My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8173
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8173
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 12:55:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8173
Author
Gido, K. B. and D. L. Propst.
Title
Habitat Use and Association of Native and Nonnative Fish in the San Juan River, New Mexico and Utah.
USFW Year
n.d.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />(SPSS 1996). <br /> <br />RESULTS <br /> <br />Each sample site, except site 4, was visited 17 times during <br />the two-year study; site 4 was sampled 15 times. A total of 1132 <br />habitats was sampled, of which 929 were occupied by fish. We <br />collected a total of 55,590 specimens of 13 species in these <br />habitats (Table 2). Three nonnative species, ~. lutrensis, E. ~2 <br />promelas, and Gambusia affinis were the first, second, and forth <br />most abundant taxa, accounting for 77.0% of the total catch. <br />Native R. osculus, C. latipinnis, and ~. discobolus were the <br />third, fifth, and sixth most abundant (respectively) and <br />accounted for 17.8% of the catch. Density of the five most <br />common species and age-classes of each varied similarly each year <br />(Fig. 2). Total density was generally highest in the late ~ L <br />summer, although there was a spike in total density in the spring <br />of 1994. Adult density was the most stable while larvae only <br />occurred during the summer and autumn. <br />Habitat available and habitat sampled differed among sample <br />-, L. <br />sites (Table 3). Site 4 had the greatest mean current velocity <br />and depth, while site 2 was the shallowest with the lowest mean <br />current velocity. In general, our sampling reflected spatial <br />differences in habitat available among sites. However, at all <br />sites we tended to sample habitats that were significantly <br />shallower and had lower current velocities than was available <br />_\ I.- <br />(Table 4). This was primarily because efficient sampling was <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.