My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7048
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7048
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:29 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:36:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7048
Author
Desert Fishes Council (Edwin Pister, e.
Title
Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council
USFW Year
1991.
USFW - Doc Type
Volumes XX and XXI
Copyright Material
NO
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
252
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
There did not appear to be a significant difference in <br />selection between the tests when the position of the cells was <br />reversed (Fig. 5). This was of particular concern during the <br />noon observations because the south cell was almost entirely in <br />shadow and the north cell almost entirely in sunlight. <br />The distribution studies in the CD headspring support this <br />finding that the chubs tend to remain in close proximity to the <br />vegetation. The collections indicated that chub densities were <br />greatest in the cove (trap site 2), which had the densest <br />vegetation in the headspring, and decreased farther upstream, <br />where the vegetation beds were less distinct (Table 1). Trap <br />site 6, which was farthest upstream and had the least amount of <br />vegetation, yielded the least number of chubs (Table 1). <br />Discussion <br />These observations and experiments support the assertion <br />that aquatic vegetation is an important habitat component of <br />Owens tui chub and that they tend to remain in close association <br />with it. Other researchers have found this to be true of the tui <br />chub as a species and for other subspecies of tui chub (Moyle <br />1976; Vicker 1973; Kimsey 1954; Cooper 1978; Williams and Bond <br />1981). The question remains as to why this relationship exists. <br />Although a detailed study of this relationship was not <br />undertaken, observations made in the laboratory and field during <br />the course of the study indicate that it is due mainly to four <br />factors: spawning, water velocity displacement, predator <br />avoidance, and feeding behavior. These are discussed briefly <br />below. <br />Spawning. The use of aquatic vegetation by tui chubs as a <br />spawning substrate is well documented. Kimsey (1954) found that <br />eggs from Lahontan tui chubs were adhesive and developed only if <br />they were attached to plants or otherwise kept off of the bottom. <br />Cooper (1982) found that Lahontan tui chub eggs from Pyramid <br />Lake, Nevada were adhesive. Cooper (1978) and Vicker (1973) <br />observed that Lahontan and Mohave tui chub, respectively, spawn <br />over aquatic vegetation. <br />Although I did not find eggs attached to the aquatic <br />vegetation in either headspring, I found that newly extruded eggs <br />are similar in description to those of Lahontan and Mohave tui <br />chubs and are quite adhesive. The adhesiveness of Owens tui chub <br />eggs and the preponderance of aquatic plants in their habitat <br />would suggest that they also utilize aquatic vegetation as a <br />spawning substrate. <br />Water Velocity Displacement. Measurements of water <br />velocities were taken in the CD headspring using a Marsh - <br />McBirney velocity meter on several occasions in the fall of 1987. <br />Zero velocities were recorded in vegetation beds which were <br />surrounded by open water that had velocities of 0.15 m/s and <br />higher. Chubs were seen darting across these areas of relatively <br />high velocity, usually to move from one vegetation bed to <br />is
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.