<br />~ .'
<br />
<br />----
<br />
<br />, "
<br />
<br />, .
<br />
<br />.
<br />,
<br />,: .
<br />~/..
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />'~~....~ I~/:, .
<br />
<br />, .'
<br />~
<br />
<br />~.
<br />
<br />...
<br />
<br />;.... . .
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.'.. ""l
<br />
<br />.
<br />. .
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />. '. ',.....______~~:.A..;;
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />~ ~ j
<br />.' ,j
<br />I
<br />~ 1
<br />~ " j
<br />:.< ,11
<br />'''1
<br />. ,
<br />
<br />i
<br />I
<br />1
<br />i
<br />'..,
<br />.'~
<br />
<br />.. '..i
<br />"
<br />
<br />,I
<br />
<br />;
<br />.
<br />i
<br />i
<br />..,~J
<br />. ""';0;';1
<br />j
<br />
<br />. .
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />.-..- ~
<br />. . ,
<br />~ ~ l
<br />,
<br />
<br />'''''
<br />
<br />. '
<br />..1
<br />
<br />'"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />. ~
<br />
<br />. ..
<br />
<br />I'
<br />
<br />.
<br />. ,
<br />
<br />..'
<br />
<br />.. .
<br />
<br />,~
<br />,.
<br />
<br />."
<br />
<br />w:,. ...~ -:.,....... ~....,~-
<br />
<br />~'
<br />'L...;;"
<br />
<br />.';'..
<br />
<br />, '
<br />.' ~ : "".- .'. ". ....;;,"~~.; ~ ..::....
<br />
<br />j
<br />1..__
<br />
<br />Ir;. ...;J,;. .j.....m"
<br />
<br />..e...ih:,,":";
<br />
<br />434
<br />
<br />JAMES E. DEACON AND W. L MINCKLEY
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />1963), and in the main seems the most important single variable. This
<br />understanding resulted in large part from early studies by Shelford
<br />(1911a,b) on ecological succession, in which he emphasized the physio-
<br />graphic influences in strcams as being far more important than biotic fac-
<br />tors (Allee et aI., 1949). Geologic maturation of strcams was considered
<br />as a successional phenomenon, followed by succession of the fish fauna
<br />at a given point from those of swift headwater situations to species with
<br />proclivities and morphologies more adapted to downstream or lentic situa-
<br />tions, Such relationships have been demonstrated throughout the world
<br />where fishes inhabit streams.
<br />Figure 6 outlines the actual or generalized distributions of fishes in a
<br />number of regions or stream systems and illustrates correlations between
<br />fish morphology and habitat features of different stream segments. This
<br />correlation cuts across taxonomic groupings, in most part, and serves to
<br />illustrate the close ties between body shape in fishes and the environments
<br />in which they live. That the correlative factor in such situations is current
<br />(or gradient) may easily be demonstrated by examining unusual streams
<br />which flow through flat lands in their headwaters, then enter a section of
<br />higher gradient in their lower reaches;, the longitudinal distribution of fishes
<br />is similarly reversed (Larimore et ai., 1952). IQ Aravaipa Creek, Arizona,
<br />a high-gradient area is sandwiched between two low gradient sections.
<br />Headwater fishes occur mostly in the middle reach of that stream (Barber
<br />and Minckley, 1966). In fact, the simple presence of an arca of swift water
<br />between pools-a riffle-provides living space for headwater fishes in the
<br />midst of lakclike conditions.
<br />Careful examination of shorelines of larger rivers, as opposed to eddies
<br />along the current of the main channel, or the swift, central part, reveal
<br />similar current-related habitat preferences. In well-watered zones, or in
<br />large, persistently flowing desert rivers, a tremendous diversity of species
<br />may exist within this complex type of environment. In other places, a
<br />group may diversify into a number of niches or habitats.
<br />Segregation of a group into differing regimes of current (or current-
<br />related habitats) is remarkably developed in cyprinoid fishes of the Colo-
<br />rado River basin of western North America. The swift-water minnows and
<br />suckers of that system display some of the most bizarre morphological
<br />adaptations to the constant stress of current (and likely suspended solids)
<br />that are known in any river in the world (Hubbs. 1940, 1941a),
<br />
<br />In more obvious adaptation ., . the fish tend to be larger and much more
<br />stream-lined . . . , with more terete bodies. sharper entering wedges and.
<br />particularly, with much slenderer caudal peduncles and longer and more
<br />. falcate fins; and often with more rays in one or more fins or with smaller
<br />scales (which provide a smoother surface) (Hubbs, 194Ia).
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />...
<br />
|