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 />Table 5. (concluded). <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Variable <br /> <br />Assumptions and source <br /> <br />VIJ <br /> <br />Pool depth is important as cover (Stewart 1926). Pool <br />depths at which white suckers are commonly found (60 tl' <br />90 cm) (Propst 1982b) are considered optimum. Very <br />shallow depths (< 25 cm) are considered poor and very <br />deep pools were assumed to contribute to a good to fair <br />habitat because white suckers are found at varying pool <br />depths in streams (Thompson and Hunt 1930; Propst <br />1982b). Deeper pool depths are usualJy not considered a <br />habitat detriment because the white sucker inhabits many <br />depths in lacustrine habitats (Reighard 1913). <br /> <br />VI4 <br /> <br />Shade is an indication of cover and streams with ~ 50% <br />shade are considered excellent. Thompson and Hunt (1930) <br />and Dence (1948) report that suckers are commonly found <br />in shaded portions of streams. Unshaded streams are <br />assumed to be poor to fair depending on other cover <br />available. <br /> <br />VIS <br /> <br />White suckers reach maximum abundance in low to moder- <br />ate gradients (Stewart 1926). Since Propst (1982b) <br />failed to find white suckers where there was no flow, <br />very low gradients (< .5 m/km) were considered poor. <br />Very high gradients (> 25 m/km) were also considered <br />poor because white suckers appeared to have trouble <br />maintaining equilibrium in turbulent waters (Symons <br />1976). Minckley (1963), Curry (1979), and Hocutt and <br />Stauffer (1975) reported on white suckers occupying <br />streams with gradients of 1.2 to 13 m/km, which are <br />considered excellent to fair, respectively, as the <br />gradient increases. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />VI6 <br /> <br />White suckers are common in pools with slow to moderate <br />velocities (< 40 cm/sec), but Minckley (1963), and <br />Symons (1976) most frequently found adult white suckers <br />at velocities of 10 to 19 cm/sec which were assumed <br />excellent. As mentioned in VIS' turbulent velocities <br /> <br />(Symons 1976) or zero velocities (Propst 1982b) are <br />considered poor. <br /> <br />VI7 <br /> <br />Suckers have been reported to successfully spawn after <br />migrating up to 6.4 km (Oence 1948). Spawning habitat <br />up to these distances, without known obstructions, are <br />considered excellent. It is assumed that longer <br />distances would be progressively less suitable. <br /> <br />34 <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.