Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11, <br /> <br />Table 3. Colorado squawfish recruitment as it related to habitat variables on the Green River, 1986-90. <br /> Estmated Growing Avg Flow Avg Temp %Incr <br /> Mean Spawning Spawn Season Growing Growing Spawn <br />Year CPUE TL Date Flow Days Season Season Spike <br />1986 45.49 29 Jun 19 25500 101 8335 21.7 1.04 <br />1987 38,57 - 36 Jun 10 8280 139 3376 21.3 1.21 <br />1988 69,69 38 Jun 11 13300 137 3230 21.3 1.49 <br />1989 30.77 38 Jun 08 7580 129 2322 21.7 1.02 <br />1990 5.13 41 Jun 21 6440 118 2037 23.3 1.71 <br />Table 4. Colorado squawfish recruitment as it related to habitat variables on the Colorado River, <br /> 1986-90. <br /> Estmated Growing Avg Flow Avg Temp %Incr <br /> Mean Spawning Spawn Season Growing Growing Spawn <br />Year CPUE TL Date Flow Days Season Season Spike <br />1986 10.95 28 Jun 28 20100 94 9434 19.6 1.09 <br />1987 5.39 40 Jun 10 20100 133 6189 20.7 1.66 <br />1988 4,82 43 Jun 07 14200 146 4397 21.3 1.67 <br />1989 1,85 42 Jun 08 6860 129 3499 22.8 1.05 <br />1990 8.04 39 Jun 26 5100 127 3064 20.8 1.81 <br /> <br />the fall were run using the following independent variables: 1. <br />length of the growing season; 2. growing season mean temperature; <br />and 3. growing season mean flow. The model explained 99% and 97% <br />of the variation in the Colorado and Green Rivers, respectively. <br />On the Green River the most powerful predictor of squawfish total <br />length was growing season flows, where a negative correlation of <br />0.97 was found. On the Colorado River all independent variables <br />predicted at least 75% of the variation in mean total length, <br />however the majority (96%) was accounted for by the length of <br />growing season. <br />