Laserfiche WebLink
<br />difficult and inefficient in deep, rapid velocity habitats and <br />our experience indicated that few fish occupied deep, high <br />velocity habitats (Gido et al., in press). <br />The majority of the species and age-classes examined used <br />low velocity (<0.2 m/s), shallow (<0.4 m) habitats (Table 2) . <br />Silt was the predominant substrate in most habitats sampled, <br />while cobble substrata occurred less frequently. Debris was <br />present in 23.0% of the habitats occupied by fish. Adult E. <br />osculus and sub-adult ~. discobolus occupied habitats with higher <br />current velocities than other species. Adult C. lutrensis, <br />juvenile Ictalurus punctatus, and sub-adult ~. discobolus and ~. <br />latipinnis commonly occupied habitats with depths >0.35m. <br />Stepwise discriminant analysis indicated that velocity, <br />depth, and percent coverage of silt and sand significantly <br />contributed towards discriminating habitat use between the 20 <br />species and age-classes (Table 5). Current velocity and depth, 1r~ <br />however, were considerably more important than other variables. <br />The first axis loaded positively on velocity and negatively on <br />silt, while the second axis contrasted velocity with depth. <br />Species centroids plotted on the first two axes indicated that <br />adult age-classes of both native and common nonnative species <br />used habitats with higher current velocities (Fig. 3). On the F~ <br />second axis, the age-classes of the two common nonnative species <br />also appeared to use slightly deeper water than the respective <br />age-class of native species. Although the overall model was <br />significant, it only classified groups correctly 17.2% of the <br /> <br />11 <br />