Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />f <br />,\ <br /> <br />] <br /> <br />I <br />j <br />~ <br />:~ <br />1 , <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />Hendrickson and Brooks (1987) documented predation by yellow bullhead and largemouth <br />bass on Colorado squawfish stocked in the Verde River, Arizona. Marsh and Brooks (1989) <br />reported that catfish predation significantly reduced number of stocked razorback sucker <br />(45-168 mm TL) during a 3-year stocking program in the Gila River, Arizona, even though <br />channel and flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris were a small portion of the total fish fauna. <br />Other forage available included red shiner and other native suckers. Razorback sucker were <br />probably vulnerable to predation because of disorientation from transport, stress, and novel <br />surroundings. Marsh and Minckley (1989) suggested that the hypothesis that lack of <br />recruitment is attributable to predation is enhanced by high survival of razorback sucker in <br />predator-poor canal habitats. <br /> <br />Marsh and Langhorst (1988) concluded predation was the cause for loss of young <br />razorback sucker in an isolated backwater on the shores of Lake Mohave. High water levels <br />and storm-driven waves breached the isolated backwater allowing invasion of nonnative <br />fishes including threadfin shad, common carp, channel catfish, largemouth bass, green <br />sunfish, and bluegill. Predation was documented with the discovery of an average of four <br />razorback sucker larvae in nearly 40% of the green sunfish collected during a 24-hour <br />period. One month after the invasion of nonnatives, razorback sucker larvae could no <br />longer be collected; total mortality was attributed to predation. <br /> <br />Marsh and Brooks (1989) suggested that self-sustaining populations of razorback <br />sucker were unlikely in areas of abundant, nonnative predators. However, once beyond the <br />size range of abundant smaller predators like green sunfish, razorback sucker probably attain <br />capabilities to avoid predation from larger predators like largemouth bass and catfish (Marsh <br />and Minckley 1989). Brooks (unpublished data'in Marsh and Langhorst 1988) found a direct <br />relationship for predation of razorback sucker and density of green sunfish at Dexter <br />National Fish Hatchery. <br /> <br />In Lake Mohave, common carp were observed feeding in redds immediately after <br />razorback sucker had spawned, but of 201 common carp stomachs examined, none contained <br />eggs. Razorback sucker eggs were found in four of 63 channel catfish stomachs; no other <br />species examined contained either eggs or larvae. Species examined included largemouth <br />bass, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and striped bass. Egg predation by common carp was <br />considered insignificant given the large number of eggs available and the lack of eggs in any <br />common carp stomach. The lack of eggs in predator stomach samples may also have been <br />due to mastication, rapid digestion, or regurgitation (Bozek et al. 1984). <br /> <br />Competition for food. -- U (1979) identified three requirements for competition to occur <br />between two species: (1) the resource must be limited, (2) the resource must be shared, and <br />(3) the sharing of the resource results in a negative influence on one of the two species. <br />Competition for food is often identified by measuring the amount of dietary overlap of two <br />species and then determining the ayailability of the food If food is in limited supply and <br />overlap is high, then competition may be occurring. Field documentation of food <br />competition is often difficult to obtain. Miller and Hubert (1990) identified several recent <br />