Newton, Scott H.

Robison, Walter R.

English

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 36 Article 39 1982 Effect of Stocking Density on Channel Catfish Growth, Survival and Food Conservation Efficiency in Cages Walter R. Robison University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Scott H. Newton University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Robison, Walter R. and Newton, Scott H. (1982) "Effect of Stocking Density on Channel Catfish Growth, Survival and Food Conservation Efficiency in Cages," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 36 , Article 39. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol36/iss1/39 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. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVI,1982 101General NotesEFFECT OF STOCKING DENSITY ON CHANNEL CATFISH GROWTH,SURVIVALAND FOOD CONVERSION EFFICIENCY INCAGES*Rearing ofchannel catfish (Ictaluruspunctatus) in cages has developed past the experimental phases of maintaining and growing them. Pre-sent research interests are directed toward maximizing yields and profits from each production unit. Therefore, a study was conducted to updatethe effects ofstocking density on catfish growth, survival, and food conversion efficiency in cages due to the marked improvement inration qualitywithin the past decade (Newton, 1980).Lewis and Konikoff(1974) noted that at stocking densities of less than 80 catfish/m' fightingoccurred when fish reached a size of0.22 kg.Previous nutritional research in Arkansas and Oklahoma (Newton and Merkowsky, 1977; Collins, 1975) utilized stocking densities of200-250 cat-fish/m'. Fish stocked at these densities had favorable growth and survival. Inaddition, at these higher densities no behavioral problems were en-countered and fish obtained amarketable size of 0.45 kg during one growing season (100 days). Schmittou (1970) reported that catfish stockedat 500 fish/m J could reach 0.34 kg in one growing season. Newton and Robison (1980) reared catfish in cages at three densities (200, 350, 500fish/m!) and noted that fish stocked at 350 fish/m' gave the best economic return. Catfish stocked at 500 fish/m' had lower growth rates, foodconversion efficiencies, and survival rates.The purpose of this study was to determine an optimum stocking density for catfish survival, food conversion, and growth. Catfish werereared in twelve 1 m!cages constructed with 5x5 cm pine and 1.2 cm plastic netting. Cages were floated in a 1.6 ha farm pond located at theUniversity ofArkansas at Pine BluffResearch Center. Catfish fingerlings ranging in size from 12.7 to 22.8 cm were stocked at the rates of200and 300 fish/m J in April,1981. Each treatment rate was replicated six times. Catfish were fed a 32% protein floating ration five days per week.Allfish were fed three to five percent of their estimated body weight according to a schedule adjusted every ten feeding days based upon a 1.5:1feed conversion ratio. Catfish were harvested inOctober after 140 feeding days. At harvest a ten percent sample was used to determined dress-outpercentages and body fat. Dress-out weight (%) is the fish portion available for market sale after skinning and eviseration. Percentage body fatwas determined by weighing the mesenteric fat removed from individual fish.Analysis ofvariance (Steele and Torrie, 1960) was used to test forsignificant differences among average weight gain, food conversion efficien-cy (FCE), survival, percentage mesenteric fat, and dress-out weight. Statistical tests were performed at the 0.05 significance level.Catfish reared at 200 fish/m 1had a significantly higher survival rate than catfish reared at 300 fish/m' 97% and 92%, respectively). Addi-tionally,catfish reared at the higher stocking density suffered more bacterial problems. Bacterial infections occurred in four of the six cages atthe higher density and in onlyone of the cages at the lower density. Mortality frombacterial losses was the major cause for the significant differencein survival.Food conversion efficiency was directly related to stocking density. Data indicated (Table) that as density increases individual food efficiencyutilization significantly decreases. Fish reared at 200/m!had an average of 13% better FCE than fish reared at 300 fish/m 1(1.9 and 2.2 respectively).IThere was asignificant decrease in average individual size from the lower to higher stocking density. Fish reared at 200 and 300 fish peraveraged 328 and 255 g, respectively. Net total production of catfish was higher in the cages stocked at 300 fish/m 1 (72 kg) than at the lowerty (60 kg).KFishat the lower stocking density had a significantly higher percentage of mesenteric fat than fish reared at the higher density (2.2% and,respectively). Parker (1982) noted that catfish muscle lipiddeposits were positively correlated with mesenteric fat deposits. He stated thatased muscle lipiddeposits may have a beneficial influence on the quality of fish flesh. This suggests that the fish at the lower stocking densityalso have greater consumer acceptance in addition to higher food conversions and growth rates. There was no significant difference in thentage dressout weights between the two densities.IIn this study, individual caged reared catfish growth was reduced by increasing the density from 200 to 300 fish/m' (Table). This findingirs with results ofother caged catfish investigations. Previous research by Newton and Robison (1980) and Schmittou (1970) indicated thaticking densities increase, individual fish growth decreases. Food conversion efficiency and survival also decrease as stocking density increases.ipast, growthcomparisons among various caged catfish studies have not been significantly different up to densities of 500 fish/m 1 (Collins,Schmittou, 1970). However, in the present study there were significant differences among survival, FCE and individual growth. The signifi-difference between survival rates was attributable to recurrent bacterial infections at the higher stocking density.tFoodconversion efficiency was significantly lower in this study than reported by other investigators possibly because of greater fingerlingt variation at stocking. Inprevious related studies, Collins (1971) and Schmittou (1970) used fingerlingsofuniform weights forstocking cages,and Konikoff (1974) used a wide range ofsize variation and fed the fish to satiation. Fish in this study were not fed to satiation, but fed:duled percentage (5-3%) of estimated body weight. This may have allowed the larger fish to consume a greater portion of the ration thusinhibiting growth of smaller fish.Table. Comparison of channel catfish reared in cages at two stockingdensities fed a 32"% protein floating catfish ration.Food Average Portent PercentStock ing I1ore ent convcrs ion final mesenteric dres s-outdensity survival efficiency harvest fat weightweight fg)? 200 97 B/ !-»¦ 328a 2 '2a 54"4a«300 92 b 2.2 b 255 b 1.6 b 53.3 a0.05 level.101Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 36 [1982], Art. 39Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1982Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVI,1982102Arkansas Academy of ScienceFood conversion efficiency was also lower because larger fish consumed a greater percentage of the ration, utilizing the excess energy fOrfat deposition. On the average, fish greater than 350 ghad 7% more body fat than smaller fish. Presently, itis assumed that this behavioral problemdoes not occur as dramatically with uniformly stocked fish.*Published with the approval of the Director of the Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station.LITERATURE CITEDCOLLINS, C. M. 1975. Catfish cage culture, fingerlings to food fish.No. 13. The Kerr Foundation, Inc. Poteau, OK.COLLINS, R. A. 1971. Cage culture ofcatfish inreservoir lakes. Proc.S. E. Assoc. Game and Fish Coram. 24:489-496.LEWIS, W. M.andM.KONlKOFF. 1974. Variation in weight ofcagereared channel catfish. Prog. Fish Cult. 36(3):138-144.NEWTON, S. H., and A.J. MERKOWSKY. 1977. Attracting insectsas a supplemental food forchannel catfish: Atwo-season evalua-tion. Ark. Farm Res. J., 26(3):9.NEWTON,S. H.1980. Status of cage culture in Arkansas. AquacultureMagazine, 7(l):32-36.NEWTON, S. H., and W. R. ROBISON. 1980. Ration/density com-parisons withcaged channel catfish. Proc. Ark.Acad. Sci. 35:89.PARKER, N.C. 1982. Seasonal changes inbody composition of channelcatfish. Fourth Annual Proc. Catfish Farmers of America.(Abstract). Biloxi,Mississippi.SCHMITTOU, H.R. 1970. The culture of channel catfish, Ictaluruspunctatus (Rafinesque), in cages suspended in ponds. Proc. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 23:226-244.STEELE, R. G.D.,and J. H.TORRIE. 1960. Principles and proceduresof statistics, with special reference to the biological sciences.McGraw-Hill, N. Y.481p.WALTER R. ROBISON, and SCOTT H.NEWTON, Department ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff,Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601.NEW RECORDS FOR TROGLOBITIC ASELLIDS FROM NORTHWEST ARKANSASLittle effort has been made to document the presence and location of the troglobitic Asellidae (Crustacea: Isopoda) occurring innorthwestArkansas. Previous records include: Caecidotea ancyla from Brewer Cave inBoone County (Fleming, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 84:489-500, 1972;McDaniel and Smith, Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci., 30:57-60, 1976); and C. stiladactyla from a spring inNewton County, from seeps inNewton andBoone counties (Mackin and Hubricht, Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc, 59:383-397, 1940), and from Big Spring at Bella Vista,and Cave Springs Cavein Benton County (Fleming, Int.J. Speleol., 4:221-256, 1972; McDaniel and Smith, Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci., 30:57-60, 1976). No other localitiesin northwest Arkansas are known to harbor troglobitic asellids. The purpose of this paper is to report on the troglobiticasellid fauna ofnorthwestArkansas.Hypogean and epigean environments were visited fromMarch 1978 to December 1979. Collections were preserved in 70% ethanol and transportedto the laboratory for identification. Type specimens were borrowed from the United States National Museum to compare and confirm identifica-tions. Allcollections are in the possession of the author.Twenty-one new locality records were recorded (Figure), and include the following species: Caecidotea ancyla, C. antricola, C. steevesi, andC. stiladactyla. This is the first Arkansas record for C. steevesi. Locality data for each species and other troglobitic fauna encountered are givenin the following account.Caecidotea ancyla (Fleming). Madison Co.: Denny Cave, War Eagle Cave; Washington Co.: Greasy Valley Cave. Specimens of C. steevesi andStygobromus ozarkensis (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae) were taken from War Eagle Cave.Caecidotea antricola Creaser. Benton Co.: Civil War Cave, Logan Cave; Newton Co.: Earls Cave (collected by W. C. Welbourn). Amblyopsisrosae (Teleostomi: Amblyopsidae) was observed in Logan Cave.Caecidotea steevesi (Fleming). Madison Co.: War Eagle Cave; Washington Co.: Well on the property ofO. A.Lastering (collected by E. H.Schmitz).Caecidotea stiladactyla Mackin and Hubricht. Benton Co.: Dickerson Cave, War Eagle Caverns; Carroll Co.: spring at Hogscald Hollow, WhiteRiver below Beaver Dam; Madison Co.: Cal Cave, Laningham's Cave. Specimens ofStygobromus ozarkensis were taken from DickersonCave and from the White River below Beaver Dam.Caecidotea sp. Collections consisting of female and immature specimens only.Benton Co.: small poolnear Spanish Treasure Cave, spring at SulphurSprings; Madison Co.: unnamed cave at Mcllroy Refuge; Marion Co.: Coon Cave; Newton Co.: Copperhead Cave, John Eddings Cave,unnamed cave near Diamond Cave, seep at Running Creek. Collections from Coon Cave, John Eddings Cave, and seep at Running Creekby W. C. Welbourn.Iwould like to express my appreciation to Dr. Thomas E. Bowman of the United States National Museum, and Mr.Julian J.Lewis, University ofLouisville, Kentucky, for confirmation of asellid identifications; to Dr. John R. Holsinger of Old DominionUniversity, Norfolk, Virginia, for amphipod identifications. Igreatly appreciate the loan of type specimens by the United StatesNational Museum. Special thanks go to Dr. Eugene H.Schmitz, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, and Mr. W. C. Welbournof the Cave Research Foundation for their donations ofspecimens.MARKD. SCHRAM,Department of Zoology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701102Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 36 [1982], Art. 39https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol36/iss1/39

Effect of Stocking Density on Channel Catfish Growth, Survival and Food Conservation Efficiency in Cages

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 36 Article 391982Effect of Stocking Density on Channel CatfishGrowth, Survival and Food ConservationEfficiency in CagesWalter R. RobisonUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffScott H. NewtonUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and 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 CitationRobison, Walter R. and Newton, Scott H. (1982) "Effect of Stocking Density on Channel Catfish Growth, Survival and FoodConservation Efficiency in Cages," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 36 , Article 39.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol36/iss1/39Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVI,1982 101General NotesEFFECT OF STOCKING DENSITY ON CHANNEL CATFISH GROWTH,SURVIVALAND FOOD CONVERSION EFFICIENCY INCAGES*Rearing ofchannel catfish (Ictaluruspunctatus) in cages has developed past the experimental phases of maintaining and growing them. Pre-sent research interests are directed toward maximizing yields and profits from each production unit. Therefore, a study was conducted to updatethe effects ofstocking density on catfish growth, survival, and food conversion efficiency in cages due to the marked improvement inration qualitywithin the past decade (Newton, 1980).Lewis and Konikoff(1974) noted that at stocking densities of less than 80 catfish/m' fightingoccurred when fish reached a size of0.22 kg.Previous nutritional research in Arkansas and Oklahoma (Newton and Merkowsky, 1977; Collins, 1975) utilized stocking densities of200-250 cat-fish/m'. Fish stocked at these densities had favorable growth and survival. Inaddition, at these higher densities no behavioral problems were en-countered and fish obtained amarketable size of 0.45 kg during one growing season (100 days). Schmittou (1970) reported that catfish stockedat 500 fish/m J could reach 0.34 kg in one growing season. Newton and Robison (1980) reared catfish in cages at three densities (200, 350, 500fish/m!) and noted that fish stocked at 350 fish/m' gave the best economic return. Catfish stocked at 500 fish/m' had lower growth rates, foodconversion efficiencies, and survival rates.The purpose of this study was to determine an optimum stocking density for catfish survival, food conversion, and growth. Catfish werereared in twelve 1 m!cages constructed with 5x5 cm pine and 1.2 cm plastic netting. Cages were floated in a 1.6 ha farm pond located at theUniversity ofArkansas at Pine BluffResearch Center. Catfish fingerlings ranging in size from 12.7 to 22.8 cm were stocked at the rates of200and 300 fish/m J in April,1981. Each treatment rate was replicated six times. Catfish were fed a 32% protein floating ration five days per week.Allfish were fed three to five percent of their estimated body weight according to a schedule adjusted every ten feeding days based upon a 1.5:1feed conversion ratio. Catfish were harvested inOctober after 140 feeding days. At harvest a ten percent sample was used to determined dress-outpercentages and body fat. Dress-out weight (%) is the fish portion available for market sale after skinning and eviseration. Percentage body fatwas determined by weighing the mesenteric fat removed from individual fish.Analysis ofvariance (Steele and Torrie, 1960) was used to test forsignificant differences among average weight gain, food conversion efficien-cy (FCE), survival, percentage mesenteric fat, and dress-out weight. Statistical tests were performed at the 0.05 significance level.Catfish reared at 200 fish/m 1had a significantly higher survival rate than catfish reared at 300 fish/m' 97% and 92%, respectively). Addi-tionally,catfish reared at the higher stocking density suffered more bacterial problems. Bacterial infections occurred in four of the six cages atthe higher density and in onlyone of the cages at the lower density. Mortality frombacterial losses was the major cause for the significant differencein survival.Food conversion efficiency was directly related to stocking density. Data indicated (Table) that as density increases individual food efficiencyutilization significantly decreases. Fish reared at 200/m!had an average of 13% better FCE than fish reared at 300 fish/m 1(1.9 and 2.2 respectively).IThere was a significant decrease in average individual size from the lower to higher stocking density. Fish reared at 200 and 300 fish peraveraged 328 and 255 g, respectively. Net total production of catfish was higher in the cages stocked at 300 fish/m 1 (72 kg) than at the lowerty (60 kg).KFish at the lower stocking density had a significantly higher percentage of mesenteric fat than fish reared at the higher density (2.2% and,respectively). Parker (1982) noted that catfish muscle lipiddeposits were positively correlated with mesenteric fat deposits. He stated thatased muscle lipiddeposits may have a beneficial influence on the quality of fish flesh. This suggests that the fish at the lower stocking densityalso have greater consumer acceptance in addition to higher food conversions and growth rates. There was no significant difference in thentage dressout weights between the two densities.IIn this study, individual caged reared catfish growth was reduced by increasing the density from 200 to 300 fish/m' (Table). This findingirs with results ofother caged catfish investigations. Previous research by Newton and Robison (1980) and Schmittou (1970) indicated thaticking densities increase, individual fish growth decreases. Food conversion efficiency and survival also decrease as stocking density increases.ipast, growthcomparisons among various caged catfish studies have not been significantly different up to densities of 500 fish/m 1 (Collins,Schmittou, 1970). However, in the present study there were significant differences among survival, FCE and individual growth. The signifi-difference between survival rates was attributable to recurrent bacterial infections at the higher stocking density.tFood conversion efficiency was significantly lower in this study than reported by other investigators possibly because of greater fingerlingt variation at stocking. Inprevious related studies, Collins (1971) and Schmittou (1970) used fingerlingsofuniform weights forstocking cages,and Konikoff (1974) used a wide range ofsize variation and fed the fish to satiation. Fish in this study were not fed to satiation, but fed:duled percentage (5-3%) of estimated body weight. This may have allowed the larger fish to consume a greater portion of the ration thusinhibiting growth of smaller fish.Table. Comparison of channel catfish reared in cages at two stockingdensities fed a 32"% protein floating catfish ration.Food Average Portent PercentStock ing I1ore ent convcrs ion final mesenteric dres s-outdensity survival efficiency harvest fat weightweight fg)? 200 97 B/ !-»¦ 328a 2 '2a 54"4a«300 92 b 2.2 b 255 b 1.6 b 53.3 a0.05 level.101Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 36 [1982], Art. 39Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1982Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXVI,1982102Arkansas Academy of ScienceFood conversion efficiency was also lower because larger fish consumed a greater percentage of the ration, utilizing the excess energy fOrfat deposition. On the average, fish greater than 350 ghad 7% more body fat than smaller fish. Presently, itis assumed that this behavioral problemdoes not occur as dramatically with uniformly stocked fish.*Published with the approval of the Director of the Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station.LITERATURE CITEDCOLLINS, C. M. 1975. Catfish cage culture, fingerlings to food fish.No. 13. The Kerr Foundation, Inc. Poteau, OK.COLLINS, R. A. 1971. Cage culture ofcatfish inreservoir lakes. Proc.S. E. Assoc. Game and Fish Coram. 24:489-496.LEWIS, W. M.andM.KONlKOFF. 1974. Variation in weight ofcagereared channel catfish. Prog. Fish Cult. 36(3):138-144.NEWTON, S. H., and A.J. MERKOWSKY. 1977. Attracting insectsas a supplemental food forchannel catfish: Atwo-season evalua-tion. Ark. Farm Res. J., 26(3):9.NEWTON,S. H.1980. Status of cage culture in Arkansas. AquacultureMagazine, 7(l):32-36.NEWTON, S. H., and W. R. ROBISON. 1980. Ration/density com-parisons withcaged channel catfish. Proc. Ark.Acad. Sci. 35:89.PARKER, N.C. 1982. Seasonal changes inbody composition of channelcatfish. Fourth Annual Proc. Catfish Farmers of America.(Abstract). Biloxi,Mississippi.SCHMITTOU, H.R. 1970. The culture of channel catfish, Ictaluruspunctatus (Rafinesque), in cages suspended in ponds. Proc. S.E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 23:226-244.STEELE, R. G.D.,and J. H.TORRIE. 1960. Principles and proceduresof statistics, with special reference to the biological sciences.McGraw-Hill, N. Y.481p.WALTER R. ROBISON, and SCOTT H.NEWTON, Department ofAgriculture, University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff,Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601.NEW RECORDS FOR TROGLOBITIC ASELLIDS FROM NORTHWEST ARKANSASLittle effort has been made to document the presence and location of the troglobitic Asellidae (Crustacea: Isopoda) occurring innorthwestArkansas. Previous records include: Caecidotea ancyla from Brewer Cave inBoone County (Fleming, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 84:489-500, 1972;McDaniel and Smith, Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci., 30:57-60, 1976); and C. stiladactyla from a spring inNewton County, from seeps inNewton andBoone counties (Mackin and Hubricht, Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc, 59:383-397, 1940), and from Big Spring at Bella Vista,and Cave Springs Cavein Benton County (Fleming, Int.J. Speleol., 4:221-256, 1972; McDaniel and Smith, Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci., 30:57-60, 1976). No other localitiesin northwest Arkansas are known to harbor troglobitic asellids. The purpose of this paper is to report on the troglobiticasellid fauna ofnorthwestArkansas.Hypogean and epigean environments were visited fromMarch 1978 to December 1979. Collections were preserved in 70% ethanol and transportedto the laboratory for identification. Type specimens were borrowed from the United States National Museum to compare and confirm identifica-tions. Allcollections are in the possession of the author.Twenty-one new locality records were recorded (Figure), and include the following species: Caecidotea ancyla, C. antricola, C. steevesi, andC. stiladactyla. This is the first Arkansas record for C. steevesi. Locality data for each species and other troglobitic fauna encountered are givenin the following account.Caecidotea ancyla (Fleming). Madison Co.: Denny Cave, War Eagle Cave; Washington Co.: Greasy Valley Cave. Specimens of C. steevesi andStygobromus ozarkensis (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae) were taken from War Eagle Cave.Caecidotea antricola Creaser. Benton Co.: Civil War Cave, Logan Cave; Newton Co.: Earls Cave (collected by W. C. Welbourn). Amblyopsisrosae (Teleostomi: Amblyopsidae) was observed in Logan Cave.Caecidotea steevesi (Fleming). Madison Co.: War Eagle Cave; Washington Co.: Well on the property ofO. A.Lastering (collected by E. H.Schmitz).Caecidotea stiladactyla Mackin and Hubricht. Benton Co.: Dickerson Cave, War Eagle Caverns; Carroll Co.: spring at Hogscald Hollow, WhiteRiver below Beaver Dam; Madison Co.: Cal Cave, Laningham's Cave. Specimens ofStygobromus ozarkensis were taken from DickersonCave and from the White River below Beaver Dam.Caecidotea sp. Collections consisting of female and immature specimens only.Benton Co.: small poolnear Spanish Treasure Cave, spring at SulphurSprings; Madison Co.: unnamed cave at Mcllroy Refuge; Marion Co.: Coon Cave; Newton Co.: Copperhead Cave, John Eddings Cave,unnamed cave near Diamond Cave, seep at Running Creek. Collections from Coon Cave, John Eddings Cave, and seep at Running Creekby W. C. Welbourn.Iwould like to express my appreciation to Dr. Thomas E. Bowman of the United States National Museum, and Mr.Julian J.Lewis, University ofLouisville, Kentucky, for confirmation of asellid identifications; to Dr. John R. Holsinger of Old DominionUniversity, Norfolk, Virginia, for amphipod identifications. Igreatly appreciate the loan of type specimens by the United StatesNational Museum. Special thanks go to Dr. Eugene H.Schmitz, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, and Mr. W. C. Welbournof the Cave Research Foundation for their donations ofspecimens.MARKD. SCHRAM,Department of Zoology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701102Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 36 [1982], Art. 39http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol36/iss1/39

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2594&amp;context=jaas

Effect of Stocking Density on Channel Catfish Growth, Survival and Food Conservation Efficiency in Cages

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK