My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8142
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8142
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:49:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8142
Author
Horn, M. J.
Title
Nutritional Limitation of Recruitment in the Razorback Sucker (
USFW Year
1996.
Copyright Material
NO
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
313
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> ;~ <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 />44 <br />(Campana and Neilson 1985). Analytical bias in this study is likely due to a combination <br />of both. <br /> <br />Somatic and otolith growth rates were not proportional as indicated by differences <br /> <br /> <br />in slopes and intercepts of regressions of log, sagittal diameter as a function of TL <br /> <br /> <br />(Tables 5-6, Figure 12), and for regression of sagittal diameter on age between feeding <br /> <br /> <br />groups (Tables 7-8, Figure 13). Comparing results of the regressions indicates otolith <br /> <br /> <br />growth to be conservative. Slope of the former was shallower and for the latter steeper <br /> <br /> <br />for Ad libitum larvae. The first results from somatic growth (as represented by TL) <br /> <br /> <br />ceasing or proceeding at a reduced rate in larvae receiving suboptimal rations or starving, <br /> <br />where the otolith continues to grow faster than expected if directly proportional to <br /> <br /> <br />somatic growth. For the second, the opposite results from otolith diameter increasing <br /> <br />faster in well-fed larvae relative to those subjected to treatments resulting in slower <br /> <br /> <br />growth. Differences in intercepts are artifacts of slope differences (Campana 1990) since <br /> <br /> <br />all larvae were hatched under the same pretreatment conditions. Thus, otoliths continue <br /> <br /> <br />to grow (and form increments) for a period of time even when larvae are starving. <br /> <br /> <br />This conservative nature has been detected in numerous other cases where otolith <br /> <br /> <br />growth remains relatively stable during short-term fluctuations in feeding (Moosegaard <br /> <br /> <br />1980; Reznick et al. 1989; Francis et al. 1993). Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) continued <br /> <br /> <br />to deposit increments in the absence of food for up to 14 d after hatching (Campana and <br /> <br /> <br />Neilson 1985). Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) on the other hand, ceased otolith <br /> <br /> <br />growth almost immediately when food became unavailable (Methot and Kramer 1979), <br /> <br /> <br />presumably due to limited energy reserves. Razorback sucker larvae followed the cod <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.