4.4 Article

Linking marine and freshwater growth in western Alaska Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

期刊

JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY
卷 75, 期 6, 页码 1287-1301

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02364.x

关键词

Bering Sea; compensatory growth; enhanced growth; salmon recovery; scales

资金

  1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NA06FP0387]
  2. U.S. Department of Commerce
  3. Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Initiative
  4. U.S. Geological Survey's Global Change Initiative Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hypothesis that growth in Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. is dependent on previous growth was tested using annual scale growth measurements of wild Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha returning to the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, Alaska, from 1964 to 2004. First-year marine growth in individual O. tshawytscha was significantly correlated with growth in fresh water. Furthermore, growth during each of 3 or 4 years at sea was related to growth during the previous year. The magnitude of the growth response to the previous year's growth was greater when mean year-class growth during the previous year was relatively low. Length (eye to tail fork, L-ETF) of adult O. tshawytscha was correlated with cumulative scale growth after the first year at sea. Adult L-ETF was also weakly correlated with scale growth that occurred during freshwater residence 4 to 5 years earlier, indicating the importance of growth in fresh water. Positive growth response to previous growth in O. tshawytscha was probably related to piscivorous diet and foraging benefits of large body size. Faster growth among O. tshawytscha year classes that initially grew slowly may reflect high mortality in slow growing fish and subsequent compensatory growth in survivors. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha in this study exhibited complex growth patterns showing a positive relationship with previous growth and a possible compensatory response to environmental factors affecting growth of the age class.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据