Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />-~ <br /> <br />38 <br /> <br />Under normal circumstances, feeding regimen is not thought to influence daily <br /> <br /> <br />increments (Reznick et al. 1989). Food deprivation only has an effect after energy <br /> <br /> <br />reserves are exhausted, as in starving fish (Secor and Dean 1982). Temperature <br /> <br />significantly reduces deposition rates when low enough to curtail growth (Taubert and <br /> <br /> <br />Coble 1977; Neilson and Geen 1982; Radke and Dean 1982) and formation of more-than- <br /> <br /> <br />single increments per day have been noted at high environmental temperatures (Eckman <br /> <br /> <br />and Rey 1989). The primary influence of photopeiod is to entrain the daily cycle of <br /> <br /> <br />increment formation (Tanaka et al. 1981). Due to these uncertainties, and depending on <br /> <br /> <br />goals of a study, species-specific validation is advisable. <br /> <br /> <br />Accordingly, my goal was to validate daily otolith increments for larval razorback <br /> <br /> <br />suckers. This, along with impacts of starvation on otolith formation and growth relative <br /> <br /> <br />to somatic growth, were studied in the laboratory. <br /> <br />ll. Methods: <br /> <br /> <br />Analyses of otoliths in laboratory larvae were performed to determine: 1) timing <br /> <br /> <br />of initial increment formation; 2) frequency of increment deposition; 3) if increment <br /> <br /> <br />formation was dependent on growth; and 4) if otolith growth was proportional to somatic <br /> <br /> <br />growth. Larvae were placed on Starved, Suboptimal, and Ad libitum rations and <br /> <br /> <br />periodically sacrificed for analysis. <br />Eggs for the Suboptimal feeding level were from fish spawned March 9. Otoliths <br />were examined for Starved and Ad libitum larvae spawned March 15. For each <br />