. U
<br />When recovery efforts were begun, the abundance
<br />of predatory, nonnative species in the lower river
<br />made realizing these goals seem highly unlikely. Re-
<br />cruitment failure was poorly understood, so mil-
<br />lions of larval razorback suckers per year were cul-
<br />tured in hatcheries for stocking in southern Arizona
<br />(Inslee 1982, Hamman 1987), with essentially no
<br />success (Minckley et al. 1991, Hendrickson 1993).
<br />Stocking juvenile, hatchery-reared razorback suckers
<br />at somewhat larger sizes yielded the same result
<br />(Langhorst 1989, Marsh and Brooks 1989). Data for
<br />bonytail were similar. Each year, Lake Mohave brood
<br />fish produced bonyta.il progeny in 0.04-hectare (0.1
<br />acre) hatchery ponds, but approximately 200,000
<br />fish that were repatriated between 1981 and 1990 es-
<br />sentially disappeared. Survival, although detected,
<br />P, Breeding
<br />population in isolated,
<br />off-channel habitats
<br />Repatriated subadults
<br />Reproductive adults
<br />Panmictic population in
<br />channel plus connectives
<br />was low (< 0.001%); the total length of these fish at
<br />the time they were stocked rarely exceeded 10 cm.
<br />When predation on larvae and juveniles was iden-
<br />tified as the limiting factor (Minddey 1983,1991), ef-
<br />fortwas shifted to circumventing its impacts (Minckley et al.
<br />1991, Pacey and Marsh 2003). Few problems existed with
<br />adults. Large individuals of all four taxa persisted under di-
<br />verse conditions where nonnatives were common, and all
<br />but humpback chub were known to successfully reproduce in
<br />farm ponds, under hatchery conditions, and elsewhere (Marsh
<br />and Pacey 2003). To speed the process for the razorback
<br />sucker, by then beginning its decline, we captured wild larvae
<br />directly from Lake Mohave, reared them in isolation from
<br />predators, and repatriated subadults back to the reservoir. In
<br />1993-1995, stocking razorback sucker in small (0.05 to 0.17
<br />ha, averaging 0.13 ha), predator-free habitats resulted in an
<br />average survival rate of 22% (0% to 81%) from larva to
<br />subadult. As noted before, repatriates entered the breeding
<br />population 2 years after the program was begun, and in 1999
<br />they constituted approximately 12% of the reproductive
<br />adults. Hatchery-cultured larval and juvenile bonytail were
<br />added, grew well, and were also repatriated (table 4) with
<br />lesser success.
<br />On the basis of a model created in part from these ob-
<br />servations, managing 100 ha with 50 females per ha yield-
<br />ing 10 young per female provides 50,000 subadults per year
<br />for transfer to the channel plus connectives. If 5% survived
<br />the first year after repatriation and 80% survived each
<br />succeeding year of freedom, and if the same production-
<br />transfer rates continued, approximately 54,500 adults
<br />would theoretically be present in the channel plus con-
<br />nectives after 5 years. N, would stabilize at approximately
<br />60,000 adults in about 20 years (in our model, adults are
<br />programmed to die at 35 years of age). In a second
<br />example, if a goal was 5% of the N estimated to produce
<br />today's genetic legacy for razorback sucker (about 1,000,000
<br />females; table 3), 50 females per ha, an average of 10
<br />progeny per female per year, and 250 off-channel hectares
<br />might approach that figure. Under the last scenario,
<br />125,000 juveniles would be available annually for transfer,
<br />Figure 6. Schematic interrelations between lower Colorado River off-
<br />channel habitats and channel plus connectives.
<br />and at survival of 5% the first year and 80% thereafter, a Nc
<br />of approximately 139,000 adults would exist in the channel
<br />plus connectives at the end of 5 years; N would stabilize at
<br />approximately 20 years with close to 150,000 fish (approxi-
<br />mately 50% female).
<br />Unknowns. We have insufficient data to quantify the rela-
<br />tionship of N and N,, and because each female produces a
<br />vast surplus of ova, gross production of progeny may be only
<br />indirectly related. Demographic data from radiotelemetry
<br />studies and genetic data from an experiment examining pro-
<br />duction of razorback sucker progeny using mtDNA analysis
<br />independently suggest that individual razorback sucker females
<br />may not spawn every year.
<br />However, available survival estimates include only part of
<br />the life cycle and do not include most of the survival com-
<br />ponents for breeding adults. To properly measure N, from
<br />Table 4. Numbers of bonytail repatriated to Lake Mohave from
<br />natural reproduction in p onds at US Fish and Wildlife Service
<br />Dexter National Fish Hatchery, New Mexico, 1981-1997.
<br />Number of Total length (millimeters)
<br />Years fish Average Maximum Minimum
<br />1981 26,817 1028 - -
<br />1981-1982 14,700 102 - -
<br />1985 12,618 102 - -
<br />1987-1988 34,011 140 - -
<br />1988-1989 15,540 102 - -
<br />1989-1990 44,678 90 - -
<br />1990-1991 9,283 102 - -
<br />1991-1992 6,617 72 - -
<br />1992-1993 17 167 259 95
<br />1993-1994 7 243 265 227
<br />1994-1995 12,507 105 322 101
<br />1995-1996 131 308 368 154
<br />1996-1997 784 279 420 225
<br />102 mm = "fingerling" size; other data are actual measurements.
<br />a
<br />.
<br />March 2003 / Vol. 53 No. 3 • BioScience 229
|