My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6003
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
6003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:28 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 9:32:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
6003
Author
Kaeding, L. R. and D. B. Osmundson.
Title
Studies of Endangered Colorado River Fishes
USFW Year
1987.
USFW - Doc Type
Conservation Measures For The Green Mountain and Ruedi Reservoir Water Sales - Annual Progress Report.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
stressed the fish and, when coupled with the planned physiological <br />disruption brought about by the hormone injections, had led to their deaths. <br />The unfortunate death of a third fish, one that had not received an <br />injection, led us to believe that hormone injections were probably not the <br />sole cause of the first two mortalities. The surviving Colorado squawfish <br />were returned to the Colorado River in early August. <br />In fall 1986, six adult Colorado squawfish were captured from the White <br />River downstream from Kenney Reservoir and transported to Hotchkiss NFH <br />where they are being held in circular tanks and fed young rainbow trout. <br />These squawfish will be used in artificial spawning activities scheduled for <br />1987. <br />Fish Chalet and West Pond <br />Colorado squawfish grew little in Fish Chalet Pond (Table 6). Temperatures <br />of both study ponds were nearly optimal for squawfish growth when squawfish <br />were first stocked (24 C), but they rapidly dropped to 15-16 C during the <br />following month. Though data indicate mean length increased during October <br />(Table 6), this might be the result of possibly biased samples collected <br />between 10 October and 12 December, when only a 3 x 5-mm-mesh seine (75 x <br />2.4 m) was used. This mesh size might not have caught the smallest fish. <br />The sample collected on 26 September was not so biased because half of the <br />fish were collected with a 3-mm-mesh beach seine and half were collected <br />with the large 3 x 5-mm-mesh seine. Results of this split sampling <br />procedure indicated that not only did the mesh size of the large seine allow <br />the smallest fish to pass through, but that the smallest fish were primarily <br />using the shoreline area, an area that the large seine did not sample <br />21
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.