Laserfiche WebLink
~ 1.2 <br />_c <br />-~ 9 <br />~ N <br />.Y `~- <br />°- ° 6 <br />i= , U <br />,_ ~ 3 <br />.~.. <br />~~ <br />C ~ <br />i <br />O <br />N ~ <br />~ ~ 1.2 <br />L <br />C N .9 <br />c a. <br />~~ .6 <br />L <br />"' 3 <br />Q <br />0 <br />~ 0 <br />~/'~ 1995 <br />v5.1 <br />0/11.5 0/3.5 0/4.6 0/10.9 0/9.4 0/7.8 <br />4/20 4/21 4/26 4/27 5/03 5/04 7/31 11/1 <br />1996 <br />4/11 4/12 4/16 4/19 5/03 5/09 5/22 10/15 10/16 <br />Dates When Electrofishing Occurred <br />1.2 <br />.9 <br />.6 <br />.3 <br />1.2 <br />.9 <br />.6 <br />.3 <br />0 <br />F~at~ 3.-Mean number of northern pike collected per kilometer of shoreline <br />eectrofishing. Electrofishing was done on eight days in 1995 and nine days in 1996. <br />Numbers represent total number of northern pike collected/total kilometers of shoreline <br />electrofished. <br />collected in this study. Sampling in 1996 began when water levels were lower and the <br />weedy areas were not yet flooded. The single northern pike was captured after river flows <br />increased to about 113 m3/s and flooded the shoreline vegetation. However, continued <br />sampling during the same conditions did not capture any additional fish. As in 1995, <br />sampling of flooded habitats during runoff with trammel nets and fyke nets did not capture <br />any northern pike. Spring runoff was less in 1996 than it was in 1995, so the flooded <br />habitats were not available for sampling for as long a period. <br />8 <br />