Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Significant differences in density estimates between Clifton and Com Lake were <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Table 8. Colorado River population estimates with 95% C.I. (recaptures), and density <br />estimates (No./I000m') for the 15Mile-Reach, 2000. Stream width is about 55 mat 1400 cfs <br />(Stewart 2000). <br /> <br /> Corn Lake Corn Lake Clifton <br /> 1999 2000 2000 <br /> No./km o1oC.!. NO./km o1oC.I. NO./km o1oC.!. <br /> (recaos) (recaos) (recaos) <br />Total fi sh 393901011 % (247) 34170107% (212) 39020107%(246) <br />Bluehead Sucker 157H20% (85) 1182:1: 12%(81) 1179 0101 2%(J 40) <br />Flannelmouth S 1550:1017% (110) 999:1: I 0%(72) 1887* 01010%(57) <br />Roundtail Chub 192:1:83% (5) 35701043%(4) 45301043%(6) <br />Colo. Pikeminnow 5 501oNR <br />CarD 309:1:36% (24) 52501021 %(28) 59101021%(35) <br />Channel Catfish 19501054% (11) 30101034%(10) 664 01034%(4) <br />White Sucker & Crosses 139:1:51 % (J 2) 124+26%(17) 34501026%(4) <br />Corn Lake Corn Lake Clifton CorD Lake 2000 <br /> 1999 2000 2000 2000vs1999 Clif.vsCorn <br /> Alpha Alpha <br /> No./1000m' No./IOOOm' No./IOOOm' 0.05% 0.05% <br />Total fish 71.6 62.1 70.9 SIG SIG <br />Bluehead Sucker 28.6 21.5 21.4 SIG NOTDIF <br />Flannelmouth S 28.2 18.2 34.3 SIG SIG <br />Roundtail Chub 3.5 6.5 8.2 SIG NOTDIF <br />Colo. Pikeminnow <br />Carp 5.6 9.6 10.7 SIG NOTDIF <br />Channel Catfish 3.5 5.5 12.1 SIG NOTDIF <br />White Sucker & Crosses 2.5 2.3 6.3 NOTDIF SIG <br /> <br />found for total fish, flannel mouth sucker and the white sucker group. The differences <br /> <br />between stations suggest minor differences in physical habitat between the two reaches. The <br /> <br />estimate for flannel mouth sucker numbers appears elevated because of the fairly low number <br /> <br />of recaptures in the sample. This could be an indication of migration into the study area. <br /> <br />However none of the flannel mouth marked in Com Lake were recaptured upstream. Also the <br /> <br />electrofishing and telemetry data collected to date indicate this species behavior is mostly <br /> <br />local movements during the base flow period. Flannelmouth sucker were very dense in the <br /> <br />38 <br />