My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7025
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:44 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:45:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7025
Author
Hawkins, J. A. and T. P. Nesler.
Title
Nonnative Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin
USFW Year
1991.
USFW - Doc Type
An Issue Paper.
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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 />48 <br /> <br />Flagg (1981) suggested that exotic fishes carried pathogen groups that differed <br />from those carried by native fishes. No diseases were apparently introduced to native <br />fishes. Osmundson (1987) reported the first occurrence of Asian tapeworm in the upper <br />basin. The parasite had been introduced from hatchery reared Colorado squawfish <br />stocked into riverside ponds and indicated the potential for disease introduction from <br />man-introduced fishes. <br /> <br />Incidental take of endangered fishes by anglers was confirmed by several authors <br />(Vanicek 1967; Wick et al. 1985; Osmundson and Kaeding 1989a; Tyus and Karp 1989) <br />and up to 10% of tagged Colorado squawfish in the Green River have been caught by <br />angling (Tyus and Karp 1989) leading some to believe it to be a serious problem. <br /> <br />There is no evidence of habitat alteration by exotic fishes in the upper basin. <br />Hybridization has not been documented between any exotic fish and the four threatened <br />or endangered fishes. <br /> <br />(2uestionnaire <br /> <br />Background information established the nature and quality of the expertise comprised <br />by respondents to the questionnaire. Most respondents had expertise as biologists, <br />researchers, or managers and experience with threatened and endangered fishes, nongame <br />fish, and sport fisheries. Much of the expertise was based on familiarity with the major <br />rivers in the upper basin. Consensus or majority opinion was achieved on seven of the nine <br />questions whose subject was common to all respondents (Questions 2, 3,5,6, 8, 13, 15, 16, <br />17). The remaining eight informational questions demonstrated a diversity of responses. <br /> <br />The objectives of questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 were to determine if a problem exists, where <br />it occurs, which species are involved, how native fishes are affected, and is the problem <br />documented. Introduced species were considered by most respondents to impact native <br />fishes in most rivers in the Colorado River Basin. One third of the respondents indicated <br />the impacts have yet to be documented. Six species comprised of three traditional gamefish <br />species and three nongame cyprinid species were clearly of greatest or more widespread <br />concern. Criteria for concern due to these species were based on abundance (channel <br />catfish, red shiner, fathead minnow, and common carp), predatory habits (northern pike, <br />green sunfish), and the adaptation as an riverine omnivore (channel catfish). The remaining <br />species that were ranked lower were considered to be problems more on a localized scale <br />or in certain environmental conditions. Most respondents felt most introduced species affect <br />native fishes through both predation and competition. They listed 19 of the 28 species in <br />Table 3 as potential predators and 17 as potential competitors. Colorado squawfish, <br />razorback sucker, the young of these two species, and all native fish larvae in general were <br />most commonly identified in interactions with introduced species. While 77-81% of <br />respondents considered introduced fish to be a problem and provided specific species and <br />interactions, only 50-62% indicated documented evidence existed. References cited totalled <br />only 10 sources for predatory interactions and much fewer for competitive interaction. This <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />j <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.