My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7124 (2)
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7124 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:07:39 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 12:36:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7124
Author
McAda, C. W. and R. S. Wydoski.
Title
Technical Papers
USFW Year
1980.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Table 7. Average total length (range in parentheses) of razorback suckers of different estimated ages from the <br />Colorado, Yampa, and Green rivers, 1974-75. <br /> Colorado River Yampa and Green rivers <br /> Female Male Female M ale <br />No. of Length No. of Length No. of Length No. of Length <br />fish (mm) fish (mm) fish (mm) fish (mm) <br />- - 1 485 - - 1 499 <br />6 571 3 522 4 510 8 483 <br /> (538-595) (498-561) (472-531) (442-514) <br />17 561 5 510 5 508 8 489 <br /> (499-609) (479-541) 4461-539 (468-515- <br />8 583 - - 1 515 - - <br /> (551-618) <br />1 592 - - - - - - <br />aNumber of growing seasons completed. <br />area varied considerably in size and shape, and the <br />relation between total length of fish and scale radius <br />(average for two scales from the key area) was not sig- <br />nificant for fish from either river. Consequently we did <br />not back-calculate the lengths of razorback suckers at <br />different ages. However, mean lengths and weights at <br />capture were determined .for each group (Table 7-. <br />Inasmuch as fish were collected in early spring before <br />growth began, or in late fall when growth for the year <br />had ceased, we arbitrarily credited a "virtual" annulus <br />at the edge of each scale; consequently "age" as used <br />here refers to the number of growing seasons com- <br />pleted. <br />Although ages were assigned to the fish on the basis <br />of agreement between two readers, the assignment of <br />age cannot be considered completely accurate because <br />the annuli were difficult to identify and because the <br />method has not been validated for razorback suckers. <br />Since no small fish were collected, verification of the <br />first few annuli by the length-frequency method was <br />not possible (Tesch 1971). Because the razorback <br />sucker is rare, no fish were sacrificed for otoliths, <br />opercles, or vertebrae, nor were fin rays removed for <br />age determination. <br />Other data suggest that the ages we assigned to the <br />fish may be incorrect or that the presence of the tags <br />markedly retarded growth. One fish recaptured 1.5 <br />years after its original capture had not grown in <br />length, and an additional annulus could not be de- <br />tected. Asecond fish, 508 mm long at tagging, had <br />grown only 8 mm when it was recaptured by P. B. <br />Holden (personal communication) 3.5 years after <br />release. Furthermore, two razorback suckers from <br />California were estimated to be much older than those <br />from the upper basin, on the basis of analysis of oto- <br />liths. Amale (662 mm long) was estimated to be 22 <br />years old and another fish (length unknown) 17 years <br />old (J. A. St. Amant, personal communication. <br />Although there may be errors in the assignment of <br />ages to razorback suckers in the present study, these <br />assessments are the only ones available to provide an <br />estimate of the growth of razorback suckers in the <br />upper Colorado River basin. <br />There was no definite distinction in lengths at dif- <br />ferent ages, but overlap of lengths among age groups <br />is common among large, mature fish. On the basis of <br />our estimates, male razorback suckers from the Colo- <br />rado River were significantly larger than males of the <br />same age from the Yampa River (P <_ 0.10-; the same <br />relation held for females from the two areas (P <_ 0.01-. <br />Among fish from the Yampa River that had completed <br />5 growing seasons, females were significantly larger <br />than males. Females 5 and 6 years old from the Colo- <br />rado River were significantly larger than males of the <br />same ages from the same river (P <_ 0.05 and P <_ 0.1, <br />respectively). In 1975 fish 4 and 6 years old (n = 20 <br />and n = 35, respectively) were dominant in both <br />rivers. <br />The faster growth rate of fish in the Colorado River <br />could be partly due to higher water temperatures. The <br />water temperature of the Green River decreases in <br />summer due to discharges- from Flaming Gorge Dam <br />IU. S. Bureau of Reclamation 1975-. Water from the <br />Yampa River warms the Green River, but water tem- <br />peratures in the summer are still lower than they were <br />before the river was impounded. Growth of Colorado <br />squawfish and roundtail chubs (Vanicek and Kramer <br />1969-, and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri (U.S. <br />Bureau of Reclamation 1975-, was reduced in the <br />Green River by decreased water temperatures below <br />the dam. McAda (1977) reported a faster growth rate <br />in flannelmouth suckers from the Colorado River than <br />in fish from the Green and Yampa rivers. However, the <br />intakes to the penstocks of Flaming Gorge Dam were <br />modified in :June 1978 to provide warmer water that <br />would improve the growth of trout (Kramer 1979-. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.