My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9552
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9552
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:36 PM
Creation date
5/18/2009 12:09:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9552
Author
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Title
Management Plan for the Big-River Fishes of the Lower Colorado River Basin
USFW Year
2004.
USFW - Doc Type
amendment and supplement to the Bonytail, Humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, and Razorback sucker Recovery Plans.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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 />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />ii <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />BIG-RIVER FISHES <br />The "big-river" fishes are characterized by endemism and unique adaptations to <br />this harsh environment and display remarkable physiological, morphological, and <br />behavioral traits. Today the remaining populations of these species are small <br />and isolated. The disappearance of native fishes in the lower basin has <br />attracted attention since early days of river modification (Dill 1944; Miller 1946, <br />1961). Two inter-related actions- are primarily responsible for the elimination of <br />the "big-river" fish. One is the alteration of habitat due to dam construction and <br />diversions and the other is the introduction of nonnative fish. Dams and <br />permanent diversion structures interrupted the seasonal flow patterns, replacing <br />them with managed flows, and also altered thermal regimes in reservoir <br />impoundments and the remaining river channel. Sediment transport was <br />interrupted, causing changes to channel morphology and dynamics. Dams also <br />blocked migration routes and isolated groups offish. The meandering of the <br />river within its historic floodplain, which had created backwaters and marshes., <br />was halted, and the floodplain was isolated behind levees or stabilized banks. <br />Some habitats suitable for adult fish persistence still remain throughout the <br />system but the low variance in flows and thus seasonal conditions critical for key <br />life stages of native fish in the presence of nonnative predators and competitors, <br />are greatly reduced. <br />Concurrently, the introduction and spread of nonnative fishes may have been <br />even more detrimental than loss of habitat. The new physical conditions in the <br />lower basin provided suitable habitat for these introduced species and they <br />spread rapidly. Most nonnatives are ecological generalists and are very <br />competitive.with other fish species. Many are predators, or if omnivorous, are <br />still a threat to native fish eggs and young. Decades of monitoring and research <br />in the lower basin have shown that nonnative predators or competitors prevent <br />native fish populations from completing their life cycle in the few suitable habitat <br />patches remaining (Blinn et al. 1993, Minckley and Deacon 1968, 1991; Minckley <br />1973, 1985, 1991; Pacey and Marsh 2000). These nonnative species now <br />dominate the aquatic habitats available in the lower basin. <br />Bon ail <br />3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.