Laserfiche WebLink
<br />normally distributed (P >0.05), except for spray-marked <br />females at age 1 (P = 0.049). When lengths were log- <br />transformed, this distribution was normalized (P = 0.083). <br />The variances between cells (mark vs. sex) at ages 2, 3, <br />and 4 were homogeneous, but variances were not homogeneous <br />at age 1 (P = 0.041). Variances within cells at age one <br />were relatively low, thus making between-cell variances <br />seem relatively high (see Table 3). <br />DISCUSSION <br />The transparent tissue surrounding (but not in) the <br />eye has been reported as one of the most common and visible <br />areas of pigment retention in chinook salmon (Evenson and <br />Ewing 1985) and cyprinids (Andrews 1972). The caudal <br />peduncle is another common area, reported for chinook <br />salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Evenson and <br />Ewing 1985) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) <br />(Englehardt 1977). On those fish retaining marks in this <br />study, the body side and the tissue surrounding the eye <br />were the most common locations for pigment retention, <br />followed by the caudal peduncle and the preopercle <br />(Table 2). <br />Overall, 25% of the fish originally spray-marked <br />retained no pigment; others retained only 1 - 4 granules. <br />Bandow (1987) reported that 0.9% of the spray-marked fish <br />were actually unmarked after 2l d. Additional granule loss <br />could have resulted from sloughing off with skin tissue or <br />from further embedding of pigment granules to a depth where <br /> <br />8 <br />