Long-distance movements by flannelmouth sucker in big river habitats Matthew J. Breen & Trina N. Hedrick, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Jan 20, 2016
Long-distance movements by flannelmouth sucker in big river
habitats
Matthew J. Breen & Trina N. Hedrick, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis)
• Historical range reduced– Bezzerides & Bestgen (2002)
• Utah Tier I Sensitive Species
• State & Range-Wide conservation agreements
• Viable populations in Green & White rivers (2007–2010)– Breen & Hedrick (2008, 2009, 2010)– Flannelmouth movements?
• Un-impounded reach of the Upper Colorado River Basin
Introduction
Study Area
Methods
• Electrofishing surveys – Both shorelines– Habitat dictated sampling gear– Collected juvenile & adult fish
• Spring (April–June)• Summer (July–August)
• PIT-tagged fish 2007–2009
• Recaptured fish 2008–2010
Cataraft electrofishing
Boat electrofishing
PIT-tagging a flannelmouth
Results
• PIT-tagged 3,058 flannelmouth
• 71 recaptures– Mean TL = 433.1 ± 7.7 mm; range = 196–507– 2.3% of tagged fish
• Duration between captures = 530.3 ± 75.5 days– 4 recaptures from 2001–2002
• Lower Green River
Year # Tagged # Recaptured
2007 207 —
2008 684 3
2009 2,167 24
2010 — 44Scanning a flannelmouth for a PIT-tag
Flannelmouth Movements
Movement distance (km)
1 5 10 25 50 75 100 150 200 250
% R
eca
ptu
res
0
20
40
60
80
100
71 recaptures Mean distance = 61.0 ± 9.0 km Range = 0 – 360 km
Size-specific Movements
Flannelmouth TL (mm)
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Mo
vem
ent
dis
tan
ce (
km)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
rS = 0.355 P = 0.003 N = 71
Reproductive Maturity
Mat
ure
Inte
rmed
iate
Imm
ature
Mo
vem
ent
Dis
tan
ce (
km)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
• Sigler & Sigler (1996)– Mature > 422 mm (N=52)– Immature < 353 mm (N=7)– Intermediate = 353–422 mm
(N=12)– Spawning signatures (N=10)
• Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA– H = 12.332; P = 0.002; df = 2– Mature vs. Immature
Home Range & Within-Season Movement
• Preliminary home range analysis– 1 month separation (N = 41)– Mean = 63.2 ± 11.4 km – Underestimate?
• Within-season movement– 3 spring recaptures; all moving downstream – Mean = 124.9 ± 35.6 km (10.5 ± 3.2 km/day)– 195.9 km in 14 days!
Directional Movement
• 58% moved upstream; 41% downstream– Metapopulation differences?
Upstream Downstream
Mea
n d
ista
nce
(km
)
0
20
40
60
80U = 562.0 P = 0.703 N = 70
Inter-drainage Movements
• 10% of recaptures in both rivers– 5 into the White in spring– 1 into the White in summer– 1 moved out in summer
• Highest CPUE during April sampling
– 26.5% w/ spawning signatures– Pre-peak spawning migration
• Peak: mid-May to end-June
• Movement into the White occurred from below & above the confluence – Metapopulation differences?
Tuberculated anal fin
CPUE (fish/hr)
Discharge (cfs)
August 2008 13.41 568
May 2009 15.19 2,083
August 2009 17.4 262
April 2010 29.9 593
End River Mile
338.
532
6.3
319.
330
929
8.1
281.
327
1.6
255
246.
123
4.7
215.
520
118
9.4
174.
515
5.8
135.
613
1.6
CP
UE
(fi
sh/h
r)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Spring: 835 FM (6.39 fish/hr) Summer: 692 FM (4.88 fish/hr)
Green River Seasonal Distribution
FLOW
Summary & Conclusions
• Highly mobile in big river habitats– Lower basin (Thieme 1997)
• 12.5% moved ≥ 98 km– Larger fish move farther
• Chart & Bergeson (1992)– Spawning sites & post-spawn locations widely
separated
Summary & Conclusions
• Highly mobile in big river habitats– Lower basin (Thieme 1997)
• 12.5% moved ≥ 98 km– Larger fish move farther
• Chart & Bergeson (1992)– Spawning sites & post-spawn locations widely
separated
• Importance of mid-order tributaries– High spring CPUE– Spring migrations into the White River– High juvenile to adult ratio (summer residents)
Summary & Conclusions
• Highly mobile in big river habitats– Lower basin (Thieme 1997)
• 12.5% moved ≥ 98 km– Larger fish move farther
• Chart & Bergeson (1992)– Spawning sites & post-spawn locations widely
separated
• Importance of mid-order tributaries– High spring CPUE– Spring migrations into the White River– High juvenile to adult ratio (summer residents)
• Metapopulation-specific spawning migrations– Timing & direction of movements– Is sampling sufficient to pick up movements?
• Catching fish in route?• Large enough sample area?• Flow-specific cues initiating movements?• Lots of tagged fish to work with!
• Thanks to all who helped with fieldwork!• Funding provided by the Endangered Species Mitigation Fund,
State Wildlife Grants, & the BLM Fisheries Program
Questions?