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
Greater numbers of smallmouth bass were removed in 2005 and 2006, due to greater <br />effort. Years 2005 and 2006 were also the first years of removal of age-0 smallmouth bass from <br />the treatment reach (Hawkins 2005, 2006). In 2005, an abundance estimate of 1,223 smallmouth <br />bass > 150 mm total length (CV = 18%, 2-pass capture-recapture estimate) and a removal of <br />1,404 bass suggested a removal of> 100% of the population with boat electrofishing over eight <br />removal passes. Another 848 bass were removed that were < 150 mm TL. Many additional fish <br />may have immigrated into the study reach due to escapement of smallmouth bass from Elkhead <br />Reservoir or movement from other adjacent reaches, which is a likely explanation for the number <br />offish removed being greater than the estimated abundance. Evidence of escapement of fish <br />from Elkhead Reservoir is based on recapture of tagged fish that were moved from the Yampa <br />River to the reservoir in prior years or the same year, and were recaptured in the study area. The <br />hypothesis of fish immigration into the study area was also based on an abundance estimate over <br />5-passes of 2,846 (CV = 11 %), which occurred during the time when bass likely immigrated into <br />the area. A large influx of bass into the study area would result in an inflated estimate, based on <br />a lowered proportion of marked fish that were recaptured in later passes after fish had moved in. <br />It is also possible that abundance estimates were biased ]ow. <br />In 2005, an additiona19,528 small-bodied smallmouth bass (most age-0) were removed <br />by electric seining efforts from late-July to early September. We do not know what proportion <br />of smallmouth bass were removed because there was not an accompanying abundance estimate. <br />Age-0 smallmouth bass abundance in control and treatment reaches started at low levels in mid- <br />July based on electric seine sampling results (Fig. 7A). Mid- to late-July was about the time <br />smallmouth bass finished reproduction in that relatively high and cool flow year (KRB, <br />unpublished otolith aging information). Bass abundance in samples (CPUE) increased rapidly <br />by ]ate August to early September in control and treatment reaches. Smallmouth bass abundance <br />in the treatment reach never achieved the level that they did in the control reach, perhaps because <br />of continuous removals. Smallmouth bass abundance in the control reach remained high and <br />constant through late September, but declined sharply in the treatment reach, a difference that is <br />likely due to removal efforts. Between late September and mid-October, smallmouth bass <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.