My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8076
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 11:31:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8076
Author
Brooks, J. E.
Title
Annual Reintroduction and Monitoring Report for Razorback Sucker
USFW Year
1986.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Results <br />More than three million razorback sucker were stocked at <br />fifteen localities in the Gila River drainage, Arizona in 1985 <br />(Table 1, Fig. 1). Most (86.5%) were fry transplanted in the <br />Salt River drainage (Table 2). <br />Prior to 1985, recapture of stocked razorback sucker was <br />limited to two collections (Table 3). However, in 1985 several <br />recaptures were made including two large suckers from the Gila <br />and Verde (unverified) rivers, respectively. Stocked razorback <br />sucker growth was evident with subfingerlings more than doubling <br />in size and fingerlings in Bonita Creek about 25% larger at time <br />of capture (Table 3). Uf note is the disparity in growth between <br />groups of razorback sucker fingerlings planted in three isolated <br />backwaters on Bonita Creek (Table 4). Stocked suckers grew best <br />in the backwater where other catostomids were absent from seine <br />collections. <br />Mainstem river sampling, including Eagle Creek (similarity <br />in collecting methods), failed to collect any razorback sucker <br />other than those during post-stocking dispersal and predation <br />studies on the Gila River (Table 5). The Salt River was not <br />sampled by electrofishing or netting due to equipment failure <br />during annual survey efforts. Data from the Verde River are <br />interesting in that despite the presence. of numerous introduced <br />fish species, native fishes still comprised nearly 38% of <br />combined collections. , <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.