GOALS and OBJECTIVES BASELINE FOR LONG TERM MONITORING – Identify distribution and estimate...
26
G CM RC :B. R alston,M .Y ard,C . ‘Fritz’Fritzinger,J. T eigs, D . Baker SW C A :S. C arothers,R .V aldez, B.Leibfried, L . Jonas, J.M onks, J.E. M onks, S. R hodes, K . Carothers, D . Jonas SW C A V olunteers:C .C arothers, J.C arothers, M . Zobot,V .Y urcik, R .W aldren,M .C ross,E. Eastw ood H SS:L . Niem i, B.D ierker, S. R eeder,P.R esnick, M . W alker, D . C lark, P. W eiss, K .Baker,D . H arris, T . B ooker,D . K acinski H SS Volunteers:C . C heblow ski, S. Perry,H . T aney,C . diFranco AG FD :B.Persons, D . Speas, S.R ogers SW CA w ould like to thank the follow ing: Effectsofthe Low Steady Sum m erFlow Experim ent on N ative Fishesofthe C olorado R iver through the G rand C anyon
-
Upload
conrad-kipling -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
5
Transcript of GOALS and OBJECTIVES BASELINE FOR LONG TERM MONITORING – Identify distribution and estimate...
GCMRC: B. Ralston, M. Yard, C. ‘Fritz’ Fritzinger, J. Teigs, D. Baker SWCA: S. Carothers, R. Valdez, B. Leibfried, L. Jonas, J. Monks, J.E. Monks, S. Rhodes, K.Carothers, D. JonasSWCA Volunteers: C. Carothers, J. Carothers, M. Zobot, V. Yurcik, R. Waldren, M. Cross, E.EastwoodHSS: L. Niemi, B. Dierker, S. Reeder, P. Resnick, M. Walker, D. Clark, P. Weiss, K. Baker, D.Harris, T. Booker, D. KacinskiHSS Volunteers: C. Cheblowski, S. Perry, H. Taney, C. diFranco AGFD: B. Persons, D. Speas, S. Rogers
SWCA would like to thank the following:
Effects of the Low Steady SummerFlowExperiment
on Native Fishes of the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon
GOALS and OBJECTIVES
• BASELINE FOR LONG TERM MONITORING– Identify distribution and estimate relative abundances
of fish species
– (Other objectives - no time to discuss)
• EVALUATE LSSF– Identify growth patterns for YOY native fishes and
small non-native fishes in backwaters during LSSF
– Evaluate changes in relative abundance
4 sampling trips: June, August, September, December Multi-gear: targets habitat, size class, species
Electrofishing:(shoreline, multiple size classes)
Netting: trammel nets, hoop nets, minnow traps: (deep eddies, adult native fishes)
Seining: (backwaters, small-bodied native and non-native)
Apparent Distribution and Relative Abundancevaries by:
Gear Type Season River Reach
METHODS
0
1
2
3
4
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
RIVER MILE
1=EL 2=NETS 3=SEINE
SAMPLE SITES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Gear types used and number of samples taken in the Colorado River mainchannel during the LSSF experiment, 2000.
GearType
Description Trip
1 2 3 4 Total
EL StandardElectrofishing
149 64 65 278
MT Standard MinnowTrap
16 53 52 49 170
HS Hoop Net, small (2' dia and 2.5' dia)
23 58 52 55 188
TK Trammel Net, 75'x6'x1"x12"
89 130 304 236 759
TL Trammel Net, 75'x6'x1.5"x 12"
-- 140 -- -- 140
TP Trammel Net,100'x6'x1.5"x12"
-- 22 -- -- 22
SW Seine, 15'x4'x1/8" 43 115 133 -- 291
SX Seine, 6'x3'x1/16" 12 28 1 -- 41
SY Seine, long, 30'x6'x1/8"
1 37 -- -- 38
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10MONTH
Q TRIP DATES
2000 HYDROGRAPH
12
Relative abundanceof native andnonnative speciesby season and geartype
0
20
40
60
80
100
JUNE AUG SEPT
NATIVE NONNATIVE
ELECTROFISHING
0
20
40
60
80
100
JUNE AUG SEPT DEC
NATIVE NONNATIVE
NETTING (TN, HS, MT)
0
20
40
60
80
100
JUNE AUG SEPT
NATIVE NONNATIVE
SEINES
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
BHS FMS HBC SPD BNT CCF CRP FHM RBT BBH RSH LMB PKF STB GSF
EL
TN
HS, MT
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
BHS FMS HBC SPD BNT CCF CRP FHM RBT BBH RSH LMB PKF STB GSF
SPECIES
SN
Composition and relative abundance by Gear Type
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8RIVER REACH
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
BHS
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8RIVER REACH
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
FMS
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
HBC
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
SPDDISTRIBUTION BY REACH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
BNT
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
RBT
0
20
40
60
80 100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8RIVER REACH
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
CRP
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8RIVER REACH
SN
EL
TN
MT
HS
FHM
DISTRIBUTION BY REACH
Check at c. 5, mergeswith annulus at c. 9
HBC: TL = 111 AGE 1
EXAMPLE OF HBC SCALE
0
1
2
3
4
5
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
TL (mm)
MC
LCR
HBC - LENGTH AT TRANSITION
MC = 83.8 mmLCR = 82.2 mm
ANNULUS 1 - MEAN TL
MC = 111.3 mmLCR = 120.1 mm
ANNULUS 2 - MEAN TL
ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF LSSF
• MAIN CHANNEL TEMPERATURE INCREASES
• NEAR SHORE TEMPERATURE INCREASES
• INCREASED STABILITY AND TEMPERATURE OF SHORELINE HABITATS (Backwaters)
• ENHANCED SPAWNING FOR NATIVE FISHES
• INCREASED GROWTH AND SURVIVAL FOR NATIVE FISHES
• INCREASED GROWTH, SURVIVAL AND EXPANDED
DISTRIBUTION OF WARM WATER NON-NATIVE FISHES
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 RIVER MILE
BA MAIN
JUNE
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 50 100 150 200 250 RIVER MILE
BA MAIN
AUGUST
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 50 100 150 200 250 RIVER MILE
BA MAIN
SEPTEMBER
MAINSTEM ANDBACKWATERTEMPERATURESDURING LSSF
MEAN BACKWATER TEMPERATURE
14
16
18
20
22
24
0-61 61-88 88-166 166-226
RIVER MILES
June 91-94
June 2000
JUNE
12
14
16
18
20
0-61 61-88 88-166 166-226
RIVER MILES
Aug 91-94
Aug 2000
AUGUST
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
RIVER MILE
Jun-00 Aug-00 Jul-92HBC SPAWNING TEMPERATURE
HBC AGGREGATIONS
SUCKER SPAWNING TEMP
RELATIONSHIP OF MAINSTEM TEMPERATURESTO HBC AGGREGATIONS
0
5
10
15
20
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220River Mile
JUNE AUG SEP
June, August, SeptemberHBC catch by RM
0
1
2
3
4
5
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105115125135145155165175185195
Total Length (mm)
JUNE AUG SEP
Humpback Chub Length FrequencyRM 59-72
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
15 40 65 90 115 140 165 190Total Length (mm)
JUNE AUG SEP
Humpback Chub Length FrequencyRM 126-226
Smaller HBC downstream of LCR indicates spawning occurreddownstream of the LCR
0
20
40
60
80
100
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECMONTH
AVG MC AVG LCR 2000
GROWTH OF HBC
N=2
10
20
30
40
50
60
JUNE JULY SEPT
BLUEHEAD SUCKER
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JUNE JULY SEPT
FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JUNE JULY SEPT
HUMPBACK CHUB
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
JUNE JULY SEPT
1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 2000
FATHEAD MINNOW
MEAN TL FROM 1991-1997 and 2000
1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 2000
0
50
60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
TL
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
2000
FMS
SEPTEMBER LF 1992-1996 AND 2000
Higher proportion of fish <30mm in 2000
20
40
30
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
5 25 45 65 85 105
TL
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
2000
BHS
0
20
40
60
80
100
JUNE AUG SEPT
MIN MAX MEAN
TL: MEAN AND RANGEBHS
0
20
40
60
80
100
JUNE AUG SEPT DEC
MIN MAX MEAN
TL: MEAN AND RANGE
FMS
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
JUNE AUG SEPT DEC
MIN MAX MEAN
HBC
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
JUNE AUG SEPT DEC
MIN MAX MEAN
FHM
GROWTH AND RANGE OF TL IN 2000 LCR
MC
0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
JUNE AUG SEP
1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 2000
FHM
0
20
40
60
80
100
JUNE AUG SEP
CPE in Backwaters
BHS
0
5
10
15
20
June Aug Sept
1992 1993 1994
1995 1996 2000
HBC
0
10
20
30
40
50
June Aug Sept
CPE in Backwaters
FMS
0 10
20
30
40
50
60
BHS FMS HBC FHM SPD RSHSPECIES
-CI +CI MEAN 2000
JUNEMean CPE 1991-1997
0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140 160
BHS FMS HBC FHM SPD RSHSPECIES
-CI +CI MEAN 2000
AUGUSTMean CPE 1991-1997
0
10
20
30
40
50
BHS FMS HBC FHM SPD RSHSPECIES
-CI +CI MEAN 2000
SEPTEMBERMean CPE 1991-1997
CPE FOR BHS, FMS, SPDSIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THANLONG-TERM MEAN INSEPTEMBER (NOT FHM)
CPE FOR BHS, FMS, SPD & FHMSIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THANLONG-TERM MEAN IN AUGUST
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
10
20
30
40
50
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
BLUEHEAD SUCKER
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
10
20
30
40
50
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
EFFORT (m^2) CATCH
CPE FLUX (CFS)
HUMPBACK CHUB
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
10
20
30
40
50
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0
10
20
30
40
50
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
EFFORT (m^2) CATCH
CPE FLUX (CFS)
FATHEAD MINNOW
TOTAL EFFORT, CATCH and CPE 1991-1997 & 2000 MEAN DAILY FLUCTUATION in CFS
LSSF : CONCLUSIONS• MAIN CHANNEL AND BACKWATER TEMPERATURES INCREASED• NO IMMEDIATE INCREASE OR CHANGE IN DISTRIBUTION OF
ADULT NATIVES OR NON-NATIVES• NO OBSERVABLE POSITIVE EFFECT ON GROWTH OF YOY FISH• ENHANCED SPAWNING FOR NATIVE FISHES• ENHANCED SPAWNING FOR FATHEAD MINNOW• SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ABUNDANCE OF FMS, BHS, SPD, AND
FHM (NOT HBC)• FALL SPIKE; DISADVANTAGED FHM MORE THAN NATIVES
• INCREASED SURVIVAL ??
LSSF: BOTTOM LINE
• BENEFIT TO HBC MINIMAL• BENEFIT TO NATIVE SUCKERS ONLY IF
YEAR CLASS SUCCESSFULLY RECRUITS - WON’T KNOW FOR 3-4 YEARS
• BENEFIT TO NON-NATIVES (FHM)• WAS IT STEADY FLOWS OR TEMPERATURES,
OR BOTH ? (SAME EFFECTS WITH WARMER TEMPS AND FLUCTUATING FLOWS?)
• REPEATABLE?
