The lakes with the most native fish species in north America

[Al Agnew]

14 hours ago, tjm said:

That's a pretty simplistic view. A lake with over 800 miles of shoreline varying in depth and temperature comprised of varying geological characters and having dozens of feeder streams, each with it's own chemical makeup, must have  hundreds of discrete habitats just along the shore; and of course the shallows along the shore are distinctly different than the >50' depths.  Lake Michigan for example has approximately 1,640 miles of shore and is over 280' deep; hardly a single habitat when it comes to evolving plants and animals. It's like saying that the  Meramec is a single river so it comprises a single habitat. 

Good point.  I guess it would be better to say that a river from source to mouth is comparable to dozens of lakes, all of them different.  So it has dozens of times the number of different habitats that a single lake has, no matter how big that lake is.

[WestCentralFisher]

On 2/25/2026 at 7:37 PM, Al Agnew said:

Good point.  I guess it would be better to say that a river from source to mouth is comparable to dozens of lakes, all of them different.  So it has dozens of times the number of different habitats that a single lake has, no matter how big that lake is.

I agree completely, but it caused me to think about if there are any exceptions to this, i.e. any rivers that are functionally the same ecosystem from their source to their mouth. 

I think the only one I can come up with locally of significant size or length that comes close is the Bourbeuse.  While it grows larger (very slowly, with no huge springs or overly large tributaries) I have fished nearly the entire length of it, and I would not say it ever fundamentally changes from one habitat type to another.

Along its entire length, it's a a stream with some Ozark characteristics and some flatland stream characteristics. It has some more characteristics of the former further upstream and more of the latter further downstream, but by and large it simply grows, not changes. 

Now, if you are strictly discussing the dynamics of the bass population, there are obvious differences, relating to spotted bass particularly. But I don't think there is any habitat related reason they couldn't thrive nearly to the headwaters, unfortunately. I haven't fished the upper reaches that when I last regularly visited them had excellent smallmouth fishing in 10-15 years, and truthfully I am nervous to. I wouldn't be surprised the spots have made it up there en masse by now. 

[tjm]

I think the short rivers like Roaring River are pretty much the same end to end. I can't see more than a handful of  distinctly different habitats in the Elk River's ~35 miles, and it only holds 77 species of fish, including a few  non natives.  Fewer species total than three of the lakes listed have of just native species. The Bourbeuse has a total of 90 species, including nonnatives, so as many as species altogether as Erie has of natives.  

And then it matters what you use as being the "river", the named portion on a map or the entire watershed as the "source". Niangua River has 61 species total, per  a web search, yet  the entire Niangua watershed has 99 species per the MDC inventory. If we count watershed as part of "the river", then we'd have to also count watershed as part of the lake and in that case all the rivers flowing into the lake count as part of the lake and whatever the numbers of habitats the rivers have would be included in the total number of habitats of the lake. I suspect that in lakes most of the fish species come from the rivers feeding the lake rather than evolving in the lake. 

[Johnsfolly]

1 hour ago, WestCentralFisher said:

it caused me to think about if there are any exceptions to this, i.e. any rivers that are functionally the same ecosystem from their source to their mouth

There was some study work done in FL looking at the losses of biodiversity in the states southern rivers. A lot of the rivers in an around Lake Okeechobee were channelized by the Army Corps to move water out to the bays and ocean. Also a lot of canals were dug in an effort to dry out the everglades and prevent flooding. The study found that long straight featureless canals led to the reduction of native fish as well as birds, reptiles, invertebrates. Who could have guessed that 🙄. 

[WestCentralFisher]

20 minutes ago, Johnsfolly said:

There was some study work done in FL looking at the losses of biodiversity in the states southern rivers. A lot of the rivers in an around Lake Okeechobee were channelized by the Army Corps to move water out to the bays and ocean. Also a lot of canals were dug in an effort to dry out the everglades and prevent flooding. The study found that long straight featureless canals led to the reduction of native fish as well as birds, reptiles, invertebrates. Who could have guessed that 🙄. 

Yeah, I live pretty much right where the Ozarks meet the flatlands, and in the latter, the effects of channelization are so dramatic. So many streams have what I refer to as the Grand Canyon of the Prairie. You'll be in the middle of flat country and the rivers will have insanely high mud banks on both sides. I used to think it was kind of cool until I learned the reasoning (headcutting erosion is absolutely fascinating in its mechanics, BTW, even if it's decidedly not a positive). When you combine those habitat issues with major issues with invasive carp, you have big, big problems indeed. 

While they're not my cup of tea, out of proximity and curiosity I do sometimes fish these types of rivers. Understanding the extreme challenges they face has given me appreciation for the occasional channel cat or freshwater drum I catch, and a lot more context on why so often it seems like dead water.