8172

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8172
• Author: Jacobi, G. Z., J. E. Sublette, S. J. Herrmann, D. E. Cowley and M. D. Hatch.
• Title: Final Report
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Investigations of an Index of Biotic Integrity in New Mexico.
• Copyright Material: NO

Tubificidae), snails. _ (Gastropods), and
mayfly (Tricorythidae). Cluster 2b
macroinvertebrate taxa were less tolerant of
degraded conditions and they were typical
of waters with intermediate concentrations
of bicarbonate, alkalinity, TDR, and
nutrients. Representative taxa included the
sensitive stonefly (Perlidae) and cluster fly
(Rhagionidae), and moderately tolerant
naucorid bug (Ambrysus mormon). In For
cluster 2 taxa, as the elevation increased, a
decrease was observed in the proportion of
all taxa at a site that were a member of
cluster 2 (Figure 14A).
Cluster 3 taxa were more indicative of
middle to high elevation sites (Aquatic
Ecoregion 1). Taxa in cluster 3a taxa were
less tolerant of perturbation and were found
in high elevation streams with rubble and
gravel substrates with low embeddedness.
Representatives included the sensitive
net-winged midge (Blephariceridae) and the
caddisfly (Arctopsyche grandis).
Macroinvertebrates present in Cluster 3b
were rare taxa found at a variety of
environmental conditions and elevations.
Representative taxa included moderately
tolerant water mites (Hydracarina) and
striders (Veliidae) and sensitive stoneflies
(Chloroperlidae, Leuctridae, and
Capniidae). Cluster 3c taxa were tolerant
taxa which were abundant in conditions of
low alkalinity and hardness and were found
on rubble and gravel substrates at
intermediate or higher elevations.
Representatives included sensitive stoneflies
(Nemouridae and Isoperlinae) and the
caddisfly (Rhyacophila spp.). For cluster 3
taxa, the proportion of all taxa at a site that
were members of cluster 3 decreased as
elevation increased (Table 14B).
FFsh
Associations of fish species were examined
with cluster analysis using presence/absence
data (Figure 15) and using relative
abundance data (Figure 16). In general,
presence/absence data provided a better
depiction of fish species associations than
did relative abundance data.
For presence/absence data, 5 associations,
or assemblages, of fish species were
identified (numbers 1-5 on Figure 15). The
first cluster represented a "trout stream
assemblage" and it contained Rio Grande
sucker, fathead minnow, rainbow trout,
brown trout, white sucker, longnose dace,
and Rio Grande chub. All of the species in
the trout stream assemblage, with perhaps
the exception of fathead minnow, are typical
inhabitants of middle elevation waters that
are stocked and managed as trout waters.
The second cluster was a group of two
species, green sunfish and kokanee salmon,
that were representative of "reservoir
fishes" that occurred at sites near Chama
River reservoirs. The third cluster grouped
high elevation fishes together, i.e., brook
trout, Rio Grande cutthroat trout, cutthroat
trout hybrids, and Catostomus hybrids- The
fourth cluster represented a large river
assemblage and it included river carpsucker
and common carp. Cluster 5 was a warmer
water assemblage, including white crappie,
mosquitofish, flathead chub, channel
catfish, and red shiner.
For relative abundance data, cluster analysis
produced three clusters (numbers 1-3,
Figure 16) that grouped species according to
their relative abundance. As a result, the
clusters do not represent fish species
associations, but rather, groups graded by
abundance. Cluster 1 was a loose
33
16