200 wild adult ra-
<br />lakeside backwater
<br />Ig season produced
<br />stripping gametes,
<br />200,000 embryos
<br />)duced only 17 ju-
<br />inckley et al. 1991;
<br />.ffort began in 1994
<br />honed to gather nat-
<br />ets and bays around
<br />al. 1993). To date
<br />tan 440,000 larvae.
<br />protected lakeside
<br />facilities that were
<br />td after achieving a
<br />les were measured,
<br />i transponder; Bio-
<br />id repatriated to the
<br />tpatriation program
<br />1, to date, with an-
<br />,ild razorback suck-
<br />the early 1970s un-
<br />inckley at Arizona
<br />ng effort has pro-
<br />stimates that have
<br />)ng with the status
<br />nckley et al. 2003),
<br />A the group's goal
<br />50,000 razorback
<br />wever, the program
<br />the genetic charac-
<br />i have been passed
<br />ite larvae (Dowling
<br />present population
<br />th rate estimates of
<br />r repatriation pro-
<br />2; assess the suc-
<br />;ram from a demo-
<br />recommendations.
<br />-patriated fish were
<br />nmingled with wild
<br />tg grounds in the
<br />censuses of adults
<br />.th peak razorback
<br />,hen fish were ag-
<br />and along shallow
<br />nckley 1983). Less
<br />erred at nonspawn-
<br />ts (20-100 m long
<br />r mesh, and 25.4-
<br />t-mounted electro-
<br />REPATRIATION TO CONSERVE IMPERILED FISH
<br />fishers were the primary sampling devices, al-
<br />though gill nets, hoop nets, and seining with tram-
<br />mel nets also were used. Overnight net sets and
<br />electrofishing were in water 2-6 m deep, and nets
<br />were cleared of fishes at 4-6-h intervals. Razor-
<br />back suckers were placed into onboard live tanks
<br />or into floating enclosures until assessment. With
<br />minimal handling before release, fish were mea-
<br />sured (TL), examined for sex and general health,
<br />and electronically scanned for PIT tags to deter-
<br />mine census data (capture [first-time capture] or
<br />second [or third, etc.] recapture). Sex categories
<br />were defined as juvenile (a young fish that did not
<br />exhibit external secondary characters), female,
<br />male, and unknown (adult but sex could not be
<br />determined reliably). All repatriates were released
<br />near their site of capture.
<br />Although sampling focused on a small portion
<br />of the entire lake, we are confident that our samples
<br />are representative of the Lake Mohave razorback
<br />sucker population as a whole. Extensive sampling
<br />lakewide indicated that in spring few adult razor-
<br />back suckers are found in Lake Mohave except on
<br />spawning grounds (Bozek et al. 1984; Minckley
<br />1983; Minckley et al. 1991; unpublished data).
<br />This result has been confirmed by telemetry stud-
<br />ies (Mueller et al. 2000), which also demonstrate
<br />that fish move freely among spawning areas. Fur-
<br />thermore, low-level aerial surveys conducted as
<br />frequently as biweekly during the reproductive pe-
<br />riod for at least the past decade (i.e., 1990s) also
<br />confirm-that most fish are found in association with
<br />spawning aggregations, which comprise the rela-
<br />tively few places where netting is done.
<br />Annual single-census population estimates (N`)
<br />were determined for repatriated razorback suckers
<br />by applying paired March census data to a mod-
<br />ified Peterson method formula (i.e., Chapman
<br />modification; Seber 1973), namely,
<br />N*=(M+1)(C+1)_ 1
<br />R+1
<br />We modified M, C, and R definitions in Ricker
<br />(1975) because all repatriates were tagged before
<br />stocking and, thus, were marked when first en-
<br />countered; therefore, M = number of repatriated
<br />fish captured the first year, C = number of repa-
<br />triated fish captured the following year, and R =
<br />total number of repatriated fish captured in both
<br />the first year and following year. Population esti-
<br />mates were reported for the marking (first) year
<br />because only natural mortality and emigration
<br />losses were assumed to occur (Seber 1973). Fish
<br />549
<br />captured and recaptured within the same sampling
<br />period were eliminated from analysis. Confidence
<br />intervals were derived using Poisson approxima-
<br />tion tables (Seber 1973) using R as the entering
<br />variable. Values from the table were multiplied by
<br />M X R to obtain the appropriate confidence inter-
<br />val. Survival rates were calculated by dividing the
<br />annual single-census population estimates by the
<br />cumulative number of repatriates released.
<br />A study model should meet three assumptions
<br />when applying the modified Peterson estimate
<br />(Pollock et al. 1990): (1) the population is closed
<br />to both additions and deletions, (2) no tags are lost
<br />or omitted, and (3) equal catchability of all indi-
<br />viduals. In our study, natural mortality of repatri-
<br />ates was occurring, but this apparent violation of
<br />the closure assumption did not bias estimates be-
<br />cause only one process (deletion) was in effect.
<br />Mortality was not generally associated with PIT
<br />tag usage, and no natural recruitment has been
<br />detected in recent decades in Lake Mohave
<br />(Minckley 1983; Minckley et al. 1991) or during
<br />the period of this study. Tag loss was assumed
<br />negligible or zero because PIT tags were consid-
<br />ered permanent (Prentice et al. 1990). However,
<br />equal catchability could not be assumed because
<br />sampling was restricted to spawning areas and per-
<br />formed primarily with trammel nets. Juvenile ra-
<br />zorback suckers typically did not occupy the same
<br />habitat as spawning adults (Mueller et al. 2000),
<br />and electrofishing and trammel nets tend to be size-
<br />selective for larger individuals, thus, resulting in
<br />unequal catchability between larger adults and
<br />smaller juvenile fish. Similarly, repatriated fish
<br />captured in the marking year are probably less
<br />available for recapture in the census year if they
<br />still are immature, and conversely, juveniles that
<br />mature before the census year have an equal op-
<br />portunity for capture in the census year. Both of
<br />these possibilities act to increase the proportion of
<br />captured to recaptured fish in the census year,
<br />which would inflate the population estimate. How-
<br />ever, survival estimates will underestimate true
<br />survivorship because a majority of fish released in
<br />the 1-3 years preceding the estimate will not be
<br />available for capture during the interval.
<br />Survival as a function of size at release has long
<br />been suspected as a major contributor to past fail-
<br />ures in the razorback sucker repatriation program
<br />(Marsh and Brooks 1989; Minckley et al. 1991).
<br />We used log-linear analysis as described by Sokal
<br />and Rohlf (1995) to determine the effect of size
<br />at release on overall survival and the consistency
<br />of this effect among years. Size at release was
|