Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />190 <br /> <br />The Southwestern Naturalist <br /> <br />voL 35, no. 2 <br /> <br />TABLE 1-Abundance of adult channel catfish and <br />other fishes in spring electrofishing collections, Green <br />and Yampa rivers, 1987 and 1988 (both years com- <br />bined). <br /> <br /> Catch of channel catfish <br /> % <br />Loca- Hours Total Per Total <br />tion' fished catch Total hour catch <br />Green River <br />A 28.3 211 1 0.03 0.4 <br />B 16.0 370 1 0.06 0.2 <br />C 12.5 331 30 2.40 9.1 <br />D 23.4 550 33 1.41 6.0 <br />E 21.2 298 8 0.38 2.7 <br />F 54.8 1,299 17 0.31 1.3 <br />G 17.0 865 187 11.00 21.6 <br /> <br />Yampa River <br />DNM 23.3 <br /> <br />19.64 <br /> <br />10.6 <br /> <br />2,173 <br /> <br />231 <br /> <br />] Locations given in Fig. 1. DNM = Dinosaur Na- <br />tional Monument. <br /> <br />the lumen. In this case, 2 years were added to the age <br />of the fish, and the back-calculated lengths at consec- <br />utive annuli were shifted 2 years to reflect the true <br />annual growth. A back-calculated length at age 1 of <br />>80 mm would then indicate that the first annulus <br />had been eroded, and a back-calculated length at age <br />2 > 150 mm indicated that both the first and second <br />annuli had been eroded. We made no further attempt <br />to validate our aging method because of the voluminous <br />literature on aging channel catfish from spines (re- <br />viewed by Carl ander, 1969). <br />Channel catfish were sorted into eight groups based <br />on the reach in which they were collected. Analysis- <br />of-variance (ANOV A) was used for comparing back- <br />calculated lengths at age 1,3, 5,7, and 9, for evaluating <br />condition factor (K) between reaches, and for evalu- <br />ating differences in mean lengths of fishes consuming <br />different foods. <br />Stomachs were removed from channel catfish col- <br />lected in the Green and Yampa rivers from May to <br />July 1987 and 1988. Consumed foods were recorded <br />for each stomach based on the following major food <br />categories: aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial insects, fish, <br />mice, vascular plants, algae and detritus. The number <br />of stomachs containing a food category and a resultant <br />frequency of occurrence (%) were reported. No effort <br />was made to determine food volume. Stomachs with <br />no food were reported as empty. <br />River discharge, water temperatures, and sediment <br />concentrations of the Green River were obtained from <br />U.S. Geological stream gauging stations at Green River <br />and Jensen, Utah (ReMilliard et aI., 1988). The effects <br /> <br />of river discharge and water temperatures on growth <br />of age 0 channel catfish were evaluated using simple <br />linear regressions. <br /> <br />RESULTS AND DISCUSSION-Abundance-Adult <br />channel catfish comprised 8.3'70 of the total catch <br />of fishes (n = 6,097, Table 1). Five species <br />amounted to 91.3% of the catch as follows: flan- <br />nelmouth sucker, Catostomus latiPinnis, (31.8'70); <br />carp, Cyprinus carpio, (29.6'70); bluehead sucker, <br />Catostomus discobolus, (16.2%); channel catfish <br />(8.3'70), and roundtail chub, Gila robusta, (5.5'70). <br />Highest catches of 19.6 and 11 channel catfish/h <br />were taken in the Yampa and upper Green rivers <br />(stratum G), the most rocky and turbulent (gra- <br />dient >2 m/km) sections, where they averaged <br />10.6 and 21.6'70 of the electro fishing catch, re- <br />spectively (Table 1). <br />Freshwater catfishes are not as susceptible to <br />electroshocking collections as are other species, <br />including suckers and minnows (Larimore, 1961; <br />Jacobs and Swink, 1982), and turbid conditions <br />of the study areas prohibited capture of fish not <br />visible at the water surface. However, angling <br />with baited hooks in the summer months sup- <br />ported the apparent preference of channel catfish <br />for rocky, high gradient canyon habitats; 34.5 h <br />of fishing in eddy habitats in canyons (lower <br />Yampa River and stratum G, Green River) pro- <br />duced 1.3 catfish/h (n = 46), and 36 h of fishing <br />in eddy habitats in sand and silt-laden sections <br />(strata E and F, average stream gradient 0.2 to <br />0.4 m/km, respectively) produced only 0.5 cat- <br />fish/h (n = 19). Layher and Maughan (1985) <br />also found that standing stocks of channel catfish <br />increased in higher gradient streams in Kansas. <br />Age and growth-Measurement of 604 small <br />channel catfish, collected in strata A to F in Oc- <br />tober 1979 to 1985, indicated that a length of <br />about 80 mm was maximum for the first year of <br />life (Fig. 2). This was confirmed by aging pectoral <br />spine sections taken from 45 small channel catfish <br />(average TL = 53.6 mm, range of 27 to 76 mm) <br />also collected in the Green River, because fish <br /><80 mm TL had no annulus present. Pectoral <br />spine sections from 88'70 of 361 larger channel <br />catfish collected in the Green and Yampa rivers <br />were given the same age by different technicians <br />and were used for age and growth comparisons. <br />Adjusted back-calculated lengths at consecutive <br />annuli are reported in Table 2. The catfish ranged <br />in length from 26 to 756 mm TL, with respective <br />ages of 0 to 22 years. About 2% of these (n = 8) <br />