AGE, GRC‘WTH AND. “3333 (EA! (T 3 1;. ETHE SF’GT TATE. S,H(NER
(3(33 310 “Q (3883 3333 f. (CL ((‘(TC‘N 3, (33
LITTLE BAY DE 330 C,
LAKE MECHECAN

333333330: the De are 3 of M S.
33383-33". A33 SiTiTE ' (T‘JERSIH
ROBERT E. L (SCH

3 8

U ,

(C)

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 10631 76

, . I
3. "'
.

-__ “—3.- “uni-‘1‘

LIPR/4 K3
bilfflStv.

University J;

 

 

 

 

£33ch

m, exam up man was or m BPOT‘IAII- amen,
IOTBOPIS msonms (ounce) , _
II 151m I06, -
13m moment

by Robert 3. Bosch

This study use done in order to nnderetsnd some phsses
or the biology or the spotteil shiner (I. hudeonins) es it
relates to other'species or fish in Little Bsy'de loo,
especislly the elevire ($13!; p'sendohsrenm) end the enereld
shiner (lotrozie stheri'noides.)

Scale senples, stonech ssiples and certain norphonetrio
date on spottsils were collected during the summer or 1967
Is port or s. nichigen Depart-cut of Conservation research
project concerned with'the slevite in this hey.

Growth Ins determined tron scale analysis. the body-scale
relationship had an intercept of 6 millimeters, considerably
less then reported by others for this species. This use sttrié
hated to the look or key scsles. ‘

The date. indicate no difference between the sexes with
respect to growth rate and condition rector, nor ere there

differences imthe relationships or stendsrd length-totel

length, total length-scale radius and total lengthfiwtgght.

Growth during the growing season or 1966 seemed to be
less than rcr other years. The age at annulus rormation showed
a reversal or ”Lee's phenomenon", with older riah.showing
progressively greater growth at'a given age. These discrepancies
were most likely due to expernmentally induced error in the
readings or the scales. Other possibilities are discussed.

weighted mean lengths or the spottails at the rormaticn or
their rirst, second, third, and ronrth annnli were 56.2, 37.0,
105.2, and 116.$ millimeters, respectively. these values were
in close agreement with other studies in similar climates and
growing seasons.

Spottails red on a wide variety of organisms. rhe most
commonly found itcmm were insects (especially'nexaggnia , fish
eggs and scales, cladocerans, algae and plant matter. there
was very little dirrerence in rood selection among various
sized spottails, except with respect to Hexaggnia, which.was
taken mere often by larger minnows. Food items varied with

both location and season.

ms, snows an) r'OOD-HABI'I‘S or m sro'r'ruL sum,
lemons HUDSOI‘IIUS (cursor) , 1x
LIME m m soc, '
‘ ' m marten
By

E,
13 3'

Robert IyBasch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

mm 01" SGIEHCE
Department of fisheries and Wildlife

1966

“KNOW TS

This study would not have been possible had it not been for
the fine cosperation of the Michigan Department of Conservation,
Division of Research.and Development. I wish to express my
gratitude and appreciation to Thomas Stauffer and‘wilbert
‘iagner for many'helpful suggestions. .I would also like to thank
Albert ”Bub” Vincent for his assistance in collection of the
samples.

I would like to express my gratitude and sincere appre-
ciation to Dr.‘Eugene I; Roelofs for his help and suggestions
during the course or this study. I would also like to thank
:my fellow graduate students Ken Dodge, Dan Sherry and Willard
Gross for their suggestions. - I ' '

thanks also go to my wife , Judith, fer her patience and

assistance during the preparttion of the manuscript.

TABDE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
DESCRIPTION OF LITTI: Bax DE Noc . . . . . . 6
MATERIALS AND METHODS ‘ . L . . . . . . . . 11
Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . 11
Scale Preparation and reading . . . . . . 1h
AGE AND GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . lb
Standard Length-Total Length Relationship . . 1b
Length-Frequency‘Distribution . . . . . . 15
Body-Scale Relationship . . . . . . . . l9
Calculated Length at Each Annulus . . . . 2h
Length-Age Distribution . . . . . . . . 31
LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP AND CONDITION . . . . 3h
3 LengthQWeight Relationship .M.. C. . . . . 3h
ConditiOn. . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
FOOD HABITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
SUMMARY...............M.|.
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . #7
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . .52

11

Table
1.

LIST OF TABLES

List of sampling stations, gear used,
and corresponding bottom type,
vegetation and depth, Little Bay
de Noc, Lake Michigan, 1967. .

Total length/scale relationship ror
3 the spottail shiner reported by
various authors. . . . . .

Length at each age for 171 spottails
taken in Little Bay de Noc,
Lake Michigan ., . . . . .

DeViation (millimeters) from.weighted
grand average annual growth in
171 spottails of various ages
from Little Bay de Noc, Lake
Michigan during l96hal967, based
on samples taken July b-September
9, 1967 . . . .. . . . .

Calculated total length (mm.) at each
annulus for spottails of this,
and other studies . . . . .

Total length-age distribution for
. 171 spottails from Little Bay
de Noc, Lake Michigan . . .

Food items taken by 110 spottail
shiners in Little Bay dc Noc,
Lake Michigan, July 5-September
9, 1967 e e e e e ‘ e e e

road of 110 spottails in Little Bay
dc Noc, Lake Michigan, 1967. .

111

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Elgar.

1. Mtp?0f Little Bay dc Noc, Lake
Midhlgtn . . . . . . .

2. Total length/standard length
regression for 100 male
and female spottails at
Little Bay de Noc, Lake
MIOhing e e e e e e e e e e 17

3. Total length-frequency distri-
bution for lhl spottails
taken in Little Bay de
Noc, Lake Michigan between

August 8 and August 25, 1967 . . . 18

A. Total length/scale radius
regression for 171 female

and male spottails combined
at Little Bay de Noc,
Lake Michigan. . . . .

5. General growth in length and
incremental growth of
171 spottails from.Little
Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan
collected July b-September

9’ 1967 O 0 e . e e e

6. Calculated logarithmic length»
weight relationship for
60 spottails from.Little
Bay de Noe, Lake Michigan . . .

21

e36

1V

INTRODUCTION

In the summer of 1966 the Michigan Department of Conser-
vation began a study of the alewife (Algég.pseudoharenggg)
in Little Bay de loo, Lake Michigan.3 that study was concerned
‘with diel movements, seasonal migrations, and food habits
of the alewife as well as the interrelationship of the alewife
‘with.beth.the forage and game fish.in this bay. The department
was expecially concerned about the possibility of competition
between the alewife and young-of-the-year yellow perch.

This paper treats part or the biology of the spottail
shiner3(lctropis huisonius) in Little Bay de loo. In as much
as this species mmkes up a fairly large part of the forage fish
pepulation exclusive or alewives in the bay, it is necessary tow
further understand some of its life history. This study was
done to determine if there was competition between the alewife
and spottail and to determine if the spottail might be filling
a niche being vacated by the lake emerald shiner (I. gthggi:
22322!) which seems to be declining in this bay. ‘

rurther objectives were to determine the age and growth or
the spottail as well as its food habits. This study was under-

taken in the summer or 1961.

The spottail shiner (lotropis hudsonius) is one of the
favorite bait and forage fish in larger midwestern lakes and
rivers (Rubbs and Cooper, 1936). It is an especially esteemed
bait minnow for walleyes (McCann, 1959; Smith and Kramer,

1961;: Haloney and Johnson, 1957). The spottail is also utilized
as a forage fish by smallmouth bass (Surber, 1939), northern
pike (Bwers, 1933; Hunt and Carbine, 1951), and white. bass
(Rawson, 19318). These species are present in Little Bay de

Ice and are known to feed on the spottail. - .

During the alewife study the number of spottails caught
was estimated to be between 5 and 10 percent of the total
catch (Hilbert Wagner, pers. comm.). Since the alewife,
during parts of the summer when the abéve estimate was made,
made up approximately 90 percent of the catch, the importance
of the spottail is apparent.

The spottail is found from Iorth Dakota and adjacent
Manitoba to the Hudson River and south to Virginia, Illinois
and Iowa (lddy, 1957). Rubbs and Lagler (1958) and Rubbs and
Cooper (1936) list tic subspecies found in Lake Michigan,
the Great Lakes Spottail Shiner, g. hudsonius (Clinton) and the
Iorthern Spottail Shiner, _l_. hudsonius hudsonius (Clinton).
These are two weakly separated though distinguishable subspecies.
The range or the Great Lakes Spottail is the Great Lakes and
its tributary waters, chiefly in the main lakes and some of the
inland lakes. It is lacking however in the Lake Superior basin.

The range of the northern Spottail is the same as that

listed by Eddy. This species is usually found in large rivers,
over terrigenous bottom. Rubbs and Lagler also list two sub-
species not found in the Great Lakes, 1. hudsonius amarus
(Girard) found from Delaware to the Potomac basin and g.
hudsonius saludanus (Jordan and Brayton) found from the James

to the Conulgee basin, Virginia to Georgia. These two may be

a species separate from 1. hudsonius. In all studies reviewed
no distinction was made with respect to: subspecies, all minnows
referred to merely as the spottail minnow or shiner, _H_. hudsonius
(Clinton). Probably both Great Lakes and Northern Spottails were
studied under the one name. Theidmerican risheries Society
(Bailey, 25. _a_1_., 1960) recognises only one species, '1. hudsonius.

Spottails are most often found in areas of moderate to large
amounts of submergent vegetation (Griswold, 1963: Adams and
Rankinson, 1928; Rubbs and Lagler, 19139). Surber (1911.0) found
an abundance of spottails “beds of water willow in the (Shenandoah
River. In Little Bay do Moo spottails were most frequently taken
in areas with moderate amounts of emergent vegetation mainly
cat-tails (m) and bulrush (Scigpus). Fewer fish were taken
in areas where there were dense beds of submergent vegetation,
mainly Potamogeton.

Spottails spawn chiefly on sandy shoals and creek mouths
(Hubbs and Cooper, op, cit.). The eggs are shed freely. They
develop and hatch in a short time, two weeks or less. Spawning
occurs from late May through early July (Griswold, op. cit.;
McCann, op. cit. 3 Fish, 1922; Hobbs, 1921; Smith and Kramer,

op. cit.). Spawning in Little Bay do Moo occurred from mid-

June through mid-July.

There has been very little research done on the life
history of the spottail shiner, none in Lake Michigan.
McCann (cp. cit.) reports one study on the spottail in Clear
Lake, Iowa. He reports weighted mean lengths of the spottails
at the formation or their first, second and third annuli
of 76.9, 98.2 and 107.9 millimeters respectively. He also
found spottails fed on a wide variety of materials which
included water’mites,‘Diptera larvae and adultt, Tricoptera
larvae, Cladocera, grass seeds and plant fibers.

Smith and Kramer (op. cit.) reporting on the spottails
in Lower Red Lake, Minnesota give the following values for
total length at annulus formation:

Length,at‘Eacn.Annulus(mm.)

 

I II3 III _1V’
Males 56.h OS.h 100.0 103.0
remalos 50.1 90.1 106.2 113.1

They reported food habits were related to food availability:
in both plankton and bottom fauna. Shiner eggs were signi-
ficant items of food in larger shiners; eggs were also
found to be important food items by Edsall (196h),SSibley
(1929) and the present study. Smith.and Kramer also found
bottom organisms were selectively taken and larger clad-
ocerans were selected by large fish. They further report
that cladocerans were preferred to copepods.

Other studies in which.age and growth were studied
were reported by Griswold (op. cit.), thbs (1923), Fish
top. cit.), and Hubbs (1921). Carlander (1953) cited two

studies (Carlander, 1983. 19hh) where growth rates were
determined.

Several studies were reported dealing with the food
habits of the spottail. Boesel (1938) found that spottails
feed on different animals in different environments and the
specific food taken does not vary regularly with the size
of the fish. McCann (op. cit.) also found similar results.
Boesel cites two studies which report feeding habits for
the spottail (Allin, 1929: Sibley, op, cit.).

There have also been studies reporting parasites found
associated with the spottails. Lawler (196h) found the
rate of infection of Liggla intestinalis varied both annually
and with location. He also found high infection in areas
of high.productivity, probably associated with the high
abundance of copepods which are intermediate hosts. Ligglg
was found in one minnow in this study. Haley and Minn (1959)
reported that 20.8 percent of the spottails in a Maryland
pond had copepod parasites, £33222,gyprinacea. Other
studies reporting parasites are McCann (op. cit.), Bangham
(1955). Banghmm and Hunter (19u0). _ '

DESCRIPTION OF LITTLE BA! DE N00

Little Bay de Ice is a rtther shallow bay running
northward 15 miles from approximately five miles south of
the city of Escanaba, Michigan. At its widest point the
bay is roughly five miles wide and narrows to nearly
3/h.mile between Gladstone and Hunters Point as is seen in
rigure 1. Because of limited time and funds, all sampling
was done north of Gladstone. In the area sampled the pre-
dominant bottmm type is sand in shallow water and mud in
the deeper areas. There are rocky areas around Tern Island,
Strawberry island and at the Rapid River narrows. There
is also an area of clay at the mouth of the Black George
Creek.

The predominant emergent plants, which.are found in
all areas, are cat-tails (3:223) and bulrushes (Scigpus).
Also present are apixerush.(lleocharis) and sedges (9353;).
These plants are found associated with all bottom.types and
are especially abundant in the sandy eastsside of the bay.

The submergent vegetation is predmminated by various
species of pondweed (Potamogeton) and coontail (Ceratgphyllum).
Other species present include EEEEEw waterweed (Elodea) *
and water milfoil (Mlgiophyllum). These submergent plants
are localized in distribution, one area being in the bay
southwest of Tern island, another in the bay north of Tern

island. There also is a large bed of submergent plants Just

north or Days River and extending on around the bay up
into the Uhitefish River.

The shoreline vegetation is composed of mixed hardwoods
and softwoods with occasional pines. Most trees are on the
east side of the bay which.is heavily wooded and relatively
free of building except for occasional resorts and homes.

The area sampled is mainly shallow water with approxi-
mately 2/3 of the area being less than 2h feet in depth
(estimmted fromLU.S. Army 003p. of Engineers Lake Survey,
Chart no. 701). The maximum depth is fifty feet Just off
Betty Point. There were several locations sampled and

various means used to sample as indicated in Table 1.

Figurel. Map of Little Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan. Numbers
indicate sampling stations listed in Table 1

 

’3 e
A . 5-
",. ’o’ 29;;-
703 2‘? 35'?
is? a: a-
fi so
*8
5m
2. 0143?"
0495 Vi)” 1,137 3 s
i‘
I
¥ 6* ,3"
B L
at h ’
at ck- Geeks”
5.
s
jT‘RA} ISIMd
s
4
m \
a.
Gladden; leeits ?+E,
LH‘HE BAY
AE Neg
\L
36
c
S‘U’nw C”
I” __ 6 500/

SCA'E :

Table l.

___

10

List of sampling stations, gear used, and corres-

ponding bottom.type, vegetation and depth, Little

Bay de Nos, Lake Michigan, 1967.

 

 

stations

 

 

Sampling Station Gear Bottmm type,
vegetation and
dgpth

1. 200 yards north of Gill net Sand, Sci us,
Hunters Point Trap net Garex, 5-; ft.
Seine eep
2. 200 yards north of Gill net Potamo ston-
Days River Roller net dense, 5 t.
3. 500 yards east of Gill net Soft bottom,
Days River Roller net sparse vege-
tation, 2h ft.
h. 500 yards north of Gill net Mud bottom,
Hunters Point Roller net sparse vege-
tation, no ft.
b. Betty Point Gill net Sand and rocks,
Trap net Sci nus nearby,
2-5 ft?
6. Black George Gill net Sand and soft
Creek Trap net clay Ssigpa!
Seine Potamo e on, in
the creek, h ft.
7. Days River Gill net Soft bottwm,
Trap net Sci us, Pota-
mo egon nearBy,
5 ft.
8. Rapid River Light and Rocks nearby,
Narrows net dense Potamo-
geton, 5 ft.
9. west of Tern Gill net Dredged out re-
island cently, h-lo ft.,
sparse vegetation,
gotamogeton and
c1 us and rocks
nearEy
* Various seining Seine Mainly Scirpus,

sand, some rocks,
clay, Z-u ft.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sampling methods

This study was conducted from.July 5 through September
9, 1967 in conjunction with the alewife study. Because of
this shortage of time, samples had to be collected with
several different types of gear. The two main sampling
methods were a small experimental gill net and a bag seine.
The gill not was made of 12-foot sections of 5/8, 3/h,
7/8, and l-inch.stretched mesh. The seine was a 30-foot,
l/h-inch.mesh bag seine.

The gill not was set once a week at one of u stations.
At the beginning of the study, these stations were to be
constant over the length of the study.

These stations did not produce very large samples.
for this reason, the sampling stations were varied until
some were found which did produce large enough samples;
these stations were sampled during the last half of the
study from5August 1 through September 9. 'During the first
part of the study, the gill net was left in the water for
an hours but because the minnows were often partially
rotted and the stomachs not in good condition, the nets were
checked every four hours during the second half or the
study.

Seining was done during the day at predetermined
locations during the first part of the study; but since

11

12

daylight seining was not productive, the Operation was
changed to the evening hours from.9 p.mi to midnight, a

time period which.has been shown to be the most efficient
for seining small fish (Ridenhour, 1960). Stations on the
east side of the bay were then sampled because they produced
the greatest numbers of spottails. Seining was done by
taking two 75-foot hauls parallel to the shoreline, in two
to four feet of water.

Other means were employed to take spottails but not
with as much success as the first two methods. Some fish
were obtained with.minnow traps (h feet long, 1 root in
diameter, made or 1/8-inch.hardware cloth) baited with
bread. Also used was a small trap net, 3/h-inch.stretched
mesh with a 50-foot lead.

Data were also obtained from.the alewife study which
was underway at the time. Spottails were taken in roller
nets; which.were gill nets of 3/h, 1, 1 l/h, 1 1/2, 1 B/H'
inch.mesh, five feet wide and hung vertically to study depth
distribution of the alewives. In conjunction with these
roller nets, experimental gill nets which were made of 25-
foot sections of b/s, 3/17, 7/8, 1, 1 1/u, 1 1/2, 1 3/1;—
inch.mesh were set on the bottom.

Spottails were also taken occasionally in a light
and trap arrangement used to sample young-of-the-year alewife.
This consisted of a h2" by h2" by 8" wooden frame with a
window screen bottom.which was hung approximately four feet
below the surface of the water. A spotlight was pointed

into the water above the net for five minutes, then the

13

trap lifted rapidly and samples taken. Only three young—
of-the-year spottails were taken with this method.

when time permitted, the samples were processed immedi-
ately after capture; otherwise, the samples were preserved
in 10% formalin and processed later. Length, weight,
location taken, gear, sex, and condition of organs were
recorded for all specimens if the samples were small.. Some
stomachs were removed intact, preserved, and analyzed later.
in other cases, contents of the stomachs were removed and
preserved to be analyzed later. The spottails were measured
to the nearest millimeter and weighed to the nearest milligrmm.

A total of h56 spottails were taken throughout the
study. Total length and weight were recorded on 315 and
standard length recorded on 162 of these specimens. Stomachs
were removed from.289 fish and scale samples were removed
from.the 315 measured for length and weight. There were
no key scales removed but scales were taken immediately
below the lateral line directly below the insertion cf the
dorsal fin.

Scale samples and stomachs were arranged in five-
millimeter intervals and samples drawn fromtthese to obtain
a representative size, time, location and sex distribution.
Back calculated lengths were determined by a nomograph using
calibrated iBM cards.

Stomach.contents were identified to the lowest taxa

possible; this was recorded along with the number of each

11;

type of organism.present. No volumetric determination could
be made because of the minute quantities of material present

in most of the stomachs.
Scale preparation and reading

Scales were placed between two glass microscope slides
after first being washed in water. The ends of the slides
were sealed with Dow Corning 269 adhesive and the scales
examined on a Bausch.and Lomb microprojector at 36 diameters.
All scales were read twice without reference to the length
of the fish, During the growth determination, when cases
were found which.were grossly different from the commonly
found range in values the scales were read again using all
available data to assist in the aging.

Smith and Kramer (o), cit.) and McCann (Op. cit.)
report that the annulus formation is the same as reported
for the common shiner by Marshall (1939). The annulus first
appears in the shorter anterior field. This was followed
later by the anastomosis or cutting over of the circuli
in the lateral fields. Both of these authors report only
one annulus was formed each year with the first annulus
forming in late June and early July and the subsequent annuli

forming after spawning.

AGE AND GROWTH

Standard length-total length relationship

A random sample of 100 was drawn from the 162 which
had both standard and total length recorded. A regression
of standard to total length was computed by the method
of least squares, sexes combined:
Standard length = .806 total length - .83 mm.
The correlation coefficient was .9985 which indicates an
almost perfect correlation.
The only other reported relationship agreed fairly
well. McCann (op. cit.) obtained the following relationship:
Standard length = .805 total length.+ .08 mmi
This relationship was computed to enable conversion of,
measurements and comparison or results obtained in different
studies. Since the caudal fin of spottails is often split,
fork length measurements were not considered accurate and

were not taken.
Length-frequency distribution

The fish caught between August 8 and 25 were classi-
fied according to length and are presented in figure 3.
There seems to be three modes present in this distribution.
There is a peak or mode at less than 70 mm., one at 81-
85 mm., and another at 106-110. There should be a.mode
present, on the basis of findings in the literature and

back calculation (to be presented in a later section) at

15

16

Figure 2. Total length/standard length regression for 100
male and female spottails at Little Bay de loo,
Lake Michigan.

I7

'00

Tote) LEN3+h (mm)

 

 

w
nEEu £+m¥<u4 ww¢_u2<+m

18

figure 3. Total length-frequency distribution for 1hl
spottails taken in Little Bay de Noc, Lake
Michigan between August 8 and August 25, 1967.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r
257 __
n
2 20‘
.4—
... l
o .
u. f
m
L4-
0
g )0-4
I)
.. L__J
t . .
3
2
m + ; 7% . fl m 1 £ i 1 L l l L A l
i6 so so co 70 to 9o “Mr—no 12.0

To+e\ LE~3+h (m m)

 

or near 60 mm. This mode did not show up in this frequency
diagrmm because of gear selectivity. Nearly all fish
sampled during this time were taken with gill nets and
thus the smaller fish were not sampled.

This distribution tends to show that the use of length
as an accurate index of age is of questionable value because
0f the considerable overlap of age groups, especially older

ages.

19

Body-scale relationship

To determine the size of fish at the time of previous
annulus formation the following linear regression was found.
This was based on 171 spottails, 29 to 127 millimeters in
length.

TL 8 5.99 + .92 SR
where TL - total length in millimeters and SR 8 scale
radius in millimeters (x 36). The correlation coefficient,
r, was .967.

The ”a" value or intercept of the body length-scale
radius regression has frequently been interpreted as the
body length at which scales first appear on the fish. in
some species this interpretation may be approximately correct:
but it cannot be accepted as a generalization since the
intercept is negative in certain species (Lagler, 1956).

McCann (op. cit.) found an ”a" value of lh.2 milli-
meters for both sexes combined. .He found the following
relationship:

TL = lh.2 mm, + .37 R
where R equals scale radius in millimeters (x 8h). His
correlation coefficient, r, was 0.975.
Smith and Kramer (op. cit.) found different “a”

values for males and females. They found the following

relationships:
Males: L = .h398 S + 11.0383
Females: L I .3898 S + 16.982h

20

Figure )4. Total length/scale radius regression for 171
female and male spottails combined at Little
Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan. .

21

ISO-

    

120'

TL= 5.9‘1+.C\ZSR

w

E

E

\/

IS //

é? //

~33 ,0. /

~E //

l~3 / TL=5.99+.383R
3o-

 

 

, y?
)00 200

SCAIE Rfidc'us (mm X 3b)

22

where L equals total length in millimeters and 8 equals
scale diameter in millimeters x 87. These regressions are
significantly different at the l-percent level. McCann
combined sexes and did not report finding a difference be-
tween the sexes in this relationship. These two studies
have values of “a” which are approximately the same, while
the value obtained in this study is far less, i.e. 1hzmm.
versus 6 mm,

Table 2. Total length/scale relationship for the spottail
shiner reported bzpvarious authors.

 

 

Author Sex Relationship Mpgnificatiop
Smith a: sane . 11.0383 4» .u39s so 87 x
Kramer Female

5% = 16.982h + .3898 SD 87 x
McCann Combined. TL 8 lh.2 + .37 33 Sb x
Present study Combined TL 8 5.99 + .92 SR 36 x
*Present study Combined TL 8 5.99 + .38 SR 87 x

GTransformed relationship: Ithe transformation was performed
. A; pl multipll;ng .92 bz_3§/87.

The value obtained in this study could have been much
less because the experimenter did not use key scales and
might thereby have influenced the body-scale relationship
by using scales of varying sizes. Because spottails taken
in gill nets had many of the scales knocked off, scales
were taken wherever they could be found. Readings were then
taken on scales of approximately the same shape.

Another possibility is that the "a" value obtained is
not the value at which scales first appear and that there

are different body length/scale—radius relationships present

23

for the different populations. Smith and Kramer (op. cit.)

do not state when pin-point scales first appeared on the
spottails. McCann (op. cit.) cites evidence that tends to sup-
port his value of lht2 millimeters as the time that pin-

point scales first appear on these fish. He also cites a
study (Carlander, 1943) which.wou1d seem to refute his
argument. Carlander found pin-point scales were formed

when the spottails were over 23 millimeters long.

Most of the fish.sampled in this study had been in
10% formalin up to eight months. The preservative might
have influenced the body-scale relationship. Both of the
other studies used scale samples which had not been pre-
served.

Lagler (op. cit) states that the values of "a:"
increased successively with age for certain species of fish.
Thus the age and length distributions of the samples included
in the various studies might have influenced the esthaation
of this constant.

The different studies did agree fairly well with respect
to the slope of the line, after the present study had been
transformed to 87 x. This indicates that the general
relationship between body length and scale length is
nearly the same in all the studies, the only difference

being in the intercept or ”a” value.

2h

Calculated length gt_each annulus

The lengths at which.each.annulus was formed were
back calculated using a nomograph based on the relationship
devised by Fraser (1917) cited by Toth (1959). Fraser
developed the method of calculating the previous growth
based on the assumption that body growth is related to the
proportional growth of the scale and not to the absolute
size of the scale.

To calculate body length following this assumption,
one would use the following formula:

L 8 a + IET_:_=1.SD
n 3T
where Ln equals calculated length at the end of ”n” years,

L equals total length at capture, 3. equals radius to the

T

"nth” annulus, S equals total scale radius, and a equals

T
the y intercept of the body scale relationship.

The sexes were kept separate because differential
growth between male and female spottails has been reported
by Smith and Kramer (op. cit.). They stated that most of
the larger fish were females as did McCann (op. cit.).
Examination of Table 3 shows little differense in growth
rate between the sexes.

Also seen in Table 3 is an apparent reverse of ”Lee's
phenomenon." In situations where Lee*s phenomenon occurs,

the calculated lengths are higher in early years for younger

fish than for older ones. The opposite of this appears in

25

Table 3. Length at each age for 171 spottails taken in
Little Bay de Noc, Lake Muchigan. Numbers in
parentheses indicate number of spottails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculated length at each annulus (mm) Average
Age Group 1 2 3 h T.L.
. Capture
Females
I (20)57.0 7h.2
II (13)58.0 81.8 97.8
111 (21)59.7 ”89.6 lOu.3 110.7
IV (l§)61.6 u89.1 106.0 116.7 121.1
Ubightedi _
mean (7055990 ((50)87.h (37)105.0 (16)116.7
Increment 59 28.h 11,6 11.7
Males
I (33)57.1 70.6
11 (22)56.5 85.3 95.9
III (5)62.h 90.8 106.4 . 112.6
‘weightea
mean (60)57.3 (27)86.3 (5)106.h
increment 57.3 29.0 20.1
fiiightoa
grand ‘
mean (130)58.2 (77)87.0 (h2)105.2 (16)116.7
Increment 8.2 28.8 n 18.2 11.7
Immatures
O (26 h2.9

I (15 55.5 7u.u

 

this study: the longer lengths are found, in not only the
early but later years as well, in the older fish. This was
not found by McCann (op. cit.) or Smith and Kramer (op.
cit.). I I

'The most probable reason for this trend in the results
is a systomatic error introduced in the scale readings.
The focus of the scale in the older fish is not so definite;

thus if the reader tends to locate the focus of the scale

26

farther from the anterior edge of the scale, larger readings
at each annulus will be obtained with the larger fish.

Toth (op. cit.) who found an apparent reversal of
Lee's phenomenon in perch attributed the decrease in growth
rate in the younger fish to the presence of an increasing
interspecies competition between the alewife and the yellow
perch. ‘Dodge (1968), hetiver, found very little competition
between the young-of-the-year perch and alewife as far as
feeding habits are concerned.

Other explanations for this phenomenon have been
presented when similar discrepancies were observed. A
differential mortality rate with the faster growing speci-
mens attaining an older age does seem.to be a possible
explanation. This could also result if there is separation
of the fish into subpopulations and differential sampling
of these populations.

Since there does not appear to be a difference in
growth between the sexes, the data were pooled and a
weighted grand average calculated. This weighted average
can best be viewed as an indicator of the growth of the
total population.

The values obtained for the various age classes appear
to conform fairly well to the peaks of the length-frequency
distribution of Figure 3. This would seem to validate the

results obtained in the back calculations and indicate

that most of the season“ growth is completed by the end
of August. Smith and Kramer (op. cit.) found that growth

27

in older fish does not begin until June 15 or later ahd
that growth which occurred after August 31 was a small
proportion of the total. in young-of-the-year fish, however,
approximately 25 percent of the season's growth occurred
after August 31. Results in this study are in good agreement
with Smith and Kramer's when the data presented in Table 3
and Figure 3 are consulted.

Figure 5 shows the pattern of growth in this population
of spottails. As can be seen, there is a decreasing rate
of growth and incremental growth which is consistent with
growth of most fish. The most rapid growth takes place
in the first year of life after which annual increments
decrease continuously.

Goodness or poorness of growth in different seasons
was expressed as deviation in millimeters from the grand
weighted average growth during the period 1963-1966.
This is a modification of a method described by Hile (1981)
and is presented in Table h along with the seasons in which
the growth took place. As seen in Table A, growth in
1966 is consistently less than the average for this period.
There is no other trend visible except that the years 1963
and 196A seem to have better than average growth. This is
merely another expression of the "reverse Lee's phenomenon,"
but relates growth differences to oalenderyears. No .
effort was made to correlate growth during these years with

other factors such as temperature, rainfall, and food

availability.

28

Figure 5. General growth in length and incremental growth
or 171 spottails from.Litt1e Bay de Noc, Lake
Michigan collected JulypS-September 9, 1967.

IOVMA'IiON

+Al [EA/3+}, (Mm) A‘)" ANA/alas

O

T

IooJ

501

 

29

AbsoLrl’E growth

acne ~1st

7 '2 3 4
A35 (ANNUII)

b
n-

30

Table h. Deviation (millimeters) from weighted grand
average annual growth in 171 spottails cf various
ages from Little Bay de Noe, Lake Michigan
during l96h-1967, based on samples taken July 5-
Spptember 9, 1967.

 

 

 

Xear ‘Deviation (mm.)gfrom.grand avera e at end of ear
Class I 2 3 i
Females

1966 -1.2

196’ ’ e2 '502

1964 1.5 2.6 - .9

1963 3.h 2.1 .8 0.0
Males

1966 'lel

1965 '1e7 -1e7

l96h h.2 3.8 0.0

 

Growth of spottails in this study is compared with
that reported in other studies in Table 5. in this table
the standard lengths given by Carlander were converted to
total lengths by dividing by .8 which is near the values
found by McCann (op. cit.) and those of this study. This
was done because Carlander did not include a standard
length/total length relationship.

It seems that the Clear Lake spottails have a greater
first and second year*s growth but their maximum.length
attained is not greater than those of the present study.
These greater values for the first two years are probably
due to warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons in
Iowa. The values reported by Carlander in his two studies
on Minnesota waters are smaller than the present study and
probably are due to colder temperatures and a shorter

growing season.

31

Table 5. Calculated total 1ength.(mm.) at each annulus for
spottails of thisp_and other studies.

 

 

 

 

Location Sex ' Calculated TL (mm.)_at annulus formation
1 2 2 a
Clear Lake,
lowal Combined 76.9 98.2 107.9 none
Red e,
.MlIn. Males 56.h 85.h 100.0 103.0
Females 58.1 90.1 106.2 113.1
Minneso a
waters Combined 37.0 58.0 76.5 none
Lake of
woods:
Minn. Combined 55.6 75.3 90.1 none
Present
(study Combined 58.2 87.0 105.2 116.7
1

McCann (op. cit.)

2Smith and Kramer (op. cit.)
3Carlander (19h3)

I"'Carlander (l9hh) (Empirical lengths)

Length-age distribution

-

In Table 6 is given the total length-age distribution
for the spottails used in the back calculation. This
distribution was separated into first and second halves of
the summer in order to diminish the effect that growth
through the summer would have. However as can be seen,
the two halves of the summer at each age show nearly the
same range. This indicates the great variation in length
among fish of a given year class. This variance within a
year class may be due to differnnt hatching times, individual
growth rates, as well as different environmental and

hereditary factors.

32

Table 6. Total length-age distribution for 171 spottails
from.Little Bay de Noe, Lake Michigan. 1st and
2nd refer to first and second halves of the
summer. ‘Entries are numbers of fish.

 

 

A e at capture ears 8
O 2
TL (mm.) 1st 2nd lst 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Less than 30'
31-35
36-h0
hl-ub
1&6-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66-70

31-35
6- 0
81-85
86-89
91-95
96-100
101-105
106-110
111-115
116-120
121-125
More than 125

-F\namrpfld

F'F'NU‘IVO-F'H
HU‘IGU'IU'II-‘O‘w

H mmww
H mvmu
#WMVI
vaw
meH
\rtr

 

There are no fish.shown in the 1st half of the young-
of-the-year fish because there was very little seining which
proved successful on these smaller fish. Since the fish
did not spawn until mid June and July, one would not find
a very large sample of these fish the first half of the
summer.

Also seen is that as the fish get older, there is a
smaller size range. Since Table 6 reflects growth.through-
out the summer, it is expected that the older fish would

have a smaller amount of growth. This distribution also

33

reflects a trend toward cosmensatory growth whereby those
fish which have a shorter first and second year” growth
grow faster in later years. They thereby attain the same
maximum length as fish which have better growth rates the
first two years. This was also reported by Hile for

rockbass males. A third factor which would tend to give
less of a size range in older fish might be the small

samples of older fish.

LENGTH:WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP AND CONDITION

lgngth-weigpt relationship

 

p

Sixty spottails, sexes combined, were selected randomly
from.fish freshly caught. These were fish which were not
gravid and were from.both the early and late summer. The
length and weights and corresponding logarithms were recorded.
The following linear regression was obtained:

Log H’s -h.7l3h + 2.8535 Log TL
where‘w equals weight in grams and TL equals total length
in millimeters.

The correlation coefficient, r, was .8830 which is not
very high for a relationship of this sort. This is statis-
tically significant beyond the .01 level, however, which
suggests there is a lihear relationship even though it is
not a highly correlated one. This relationship is presented
graphically in Figure 6. The low correlation is prebably
due to the varying state of development of the gonads,
even though fish which obviously were gravid were not included
in the determination.

The grouping of the sexes might also have had some
effect in lowering the correlation although no difference
in the length-weight relationship was reported between the
lexes by Smith and Kramer (0p. cit.). They obtained the
length-weight regression:

Log‘w'a 2.98913 Log L - 2.0hhh9

3h

35

Figure 6. Calculated logarithmic length-weight relationship:
for 60 spottails from Little Bay de Noc, Lake
Michigan.

36

(.41!

Link

[.0 '-

   

Loj..w= 4.7134 +2.3535 “an”

 

’06 '

s ['8 I

l 2
O 20‘

L "8‘0 Tab! L.E~<5+"‘

37

There seems to be an error in the above equation. A
loo-millimeter fish would have a weight over 8000 grams
which is impossible. With the regression found in this
study, a loo-millimeter fish would have a weight of approx-
imately 919 grams which is reasonably and conforms very

well to values actually obtained.
Condition

The condition factor is defined as:

W'x 105
K t where
TL -—-3-
.- TL
:KTL equals condition factor using total length.measurements,

W'equals weight in grams, and TL equals total length in
millimeters . '

This factor is an index of relative ”plumpness“ of
fish and is often calculated in order to compare fish
from.various areas or evaluate the effectiveness of various
management programs.

Fifteen males and fifteen females were selected from
the 60 fish used in the length-weight relation. These fish
were chosen so as to give a range in size from 50-120
millimeters. The condition factors were computed and the
averages found. Females averaged slightly heavier than
males with ‘TL" of .9937 and .9h51 respectively. These
differences were not significant at the .05 level as shown
by'a T-test which.was computed after testing for variance

homogeneity. Since there was variance homogeneity and

38

males were not different from females, it can be concluded
that the condition factor did not vary with.the length of
the fish.

The only other condition factor in the literature is
reported by Smith and Kramer (op. cit.). They computed

relative condition factors, K

a, defined by LeCren (1951) as:

Kn = w/wi
where w equals weight at capture and W1 equals weight
calculated from the length-weight regression. The two
condition factors (their study and the present study) are
not comparable but it is interesting to note their findings.
They found that relative condition factors ranged from
.9h0 to 11058 and varied with station, gear and age of
fish. They reported the females were usually heavier than

the males but the differences were not significant.

FOOD HABITS

A random sample of 110 spottails were chosen to ‘
analyze for food habits. Some of these fish had the stomeohs
removed and preserved whole, some had the stomach contents
preserved, and some were taken from fish preserved whole.

The best method seemed to be preserving only the stomach
contents but the other methods were satisfactory. The section
of the S-shaped digestive tract from.the pharynx to the

first loop was designated as the ”stomach” and its contents
were exmmined in a Petri dish under a binocular microscope.
Since most of the food items were broken and in most cases
only minute amounts present, some organisms were not recog-
nized. Stomachs contents were recorded as number of organisms
present and comparisons were made on the basis of percentage
occurrence. The groups of organisms found are shown in

Table 7. I

Included in Table 8 is the percentage occurrence
of each organism. This table is arranged to show size of
fish and time of sampling with respect to first or second
half of the summer. The fish were divided into three
classes with one group being fish less than 70 millimeters;
the second group, 70-100 millimeters; and the third, more
then 100 millimeters in length. ‘McCann (op. cit.) and
Boesel (op. cit.) reported that most young-of-the-year
spottails ate the same organisms as the adult. Smith and
Kramer (op. cit.) reported there was a definite change

in food selection with increase in size which became

39

Table 7. Food items taken by 110 spottail shiners in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Little Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan, July 5-September
9. 1967 .
Algae Crustacea
”_Actinastrum Cladocera
' Oicillatoria Leptadora kindtii
S lie a Da nia
VoIvox Egg—1'5?
Diatomaceae OstFIEBHI'
Arachnida Insecta
Hydracarina .Ephemeroptera
Hexagenia-nymphs and adults
Annelida Odonata
Tubificidae Dragonflies and damselflies
Oligochaetae Diptera
Stylaria Tendipedidae-larvae
Simulidae-adults
Osteichythys Trichopter
N. hudsonius-eggs and scales Adults and nymphs
Unidentified eggs Hydropsychidae-case
Hymenoptera-terrestrial wasp
Plant matter-unidentified Hemiptera
Corixidae
Plecoptera-larvae

 

evident at about 70 millimeters. In this study most items
:32. eaten by fish of all sizes with the exception of
Hexggenia which seemed to be eaten more by larger fish.
Hexaggnia was also eaten more extensively in the first half
of the summer. I

Other insects, algae and fish scales were found in both
halves of the summer and in fish of all sizes. Edsall (op.
cit.) reports finding fish scales present when the spottails
were observed feeding on alewife eggs. He believed the
scales to be frem.spottails and theorized that the scales

were lost during the vigorous activity associated with

feeding. He found some fish in which large numbers of

hl

Table 8. Food of 110 spottails in Little Bay de Noe,
Lake Michigan, 1967. Entries are percentage

 

 

 

 

occurrence.

Time 1st Half 2nd Half
Size
intervals* 1 2 3 1 2 3
NO .
stomachs .
examined 17 18 26 6 2h 19
Hexagenia 12 28 5h h 32
Other
insects 35 39 23 83 38 16
Fish
eggs #1 17 19 8 #7
Fish
scales 29 39 16 33 25 16
Cladocera 2h 6 63 16
Ostracods 35 8 11
Plant
matter 35 us. 12 5O 21 16
Algae 2h 39 16 50 8 11
Others ana 17*e 111’2
Empty . I
stomachs 12 17 23 33 29 16
so a
l‘watermites Size intervals
2 Annelid ‘ l-flsh less than 70 mml;

Oligochaet 2-fish 70-100 mm.

3-fish.more than 100 mm.

 

#2

scales were found, a finding which seemed to indicate
they may have been ingested deliberately.

When eggs were found in this study, sand grains were
also found in the stomach.which.indicates that the eggs
were taken off the bottom. The eggs were most likely spot-
tail eggs. Theyewere a common food 1tem.in Smith and
Krameer (op, cit.) study; Other authors reporting spot-
tails feeding on fish eggs were McCann (op. cit.), Griswold
(op. cit.), and Sibley (op. cit.).

Cladocerans were more common in the second half of
the summer. Smith and Kramer found that as the size of the
fish increased, the smeller Cladocera became less numerous
in comparison to the larger species.

Some general conclusions about feeding habits can be
drawn from Table 8 in conjunction with a knowledge of the
habitats present at each station. It seems that organisms
taken are those which are most abundant at a given station.
This was also found by Smith and Kramer (op. cit.). This
generalization seeme to hold true also with respect to
seasonal variation. It was noted that spottails containing
little food ate a greater variety of food materials than
spottails which were well fed. Apparently spottails select
only a fow types of organisms when their food sypply is
abundant but are less selective when their food supply
is less abundant.

From a determination of the food habits, it would

appear that the spottail is not filling the niche left

#3

by the emerald shiner. The spottail is much less selective
and appears not to depend very heavily on the planktonic
organisms at any age or size. Fuchs (1967) found that
adult emerald shiners fed selectively on large zooplankton.
He reported a gradual change in young-or-the-year food habits;
fish.smaller than no millimeters fed primarily on algae
whereas larger fish fed chiefly on cladocerans and copepods.
it would seem.that if any fish are competing in Little Bay
de Roe, it would be the alewife and the emerald shiner.'
The alewife has been shown to be a plankton feeder by
Brooks and‘Dodson (1965). They found that the alewife,
after depleting the larger species of cladocera and other
plankton, would eat more of the smaller plankton. Alewives
were also found to feed heavily on planktonic organisms
in Little Bay de Noc, a finding which is based on stomach
analyses that are part of the alewife study.

it would appear that the spottail shiner and alewife
then are not in direct competition for food. If any fish
is forcing the emerald shiner out of the Bay and Lake

Michigan as a whole, it is most likely the alewife.

SUMMAR!

This study was done in order to understand some of the
biology of the spottail shiner to be better able to determine
the effect of the alewife on the resident fish populations
present in Little Bay dc Noc, Lake Michigan. This study was
carried out in conjunction with a study undertaken by the
Michigan Department of Conservation on the alewife in this
bay.

The present study was based on #56 specimens, 171
of which were used for age and growth determinations and
110 of which were used for food habit analyses.

The standard length-total length relationship was
determined by the method of least squares to be:

SL = .606 TL - .63 mm.
this agreed fairly well with the results reported in the
literature.

The length-frequency distribution agreed fairly well
with the calculated length at each annulus for the second,
third, and fourth annuli. Due to gear selectivity the first
annulus did not show as a mode in the length-frequency dis-
tribution. '

The body-scale relationship was determined by a linear
regression of body length on scale radius for 171 Spottails,
29-127 millimeters in length. The computed formula was:

TL = 5.99 + .38 SR.

uh

#5

The y-interccpt or "a" value was much.less than other
"a'I values reported in the literature, a result most likely
due to lack of key scales and experimentally induced error.

The calculated length at each annulus did not differ
with sex. The combined and weighted lengths at the first,
second, third and fourth annuli were 58.2, 87.0, 105.2,
and 116.7 millimeters respectively. These lengths agreed
fairly well with values found by other researchers.

The size distributions of each age group did not show
a great overlap at the younger ages but did for the older
fish. The range in size for each successive age fish tended
to decrease which.was due to the combining of samples taken
over the whole summer. The older fish would then have a
smaller range of growth.

The length-weight relationship is expressed by the
equation:

Log‘w = ~h.713h + 2.8535 log TL.

The condition factor KTL for males and females was
.9hbl and .9937 respectively. This difference was not
statistically significant.

The most commonly taken fodd items were insects, espe-
cially Hexagenia, fish eggs and scales, cladocerans, algae
and plant matter. There was little difference in food
selection among various sized spottails except with respect
to Hexagenia which was taken more often by larger spottails.

There were differences observed in food taken at different

A6

locations and different times of the summer. Fish eggs
were probably spottail eggs.

it appears that the alewife is not competing with the
spottail in Little Bay dc Noc, a finding based mainly on
the food habits of these two species. The alewife which is
primarily a plankton feeder should not compete with the
spottail directly for food since the spottail is less restricted
in its food selection. The alewife is most likely the cause
of the decline of the emerald shiner, which relies heavily

on plankton.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, C. C., and T. L. Hankinson.

1926.

Allin, A. E.

1929.

The ecology and economics of Oneida Lake.
Roosevelt Wildlife Annals. 1: 2&1-252.

Seining records and food of the intermediate
stages of Lake Erie fishes. Suppl. Ann.
Rept. N. Y; Conservation Dept. No. 16:
95-106. (cited in Boesel).

Bailey, R. M., E. A. Lackner, C. C. Lindsay, C. R. Robins,
P. M. Rodel, W. B. Scott, and L. P. WOods.

1960.

Bangham, R. V.

1955-

Bangham, R. V.,

1939.

Boesel, M.

1938.

A list or common and scientific names of
fishes from the United States and Canada.
Trans. Am, Fish Soc. Spec. Pub. No. 2.
102 p.

Studies on fish parasites or Lake Huron
and Manitoulin Island. Amer..Midl. Nat.

and G.‘W. Hunter, 111.

Studies on fish parasites or Lake Erie.
Zoologica. 2h: 385-hh6.

The food of nine species of fish from.the
western end of Lake Erie. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 67:; 215-223.

Brooks, J. L., and S. l. Dodson.

1965.

Carlander,

19u3.

K. D.

Predation, bodyssize and com osition or
plankton. Science. 150: 2 -35.

Growth rate or the spottailed minnow,
Notropis hudsonius (Clinton), in Minnesota
waters. Minn. Bur. Fish, Res. invest.
Rept. 50: 3 p, typewritten. (cited in
Carlander, 1953).

h?

19th.

1953s "

Dodge, K. E.
1966.

Eddy, S.
1957.

Edsall, T. A.

19611,.

Ewers, L. A.
193h.

Fish, M. P.
1932.

Fraser, C. M.

1917.

Fuchs, E. H.

1967.

MB

Notes on the minor species of fish taken
in the commercial fisheries at Lake of the
woods, 1939 to 19MB. Minn. Bur. Fish,
Res. Suppl. 2 cf Fish. Res. Invest. Rept.
No. he: 27 p, typewritten. (cited in
Carlander, 1953).

Handbook of freshwater fishery biology with
the first supplement. W} C. Brown Co.,
‘Dubuque, lows. h29 p.

Food habits of the yellow perch, Perca
flavesccns (Mitchell), in Little Bay 3e
H33,Lake Michigan. Thesis, Michigan
State University. Unpublished.

 

How to know the freshwater fishes. WM:
C. Brown Co., Dubuque, lowa. 253 p.~

Feeding by three species of fishes on the
eggs of spawning alewives. Copeia. 196M
(1): 226-227.

Summary report of crustacea used as food
by the fishes of the west end of Lake Erie.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 63: 379-390.

Contributions to the early life histories
of sixty-two species of fishes from.Lake
‘Brie.and its tributary waters. U.S. Bur.
Fish. Bull. h7: 293-396.

On the scales of the spring salmon. Cont.

to Canadian Biology. Supplement to the

6th annual report of the Dept. of Naval
Services, Fisheries Branch: 39-52. (cfied 'm 73%)

Life history of the Emerald Shiner, Notro is
atherinoides in Lewis and Clark Lake, SouEE
a o a. rans. Am. Fish. Soc. 96: 2h?-

256.

h9

Griswold, B. L.

l96h. Food and growth of the spottail shiner,
Notropis hudsonius (Clinton), in Clear
Lake, iowa. Proceeding of iowa. Acad.
of Sci. 70: 215-223.

Haley, J. A., and H. E. Winn.

1959. Observations on a lernean parasite of
freshwater fishes. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 86: 126-129.

Hile, R.

l9hl. Age and growth of the rock bass Ambloplites
ru estris (Rafinesque) in Nebish Lake,
Wisconsin. Trans.'Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts,
Lett. 33: 189-337:

Hubbs, C. L.

1921. An ecological study of the life history of
the freshwater atherine fish, Labidesthes
sicculus. Ecol. 2(h): 262-276.

1923. Seasonal variation in the number or vertebrae
of fishes. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts,
and Lett. 2: 207-2lu.

Hubbs, C. L., and G. P. Cooper:

1936. Minnows of Michigan. CranbroOk Institute
of Sci. Bull. No. 6: 95 p.

Hubbs, C. L., and K. F. Lagler.
19h9. Fishes of isle Royal, Lake Superior,
Michigan. Pap. Micht Acad. of Sci., Arts,
and Lett. 33: 73-133-

1956. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook
Inst. of Sci. Bull. No. 26: 213 p. _

Hunt, B. P., and‘w. F. Carbine.
1951. Food of young pike, Esox lucius, from
Houghton Lake, Michigan. Trans. Amt
F1.he SOC. 80: 67-63e
Lagler, K. F.

1956. Freshwater fishery biology. wm. C. Brown
Co., Dubuque, Iowa. th p.

50

Lawler, G. H.

196k. Incidence of Ligula intestinalis in Heming
Lake Fish. Jour. 0 Fish. Res. Ed. Can.

LeCren, E. D.

1951. The length-weight relationship and seasonal
cycle in gonad weight and condition in the
porch, (Perca fluviatilis). Jour. Animal
Ecol. 26?"261-219.

Maloney, J. E., and E. H. Johnson.

1957. Life histories and interrelationships of
walleyes and yellow perch in two Minnesota
Lakes. Trans. Am, Fish. Soc. 65: 191-
202.

Marshall, N.
1939. Annulus formation in scales of the common
shiner, Notro is cornutus c soce halus
(Rafinesque . opeIa. 1935(3): EEB-ISh.
McCann, J. A. A

1959. Life history studies of the spottail shiner
of Clear Lake, Iowa, with particular reference
to some sampling problems. Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc. 66: 336-3h3.

Rawson, D. S.

19k6. Failure of rainbow trout and initial success
with the introduction of lake trout in
Clear Lake, Riding Mountain Park, Manitoba.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 75: 323-335.

Ridenhour, R. L.

1960. Development of a program.to sample young
fish in a lake. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.

Sibley, C. K.

1929. The food of certain fishes of the Lake
Erie drainage basin. Suppl. Ann. Re t.
N. Y. Conservation Dept. No. 18: l 0-
188. (cited in Boesel).

51

Smith, L. L., and R. H. Kramer.

1961;.

Surber, E. W.
1939.

1961.

Toth, R. J.
1959.

The spottail shiner in Lower Red Lake,
Minnesota. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 93
(1): 3S'u50

A comparison of four eastern smallmouth
bass streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
68: 322-335. .

A quantitative study of the food of small-
mouth bass in three eastern streams. Trans.
Ans Fish. SOOe 70: 311‘33u-e

Studies on the life history of the yellow
perch, Perca flavescens (Mitchell), in
Big Bay 3e Eco, Lake Michigan. Thesis.
Michigan State University. Unpublished.

APPENDLX

Total Length, Standard Length and Weight of 162 Spottail Shiners
from Little Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan, July 5-September 9, 1967.

__L_).TL m _i__)_SL m 18.5.52). ELI-111). SD m The).
85 66 8.8 121 96 17.8
65 53 2.7 11h 91 16.1
56 u6 1.6 121 97 16.3
57 us 1.5 120 95 17.1
65 51 2.86 12k 99 18.6:
85 68 5.3 89 71 6.0
86 69 6.0 77 61 u.6
66 51 2.7 70 56 2.9
57 83 1.2 58 7 1.9
61 St 2.6 75 0 3.8
81: 6k h.8 67 53 '2.7
105 8 11.0 56 u3 1.1
100 7 8.7 72 58 3.2
107 86 13.2 59 M7 2.1
88 68 5.5 69 55 3.1
10h 8h 11.0 65 51 2.9
99 79 8.5 7h 58 u.o
102 80 10.0 63 50 2.5
118 9h 16.2 57 us 1.9
118 95 15.5 6h 52 2.8
112 89, 13.7 62 h? 2.2
120 96 17.0 61 u8 1.8
113 91 16.2 71 56 3.5
111 88 15.6 71 56 3.2
115 90 16.3 57 an 1.7
106 85 12.9 91 72 6.1
10h 83 11.2 97 78 9.8
113 .89 18.9 95 77 7.5
107 an 12.7 96 77 8.6
109 87 12.6 93 72 8.1
107 8 12.u 103 82 10.6
122 8 17.t 93 7h 7.5
119 98 20.0 93 75 8.2
119 93 16.6 100 85 8.5
85 66 u.8 7o 56 2.9
10k an 11.1 118 9n 16.1
69 55 3.0 77 61 %.6
93 72 8.2 96 77 .5
81 63 h.6 106 85 12.9
97 78 916 119 98 20.1
61 u8 1.6 10k 83 11.2
56 #3 1.1 89 71 6.0
78 63 h.2 65 50 2.5
60 50 2.2 69 56 2.9
58 u5 1.6 113 91 16.0

._>2

TLS mm) SL3 mm)
55 115
55 M4
55 111+
51 no
54 ’42
1L5 35
hit 33
L78 38
36 28
3h 26
1+5 35
M7 37
1&5 35
M4» 3h
1+3 33
1+ 1..
m it
55 M;
38 293
67 52
119 96
106 811
96 79
106 87
112 89
106 87
99 31
113 91
113 93
106 9
96 7
112 89
106 87
117 93
92 77

m g) TLS m)

HHHHH HH
mwwmmmwromwmowow HH H:

1...:

HHH

H HHH

I-J

eO-‘ee

eeeee0\e eee
«oroowbwqumtmmeFHmFNmmommwoodwotmm

53

mu
1%
nu
n2
9
11%
um
NB
NB
HO
in
no

 

g'

HHH
mHH
O O

m

H

H

HHHNHHH
wwmwmamwrowadmmqw
O O 0

e e e e e e 0
HF’U)CI-F’HO‘O‘OFONtuO‘HHF'I-‘O‘O‘CJDF’CDHCbO‘leO020000030

HNHPOFowwaHHH

HH Hm HP

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
"WWWWillWWIIWWIINIWHWWHI
31293106317260