My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8162
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
8162
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:47 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:04:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8162
Author
Osmundson, D. B., R. J. Ryel, M. E. Tucker, B. D. Burdick, W. R. Elmblad and T. E. Chart.
Title
Dispersal Patterns of Subadult and Adult Colorado Squawfish in the Upper Colorado River.
USFW Year
1998.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
<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-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.