Laserfiche WebLink
(1991) and Tyus and Haines (1991) all pointed to a negative relationship betwe <br />and Colorado squawfish reproduction. The effects of summer flows on Colorado <br />catch were not tested here. The inability to detect a relationship to peak f1 <br />related to the high variability in desert river systems of the west. Another <br />may be the fact that no mid-range peak flows (12,000 - 18,000 cfs) occurred du <br />this study, thus leaving a large gap in the analysis. <br />The inability to develop an easily applicable model for discriminating b <br />and unsuitable-backwaters is problematic, but not entirely unexpected. An eas <br />model would be helpful in evaluating habitat value and availability. Extreme <br />backwater formation and availability, river conditions and Colorado squawfish <br />between years precluded developing this simple model. However, the models pr <br />promising for eliminating backwaters from consideration, if nothing else. The <br />functions also give validity to other statistics which define significantly di <br />These models showed that, though variably effective dependent upon years and s <br />significantly different means between used and unused backwaters are the prima <br />factors in evaluating Colorado squawfish nursery habitat. <br />Effects of nonnative fishes on endangered fish are a serious concern. <br />(1990) reported that 97% of the fish captured in Colorado squawfish backwaters <br />nonnatives. They stated, however, that the presence of sympatric species did <br />squawfish abundance in backwaters. They, further, found no relation between t <br />flow and abundance or size of Colorado squawfish, suckers, red shiners and fat <br />McAda and Keading (1989) reported the opposite. In their study Colorado squaw <br />