Laserfiche WebLink
<br />16 <br /> <br />the hypothesis that fish in our sample of 119 cui-ui <br />collected along the fishway (excluding the old fish) <br />were representative of cui-ui that entered the FPB. <br />Using a chi-square test, we compared the observed <br />length frequency of the fishway sample with the <br />length frequency of fish that entered the FPB. Males <br />and females were tested separately. Both samples <br />proved to be representative of the run. The age <br />structure of cui-ui captured in the FPB was proba- <br />bly representative of that of the young fish offshore. <br />We then determined the relative age structure of the <br />offshore population by estimating the relative <br />number of old and young fish in this population in <br />1983. From this estimate, we deduced that 92% of <br />the fish in the offshore population were ofthe 1969 <br />year class, 3 % were young fish of year classes other <br />than that of 1969, and 5% were old fish. <br />The predominance of the 1969 year class in the <br />cui-ui population in 1982-84 was further supported <br />by records of cui-ui captured at the FPB in 1978-83, <br />which showed that mean length of fish of both sexes <br />increased progressively (Fig. 11). The impact of this <br />dominant group on the population was also <br />reflected in data from the systematic gill netting con- <br />ducted in Pyramid Lake during 1977-83 (Fig. 12). <br />The subpopulation of young fish increased in <br />length, whereas that of old fish retained nearly the <br /> <br />Females <br /> <br />Males <br /> <br />70 <br /> <br />same length frequency, but declined in numbers. <br />This decline was probably due to natural mortality <br />or sample size (also, the heads of some old fish may <br />have become too large to permit their capture in the <br />largest mesh size of the gill nets that we used). <br />The reason for the domination of the population <br />by the 1969 year class is open to conjecture. We <br /> <br /> 10 <br />.s:::. <br />u <br />(; <br />u 20 <br />'0 <br />- 10 <br />c <br /><ll <br />2 <br /><ll <br />Q... <br /> 20 <br /> 10 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />Males <br />80 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />365 <br /> <br />884 <br /> <br />363 <br /> <br /> 20 975 <br />E 60 I ' I J" 1 J, I J" ] 10 <br />~ <br />.s:::: l T' l ,,,,, <br />0, <br />c <br />~ 50 ' l '"""' <br />"" (23) (251 20 701 <br />.2 (11) t T) 1 <br /> 1 <br />c 10 <br />l\l <br />Q) <br />~ 40 <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br /> <br />1978 1980 1982 <br />Year <br /> <br />1978 1980 1982 <br />Year <br /> <br />Fig. 11. Length distribution of male and female cui-ui <br />that entered the fish processing building during the <br />1978-83 spawning migrations. Data given are mean and <br />range; sample size is shown in parentheses. <br /> <br />40 SO 60 40 <br />Fork length (em) <br /> <br /> Females <br />1977 20 83 <br />10 <br />197820 723 <br />10 <br />197920 525 <br />10 <br />198020 597 <br />10 <br />1981 20 273 <br />10 <br />1982 20 802 <br />10 <br />198320 588 <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />Fig. 12. Length distribution of male and female cui-ui <br />gill-netted from the prespawning aggregation in <br />Pyramid Lake off the mouth of the Truckee River, <br />1977-83. Numbers in the upper left corner of each <br />panel show numbers of fish; stipled areas denote the <br />1969 year class. <br /> <br />1 <br />