9531

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9531
• Author: Hudson, J. M. and J. A. Jackson.
• Title: Populaiton Estimates for Humpback Chub ‎(Gila cypha)‎ and Roundtail Chub ‎(gila robusta)‎ in Westwater Canyon, Colorado River, Utah, 1998-2000.
• USFW Year: 2003.
• USFW - Doc Type: Salt Lake City.
• Copyright Material: NO

population trends and population dynamics between humpback chub and roundtail chub in
Westwater Canyon.

Confidence intervals around humpback chub point estimates became tighter from 1998 to 2000, but
there was no considerable improvement in the coefficient of variation or the probability of capture.
Tighter confidence intervals in 1999 than in 1998 were an artifact of a smaller population estimate.
However, increased trammel net effort in 2000 relative to previous years (1,329 hours in 1998,
~ 1,306 hours in 1999, and 1,951 hours in 2000) resulted in tighter confidence intervals while
maintaining a similar point estimate to 1999. Increased effort using alternative sampling methods
(e.g., hoop nets and electrofishing) may improve the coefficient of variation and probability of
capture for humpback chub and roundtail chub. McAda (2003) demonstrated an improvement in
these measures by incorporating a fourth pass to the sampling design.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding the model selection function of CAPTURE, it maybe necessary
to conduct further analyses with this dataset or a combined Black Rocks/Westwater dataset in an
attempt to resolve which model is most appropriate. This is especially important given the wide
range of estimates generated with the models used (Appendix I and II). Investigation into the utility
. of Program MARK (White 2002) may result in a more appropriate method of generating future
population estimates.
Length-Frequency
Length frequency analyses for humpback chub and roundtail chub from historic ISMP data and the
~ current study indicate frequent shifts in size distribution. The consistent amount of effort applied
toward the current project indicates that the shifts in size distribution in 1998-2000 are probably not
due to gear selectivity. However, failure to efficiently capture subadults may contribute to shifts in
size distribution within smaller size classes. Shifts in size distribution of adult humpback chub are
most probably attributable to annual variations in recruitment and variable growth rates.
Growth
Growth rates of humpback chub are slower than those of roundtail chub in Westwater Canyon.
Growth rates within different size classes of Westwater Canyon humpback chub are variable while
~ those of Black Rocks were not (McAda 2003). Patterns of growth observed in 1998-2000 are
similar to those reported by Chart and Lentsch (1999). Chart and Lentsch (1999) reported that
humpback chub less than 250 mm grew at approximately twice the rate of those larger than 250 mm.
Likewise, humpback chub recaptured in this study less than 285 mm grew at approximately twice
the rate of those larger than 285 mm. Roundtail chub also exhibited a similar pattern in growth rates
. as those reported by Chart and Lentsch (1999). Mean annual growth rate of roundtail chub less than
210 mm in this study and less than 225 mm in the Chart and Lentsch (1999) study was
approximately 46 mm. Mean annual growth rate for roundtail chub larger than 210 mm in this study
was approximately 16 mm, while Chart and Lentsch (1999) reported 15.6 mm for roundtail chub
between 226-250 mm and 12.6 mm far individuals larger than 250 mm. Growth rate and size class
differences reported between the two Westwater Canyon studies can be attributed to different
~ conditions (i.e., temperature, water year, food base) that influence these factors.
~ 10