My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7229
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7229
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:29 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 12:56:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7229
Author
Kaeding, L. R. and M. A. Zimmerman
Title
Life History and Ecology of the Humpback Chub in the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers of the Grand Canyon
USFW Year
1983
USFW - Doc Type
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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 />Pool depth al so can provide cover. Dwarf suckers frequently congregate .. <br />in deeper pools when not spawning (Oence 1948). Suckers are generally easily ,.,J <br />disturbed and quickly retreat to. pools (Stewart 1926). Propst (1982b) <br />co 11 ected whi te suckers at water depths of 21 to 110 cm, but most common <br />depths were 61 to 90 cm. Thompson and Hunt (1930) observed white suckers in <br />slow water habitat at depths of 15 to 240 cm. The value of pools as whi te <br />sucker habitat is greatly improved when logs, brush, or other types of cover <br />are present (Oence 1948). <br /> <br />Symons (1976) demonstrated that cover-seeking behavior increased signif- <br />icantly as stream velocity increased. Minckley (1963) reported that most <br />white suckers were in deeper pools, with fewer suckers in swifter, shallower <br />water. When white suckers were present in shallow water with an appreciable <br />current, they were usually in the shelter of vegetation. When vegetation was <br />lacking in the stream current, the suckers were in the deepest pools. When <br />white suckers were found in smaller, shallow pools there was an accumulation <br />of debris and overhanging riparian vegetation for cover. <br /> <br />Pool s provide habitat with a slower current in which fi sh can rest. <br />Suckers recuperate in pools after negotiating a difficult stream obstruction <br />during migration or after breeding (Stewart 1926; Dence 1948). Optimum white <br />sucker habitat is assumed to have a pool to riffle/run ratio of 1:1. <br /> <br />White suckers avoided areas in reservoirs where the dissolved oxygen (DO) <br />was ~ 2.4 mg/l (Oence 1948), but specific information on adult and juvenile <br />dissolved oxygen (DO). requirements generally are lacking. Siefert and Spoor <br />(1974) reported that embryos could not survive DO levels ~ 1.2 mg/l and that f\\ <br />the growth of fry was reduced at DO levels < 2.5 mg/l. Minckley (1963) <br />described an abundant white sucker population in a portion of a stream that <br />had yearly DO values rangi ng from 4.3 mg/l to an occas i ona 1 average super- <br />saturation level of 14.79 mg/l. <br /> <br />White suckers have been collected from areas with a pH as low as 4.3 <br />(Dunson and Martin 1973), but Beamish (1974) reported sharp declines in white <br />sucker populations in Canadian lakes when the pH was lowered to 4.5 to 5.0 as <br />a result of acid precipitation. Laboratory studies on the effects of pH on <br />white sucker growth and survival indicated that feeding stops at a pH of 4.5 <br />and death occurs at a pH of 3.0 to 3.8 (Beamish 1972). Maximum successful <br />reproduction occurs at a pH above 5.8 (Trojnar 1977). The pH range which is <br />generally considered not harmful to fish is 5.0 to 9.0; the further the pH <br />varies from this range, the lower the water quality. Laboratory data indicate <br />that a pH between 9 and 10 may be harmful to some fish species, and that a pH <br />above 10 usually is lethal to all species (EIFAC 1969). <br /> <br />White suckers can survive in turbid waters, but they are more common in <br />clearer streams (< 50 JTU) and lakes (Pflieger 1975) and prefer relatively <br />clear spawning streams (Raney and Webster 1942). Young-of-the-year, juveniles, <br />and adults have been reported in the Missouri and James Rivers (North Dakota) <br />at relatively consistent turbidities of 50 to 135 JTU's. Smaller numbers of <br />white suckers occur in the Colorado and Yampa Rivers (Colorado) at more <br />variable turbidities of 85 to 100 and up to 350 JTU's (R. Muth, pers. comm.). <br />Pflieger (1971) stated that white suckers are uncommon in large turbid rivers. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.