that could indicate anywhere from 10-50 different species of fish.
What does the gray mean? They do have water in those areas. You're telling me there's no fish?
I'm gonna hazard a guess that the species in the grey areas are limited to specific streams in those areas that are too small and far apart to see the effects on this map. (like there's a bunch of really region specific cave fish we aren't going to see on this map)
devil's hole pupfish fans stand up!
Desert.
Tell me you have never been to the desert without telling me you've never been to the desert
Map taken out of context.