Laserfiche WebLink
--- .x ~ yu~ f ~ ~ 1~~. ~~. = ~r~ ~ -~ ~~~N~,,r~ ~~, <br />~o ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~9 2zs vii -i v vif~a ii~i~.vi~~~l <br />.~ <br />~ ~l~lJ it.l <br />~; <br />~ .. <br />°~ RADIOTELEMETRY OF COLORADO SQUAWFISH AND RAZORBAC!': <br />,~ ~ SUCKER,'GREEN RIVER SYSTEM OF UTAH, 1980 <br />~' _ $y <br />H.M. Tyus, C.W. McAda and B.D. Burdick <br />U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <br />Vernal, Utah 84078 <br />ABSTRACT <br />Six Colorado squawfish and one razorback sucker were <br />captured in the Green River, implanted with radiotransm~it- <br />ters, and released. Fish were tracked with varying success, <br />contact lasting from 14 days to 42 months for different <br />f;ch_ Colorado Sq!lawf;ch exhibited twn types of movement <br />patterns that may be linked to sexual maturity. The razor- <br />back sucker was relatively sedentary. Although conductiivi- <br />ties affected radio transmission range, the shallow nature <br />of the Green River in the study area partially compensai:ed <br />for this difficulty., <br />INTRODUCTION <br />A radiotelemetry program was initiated~by the U.S. Fish and Wild- <br />life Service in the Green River, Utah March 1980. The object:ive of <br />this work included an investigation of major movements, habitat pref- <br />erence and spawning of Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus luc=ius). <br />This effort was integrated into an ongoing study of endangerf~d fishes <br />(Miller et al. 1980}. In addition to work done on the Colorado squaw- <br />fish observations were also made on a razorback sucker (Xyrauchen <br />texanus). <br />This paper addresses radiotelemetry techniques and major movements <br />of these two rare fish species during the 1980 field season; it does not <br />presume to provide completed results of the radiotelemetry pr°ogram. An <br />expanded investigation is planned for 1981. <br />MATERIALS AND METHODS <br />~~7~..~ <br />Six Colorado squawfish (TL 508-707 mm) and one razorback; sucker (TL <br />510 mm) were captured by electrofishing in the Green River nc~ar Ouray, <br />Utah. Fish were anesthetized with MS 222 and surgically impllanted with <br />radiotransmitters immediately after capture. Surgical procedure was <br />similar to Bidgood (1980) except. for several departures. Sui:ures were in- <br />dividual (usually five) rather than the continuous 'suture usE~d by Bidgood <br />and the incision was made laterally, immediately anterior anti slightly <br />