My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7834
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7834
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:31 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:09:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7834
Author
Burdick, B. D. a. R. B. B.
Title
Experimental Stocking Of Adult Razorback Sucker In The Upper Colorado And Gunnison Rivers.
USFW Year
1997.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
side channels, embayments, pools, and gravel-pit ponds (Figure 7). Habitat-use <br />observations were combined for all fish and for the 5- and 8-month period in 1994 <br />(April-August) and 1995 (March-October), respectively. The three habitats <br />selected most by radiotagged razorback sucker were main channel (59.6X), <br />backwater (17.5X), and eddy/pool (10.5X). Fish used side channels, pools, and <br />gravel-pit ponds each 3.5% of the time. Eleven of the 12 fish used the main <br />channel habitat, six used backwaters, four used eddy/pools, and two each used <br />side channel and pools. Habitat used by each of these 12 fish is provided in <br />Appendix; Table B.1. <br />Because the movement of the three fish (.010, .050, and .241 Mhz) believed <br />to be alive at the termination of the study was different than other fish <br />stocked, the habitat used by the three fish was contrasted to the other razorback <br />sucker. The three fish believed to be alive at the termination of the study used <br />main channel habitats less than the other fish (40% versus 68%) but used <br />eddy/pools more (35% versus 0%; Table 3). <br />Table 3. Comparison of habitat use by three razorback sucker in the Upper <br />Colorado River that were confirmed alive at the termination of the <br />study versus nine other razorback sucker stocked in the Upper Colorado <br />River. <br />Three Razorback Sucker Nine Razorback Sucker <br />(0.10, .050, .241 Mhz) (.070, .090, .260, .360, .420 <br />.541, .580, .620, 720 Mhz) <br />No. of No. of <br />Main Channel 8 4U Lb 08 <br />Eddy/Pool 7 35 0 0 <br />Side Channel 1 5 1 3 <br />Embayment 0 0 1 3 <br />Pool 2 10 0 0 <br />Backwater 2 10 8 21 <br />Gravel Pit 0 0 2 5 <br />Gunnison River <br />One-hundred nine habitat observations were obtained from 15 different fish. <br />Three of the nine habitat types used more frequently were main channel (40.4X), <br />backwaters (25.7X), and eddy/pools (19.3X). Other habitats used less frequently <br />were side channels (5.5X), tributary streams (3.7X), embayments and shorelines <br />(each 1.8X), and pools and isolated pools (each 0.9%; Figure 8). <br />Thirteen of the 15 razorback sucker used the main channel habitat, 10 used <br />backwaters, 9 used eddy/pools, 6 used side channels, and 2 fish occupied <br />Roubideau Creek, a tributary stream. Habitat used by each of these 15 fish is <br />provided in Appendix; Table B.2. <br />19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.