<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 />
|