My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7606
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7606
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:30 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 5:11:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7606
Author
Negus, M. T., D. A. Belford and S. E. Colvin.
Title
Long-term Retention of Fluorescent Pigment Marking of Chinook Salmon.
USFW Year
1990.
USFW - Doc Type
St. Paul, MN.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 />INTRODUCTION <br />Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tsha~tscha) comprise <br />approximately 15% of the angler catch in Minnesota waters <br />of Lake Superior (D.. Schreiner, MN Dept. Nat. Res., <br />personal communication 1990), and Minnesota supplements <br />that population by annual stocking of 350,000 to 500,000 <br />fingerlings. Assessment of stocked chinook salmon is an <br />important component of Lake Superior management. Giving <br />each cohort a unique and readily-identifiable mark would <br />assist in assessing relative contributions of Minnesota <br />stocked chinook salmon to the sport fishery, straying and <br />migration patterns, and relative survival. Identifying <br />marks must be readily recognizable and retained for the <br />lifetime of the fish; must be economical; must not <br />adversely affect survival, growth, or behavior; and must <br />not increase vulnerability to predators or fishing gear <br />(Arnold 1966). <br />Fin-clipping has been the traditional marking method <br />for chinook salmon, and excision of the posterior portion <br />of the maxillary bone is becoming more popular. These <br />techniques require no specialized marking or identification <br />equipment, but they are labor-intensive when marking large <br />numbers of small fish. Differential survival and growth of <br />clipped fish may confound data interpretation (Weber and <br />Wahle 1969; Nicola and Cordone 1973; Phinney 1974). Fin <br />regeneration, particularly in fish clipped at a small size, <br />has also been noted (Shetter 1950; Hale 1954; Mears 1976) <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.