Fish Populations, Following a Drought, in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas — A Reader’s Guide
Edition facts
Before opening Fish Populations, Following a Drought, in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas — A Reader’s Guide, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 26,473 words, 1 hr 56 min estimated reading time, and 5 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 14.0 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Fish populations,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
Rotenone was used in a few small pools in efforts to capture complete populations. This method was used to check the validity of other methods, and to reduce the possibility that rare species would go undetected. Rotenone was applied by hand, and applications were occasionally supplemented by placing rotenone in a container that was punctured with a small hole and suspended over the water at the head of a riffle draining into the area being poisoned. This maintained a toxic concentration in the pool for sufficient time to obtain the desired kill. Rotenone acts more slowly than cyanide, allowing more of the distressed fish to rise to the surface.
Bismark Brown Y was used primarily at the upper Neosho station to stain large numbers of small fish. The dye was used at a dilution of 1:20,000. Fishes were placed in the dye-solution for three hours, then transferred to a live-box in midstream for variable periods (ten minutes to twelve hours) before release.
_Determination of Abundance_
In the accounts of species that follow, the relative terms "abundant," "common," and "rare" are used. Assignment of one of these terms to each species was based on analysis of data that are presented in Tables 9-16, (pages 402, 403, 404, 405, 408, 410, 411, 414-415, and 416). The number of fish caught per unit of effort with the shocker (Table 10) and with seines (Table 11) constitute the main basis for statements about the abundance of each species at all stations except the upper Neosho station. Species listed in each Table (10 and 11) are those that were taken consistently by the method specified in the caption of the table; erratically, but in large numbers at least once, by that method; and those taken by the method specified but not the other method.
For the species listed in Table 10, the following usually applies: abundant=more than three fish caught per hour; common=one to three fish caught per hour; rare=less than one fish caught per hour.
Tables 12-16 list all fish obtained at the upper Neosho station by means of the shocker, seines, and rotenone.
Technical names of fishes are those that seem to qualify under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Vernacular names are those in Special Publication No. 2 (1960) of the American Fisheries Society, with grammatical modifications required for use in the University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History.
ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES
#Lepisosteus osseus# (Linnaeus)
The long-nosed gar was abundant at the lower and middle Neosho stations and the lower Marais des Cygnes station. Numbers increased slightly in the period of study, probably because of increased, continuous flow. The long-nosed gar was not taken at the upper Neosho station. At lower stations the fish occurred in many habitats, but most commonly in pools where gar often were seen with their snouts protruding above the water in midstream. Gar commonly lie quietly near the surface, both by day and by night, and are therefore readily collected by means of the shocker. Twice, at night, gar jumped into the boat after being shocked.
Young-of-the-year were taken at the middle and lower stations on both the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes rivers, and all were near shore in quiet water. Many young-of-the-year were seined at the lower Neosho station on 18 June 1959, near the lower end of a gravel-bar in a small backwater-area having a depth of one to three inches, a muddy bottom, and a higher temperature than the mainstream. Forty-three of these young gar averaged 2.1 inches in total length (T.L.).
Comparison of sizes of long-nosed gar taken by means of the shocker and gill nets at the lower and middle Neosho stations revealed that: the average size at each station remained constant from 1957 to 1959; the average size was greater at the lower than at the middle station; and, with the exception of young-of-the-year, no individual shorter than 13 inches was found at the middle station and only one shorter than 16 inches was taken at the lower station (Table 5).
Because collecting was intensive and several methods were used, I think that the population of gars was sampled adequately. Wallen (_Fishes of the Verdigris River in Oklahoma_, 1958:29 [mimeographed copy of dissertation, Oklahoma State University]) took large individuals in the mainstream of the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and small specimens from the headwaters of some tributaries. Because I took young-of-the-year at the lower Neosho station, it is possible that long-nosed gar move upstream when small and then slowly downstream to the larger parts of rivers as the fish increase in size. This pattern of size-segregation, according to size of river, merits further investigation.
James E. Deacon's 1961 monograph presents a systematic survey of fish populations in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas after a drought period. The work is structured as a scientific report, with separate sections for each river's description, methods, annotated species list, and comparative analysis. Deacon employs multiple capture techniques—electrical fishing gear, seines, gill nets, sodium cyanide, rotenone, and dyes—to assess abundance and distribution. The text is dense with tables and figures, including length-frequency distributions and catch-per-unit-effort data across different times of day and years.
Structure as a Scientific Report
The monograph follows a conventional scientific format: introduction, site descriptions, methods, results, and conclusions. However, Deacon subdivides the results into an annotated list of species and separate analyses for the upper Neosho River and a comparison of the two rivers. This dual structure allows him to present both detailed species accounts and broader population trends. The inclusion of multiple tables—such as stream-flow data (Tables 1–4) and length-frequency distributions (Tables 5–8)—provides a quantitative backbone. The text is interspersed with references to these tables, guiding the reader through the evidence.
Recurring Images of Drought and Recovery
Drought is not merely a backdrop but a recurring reference point. Deacon notes stream-flow data from 1954 through 1959, showing reduced flows during dry years. In species accounts, he frequently links population changes to drought conditions. For example, he observes that freshwater drum were dominated by yearlings in 1958 after a drought, and that channel catfish numbers fluctuated with water levels. The drought is invoked as a natural experiment, allowing Deacon to infer how fish communities respond to environmental stress. This focus on drought as a shaping force gives the work a cohesive narrative thread.
Movement Between Scenes: Spatial and Temporal Comparisons
Deacon moves between spatial and temporal scales. He compares fish faunas at different stations along each river (upper, middle, lower) and across years (1957–1959). Tables 9 and 10 show catch rates at different times of day and night, revealing diel patterns. He also examines local variability within a single station, noting differences in species composition between areas. This layered approach—from broad river comparisons to fine-scale habitat use—demonstrates how fish populations are distributed across space and time. The movement between scenes is systematic, with each section building on the previous one.
Recurring Details in Species Accounts
Each species account follows a consistent pattern: common and scientific name, then notes on abundance, size, habitat, and behavior. Deacon frequently mentions specific habitats—quiet water, shallow riffles, rubble bottom, mud-bottom—and time of day. For instance, he notes that freshwater drum yearlings were abundant near shore in shallow, moderately fast water over rubble at night, but rare in the same areas during daylight. Such recurring details create a vivid picture of the fishes' ecology. The accounts also include length-frequency tables, showing size distributions across years, which reveal year-class strength and growth.
Readers should approach this work as a primary source of historical fish population data. The extensive tables and species accounts offer raw material for comparisons with contemporary surveys. Deacon's methods—especially the use of multiple capture techniques—provide a model for field studies. While the text is technical, the underlying story of drought and recovery gives it broader ecological relevance.
I found myself thinking about the old drought study again, those careful tables of fish counts in Kansas rivers—how quietly it documented the world rebuilding itself. There’s a similar patience in Superior fishing — Inside the Classic, though it comes from a different angle. One documents, the other reflects, yet both seem to understand that water holds stories we only partially retrieve.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
What was your reading experience?
Capture what you thought, learned, and would like to remember.