My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9636
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9636
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:37 PM
Creation date
5/18/2009 12:34:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9636
Author
Marsh, P. C.
Title
Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Bonytail Chub Movement and Habitat Use, Cibola High Levee Pond, Lower Colorado River, Arizona and California, 2003-2004.
USFW Year
n.d.
USFW - Doc Type
Tempe, AZ.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
Zone usage was not uniform. Distribution of contacts for the 10 large bonytail <br />demonstrated that site fidelity was high and significant {X2 ='697.93, df = 25, P < <br />0.001). Usage was nil or low in more than half the zones -- no signals were ever <br />contacted within 7 zones (B; C, D, E, K, L and O) and only one or two contacts in <br />each of 8 zones A, F, H, M, N, V, Y and Z (Table 3 and Fig. 2). Five zones had <br />moderate usage (5 to 15 contacts each; zones G, P, Q, R and S) and six zones <br />had high use (19 or more contacts each, up to a maximum of 63; zones I, J, T, U, <br />W, X). The six highest use zones occurred in three nearest-neighbor pairs <br />separated by one or more low use zones. <br />Generally, once most fish established "residency," those individuals returned <br />each morning to the same zone, often to the same exact location, within the high <br />levee (see Fig. 3). A few fish switched from consistent use of one area to <br />consistent use of another (e.g., Fig. 3, BT666 and BT777). <br />Nonetheless, we only had information on the 10 marked fish. Other, unmarked <br />individuals may have occupied "empty" zones or been present in the same zones <br />as the marked fish. Habitat differences were not obvious to us, and the high <br />levee appeared relatively uniform from zones A to Z. We thus assume other <br />bonytail, perhaps many, occupied interstices within the high levee. <br />Perhaps more striking than the consistent high use of certain -zones was the <br />apparent fidelity of individual fish for specific zones. Most-fish were found with <br />much higher frequency in only one or two zones, with occurrences in other zones <br />being limited to only one or a few observations (Table 3 and Fig. 3). Two or <br />more fish rarely occupied the same zone at the same time, although different fish <br />may have occupied the same zone on different occasions. <br />Directional Data. There were 2,947 separate recorded bearings; 1,648 and <br />1,299 observations were made from the high and river levee listening stations, <br />respectively. A total of 508 of 945 simultaneous paired readings fell within the <br />800 m listening station radius: 161 (16.1 contact per 15-minute period) during <br />dusk (1945-1000), 269 (11.2 contacts per period) during mid-hours (2215-0315), <br />and 78 (7.8 contact per period) during dawn hours (0330-0545). These results <br />are consistent with the pattern of signal detections observed in the field across all <br />contacts -most fish made an appearance shortly after sunset during the dusk <br />period, numbers typically were reduced by one-to-a few during the mid-hours, <br />and signals representing all remaining individuals disappeared as fish returned to <br />the high levee. <br />Directional data applied almost exclusively to fish activity during periods of <br />darkness because marked individuals spent the daylight hours under cover <br />provided by interstices of the high levee. Number of paired, simultaneous <br />contacts averaged 50.8 per fish and varied among individuals from 0 to 112 <br />(Table 1). Few contact intersections fell within the pond, and interpretation of <br />geographic pattern was based only on the general position of signals (e.g., <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.