My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9436
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9436
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/18/2009 12:40:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9436
Author
McAda, C. W.
Title
Subadult and Adult Colorado Pikeminnow Monitoring; Summary of Results, 1986-2000.
USFW Year
2002.
USFW - Doc Type
Recovery Program Project Number 22,
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
DISCUSSION <br />Significant differences in mean CPE among years and significant positive relationships <br />over time suggest that the Colorado pikeminnow population increased in reaches sampled by <br />ISMP during 1986-2000. Based on the CPE data, the most dramatic increases occurred in the <br />Green and White rivers, with a lesser increase in the Colorado and Yampa rivers. Relative <br />abundance, as estimated by electrofishing CPE, dropped off in the Colorado River in the last <br />two years of sampling; however, it continued to climb in the Green and White rivers. Relative <br />abundance in the Yampa and Colorado rivers exhibited two or more plateaus rather than <br />steady increases as occurred in the White and Green rivers. Mean CPE in the Colorado River <br />was low in the late 1980s and high in the mid 1990s. In the Yampa River, mean CPE was <br />lowest in the late 1980s then rose, but continued to fluctuate, through the 1990s. <br />Mean CPE in the White River exceeded that of the Green River by the end of ISMP. <br />However, that does not necessarily mean that there were relatively more Colorado <br />pikeminnow in the White River than in the Green River. The White River is smaller than the <br />Green River (e.g., mean annual flow (average of all days of the year] of the White River at <br />Watson UT in water year 1998 was 1,089 cfs compared with $,402 cfs for the Green River at <br />Green River UT [Herbert et al., 1999]) and electrofishing was probably more efficient in the <br />smaller river. Nonetheless, there has been a dramatic increase in Colorado pikeminnow in the <br />White River. Taylor Draw Dam was closed on the White River in 1984 and blocked fish <br />movement into historical habitat upstream. Irving and Modde (2000) hypothesized that the <br />barrier increased Colorado pikeminnow abundance below the dam because they were <br />prevented from moving further upstream. They also .felt that a high prey base downstream <br />from the dam may have artificially increased carrying capacity for large predators such as <br />Colorado pikeminnow. <br />Mean CPE was highly variable in all rivers and large changes were necessary to detect <br />statistically significant differences among years. In general, significant differences were not <br />detected over short periods and several years of increase were required for differences to be <br />significant. Although ISMP reaches were representative of the rivers to be monitored, it is <br />important to recognize that extrapolation of change in CPE to reflect the entire range of <br />Colorado pikeminnow should be done cautiously. However, the increase in CPE in all four <br />rivers provides substantial evidence that the entire upper Colorado River basin population has <br />increased, but actual change in population size can not be estimated. <br />Electrofishing is a common technique for estimating relative abundance of fishes <br />(Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing CPE of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides was <br />significantly related to population density in mid-western and southern reservoirs (Hall 19$6; <br />McInerny and Degan 1993) and to population density of walleye Stizostedion vitreum in <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.