Laserfiche WebLink
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