8105

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8105
• Author: Haines, G. B., D. W. Beyers and T. Modde.
• Title: Estimation of Winter Survival, Movement and Dispersal of Young Colorado Squawfish in the Green River, Utah.
• USFW Year: 1998.
• USFW - Doc Type: Recovery Program Project 36,
• Copyright Material: YES

276
1500
BEDROCK
1000
500
.
0 c'O,," 0'" ~ 0.,
.r: 600
0 COBBLE
......
CD 400
c.
.r: 200
0
iii
(.) & o "
0

YK CONVERSE ET AL

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
o

DEBRIS FAN

~;"cc. ,,"

~

(a)

River Mile

1500

SAND

1000

500

0 ,,0 0 ~
.c 2500
0 2000 TALUS
......
CD 1500
c. 0"
.c 1000 ,p"
0 "
iii 500 r;o~(.."
(.) 'cR
0
2500
2000 VEGETATION
1500
1000 ,
,
500 " c'~ ,
~" 0 r~_O 0
0
(b) River Mile

Figure 4. Downstream distribution of individual electrofishing samples for bedrock, cobble, debris fan, sand, talus and vegetation
shoreline types

compared with reaches I and 3. This pattern of habitat use was similar to patterns of cover frequency
among shoreline types (compare Figures 3 and 5). Shorelines with the highest relative densities within
reaches also had the highest frequencies of cover, and cover was also the main factor associated with fish
presence (Table VII). Subadult humpback chub appeared to be associated with certain physical conditions
of cover, yet the relationship between reach and shoreline geomorphology and fish densities explained
only 12% of the overall variation in fish densities.

Table VII. Results of the discriminant functions analysis. UFP, p value for univariate
F-test. MV, results of multivariate test

Variable Fish No fish UFP Wilks' A.
Depth (m) 2.61 2.67 0.84
Velocity (m S-I) 0.11 0.13 0.10
Cover ('X,) 43 33 <0.001
MV 0.89

p

<0.001

Table VIIl. Results of 2-way ANOV A showing differences in subadult humpback chub
densities among reaches and shoreline types in Figure 5

Source

Shoreline (S)
Reach (R)
RxS
Error

DF MS F P ,2
5 6.249 5.366 <0.001 0.12
2 0.148 0.126 0.88
10 2.083 1. 776 0.06
642 1.173

((,;) 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Regu/. Rivers: Res. Mgmt. 14: 267-284 (1998)