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?