Laserfiche WebLink
. 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