Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Little Colorado River

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Little Colorado River.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2021

Partial migration and spawning movements of humpback chub in the Little Colorado River are better understood using data from autonomous PIT tag antennas

Choosing whether or not to migrate is an important life history decision for many fishes. Here we combine data from physical captures and detections on autonomous passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag antennas to study migration in an endangered fish, the humpback chub (Gila cypha). We develop hidden Markov mark-recapture models with and without antenna detections and find that the model fit without antenna detections misses a large proportion of fish and underestimates migration and survival probabilities. We then assess survival and growth differences associated with life history strategy and migration for different demographic groups (small male, small female, large male, large female). We find large differences in survival according to life history strategy, where residents had much lower over-winter survival than migrants. However, within the migratory life history strategy, survival and growth were similar for active migrants and skipped migrants for all demographic groups. We discuss some common challenges to incorporating detections from autonomous antennas into population models and demonstrate how these data can provide insight about fish movement and life history strategies.

Arizona↗
USGS2019

Geomorphic change and biogeomorphic feedbacks in a dryland river: The Little Colorado River, Arizona, USA

The Little Colorado River in Arizona, U.S.A. has undergone substantial geomorphic change since the early 1900s. We analyzed hydrologic and geomorphic data at different spatial and temporal scales to determine the type, magnitude, and rate of geomorphic change that has occurred since the early 20th century. Since the 1920s, there have been 4 alternating periods of high and low total-annual flow. Peak-flow magnitude, however, has progressively declined. In some reaches, the channel has narrowed between 72 and 88% since the 1930s. Increases in sinuosity in wide alluvial valleys have resulted in reductions in channel slope by ~21 to 32%; channel bed aggradation up to 1.4 m has also occurred in some reaches. Newly developed floodplains have been colonized by dense stands of vegetation that appear to have stabilized these surfaces. Large, long duration floods may cause some channel widening, and meander migration, however, these floods are infrequent, and narrowing resumes shortly thereafter. Channel narrowing, increases in sinuosity, decreases in slope, and increases in vegetative roughness appear to have caused biogeomorphic feedbacks, thereby exacerbating sediment deposition, and disrupting flood conveyance. In recent decades, there has been an increase in the travel time of floods up to ~100% compared to floods of the 1940s and 1950s, and this has likely led to increased flood attenuation, contributing to decreases in peak-flow magnitude. The progressive increase in water development in parts of the basin has also likely played some role in the progressive declines in peak flow over the duration of the study.

Arizona↗
USGS2016

Tradeoffs between physical captures and PIT tag antenna array detections: A case study for the Lower Colorado River Basin population of humpback chub ( Gila cypha )

A key component of many monitoring programs for special status species involves capture and handling of individuals as part of capture-recapture efforts for tracking population health and demography. Minimizing negative impacts from sampling, such as through reduced handling, aids prevention of negative impacts on species from monitoring efforts. Using simulation analyses, we found that long-term population monitoring techniques, requiring physical capture (i.e. hoop-net sampling), can be reduced and supplemented with passive detections (i.e. PIT tag antenna array detections) without negatively affecting estimates of adult humpback chub (HBC; Gila cypha ) survival ( S ) and skipped spawning probabilities (γ' = spawner transitions to a skipped spawner, γ′ = skipped spawner remains a skipped spawner). Based on our findings of the array’s in situ detection efficiency (0.42), estimability of such demographic parameters would improve over hoop-netting alone. In addition, the array provides insight into HBC population dynamics and movement patterns outside of traditional sampling periods. However, given current timing of sampling efforts, spawner abundance estimates were negatively biased when hoop-netting was reduced, suggesting not all spawning HBC are present during the current sampling events. Despite this, our findings demonstrate that PIT tag antenna arrays, even with moderate potential detectability, may allow for reduced handling of special status species while also offering potentially more efficient monitoring strategies, especially if ideal timing of sampling can be determined.

Arizona↗
USGS2014

Survival, growth, and movement of subadult humpback chub, Gila cypha , in the Little Colorado River, Arizona

Ecologists estimate vital rates, such as growth and survival, to better understand population dynamics and identify sensitive life history parameters for species or populations of concern. Here, we assess spatiotemporal variation in growth, movement, density, and survival of subadult humpback chub living in the Little Colorado River, Grand Canyon, AZ from 2001–2002 and 2009–2013. We divided the Little Colorado River into three reaches and used a multistate mark-recapture model to determine rates of movement and differences in survival and density between sites for different cohorts. Additionally, site-specific and year-specific effects on growth were evaluated using a linear model. Results indicate that summer growth was higher for upstream sites compared with downstream sites. In contrast, there was not a consistent spatial pattern across years in winter growth; however, river-wide winter growth was negatively related to the duration of floods from 1 October to 15 May. Apparent survival was estimated to be lower at the most downstream site compared with the upstream sites; however, this could be because in part of increased emigration into the Colorado River at downstream sites. Furthermore, the 2010 cohort (i.e. fish that are age 1 in 2010) exhibited high apparent survival relative to other years. Movement between reaches varied with year, and some years exhibited preferential upstream displacement. Improving understanding of spatiotemporal effects on age 1 humpback chub survival can help inform current management efforts to translocate humpback chub into new locations and give us a better understanding of the factors that may limit this tributary's carrying capacity for humpback chub.

Arizona↗
USGS2014

Historical channel-planform change of the Little Colorado River near Winslow, Arizona

This study evaluates channel-planform adjustment on an alluvial reach of the Little Colorado River and documents the geomorphic evolution of the channel through an analysis of aerial photographs and orthophotographs for the period 1936–2010. The Little Colorado River has adjusted to the effects of an extreme flood in 1923 and a subsequent decline in peak discharge and mean annual flow by channel narrowing: the channel width and area of the river have decreased by approximately 90 percent over the study period. Although deposition historically exceeds erosion, lateral migration exacerbates localized erosion, particularly near hydraulic controls. Despite repeated cutoff and avulsion, the Little Colorado River has steadily increased in length and sinuosity over a period of 74 years. Changes in temperature and precipitation are likely affecting the discharge of the Little Colorado River near and downstream of Winslow, Ariz. Nonparametric methods of trend detection determine whether the probability distribution of temperature, precipitation, and peak streamflow has changed over time. Time-series plots of temperature and precipitation show statistically significant trends at the 99-percent-confidence level when evaluated with a Mann-Kendall test. An increasing trend was indicated in mean daily minimum air temperature (T min ), whereas decreasing trends were indicated in both annual precipitation (P ann ) and monsoon-seasonal precipitation (P jas ), as well as in peak discharge.

Arizona↗
USGS2011

A dryland river transformed—the Little Colorado, 1936–2010

The Little Colorado River, in northeastern Arizona, is a major tributary of the Colorado River. Over a span of 74 years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has mapped substantial migration of the river channel between the City of Winslow and the Navajo Nation community of Leupp (Tólchíí kooh). In a human lifetime, the river has moved more than 1 mile across its valley floor. Channel migration and flooding pose a considerable risk to the life and property of people living near the river. USGS scientists are working to better understand the potential for further channel adjustments and flooding to help provide communities at risk with the information they need to address these threats and make future development decisions.

Arizona↗
USGS2007

A comparison of macroinvertebrate and habitat methods of data collection in the Little Colorado River Watershed, Arizona 2007

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), use different field methods for collecting macroinvertebrate samples and habitat data for bioassessment purposes. Arizona’s Biocriteria index was developed using a riffle habitat sampling methodology, whereas the EMAP method employs a multi-habitat sampling protocol. There was a need to demonstrate comparability of these different bioassessment methodologies to allow use of the EMAP multi-habitat protocol for both statewide probabilistic assessments for integration of the EMAP data into the national (305b) assessment and for targeted in-state bioassessments for 303d determinations of standards violations and impaired aquatic life conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the two methods yield similar bioassessment results, such that the data could be used interchangeably in water quality assessments. In this Regional EMAP grant funded project, a probabilistic survey of 30 sites in the Little Colorado River basin was conducted in the spring of 2007. Macroinvertebrate and habitat data were collected using both ADEQ and EMAP sampling methods, from adjacent reaches within these stream channels. All analyses indicated that the two macroinvertebrate sampling methods were significantly correlated. ADEQ and EMAP samples were classified into the same scoring categories (meeting, inconclusive, violating the biocriteria standard) 82% of the time. When the ADEQ-IBI was applied to both the ADEQ and EMAP taxa lists, the resulting IBI scores were significantly correlated (r=0.91), even though only 4 of the 7 metrics in the IBI were significantly correlated. The IBI scores from both methods were significantly correlated to the percent of riffle habitat, even though the average percent riffle habitat was only 30% of the stream reach. Multivariate analyses found that the percent riffle was an important attribute for both datasets in classifying IBI scores into assessment categories. Habitat measurements generated from EMAP and ADEQ methods were also significantly correlated; 13 of 16 habitat measures were significantly correlated (p<0.01). The visual-based percentage estimates of percent riffle and pool habitats, vegetative cover and percent canopy cover, and substrate measurements of percent fine substrate and embeddedness were all remarkably similar, given the different field methods used. A multivariate analysis identified substrate and flow conditions, as well as canopy cover as important combinations of habitat attributes affecting both IBI scores. These results indicate that similar habitat measures can be obtained using two different field sampling protocols. In addition, similar combinations of these habitat parameters were important to macroinvertebrate community condition in multivariate analyses of both ADEQ and EMAP datasets. These results indicate the two sampling methods for macroinvertebrates and habitat data were very similar in terms of bioassessment results and stressors. While the bioassessment category was not identical for all sites, overall the assessments were significantly correlated, providing similar bioassessment results for the cold water streams used in this study. The findings of this study indicate that ADEQ can utilize either a riffle-based sampling methodology or a multi-habitat sampling approach in cold water streams as both yield similar results relative to the macroinvertebrate assemblage. These results will allow for use of either macroinvertebrate dataset to determine water quality standards compliance with the ADEQ Indexes of Biological Integrity, for which threshold values were just recently placed into the Arizona Surface Water Quality Standards. While this survey did not include warm water desert streams of Arizona, we would predict that EMAP and ADEQ sampling methodologies would provide similar bioassessment results and would not be significantly different, as we have found that the percent riffle habitat in cold and warm water perennial, wadeable streams is not significantly different. However, a comparison study of sampling methodologies in warm water streams should be conducted to confirm the predicted similarity of bioassessment results. ADEQ will continue to implement a monitoring strategy that includes probabilistic monitoring for a statewide ecological assessment of stream conditions. Conclusions from this study will guide decisions regarding the most appropriate sampling methods for future probabilistic monitoring sample plans.

Arizona↗