Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />DRAFT24 <br />significantly larger, deeper, and more persistent than other habitat types. Although these factors <br />.~ <br />are obviously important to YOY Colorado squawfish, we mu t keep in min~that a large number <br />1% <br />of squawfish ~ use the smaller, shallower, less permanent habitats of all types. Turbidity and <br />temperature do not perhaps play as great a role in habitat selection as previously thought, as no <br />/ si 'cant relatio <br />gtifi nslups could be determined from these data. <br />-K~ts (~ <br />~,aa ~ c 7 Catch rates from the fall YOY ISMP sampling were compared to fall nursery habitat catch <br />0~ , <br />~~ ~/~'r tes. Although there were fairly large differences in the mean catch rates, probably due to <br />differences inflow, they followed the same yearly trends (Figure 6). Mean ISMP catch rates were <br />consistently higher than NH catch rates, precisely because ISMP targets quality habitat, and NH <br />samples all potential habitats. <br />40 <br />35 <br />30 <br />00 25 <br />~' 20 <br />W15 <br />U10 <br />5 <br />0 <br />---------------- ------------------- <br />-------------- ---- ------------------ <br /> <br />~~ <br />3000 <br />2800 <br />2600 ~ <br />2400 U <br />2200 ~ <br />2000 ~ <br />1800 <br />1600 <br />1J9z 1993 1994 1995 1996 <br />YEAR <br />NH FLOW •ISMP FLOW <br />~- NH CPE + ISMP CPE <br />Figure 6. Comparison of YOY Colorado squawfish catch razes (/100m3) from ISMP and fall <br />nursery habitat studies, Green River, 1992-1996. <br />-24- <br />