Laserfiche WebLink
RESULTS <br />Throughout the study period, a total of nineteen species were collected in Deso/Grray Canyons <br />(Appendix Tables 1-7). Previous researchers have reported similar assemblages of species <br />(UDWR 1995; Tyus et a11987; Appendix Tables 8-10);) with some shifts in the presence or <br />absence of incidental species. <br />Non-native cyprinids (red shims, fathead minnows and sand shiners) accounted for greater than <br />0'/0 of catch in low velocity habitats each year of study, and as much as 98.5% in 199 ~ Trends <br />in main channel species compos7tion (trammel net catch in Figure 2 and shoreline electrofishing <br />in Figure 3) are available since 1989. The netting gear is a more effective means of collecting <br />chubs, squawfish and channel catfish; electrofishing results in better captures of flannehnouth <br />suckers, while common carp and bluehead sucker are equally represented in both samples. From <br />1989 through the first two years of the subject study, natives (Gila spp., Colorado squawfish, <br />and Catostomus spp.) comprised less than 40 % of the net catch; however, since 1993 native <br />species relative abundance has increased to roughly half the catch. The same native species were <br />most abundant (44%) in the electrofishing catch in 1992 with 8amnnelmouth suckers accounting <br />for most of that catch. Since 1992, the native component of the electrofishing catch has dwindled <br />to 30%. <br />q,~.,,~. ~'~ y`~~`~~15~'~J <br />. ~eaa, ~~ <br />~ Ig0 <br />~~ <br />DRAFT <br />