Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />v <br />W <br />a <br />U <br />m <br />s <br />5 <br />4 <br />3 <br />2 <br />1 <br />0 <br />-1 <br />------------------------------------------- <br />White River <br />- ------------- ----------------------- <br />I ~ i <br /> <br />86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 <br />Year <br />FIGURE 8. -Mean CPE (CPM/hr) of Colorado pikeminaow in the White River, <br />1986-2000. Vertical bars represent 95% confidence intervals; regression results are <br />provided in Table A-9. <br />Relationship Between Mean CPE and Population Estimates <br />Population estimates were available for 1992-1997 in the Green, Yampa, and White rivers <br />(Kesler 2000) and for three different time periods in the Colorado River - 1991-1997 <br />(Kesler 2000}, 1992-1994 (Osmundson and Burnham 1998), and 1998-2000 (Osmundson <br />2002}. Linear regressions were calculated for each river by time period and in the Colorado <br />River for the combined period encompassed by the two Osmundson estimates. Mean CPE <br />and population estimates were poorly correlated, with the White River exhibiting the only <br />significant relationship at Ps0.05 (Table 3). However, the relationship in the Green River <br />was significant at Ps0.1 (Table 3). <br />Size Structure <br />Annual length-frequency distributions for the Green, Colorado, Yampa, and White rivers <br />are provided in Figures A-1-A-4. Annual length-frequency distributions for the upper and <br />lower reaches of the Green and Colorado rivers are provided in Figures A-5-A-6. Annual <br />histograms varied among rivers, but generally reflected the same patterns. For example, <br />13 <br />