Difference between revisions of "Drift and Food Availability Studies"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Twofold daily variation in discharge associated with hydropeaking was the primary control on within-day variation in invertebrate drift concentrations. In contrast, benthic density, which varied 10- to 1000-fold among sampling dates, depending on the taxa, was the primary control on invertebrate drift concentrations over longer timescales (weeks to months). | Twofold daily variation in discharge associated with hydropeaking was the primary control on within-day variation in invertebrate drift concentrations. In contrast, benthic density, which varied 10- to 1000-fold among sampling dates, depending on the taxa, was the primary control on invertebrate drift concentrations over longer timescales (weeks to months). | ||
+ | ==[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Finch%20RRA%20HBC%20Growth%20NSE.pdf Finch et al. 2014]== | ||
+ | Our results are counterintuitive and show that more natural steady flows reduced growth rates of juvenile humpback | ||
+ | chub compared with fluctuating flows when both treatments occurred within the same year. Daily growth rates during steady flows of 2009 and | ||
+ | 2010 were 0.05 and 0.07 mm/day slower, respectively, than fluctuating flows those same years, despite similar water temperatures. Juvenile | ||
+ | humpback chub also grew more slowly during steady flows that occurred in the same season. During the summer, juvenile humpback chub grew | ||
+ | 0.12 and 0.16 mm/day in fluctuating flow regimes in 2009 and 2010, respectively, and only 0.07 mm/day in the experimental steady flow | ||
+ | regime in 2011, despite higher water temperatures. | ||
+ | ===Comparisons:=== | ||
+ | *2009: Fluctuating summer, steady fall | ||
+ | *2010: Fluctuating summer, steady fall | ||
+ | *2011: Steady flows summer and fall (equalization) | ||
+ | ===Findings:=== | ||
+ | *Seasonal mean daily growth rates of juvenile humpback chub in the Colorado River were lower during steady flows than fluctuating flows. | ||
+ | *Mean daily growth rates were also lower when steady flows followed fluctuating flows within the same year. | ||
+ | *Growth was faster during fall (0.14mm/day) compared with summer (0.07mm/day) when flow conditions were steady in both summer and fall. | ||
+ | *Growth during summer 2011 was lower than during the two previous years when fluctuating hydropeaking flows occurred even though temperatures were higher. | ||
+ | *Growth of juvenile humpback chub in the Little Colorado River was relatively high in 2010 (0.22mm/day) and did not decline in September and October as it had in previous years. This may be related to the active monsoon season in 2010. | ||
+ | *Flow conditions more strongly influence growth than water temperature across the range of flow treatments and temperatures observed during 2009–2011. | ||
+ | *Fall growth was faster in the mainstem Colorado River than in the Little Colorado River during two of the three study years (2009 & 2011). | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 84: | Line 103: | ||
*[https://www.gcmrc.gov/research_areas/food_base/invertebrate_drift.aspx Invertebrate Drift below Glen Canyon Dam ] | *[https://www.gcmrc.gov/research_areas/food_base/invertebrate_drift.aspx Invertebrate Drift below Glen Canyon Dam ] | ||
*[http://www.usu.edu/buglab/Projects/CurrentProjects/#item=33 Responses of macroinvertebrate drift, benthic assemblages and trout foraging to hydropeaking below Flaming Gorge Dam] | *[http://www.usu.edu/buglab/Projects/CurrentProjects/#item=33 Responses of macroinvertebrate drift, benthic assemblages and trout foraging to hydropeaking below Flaming Gorge Dam] | ||
+ | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=Near_Shore_Ecology_(NSE)_Study Near Shore Ecology (NSE) Study] | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 93: | Line 113: | ||
*[https://www.gcmrc.gov/about/foodbase/Kennedy%20et%20al.%20FWB%20proofs.pdf Kennedy et al., 2013. The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic densities, in a large regulated river. Freshwater Biology] | *[https://www.gcmrc.gov/about/foodbase/Kennedy%20et%20al.%20FWB%20proofs.pdf Kennedy et al., 2013. The relation between invertebrate drift and two primary controls, discharge and benthic densities, in a large regulated river. Freshwater Biology] | ||
*[https://www.gcmrc.gov/about/foodbase/Cross%20et%20al.%202011_EA.pdf Cross et al., 2011. Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive management: food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon. Ecological Applications 21: 2016-2033. doi:10.1890/10-1719.1] | *[https://www.gcmrc.gov/about/foodbase/Cross%20et%20al.%202011_EA.pdf Cross et al., 2011. Ecosystem ecology meets adaptive management: food web response to a controlled flood on the Colorado River, Glen Canyon. Ecological Applications 21: 2016-2033. doi:10.1890/10-1719.1] | ||
+ | *[http://wec.ufl.edu/floridarivers/NSE/Finch%20RRA%20HBC%20Growth%20NSE.pdf Finch, C., W. E. Pine, III, K. E. Limburg. 2014. Do hydropeaking flows alter juvenile fish growth rates? A test with juvenile humpback chub in the Colorado River. River Research and Applications. DOI 10.1002/rra.2725] | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Other | + | ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Other Publications </h2> |
|- | |- | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
− | + | *[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02705060.2016.1193064?scroll=top&needAccess=true& Timusk et al. 2016. An experimental test of sub-hourly changes in macroinvertebrate drift density associated with hydropeaking in a regulated river. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. ] | |
|} | |} |
Latest revision as of 15:18, 22 August 2018
|
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
---|
|
|