Laserfiche WebLink
~ __~ <br />.r ~ <br />U"~ ~"'-_ __________ <br />n ~~ <br />~~ <br />Figure 5. Illustration of depth ::nd mean water column transections at the <br />location of radiotagged Colorado squawfish. Depths drawn to scale; arrows <br />are vectors of velocity. <br />(Bovee 1986). This would require more data points across the stream (e.g., <br />perhaps at 1-m rather than 10-m increments) or more measurements near the <br />fish. <br />Water depths and velocities recorded at the observed locations of radio- <br />telemetered Colorado squawfish in the Green, Yampa, and White Rivers were <br />tested by ANOVA (Tyus et al. 1984) in an effort to evaluate potential <br />differences in microhabitats used. There was no significant difference in the <br />depths recorded from the Green River between 1980 and 1981, but a comparison <br />of the mainstem Green River with its tributaries indicated a significant <br />difference (P < 0.01) between depths recorded from the Green River fish and <br />fish using its two tributaries (White and Yampa Rivers). Depths recorded <br />between the White and Yampa Rivers were not significantly different. Although <br />an ANOVA indicated no significant differences between velocity readings for <br />Colorado squawfish using both methoc'~ in the Green River in 1980 and 1981, <br />velocity measurements by both methods were different (P < 0.01) between the <br />Green, White, and Yampa Rivers. It is not known if these differences are due <br />to the selection of different habitats or whether these comparisons reflect <br />different habitats present in these rivers. The results indicate that care <br />should be taken in lumping date until partitions between streams-can be made <br />and tested. <br />153 <br />