My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8160
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8160
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 7:38:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8160
Author
Trammell, M. and T. Chart.
Title
Aspinall Studies
USFW Year
1999.
USFW - Doc Type
Evaluation of Nursery Habitat Availability and Colorado Pikeminnow Young of Year Habitat Use, in the Colorado River, Utah, 1992-1996\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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 />Habitat classification <br />~ Habitats encountered in the field were classified into 6 of the types defined previously in <br />Table 1 [Flooded Tributary (FT), Horseshoe vortex (HS), Migratory Sandwave (MS), Scour <br />Channel (SC), Shoreline Eddy (SE) and Shoreline (SH)]. Examples of habitats encountered in <br />the field are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Nearly all the habitats encountered were backwaters, few <br />were flow-throughs or isolated pools. The most common habitat type sampled was migratory <br />~ Sandwave (MS), followed by scour channel (SC). Other habitat types were more rarely <br />encountered during this study (Tables 7 and 8). The shoreline habitat type was not included in <br />the analysis because only a few such habitats were sampled, and no Colorado pikeminnow were <br />collected, so we felt our sampling did not represent the true availability of that type. The total <br />amount of habitat area of each habitat type was totaled for each season. <br />~ Since two types of habitat, Migratory Sandwave (MS) and Scour Channel (SC), <br />composed the majority of the available habitat area (72.2 % in the upper section and 87.2% in the <br />lower section), the measured physical characteristics of these types were compared with the type <br />description. As in the habitat type description, the habitats classified as MS were characterized <br />by their relatively small size, low average and maximum depth, and ephemeral nature, while <br />~ those classified as SC habitats are larger, deeper, and more permanent. There were no distinct <br />differences of turbidity and temperature between the two types (Tables 9 and 10). <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~ 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.