My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows Feruary 2010
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows Feruary 2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 4:16:53 PM
Creation date
7/25/2012 2:23:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows released for Glen Canyon Dam 2009-12
State
CO
Date
2/1/2010
Title
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
Otolith (inner ear bone) data highlights the importance of using process -level measurements to <br />document biological responses to the FSEF. Korman and Campana (2009) found that steady flow <br />releases conducted 1 day /week (Sunday) in January through March of 2003 through 2005 led to <br />measurable increases in growth (presumed to correlate with measured otolith responses) of young -of- <br />year rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) below Glen Canyon Dam. Because this was documented in <br />the Glen Canyon Dam tailwaters reach (RM 0 to -15) in winter when nearshore temperatures were likely <br />no different from the mainstem, this study indicates that stability of nearshore habitats without <br />concomitant warming can benefit rainbow trout. It is possible that steady flows in September and <br />October, a time when nearshore warming is likely modest, will also benefit juvenile humpback chub <br />simply by stabilizing nearshore environments. However, results obtained from trout may not be directly <br />comparable to other fishes, including humpback chub. <br />Food Resources <br />Constant discharge will increase available food resources if algae and invertebrate growth rates are <br />higher when discharge is constant or if accumulation of algae and invertebrate biomass is higher during <br />steady flows relative to fluctuating flows (Production is total biomass accumulation per unit time, <br />P= Growth Rate *Biomass). The two most likely mechanisms whereby stable discharge could increase <br />algae and invertebrate growth rates are through (1) warming nearshore habitats and /or (2) delivering <br />nutrients to algae and food particles to invertebrates should constant water velocities support higher <br />growth rates relative to water velocities that fluctuate on a daily basis. Experiments at the Artificial <br />Stream and Pond Research Facility at the Loyola University Chicago directly evaluated these two <br />mechanisms and found strong support for mechanism 1 (temperature), but results were actually contrary <br />to mechanism 2 (stable water velocity) (Kennedy and others, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., <br />2009). <br />Net primary production of Colorado River algae and individual growth rates of larval black flies were <br />more than twice as high in 15 °C streams relative to 10 °C streams, indicating minor increases in the <br />amount of nearshore warming (that is, 5 °C) can lead to substantial increases in algae and invertebrate <br />growth rates (see figs. la and 2a). In contrast, net primary production was about 50 percent lower in <br />streams with constant daily velocity (15 cm /second) relative to streams with either low (velocities of 22 <br />to 44 cm/second within a day) or high daily velocity fluctuations (11 to 67 cm/second within a day; see <br />figs. lb and 2b). Individual growth rates of larval black flies were lowest in the stable flow streams on <br />the two occasions these measurements were made, but the differences were not statistically significant. <br />There were no significant interactions between water velocity and temperature for any of the response <br />variables evaluated. Growth and production in stable flow streams was likely lower than fluctuating <br />streams because the rate of nutrient and food delivery was lower in stable streams. That is, the water <br />velocity of the stable treatment streams was lower than the average water velocity of fluctuating <br />treatment streams. This aspect of the experimental design is similar to the FSEF, with stable discharge <br />(velocity) in September and October being lower than discharge (velocity) in July and August. It should <br />be noted that the water velocities evaluated are lower than reach - average velocities in the Colorado <br />River. Regardless, these results indicate water temperature has a strong and positive effect on algae and <br />invertebrate growth rates while stable water velocities do not (Kennedy and others, U.S. Geological <br />Survey, written commun., 2009). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.