Population Dynamics of Adult Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) Suckers in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2006-08

Barry, Patrick M.; Janney, Eric C.; Hewitt, David A.; Hayes, Brian S.; Scott, Alta C.

doi:10.3133/ofr20091109

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data on sucker growth rates indicated that Lost River Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake can grow approximately 10 mm/year, while annual growth rates of Shortnose Suckers are small or unmeasurable once they reach maturity (Hewitt et al 2012). In Clear Lake, Lost River Suckers can grow approximately 20 mm/year and Shortnose Suckers 15 mm/year (Barry et al 2009). Consequently, the actual length of suckers at the time of consumption may be slightly greater (right-shifted) than their size at release, but the bias is likely minimal given the low growth rates reported in the literature and because fish were consumed by a bird less than a year after release.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Colonial Waterbird Predation on Lost River and Shortnose Suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin

Evans

Hewitt

Payton

et al. 2016

N American J Fish Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated predation on Lost River Suckers Deltistes luxatus and Shortnose Suckers Chasmistes brevirostris by American white pelicans Pelecanus erythrorhynchos and double‐crested cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus nesting at mixed‐species colonies in the Upper Klamath Basin of Oregon and California during 2009–2014. Predation was evaluated by recovering (detecting) PIT tags from tagged fish on bird colonies and calculating minimum predation rates, as the percentage of available suckers consumed, adjusted for PIT tag detection probabilities but not deposition probabilities (i.e., probability an egested tag was deposited on‐ or off‐colony). Results indicate that impacts of avian predation varied by sucker species, age‐class (adult, juvenile), bird colony location, and year, demonstrating dynamic predator–prey interactions. Tagged suckers ranging in size from 72 to 730 mm were susceptible to cormorant or pelican predation; all but the largest Lost River Suckers were susceptible to bird predation. Minimum predation rate estimates ranged annually from <0.1% to 4.6% of the available PIT‐tagged Lost River Suckers and from <0.1% to 4.2% of the available Shortnose Suckers, and predation rates were consistently higher on suckers in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, than on suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. There was evidence that bird predation on juvenile suckers (species unknown) in Upper Klamath Lake was higher than on adult suckers in Upper Klamath Lake, where minimum predation rates ranged annually from 5.7% to 8.4% of available juveniles. Results suggest that avian predation is a factor limiting the recovery of populations of Lost River and Shortnose suckers, particularly juvenile suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and adult suckers in Clear Lake Reservoir. Additional research is needed to measure predator‐specific PIT tag deposition probabilities (which, based on other published studies, could increase predation rates presented herein by a factor of roughly 2.0) and to better understand biotic and abiotic factors that regulate sucker susceptibility to bird predation. Received January 19, 2016; accepted June 25, 2016 Published online October 7, 2016

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Colonial Waterbird Predation on Lost River and Shortnose Suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin

Evans

Hewitt

Payton

et al. 2016

N American J Fish Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sex ratios (males to females) from physical captures periodically obtained from 1993 through 2008 are similar to those of Upper Klamath Lake populations. Ratios for Lost River sucker are slightly higher than those for shortnose sucker (medians are 0.99 and 0.58, respectively), and a declining trend is apparent, although significant gaps within the data limit comparisons (Barry et al 2009). Between 2006 and 2008, remote passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag detections of individuals entering Willow Creek for spawning suggest important differences between the species.…”

Section: Demographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within Clear Lake, combined captures of both species approach 10,000 individuals since 2006 (Barry et al 2009). Shortnose sucker within Clear Lake appear to have had relatively regular recruitment to the adult population, but the Lost River sucker populations appear to exhibit the same progression toward increasing lengths, which is indicative of low levels of additions to the spawning population (D. Hewitt, USGS, personal communication 2011).…”

Section: Demographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Status of Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

Rasmussen

2011

Western North American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tables Table 1. Catches of Lost River and shortnose suckers in fall trammel net sampling in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2006-2009 Trammel net sampling resulted in a relatively low catch of suckers in fall 2008 and a high catch of suckers in fall 2009. We attribute the high catch of suckers to low lake levels in 2009, which concentrated fish.…”

Section: For An Overview Of Usgs Information Products Including Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Catches of Lost River and shortnose suckers in fall trammel net sampling in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2006-2009 Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F=(1.8×°C)+32.…”

Section: Figuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring of adult Lost River and shortnose suckers in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2008–2010

Hewitt¹,

Hayes²

2013

Open-File Report

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprodTo order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Hewitt, D.A., and Hayes, B.S., 2013, Monitoring of adult Lost River and shortnose suckers in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1301. ISSN 2331ISSN -1258 Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Tables Table 1. Catches of Lost River and shortnose suckers in fall trammel net sampling in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2006-2009 Trammel net sampling resulted in a relatively low catch of suckers in fall 2008 and a high catch of suckers in fall 2009. We attribute the high catch of suckers to low lake levels in 2009, which concentrated fish. As in previous years, shortnose suckers made up the vast majority of the sucker catch and recaptures of previously PIT-tagged suckers were relatively uncommon. Across the 2 years, we captured and tagged 389 new Lost River suckers and 2,874 new shortnose suckers. Since the program began, we have tagged a total of about 1,200 Lost River suckers and 5,900 shortnose suckers that can be detected on the remote antennas in Willow Creek. Detections of tagged suckers were low in both spring 2009 and spring 2010. The magnitude of the spawning migration was presumably small in both years because of low flows in Willow Creek; detections were similar to a previous low-flow year (spring 2007) and much lower than previous years with higher flows (spring 2006 and spring 2008).The size composition of fish captured in fall trammel net sampling over time suggests that the Lost River sucker population probably has decreased in abundance from what it was in the early 2000s. Shortnose suckers are smaller than Lost River suckers, and we are unable to infer any trend in abundance for shortnose suckers because it is impossible to separate recruitment of small fish from size selectivity of the trammel nets. Nonetheless, the substantial catch of small shortnose suckers in 2009, especially females, indicates that some new individuals recruited to the population.Problems with inferring status and population dynamics from size composition data can be overcome by a robust capture-recapture program that follows the histories of PIT-tagged individuals. Inferences from such a program are currently hindered by poor detection rates during spawning seasons with low flows in Willow Creek, which indicate that a key assumption of capture-recapture models is violated. We suggest that the m...

show abstract

Population Dynamics of Adult Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) Suckers in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2006-08

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Colonial Waterbird Predation on Lost River and Shortnose Suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin

Colonial Waterbird Predation on Lost River and Shortnose Suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin

Status of Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker

Monitoring of adult Lost River and shortnose suckers in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, 2008–2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About