Laserfiche WebLink
Species Llst and Catch Per Unit 8ffort (CPUE) of Fish <br />Collected Eros the San awn Z.iver by El ectrofi shing <br />` Between River Mi les 16.2 and 5.0 in 1987 <br /> ltu~ber Collected and Catch per Unit <br />Species fiff ort by Samp ling Period* <br /> spr CP[TE sua CPUE fall CP[TE Total CPUE <br />Carp 23 1.59 176 13.38 320 27.83 519 13.25 <br />Flaanelsonth Sucker 6 0.41 28 2.13 45 3.91 79 2.02 <br />Channel Catfish 33 2.27 415 31.56 212 18.43 660 16.85 <br />Striped Bass 8 0.61 S 0.43 13 0.33 <br />Threadfin Sbad 8 0.61 1 0.09 9 0.23 <br />Bloegill Sunfish 6 0.46 6 0.15 <br />Elack Bullhead 3 0.23 3 0.08 <br />Largemouth Bass 1 0.75 1 0.03 <br />valleye 2 0.15 1 0.09 3 0.08 <br />Green sunfish i 0.76 2 0.17 3 0,08 <br />Fathead Minnow 1 0.76 1 0.03 <br />Bed Shiner 8 0.53 7 0.53 14 1.22 29 0.74 <br />Totals 70 4.82 656 49.89 600 52.17 1326 33.86 <br />* A total of 39.16 hours were spent electrofishing this section of river in 1987. <br />This collection method was the Host productive for sampling adult fish, <br />Melding a total of 1,326 fish in 39.16 hours of electrofishing. Carp <br />and channel catfish were by far the most common fish sampled comprising <br />89 per cent of the total catch. Flannelmouth suckers made up 6 per <br />cent of the catch with the resaining nine species comprising the <br />remaining 6 per cent. All of these regaining nine species, except the <br />red shiner, are considered primarily reservoir species, explaining <br />their low percentage of the catch. The cogparatively low catch rate <br />during the spring sampling period (4.82) vas due to the relatively high <br />river flow, reduced suitable habitat for fish, and the cold water temr- <br />peratures that inhibited electrofishing efficiency. <br />As stated above, fish lengths were taken only during the fall col- <br />lection period. Listed below are the length/frequency relationships of <br />the fish collected by electrofishing during this time frame. <br />9 <br />