Laserfiche WebLink
80 <br />I_- 60 <br />U) <br />LL <br />40 <br />N <br />E <br />Z 20 <br />0 <br />Figure 7. Length frequency histogram of humpback chub collected in the Little Colorado <br />River during the July 2003 translocation trip and both tagged and untagged individuals <br />captured during the November 2003 monitoring trip. <br />Translocated humpback chub (i.e., those with visible elastomer tags) showed significant <br />growth above Chute Falls (t=22.907; df=334, 2-tailed P=0.000). The largest (134 mm) <br />individual recaptured that had a clear elastomer tag had grown a minimum of 0.37 mm/day <br />since its release. This is atypically high growth compared to their 0.29 mm/day average <br />growth rate found in the lower LCR (Robinson and Childs 2001) or their 0.28 mm/day <br />average growth in a 24°C hatchery environment (Gorman and Van Hoosen 2000). Even if <br />that fish was an anomaly, the 0.13-0.67 mm/day range of growth of the median (112 mm) <br />tagged individual certainly suggests a high growth rate for half of these fish. <br />The origin of the nine humpback chub without visible elastomer tags is perplexing. If the <br />155 mm fish were a translocated individual, then it would have to grow 0.60 to 1.14 mm/day <br />since its release. This is 2 to 4 times the predicted growth rate of Gorman and Van <br />Hoosen (2000) and Robinson and Childs (2001). Likewise, the 141 mm and 144 mm <br />"unmarked" individuals would also have undergone high growth. If these were translocated <br />individuals and their growth rate continued, then they could potentially grow past 200 mm <br />16 <br />h NO Nh C' O hO'?O O h 0 0O h Oo <br />? <br />(O ^h 9P ph [?O (?h 00 N O? '? ' ? '??` '? '?? '? IN <br />Dh h RO row '\ 11 ?? 0 OV N N N N N N 0 N N N N41