Kilambi, Raj V.

Prabhakaran, Thoniot T.

English

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 41 Article 38 1987 Evaluation of Striped Bass (Morone saxatillis) Age from Body Scales, Opercles, and Dorsal Spines Raj V. Kilambi University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Thoniot T. Prabhakaran University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Kilambi, Raj V. and Prabhakaran, Thoniot T. (1987) "Evaluation of Striped Bass (Morone saxatillis) Age from Body Scales, Opercles, and Dorsal Spines," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 41 , Article 38. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol41/iss1/38 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. 110 Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.41, 1987General Notes'ORME, L. E. and C. A. LEMM. 1974. Trout eye examinationprocedure. Prog. Fish Cult. 36:167.STEUCKE, E. W., JR., L. H. ALLISON, R. E. PIPER, RROBERTSON, and J. T. BOWEN. 1968. Effects oflight and diet |on the incidence of cataracts in hatchery-raised lake trout. Prog.Fish Cult. 30:220-226.BASILL.JOINER, Department ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at PineBluff,Pine Bluff,AR 71601; JOSEPH R. SYLVESTER, ArkansasCooperative Fishery Project, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff,PineBluff, AR 71601; andHAROLDL.KINCAID,National Fishery Research )Development Laboratory, Wellsboro, PA.REDISCOVERY OF THE SUCKERMOUTH MINNOW, PHENACOBIUS MIRABILIS(GIRARD), INARKANSASThe suckermouth minnow, Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard), is primarily a northern and western prairie stream species and is quite commonin sand and gravel-bottomed riffles of permanent streams throughout much of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Itis /known to occur today in every state bordering Arkansas. Although P. mirabilis was originaly described from the Arkansas River at Fort Smith(Girad, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 8:165-213, 1856) is has always been rare in this state, and the lack of any recent records, despite numerouscollecting attempts, suggested the possibility of its extirpation from Arkansas waters.Untilnow, the only verified records of P. mirabilis from Arkansas were fivepre-1940 collections, all from western Arkansas (Black, Ph.D.Dissertation, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, 500 pp., 1940). However, on 16 July 1986, a single adult specimen of P. mirabilis was collected fromLittleBay Ditch (St. Francis River drainage), 3 miles southeast of Jonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas (R5E, T13N, Sec 18) by William E.Keith, Roland McDaniel, Bob Singleton, Mark Brady, and Bo Smith of the ADPC&E. The specimen, 73 mm in standard length, which willbedeposited in the Arkansas State University Museum of Zoology in Jonesboro, possessed the following meristics: 46 lateral line scales, 8 dorsalrays, 7 anal rays, and 14 pectoral rays.Little Bay Ditch is a channelized stream with a drainage area of approximately 45 square miles. Land use within this watershed is about60% agricultural and 40% suburban. Habitat at the collecting site consisted of 70% shallow, slow-flowing pools and 30% shallow, fast-flowingriffles. The substrate consisted of 78.3% sand and 21.7% mud and silt. Brush, logs, and debris comprised the instream cover (17.5% of meanstream width). Other physical habitat features were: a stream gradient of 0.9 ft/mi, a mean stream width of 41.4 ft,a mean stream velocity of1.01 ft/sec, an observed flow of 27.4 cfs, a mean depth of 0.9 ft,and a maximum depth of2.5 ft.The following water quality data were recorded:water temperature 27 °C, dissolved oxygen 5.1 mg/1, pH 7.99, turbidity 90 NTU, Total suspended solids 142 mg/1, Total dissolved solids 302mg/1, BOD, 3.8 mg/1, BOD20 12.4 mg/1, Total phosphate 0.3 mg/1, NO3 + NO 2-nitrogen 0.29 mg/1, NH3-nitrogen 0.38 mg/1, chloride 9.0mg/1, sulfate 18.0 mg/1, conductivity 426 /xmho, Total hardness 166 mg/1, alkalinity 174 mg/1, chlorophyll-a 13.4 /tg/1, fecal conform 700counts/lOOml. A substantial summer rain had occurred 2-3 days previously resulting in above normal stream flow.The single P. mirabilis specimen was collected in a shallow sandy-bottomed rifflein swift current witha 110 volt ACbackpack electric shocker.The most abundant fishes by number at the collecting site were: Gambusia affinis (83), Ictalurus punctatus (76), Lepomis cyanellus (70), Lepomismegalotis (22), and Notropis venustus (22). Other fishes collected at this site were: Amia calva (1), Lepisosteus oculatus (6), Dorosoma cepedianum(11), Cyprinus carpio (10), Notropis atherinoides (2), Fundulus notatus (1), Ictalurus natalis (5), Lepomis macrochirus (1), and Aplodinotusgrunniens (10).WILLIAME. KEITH,Department ofPollution Control andEcology, P.O. Box9583, LittleRock, AR 72219; THOMASM.BUCHANAN, Depart-ment ofBiology, Westark College, Fort Smith, AR 72901; and HENRY W. ROBISON, Department ofBiological Sciences, Southern ArkansasUniversity, Magnolia, AR 71753.EVALUATIONOF STRIPED BASS (MORONE SAXATILIS)AGE FROM BODY SCALES,OPERCULAR SCALES, OPERCLES AND DORSAL SPINESScales have been used in aging fish for almost a century (Carlander, 1987). Age estimates from scales often lead to systematic errors ifthefish are very slow growing, orare old (Casselman, 1983). Itis further complicated by resorption ofscales to provide calcium to fish during periodsot deficiency associated withovary development and cessation of feeding during spawning migrations (Simkiss, 1974). Ever since Scofield (1931)demonstrated the validity of using striped bass (Morone saxatilis) scales to determine age, aging of striped bass was done mainly by the scales(Horn, et al., 1984). Collins (1982) stated that incidence of age disagreements between readers increased over 50% in older striped bass due tocompacted nature ofannuli at the scale margin. Heidinger and Clodfelter (1987), using known age fish, found that otoliths correctly aged stripedbass while scales mis-aged 20% of fish. Itis apparent that there is a need to search for a suitable hard part other than the body scale for easyand accurate assessment of fish age. The objective of our study was to compare and evaluate four calcified structures—dorsal spine, opercle,opercular, and body scales—in assessing the age of Beaver Reservoir striped bass.A total of28 striped bass (total length 635-979 mm) was obtained in August 1986 from the Beaver Lake National Striped Bass Tournamentat Rocky Branch. Body scales from below the lateral line at the tip of the left pectoral fin, the left opercle, and the second spine from the dorsalfin were collected from each fish. The opercular scales were of two types—oval and circular. The ovoid scales were located at the antero-dorsalregion of the opercles. The ovoid opercular scales were used in this study due to the clarity of annular rings compared to the circular scales. Oper-cular and body scales were cleaned, mounted on glass slides, and photographed by microfiche reader-printer. Opercles were cleaned of tissue byboiling them in water. Spine sections of 0.45-0.50 mm thickness were mounted on glass slides inPermount and examined under phase-contrastmicroscope and photographed. Fish were aged by counting the number of annuli on the scales and the translucent zones on the opercles and spinesections.The spine annuli (translucent zones), even of the older striped bass, were very distinct and denumerable under the phase-contrast microscope.Hence, the spine ages were used as the basis of comparison withages estimated from the other three calcified structures. Graphical comparison(Fig. 1) showed that the opercular scale and body scale ages were lower than the spine ages. The percentage agreements of opercle, body scale,110Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 41 [1987], Art. 38Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1987Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 41, 1987111Arkansas Academy of Science'Iandopercular scale ages with spine ages were 82.1, 17.9, and 7.1, respectively. The opercle, opercular, and body scale ages were regressed respec-tively on the spine ages (Fig. 1), and the deviations of the predicted ages from the spine ages were calculated. The opercular and body scalesunderestimated the striped bass age by an average of 1.81 (range, 1.3-2.4) and 1.89 (range, 1.2-2.6) years respectively. This trend increased withspine age. The average underestimation of age by the opercle was 0.27 (range, 0.1-0.4).Several investigators evaluated the reliability of scale method inage assessment and found the method wanting. Beamish and Chilton (1977)reported that the scales of older lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) underestimate the fish age compared to fin-ray ages. Harrison and Hadley (1979)¦ suggested the cleithral technique to be superior to the scale method for the older muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) due to resolution of cleithralannuli. Millsand Beamish (1980) found the scale ages to be consistently lower than the fin-ray ages in a mark-recapture age analysis of lake whitefishr(Coregonusclupeaformis). Based on percent errors inaging and coefficient of variation, Boxrucker (1986) reported on greater precision in agingwhitecrappie (Pomoxis annularis) by otoliths than by scales. Heidinger and Clodfelter (1987) correctly aged the known-age (0-4 yr.) walleye (Stizostedionvitreum), striped bass, and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) by otoliths, while many of these fish were underaged by the scale method.Witho t validation through mark-recapture or by known-age fish study, itwas not possible to confirm which of the four hard parts examinedin our study truly depicted the correct ages of striped bass. However, itis reasonable to assume that the spines provide a better source for aging¦ striped bass, inview ofthe fact that the marginal annuli are more distinct and countable in spine sections than in other hard parts used in this study.We express our sincere appreciation to Professor W. L. Evans for the critical review and constructive suggestions on the manuscript. Ourthanks to Dr. J. C. Rose for his help inpreparing the spine sections.LITERATURE CITEDBEAMISH, R. J., and D. CHILTON. 1977. Age determination oflingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) using dorsal fin rays and scales J.Fish Res. Board Can. 34:1305-1313.BOXRUCKER, J. 1986. A comparison of otolith and scale methodsfor aging white crappies in Oklahoma. J. Fish. Mgmt. 6:122-123.CARLANDER, K. D. 1987. Ahistory of scale age and growth studiesofNorth American freshwater fish. Pp. 3-14, inR. C. Summerfeltand G. E. Gordon, (eds.) Age and growth of fish. Iowa StateI University Press, Ames, IA. 544 pp.CASSELMAN, J. M. 1983. Age and growth assessment of fish fromtheir calcified structures— techniques and tools. Pp. 1-17, in E.D.Prince and L. M.Pulos, (eds.) Proceedings of the internationalworkshop on age determination ofoceanic pelagic fishes: tunas,billfishes, and sharks. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep.MNFS8. 211 pp.COLLINS, C. M.1982. Growth of adult striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Calif. Fish Game 68:146-149.'HARRISON, E. J., and W. F. HADLEY. 1979. A comparison of theuse ofcleithra to the use ofscales for age and growth studies. Trans.Amer. Fish. Soc. 108:452-456.HEIDINGER, R. C, and K. CLODFELTER. 1987. Validity of theotolith for determining age of walleye, striped bass, and smallmouthbass in power plant cooling ponds. Pp. 241-251, in R. C. Sum-merfelt and G. E. Gordon, (eds.) Age and growth of fish. IowaState University Press, Ames, IA.544 pp.HORN, M.H., L. G. ALLEN, and F. D. HAGNER. 1984. Ecolog-ical status ofstriped bass, Morone saxatilis, inupper Newport Bay,California. Calif. Fish Game 70:180-182.MILLS,K. H., and R. J. BEAMISH. 1980. Comparison of fin-rayand scale age determinations for lake whitefish (Coregonusclupeaformis) and their implications for estimates ofgrowth andannual survival. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:534-544.SCOFIELD, E. C. 1931. The striped bass of California (Roccussaxatilis). Calif. Div. Fish and Game, Fish. Bull. 29. 84 pp.Figure 1.Comparison ofbody scale, opercular scale, and opercle ageswith dorsal spine ages of striped bass. 45°diagonal line (—).Fittedregression line (—)SIMKISS, K.1974. Calcium metabolism of fish inrelation to ageing.Pp. 1-12, in T. B. Bagenal, (ed.) Ageing of fish. Unwin BrothersLimited, Surrey, England. 234 pp.RAJ V. KILAMBIand THONIOT T. PRABHAKARAN,Department of Zoology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701111Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 41 [1987], Art. 38https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol41/iss1/38

Evaluation of Striped Bass (Morone saxatillis) Age from Body Scales, Opercles, and Dorsal Spines

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 41 Article 381987Evaluation of Striped Bass (Morone saxatillis) Agefrom Body Scales, Opercles, and Dorsal SpinesRaj V. KilambiUniversity of Arkansas, FayettevilleThoniot T. PrabhakaranUniversity of Arkansas, FayettevilleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Zoology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationKilambi, Raj V. and Prabhakaran, Thoniot T. (1987) "Evaluation of Striped Bass (Morone saxatillis) Age from Body Scales, Opercles,and Dorsal Spines," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 41 , Article 38.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol41/iss1/38110 Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.41, 1987General Notes'ORME, L. E. and C. A. LEMM. 1974. Trout eye examinationprocedure. Prog. Fish Cult. 36:167.STEUCKE, E. W., JR., L. H. ALLISON, R. E. PIPER, RROBERTSON, and J. T. BOWEN. 1968. Effects oflight and diet |on the incidence of cataracts in hatchery-raised lake trout. Prog.Fish Cult. 30:220-226.BASILL.JOINER, Department ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at PineBluff,Pine Bluff,AR 71601; JOSEPH R. SYLVESTER, ArkansasCooperative Fishery Project, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff,PineBluff, AR 71601; andHAROLDL.KINCAID,National Fishery Research )Development Laboratory, Wellsboro, PA.REDISCOVERY OF THE SUCKERMOUTH MINNOW, PHENACOBIUS MIRABILIS(GIRARD), INARKANSASThe suckermouth minnow, Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard), is primarily a northern and western prairie stream species and is quite commonin sand and gravel-bottomed riffles of permanent streams throughout much of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Itis /known to occur today in every state bordering Arkansas. Although P. mirabilis was originaly described from the Arkansas River at Fort Smith(Girad, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 8:165-213, 1856) is has always been rare in this state, and the lack of any recent records, despite numerouscollecting attempts, suggested the possibility of its extirpation from Arkansas waters.Untilnow, the only verified records of P. mirabilis from Arkansas were fivepre-1940 collections, all from western Arkansas (Black, Ph.D.Dissertation, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, 500 pp., 1940). However, on 16 July 1986, a single adult specimen of P. mirabilis was collected fromLittleBay Ditch (St. Francis River drainage), 3 miles southeast of Jonesboro, Craighead County, Arkansas (R5E, T13N, Sec 18) by William E.Keith, Roland McDaniel, Bob Singleton, Mark Brady, and Bo Smith of the ADPC&E. The specimen, 73 mm in standard length, which willbedeposited in the Arkansas State University Museum of Zoology in Jonesboro, possessed the following meristics: 46 lateral line scales, 8 dorsalrays, 7 anal rays, and 14 pectoral rays.Little Bay Ditch is a channelized stream with a drainage area of approximately 45 square miles. Land use within this watershed is about60% agricultural and 40% suburban. Habitat at the collecting site consisted of 70% shallow, slow-flowing pools and 30% shallow, fast-flowingriffles. The substrate consisted of 78.3% sand and 21.7% mud and silt. Brush, logs, and debris comprised the instream cover (17.5% of meanstream width). Other physical habitat features were: a stream gradient of 0.9 ft/mi, a mean stream width of 41.4 ft,a mean stream velocity of1.01 ft/sec, an observed flow of 27.4 cfs, a mean depth of 0.9 ft,and a maximum depth of2.5 ft.The following water quality data were recorded:water temperature 27 °C, dissolved oxygen 5.1 mg/1, pH 7.99, turbidity 90 NTU, Total suspended solids 142 mg/1, Total dissolved solids 302mg/1, BOD, 3.8 mg/1, BOD20 12.4 mg/1, Total phosphate 0.3 mg/1, NO3 + NO 2-nitrogen 0.29 mg/1, NH3-nitrogen 0.38 mg/1, chloride 9.0mg/1, sulfate 18.0 mg/1, conductivity 426 /xmho, Total hardness 166 mg/1, alkalinity 174 mg/1, chlorophyll-a 13.4 /tg/1, fecal conform 700counts/lOOml. A substantial summer rain had occurred 2-3 days previously resulting in above normal stream flow.The single P. mirabilis specimen was collected in a shallow sandy-bottomed rifflein swift current witha 110 volt ACbackpack electric shocker.The most abundant fishes by number at the collecting site were: Gambusia affinis (83), Ictalurus punctatus (76), Lepomis cyanellus (70), Lepomismegalotis (22), and Notropis venustus (22). Other fishes collected at this site were: Amia calva (1), Lepisosteus oculatus (6), Dorosoma cepedianum(11), Cyprinus carpio (10), Notropis atherinoides (2), Fundulus notatus (1), Ictalurus natalis (5), Lepomis macrochirus (1), and Aplodinotusgrunniens (10).WILLIAME. KEITH,Department ofPollution Control andEcology, P.O. Box9583, LittleRock, AR 72219; THOMASM.BUCHANAN, Depart-ment ofBiology, Westark College, Fort Smith, AR 72901; and HENRY W. ROBISON, Department ofBiological Sciences, Southern ArkansasUniversity, Magnolia, AR 71753.EVALUATIONOF STRIPED BASS (MORONE SAXATILIS)AGE FROM BODY SCALES,OPERCULAR SCALES, OPERCLES AND DORSAL SPINESScales have been used in aging fish for almost a century (Carlander, 1987). Age estimates from scales often lead to systematic errors ifthefish are very slow growing, orare old (Casselman, 1983). Itis further complicated by resorption ofscales to provide calcium to fish during periodsot deficiency associated withovary development and cessation of feeding during spawning migrations (Simkiss, 1974). Ever since Scofield (1931)demonstrated the validity of using striped bass (Morone saxatilis) scales to determine age, aging of striped bass was done mainly by the scales(Horn, et al., 1984). Collins (1982) stated that incidence of age disagreements between readers increased over 50% in older striped bass due tocompacted nature ofannuli at the scale margin. Heidinger and Clodfelter (1987), using known age fish, found that otoliths correctly aged stripedbass while scales mis-aged 20% of fish. Itis apparent that there is a need to search for a suitable hard part other than the body scale for easyand accurate assessment of fish age. The objective of our study was to compare and evaluate four calcified structures — dorsal spine, opercle,opercular, and body scales — in assessing the age of Beaver Reservoir striped bass.A total of28 striped bass (total length 635-979 mm) was obtained in August 1986 from the Beaver Lake National Striped Bass Tournamentat Rocky Branch. Body scales from below the lateral line at the tip of the left pectoral fin, the left opercle, and the second spine from the dorsalfin were collected from each fish. The opercular scales were of two types—oval and circular. The ovoid scales were located at the antero-dorsalregion of the opercles. The ovoid opercular scales were used in this study due to the clarity of annular rings compared to the circular scales. Oper-cular and body scales were cleaned, mounted on glass slides, and photographed by microfiche reader-printer. Opercles were cleaned of tissue byboiling them in water. Spine sections of 0.45-0.50 mm thickness were mounted on glass slides inPermount and examined under phase-contrastmicroscope and photographed. Fish were aged by counting the number of annuli on the scales and the translucent zones on the opercles and spinesections.The spine annuli (translucent zones), even of the older striped bass, were very distinct and denumerable under the phase-contrast microscope.Hence, the spine ages were used as the basis of comparison withages estimated from the other three calcified structures. Graphical comparison(Fig. 1) showed that the opercular scale and body scale ages were lower than the spine ages. The percentage agreements of opercle, body scale,110Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 41 [1987], Art. 38Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1987Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 41, 1987 111Arkansas Academy of Science'Iand opercular scale ages with spine ages were 82.1, 17.9, and 7.1, respectively. The opercle, opercular, and body scale ages were regressed respec-tively on the spine ages (Fig. 1), and the deviations of the predicted ages from the spine ages were calculated. The opercular and body scalesunderestimated the striped bass age by an average of 1.81 (range, 1.3-2.4) and 1.89 (range, 1.2-2.6) years respectively. This trend increased withspine age. The average underestimation of age by the opercle was 0.27 (range, 0.1-0.4).Several investigators evaluated the reliability of scale method inage assessment and found the method wanting. Beamish and Chilton (1977)reported that the scales of older lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) underestimate the fish age compared to fin-ray ages. Harrison and Hadley (1979)¦ suggested the cleithral technique to be superior to the scale method for the older muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) due to resolution of cleithralannuli. Millsand Beamish (1980) found the scale ages to be consistently lower than the fin-ray ages in a mark-recapture age analysis of lake whitefishr(Coregonus clupeaformis). Based on percent errors inaging and coefficient of variation, Boxrucker (1986) reported on greater precision in agingwhitecrappie (Pomoxis annularis) by otoliths than by scales. Heidinger and Clodfelter (1987) correctly aged the known-age (0-4 yr.) walleye (Stizostedionvitreum), striped bass, and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) by otoliths, while many of these fish were underaged by the scale method.Witho t validation through mark-recapture or by known-age fish study, itwas not possible to confirm which of the four hard parts examinedin our study truly depicted the correct ages of striped bass. However, itis reasonable to assume that the spines provide a better source for aging¦ striped bass, inview ofthe fact that the marginal annuli are more distinct and countable in spine sections than in other hard parts used in this study.We express our sincere appreciation to Professor W. L. Evans for the critical review and constructive suggestions on the manuscript. Ourthanks to Dr. J. C. Rose for his help inpreparing the spine sections.LITERATURE CITEDBEAMISH, R. J., and D. CHILTON. 1977. Age determination oflingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) using dorsal fin rays and scales J.Fish Res. Board Can. 34:1305-1313.BOXRUCKER, J. 1986. A comparison of otolith and scale methodsfor aging white crappies in Oklahoma. J. Fish. Mgmt. 6:122-123.CARLANDER, K. D. 1987. Ahistory of scale age and growth studiesofNorth American freshwater fish. Pp. 3-14, inR. C. Summerfeltand G. E. Gordon, (eds.) Age and growth of fish. Iowa StateI University Press, Ames, IA. 544 pp.CASSELMAN, J. M. 1983. Age and growth assessment of fish fromtheir calcified structures— techniques and tools. Pp. 1-17, in E.D.Prince and L. M.Pulos, (eds.) Proceedings of the internationalworkshop on age determination ofoceanic pelagic fishes: tunas,billfishes, and sharks. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep.MNFS8. 211 pp.COLLINS, C. M.1982. Growth of adult striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Calif. Fish Game 68:146-149.'HARRISON, E. J., and W. F. HADLEY. 1979. A comparison of theuse ofcleithra to the use ofscales for age and growth studies. Trans.Amer. Fish. Soc. 108:452-456.HEIDINGER, R. C, and K. CLODFELTER. 1987. Validity of theotolith for determining age of walleye, striped bass, and smallmouthbass in power plant cooling ponds. Pp. 241-251, in R. C. Sum-merfelt and G. E. Gordon, (eds.) Age and growth of fish. IowaState University Press, Ames, IA.544 pp.HORN, M.H., L. G. ALLEN, and F. D. HAGNER. 1984. Ecolog-ical status ofstriped bass, Morone saxatilis, inupper Newport Bay,California. Calif. Fish Game 70:180-182.MILLS,K. H., and R. J. BEAMISH. 1980. Comparison of fin-rayand scale age determinations for lake whitefish (Coregonusclupeaformis) and their implications for estimates ofgrowth andannual survival. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:534-544.SCOFIELD, E. C. 1931. The striped bass of California (Roccussaxatilis). Calif. Div. Fish and Game, Fish. Bull. 29. 84 pp. Figure 1.Comparison ofbody scale, opercular scale, and opercle ageswith dorsal spine ages of striped bass. 45°diagonal line (—).Fittedregression line (—)SIMKISS, K.1974. Calcium metabolism of fish inrelation to ageing.Pp. 1-12, in T. B. Bagenal, (ed.) Ageing of fish. Unwin BrothersLimited, Surrey, England. 234 pp.RAJ V. KILAMBIand THONIOT T. PRABHAKARAN,Department of Zoology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701111Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 41 [1987], Art. 38http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol41/iss1/38

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2385&amp;context=jaas

Evaluation of Striped Bass (Morone saxatillis) Age from Body Scales, Opercles, and Dorsal Spines

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK