Table Of ContentGreatBasin Naturalist54(4),© 1994,pp.36(>-.370
SPAWNING CHRONOLOGYAND LARVAL EMERGENCE OF
JUNE SUCKER {CHASMISTES LIORUS)
Timothy Modde ^-^and Neal Muirheadi
—
Abstract. Junesucker{Cluisinisteslioriis)spawnedinthe ProvoRiver, Utah,overa2-wkperiodinearl\-Junedur-
ingboth 1987and 1988. Emergentlarvaeemigratedfrom theriverto Utah Lakeovera2-to3-wkperiod. Driftintothe
lakepeakedbetween 1200and0400. Diningda\'lighthours,emergentlaiAaetendedtooccurinpools. Peakemergence
oflanal driftwasappro.ximateh' 1.2larvae/ni^duringlateJunein 1987and 1988. Recruitment failureofJune suckeris
notdui'toreproductivefailure.
Keywords:Junesucker, Chasniistesliorus,spaicnin<^, larvae,liabitat, drift,emergence, river.
TheJune sucker{Chasinistes Horns) is one of June suckerhave been described as spawn-
three contemporary species of the genus ing on gravel cobble substrate in relatively
Chasmistes (Miller and Smith 1981) and is high-velocity habitats (Radant and Hickman
endemic to Utah Lake, a38,000-ha remnant of 1984). Sex products are broadcast over the
prehistoric Lake Bonneville. Once June sucker substrate, and eggs are adhesive to the sub-
numbered in the millions (Jordan 1891) and strate (Shirley 1983, Radant and Hickman
were one ofthe most abundant fishes in Utah 1984). Although information on spawning
Lake. During the last century population size behavior and larval morjohology (Shirley 1983,
ofJune suckerdeclined drastically. In a survey Snyder and Muth 1988) exists, no information
ofUtah Lake fishes, less than 0.4% offish col- is available on spawning success of the June
lectedwereJune sucker(Radantand Sakaguchi sucker. Because natality is a vital element of
1981). The population ofJune suckerhas been recruitment, information on spawning success
estimated to be <1000 adults and is listed on is important in understanding declining abun-
the federal register as an endangered species dance of this species. The objectives of our
(US. Fish andWildlife Service 1986). Suspected study were to (1) estimate timing and magni-
factors contributing to the decline of this tude of downstream drift of emergent June
species include water loss to irrigation and sucker lai^vae and (2) describe habitats occu-
drought, degradation of water quality, and piedbylarvalJune suckerin the Provo River.
negative interactions with nonnative fishes
(Radant and Hickman 1984). Reduction of Methods
water quantity and quality impacted both the
lake and spawningtributaries. Drift Sampling
The direct cause of decline in the June
sucker population has been lack of recruit- Drift netting was conducted in the lower
ment (Sigler et al. 1985). In a sui-vey of Utah Provo River to capture emergent lai'vae during
Lake, Radant and Sakaguchi (1981) did not the 1987 and 1988 spawning periods. Netting
capture any June sucker <400 mm total began 1 June 1987 and terminated when lar-
length. Scoppettone (1988) reported that June vae ceased to appear in collections. Five drift
sucker may live to be 42 years ofage; thus, in nets, each with amouth size of30 X 45 cm and
the absence ofrecruitment, senescent individ- a mesh size of560 microns, were placed at a
uals would dominate the population. None of single site about 3 km upstream ofUtah Lake,
the 18 fish he examined was younger than 20 immediately downstream of the lowermost
years ofage. observed June sucker spawning activity. Nets
'NationalBiologicalSurvey,UfaliCooperaKveFishandWildlifeResearchUnit,DepartmentofFisheriesandWildlife,UtahStateUniversity,Logan,Utali
84322-5210.TheUtahCooperativeFishandWildlifeResearchUnitisaprogramjointlysponsoredbytlieU.S.DepartmentofInterior,UtahDivisionofWildlife
Resource,andUtahStateUniversity.
^Presentaddress:ColoradoRiverFishProject,U.S.FishandWildlifeSer\ice,26(iWest100North,Suite2.Vernal,Utah84078.
366
1994] June Sucker Spawning 367
were anchored with 0.64-cm-diameter rebar Analysis
along a single transect perpendicular to the Means for egg and larval density in the
channel. When depth permitted, nets were
drift were determined for daily and 4-h peri-
placed alternately at the surface and bottom. ods. Standard deviations were calculated from
In 1988, drift netting using the same sampling daily means among periods and for periods
mscohveemdeabbeogutan506 mJundeo.wnTshtereneatmtionfgtshiete1w9a8s7 weisttihmadtaeydsbaysdrievpildiicnagteesg.gsDrainfdt ldaernvsaieticeosllwecetreed
site because ofphysical changes in the chan- during each sampling period by water volume
nel. Only fournets were used during 1988. passing through drift nets. Daily estimates
Nets were set on alternate days (MWF) were detemiined by computing the means of
eachweek. Each 24-h daywas divided into six all six time periods. Estimates of total larvae
4-h periods, and drift was sampled continu- on the peak drift date were determined by
ously during the middle 1.5 h ofeach. Starting averaging discharge recorded at the Provo
times were 1315, 1715, 2115, 0115, 0515, and City gauge station (USGS) on both days sam-
0915 h. Drift from each netwas rinsed, placed ples were made and multiplying the volume
in watertight plastic bags, and preserved in estimateby daily mean lai^val density.
5% buffered formalin; 420 samples were Because of the few sites in which June
taken. sucker larvae were present, habitats were
Velocity (10-sec average) through each net grouped into pool and nonpool categories.
and water depth were measured before and Chi-square analysis was used to test the signif-
after each set. Volume sampled was estimated icance ofdifferences in the incidence oflarval
by multiplying the average ofthe two velocity June sucker in pool and nonpool habitats, and
measurements by time sampled and area of odds ratio analysis (Fienberg 1980) was used
the net opening. Water temperature was re- to quantify the magnitude of differences
corded during each 4-h interval. All samples obsei'ved.
were sorted for eggs and larvae, which were
Resuuts
identified to species (Snyder and Muth 1988),
mm
counted, and measured to the nearest 0.1
Drift
(total length).
Spawning, as definedbyeggdrift, was high-
Habitat Sampling er on 3^ June 1987 and peaked on 6-7 June
Fishes in a 2.25-km section of the lower 1988 (Figs. 1, 2). A malfunction ofthe velocity
Frovo River were sampled during the 1988 meter on 6 and 8 June 1988 prevented accu-
spawning season to determine larval habitat rate estimation of egg and larval concentra-
use. Eighty-four transects, about 27 m apart tions. However, absolute numbers ofeggs cap-
and peipendicular to the thalweg, were estab- tured on 7 June (0.007 eggs/sec) and 8 June
lished from aerial photographs of the river. (0.005 eggs/sec) exceeded those caught on 11
June (0.0007 eggs/sec). Average rivertempera-
Three samples were taken along each transect,
tures during the spawning period were
one near each shore and one in the middle of 13-14°C in 1987and 12-17°C in 1988. Spawn-
the river Samples were collected with a 1-m^
ing occurred over a relatively short time; eggs
bag seine with a 560-micron mesh. Substrate were collected for 1 wk in 1987 and 11 d in
in a l-m^ area immediately in front of the 1988. Spawning duration was probably longer
seine was mechanically stirred at each sam- in both years than shown in Figures 1 and 2
pling site, and the seine was quickly pulled because eggs were alreadypresentin the river
through. Samples were taken only during day- when sampling began. However, collections
lighthours. from both years suggested that June sucker
Habitat types were described and widths spawning activity does not last more than 2
measured along each transect using a modifi- wk, with the greatest number ofeggs spawned
cation ofBisson et al. (1982). All fish collected witliin a3- (1987) to5-d (1988)period.
were placed in plastic containers and pre- Density' ofeggdriftwas variable and showed
served in 5% buffered formalin. Lai-vae were no diel pattern (Fig. 3). Thus, either fish were
identified to species, measured to the nearest spawning in both light and dark hours or eggs
0.1 mm (total length), and counted. were being randomly dislodged from the
368 Great Basin Naturalist [Volume 54
- 1988 larval density
r 3' 5' 7' 9'11'J13u'n15e'17'19'21'23'25'27'29' 1 13 5 7 9 1113Ju15ne17 19 2123 25 27 29 1
Fig. 1. Drift rates ofJune sucker larvae and eggs, and Fig. 2. Drift rates ofJune sucker Iai-vae and eggs, and
dailyaveragetemperaturecollectedfrom theProvo River, dailyaverage temperaturecollectedfrom the Provo River,
Utah,inJune 1987. Utah,inJune 1988.
substrate throughout the 24-h period. Duriug lanae in the Provo River were approximately
drift uetting operations June sucker were 60,200 in 1987 and 73,000 in 1988.
obsei'ved spawningduringboth dayand night.
Habitat Use
Larval June sucker first appeared in the
drift on 3 June 1987 and 6 June 1988 (Fig. 1). A total of57 June sucker lai-vae were col-
Although velocity error precluded absolute lected in 7 of115 collections. Incidence oflar-
measurement until after 10 June, few larvae vae in pool-type habitats was different from
were collected until 20-21 June. Peak densi- nonpool halMtats (X^ = 7.04, .05 = 5.99). June
ties of larvae in the drift occurred on 22-23 sucker lanae were 7.5 times more likely to be
June 1987 and 22-23 June 1988. Minimum found in pool than nonpool habitats during
estimates ofthe time between egg deposition daylighthours.
and swim-up, measured as the period between
peak egg drift and peak lai-val drift, were 19 d Discussion
in 1987 and 16 d in 1988. The difference in
incubation time between years is probably Shirley (1983) reportedJune sucker spawn-
due to warmer river temperature in 1988 ing in mid-June when mean water tempera-
(15-19°C) than in 1987 (12-16°C). Drift of ture was between 11 and 13°C. Similar obser-
June sucker larvae continued for about 3 wk vations were made by Radant and Hickman
during both study years. All June sucker lar- (1984) and Radant and Sakaguchi (1981).
vae collected were identified as either proto- Radant and Hickman (1984) also observed a
ormesolai^vae. short spawming period that lasted only 5-8 d.
A distinct daily pattern oflai"val drift densi- The cui-ui {Chasinistes cujus) also spawns dur-
ty was observed, with most larvae captured ingabriefperiod: males occupyingthe Tmckee
between 2000 and 0400 h (Fig. 4). Few larvae River, Nevada, 6.5-16.5 dand females 4.0-10.5
were collected in drift nets during daylight. d (Scoppettone et al. 1986). Temperatures of
Peak daily estimates of drifting June sucker the Truckee River during cui-ui spawning
1994] June Sucker Spawning 369
1987
0.06-
0.05-
0.04
0.03
ii^^il
0200 0600 1000 1800 2200
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
I
370 Great Basin Naturalist [Volume 54
assisted with all phases of the stud\- and pro- Radant, R. D., and D. K. Sak-AGUCHI. 1981. Utah Lake
vided infonnation on the histoiy of Jmie suek- fisheries inventory. United States Bureau of
er spawning in the Provo River. Dennis Reclamation Contract 8-07-40-.50634 Modification
04. Division ofWildlife Resources, Salt Lake Cit\,
Shirley was instrumental in providing field Utah.
coordination and logistical support at the SCOPPEITONE, G. G. 1988. Grov\th and longevit\' ofthe
study site. Roger Mellinthin, Brad Schmitz, cui-ui and longevity ofother catostomids and
and Don Archerprovided field assistance. cyprinidsinWestern NorthAmerica.Transactionsof
theAmerican FisheriesSociety 117:•301-307.
ScoppETTONE, G. G., M. Coleman, H. Burce, and G.
Literature Cited Wedemeyer. 1981. Cui-ui life history-: river pha.se.
Annual report. United States Fish and Wildlife
BissoN, E A., J. L. Nielsen, R. A. Palmason, and L. E. Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Reno, Nevada.
Grove. 1982. A .system for naming habitat types in 63pp.
small streams,withexamplesofhabitatutilizationby ScoppETTONE,GG., M.Coleman,andGA.Wedemeyer.
salmonids dnring low stream flow. Pages 62-73 ;')! 1986. Life historyand status ofthe endangered cui-
N. B. Armantrout, ed., Accjuisition and ntilization of ui of Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Fish and Wildlife
aqnatiehabitatinventoiyinformation. Western Divi- Research 1: 1-23.
sion of the American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, SCOPPETTONE, G. G., G. A. Wedemeyer, .M. Coleman,
Maiyland. AND H. Burge. 1983. Reproduction by the endan-
FlENBERG, S. E. 1980.Theanalysisofcro.ss-classifiedcate- geredcui-uiinthelowerTruckeeRiver.Transactions
goricaldata. MITPress,Cambridge, Massachusetts. oftheAmericanFisheries Society' 112:788-793.
Geen,G. H.,T. G. Northcote,G. E H.'vrt.man,andC.C. Shirley, D. L. 1983. Spawning ecology' and lai-val devel-
LiNDSEY. 1966. Life histories of two species of opment of the June sucker. Proceedings ofthe
catostomid fishes in Si.xteenmile Lake, British Bonneville Chapter, American Fisheries Societv
Columbia, with particular reference to inlet stream (198.3): 18-36.
spawning. Journal ofthe Fisheries Research Board SiGLER,W. F, S. ViGG, AND M. Bres. 1985. Lifehistoiyof
ofCanada23: 1761-1788. thecui-ui, Chasmistesciijiis Cope, in P\ramid Lake,
Jordan, D. S. 1891. Reportofexploration inColoradoand Nevada: a review. Great Basin Naturalist 45:
Utahduringthesiunmerof1889,withanaccountof 571-603.
the fishes found in each ofthe river basins exam- Snyder, D. E., and R. T. Muth. 1988. Description and
ined. United States Fisheries Commission Bulletin identificationofJune, Utahandmountainsuckerlar-
9: 1-40. vae and earlyjuveniles. Contract 87-2891, Division
Miller, R. R., and G. R. Smith. 1981. Distribution and ofWildlifeResources, SaltLakeCity, Utah.
evolution ofChasmintes (Pisces: Catostomidae) in U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1986. Endangeredand
western North America. University ofMichigan, threatened species listing and recovery priority
MuseumofZoolog\',OccasionalPapers696: 1-46. guidelines. Federal Register48: 16756-167759.
Radant, R. D., and T. J. Hickman. 1984. Status ofthe
June sucker {Chasmistes liorus). Proceedings ofthe Received5January1994
DesertFishesCouncil 15(1983);277-282. Accepted11April1994
