1987
DOI: 10.2307/3671452
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Movements and Growth of Fishes in the Gila River Drainage, Arizona and New Mexico

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is evidence that habitat size drives the overall range of fish movement (Woolnough et al 2009), and we observed greater movement distances by Sonora Suckers and Desert Suckers than did Booth and Shipley (2012) for the same species in streams in Arizona, likely in part because the Gila River is longer and the spatial scale of our study (6 km) larger than is the case with the small streams (hundreds of meters; median discharge, <0.1 m 3 /s) that they studied. The movements detected in this study are similar in magnitude to those observed by Siebert (1980) and Williams (1991) but substantially greater than those observed by Bestgen et al (1987) for Sonora Suckers and Desert Suckers. Unlike Siebert (1980), who found that suckers exhibited a tendency to move into a canyon-bounded reach of Aravaipa Creek during summer, we did not observe directional movements upstream into the canyon-bounded reach of the Middle Fork Gila River.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There is evidence that habitat size drives the overall range of fish movement (Woolnough et al 2009), and we observed greater movement distances by Sonora Suckers and Desert Suckers than did Booth and Shipley (2012) for the same species in streams in Arizona, likely in part because the Gila River is longer and the spatial scale of our study (6 km) larger than is the case with the small streams (hundreds of meters; median discharge, <0.1 m 3 /s) that they studied. The movements detected in this study are similar in magnitude to those observed by Siebert (1980) and Williams (1991) but substantially greater than those observed by Bestgen et al (1987) for Sonora Suckers and Desert Suckers. Unlike Siebert (1980), who found that suckers exhibited a tendency to move into a canyon-bounded reach of Aravaipa Creek during summer, we did not observe directional movements upstream into the canyon-bounded reach of the Middle Fork Gila River.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…We focus here on the locally abundant Sonora Sucker Catostomus insignis and the Desert Sucker Catostomus clarkii, which can provide insight into the variation in movement patterns within and among species. Previous work in small streams found greater mobility in Desert Suckers than Sonora Suckers as well as variation in movement behavior among streams (Booth and Shipley 2012), while no movements were detected among the few fish recaptured in a larger stream, the Gila River (Bestgen et al 1987). Concurrent with the present study, we investigated small-scale, short-term movement behaviors and found high but variable rates of population turnover at the habitat scale, distinct diel patterns in movement behavior, and high site fidelity despite extended forays elsewhere for both suckers in the Gila River (Booth et al 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Creek. These species have been reported to be mobile in larger stream systems (Bestgen et al 1987), and movements in small streams have been limited to descriptions of spawning migrations from rivers into small streams (Minckley and Holden 1980;Weiss et al 1998). Tagged adults of all three species moved upstream into McKinney Creek during the spawning season and then returned downstream.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fish that are endemic to the CRB often exhibit complex life histories, including movements over large distances, and dams and barriers can prevent necessary movements. Movement patterns of fishes in desert streams of the southwestern United States are poorly understood, and knowledge of bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, and roundtail chub movements is minimal (Bestgen et al 1987). For these three species, most studies have focused on temporal patterns of fishes moving in and out of tributary streams, typically to spawn (Minckley and Holden 1980;Weiss et al 1998).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, other potamodromous suckers have exhibited considerable localized movement during sedentary periods (Bestgen et al. ; Booth et al. ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%