• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF FISHES RELATIVE TO PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES IN TWO CENTRAL ARIZONA RESERVOIRS by Peter Olof Bersell A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY September 1973 ABSTRACT Commencing in summer 1970, distribution of fishes in two central Arizona reservoirs was studied by vertical gill netting, stressing intra- and inter-lake variability. Transects were established and sampling was performed three times a year in an attempt to examine conditions during ecological as opposed to calendar seasons. Data on fish distributions, other biotic factors, and selected physico-chemical features were obtained. Multiple linear regression analysis was employed to determine which abiotic and biotic features were most important to vertical dispersion of fishes. Despite high variability and often small sample size, data suggested dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, net plankton, and to a far lesser extent, temperature, as important factors in fish disper- sion patterns. Vertical light penetration (depth of the euphotic zone) seemed to act in a more subtle, indirect manner in its influence on fishes. Species interactions (predator-prey) were noted and food- chain relationships seemed apparent in many instances. The majority of all fishes netted in the study (1970-71) were within the upper 10 m of the water column in both reservoirs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study, one portion of an extensive survey of the Salt River system, was funded through the National Marine Fisheries Service (formerly the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries), under P. L. 88-309 to Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State University. The Salt River Project and the U.S. Forest Service were of assistance, as was the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Bill Inman and Bill Jones, of Roosevelt, Arizona, were particularly helpful in the field in terms of time, equipment storage, firsthand knowledge of the study area, and most importantly, hospitality. Three persons worked on the over-all survey throughout the study, and contributed greatly to my portion. Donna Portz, whose tirelessness in the field, dedication in the laboratory, and effec- tiveness in dealing with computers, was truly amazing, and deserves special thanks. Sandra E. Willoughby was helpful in key-punching, laboratory work, and more importantly, in persistence. And most of all, for what he taught me about field work, and the dedication necessary to complete a project of this sort under all conditions, I thank Jack Rinne, who never seems to tire when working to acquire new knowledge. iv In addition, Robert Cornelius, Mike Busdosh, Randy McNatt, Chuck Minckley, "Skeets" Hickerson, Joe Cameron, Jon Scofield, Mike McSorley, Bill Barfoot, and students of Dr. J. E. Deacon's Aquatic Ecology class, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, provided discussion and physical assistance. Dr. M. B. Sommerfeld and his students contributed time and data. My committee members, Dr. G. A. Cole and Dr. Robert Ohmart, deserve thanks for reading and criticizing this manuscript, and for ideas and comments pertaining to the project. Dr. Cole was helpful also by loaning equipment and providing a sense of humor. My committee chairman, Dr. W. L. Minckley, deserves my gratitude for providing the opportunity to become involved in aquatic biology, and for discussion and guidance in this project. My wife, Jill, deserves more appreciation and gratitude than can be expressed for help at home and in the field, and more than that, for helping me through the bad times and making the good times better. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ... vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ viii INTRODUCTION ..... 1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE ..... 2 METHODS AND MATERIALS ..... 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .... 16 Physical and Chemical Limnology .... 16 Temperature .... 16 Dissolved Oxygen .... 19 Other Physical-Chemical Factors .... 22 Fishes .... 24 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .....56 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Selected morphologic parameters for Roosevelt and Apache reservoirs, at full-pool .................... 5 2. Approximate lake levels (maximum depth) during each field trip ........................................ 6 3. Variables used in Multiple Linear Regression Program . 15 14 Common and scientific names of fishes used in text . 23 5. Results of MLRP. Dependent variable = shad ......... 37 6. Results of MLRP. Dependent variable = bass ......... 41 7. Results of MLRP. Dependent variable = carp ......... 44 8. Results of MLRP. Dependent variable = catfish ....... 48 9. Results of MLRP. Dependent variable = sunfish ....... 52 10. Results of MLRP. Dependent variable = black crappie . 55 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Map of study site ................................. 4 2. Diagrammatic representation of a net set ........... 10 3. Representative temperature profiles for Roosevelt and Apache reservoirs ................................. 18 4. Representative oxygen profiles for Roosevelt and Apache reservoirs ................................. 21 5. Depth distribution of fishes during run #1 ......... 27 6. Depth distribution of fishes during run #2 ......... 29 7. Depth distribution of fishes during run #3 ......... 31 8. Depth distribution of fishes during run #4 ......... 33 9. Depth distribution of fishes during run #5 in Roosevelt reservoir ............................... 35 viii INTRODUCTION A series of four contiguous reservoirs impound approximately 100 linear kilometers (km) of the Salt River, central Arizona, north- east of metropolitan Phoenix. These reservoirs are, from upstream to downstream, Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon, and Saguaro. They were built in the early 1900's to provide storage of water for irrigation, industrial and domestic water supplies for the arid, lower Sonoran Desert region into which the Salt River originally flowed. With the vast population growth of the Phoenix metropolitan area, they soon became heavily utilized for recreation--fishing, boating, camping, and water skiing--yet not until a few years ago was much known about their potentials for multiple use of this type, especially from the biological standpoint. In 1964, intensive biological work was begun on these reservoirs by personnel from Arizona State University under the auspices of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. These studies have been generally summarized by Rinne (1973). In 1970-71, I studied vertical distribution of fishes in two of the lakes, Roosevelt and Apache, relative to selected physico-chemical and biotic factors, in an attempt to further define the ecology of some of the more important commercial and game species. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITES Roosevelt Lake, impounded by Roosevelt Dam, the largest and uppermost of the Salt River reservoirs, was completed in 1911. This dam is 220.4 meters (m) in length at its crest and 85.4 m in maximum height. The resulting lake inundates a relatively broad valley located at the confluence of the Salt River and Tonto Creek (Fig. 1). Apache Lake lies in a narrow, steep-walled canyon, immediately down- stream from Roosevelt Lake. When Apache Lake is full, its headwaters begin at the base of Roosevelt Dam. Horse Mesa Dam which impounds Apache Lake is 201.2 m long, 91.4 in high, and was completed in 1927. Table 1 lists full-pool morphologic features which emphasize some of the differences between the broader, more-open Roosevelt and the narrow, fjord-like Apache Lake. Three parameters are particularly striking in this respect. Mean width of Roosevelt is approximately five times that of Apache, volume nearly six times Apache, and slope of basin is 32.0 percent (%) in Apache as compared to only 7.0% for Roosevelt. During the course of study, Roosevelt Lake was never completely full and Apache Lake varied from completely full to essentially empty (Table 2). 3 Figure I. Map of study site, Roosevelt and Apache reservoirs, central Arizona; see text for explanation of transects. Tonto Arm Roosevelt Lake W3 --- /JRooseve It Dam W2 Salt Arm R-1 Apache Lake Horse Mesa Dam /4-4 Phoenix (arprox. 65.0 km) 5 Table I. Selected morphologic parameters for Roosevelt and Apache reservoirs, at full pool; from Rinne (1973). Parameter Roosevelt Apache Maximum depth (m) 62.5 76.2 Mean depth (m) 24.3 28.7 Maximum width ( km) 3.9 1.0 Mean width ( km) 2.1 1 0.4 Maximum length ( km) 33.7 28.8 Shoreline length ( km) 158.8 88.5 2 Surface area ( km ) 70.1 10.8 3 7 Volume (m X 10 ) 170.4 30.2 Volume development index 1.2 1.1 Shoreline development i ndex 5.3 7.6 Slope of basin (%) 7.0 32.0 6 Table 2. Approximate lake levels (maximum depth) during each field trip. Full pool values are in parentheses. Run number Roosevelt Reservoir Apache Reservoir (62.5 m) (76.2 m) 54.6 m 10.0 m 2 56.6 m 7:).0 m 52.1 m /6.0 in 4 50.9 in 38.4 m 50./ m METHODS AND MATERIALS Vertical gill nets were used to gather data upon fish distri- bution. This technique has been employed by others (Hartman, 1962; Horak and Tanner, 196)4; Lackey, 1968; Grinstead, 1969), but gill nets, in general, may be highly selective (McCombie and Fry, 1960; Berst, 1961; Heard, 1962; McCombie and Berst, 1969; Johnson, et al., 1970; and references cited). Lackey (1968) provided a description of construction of vertical gill nets and modifications of boats needed to operate such equipment. Net design and accompanying equipment used in my study most closely resembled those employed by Lackey. White, nylon gill nets were used exclusively. Three nets, each of a single, different mesh size, were positioned at a net-site and constituted what will be subsequently referred to as a "gang." It was previously determined (Johnson, et al., 1970) that 1.27 centimeter (cm), 3.81 cm, and 7.62 cm (bar measure) were most effective in sampling fish populations of these same reservoirs. Nets were supported with #120 nylon lines and were approximately three meters in width. Nets were dyed at meter intervals to produce a band of color several cm in width to facilitate accurate recording of data.

Load more

  72

Copy Link