06-15-2011, 03:11 PM
[font "Times New Roman"]I will start you off with some reading, just to keep it real, although that may add on a few more weeks to your reading. Just let me know if you don't have access to the full published journal articles through your job as an ichthyologist. Since you seem to just respond with I am wrong, of course with no evidence of your own, I must assume you think all of my statements are wrong. So here is some evidence looking at salmon that supports my statements (I put the references in parenthesis so you know where to get the full article). And also, why do you think people recommend that if you are going to keep fish, you should release the females and keep the males, it's because there is a difference in reproduction between males and females. And I will also ask my other question for a third time, ever fish the Kenai since you seem to have an opinion on what I could or could not do from a boat????[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]This first published statement supports my argument that larger females produce more eggs:[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Larger females can produce more and larger eggs ([url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib5"][#0000ff]Beacham and Murray, 1993[/#0000ff][/url]; [url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib34"][#0000ff]Heath et al., 2003[/#0000ff][/url]), obtain and defend high-quality nesting sites ([url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib27"][#0000ff]Foote, 1990[/#0000ff][/url]; [url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib23"][#0000ff]Fleming and Gross, 1993[/#0000ff][/url]) and bury their eggs deeper thus reducing the chance of nest superimposition ([url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib77"][#0000ff]Steen and Quinn, 1999[/#0000ff][/url]).
[/font]
Here is another published finding supporting my statement regarding competetion in males (Fleming IA, Gross MR 1994. Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch: measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 48: 637–657):
“We found that without competition, natural selection acts only on female body size for increased egg production; there is no detectable selection on males for the phenotypic distribution we used”
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Regarding my statement that size of fish has many factors, here is another published statement, I realize genetics may play some part but it is not the biggest factor and is not even mentioned in this publication ([/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Crozier%20LG5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Crozier LG[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3], [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Zabel%20RW5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Zabel RW[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3], [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hockersmith%20EE5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Hockersmith EE[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3], [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Achord%20S5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Achord S[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]. [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20002859"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]J Anim Ecol.[/size][/font][/url][size 3][font "Times New Roman"] 2010 Mar;79(2):342-9. Epub 2009 Dec 3. Interacting effects of density and temperature on body size in multiple populations of Chinook salmon):[/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"][/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Abstract[/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]1. The size individuals attain reflects complex interactions between food availability and quality, environmental conditions and ecological interactions. A statistical interaction between temperature and the density of conspecifics is expected to arise from various ecological dynamics, including bioenergetic constraints, if population density affects mean consumption rate or activity level. Density effects on behaviour or size-selective predation could also generate this pattern. This interaction plays an important role in bioenergetic models, in particular, and yet has not been documented in natural populations. 2. The lengths of 131 286 juvenile wild Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) across 13 populations spread throughout the Salmon River Basin, Idaho, USA over 15 years were compared to test whether juvenile density alters the relationship between body size and temperature. 3. Strong evidence for a negative interaction between mean summer temperature and density emerged, despite the relatively cool temperatures in this high elevation habitat. Growth correlated positively with temperature at lower densities, but the correlation was negative at the highest densities. 4. This is the first study to document this interaction at such a large spatial and temporal scale, and suggests that warmer temperatures might intensify some density-dependent processes. How climate change will affect individual growth rates in these populations will depend intimately on ecological conditions, particularly food availability and population dynamics. More broadly, the conditions that led to the interactions observed in our study - limited food availability and temperatures that ranged above those optimal for growth - likely exist for many other natural populations, and warrant broader exploration.[/font][/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"][/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"][/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Here is a publication showing that there are four big players in population decline for Chinook salmon, and although harvesting is one of them, there is nothing noted about harvesting large fish compared to smaller fish has an impact. Plus, as I stated previously harvesting isn’t the whole problem ([url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hoekstra%20JM5BAuthor%5D"]Hoekstra JM[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Bartz%20KK5BAuthor%5D"]Bartz KK[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Ruckelshaus%20MH5BAuthor%5D"]Ruckelshaus MH[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Moslemi%20JM5BAuthor%5D"]Moslemi JM[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Harms%20TK5BAuthor%5D"]Harms TK[/url]. Quantitative threat analysis for management of an imperiled species: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard E, Seattle, Washington 98112, USA. [url "mailto:jhoekstra@tnc.org"]jhoekstra@tnc.org[/url])[/font][/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Abstract[/font][size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) have declined dramatically across the Pacific Northwest because of multiple human impacts colloquially characterized as the four "H's": habitat degradation, harvest, hydroelectric and other dams, and hatchery production. We use this conceptual framework to quantify the relative importance of major threats to the current status of 201 Chinook populations. Current status is characterized by two demographic indices: population density and trend. We employ path analytic models and information theoretic methods for multi-model inference. Our results indicate that dams most strongly affect variation in population density, while harvest and hatchery production most strongly affect variation in population trend. Comparable results arise when the sample size of the analysis is reduced to 22 Chinook populations within a smaller region typical of the scale at which salmon recovery planning is conducted. Results from these threat analyses suggest that recovery strategies targeting specific demographic indices, and those considering natural and human-mediated interdependencies of major threats, are most likely to succeed.[/font][/size]
[signature]
[font "Times New Roman"]This first published statement supports my argument that larger females produce more eggs:[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Larger females can produce more and larger eggs ([url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib5"][#0000ff]Beacham and Murray, 1993[/#0000ff][/url]; [url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib34"][#0000ff]Heath et al., 2003[/#0000ff][/url]), obtain and defend high-quality nesting sites ([url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib27"][#0000ff]Foote, 1990[/#0000ff][/url]; [url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib23"][#0000ff]Fleming and Gross, 1993[/#0000ff][/url]) and bury their eggs deeper thus reducing the chance of nest superimposition ([url "http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/full/hdy200843a.html#bib77"][#0000ff]Steen and Quinn, 1999[/#0000ff][/url]).
[/font]
Here is another published finding supporting my statement regarding competetion in males (Fleming IA, Gross MR 1994. Breeding competition in a Pacific salmon coho: Oncorhynchus kisutch: measures of natural and sexual selection. Evolution 48: 637–657):
“We found that without competition, natural selection acts only on female body size for increased egg production; there is no detectable selection on males for the phenotypic distribution we used”
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Regarding my statement that size of fish has many factors, here is another published statement, I realize genetics may play some part but it is not the biggest factor and is not even mentioned in this publication ([/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Crozier%20LG5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Crozier LG[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3], [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Zabel%20RW5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Zabel RW[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3], [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hockersmith%20EE5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Hockersmith EE[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3], [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Achord%20S5BAuthor%5D"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]Achord S[/size][/font][/url][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]. [/size][/font][url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20002859"][font "Times New Roman"][size 3]J Anim Ecol.[/size][/font][/url][size 3][font "Times New Roman"] 2010 Mar;79(2):342-9. Epub 2009 Dec 3. Interacting effects of density and temperature on body size in multiple populations of Chinook salmon):[/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"][/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Abstract[/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]1. The size individuals attain reflects complex interactions between food availability and quality, environmental conditions and ecological interactions. A statistical interaction between temperature and the density of conspecifics is expected to arise from various ecological dynamics, including bioenergetic constraints, if population density affects mean consumption rate or activity level. Density effects on behaviour or size-selective predation could also generate this pattern. This interaction plays an important role in bioenergetic models, in particular, and yet has not been documented in natural populations. 2. The lengths of 131 286 juvenile wild Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) across 13 populations spread throughout the Salmon River Basin, Idaho, USA over 15 years were compared to test whether juvenile density alters the relationship between body size and temperature. 3. Strong evidence for a negative interaction between mean summer temperature and density emerged, despite the relatively cool temperatures in this high elevation habitat. Growth correlated positively with temperature at lower densities, but the correlation was negative at the highest densities. 4. This is the first study to document this interaction at such a large spatial and temporal scale, and suggests that warmer temperatures might intensify some density-dependent processes. How climate change will affect individual growth rates in these populations will depend intimately on ecological conditions, particularly food availability and population dynamics. More broadly, the conditions that led to the interactions observed in our study - limited food availability and temperatures that ranged above those optimal for growth - likely exist for many other natural populations, and warrant broader exploration.[/font][/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3][/size][/font]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"][/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"][/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Here is a publication showing that there are four big players in population decline for Chinook salmon, and although harvesting is one of them, there is nothing noted about harvesting large fish compared to smaller fish has an impact. Plus, as I stated previously harvesting isn’t the whole problem ([url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hoekstra%20JM5BAuthor%5D"]Hoekstra JM[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Bartz%20KK5BAuthor%5D"]Bartz KK[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Ruckelshaus%20MH5BAuthor%5D"]Ruckelshaus MH[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Moslemi%20JM5BAuthor%5D"]Moslemi JM[/url], [url "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Harms%20TK5BAuthor%5D"]Harms TK[/url]. Quantitative threat analysis for management of an imperiled species: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard E, Seattle, Washington 98112, USA. [url "mailto:jhoekstra@tnc.org"]jhoekstra@tnc.org[/url])[/font][/size]
[font "Times New Roman"][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Abstract[/font][size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) have declined dramatically across the Pacific Northwest because of multiple human impacts colloquially characterized as the four "H's": habitat degradation, harvest, hydroelectric and other dams, and hatchery production. We use this conceptual framework to quantify the relative importance of major threats to the current status of 201 Chinook populations. Current status is characterized by two demographic indices: population density and trend. We employ path analytic models and information theoretic methods for multi-model inference. Our results indicate that dams most strongly affect variation in population density, while harvest and hatchery production most strongly affect variation in population trend. Comparable results arise when the sample size of the analysis is reduced to 22 Chinook populations within a smaller region typical of the scale at which salmon recovery planning is conducted. Results from these threat analyses suggest that recovery strategies targeting specific demographic indices, and those considering natural and human-mediated interdependencies of major threats, are most likely to succeed.[/font][/size]
[signature]