My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9555
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9555
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:36 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 7:28:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9555
Author
Bestgen, K. R., C. D. Walford, A. A. Hill and J. A. Hawkins.
Title
Native Fish Response to Removal of Non-native Predator Fish in the Yampa River, Colorado.
USFW Year
2007.
USFW - Doc Type
140,
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
Most habitat in the treatment reach suitable to support small-bodied smallmouth bass was <br />sampled on three sampling passes conducted from late-July/early August to early September, <br />each pass taking about 9 days to complete. That period was targeted for removal because young <br />smallmouth bass that had hatched in late June through July were of a size sufficient for efficient <br />capture using the electric seine. Main areas sampled were shallow, had low-velocity, and were <br />typically shorelines of pools and runs with cobble or large substrate. A sampling pass was also <br />completed during this time frame in the control area so that small-bodied smallmouth bass <br />abundance could be compared to that in the treatment area. <br />Native fish evaluation sampling.-- Sampling for this study typically began by early to <br />mid-September and extended into late-October until the river froze. In each year, three to four <br />sampling trips of 7 to 9 nine days each were conducted, and similar per trip sampling effort was <br />usually expended in the control and treatment reaches. Sampling in both reaches during each <br />pass would reduce confounding of comparisons of fish abundance through time if river-wide <br />changes in water temperature, flows, turbidity or other factors were responsible for changes <br />which may otherwise be attributable to a reach (removal) effect. <br />We attempted to sample a mix of channel areas across the reaches, including backwaters, <br />eddies, pools, riffles, runs, pools isolated from the main channel, and low velocity shorelines of <br />pools and runs. The number of channel area types sampled was about proportional to their <br />availability, except that most isolated pools were sampled because they were an unusual and <br />biologically interesting habitat type. We attempted to sample a similar number of habitat areas <br />in each of the control and treatment reaches, although differences in the mix of habitat types in <br />each reach did not always allow for that. Some sites were accessible by vehicle but most were <br />sampled from canoes during this low-flow autumn period. Low flows also limited access by <br />rafts or other craft capable of transporting heavier boat-based electrofishers that may be more <br />efficient at sampling the longer and deeper pools in some reaches. Anderson (2005) was able to <br />sample a couple pools in the Duffy Tunnel area with a raft electrofisher. When we tried this gear <br />type, we could not navigate longer river reaches, and found that water depth and limited mobility <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.