Laserfiche WebLink
<br />biological and environmental factors like size of fish in fall, predation pressure, competition, <br />overwinter food availability or habitat condition (Post and Evans 1989), <br />Although size-dependent growth of age-O Colorado pikeminnow has not been specifically <br />studied, it is likely, because age-O fish have been noted to switch to piscivorus diets between 20 <br />and 50 mm TL and are predominately piscivorus at 100 mm TL (Vanicek and Kramer 1969; <br />McAda and Tyus 1984; Muth and Snyder 1995). Switching to a diet with higher fat, increasing <br />food type availability and increasing predation proficiency are all possible mechanisms that <br />could result in increasing growth rates as body length increases. <br />The same factors may also conversely contribute to size-dependent mortality, because <br />starvation tolerance, metabolic rates and stored lipids of smaller fish are lower than that of larger <br />fish (Paloheimo and Dickie 1966; Thompson et al. 1991; Bestgen 1996), and because smaller <br />fish are more vulnerable prey (Werner and Gilliam 1984). Size-dependent overwinter mortality <br />has been shown to be a common life-history attribute for fish in temperate climates and can be <br />particularly limiting to species near their northern distributional boundaries in the northern <br />hemisphere (Toney and Coble 1979; Post and Prankevicius 1987; Shuter and Post 1990; Smith <br />and Griffith 1994). <br />Starvation and predation are the most likely mechanisms for overwinter mortality. <br />However, studies have demonstrated that age-O Colorado pikeminnow are relatively starvation <br />resistant, even at reduced temperatures (Thompson et al. 1991; Bestgen 1996). At reduced <br />temperatures for 6 months, starved small (30 rom TL) and medium (36 mm TL) sized age-O <br />Colorado pikeminnow experienced lower survival than large individuals (44 mm TL) (3.3% and <br />6.7% compared to 100% survival, respectively), but all fish fed and survived substantially better <br />(95.1%,98.4% and 100%, respectively) when food was available (Thompson et al. 1991). While <br />feeding, starvation was prevented; yet, during the same period, no growth occurred. An <br />examination of stomach contents of age-O Colorado pikeminnow in ponds during December <br />showed that only 40% of young fish had empty stomachs, suggesting that fish were feeding <br />overwinter (Osmundson and Kaeding 1989). However, when compared to 0 to 5% empty <br />stomachs for age-O Colorado pikeminnow during summer and fall months (Vanicek 1967; <br />Grabowski and Hiebert 1989; Muth and Snyder 1995), it would seem that starvation could be a <br />significant factor for at least some portion of age-O fish during winter months. <br />Based on these former studies, it is likely that both overwinter growth and mortality occur <br />to some degree; however their interaction is not easily discerned based solely on a length shift <br />from fall to spring. It is more accurate to examine how length-frequency distributions change <br />from fall to spring. To differentiate these shifts, Post and Evans (1989) plotted quantiles <br />(numbers of fish within a categorical percentile of the total) of hypothetical distributions of fish <br />lengths in spring verses fall and examined how distributions deviated from each other under <br />simulated case scenarios that exemplified different selective mechanisms. In light of the <br />logistical difficulty in determining absolute numbers of fish and standardizing catch rates among <br />variable physical conditions in dynamic river systems like the Colorado River system, a similar <br />analysis of age-O Colorado pikeminnow length-frequency distributions might reveal clues as to <br />the relative importance of interaCting size-dependent mortality and growth. <br /> <br />2 <br />