My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7112
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:44 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:24:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7112
Author
Minckley, C. O.
Title
Fishes of Arizona.
USFW Year
1973.
USFW - Doc Type
Arizona State University,
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
F _. ~ _ , ,. ,. w <br />- - ~ - <br />8 <br />Many smaller rivers and creeks of Arizona now are dry except in <br />periods of snow-melt or heavy precipitation. This has resulted from <br />diversions, impoundments at their headwaters, pumping of underground <br />aquifers, or perhaps a natural climatic trend toward drought. Many such <br />habitats support fishes in their permanent headwaters, and sometimes <br />downstream where water moving through the coarse-grained sands and <br />gravels of the stream bed is forced to the surface in canyons or elsewhere <br />where the channel is crossed by stony dikes. In the recent past; when <br />the lower-elevation grassland or desert streams were more permanent, <br />they often flowed through broad, marshy floodplains in multiple channels <br />(Hastings, 1959; Hastings & Turner, 1966), and were repeatedly dammed <br />by beaver (Emory, 1857; Pattie, 1905; Lockwood, 1929). Dark, organic <br />sediments form parts of the walls of many present-day "washes" in the <br />American Southwest, remnants of marsh or "ci~enega" deposits (Martin & <br />Mehringer, 1965, and references cited). Great galleries of cottonwood <br />trees, so conspicuous at present along many waterways (Fig. 4), were <br />most likely absent or localized in places of relatively good drainage, or <br />were perhaps suppressed by beaver cutting and/or lack of great success <br />in reproduction. Areas of entrenched channel doubtless were present, <br />bordered by mesquite "bosques" on terraces. Under such conditions, much <br />of the stream bottoms must have been of mud and debris, currents would <br />have been slow, impeded by debris, beaver dams, and the tortuous <br />! nature of channels, and flooding effects would have been minimal (Fig. 5). <br />The present aspect of many desert and grassland streams therefore, with <br />a tendency for broad channels bordered by cut banks (Figs. 4, 6), orig- <br />inated in the later 1880s with a cycle of arroyo cutting. Similar erosional <br />activity was recorded in or around this period over a large area, and <br />+~ the uniformity "points toward operation of a broad regional factor like <br />., climate (Hastings & Turner, 1966)." However, in southern Arizona at <br />Fk :~._ _..~a .~~,,,n~~.-~......a,n~.a <br />~. ~.._ x . <br />'" <br />~".'~ ~~. _ ~-~ - x <br />~. ~~ <br />__ ~_~ ~ K, <br />- <br />-~ ~~ ~ ~: <br />figure 6. Santa Cruz River and associated washes, Pinal County, Arizona, down-stream <br />from Tucson; snow-dry stream bed obviously greatly incised and eroded. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.