My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9576
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9576
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:36 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:50:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9576
Author
Utah Department of Natural Resources.
Title
Conservation and Management Plan for Three Fish Species in Utah - Adressing needs for Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta), Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus), and Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis).
USFW Year
2006.
USFW - Doc Type
Salt Lake City, UT.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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
<br />Page 23 <br />humpback chub (Gila cypha) and bonytail (G. elegans) in Desolation and Gray Canyons of the <br />Green River has been postulated by many observers (Douglas et al. 1998, Kaeding et al. 1990, <br />Valdez and Clemmer 1982). Whether biologists and agencies recognize two species, two species <br />~ and a hybrid form, three species, or some other combination has implications for how the fish are <br />managed. Because roundtail chub are congeners with humpback chub and bonytail, the potential <br />for hybridization between the species exists, though it has not been as well documented as <br />humpback chub/bonytail hybrids. Valdez and Clemmer (1982) have suggested that hybridization <br />is a result of dramatic environmental changes, while Dowling and DeMarais (1993) suggest that <br />~ hybridization among these species has occurred continually over geologic time, providing <br />additional genetic variability. Barriers to hybridization among some Gila species may illustrate <br />that it is a paraphyletic genus (Coburn and Lavender 1992 and references therein). Roundtail <br />chub in the Gila River drainage of New Mexico and Arizona was recently divided into three <br />species, G. robusta, G. intermedia, and G. nigra through genetic analysis (Minckley and <br />~ DeMarais 1990). Additional investigation of these relationships and resulting offspring is needed <br />and may affect future conservation and management actions for roundtail chub and other Gila <br />species. <br />The Virgin chub (G. seminuda) found in the Virgin River has been historically treated as a <br />~ subspecies of roundtail chub (Maddux et al. 1995) and is thought to have originated through <br />hybridization between the bonytail and the Colorado roundtail chub (Maddux et al. 1995, Sigler <br />and Sigler 1996 and references therein). In 1993, taxonomic revisions were accepted, and the <br />Virgin chub was asserted species- status as G. seminuda (Maddux et al. 1995). It is currently <br />listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. <br />~ Roundtail chub presently exist in the United States only in the Gila River Basin, the Little <br />Colorado River Basin, the Bill Williams River Basin, and the Upper Colorado River Basin, <br />including the Green River Basin. Lee et al. (1980) also recorded occurrences in northern Mexico, <br />which was anecdotally confirmed by personal communications in 2001 with S. Contreras- <br />Balderas (Bioconservacion A.C., Monterrey, Nuevo Leon) and A. Varela-Romero (Universidad <br />~ de Sonora, Hermasillo). In Utah, roundtail chub occur in the Green and Colorado rivers and <br />major tributaries of the two. Historically, roundtail chub were found in all of the state's major <br />drainages, though abundance information was not recorded (see Figure 2-6) (Utah Division of <br />Wildlife Resources 2001). <br />r Roundtail Chub Status Review <br />General <br />Historical literature suggests that roundtail chub were common to all parts of the Colorado River <br />~ Basin up to the 1960's (Jordan and Evermann 1902, Minckley 1973, Sigler and Miller 1963). <br />They are believed to have occurred in most faster flowing rivers and streams below 2,300 meters <br />elevation (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002). While they continue to occupy a number of rivers and <br />streams in the upper basin, declines in numbers and relative abundance have been observed in <br />many of these locations (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, Brunson and Christopherson 2003, <br />~ Platania 1990). <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.