Production of bottom fauna in the Provo River, Utah

181 Pages·019.1 MB·English

by  Gaufin, Arden Rupert

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI®
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
m m
m m m f z m or bottom m ras
prqvc river, mm
W
Arden Rupert Gaufin
A Dissertation Submitted to the
Graduate Faculty la Partial Fulflllmeat of
The Requirements for the Degree ©f
DOCTOR OF PlJLOSOli?
Major Subject: fishery Management
Approved:
'Stad ^'J'l£jir 1 'le^rtltni
lean" of'^''llaiual11"'"'ioKSgi'
low State College
19S1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: DP11893
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform DP11893
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tasli or m m m n
Pag©
I INTRODUCTION 1
II REVIEW or fig LITERATURE 4
III MTIMALS Alt WfiOti 16
A. Physical Determinations 18
6. Chemical Determinations BO
0. Biological Determinations 22
IV RESULTS 24
A. General Description of the Provo
River 24
1. Description of the Stations SI
1. Upper Bridge 31
2. Soapstone Ranger Station 32
3. North forls 34
4. Stewart’s Ranch 34
§. Lemon’s trove 38
6. Uordaaelle 39
7. ieber-Power loose 40
8. Heber-Hldw&y Bridge 41
9. Deer Creek Park 42
10. Vivian Park 46
11. Tributary Stations 46
12. Highway 89 Grossing 47
G. Physical and Chemical Bata 46
1. Seasonal characteristics 43
2. Alfitudinal and station
©haracterlstlcs 64
a. Upper Bridge §4
b. Soapstone Ranger
Station 66
e. North Fork 66
4. Stewart’s Ranch 66
e. Lemon’s Grove 69
t. Jordanelle 60
g. Heber-Power House 61
h. Heber-Midway Bridge 62
,f,l. Deer Greek Park 63
Vivian Park 64
k. Tributary Stations 66
1. Highway 89 66
T??/a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
or.
TABLE CONTENTS (continued)
Pag#
D. Biological Data it
1. Seasonal trends 89
g. Station trends 73
a. Upper Bridge 74
Soapstone Ranger
Station 75
s. Borth Fork 75
. d. Stewart *s Ranch 7©
e. Lemon•s Grove 7©
f. Jcrdaaelle 7t
g. Heber-Power lows# 80
h. Heber-Midway Bridge 81
1. Detr Greek Park 88
j. Vivian Park 83
k. tributary Stations 84
1. Highway 89 8©
E. Major taxonomic Group® of Bottom
Fauna 88
1. Golfoptera Si
S. tipttra 90
3. Ephemeroptera 9©
4. Piecopters 100
5. Trichoptera 104
6. Miscellaneous groups 108
V SUMMARY 111
VI GOiCLOSlONS 118
VII SELECTED BSFSRBHGSS . 117
fill ACKIOlLIDGIWIifS ; IB©
IX APPENDIX 127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
I XMYJtOWOTXOtt
Lift It precarious la mountain streams and a fin# degree
of fitness 1® neoeiaary for those plant® and animals found
there. Constantly ©hanging from day to day, from month to
month, and from season to season, stream conditions offer a
highly unstable and complicated environment. Man has further
accentuated the instability of this 'environment by his various
activities, fht seasons often bring sudden changes la volume
and speed of water that wipe out whole aquatic populations
la a short time. The specialised conditions restrict the
number of animal and plant species very markedly. Indeed,
in our best trout waters— -clear, ©old, mountain streams,
the larger aquatic plants, upon which many aquatic inverte­
brates depend for their livelihood, are practically elimi­
nated by the current. The biota is further limited to species
that are either strong swimmers or have special structural
adaptations for clinging,
A striking feature of mountain streams ,1s the rapid
and abrupt change of habitats; pools may follow falls,
rapids alternate with eddies, and cataracts may adjoin
marginal pools, hence in a small area one may find all the
extreme® from a vertical to a horlsental flow of water,
from shallow, placid stretches to deep, stone-lined pools.
Animals and plants assemble in small oommunltles or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
Mott© Islands, separated by barren areas, .kept uninhabited
by the severity of the current. Species living here become
more generalised in their fitting.habits. In such loca­
tions, typical carnivore® ant herbivore® often' become mixed
feeder® ant prey upon anything available.■
In the Intermouotaia region many mile® of high-altitu.de
stream® were surveyed during, the early .ant middle thirties
toy various government agencies* tout most ©f these surveys
were conducted during the summer months only and the
accumulated information, contained rather limited ecological
data, -the general purpose of these survey®, was to learn
more about, the mountain trout stream® ©f the Western Region
so that an intelligent system of environmental improvement
and fish management could toe outlined.
Unfortunately most of the data obtained wa® only mimeo­
graphed and i® out' of print. ..Aside fro* such investiga­
tion® there are not.over■forty significant papers dealing
with mountain stream®. Of these the publications of
Steinmann (ISO?), thltatMma^llili), Muttkowekl (1929),
and Pennak {1943, 2,94?) are the. most comprehensive.
the■Prove River 1® a rather typloal mountain stream
of the Intermountain region and is well known for its
trout fishing, field investigations on this river were
initiated toy the writer on September 15, 194®, and continued
to May 28, 1949.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
fh# general purpose of this study was to obtain a
quantitative, and qualitative meatur® of the stream bottom
invertebrate® of the river in relationship to tb« trout
population® present. It was also desired to learn some­
thing about the lift histories* habits, and adaptations
of the. invertebrate.inhabitants of the stream. Various
physical, chemical, and blotla footore which may influence
the productioity of the river were measured. Finally,
since so few investigationa have demit with the winter-time
■conditions existing in mountain streams, special attention
was given to.the determination of the change® occurring
during that season of the year. ■
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
II KBnWf OP fli LIfEimTOHE
'While there i# considerable literature dealing with
the chemistry, physios, and biology of lotlc environments
in the United States, .most of It deal®, with streams: situ­
ated east of the 1oaky lean tains. Much of the more, exten­
sive and. significant wort done ©n loti® environments,' such
as that Involving the Illinois and Ohio Elvers, dealt
with conditions quits unlike those in mountainous terrain,
Of the' earlier papers dialing with the mountain streams
©f this country* Xuttkowsk.1 * t work (1929) probably did
most to stimulate interest in stteh research.
Slnoe the present study deals entirely with the,
bottom fauna found la a typical mountain stream, the Provo
Elver, and with the variable chemical, physleal, and bio­
logical qharaeteristles which affect such, fauna this
review of literature will be restricted to studies involv­
ing similar conditions. Of the earlier llmnologlcal
literature dealing with alpine streams, the publications
of Steinaanm (190?) in. Switzerland and fhlenemann (1912)
in itrmaay are most comprehensive, they set up a basis
for the classification of mountain streams, and enumerated
and described the different habitats which might ©cour.
Steinaann (190?) described two types of alpine
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.