Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5. Fishes of the Upper Klamath Basin
5. Fishes of the Upper Klamath Basin
Pages 179-213
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 179... ...
. Since the shortnose ancT Lost River suckers were listecT as enciangerecT species in 1988, a great clear of attention has been paicT to their biology, especially in Upper I(lamath Lake, whereas the rest of the species ancT the rest of the basin have received comparatively little attention.
|
From page 180... ...
, but the connection formecI ancI was blockecI more than once. Connection of the upper ancI lower basins lecI to colonization of the upper basin by anaciromous Chinook salmon, steelheacI, ancI Pacific lampreys.
|
From page 181... ...
R R Common in lower basin Fishery; may be more than one form: lake and stream Anadromous, common in lower basin Anadromous, common in lower basin Threatened species Widespread in basin L, R A Abundant in Upper Klamath Lake Gone from much of former range aAdult habitat: L, lakes; R river; W
|
From page 182... ...
20001. The Miller Lake lamprey is closely relatecI to the nonpredatory Pit-I(lamath brook lamprey, which is abundant ancI wiclespreacI in small streams in the upper I(lamath ancI Pit River basins.
|
From page 183... ...
It is somewhat less tolerant of high temperatures anti low clissolvecI oxygen than the tui chub (Castleberry anti Cech 1992) anti is common in fish kills of Upper I(lamath Lake (Perkins et al.
|
From page 184... ...
Lake populations of largescale suckers migrate for spawning in March and April; peak spawning activity occurs a month or so earlier than that of shortnose and Lost River suckers. Radio-tagged fish have migrated as far as 128 km upstream, presumably to find grave!
|
From page 185... ...
The bull trout, like the enciangerecI suckers of the upper basin, clemancis special attention in the future. Unlike the suckers, however, the bull trout is spatially separated from the I(lamath Project ancI most other water management because its distribution is restricted primarily to heac~waters that are remote from Upper I(lamath Lake or the lower reaches of tributaries that are so important to suckers.
|
From page 186... ...
The lake ancI river populations will neecI protection from adverse water quality ancI nonnative species ancI probably wouicI benefit from improved habitat in the rivers ancI improved access to upstream habitat (Bowers et al.
|
From page 187... ...
No I(lamath Lake scuipins have been reported in the fish kills of Upper I(lamath Lake, but cleacI fish of this species wouicI not float ancI so wouicI be easy to overlook. The apparent ability of the I(lamath Lake scuipin to live in conditions of poor water quality (especially low clissolvecI oxygen)
|
From page 188... ...
One concern is that future changes in water quality in the basin may promote further expansion of nonnative species. The fatheacI minnow, which is native to eastern North America, appearecI in the I(lamath basin in the early 1970s, perhaps as a result of release of fish usecI in bioassay work (Simon ancI Markle 1997a)
|
From page 189... ...
ENDANGERED SUCKERS OF THE KLAMATH BASIN All four native sucker species of the Klamath basin are endemic. The enciangerecI Lost River sucker anti shortnose sucker are part of a species
|
From page 190... ...
Zooplanktivory can also be linkecI to the affinity of these suckers for lakes, which typically have greater abundances of zooplankton than clo flowing waters. Historically, Lost River suckers ancI shortnose suckers occurred in the Lost River ancI upper I(lamath River ancI their tributaries, especially Tule i :; j ~ ~ ~ ~ u .
|
From page 191... ...
Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers are partly distinguished from I(lamath largescale suckers and I(lamath smaliscale suckers by greater maximum size. The Lost River sucker can be 26-40 in.
|
From page 192... ...
. eShortnose suckers in Clear Lake and Gerber Reservoir may have been confused with I(lamath largescale suckers or with shortnose suckers and I(lamath largescale sucker hybrids (D.
|
From page 193... ...
Gerber ( Reservoir \ ,,, ~ Lower Klamath . National Wildlife 131 t ~~ Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge ~.`'Z'e' Clear Lake ,~- ~ W Ci;'~ ~ ~ ~ ' Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge ~ J ~ Oregon_ California Klamath Project Service Area O s 10 1s 20 Miles FIGURE 5-2 Locations of current and past populations of Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers.
|
From page 194... ...
I(lamath largescale suckers migrate first ancI are followecI by Lost River suckers ancI then shortnose suckers (Coleman et al. 1988, cited in Scoppettone ancI VinyarcI 1991)
|
From page 195... ...
Of 201 Lost River suckers tagged during previous years and recaptured at springs in the lake in 2001, with some recaptures separated by as much as three yr, 198 (98.5%) were captured both times at eastern shore spawning sites.
|
From page 196... ...
Cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus) are known to spawn several huncirecI times over a period of 3-5 clays (Scoppettone ancI VinyarcI 19911; Lost River suckers ancI shortnose suckers might behave similarly.
|
From page 197... ...
83. Lake, larvae first concentrate near emergent vegetation at the mouth of the Williamson River for several weeks ancI then appear in other regions of the lake where emergent vegetation is found; that this process can continue for more than 2 ma is not surprising, given the protracted spawning period of the suckers (Cooperman anti Markle 20001.
|
From page 198... ...
Thus, successful recruitment in Clear Lake cloes not demonstrate that vegetation is unimportant in Upper I(lamath Lake. Successful spawning apparently cloes not occur in any of the main-stem reservoirs, which have steep shorelines, lack substantial emergent vegetation, have abundant predators, anti may lack spawning areas (Desjarclins ancI Markle 20001.
|
From page 199... ...
2000) , ancI juvenile shortnose suckers are apparently more strongly oriented toward the lake bottom than juvenile Lost River suckers (Scoppettone et al.
|
From page 200... ...
, particularly in summer, may reflect avoidance of low concentrations of clissolvecI oxygen (Chapter 31. Although aclults of the Lost River suckers ancI shortnose suckers are captured together in many places in Upper I(lamath Lake, some differences in their distribution suggest different habitat preferences.
|
From page 201... ...
placecI cages containing juvenile Lost River suckers in Upper I(lamath Lake for 4ciay periods. High mortality occurred at high pH, high concentrations of unionized ammonia, ancI low concentrations of clissolvecI oxygen; low clissolvecI oxygen was the strongest correlate with mortality.
|
From page 202... ...
Poor water quality in Upper I(lamath Lake is a clocumentecI cause of the episodic mass mortality of large suckers in the lake. The recent history of these episodes is given in this chapter, ancI the factors producing cleath are cliscussecI in Chapter 3.
|
From page 203... ...
In 1984' the run of spawning Lost River suckers was estimated at 23~000' but it fell to 12~000 in 1985. Catch per unit effort of electrofishing fell by 57% for Lost River suckers anti by 83% for shortnose suckers from 1984 to 1986 before the major fish kill of 1986 (Scoppettone 1986' Bienz and Ziller 1987' SCOPpettone anti VinyarcI 19911.
|
From page 204... ...
That spawning runs apparently increased in 1999-2001 shows that the species have substantial resilience, but this is no guarantee of recovery. Comparisons between 2000 and 2001 data indicate a weak but significant trend toward increasing average size among all spawning shortnose suckers and female Lost River suckers in the Williamson River (Cunningham et al.
|
From page 205... ...
(~) Age frequency distributions of Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers in Upper I(lamath Lake based on fish collected from the 1997 fish kill.
|
From page 206... ...
for lake-spawning Lost River suckers clo not indicate an increase in numbers of spawners (1999, 3.0 fish/h; 2000, 2.0 fish/h; 2001, 2.4 fish/in) , ancI the average size of lake-spawning fish increased significantly between 2000 ancI 2001, suggesting lack of recent recruitment into the spawning population (Hayes et al.
|
From page 207... ...
These findings suggest that successful year classes after 1991-1993 are largely absent, that is, that little recruitment of young spawners has occurred at the same time that the largest fish have been progressively removed by the fish kills; this raises a concern over future numbers of spawners ancI total reproductive output of the population. As with Lost River suckers, knowlecige of age distributions of shortnose suckers in Upper I(lamath Lake comes chiefly from three fish kills in the l990s, except that the ciata are even less complete ancI earlier ciata are lacking (Figure 5-4B)
|
From page 208... ...
19951. Although numbers of spawning fish in the Williamson River appear to have climbed in recent years, the reproductive potential of the population is lower than it was before the fish kills because the fish are smaller (Markle and Cooperman 20021.
|
From page 209... ...
There has been no evidence of successful spawning in Tule Lake, although fish from the lake eviclently spawn in the lower Lost River. Fish of both species, but mostly shortnose suckers, have been founcI regularly in the reservoirs between Keno ancI Iron Gate Dam (e.g., I
|
From page 210... ...
Clear Lake was drawn clown to as low as 5°/O of capacity cluring 1992, anti fish collectecI after the cirawclown anti in the next spring were in poor condition, although their condition rebounclecI by the encI of the next summer (USFWS 20021. Success of shortnose suckers anti Lost River suckers in Clear Lake is encouraging in its own right anti as a potential rescue population that couicI be used for restoring populations in other water bodies.
|
From page 211... ...
Today, after the construction of multiple clams, only small numbers of the two enciangerecI species occur in the Lost River; shortnose suckers are more common than Lost River suckers. It is not known whether these populations are self-sustaining (USFWS 2002~.
|
From page 212... ...
The relatively good condition of suckers in Tule Lake makes these populations valuable for the long-term survival of both species of suckers, especially given the continuation of fish kills in Upper I(lamath Lake. Conservation Status Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers were declared endangered by California in 1974 (Moyle 20021; Oregon placed both Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers on its protected list in 1987.
|
From page 213... ...
Populations of the two listecI sucker species in the upper I(lamath basin have cleclinecI greatly in overall abundance ancI breadth of distribution. Stable reproducing populations of the two species occur now only in Clear Lake ancI Gerber Reservoir (Gerber Reservoir has only shortnose suckers)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.