Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />t <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />60 <br />40 <br />20 <br />0 <br />w <br />U <br />w 60 <br />U 40 <br />U <br />~ 20 <br />0 <br />U 0 <br />z <br />w <br />C~ <br />w <br />~ 60 <br />40 <br />20 <br />0 <br />^ ~S <br />~ ~~ _ <br />^ ~S <br />CH <br />^ ~S <br />FH <br />iiii~ii <br />CS <br />SD <br />-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 <br />FACTOR 7 <br />-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 <br />FACTOR 1 <br />Figure 3. Distribution of Colorado squawfish and the six species for which <br />comparisons were made along discriminant function one, Green <br />River, 1979. The relative contribution of the measured habitat <br />variables to discriminant function one is provided in Table 6• <br />(CS=Colorado squawfish, RS=red shiner, SS=sand shiner, CH=Gila <br />spp., CC=channel catfish, FH=fathead minnow, and SD=speckled <br />dace). <br />8 <br />60 <br />40 <br />20 <br />0 <br />CS <br />RS <br />60 <br />40 <br />20 <br />0 <br />