My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9432
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9432
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/17/2009 11:27:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9432
Author
Modde, T. and M. Fuller.
Title
Feasibility of Channel Catfish Reduction in the Lower Yampa River.
USFW Year
2002.
USFW - Doc Type
Vernal.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />channel catfish numbers collected in fyke nets from the Green River by Crowl and Badame (2000) <br /> <br />were juveniles. Channel catfish reproduce in the Yampa River (Nesler 1987; Colorado State <br /> <br />University Larval Fish Laboratory, unpublished data) but few small juvenile channel catfish have <br /> <br />been found in the lower Yampa River (Miller et al. 1982). Our study did not collect small <br /> <br />juvenile channel catfish in any of the various gear types we used. Channel catfish generally mature <br /> <br />between approximately 250 mm and 400 mm (Carlander 1969), indicating that the majority of fish <br /> <br />from the Yampa River were subadult and small adult fish. The lack of smaller fish indicates that <br /> <br />few catfish are reared in the lower Yampa River in Dinosaur National Monument and that <br /> <br />migration of smaller individuals from the Green River may be the primary source of recruitment. <br /> <br />Condition of channel catfish in 1998 was low with relative weights averaging less than 90 <br /> <br />in most study reaches. In 1999, relative weights of fish captured by angling were much higher <br /> <br />than observed the previous year, i.e., 120 and 123 respectively for treatment (removal) and control <br /> <br />reaches. However, the relative weight offish collected from electrofishing (with the exception of <br /> <br />reach 4) were more similar to those in 1998. Differences in relative weight offish captured by <br /> <br />angling may have been the result of increased condition due to reduced density or an artifact of <br /> <br />sampling. During 1999, a larger number of anglers participated in removal efforts. Fish <br /> <br />subsampled for individual weight measurement may have been kept longer under stressful <br /> <br />conditions in buckets resulting in increased water retention. Because few differences were <br /> <br />observed in relative weight between angling in 1998 and electrofishing in 1999, it would seem <br /> <br />more likely that the differences in condition of fish captured by angling in 1998 and 1999 were <br /> <br />probably due to a sampling artifact. <br /> <br />A distinct gradient of channel catfish size exists between the Yampa River above Cross <br /> <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.