Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1979 <br /> <br />THE ENDANGERED SPECIES: A SYMPOSIUM <br /> <br />woundfin fry at various locations along the <br />Virgin River during summer 1977. Collec- <br />tions were made at one- to two-week inter- <br />vals until fry were taken at each location in- <br />dicated. The uppermost location, indicated <br />.by 23 July in Figure 8 was actually below the <br />Hurricane Diversion but above LaVerkin <br />Creek. It is apparent that hatching occurred <br />earlier in the lower river than in the upper <br />river. Furthermore, in the lower river hatch- <br />ing appears to have been delayed by about <br />two weeks at the lowermost station where <br />habitat modification is most obvious. <br />The earlier appearance of young woundfin <br />in the Arizona segment of the lower river <br />was followed by relatively good survival in <br />1977 (Fig. 7). By contrast, the later appear- <br />ance of young woundfin in the upper river <br />was followed by very poor survival in 1977 <br />(Fig. 3). With higher flows in 1978, both up- <br />stream and downstream populations of <br />woundfin showed good reproduction, and by <br />fall 1978 the mean size was nearly identical <br />in the two populations (Fig. 6). <br /> <br />Comparisons of hydrographs of Virgin Riv- <br />er flows for 1973, 1977, and 1978 show that <br />the major differences in flow occurred during <br />winter and spring. Summer flows suggest.a <br />relatively greater degree of similarity for all <br />three years (Vaughn Hansen Associates 1977). <br />If winter and spring flows significantly in- <br />fluence reproductive success of the endan- <br />gered fishes of the Virgin River, the effect <br />should be discemable in the population struc- <br />ture during the following fall. Figure 9 pres- <br />ents data comparing mean size of woundfin <br />in the fall in both the upstream and down- <br />stream populations against mean flows of the <br />river during the spring. Of particular signifi- <br />cance is the fact that when stream flow is <br />low, mean size is high and vice versa. Inter- <br />estingly, Figure 9 also suggests that when <br />mean spring flows are above 700 cfs, repro- <br />ductive success may be slightly poorer than <br />when mean spring flows are between 400 and <br />600 cfs. Data are not available for times <br />when mean spring flows fall between 100 <br />and 400 cfs, but at about 100 cfs it is clear <br /> <br /> - 9/28/78 (N=102) <br /> 0 11/25/77 (N=3) <br /> 25 <br />z 20 <br />0 <br />ti <br />~ <br />::> 15 <br />a.. <br />0 <br />a.. <br />- <br />0 10 <br />~ <br />0 <br /> 5 <br /> <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />60 <br /> <br />90 <br /> <br />120 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br /> <br />47 <br /> <br />Fig. 5. Length frequency of roundtail chub in Virgin River above the narrows. The o's indicate size of the only <br />three individuals taken in extensive sampling on 25 November 1977. <br /> <br />150 180 <br />SIZE <br /> <br />210 <br /> <br />240 <br /> <br />270 <br /> <br />300 <br />