Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />using numbers of fish caught as an index to successful reproduction, <br />is supported by Vanicek (1967), as well as by Holden (1973), Holden <br />(1977), Holden and Crist (1978), and Holden and Selby (1979). These <br />studies show that strong year classes, as indicated by the location <br />of many young-of-the-year, can be followed and that the cohort re- <br />mains strong in future years. collections. Likewise, poor years are <br />reflected later by low catches of juveniles. <br />Care must be used in direct interpretation of numbers of young <br />fish indicating reproductive success unless effort expended, and type <br />of sampling, is known. Sampling with inadequate equipment, or in the <br />wrong habitats, can result in capture of low numbers of young squaw- <br />fish in river sections where they are fairly common. Squawfish juve- <br />niles prefer certain habitats, and are most abundant in these types <br />of habitat (Holden 1977). Therefore, sampling a rather short reach <br />of river may produce very small numbers because few preferred habitats <br />exist in that reach. Therefore, it is impractical to utilize numbers <br />of fish caught as a direct index of reproductive success. Rather, it <br />is more reasonable to consider two levels of success, good and poor. <br />Good success is defined as years where squawfish young-of-the-year <br />were found fairly commonly for the effort expended, and/or when a <br />cohort (year class) is commonly found at Ages I, II, or III. Poor <br />success is defined as year classes when few young or juveniles are <br />found even though sufficient effort is expended. The major method of <br />determining when an age group is "common" or when "few" fish are <br />caught is to compare years of known effort. Therefore, in the tables <br />