Laura A Tennant 20220301 Comma speparated values Flagstaff, AZ U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/P99PGQGL Laura A. Tennant David L. Ward Alice C. Gibb 2022 journal manuscript BioOne COMPLETE(online) Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science https://doi.org/10.2181/036.049.0209 These data were compiled as part of a larger study to evaluate post-stocking survival of hatchery-reared Roundtail Chub. We conducted a two year study (Dec. 2015 – Mar. 2017) in the upper Verde River at the Burnt Ranch stocking location near Paulden, Arizona. Young of year Roundtail Chub were acquired from the Arizona Research and Conservation Center in Cornville, Arizona. Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags (BioMark, 12.5 mm 134.2 kHz FDX) were implanted into Roundtail Chub each year (n = 333, Year 1; n = 2177, Year 2) prior to stocking. Each year, fish were measured (total length, TL, mm) before release (reflected in Pre-Stocking data table). We used two methods to recapture stocked fish, one passive and one active. Both portable, submersible PIT antennas and tow barge electrofishing were used to detect fish after being stocked. In both years of our study, antenna arrays were placed downstream and upstream of the stocking site before fish were released and then maintained for approximately two and a half months, while electrofishing methods were implemented at arbitrary intervals within three months of the stocking event (reflected in Recaps By Gear and Recaps By Both Gears Sheets). In Year 2 of sampling, we assessed how effective submersible antennas were at detecting recently released fish from the field site by closing off the study area with fyke nets prior to Roundtail Chub release (reflected in Fyke Net Captures vs Antennas data table). Both submersible antennas and electrofishing methods were used to evaluate which method performed better at detecting fish after stocking. Antenna performance was also evaluated by size and the width of channel each antenna covered (reflected in Antenna Det Channel Length sheet). Electrofishing methods were largely conducted to assess survival and condition of recaptured fish. Roundtail Chub were passively monitored by portable, rectangular submersible PIT antennas (Marsh and Associates, LLC) from time of stocking to March. Antennas are battery-powered and were programmed to continuously record the date and time of contact as well as PIT tag numbers. Multiple electrofishing efforts were also randomly conducted between December and mid-March of each year to actively monitor fish after release. The site was continuously sampled from the most downstream to upstream antennas with pulsed DC using a generator-powered pulsator (Smith Root 5.0 GPP with two anodes) electrofisher mounted in a towable barge (Smith Root model SR-7). All Roundtail Chub were captured, measured (total length, TL, mm), and weighed (g). The purpose of these data are to evaluate detection efficiency of two gear types, flat-bed PIT antennas and tow-barge electrofishing in detecting PIT-tagged Roundtail Chub after release into the Verde River. These data were collected because there has been no data collected on stocked Roundtail Chub, nor data available collected from PIT antenna detections of Roundtail Chub in the Verde River before. These data were created to analyze differences between detection of PIT tagged fish by PIT antennas and electrofishing. The objectives were to: 1) compare the performance, strengths, and weaknesses of PIT antennas and electrofishing in detecting PIT tagged fish released in a small desert river, 2) determine detection probabilities of each gear, and 3) examine the behavioral response of hatchery-reared Roundtail Chub after stocking to better determine detectability. By presenting the data in digital form, these data will be available to others for conducting future work on the Verde River. Allowing for these data to be transparent to others (e.g., such as Arizona Game and Fish), will allow those the ability to monitor and gather ancillary information on previously PIT-tagged fish (from this study). They will also be able to know which gear types are most effective when used on Roundtail Chub in similar aquatic systems. These data provide information on detection efficiency of PIT tagged Roundtail Chub by two gear types, flat-bed PIT antennas and tow-barge electrofishing, after release into the Verde River. These data and sampling methods can be used to compare detection efficiency of other Gila spp. used in other stocking studies in a similar riverine environment. The values represent measurements from a certain time and place. Replication may be possible using the same geographic location, species, and sampling methods, although detection rates and probabilities may differ. Data users should read the entire metadata record and acquire the manuscript identified as the ‘Larger Work Citation’ to have a complete understanding of how these data were created and used in the analysis, project, and associated manuscript. The data are specific to the uses identified above, as described in the ‘Larger Work Citation’, and any other use of these data would be inappropriate. See 'Distribution liability' statements for more information. 20151201 20170331 ground condition Complete None planned -112.4270 -112.3900 34.8800 34.8570 ISO 19115 Topic Categories biota USGS Thesaurus field sampling fish survey ISO 19115 Topic Categories biota USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:5b71d158e4b0f5d57879f4fd USGS information products data release USGS Biocomplexity Thesaurus biological monitoring biological sampling capture-recapture studies measurement survival none antenna channel wiidth detections electrofishing fish measurements fish recapture fyke net hatchery-reared Roundtail Chub passive integrated transponder tags PIT tags post-stocking survival Roundtail Chub survey equipment survey methods Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) Arizona Paulden Verde River none Burnt Ranch upper Verde River none none Laura A Tennant U.S. Geological Survey Student Trainee (Biology) mailing and physical

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 United States 928-556-7280 ltennant@usgs.gov This research was funded by a Heritage Grant awarded by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. No formal attribute accuracy tests were conducted No formal logical accuracy tests were conducted Data set is considered complete for the information presented, as described in the abstract. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details. No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted No formal positional accuracy tests were conducted Development of the Pre-Stocking data table: 341 Roundtail Chub were acquired from Bubbling Ponds Native Fish Facility in December 2015 (“Year Stocked”) and 2,177 Roundtail Chub in December 2016 (“Year Stocked”). Fish were tagged with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags (“PIT_Tag_ID”) and held in tanks before stocking. Fish were placed on a measuring board and total length in mm was recorded by measuring the fish from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail (“Total_Length_mm”). The mean size was calculated. No analyses were necessary for the field component. Data was collected in 2015-2017 using the SHOALS program developed by GCMRC staff and exported as an EXCEL file. Data were finalized for release in 2019. 2019 Development of the Recaps by Gear data table: After stocking, fish were detected by either PIT antennas or captured by electrofishing (“Gear_Type”). The day of stocking was considered Day 0 and afterwards fish were tracked by the number of days after they were stocked if they were observed again and recorded (“Days_Post_Stocking”). When fish were detected by either gear type, the PIT tag associated with a fish was recorded (“PIT_Tag_ID”). A graph was built with Days Post Stocking on the x-axis and Number of Fish captured on the y-axis. The graph was faceted by gear type, antennas or electrofishing, and year of stocking was distinguished with color. This information was also tabulated so the reader could visualize how many fish were caught by each gear type in each year. Percentages of fish captured by each gear type were also calculated by dividing number of fish detected by the number of fish stocked multiplied by 100. This information was also used to conduct a Chi-square analysis to determine which gear was more effective at detecting fish. A logistic regression was conducted to determine probability of detection of fish over time. Data was collected in 2015-2017 using the SHOALS program developed by GCMRC staff and exported as an EXCEL file. Data were finalized for release in 2019. 2019 Development of the Recaps by both Gears data table: After stocking, fish were detected by sometimes both PIT antennas and captured by electrofishing. When fish were detected by both gear types, the PIT tag associated with a fish was recorded (“PIT_Tag_ID”). Each fish is associated with the year it was stocked (“Sampling_Year”). These data were used in the Recaps by Gear data table. Data was collected in 2015-2017 using the SHOALS program developed by GCMRC staff and exported as an EXCEL file. Data were finalized for release in 2019. 2019 Development of the Fyke Net Captures vs Antennas data table: In the second year of the study, fyke nets were placed either upstream or downstream in the Verde River (“Fyke_Net”). Antennas were also placed in the river during this time. When fish were captured in a fyke net, the PIT tag was recorded (“PIT_Tag_ID”). Fish captured by fyke nets were cross checked with antennas to determine if fish were detected on an antenna (“Detected_by_Antenna?”). This data allowed for us to calculate detection efficiency percentages of antennas. We also built a figure with numbers of fish captured in fyke nets and detected on antennas, as well as the detection efficiency of an antenna (represented as a percent). Data was collected in 2015-2017 using the SHOALS program developed by GCMRC staff and exported as an EXCEL file. Data were finalized for release in 2019. 2018 Development of the Antenna Det Channel Length data table: The wetted width of channel of the Verde River where antennas were placed (“Location”) was measured by a meter tape (“Channel_Width_m”). Antennas had unique IDs associated with them (“Antenna_ID”). The size of antennas also differed between large and small antennas which was also recorded in feet and meters (“Antenna_Length_ft”; “Antenna_Length_m”). The number of fish detected by an antenna was recorded in the “Fyke_Net_Captures_vs_Antennas” and divided by the number of fish captured in the fyke net, multiplied by 100, to get the detection rate (“Detection_%”). The percent of the channel width covered by an antenna was calculated by dividing the antenna length in meters by the channel width in meters and multiplied by 100 (“Antenna_Coverage_%”). This information was used to conduct a logistic regression and build a graph to determine if the area covered by an antenna within the river channel affected detection rates. Data was recorded on paper data sheets and entered electronically into an EXCEL file in 2016-2017. Data were finalized for release in 2019. 2019 Data Quality Assessment and Control: Data was verified for accuracy by an NAU research student in 2018 by cross checking with paper data sheets (when applicable). Data was visually QA/QC’d otherwise. All data was considered completed in 2018. 2018 Finalize Data File for Dissemination: Individual data tables that were exported in comma-separated values (csv) file format from program Mark was compiled into an OpenDocument Spreadsheet (ods) to comply with data dissemination requirements as a machine-readable file format. Data sent to the Southwest Biological Science Center Data Steward for dissemination and preservation per USGS Data Management Policies SM 502.6, SM 502.7, SM 502.8 & SM 502.9 (1 October 2016). 2019 Pre-Stocking These data represent fish stocked in both years (Year 1 and Year 2) into the Verde River. This includes unique ID (PIT tag #) associated with an individual as well as their total length (TL) prior to stocking. This measurement allows us to track growth of an animal over time, and in this study, to determine whether if the size (TL) of fish was a factor in survival or detection after stocking. NA indicates no available data. Producer defined Year Stocked The year Roundtail Chub were stocked in the upper Verde River at Burnt Ranch near Paulden, Arizona. Year 1 fish are designated from stocking in December 2015 and Year 2 fish are designated from stocking in December 2016. Producer defined a textual description of the year Roundtail Chub were stocked into the Verde River at the Burnt Ranch study site PIT Tag ID Unique identifying code assigned to each passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag (BioMark, 12.5 mm 134.2 kHz FDX) that was implanted into individual Roundtail Chub each year prior to stocking. Producer defined a numeric and textual identifier description for a PIT tag Total Length (mm) Total length of each Roundtail Chub measured, prior to stocking, from the snout to the terminus of the longer caudal lobe in mm. NA = total length was available. Producer defined 62 207 millimeters Recaps by Gear These data represent individual recaptures by gear type, whether an animal was detected by an antenna or captured via electrofishing. The goals of this study were to evaluate the performance of antennas, compare their performance to electrofishing, and determine if size selectivity of fish existed between gear types. To do this, we needed to collect the year in which a fish was stocked, their ID, and size (to see if there was a size bias of capturing fish by gear type). We also wanted to know how many days antennas were active versus how many days we electro fished and when individuals were collected. Producer defined Sampling Year The year Roundtail Chub were stocked in the upper Verde River at Burnt Ranch near Paulden, Arizona. Year 1 fish are designated from stocking in December 2015 and Year 2 fish are designated from stocking in December 2016. Producer defined a textual description of the year Roundtail Chub were stocked into the Verde River at the Burnt Ranch study site PIT Tag ID Unique identifying code assigned to each passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag (BioMark, 12.5 mm 134.2 kHz FDX) that was implanted into individual Roundtail Chub each year prior to stocking. Producer defined a numeric and textual identifier description for a PIT tag Days Post Stocking Number of days after stocking that Roundtail Chub were tracked and re-encountered (observed again). Producer defined 0 86 integer number Stocking Total Length (mm) Total length of each Roundtail Chub measured, prior to stocking, from the snout to the terminus of the longer caudal lobe in mm. Producer defined 80 210 millimeters Gear Type The type of equipment (gear) used to recapture Roundtail Chub after stocking Producer defined Gear type was used to capture Roundtail Chub fish that were stocked at the Burnt Ranch stocking location along the Verde River. Antenna - portable, submersible PIT antennas, EF - towable, barge-mounted electrofishing Notes Notes on the Roundtail Chub that was recaptured Producer defined Additional textual information describing fish recaptures Recaps by both Gears These data represent individual recaptures by both gear types, or, when an animal was detected by an antenna and captured via electrofishing. This data was used to compile the percent of the population detected and reduce the overlap in numbers between both gear types. Producer defined Sampling Year The year Roundtail Chub were stocked in the upper Verde River at Burnt Ranch near Paulden, Arizona. Year 1 fish are designated from stocking in December 2015 and Year 2 fish are designated from stocking in December 2016. Producer defined a textual description of the sampling year of Roundtail Chub at Burnt Ranch along the Verde River PIT Tag ID Unique identifying code assigned to each passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag (BioMark, 12.5 mm 134.2 kHz FDX) that was implanted into individual Roundtail Chub each year prior to stocking. Producer defined a numeric and textual identifier description for a PIT tag Fyke Net Captures vs Antennas In Year 2 of sampling, the study area was enclosed with fyke nets prior to Roundtail Chub release to assess submersible antennae effectiveness at detecting recently released fish from the field site. This data represents the number of detections of fish by individual antennas, whether located upstream or downstream of the stocking site. Detections of fish by individual antennas were compared to the number of fish captured in either the upstream or downstream fyke net. Length of fish was also recorded to determine if there was a difference in the size of fish that emigrated upstream or downstream of the stocking site. Blank cells in the data table represent a lack of data. Producer defined Fyke Net Location of fyke nets used to enclose the study area Producer defined a textual description of the geographic location where fyke nets were placed to enclose the study area PIT Tag ID Unique identifying code assigned to each passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag (BioMark, 12.5 mm 134.2 kHz FDX) that was implanted into individual Roundtail Chub each year prior to stocking. Producer defined a numeric and textual identifier description for a PIT tag Total Length (mm) Total length of each Roundtail Chub measured, prior to stocking, from the snout to the terminus of the longer caudal lobe in mm Producer defined 84 175 millimeters Detected by Antenna Description of detection outcome from locating Roundtail Chub by antenna gear Producer defined a textual description of if a fish was detected by an antenna GC01 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located downstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. GC04 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located upstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. GC05 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located downstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. GC06 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located downstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. GS01 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located upstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. GS02 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located upstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. LH02 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located downstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. RT16 Unique ID assigned to an individual antenna that was located upstream Producer defined A numeric value assigned as a serial ID. Blank cells indicate that a Roundtail Chub was not detected with this antenna, a 1 indicates that the fish was detected with this antenna. Antenna Det Channel Length These data represent the width of the river channel and how much of the channel was covered by an antenna as well as antenna effectiveness (determined in fyke net captures vs antennas sheet). We wanted to determine if the percentage of channel covered by an antenna was a factor in detection of tagged fish. We also wanted to determine if there was a difference in detection of fish when comparing small (3 ft) versus large (4 ft) antennas. Producer defined Location Location of antenna used at the study area Producer defined a textual description of the geographic location where antennas were designated in the study area Antenna ID Antenna identifier Producer defined a a textual and numeric description of the antenna Antenna Length (ft) Length of the antenna, in feet Producer defined 3 4 feet Antenna Length (m) Length of the antenna, in meters. Calculated value not a measured value. Producer defined 0.9 1.2 meters Detection (%) The percent of effectiveness in detecting a a Roundtail Chub using an antenna. This was calculated by the number of fish captured by an antenna compared to the number of fish captured in a fyke net (see Fyke Net Captures vs Antennas data table) Producer defined 33.8 86.7 percent Channel Width (m) The width of the river channel at a given location Producer defined 3.4 4.6 meters Antenna_ Coverage (%) The percent of the channel covered by an individual antenna. This was calculated by dividing the antenna length (m) by channel width (m). Producer defined 19.9 29.0 percent U.S. Geological Survey - ScienceBase U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov The author of these data request that data users contact them regarding intended use and to assist with understanding limitations and interpretation. Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The data in this zip file contains data in the OpenDocument Spreadsheet (.ods) data format. The user must have software capable of uncompressing the zip file and displaying the tabular data. 20220301 Laura A Tennant U.S. Geological Survey Student Trainee (Biology) mailing and physical

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 United States 928-556-7280 ltennant@usgs.gov Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998