Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0.20 <br /> <br />~ 0.16 <br />c: <br />Q) <br />~ <br />0- <br />Q) <br />.... <br />- <br /> <br />0.12 <br /> <br />.~ 0.08 <br />m <br />(j) <br />e::: <br /> <br />0.04 _ <br /> <br />0.00 <br /> <br /> <br />5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 <br />Ri\er km <br /> <br />Figure 2. Longitudinal distribution of humpback chub captured by electrofishing and angling in <br />the current study (1998-2000; dark bars; n=86) and in previous years (1985-1997; light bars; <br />n=165), Yampa River. <br /> <br /> 0.10 _ <br /> i <br /> 0.09 j <br /> 0.08 -' <br />>. 0.07 <br />u <br />c: <br />Q) 0.06 <br />~ <br />0- <br />Q) 0.05 _ <br />.... <br />- <br />Q) <br />> 0.04 ~ <br />~ <br />Q) 0.03 <br />e::: <br /> 0.02 -' <br /> 0.01 I <br /> 0.00 <br /> 120 144 168 192 216 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />240 264 288 312 336 360 384 408 <br />Length (mm) <br /> <br />Figure 3. Length-frequency of humpback chub captured by electrofishing and angling in current <br />study (1998-2000; n=86; dark bars) and in previous years (1985-1997; n=164; light bars), <br />Yampa River. <br /> <br />28 <br />