Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) capture history data (2009-2017), and code for mark-recapture analysis and stochastic matrix projections, Colorado River and Little Colorado River, Arizona
May 13, 2021
These data represent capture histories for humpback chub (Gila cypha) that spawn in the Little Colorado River (LCR) from 2009-2017. Capture histories pertain to size class (<150mm total length [TL], 150-199mm TL, 200-249mm TL, and >250mm TL) and spatial location (the juvenile chub monitoring [JCM] reach in the Colorado River [63.4-65.0 river miles downstream of Lees Ferry], lower LCR [0-13.56 km upstream of Colorado River confluence], and upper LCR [13.57-17.9 km upstream of Colorado River confluence]).
Citation Information
| Publication Year | 2021 |
|---|---|
| Title | Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) capture history data (2009-2017), and code for mark-recapture analysis and stochastic matrix projections, Colorado River and Little Colorado River, Arizona |
| DOI | 10.5066/P9W13SYO |
| Authors | Charles B Yackulic, Maria C Dzul, David R. Van Haverbeke, Mike D Yard |
| Product Type | Data Release |
| Record Source | USGS Digital Object Identifier Catalog |
| USGS Organization | Southwest Biological Science Center - Flagstaff, AZ, Headquarters |
Related Content
Assessing the population impacts and cost‐effectiveness of a conservation translocation
Managers often move, or translocate, organisms into habitats that are assumed to be suitable, however the consequences of these translocations are usually not rigorously assessed. Robust assessment of these management experiments should consider impacts to both donor and recipient populations and compare the cost‐effectiveness of translocations to other actions.Here we evaluate translocations of a
Authors
Charles B. Yackulic, David R. Van Haverbeke, Maria C. Dzul, Lucas S. Bair, Kirk L. Young
Related Content
Assessing the population impacts and cost‐effectiveness of a conservation translocation
Managers often move, or translocate, organisms into habitats that are assumed to be suitable, however the consequences of these translocations are usually not rigorously assessed. Robust assessment of these management experiments should consider impacts to both donor and recipient populations and compare the cost‐effectiveness of translocations to other actions.Here we evaluate translocations of a
Authors
Charles B. Yackulic, David R. Van Haverbeke, Maria C. Dzul, Lucas S. Bair, Kirk L. Young