My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9556
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9556
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:36 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 7:28:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9556
Author
Bestgen, K. R., K. A. Zelasko and C. T. Wilcox.
Title
Non-native fish removal in the Green River, Lodore and Whirlpool canyons, 2002-2006, and fish community response to altered flow and temperature regimes, and non-native fish expansion.
USFW Year
2007.
USFW - Doc Type
115,
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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 />basis. Two electrofishing sampling trips were made each year from 2002 to 2006, one in mid to <br />late July and one in mid to late September. Inflatable raft-based Smith-Root electrofishers were <br />employed. Water conductivity was 300 to 700 microsiemens and electrofishing units usually <br />produced 3-6 amperes with about 350 volts. Generally, 1.5 to 3 km reaches were electrofished <br />before fish were identified, and lengths and weights taken on about every other sample. <br />Electrofishing effort was continuous throughout the reach and concentrated along river banks, in <br />deep pools, riffles, eddies, or near cover. We attempted to capture all fishes that were stunned. <br />Electrofishing samples collected in 2002 in summer (both rafts) and autumn (one raft) were <br />potentially biased downward compared to samples collected in 2003 to 2006 because the anode <br />and cathode plugs were switched. This caused the relatively small surface area dropper sphere in <br />the front of the raft to become the cathode and the relatively large surface area cables positioned <br />mid-raft to become the anodes. The result was fewer fish were attracted to the anode and <br />sometimes came up at the side of the raft rather than the front, which resulted in less efficient <br />sampling. However, mean capture rate of all species combined over the study period was only <br />slightly higher when the 2002 data was excluded (2.65 fish/h average per all species, 95% CI = <br />2.43 to 2.89, compared to 2.42 fish/h, 95% CI = 2.24 to 2.61 with 2002 data included). Also, of <br />nine species most often captured by electrofishing, five increased in mean abundance when 2002 <br />data were excluded and four decreased. Since inclusion of that data appeared to have little effect <br />on overall abundance values, we retained 2002 data in all analyses. <br />Trammel net sampling was mostly confined to Whirlpool Canyon, because that reach <br />contained deep eddy habitat most likely to support humpback chub. A few trammel net samples <br />were collected in Mitten Park and Lodore Canyon. Multi-filament trammel nets (23 m long x <br />1.8 m deep; 25-cm outer mesh, 2.5-cm inner mesh) were set in late summer or autumn when <br />water temperatures were relatively low so that fish mortality would be minimized. In autumn <br />2003 we conducted three consecutive sampling trips (passes) in an attempt to obtain an <br />abundance estimate for chubs in Whirlpool Canyon, but sampling of that intensity was not <br />conducted in other years. The main sampling sites for trammel nets were in upper Whirlpool <br />Canyon just upstream and downstream of Rain Camp (river kilometer (RK) 550.8), at a large <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.