Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Although water quality has changed in many regions of the Colorado River Basin, there is no <br />evidence that any single water chemical parameter, or any combination of parameters, <br />ificant factor in the decline and status of the endangered fishes. Although increased <br />salinity (as total dissolved solids, TDS) is reported a common effect of flow depletion, laboratory <br />studies by Bulkley et al. (1982) showed that Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and <br />bonytail are tolerant to much higher TDS levels than ever observed in the basin. Although heavy <br />metals, such as mercury, zinc, cadmium, copper, and lead, have been identified as potential <br />contaminants of t w gered fish, there is little compelling evidence to suggest that any of <br />I . <br />these elements conti .Je significantly to the declined status of these species. <br />I ".... <br />....&. ... <br />3.5.2 Hybridization <br />The humpback chub and bonytail are part of a morphologically diverse group of western <br />cyprinids that includes several congeneric species. This Gila complex consists of six forms that <br />inhabit the Colorado River Basin, including the humpback chub (G. cypha), bonytail (G. <br />elegans), roundtail chub (G. robusta), Virgin River chub (G. robusta seminuda), Pahranagat <br />roundtail chub (G. r. jordani), and Gila (G. intermedia). The humpback chub, bonytail, and <br />roundtail chub are mainstem sympatri s with substantial evidence of introgressive <br />hybridization (Dowling and DeMarais 1993), while the Virgin River chub, Pahranagat roundtail <br />chub, and Gila chub are isolates and primarily tributary inhabitants, although historic <br />hybridization with other forms of Gila is evident. Humpback chub and bonytail appear to be <br />specialized derivatives of the roundtail chub complex, and may have arisen in response to special <br />conditions in large erosive.habitats (Smith et al. 1979, Minc al. 1989); a hypothesis that is <br />supported by recent allozyme and mitochondrial DNA analys owling and DeMarais 1993). <br />Intraspecific and interspecific morphological variation IS extensive where humpback <br />chub, roundtail chub, and bonytail occur sympatrically. This apparent introgressive hybridization <br />has resulted in high phenotypic plasticity with morphologic intergrades present in all sympatric <br />populations of Colorado River Gila (Holden and Stalnaker 1970, Smith et al. 1979, Valdez and <br />Clemmer 1982, McElroy and Douglas 1995, Douglas et al. 1989, 1998, Kaeding et al. 1990). <br />These intergrades suggest, to some, extensive hybridization with possible concomi <br />genetic diversity and evolutionary adaptive traits (Valdez and Clemmer 1982, Rosenfi <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />19 <br />