My; .«.

A STUDY or "THE AGE, GROWTH; AND
YEAR CLASS Aaummrcigo: Ema

wmmsasn, COREGQNUS .cwaAmmas

W .

(METCHflLM mom-ma BAY DE NOC,‘
Dam Cow-“n", MECH‘IGAN

Mumimmamsp
mm sure-Coulee. ‘
Allan Mios'ley Bark"
195.3

. 31%le

     
   
  
  
 
 
   
  
 

Thisistoeertifgthatthe

thesis entitled

A Study of the Age. Growth, and Year Class Abundance
of the Whitefish. Coregonus Clupeaformis
(Mitchell). from Big Bay do Noe.
Delta County, Michigan

presented by

Allan 1-1. Barker

has been accepted towardsrfnlflllment ,
of the requirements for

Ldegree in_L&L_

      

Major professor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘l

A STUDY OF THE AGE, GROWTH, AND YEAR CLASS ABUNDANCE

OF THE WHITFFISH, COPFGONUE CLUPEAFORMIS (MITCHILL),

 

 

FROM BIG BAY DE NOC, DELTA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

BY
Allan Mosley Egrker

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
1953 \5 *"A

THESIS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude
to Dr. P. I. Tack, Professor and Head of the Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State College, who
directed this study and whose suggestions and guidance
were always available. Special thanks are also due
Drs. Robert C. Ball and Don W. Hayne, Department of
Zoology, for additional assistance.

The c00peration of the commercial fishermen of
Big Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan, was greatly appreciated.

This investigation was supported in part by aid

from the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

308568

x

‘ it... .
. My“. . .fius. t. .

 

 

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND HETRODS

AGE COMPOSITION AND LENGTH FRFQIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

OF THE COMMERCIAL CATCHES

Collections of October—November, 1951

Collections of May, 1952
Collections of September, 1952
STRENGTH OF AGE GROURS AND YEAR CLAS
Collections of October-November,
Collections of May, 1952
Collections of September, 1952

CALCULATED GROWTH

SES

1951

Collections of October~November, 1951

Collections of May, 1952
Collections of September, 1952
LENG TH- WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP

Collections of OctoberwNovember,
September, 1952 . .

Collections of May, 1952
COMPARISON OF SEXES
Collections of 1951
Collections of May, 1952
SUMMARY
LITERATURE CITED

APPENDIX

1951 and

47
52
SO

61
62
65

68

I It I I t I I..- A ‘1' III I I 'IIIIIIIII' 1 1|! ll 1 I ll ‘ Ill 'I'llllll A. I llIlII-Ill.I

LIST OF FIGURES

Big Bay de Noo Whitefish Frontispiece
Page

Figure 1. Chart of Big Bay de N00 5
Figure 2. Percentage representation of the

1951 and 1952 collections 26
Figure 3. Calculated growth curves 36
Figure 4. Observed growth curves 38
Figure 5. Age~weight curves 40
Figure 6. Regression of lengthuweight, 1951

and September, 1952 fish 49
Figure 7. Length-weight relationship of 1951

and September, 1952 fish 51
Figure 8. Regression of lengthwweight,

Max 1952 whitefish 54
Figure 9. Length-weight relationship

of May, 1952 Whitefish 56
Figure 10 Length—weight curves of 1951

and 1952 Whitefish 59

INTRODUCTION

The Whitefish, goregonus clupeaformis (Mitchell), is the

 

largest and most widely known species of the coregonid fishes
in North America. It may attain a weight of twenty-six pounds
and reach the age of sixteen years in the Great Lakes. This
fish is usually confined to lakes having cold, deep water,

and is distributed throughout much of Canada and the states
bordering the Great Lakes. Jordan and Evermann (1911) review
the distribution of the Whitefish in the Great Lakes and other
regions, and Koelz (1929, 1951) gives an account of the distri‘
bution and natural history of the corevonid fishes in the
Great Lakes and in northeastern America. Records indicate
that the Whitefish was formerly abundant all along the shores
of Lake Michigan and around the islands at the northern end of
the lake. At the present time this species is the object of

a special fishery only in the northern part of the lake.

The value of the Whitefish as food has been fully recog—
nized since it was first captured. This species brings a
higher market price than that of any other lake fish except
the sturgeon. Less than one million pounds of Whitefish were
taken from the state of Michigan waters of Lake Michigan in
1951 but the value of this catch was nearly one-half million
dollars. Lake Michigan produces the bulk of the present

cat

0

h from Michigan waters of the Great Lakes and most of

these fish are caught in the vicinity of Big Bay de Noc.
Production of whitefish has fluctuated drastically in Lake
Huron and Lake Michigan in recent years. A phenomenally
high peak of production was reached in both these lakes in
1945, but the populations have apparently returned to more
normal levels. The catch in Lake Huron was nearly three
million pounds in 1948, but it declined to 114,203 pounds in
1950 (Michigan Biennial Reports, Fish Division). The Lake
hichigan catches increased from 1,325,235 pounds in 1945 to
a peak of 4,262,578 pounds in 1948 and then declined to
2,101,551 pounds in 1950 and 971,098 pounds in 1951 (Michi-
gan Biennial Reports, Fish Division).

More study is needed as to the influence of the strongly
represented year classes which may dominate the catch for a
short period. Additional information on the strength of
year classes making up the commercial catches is also needed.
Most age and growth studies have been based on Whitefish
caught by the commercial fishery. Very little is known about
the early life history of this valuable species. As most of
the fish are netted on the spawning grounds in fairly shallow
water, information as to migration and the possible existence
of isolated populations of this species is almost completely
lacking. In bodies of water as vast as the Great Lakes these
problems may never be fully solved. Many more investigations
on the early life history of the whitefish are needed before

the age and growth data can be completely interpreted.

..I l. {l II III [I l I III I I [all [ .II In! 1‘ ii?

MATERIALS AND EETHODS

This study of the age and growth of the Whitefish is
based on data obtained from 859 specimens taken by the com-
mercial fishery from the Big Bay de Noc waters of northern
Lake Michigan (Figure 1). Field collections were made during
October and November, 1951 and day and September, 1952. Data
relating to dates of collection, locality of catch, type of
gear used, and total number of fish in each sample are given
in Table 1.

All the fish were weighed and measired immediately upon
delivery to the fish house. Weights were determined by
using a spring balance and are recorded in pounds and ounces.
Length measurements were recorded in millimeters. The total
length was obtained by using the conventional fish measuring
bOard having a vertical endmpiece, to place the snout against,
and an inset millimeter rule. In this study the to‘al length
is defined as the distance from the junction of the pre-
maxillaries to the tip of the caudal fin, with the lobes come
pressed in order to give the maximum pOssible measurement.

Sex and stage of sexual maturity were recorded for the
1951 samples as the bulk of the catc es were sub-legal fish,
which made it possible to retain these Whitefish for further
study. The sex of the fish taken in 1952 could not be deter—

mined, as most of these specimens exceeded the legal limit of

Figure 1. Big Bay de Noc in northern Lake Michigan,

showing the collecting localities of this study.

WED ISLAND

   

“ml

LAKE IIOHIOAN

§\\\s

\\\\\\\
g:

 

H

/

/

///.

as};
\ b

\

“ARDEN

SAWLES

\\\\\‘ m.
m was

 

I MILE

Samples of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish

Used in Age and Growth Studies

 

Date Locality Gear Fish

15.3.5.1
Oct. 30 Katee Bay trap nets 60
Nov. 1 Chippewa Point trap nets 33
Nov. 1 Round Island trap nets 19
Nov. 1 Big Hump trap nets 43
Nov. 3 Katee Bay trap nets 13

l. w.
May 4 Middle Grounds gill nets 83
May 5 Burnt Bluff pound nets 93
may 7 Burnt Bluff pound nets 92
May 7 Chippewa Point pound nets 63
May 9 Big Hump pound nets 80
May 9 Chippewa Point pound nets 51
May 10 Burnt Bluff pound nets 83
Sept. 9 Burnt Bluff pound nets 13
Sept. 13 Burnt Bluff pound nets 114

 

 

““I— -‘- -

7
two pounds and were sold intact or "in the round" by the
commercial fishermen.

Scale samples were taken from the left side of the fish,
from an area just above the lateral line and immediately
anterior to the dorsal fin. The scales were preserved in
envelopes on which the cataIOg number assigned to the fish
and information as to date, locality of catch, sex, length,
weight, and other data were recorded. In the laboratory the
scales were cleaned and mounted on glass slides in a solu=
tion of gelatin and glycerin. Scale reading was accomplished
by projecting the image through a scale projection apparatus
resembling the one used by Van Oosten, et a1 (1934). The
positions of the essential scale features were recorded on
Me Bee Keysort cards having a millimeter rule printed along
one edge. In measuring the radii of the annuli, the card was
placed along the anterior radius of the scale image (x 29
approximately) with the zero mark on the calibrated edge at
the focus of the scale. Without moving the card, the loca~
tion of the annuli and the anterior margin of the scalexwere
marked on the card. The card was coded with the catalog
number of the fish, as designated on the scale slide, and was
later used in determining the growth rates. Growth compum
tations were made on the assumption that the body-scale ratio
remained constant after the completion of the first annulus.
A direct proportion nomograph, calibrated in millimeters, as

described by Carlander and Smith (1944) was used to calculate

8
the annual growth from the scale measurements. For the back-
calculation procedure, the value of "c", length of the fish
when scales first appear, is set at 35‘40 millimeters for
the Whitefish (Van Oosten, 1929).

In these calculations the value of "c" was set at 40
millimeters, to be consistent with the value used by Caraway
(1951) in his study of the Whitefish of Big Bay de Noc. Van
Oosten (1923) established the validity of age determinations
from whitefish scales and he also demonstrated that direct-
proportion calculations of growth based on diameter measure-
ments of the scale are satisfactorily accurate. Ages are
expressed by Roman numerals and indicate the number of
annuli on the scale. The year of life of the fish is one
greater than the number of annuli present. A fish having
two annuli visible on its scales is in the third year of

life.

AGE COMPOSITION AND LENGTHEFREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

In Tables 2=4, the Whitefish have been placed in appro«
priate age groups and year classes, with the individuals of
each age arranged according to their total length. The mid»
points of the intervals of total length in millimeters are
converted to total lengths in inches for each sample. The
number of fish in each age group, the percentage of that
number in the combined samples, and the average total length
of the individuals in each group, as well as of the entire
collection, are shown at the bottom of each table. The
column at the extreme right of each table gives the total
number of fish in each size group. In these tables the data
of the 1951 collections have the sexes combined, and the 1952
data are composed of both sexed and non—sexed fish. In the
work of Caraway (1951) the sexes were combined, and an analy—
sis by Van Oosten (1939) showed that the length frequencies
of the sexes were virtually the same within an age group.

In this study the individual samples were combined to give
a collection of more adequate size. The age composition
and length-frequency distributions for each sample have also

been determined and are included in the Appendix.

Collections of OctoberaNovember, 1951
In the 1951 samples all the Whitefish were taken in trap
nets set by the commercial fishermen in Big Bay de Noc from

October 30 to November 3. Fish from fOur localities (Kates

10
Bay, Chippewa Point, Big Hump, and Round Island) comprised the
entire collection. Samples from the first three localities
are so similar in age composition and length-frequency distri-
butions that the data suggest the possibility of the fish all
coming from the same or very similar populations. Age group
II (1949 year class) fish constituted over 80 per cent of the
total catch in these three samples and the remaining individ-
uals were of age group III (1948 year class), except for one
group I (1950 year class), the only Whitefish of this age
taken during the investigation. The Round Island sample was
obtained on the same date as the Big Hump and Chippewa Point
samples, but the age composition and lengthafrequency distri-
bution of this sample are very different from the others in
the 1951 collection. Although only nineteen fish came from
the waters near Hound Island, three of the specimens were
older than age group III. No whitefish older than age
group III were found among the remaining 148 individuals in
the total collection of 1951. The bulk (57.8 per cent) of
the Round Island sample consisted of age group III fish, and
age group II represented only 26.3 per cent of the total number
caught. A possible explanation for the greater age and size
of the Round Island fish may be that the waters of this area
are shallower than those of the other localities from which
samples were obtained in 1951. Hart (1930, 1931) suggests
that at certain times the larger forms of Whitefish may fre«
quent waters of less depth than those inhabited by the smaller

forms. Since all of the fish in the 1951 collection were

ll
taken during the spawning period, the greater preportion of
mature individuals in the Round Island sample may also have
been a factor tending to cause this apparently unequal distria
bution of the Big Bay de Noc Whitefish.

The length-frequency distributions arranged according to
age groups and intervals of total length for the whitefish in
the combined collection of 1951 are given in Table 2. The
bulk (98.2 per cent) of the samples ranged from 360 milli-
meters (14.2 inches) to 499 millimeters (19.7 inches) in
total length, with an average length of 415 millimeters (16.3
inches). The smallest fish had a total length of 318 milli-
meters (12.5 inches) and belonged to age group I. This speci—
men represented the only whitefish of age group I taken in
either 1951 or 1958. The largest fish had a total length of
59? millimeters (23.5 inches) and belonged to age group VII.
The overlapping of the lengths of the age 11 and III indi-
viduals may be due to the selective action of the trap nets.
Most of the age II whitefish weighed less than the legal limit
of two pounds and were not retained by the nets but the larger
fish would have had a greater chance of being captured.

Age group II dominates the sample (80.8 per cent) and
age group III (16.8 per cent) represents the remainder of the
18? fish in the collection, except for four specimens reprem
senting age groups I, IV, VI, and VII. The 1946 year class
(age group V) is not represented. This age group was quite

abundant in the samples of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish taken by

i,” y ‘( 12
Caraway (1951) in September of 1949 and 1950. The complete
absence of this age group in all of the 1951 and 1952 collec«
tions tends to indicate the efficiency of the intensive fishery

for this species. Another possible explanation may be that

these fish had moved out of the Big Bay de Noc area.

Collections of May, 1952

The 545 Whitefish obtained during May, 1952 were taken
in pound nets, except for the Middle Grounds sample of May 4
which was taken with gill nets, Operated by the commercial
fishermen in Big Bay de Noc. The sample from the gill nets
was so nearly identical to the others taken during May that
it was combined with them. The seven samples were obtained
during the period May 4—10 and represent four localities
(Hiddle Grounds, Burnt Bluff, Chippewa Point, and the Big
Hump). The age composition of all the samples was very nearly
identical except for the Burnt Bluff sample of May 5. All of
the 93 fish collected on this date belonged to age group II
(1949 year class). The length-frequency distributions arranged
according to age groups and intervals of total length for the
Whitefish captured in Big Bay de Noc during May, 1952 are given
in Table 3. The apparent discrepancy between age group and
year class in the table headings is due to the fact that the
annulus for 1952 had not yet formed on the scales. The year
class was determined by assuming that this annulus was present,

thus making the fish one year older than it appeared.

13

Table 2. Length-frequency Distribution
of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish

(Samples of October 50=November 3, 195l. The sexes are combined.)

 

_—

 

‘ng Group
Total Total II III IV VI VII
length length‘ Total
intervall (inches) Year Class

 

1949 1948 1947 1945 1944

 

550-359 14.4 2 2
370-379 14.8 5 5
380-389 15.2 15 15
390-399 15.5 35 35
400-409 15.9 29 29
410-419 15.3 24 1 25
420-429 15.7 15 15
430-459 17.1 s 1 9
440-449 17.5 5 5
450-453 17.9 1 2 3
450-459 18.5 5 5
470-479 18.7 8 8
480-489 19.1 3 1 4
490-499 19.5 1 1
500-509 19.9
510-519 20.3 1 1
590-599 23.4 1 1
Average total length
(millimeters) 405 452 519 488 597 415
Average total length
(inches) 15.9 18.2 20.4 19.2 25.5 15.3
Total number of fish 135 28 1 1 1 157

Percentage of total 80.8 16.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 100.0

 

l lillimeters
* Equivalent to midpoints of intervals of total length

14

In the combined collection the bulk (97.0 per cent) of
the samples ranged from 380 millimeters (15.0 inches) to 529
millimeters (20.9 inches) in total length with an average
length of 441 millimeters (17.3 inches). The smallest fish
taken had a total length of 380 millimeters (15.0 inches) and
belonged to age group II. The largest specimen had a total
length of 647 millimeters (25.2 inches) and belonged to age
group XI. This was the oldest whitefish taken during the
investigation. Overlapping of the lengths of most of the age
groups is probably due to the selectivity of the gear and the
inadequate numbers of older fish.

Age group II (1949 year class) dominated the sample (80.2
per cent) and age group III (1948 year class) represented most
(16.2 per cent) of the remaining fish in the collection. The
youngest specimens belonged to age group II and the oldest to
age group XI (1940 year class). Age group IV is represented by
1.1 per cent, VI group by 0.2 per cent, VII group by 0.2 per
cent, VIII group, the third most abundant, by 1.7 per cent, IX
group by 0.2 per cent, and XI group by 0.2 per cent. Age group
V (1946 year class) and age group X (1941 year class) are not
represented.

A comparison of the age composition of the 1951 collec-
tion with that of May, 1952 proved very interesting. The per-
centage of age II and III fish was almost identical in both
collections. Age group II represented 80.8 per cent of the

total catch in 1951 and 80.2 per cent in May, 1952. Age group

Table Br-Length-frequency distribution or Big Bey dc Noe rhltcrish.

( Samples of May A - 10, 1952. The sexes arc combined.)

Age group
II III IV VI VII
Total Total -
length ‘;/ length’ Year class
interval (inches) 1949 1918 1947 1985 1911
380-389 15.? 2 1
190-399 15.6 5 1
LOO-409 15.9 21
LID-119 16.3 51
L20-L29 16.7 91
L30-A39 17.1 13L 1
ka-hh9 17.5 81 L
450-659 17.9 31 9
460-469 18.3 9 8
470-479 18.7 18 1
L80-189 19.1 1 18 \
L90-h99 19.5 ‘ 13
500-609 19.9 3 2
510-519 20.3 8
SAG-5&9 21.5
570-579 22.6 1
580-589 23.0 1
$90-$99 23.1
600-609 23.3-
‘110-619 PLO? 1
620-629 26.6
620-649 25.4
Average total length 43? L76 532 578 614
(u1111me0e1‘b)
AVerege total length 16.6 18.9 21.1 22.8 21.2
(inchee)
Total number of fish L26 86 6 l 1

Percentage of total 80.2
‘ Fauivalent to midpoints

i/Eslllimeters

16.2 1.1 0.2 0.2

of intervals of total length

VIII II II

Total

1963 1962 1960

find

'0ku
rwdumr

1 1
628 640 647 665

21.7 25.2 25.5 17.5
9 1 1 531
1.7 0.2 0.2 100.0

16
III comprised 16.8 per cent of the total in 1951 as compared
with 16.2 per cent in May, 1952. Age groups V and X were not
represented in either sample. Age group VIII was the third
most abundant group in the 1952 collection but it was not
represented in the 1951 samples. This age group was one of
the most dominant in the samples of Big Bay de Noc whitefish
taken by Caraway during 1949 and 1950. Excluding age group ‘
VIII, no age group above IV was represented by more than one

fish in either collection.

Collection of September, 1952.

This sample consisted of 127 whitefish taken from pound
nets set in the waters off Burnt Bluff on September 9 and 12,
1952. Thirteen fish were obtained on September 9 and the
others were captured on September 12. Length—frequency distriw
butions and age composition for this collection are presented
in Table 4. The fish ranged from 366 millimeters (14.4 inches)
to 507 millimeters (20.2 inches) in total length with an average
length of 459 millimeters (18.1 inches).

The catch was composed almost entirely of age group III
(1949 year class) fish and only three individuals did not belong
to this age group. The only age II specimen had a total length
of 366 millimeters (14.4 inches). Two fish of age group IV
had an average total length of 507 millimeters (20.2 inches).
The age III whitefish had an average total length of 459 millie

meters (18.1 inches).

Table 4. Lengthmfrequency Distribution

of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish

17

 

 

 

Total Total A e rOu
length length‘ IT 1%: TV

 

 

interval (inches) Total
(millimeters) __ Year class
1950 1949 1%
360w369 14.4 1 1
420=489 16.7 2 3
430w439 17.1 7 7
440~449 17.5 32 32
450~459 17.9 33 33
460m469 18.3 22 23
470~479 18.7 l6 l6
480~489 19.1 8 8
490~499 19.5 2 2
5001509 19.9 2 2 4
Average total length
(millimeters) 366 459 507 459
Avera”e total length
(inches) 14.4 18.1 20.1 18.1
Total number of fish 1 124 2 127
Percentage of total 0.8 97.6 1.6 100.0

* Equivalent to midpoints of total length intervals.

18
A comparison of the collections taken during May and
September of 1952 shows a great increase in dominance by the
fish of the 1949 year class in the September sample. This
group represented 80.2 per cent of the May samples and com»
prised 97.6 per cent of the September catch. The 1948 year
class composed 16.2 per cent of the May collection but was

represented by only 1.6 per cent in the September samples.

STRENGTH OF AGE GROUPS AND YEAR CLASSES

Many problems are encountered in the determination of
the relative abundance of the different age groups and year
classes. Gear selectivity and the season of sampling are
perhaps the main problems involved in this phase of the
investigation. All the whitefish captured were used for
these comparisons as the majority of the collections came
from pound nets, and the 1951 samples taken in trap nets were
included, since Van Oosten and Hile (1947) stated that the
selective action of trap nets is similar to that of pound
nets.

Although the data are inadequate to permit any definite
conclusions, enough information is available so that certain
year classes may be safely described as being of greater or
less than average strength. An analysis of the age composia
tion of the whitefish collected in 1951 and 1952 suggests the
presence of certain year classes that may be termed rela-
tively poor or relatively good. In Big Bay de Noc the year
class of 1949 as the age group II of 1951 represented over 80
per cent of the samples and as the III group in 1952 it was
even more dominant, comprising 97.6 per cent of the total
collection (Figure 2, Tables 527). In contrast, the year

class of 1946 was not represented in either 1951 or 1952.

20
Collections of OctoberuNovember, 1951

The age compositions and percentage representations for
the individual samples and the combined collection are given
in Table 5. All the fish were taken in trap nets during the
period October 30«November 3. The samples came from four
localities (Katee Bay, Chippewa Point, Round Island, and Big
Hump) in Big Bay de Noc. The percentage compositions of all
the samples were very similar, except for the Round Island
collection which contained most of the older fish. This was
the only sample having any individuals older than age group
III and, although this collection was made on the same date
as thOse of Chippewa Point and Big Hump, the age composition
was very different. The 1949 year class (age group II) was
strongly dominant in all the other samples taken in 1951 but
this group composed only 26.3 per cent of the Round Island
fish. The 1945 year class (age group III) dominated this
sample (57.8 per cent of the total) and age groups IV, VI,
and VII each represented 5.3 per cent of the total. The
Katee Bay collections appeared to contain a slightly higher
percentage of age group 11 fish. The small sample of 12
specimens taken on November 3 was comprised entirely of age
II individuals and the October 30 collection consisted of
93.3 per cent age II and 6.7 per cent age group III. In the
combined collection it is evident that the 1949 year class
(age II) is strongly dominant (80.8 per cent). The 1948 year
class (III group) represents 16.8 per cent of the total and

age groups I, IV, VI, and VII each comprise 0.6 per cent of

seem so seneaz .

ommucmOpom a

 

 

o.ooa m.o 8.0 o e.o m.mH m.om e.o Aeeeapeoev emmeeeeeea
ems Asa Asa on Adv Ammv Ammav AHV Assenesoev seam Hesse
ma gov on gov on on Away on
o o o o o o.ooH o sem asses m geeseeoz
we on on on on Asa Anna Asa ,
o o o o n.8H e.am m.m seem mam H seneeeoz
ma ”Ha lav on Asa AHHV Amy on
m.m n.m o m.m m.em m.mm o eeeHeH sense H eeeeeeoz
mm gov on on on Rev Aemv Roy
0 o o o m.mH m.am o pesos sameness H sepseeoz
om gov on on on Asa .Aema Asa
o o o o e.m m.mm o aem seems on eeeoeeo
gene HH> H> > >H HHH HH. H apaaeeoa mesa

 

002 we smm Mam mo mmaasmm map mo coflpflmoaaoo mw<

Hmma .umpam>ozapm90poo wcfiusa cease nmflwopfins

.m eases

22
the total catch. The 1946 year class (V group) is not repre»

I f

sented in 1951 or 1952 and may be considered poor.

Collections of May, 1952

Age compositions and percentage representations for the
individual samples and the combined collection are shown in
Table 6. host of the samples were very similar in age composi-
tion and the percentage composition of the combined collection
is almost identical to that of the 1951 collection. The values
agree very closely except for the 1943 class (VIII group),
which is not represented in the 1951 data but was the third
most abundant group (1.6 per cent) in the May, 1952 collection.
The 1949 year class continued its strong dominance (80.8 per
cent) with the 1948 year class representing the second most
dominant group. Age group IV was the fourth mOst abundant
(1.3 per cent), VII group (0.4 per cent) was fifth, and age
groups VI, IX, and XI each represented 0.2 per cent of the
total. The 1943 year class may be considered very successful
on the basis of the nine specimens of age VIII taken in the
May, 1952 collection. No other age group above IV was repre—
sented by more than two individuals. Caraway (1951) found that
this year class was dominant in the samples of the Big Bay de
Noc whitefish taken in 1949 and 1950.

Considering the individual samples, the Big Hump collec-
tion of May 9 is very similar in percentage composition to the
Round Island sample of 1951, except that the 1948 year class
is not as strongly represented in the Big Hump catch. Both

samples contained the highest percentages of age III fish and

nmflm mo HmnEdz .

omspcooumm H

l‘l'.l|

 

l‘: '| -‘un’ ‘ lull. ll.-x'n '

 

 

 

 

0.00H m.o o m.o m.H «.0 m.o o n.H H.mH 0.0m .Aeoenpsoov mmapemoema
mam AHV on Adv Amv Amy Ray on Aav Ammv Amway ”escapaoov swap Hapoa
mm on boa gov Amy on on 10V Amv Aeav Aamv

o o o m.a o o o e.m m.mH m.ne madam paasm 0H ass
Hm on on boa on on on on Adv Aoav Aoev .

o o o o o o o o.m m.mH e.ma peace sameoaao m sea
om on ,ov on Amy AHV AHV on Any Anmv Aomv

o o o m.m n.H m.H o a.» a.mm m.mm deem mam m ass
mm AH on on AHV on on on AHV Away Amav

w.H o o m.H o o o m.H m.mm o.ma peace sameaaao a ems
mm now on AHV gov ”av on on on Aaav Aaav

o o H.H o o o o o m.mH e.om aweam paesm a ems
mm :3 .8 2: 2: 8V 8v 2: A3 A8 3.8

o o o o o o o o o o.ooH madam paezm m ass
mm on on on Roy AHV on on on Aoav .Amav

o o o o m.H o o o o.mH Ha.mm message afieeas e ass
mane Hx x xH HHHe HHe He > eH HHH HH apaaaooq memo

 

 

II ' .".|‘" 1" Iv‘i

mmmfl .sms mcaaeo posse seaweeds;

002 an mam mam mo mmHQEMm esp we cofipflmoaaoo mr< .m edema

Lu
4-

each had at least five different year classes represented.
The Burnt Bluff sample taken on May 5 was composed of 93 fish
of age II. A collection made at Burnt Bluff on May 7 had
80.4 per cent age II and 18.5_per cent age III. Caraway
found a sharp fluctuation in the percentage composition of
samples of whitefish taken on successive days from the waters

near Burnt Bluff in September, 1950.

Collections of September, 1952

This sample was obtained on September 9 and 12 from the
Burnt Bluff locality. Age composition and percentage repre-
sentation of the catch are presented in Table 7. The import-
ance of the age group IIIfish is very evident and the dominat~
ing influence of this very strong year class of 1949 is
graphically illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the percent-
age representation of the different year classes. Age group
IV (1943 year class) was still the second most abundant group
but it decreased greatly in dominance (16.1 to 1.6 per cent)
while age group III increased from 80.0 to 97.6 per cent.
Much of this decline in representation by the IV group is
probably due to the fact that most of the whitefish of this
age are of legal size. The 1950 year class was represented
by one specimen which comprised 0.8 per cent of the total
catch.

Fluctuations in the strength of year classes of fishes
have perplexed fishery bioloaists for many years. Investi-
gators agree that the strength of the year class is determined

very early in the life history of the fish but the problems

swam mo umnssz *

omMQCmonmm a

 

 

l'!!!

 

o.ooa m.H $.50 m.o Avocapsoov ammucmopom
ems Amy Asmav AHV Aeoeapsoov away Hapos
eaa Amv AHHHV Adv
m.a n.am m.o manna eesem NH amnsmpamm
ma on .Amav on
o H0.03 o emeflm pensm m eapsopaom
ease >H HHH HH apaaaooa mesa

 

mmma .emnsopdom manage cease amaeopnas

002 on zsm mam mo moagamm on» go coflpwmoqsoo om< .u canes

Figure 2. Percentage Representation of the Different
Age Groups of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish
Taken During the Years Indicated.

1951," ,

 

l952;---- ;

 

 

GROUP

AGE

28
involved in determining the controlling factors are very
complex. MeteorolOgical factors which affect water conditions
are considered to be very important in the determination of
the strength of year classes but Van Oosten and Hile (1947)
failed to find any indication of a correlation between
meteorOIOgical-limnological conditions and fluctuations in
the strength of year classes of Lake Erie whitefish. Much
more information and work is needed before the numerous
complex factors which determine the strength of year classes

are fully understood.

CALCULATED GROWTH

The samples of Big Bay de Noc whitefish used for the com«
parisons of the calculated growth rates were taken in pound and
trap nets during October and November of 1951 and May and
September of 1952. For best comparisons, all the fish should
have come from the same type of gear set at the same locations,
but the data from these samples permit some general conclusions
to be made. The numbers of older fish utilized for these com-
parisons were so small that the presence of only a few very
fast or slow—growing individuals probably had a pronounced
effect on the determination of calculated lengths in the later
years of life. The lengths at capture and the calculated
lengths at the end of each year of life are presented in
Tables 8 to 10. The grand averages of lengths and the incre-

ments in length are included at the bottom of each table.

Collections of October-November, 1951

The samples were all taken during the period October 30“
November 3, 1951 from four localities (Katee Bay, Round Island,
Big Hump, and Chippewa Point) in Big Bay de Noc. All the data
are from specimens captured in trap nets set by the commercial
fishermen. The 1951 sample is heavily dominated by the age
II fish, which represented over 80 per cent of the catch.
Calculated lengths of age groups I and II have values higher

than those of the first two years of life calculated from the

30

older fish captured in 1951 (Table 8). The greater lengths
for these ages may be due to the inadequate numbers of age I
fish and possibly gear selectivity could also have been a
factor, especially with the age II individuals. The large
value for age group II appears to indicate the presence of
Lee's phenomenon, in which the younger fish tend to have
higher calculated lengths for the earlier years of life than
do older fish. This effect was also evident in the 1952
collections. Van Oosten and Hile (1947) found an indication
of Lee's phenomenon in their study of Lake Erie whitefish

but Kennedy (1943) stated that no evidence of the presence of
this phenomenon existed in the whitefish of Lake Opeongo.

The calculated lengths for ages III, IV, and VI are very
similar for the first year but the growth in length of the
age VI fish apparently was much less than that of ages III
and IV after the first year. The low value for the first

year of life of age group VII is probably a result of the
small sample, although the fish did not appear to have a slow
growth rate after the first year. This individual had the
greatest increment in length after the second year of life.
The collections of 1951 and 1952 exhibit a drastic fluctuation
in the growth rates of different age groups from year to year.
This may indicate an application of the "law of compensation
of growth", which states that the smaller fish of an age group
tend to grow faster than the larger members after the first

year of life, but it is more likely caused by the small samples

 

‘- I. -. I

m.m m.H m.H m.H ¢.n m.m m.m Ammaoch pcoaonocH Hmscc<

 

m.mm 0.0m s.mH H.5H m.mH m.mH m.m Ammeocav semamH HspOP mmmsosa
ms mm os an mm mmH msH epmceH as assassoca Hsscc<
0mm pom ave «we saw HHm muH a n umH HH>1H
own new mom mme men onm mHH m.mm 5mm H HH>

05¢ m¢¢ mmm 0mm Hem omH m.mH mme H H>

mow ooe mum omH «.0m mHm H >H
00¢ mmm mmH m.mH mos mm HHH
mHm .omH m.mH mos mnH HH
OmH m.mH mHn H H
I a u r. mnopos a1II;a
e m m e n m H Ammnoch aHHHHsv smHH

nae» no use pm npmcoH npmcoH no anopm

AmpmmeHHHHav camcoH Hmqu UmpmHSOHmo Hmpoe Hepoe nonsdz mm<

 

 

 

'. ll ll. -. 1 "I" i

A.uOchEoo one moxom 059V
AHmmH .m sonsssozaom somepoo so moHassm 002 as asm mamv

oMHH no new» nomm mo 6cm map pm masono mm< can an
vmcHepp< mpcosonocH new mnumeoq noanSOHmo emmno>< on» use

cmmHnon oxmq CH vopOOHHoo anmopHna on» we opsummo pm summeq mmmuo>< .m oHpma

32

which were obtained for most age groups. Van Oosten (1939)
found that a growth compensation occurred in the Lake Huron
whitefish but Kennedy failed to find this tendency in the
whitefish of Lake Opeongo. With most of the better represented
age groups, the advantage of size reached in the first year

was usually maintained throughout life, although much of this
difference in length may have been caused by the varying

growth rates of the different year classes. Caraway (1951)
found that the Big Bay de Noc whitefish taken in 1949 and 1950
appeared to maintain the first year size advantage throughout

life.

Collections of May, 1952

These samples came from four localities (Middle Grounds,
Burnt Bluff, Chippewa Point and Big Hump) in Big Bay de Noe.
All of the fish were taken in pound nets Operated by the com»
mercial fishermen during the period May 4—10. Data pertainw
ing to the calculated lengths of these fish are presented in
Table 9. The catch was deminated by age group II, which formed
over 80 per cent of the total number of fish. Age II (16.4
per cent) was the only other group adequately represented.
The calculated lengths for most of the age groups are very
similar, except for the low value of VI and the high value
of age VII during the first year of life. The age groups
above IV, with the exception of age VIII, cannot be accurately
compared because of the small number of individuals represent-

ing these ages. The caICilated lengths at the end of each

mumpoeHHHaz .

 

 

 

m.o n.o s.o o.H m.H s.H m.H o.» m.n m.m H.s Amoaocav passages“ Hmscca
m.mm m.sm m.sm m.mm .mmm m.Hm m.om ¢.mH m.mH m.mH H.sfimsnocav numcmH HspOp mmssesa
mH m OH . mm mm mm H« as am mnH omH newcoH as sesamnocn Hssaca
owe mmm mHm mom Ham mam nHm mes mam mHn omH mam HxaHH
cam mmm sow mmm mmm cam mam mas ems oHn omH m.mm saw H Hx
mmm mHm oom Ham 0mm 0mm ems «on mmH m.mm cam H xH
mom mam osm mom mms new mam an s.sm mmm m HHH>
«He saw smm one own man mmm m.+m saw m HH>
0mm mam mas own omm mnH m.mm mam H H>
mas mHs mom asH m.om mam s >H
mmm mmm an s.mH mas mm HHH
mHm smH o.sH mas was HH
HH 0H m m page no pace 9% e m m. H Ammmmmww samemH nwwm adonm
HmpomeHHHHsv mmemH HePOP nopmHSOHmo Hmpoe Hmpoe umpfifiz om<

 

! I 'l'. '7'-

 

b ‘i’i'i'

H.6mchEoo one mmxmm one .mmmH .OHne >mz we mmHaEemV

.oeaa mo use» noes mo sea sap pm masons ewe map an
nochpp< musesouocH 6cm mnpmceq UopmHSOHmo ommno>< on» use
002 on sea mHm CH umpomHHoo anmopHng esp mo osspng pm npwcoq mmmuo>< .m meme

year of life and the annual increments are very similar to

those of the 1951 collection.

Collections of September, 1952

The whitefish comprising these samples came from the
waters of Burnt Bluff during the period September 9-12. The
entire catch was taken in pound nets set by the commercial
fishermen. The calculated lengths and increments for this
collection are given in Table 10. Age group III represented
97.6 per cent of the total catch. The low values for ages
II and IV are probably a result of the inadequate representa—
tion by these age groups due to recruitment. The calculated
lengths and annual increments compare favorably with those
of the May, 1958 collection, and are even more similar to
the values for the 1951 samples. Inspection of the annual
increments shows that the whitefish grows rapidly during the
first year of life and the length increment added during the
second year is more than two~thirds that of the first year.
The increment during the third year is almost one-half that
of the first year of life and in the fourth and fifth years
the increment decreases at a much slower rate. The grand
average calculated total lengths at the end of each year of
life are plotted in Figure 3.

The growth rate of Big Bay de Noe whitefish (Figures 4-5,
Tables 11—13) compares very favorably with that of pOpulations
of this species in the other Great Lakes and Canada. Van

Oosten (1939) found that in the Lake Huron whitefish the males

n.m m.e o.m m.m Amonoch pcmsonocH Hmdcc<

 

s.mH o.mH m.HH m.m AmmnoeHv numCoH Hmqu emmno><
mm noH an mpH zpmceH :H pcosouocH Hmdcc<
mew woe 0mm muH J a bmH >H3HH

mbe OHe emm HmH 0.0N 50m m >H

woe mmm NbH H.mH mme emH HHH

mmm mmH ¢.¢H mom H HH

a n m H Ammnocsv AmsopmsHHHHsv smug
week we use we Amnopos npmcoH nprmH mo Quoum
sHHHHsV epacoH HsPOp sepsHsOHso Hmpoe Hspos Hmpssz om<

I! I i i

Admchsoo mum mmxom was .mmmH .mHJm umpsopamm mo mmHQEmm 002 we hem mHmV
oMHH we use» seem mo ecm on» up museum ow< on» >9
nocHMpp< mucoeopocH use mnpmcoq UmpmHSQHeo ommuo>< exp use

cmmHnoHs mama CH UmpomHHoo anmmpHns emu mo madameo pm npmcmq ommno>< .oH oHnme

"11

.«lo

0').

S:

w
P.

U’}

*1
(D

3. Calculated Growth in Length of the Whitefish

Bay de 303 Based on Total Samples for the Bates

Indicated. The sexes are combined.

November, 1951,

 

flay, 195

CO

’ ,

September, lo52----‘

O
.

 

 

 

 

 

600

_
O
m

200 -

n n P
m m m
5 4 3
«55.2.3... 2. :8qu 42.3 32333

YEARS

Figure 4. Observed Growth in Length of the Whitefish
of Big Bay de Noc Based on Total Samples for the
Dates Indicated. The sexes are combined.
November, 1951,-—————-;
May, 1952, ----- ;

September, 1953,---;

 

 

650m:

600*-

550-

—
a
0
5
Bwhm3_._.=1 8.

4% r
.4. m

2P9! m4 JChOh

 

3

VII

VI

IV
AGE

 

300

Figure 5. Average heights of the Whitefish from
Big Bay de Noc Based on Total Samples for the
Dates Indicated. The sexes are combined.
November, 1951, -—--;
May, 1953, ---—;

Sept ember, 1952 , -—3

 

 

 

 

 

3
mozaoa

2
#1053

VII

VI

IV

AGE

swam so “@9552 .

phases H

 

 

smH AHV AHV on AHV Ammv AmnHv AHV Asocansoov swam Hspoe
mm.e mo.m o om.m Hm.H mm.H mm.o Aegeansoov passe; omsso><
mH on boy how gov on AmHv on
o o o o o mH.H o mam mmpmx n pepsm>oz
we on on on HOV Asa Ammv AHV
o o o o um.H um.H mm.o Q55: mHm H pmpsm>oz
mH HHV AHV on AHV AHHV Amv on
mm.e mo.m o om.m Ho.m mm.H o wesHmH venom H nonsm>oz
an on on gov on Amy mama on ..
o o o o Ou.H mm.H o chom mameoHno H pmpEo>oz
om on on on on Asv .Ammv on
o o . o o ms.H Hom.H o aem seams on sweepoo
mama HH> H> > >H HHH HH H apHHsooa mesa

002 on zmm mHm be» we messed cH panoa mmmnm>< .HH oHpme

.HmmH schema amass emamopans

amHm

mo nmnadz I

 

 

 

pemHoa H
mam HHV HOV HHV Amy Hmv HHV Hov Hsv Hmmv Hesse Asmersoov emHu Hspos
mm.e I mm.m mm.m mm.s ms.s I sm.m ma.m mm.H AsmaHpsoov

panms mmMpe><

mm Hov Hov HOV Hmv Hov Hov Hov Hmv HsHv HHmv
I I I Hm.m I I I mm.m Hm.m mm.H eusHm pcesm oH ass

Hm HOV Hov HOV HOV Hov HOV Hov HHV HoHv Hosv
I I I I I I I mm.m as.m mm.H chom semesHso m as:

om Hov Hov HOV Hmv HHV HHV Hov Hmv HoHV Hosv
I I I Hm.m mH.s ms.¢ I sm.n mm.m mm.H deem mHm m as:

no HHV HOV HOV HHV Hey Hey Hey HHV HsHv Hmav
mm.e I I me.m I I I mo.n m¢.m Hm.H peHom ssoaaHeo s as:

mm Hov How HHV Hov gov Hov Hov Hov HsHv Hssv
I I mm.m I I I I I om.m om.H emsHm pessm s as:

mm HOV HOV Hov HOV Hov Hov HOV Hov HOV Anmv
I I I I I I I I I sm.H mmsz pessm m ems

mm HOV Hov HOV How HHV HOV HOV HOV HOHV .Hmsv
I I I I mH.m I I I mm.m Hnm.H msesoso mHssHs a ass

ana Hx H xH HHH> HH> H> > pH HHH HH spHHmooa sumo
.mmmH .sss mersm cease emHmmpHes
ooz op zmm me me» we meadom cH panea mmmnm>< .mH oHpma

an9 no emnssz I
pemHea H

 

 

bmH Amv HemHv HHV HemcHnsoov anm Hmpoe

m.ne m.mn o.sH anocHnSoov panme emsuo><

eHH mmwe MHMMV OWMW wdem pandm NH pmpsepamm

nH Hma Hmmmw .Hmv mmsHm pesem m seesoeaem
anh >H HHH HH >pHHmooq epmo

 

.mmmH .uepamuaem mcHHsm sexes anmmpHna

002 on mmm me esp mo menacm CH ugmHeg emmne>< .wH erme

‘5
were sexually mature in the fifth year of life at a total
length of 19.3 inches and a weight of 2.4 pounds. He also
stated that the Lake Huron whitefish had a better growth
rate than did those of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. In the
Big Bay de Noe whitefish, age group IV males had an average
total length of 21.0 inches and an average weight of 2.95
pounds. Couch (1922) compares the growth rates of whitefish
from Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Hudson Bay, and Hile and
Deason (1934) give a good comparison of the growth of white=
fish populations in various localities in the United States

and Canada.

LENGTHHWEIGHT RELATIONSHIP

The data for this relationship are based on the combined
collections of whitefish from Big Bay de Noc. All fish were
taken in trap and pound nets during October and November of
1951 and May and September of 1952. Length-weight relation-
ships were obtained from 167 fish taken during the period
October 30~November 3, 1951, 545 fish captured in May, 1952,
and 12? fish taken in September, 1952. The sexes are coma
bined. The individuals were placed in 19 millimeter length
groups and the average standard lengths and weights were ob»
tained for each group. Standard lengths in millimeters were
converted from total lengths in inches using factors derived
by Caraway (1951) for the whitefish of Big Bay de Noc.

The length—weight data of the Big Bay de Noc whitefish

are fitted to the following formulae:
W Z c(L)n
log W 3 log 0 + n log L

The values of n and log 0 are determined empirically using
the method outlined by Lagler (1950). Regression lines are
calculated for the two combined collections by methods pre-

sented by Snedecor (Sec. 6.10, 1946).

47

Collections of October—November, 1951
and September, 1952

The small numbers of fish in both these collections
made it appear advisable to combine them, giving a fairly
adequate sample of whitefish taken during the Fall. The
formula expressing the length-weight relationship was calcu-
lated from the means of 16 size groups between 315 and 500
millimeters in standard length. The means are based on
measurements from 894 fish. The values for these and the
regression line calculated from them are plotted in Figure
6. Open circles indicate those groups represented by less
than 5 individuals. The better represented size groups cor-
respond very closely to a straight line. The length-weight
relationship for the Big Bay de Noc whitefish of the 1951

and September, 1958 collections may be expressed by the

formula!
log w : -e.9333 + 3.4371 (log L)
where W 3 weight in kilOgrams
and L = standard length in millimeters

Y-
F1

Figure 6. Lengtheweight “elationship of Big Bay is Xoc
Whitefish Taken in November, 1951 and September, 1952.

The regression line was calculated from the size groups
containing 5 or more fish (represented by black dots).
Size groups containing less than 5 fish are represented
by circles.

IN POUNDS

WEIGHT

IO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P / '

.___.. .-... 4 -_i. ....__.i i l.
i g’ ;

~ . = -/ '

a.___...._~. ‘ A all

+-

-_._..- «r-u-- u.-- -u—w—“M

i ;
.‘1.i. .m.

 

 

200 3 4 5 6 7
STANDARD LENGTH IN MILLIMETERS

800

rigure 7.

Length-weight Relationshi

Whitefish Taken in Iovember, 1951 an

IN POUNDS

WEIGHT

TOTAL LENGTH IN INCHES

 

 

 

 

 

4 0 I2 IS 20 24

T 1 T I I 1*

1 n I l l V 1
IOO 2 3 4 5 6 700

TOTAL LENGTH IN NILLINETENS

52

Collections of May, 1952

The formula expressing the lengtheweight relationship
was calculated from the means of 82 size groups between 333
and 540 millimeters in standard length. The means are based
on measurements from 545 fish. The values for these and the
regression line calculated from them are plotted in Figure 8.

The length-weight relationship for the Big Bay de Noc
whitefish of the May, 1952 collections may be expressed by

the formula:

IE

10g w ~7.1858 + 2.7783 (log L)

a
D’
(D
H
('D
2
5|

weight in kilOgrams

and L 3 standard length in millimeters

Figure 8. Length-weight Relationship of Big Bay de Noc

Whitefish Taken in May, 1952

The regression line was calculated from the size groups
containing 5 or more fish (represented by black dots).

Size groups containing less than 5 fish are represented
by circles.

IN POUNDS

WEIGHT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'0 I T I T F—T
.. / .l
9 F‘
P- / -I
3 WW...” I
r- II -
7 .— ,’;
I -I
'- I
6
______ i-.. T--.__l
i a
I a
I
I
I
I _I
I
I
/
I
| 1 1 L 1 I l
200 3 4 5 6 7 800

S TANDARD LENG T H

IN MILLIME TE RS

Figure 9. Lengthwweight Relationship of Big Bay de Noc

Whitefish taken in May, 1952

IN POUNDS

WEIGHT

 

"I.

TOTAL LENGTH IN INCHES

'8 I'2 IG g? :4

l l

l l

 

 

 

I00

2 ' 3

TOTA L L E NGTH

4 5

IN HILLINETERS

TOO

57

The formulae expressing the regression lines for length-
weight relationships of fish for the two collection periods
indicate a distinct advantage of the whitefish caught in 1951
and September of 1958 over the fish taken during May, 1952.

The weights of the Big Bay de Noc whitefish increased
to the following powers of their lengths: collections of
1951 and May, 1962, 3.4371; collections of May, 1962, 2.7783.
The departures from the theoretically ideal value of 3.0000
may indicate the poorer condition of the fish in the Spring
than that attained in the Fall previous to spawning. Van
Oosten and Hile (1947), using combined data taken throughout
the year, give a wane of 3.1523 for the Lake Erie whitefish.
Hart (1932) found an average value of 3.4 for the whitefish
of two lakes in Canada. He stated that the departure from
the cube relationship was probably associated with the in—
crease in pr0portionate depth and width with growth.

Comparative growth curves of the Big Ray de Noc white-
fish taken during the two collection periods, based on
average calculated lengths at the end of each year of life

(Figure 3), exhibit a very similar relationship.

Figure 10. Observed Length~weight Relationships of
the Big Bay de Noc Whitefish Taken During the
Dates Indicated. The sexes are combined.
November, 1951 -————;
May, 1952 -—-—-;

September, 1958 ----3

IN POUNDS

WEIGHT

 

 

 

 

300

TOTAL LENGTH

NILLINETERS

GOO

 

COMPARISON OF SEXES

The collections of 1951 and the sample taken on May 7,
1952 have data on the sexes available, and permit analysis
of several age groups on the basis of observed lengths and

weights of the sexes.

Collections of 1951

This sample of 167 was almost completely dominated
(96 per cent) by male whitefish. Age group II was composed
of 134 males and one female. The females had a much better
representation in age group III (24 males to 4 females) but
they were still greatly outnumbered by the males. This
distinct dominance by the male whitefish indicates that this
sex probably precedes the females on the breeding grounds.
The nearly equal distribution of the sexes in the May, 1952
collection also indicates that this unbalanced sex ratio
may be due to different behavior by the sexes prior to spawn-
ing. Van Oosten (1939) found that the Fall collections of
Lake Huron whitefish were strongly dominated by males, al»
though a 50:50 sex ratio existed in the general population.
Van Oosten and Deason (1938) found only a slight dominance
by males in the spawning schools of Lake Champlain whitefish.
The best represented age group (III) indicates that the
females are slightly longer than the males of the same age

group (0.4 inch). The observed weights of the females are

(D
H

(D

distinctly higher than those of the males. Females of ag
group III averaged 0.32 pound above weights of the males.

The one female of age II was 1.0 inch longer than the average
length of the males of the same age group and was 0.50 pound
heavier. Four of the six females taken in the 1951 collection

were captured near Round Island, which is the locality that

produced most of the larger and older fish.

Collection of May, 1952

This sample consisted of 42 fish, of which 24 (57 per
cent) were males. Age group II was composed of 20 males and
17 females and age III consisted of 4 males and 1 female.

In age group II, the females had an advantage of 0.2 inch in
length and they were 0.07 pound heavier than the males. The
one female of age III was 1.8 inches longer than the average
length of the males of the same age and the female had a
weight advantage of 0.81 pound.

Bajkov (1930) found the same growth rate for both sexes
in Lake Winnipeg whitefish, and Hart (1931) stated that the
growth rates for both sexes of Lake Nipigon whitefish were
similar. Most studies reveal that the rate of growth in
length for both sexes is nearly equal, but the females tend

to be slightly heavier than the males at corresponding lengths

and ages.

SUMMARY

1. This study was based on whitefish, Coregonus

 

clupeaformis (Mitchill), taken from the Big Bay de Noc waters

 

of Lake Michigan. Data were obtained from 839 specimens
caught in pound and trap nets set by the commercial fisher—
men during portions of 1951 and 1952.

2. Age composition, growth in length and weight, and
strength of year classes for collections taken during the
periods October 30eNovember 3, 1951, May 4-10, 1952, and
September 9—12, 1952 are presented.

3. Length—frequency distributions arranged according
to age of fish are given for each sample. The lengths of
fish belonging to the older age groups exhibit considerable
overlapping.

4. In the 1981 collections year class 1949 (age group
II) dominated the catch, comprising over 80 per cent of the
total number of fish. The 1948 year class (age group III)
represented 17 per cent of the catch. The 1948 year class
was not recorded in any of the samples.

5. The collections of May, 1952 were very similar to
those of 1951, except that the greater number of fish gave
better representation by the older age groups. Age II made
up 80 per cent and age III formed 16 per cent of the total
catch. The 1943 year class (age VIII) was represented by 9

individuals (1.7 per cent). Year classes 1946 and 1941 (ages

n
h

(A

V and X respectively) were not recorded in any of the catches
sampled.

5. The collections of September, 1952 were almost
completely dominated by the very strong 1949 year class. As
age group III, this year class comprised 97.6 per cent of
the total catch. Age II (0.8 per cent) and age IV (1.6 per
cent) were the only other age groups represented.

7. CaICulated total lengths for each year of life are
presented. Lengths and increments for the same ages in the
different collections are very similar. Growth in length is
most rapid during the first year. Increments in length dur-
ing the second and third years decrease but are approximately
one-half that of the first year.

8. The lengthnweight relationship of the 1951 and
September, 1952 collections of Big Bay de Noc whitefish with
standard lengths of 315 to 500 millimeters may be expressed
by the equation:

log w : as.9333 + 3.4371 (10g L)

9. The length-weight relationship of the May, 1952
collections of Big Bay de Noc whitefish with standard lengths
of 323 to 540 millimeters may be expressed by the equation:

log w = .7.1358 + 2.7783 (log L)

10. The 1951 collections were heavily dominated by mak:
whitefish (95 per cent) although a sample taken in May, 1953
had almost equal representation of the sexes. The data indi-
cate that male whitefish probably precede the females on the

spawning grounds.

11. Both sexes had similar growth rates in length
but the females tended to be slightly heavier than the

males at corresponding lengths and ages in the Fall.

LITERATURE CITFD

Bajkov, A.
1930 Fishing industry and fisheries investigations
in the prairie provinces. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.,
Vol. so (1930), pp. 215~237.

Biennial Reports
1947 Michigan Department of Conservation, Fish Divi=
sion, Thirteenth Biennial Report, 1945-1945,
pp. 231-317.

1949 Michigan Department of Conservation, Fish Divi~
sion, Fourteenth Biennial Report, 1947-1948,
pp. 61-120.

1951 Michigan Department of Conservation, Fish Divi-
sion, Fifteenth Biennial Report, 1949—1950,
pp. 63-132. '

1953 Michigan Department of Conservation, Fish Divi-
sion, Sixteenth Biennial Report, 1951-1952,
pp. 65-111.

Caraway, Prentice A.

1951 The whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis (Mitchill),
of northern Lake Michigan, with special reference
to age, growth, and certain morphometric charac-
ters. Thesis, Michigan State College. Unpublished.

 

Carlander, Kenneth D., and Lloyd L. Smith, Jr.
1944 Some uses of nomOgraphs in fish growth studies.
Copeia, No. 3, pp. 157-162.

Couch, John H.
1922 The rate of growth of the whitefish (Coregonus
alpgg) in Lake Erie. Univ. Toronto Studies, Publ.
Ont. Fish. Res. Lab. 7, pp. 99-107.

 

Hart, J. L.
1930 The spawning and early life-history of the white~
fish, Coregonus clupeaformis (Mitchill), in the
Bay of Quinte, Ontario. Contr. Canad. Biol.
Fish. N. S. 6, pp. 167-214.

1931 .The growth of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis
(Mitchill). Contr. Canad. Biol. Fish. N. S. 6,
pp. 429-444.

 

 

Hart, J. L.
1932 Statistics of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)
population of Shaxespeare Island Lake, Ontario.
Univ. Toronto Studies, Biol. 35, Publ. Ont. Fish.
Res. Lab. 42, pp. 1-28.

 

Hile, Ralph.
1936 Age and growth of the cisco, Leucichthyg artedi
(Le Sueur), in the lakes of the northeastern
highlands, Wisconsin. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish.,
Vol. 48, No. 19, pp. 211~3l7.

 

Hile, Ralph and Hilary J. Deason.
1934 Growth of the whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis
(Mitchill), in Trout Lake, Northeastern Highlands,
Wisconsin. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., Vol. 64 (1934),
pp. 231~337.

 

Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann.
1911 A review of the salmonoid fishes of the Great
Lakes with notes on the whitefishes of other
regions. Bull. U. s. Bur. Fish., Vol. 29 (1911),
pp. 1‘41.

Kennedy, W. A.
1943 The whitefish, Coreggnus clupeaformis (Mitchill),
of Lake Opecngo, AlgonquinPsrk, Ontario. Univ.
Toronto Studies, Biol. 51, Publ. Ont. Fish. Res.
Lab. 62, pp. 21~65.

 

Koelz, Walter.
1929 Coregonid fizhes of the Great Lakes. Bull. U. S.
Bur. Fish., 43 (1927), pp. 297we43.

Koelz, Walter.
1931 The coregonid fishes of northeastern America. Pap
Edda Acad. Sci. Arts and Letters, 13 (1930),
pp.303~432.

Lagler, Karl F.
1949 Studies in freshwater fishery biology. J. W.
ndwards, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 1-231.

Snedecor, G. W.
1948 Statistical methods applied to experiments in
agriculture and biOIOgy. Collegiate Press, Ames,
Iowa, pp. l~485.

Van Oosten, John.
1923 A study of the scales of whitefishes of known
ages. ZOOIOgica, Vol. 2, No. 17, pp. 380a412.

67

Van Oosten, John.

1929 Life history of the lake herring, Leucichthys
grtgg; (Le Sueur), of Lake Huron as revealed by
its scales with a critique of the scale method.
Bull. U. 8. Eur. Fish. 44 (1928), pp. 2sr-423.

Van Oosten, John.

1939 The age, growth, sexual maturity, and sex ratio
of the common whitefish, gggegonusiglgpggformis
(Mitchill), of Lake Huron. ap. Mich. Acad. Sci.
Arts and Letters, Vol. 24, pp. 195-221.

Van Oosten, John, H. J. Deason, and F. W. Jobes.
1934 A microprojection machine designed for the study
of fish scales. Journ. Conseil. Perm. Internat.
Explor. Her., 9 (2), pp. 241-248.

Van Oosten, John and H. J. Deason.
1939 The age, growth, and feeding habits of)the white~
fish, gogegonus glupeaformig Mitchill , of Lake
Champlain. Trans. m. ish. Soc., Vol. 68
(1932). pp. 152~162.

Van Oosten, John and Ralph Hile.
1947 Age and growth of the lake whitefish, Goregonus
glubeaforgis (Mitchill), in Lake Erie. Trans.
Am.‘F§§H. Soc., Vol. 77 (1947), pp. 178-249.

APPENDIX

Original Data of the 1951 and

1952 Collections

Total lengths are expressed in millimeters.

Weights are expressed in pounds.

Length-frequency Distribution of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish.

(Katee Bay samples of October 30-November 3, 1951.
(The sexes are c0mbined.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Total _Age group
length length* 11 111 Total
interval (inches)
(millimeters) Year class
1949 1948
360-369 14.4 1 1
370-379 14.8 1 1
380-389 15.2 15 15
390-399 15.6 24 24
400-409 15.9 11 11
410~4l9 16.3 ' 7 7
420-429 16.7 4 4
430~439 17.1 5 5
440—449 17.5
4504459 17.9 1 1
460-469 18.3 1 1
470-479 18.7 2 2
Average total length
(millimeters) 400 466 404
Average total length
(inches) 15.7 18.3 15.9
Total number of fish 68 4 72
Percentage of total 94.4 5.6 100.0

* Equivalent to midpoints of intervals of total length.

Table - Length-frequency distribution or Big Bay de Noe whitefish.
( Big Hump sample Orkney 9, 1952. The sexes are combined.)

Age group
II III IV VI VII VIII

Total Total
length ,1/ length* Year class Total
interval (inches) 1949 1948 1947 1945 1944 1943
410-419 16.3 3 . 3
420-429 16.7 9 ' 9
430-439 17.1 12 12
440-449 17.5 17 ' 17
450-459 17.9 7 3 10
460-469 18 . 3 1 3 4
470-479 18.7 ' 6 6
480-489 19.1 1 6 7
490-499 19.5 3 3
520-529 20.7 1 1
530-539 21.1 1 1
550-559 21.9
570-579 22.6 1 1
580-589 23.0 1 1
$90-$99 23.4
610-619 24.2 ' 1 1 2
610-639 25.0 '
640-649 25.4 1 1
Average total length

(millimeters) 439 480 539 578 612 632 460
Average total length

(inches) 17.3 18.9 21.2 22. 24.1 24.9 18.]

Total number of fish 50 23 3 l 1 2 80
Percentage of total 62.5 28.7 3.7 1.3 1.3 2.5 100.0

‘ Equivalent to midpoints of intervals of total length
_1_/Millimeters

Length-frequency Distribution of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish.

(Burnt Bluff sample of May 10, 1952.)
(The sexes are combined.)

 

Total Total A e rou
length length*
interval (inches) Total
(millimeters) Year class

 

1949 1945 1947 1943

 

420-429 16.7 6 6
430-439 17.1 22 2
4404449 17.5 23 1 24
450-459 17.9 8 8
460-469 18.3 2 1 3
470-479 18.7 4 1 5
480-489 19.1 2 2
490-499 19.5 2 2
500-509 19.9 2 1 3
510-519 20.3 2 2
610-619 24.2 1 1
620-629 24.6 3 3
630-639 25.0 1 1
640-649 25.4 1 1
Average total length
(millimeters) 440 485 490 629 462
Average total length
(inches) 17.3 19.1 19.3 24.8 18.2
Total number of fish 61 14 2 6 83
Percentage of total 73.5 16.9 2.4 7.2 100.0

 

’ Equivalent to midpoints of intervals of total length.

Weight-length Relationship of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish

Taken During September, 1952 and October-November, 1951

 

Total length Number Average weight
interval of Average total length (ounces) (pounds)
(millimeters fish (millimeters)(inches)

 

310-319 1 318 12.5 9.0 0.56
360-369 3 367 14.4 15.0 0.94
370-379 5 375 14.8 16.0 1.00
380-389 16 385 15.2 17.0 1.06
390-399 35 395 15.6 18.1 1.13
400-409 29 405 15.9 20.0 1.25
410-419 25 415 16.3 22.1 1.38
420-429 17 423 16.7 24.0 1.50
430-439 16 435 17.1 27.0 1.69
440-449 38 445 17.5 30.1 1.88
450-459 36 455 17.9 32.0 2.00
460-469 28 465 18.3 34.1 2.13
470-479 24 473 19.6 35.0 2.19
480-489 12 484 19.1 37.0 2.31
490-499 3 493 19.4 42.1 2.63
500—509 4 504 19.8 46.1 2.88

0 2.50

510-519 1 519 20.4 40.

590;599 l 597 23.5 78.0 4.88

 

Weight-length Relationship of Big Bay de Noc Whitefish

Taken During May, 1952.

 

Total length Number
interval of Average total length Average weight
(millimeters fish (millimeters) (inches) (ounces) (pOunds)

 

380-389 3 387 15.2 22.0 1.38
390-399 6 396 15.6 25.0 1.56
400-409 21 404 15.9 26.0 1.63
410-419 51 414 16.3 27.0 1.69
420—429 91 423 16.7 27.2 1.72
430-439 135 434 17.1 29.0 1.81
440-449 85 443 17.4 31.8 2.00
450-459 40 455 17.9 33.6 2.10
460-469 17 465 18.3 36.4 2.28
470-479 19 475 18.7 38.4 2.40
480-489 19 483 19.0 40.3 2.52
490-499 13 494 19.4 43.8 2.74
500-509 5 506 19.9 47.6 2.98
510-519 8 514 20.2 49.1 3.07
520-529 2 521 20.5 49.0 3.06
530-539 2 530 20.9 51.5 3.22
570-579 1 578 22.8 76.0 4.75
580-589 1 581 22.9 68.0 4.25
610-619 4 616 24.3 77.8 4.86
620-629 3 621 24.5 79.0 4.94
630-639 1 635 25.0 91.0 5.69
640-649 4 644 25.4 97.0 6.06

 

Katee Bay October 30, 1951

CatalOg Total Catalog Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
3406 1.56 421 3436 1.13 395
4507 1.56 407 3437 1.06 382
3408 1.75 467 3438 1.13 395
3409 1.75 471 3439 1.06 384
3410 1.56 434 3440 1.19 412
3411 1.50 425 3441 1.13 396
3412 1.63 452 3442 1.13 396
3413 1.38 411 3443 1.56 433
3414 1.56 438 3444 1.19 395
3415 1.75 472 3445 1.13 393
3416 1.38 419 3446 1.19 399
3417 1.75 436 3447 1.19 402
3418 1.63 438 3448 1.25 412
3419 1.00 385 3449 1.38 389
3420 1.06 392 3450 1.06 390
3421 1.06 390 3451 1.19 407
3422 1.00 379 3452 1.06 381
3423 1.00 385 3453 1.13 388
3424 1.19 405 3454 1.19 402
3425 1.19 402 3455 1.31 413
3426 1.13 389 3456 1.25 394
3427 1.00 385 3457 1.13 384
3428 1.00 392 3458 1.13 399
3429 1.06 387 3459 1.44 426
3430 1.00 391 3460 1.38 416
3431 1.06 382 3461 1.25 403
3432 1.00 380 3462 1.00 387
3433 1.19 399 3463 1.00 391
3434 0.88 369 3464 1.00 401
3435 1.13 399 3465 1.13 399

Chippewa Point November 1, 1951

Catalog Total
Number Weight Length
3466 1.25 405
3467 1.88 463
3468 1.19 407
3469 1.56 441
3470 1.81 443
3471 1.56 436
3472 1.44 393
3473 1.44 401
3474 1.31 409
3475 1.38 420
3476 1.50 418
3477 1.38 417
3478 1.13 403
3479 0.94 373
3480 0.94 367
3481 1.50 428
3482 1.25 408
3483 1.81 460
3484 1.38 416
3485 1.38 412
3486 1.38 417
3487 0.94 387
3488 1.00 375
3489 1.31 409
3490 1.21 470
3491 1.06 406
3492 1.38 416
3493 1.38 413
3494 1.44 420
3495 1.19 400
3496 1.31 432
3497 1.31 420
3498 1.69 428

Round Island November 1, 1951

CataIOg Total
Number Weight Length
3499 1.19 394
'3500 1.38 413
3501 1.19 396
3502 1.38 413
3503 1.50 425
3504 1.81 447
3505 1.63 458
3506 1.94 474
3507 2.06 481
3508 1.94 475
3509 1.94 481
3510 4.88 597
3511 2.00 468
3512 2.13 487
3513 2.31 493
3514 2.25 470
3515 2.06 468
3516 2.50 519
3517 2.06 488

Big Hump November 1, 1951

CataIOg Total
Number Weight Length
3518 1.88 472
3519 1.81 460
3520 1.75 430
3521 1.88 472
3522 0.56 318
3523 0.88 373
3524 1.13 396
3525 1.19 410
3526 1.31 407
3527 1.38 418
3528 1.69 441
3529 1.31 408
3530 1.13 397
3531 1.38 412
3532 1.81 427
3533 1.56 418
3534 1.63 447
3535 1.38 405
3536 1.06 377
3537 1.25 402
3538 1.56 449
3539 1.38 421
3540 1.25 410
3541 1.19 395
3542 1.44 408
3543 1.19 398
3544 1.75 456
3545 1.81 422
3546 1.25 417
3547 1.31 420
3548 1.31 398
3549 1.38 417
3550 1.44 404
3551 1.31 400
3552 1.38 401
3553 1.13 391
3554 1.63 423
3555 1.25 396
3556 1.44 415
3557 1.31 399
3558 1.38 408
3559 1.44 418
3560 1.69 433

Katee Bay November 3, 1951

Catalog Total
Number Weight Length
3562 1.13 400
3563 1.13 390
3564 0.94 385
3565 1.13 393
3566 1.13 395
3567 1.38 415
3568 1.06 393
3569 1.13 396
3570 1.25 398
3571 , 1.38 421
3572 1.13 402

3573 -

3574 1.19 408

middle Grounis fiay 4, 1952

Catalog Total Catalog Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
3575 5.13 615 3617 2.19 445
3576 1.81 420 3618 2.13 427
3577 1.19 385 3619 1.75 410
3578 1.69 405 3623 1.81 425
3579 2.06 435 3621 1.75 417
3580 1.88 415 3622 1.75 420
3581 2.00 423 3623 2.00 435
3582 1.69 404 3624 1.88 423
3583 2.19 440 3625 1.75 425
3584 2.25 440 3626 2.44 476
3585 2.13 437 '627 1.63 403
3586 2.38 430 3628 1.75 425
3587 2.06 437 3623 1.63 413
3588 2.31 455 3630 1.88 418
3589 1.75 398 3631 1.63 415
3590 2.69 490 3632 1.88 420
3591 1.94 428 3633 1.50 405
3592 2.19 438 3634 1.63 410
3593 1.75 415 3635 1.69 407
3594 2.13 440 3636 2.00 435
3595 1.63 415 3637 1.69 434
3596 2.90 436 3336 1.69 405
3597 2.00 430 3639 1.75 420
3598 1.86 432 3643 1.75 428
3599 1.56 398 3641 1.63 405
3600 1.56 395 3642 2.00 440
3601 1.75 415 3643 3.19 512
3602 1.69 422 3644 2.44 448
3603 1.81 423 3645 2.00 432
3604 2.06 445 3643 1.81 425
3605 2.50 393 3647 1.88 430
3606 1.50 40? 3548 1.50 388
3607 1.56 400 3549 3,00 449
3608 1.31 410 3540 1.63 400
3639 2.00 435 651 1.75 415
3610 1.81 397 3553 1.69 415
3411 1.63 410 3553 3,19 447
3i12 1.56 422 3554 1,53 435
3613 1.75 424 3655 1.63 404
3614 1.50 395 3555 1,75 433
3315 2.50 475 3557 3,13 435

3616 1.81 430

Burnt Bluff May 5, 1952

Catalog TOtal CatalOg Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
3658 1.69 424 3705 1.69 432
3659 1.69 438 3706 1.75 430
3660 1.56 415 3707 1.69 425
3661 1.69 435 3708 1.69 420
3662 1.63 425 3709 1.56 412
3663 1.63 437 3710 1.75 420
3664 1.63 430 3711 1.69 430
3665 1.69 420 3712 1.69 430
3666 1.63 415 3713 1.69 430
3667 1.63 412 3714 1.56 . 415
3668 1.56 416 3715 1.75 432
3669 1.69 430 3716 1.69 434
3670 1.69 431 3717 1.63 425
3671 1.63 418 3718 1.56 405
3672 1.69 421 3719 1.69 430
3673 1.63 422 3720 1.69 425
3674 1.75 417 3721 1.75 432
3675 1.63 407 3722 1.69 438
3676 1.56 427 3723 1.63 403
3677 1.63 431 3724 1.69 421
3678 1.63 423 3725 1.69 415
3679 1.63 427 3726 1.50 421
3680 1.63 400 3727 1.69 418
3681 1.63 425 3728 1.69 414
3682 1.69 430 3729 1.69 418
3683 1.63 430 3730 1.69 435
3684 1.50 406 3731 1.69 413
3685 1.56 410 3732 1.69 420
3686 1.69 427 3733 1.63 421
3687 1.50 409 3734 1.63 417
3688 1.63 420 3735 1.69 435
3689 1.69 417 3736 1.50 414
3690 1.69 427 3737 1.63 420
3691 1.63 418 3738 1.63 435
3692 1.63 425 3739 1.69 427
3693 1.69 421 3740 1.63 426
3694 1.63 410 3741 1.50 415
3695 1.63 414 3742 1.56 412
3696 1.56 428 3743 1.56 425
3697 1.63 430 3744 1.56 422
3698 1.69 413 3745 1.63 437
3699 1.63 430 3746 1.63 445
3700 1.69 415 3747 1.19 387
3701 1.63 432 3748 1.63 427
3702 1.69 417 3749 1.63 420
3703 1.69 432 3750 1.75 430
3704 1.56 404

Burnt Bluff May 7, 1952
Catalog Total Catalog Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
3751 1.88 432 3777 2.00 438
3752 2.19 455 3778 1.88 447
3753 2.75 493 3779 2.25 485
3754 2.88 510 3780 2.19 457
3755 2.38 478 3781 1.88 425
3758 2.08 480 3782 1.88 431
3757 2.08 437 3783 1.94 458
3758 1.75 433 4784 1.81 432
3759 1.88 428 4785 1.89 420
3780 2.08 452 3788 2.89 480
3781 1.88 450 3787 1.88 440
3782 2.08 458 3788 1.75 427
3783 1.94 437 3789 1.94 437
3784 2.89 487 3790 1.88 438
3785 1.75 427 3791 2.00 428
3788 1.94 440 3792 1.88 442
3787 1.88 430 3793 2.58 489
3788 1.94 438 3794 2.89 490
3789 2.08 433 3795 1.88 427
3770 2.25 487 3798 1.88 430
3771 1.88 448 3797 2.00 440
3772 2.00 447 3798 2.00 460
3773 2.08 447 3799 5.83 840
3774 2.00 445 3800 1.88 434
3775 1.81 432 3801 2.25 480
3778 1.81 422

Catalog
Number

3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833

Chippewa Poirt

Weight

2.56
1.88
2.25
1.75
2.63
2.06
1.81
2.00
1.69
1.81
2.13
2.19
1.88
1.94
2.50
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
2.38
1.81
1.63
1.94
2.63
1.81
1.63
1.81
1.88
1.88
2.63
2.00

Total
Length

477
445
456
437
477
452
434
456
436
431
457
458
430
432
490
440
438
442
442
466
431
422
449
487
427
444
442
430
437
442
482
437

may 7, 1952

Catalog
Number

3834
3835
3838
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3848
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3858
3857
3858
3859
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884

HHHHmHmwmeHHmeHmHmmmmHHHHwau

Total
Length

517
442
430
421
457
436
436
435
482
647
457
475
439
617
443
468
437
481
434
449
496
432
485
491
440
445
530
432
414
430
433

Burnt Bluff May 7, 1952
Catalog Total
Number Weight Length

3865 1.88 431
3866 1.88 421
3887 -' 434
3868 1.94 442
3869 1.88 413
3870 1.75 418
3871 1.94 446
3872 1.81 427
3873 1.75 418
3874 1.75 433
3875 2.13 476
3876 1.56 421
3877 1.75 416
3878 2.38 448
3879 2.03 439
3880 1.69 413
3881 1.94 424
3882 1.94 433
3883 2.13 457
3884 1.75 414
3885 1.75 424
3886 1.94 431
3887 2.25 457
3888 1.81 428
3889 1.69 421
3890 1.81 422
3891 1.81 422
3892 1.81 a

3893 1.75 414
3894 3.25 520
3895 3.38 518
3896 2.13 439
3897 1.75 438
3898 1.83 435
3899 1.88 434
3900 1.81 422
3901 1.94 440
3902 1.75 420
3903 1.75 409
3994 2.13 435
3905 1.75 410
3906 1.69 425

Big Hump May 9, 1952

Catalog Total Catalog Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
3907 4.25 581 3947 2.44 475
3908 4.89 818 3948 2.13 455
3909 5.94 845 3949 2.13 458
3910 4.75 578 3950 2.50 485
3911 2.00 442 3951 2.19 433
3912 4.19 812 3952 2.75 478
3913 1.94 440 3953 3.00 498
3914 2.19 458 3954 2.94 492
3915 2.88 514 3955 2.00 443
3918 - 442 3958 2.25 470
3917 2.13 450 3957 3.38 530
3918 2.13 443 3958 2.08 457
391 2.00 450 3959 2.88 522
3920 2.00 443 3980 2.19 455
3921 2.25 471 3981 2.08 445
3922 1.88 445 3982 1.94 437
3923 2.00 443 3963 1.94 471
3924 1.88 439 3984 1.88 447
3925 2.00 445 3985 2.75 480
3928 2.00 425 3988 3.00 507
3927 2.31 481 3987 2.00 422
3928 1.88 432 3988 1.94 423
3929 2.38 480 3989 1.94 437
3930 2.31 458 3970 2.13 447
3931 2.00 435 3971 2.81 497
3932 2.00 443 3972 2.83 484
3933 2.13 454 3973 1.89 420
3934 1.88 440 3974 2.00 457
3935 2.19 447 3975 1.75 420
3936 2.38 481 3978 1.75 426
3937 2.44 489 3977 1.75 432
3938 2.89 483 3978 1.81 438
3939 2.00 433 3979 1.83 418
3940 2.00 439 3980 1.81 445
3941 2.00 418 3981 1.75 425
3942 2.81 488 3982 1.89 420
3943 2.31 485 3893 1.89 434
3944 2.44 488 3984 1.89 415
3945 2.31 447 3985 1.89 428
3948 2.50 478 3988 1.75 435

Chippewa Point May 9, 1952
Catalog Total CatalOg Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
3987 1.94 443 4013 3.13 518
3988 1.88 452 4014 2.31 482
3989 1.89 425 4015 1.81 442
3990 1.88 440 4018 1.94 438
3991 1.94 438 4017 2.31 457
3992 1.88 445 4018 1.81 445
3993 1.94 432 4019 2.00 438
3994 1.88 428 4020 1.81 440
3995 2.19 448 4021 1.94 451
3998 1.88 442 4022 2.00 447
3997 2.13 488 4023 3.00 492
3998 2.88 594 4024 1.94 442
3999 2.50 477 4025 1.94 439
4000 2.38 490 4028 2.13 482
4001 2.19 447 4027 1.81 430
4002 1.94 442 4028 1.75 428
4003 2.08 440 4029 1.94 448
4004 2.19 447 4030 2.00 439
4005 3.19 507 4031 1.94 427
4008 1.94 450 4032 2.00 437
4007 1.81 438 4033 2.25 487
4008 1.88 430 4034 1.88 452
4009 1.81 435 4035 2.00 432
4010 2.31 455 4038 1.88 437
4011 1.88 443 4037 1.81 440
4012 1.88 443

Burnt Bluff May 10, 1952

Catalog Total Catalog Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
4038 2.00 440 4080 1.94 451
4039 1.94 442 4081 1.94 435
4040 1.88 445 4082 5.83 855
4041 1.88 437 4083 2.00 455
4042 2.00 442 4084 2.83 492
4043 1.94 437 4085 2.58 498
4044 5.89 635 4088 1.94 438
4045 2.13 455 4087 2.31 465
4046 2.06 438 4088 1.88 421
4047 2.44 475 4089 4.88 821
4048 2.00 437 4090 2.31 482
4049 2.00 434 4091 2.13 445
4050 1.94 432 4092 1.94 435
4051 2.19 452 4093 2.38 478
4052 1.94 438 4094 2.50 475
4053 2.00 440 4095 2.81 505
4054 2.00 447 4098 2.13 450
4055 1.94 432 4097 1.94 440
4056 2.06 445 4098 2.00 437
4057 1.88 443 4099 2.00 445
4058 2.06 446 4100 1.94 425
4059 2.88 502 4101 1.94 442
4060 4.88 615 4102 1.81 423
4081 1.88 440 4103 1.88 441
4082 1.94 438 4104 2.08 450
4083 - 827 4105 2.13 437
4084 2.13 484 4108 1.88 438
4085 3.19 512 4107 2.00 440
4066 2.63 472 4108 1.81 447
4067 1.94 431 4109 1.88 420
4088 2.00 473 4110 1.94 450
4069 5.00 620 4111 2.00 480
4070 3.00 508 4112 1.88 435
4071 2.88 512 4113 1.88 445
4072 '1.88 440 4114 1.94 430
4073 1.88 425 4115 2.13 447
4074 2.00 435 4116 2.00 445
4075 2.00 435 4117 2.50 483
4078 2.00 443 4118 1.94 448
4077 1.88 440 4119 1.94 426
4078 1.94 437 4120 2.00 455
4079 2.00 437

Burnt Bluff September 9~10, 1952

Catalog Total Catalog Total
Number Weight Length Number Weight Length
4121 2.75 494 4188 1.75 474
4122 2.38 485 4187 2.00 474
4123 2.19 457 4188 1.75 427
4124 2.31 474 4189 2.00 448
4125 2.38 483 4170 2.38 489
4128 2.25 485 4171 1.94 459
4127 1.88 440 4172 2.08 481
4128 2 13 454 4173 1.81 448
4129 2.50 483 4174 2.13 482
4130 2.00 441 4175 2.19 470
4131 1.81 428 4178 2.13 471
4132 1.94 447 4177 1.81 447
4133 1.08 388 4178 2.19 484
4134 2.13 459 4179 2.58 479
4135 1.81 442 4180 1.94 434
4138 1.88 440 4181 2.00 454
4137 1.88 451 4182 1.88 437
4138 2.31 489 4183 2.08 451
4139 2.19 478 4184 2.50 483
4140 1.88 459 4185 2.44 487
4141 1.88 444 4188 1.81 448
4142 1.88 445 4187 1.81 448
4143 2.13 453 4188 2.13 484
4144 2.00 484 4189 1.88 442
4145 2.00 485 4190 2.00 451
4148 2.13 488 4191 1.88 450
4147 2.50 480 4192 1.94 440
4148 2.19 481 4193 2.08 455
4149 2.08 483 4194 4.81 472
4150 2.00 482 4195 1.81 448
4151 1.81 448 4198 2.25 488
4152 2.38 483 4197 2.00 481
4153 1.94 449 4198 2.00 448
4154 1.94 438 4199 1.94 448
4155 1.94 458 4200 2.08 452
4158 2.00 457 4201 1.88 435
4157 2.19 489 4202 2.00 440
4158 2 13 478 4203 2.13 454
4159 2.19 474 4204 2.13 487
4180 1.88 457 4205 1.88 442
4181 1.75 434 4208 1.81 453
4182 1.81 453 4207 2.31 449
4183 2.25 459 4208 2.81 500
4184 1.88 457 4209 2.89 507
4185 1.88 458 4210 2.25 473

Burnt Bluff September 12, 1952

Catalog Total
Number Weight Length
4211 1.88 451
4212 2.00 452
4213 2.50 487
4214 2.13 473
4215 2.38 483
4218 2.19 486
4217 2.25 473
4218 2.81 502
4219 3.25 506
4220 2.44 474
4221 2.13 464
4222 2.08 455
4223 2.08 451
4224 1.75 439
4225 2.00 440
4226 2.00 443
4227 2.00 453
4228 1.81 449
4229 2.75 492
4230 2.25 471
4231 2.25 479
4232 1.81 459
4233 1.88 446
4234 2.13 472
4235 2.06 455
4236 2.19 465
4237 2.19 443
4238 2.06 455
4239 1.81 440
4240 2.06 461
4241 1.88 456
4242 1.75 445
4243 1.94 446
4244 1.81 435
4245 1.81 455
4246 1.75 442
4247 1.75 444