My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2525
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
2525
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:28 PM
Creation date
5/17/2009 11:46:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
2525
Author
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Title
25th Annual Recovery Program Researchers' Meeting.
USFW Year
2004.
USFW - Doc Type
Moab, Utah.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
1 <br />the LCR. Hoop net captures were dominated by speckled dace (94% of the total catch) in <br />addition to nonnative carp, fathead minnows, plains killifish, black bullhead and YOY <br />channel catfish. In spring 2004, monitoring will continue above Chute Falls to determine <br />retention following spring runoff events. <br />Effects of repeated handling on bonytail chub - preliminary results <br />Hilwig, Kara, Pamela J. Sponholtz', David Ward 2, and Craig Paukert3 <br />1 USFWS, Arizona Fishery Resources Office; Arizona Game and Fish Department; <br />3Kansas State University Cooperative Research Unit. <br />Humpback chub are sampled in the Little Colorado River in Grand Canyon each year <br />during the spring and fall to obtain population estimates. Repeated capture and handling <br />of fish during monitoring or research activities may cause stress leading to reduced <br />growth and/or condition and eventual mortality. We used bonytail chub as a surrogate <br />species to assess the effects of repeated handling on growth, condition, and mortality of <br />humpback chub. We simulated handling procedures currently used for humpback chub in <br />the Little Colorado River. Using a 0.10-acre pond divided in half with a net into control <br />and experimental sides, we placed 160 PIT tagged bonytail chub into each side. Fish <br />were sampled with hoop nets with two sampling trips in the fall and will be sampled <br />again in spring 2004. We measured fish length and weight and recorded the time required <br />to complete all steps for processing individual fish during two 3-day sampling events. <br />Preliminary results from fall sampling indicate handled fish did not gain as much weight <br />as non-handled fish however no differences in fork length were observed. Fish were <br />handled for a mean total time of 4.21 minutes that included removing fish from nets, <br />length and weight measurements, visual inspection, scanning and insertion of PIT tags <br />and release back into the pond (includes time in bucket). Although handling fish is <br />essential in understanding population dynamics, researchers should seek to understand <br />the effects of handling on fish and try to minimize any harmful sampling practices. <br />14 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.