Laserfiche WebLink
<br />16 <br /> <br />I <br />fl <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />~I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />-I <br />:. <br />I <br />,I <br />I <br />I <br />11 <br />I <br /> <br />Following the poor results of the Lake Mohave fish, we attached transmitters to five similar sized <br />razorback suckers and held them at the Bureau of Reclamation fish holding facilities at Boulder <br />City, NV. The fish ranged in size from 230 to 270 mm. The fish were inspected once a week to <br />determine transmitter shedding and subsequent post-healing. When the transmitter was <br />eventually lost, it left a small wound which healed in 2-3 weeks. The average transmitter <br />retention was 3.8 weeks (2 to >8 weeks) and all experimental fish recovered. <br /> <br />Transmitter retention time for the smaller (TL x = 241 mm) Lake Mohave fish was shorter (<2 <br />weeks) than of our tank fish or the larger Lake Powell fish (> 4 weeks). We believe there might <br />be atleast two reasons for this. First, we know that reservoir fish concealed themselves in <br />aquatic macrophytes. We observed one study fish in Lake Mohave trailing a long strand of <br />pondweed from its transmitter. Snagging undoubtedly could speed the shedding process. <br />Vegetation was not a factor in the holding tank experiments nor are aquatic macrophytes <br />common in Lake Powell. The second factor could be the ossification of the fishes dorsal keel. <br />Younger fish have softer tissues which are less capable of supporting a transmitter. The use of a <br />single, rather than multiple sutures undoubtedly is less intrusive, but may also be less permanent <br />than double sutures. <br /> <br />Unfortunately, mortality is common with surgical procedures. Survival of adults reported by <br />other researchers has also been highly variable (0-100%) with most studies achieving a 50-70% <br />survival rate (Marsh and Minckley 1989, Creef and Clarkson 1993, Ryden and Pfeiffer 1995, <br />Karp and Mueller 1996, Burdick and Bonar 1997, Holden et al. 1997, Ryden 1997b). While <br />external attachment may be inappropriate for long-term studies, it does provide an alternative <br />for short-term studies. The dorsal keel found on the razorback sucker and some other native <br />Colorado River fish provides a unique attachment spot. This approach is non-lethal, less <br />intrusive than abdominal surgery and allows a mechanism for transmitter shedding for all ages of <br />fish. <br /> <br />Management and Research Implications <br /> <br />Au~mentation and Recovery Efforts <br /> <br />Reservoir habitat will continue to playa role in augmentation and recovery of native Colorado <br />River fishes. There is growing evidence that razorback suckers migrate between flowing and <br />non-flowing habitats (Karp and Mueller 1996, Ryden 1997a, Mueller and Wydoski 1995, and <br />unpublished data). High use of shallow, flooded backwaters by juvenile razorback suckers in <br />both Mohave and Powell lends credence to the importance ofthese habitats during their early life <br />stage. This dependency is somewhat disturbing since these habitats are also havens for known <br />predators. In stable habitats, such as Lake Mohave, territorial predators like largemouth bass and <br />channel catfish are not subjected to high fluctuation in reservoir elevation, which influences <br />habitat availability. However, in larger reservoirs as lakes Powell and Mead, annual water <br />elevation can fluctuate as much as 20 m which can cause inflow habitats to migrate as much as <br />