My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7959
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7959
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:56:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7959
Author
Muth, R. T. and J. B. Ruppert.
Title
Effects of Two Electrofishing Currents on Captive Ripe Razorback Sucker and Subsequent Egg Hatching Success - Final Report.
USFW Year
1995.
USFW - Doc Type
(CO River Recovery Program Project No. 61 RMD/9595),
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />boat-mounted Coffelt WP-15 electrofisher (square waveform, 40 Hz, 20% duty <br />cycle, 120-V and 8-A output). <br /> <br />Other researchers have investigated effects of electroshocking ripe male and <br />female fish and found substantial reductions in viability of fertilized eggs through the <br />eyed stage. Newman and Stone (1992) exposed ripe walleye Stizostedion vitreum <br />to 400-V, 120-Hz pulsed DC (quarter-sine waveform) and, although no supportive <br />data were given, suggested that reduced egg viability was possibly caused by <br />rupture of unfertilized eggs or decreased sperm motility. Marriott (1973) suspected <br />that overall lower egg viability for pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha shocked <br />with 110-V, 60-Hz AC for 5 s was at least partly caused by observed damage to <br />internal organs of some females which loosened unfertilized eggs from ovarian <br />tissue and bathed them in body fluids. He concluded that shocking had no effect on <br />males. We did not observe injuries to internal organs of shocked female razorback <br />sucker or obvious, treatment-related damage to their eggs but cannot rule out the <br />possibility of undetected damage to eggs or decreased motility in sperm of shocked <br />males. Although mean percent hatch of eggs in our control was relatively low <br />(25.9%), it falls within the reported range of 22.5-54.7% for artificially fertilized eggs <br />of razorback sucker in hatcheries (Inslee 1982; Hamman 1985) and was <br />15.3-21.0% higher than means for eggs in shocked groups. <br /> <br />Our results suggest that electrofishing of razorback sucker spawning <br />aggregations could injure adults, cause premature expulsion of gametes from fish <br />during exposure to electric fields, and significantly reduce egg hatching success. <br />Effects of electrofishing on natural reproductive behavior of razorback sucker are <br />unknown. Given the precarious status of this species, we recommend that the need <br />for electrofishing over active razorback sucker spawning areas should be carefully <br />evaluated. <br /> <br />References <br /> <br />Cowdell, B. R, and R A. Valdez. 1994. Effects of pulsed DC electroshock on adult <br />roundtail chub from the Colorado River in Colorado. North American Journal <br />of Fisheries Management 14:659-660. <br /> <br />Dwyer, W. P., and R G. White. 1995. Influence of electroshock on short-term <br />growth of adult rainbow trout and juvenile Arctic grayling and cutthroat trout. <br />North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:148-151. <br /> <br />Fredenburg, W. A. 1992. Evaluation of electrofishing-induced spinal injuries <br />resulting from field electrofishing surveys in Montana. Final report. Montana <br />Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.