Transcript Document

Dissolved Oxygen Study
SHIPROCK HIGH
San Juan River
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Razor Back Sucker 2002-2008
I, II &AP
LESSON MODULE
Lesson Design:
Ricky Espinoza
©2002
Grades 9-12
Essential Questions:
• What is a Razor Back Sucker? Catostomus texanus
•
How does man affect this organisms population?
• What is dissolved oxygen (DO)?
• How can dissolved oxygen affect the health of a river?
• What are the peripheral factors that affect the health of
the Razor Back Sucker population?
•
Who or what are the players in this system?
Environmentally, economically, and socially.
•Can we create a mathematical model that will help us predict
dissolved oxygen in the San Juan River?
•How confident are we that our model is representing what is
happening in nature?
•What is the relationship between dissolved oxygen and
temperature?
•What would this relationship look like when graphed.
•What applications of our model can you see being of use in our
community.
•What will be the impact of our data that is generated by our
model and data collected on site (San Juan River)?
The San Juan River is a resource for man as well a for
Nature.
What is a Razor Back Sucker? Catostomus texanus
As the population in our area increases so will the demand
for water. The main source of water in the San Juan River, is
water stored and released from Navajo Dam. Before the dam
was built our river had a self sustaining population of Razor
Back Suckers. During the construction of the a program to
poison fish was carried out in the early The poison used was
Rotenone, the poison was poured into the three rivers which
feed Navajo Lake to eradicate what were then considered
trash fish (Razor Back Suckers) to allow the stocking of
preferred game fish such as Rainbow trout and German
browns. Now the Razor Back Suckers are an endangered
species, protected by Federal laws.
What is a Razor Back Sucker? Catostomus texanus
Razorback sucker is a boney fish with the following
characteristics:
1.
Successfully reproduce in both lentic and lotic habitats
(Minckley et al. 1991).
2. Fish mature between the ages of 4 and 7 when they reach
between 400 and 450 mm.
3. Fish spawn on wind swept cobble and gravel shorelines
4. Fish can spawn near Dam tail waters however larvae that
successfully hatch, but, survival in or near reservoirs is low
because of larval predation from nonnative fishes and
possibly low prey densities (Minckley et al. 1991).
Trout will eat Razorback sucker
larva. This is a rainbow trout
from the San Juan River.
5. Spawning occurs between November and May when water
temperatures are between 7 and 18°C with an average of about
15°C between mid-April to mid-May (Tyus and Karp 1990).
6. Razorback suckers spawn over gravel bars that are 0.1 to 1.0
meter deep with a water velocity between 0.1 and 0.6 meters per
second (Wick et al. 1982).
Razorback sucker can be a large fish in size and slightly
compressed laterally. The upper body is dark brown to olive
green and pale white or lemon yellow on the lower abdominal
surfaces.
The razorback sucker was originally described as Catostomus
texanus from a specimen collected from Arizona (Abbott
1861).
7. The duration of spawning varies with flow patterns, but
generally lasts between four and six weeks (Tyus and Karp
1990, Modde and Wick, 1995).
Although natural spawning occurs annually and larvae have been
collected from the main spawning sites, few juvenile fish have ever
been collected in the wild since mid-1960's (Minckley et al. 1991).
Remember that they poisoned with Rotenone, the poison was
poured into the three rivers which feed Navajo Lake to eradicate
what were then considered trash fish (Razor Back Suckers) to
allow the stocking of preferred game fish such as Rainbow trout
and German browns. Could this be the reason we don’t see them in
the wild?
The greatest threats to the razorback sucker include:
• Alteration of natural flows regimes
• Interactions with nonnative predators (Minckley 1991).
• Reservoirs have created barriers to spawning and migrations.
• Dams alter the natural seasonal river cycles, thus removing cues associated with
migrations. (Stephens et al. 1992).
• Selenium concentrations that are capable of impairing reproductive success.
• Storage of the water from major tributaries have transformed
warm rivers with variable flows into clear, cold/cool water
environments that, in some areas, are more suitable
environments for nonnative fish like salmon and trout.
Fishes native to the system like the razorback sucker have
extreme difficulty in these conditions.
• Because reservoir environments discharges controlled by
reservoir releases are not characterized by the variation in
flows, sedimentation, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.
characteristic of the historic environment,
nonnative warm water fishes have become more effective
competitors and predators on native species, including the
razorback sucker (Minckley et al. 1991).
• Localized contaminant buildup threats exist in stored waters.
• The razorback sucker's diet consists of vegetable matter and
material from river bottom ooze
•
•
Conservation Action
In 1988 an interagency effort formed the Recovery
Implementation Program for the Recovery of Endangered Fishes
in the Upper and Lower Colorado River to fund and administer
recovery efforts for the razorback sucker.
Programs the 1988 program is made up of a consortium among
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation and other interest. This program outlines a 15
year effort consisting of five elements:
1. Provision of in-stream flows
2. Habitat development and maintenance
3. Native fish stocking
4. Management of nonnative species and sport fishing
5. Research, monitoring and data management.
The goal of this program is to maintain and protect self- sustaining
populations of the Razor Back Sucker and sufficient natural habitat
to sustain these populations. This program should be beneficial to
other endangered fish species sharing this habitat, including
bonytailed chub, Colorado squawfish, and humpback chub
This species was listed as an endangered species by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in 1991 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1991).
Experimental releases in the Upper Basin, and attempts to
propagate Razor Back Suckers in Lower Basin reservoirs are
encouraging, but the mainstream Colorado River populations
continue to decline.
Upper and Lower
Colorado River as
well as major
tributaries that feed
the Colorado River
are part of this
program. The San
Juan River is one of
these rivers.
Shiprock High
School is performing
a six year study that
will examine
dissolved oxygen
and its relationship
with temperature due
to flow rate changes.
An interim progress report for razorback sucker
monitoring trips conducted in 2003 will be
completed by 31 March 2004. Now at this time
we as a class, can get that report and input this
data into our models, that we will build, to see
how real data compares to calculated numbers.
Our models will be built on Microsoft Excel.
When we graph the data side by side we will start
to see patterns that can help us explain the
patterns we see in nature. That is real science at
work.
The biggest problem associated with achieving higher numbers of
San Juan River razorback suckers is RBS larvae production:
• Rearing facilities outside of the San Juan River Basin lack the
capabilities to hold and rear razorback sucker for the San
Juan River Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP).
• SJRIP undertook efforts to obtain or build grow-out ponds within
the San Juan River basin that would afford a measure of
self-sufficiency (for holding/rearing fish) to the San Juan
River razorback sucker augmentation program. Beginning in
1997, a series of grow-out ponds were established on NAPI
lands southwest of Farmington, New Mexico.
Presently there are about 16 surface acres of grow-out ponds
(i.e., nine individual ponds) being used to rear razorback
sucker. An additional nine acres of grow-out ponds are
scheduled to be built in fall/winter 2002-2003.
The changes is river
temperatures also in turn
will change the dissolved
oxygen properties of the
river.
• The UNM holding facility serves to maintain larvae in the
interim between the time for release and grow out. (8-10
weeks) between their being obtained from hatchery
facilities and a time when water temperatures at grow-out
ponds increases to a sufficient level for rearing. These
larvae will then be stocked in three of the nine available
grow-out ponds and eventually released into the wild.
The decline of Razor
Back Sucker has been
attributed to thermal
regime changes.
Water quality parameters including dissolved
oxygen, water temperature, conductivity,
flow rates and pH will be measured at each
contact location.
Larval Razor Back Suckers drift downstream from the spawning habitat, and
concentrate in warm, low-velocity areas (e.g., flooded bottoms). These areas
also support post-larval RBS, and channel and mid-stream river habitats
floored by fine-grained alluvium are important to subsequent RBS life stages
(Minckley 1983, Tyus and Karp 1989, Minckley 1991).
Some Razor Back sucker may be implanted with radio
transmitters (one-year lifespan) on 2002 sampling
trips. These fish will be tracked throughout
the suspected spawning season for razorback sucker in
the San Juan River this may give us an insight into
their migration patterns.
Electro fishing and handling of rare fish species will follow the
protocol found in the main channel fish community monitoring
work plan, except that only data on rare fish species collected
(i.e., razorback sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, and roundtail
chub) will be recorded. When rare fish species are collected,
PIT tag number, length, weight, reproductive status (if evident),
and information about health abnormalities (if any) will be
recorded.
Survival rates are determined using either mark and
recapture models.
Intensive efforts to maintain the last large population of
razorback sucker in Lake Mohave include techniques depicted
in previous photos and photos to come.
(1994-1997) approximately, 6,836 razorback sucker have been
stocked into the San Juan River. This represents a short fall of about
76,600 razorback suckers when compared to numbers recommended
in the five-year recommended numbers to be stocked. Because of the
large shortfall in numbers of stocked fish during the 1997-2001
augmentation effort, the San Juan River Biology Committee adopted
an addendum to the 1997 stocking plan that extends the intensive
stocking period for razorback sucker for an additional eight-year
period, beginning in 2004 and continuing through 2011. This
addendum calls for stocking a minimum of 11,374 razorback sucker
per year, with the goal of establishing an adult population
of 5,800 adult razorback sucker in the San Juan River.
Springtime concentrations of adult Razor Back Suckers have been noted in side-channels,
off-channel impoundments, and in tributaries (Bestgen 1990, Minckley 1991), in
temperatures of 22 to 25oC (Bulkley and Pimentel 1983); however, RBS occur in widely
varying temperatures. RBS habitats in the Upper Colorado River Basin are ice-covered
during winter, while the temperatures of mainstream habitats in the Lower Colorado River
exceed 90oF (Dill 1944).
Click trout to view lab.
Click trout to view
Excel DO model
Click trout to
view DO Model
Click trout to view
Evaluation Tool
Click trout to
view Lesson
Plan
Calculation notes
Data Sheets &
Graphs
References and acknowledgements:
1.
Abbott, C.C. 1861. Descriptions of four new species of North American
Cyprinidae. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural
Sciences 12(1860):473-474.
2. Bestgen, K.R. 1990. Status review of the razorback sucker,
Xyrauchen
texanus. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 44,
Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
3. Bozek, M.A., L.J. Paulson, and G.R. Wilde. 1990. Effects of ambient Lake
Mohave temperatures on development, oxygen consumption, and
hatching success of the razorback sucker. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 27:255-263.
4. Gutermuth, F.B., L.D. Lentsch, and K.R. Bestgen. 1995.
collection of age-0
razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus) in the lower Green River, Utah.
The Southwestern Naturalist 39:389-391.
5. Hubbs, C.L. and Miller, R.R. 1953. Hybridization in nature between the fish
genera Catostomus and Xyrauchen. Papers of the Michigan Academy of
Science, Arts, & Letters 38, 207-233.
6.
Kirsch, P.H. 1889. Notes on a collection of fishes obtained in the Gila River at Fort
Thomas, Arizona. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 11:555-558.
7. Lanigan, S.H., and H.M. Tyus. 1989. Population size and status of the razorback
sucker in the Green River basin, Utah and Colorado. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 9:68- 73.
8. Lanigan, S.H., and H.M. Tyus. 1989. Population size and status of the razorback
sucker in the Green River basin, Utah and Colorado. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 9:68- 73.
9. McAda, C.W., B. Bates, S. Cranney, T. Chart, B. Elmblad, and T. Nesler. 1994.
Interagency standardized monitoring program: Summary of results, 1986 though
1992. Final Report. Recovery Program for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper
Colorado River Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
10. McCarthy, M.S., and W.L. Minckley. 1987. Age estimation for razorback sucker
(Pisces: Catostomidae) from Lake Mohave, Arizona-Nevada. Journal of the
Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences 21:87-97.
11. Marsh, P.C. 1987. Food of adult razorback sucker in Lake Mohave, ArizonaNevada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:117-119.
12. Marsh, P.C. and D.R. Langhorst. 1988. Feeding and fate of wild larval razorback
suckers. Environmental Biology of Fishes 21:59-67.
13. Marsh, P.C. 1993. Abundance, movements, and status of adult razorback sucker,
Xyrauchen texanus, in Lake Mohave, Arizona and Nevada. Proceedings of the
Desert Fishes Council, Volume 25: 35-36 (Abstract).
14. Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department,
Phoenix.
293 pp.
15. Minckley. W.L. 1983. Status of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus (Abbott), in
the lower Colorado River basin. The Southwestern Naturalist 28:165-187.
16. Minckley, W.L., P.C. Marsh, J.E. Brooks, J.E. Johnson, and B.L. Jensen. 1991.
Management toward recovery of the razorback sucker. Pages 283-357, in W.L.
Minckley and J.E. Deacon eds., Battle against extinction: Native fish
management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
17. Modde, T., A.T. Scholz, J.H. Williamson, G.B. Haines, B.D. Burdick, and F.K. Pfeifer.
1995. Augmentation plan for razorback sucker in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:102-111
19. Modde, T., K.P. Burnham, and E.F.Wick. 1996. Population status of the razorback
sucker in the middle Green River. Conservation Biology 10:in press.
20. Modde, T., E.J. Wick. 1995. Spring habitat use and availability to razorback sucker in
the middle Green River. Draft Final Report. Recovery Program for the
Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Denver, CO.
21. Papoulias, D. and W.L. Minckley. 1990. Food limited survival of larval razorback
sucker, Xyrauchen texanus, in the laboratory. Environmental Biology of Fishes 2
9:73-78.
22. Stephens, D.W., B. Waddell, L.A. Peltz, and Jerry B. Miller. 1992. Detailed study of
selenium and selected elements in water, bottom sediment, and biota associated
with irrigation drainage in the middle Green River Basin, Utah, 1988-1990. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4084. U.S.
Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah
23. Taba, S.S., J.R. Murphy, and H.H. Frost. 1965. Notes on the fishes of the Colorado
River near Moab, Utah. Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and
Letters 42:280-283.
24. Tyus, H.M. 1987. Distribution, reproduction, and habitat use of the razorback sucker
in the Green River, Utah, 1979-1986. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 116:111-116.
25.
Tyus, H.M., and C.A. Karp. 1990. Spawning and movements of razorback
sucker, Xyrauchen texanus, in the Green River basin of Colorado and Utah.
Southwestern Naturalist 35:427-433.
Vanicek, C.D. 1967. Ecological studies of native Green River fishes below
Flaming Gorge Dam, 1964-66. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State University,
Logan.
26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants: the razorback sucker,(Xyrauchen texanus). Determined to be an
endangered species. Federal Register 56(205):54957-54967.
Waddell, B., and T. May. 1995. Selenium concentrations in the razorback
sucker (Xyrauchen texanus): substitution on non- lethal muscle plugs for
muscle tissue contaminant assessment. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 28:321- 326.
27. Wick, E.J., C.W. McAda, and R.V. Bulkley. 1982. Life history and prospects for
recovery of the razorback sucker. Pages 120-126 in W.H. Miller, H.M. Tyus,
and C.A. Carlson (eds.), Fishes of the Upper Colorado River system: present
and future. Western Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.
28. Wydoski, R.S., and J. Hamill. 1991. Evolution of a cooperative recovery program for
endangered fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Pages 123-135, in W.L.
Minckley and J.E. Deacon eds., Battle against extinction: Native fish
management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
29. Compiled by Tim Modde and Dick Wydoski U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado
River Fish Project 266 W. 100 N., Suite 2 Vernal, UT 84078
[email protected] December 10, 1995.
30. LaRivers, Ira. 1994. Fishes and fisheries of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno,
Nevada.
31. Johnson, James et. al. 1993. Transactions of the American fisheries society. American
Fisheries Society, Lawrence, Kansas.
32. http://www2.vernier.com/sample_labs/computer/water_quality/dissolved_oxygen.pdf
33. http://aquanic.org/images/tools/oxygen.htm