My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8158
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8158
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:05:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8158
Author
Osmundson, D. B.
Title
Longitudinal Variation in Fish Community Structure and Water Temperature in the Upper Colorado River; Final Report.
USFW Year
1999.
USFW - Doc Type
Grand Junction, Colorado.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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
INTRODUCTION <br />The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), formerly known as the Colorado <br />pikeminnow, is presently restricted to the upper Colorado River basin and inhabits warm- <br />water reaches of the Colorado, Green, and San Juan rivers and associated tributaries. The <br />Green River and its two large tributaries (White and Yampa rivers) support the largest (Tyus <br />1991) and perhaps most viable (Gilpin 1993) population(s), while the San Juan River contains <br />the smallest and most tenuous population (Platania et al. 1991). A population also persists in <br />the upper Colorado River. There, reproduction and recruitment occur annually but strong <br />cohorts are infrequent (Osmundson and Burnham 1998), and the extent of suitable adult <br />habitat is limited. <br />Goals for recovering the endangered Colorado pikeminnow include building self-sustaining <br />populations to levels that assure long-term species viability. To achieve this goal, reproduc- <br />tion and recruitment to the adult phase may need to be enhanced by focused management <br />activities. In addition, physical habitat and food resources must be in adequate supply to <br />support an expanding adult population. To assure viability over the next 100 years, Lentsch <br />et al. (1998) estimated that each population needs a minimum of approximately 5,500 adults. <br />In the Colorado River mainstem upstream of the Green River confluence, the population size <br />during 1991-1994 was estimated at 500-600 adults (Osmundson and Burnham 1998). To <br />date, no effort has been made to estimate carrying capacity (the number of adult fish the river <br />can support in good condition) for Colorado pikeminnow in the upper Colorado River. It is <br />therefore unknown whether the system is capable of supporting an additional 5,000 adults. A <br />data-based evaluation of the carrying capacity of the upper Colorado River is essential for the <br />development of realistic recovery goals. <br />Longitudinal variation in native fish abundance and Colorado pikeminnow body condition led <br />Osmundson et al. (1998) to suggest that limited food availability in lower reaches of the upper <br />Colorado River was responsible for motivating young adults to disperse upstream. Because <br />appropriate-sized prey were significantly more abundant in reaches upstream of Westwater <br />Canyon, the authors concluded that upstream reaches had a much higher carrying capacity for <br />adult Colorado pikeminnow than downstream reaches. Also, body condition of adult <br />Colorado pikeminnow in downstream reaches was low, suggesting that carrying capacity had <br />been exceeded. In contrast, body condition in upstream reaches was significantly higher, <br />suggesting that numbers there remained below carrying capacity. <br />Historical accounts suggest that the Colorado pikeminnow was formerly much more abundant <br />in the upper Colorado River than it is today (Jordan and Evermann 1896, Quarterone 1993). <br />This decrease in population size may be the result of lowered rates of reproduction and <br />recruitment (Osmundson and Burnham in 1998). In addition, carrying capacity of the system <br />has probably been substantially reduced from historic levels. Mechanisms likely responsible <br />for reducing carrying capacity include: (1) a reduction in adult range, (2) a reduction in the <br />suitability of prey, (3) a reduction in the quantity of prey, and (4) a reduction of optimal or <br />preferred physical habitats.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.