Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT 12 <br />MS, or any other habitats. Chi-squared analysis showed a cleaz preference for SC habitats (Table <br />5). Observed use was significantly different (p<.055) from expected use in spring, summer, fall <br />and pooled. The relationship between the peak flow, availability of SC habitats iri the fall, and <br />squawfish numbers and catch rates in the fall were examined. The amount of SC habitat available <br />in the fall was negatively correlated with eak flow (p = .04). The number and catch of s uawfish <br />was weakly negatively correlated with the amount of SC habitat available in the fall. <br />~~ ~ <br />Non-native cyprinids also selected for SC habitat. Colorado squawfish preference was ~ <br />,~~ <br />determined using presence or absence in specific habitats. However, since NNC were nearly yam' <br />ubiquitous in all sampling, preference could only be determined using total numbers of NNC ~ ~ <br />(~ d <br />5 ~,,~`'~ <br />present in each habitat type. NNC selected for SC in all seasons, although less strongly than <br />squawfish (Figure 5) There was a significant positive correlation between NNC CPE and SC <br />habitat availability, but not as strong as the correlation with total available habitat. <br />The measured physical characteristics of MS and SC backwaters were compazed with the <br />type description. MS habitats aze characterized by their relatively small size, low average and <br />maximum-depth, and ephemeral nature, while SC habitats are larger, deeper, and more permanent. <br />There were no distinct differences of turbidity and temperature between the two types (Table 6). <br />Specific preference for depth of habitat was also examined. Regardless of type of habitat, <br />Colorado squawfish selected for habitats with a maximum depth greater than .3 m (Table 7). <br />Preference could not be easily determined for NNC, again, because they occur in almost every <br />habitat <br />-12- <br />