Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Long­nose dace (Rhinichthys catarac­tae) have the widest ge­o­graphic dis­tri­b­u­tion of any mem­ber of the Cyprinidae fam­ily (Jenk­ins and Burk­head, 1994). The dis­tri­b­u­tion spans much of North Amer­ica, rang­ing from the At­lantic coast to the Pa­cific Ocean and from north­ern Mex­ico to the Arc­tic Cir­cle in north­ern Canada. (Jenk­ins and Burk­head, 1994)

• Biogeographic Regions
• nearctic
  • introduced
  • native

Habi­tat

Pop­u­la­tions of long­nose dace use dif­fer­ent niches based on local habi­tat con­di­tions. Dif­fer­ent habi­tat avail­abil­ity as well as the pres­ence or ab­sence of com­pet­ing species dri­ves pop­u­la­tions into dif­fer­ent pat­terns of niche use. Long­nose dace are found in fast-flow­ing, cold water. Most pop­u­la­tions are found in stream rif­fles. When in lakes, they are typ­i­cally in the tur­bu­lent surge zone less than 10 m deep, where out­flow from a river mixes with lake water (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). An­other char­ac­ter­is­tic of long­nose dace habi­tat is rocky or gravel sub­strate (McPhail and Lind­sey, 1970; Cooper, 1980). Brazo et al. (1978) re­ported sim­i­lar sub­strate pref­er­ences in lake-dwelling pop­u­la­tions, where long­nose dace pre­fer gravel sub­strates over sandy habi­tats. Streams they in­habit tend to be small creeks and rivers with shal­low pools as well as an abun­dance of fast-flow­ing rif­fles; sim­i­lar to "trout streams" (Reed, 1959). Young long­nose dace are found in shal­low pools for the first four months fol­low­ing hatch­ing (Reed 1959). Pools are also used by adults in the ab­sence of com­pet­ing species (Ed­wards, Li, and Schreck, 1983). (Brazo, et al., 1978; Cooper, 1980; Ed­wards, et al., 1983; McPhail and Lind­sey, 1970; Reed, 1959)

• Habitat Regions
• temperate
• freshwater

• Aquatic Biomes
• benthic
• lakes and ponds
• rivers and streams

• Range depth

  <1 to 10 m

  to 32.81 ft

• Average depth

  <1 m

  ft

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

Long­nose dace are typ­i­cally dark olive-brown with a lighter yel­low-tan ven­ter (Page and Burr, 1991). A dark lat­eral stripe, pre­sent in ju­ve­niles, fades as the fish ma­tures. This is a good dis­tin­guish­ing char­ac­ter­is­tic be­tween long­nose dace and their close rel­a­tives, blac­knose dace (Rhinichthys atrat­u­lus), which main­tain their dark lat­eral stripe through­out their life­time (Page and Burr, 1991). Other iden­ti­fy­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics in­clude a sub-ter­mi­nal mouth with a fleshy snout pro­ject­ing far be­yond the mouth. A small bar­bel is also pre­sent near the cor­ner of the mouth (Gold­stein and Simon, 1999). Total length is largely based on local habi­tat con­di­tions; adults are usu­ally 60 to 90 mm in length (Sigler and Miller, 1963) and re­ported max­i­mum sizes are around 160 mm for stream dwelling in­di­vid­u­als, slightly larger for lake-dwelling long­nose dace (Page and Burr, 1991; Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). Long­nose dace have been re­ported to get up to 225 mm in total length (Ger­ald 1966). (Brazo, et al., 1978; Ger­ald, 1966; Gold­stein and Simon, 1999; Page and Burr, 1991; Sigler and Miller, 1963)

• Other Physical Features
• ectothermic
• heterothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• female larger

• Range length

  60 to 225 mm

  2.36 to 8.86 in

De­vel­op­ment

After fer­til­iza­tion, eggs de­velop for 3 to 4 days be­fore hatch­ing into pro­to­larva. Dur­ing this time, the head and tail sep­a­rate from the yolk sac and the cir­cu­la­tory sys­tem be­gins to de­velop, as does the spinal cord. Pelagic pro­to­lar­vae con­tinue to de­velop, pig­men­ta­tion be­gins, and early fin de­vel­op­ment oc­curs. By the 9th day after hatch­ing, the sac is ab­sorbed and the lar­vae are now con­sid­ered meso­lar­vae. Fin rays be­come more de­fined and pig­men­ta­tion con­tin­ues to ac­cu­mu­late. As Rhinichthys catarac­tae meta­lar­vae de­velop into ju­ve­niles, fin buds de­velop, the fish takes on the mor­phol­ogy of a ju­ve­nile (in­clud­ing an elon­gated fleshy snout), and pig­men­ta­tion ac­cu­mu­la­tion is com­pleted (Fuiman and Loos, 1977; Cooper, 1980).

Ju­ve­nile long­nose dace (Rhinichthys catarac­tae) con­tinue to grow and de­velop in streams. Most long­nose dace ma­ture at age 2. A small per­cent­age of adults are ma­ture at age 1. This per­cent­age in­creases slightly in lake-dwelling pop­u­la­tions, where growth and mat­u­ra­tion is ac­cel­er­ated (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). Age 1 spawn­ers are pre­dom­i­nantly males, in­di­cat­ing pos­si­ble shorter mat­u­ra­tion times for males than fe­males (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). Ma­ture in­di­vid­u­als, both male and fe­male, are ap­prox­i­mately 75 mm in total length at the time of mat­u­ra­tion (Roberts and Gross­man, 2001). Fe­males gen­er­ally be­come the dom­i­nant sex and typ­i­cally grow larger than males by age 3 (Ger­ald, 1966). (Brazo, et al., 1978; Cooper, 1980; Fuiman and Loos, 1977; Ger­ald, 1966; Roberts and Gross­man, 2001)

• Development - Life Cycle
• metamorphosis
• indeterminate growth

Re­pro­duc­tion

Adult long­nose dace are polyg­y­nan­drous (promis­cu­ous) be­cause both ma­ture males and fe­males have mul­ti­ple spawn­ing part­ners. Males are ter­ri­to­r­ial and breed with many fe­males who visit their habi­tat (Bart­nik, 1970). Fe­male long­nose dace are ca­pa­ble of spawn­ing 6 or more times dur­ing their breed­ing sea­son and will breed with mul­ti­ple males dur­ing this time (Roberts and Gross­man, 2001). (Bart­nik, 1970; Roberts and Gross­man, 2001)

• Mating System
• polygynandrous (promiscuous)

Some long­nose dace are ca­pa­ble of re­pro­duc­ing at age 1, all are ma­ture by age 2 (Roberts and Gross­man, 2001; Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). Ma­ture in­di­vid­u­als, both male and fe­male, are ap­prox­i­mately 75 mm in total length. While spawn­ing typ­i­cally oc­curs only in one year, fe­males are ca­pa­ble of pro­duc­ing 6 or more clutches per year. Total po­ten­tial fe­cun­dity ranged from 1155 to 2534 eggs for fe­males in stream dwelling pop­u­la­tions (Roberts and Gross­man, 2001) and from 870 to 9,953 eggs per fe­male in Lake Michi­gan pop­u­la­tions (Brazo et al., 1978). Long­nose dace lar­vae hatched 3 to 4 days after fer­til­iza­tion oc­curred; with an mean length of 5.9 mm (Fuiman and Loos, 1977; Cooper, 1980). In­for­ma­tion on mass at the time of hatch­ing was not avail­able. Spawn­ing typ­i­cally oc­curs in sum­mer but tim­ing is de­pen­dent on lat­i­tude and water tem­per­a­ture (Ed­wards, Li, and Schreck, 1983). Typ­i­cal spawn­ing sea­son takes place in late June and early July (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978) but oc­curs as early as late May (Reed, 1959) and as late as Au­gust (McPhail and Lind­sey 1970). Peak spawn­ing typ­i­cally oc­curs at water tem­per­a­tures be­tween 14° and 19° C (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). (Brazo, et al., 1978; Cooper, 1980; Ed­wards, et al., 1983; Fuiman and Loos, 1977; McPhail and Lind­sey, 1970; Reed, 1959; Roberts and Gross­man, 2001)

• Key Reproductive Features
• semelparous
• seasonal breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual
• fertilization
  • external
• oviparous

• Breeding interval

  Female longnose dace are capable of having 6 or more clutches per year but typically only spawn for 1 season.

• Breeding season

  Longnose dace reproduce between May and July.

• Range number of offspring

  1155 to 2534

• Average number of offspring

  1832

• Range time to hatching

  3 to 4 days

• Range time to independence

  3 to 4 days

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  1 to 2 years

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  2 years

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  1 to 2 years

• Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  2 years

In stream and lake-dwelling pop­u­la­tions, spawn­ing oc­curs over gravel. Male long­nose dace con­struct a small nest in the peb­bles where eggs are de­posited (McPhail and Lind­sey, 1970). Males are ter­ri­to­r­ial and de­fend their spawn­ing habi­tat, which is vis­ited by mul­ti­ple fe­males (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). After spawn­ing, lit­tle or no parental care is given the eggs. They are are cat­e­go­rized as ben­thic spawn­ers who broad­cast their eggs over gravel. The eggs are not hid­den (Helf­man, Col­lette, and Facey, 1997). Em­bryos tem­porar­ily ad­here to the gravel for 7 to 10 days and then the hatched fry be­come pelagic (McPhail and Lind­sey, 1970; Cooper, 1980). (Brazo, et al., 1978; Cooper, 1980; Helf­man, et al., 1997; McPhail and Lind­sey, 1970)

• Parental Investment
• no parental involvement
• pre-fertilization
  • provisioning
  • protecting
    • male

Lifes­pan/Longevity

Long­nose dace have a max­i­mum re­ported lifes­pan of 5 years, but lifes­pan is typ­i­cally only 3 years for male in­di­vid­u­als (Reed and Moul­ton, 1973; Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). (Brazo, et al., 1978; Reed and Moul­tan, 1973)

• Range lifespan
  Status: wild

  3 to 5 years

• Average lifespan
  Status: wild

  3 years

• Typical lifespan
  Status: wild

  2 to 5 years

Be­hav­ior

While faster areas of a rif­fle are typ­i­cally in­hab­ited by adults, both adult and ju­ve­nile long­nose dace pre­fer fast ve­loc­ity (40 to 50 cm/s) areas in the rif­fles they in­habit. Mullen and Bur­ton (1998) found that, in the pres­ence of adults, ju­ve­niles will gen­er­ally use medium ve­loc­ity (25 to 35 cm/s) areas, but show niche ex­pan­sion into faster ve­loc­ity areas when adults are re­moved from the site. Nei­ther adults nor ju­ve­niles made use of rif­fles where the water ve­loc­ity was below 10 cm/s (Mullen and Bur­ton, 1998). This as­pect of niche dis­tri­b­u­tion is thought to be caused by in­tra-spe­cific com­pe­ti­tion for faster ve­loc­ity areas in the rif­fle and is re­ferred to as size-spe­cific habi­tat seg­re­ga­tion (Mullen and Bur­ton, 1995). Mullen and Bur­ton (1995) sug­gested that this mi­cro­hab­i­tat seg­re­ga­tion was a strat­egy to re­duce in­tra-spe­cific com­pe­ti­tion be­tween in­di­vid­u­als in dif­fer­ent life his­tory stages by re­duc­ing niche over­lap. Gross­man et al. (1998) also found that in­tra-spe­cific com­pe­ti­tion, dri­ven by food lim­i­ta­tion, was the pri­mary fac­tor in­flu­enc­ing habi­tat choice by long­nose dace rather being dis­persed due to in­ter-spe­cific com­pe­ti­tion or preda­tor avoid­ance. (Gross­man, et al., 1998; Mullen and Bur­ton, 1995; Mullen and Bur­ton, 1998)

• Key Behaviors
• natatorial
• nocturnal
• motile
• sedentary
• territorial

Home Range

Dur­ing the breed­ing sea­son, males are ter­ri­to­r­ial and stay near their spawn­ing area; fe­males are more mo­bile dur­ing this time and move through­out the stream. Exact ter­ri­tory size has not been de­ter­mined. (Bart­nik, 1970; Brazo, et al., 1978)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

De­tailed in­for­ma­tion on Rhinichthys catarac­tae com­mu­ni­ca­tion and per­cep­tion is not avail­able.

• Communication Channels
• visual
• tactile
• chemical

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• vibrations
• chemical

Food Habits

Long­nose dace are pri­mar­ily noc­tur­nal feed­ers (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). This noc­tur­nal for­ag­ing strat­egy is dif­fer­ent from most cyprinids, but Rhinichthys catarac­tae is well adapted for this method (Beers and Culp, 1990). Long­nose dace have dark-adapted vi­sion for night for­ag­ing. Beers and Culp (1990) stud­ied how changes in light in­ten­sity changed for­ag­ing ef­fi­ciency when preda­tors were re­moved. All fac­tors in­dica­tive of for­ag­ing abil­ity were great­est under low light con­di­tions, such as around dusk. How­ever, most for­ag­ing oc­curs at night where they are slightly less ef­fi­cient. There­fore, this noc­tur­nal strat­egy is thought to be a com­bi­na­tion of min­i­miz­ing pre­da­tion risks while still in­creas­ing ef­fi­ciency in low-light con­di­tions (Beers and Culp, 1990). (Beers and Culp, 1990; Ger­ald, 1966)

Long­nose dace are well adapted for feed­ing on bot­tom dwelling in­sects (Ger­ald, 1966). At night, they use ben­thic-root­ing be­hav­ior; it is thought they lo­cate prey by ol­fac­tion using their bar­bels to probe into the sub­strate (Beers and Culp, 1990). Brazo et al. (1978) de­ter­mined through stom­ach analy­sis that long­nose dace de­pend pri­mar­ily on in­ver­te­brates as their pri­mary food source. As in pre­vi­ous stud­ies, their in­ver­te­brate diet con­sisted of midges, black flies, and mayflies (Reed 1959) as well as leaf hop­pers, aphids, and small ci­cadas. Small, ju­ve­nile long­nose dace feed pri­mar­ily on algae and di­atoms until they were large enough to con­sume the same diets as adults. Larger adults shifted their diet to­ward larger ter­res­trial in­sects as well as fish eggs from other Cyprinidae (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). (Beers and Culp, 1990; Brazo, et al., 1978; Ger­ald, 1966; Reed, 1959)

• Primary Diet
• carnivore
  • insectivore

• Animal Foods
• fish
• eggs
• insects
• zooplankton

• Plant Foods
• algae
• phytoplankton

Pre­da­tion

Long­nose dace are po­ten­tial prey species for fish-eat­ing birds, such as herons, and preda­tory stream fishes in­clud­ing many salmonid species (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978). (Brazo, et al., 1978)

• Anti-predator Adaptations
• cryptic

• Known Predators

  • herons (Ardeidae)
  • salmonids (Salmonidae)

Ecosys­tem Roles

Rhinichthys catarac­tae is a wide-rang­ing fresh­wa­ter min­now that is an im­por­tant part of the food chain in many stream habi­tats. One of the im­por­tant func­tions these fish pro­vide are con­sum­ing ter­res­trial in­sects, bring­ing them into the aquatic food chain. Long­nose dace are a po­ten­tial prey species to preda­tory stream fishes in­clud­ing many salmonid species. This is es­pe­cially be­lieved to occur when alewives (Alosa pseudo­haren­gus) un­dergo sub­stan­tial pop­u­la­tion crashes (Brazo, Lis­ton, and An­der­son, 1978).

Long­nose dace are also hosts to 13 par­a­sitic species, in­clud­ing in­di­vid­u­als from 6 larger tax­o­nomic groups: 1 mono­ge­nean fluke, 2 flukes, 2 ces­tode species, 4 ne­ma­todes, 1 spiny-headed worm, and 3 pro­to­zoan species) (Muz­zall, Whe­lan, and Tay­lor, 1992). (Brazo, et al., 1978; Muz­zall, et al., 1992)

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Di­rect an­thro­pogenic in­ter­ac­tions are min­i­mal with long­nose dace, but in some areas they are used as bait for fish­ing (Scott and Cross­man, 1998). (Scott and Cross­man, 1998)

• Positive Impacts
• research and education

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

There are no known neg­a­tive af­fects of Rhinichthys catarac­tae on hu­mans.

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

Long­nose dace (Rhinichthys catarac­tae) are not listed as a species of spe­cial con­cern, en­dan­gered, threat­ened, or re­gion­ally ex­tir­pated in any of the fol­low­ing con­ser­va­tion lists: IUCN Red List, CITES ap­pen­dices, or the United States En­dan­gered Species Act.

• IUCN Red List

  Not Evaluated

• US Federal List

  No special status

• CITES

  No special status

• State of Michigan List

  No special status

Con­trib­u­tors

Kevin Duby (au­thor), North­ern Michi­gan Uni­ver­sity, Rachelle Ster­ling (ed­i­tor), Spe­cial Pro­jects, Jill Leonard (ed­i­tor), North­ern Michi­gan Uni­ver­sity, Tanya Dewey (ed­i­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan-Ann Arbor.

Ref­er­ences

Bart­nik, V. 1970. Re­pro­duc­tive iso­la­tion be­tween two sym­patric dace, Rhinichthysa trat­u­lus and R. catarac­tae, in Man­i­toba. J. Fish Res. Board Can., 27: 2125-2141.

Beers, C., J. Culp. 1990. Plas­tic­ity in for­ag­ing be­hav­iour of a lotic min­now (Rhinichthys catarac­tae) in re­sponse to dif­fer­ent light in­ten­si­ties. Can. J. Zool, 68(1): 101–105.

Brazo, D., C. Lis­ton, R. An­der­son. 1978. Life His­tory of the Long­nose Dace, Rhinichthys catarac­tae, in the Surge Zone of East­ern Lake Michi­gan Near Lud­ing­ton, Michi­gan. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 107(4): 550-556.

Cooper, J. 1980. Egg, Lar­val and Ju­ve­nile De­vel­op­ment of Long­nose Dace, Rhinichthys catarac­tae, and River Chub No­comis mi­cro­p­ogon with Notes on Their Hy­bridiza­tion. Copeia, 3: 469-478.

Ed­wards, E., H. Li, C. Schreck. 1983. Habi­tat suit­abil­ity index mod­els: Long­nose dace. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv., FWS/OBS-82/10: 13.

Facey, D., G. Gross­man. 1992. The re­la­tion­ship be­tween water ve­loc­ity, en­er­getic costs, and mi­cro­hab­i­tat use in four North Amer­i­can stream fishes. Hy­dro­bi­olo­gia, 239: 16.

Fuiman, L., J. Loos. 1977. Iden­ti­fy­ing Char­ac­ters of the Early De­vel­op­ment of the Daces Rhinichthys atrat­u­lus and R. catarac­tae. Pro­ceed­ings of the Acad­emy of Nat­ural Sci­ences of Philadel­phia, 129: 23-32.

Ger­ald, J. 1966. Food Habits of the Long­nose Dace, Rhinichthys catarac­tae. Copeia, 3: 478-485.

Gold­stein, R., T. Simon. 1999. To­ward a united de­f­i­n­i­tion of guild struc­ture for feed­ing ecol­ogy of North Amer­i­can fresh­wa­ter fishes.. New York, New York: CRC Press.

Gross­man, G., R. Rata­jczak, M. Craw­ford, M. Free­man. 1998. As­sem­blage or­ga­ni­za­tion in stream fishes: ef­fects of en­vi­ron­men­tal vari­a­tion and in­ter­spe­cific in­ter­ac­tions. Eco­log­i­cal Mono­graphs, 68: 395–420.

Helf­man, G., B. Col­lette, D. Facey. 1997. The di­ver­sity of fishes. Malden, Mass­a­chu­setts: Black­well Sci­ence.

Jenk­ins, R., N. Burk­head. 1994. Fresh­wa­ter fishes of Vir­ginia. Bethesda, Mary­land: Amer­i­can Fish­eries So­ci­ety.

McPhail, J., C. Lind­sey. 1970. Fresh­wa­ter fishes of north­west­ern Canada and Alaska. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can., 173: 1-373.

Mullen, D., T. Bur­ton. 1998. Ex­per­i­men­tal tests of in­traspe­cific com­pe­ti­tion in stream rif­fles be­tween ju­ve­nile and adult long­nose dace (Rhinichthys catarac­tae). Can. J. Zool., 76(5): 855-862.

Mullen, D., T. Bur­ton. 1995. Size Re­lated Habi­tat Use by Long­nose Dace (Rhinichthys catarac­tae). Amer­i­can Mid­land Nat­u­ral­ist, 133(1): 177-183.

Muz­zall, P., G. Whe­lan, W. Tay­lor. 1992. Host-Par­a­site Re­la­tion­ships of Long­nose Dace, Rhinichthys catarac­tae, from the Ford River, Michi­gan. The Jour­nal of Par­a­sitol­ogy, 78(5): 837-844.

Page, L., B. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Fresh­wa­ter Fishes : North Amer­ica North of Mex­ico (Pe­ter­son Field Guides). Boston, Mass­a­chu­setts: Houghton Mif­flin Com­pany.

Reed, R. 1959. Age, growth, and food of the long­nose dace, Rhinichthys catarac­tae, in north­west­ern Penn­syl­va­nia. Copeia, 1959: 160-162.

Reed, R., J. Moul­tan. 1973. Age and growth of the blac­knose dace, Rhinichthys atrat­u­lus and long­nose dace, R. catarac­tae in Mass­a­chu­setts.. Amer­i­can Mid­land Nat­u­ral­ist, (90)1: 206-210.

Roberts, J., G. Gross­man. 2001. Re­pro­duc­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics of fe­male long­nose dace in the Coweeta Creek drainage, North Car­olina, USA. Ecol­ogy of Fresh­wa­ter Fish, 10: 184-190.

Scott, W., E. Cross­man. 1998. Fresh­wa­ter Fishes of Canada. Oakville, On­tario: Galt House Pub­li­ca­tions Ltd..

Sigler, W., R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah State Dep­tart­ment of Fish Game.