Laserfiche WebLink
49 <br />Positively correlated with fertilization (low, 723±423 individuals and <br />2.050±1.418 kg/hectare, medium 2768±967 and 3.132±2.134 kVhectare, <br />and high, 7514±6443 individuals and 14.156±13.550 hg, respectively), <br />variation was so great that differences were not significant. A <br />positive correlation between razorback sucker biomass and <br />fertilization treatment (r-.66) was increased only slightly (r-.68) <br />when salamanders were added. <br />Foods and F . Me specific developmental point at which <br />larval razorback suckers begin feeding was not determined. However, <br />during the first week (7 to 13 days post hatching), 551% of 172 larvae <br />(95 fish) sampled in all ponds retained yolk, and of these, 31 (33%) <br />had SqOtY guts. In contrast, the 77 fish that had absorbed all yolk <br />included only 12 (16%) with empty guts. Mere were no differences <br />between occurrence of empty stomachs or amounts of food eaten between <br />day and night samples, nor were there evident differences in foods <br />among treatments. <br />Razorback sucker larvae initially ate diatoms and other <br />Phytoplankton and detrital material. However, by d 5 after stocking <br />rotifers, nauplii, cladoceians, invertebrate eggs, and chironomids, <br />began to increase in frequency of occurrence, and by d 7 animals <br />clearly dominated the diet (Table 2). By week 2, no yolk was evident <br />in any larvae. Percentage volumes of algae and detrital material had <br />one minute, and in fact occurred in volumes likely equitable to <br />that secondarily ingested in the guts of invertebrate foods.