una forma de identificación rápida, fácil, y puede bastar para identificar de manera confiable a la mayoría de los especímenes. Cuando estas características son insuficientes o requieren confirmación, inténtese el conjunto de caracteres relativos a la talla de acuerdo al estadio de desarrollo. Para metalarvas, iníciese con el conteo de radios de la aleta dorsal y combínese con caracteres aplicables de pigmentación y talla de acuerdo al estadio de desarrollo. Para juveniles tempranos, comiéncese con el conteo de radios de la aleta dorsal, pigmentación lateral (si se presentan los patrones distintivos), y caracteres de la boca cuando los lóbulos del labio inferior estén bien desarrollados. Salvo en el caso de los híbridos, los criterios y datos aquí presentados debieran ser adecuados para la identificación precisa de la mayoría de los catostómidos colectados. Unmack, P. J.; Minckley, W. L.; Fry, J.(PJU and WLM - Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ; JF - GIS Laboratory, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ) GIS analysis of fishes in the Gila Basin

Authors: mesolarvas, las características de la pigmentación asociadas a la línea media ventral y a la superficie dorsal son

Year: 1998 (xxx)

Abstract

Distributional data entered into GIS have proven useful for many purposes. These include simple through more complicated tasks such as species-occurrence dot maps, occurrence based on watersheds, changes over time, total and time series of faunal diversity, gross and percentage change in faunas, and others. Individual records of native and non-native fishes in the Gila Basin have been compiled based primarily upon museum records with some primary literature. No captive or reintroduced population data were used. This poster presents some of the results of our analysis so far.

Resumen

Análisis de SIG de peces en la cuenca del Río Gila Los datos de distribución alimentados a un SIG (Sistema de Información Geográfica) han resultado ser útiles para muchos fines. Se incluyen actividades desde simples hasta complicadas, como mapas puntuales de ocurrencia de especies, ocurrencia referida a cuencas, cambios temporales, diversidad faunística (total y series de tiempo), cambios faunísticos totales y relativos, y otros. Se recopilaron registros individuales de peces nativos y no- nativos en la Cuenca del Río Gila basados principalmente en registros de museos con alguna literatura primaria. No se utilizaron datos de poblaciones cautivas o reintroducidas. Este cartel presenta algunos de los resultados de nuestro análisis hasta el momento. Valdez, R. A.; Carothers, S. W.; Leibfried, W. C.(SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants; Flagstaff, AZ) The aquatic ecosystem of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Data Integration Project Synthesis Report ABSTRACT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‘s 1995 Biological Opinion on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam found that current and proposed dam operations continue to jeopardize two endangered species within Grand Canyon: razorback sucker and humpback chub. Existing data on the population status of these two species indicate that the razorback sucker is virtually extinct in Grand Canyon, and the humpback chub— although reproducing in the Little Colorado River—has been declining in numbers over a 35-year period of record. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative from the Service recommends a seasonally adjusted steady flow experiment within the context of the MLFF and undertaken through the Adaptive Management Program. As a preliminary step toward the design of such an experiment, SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants was retained by the Bureau of Reclamation to summarize and evaluate known information about native and nonnative fishes in Glen and Grand Canyons with the following objectives; 1) Summarize known information that would help predict responses by endangered and other native fishes to steady flows, 2) Identify information that

(* indicates the person who presented the paper at the meeting) is still needed to understand the relationship of fish and dam release patterns (data gaps), and, 3) Frame testable hypotheses for research designed to acquire the needed information. It was clearly recognized by all biologists consulted, including the authors of this report, that a steady flow experiment would be valuable for testing response hypotheses. However, consistent with the findings of the literature review, workshop biologists concluded that sufficient baseline data to fully evaluate the steady flow experiment, a priori , do not currently exist. They agreed that a steady flow experiment is likely to have a positive effect on native fishes by warming and stabilizing nearshore habitats, including backwaters and tributary mouths, and enhancing reproduction, growth, and survival. However, a steady flow would simultaneously benefit warm-water non-native fishes, possibly reduce drifting food availability, and would likely increase the incidence of fish parasites. Many biologists believe that positive effects of steady flows to non-native predators and competitors could offset many of the beneficial effects to native fishes. Existing data reported in the literature (and summarized in Chapter 7) on native/non-native fish interactions consistently indicate that non-native species invade and dominate native species in regulated, warm-water habitats. The workshop biologists and the findings of our literature review support modifying the steady flow hydrograph to maximize benefits to native fishes, but we caution that implementing an experimental steady flow may constitute an ecological risk due to potential responses by non-native fishes, food resources, and parasites. The authors of this report recommend that a non-native fish control strategy be initiated before beginning experimental steady flows. RESUMEN El ecosistema acuático del Río Colorado en el Gran Cañón: Reporte Sintetizado del Proyecto de Integración de Datos del Gran Cañón La Opinión Biológica de 1995 del Servicio de Vida Silvestre y Peces de los EU sobre la operación de la Presa del Cañón Glen estipula que las operaciones actuales y propuestas siguen poniendo en riesgo a dos especies en peligro en el Gran Cañón: el matalote jorobado [ Xyrauchen texanus ] y la carpita jorobada [ Gila cypha ]. Los datos con que se cuenta sobre el estado de las poblaciones de estas especies indican que el matalote jorobado está casi extinto en el Gran Cañón, y la carpita jorobada, aunque se reproduce en el Río Pequeño Colorado, ha ido disminuyendo en abundancia en 35 años registrados. La Alternativa Razonable y Prudente del Servicio recomienda un experimento de flujo continuo ajustado estacionalmente en el contexto del MLFF y llevado a cabo a través del Programa de Manejo Adaptativo. Como paso preliminar hacia el diseño del experimento, la compañía SWCA, Inc. Consultores Ambientales fue contratada por la Oficina de Reclamación para resumir y evaluar la información con que se cuenta sobre peces nativos y no-nativos en los Cañones Glen y Gran. Los objetivos son: 1) Resumir la información conocida que ayudará a predecir cómo responderán al flujo continuo los peces en peligro y otros peces nativos; 2) Identificar información que aún se requiere para comprender la relación entre los peces y los patrones de liberación de flujo de la presa (huecos de datos); y 3) Elaborar hipótesis de investigación sujetas a comprobación diseñadas para adquirir la información requerida. Todos los biólogos consultados, incluso los autores del presente reporte, claramente reconocieron que el experimento de flujo continuo sería valioso para probar hipótesis de respuesta. Sin embargo, en consonancia con la revisión de literatura, los biólogos en el taller de trabajo concluyeron que no existen, a priori , suficientes datos base para evaluar completamente el experimento de flujo continuo. Estuvieron de acuerdo en que tal experimento probablemente tendría un efecto positivo en los peces nativos al calentar y estabilizar los hábitats ribereños, incluyendo las aguas de remanso y las bocas de tributarios, y al favorecer la reproducción, crecimiento y sobrevivencia. No obstante, el flujo continuo también sería favorable para peces no-nativos de aguas cálidas, tal vez reduciría la disponibilidad de alimento a la deriva, y probablemente aumentaría la incidencia de parásitos de peces. Muchos biólogos opinan que los efectos positivos de flujos continuos para los depredadores y competidores no-nativos podrían sobrepasar por mucho los efectos positivos para los peces nativos. Los datos existentes que se reportan en la literatura (y resumidos en el Capítulo 7 del reporte) sobre la interacción de peces nativos/no-nativos, siempre indican que las especies no-nativas invaden y dominan a las especies nativas en hábitats controlados de aguas cálidas.

(* indicates the person who presented the paper at the meeting) Las opiniones de los biólogos que asistieron al taller de trabajo y lo encontrado en la revisión de la literatura apoyan la modificación de la hidrografía de flujo continuo para proveer los máximos beneficios a los peces nativos. Sin embargo, advertimos que el implementar un flujo continuo experimental puede constituir un riesgo ecológico debido a las posibles respuestas por parte de peces no-nativos, recursos alimenticios, y parásitos. Los autores del presente reporte recomiendan que se inicie una estrategia de control de peces no-nativos antes de comenzar flujos continuos experimentales.

MINUTES OF THE BUSINESS MEETING / MINUTAS DE LA REUNION DE NEGOCIOS 13 November 1998 Executive Secretary Phil Pister reviewed administrative business of the Council and relevant correspondence from the last year. Attendance at this year’s meeting was 180. In order to more efficiently answer questions and requests for comments, Phil will call upon the Area Coordinators for input and help in developing responses. Area Coordinators should develop committees (~ 5 members) to assure full coverage in their respective areas. Phil will write a letter of appreciation to the USFWS for the timely manner in which they approved travel requests by their employees for the 1998 meeting. Doug Threloff told the Council of the Spring 1998 workshop that was held on concerns over low population size of the Devils Hole pupfish. They are looking at bioenergetics, water quality, contaminants and disease as potential problems. He solicited further input from Council members and noted that data will appear on their web site and input could be provided by that route as well. Phil reviewed the financial status of the Desert Fishes Council. There is currently about $9,000 in the bank account and after paying the remainder of costs for this year we should be left with a balance of approximately $6,000. Nadine Kanim noted that the Northern and Southern California area coordinators would be combined into one unit. Dean Hendrickson has agreed to serve in the position of Proceedings Editor. Francisco García de León extended an advanced welcome to next year’s meeting in Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas and provided relevant details (all of which are available on the DFC web site). Phil Pister proposed that we use some of the interest from the DFC account to cover expenses for an occasional guest speaker. The idea was well received, particularly in the form of a 1st day mini-symposium, possibly every 2-3 years. David Propst announced that the Carl L. Hubbs Student Paper Award was a tie. The two best student papers (both to receive certificates) were: Jennifer Wilcox (University of Colorado, Boulder) - Conservation of small populations: Why isn’t Cyprinodon diabolis extinct? Jonathan Rosenfield (University of New Mexico) - Sexual selection plays a role in the introgression between Pecos pupfish and sheepshead minnow. RESOLUTIONS / RESOLUCIONES No resolutions were brought before the council at this meeting.

DFC HYDROLOGIC BASIN AND AGENCY REPORT COORDINATORS The following persons coordinate agency and other input to reports presented at annual meetings on activities in each area during the year between meetings. Contact them if you have information to include in these reports. Oregon (State of) Rollie White , U.S.F.W.S., Oregon State Office, 2600 S.E. 98 th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266, Phone: (503) 231-6179, FAX: (503) 231-6195, Email: rollie_white@mail.fws.gov Northern California (north of the Tehachapi Mountains, exclusive of the east side of the Sierra Nevada south of Lake Tahoe) Marty Yamagiwa, U.S. Forest Service, Modoc National Forest, 800 W. 12th Street, Alturas, California 96101, Phone: (916) 233-5811, FAX: (916) 233-5817, Email: /s=m.yamagiwa/ou1=R05F09A@mhs-fswa.attmail.com Southern California (south of the Tehachapi Mountains and the east side of the Sierra Nevada to Lake Tahoe) Rebecca G. Miller, California Department of Fish and Game, Endangered Species Project, 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite C, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, Phone: (916) 358-2840, FAX: (916) 358 -2857, Email: 110317.2472@CompuServe.com or BeckyMiller@CompuServe.com Northern Nevada (North of Tonopah, except for the White Rive Drainage) Selena Werdon , U.S.F.W.S., Nevada State Office, 4600 Kietzke Lane, Suite 125-C, Reno, Nevada 89502, Phone: (702) 784-5227, FAX: (702) 784-5870, Email: selena_werdon@mail.fws.gov Southern Nevada (including Ash Meadows) Jerry Stein , Nevada Department of Wildlife, State Mailroom, Las Vegas, Nevada 89158, Phone: (702) 486-5182, FAX: (702) 486-5133 Bonneville Basin (northern Utah and southern Idaho) Paul Holden, Bio/West Inc., 1063 West 1400 North, Logan, Utah 84321, Phone:(801) 752 -4202, FAX: (801) 752-0507, Email: pholden@bio-west.com Upper Colorado River (upstream of Glen Canyon Dam on Powell Reservoir, including Green, Gunnison, Dolores, and San Juan rivers) Frank Pfeifer , U.S.F.W.S., Colorado River Fishery Project, 764 Horizon Drive, South Annex A, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506, Phone: (970) 245-9319, FAX: (970) 245-6933, Email: R6FFA_GRJ@mail.fws.gov Lower Colorado River (including Little Colorado, Virgin, Bill Williams, and Gila rivers) Jerry Stefferud, Tonto National Forest, 2324 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85006, Phone: (602) 225- 5229 (5200), FAX:(602) 225-5295, Email: jsteffer/r3_tonto@fs.fed.us Texas (State of) Gary Garrett , Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Heart of the Hills Research Station, HC 7, Box 57 -D, Ingram, Texas 78025 Phone: (210) 866 -3356, FAX: (210) 866-3549, Email: gpg@ktc.com New Mexico (State of) David L. Propst, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, P.O. Box 25112, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504, Phone: (505) 827-9906, FAX: (505) 827-9956, E-mail: d_propst@gmfsh.state.nm.us Northwestern Mexico Alejandro Varela , Universidad de Sonora, CICTUS - Centro de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas, A.P. 1819, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, Phone: [011] (52) 62 12 19 95, FAX: [011] (52) 62 12 32 71, E -mail: avarela@guayacan.uson.mx Northeastern Mexico Salvador Contreras-Balderas, A.P. 504, San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico 66450, Phone: [011] (52) (8) 376-22-31, Home: [011] (52) (8) 313-16-41, E-mail: scontrer@ccr.dsi.uanl.mx Baja California Gorgonio Ruiz-Campos, Universidad Autonoma de Baja, California, Ensenada, Mexico, P.O. Box 189003 -064, Coronado, California 92178, Phone/FAX: (617)44560, Email: gruiz@bahia.ens.uabc.mx