Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DISPERSAL PATTERNS OF COLORADO SQUAWFISH <br />rkm; and between Cameo and Rulison sites by <br />0.19/rkm. <br />Discussion <br />This study coincided with the recruitment of two <br />or three consecutive strong year-classes to the <br />adult Colorado squawfish population. This allowed <br />us to monitor the movements of many individual <br />fish and observe changes in adult distribution re- <br />sulting from these year-classes. Dispersal was gen- <br />erally in an upstream direction, but recruitment <br />also increased adult abundance riverwide. Mean <br />lengths increased in the lower reach as young fish <br />grew, and the influx of young adults moving to the <br />upper reach from the lower reach reduced average <br />sizes of fish in the upper reach. <br />Distance moved between captures was related <br />to fish size and reach of initial capture. Most fish <br />initially captured in the upper reach moved little <br />from initial capture sites and were predominately <br />larger adults. However, most fish initially captured <br />in the lower reach were smaller individuals and <br />were often recaptured farther than 10 km from <br />initial capture sites. In both reaches the majority <br />of movements were directed upstream. These <br />movement patterns suggest that young fish move <br />more than older fish, and less movement occurs <br />after arrival in the upper reach. Flannelmouth <br />suckers in the White River behaved in a similar <br />way with young individuals having moved more <br />than older ones (Chart and Bergersen 1992). <br />Movement to upstream strata by adults suggests <br />that upper reach habitats are preferred or have a <br />better mix of requisites for growth and survival. <br />Particularly revealing was the lack of fish move- <br />ments from the upper reach to the lower reach. <br />Riverwide catch rate patterns of larger prey spe- <br />cies combined with reach differences in Colorado <br />squawfish body condition support the hypothesis <br />that upstream displacements are a response to food <br />resource gradients. <br />Relatively small changes in location by larger <br />fish in the upper reach was consistent with the <br />hypothesis that adult Colorado squawfish select <br />and maintain fidelity to a home feeding range, as <br />suggested by Tyus (1990), McAda and Kaeding <br />(1991), and Ryden and Ahlm (1996). Adults of <br />this species appear not to be highly territorial (as <br />defined by Hixon 1980) given that they concentrate <br />in limited backwater habitats during spring runoff <br />(April-June), they congregate prior to and during <br />spawning in summer (Tyus 1990), and individuals <br />are occasionally located (via radiotelemetry) be- <br />953 <br />side one another (USFWS, unpublished data) dur- <br />ing base flows of fall and winter. <br />High relative condition of Colorado squawfish <br />200-399 mm in the lower reach suggests that food <br />for young Colorado squawfish was not limited (at <br />least during spring), and may relate to the high <br />numbers of small-bodied, nonnative minnows in <br />backwaters there. However, relative condition de- <br />clined in the lower reach as Colorado squawfish <br />grew, suggesting that a diet consisting of small <br />minnows may be insufficient for larger individu- <br />als. If so, the lack of appropriate-sized prey may <br />be particularly acute in the lower reach where <br />warmer temperatures increase metabolic (demands. <br />Although little is known of food habits of larger <br />adult Colorado squawfish (and we were unsuc- <br />cessful in collecting such data), anecdotal evidence <br />indicates consumption of larger prey than was <br />found for size-classes examined in this study. A <br />687-mm Colorado squawfish captured in the San <br />Juan River regurgitated a flannelmouth sucker 235 <br />mm long-34% of its own length (D. Propst, New <br />Mexico Department of Game and Fish, personal <br />communication). One 860-mm individual that we <br />captured in the lower Gunnison River regurgitated <br />a 310-mm white sucker X bluehead sucker hybrid <br />(36% of its length). An X-rayed, 599-mm adult <br />from the White River contained a 280-mm (47% <br />of its length) unidentified sucker (J. Hawkins, LFL, <br />personal communication). Scott and Crossman <br />(1973) reported the optimum food size of northern <br />pike was one-third to one-half the pike's length <br />and that growth and survival of large muskellunge <br />are often impaired if food of an adequate size is <br />not available, despite vast numbers of smaller fish- <br />es. Gillen et al. (1981) similarly reported an op- <br />timum prey size for tiger muskellunge E. lucius X <br />E. masquinongy as 40% of total predator length <br />when prey were soft-rayed and fusiform shaped. <br />Also, of three simulated mechanisms, lack of large <br />prey had the strongest effect on stunting of north- <br />ern pike (Diana 1987). <br />The most downstream thermograph site provid- <br />ed the most days with temperatures at or near 25°C, <br />the preferred temperature of yearling (Black and <br />Bulkley 1985a) and adult Colorado squawfish <br />(Bulkley et al. 1981), and the greatest number of <br />annual thermal units for growth. In addition, main- <br />channel temperatures there never became too <br />warm for these fish: daily averages never exceeded <br />26°C during 4 years of monitoring. Therefore, <br />growth potential should be highest in the lower <br />reach. However, warm water temperatures there <br />may be disadvantageous for adults: higher meta-