34
in reduction of the sample size from 154 to 83 fish,
providing the needed reduction in time needed for
processing.
Treat.ent of Data
Modele for the relationship of fecundity to total
length were obtained by least squares linear regression
uaing the Minitab (TM) computer software package.
The
models utilized mean lengths and estimated fecundities for
fish in 10 ma length intervals (170-179, 180-189, etc.),
transformed to base 10 logarithms.
Thi. procedure minimized
bias due to unequal numbers in aome intervals and provided
more uniform weighting of data over the total length range.
Confidence intervals were calculated at the
95~
level for
the slopes, intercepts, and predicted meana of the various
.odel ••
Age Determination
Pla.tic impre •• ione of scalee were made uaing an Ann
Arbor roller pr••••
Scale images were proJect.d by a
tri-.implex micropro)ector with 40X magnification, and ages
were determined u.ing standard method ••
35
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Regression models were individually developed £or 1985
volumetric estimates, 1985 gravimetric estimates, 1986
volumetric estimates, and 1986 gravimetric estimates.
Comparisons o£ the 95% con£idence intervals o£ the slopes
and intercepts o£ the £our regression equations revealed
overlap among all intercepts and slopes, respectively
(Figures 3 and 4).
The overlap was interpreted as evidence
o£ no eigni£icant di££erences;
t~ere
were no signi£icant
di££erences among the compared slopes or intercepts,
allowing the conclusion that regression models were
statistically similar.
Since there were no signi£icant di££erences among the
models within or between years, the 1985 and 1986 data were
pooled £or each method o£ estimation, and a regression model
was £ormulated £or each method.
discussion o£ results
re~ers
From this point on, all
to the combined 1985-86 data.
The length-£requency distribution o£ the 83 £ish used
in £ecundity analysis shows that the distribution is skewed
toward the smaller sizes (170-229 mm)
(Figure 5).
This
illustrates why means o£ each 10 mm length claas were used
in £ecundity analysis to achieve more equal weighting o£
data over the length range £rom 170 to 299 mm (see Methods).
A comparison was made between the mean lengths by age
in the current study and the mean back-calculated lengths at
annulus £or a larger sample o£ the perch population in 1985
and 1986 (Gallinat 1987)
<Table 2).
Since the £ish in the
36
86 G
85
-7.00
~
GI
-6.00
---+-----1
-5'.00
-4.00
-3.00
INTERCEPT VALUE
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
37
86 I
G
Iss
86
V
I
I
I
185
I
2.00
2.50
3.00
G
3.50
SLOPE
4.00
V
4.50
5.00
38
~
-..
0'"•
I
I
I
I
... "J
~.
t-r--......j
.-.
>I:.,)
:z:
lJJ
=:.
If)
UJ
~
~
(\J
----.
I
Qi
I
M
O!
i.L
i
(\J
- -- --
-----
:z:
(\J
.......
UJ
-~-
-
- ----- --
- --
- -
.,.........
~I
-------
-
a::::
1LJ
ca
(\J
-
- --
--
---~--
tSt 00 ".0 V ':'-J is,I
"!"'""'I .....t
--
l!1
...:..
W
--J
lSI
1-'
r-
I
~
:::I:
I-
:E
::. tSt 00 1".0 V
Z ':\J "1"-1 "!"'""'I ,......
----
.:.:-
I
--J
.-<I:0
•r-
39
Table 2.
Mean lengths by age £or the 83 £ish used in £ecundity analysis in the present study, compared to
back-calculated lengths at annulus £or Gallinat's
(1987) large sample collected during the same
time period as the present study (1985-86).
Length in mm (n in parentheses)
Source
Gallinat (1987)
Present study
III
154
(158)
187
(2)
IV
192
(118)
199
(55)
V
230
(44)
233
(23)
VI
270
(6)
226
(2)
40
present study were collected early in the growing season,
their lengths approximated the length at annulus.
The mean
lengths of ages IV+ and V+ fish in the current study agree
closely with the corresponding back-calculated lengths at
annulus found by Gallinat (1987).
A similar comparison of
ages lIl+ and VI+ is not meaningful because each class
contained only two fish used for fecundity analysis.
In
addition, there was obvious selection for only large 111+
fish,
since few fish were mature at this age (see Literature
Review; Size at Maturity).
The age-frequency distribution for the fish used in
fecundity analysis reveals the vast maJority of the fish
analyzed were age IV+ or V+ (Figure 6).
Recall that
Gallinat (1987) found in the same study area and time period
as the present study, only
were mature at age III, but
lOO~
at age V (Figure 1).
27~
86~
of the female yellow perch
were mature at age IV and
In addition, he showed that
mortality was very high after age III.
Thus, the first two
year classes in which the maJority of the females were
mature correspond to the predominant year classes of the
fish analyzed in the present study.
The small number of age
111+ fish in the sample is explained by the fact that very
few feMales were mature at this age, and the saall number of
age VI+ fish may readily be explained by high mortality of
older £ish.
The relatively small sample in the present
study agrees closely with Gallinat's extensive data for the
same population, implying that with regard to age,
41
>-
+
u
z
:::-
L1J
:=.
c;
w
l..lJ
1-'
Ct.:
lJ...
I
~:J:
+
......
W
I.!I
:::-
a::
Ct::
I.JJ
m
E
I~ is) is) .:S) I~ I~ is) is) I~ I~ I~
=-Z'9""'l
I~ "... I))
I'-
~.D
uJ V 1"') .:\1
~
42
the fecundity models were based on a representative sample
of the female spawning population.
Regression Models
The fecundity model derived from the volumetric
estimates of fecundity (Appendix 5) is:
log F
where F'
=
= -4.0396
~
fecundity and L
(3.5834)10g L
= total
length.
(r
=
0.982)~
The correaponding
fecundity model based on gravimetric estimstes of fecundity
(Appendix 6) is:
log F
=
-3.8258
~
(3.5097)10g L
(r
= 0.986).
Basic aimilarity of the models is apparent and both have
high correlation coefficients.
The models with the data
points (means for 10 mm length intervals) used in their
calcul&tion show the relationship graphically (Figure 7).
Error Analysis
It. is important to determine which model more
accurat~ely
describes the relationship of fecundity to length
for the population.
volumet~ric
Evaluation of error analyais for
and gravimetric estimates provides inSight to the
accuracy of the models (Table 3).
fish used in error
analys~s.
For each of the three
the fecundity estimates were
compared to the actual fecundity determined by the total egg
count £or the fish.
It~
is apparent that the volumetric method tended to
underestimate slightly
(-3.4~),
tended to overestimate
(+8.8~)
while the gravimetric method
(Table 3).
Although the
43
44
Table 3.
Comparison o£ £ecundity estimates to total egg
counts.
Deviations o£ the individual estimates
£rom the actual counts appear in parentheses.
Fecundity
Fish 1.0.
NUMber
Length
(mm)
Actual
Count
Volumetric
Estimate
18 988
(+5.6%)
25 430
(-5.1%)
27 197
(-10.6%)
20 860
(+16.0%)
28 685
(+7.0%)
31 414
(+3.3%)
-3.4%
(8.2%)
+8.8%
(6.5%)
85-39
202
17 977
85-17
227
26 808
85-2
242
30 425
Mean Error
(Standard Deviation)
Gravimetric
Estimate
45
gravimetric method was slightly less variable <SD
the volumetric method (SD
8.2~).
6.5~)
than
the volumetric estimatea
were closer to the actual known number o£ eggs.
The
regression model based on volumetric .stimates thus appears
to more closely describe the actual population than the
gravimetric model.
The volumetric model was therefore
utilized exclusively in all additional analyses presented.
Predictions From the Models
Fecundity models may be used to predict the number o£
eggs produced by a £ish o£ a given length.
In addition. i£
the mean length at a given age is known, the mean fecundity
for that age class can be
predic~
.d.
This information may
in turn be used in estimates o£ population fecundity
(Bagenal 1978).
Predicted fecundities and
95~
confidence intervals for
yellow perch within the length range o£ the present study
were calculated from the volumetric model
(Table 4).
Equivalent predictions were also made for each age class in
the present study (Table 5).
The mean length for each age
class was calculated from Gallinat's (1987) data for
1985-86.
The prediction for age 111+ is probably not
meaningful. since the average fish in this age class would
not be mature, as discussed earlier (see Figure 1).
Comparison to Previous Studies
The fecundity o£ Lake Michigan yellow perch has
previously been reported by Brazo et ale
(1975) for fish
46
Tabla 4.
Fecundity predictions and 95%
con£idence intervals £or yellow
perch o£ the given lengths, calculated £rom the volumetric £ecundity model,
log F = -4.0396 ~ 3.5834 log L.
Fecundity
Length
(mil)
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
Prediction
11
13
16
19
22
26
30
35
41
47
53
60
010
370
070
140
610
510
880
740
140
090
650
840
c.
95%
9
11
14
17
20
24
28
32
36
41
46
52
630
950
620
620
940
520
360
460
860
580
660
100
-
12
14
17
20
24
28
33
39
45
53
61
71
I.
600
960
660
780
410
660
620
360
910
330
690
060
47
Table 5.
Age
111+
IV+
V.
VI·
Fecundity predictions and 95% confidence
intervals for yellow perch of the given
ages. calculated from the volumetric fecundity model:
log F = -4.0396 • 3.5834 log L.
Mean
Length 1
(mm)
154
192
230
270
Fecundity
Prediction
6
13
26
47
300
880
510
100
95" C. I.
5
12
24
41
130
450
520
580
7 730
- 15 470
- 28 660
- 53 330
1 The mean length for each age class was calculated from Gallinat's (1987) data for 1985-86.
48
190-354 mm total length collected near Ludington, Michigan
in 1972, and by Wells and Jorgenson (1983) £or 174-355 mm
£ish collected at Saugatuck, Michigan in 1972 and 1979.
The
regression models o£ £ecundity versus total length obtained
in these studies are:
Brazo et al.
=
log F
(1975):
-3.712
+
(3.451)10g L
(no r
value given)
Wells and Jorgenson (1983):
=
log F
-3.99
(3.56)10g L
+
(r
=
0.96).
Recall that the model best describing the population in the
present study (i. e., the volumetric model) is
log F
=
-4.0396
+
(3.5834)10g L
(r
~
0.982).
When the previously reported models are plotted on the
same axes as the present model based on volumetric estimates
(con£ined to the length rsnge o£ the present study) they
£all within the
(Figure 8).
95~
con£idence contour o£ the present model
In £act, the model o£ Wells and Jorgenson is
virtually identical to and superimposed on the current
.odel.
This indicates that over the length range compared,
the £ecundity-length relation determined in the present
study does not signi£icantly di££er £rom those reported
previously £or Lake Mich1gan yellow perch by Brazo et al.
(1975) and Wells snd Jorgenson (1983).
It should be noted that the earlier studies (and the
populations in general) included larger £ish than the
present study.
Although 1t has been stressed that it is
i.portent to limit comparisons o£ regression equations to
those generated £rom £ish o£ the same size, this caution
49
~lOO.
000
BRAZO
E!!'t
al.
( .1 9"7 5
80.000
) _._.-
( .1 9 8 3 ) _.-.-
PRESENT
STUDY
PRESENT
STUDY
,
I
I
I
I
60.000
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
40.000
~
I I
!-<
H
I I
I I
0
I I
I I
I I
I I
Z
J
U
I I
UJ
I I
II.
I I
20.000
I I
I ,
I I
I I
I .,
I I
I I
I I
I ,
I I
I I
,
.10.000
I
,
I
I
8. 000
a
'.a
.-4
a
a
N
a
~
N
TOTAL
a a
a
(')
11l
.-4
al
N
N
LENGTH
a
a
N
a
a a
N
(')
~
(MM)
al
N
N
50
seems to be relevant only to claims of significant
differences.
The fact that over the length range of the
present study, the previously reported regression equations
fall within the
95~
confidence contour of the present model,
is, i£ anything, even stronger support for a lack of
significant differences than if comparisons were made among
equations generated from fish of the same size.
In addition to Brazo et ala
(1975) and Wells and
Jorgenson (1983>. regression models of fecundity versus
length of yellow perch have been reported by Muncy (1962),
Sheri and Power (1969), Tsai and Gibson (1971>, Sztramko and
Teleki (1977). and Hartman et ala
geographic locations.
(1980), for various
Unfortunately, the fecundity
predictions of the present study are only directly
comparable to those of Muncy (1962; Severn River, Maryland)
and Hartman et ala
(1980; Lake Erie), because the
regressions in the other studies utilized fork lengths
instead of total lengths. 1
Predicted fecundities over the length range of the
present study were calculated from the regression models of
Muncy (1962) and Hartman et ala
(1980)
(Table 6).
values may be compared to the equivalent
95~
intervals for the present study (Table 4).
These
confidence
It is apparent
that while there are no Significant differences between the
Lake Erie study of Hartman et ala
(1980> and the present
study, in Muncy's Severn River study the predicted fecundity
1.
No standard conversion factor for yellow perch fork
length to total length was found.
51
Table 6.
Predicted yellow perch £ecundities
over the length range o£ the present study, calculated £rom the
regression models o£ Muncy (1962)
and Hartman et al. (1980).
Fecundity
---------------------------Total
Length
(mm)
Muncy
(1962)
Hartman
at al.
(1980)
--------------------------------------------180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
5
6
8
10
12
14
16
20
23
27
31
36
500
800
400
300
400
800
900
000
400
300
700
500
11
14
17
20
24
28
33
38
44
50
57
65
600
100
000
300
100
300
000
300
200
600
800
600
52
is below the lower confidence limit of the present study
over the entire length range compared.
It is not clear.
however. whether this represents a true difference. because
Muncy's data include some fecundity estimates from eggs
which were stripped from live fish.
possibly resulting in
inaccurately low predicted fecundities.
The discovery that the fecundity of a given size yellow
perch has not significantly changed in southern Lake
Michigan since 1972 is somewhat surprising.
As noted
earlier. growth rates and length-weight relationships have
declined dramatically in Indiana waters in recent years.
apparently due to the current high population density
(Gallinat 1987).
Since fecundity is generally conSidered to
be highly responsive to density-dependent factors and
related influences such as food supply (see Literature
Review). it was expected that fecundity would have decreased
with increasing fish denSity.
The apparent contradiction
between decreased growth rates and constant fecundity
suggests that some sort of threshold of denSity and/or food
supply conceivably could be involved in influencing
fecundity of yellow perch in southern Lake Michigan.
this were the case. a moderate
decrease in
foo~
~ncrease
If
in density and/or
supply m1ght cause reduced growth rates
without significantly affecting fecundity.
Assuming that
density and/or food supply in the study area have not
crossed the hypothetical critical threshold. the hypothesis
Just proposed would explain why fecundity of yellow perch in
southern Lake Michigan has not significantly changed since
53
1972 despite decreased growth rates.
Although the fecundity of a given size fish has
apparently not changed with the increased density and
reduced growth of yellow perch in the sample area,
it is
possible that the population fecundity has been altered due
to a shift in the length-frequency distribution toward
smaller fish.
Subsequent research may provide insight ss to
whether or not this has indeed occurred.
54
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Volumetric and gravimetric methods o£ £ecundity
determination were conducted on 83 yellow perch (ranging in
total length £rom 172 to 290 mm) collected £rom Lake
Michigan near Michigan City, Indiana in 1985 and 1986.
Major £indings o£ the project are as £ollows:
1.
Linear regression models for £ecundity versus total
length developed separately for 1985 and 1986 samples were
not signi£icantly dif£erent from each other, based on
overlap of the
95~
confidence intervals o£ the slopes and
intercepts of the equations.
The 1985 and 1986 data were
there£ore pooled for each method o£ analysis.
2.
The model for fecundity versus total length derived from
the volumetric fecundity estimates was:
(3.5834)10gL (r
= 0.982).
log F
3.
+
-4.0396
+
The corresponding model derived
from the gravimetric fecundity estimates was:
-3.8258
=
log F
=
(3.5097)10gL (r = 0.986).
The volumetric estimates were determined to be more
accurate than the gravimetric estimates by comparison to
total egg counts o£ three ovaries.
The volumetric model was
therefore used for all subsequent analyses.
4.
Predictions were made £or the £ecundities o£ yellow
perch at 10 mm length intervals over the length range of the
present study, utilizing the volumetric model.
Mean lengths
of the age classes represented were used to predict the mean
fecundity o£ each age class.
55
5.
The £ecundity o£ a yellow perch o£ a given length £rom
172-290 mm has not changed signi£icantly in southern Lake
Michigan since 1972, despite the £act that population
density has increased and growth rates have decreased.
This
was determined by comparing previously reported regression
equations with the 95% con£idence contour o£ the present
equation.
56
LITERATURE CITED
Bagena1, T. B.
1978.
Aspects of fiah fecundity.
Pages
7~)-101 in S. D. Gerking, editor.
Ecology of freshwater fish production.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Bagena1, T. B., and E. Braum.
1978.
Eggs and early life
h:lstory.
Pages 165-201 in T. B. Bagenal, editor.
Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh
waters.
Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
Becker. G. C.
1983.
Fishes of Wisconsin, first edition.
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Brazo, D. C., P. I. Tack, and C. R. Liston.
1975.
Age,
growth, and fecundity of yellow perch, Perca
flavescens (Mitchill), in Lake Michigan near Ludington, Michigan.
Transactions of the American
Flsheries Society 104:726-730.
Collette, B. B., and seven co-authors.
1977.
Biology of
the percids.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board
o£ Canada 34:1890-1899.
Dodgshun, T. J.
fish eggs.
1980.
Simple, accurate method of counting
Progressive Fish-Culturist 42:237-238.
Eddy, S., and T. Surber.
1960.
Northern fishes, with special reference to the Upper Mississippi Valley, revised
edition.
C. T. Branford, Newton Centre, Massachusetts.
El-Zarka, S. E.
1959.
Fluctuations in the population of
yellow perch in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron.
U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Fisheries Bulletin 59:365-415.
Emery, A. R.
1973.
Preliminary comparisons of day and
night habits of freshwater fish in Ontario lakes.
Jc~urnal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30:
761-774.
Gallinat, M. P.
1987.
Population analysis and food habits
o£ the yellow perch, Perca flavescens (Mitchill),
in Indiana waters o£ Lake Michigan, 1984-86.
Master's
thesis.
Ball State University, MunCie, Indiana.
Hartman, W. L., S. J. Nepszy, and R. L. Scholl.
1980.
Minimum size limits for yellow perch <Perca flav.scens)
in western Lake Erie.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Technical Report 39.
57
Healey. M. C.
1978.
Fecundity changes in exploited populations of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and
lake trout (Salvelinus namaycuah).
Journal of the
Fisheries Reaearch Board of Canada 35:945-950.
Hokanson, K. E. F.
1977.
Temperature requirements of some
percids and adaptations to the seasonal temperature
cycle.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 34:1524-1550.
Jobea, F. W.
1952.
Age, growth, and production of yellow
perch in Lake Erie.
U. S. Fiah and Wildlife Service
Fisheries Bulletin 52:205-266.
Kucera, P. A., and J. L. Kennedy.
1977.
Evaluation of a
sphere volume method for estimating fish fecundity.
Progressive Fish-Culturist 39:115-117.
McComish, T. S.
1981.
Yellow perch population characteri.tics in Indiana waters of Lake Michigan,
1976-79.
Final Report of Federal Aid Project 3-283-R,
Segment 3.
McKeag, K. J.
1987.
An evaluation of the potential forage
fish populations in Indiana waters of Lake Michigan:
1973 vs. 1984-86.
Master's thesis.
Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Muncy, R. J.
1962.
Life history of the yellow perch, Perca
flavescens, in estuarine waters of the Severn River, a
tributary of Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
Chesapeake
Science 3:143-159.
Newton, S. H., and R. V. Kilambi.
1973.
Fecundity of the
white ba •• , Morone chrysops (Rafinesque>, in Beaver
Reservoir, Arkansas.
Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 102:446-448.
Ney, J. J.
1978.
A synoptic review of yellow perch and
walleye biology.
Pages 1-12 in R. L. Kendall,
editor.
Selected coolwater fishes of North America.
American Fisheries Society (Special Publication 11).
Washington, D. C.
Nielsen, L. A., and D. L. Johnson, editors.
1983.
Fisheries techn~ques.
American Fisheries SOCiety,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Nikolskii, G. V.
1969.
Theory of fish population dynamics
as the biological background for rational exploitation
and management of fishery resources (translated from
Russian by J. E. S. Bradley>.
Oliver and Boyd,
London.
58
Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman.
1973.
Freshwater £ishes
o£ Canada.
Fisheries Research Board o£ Canada (Bulletin 184), Ottawa.
Sheri, A. N., and G. Power.
1969.
Fecundity o£ the yellow
perch, Perca £lavescens Mitchill, in the Bay o£
Quinte, Lake Ontario.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 47:
55-58.
Sztramko, L., and G. C. Teleki.
1977.
Annual variations
in the fecundity of yellow perch from Long Point Bay.
Lake Erie.
Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 106:578-582.
Thorpe, J. E.
1977.
Morphology, physiology, behavior, and
ecology of Perca fluviatilis L. and ~. flavescens Mitchill.
Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 34:1504-1514.
Treasurer, J. W.
1981.
Some aspects of the reproductive
biology of perch Perea fluviatilis L. fecundity, maturation, and spawning behavior.
Journal of
Fish Biology 18:729-740.
Tsai, C., and G. R. Gibson, Jr.
1971.
Fecundity o£ the
yellow perch, Perca flavescens (Mitch!ll), in
the Patuxent River. Maryland.
Chesapeake Science 12:
270-274.
Volodin, V. M.
1979.
The fecundity of the perch, Perca
fluviatilis, £rom Rybinsk Reservoir.
Journal o£
Ichthyology 19:85-92.
Wells. L.
1977.
Changes in yellow perch <Perca £lavescens) populations of Lake Michigan, 1954-75.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:
1821-1829.
Wells, L., and S. C. Jorgenson.
1983.
Population biology
of yellow perch in southern Lake Michigan, 1971-79.
U. S. Fish and Wildli£e Service Technical Paper 109.
Wolfert, D. R.
1969.
Maturity and fecundity of walleyes
from the eastern and western basins of Lake Erie.
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26:
1877-1888.
59
APPENDIX SECTION
60
Appendlx 1.
loD.
Number
85-1
85-2
85-3
85-4
85-5
85-6
85-7
85-8
85-9
85-10
85-11
85-12
85-13
85-14
85-15
85-16
85-17
85-18
85-19
85-20
85-21
85-22
85-23
85-24
85-25
85-26
85-27
85-28
85-29
85-30
85-31
85-32
85-33
85-34
85-35
85-36
85-37
85-38
85-39
85-40
85-41
85-42
Maximum total length, body weight, £resh
ovary weight, and £resh ovary volume o£
£emale yellow perch collected in Indiana
waters o£ Lake Michigan on May 8, 1985.
Ages are also given £or selected £ish.
Length
(mm)
190
242
205
198
193
205
178
245
222
203
188
208
195
200
290
220
227
187
260
216
214
186
194
197
204
184
178
198
184
201
202
189
208
190
193
200
181
201
202
204
200
206
Body
Weight
Age
(g)
Ovary
Weight
<g)
IV+
V+
80
170
96
94
83
100
68
184
116
100
74
88
82
96
334
126
146
72
244
124
110
68
86
86
96
74
66
86
72
92
98
74
110
70
83
90
74
92
96
98
90
100
13.3
32.2
5.8
10.0
10.5
8.7
10.7
33.9
9.5
14.1
4.3
7.6
12.7
16.2
75.8
20.0
24.3
9.0
48.5
22.5
7.9
6.8
13.6
13.4
11.8
9.3
8.8
10.0
12.2
11.2
13.7
10.3
16.2
11.5
8.1
8.7
9.2
11.5
15.6
10.4
9.7
7.6
IV+
IV+
IV+
111+
V+
IV+
111+
V+
V+
V+
IV+
V+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
V+
V+
IV+
IV+
IV+
Ovary
Volume
(mL)
13.0
35.0
5.5
10.0
10.0
8.5
11.0
33.0
9.0
14.0
4.0
7.0
12.5
16.0
73.0
19.0
23.0
8.5
47.0
22.0
7.5
6.5
13.5
13.0
11.5
9.0
9.0
9.5
12.0
11.0
13.0
10.0
15.5
11.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
11.5
15.0
10.0
9.5
7.0
------~----------------------------------------------- ------
61
Appendix 1 continued.
1.D.
Number
85-43
85-44
Length
(mm)
196
206
Body
Weight
Age
(g)
76
84
Ovary
Weight
(g)
7.2
7.8
Ovary
Volume
(mL)
7.0
7.0
62
Appendix 2.
Date of capture. maximum total length. body
weight. and fresh ovary weight o£ £emale yellow perch collected in Indiana waters of Lake
Michigan in 1986.
Ages are also given £or
selected fish.
----------------------------------------------------------Body
Ovary
1.0.
Number
Date
(mo./day>
Length
(mm)
Age
Weight
(g)
Weight
<g)
----------------------------------------------------------86-1
86-2
86-3
86-4
86-5
86-6
86-7
86-8
86-9
86-10
86-11
86-12
86-13
86-14
86-15
86-16
86-17
86-18
86-19
86-20
86-21
86-22
86-23
86-24
86-25
86-26
86-27
86-28
86-29
86-30
86-31
86-32
86-33
86-34
86-35
86-36
86-37
86-38
86-39
86-40
86-41
86-42
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
181
203
176
220
203
190
202
205
228
197
180
218
188
229
172
207
204
192
216
211
211
211
212
193
183
180
250
199
202
196
198
202
209
240
181
197
191
208
185
176
190
174
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
V+
V+
IV+
IV+
V+
IV+
IV+
IV+
VI+
IV+
IV+
V+
IV+
IV+
V+
VI+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
65
86
71
120
92
79
97
100
142
88
64
122
79
102
60
104
95
80
108
95
101
113
106
83
69
67
194
86
99
91
81
93
98
151
70
91
74
107
69
69
80
66
9.6
15.0
12.8
17.6
14.3
11.8
19.0
15.5
18.8
13.3
10.6
21.4
15.6
15.3
8.8
22.4
15.5
13.0
20.5
14.9
12.1
22.9
14.5
14.5
12.0
12.5
38.7
13.5
13.4
14.6
13.3
14.9
12.5
25.1
12.5
15.1
12.6
19.1
11.9
11.0
13.2
9.9
-----------------------------------------------------------
63
Append.lx 2 continued.
------~-----------------------------------------------------
1. D.
Number
Date
(mo./dey)
Length
(mm)
Age
Body
Weight
(g)
Ovary
Weight
<g)
-----_._---------------------------------------------------86-43
86-44
86-45
86-46
86-47
86-48
86-49
86-50
86-51
86-52
86-53
86-54
86-55
86-56
86-57
86-58
86-59
86-60
86-61
86-62
86-63
86-64
86-65
86-66
86-67
86-68
86-69
86-70
86-71
86-72
86-73
86-74
86-75
86-76
86-77
86-78
86-79
86-80
86-81
86-82
86-83
86-84
86-85
86-86
86-87
86-88
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
191
192
186
209
205
180
175
173
189
242
239
184
245
283
301
244
240
223
242
182
250
208
225
185
186
224
202
201.
201
202
205
223
205
198
205
185
187
199
180
207
207
189
187
186
200
210
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
V+
V+
V+
V+
IV+
IV+
V+
IV+
V+
V+
IV+
IV+
IV+
V+
IV+
77
85
77
99
103
70
55
52
65
202
163
67
191
254
363
191
176
139
151
60
198
103
124
73
75
143
84
96
109
101
104
134
106
93
101
78
81
100
69
105
109
80
76
74
99
112
6.8
12.8
13.0
14.3
17.1
10.7
7.3
10.7
13.8
55.3
31.4
11.7
32.2
40.5
89.7
32.8
29.5
28.0
21.4
9.6
41.4
18.4
22.7
9.9
16.1
26.3
19.0
21.0
22.8
18.2
18.3
20.8
16.8
18.2
18.6
14.4
18.7
16.6
10.4
19.8
16.5
14.1
11.2
14.5
20.0
19.8
-----------------------------------------------------------
64
Appendix 2 continued.
1.0.
Number
86-89
86-90
86-91
86-92
86-93
86-94
86-95
86-96
86-97
86-98
86-99
86-100
86-101
86-102
86-103
86-104
86-105
86-106
86-107
86-108
86-109
86-110
Date
(mo./day)
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
5/27
6/4
Length
(mm)
219
228
209
208
174
202
194
191
200
189
172
211
216
189
253
192
193
187
191
182
205
255
Body
Weight
Age
(g)
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
IV+
108
161
107
100
62
92
93
88
89
87
63
106
124
81
221
76
76
71
84
72
101
219
IV+
IV+
IV+
V+
IV+
V+
Ovary
Weight
(g)
17.8
31.3
21.7
15.7
10.3
16.7
16.0
14.8
11.4
14.7
9.3
20.9
21.0
12.9
50.2
7.6
10.3
10.7
12.5
11.4
19.1
43.0
------------------------------------------------------ -----
&5
Append~x
3.
Data used in volumetric fecundity estimation.
Egg
Counts of Subsamples
Fish I.D.
Number
Total Ovary
Volume (mL)
Sample a
Sample b
Sample c
85-1
85-2
85-4
85-5
85-6
85-7
85-8
85-9
85-1:3
4.65
9.95
3.53
3.81
2.95
3.62
10.80
4.40
4.00
22.17
6.50
7.15
2.33
16.52
7.29
1.93
4.50
3.72
3.24
2.95
3.81
3.38
5.15
2.64
2.90
4.70
3.72
4.30
5.55
4.30
4.35
7.29
7.24
5.55
2.85
4.55
7.44
5.70
3.91
8.18
4.65
4.00
14.76
4.65
5.40
4.90
317
265
384
393
462
308
313
535
352
255
396
344
338
309
346
499
359
464
424
327
331
324
457
549
383
399
464
343
330
440
509
372
265
376
303
254
289
361
300
385
310
298
264
265
293
376
323
274
435
415
516
313
335
529
371
286
408
365
362
316
338
513
352
474
433
315
315
330
458
576
398
418
460
340
333
435
518
381
273
378
305
258
276
355
310
389
304
301
261
266
303
401
333
281
421
435
483
321
325
549
384
274
417
358
363
325
346
503
373
451
420
346
330
329
477
592
404
395
481
342
341
449
522
385
268
371
315
258
283
350
299
394
321
298
274
268
286
390
85-1~5
85-11;
85-1'7
85-1,B
85-1'9
85-20
85-2:2
85-2'4
85-2'5
85-215
85-2'7
85-2'9
85-3.2
85-33
85-3'5
85-37
85-39
85-40
86-3
86-4
86-5
86-6
86-9
86-12
86-14
86-15
86-18
86-19
86-20
86-21
86-22
86-23
86-26
86-27
86-28
86-30
86-31
66
Appendix 3 continued.
Egg Counts o£ Subsamples
Fish 1 .. 0.
Number
Total Ovary
Volume (mL)
Sample a
Sample b
Sample c
86-3~l
8.08
6.90
4.00
3.38
3.24
4.40
3.53
2.03
2.44
4.40
20.33
10.85
12.90
12.70
10.90
9.37
7.34
2.90
16.06
7.24
9.27
7.93
3.62
6.20
6.30
5.75
10.24
6.90
5.10
3.24
4.65
3.24
5.25
7.73
15.85
3.67
14.36
322
266
343
314
356
282
335
404
347
379
166
235
242
245
209
257
235
260
254
190
231
289
329
330
254
344
222
288
391
279
293
396
250
328
253
310
229
347
272
335
315
349
277
332
401
358
370
175
252
235
254
195
252
225
253
256
205
216
310
320
341
245
363
220
303
394
246
296
414
256
320
260
306
219
333
292
337
319
361
303
326
387
348
375
169
235
246
258
203
270
232
253
258
201
242
315
322
341
247
344
220
302
395
268
296
403
255
330
241
297
220
86-3~~
86-3~~
86-4()
86-42
86-46
86-48
86-49
86-50
86-51
86-5:2
86-5~3
86-5~)
86-58
86-5~3
86-60
86-6:L
86-6:2
86-6:3
86-6~)
86-6l~
86-7·~
86-8~)
86-87
86-8l~
86-8~3
86-90
86-9:L
86-92
86-9:3
86-9·~
86-9<3
86-100
86-101
86-103
86-10?
86-1:LO
67
Appendix 4.
Data used in gravimetric fecundity estimation.
The egg counts of the subsamplea were the same
for each fish as those given in Appendix 3.
Dry Weights of Subsamples <g)
Fish I.D.
Number
85-1
85-2
85-4
85-5
85-6
85-7
85-8
85-9
85-13
85-15
85-16
85-17
85-18
85-19
85-20
85-22
85-24
85-25
85-26
85-27
85-29
85-32
85-33
85-35
85-37
85-39
85-40
86-3
86-4
86-5
86-6
86-9
86-12
86-14
86-15
86-18
86-19
86-20
86-21
86-22
86-23
86-26
86-27
Total Dry
Ovary
Weight (g)
1.5627
3.6013
1.0755
1.3500
0.9228
1.2547
3.6217
1.2824
1.3870
7.0287
2.0181
2.5811
0.7492
5.2615
2.3571
0.6571
1.5426
1.2669
1.0611
1.0342
1.3344
1.0915
1.7391
0.8685
1.0158
1.5159
1.2514
1.4738
1. 6799
1.4504
1.3959
2.4125
2.2088
1.9906
0.~680
1.3702
2.1532
1.7216
1.3898
2.7083
1.5556
1.2851
4.7444
Sample a
Sample b
Sample c
0.0295
0.0305
0.0266
0.0296
0.0282
0.0316
0.0300
0.0282
0.0295
0.0284
0.0282
0.0312
0.0285
0.0298
0.0306
0.0300
0.0309
0.0322
0.0298
0.0315
0.0320
0.0302
0.0306
0.0297
0.0313
0.0297
0.0298
0.0320
0.0281
0.0312
0.0290
0.0293
0.0283
0.0329
0.0301
0.0274
0.0269
0.0304
0.0319
0.0307
0.0299
0.0288
0.0307
0.0307
0.0317
0.0286
0.0300
0.0295
0.0304
0.0315
0.0274
0.0298
0.0300
0.0284
0.0327
0.0278
0.0304
0.0295
0.0317
0.0310
0.0319
0.0298
0.0301
0.0298
0.0301
0.0307
0.0306
0.0320
0.0302
0.0295
0.0316
0.0281
0.0314
0.0288
0.0297
0.0290
0.0329
0.0301
0.0285
0.0269
0.0297
0.0323
0.0306
0.0308
0.0286
0.0304
0.0312
0.0318
0.0283
0.0305
0.0281
0.0307
0.0309
0.0281
0.0312
0.0294
0.0285
0.0321
0.0283
0.0314
0.0299
0.0310
0.0324
0.0308
0.0290
0.0324
0.0281
0.0302
0.0312
0.0306
0.0327
0.0282
0.0309
0.0326
0.0291
0.0317
0.0285
0.0303
0.0288
0.0317
0.0308
0.0285
0.0272
0.0294
0.0316
0.0316
0.0317
0.0283
0.0318
------------------------------------------------------ -----
68
Appendix 4 continued.
Dry Weights of Subsamples <g)
Fish 1.0.
Number
86-2~~
86-3D
86-3:L
86-34
86-3~3
86-4()
86-42
86-4~~
86-4'3
86-50
86-51
86-5:2
86-5:3
86-5~5
86-5j~
86-5'3
86-60
86-6.1
86-6:2
86-6:3
86-6~5
86-6.6
86-7·4
86-8~5
86-87
86-8,6
86-8'9
86-90
86-91
86-9:2
86-9:3
86-9'9
86-11:)0
86-103
86-107
86-110
iotal Dry
Ovary
Weight (g)
Sample a
Sample b
Sample c
1.6137
1.7968
1.6224
2.6649
1. 3212
1.0642
1.0485
1.1448
0.6912
0.6680
1.2961
5.0308
3.2729
3.5211
3.7196
3.2905
2.8967
2.2868
0.8488
4.2037
2.1033
2.8450
2.4860
1.1462
2.0159
2.1122
1.8504
3.0734
2.1863
1.6969
0.9892
1.0312
1.7264
4.7182
1.2032
4.0100
0.0307
0.0302
0.0303
0.0285
0.0303
0.0272
0.0302
0.0300
0.0311
0.0260
0.0277
0.0224
0.0253
0.0242
0.0268
0.0284
0.0285
0.0291
0.0267
0.0237
0.0249
0.0263
0.0279
0.0294
0.0294
0.0307
0.0286
0.0253
0.0289
0.0308
0.0294
0.0283
0.0298
0.0282
0.0304
0.0257
0.0304
0.0312
0.0316
0.0294
0.0296
0.0276
0.0295
0.0312
0.0307
0.0252
0.0272
0.0237
0.0270
0.0240
0.0284
0.0256
0.0280
0.0286
0.0266
0.0245
0.0257
0.0262
0.0292
0.0283
0.0301
0.0299
0.0302
0.0245
0.0291
0.0302
0.0275
0.0285
0.0303
0.0293
0.0299
0.0249
0.0305
0.0290
0.0307
0.0292
0.0296
0.0273
0.0301
0.0304
0.0300
0.0251
0.0264
0.0225
0.0262
0.0243
0.0283
0.0268
0.0292
0.0286
0.0256
0.0245
0.0259
0.0273
0.0290
0.0276
0.0301
0.0299
0.0301
0.0247
0.0296
0.0306
0.0290
0.0285
0.0299
0.0280
0.0298
0.0249
69
Append:lx 5.
Volumetric fecundity data:
estimates of total
fecundity using individual subsamples, calculated from F = nV (see Methods and Materials):
aeans of the individual estimates: and standard deviations (SD) of the individual estiaates.
Fecundity Estimate
Fish I.D.
Number
85-1
85-2
85-4
85-5
85-6
85-7
85-8
85-9
85-13
85-15
85-16
85-17
85-18
85-19
85-20
85-22
85-24
85-25
85-26
85-27
85-29
85-32
85-33
85-35
85-37
85-39
85-40
86-3
86-4
86-5
86-6
86-9
86-12
86-14
86-15
86-18
86-19
86-20
86-21
86-22
86-23
Sample a
14
26
13
14
13
11
33
23
14
56
25
24
7
51
25
9
16
17
13
9
12
10
23
14
11
18
17
14
18
18
22
27
19
20
8
11
21
20
11
31
14
741
368
555
973
629
150
804
540
080
534
740
596
875
047
223
631
155
261
738
647
611
951
536
494
107
753
261
749
315
920
142
119
186
868
636
557
502
577
730
493
415
Sample b
15
27
15
15
15
11
36
23
14
63
26
26
8
52
24
9
15
17
14
9
12
11
23
15
11
19
17
14
18
18
22
27
19
20
8
11
20
20
12
31
14
020
263
356
812
222
331
180
276
840
406
520
098
435
203
640
901
840
633
029
293
002
154
587
206
542
646
112
620
482
705
533
775
765
979
693
739
534
235
121
820
136
Sample c
15
27
14
16
14
11
35
24
15
60
27
25
8
53
25
9
16
16
13
10
12
11
24
15
11
18
17
14
18
19
22
28
19
20
8
11
21
19
11
32
14
485
960
861
574
249
620
100
156
360
746
105
597
458
690
223
708
785
777
608
207
573
120
566
629
716
565
893
706
926
307
707
067
403
591
978
739
055
950
691
229
927
Mean
15
27
14
15
14
11
35
23
14
60
26
25
8
52
25
9
16
17
13
9
12
11
23
15
11
18
17
14
18
18
22
27
19
20
8
11
21
20
11
31
14
082
197
591
786
367
367
028
657
760
229
455
430
256
313
029
747
260
224
792
715
395
075
896
110
455
988
422
692
574
977
461
653
452
813
769
678
030
254
847
848
493
SO
376
798
930
800
803
237
1190
452
644
3465
685
765
330
1325
337
139
481
429
216
461
341
109
580
574
314
578
415
66
316
305
290
485
293
200
183
105
484
314
238
369
401
70
Appendix 5 continued.
----------------------------------------------------------Fecundity Estimate
Fish 1.0.
------------------------------------Sa.ple
a
Sa.ple b
Sa.ple c
Mean
Number
SD
----------------------------------------------------------86-26
86-27
86-28
86-30
86-31
86-34
86-38
86-39
86-40
86-42
86-46
86-48
86-49
86-50
86-51
86-52
86-53
86-55
86-58
86-59
86-60
86-61
86-62
86-63
86-65
86-68
86-74
86-85
86-87
86-88
86-89
86-90
86-91
86-92
86-93
86-94
86-99
86-100
86-101
86-103
86-107
86-110
11
38
12
15
18
26
18
13
10
11
12
11
8
8
16
33
25
31
31
22
24
17
7
40
13
21
22
11
20
16
19
22
19
19
9
13
12
13
25
40
11
32
920
966
323
822
424
018
354
720
613
534
408
826
201
467
676
748
498
218
115
781
081
249
540
792
756
414
918
910
460
002
780
733
872
941
040
625
830
125
354
101
377
884
12
38
12
16
19
28
18
13
10
11
12
11
8
8
16
35
27
30
32
21
23
16
7
41
14
20
24
11
21
15
20
22
20
20
7
13
13
13
24
41
11
31
040
524
369
362
649
038
768
400
647
308
188
720
140
735
280
578
342
315
258
255
612
515
337
114
842
023
583
584
142
435
873
528
907
094
970
764
414
440
736
210
230
448
11
40
12
15
19
26
20
13
10
11
13
11
7
8
16
34
25
31
32
22
25
17
7
41
14
22
24
11
21
15
19
22
20
20
8
13
13
13
25
38
10
31
920
442
462
444
110
906
148
480
782
696
332
508
856
491
500
358
498
734
766
127
299
029
337
435
552
433
980
656
142
561
780
528
838
145
683
764
057
388
509
199
900
592
11
39
12
15
19
26
19
13
10
11
12
11
8
8
16
34
26
31
32
22
24
16
7
41
14
21
24
11
20
15
20
22
20
20
8
13
13
13
25
39
11
31
960
311
385
876
061
987
090
533
681
513
643
684
066
564
485
561
112
089
046
054
331
931
405
114
384
290
160
717
915
666
144
596
539
060
564
718
100
318
200
836
169
975
69
1005
71
461
614
1012
939
167
89
195
607
162
184
148
198
932
1065
718
846
766
871
377
117
321
562
1210
1094
171
394
298
631
118
579
106
544
81
294
169
409
1523
244
791
-----------------------------------------------------------
71
Appendix 6.
Grevimetric fecundity dete: estimetes of tote1
fecundity using individuel subsemples. celculated from F = nW/w (see Methods end
Materials); means of the individual estimates;
and standard deviations (SO) of the individual
estimetea.
Fecundity Estimate
Fish I.D.
Number
85-1
85-2
85-4
85-5
85-6
85-7
85-8
85-9
85-13
85-15
85-16
85-17
85-18
85-19
85-20
85-22
85-24
85-25
85-26
85-27
85-29
85-32
85-33
85-35
85-37
85-39
85-40
86-3
86-4
86-5
86-6
86-9
86-12
86-14
86-15
86-18
86-19
86-20
86-21
86-22
86-23
Semple e
16
31
15
17
15
12
37
24
16
63
28
28
8
54
26
10
17
18
15
10
13
11
25
16
12
20
19
15
19
20
24
30
20
22
9
12
23
20
13
33
16
792
290
526
924
118
229
786
329
550
110
339
458
885
557
652
930
922
256
098
736
803
710
973
054
430
365
485
797
728
454
500
630
683
750
744
702
133
444
070
964
128
Semple b
16
31
16
18
16
12
38
24
17
67
28
28
9
54
27
10
17
18
15
10
14
11
25
16
12
20
19
15
19
20
25
30
20
22
'3
12
22
20
13
34
15
441
128
358
675
141
919
517
759
268
007
992
810
756
692
007
634
516
825
418
823
105
967
945
348
634
982
513
857
908
093
107
948
793
871
809
404
092
578
339
429
354
Semple c
16
31
16
19
15
13
38
25
17
65
29
28
9
54
27
10
17
18
15
11
15
11
26
16
12
21
19
15
19
20
25
30
20
23
9
12
22
20
13
33
15
679
823
000
254
862
119
092
055
071
506
528
786
610
458
276
662
759
551
368
044
671
891
588
802
550
233
480
461
685
544
567
654
554
297
900
404
403
495
150
768
752
Meen
16
31
15
18
15
12
38
24
16
65
28
28
9
54
26
10
17
18
15
10
14
11
26
16
12
20
19
15
19
20
25
30
20
22
9
12
22
20
13
34
15
638
414
961
618
707
756
132
714
963
207
953
685
417
569
978
742
732
544
294
868
526
856
169
402
538
860
493
705
774
364
058
744
677
973
818
503
543
506
186
054
745
SD
179
364
417
667
529
467
367
365
371
1966
595
197
466
117
313
163
204
284
172
159
1003
132
364
377
103
447
18
213
118
238
535
177
120
287
78
172
534
68
138
340
387
-----------------------------------------------------------
72
Appendix 6 continued.
Fecundity Estimate
Fish r .. D.
Number
86-26
86-27
86-28
86-30
86-31
86-34
86-39
86-40
86-42
86-48
86-49
86-50
86-51
86-52
86-53
86-55
86-58
86-59
86-60
86-61
86-62
86-63
86-65
86-68
86-74
86-85
86-87
86-88
86-89
86-90
86-91
86-92
86-93
86-99
86-100
86-103
86-107
86-110
Sample a
13
40
13
17
20
30
14
12
12
12
8
8
17
37
30
35
34
24
26
18
8
45
16
24
25
12
22
17
22
26
21
21
9
14
14
42
12
35
297
799
929
433
133
109
956
285
360
784
979
915
734
282
401
211
004
215
121
467
266
052
049
988
751
827
628
476
257
968
787
542
387
430
483
330
270
731
Sample b
13
40
14
17
20
31
14
12
12
12
9
9
17
37
30
34
33
25
26
17
8
43
16
23
26
12
22
17
22
27
22
22
8
14
14
41
12
35
525
733
120
450
588
453
953
146
404
182
028
490
631
147
547
478
267
064
070
991
073
924
777
455
392
961
838
307
242
598
765
138
849
980
586
868
314
269
Sample c
13
40
14
17
20
30
15
12
12
12
8
9
18
37
29
35
33
24
26
18
8
44
16
25
27
13
22
17
21
27
22
21
9
14
14
40
11
35
532
879
179
720
610
391
042
435
575
277
917
262
411
787
356
646
910
924
785
550
389
268
323
219
003
372
838
449
147
374
306
904
142
582
724
610
992
430
Mean
13
40
14
17
20
30
14
12
12
12
8
9
17
37
30
35
33
24
26
18
8
44
16
24
26
13
22
17
21
27
22
21
9
14
14
41
12
35
452
804
076
534
444
651
984
289
446
414
975
222
925
405
101
111
727
735
325
336
242
415
383
554
382
053
768
411
882
314
286
862
126
664
598
603
192
477
SD
134
73
131
161
270
709
51
145
114
324
56
289
424
337
649
590
401
455
398
302
159
578
368
959
626
284
122
90
636
319
489
301
270
284
121
890
175
235