Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />F11 <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />at the downstream reaches of Maybell and Lily Park (Table 4). The Lily Park northern pike <br />sample demonstrated the lowest index of the four reaches (3.068). Similar to the yearly indices, <br />the effect of the changing coefficients was most pronounced in the larger, heavier fish (Figure <br />7). Examining the 95 % confidence intervals for the X coefficients of the regression lines <br />indicates the slope of the Craig and Lily Park regression lines were significantly different from <br />that shown for the Juniper reach (Figure 8). There were no significant differences between the <br />slope coefficients for the Craig, Maybell, and Lily Park regression lines. <br />Slope coefficients reported in Carlander (1969) for northern pike ranged from 2.902 to <br />3.271, and encompass six of the eight coefficients estimated for Yampa River northern pike. <br />The slope coefficients for Yampa River northern pike in 1989 and the Juniper reach exceeded <br />the highest estimate reported in Carlander. Using the standard length-weight regression <br />calculated for northern pike for the estimation of relative weight indices (Willis 1989), it can be <br />seen that the slope coefficients estimated in 1989-1990, and four all four river reaches exceeded <br />that of the standard regression (3.059). <br />Average lengths, condition factors. and relative weight indices <br />Average length of northern pike samples was calculated by river reach and year <br />(Appendix A, Table A-3). A consistent pattern was evident between the Craig, Maybell, and <br />Lily Park reaches (Figure 9). The average length of northern pike declined from 1986-88 to <br />1989, increased again in 1990, and declined again to the smallest average length observed over <br />the study period for all three of these reaches. Also consistent was the increase in average <br />northern pike size from Craig downstream to Maybell to Lily Park in all four time periods. <br />Northern pike size in the Juniper reach was quite different in both pattern and magnitudes. <br />Based on the relatively large coefficients of variation (Std error/mean) associated with these <br />average lengths, the patterns indicated by the mean estimates are not statistically significant. <br />This is evident in the broad overlap of the 95% confidence intervals for each average length <br />estimated. This variability may be attributed to some combination of small sample sizes, <br />sampling variability, and population variability. <br />Indices of body condition in northern pike were calculated by river reach and year <br />(Appendix A, Table A-4). Condition factors showed that, over all four reaches, northern pike <br />condition declined from 1986-88 to 1989 and 1990, then increased to the highest levels observed <br />during the study period in 1991 (Figure 9). Northern pike sampled in the Craig reach had the <br />highest condition factors among the four reaches, and the lowest in the Juniper reach in all four <br />years. For all four reaches, large coefficients of variation and overlapping 95 % confidence <br />intervals for northern pike condition factors indicated a lack of statistical significance in any <br />patterns demonstrated. Mean condition factors for northern pike using total length ranged from <br />0.47-0.69 in Carlander (1969). Mean condition factors estimated for Yampa River northern pike <br />were relatively higher in comparison, with the estimates for northern pike in the Yampa River <br />exceeding the range reported in Carlander for three of four years in the Craig reach, one of four <br />DRAFT <br />March 12, 1996 <br />r <br />29