My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7204
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:29 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:01:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7204
Author
Lanigan, S. H. and C. R. B. Jr.
Title
Distribution and Abundance of Endemic Fishes in the White River in Utah
USFW Year
1979.
USFW - Doc Type
Final Contract 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.
/
93
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
50 <br />continues to be modified by man (Miller, 1961). The young of this species <br />and of the Colorado squawfish are similar except for a prominent black spot <br />on the caudal peduncle of the squawfish juvenile. Adults of the two species <br />can be easily distinguished. During spawning in late spring, breeding males <br />are reddish on the sides of the head and body, below the lateral line. <br />Normal size of the roundtail adult is 8 in (21 cm) to 13 in (34 cm). In <br />this study, lengths were measured and within season growth of age groups <br />zero to two was readily evident from July to Sepember, 1978 (Figure 24). <br />Little growth was added over the 1978-79 winter period. A weight-length <br />relationship (r2 = 0.76) was also found using data from 113 fish and was <br />as follows: Length in millimeters = 2.5 (weight in grams) + 79.5. The <br />appearance of recently hatched fry during mid-August'(Figure 24b) is some- <br />what later than that reported for the roundtail population in the Green River <br />(Vanicek and Kramer, 1969); however, general growth patterns for each age <br />group were similar. An analysis of representative scale samples from fish <br />of the first three age groups showed that age group 0 and 1 were scaleless; <br />age group 2 had scales but no annuli. This finding agrees with that of <br />Vanicek and Kramer (1969). The relatively low number of larger fish in the <br />White River collection may have been due to gear selection and/or the dif- <br />ficulty in sampling deep, swift, water habitat with seins and electrofishing <br />gear. Adults are well adapted to swift current and occur in deeper water <br />than the young which are found in more shallow quiet areas of a stream. <br />Bottom substrate over which young roundtails are found is typically clay, <br />soft mud, mud and sand, or occasionally rocks, gravel or rubble (Sigler and <br />Miller, 1963). Young roundtails were commonly found in pools below riffles <br />and pools formed by debris on the margins of the river. The fish apparently <br />seek pools where there is some water movement since roundtails were not <br />often found in stillwater areas.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.