Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Rubidium and cesium as indicators of diet in freshwater fish with particular emphasis on overlap in diet.. Chiasson, Alyre 1986-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1986_A1 C54.pdf [ 6.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0097183.json
JSON-LD: 1.0097183+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0097183.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0097183+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0097183+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0097183+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0097183 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0097183.txt
Citation
1.0097183.ris

Full Text

RUBIDIUM  AND  CESIUM AS INDICATORS  WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS SOCKEYE  SALMON  OF D I E T IN FRESHWATER  ON OVERLAP  IN D I E T BETWEEN JUVENILE  (ONCORHYNCHUS NERKA), AND (GASTEROSTEUS  THREESPINE STICKLEBACK  ACULEATUS)  by ALYRE M.Sc,  CHIASSON  University  Of M a n i t o b a ,  1980  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Z o o l o g y ) We  accept t h i s thesis required  as c o n f o r m i n g standard  t o the  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA 3 O c t o b e r 1986 ©  Alyre  FISH  Chiasson,  1986  In p r e s e n t i n g requirements  this thesis f o r an  of  British  it  freely available  agree that for  Library  shall  for reference  and  study.  I  for extensive copying of  that  h i s or  be  her  g r a n t e d by  f i n a n c i a l gain  shall  not  be  A^-iJUrPy^  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  DE-6  (3/81)  g>Jb. \H  / fob  of  Columbia  make  further this  thesis  head o f  this  my  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department o f  the  representatives.  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  the  University  the  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  understood  the  I agree that  permission by  f u l f i l m e n t of  advanced degree at  Columbia,  department or for  in partial  written  i i  ABSTRACT Body overlap  burdens  in diets  of  of  rubidium  sockeye  threespine  stickleback  Cultus,  Great  and  Aleknagik, salmon  and  in  (Oncorhynchus attributable  in  both  lakes  which  had  fish  Rb  concentrations  were  associated  the  with  late  were h i g h e r not  in  found  in  juvenile  and  June  in  limnetic  Cs  fed.  significant  type  zooplankton.  Lake  Aleknagik,  were  in  wire  cages  Kennedy  Lake.  substrate  over  differences  in were  captured  in  offshore  juvenile  sockeye  Kennedy,  higher  Cultus,  concentrations  captured  and  onshore  Cs  Great  of Cs  were  than  in  offshore.  In E n o s L a k e , were t h e r e  substrates.  in  s p e c i e s t r a c k e d Rb  In  stickleback  different  of  in fish  Neither  in  concentrations  suggested.  concentrations  s t i c k l e b a c k than  or J u l y .  rubidium  sockeye  zone.  concentration  sockeye c a p t u r e d  Lake  examined  of  on  Cs  and  j u v e n i l e . coho  were  zones  higher  Kennedy,  physiology.  were d e p e n d e n t When  and  stickleback  not  and  in  been  Cs  assess  nerka)  between  j u v e n i l e sockeye h e l d  littoral  threespine  and  Rb  detected,  May,  has of  to  Columbia  threespine  of  and  in threespine  concentrations Central,  and  s t i c k l e b a c k and  of  but  patterns  concentrations  Concentrations  In  stickleback  uptake  littoral  aculeatus)  i n which competition  kisutch)  the  (Oncorhynchus  British  to d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i e t  Tissue threespine  salmon  Lakes,  threespine  Differences  c e s i u m were u s e d  (Gasterosteus  Central  Alaska,  and  are  appeared  two  varieties  t o be  modified  of s t i c k l e b a c k s , by  feeding  over  In a c o m p a r i s o n redside asper),  shiners and  squawfish  (Richardsonius  peamouth c h u b  Lake, h i g h e r agreement  of  balteatus),  (Mylocheilus  concentrations with  (Ptychocheilus  higher  of Cs  oreqonensis),  cottids  caurinus),  were o b s e r v e d  concentrations  of  from  (Cottus Cultus  in squawfish,  in  Cs  in  reported  piscivores. It  was  concluded  t h a t Rb  the  extent  been  f e e d i n g onshore or  quantified  to which  measure  understanding  o f Rb  insufficient  for  diet. few  The  species.  and  sockeye,  of and use  Cs  concentrations  s t i c k l e b a c k or  o f f s h o r e but  d o e s not  the  degree of o v e r l a p  Cs  in  of  this  method w o u l d a p p e a r  both  fish  technique best  other  in diet.  and  reflect  species  provide  their  to assess  suited  may  a  have  readily Present prey  is  similarity  for small  lakes  in  with  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i L I S T OF TABLES vi L I S T OF FIGURES viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS X Chapter 1 1 General d e s c r i p t i o n 1 Introduction 1 Study a r e a 8 M a t e r i a l s and methods 12 Sample c o l l e c t i o n 12 Contamination during c o l l e c t i o n 12 I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s 14 Water 15 Zooplankton 16 Fish 17 Correction for interference effects 17 Data A n a l y s i s 18 Chapter 2 19 U p t a k e o f Cs by c o h o a n d t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k 19 Introduction 19 M a t e r i a l s a n d methods 24 Results 27 Discussion 34 Chapter 3 38 T r a n s f e r experiments, r o l e of sediments 38 Introduction 38 M a t e r i a l s and methods 41 Short-term experiment: threespine stickleback and j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e 41 L o n g - t e r m e x p e r i m e n t : t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k .. 44 Results 46 Short-term experiments: threespine stickleback and j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e 46 Long-term: t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k 52 D i s c u s s i o n : s h o r t - t e r m a n d l o n g - t e r m e x p e r i m e n t s .... 59 Chapter 4 63 I n t e r a n n u a l v a r i a t i o n i n Rb a n d C s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n water, z o o p l a n k t o n , and f i s h 63 Introduction 63 M a t e r i a l s a n d methods 67 Results 72 Water 72 Zooplankton 77 Fish 82 Discussion 93 Chapter 5 99 Diet h i s t o r y a n d c o m p e t i t i o n a s i n d e x e d by r u b i d i u m a n d cesium 99 Introduction 99 M a t e r i a l s a n d methods 106 S e c t i o n 1: S y m p a t r i c s t i c k l e b a c k s ( E n o s L a k e ) ..106  V  Results 107 Discussion 113 M a t e r i a l s and methods ....115 Section 2: Juvenile sockeye and threespine stickleback 115 Results 116 Discussion 145 M a t e r i a l s a n d methods 150 Section 3: Cottids, peamouth chub, redside s h i n e r s and s q u a w f i s h 150 Results 151 Discussion 162 General discussion ;....164 References 169 Appendix I 179 P a r a m e t e r s e t t i n g s f o r measurement o f Rb and Cs 179 Appendix II 180 I n t e r f e r e n c e i n measurement o f Rb and Cs 180 M a t e r i a l s a n d methods 180 Results 180 Ionization interference 183 M a t e r i a l s a n d methods 183 Results 184 Recalibration curves 184 M a t e r i a l s a n d methods 184 Results 191  L I S T OF TABLES T a b l e 1. S a l i e n t m o r p h o m e t r i c d a t a f o r l a k e s s a m p l e d ... 9 T a b l e 2. R e c o r d o f f i s h c a p t u r e d i n v a r i o u s l a k e s 10 T a b l e 3. L a k e s a n d i t e m s a s s e s s e d f o r Rb and Cs c o n t e n t 13 T a b l e 4. C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f Cs i n t h e stomach c o n t e n t s of coho a n d t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k 33 Table 5. Multiple comparisons for Rb a n d Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e stickleback h e l d o n s h o r e a n d o f f s h o r e , s h o r t - t e r m e x p e r i m e n t .... 51 T a b l e 6. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb and Cs i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s of juvenile s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d o n s h o r e and o f f s h o r e 53 Table 7. N o n p a r a m e t r i c multiple comparisons of Rb concentrations i n t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k from l o n g term h o l d i n g experiment 56 Table 8. Nonparametric multiple comparisons of Cs concentrations i n threespine s t i c k l e b a c k from l o g term h o l d i n g experiment 58 T a b l e 9. C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f Rb a n d Cs i n stomach contents of juvenile sockeye and t h r e e s p i n e stickleback c a p t u r e d f r o m Kennedy Lake d u r i n g early s p r i n g and e a r l y summer 1983 . 92 Table 10. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb and Cs i n t h e s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s o f s t i c k l e b a c k s f r o m Enos Lake 112 T a b l e 11. T o t a l lengths of 1 y r and 2 y r sockeye m i g r a n t s r e p o r t e d by F o e r s t e r (1929) f o r C u l t u s L a k e , compared with sockeye c a p t u r e d from C u l t u s L a k e on May 1 5 t h , 1985 123 Table 12. N o n p a r a m e t r i c multiple comparisons among concentrations o f Rb a n d Cs i n Kennedy sockeye s m o l t s , B a b i n e . s o c k e y e smolts, and 1+ sockeye from C u l t u s Lake 125 Table 13. N o n p a r a m e t r i c multiple comparisons f o r Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k and j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e from Kennedy, C u l t u s , Kennedy, G r e a t Central and Lake A l e k n a g i k 142 Table 14. N o n p a r a m e t r i c multiple comparisons f o r Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s among Kennedy, C u l t u s , Kennedy, Great C e n t r a l and L a k e A l e k n a g i k 143 Table 15. D i f f e r e n c e between rank means f o r j u v e n i l e sockeye and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k w i t h i n l a k e s 144 T a b l e 16. N o n p a r a m e t r i c multiple comparisons f o r Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n C u l t u s Lake peamouth c h u b , c o t t i d s , squawfish, a n d r e d s i d e s h i n e r s , and i n Kennedy L a k e peamouth chub a n d c o t t i d s 160 T a b l e 17. N o n p a r a m e t r i c multiple comparisons f o r Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n C u l t u s Lake peamouth c h u b , c o t t i d s , squawfish, and r e d s i d e s h i n e r s , and i n Kennedy Lake peamouth c h u b a n d c o t t i d s 161 T a b l e 18. C o m p o s i t i o n o f a r t i f i c i a l z o o p l a n k t o n m a t r i x .189 T a b l e 19. C o m p o s i t i o n o f a r t i f i c i a l f i s h m a t r i x 190 T a b l e 20. C o n s t r u c t i o n o f r e c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e s 192  Table  21.  List  of c o e f f i c i e n t s  for recalibration  curves  203  viii  L I S T OF FIGURES F i g u r e 1. C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f Cs i n coho and threespine stickleback 28 Figure 2. Wet weight o f stomach c o n t e n t s i n c o h o a n d threespine stickleback 30 F i g u r e 3. Map o f Kennedy Lake 42 F i g u r e 4.. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb i n j u v e n i l e sockeye and threespine stickleback held offshore and onshore, short-term experiment 47 F i g u r e 5. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs i n j u v e n i l e sockeye and threespine stickleback held offshore and onshore, short-term experiment 49 F i g u r e 6. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb a n d Cs in threespine s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d over v a r i o u s s u b s t a t e types 54 F i g u r e 7. Map o f G r e a t C e n t r a l Lake 68 F i g u r e 8. Map o f Kennedy Lake 70 Figure 9. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb a n d Cs i n w a t e r s a m p l e s f r o m Kennedy a n d G r e a t C e n t r a l Lake 73 F i g u r e 10. M e d i a n a n d q u a r t i l e p l o t s f o r Cs a n d Rb i n w a t e r s a m p l e s f r o m Kennedy and G r e a t C e n t r a l L a k e ... 75 Figure 11. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb a n d Cs i n z o o p l a n k t o n f r o m Kennedy a n d G r e a t C e n t r a l L a k e 78 F i g u r e 12. M e d i a n and q u a r t i l e plots o f Rb a n d Cs concentrations i n zooplankton 80 Figure 13. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e a n d threespine stickleback captured i n Kennedy Lake d u r i n g s p r i n g a n d e a r l y summer 1983 83 Figure 14. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e a n d threespine stickleback captured i n Kennedy Lake d u r i n g s p r i n g a n d e a r l y summer 1983 85 Figure 15. Median and quartile plots of Rb concentrations in juvenile sockeye and threespine stickleback captured i n Kennedy Lake d u r i n g e a r l y s p r i n g a n d e a r l y summer 1983 87 Figure 16. Median and quartile plots of Cs concentrations in juvenile sockeye and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d i n Kennedy Lake during early s p r i n g a n d e a r l y summer 1983 89 Figure 17. Concentrations of Rb i n Enos Lake sticklebacks ...108 Figure 18. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Cs in Enos Lake sticklebacks 110 Figure 19. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e a n d threespine stickleback captured from Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1985 117 Figure 20. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f and Cs i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d f r o m Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1985 119 F i g u r e 21. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb and Cs i n s o c k e y e s m o l t s captured from Kennedy and B a b i n e L a k e i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1985 121 F i g u r e 22. M e d i a n and q u a r t i l e plots of threespine  stickleback and juvenile sockeye captured from Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1 985 126 F i g u r e 23. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Rb i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k from Lake A l e k n a g i k 129 Figure 24. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Cs i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k from L a k e A l e k n a g i k ....131 F i g u r e 25. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Rb i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d from Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l , and L a k e A l e k n a g i k 134 Figure 26. M e d i a n and q u a r t i l e p l o t s o f Rb i n j u v e n i l e sockeye and threespine stickleback captured from Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l , and L a k e A l e k n a g i k ..136 Figure 27. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Cs i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d from Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l , and L a k e A l e k n a g i k 138 F i g u r e 28. M e d i a n and q u a r t i l e p l o t s o f Cs in juvenile sockeye and threespine stickleback captured from Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l , and L a k e A l e k n a g i k ..140 F i g u r e 29. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb i n C u l t u s L a k e peamouth c h u b , c o t t i d s , s q u a w f i s h , and r e d s i d e s h i n e r s , and i n Kennedy L a k e peamouth chub and c o t t i d s 152 Figure 30. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Cs i n C u l t u s L a k e peamouth c h u b , c o t t i d s , s q u a w f i s h , and r e d s i d e s h i n e r s , and i n Kennedy L a k e peamouth chub and c o t t i d s 154 F i g u r e 31. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Rb and Cs in Cultus Lake peamouth chub, with expanded scale to show r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h dry weight 156 F i g u r e 32. M e d i a n and quartile plots of Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n C u l t u s L a k e peamouth c h u b , c o t t i d s , squawfish, and r e d s i d e s h i n e r s , and i n Kennedy Lake peamouth c h u b and c o t t i d s 158 F i g u r e 33. Change i n measured c o n c e n t r a t i o n of Rb in f i s h with increase in d i l u t i o n 181 Figure 34. S t a n d a r d c u r v e f o r Rb, a l o n e and s p i k e d w i t h 1 000 ppm N a C l 185 F i g u r e 35. S t a n d a r d c u r v e f o r Cs, a l o n e and s p i k e d with 1000 ppm N a C l 187 F i g u r e 36. R e c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e s f o r Rb i n z o o p l a n k t o n ..193 F i g u r e 37. R e c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e s f o r Cs i n z o o p l a n k t o n ..195 F i g u r e 38. R e c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e s f o r Rb i n f i s h 197 F i g u r e 39. R e c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e s f o r Cs i n f i s h 199 F i g u r e 40. P r e d i c t e d v e r s u s o b s e r v e d a b s o r b a n c e s f o r Rbzooplankton r e c a l i b r a t i o n curves 204 F i g u r e 41. P r e d i c t e d v e r s u s o b s e r v e d a b s o r b a n c e s f o r C s zooplankton r e c a l i b r a t i o n curves 206 F i g u r e 42. P r e d i c t e d v e r s u s o b s e r v e d a b s o r b a n c e s f o r Rbf i s h r e c a l i b r a t i o n curves 208 F i g u r e 43. P r e d i c t e d v e r s u s o b s e r v e d a b s o r b a n c e s f o r C s f i s h r e c a l i b r a t i o n curves 210  X  ACKNOWLEGEMENTS My  sincere  insights  A  Dr.  special  efforts In  to  my s u p e r v i s o r D r .  and encouragement d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e  In a d d i t i o n , Hall,  thanks  I would  K.  Hyatt,  like Dr.  commendation  i n d e a l i n g with  addition,  this  theisis.  t o t h a n k my c o m m i t t e e members, D r . D.  McPhail,  goes  to  and Dr.  Stanya  the a n a l y t i c a l  many t h a n k s  of  Larkin, for h i s  t o my w i f e  Horsky  apsects  Ingrid  T.  of  K.  Northcote.  f o r her superb this  who w a i t e d  study. patiently  i  while thank  this the  thesis  was b e i n g c o m p l e t e d .  I  would  also  N a t u r a l S c i e n c e s and E n g i n e e r i n g R e s e a r c h  Canada t h a t p r o v i d e d  funding  for this  project.  like  to  C o u n c i l of  1  CHAPTER 1  General d e s c r i p t i o n  Introduction  The  f e e d i n g h a b i t s of f i s h  research,  not  only  interrelationships fisheries  to  among  c o n s t i t u t e s an  those  or  within  managers c o n c e r n e d w i t h  dynamics.  A  degree  of  seeking  to  species  complexity  is  and  i n response  and t e m p o r a r i l y  annual and s e a s o n a l 1958). for  Regardless,  each s p e c i e s  usually  unique  question, food  abundances  important  the p a t t e r n  (Hyatt  1979).  aspect  emphatic  competition communities. among  fish  relationships  in  often  among  population in  such to  a  prey  t o age o f f i s h a n d of prey  (Nilsson  food  exploitation  u n i q u e , h a s been a  is  frequent  a s p e r h a p s one o f t h e most  a n d r e g u l a t i n g community  (De B e r n a r d i  1981).  by L a r k i n  A similar, (1956),  structure but l e s s  implicating  s t r u c t u r i n g o f a number o f f r e s h w a t e r  However, a c o n c i s e is  for  1973).  was p u t f o r t h  the  the  i n s t u d i e s examining competition f o r  f a c t o r s determining  statement  How  of  has been c i t e d  in p e l a g i c environments  of  s t u d i e s have g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t  1968, M a r k o v s t e v  latter  also  i n response  in availability  of f i s h  u s u a l l y addressed  (Rogers The  field  but  inherent  spatially  area  understand  factors that a f f e c t  statement, as feeding h a b i t s vary competitors,  active  elusive. several  statement In  species  regarding  studying in  the  fish  competition  the river  feeding Endrick,  2  Maitland  (1969) c o n c l u d e d  competition  between  impossible.  Clady  (1978)  point  and  limiting  and  space.  pointed  the  to  and  Luker  the  instability  effects  several  habitat  different  depths  i n the  different  food  types  and  i t asks  utilization  (Oncorhynchus food  regarding  wild is  in  citing  the  environment  interspecific  competition  of  s t u d i e s of c o m p e t i t i o n that  2) m o r p h o l o g y , utilization water (Keast  may  3)  1977).  Moyle  and  as  masking  for  This  food have  species  preferences,  5)  6)  Li  among f i s h  habitat  and  normally  sustain  patterns,  column  feeding  at  utilization  of  study  addresses  patterns.  More  i f differences in habitat preferences  patterns  nerka)  occur  producing  in  a  number  of  l a k e s t h a t a l s o house  and  sockeye potential  competitors. Potential  include  lake  stickleback nerka),  competitors whitefish  and  1968).  received  strongest  indictment  British  Columbia,  stickleback at  competitor.  were n o t  high  Foerster  juvenile  clupeaformis),  ninespine  (Foerster  as a p o t e n t i a l  with  kokanee  (Oncorhynchus  pungitius) the  food  aculeatus),  sockeye  olidus),  for  (Coreqonus  (Gasterosteus  residual  (Hypomesus  that  i n the  differences in habitat u t i l i z a t i o n  specifically, habitat  of  (1982)  mechanisms  1) body s i z e ,  different  habitat,  o r more s p e c i e s  Nevertheless,  separation 4)  to  two  t h a t a c o n c l u s i v e statement  In  and a  (1968)  they  might  pond  stickleback  few  limit  (Pungitius  to t h i s  unspecified  remarked  the  smelt  stickleback  were c e n t r a l  a s e r i o u s food competitor  densities  threespine  (Oncorhynchus  nerka),  Threespine  sockeye  that but  have study  lakes  in  threespine acknowledged  food a v a i l a b l e  to  3  juvenile  sockeye.  Intense  g r a z i n g of  threespine  subsequent  al.  1980).  small In  threespine  and  size  sockeye  of  have  s e a w a r d - m i g r a t i n g young s o c k e y e 1948  were  stickleback  (Krogius  concluded  that  principal  Columbia  stickleback did  from  juvenile  of  sockeye  (1968) and  known,  Kanevskii  (Stockner  low  i n 1945, of  of  stickleback  had  in benthic  and  and  Rb  (1976) can  Fleishman  among and  fish Cs  a Rb/Cs r a t i o organisms.  (1969)  to  be  the  under  the  In  e a r l y stages  lakes  that  Hyatt or  production  between  cited.  of  has case  s t u d i e s of  Although to d i s c e r n  Lake  w h i c h was  fish  In t h e  less the  Dalnee  in various hydrobionts. o f =* 40  were  1984).  (1972) were a b l e fauna  the  threespine  s t i c k l e b a c k the be  of  there  stomach c o n t e n t s .  threespine  1947,  sockeye  program  of  threespine  appeared  among  1965,  Krokhin  the  of  numbers  young  and  competition  Manzer  relationships  measurement  ratio  of  fertilized  employed a n a l y s i s of  Rogers  food  1956).  et  Lakes,  Ruggles  numbers  with  catches  b e n e f i t e d more f r o m e n h a n c e d z o o p l a n k t o n  Investigation  of  large  fertilization  some  pelagic 1959,  of  (Stockner  River  from Lake Dalnee  i n Kamchatka.  lake  attributed  Wood  stickleback food  was  Exceedingly  • Krokhin  for  j u v e n i l e sockeye  classically  to  threespine  prevailing  indications  than  and  competitor  conditions British  attributed  and  (Burgner  1972).  population  i n 1979  outnumbered  years  Burgner  large  smolts  Iliamna,  in certain  and  a  i n 1978  sockeye  Owikeno,  stickleback  Hartman  and  by  s t i c k l e b a c k i n Long L a k e  the  juvenile  zooplankton  similar  by  Threespine to  the  In c o n t r a s t , j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e had  a  4  much in  larger  Rb/Cs r a t i o  zooplankton.  the  An  suited  to  comprehensive would  large  of  mentions  predation  and  otherwise  identical  explain  1973).  and/or  possession  key  interest  Comparison  the a  elements  environment. dangerous  accumulation  and  feeding  emitter  stomach  for  fish  radionuclides  in  fish  in aquatic  to i t s long communities  half-life (Gallegos  the  salmon  different elements?  makes them o f  in  lakes  have  1973).  identifying (Cushing  g a i n e d more  elements  Cs-137 an a r t i f i c i a l  Renfro in  (Fleishman  be u s e f u l  cycles in  a  not s t a b l e  s y s t e m by  diet  hypotheses  a given  suggest  Why  also  between  differences  run  pattern."  Trace  (Romberg and  observed  nutrient  measuring Pendleton  alternate  "...  and  by  species.  the presence of r a d i o a c t i v e  due  a  contents  distinguish  histories  that,  and  Indeed,  where  authors.  to  t o the presence of hazardous  elements  lakes  appears  d e t e r m i n i n g the degree of  used  e l e m e n t s may of  of  ratio  confirmed  method  communities  to formulate  uptake of  i n the dynamics  The  individual  ion regulation  of v a r i o u s  Trace  of  location  feeding  o f an  contents  several  for  radionuclides  regarding  i m p o r t a n c e due trace  of  fish  by  be  and  recent  f r o m t h e same  The  1979).  also  J e n k i n s (1969) n o t e s  migration  trends  cited  food  fish  to the  consuming.  potential  can  their  concentrations species  been  probable  content  to  time  the  element  similar  producing  by a n a l y s i s  investigating  Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s has (1962)  was  stomach  sockeye  sampling program  merits  which  b a s e d on Rb/Cs r a t i o s .  be e x p e n s i v e and The  160  examination of  food a s s o c i a t i o n s  well  of »  among  the  equivalents in  isotope  o f Cs  is  and p o t e n t i a l f o r 1970).  Similar  5  responses suggest  in  that  accumulation they  Kolehmainen  1972,  Although (Coughtrey  are  patterns  biologically  Vanderploeg  Cs  Thorne  1983),  can  a b s o r b Cs  sorbed  to  al.  1975).  from  ingested  Gallegos fish  Freshwater f o o d and  1970,  i n an In  comparing  benthos d i e t , the  latter  reported to  this  to  conflict  w h i c h Cs  plankton  i n the  of  of  types  char  f e e d i n g on  Coregonus  and  with  of  char  a  (Vanderploeg  et  a l l of  Cs  Kevern  1966,  Rubidium  enters  diet  to  Cs-137 were  1966  ).  type  their  1973).  plankton of  invertebrates  1964,  1973).  Fleishman  small  exist,  caught  The  fish  with  reported  opposite  (1973).  The  of  l a k e and  the  fraction  benthic  lake  has  a in  been  resolution the  extent  a v a i l a b l e to  one  .  and  the was  other  In  plankton a composite  lake  in  mainly  whose in  food nets  similar,  concentrations Uddjam  Sweden,  had  higher  eater, sample  also  system  caught  l o w e r Cs-137  bottom organisms.  of Cs-137 t h a n  river  Though m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y  i n s e c t s had  a  has  whose f o o d c o n s i s t e d  in pelagic nets,  1968)  eaters  i n t h e Ume  bottom organisms  lavaretus),  concentrations  Mauro  e a t e r s and  In a  surface on  (King  fractions  column.  (Hannerz  feeding  illite  essentially  s e d i m e n t s and  insect  of  mainly  to shore  char  1973,  r e s i d e i n the  was  close  than  may  1971,  presumably  from water  concentrations  water  i n s e c t s and  consisted  and  acquire  (1968) and  investigated.  Sweden two  not  i s bound by  Comparison been  fish  fish  fish  Hannerz  (Spigarelli  w e l l bound by  (Kolehmainen e t a l .  by  Cs-137  1975).  manner t o Cs. ( F l e i s h m a n  higher  and  ingested clay p a r t i c l e s  Fleishman  identical  s t a b l e Cs  equivalent  et a l .  is particularly  and  for  of  (Coregonus  6  peled) on  which  benthic The  sockeye  initial  use  determine  a  sockeye  lakes.  and  of  (Hannerz  relationships  producing  This  among  i s of  among  fish  in  Lake  l a k e , appears e x t e n d i b l e t o other  particular  importance  s t i c k l e b a c k vary  lakes  1968).  Rb a n d Cs by K a n e v s k i i a n d F l e i s h m a n  food  sockeye and t h r e e s p i n e within  and (Coregonus p i d s c h i a n ) which f e d  l a r v a e and m o l l u s k s  (1972) t o Dalnee,  f e d on i n s e c t s ,  (Manzer  as  juvenile  in their  use of h a b i t a t s  1976, R o g e r s  1968 a n d T i l l e r  1974). Since  sockeye producing  the  common  the  factors  approach  f e a t u r e s of being governing  a  oligotrophic t o be a c l e a r in in  and e u t r o p h i c need  Rb  oligotrophic  circulation  lakes.  f o r more e l a b o r a t e  study  the f a c t o r s  of  investigate  and  Cs  should  regulating thier  distribution  of f i s h  by  i n the l i t e r a t u r e ,  measurement though  The o b j e c t i v e s o f  in diet  E m p h a s i s was p l a c e d on  utilization  habitats  sockeye  Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t  appears  this  such a study  fold:  overlap  juvenile  there  o f Rb a n d Cs  a n d h a b i t a t u s e i n f i s h by  m e a s u r i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb a n d Cs i n f i s h  which c o m p e t i t i o n  Rb  deep,  in carnivores.  and Cs a p p e a r s t o e x i s t  by  share  investigation  of feeding behavior  were t h e r e f o r e s e v e r a l to  study  and r e l a t i v e l y  Nevertheless,  method a p p e a r s h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e .  1)  in this  s e t of c o n s t r a i n t s as opposed t o c o n t r a s t i n g  and s u b s e q u e n t l y  No m a j o r of  common  the  lakes to determine prey  l a k e s examined  of  and  C e n t r a l , and  f o r f o o d between  and i n t h e i r  littoral  threespine lake  these  and  food.  limnetic  stickleback in  Aleknagik,  lakes  s p e c i e s h a s been  in  cited.  7  2)  to  determine  respond their be  i f j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and  i n a s i m i l a r manner t o t h e  diet.  T h i s was  attributed  to  essential  presence  i f tissue  differences  threespine  in  of  stickleback  Rb  and  concentrations  diet  between  in a  littoral  fish  Cs  in  were  to  and  not  physiology. 3)  to determine  i f fish  demonstrate d i f f e r e n t offshore. with 4)  use to  of p a r t i c u l a r determine  in  fish  might  be  changes  i n Rb  and  such  Cs  and  redside  a  Rb  type, and  Cs  and  changes assessed  communities  in  would  fish  held  identified "1".  Rb  and  Cs  consumers r e f l e c t  body b u r d e n s of Rb in  diet  in ingested of  concentrations  the  and  instead  Cs of  prey.  information in fish  as  derived a  means  among: threespine  (Richardsonius prickly  several  i f a measure o f  Do  quality  stickleback  b a l t e a t u s ) , peamouth  sculpin  i n h a b i t a t and in  than  objective  change  l i m n e t i c forms of  shiners  habitat  must be  changes  (Ptychocheilus oregonensis).  detect be  in fish  fulfill  concentrations  (Mylocheilus caurinus), squawfish  Cs  information  feeding behavior  - benthic  and  i n t e r p r e t e d as  f r o m measurement o f assessing  concentrations  in zooplankton.  to determine y i e l d ,  must  Cs  interannual  occur Without  to  and  h a b i t a t s to  if  same t r e n d s ?  of  Rb  Body b u r d e n s of Rb  concentrations  5)  h e l d onshore  The  (Cottus ability  asper), of Rb  habitat utilization  lakes  its utility  and  in  i s t o be  chub  and  and Cs  patterns  different attained.  fish  8  Study  area  Six  lakes  Central,  were  Babine,  been c l a s s i f i e d whose  1956).  are given lakes  to  of  not and  in Table  i s given  Lake  can  1978  arms, M a i n and study;  zone,  1985.  arm  C e n t r a l Lake  was  of P o r t A l b e r n i .  the B r i t i s h  Columbia  1984), of t h i s  Manzer  and study  (1976).  Larkin the  B a s i c morphometric  data  captured  from  these  on V a n c o u v e r  Island  1983). The  lake  Clayoquot  carried  The  The  lake  fertilized The  i n water  undergoing  i n 1983.  Columbia  of  level  out  lakes  arm  extensive and  also  been  fertilization been  into to  littoral  s t r o n g winds.  Island  program  has  since  pertains  in a l l years  l a k e has  lake  enrichment  is divided  on V a n c o u v e r  lake f e r t i l i z a t i o n was  Columbia  of  with  fish  British  is located  to the c i t y  part  British  t h e a b s e n c e of an  fluctuations  study except  classification  lake located  The  Clayoquot.  of t h i s  Hyatt  ( N o r t h c o t e and  of  Stockner,  Fertilization  Great  adopted  to  2.  i t i s marked by  seasonal  have  However, due  a  Alaska.  is a coastal  and  Great  lakes  depth,  included i t in i t s series  (Stephens  this  in  A record  t h e town of U c l u e l e t .  p r o g r a m has  Kennedy,  All  investigated.  be  Aleknagik,  in Table  study,  Aleknagik.  shallow  located  1.  this  w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of Enos L a k e ,  been  eutrophic  Lake  Kennedy  two  has  A l l lakes are  exception  near  as o l i g o t r o p h i c  vegetation  mesotrophic  by  C u l t u s , E n o s , and  limnology  abundant  encompassed  of  this  adjacent  included in  (Stockner when s a m p l e d described  and as by  9  Table  1.  Morphometric data lake area km 2  Kennedy ( C l a y o q u o t arm) Great Central Babine Cultus Enos Aleknagik  for investigated mean d e p t h m  lakes water residency yr  1  1  2  3  4  5  17 51 475 6.3 0.71 83  1  Rutherford  2  Stockner  3  Ricker,  4  B e n t z e n e t a l . , 1984  5  Hartman a n d B u r g n e r ,  51 212 57 32 11 30  e t a l . , 1986  and S h o r t r e e d ,  1975  1937  1972  1.7 9.7 18.2  time  10  Table lakes  2 . Record of f i s h c a p t u r e d  Scientific  name  Cultus  3  Enos^  i n study Aleknagik  Kennedy!  Great Babine , Central 2  Lampetra a y r e s i Lampetra T a p o n i c a Entosphenus t r i d e n t a t u s Prosopium c o u l t e r i ' Prosopium c y l i n d r a c e u m Prosopium w i l l i a m s o n i Coregonus c l u p e a f o r m i s Coregonus p i d s c h i a n Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus k i s u t c h Oncorhynchus qorbuscha Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Salmo c l a r k i Salmo q a i r d n e r i S a l v e l i n u s malma S a l v e l i n u s namaycush ' Salvelinus alpinus Thymallus  Sources i F i e l d r e c o r d s 1983 t o 1985 M a n z e r (1976) H a r t m a n and Burgner (1972) ^Bentzen e t a l . , 1984 3  x x x . x  '  x  . x x  x x  x  x  x  x  x x  x  x x  x  arctICUS  Hypomesus o l i d u s Catostomus catostomus C a t o s t o m u s commersoni Catostomus m a c r o c h e i l u s Richardsonius balteatus Mylocheilus caurinus Rhinichthys cataractae C o u e s i u s plumbeus Ptychochellus oreqonensis Lepomis q i b b o s u s Lota l o t a Da11ia p e c t o r a l i s Esox l u c i u s Gasterosteus aculeatus P u n q i t i u s p u n q i t i u s ~~ Cottus asper Cottus a l e u t i c u s  2  x x x x x x x x x x x x x  x  x x x  x x x  Y  x x  x  x  '  x x x  x  x  x x x x x.  x  x x  x  11  Babine Columbia of  the  Lake  and  Cultus  the  (1972),  and  is  to the  in  Island,  which  coexistence  of  (Gasterosteus) McPhail  in Ricker is a has  northern  River. be  A  A general found  British  description  (1972).  British  Columbia  and  description  i n Hartman and  i t s p h y s i c a l and  is of  Burgner chemical  (1937).  small  lake  received  near  Nanoose  considerable  a p a i r of m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y (Bentzen et a l .  1984,  Bay,  Vancouver  a t t e n t i o n due  distinct  B e n t z e n and  to  the  sticklebacks McPhail  1984,  1984).  . Lake A l e k n a g i k tributary  Burgner  southwestern  h i s t o r y can  in  Skeena R i v e r .  i n Hartman and  lower F r a s e r its  lake  a more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of  Enos L a k e  provide  multibasin  found  Lake  characteristics  and  be  to the  lake  a  is a tributary  l a k e can  tributary  is  to  i s part  Bristol  a general  Bay  of  the  Alaska.  d e s c r i p t i o n of  the  Wood  River  Hartman and lake.  Lakes  system  Burgner  (1972)  12  M a t e r i a l s and  Sample  one  collection  Six  l a k e s were s a m p l e d  or  more  (Table  3).  of  the  Water  predominant  for rubidium  following:  samples  depth  at  September, plastic  1983-1985.  collecting  and  later  1.5hr  bottle,  frozen.  fish,  samples  were  plastic  1/16th of an  inch(0.159cm),  using a  frozen.  Zooplankton  (diameter  of mesh,  to  in  15m  vessel  100  t o water  of  was  plastic.  June  to  using a  packed  in  end  of the  iced, a  net  seine and  The  Storage  and  later  S.C.O.R.  at a depth  of  net of  10  collecting  procedure  was  samples.  during  Outboard  motor  insufficient  with  towed h o r i z o n t a l l y  the net  Contamination  contamination  um)  from  15 m b e a c h  bagged,  collected  were c a p t u r e d i n  areas p r e v i o u s l y trawled for f i s h .  a t t h e end  identical  was  the  offshore with a 3 x  a t the cod  were s u b s e q u e n t l y  15 m,  bags,  t r a w l w i t h a mesh s i z e  Fish  in  zooplankton.  collected  3 m midwater  minnow t r a p s .  content  at  sunset  were c o l l e c t e d  onshore  and  sockeye  after  stored in  Fish  cesium  collected  juvenile  Water  and  water,  were  which  Kennedy L a k e a p p r o x i m a t e l y  ice,  methods  during  collection  effluent  was  collection  t o draw t h e  a of  potential fish  t r a w l net d i r e c t l y  source  a s manual e f f o r t into  the  boat.  of was To  1 3  Table l  a  k  3. Samples a s s e s s e d e  Kennedy C l a y o q u o t arm Great C e n t r a l Aleknagik Cultus Enos Babine  f o r Rb and Cs  water  zooplankton  x x  x X x  content fish  x X X X X X  14  determine the  if  such  collecting  bucket  water  samples  series  o f samples  side  Rubidium  extracted,  was t a k e n a t t h e l a k e  (CB) a t t h e  different  s u r f a c e ' (Mann-Whitney  Whitney  median  test,  of  different,  the  from  p < .05,  A  on t h e  end  collected  of  the  samples  net  similar downwind  from  the  were  not  taken a t the lake  0.050 ppb,  water.  concentration small  film  t h e boat  different  n(1)=n(2)=6).  was  lake  and cesium  of  of  Cs  water  in  median to  a  significantly CB  water  is  covering a fish i s  increase could or both  The  (Mann-  compared  Although  be a t t r i b u t e d  to  i n combination.  were m e a s u r e d w i t h a  were powered by an E.D.L.  Electrodeless  equipped  with  d i s c h a r g e lamps(P-E)  h i g h v o l t a g e s u p p l y and shaded  Pyrolytically  determinations.  Perkin-Elmer(P-E)  absorption spectrophotometer,  a HGA-2200 g r a p h i t e f u r n a c e .  all  six  and a n a l y s i s  f l a m e l e s s atomic  filter.  In t o t a l ,  U=26, p > 0.05, n(1 ) = n ( 2 ) = 6 ) .  for  higher  effluent  Rubidium  red  surface  water  water  The s o u r c e o f t h i s  Instrumentation  603  cod  o f Cs i n CB water  when  considered. fish,  test,  0.015 ppb  negligible  the  in  from  U=36,  the  from  and f r o z e n .  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  concentration  were drawn  w i t h t h e motor o u t o f t h e w a t e r .  bucket  Cesium  bagged  concentrations  significantly  samples  a t t h e c o d end o f t h e n e t .  were  of t h e boat  collecting  was t h e c a s e , water  by  a  c o a t e d g r a p h i t e t u b e s were u s e d f o r  Atomization  temperatures  were  calibrated  15  with  a  silicon  operating  photodiode  conditions  temperature  are l i s t e d  i n Appendix  Peak h e i g h t s were t r a n s c r i b e d PRS-10 run  printer  at least  sequencer  with  3 times or u n t i l  sensor.  Complete  I.  by a 056 P-E r e c o r d e r  10 s e c i n t e g r a t i o n . a deviation  with  Samples  o f 10% o r l e s s  of  a  were the  mean was o b t a i n e d . Water  volumes  weights to w i t h i n presence the  of  measured  ± 0.5 mg.  to  levels  from  contamination  listed  larger as  i n Appendix  volumes  curves  was  were  S t a n d a r d s were d i l u t e d  samples.  was m a t c h e d  f o r the  t o be c o n t a m i n a t i o n f r e e a t I.  Any c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f  found  to  be  constructed  s t a n d a r d s p r e p a r e d f r o m BDH S u p r a p u r  the  ± 0.5 ml and d r y  free  from  above.  Calibration  CsCl.  within  A l l r e a g e n t s were c h e c k e d  Rb a n d Cs and v e r i f i e d  detection  reagents  were  The HN0  3  RbCl  to within  concentration  to the concentration  in  using  and  frame the  1000 ppm  Avalar  reagent  concentrations in diluted  standards  i n the samples.  Water  Water  samples  through a n i t e x graduated  nitex  mesh  mesh(diameter  cylinder  between s a m p l e s ,  were thawed t o room t e m p e r a t u r e  .  The  o f mesh  100 ixm)  cylinder  was  into  rinsed  followed  by  distilled  deionized  rinsed  in  distilled  deionized  was  and a  filtered 1  liter  w i t h 10% HCI water.  The  water  between  were c o n c e n t r a t e d by e v a p o r a t i o n from  volumes  samples. Water  samples  16  of  160 t o 600 m l .  conducted The  T r a n s f e r t o a 20 ml  i n 4 stages  w i t h a 1 ml a u t o m a t i c  distilled  HN0  water.  then  transferred  by  three separate  deionized  water.  plate  then  this  The s o l u t i o n redissolved  allowed  was  added  was a l l o w e d  to a s c i n t i l l a t i o n  rinses with  stand overnight.  boiling,  To  The s o l u t i o n  and  hot  .  3  was  with  2 ml  of  of d e i o n i z e d  to stand  vial.  1 ml  for  30  sec  T h i s was f o l l o w e d  3 m l , 2 m l , a n d 2 ml o f d i s t i l l e d was e v a p o r a t e d  to  dryness  on  a  i n 1 ml o f H N 0 , c a p p e d a n d a l l o w e d 3  The open v i a l to cool  vial  p i p e t , ± 0.005 m l .  s i d e s o f t h e v e s s e l a n d t h e b o t t o m were r i n s e d  concentrated  to  scintillation  was t h e n  brought  and subsequently  diluted  w i t h d i s t i l l e d d e i o n i z e d water  to  2 ml  f o r Cs  quickly  to  for analysis  and  4 ml f o r  to constant  weight a t  rubidium.  Zooplankton  Zooplankton 80°C.  thawed  A n a l y s i s was o r i g i n a l l y  0.200 g . low  was  as  T h i s w e i g h t was l a t e r 0.010 g  were  quantities  o f HN0  to  solution.  a clear  3  and  dried  performed reduced  analyzed.  on a t a r g e t  weight  of  t o 0.100 g a n d v a l u e s a s  Repeated  were r e q u i r e d t o d i s s o l v e Samples were h e a t e d  additions  o f 1 ml  a number o f samples  during  digestion.  17  Fish  Fish Whole  fish  cleaned a  were e v i s c e r a t e d and were g r o u n d  with  target  was  dry  above  of  for  and  possible.  Contents  for the at  mill.  The  A n a l y s i s was later  reduced  fish.  The  80°C.  mill  was  performed  on  t o 0.100  g of  complete  fish  A l l remaining  s t e p s were  as  cardiac  according  much All  with  was  constant  weights  ranging  material remaining  reduced  of  the  t o s p e c i e s , and  to  the e x c e p t i o n  section  could  t o sex  weight  be  was where  80°C. 100  collected  g,  from  o u t l i n e d above  i n a number  to enable  at  f r o m 0.002 t o  s t e p s were a s that  gut  of  samples  d e t e c t i o n of Rb  and  Cs  weights.  for interference effects  i n s p e c t i o n of Rb  zooplankton signal  the  were d r i e d  how  dilution  Correction  An  was  individual  p e r f o r m e d on  zooplankton  low  in  contents.  final  per  grouped  w h i c h d e p e n d e d on stomach  steel  weight a t  zooplankton.  extracted  was  0.200 g but  minus t h e v i s c e r a .  Food c o n t a i n e d  Analysis  in a stainless  tissues  pulverized  outlined  to constant  a l c o h o l between s a m p l e s .  weight  pulverized  dried  analyzed  strengths  dissolved  in acid).  at  and  prior high  Cs to  concentrations 1985,  tissue  pointed  i n both  fish  to a suppression  concentrations  T i s s u e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Rb  and  and of  (samples Cs  appeared  18  to  be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d A separate  Appendix applied to  a t lower  investigation  II.  A  series  to a l l fish,  1985.  The  establishment eliminate  Appendix  a  of  corrections  The e x a c t  curves  study  factor  in  analyzed  resulted  of  a l l  undertaken,  was d e r i v e d a n d  and gut c o n t e n t s  this  dilution  were s t i l l  phenomenon was  correction  zooplankton  interference  I.  of t h i s  of  outcome  of  Concentrations  dilutions.  100  or  in  of  subsequent  the  problem  the  greater  to  analysis.  within the d e t e c t i o n l e v e l s  nature  prior  and  listed in subsequent  a r e t h e s u b j e t of Appendix I I .  Data A n a l y s i s  All for  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were m e a s u r e d  fish, Due  a n d 1 ng/ml f o r w a t e r . to  lack  distributions,  of  and  Chambers  nonparametric  presented  analysis  test, of  test  were  using  graphically  "KW",  using  limits  a n d median p l o t s  were  see Becker  stands  f o r one-  f o r two-factor  ( Z a r , 1984),  m u l t i p l e comparisons 1984).  normal  analyzed  "NPANOVA", s t a n d s  variance  (Zar,  and  95% c o n f i d e n c e  In the f o l l o w i n g t e x t  Wallis  Tukey  variance  data  as standard  f o r a nonparametric  a parametric  of  ( f o r use of q u a r t i l e  1983).  Kruskal  the and  a n d median p l o t s  appropriate  stands  homogeneity  procedures  not  factor  of  most  nonparametric quartile  i n ppb, 1 ng/g d r y w e i g h t  and  test,  "NPMC",  similar to  19  CHAPTER 2  U p t a k e of Cs  by c o h o and  threespine stickleback  Introduction  The has  physiological  been  relating Stephens  is  identified  as  metals  their  1977).  (Minckley  to  et a l .  Eberhart size  contaminants (1982),  one  of  1963).  of an is  Minckley  or  states  be  t h a t the and  growing  than  T h i s must be  would appear times. new  fish. to  imply  Rapidly  tissues  than  growing  r a t h e r than  fish  younger  to  (Rabe  and  metabolism  of m e t a b o l i c  relationship  rate  tissue  between  the  concentrations  of  In c i t i n g  Olson  t h a t as  and  Foster  a general  rule  a c c u m u l a t e more  radioactivity  i n t e r p r e t e d with  c a u t i o n as i t  fish  individuals  excrete  factors  relationships.  (1963) c o n c l u d e d  y o u n g e r more r a p i d l y mature  important  i n food chains  length  expected.  et a l .  excretion rates  have been l i n k e d  individual  to  most  However, measurement  weight  (1976)  the  occurrence  These p r o c e s s e s  f r e q u e n t l y b a s e d on  relative  d i f f e r e n c e i n u p t a k e and  them  have  longer  retention  i n c o r p o r a t e elements (Vanderploeg  and  into  Kercher  1974). Additional of  the  terms o l d  conducted bass  confusion  by  and  Spigarelli  (Micropterus  i n the  young  to  literature describe  fish.  (1971) young a c t i v e l y  salmoides)  deposited  r e s i d e s i n the In  growing  less  a  use  study  largemouth  Cs-137  i n body  20  tissues  than  older  fish.  However, t o t a l  a g e s 2 t o 4 was  d e s c r i b e d by  an  about  a subsequent  decrease  age  3 and  however, h i g h e r Hasanen between age Cesium  (Tong  that  Rb  seven.  and  Miettinen  no  et a l .  1974).  rate  rather  bluegills  the v i s c e r a Price  (Lepomis  expected burden  whether  flavimanus)  close  trace  an  of  100%  species.  after  metals,  in lake found  t h e age  measurement  to provide a  in  of of  better  of  had  was  been  Cs-137  tissues  within  Croakers in  (Baptist  t h e common goby  h i g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of  i n the g i l l s  Cs-137 and  Cs-137  c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f Cs  tissues  Thorne  of  1972).  i n t o muscle  long-term  and  absorption  initial  revealed  lowest  (Coughtrey  heteroclitus)  to  correlation  12 y e a r s  (Kolehmainen  for approximately  of  were  t h e same a u t h o r s  would appear  to account  sediment  4 fish  same  in lake trout  that  Assimilation was  1 to  macrochirus),  A comparison  Assimilation  Age  clear  w i t h ages  concluded  in f i s h  (Fundulus  f o u n d no the  i n the gut  Cs-137 i n t h e m u s c l e and be  4.  of  w i t h g r a d u a l movement  1962).  in  different populations.  lineatus) display  (Acanthogobius  can  with  Cs-137  fish.  In c o n t r a s t ,  t h a n age  to occur mainly  (Genyonemus  2  in fish  correlation  f o r comparing  appears  age  of  i n c r e a s e t o a maximum a t  a t age  (1963)  Cs-137 c o n t e n t  In s t u d i e s d e a l i n g  In  than  concentrations decreased  metabolic  and  and  showed  trout  basis  in activity  initial  activity  (Kimura  studies, 70%  of  1984).  It  muscle can  be  the  total  body  1983).  Cs-134 i n t h e banded  dependent  on  both  type of  killifish food  ingested along with  food  by  f.rom i n g e s t e d f o o d  banded  f o r Gammarus and  killifish brine  shrimp  (Mauro  and  Artemius,  1973).  59.1  21  to  16.1% f o r a l g a e  forced fed to f i s h  Uptake  of  reduced  when s e d i m e n t was a d d e d  directly  Cs-137  from  notation  sediment  that  assimilation sediment  was  reduced  when  Mauro  contrast,  o f Cs-137  animals  to the d i e t ,  alone.  in  by i n j e c t e d  in fish  makes (1970)  content  was l o w .  Cs-137 by c a r p  from  f o o d a s r e p o r t e d by K e v e r n  detritus  80%  for  affected shown  to  vary  accumulation  with  fraction  to  (rapid  a second  100  of  days  biological  the  fish  based  fraction  et a l .  reflect  TB1/2  is  if  c o u l d be r e l a t e d  and 137  Reichle  b, b a s e d in  et a l .  any  other  high  complicate  phases,  a  smaller  a half-life  o f a few  than  a  few  a  function  relationship  o f Cs-137 e x c r e t i o n i n A  and  (1970) have c a l c u l a t e d  (arthropods  are  not  known  o f age ( G a l l e g o s estimates  retention and  b  The e q u a t i o n  b u t i t was  t o TB1/2 i n d e p e n d e n t  insects  of  metabolic  and W i s w e i g h t .  (fish  been  1970).  TB1/2 = AW ^ ,  relationship  the  c a r p was n o t  could  (1970) h a s p r o p o s e d  vertebrates  of  I t i s n o t known w h e t h e r  specific  on r e p o r t e d and u n p u b l i s h e d  cold-blooded  invertebrates  two  1967).  half-life,  on a p h y s i o l o g i c a l  1970).  in  (Gallegos  in  where  was b a s e d weight  lake  o f t h e slow component  on body w e i g h t ;  constants,  found  o f Cs-137 h a s . a l s o  10-20%), h a v i n g  Gallegos  half-life  added  (slow component), a h a l f - l i f e  (Hasanen  1974).  the  (1966) was 7% f o r  and as such  occurs  component,  half-lives  (Kolehmainen for  temperature  Cs-137  absorbed  A s s i m i l a t i o n of  Assimilation  The r e t e n t i o n  patterns i n a given  Excretion  days;  algae.  by t e m p e r a t u r e .  were f o r c e d f e d ,  when t h e o r g a n i c c o n t e n t  was h i g h and t h e c l a y  and  the gut.  and p o o r l y  (1973)  Gallegos  into  times  forA  f o r Cs-  amphibians)  and  and m o l l u s k s ) ;  22  where A =  38.02, b = 0.1390,  temperature for  = 20  insects  and  b = 0.2061, such  p a t t e r n s was  may  diverse  not  days  reported  months  small  fish to  latter  would  and  be  colder  to  tripled reported the  a  of  at 5  Q  °C  a 200  trout  temperature  The  reason  why  excretion  et a l .  o f wet  as  weight  i n the  vertebrates  presented  rate  in  A and  o f Cs-137 i n  In f r e s h w a t e r p e r c h t h e  175-200 d a y s a t 1973).  increase  of e x c r e t i o n  i n temperature  interaction  to  stickleback  (1970) o f c o e f f i c i e n t s  1973).  was  gairdneri),  12  25  the b. fish  a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 t o 3, b e i n g s l o w e r a t  (Mauro  t o 300%  al.  However, d a t a f o r  cold-blooded  insects  et  for  threespine  the e l i m i n a t i o n  of  v 0  t o 36 months.  between  o f Cs-137  f o r Cs-137 o f  months o l d , 55 d a y s  than  R e t e n t i o n times  (Salmo  A =3.458,  Hasanen  of e x c r e t i o n  s o c k e y e and  (Fleishman  slow component  5°C.  proposed  r a t e of e x c r e t i o n  a l t h o u g h t h e range  excretion  with a reduction to  f o r 24  affects  temperatures  component  and  t o 6.0  other  by R e i c h l e  according  3.6  intermediate  Temperature  was  similar  s p e c i e s comparisons.  juvenile  invertebrates  derivation  possessed  of weight  lacking,  be  b = 0.03027,  where  o f b = 0.01499.  groups  80 d a y s  such as  appear  vertebrates  a slow component trout  and  of  stated.  relationship  i n rainbow  error  s e t of c o e f f i c i e n t s  standard error  a l s o apply to within  (1967)  24  A second  warm-blooded  and  seemingly  The  °C.  standard  Hasanen  °C and d o u b l e o r et  i n the b i o l o g i c a l  al.  from  15  were a f f e c t e d also  (1967)  half-time for  i n the roach ( L e u c i s c u s  f o r Cs-137,  but  15  rutilus)  °C w i t h a r a n g e o f slow component not by  slow  only  by  increases  ±5°C  in  rainbow  a  weight  in  weight  23  (Gallegos In  1970  ).  conclusion,  influence  the  tissues.  The  a  concentration  if  assimilate  Rb  interpret  Rb  Cs  and  in  diet  how  r a p i d l y both  in  a  of  coupled  large  toxicity  to  the  respond This  in  on  rates of  i n Rb moving  and  fish  to  on not  this  and  Cs  importance  an  in  diet  in their  to  Kennedy  assessment chosen  element, for  be  stickleback  C e s i u m was  available  to  determine  i n Rb  equipment  Cs.  was  must  concentrations  permit  fish  correctly  particular  not  in  differences  threespine  Cs  did  literature was  was  to  sockeye  it  reflect  of  enough  and  that  To  r e s u l t i n a change  f o r b o t h Rb  zooplankton,  juvenile  to a change  of  summer w o u l d  with o v e r a l l c o s t s ,  body  and  Rb  study  manner.  was  appear  possibly  following  similar  movement  change  Constraints  assimilation  to a  would  whether  by  and  secondary o b j e c t i v e  in their d i e t .  as  Lake,  A  species  i n the  tissues.  a  factors  tissue concentrations  onshore to breed indexed  Cs  concentrations  physiology.  determining  of  stickleback  in  Cs  demonstrated whether  concentrations  of  threespine and  number of  main o b j e c t i v e  determine  or  large  due  including  rubidium.  24  Materials Uptake July  and  experiments  e a r l y August,  stickleback  and  threespine  trawling,  repeated  juvenile  sockeye.  therefore  captured arm.  captured group  made o f in  the  Juvenile from a  mentioned  capture  latter  on  August  of  1  the  trawled  accumulated catch 77.4  plastic  from  100  in  littoral  zone  served  as  one  restocked CsCl  was  adding  every 24  CsCl  container  daily  hrs. at  before  24  the  water  was  a  fish  separate were  i n wire  held  enclosures placed  with  in  juvenile  were c o l l e c t e d  Kennedy  sockeye.  filled  with  mesh n e t . of  the  feeding unit hours.  lake  The  lake. for  1 liters  of  zooplankton of  1000  was ppb  zooplankton.  the  of  water  lake  a  immersed  thus  fish,  the  day in  A container the  areas  placed  c o n t a i n e r , was  all  during  in  each  were  Exposure time of  concentration addition  70  Lake On  2 t w e n t y m i n u t e tows  ym  stickleback  intermixed  zooplankton  Cesium e n r i c h e d a  2 days  were of  were t r e a t e d as All  any  portion  i n c h ( 0 . 3 2 c m ) s q u a r e mesh,  afternoon  container  through a  limnetic  12-14°C. 4th,  for  filtered the  of  28th.  to y i e l d  north  threespine  least  zone where s p r i n g  part  previously  l/8th  i n the  above.  for at  of  water, at a temperature  the  stream  these  July  by  failed  late  threespine  on  captured  in  (Oncorhynchus k i s u t c h )  g r o u p of  seine;  for  undertaken  were  coho  small  second  hardware c l o t h  Starting  trawling  limnetic trawling efforts  two  after  littoral  Limnetic  stickleback  A  the  immediately  were c o n d u c t e d a t Kennedy L a k e  1985.  u s i n g a beach  from  methods  j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e was  Although  Clayoquot  and  filled  and  zooplankton  was to  obtained  by  (0.070g) t o  the  Water  in  the  25  container of C s C l  was  and  volume o f of  Cs  70  1 f o r a l l of  was  10  times  Cyclops  100  MM  The  container  the  CsCl  less  was  as  5 day  the  addition  a  constant  held at  additions.  than the  (10000 ppb)  mesh b e f o r e  The  LD  concentration  concentration  determined  by  for  Hakonson  et  (1971). Uptake  experiments  plastic  containers.  nearby  waterfall  hoses(l/2 falls 14  through  zooplankton.  Gammarus and al.  filtered  to  was  16°C  fish  Containers that  in diameter  into  for  were p l a c e d  emptied  into  the  (1.27cm), f e d w a t e r  each c o n t a i n e r . during  were c o n d u c t e d  the  a  the  lake.  of  the  2 hour  77.4  1  of  a  base Twelve  from the  Water t e m p e r a t u r e s  course  interrupted during  at  i n . 12,  head  garden of  remained  investigation.  the  within  Water  f e e d i n g p e r i o d between  flow  2000h  and  2200h. Juvenile 20  per  c o h o were a s s i g n e d  container.  treatments.  T h r e e of  Similarly, at  dorsal  c l i p p e d ) and  Fish of  the  with  untreated  day  and  for  all  10  overflow  as  before  enriched  to the  first  the  3 days  following every  thorough mixing.  a d d i t i o n of  (first  container.  allotted  containing  to  introduction  zooplankton was  undergoing  on  of  replicate  stickleback  F i s h were f e d t h e  containers due  a density  s t i c k l e b a c k per  zooplankton  after  occurred  onshore  in containers  fed cesium  i n the  served  They were s t a r v e d  Cesium e n r i c h e d  at  s t i c k l e b a c k were a s s i g n e d  offshore  zooplankton.  containers  containers  10  zooplankton.  v o l u m e s were r e d u c e d water  of  f o r 4 days  subsequently  8 days.  among  density  were h e l d enriched  these  threespine  6 containers spine  a  to 6 c o n t a i n e r s  fish  24hr  equally Water so  no  zooplankton.  26  Zooplankton Fish water  was  of  three  the  diet  Cs  course  the  listed  the  from each The  a n a l y s i s f o r Cs  ones  zooplankton the to  1000  ppb  CsCl.  August  was fish  were t a k e n  concentration  to the  8  of  Cs  the  the  from a l l  of  the  Cs  concentrations. over  sample  size  sampling  of a l l 8 f i s h  sufficient  the of  8  dates  within  sample w e i g h t  each prior  contents. 4th,  obtained were  8 fish  containers  on  the  following  start  of Cs  all  before  representing a l l  sample of  container  to provide  on  zooplankton which  prior  among  i n stomach  addition,  from  A  stomach c o n t e n t s  s u b s a m p l e were p o o l e d  enriched  4,and  calculation  same  period  e x p e r i m e n t , however, a m i n i m a l  obtained above.  In  diet.  initial  were n o t  was  d a y s 2,  also collected for  feeding  Four c o n t a i n e r s  on  enriched  Mortalities of  the  reconnected.  g r o u p s was  enriched  to  after  g r o u p s were h a r v e s t e d  start  fish  rinsed.  were h a r v e s t e d  flow  three  were n o t  in  fed.  a  second  identical Two  container manner  samples  i n zooplankton  after  24hrs  to  of Cs  from t h i s a d d i t i o n a l c o n t a i n e r of  of  Cs the  spiked  t o measure exposure  27  Results Cesium and  enriched  threespine  body  burden  s t i c k l e b a c k as o f Cs  1-2).  The  r a t e of  among  treatment  there  significant  df=l0,l8l;  and  groups  Csfppb]  1100  +  thus 850[  concentrations  residuals  the  food  deviation  and  significant 6170[elapsed P < 0.01). variable  i n the  df=3,141; was  The fed  on  22000 after  regression  less  presumably  a constant  ppb  enriched (Table  24hrs of  Cs  day  day  zooplankton 4).  exposure  nor  were  (F=0.134;  single  which  4 had  A l l six equation,  . was  highly  stickleback  particularly  (Figure  4 explained  overall  weight  wet  of  that  total  were i n  the  The  concentration  to  1000  ppb  CsCl  as the  range of  Cs was  of  the was +  third  remaining F=2.96; content  of  fish of  in  wet  a  water  of  The  df=2,141;  weight  i n stomach c o n t e n t s  large  (g)]  regression,  reflecting  from  model  weight  fish  e x p l a i n any  of  some  F=147;  of  (stepwise  1).  regression  regression,  proportion  of Cs  (Figures  p.188).  the  the  different  values  in threespine  d i d not  r a t e s of  concentrations  Cs  dry  gut  P > 0.05)  1978,  regression  stepwise  P > 0.05),  more or  to  in  0.01).  i n the  a d d i t i o n of  i n uptake  i n the  Cs[ppb]=972 + 682[gut  days], The  variability  2;  increase  mean  days],  a r e a s on  s t o m a c h on  j u v e n i l e coho  significantly  Kupper  P < Cs  i t s inclusion  (Figure  in  elapsed  average  in fish  food  not  reduced  of  offshore  of  was  an  (F=0.021; d f = 5 , l 8 6 ;  b o t h o n s h o r e and  weight  Cs  ( F=556; d f = 1 , l 9 l ;  from  consumed by  p r e s e n c e of  K l e i n b a u m and  equations  The  was  i n d i c a t e d by  differences  regression  significant  the  u p t a k e of  P > 0.05,  =  zooplankton  fish. having  7000  to  zooplankton  7900 ppb  and  28  F i g u r e 1. U p t a k e o f Cs i n t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e and o n s h o r e and c o h o c a p t u r e d f r o m a t r i b u t a r y stream, p l o t t e d a g a i n s t elapsed days(0,2,4,8), since s t a r t of Cs e n r i c h e d z o o p l a n k t o n d i e t . Experiment was c o n d u c t e d w i t h a r e p l i c a t e t r e a t m e n t r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e r i g h t hand v a l u e s ( t r i a n g l e s ) on e a c h day o f s a m p l i n g . V a l u e s have been been d i s p l a c e d f r o m e l a p s e d d a y s f o r g r e a t e r r e s o l u t i o n . V e r t i c a l b a r s r e p r e s e n t 95% c o n f i d e n c e l i m i t s on t h e mean. Sample s i z e i s e i g h t .  10000 stickleback off  8000 6000 4000 2000 0 10000  stickleback  on  i • i  8000 6000 4000 2000 0 h 10000 coho  stream  8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0  8  30  Figure  2. Q u a r t i l e and median p l o t s f o r wet w e i g h t o f g u t c o n t e n t s f o r t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k and c o h o p l o t t e d a g a i n s t t h e 2nd, 4 t h , and 8 t h day s i n c e t h e s t a r t o f t h e Cs e n r i c h e d z o o p l a n k t o n d i e t . E x p e r i m e n t was c o n d u c t e d w i t h a r e p l i c a t e t r e a t m e n t r e p r e s e n t e d by r i g h t - h a n d v a l u e s on e a c h day o f s a m p l i n g . V a l u e s have been d i s p l a c e d from e l a p s e d days f o r g r e a t e r r e s o l u t i o n . T h e r e a r e no d a t a f o r day "0" a s f i s h were s t a r v e d 2 4 h r s b e f o r e the s t a r t of the experiment. Sample s i z e i s eight. A l o n g h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t t h e u p p e r and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . - The upper end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s t h a n or e q u a l t o t h e u p p e r q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e range. The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e l o w e r q u a r t i l e minus 1.5 x the i n t e r q u a r t i l e range. A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d as "*".  31  cn  4-1  03  O)  4  days  a  32  8000 ppb from  (2 s a m p l e s  the  same  taken).  lake  at  By c o n t r a s t u n e n r i c h e d  the  same  time  of  zooplankton  year  had  Cs  concentrations  of  approximately  300 ppb  (Chapter  3).  Elevated  concentrations  of  Cs  having  fed  Cs  enriched  zooplankton  suggested  in  fish  uptake  o f Cs by f i s h ,  on  as gut c o n t e n t s  were  analyzed separately. Selection two r a n g e s 4),  certain  prey  items  o f Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s f o u n d  one f r o m  Cesium  of  by f i s h  zooplankton  from  sampled d i r e c t l y  container  on d a y one o f t h e Cs e n r i c h e d d i e t  8000 ppb  Cs  for  (two s a m p l e s t a k e n ) .  a l l g r o u p s on a l l d a y s  advised.  makes  suggested  i n stomach c o n t e n t s  18000-22000 ppb a n d t h e o t h e r  enriched  was  by  (Table  7600-9700 ppb. from  was  the s t o c k i n g 7900 ppb  and  However, t h e a b s e n c e o f d a t a further  interpretation i l l -  33  T a b l e 4 . C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs i n t h e s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s o f t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k and coho o f f e r e d a Cs e n r i c h e d d i e t . F i s h s t o m a c h s were empty a t t h e s t a r t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t (day 0 ) , a s f i s h were s t a r v e d p r i o r t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e Cs e n r i c h e d d i e t . Stomach c o n t e n t s from t h e 8 f i s h i n e a c h g r o u p were p o o l e d p r i o r t o a n a l y s i s f o r Cs c o n t e n t . fish group  Cs ppb  (days) 4  stickleback-off  19000  stickleback-off replicate  9700  22000  20000  7600  stickleback-on  1  20000  stickleback-on replicate  9200  18000  9300  coho-stream  7600  8200  8300  coho-stream replicate  8000  **  **  o f f , means c a u g h t o f f s h o r e , o n , means c a u g h t o n s h o r e , s t r e a m means c a u g h t i n a s t r e a m w i t h i n t h e same l a k e a s j u v e n i l e sockeye and t h r e e s p i n e stickleback. 1  * f i n a l dry weight too small for a c c u r a t e r e a d i n g * * i c e c r y s t a l damage made s e p a r a t i o n o f g u t c o n t e n t s stomach w a l l t i s s u e s q u e s t i o n a b l e  from  34  Discussion Zooplankton  held  in  b u r d e n s w i t h i n 24 h o u r s . King  (1964)  with pure  Cs  e n r i c h e d water  A similar cultures  experiment  rose  present from of  from  study,  uptake  of  a  netted  contents of  ( K i n g 1 964).  and b a c t e r i a  zooplankton  zooplankton  from  by  hours.  zooplankton lake  was  In t h e  ingestion  water  water  algae  appears  Cs.  The  f o r uptake  though  of  Cs-137  (1971),  suggested.  gut  (1963) within  s t a b l e Cs i n  after  of  uptake  a  small  was  not '  and  coho  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s measured certain  and  Uptake  Davis  hours  mode  Cesium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n stomach  of  mesh  o f Cs by  source.  rapid.  state  was d e t e c t e d w i t h i n 1.5 t o 4  CsCl  investigated.  stickleback  path  contained  which  t h e major  by Hakonson e t a l .  with  o f Cs  seems l i k e l y  as a c h i e v i n g a steady  enriched  to  Enough t i m e  may c o n s t i t u t e  freshwater  In a study  The  does n o t p r e c l u d e t h e absence  i n the  food r a t h e r than  reports Chlorella 15  ppb.  The u s e o f a 100 jum d i a m e t e r  were a d d e d .  i n zooplankton  Cs-137  10000  was n o t known b u t Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n  i n the c u r r e n t study  phytoplankon  c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n Daphnia  1.2 ppb t o  were e n h a n c e d by d i r e c t  filter  When e x p o s e d  300 ppb t o 8000 ppb was a p p a r e n t .  i n the l a t t e r  Chlamydomonas  as  by  an i n c r e a s e i n Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n z o o p l a n k t o n  approximately  Daphnia pulex in  approximately  was p e r f o r m e d  of Daphnia pulex.  t o w a t e r c o n t a i n i n g 1000 ppb C s , t i s s u e pulex  i n c r e a s e d Cs body  prey In  were  in  samples  certain  i n zooplankton  from  threespine  cases contrasted with  used  as prey.  items  by  fish  from  support  of  this  hypothesis,  Selection  the zooplankton high  mix was  and  low  35  concentrations  of  Cs  i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s were d e t e c t e d on t h e  same d a y , t h o u g h a l l i n i t i a l zooplankton  stock.  salmon a r e (Eggers  items  Although  of prey  variability content into  detection from  the  weight  original  for  resources of the present  also  have  species imply the  same  another  may  After  and  contents  i t would  certain  (Salvelinus  rainbow  would  fail  trout  to  r e s o l v e the explain  Subsequent a n a l y s i s  sorting  of  stomach  would p r o b a b l y  Appropriate taxa  Such  (Nilsson  of  trout  have  a  f o r Cs  contents  be below t h e  could and then  project  the  was  be  sorted  analyzed. a  minimum  beyond  the  contents  may  project.  explanation.  stomach  Fish  at different  may  rates.  digest The  different  latter  would  c o h o and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k  had a c t u a l l y  total  r a t e s of a s s i m i l a t i o n  were d i f f e r e n t This  brook  i n Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n  of zooplankton  that  gut  alone  of prey  w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o r e a c h  analysis.  sockeye  zooplankton  selection  Cs e n r i c h e d z o o p l a n k t o n  individuals  on  same  1 972).  sample w e i g h t  f o r cesium.  Variability  in  concentrations.  taxa,  level  However, many dry  Cs  w o u l d be r e q u i r e d .  separate  Repeated  (Byran and L a r k i n  selection,  in  predators  (Salmo c l a r k i ) ,  of  the  and j u v e n i l e  i n the s e l e c t i o n  reported  examination  from  and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k  1978).  cutthroat trout  (Salmo q a i r d n e r i )  question  learning  issued  stickleback  salmonids  been  were  selective  and H e l l e r has  fontinalis),  be  Both  to express  Milinski  prey  Threespine to  1982).  been n o t e d 1958,  known  prey  d o s e o f C s , whereas t h e i r  i n accordance  explain  the  with  similar  species rates  of  prey  of uptake  received  consumed.  o f Cs by b o t h  36  species  despite  contents.  variation  in  Some s p e c i e s of  Cs  concentrations  zooplankton  possess  (Kolehmainen et a l .  1968a), w h i c h  i s known t o  digestion  fish  1978).  be  in certain  addressed  of  the  by  selectively  was  beyond the  R a t e o f u p t a k e of Cs stickleback  was  The  threespine  used  in this  Dill  at  not  study  the  In  evidence  sockeye  a  to suggest and  rate.  Evidence  be  as a model  There  o f Rb  systems  to  in a similar  Comparable b e h a v i o r and  year  earlier.  Pickering  similarities  1961).  (Poluektov  Puckett  in metabolic  difference  in size  between  not  to suggest  fish that  Rubidium  of  4.0  to  affect  6.0cm was  juvenile metabolic  that juvenile  in juvenile  and rate  (1959) t h e r e  been n o t e d  and  sockeye  Krokhin  coho  can  uptake  or  sockeye.  i n f o r m a t i o n on  i n t e r m s of c o n c e n t r a t i o n s . Rb  behaves  manner t o p o t a s s i u m  has  juvenile  by  published  suggest  sockeye  study  in freshwater  i s evidence  present  coho  f o r u p t a k e of Cs no  the  J u v e n i l e coho  to  difference  an  threespine  juvenile  would appear  t o be  Such  juvenile  size  t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k would  There appears excretion  t h a t any  in  valid.  probably  could  project.  adult  is  significant and  the p r e s e n t  of  zooplankton  investigated.  to  one  rates  enriched  observation  of y e a r ,  respiration  sockeye  used  no  Cs  different  were of c o m p a r a b l e  f a t content  alter  c o h o and  significantly  same t i m e  juvenile  length.  juvenile  stickleback  (1984) o b s e r v e d  between  by  of  high  stomach  This hypothesis  t o be  resources  e x t e n s i o n of t h i s  and  caught  feeding f i s h  same s p e c i e s f o r e a c h t a x a  undertaking  study.  (Windell  in  f o r Cs and  Mishchenko  Cs  in  biological  (Tanka  et a l .  (Davis  1963,  Williams  also  bear  chemical  1962).  1977).  Concentrations  of  37  Rb a r e h o w e v e r , average Cs  Cs  0.009% o f  (Levinson  was  higher  1974).  tentatively in  the  freshwater  i n the  general  earth's  crust  There being  assumed t h a t  coupled in  sockeye to  and  present  uptake  rates  of  suggested  species  the  threespine similar their  same  stickleback  responses  prey.  Rb and o n l y  no e v i d e n c e  Rb b e h a v e s  to  similarity  threespine  results  stickleback, at  for  being  to  the  on  the  0.0003% f o r contrary  it  i n a s i m i l a r manner  to  fish.  In c o n c l u s i o n , a g e n e r a l juvenile  environment;  Cs  im m e t a b o l i c  stickleback  rate  (Krokhin  i n d i c a t i n g no s i g n i f i c a n t by  similar  juvenile excretion  coho rates  temperature.  Although  and  sockeye  juvenile  changes  in  1959)  difference  and  threespine  in not  for  all  three  conclusive,  appear  to  have  Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  in  38  CHAPTER 3  Transfer  experiments, role  of  sediments  Introduct ion  Sediments  have  contaminants,  trace  Cesium  t o be  appears  movement o f Cs McDonald  et  been  m e t a l s , and removed  tb lower al.  Both o r g a n i c  capable  of  fish  and  absorption  to  depend  have been  o f Cs-137  many  1979).  flushing  (Gallegos  of  fractions  for  (Cushing  l a k e s m a i n l y by  inorganic  o f Cs and  and  1970).  biota,  Cs-137  and  in  of sediment  ( P e n d l e t o n and Hanson  on  lake  associated  i t s association  type.  (Kolehmainen  and N e l s o n  Cs-137 p o l l u t i o n Kolehmainen  the  appear  1958  and  the l a t t e r noted  Spiking  along  that  the  bottom  lake.  sediment  and c l a y  probably  due  containing  Such was  shoreline.  major  bottom  time  site  Vanderploeg  s e d i m e n t s were n o t a major  in a  lake  o f an o l i g o t r o p h i c  The  to  the case  in a eutrophic  i n a much s l o w e r r e m o v a l  to the e u t r o p h i c was  lakes,  out  with  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs i n  1969).  carried  (1968b).  these authors r e s u l t e d compared  particles  experiment  et a l .  Low  with turbid  sediments  (1976)  sinks  radionuclides  concentrations  clay  in  as  e x a m i n a t i o n of w a t e r ,  to suspended  137  act  of the sediment  sorption  the  to  1969). concentration  appears  layers  greatest  latter.  The  from  (1971) i n an  sediment, d e t e c t e d  Gustafson  shown  of  lake  by by  f o r Csremoval et  al.  s o u r c e of  39  Cs-137 t o b i o t a  when Cs-137 was added  Concentrations could experiment lake.  n o t be m e a s u r e d  conducted  the  A c c u m u l a t i o n o f Cs-137  certain  lakes.  Cs-137 from years  sediments  fallout  (Mauro  1973).  from d e t r i t u s  1967).  Detritus (Rabe  Mauro  (1973)  producing contact  sockeye  1959,  to e s t a b l i s h  whether  reflect  unclear juvenile  a  in this in  differ  stickleback  tissue  need  of  6  Cs-137  from  recycle  (AEC r e p o r t of  trace  that  in fish.  the  zone  sockeye  for  both  Since there  were  juvenile  use  of  1976),  sockeye and  these  habitats  t h e r e was a  o f Rb and Cs i n  use of these a r e a s . sediment  to e s t a b l i s h the In  littoral  concentrations  type of  onshore  in  study the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r  the  need fish  S e c o n d l y , i t was  in  areas  stickleback  would  occupied  by  affect  Rb a n d  Two h y p o t h e s i s were p r o p o s e d :  1) t h e  o f Rb a n d Cs i n j u v e n i l e  held  period  levels  stickleback.  in  sockeye and t h r e e s p i n e  concentrations  occur  Isles.  high  1968, a n d Manzer  forage  a s t o whether  Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  the  from t h e l i t e r a t u r e  Rogers  a  t o the food chain  indicated a clear  and t h r e e s p i n e  stickleback  not  c a s e s amphipods may  contain  investigated  indications  (Burgner  over  i n u p t a k e o f Cs-137 by f i s h .  lakes  threespine  would  has  similar  1977).  with sediments a r i s e s  juvenile strong  and s e d i m e n t  and Stephens  may  capable of r e c y c l i n g  to  a  (1967) f o u n d no a c c u m u l a t i o n o f  In c e r t a i n  is likely  of sediment  sediments  i n the B r i t i s h  i n v e r t e b r a t e s appear  in  lake.  a u t h o r s i n an o l i g o t r o p h i c  sources i n sediments  Cs-137  metals  in  eutrophic  i n sediments  same  Preston et a l .  i n lake Trawsfynydddin Some  role  by  to a small  would  differ  sockeye  and  from j u v e n i l e  threespine sockeye and  40  threespine over  which  stickleback fish  concentrations  held  were  o f Rb and  offshore,  held Cs.  would  and 2)  type  be r e f l e c t e d  of  sediment  in their  tissue  41  Materials  Short-term  experiment:  and  methods  threespine  stickleback  and  juvenile  sockeye  Juvenile  sockeye  and  threespine stickleback  offshore  i n Kennedy L a k e  on May  Kennedy  lake  f a c e w i r e cage  in  inch(0.32cm)  square  approximately  10 m  a temperature they 0.91  were m),  mesh), from  transferred  for  each  1984.  Fish  were  immersed  Fish  to  in  a  were h e l d  wire  sites  s p e c i e s per  site  in  (l/8th  depression  dug  spring  until  May  (radius  0.45  m,  the  lake.  One  cage  and  twenty  cages  within  held  of hardware c l o t h  s h o r e t o r e a c h an u n d e r g r o u n d  o f 4 t o 5°C.  at s p e c i f i c  allotted in  open  24,  were c a p t u r e d  fish  29  at  when height was  were  housed  3 m  deep)  Substrate type  i n the  each. The  onshore  frequented c o v e was Offshore  by  site  was  threespine  sites  were  approximately  gradually which  i n Kennedy Lake  mud  with  designated island  160  m  and  s o c k e y e and  of  15m,  3).  1983-1985.  rectangular  trench  32 m  over  in  from a  Offshore  after  offshore  site  depth.  The  can  guide  distance  cages  the predominant  threespine stickleback  The  vegetation.  suspended  the mainland  a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1.5hrs  t o September  scattered  by c a g e s  (Figure  lowered to a depth  juvenile  i n a shallow cove(<  stickleback.  a m i x t u r e o f s a n d and  ropes spanning a s m a l l of  located  depth  were at  were c a p t u r e d  sunset  from  be d e s c r i b e d  surrounding  June as a  shoreline  42  Figure  3. Map o f Kennedy Lake s h o w i n g s i t e s o f h o l d i n g e x p e r i m e n t s both s h o r t - t e r m and l o n g - t e r m ( n e x t s e c t i o n ) .  43  KENNEDY LAKE CLAYOQUOT  ARM  44  consisted Fish  of  sheer  rock,  were h a r v e s t e d  content. could  on  July  Stomach c o n t e n t s  be  determine  with  full  stickleback  captured  and  f i s h were h e l d  the  and  form  same w i r e of  substrate.  Threespine Lake on A u g u s t  (hardware  6th,  cage  ( r a d i u s 0.45  less  than  substrates:  m,  Cs  material  wire  of both  April  Cesium  in a  of Rb  wire  sand  and  access Cs  to  threespine  enclosure  full  alter  compared  s u b s t r a t e , 40  a s u b s t r a t e of  circular  cage  and  mud,  (diameter to the  same  were m e a s u r e d i n  groups.  threespine stickleback  Fish  were h e l d  when t h e y  height  0.91  One  cage  sand-mud  28th, April and  offshore  in  Kennedy  i n s p r i n g water  were t r a n s f e r r e d  Rb  m).  Cages were p l a c e d  was  with Fish  on  vegetation, were  1985. 26th,  placed  1985  left  Threespine to  (11  to wire  i n mesh(0.32cm) a t a d e n s i t y of  diameter).  o f f s h o r e on  set.  in a  l/8th  sand,  on  to the  a b o v e ) on  1984.  deep.  ( > 5 cm  harvested  data  and  c a g e s would  i n stomach c o n t e n t s  to the  as  13th  cloth,  4 m  Cs  s t i c k l e b a c k were c a p t u r e d  u n t i l August  captured  lake.  f o r Rb  enough  f i s h to wire  Concentrations  Long-term experiment:  cobble  analyzed when  as cages) which a l l o w e d  stomach c o n t e n t s  13°C)  and  a c r o s s the  o f f s h o r e were h e l d o n s h o r e  size  type  1984  were a n a l y z e d  and  access  (same  1.5m,  4th,  i f restricting  t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f Rb  40  n e a r e s t b e a c h was  obtained.  To  fish  the  each  cages 20  per  i n water of  gravel-mud, over  to  winter  the and and  s t i c k l e b a c k were  provide  a  comparison  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were m e a s u r e d  for a l l  45  fish.  Stomach c o n t e n t s  be a m a s s e d .  were a n a l y z e d  i f enough  material  could  46  Results  Short-term  experiments:  threespine  stickleback  and  juvenile  sockeye  F i s h m o r t a l i t i e s were d i f f e r e n t among initial  stocking  surviving 14  The  sample  In  on  sizes  i n the  Rb:  the  comparisons of juvenile  other  Cs  involving  5). Rb  within It  was  were n o t  5).  sites  (Table  or  in  concentrations  were a s s o c i a t e d  Concentrations held in  o n s h o r e and conjunction  of  offshore with  were  Rb  Rb  5  by  species  or  less  Cs  in  but  The  between of  site  Cs  in  differences  between  significant similar  between  in  Rb  sites,  locations  sites  differences  findings  differences  for  Cs  and  Cs  higher  (Table  i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s of  Rb  fish  df=3).  involved  d e m o n s t r a t e d no  body b u r d e n o f  species  ).  with onshore Cs  and  P <0.05;  detected  and  fish  concentrations  that  significant  concentrations  sockeye  offshore).  and  d i f f e r e n t species  paralleled  fish  of  comparisons  apparent  When  sites  H=14.85,  higher  onshore  of  onshore),  5 juvenile (held  an  above.  for within  was  of  number  (held  a n a l y s e s were 8  concentrations  significant  species  (Table  (Table  and  sockeye h e l d  All between  Rb  stickleback  Out  cage the  sockeye  holding  H=20.52, Cs:  significant difference  per  onshore),  following  both  affected  4-5;  (held  indicated  combination,  (Figures  fish  juvenile  7 threespine  s u r v i v a l as  significantly  only  and  20  16  stickleback  offshore),  depending  of  i n d i v i d u a l s were:  threespine  (held  density  sites.  and  identifiable Cs  i n the  same  5). fish  pattern fish.  47  Figure  4. R u b i d i u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d o n s h o r e o v e r s a n d and mud s u b s t r a t e and o f f s h o r e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f fish. A l l f i s h captured offshore. (on=held onshore, off=held offshore). F i s h were h e l d f o r 40 d a y s f r o m May 2 6 t h t o J u l y 4 t h , 1984. Sample s i z e s a r e , j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e h e l d o n s h o r e 8, h e l d o f f s h o r e 7; t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d o n s h o r e 8, h e l d o f f s h o r e 5.  48  soc-on  10000  soc-off  8000 6000 4000 2000  n a a. n  0.0D  0.02  rr  0.04  0.06  0.00  st-on  10000  0.02  0.04  Q.06  st-off  B000 6000 4000 2000  -i  0.00  0.10  0.20  0.30 dry  0.00 wt (g)  0.10  0.20  i_  0.30  49  Figure  5. C e s i u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d onshore and o f f s h o r e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y weight of f i s h . A l l f i s h captured offshore. (on=held onshore, o f f = h e l d o f f s h o r e ) . F i s h were h e l d f o r 40 d a y s from May 2 6 t h t o J u l y 4 t h , 1984. Sample s i z e s a r e , j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e h e l d o n s h o r e 8, h e l d o f f s h o r e 7; t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d o n s h o r e 8, h e l d o f f s h o r e 5.  soc-off  soc-on  o o° <b -j  i  t_  0.04  0.06  JQ  a a.  0.00  C_>  0.02  0.04  0.06  0.00  st-on  0.00  0.10  0.20  0.02  st-off  0.30  dry  0 .DO 0 . 1 0  wt (g)  0.20  0.30  T a b l e 5. M u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s f o r j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d onshore and o f f s h o r e . A l l f i s h c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e . Numbers i n m a r g i n s a r e g r o u p m e d i a n s . 1  Rb ppb 6400 soc-on  3800 st-on  5800 soc-off  3300 st-off  6400 soc-on 3800 st-on  * 3.35  5800 soc-off 3300 st-off  *  *  4.02  3.27 Cs  450 soc-on  ppb  550 st-on  160 soc-off  410 st-off  450 soc-on 550 st-on 160 soc-off  *  2.70  *  3.80  410 st-off NPMC •significant q statistic, q critical (soc=juvenile sockeye, st=threespine onshore, o f f = h e l d o f f s h o r e ) 1  = 2.64, a = 0.05, df=4 s t i c k l e b a c k , 6n=held  52  However, c o n c e n t r a t i o n s polarized  into  2  ranges;  1900 ppb Cs a n d low » 6).  However,  composite  concentrations of  fish  of f i s h  i n wire  stickleback  full  with  test;  500-510 ppb Cs be c o l l e c t e d  cages d i d not appear  of t h r e e s p i n e  stomach  access  1000(Table f o r one  offshore.  to wire  in  were  1800-19000 ppb Rb,  c a g e s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y found  Whitney  contents  o f Rb and Cs i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s .  concentrations  n(2)  held  Rb a n d Cs i n stomach c o n t e n t s  onshore  *  enough m a t e r i a l c o u l d  from  Confinement  high  stomach  1800-6800 ppb Rb,  only  sample  o f Rb and Cs i n  to  the  to  Concentrations stickleback held  different  contents bottom  Rb: U=23, P > 0.05; C s : U=21,  affect  of  from  the  threespine  substrate  (Mann-  P > 0.05, n ( 1 ) = 9,  =4).  Long-term: t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k As the  i n the short-term  same among s i t e s .  threespine  experiment,  Out o f an i n i t i a l  s t i c k l e b a c k t h e number  13 ( h e l d o v e r  sand),  fish  12 ( h e l d o v e r  mortalities  were  not  s t o c k i n g d e n s i t y o f 20  of s u r v i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s cobble),  14 ( h e l d o v e r  were: sand-  v..  mud), and 12 ( h e l d o v e r stickleback  f r o m e a c h g r o u p were u s e d  Rubidium held  over  6; KW, from  and  various  Cs  concentrations  substrate  types  Subsamples of 8  cages  cobble  held  over  higher  sand-mud  in threespine  were d e p e n d e n t  and  Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  substrates  alone  threespine  i n the f o l l o w i n g  (NPMC, T a b l e  fish 7).  stickleback  Fish  gravel-mud than  analyses.  on s i t e  Rb: H=30.52, C s : H=26.51, P < 0.05, d f = 4 ) .  significantly and  gravel-mud).  (Figure sampled  s u b s t r a t e had  h e l d over Only  fish  sand held  53  T a b l e 6. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Rb a n d Cs i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s of j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d onshore and o f f s h o r e . A l l f i s h c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e . Stomach c o n t e n t s o f f i s h (n) were p o o l e d b e f o r e a n a l y s i s f o r Rb a n d Cs concentration.  group  1  Rb ppb  Cs  ppb  n  st-on  18000  1900  5  st-on  19000  1 1 00  5  soc-on  1900  1000  8  soc-on  6400  500  8  st-on  6800  510  4  st-off  1800  510  7  1  on=held o n s h o r e , o f f = h e l d o f f s h o r e , sockeye, st=threespine stickleback  soc=juvenile  54  Figure  6. R u b i d i u m and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n 4 g r o u p s o f t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d o v e r v a r i o u s s u b s t r a t e s and one g r o u p c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e . . Numbers i n p a r e n t h e s i s a r e sample s i z e s . F i s h were h e l d f o r 266 d a y s f r o m A u g u s t 4 t h , 1984 t o A p r i l 2 8 t h , 1985. A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The upper and lower extremes of the t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t the u p p e r and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The u p p e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s than or e q u a l t o the upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or e q u a l t o the lower q u a r t i l e minus 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e u p p e r and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d a s "*". 1985.  55  8Q00 7000 6000 JO D. a  5000  JQ  rx  4000 3000 2000 5000  4000  n  -  3000  a a U) u  2000  1000  0  l  2  3  4  5  (8}  (B)  (7)  (8)  (B)  site  56  T a b l e 7. M u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s f o r threespine stickleback from l o n g t e r m h o l d i n g e x p e r i m e n t . Number i n m a r g i n s a r e group medians. 1  Rb ppb sand  cobble  31 50  3700  sand (mud) 7100  gravel (mud) 6800  offshore 4200  sand 3150 cobble 3700 sand (mud) 7100 gravel (mud) 6800  * 4.58  * 3.80  3.71  * 2.98  *  of f s h o r e 4200 NPMC •significant  *  2.94  1  q values,  q critical  =2.81, a = 0.05, df=5  57  over  sand-mud  concentrations Cs  substrate compared  to  concentrations  significant  c o m p a r i s o n s and comparisons  and  with  cobble  The  dry  fish  captured  in  (Table  Rb  7).  same a s s o c i a t i o n s of  types  as  were between  concentrations  higher  offshore  f o l l o w the  substrate  f o r Cs  higher  (NPMC, T a b l e  significantly  d i d not  significant  offshore  were  Rb.  fish  than  The  h e l d over fish  only sand  captured  8).  weights  determine concentrations  of  stomach  of Rb  and  contents Cs.  were t o o  small  to  58  Table 8 . M u l t i p l e comparisons for threespine stickleback f r o m l o n g - t e r m h o l d i n g e x p e r i m e n t . Numbers i n m a r g i n s a r e group medians. 1  Cs ppb sand  cobble  2100  2500  sand (mud) 1500  gravel (mud) 1400  offshore 390  sand 2100 cobble 2500 sand (mud) 1500 gravel (mud) 1400 offshore 390  * 3.48  NPMC •significant df = 5  *  5.00  1  q values,  q critical  = 2.81, a = 0.05,  59  Discussion:  In  i n both  threespine were n o t to  short-term  the  short-term  stickleback  significantly  threespine  held  stickleback  that  c o n c l u s i o n was  over of  which t h r e e s p i n e  s a n d and  cobble  concentrations to t h r e e s p i n e Since  must  be  (1972)  stickleback latter  compared t o  t o the  threespine juvenile  higher  stickleback  sockeye.  water  that  i n the  observed held  appear  Cs  demonstrated  on  of  between The  and  only  The  substrate  exact in  was  features  higher  are  l a c k of a the  of  Cs and  zooplankton  estuary,  i n bottom  no  1971).  known.  derived  stickleback significant cage  and in  Cs  threespine the  i n the d i e t in  the  diet  of of  concentrations compared be  to  noted  difference  was  j u v e n i l e sockeye  difference  restricting  of  Fleishman  It should  and  from  attributed  feeders  significant  Cs  compared  not  Kanevskii  zooplankton  higher  experiment  to  type  in fish  sockeye  b e n t h o s and  threespine  attributable  the  resulted  concentrations  (McDonald e t a l .  short-term  onshore.  experiment  offshore  In t h e Hudson R i v e r  feeders  offshore  s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d onshore  and  mud  compared  1973), e l e v a t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  of Cs-137 were 3 t o 4 t i m e s open  that  juvenile  p r e s e n c e of  sand and  o f f s h o r e or c a p t u r e d  sites  Rb  experiment  concentrations  to d i f f e r e n c e s i n prey.  reported  long-term  s u b s t r a t e of  i n Cs  captured  of  (Fleishman  related  a  dependent  threespine  stickleback  foods  over  experiments  s t i c k l e b a c k were h e l d .  concentrations  ingested  the  long-term  substrate  in  and  held  However, t h e  a  long-term  different  respectively. such  and  does  access  to  not the  60  substrate.  Threespine  substrate  consisting  different wire  short  over  that  stated  that  the  contents  In  the  there where  habitats  compared  to  information  the  substrate  short-term  due  and  to  Cs  be . a  a  beyond  held  the  inclusion  and F l e i s h m a n  (1972)  extremely  examine  utilization  of  especially  o f d i e t was to  in  i n both the  appeared  need  consisting held  stickleback,  experiment,  different  in  of  both  a substrate  resolve  this  There  of  stomach different  (1976) c i t e s  Rb  experiment, consisting  difference to  when h e l d  over a  to  species  behavior  o f sand a n d threespine  in  were  threespine  fish.  not  stickleback  of  In held  be  sockeye required  concentrations. i n the l i t e r a t u r e the  short-term  over  substrate  significantly  held  prey  feeding  and j u v e n i l e  information  stickleback mud  difference  of  Examination  i n d i e t b a s e d on Cs  concentrations  juvenile  the presences of benthic  stickleback  be l i t t l e  threespine  to  were  compared  for this  stickleback.  threespine  sockeye  c o n s i s t i n g o f s a n d a n d mud, w o u l d  appears  concerning  mud  In a r e v i e w o f f e e d i n g  Wootton  of  and  The r e a s o n  t h e d i e t of t h r e e s p i n e  behavior  juvenile  Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  sand  offshore.  was n o t e v i d e n t .  compared  to  be c o n c l u s i v e l y  o f Cs o b s e r v e d  investigation  appears  to f i s h  I t cannot  Although Kanevskii  direct  access  i s desired.  significantly  sockeye  diet.  full  mud were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  concentrations  t h e measurement o f Rb  where  difficult,  over  and  t h e same s u b s t r a t e .  the higher  in  useful  to  sand  a n d l o n g - t e r m e x p e r i m e n t s was  benthos  in  of  allowed  i n Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  cages  stated  stickleback  offshore.  different However, i n  61  the  long-term  same  experiment  substrate  concentrations offshore.  type  this  and  hold  a  to Cs  true  that  either  varied in their  Chapter  2  resolving stomach In observed  in  the  zooplankton  suggest  were  by f i s h . would the  different  (1972)  in  reported  stickleback  having  f e d on  the Rb  captured lower fed  on  zooplankton.  Rb a n d Cs i n stomach c o n t e n t s  i n the short-term  digestible  Fleishman  short-term  mix  experiment.  selecting  fish were  (Chapter  2).  Fish  high  and  low  The same p a t t e r n  These r e s u l t s  different  concentrations  from  experiment  had  o f Cs i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s .  fish  over  stickleback  i n the uptake experiments  enriched  held  i n Kennedy L a k e was n o t e s t a b l i s h e d .  of  those  concentrations observed  threespine  to j u v e n i l e sockeye having  onshore and o f f s h o r e  similar  stickleback  significantly  o f Rb i n t h r e e s p i n e  Concentrations  fed  to  Kanevskii  b e n t h o s compared  held  were  compared  concentrations  Whether  threespine  prey  once  again  items  that  o f Cs o r were n o t e q u a l l y  The same s e t o f e x p e r i m e n t s a s p r o p o s e d  serve  equally well  observed  i n the present  variations  was  in  Cs  case  in  towards  concentrations  in  contents. conclusion, when  fish  Lake but r e s u l t s  higher  concentrations  were c o n f i n e d  were d e p e n d e n t  t o the l i t t o r a l on t y p e  fish  were h e l d , and s p e c i e s o f f i s h  and  Cs i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s  d e t e r m i n e what c h a n g e s  and f i s h  in diet  species  differences in tissue  However,  i n a l l cases  of  Rb a n d Cs were area  o f Kennedy  of s u b s t r a t e over  compared.  which  Measurement o f Rb  t i s s u e s was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o  resulted  in  concentrations  where s i g n i f i c a n t  within  or  between  o f Rb and c e s i u m .  d i f f e r e n c e s i n Rb a n d Cs  62  concentrations held  or  were d e t e c t e d  captured  were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  between f i s h  offshore, higher onshore  sites.  h e l d onshore  concentrations  and  fish  o f Rb a n d Cs  63  CHAPTER 4  Interannual  variation  i n Rb  and  Cs  zooplankton,  concentrations  and  i n water,  fish  Introduction  Seasonal water  and  escaped Rb  changes  i n the  zooplankton  in  a t t e n t i o n i n the  and  Cs  Thorne  in  freshwater as  1.4  ppb  Concentrations  of  Rb  and  water,  River and  freshwater  literature.  (1983)  Columbia  concentrations  Cs  Rb  69.0  ppb  Rb,  lakes  2.11  ppb  and  have  r e p o r t e d by and  0.05  i n w a t e r and  i n November were 3.5  Rb  ppb Cs  Cs  values  for  Coughtrey  ppb  for  phytoplankton  Rb,  in  apparently  Representative  have been for  of  and Cs.  of  0.035 ppb  the  Cs  for phytoplankton  for  (Cushing  1 979) . Input  of  apparently  stable  escaped  b a s i n can  be  waters.  Input  137  has  Fallout  with  a  (Nelson  and  Cs  to  freshwaters  though  geology  of  influence concentrations  i n the  f o r m of a t m o s p h e r i c  t o have a s e a s o n a l second  high  r e p o r t e d by  a maximum a t  accumulate with  spring  to  o f Cs  of Cs-137 a s  latitude may  expected  with  and  attention,  been r e p o r t e d  frequently  Rb  45°N.  snow and Whicker  be  1969,  in  high  the  Hannerz  subsequently Gallegos  overlying  the  (Hannerz  of  released  Cs-  spring, 1968).  dependent  amounts o f  1970).  also  drainage  fallout  (1968) was  Considerable  the in  in  fall  has  on  Cs-137 in  the  64  Seasonal  highs  in  the  concentrations  organisms of a small a q u a t i c  community  (1962),  dates  given.  but  corresponding  Hasler  and L i k e n s  Chaoborus  and  radioactivity  when t h e y  Biological been  given  (Coughtrey appear  to r e f l e c t  Seasonal bluegills by  1983).  have been  Kolehmainen  Cs-137 137  (1972).  too  for  annularis)  in  concentrations during  July,  137  the  observed in  stable  of  i n ambient  than  have  respectively  organisms  would  cesium.  o f Cs-137 and s t a b l e Cs i n  well with  Lake,  Tennessee,  The c y c l i n g  the c y c l i n g  stomach  also  1969). in  In  again  contrast  displayed  1971).  values  largemouth  bass  h a d low  concentrations greater  Concentrations  b a s s d i d n o t f o l l o w an i d e n t i c a l  Cesium-137 was h i g h e s t  peak  minimal  i n October but a t v a l u e s  (Spigarelli  were  (Pomoxis  Wintergreen Lake, Michigan maximum  i n May, d e c r e a s e d  of  of Cs-  contents  The w h i t e c r a p p i e  River  o f s t a b l e Cs i n May,  i n May  amounts o f  70g i n c r e a s e d t o a maximum i n  agreed  Clinch  (Nelson  largemouth  Cs.  groups  o f s t a b l e Cs i n e a r l y s p r i n g w i t h  and d e c r e a s e d  those  Both  Q u a n t i t i e s of  salmoides)  concentrations  larvae  s t a b l e Cs a n a l y s i s .  t h e summer  (Micropterus  insect  t o a minimum i n A u g u s t .  tissues.  small  midges  B o t h Cs-137 and s t a b l e Cs i n b l u e g i l l s  stomach c o n t e n t s  in bluegill  were n o t  aquatic  detectable  i n v e s t i g a t e d i n W h i t e Oak  and d e c r e a s e d  in  that  removed  i n the balance  (Leppmis m a c r o c h i r u s ) g r e a t e r February,  concentrations  and  r a p i d changes  changes  Pendleton  f o r Cs-137 o f 5 d a y s and 7 d a y s  zooplankton  and Thorne  and  by  i n the  emerged a s a d u l t s .  half-lives  for  sp.  Cs-137  were n o t e d  (1963) o b s e r v e d  Chironomus  of  of  in than Cs-  pattern to in  August  65  and  rose  again  Spigarelli and  in  October  (1971) r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r  Cs-137 w i t h w e i g h t  suggested  different  Wintergreen. were  in  The  s t a b l e Cs  and  i n largemouth  to Cs  lakes,  and  Cesium-137  artificial  isotope produced  or  the  proximity that  from  basin.  fallout  to point  may  total  stable  differences  from  occur  in  p a t t e r n s of  i n w a t e r and two  isotopes  an  and  unlike  lake  itself  from  l a k e s as  observed Red  Lake  dependence  Measurement  in  the  being  (1967)  a prime  f o o d i t e m s may  of  wind p a t t e r n s or  fish  fallout.  (1971) similar  fallout  Gustafson  small  Lake  Lake.  naturally,  rainfall,  summer, i n d i c a t i n g  between t h e s e  observed  o f Cs-137 t o d i f f e r e n t local  Cs-137  in  Spigarelli  s o u r c e endogenous t o t h e  o f Cs-137 from  Cs  Cs-137  nuclear reactions,  Input  Cs  differences  in accumulation  s o u r c e s of Cs-137.  d u r i n g the  accumulation and  and  atmospheric  not  reflect  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of  increased  137  does  arise  drainage  atmospheric  Cs  Cs-137 i n W h i t e Oak  reflect  Although stable  seasonal  (1974) who  the d i s p a r i t y  Cs-137 may  Cs c a n n o t  of  Kolehmainen  latter.  stable  bass,  s e a s o n a l c h a n g e s r e p o r t e d by  for stable  In c e r t a i n  1971).  p a t t e r n s f o r both  availabilities  contrast  behaviors  (Spigarelli  resolve  fish  from  upon  of  Cs-  apparent certain  lakes. Seasonal particular  in  importance  stickleback as o b s e r v e d  spawn by  immatures may The  shifts  in  i n the  Burgner occupy  Rb the  main o b j e c t i v e  the  concentrations study,  zone o f  zone w i t h  following  as  and  lakes,  Tiller  juvenile  s t u d y was  were  of  threespine  freshwater  Rogers(1968),  limnetic of  Cs  present  littoral  (1959),  the  and  yet  (1974),  sockeye. to  determine  66  the  degree of o v e r l a p  of  Kennedy  threespine if  Lake  i n t h e use o f l i t t o r a l  on  a  stickleback.  onshore  movement o f t h r e e s p i n e  in significantly  their  flesh  different  compared  which  to  of  Cs  by  in  Rb a n d Cs  and  threespine  2  to  stickleback  and  species  c l o s e l y track  Transfer  concentrations onshore  but  experiments  o f Rb a n d Cs c o u l d that  in Rb  Cs were m o n i t o r e d  was t o d e t e c t  any marked  May t o September changes in  stickleback.  feeding  between s p e c i e s  captured  Finally,  1983, w h i l e  the  latter  responses  in  juvenile  was  to  and  of  The f o r m e r during  determine  i n zooplankton sockeye  feeding  concentrations  o f Rb and Cs i n t o t h e l a k e  i n Rb a n d Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  similar  elevated  with  i n water and z o o p l a n k t o n .  input  both  in their  would not n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e t h a t  onshore a r e a s had not o c c u r r e d . and  associated  a lack of a c o n t r a s t  onshore and o f f s h o r e  that  3 indicated that  be  uptake juvenile  Rb a n d Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  i n Chapter  in  year.  determine  c o h o u s e d a s a m o d e l ) would p r e d i c t  prey.  i n June  threespine  a t t h e same t i m e o f  sockeye(juvenile should  determine  concentrations  sockeye  Chapter  areas  by j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and  s t i c k l e b a c k to breed  juvenile  remain o f f s h o r e  Experiments conducted rates  basis  A s e c o n d a r y o b j e c t i v e was t o  results  stickleback  seasonal  and l i m n e t i c  would  if  result  threespine  67  Materials Juvenile on May Fish  25th, were  seine. of  previously water  offshore  Eight  between May  between  the  from  s a m p l e s were t a k e n  Kennedy  (Figures  on  of  1500h  (Figures  both  7 and 8 ) .  and  7 and 8 ) . intervals  lakes  Lake. by  beach groups  h a u l s were made a t  4 t h and September 1 0 t h ,  at biweekly in  collected  by t r a w l i n g a n d o n s h o r e  hours  trawled for fish  for fish  1983  consecutive zooplankton  September 1 0 t h , 1983  trawled  26th,  were  f o r Rb and Cs c o n t e n t was p e r f o r m e d  intervals  lakes  and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k  5 t h , and J u l y  captured  fish.  biweekly  and  July  Analysis  8  both  sockeye  and methods  in  1983  2l00h Six  i n areas  consecutive  between May areas  in  27th  previously  68  Figure  7. Map o f Kennedy L a k e s h o w i n g s i t e s z o o p l a n k t o n and f i s h c o l l e c t i o n s .  of water,  KENNEDY L A K E CLAYOQUOT  ARM  70  Figure  8. Map o f G r e a t C e n t r a l L a k e showing z o o p l a n k t o n and f i s h c o l l e c t i o n s  s i t e s of water,  minnow traps O  72  Results  Water  The  concentrations  Kennedy a n d G r e a t degree  of  higher are  Rb  and  C e n t r a l Lake were  variability  distributions  of  among  a c c o r d i n g l y more  i n water  dates  of samples  by  a  from large  (Figure 9).  were  and median a n d q u a r t i l e meaningful  samples  characterized  sampling  f o r the majority  concentrations  Cs  skewed  The  towards  plots  ( F i g u r e 10)  conventional  confidence  was a s i g n i f i c a n t  interaction  than  limits. For between df=5),  Rb  concentrations  l a k e s and sampling because  concentrations  there  there  dates  was  on t h e l a s t  a  (NPANOVA, significant  sampling  date,  H=21.71,  difference Sept.  In l i g h t  the  exceedingly  o f Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  date  i n Great  sampling  removed  interaction  between  the  model  The  reduced  among s a m p l i n g from  higher  ~ July  7th  respectively, For  Cs  these  C e n t r a l L a k e , a n a l y s i s was r e p e a t e d  date  reduced  range  f r o m t h e NPANOVA d e s i g n .  l a k e s and s a m p l i n g  Rb  results  on t h e l a s t  with No  and  the  last  significant  was o b t a i n e d  using  (NPANOVA, H=4.15, P < 0.05, d f = 4 ) . model  dates  i n d i c a t e d that a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  (NPANOVA, H=16.57, P < 0.05,  concentrations and  dates  in  10 ( F i g u r e 9,  NPMC, q=3.70, P <0.05, d f = l 2 ) . large  of  P < 0.05,  ^ July  df=4),  arose  o f Rb on 24 May 2 7 t h compared  27th  (NPMC,  q=3.54,  and  with  q=3.14  P < 0.05, d f = 5 ) . concentrations  there  was a s i g n i f i c a n t  interaction  73  Figure  9. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb and Cs i n w a t e r s a m p l e s from Kennedy and G r e a t C e n t r a l L a k e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t s a m p l i n g dates. V e r t i c a l b a r s r e p r e s e n t 95% c o n f i d e n c e l i m i t s f o r t h e mean. F i r s t row o f numbers below f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t sample s i z e s .  0.20  0.15  h  0. 10  h  X  Kennedy  0  Great  I  X  0  x  0.05  o.o  Central  h  j  i  i_  j  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  u  14  24  0.05  0.04  h  0.03  0.02  0.01  0.0  }-  6 6  27 May  6 6  6  16 June  6 5  26  6  6 5  5 6  16  26  5  July  date  15 Aug  1983  6 5  25  4 Sep  75  10. Q u a r t i l e and median p l o t s o f Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n w a t e r f o r d a t a shown i n F i g u r e 9 . Sample s i z e s a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e 9 . A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The u p p e r and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t t h e u p p e r and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The u p p e r end of t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s than or equal to the upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end of t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or e q u a l t o . t h e l o w e r q u a r t i l e minus 1 . 5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e u p p e r and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d as "*".  Figure  76  0.25  \-  0.20  n Q.  0. 15  a  n  0 . 10  0.05  0.0  0.10  0.08  n a. a  0.06  CJ  0.04  0.02  h  h  0.0  K G  27 May  KG  6  16 26 June  KG  6  KG  16 26  5  July  date  K  K G  1983  15 25  4  Aug  Sep  G  14 24  77  between =5),  l a k e s and sampling  with  both  accounting 9).  for  the  first  the  greatest  Nonparametric  difference  dates  among  (NPANOVA, H=32.36, P < 0.05, d f  and  last  differences  multiple  comparisons  individual  sampling  probably  due t o t h e g r e a t e r power  a  II  type  compared  sampling  error),  of  to the multiple  for  between  lakes  failed  to  dates.  the nonparametric  Cs  (Figure  detect  a  Such a r e s u l t i s  ( power=(1-0),  comparison  dates  probability  analysis  of  of v a r i a n c e  test.  Zooplankton  Concentrations to  o f Rb a n d Cs i n z o o p l a n k t o n  concentrations  Concentrations variability quartile  were  Rb  and  again  among s a m p l i n g  plots  most c a s e s  of  (Figure  Cs  in  water  characterized dates  (Figure  12) i n d i c a t e d  that  (Figure  by a l a r g e 11),  and  11).  degree of  median  distributions  and  were i n  skewed t o w a r d s h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .  Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y lakes  were n o t s i m i l a r  but  t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t  differences  (NPANOVA; H=21.38, P < 0.05, d f = 5 ) .  Samples  were  taken  significantly  h i g h e r than  different  those  between  i n sampling  taken  dates  on ~ J u n e  on =* J u l y  27th  15  (NPMC,  q=8.53, P < 0.05, d f = 5 ) . Cesium  concentrations  increases  i n Cs i n G r e a t  to  levels  beyond  same  date,  the  Remaining  those or  samples  concentrations  in  Central  observed  zooplankton  L a k e on J u n e  marked  17th and J u l y  by 9th  i n Kennedy L a k e on a p p r o x i m a t e l y  i n comparisons showed  were  no  among d a t e s o r l a k e s .  with other marked  sampling  variation  dates. in  Cs  78  Figure  11. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb and Cs i n Kennedy and G r e a t C e n t r a l Lake z o o p l a n k t o n p l o t t e d a g a i n s t sampling d a t e s . F i r s t row o f numbers below f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t sample sizes. V e r t i c a l b a r s a r e 95 % c o n f i d e n c e l i m i t s on t h e mean.  10000  r-  aooo  n Q.  BOOO  a  n OC  4000  2000  r  2000  1500  n  Q. a  1000  01 CJ  500  T 0  h  J  1  1  1  6 6  4  14 May  24  1  1  8 6  3  13 June  I  I  I  7 2  23  3  8 7  13  23  July  date  I  1983  I  I  I  6 8  2  12 Aug  22  I  B 7  1  11 Sep  80  Figure  12. Q u a r t i l e and m e d i a n p l o t s o f Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n z o o p l a n k t o n f r o m Kennedy and G r e a t C e n t r a l L a k e f o r d a t a shown i n F i g u r e 11. Sample s i z e s a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e 11. A l o n g h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h the median of the d a t a . The upper and l o w e r extremes of the t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t the upper and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The u p p e r end of t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e range. The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t , i s g r e a t e r t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e l o w e r q u a r t i l e m i n u s 1.5 x the i n t e r q u a r t i l e range. A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e the upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d as "*".  81  12000 1000D  K  Kennedy  G  Great  Central  BQOO  n a a  6000  n  rr 4000 2000  i  0  2000  1500 n  o.  Q.  1000  Ul  U  500  U |l !  ll  K 4  K 14  May  24  KG 3  13  June  KG 23  3  KG 13  23  July  date  1983  K G 2  12  Aug  22  K G 1  11  Sep  82  Fish  The  concentrations  threespine  stickleback  variability  among  of  Rb  and Cs i n j u v e n i l e  were c h a r a c t e r i z e d  plots  cases d i s t r i b u t i o n s  were skewed e i t h e r  values. dates  Rb  by a l a r g e  sampling d a t e s and f i s h  median a n d q u a r t i l e  (Figures  concentrations  15-16)  towards  that or  small  different  among  with f i s h  sampled  25th  26th  (NPMC q=7.86 a n d q=8.26 r e s p e c t i v e l y ;  P < 0.05,  July  d a t e s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  from each o t h e r .  different  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs i n j u v e n i l e  stickleback exception about  sampled  i n most  May  The  fish  demonstrated  that  the  juvenile  same l e v e l  a similar  sockeye  captured  5 t h and  df=<=°,3).  a s f o r Rb, w i t h t h e  (Figures  at  14 and 1 6 ) .  was a s i g n i f i c a n t  dates  f o r Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s (NPANOVA, H=11.09, P < 0.05, d f = 4 ) . sockeye  concentrations sampled  on  Scheffe's  sampled  than  the  multiple  groups  on May 2 5 t h h a d s i g n i f i c a n t l y  either  same  fish  remained  There  Juvenile  between  on  and t h r e e s p i n e  offshore  o f Cs f o r a l l d a t e s interaction  on J u l y  sockeye  pattern  of  13-14), a n d  large  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  h i g h e r than  degree  (Figures  indicated  (NPANOVA, H=43.40; df=2, P < 0.05), significantly  sockeye and  date  group  of  (Figures  contrast  threespine  and  l o w e r Cs  stickleback  14 a n d 16, n o n p a r a m e t r i c  ( Z a r , 1984);  S=8.41,  P < 0.05,  n( 1 ) = n ( 2 ) = n ( 3 ) = 8 ) . Threespine higher  either  16) .  sampled  Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s t h a n J u l y  P < 0.05, d f = 8 ) . for  stickleback  on May 25 had s i g n i f i c a n t l y  5 t h a n d 2 8 t h samples  No o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s  the J u l y  5th or J u l y  were e v i d e n t  26th sampling d a t e s  (S=4.12,  among  groups  ( F i g u r e s 15-  83  Figure  13. Concentrations o f Rb from e a r l y s p r i n g t o m i d summer i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e a n d t h r e e s p i n e stickleback f r o m Kennedy L a k e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f f i s h . J u v e n i l e s o c k e y e were c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e ( o f f ) w h i l e t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k were c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e a n d o n s h o r e ( o n ) . Sample s i z e i s 8.  84  7000  o  •ate  B000  M/D/Y  sockeye-of f  5000  cft> 0  4000  •  2000  1  1000 0.0  0525B3  A  0705B3  •  072683  •  °°°  3000  o  •  A  0.05  •  •  1 0.10  •  1  0 . 15  0.25  0.20  0.30  7000 6000  stickleback-off  5000 n Q. CL  n  tx  4000 3000  oo r  2000  4* 1000 0.0  0. 1  0.2  Q.3  0.4  0.6  0.8  7000 6000  stickleback-on  5000 4000 3000  o 2000  ^«  o o A -  4>  A*  •  1000 0.0  0.2  0.4  dry  wt (g)  85  Figure  14. Concentrations o f Cs from e a r l y s p r i n g t o m i d summer i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e stickleback f r o m Kennedy L a k e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f f i s h . J u v e n i l e s o c k e y e were c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e ( o f f ) w h i l e t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k were c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e a n d o n s h o r e ( o n ) . Sample s i z e i s 8.  86  1000  sockeye-of f  •ate M/D/Y  800  o A  052583 070583 072683  •  BOO 400 200  - o 8«o 0.0  1000  A  0  A  0.05  a  0.20  0.25  0.30  o o  cn U  0. 15  0.10  stickleback-off  BOO  Ci  • A .A " A  o o  600  o  400 200  0.0 1000  0. 1  0.2  0.3  0.4  0.6  0.8  stickleback-on o  800 600 400 •  A A  AAA  200  O.Q  0.2  0.4 dry  wt (g)  87  Figure  15. Q u a r t i l e and median p l o t s o f Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f o r d a t a i n F i g u r e 13. Sample s i z e i s 8. A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The upper and lower extremes of the t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t the upper and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The upper end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end o f - t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or e q u a l t o the lower . q u a r t i l e m i n u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d a s "*".  60Q0 5000  sockeye-o f f  4000 3000  r  2000 1000  6000 5000  st ickleback-o f f  4000 3000 2000 h  1  1  1000  6000 5000  st ickleback-on  *  4000 3000 2000 1000 052583  070583 dates  M/D/Y  072683  89  Figure  16. Q u a r t i l e and median p l o t s o f Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f o r d a t a i n F i g u r e 14. Sample s i z e i s 8. A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The upper and lower extremes of the t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t the upper and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The upper end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s than or e q u a l t o the upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or e q u a l t o the lower q u a r t i l e minus 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d a s "*".  1000 sockeye-o f f  800 600 400 200 -  x  "I"  1  0  1000 st ickleback-Q f f  800 600 400 200 0  052583  070583 dates  M/D/Y  072683  91  The c o n c e n t r a t i o n and  o f Rb a n d Cs i n t h e stomach  juvenile  sockeye  threespine  determined  on a l l s a m p l i n g  dates  stickleback  t h a t were o b t a i n e d  were  a decrease  both  concentrations  stickleback  f r o m May  Rb  and  Cs  25th t o J u l y  could  not  due t o low sample w e i g h t s .  concentrations in  contents  26th,  in general  1983  agreement in  of be The with  threespine  (Table 9 ) .  92  T a b l e 9. C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f Rb a n d Cs i n stomach c o n t e n t s o f j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k from Kennedy l a k e . E a c h v a l u e r e p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s p e r f o r m e d on t h e p o o l e d stomach c o n t e n t s of e i g h t f i s h . sockeye offshore  Date M/D/Y  Rb  1  (ppb) Cs  052583 070583  1 400 1 300  73 133  072883  2100  235  1  site  of capture  stickleback offshore  stickleback onshore  Rb  Rb  1  (ppb) Cs  2800 4000  340 660  1 400 1 300 1 500 2400  90 1 40 280 160  1  (ppb) Cs  3600 4000 3400 2800  330 750 700 130  2800 1 400 1200 1800  130 150 220 67  93  Di s c u s s i o n  Springtime associated levels  shoreline.  into  and  (Davis  in  it  banks is  and  the  shoreline  Great  C e n t r a l Lake was  rains  Central  Cs  occur  Lake,  with  known as  i n 1983. not  Of  note,  filtered  once a g a i n data  Concentrations  of Rb  of  snow  as  and  trees along  possibly this  i n both  were  the  i n the  occurrence.  contributions  of  montane  alpine  and  Kennedy and well  of  Cs-  Cs-137  Great C e n t r a l  bound  by  soil  a s s o c i a t e d with high  water  water  from  i n c r e a s e i n the areas  visible  Kennedy  t o remove s u s p e n d e d  may  was  water  Cs  C e n t r a l L a k e were c l e a r l y  concentration  but  both  processes  Great  C e n t r a l Lake  whether c o n t e n t  is particularly  erosional  Kennedy  and  and  surrounding  not  Cesium  along  Rubidium  shrubs  (1969) m e n t i o n p o s s i b l e  lakes.  1963), and  levels  Great  melting  associated  i n snow w i t h e l e v a t i o n ,  are c o a s t a l  heavy  be  snow  However,  varies  and  surrounding  to  Whicker  melting  lakes.  rainfall  the  appear  and  from  Kennedy  E l e v a t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb  month of May  137  both  w i t h heavy  rose  Nelson  in  solids. fall  of Kennedy and  insufficient  to  and  when Great  confirm  this  supposition.  reflect  and  water c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .  directly  from  water,  1961,  from  t o f o o d s o u r c e s may  water  King  1964).  seasonal trends  i n zooplankton  Zooplankton  food being  Pickering  similar  Cs  the primary  The  d i d not  absorb source  little  and  zooplankton.  Cs-137  ( W i l l i a m s and  i n t e r m e d i a t e s t e p of Rb  h a v e dampened t h e  i n water  directly  and  appearance In  Cs of  addition,  94  water  s a m p l e s were a s s e s s e d  include  fractions  for  of the l a t t e r  p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r t h a t may as the s o l u b l e Elevated July  in  Central  numbers t o s e r i o u s l y net.  rendering  between  years  either  compared  the  Lake  impede  or  lower  trace  average  bicuspidatus,  "90%  limits.  adult Bosmina  coreqoni,  Separation  In a  slime",  bound to  to  biota  of  shifts  to the  through  the  particular as  lakes  "slime" trace  a and  results elements  but t h i s a s p e c t  was  not  of zooplankton s p e c i e s f o r appear  t o be h i n d e r e d  by  weight  1977-1978 s u r v e y o f G r e a t  Central  abundance),  and  Holopedium  species were:  Diaptomus  crystallina. Comparisons  In of  Cyclops In  species in  oregonensis, Kennedy  juvenile  Lake, sockeye  i n Kennedy L a k e would a p p e a r i n Rb  (over  qibberum.  t h e most a b u n d a n t  bicuspidatus,  stickleback  sudden  this  in  t o r e a c h a sample  coreqoni,  rare.  Cs  in sufficient  elements w i t h i n  would  zooplankton  g i b b e r u m was  and  content  ( 1 9 7 9 ) , t h e most abundant  Sida  u n h i n d e r e d by  would  be r e l a t e d  water  concentrations  and  threespine  June,  (1968a) draw  Presumably  t h e same a u t h o r s r e p o r t e d  Holopedium and  its  in  of  et a l .  metal a n a l y s i s  Kennedy L a k e a s : C y c l o p s Bosmina  flow  zooplankton species,  Rankin et a l .  contrast,  and  available  s p e c i e s was  number o f o r g a n i s m s r e q u i r e d  by  Cs,  be t i g h t l y  possibly  This  the  more d i f f i c u l t .  detection  10% o f  may  qibberum.  by t h e a u t h o r s .  large  within  Lake  and Cs  comparisons of s t a b l e  with other  subsequent  o f Rb  s p e c i e s and  higher  addressed  which would  Kolehmainen  to this  factor  in  and  n o t be a s r e a d i l y  concentrations  presence of Holopedium  attention  Rb  fraction.  Great  zooplankton  total  and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  t o be  in  the  95  potential result  does not  t h a t may as n o t in  negate  be h i g h  i n Rb  to s e r i o u s l y  zooplankton.  would be In  f o o d base a s was  this  Central  likely  of Rb  possible and  alter  Cs  i n Great  selection  but  However,  and  Cs  The  such  an  May  and  among f i s h  more  concentrations  observed  in  0.47  abrupt  decrease  turnover  in  similar  spring  ppb  i n June, i n Cs  and  ppb  rapid  in  the  laboratory  explanation  f o r the decrease  concentrations rainfall  and  in  in the  rapid  samples. while  Great  The  great  in Great burdens  in  Cs-137 spring  stickleback  in  concentrations Nelson  in  (1969)  stable  Cs  ppb in  C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of  in April July.  excretion  than  stable  in were  A change  Although  biological  (Nelson  1969). Cs  No  could  ppb the  half-lives satisfactory be  spring  largemouth possibly  t o 7.59  by w h i t e c r a p p i e ,  faced with explaining  lake turnover.  Cs  zooplankton  body  July.  summer.  7.88  determined  decreases  early  16.5  more  summer  so  (Plomoxis a n n u l a r i s ) i n the  from  implied  also  in  elevated  decreases  and  was  (1971) was  fish  and  of  threespine  from  crappies  time  Spigarelli  in  uniform,  of d i f f e r e n c e s  Cs  crappie decreased  i n May,  by  difficult.  of  white  C l i n c h R i v e r between i n white  quite  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n J u n e and  strikingly  concentrations  Cs  occurrence  This  i n numbers  Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n z o o p l a n k t o n  make d e t e c t i o n  t o lower  low  increase in variance  Kennedy Lake were marked by a d r o p in  items  s u b j e c t t o g r e a t e r sample v a r i a t i o n .  i n Rb  L a k e may  of p r e y  Lake.  t h e mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb  marked by an  Lake was  Central  sufficiently  r e s p e c t Kennedy L a k e a p p e a r e d  variability Central  observed  found. to  bass.  associated  in feeding habits  early High with  appeared  96  to  e x p l a i n some o f t h e v a r i a b i l i t y  no d e f i n i t e The Lake  in  May  was  D.  Hyatt,  pers.  evening  Threespine  the  juvenile lower  comm.).  were  sockeye than  though  It  Kennedy  both  species  entirely  on  appears  unlikely  o f f s h o r e with  migrating  in  concentrations in  However,  feed almost  s t i c k l e b a c k caught  late  caught  o f Cs i n  i n May  summer months,  reached.  s t i c k l e b a c k on t h e same d a t e .  threespine the  be  significantly  t h e l i m n e t i c zone  (K.  could  concentrations  threespine in  conclusion  during  zooplankton that  j u v e n i l e sockeye i n  onshore  during  the  day.  s t i c k l e b a c k o f t h e same s i z e a n d c o l o r a t i o n a s  o f f s h o r e were n o t c a p t u r e d day.  It  may  be  i n beach  seine  that  juvenile  proposed  hauls  those during  sockeye  and  threespine  stickleback selected different  zooplankton  fractions  and  these  i n Rb arid Cs  content.  that  Clearly, detect  fractions  f u r t h e r advances differences  difference  in  were d i f f e r e n t  i n u s e o f Rb a n d Cs a s a t e c h n i q u e diet  must  i n Rb a n d Cs c o n t e n t  Contrary exhibited  a  t o C s , Rb similar  concentrations drop  differently  than  i n Rb o r  Cs  stickleback captured  juvenile  s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e  experiments  concentrations  Threespine  Why  May  i n both  and  July  threespine  Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  concentrations  uptake  days.  species  behaved  Cs was n o t known.  Cesium  elevated  between  i n concentrations  and j u v e n i l e sockeye.  threespine  individual  of prey.  stickleback  No i n c r e a s e  address  to  of  onshore  in  Chapter  Cs i n t h e i r first  observed  i n Kennedy L a k e 2  stickleback  s t i c k l e b a c k were  was  in July.  demonstrated should  diet  in  that  respond  within at least  present  onshore  to 8  in late  97  May  and  therefore  equilibrate appears  to e x i s t i n g  unlikely  would d i e b e f o r e concentrations cycle and  threespine  enough t i m e had in  food.  appears  may  be be  stickleback difference gut  contents  In b l u e g i l l s , 1 %  loss  for  stickleback  Cs  (1976) r e p o r t s a least  to  i n prey.  to r e f l e c t  Cs  a sink  f o r Rb  contents  of  contained  threespine  of  Cs-137  males  was  It  onshore  Rb  and  Cs  reproductive  several  weeks,  though  onshore but  t o be  4.8  noticeable  when  Nelson  %  compared offshore.  for  1969).  a major  sink  this  threespine  no  noted  f r o m gonads was  appear  Cs,  stickleback captured  ( K o l e h m a i n e n and not  and  eggs  concentrations  of  e g g s do  and  July  repeated.  Stomach  and  late  stickleback captured  s t i c k l e b a c k of at  frequently i n Rb  by  of Rb  elapsed  Wootton  v i e w e d as  unlikely.  time  concentrations  that  c y c l e may  Gonads  and  sufficient  i n male t h r e e s p i n e  this  with  had  females  Threespine for  Rb  and  affect  the  cesium. Near  starvation  distribution that  small that  and  below a c e r t a i n  stickleback the  o f Rb  of  of the  threespine  smaller  Cs  food  to  abundant littoral  may  in tissues.  t h r e s h o l d of  were o b s e r v e d  presence size  conditions  however,  Wootton  food  i n t a k e , female  l o o s e weight d u r i n g f o o d were a b l e  zone  i n Kennedy  compared  to threespine  observed threespine  spawning but  to gain weight. Lake  s t i c k l e b a c k s p a w n i n g o n s h o r e may  resource  (1976)  would be  in The  suggest  faced with  a  stickleback feeding  offshore. Changes Kennedy  Lake  in may  the be  concentrations governed  by  of Rb a  and  number  Cs of  in fish  from  factors.  98  Kolehmainen from  (1972) o b s e r v e d  spring  to  (Notemiqonus and  of  times.  rate,  The  Increasing  Rb  in  in  Rb  stickleback  and  selection  of  their  offshore.  Presence  resulted tissues.  in  prey,  only  Threespine  were e l e v a t e d  will  of  Rb  be  elimination complex.  correlated and  with  decreases  differences  and  in  and  Cs  juvenile  Cs  threespine  s i m i l a r to  zooplankton  Cs  concentrations  sockeye  in  May  fractions.  required  to  stickleback of  Rb  of  Rb  will  this  onshore and  sticklebacks in  Cs  i n May Cs  require  to in  captured  Chapter  certain substrate of  and  However, more validate  t r a n s f e r experiments over  between suggested  stickleback  threespine  concentrations  assumption  in  concentrations  feeding  concentrations  though t h i s  in  threespine  with  from the  elevated  body  absorption,  4)  stickleback  zooplankton  of  compared  that  that  1)  stickleback  However,  juvenile  r e s u l t in higher  Results  demonstrated  lake  threespine  and  investigations  tissues  cepedianum),  unresolved.  different  b r e e d d i d not  and  shiners  f a c t o r s would a p p e a r  in threespine  Differences  stickleback  speculation.  factors  in food,  concentrations  threespine  golden  suggested  four  Kennedy  sockeye.  concentrations  (Dorosoma  j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e were not  concentrations.  detailed  Cs  remain  conclusion,  by  these  in  between  i n May  In  and  juvenile  concentrations sockeye  of  shad  (1972)  concentrations  interplay  i n Cs-137  bluegills,  gizzard  determined  temperatures  decreases in  3)  in  Kolehmainen  Cs-137 was  feeding  summer  crysoleucas),  largemouth bass.  burden 2)  early  a decrease  3  types  Rb  and  Cs  in  fish  may  have  fed  in  areas  were  not  further  present  in  investigation.  99  CHAPTER 5  Diet  history  and c o m p e t i t i o n  as indexed  by r u b i d i u m  and cesium  Introduction  A its  competitor  density,  2)  many a f f e c t influencing  density  such  affecting  i t s use o f food  and  Larkin  habitat  or food  habitat  trout  greater  appear  as a r e s u l t  Svardson  divergence  competition resource seasonal  1983).  or  its 3)  Johannes  i n numbers, e x t i n c t i o n o r  1959).  t o take  (1979) were a b l e  o f f e e d i n g , and  Frequently,  the  t h e form of changes i n  i n food  when  appears  they  environments  found  Nilsson  congeneric  a displacement  of a r c t i c  (1958) p r e s e n t s  or h a b i t a t preference occur  and (Werner  together.  population Hall,  with  levels, 1979).  habitat  by  evidence f o r  i n two  The  considerably  and  in  among 3  i t s preferred l i t t o r a l  to fluctuate  availability  t o demonstrate changes  of c o m p e t i t i o n  (1949)  Salmo t r u t t a .  Coregonus  mortality,  range, area  (Burgner  S a l v e l i n u s a l p i n u s , from  brown  affect  preferences.  preference  Centrachidae.  might  s o c k e y e t h e e f f e c t s may be a s s u b t l e a s  competition  Werner and H a l l  of  a reduction  composition  of  and  (Connell  i n schooling d e n s i t y , search  effects  that  growth,  or h a b i t a t  cite  In j u v e n i l e  food-species  char  factors  fecundity,  (1961)  emigration. changes  as  a s e c o n d s p e c i e s b y : 1) a l t e r i n g  species  intensity  of  changes  in  particularly in Indeed,  the  100  foregoing  factors often  supposition Conditions however, Larkin  due  some  a f t e r the obscure  form  detection  species to  of  fluctuations  to  assess  "competing  species"  competition,  as  investigator excess  of  (1956).  Hence  the  and  potential juvenile  lead  to  fish  the  place.  environment  may  (Johannes  and  sockeye  and  instance, smelt  be  an  a  of  cautious  for  (1968), between  food  has  potential  but  threespine  been o n l y  by  more e x t e n s i v e  Foerster  with  proposed  of the in  a  strict  by  Larkin  been a d o p t e d  Krokhin  by  (1956),  (1973)  where  stickleback  juvenile  and  and  the  be  regional  in  required.  occurrence  ninespine  sockeye,  attention.  (1968) a p p e a r  i n v e s t i g a t i o n may  olidus)  of  same r e s o u r c e s  widespread  (1968) m e n t i o n s  (Hypomesus  called  part  is  be  suggested.  received Foerster  may  definition  Markovtsev  competitors  have  mentioned  and  and  number  so  the  a p p r o a c h has  Krogius  former.  large  latter as  the  The  f o r the The  feasible  availability  on  competition  (1959),  to a  rigid  inability  definition more  host  resource  escape  supply.  stickleback  impact,  abundance of  variable.  immediate  Rogers  the  species  can and  juvenile  b a s i s appear q u i t e  the  highly  may  Nelson  sockeye  threespine  1968), or  competition  Among  in  lakes  r e s u l t of  a  Ruggles(1965),  pond  i n the  between  d e m o n s t r a t e a demand  the of  Greenbank  a  to  component  For  occurred  a superficial  (Foerster  difficult  their  that  interaction i s taking  competition  w o u l d on  large  species  Other  conditions  i n t e r a c t i o n s between  However, s o c k e y e p r o d u c i n g of  of  c h a n g e has  past  the  1961)..  The other  that  generate  of  the  stickleback  101  (Pungitius  pungitius)  clupeaformis) aleuticus) Burgner  i n M o r r i s o n Lake, and  and u n s p e c i f i e d  (1972)  stickleback  also  (1973)  i n the p e l a g i c char  zone  were  littoral  ages  1+ a n d 2+ r e m a i n e d  zone.  the  et a l .  threespine  during  live  (1969),  zone  zone  reported  stickleback  sockeye  occurrence  ninespine  sockeye  i n Lake  juvenile  to  about  were of  stickleback.  while  eaters.  threespine  The  was d u r i n g zone  foraging  the  summer  mature  (Markovtsev  excursions of  into the limnetic  of  s t i c k l e b a c k of  while  spawn  period  i n contrast to  threespine zone  sockeye,  fish  1973). 3  zone o f Lake  year Dalnee  season. Lakes,  (Rogers  f l y larvae,  crustaceans  Hartman a n d  the  eaters  i n the p e l a g i c  threespine  1968).  Both  mid-July  pupae,  insects  alone  of  to  both  moved  1968). the  Wood  copepods, species,  i n the d i e t  appeared t o  i n the spring  species  (Rogers  cyclopoid  important  winged  stickleback  the l i t t o r a l  zone o f l o w e r L a k e A l e k n a g i k , p a r t midge  Dalnee,  i n the p e l a g i c  3 years and o c c u p i e d  limnetic  Lake  In Lake Dalnee,  t h e Wood R i v e r  juvenile  (Cottus  presence of 3 species of  i n the l a t t e r  littoral  t h e spawning  In  the  benthos  overlap  the  old  of  w i t h young  as zooplankton  in diet  months, w i t h g r e a t e s t  Krogius  of  optional  similarity  into  presence  Lake.  ( S a l v e l i n u s a l p i n u s ) , and t h r e e s p i n e  stickleback  moved  the  reported  S o c k e y e were c l a s s i f i e d  greatest  sculpins  minnows i n C u l t u s  note  (Coregonus  Dalnee.  Markovtsev  arctic  whitefish  aleutian  as a p o t e n t i a l competitor  N e r k a and L a k e  fish  i n Kamchatka, e a s t e r n  into  with the  In t h e l i t t o r a l River  lakes;  insects, with .  of j u v e n i l e  and  greater  sockeye.  102  In  threespine  to  j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e but  materials not  were  important  stickleback of  stickleback  i n the  threespine Lake  i n the  result. data  i t was  the  threespine  sockeye It also  not  i s of  stickleback consumed in  possible  as  resource  was  juvenile atlantic This  (1976) in  the  threespine an  as  on  abundance at  deeper  of  mature  observed  the  amount o f  absence of that  the  Spruce  and  with  consumed  available  food  eaten  that  only  threespine  by  by the  have  atlantic  threespine  Newfoundland,  larvae, while  pelagic  shared  between  juvenile  Ponds,  that  this  stickleback  observed  chironomid  in  latter.  threespine  (1984)  Lake  of  s u g g e s t e d by  based  (1984) c o n c l u d e d  a  those  daphnids  small  part  of  sticklebacks  and the and  salmon.  separation  threespine  abundance t o  similar  Gull  i n s e c t s were  excursions  be  plant  would have been u t i l i z e d  and  cladocerans  flexibility  to h a b i t a t  that  that  Ryan  Headwater  Ryan  may  similar  and  feeding  zone  a p o t e n t i a l competitor  Little  bosminids.  Similar  (1973)  i n the  salar).  in  suggested  to estimate  population  winged  Lake A l e k n a g i k  limnetic  (1968) c o n c l u d e d  benthic  nearby  food  i n t o the  eggs  c e r t a i n catches  1968).  i n t e r e s t to note  (Salmo  d i e t , and  zone o f  (Rogers  fry population  been c i t e d  salmon  littoral  Markovtsev  Rogers  the In  z o n e , d i e t was  stickleback  stomach c o n t e n t s  lake  by  of  1968).  stickleback  Dalnee  littoral  threespine part  (Rogers i n the  copepods  levels  also  i n the  in threespine  in certain lakes.  stickleback  in Great  j u v e n i l e sockeye  organisms,  s t i c k l e b a c k may  salmon.  nevertheless,  In a Central Both  competition  study  also  extend  by  Manzer  Lake were species was  second fed  on  j u d g e d as  not  103  s e r i o u s as  threespine  limnetic  zone  inhabitants. available fall.  of as  ) and  with fish  the  Although  occurred 1969  where  not  were food  as of  only  to  of  and  Cs  Cs  s t i c k l e b a c k and  on  Cs  selected  and  (1976),  (Krogius Perhaps  the have  et  al.  in  lakes  become e x h a u s t e d  of  and  the  lake.  borders  juvenile  from one  patterns  in  In  a  Lake of  the  s t i c k l e b a c k appeared Lake.  sockeye  w i t h i n and lake  other  salmon the  among be  lakes.  The  in  i n two  both lakes  limnetic  and  i n two  restricted  t o the  I t was  and  cannot  determined  in both  Lake A l e k n a g i k ,  would  the  lateral  j u v e n i l e sockeye  concentrations  of  Columbia  stickleback in Cultus  were t h e r e f o r e  Cultus  British  v a r i a b l e both  in fish  C e n t r a l and  by  i n midsummer  1968).  between  Kennedy and  and  less  salmon.  littoral  zone, G r e a t  were  p e l a g i c zone may  areas  stickleback occurred  which t h r e e s p i n e  Manzer  littoral  where t h r e e s p i n e zone,  by  Lake,  appears  and  day  Cultus  interaction  Rb  the  the  exclusive  stickleback  resources  infringing  representative  concentrations  the  in  periodically.  j u v e n i l e sockeye  A n a l y s i s of Rb  threespine  food  (1968) t h r e e s p i n e  stickleback  considered  almost  the  (Rogers  stickleback in  degree of  threespine lakes.  offshore  Foerster  supply  area,  into  captured  f o r Lake D a l n e e  Lakes  restricted  viewed  The  earlier  littoral  forage  by  zone d u r i n g  a c o n c l u s i o n drawn  t h e Wood R i v e r  appear  review  were  foraging excursions  Threespine also  littoral  suggested  limited must  sockeye  However, l a r g e r t h r e e s p i n e  in  existence  s t i c k l e b a c k were r a r e l y  postulated  lakes  and in  littoral that  Rb  reflect  the  different  habitats  onshore-benthic-consumers  and  offshore-plankton-  104  consumers, mentioned  and  two  and  by  in f i s h  displayed limnetic This  an  Cs  Cultus  ideal  affinity  model  all  are  including  are  mainly  to  items of  consume a v a r i e t y of well  as  other  fish  form the  column. diet  fish  community  which  in  The  fish  lake  species Included  (Richardsonius prickly  eggs,  was  an  other  than  in  this  balteatus),  sculpin  (Cottus  oregonensis).  The  d i e t s of  cited  and  Crossman  by  Scott by  these  small  fish,  and  authors, food  immature  Peamouth c h u b  almost  consume  with  crustaceans. fish  the Large  e g g s , young of  i n c l u d i n g sockeye  salmon.  own  forms  of  identical  a d d i t i o n of prickly  items  their  i n s e c t i v o r o u s consuming  species  found  of  a d i v e r s e number of  items such as  limnetic  s e d i m e n t s and  exploration  indicated  shiners  form  benthic  open water  1968).  been As  i n the  tag.  diet  consume  redside  planktonic  i n the  caurinus),  mollusks,  food  a  the  bottom  for  shiners  (1968).  insects.  as  have  shiners  algae,  over  (Ptychocheilus  species  most a q u a t i c  as  lakes  These a u t h o r s  j u v e n i l e sockeye.  redside  Foerster  but  variety  of  r e f e r r e d t o as  rather diverse  exploring  squawfish  redside  eggs,  groups  Columbia,  (Foerster  (Mylocheilus  these  (1973) and large  a  s t i c k l e b a c k and  and  of  two  (1984).  suited  concentrations  for  peamouth c h u b asper),  ideally  Lake c o n t a i n s  community  McPhail  for feeding  j u v e n i l e sockeye  threespine  species,  for feeding  affinity  p a i r was  and  includes  distinct  B e n t z e n and  f o r m an  Rb  the  from Enos L a k e , B r i t i s h  species  using  in  stickleback also display variability  morphologically  benthics  that  contrast  above.  Threespine of  would  a  wide  sculpin their  own  Squawfish  105  over  10cm  in length,  consume m a i n l y  i n s e c t s ' and some p l a n k t o n . September shiners  in Cultus  conclusion,  sockeye vary  lakes  in  terrestrial  during  (Foerster  threespine  between  to  1968).  s t i c k l e b a c k and  Central, Cultus,  competition  May  t o consume  use o f h a b i t a t s , u p t a k e p a t t e r n s  i n Great  which  specifically  stickleback since  in their  Cs were examined  but i n c l u d e  Lake s q u a w f i s h have been o b s e r v e d  and t h r e e s p i n e  In  More  fish  and  o f Rb  Lake  these  juvenile and  Aleknagik,  species  has  been  which  two  suggested. E n o s Lake was distinct habits,  examined  varieties  of  as  open  water column.  this  d i f f e r e n c e in feeding  containing  Lake  Whether  was  over  habits  examined  as  to determine  used  to detect  a difference in diet  using  Rb  associations sockeye  was  reliability.  and other  essential  i n the  used  detect  to  evaluated. a  sockeye  between  habitat  concentrations  than  feeding  the other  producing  fish.  This  i f Rb a n d Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  distinguish Cs  be  insectivorous  examined  in  distinct  substrates,  was  was  to  lake  display  Rb and Cs c o u l d  b o t h p i s c i v o r o u s and  The a b i l i t y  small  sticklebacks  one b e t t e r a t f o r a g i n g  Cultus  a  threespine in determining  in  these  two  stickleback  lakes and  t h e method's  lake  could  be  groups.  utilization these  lake  patterns and  in  juvenile  utility  and  1 06  Materials  Section  1: S y m p a t r i c  Sticklebacks on  June  6,  methods  sticklebacks(Enos  were c o l l e c t e d  1985.  f o r m s of b o t h  and  Fish  by  Lake)  beach seine  were d i v i d e d i n t o  sexes a c c o r d i n g  to c r i t e r i a  from  benthic  Enos  Lake  and  limnetic  by  McPhail  outlined  (1984). The in  close  f o r m was distance analyzed on  benthic  f o r m of  proximity captured of  t o the an  8  and fish.  Cs  captured  s h o r e l i n e (l-2m),  extended  approximately  f o r Rb  groups of  by  s t i c k l e b a c k was  6m.  sweep of Fish  concentrations.  and  the  by  beach  seine  while  the l i m n e t i c  beach  seine  stomach c o n t e n t s  Analysis  was  to  a  were  performed  107  Results  The  concentrations  f o r m , were h i g h l y  o f Rb a n d C s , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h  variable  Concentrations  of  among g r o u p s  Rb  (KW, Rb: H=12.86,  with  males having  than  benthic  benthic than  females  limnetic  The total  themselves benthic  (Table  females  concentrations the and  with  sample  in  and  Rb  higher  limnetic  Cs  males  df=<»,4),  and  concentrations  (NPMC, q = 6 . l 5 a n d  P < 0.05).  o f Rb i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s observed  differences  not  benthic  In  with  The measurement o f  were  among  not the  in fish  o f Rb were h i g h e s t i n  males.  o f Cs d i d n o t c o n f l i c t  contents  df=3),  concentrations  P < 0.05,  The c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  stomach  weights.  q=5.0l,  different  P < 0.05,  higher  10).  f i s h themselves. Cs  significantly  df=»,4;  concentrations agreement  H=21.86,  significantly  females  q=4.88, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  Cs:  (NPMC,  females having  17-18).  a n d Cs were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  among g r o u p s benthic  (Figures  sex and  contrast,  patterns  the  observed  concentrations  o f a l l f i s h were hampered  of  in Rb  by low  108  Figure  17. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb i n t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f r o m E n o s Lake p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f f i s h . Sample s i z e i s 8.  109  benthic  males  limnetic  males  8000  6000  4000  2000  n a  0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60  a  0.00 0.10 0.20  0.30  n benthic  8000  6000  o  females  limnetic  females  o  o  o o° 4000  2000  -1  I  I  l_  0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 dry  0.00 wt (g)  0.03  0.06  0.09  1 10  Figure  18. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs i n t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f r o m Enos L a k e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f f i s h . Sample s i z e i s 8.  Ill  benthic  males  limnetic  males  3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500  JQ Q. D.  0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60  CO CJ  3000  benthic  0.00 0.10 0.20  females  limnetic  0.30  females  2500 2000 1500 1000 500  0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 dry  0.00 wt (g)  0.03  0.06  0.09  T a b l e 10. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Rb and Cs i n s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s o f t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k from Enos l a k e . Stomach c o n t e n t s i n e a c h g r o u p ( 8 ) were p o o l e d p r i o r t o analysis. stickleback male ( b e n t h i c ) female ( b e n t h i c ) male ( l i t t o r a l ) female ( l i t t o r a l )  Rb(ppb) 4800 6100 6000 2400  Cs(ppb) 78~0 700 700 680  11 3  Discussion  B e n t z e n and foraging  abilities  substrate.  difference  i n Cs  results  indicated vary  Rb  Rb  or  Cs  and  The  f e m a l e s on in benthic  found  the  a natural were  though  no  same f i s h .  The  m a l e s compared  to  i n the  in benthic  in  males  females,  m a l e s and  around  males  were f o u n d  their  (Wootton  nest  benthic  males  those  l i m n e t i c males are  of  comm,). two  substrate threespine  The  did  not  in  males.  higher  s t i c k l e b a c k s compared w i t h  by  benthic  males  of  the  nest  areas  only Rb  fish  sites  may  be  (D.  the  further  and of  while  McPhail  gravel(mud)  concentrations  of  a  indicated that  captured  occupation  mud  males defend  i n t r u d i n g females  open  and  between  occupation  Benthic  from  over  opposed t o sand  h o l d i n g experiment  of  fed  i n patches of v e g e t a t i o n more  in  significantly  having  by  3  cobble,  concentrations  substrates,  result  prediction  as  In E n o s L a k e ,  long-term  associated  Rb  sand,  However, fish  Chapter  stickleback did  over  explained  site  predominantly  mud  previous  substrates  are  in  benthic  1976).  in  substrates  be  in  in threespine  substrates.  f e m a l e s may by  experiment  were h e l d  differences  territory  The  was  when f i s h  gravel(mud)  substrates  the  benthic  long-term  gravel(mud)  associated  of  in  concentrations  concentrations  alone.  benthic  pers.  difference  m a l e s and  were h i g h e r  significantly  sand(mud)  other  no  concentrations  than  from the  that  sand(mud),  cobble  benthic  concentrations of  found  females.  The  higher  of  higher  concentrations benthic  (1984)  In c o n t r a s t , Rb  significantly  not  McPhail  mud  in  offshore. associated refined  to  11 4  gravel(mud) different  s u b s t r a t e s , as  i n Rb  Benthic sand  and  only  and  differences  they  higher  Cs  have  stickleback stickleback  that  of  fed  the  that  patterns of  in  Bentzen  display on  Cs  feeding  long-term  s a n d and  of  Rb  to  which  area.  fish  have  Different  McPhail  f e d and  conflict that  abilities  The  though such  in  fish.  not  was  than  concentrations  not  reflect  the  the  detect  patterns  (1984)  foraging  only  depends how  long  habitat with  the  benthic limnetic of Cs  disagree  case  longer  results  to  onshore  E n o s Lake would not and  Cs  of E n o s L a k e s t i c k l e b a c k s d i d not  accumulation  threespine  Present  and  offshore u t i l i z a t i o n  do  substrates  from l i m n e t i c males  concentrations.  a natural substrate.  in fish,  over  experiment,  cobble  compared  different  ability  better  However, stomach c o n t e n t s Cs  the  to  In Enos L a k e s t i c k l e b a c k s ,  s u b s t r a t e over in  stomach c o n t e n t s results  in  i n o n s h o r e and  observations  and  In  significantly  l i m n e t i c males.  restricted  concentrations  offshore.  females  type  utilization  the  substrates.  f e m a l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  suggest  the  type  captured  limnetic  would  compared w i t h  s t i c k l e b a c k h e l d over  possessed  benthic  m a l e s were not  f e m a l e s w o u l d have been  cobble  stickleback  on  concentrations  threespine  alone,  benthic  for  in  with Rb.  p e r i o d of  Rb  1 15  M a t e r i a l s and  Section  2:  J u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and  Habitat  utilization  concentrations were  in  Lake A l e k n a g i k .  were: a)  Lake  -  May  patterns  Kennedy,  One  f r y , sockeye  dates  o r more  of  smolts  or  27th,  1983,  c)  1985.  were c a p t u r e d  fish  with.the  exception  captured  at  a  on  and  g r o u p s of  Cs 8  of  to t h e i r  fence  e)  1983,  beach  the  in f l e s h .  and  Cs  stickleback Babine,  were  b)  and  sampled:  Great  - July  Cultus  from on  Rb  s t i c k l e b a c k s Sampling  18th,  Lake  -  Central 1983,  May  s e i n e or midwater  Babine  Lake  and  trawl  Fish  analyzed  A n a l y s i s was  d)  15th,  which  Babine R i v e r .  r e s p e c t i v e groupings  concentrations fish.  following  25th,  by  by  threespine  threespine  and  smolts  counting  divided according Rb  indexed  Lake A l e k n a g i k  1985,  stickleback  Central, Cultus,  the  Kennedy L a k e - May  29th,  both  as  Great  B a b i n e L a k e - May All  threespine  f o r j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and  examined  sockeye  methods  were were for  performed  1 16  Results  Smolts  Cultus both and  Lake y i e l d e d l a r g e s i l v e r  midwater onshore  trawl  Both  sample w e i g h t s 19  groups compared  -  21).  to Both  by  total Foerster  sockeye of  lengths  (Table  agreed  their  1st  concluded  lengths  year  Foerster  that  as  The Cultus  for at  on  n=8,  2 year  the  in Cultus of  both  for 2  (1929).  On  1 more y e a r  smolt  1929). reported  lengths i n the  of  spring  groups captured  in  year  migrants  in  this  basis  i n C u l t u s L a k e on  least  smolts  sockeye  smolts  Lake  the  individual  Lake  total  fry)  of  (Foerster  sockeye  with  reported  o f Rb  i n 1+  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y the  same d a t e  median o f  sample 810  ppb).  different  between  df=1,n=8).  2 year  in  and  May  it  15th,  was 1985  were a c c o r d i n g l y  fish.  concentrations  offshore df=1,  1+  Lake  and  sockeye captured  were r e s i d e n t f i s h labelled  1  and  sockeye  low  Babine  mean l e n g t h s  well with by  L a k e were of  year  salmon  f r y i n any  and  presented  The  sockeye  Kennedy  f r y ) , captured  11).  sockeye  smaller  from C u l t u s Lake  1 year  (1929) a r e  (excluding  1985  1985  of  with  ( no  from C u l t u s  m i g r a n t s have been r e c o r d e d The  (caught  i n beach s e i n e h a u l s  catches).  (Figures  catches  coloured  (KW,  onshore  sockeye c a p t u r e d  higher  Rb: sample  H=6.353, 1000  Cesium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s these  two  than  groups  ppb,  1+  onshore  sockeye  0.01  <  in  captured P <  median of  0.05,  onshore  were  not  significantly  (KW,  H=3,048, P >  0.05,  11 7  Figure  19. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f r o m Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y weight of f i s h . (soc=sockeye, s t = t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k , on=captured onshore, o f f = c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e , 1+ = f i s h r e s i d e n t f o r a t l e a s t 1 more y e a r i n t h e l a k e ) . Sample s i z e i s 8.  Kennedy  lake  8000  6000  4000  A  S  A  2000 r  0 Cultus  O  soc f r y  A  et-off  +  aoc-amolta  lake o  8000  aoc f r y  B  aoc-on  +  aoc-off  A  at-on  1+ 1+  6000  4000 A  2000  AA  fe +  0.0  0.1  B  +  0.2 dry  0.3  0.4  wt (g)  0.5  0.6  119  Figure  20. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f r o m Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t dry weight of f i s h . (soc=sockeye, st=threespine s t i c k l e b a c k , on=captured onshore, o f f = c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e , 1+ = f i s h r e s i d e n t f o r a t l e a s t 1 more y e a r i n t h e l a k e ) . Sample s i z e i s 8.  120  Kennedy  lake  1400 0  1200  soc f r y  A  st-off  +  soc  smolts  1000 BOO 600 400 200  8>  n Q. Q.  tn u  A  +"  + +  0  Cultus  lake  1400 1200  -  A  1000 800  -  600  -  400  -  200  -  +  +  0  0.0  soc f r y  A  st-on  B  soc-on  +  soc-off  1+ 1+  *• H  A +  7  O  * + L_  0.1  0.2  0.3 dry  wt  0.4 (g)  0.5  0.6  121  Figure  21. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb and Cs i n s o c k e y e s m o l t s f r o m Kennedy and B a b i n e L a k e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f fish. Sample s i z e i s 8  10000  8000  n a a  6000  o  Kennsdy  X  Bablna  mj X  X  £  X  X  x  X  X  4000  X  2000  0 1000 800 n a a  600  u  400  ui  200  0 .0  0.2  0.4 0.6 d r y wt (g)  0.8  1. 0  T a b l e 11. T o t a l l e n g t h s of 1yr and 2yr s o c k e y e migrants i n t h e i r f i r s t y e a r as r e p o r t e d by F o e r s t e r (1929) f o r C u l t u s Lake compared w i t h j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e c a p t u r e d from C u l t u s Lake on May 15th, 1985. Category 1 yr migrants 2yr migrants  1 2  mean l e n g t h mm  standard deviation mm  coefficent of v a r i a t i o n  1  82.4  5.3  1 5.68  1  58.5  3.0  19.76  trawl  2  48  3  16.0  seine  2  52  9  6.7  F o e r s t e r (1929), T h i s study  based  on  scale  readings  124  Concentrations  o f Rb and Cs  were  among s m o l t s f r o m Kennedy and B a b i n e offshore  in  Cultus  higher  concentrations  Babine  Lake  Contrast  compared  of  In c o m p a r i n g were  caught sockeye  and  sockeye  i n Cultus  concentrations  (NPANOVA;  lakes,  concentrations  observed P < 0.05,  Cs  df  significantly than C u l t u s  Lake  Lake,  than C u l t u s between  Lake  Lake  1+  Although both groups  captured  (Figure 22). different  with  higher  Figure  groups  indicated  i n Kennedy Lake  Lake  f r y , and i n 1+ s o c k e y e  respectively; t h e two sockeye  of f i s h  was  22; H=9.50,  comparisons  q=4.09,  sockeye  Lake.  (NPANOVA group  of  Kennedy),  l a k e s and f i s h  An i m p o r t a n t c o n t r a s t between  smolts.  from  df=l),  concentrations  q=4.60,  Cultus  groups  stickleback  in Cultus  s t i c k l e b a c k than C u l t u s  of  three  smolts  1+ s o c k e y e and Kennedy Lake  q=4.94,  comparison  sockeye  Cs  and  stickleback  sockeye  Within  with  f r y , sockeye  y e a r l i n g s ( i n c l u d e s 1+  concentrations  higher  threespine NPMC,  interaction  =2).  Kennedy  sockeye  P < 0.05,  i n Kennedy Lake  for  from  l a k e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  H=35.13,  A significant  the  Lake:  and onshore in  caught  (NPMC, T a b l e 1 2 ) .  f r y f r o m b o t h l a k e s , and t h r e e s p i n e  Rubidium  df=°°,6).  and  and 1+ s o c k e y e  fish  b o t h Kennedy a n d C u l t u s  i n Kennedy Lake  22,  in  Cultus  and t h r e e s p i n e  offshore  Lake  Lake,  different  H=19.62, P < 0.05, d f = 2 ) ,  t o C u l t u s Lake  considered;  offshore  (KW,  o f Rb and Cs  Kennedy  s m o l t s , ,1+ s o c k e y e  fish  Lake  significantly  lakes  smolts Cultus  ( Figure P< 0.05, lies  a n d Kennedy  in Lake  have e x p e r i e n c e d  a  T a b l e 12. M u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s among c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb and Cs i n Kennedy s m o l t s , B a b i n e s m o l t s , and 1+ sockeye from C u l t u s Lake. 1  Rb ppb -  Kennedy 5900  Babine 4800  Cultus 810  Kennedy 5900 Babine 4800 Cultus 810  * 6.25  * .3.52 Cs ppb  Kennedy 430  Babine 280  Cultus 1 30  Kennedy 430 Babine 280 Cultus 130  * 5.15  NPMC * significantly different a = 0.05, df=°°,3  * 3.32  1  q values,  q critical  = 3.31  126  Figure  22. Q u a r t i l e and m e d i a n p l o t s o f Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k from Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e . (codes: 1 to 3 Kennedy L a k e , s o c k e y e f r y c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e , t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e , sockeye smolts c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e ; 4 t o 7 C u l t u s Lake, sockeye f r y captured offshore, threespine stickleback captured o n s h o r e , 1+ s o c k e y e c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e and 1+ s o c k e y e captured onshore). Sample s i z e i s 8. A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The u p p e r and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t t h e upper and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The upper end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or equal to t h e l o w e r q u a r t i l e minus 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e u p p e r and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d as "*".  3  4  5  C  K • 8  m 0  1  t 8  • •  f  6  c  c  0 c  8 t  0 f  0  f  groupings  c  •  a  f  7  n  1  + a a c 0 f f  1 + a 0 c 0  n  128  similar  elapse  lakes they  Juvenile  of time  differ  Lake  were  captured  both  captured  offshore. fish.  t o one e v e n i n g  of t h r e e s p i n e  sockeye  captured  onshore  were of  stickleback  samples  stickleback stickleback  fish.  (two  only.  fish).  hauls  in  stickleback  captured  were  stickleback  Lake but sampling  Central  of  onshore and j u v e n i l e stickleback  Lake  Central juvenile  offshore  during  yielded  df=3),  captured the e n t i r e threespine  Lake.  Lake  sockeye  and  and  Aleknagik threespine  onshore.  Threespine  o n s h o r e were n o t marked by t h e p r e s e n c e o f  o f Cs i n L a k e A l e k n a g i k  2 4 ) , were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  P < 0.05,  was  C e n t r a l L a k e s a m p l e s were  c o l o u r s o r m a t u r e gonads a t t h e t i m e o f  Concentrations  composed  No t h r e e s p i n e  O n l y one t r a w l  Great  both  captured  sockeye  J u v e n i l e s o c k e y e were n e v e r c a u g h t i n  composed  captured  juvenile  stickleback  Threespine  Great  threespine  Threespine  in Cultus Great  fish.  lakes  onshore and j u v e n i l e sockeye  offshore.  offshore.  sampling  were  respective  of  Lake samples  stickleback captured  breeding  beach s e i n e s  and  and  i n offshore trawls  composed  breeding  Cultus  o n s h o r e were b r e e d i n g  restricted  composed  Threespine  stickleback captured onshore  were c a p t u r e d  period  were  o f f s h o r e and o n s h o r e b u t  o n s h o r e were b r e e d i n g threespine  their  s t i c k l e b a c k c o n t r a s t among  samples  captured  only  within  i n Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .  stickleback  captured  hatching  s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e  Kennedy  of  from  with  different  higher  sampling.  samples  among g r o u p s  concentrations  (Figures (KW,  in  23  H=19.53,  threespine  1 29  Figure  23. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f f i s h f o r j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d o n s h o r e and o f f s h o r e i n Lake A l e k n a g i k . ( s o c = j u v e n i l e sockeye, st=threespine s t i c k l e b a c k , o n = c a p t u r e d o n s h o r e , o f f = c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e ) Sample s i z e i s 8.  130  soc-off  soc-on 10000  8000  6000  4000  2000  JQ  a a  0.0  n m  0.10 0.20 0.30  0.0  0.10  0.20  0.30  St-Off  st-on 10000  8000  6000  4000 o  o  o  o  2000  •  0.0  0.10 0.20 0.30  0.0  dry wt (g)  •  i  —  i  —  0.10 0.20  i  —  i  —  0.30  "  131  Figure  24. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of Cs p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t of f i s h f o r j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e c a p t u r e d and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d o n s h o r e and o f f s h o r e i n L a k e Aleknagik. ( s o c = j u v e n i l e sockeye, s t = t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k , on=captured onshore, o f f = c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e ) Sample s i z e i s 8.  132  soc-on  400  soc-off  300  200  100  U  n a  a  0.0  w u  1  1  1  '  1  Ll  0.10 0.20 0.30  Li  0.0  st-on  400  ,  1  ,1  0.10 0.20 0.30 st-off  300  200  100  0.0  0.10 0.20 0.30 dry  0.0 wt (g)  Q.io 0.20 0.30  133  stickleback 300  ppb,  (median  offshore  respectively)  and  than  onshore  (medians  360 ppb,  j u v e n i l e sockeye captured  onshore  170 p p b ) , (NPMC, q=5.59, q=4.70, r e s p e c t i v e l y , P < 0.05,  df=°»,4). not  captured  Concentrations  significantly  o f Rb i n Lake  different  Aleknagik  (Figure  23;  samples  Kw:H=5.213,  were df=3,  P > 0.05). Since and  a l l l a k e s y i e l d e d j u v e n i l e sockeye c a p t u r e d  threespine  chosen  onshore,  f o r among l a k e c o m p a r i s o n s o f Rb  (Figures  25  different Cultus  -  having  and  Lake  concentrations lakes  Rb  lower Aleknagik  higher  offshore,  concentrations  than  Cs  (NPMC,  significantly df=3),  with  Kennedy,  Great  13).  For  d i f f e r e n c e was f o u n d  among  H=26.24,  df=1,  P < 0.05,  threespine  concentrations and  than  Table  g r o u p s were  concentrations  were  concentrations  p < 0.05, d f = 3 ) , w i t h  captured  these  (NPANOVA; H=37.71, P < 0.05,  a significant  having  and  concentrations  (NPANOVA, s p e c i e s :  H=14.66, onshore  28).  among l a k e s  Lake  Central  and  stickleback captured  offshore  Great  species lakes:  sticklebacks captured  than  Central  Cs  juvenile  Lake  Kennedy, C u l t u s , a n d L a k e  sockeye  having  higher  Aleknagik  (NPMC,  Table 14). Since l a k e s an juvenile  Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s additional  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  comparison  s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e  undertaken nonparametric difference.  (Table  15).  Scheffe's  test  of  rank  different  differences  stickleback within  Despite failed  a to  between  each lake  fourfold detect  among  a  was  difference, significant  134  Figure  25. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y w e i g h t o f f i s h f o r j u v e n i l e sockeye and t h r e e s p i n e stickleback f r o m Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l a n d L a k e A l e k n a g i k . Numbers below l a k e names a r e d a t e s ( M / D / Y ) . (symbols: c i r c l e = j u v e n i l e sockeye captured offshore, triangle=threespine stickleback captured offshore, p l u s = t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k captured onshore, and s q u a r e = j u v e n i l e sockeye captured onshore. Sample s i z e i s 8.  Kennedy (Q52583J .  Cu 1 tus' (051585)  7000 6000  Great C e n t r a l (052783)  Aleknagik (071883)  7000 6000  0.0  0.2  0.4  0.6  0.B  1.0  dry  0.0  wt  0.1  (g)  0.2  0  1 36  Figure  26. Q u a r t i l e and median p l o t s o f Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f r o m Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l and Lake A l e k n a g i k . Numbers below l a k e names a r e d a t e s (M/D/Y). (codes: 1=juvenile sockeye captured o f f s h o r e , 2=threespine s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d onshore, 3=threespine s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e , and 4 = j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e c a p t u r e d onshore). Sample s i z e i s 8. A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The u p p e r and lower extremes of the t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t the upper a n d l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The u p p e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or e q u a l t o the lower q u a r t i l e m i n u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d as "*".  Kennedy (052583)  Cultus (051585)  Great C e n t r a l (052783)  Aleknagik (071883)  group i n g s  138  Figure  27. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Cs p l o t t e d a g a i n s t s d r y w e i g h t o f f i s h f o r j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e stickleback f r o m Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l a n d L a k e A l e k n a g i k . Numbers below l a k e names a r e d a t e s ( M / D / Y ) . (symbols: c i r c l e = j u v e n i l e sockeye captured offshore, triangle=threespine stickleback captured offshore, p l u s = t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d o n s h o r e , and s q u a r e = j u v e n i l e sockeye captured onshore. Sample s i z e is eigth.  139  Kennedy (052583)  1400 1200  -  1000  -  +  800 600 400  .  Cultus (051585)  +  A  .  A  A A  -  ppb  200 0  i  i  i  i  i  Great C e n t r a l (052783)  CJ  1400 1200  Aleknagik (071883)  + +  1000  -o  800  _o  + ++  + + +  600 400  "o  200  -8  c?  0  rs  i  i  0.Q  0.2  i  i  i  0.4  0.6  0.8  i 1.0  dry  0.0  wt  0.1  (g)  0.2  0.3  0.4  140  Figure  28. Q u a r t i l e and median p l o t s o f Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k f r o m Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l and Lake A l e k n a g i k . Numbers below l a k e names a r e d a t e s (M/D/Y). (codes: 1=juvenile sockeye c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e , 2=threespine s t i c k l e b a c k captured onshore, 3=threespine s t i c k l e b a c k c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e , and 4 = j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e c a p t u r e d onshore). Sample s i z e i s 8. A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The upper and lower extremes of the t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t the u p p e r and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The upper end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s t h a n or e q u a l t o t h e u p p e r q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or e q u a l to the lower q u a r t i l e m i n u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d as "*".  141  Cultus (051585)  Kennedy (052583)  n  a. a  m CJ  Great C e n t r a l (052783)  Aleknagik (071883)  group ings  T a b l e 13. M u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s o f Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f i s h f o r Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t and L a k e A l e k n a g i k . Numbers i n m a r g i n s a r e medians. Rb ppb 1  Kennedy  Cultus 1 100  3400  Great Central 2900  Central  Aleknagik 3000  Kennedy 3400 Cultus 1 100 Great Central 2900  * 8.24  *  *  4.00  4.24  *  Aleknagi k 3000 NPMC *signi f icantly different = 0.05, d f = » , 4  4.65  1  q  values, q c r i t i c a l  = 3.63, a  143  T a b l e 14. M u l t i p l e comparisons of Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s f o r Kennedy, C u l t u s , G r e a t C e n t r a l and L a k e A l e k n a g i k . Numbers i n m a r g i n s a r e medians. 1  Cs Kennedy 390  ppb  Cultus 200  Great C e n t r a l 880  Aleknagik 260  Kennedy 390 Cultus 200 Great 880  Central  * 4.17  * 4.88  Aleknagik 260 NPMC • s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t q values, = 0.05, df=«,4  * 5.17  1  q critical  = 3.63,  a  T a b l e 15. The a b s o l u t e d i f f e r e n c e between rank means w i t h i n l a k e s f o r t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k and j u v e n i l e sockeye.  Lake  |sockeye  Kennedy  7.75  rank  -  stickleback 48.88  1  rank | = 41.13  Cultus  14.19  -  35.88  21.69  Great C e n t r a l  36.88  -  58.56  21.69  Aleknagik  23.50  -  34.38  10.88  1 45  Di scussion  Foerster sockeye  from  remains group,  (1929) m e n t i o n s Cultus  i n the lake  Lake.  small  in  some m i g r a t e a s  One  group  size,  goes  3 year o l d s , 4.  comprise  1984  sample o f j u v e n i l e  A g i n g would but  fish,  had  been  fingerlings  ground.  Based  more y e a r may  migrate.  of s m a l l e r  moved i n t o  migration. one  The  when c o m p a r e d  to the  and  the  of g r e a t e r  Lake.  from  In  suggests that  1+  Rb  were l o w e r  the  sockeye  and  appear  to  after  resident  lake  sockeye  before  f o r at  least  of t i m e but  not  onshore  had  captured  n o t Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  were c a p t u r e d o f f s h o r e . and than  Cs  concentrations in  i n s m o l t s from  concentrations  s m o l t s compared  third  relationships,  the  were not h i g h e r t h a n  In Kennedy L a k e ,  i n sockeye  that  addition,  The  detected only  for a period were  interest,  C u l t u s Lake  same l a k e .  higher  1+ s o c k e y e  second  (1968) o b s e r v e d t h a t  study r e s i d e n t  that  A  o t h e r than f r y .  length  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s but  f r o m C u l t u s Lake  Babine  sockeye  this  sockeye  h i g h e r Rb  Perhaps  Foerster  size  i n the lake  group  sockeye  l e n g t h s was  a l s o move o n s h o r e  1+  third  than  of  for several years;  the s h a l l o w r e g i o n s of  on  significantly  sockeye  Members o f t h i s  have been more c o n c l u s i v e  the s i g n i f i c a n c e  sea.  w h i l e o t h e r s remain  3 and  the  to  i n the lake  mature a t ages  groups  same autumn.  directly  remains  length  of l a r g e average  t o mature m a i n l y t h a t  intermediate in size,  group,  three overlapping  of  sockeye  concentration  to sockeye  from C u l t u s L a k e  fry.  would  Cs  of  1+  Kennedy in  1+  f r y from Cs  was  Whether  this  differ  i n Rb  and  1 46  Cs  concentrations  outflowing may  river  suggest  sockeye  compared w i t h  a  from  Furthermore,  could means  migratory  n o t be f u l l y of  resident  juvenile  the existence  of  such  investigate  when s u c h a d i v e r g e n c e in  S u c h an e x a m i n a t i o n migration  behaviors  a particular may  In L a k e A l e k n a g i k , were  present  July,  when t h e y  stickleback Threespine offshore for  in  class when  but  in  capture  threespine  capture  sites  into  would  imply To  concentrations  factors  governing  that  sockeye f r y  of the l a k e u n t i l mid-  deeper  water.  Threespine  p a t t e r n of o f f s h o r e  t o c o n t r a s t markedly because.of Cs  migration.  mid-July sites  were  their  1983  important  different from  in  in  the  within  both  not  species Rubidium  between  species  onshore and  different  in  Cs  onshore.  littoral  d i e t a r y item the  recent  were  i n Lake A l e k n a g i k .  single  stickleback  i n Rb and Cs  similar  for  significantly  that  onshore and  concentrations  stickleback  observed  Threespine  year.  would be o f i n t e r e s t .  from j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e c a p t u r e d  were t h e most  juvenile  physiology. Cs  the  beach a r e a  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Rogers(l968)  sockeye.  and  different  between  concentrations  insects  perhaps  (1962) o b s e r v e d  a similar  Rubidium  concentrations  offshore  moved o f f s h o r e  s p e c i e s comparisons  significantly  contrasts  difference  s t i c k l e b a c k and j u v e n i l e sockeye c a p t u r e d  histories.  contrasts  migratory  i n Rb a n d  year  Burgner  w o u l d n o t be e x p e c t e d  within  However, i t  play.  the shallow  followed  a  or  indicate  m i g h t come i n t o  i n the  sockeye w i t h i n a given  feeding  occur  caught  ascertained.  differentiating  different  would  smolts  zone w i n g e d of  littoral  juvenile zone  ate  1 47  similar  items to  juvenile  eggs and  plant  it  concluded  was  material  constitute  a  constitute  a rich  In observed  sink  sockeye  were i n c l u d e d  that for  source  limnetic  that  both  of  species  unimportant.  concentrations  was  the  lake.  Kennedy L a k e caught  in  extensive  on  May  i n J u n e and  sampling  in  25th,  not  zones both  i t was  (Chapter would  lakes  eggs  did  4  not  would  Rogers  (1968)  zooplankton,  the  i n the  pattern  and the  4).  insects  difference  species  stickleback  July  climatic  was  Chapter  material  Aleknagik  significant  Although t h i s  offshore  different  Lake  No  In  unknown.  f o u n d between t h e s e  for threespine  Kennedy L a k e  of  plant  f e d p r i m a r i l y on  were r e l a t i v e l y  zone o f  remains  stickleback  diet.  stickleback  Whether  Cs  zone  threespine  i n the  threespine  cesium.  the  but  in  limnetic  observed  juvenile pattern  to  throughout  of  in  lakes  require  the  in  sockeye  observed  Comparison  appear  Cs  more  seasons  of  comparison. A  comparison  A l e k n a g i k as  onshore According between  between  stickleback  habitats to  the  was  suggested  the  that  Lake  considerable  greatest  Great  overlap  Aleknagik but  with higher  Central  there  species are  Cs  in  captured  in diet.  these  difference  In C h a p t e r  differences  stickleback  C e n t r a l , and  sockeye captured  onshore.  associated of  Great  significant  captured  offshore,  extent  a  juvenile  ranking  threespine  sockeye captured  in  Kennedy, C u l t u s ,  a group r e v e a l e d  concentrations threespine  of  Lake  in  Cs  offshore  and  3,  use  of  concentrations.  Cs  concentrations  o n s h o r e and  L a k e and  juvenile  Lake  Aleknagik  Rogers  (1968)  indicated  do  overlap  differences.  Manzer  to  a  (1976)  1 48  concluded sockeye  that  although  i n Great  in  h a b i t a t they  not  disagree  use  with  stickleback offshore over  observed  feeding  was n o t known. types  statistically  until  juvenile  similar  lakes.  between  Why  i n Chapter  Rb  threespine  sockeye  threespine  their  captured  stickleback  held  3, s u g g e s t e d  that  mud w o u l d  result  i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from  fish  in that  fed offshore. Concentrations  examined. turbid  lakes  have  also  noted  freshwater  1970).  appears latter  to  and  et  Cs  differed  o f Cs i n f i s h  ( K o l e h m a i n e n and N e l s o n a  correlation  a l .  1968a,  However, t h e be i n d e p e n d e n t  (Preston  et  of  authors  content i n a l .  and Nelson  concentration of potassium  Many  potassium  Kolehmainen  measured  Rb  different  t o be  no  in fish  studies  from d i f f e r e n t  Cs-137  conclusion,  comparison  literature  lakes. among  1967,  1969, a n d in  concentrations  the  Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  C e n t r a l , and Lake A l e k n a g i k In  in  lakes  have been a s s o c i a t e d  1969).  between  in fish  i n the four  l i e i n t h e r a n g e o f 2 t o 30 ppb (McDonald e t a l .  There appear  Great  Rb  and Cs-137 c o n t e n t  Kolehmainen Solyus  of  Low c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  with  for  a l l four  and  of s u b s t r a t e s  extent  o b s e r v a t i o n s - do  limited  s u b s t r a t e s not a s s o c i a t e d with  Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s had  for  However,  juvenile  by Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ,  remains  onshore  and  to a great  these  to reveal differences  captured  over  rankings  exists  failed  different  Although  of the l a t t e r  information  concentrations  stickleback  C e n t r a l Lake d i d not o v e r l a p  d i d so i n d i e t .  as v a l i d a t i o n  dietary  threespine  when t h e 1971).  that  The p r e c i s e Kennedy,  fish  have reasons  Cultus,  r e m a i n s unknown. o f Rb a n d Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n  149  fish  among l a k e s  reference  against  i s imprecise  b e c a u s e o f an  which a l l r e s u l t s  c a n be  inability weighed.  to f i n d  a  150  Materials  Section  16th,  3: C o t t i d s ,  L a k e was  sampled  1985  for Cottus  asper,  Mylocheilus Kennedy  and  concentrations  by  and  Mylocheilus  Cottus  on  August  11th,  was  p e r f o r m e d on  s h i n e r s and  b e a c h s e i n e on May  Ptychocheilus  caurinus,  Lake  methods  peamouth c h u b , r e d s i d e  Cultus  balteatus,  and  squawfish  15th  and  June  caurinus,  Richardsonius  oregonensis.  Similarly,  asper 1985.  g r o u p s of  were  collected  A n a l y s i s f o r Rb 8  fish.  from and  Cs  151  Results  The c o n c e n t r a t i o n s variable Median most  within and  skewed  of  Lake  concentrations same p a t t e r n Cultus  plots  indicated  towards  higher  peamouth  not  mirrored  Lake c o t t i d s  chub  but  tissues  species that  the  were  (Figure  concentrations  had t h e  other  also  exhibited  same p a t t e r n  was  range  fish  the  of  but  (Figure  large  not  in  32).  greatest of  were  with  (Figure  groups  highly  29-31).  distributions  i n Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  and s h i n e r s  i n Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  fish  from Kennedy Lake  compared w i t h a l l  was  in  certain  peamouth c h u b  Kennedy  Rb and Cs  among  quartile  cases  exception  and  of  Rb the  32).  variations  mirrored  i n Rb  concentrations. Concentrations among  fish  P < 0.05,  groups df=5),  significantly peamouth,  of  (Figure with  higher  cottids,  significantly  higher  Cs  different metal  was  in  of  Rb  in  significantly  RW; Rb: H = 3 6 . 5 3 , Lake  peamouth  concentrations  Cs  and  among  16 and 1 7 ) . fish  contrasts  groups  different  Cs: and  than  Cultus  concentrations  (NPMC, T a b l e  significant  selected.  32,  squawfish  concentrations sets  were  Kennedy  and  peamouth a n d s h i n e r s and  Rb and Cs  cottids  Cultus  Lake than  H=15.57,  Lake  squawfish Cultus  Lake  C o m p a r i s o n of resulted  depending  in  on w h i c h  Rb two  trace  1 52  Figure  29. Rubidium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s p l o t t e d a g a i n s t dry weight o f f i s h f o r peamouth chub and c o t t i d s f r o m K e n n e d y ( s y m b o l +) and C u l t u s L a k e ( s y m b o l o ) , and s q u a w f i s h and s h i n e r s f r o m C u l t u s L a k e . Sample s i z e i s 8.  cottid  peamouth  10000 8000 6000 4000 2000  n  O.Q  CL Q.  0C  2.0  4.0  6.0  0.0  2.0  3.0  shiners  squawfish  10000  1.0  8000 6000 4000 2000  0.0  3.0  6.0  9.0  0.4  d r y wt (g)  0.8  1.2  1.8  1 54  Figure  30. Cesium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s p l o t t e d a g a i n s t d r y weight o f f i s h f o r peamouth c h u b and c o t t i d s f r o m K e n n e d y ( s y m b o l +) and C u l t u s L a k e ( s y m b o l o ) , and s q u a w f i s h and s h i n e r s f r o m C u l t u s L a k e . Sample s i z e i s 8.  peamouth  1200  cottld  1000 800 BOO 400 200  n  0.0  Q.  cn u  2.0  4.0  6.0  0.0  1.0  squawfish  2.0  3.0  shiners  1200 1000  BOO  600 400  200  0.0  3.0  6.0  9.0  0.4  d r y wt (g)  O.B  1.2  1.6  156  Figure  31. R u b i d i u m a n d Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s p l o t t e d a g a i n s t w e i g h t o f f i s h f o r peamouth c h u b f r o m C u l t u s L a k e . S c a l e has been e x p a n d e d t o show a b s e n c e o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p with dry weight. Sample s i z e i s 8.  dry  4000  3000  2000  1000  0.0  0.02  0.04  dry wt (g)  0.06  1 58  Figure  32. Q u a r t i l e and median p l o t s f o r Rb and Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s f o r peamouth c h u b ( l ) , c o t t i d s ( 2 ) f r o m Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e , and s q u a w f i s h (3) and s h i n e r s (4) from C u l t u s L a k e . Sample s i z e i s 8. A long h o r i z o n t a l l i n e i s drawn t h r o u g h t h e median o f t h e d a t a . The upper and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i c k v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t t h e upper and l o w e r q u a r t i l e s . The upper end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e l a r g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l t o t h e upper q u a r t i l e p l u s 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . The l o w e r end o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e i s d e f i n e d t o be t h e . s m a l l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t i s g r e a t e r than or equal t o t h e l o w e r q u a r t i l e minus 1.5 x t h e i n t e r q u a r t i l e r a n g e . A l l v a l u e s o u t s i d e t h e u p p e r and l o w e r e x t r e m e s o f t h e t h i n v e r t i c a l l i n e a r e p l o t t e d a s "*".  159  Cultus  Kennedy  Cultus  Kennedy  8000  6000  o. a.  4000  JQ  ac  2000  0  JQ  a. a. cn  CJ  group ings  160  T a b l e 16. M u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s f o r Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f i s h c a p t u r e d i n Kennedy a n d C u l t u s L a k e . Numbers i n m a r g i n s a r e median v a l u e s . 1  C pea 1 1500  C cott 2 1450  C squa 3 1350  *  *  • 5.82  5.98  *  *  *  4.93  5.13  5.29  C shi 4 1400  K pea 5 6300  K cott 6 3000  c  pea 1 500 1 C cott 1450 2 C squa 1 350 3 C shi 1900 4 K pea 6300 5 K cott 3000 6  * 5.69  NPMC * s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t q values, q c r i t i c a l =4.03, a = 0.05, d f * »,6 1-4 C u l t u s l a k e , peamouth, c o t t i d , s q u a w f i s h , s h i n e r s 5-6 Kennedy l a k e , peamouth, c o t t i d 1  161  T a b l e 17. M u l t i p l e comparisons f o r Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s i n f i s h c a p t u r e d i n Kennedy and C u l t u s L a k e . Numbers i n m a r g i n s are median v a l u e s . 1  c  pea 1 430  c  cott 2 500  c  squa 3 530  c  shi 4 410  K pea 5 440  K cott 6 470  c  pea 430 1 C cott 500 2 C squa 530 3 C shi 410 4  * 4.58  * 4.81  K pea 440 5 K cott 470 6 NPMC * s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t q v a l u e s , q c r i t i c a l = 4.03, = 0.05, d f = »,6 1-4 C u l t u s l a k e , peamouth, c o t t i d , s q u a w f i s h , s h i n e r s 5-6 Kennedy l a k e , peamouth, c o t t i d 1  a  1 62  Discussion In c o m p a r i s o n s o f peamouth chub a n d c o t t i d s , of Rb and Cs were compared lower  to  ranking  higher  Cultus  Lake.  range  of  chub i n Kennedy different observed fish  greater  coefficient char  Whicker fish  with  between  would  food  (1969)  as  yet  spectras.  the  (Foerster  same  of  1968, E g g e r s  variability be  species  in  the  has  squawfish  higher  in  activity  exceeding  2 t o 3 times (Kolehmainen  t o Kennedy  i n peamouth  ingestion  Fleishman of  of  (1973)  Cs-137  in  (1973) r e p o r t e d a  lake  and  lake-river Nelson  and  l a r g e v a r i a t i o n s o f Cs-137 i n ranging  within  from  similar by  to  48%  lake.  individuals  several  and H a d l e y  observed  2  from t h e same  reported  of  Cs  authors  1979).  The  i n peamouth chub may  mainly  in  of  the  piscivorous  insectivorous species in  agreement w i t h  level that  Lake.  diet.  to the other  C u l t u s L a k e was i n g e n e r a l  plankton  been  concentrations  increase  for  reflect  same s p e c i e s  Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  compared  juvenile  activities  1978, a n d E l i n o r  due t o a h i g h l y d i v e r s e The  Lake  Fleishman  Large v a r i a t i o n s i n stomach c o n t e n t s of  with the  unknown.  e r r o r s o f t h e mean  individuals  Lake  concurred  15-16% f o r j u v e n i l e s o c k e y e .  has a l s o r e p o r t e d  standard  to  o f 49 t o 45% f o r  to only  Kennedy  i n Rb c o n c e n t r a t i o n s appear  prey,  of v a r i a t i o n  as opposed  i n Cultus  scatter for specific  broad  in  This observation  variation  of  species  s t i c k l e b a c k compared  Lake  types  with  both  f o r Cs c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  s o c k e y e and t h r e e s p i n e The  for  concentrations  Cs-137  the o b s e r v a t i o n in  of  piscivorous  of s p e c i e s e a t i n g bottom a n i m a l s  et a l .  1967).  Squawfish  sampled  an fish and from  163  Cultus  Lake  ranged  (1973)  reported  from  that  10.0  squawfish  piscivorous.  Stomach c o n t e n t s  Lake c o n t a i n e d  insects,  explain, squawfish,  that they  insectivorous times  the  fish  to  but  over  of  no Cs  did  exceed  of  Cultus  concentrations  S c o t t and  10.0  cm  were  the  Cs  a  factor  latter.  Crossman  are  sampled  mainly  from Cultus.  found.  concentrations  Lake by  i n the  cm.  squawfish fish  although not  15.8  were  This  may  higher  in  concentrations as  great  as  of  2 to 3  1 64  General  Many  approaches  h a b i t s among f i s h . . analysis  of  structured Direct of  have  Present  stomach  in accordances  e n c l o s u r e s have a l s o and  provide  c o m p e t i t o r s and Use  o f Rb  and  establishing  a link  concentrations  planktophages  and  of  feeding  usually  arena  involve  i n which  t h e number  be  feeding  area.  confounding of  b e h a v i o r of  potential  threespine  demanded t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e Cs  in  diet  study  Fleishman  benthophages  and  assessed.  This  K a n e v s k i i and  program  V a r i o u s types  eliminate  and  fish.  day  to  sockeye  between Rb  year,  these r e s u l t s .  on  and  basis  of  subsequent  suggests  (1972)  the  broad in  categories Cs  were  not  stickleback  captured offshore  s p e c i e s were a p p a r e n t l y f e e d i n g  uptake  experiments  demonstrate  that  differences  in  capable  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between  as b o t h  diet  investigate  that  of  the  fish  into  and  Cs i n  o f Rb  oversimplification.  differences  and  to  methods  been employed  t o examine  in by  threespine  accompany  juvenile  classification  Such  "in situ"  w i t h time  an  Cs  and  i s an  used  food r e s o u r c e s can  stickleback  fish,  been  c o n t e n t s o b t a i n e d from a s a m p l i n g  o b s e r v a t i o n s may  factors  discussion  in  Chapter  2  were could  diet  and  excretion  rates.  d i d not  result  between However,  fish a  in different  juvenile  resolving sockeye  i n Kennedy L a k e on  such d i f f e r e n c e s  of  zooplankton. an be  initial  accounted  enriched  body b u r d e n s  o f Cs  May,  Cesium  attempt  not d i f f e r e n c e s  cesium  in  and  for in  to by  uptake  zooplankton in  juvenile  165  coho  and  threespine  concentrations  stickleback,  i n stomach c o n t e n t s  selection  of d i f f e r e n t  reported  considerable  different  species  prey  Pendleton of  of a l g a e ,  into  Rb a  and  Cs  l a c k of  species Cs  in fish  that  dependent lack  of  of  of  offshore the  Rb  as  of  Cs  Cs  stickleback  does  not  and  of  appear  in  fish  of  Cs  in  were n o t over  different  r a t e s of of  Rb  and  prey  but  a  f a c e t of  major Chapter  3  this  indicated use  stickleback  over which  fish  threespine  differential  fish  of  r e l a t e d to  by  threespine  that  use  latter.  fish  had  captured  l i m n e t i c zone o f  evidence  not  patterns  to detect  by  enriched  i n the  species  i n the  may  were  among  uptake  for  f o r Cs in  a p p e a r s t o be  was  substrate  held  o f Cs  uncertainty  enrichment  sockeye  t o the  Cesium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s threespine  levels  d i f f e r e n c e between  conclusive  (1958)  a number  a carrier  include different  habitats  type  in  concentrations  experiments conducted  zone compared  regarded  high  habitat u t i l i z a t i o n  juvenile  a significant  littoral be  and  on  study,  Examination  and  ability  o n s h o r e and  regarding  o f Rb  Swanson  Cs-137  differences in diet  consumed.  Transfer the  this  the  Demonstration  study.  In  exceedingly  only  suggested  a c t i v e t r a n s p o r t model  Much o f  levels  stickleback  p r o p o s e d an  not  and  Cs  zooplankton.  different.  should  in  same f i s h  though t h i s a s p e c t  of  prey  the  in  burdens  information  variation  Williams  body  to detect  of  different  by  hence  significantly  items.  cells.  have been s a t u r a t e d zooplankton,  for  (1962) has  Cs  from  variability  t o have been a d d r e s s e d  entry  though  a  had  was  fed. in  lake could similar  of  A the not  diets.  significantly  different  in  sand, c o b b l e ,  sand(mud),  and  1 66  gravel(mud) s u b s t r a t e s . correlation near  the  between Cs-137 c o n t e n t site  of  d e t e r m i n e d , hence known.  Rabe  single  and  In  in  compared The  of  Rb  and  Cs  substrates  over  and  (Chapter  3),  stickleback result  of  feeding  threespine Kennedy other  higher  lakes.  distance  is  not  in  from  Cs-137 the  to  over  Cs-137  were  not.  was  not  within  the  however,  held  be  a  station were  not  substrate  significantly s a n d and  Enos  used  to  threespine  Lake  cobble  B a s e d on  Rb  females  in  shoreline.  Cs  Cs  captured  Kennedy  Lake  in  benthic  male  appeared  and  and  by  to the  be  former.  concentrations  different  the  substrates  in in  p a t t e r n , e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to  by G u s t a f s o n  small  Rb  types  in  associated substrates  f e d over  the  stickleback  of  known i f Rb  suggested  identify  substrates  (1969)  Cs-137 c o n c e n t r a t i o n s In a  to detect  different  were f e e d i n g .  benthic mud  Studies  Lake, Minnesota. difference  may  indicates a general  in  were  various  s t i c k l e b a c k having  Lake  difference  it  in  over  sediments  h e l d over  concentrations to  i n prey  a  sand(mud) s u b s t r a t e s .  fish  over  of  concentrations  sticklebacks in  observed  compared  However,  of  which  held  Cs  stickleback  concentrations  concentrations offshore  among f i s h  concentrations  investigation  o f Cs-137 with  noted  content  of Cs-137 u n i q u e  study,  t o g r a v e l ( m u d ) and  (1969)  and  (1977) were a b l e  current  threespine  fish  Levels  levels  different  Rubidium  higher  that  fish,  of  correlation  Stephens  the  significantly types.  capture. their  s p e c i e s of  sampled.  In c o n t r a s t G u s t a f s o n  lake, sediment  failed  i n bottom Gallegos as  a  to  detect  sediments of (1970)  found  f u n c t i o n of d e p t h  Concentrations  of  Cs  were  a Red no or not  167  examined  in  different  sediments  counterpart  t o e x a m i n i n g Rb  species  zooplankton  and  Cs  of  concentrations  different  p a r t s of  Seasonal  i n the  should  the  changes  in  i n Kennedy Lake  indexed  by  Kennedy Cs  subsequent  Movement of lake  with  gravel(mud) threespine numerous threespine integration this  can  only  utilization A  o n s h o r e and  i n Cs  July.  onshore  in  in  concentrations  and  to  various  not Cs  in  of Rb  and over  lake  of Rb  may  and  of  but over  Cs  represent  types  in  breed  observation  Kennedy  onshore  in an  substrates  but  d e t e c t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s  in  threespine captured  stickleback  offshore  Lake A l e k n a g i k  i n the  Present  were  offshore habitats.  species  evidence  would  between t h r e e s p i n e  from  revealed a  However,  season, as  between t h e s e  in  from  Feeding  for this  d i f f e r e n c e would e x i s t  Lake  Rb  offshore  concentrations  Concentrations  i n the  between  latter  and  stickleback  captured  concentrations.  this  taken  account  over  j u v e n i l e sockeye  concentrations  Cs  items  species  offshore.  captured  lend confusion  of  to whether  samples Cs  captured  C e n t r a l , C u l t u s , and  difference as  food  prey  a  different  i n body b u r d e n s of Rb  substrates.  comparison  o n s h o r e and Great  of  As  well.  of  in higher  were  stickleback  in  s t i c k l e b a c k onshore  could  stickleback of  use  in  threespine  result  substrates  types  zone a s  changes  fish  Lake.  concentrations  examined  the by  Kennedy  l i m n e t i c zone of Kennedy L a k e ,  be  threespine  d i d not  compared  Cs  littoral  habitats  fish.  and  in  no was  Kennedy,  significant  i t remains between  captured  uncertain  species  d i f f e r e n c e i n Rb found  suggest  in  for and  Kennedy  that d i f f e r e n c e s  s t i c k l e b a c k and  juvenile  168  sockeye diet  i n these  associated  However, Cs  in  in f i s h  study,  light  and  overlap  Cs  In  of  in  attributed of  s o u r c e s of  in  Cs  and  patterns.  Herein  in f i s h  in  the  in  fish  overlap  by  habitats.  demonstrated  lies  in  i n body b u r d e n s  concentrations of  differences  offshore  variability  measure  in d i e t  to  o n s h o r e or  literature  a quantitative  utilization  assessing  be  with occupation  differences  habitat  could  c i t e d i n the  r e g a r d e d as  Rb  lakes  in  this  cannot habitat  major weakness  of  m e a s u r i n g body b u r d e n s  of  fish.  conclusion,  understanding  Rb  and  Cs  insufficient  for  application.  Investigation  of  excretion  patterns  in conjunction  with assessing  availability  The  reflecting  r e l a t e d to d i e t appears  of  general  present  as  present  wide and  at  fish  the  in  items  d i f f e r e n t Rb  its  with use  behavior trace  uptake  and of  and  Cs  concentrations  make t h i s method u n a t t r a c t i v e  to  f i s h e r i e s managers.  most p r o m i s i n g p r o s p e c t  lakes  be or  dynamics  prey  of  few as  or  species  i t s use  fish.  Other  a b i o l o g i c a l marker, physiology.  elements,^  elements at  of  for  enabling  once;  powerful  tool  selection  by  More  at  i n the  fish.  would appear  rapid  techniques  examination  reasonable future  for  t o be  a p p l i c a t i o n s may  indicating possible  cost,  of  would  small include  changes  for  measuring  a whole s p e c t r u m may  in  provide  i n v e s t i g a t i n g d i e t and  a  of  more  habitat  169  AEC,  REFERENCES R a d i o e c o l o g y of some natural organisms and systems in Colorado. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g Cs-137 a c c u m u l a t i o n i n t r o u t . Department of r a d i o l o g y and r a d i a t i o n b i o l o g y . Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. 6th annual p r o g r e s s r e p o r t on a t o m i c e n e r g y . J a n u a r y 1, 1967-December 31, 1967.  Baptist, J. P., and T. J. Price. 1962. A c c u m u l a t i o n and r e t e n t i o n of c e s i u m - 1 3 7 by marine fishes. U. S. A. Dept. Int. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r . Fish. Bull. 62:177187. B a r r a c l o u g h , W. E . , and D. Robinson. 1971. of G r e a t C e n t r a l L a k e I I I . Effects on salmon. Fish. Bull. 70:37-48.  The f e r t i l i z a t i o n juvenile sockeye  Becker, R. A., and J . M. Chambers. 1984. S an environment for data analysis and graphics. a d v a n c e d book p r o g r a m . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a .  interactive Wadsworth  Bentzen, P., and J . D. McPhail. 1984. E c o l o g y and e v o l u t i o n of s y m p a t r i c sticklebacks (Gasterosteus): specialization f o r a l t e r n a t e t r o p h i c n i c h e s i n t h e Enos Lake s p e c i e s p a i r . Can. J. Zool. 62: 2280-2286. B e n t z e n , P, Ridgeway, M.S., and J . D. McPhail. 1984. Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticklebacks (Gasterosteus): s p a t i a l s e g r e g a t i o n and s e a s o n a l h a b i t a t s h i f t s i n t h e Enos L a k e p a i r Can. J. Zool. 62:2436-2439. B r y a n , J . E . , and individual 1624.  P.A. Larkin. 1972. trout. J. Fish.  Food specialization by Res. Bd. Canada 29:1615-  Burgner, R. L. 1959. Study of population density and competition between populations of young r e d salmon and sticklebacks. C o n t r i b u t i o n No. 70, C o l l e g e of Fisheries, U n i v e r s i t y of W a s h i n g t o n . Burgner, R. L. 1962. S a m p l i n g r e d salmon f r y by l a k e t r a p i n t h e Wood R i v e r L a k e s A l a s k a . I_n T. S. Y. Koo [ed.] Studies of Alaska red salmon. U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press, Seattle, 1962. C l a d y , M.D., spotted Trans.  and G. W. Luker. 1982. Competition between and l a r g e m o u t h b a s s i n v a r i a b l e pond e c o s y s t e m s . Amer. Fish. Soc. 111:665-674.  Copeland, R. A., J. C. A y e r s , . and the staff of the environmental research group, Inc. 1972. Trace element distribution in water, sediment, phytoplankton, z o o p l a n k t o n , and b e n t h o s o f L a k e M i c h i g a n : a b a s e l i n e s t u d y with calculations of c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r s and b u i l d u p of  170  radioisotopes in the food web. Environmental g r o u p I n c . , Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n , S p e c i a l R e p o r t .  Research  Connell, J. H. 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from f i e l d experiments. Am. Nat. 122:661-696. Copeland, R. A., R. H. B e e t h e , and W. W. Prater. 1973. Trace elements distributions i n Lake Michigan fish: a baseline study w i t h c a l c u l a t i o n s of c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r s and e q u i l i b r i u m r a d i o i s o t o p e d i s t r i b u t i o n s . Environmental research group Inc., Ann A b o r , M i c h i g a n , S p e c i a l R e p o r t , M a r c h 1973. C o u g h t r e y , P. J . , and M. C. Thorne. 1983. distribution and transport in terrestrial ecosystems. A c r i t i c a l r e v i e w of d a t a . A. Rotterdam.  Radionuclide and aquatic A. Balkema,  Cushing, C. E. (Jr.). 1979. Trace elements i n a r i v e r f o o d web. Northwest S c i e n c e 52(2):118-125.  Columbia  Davis, J . J. 1963. C e s i u m and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o potassium in ecology. p. 539-556. I_n R a d i o e c o l o g y . Proceedings of the first national symposium on radioecology held at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, September 10-15, 1961. De  B e r n a r d i , R. 1981. e f f e c t s on community  B i o t i c i n t e r a c t i o n s i n f r e s h w a t e r and structure. Bull. Zool. 48:353-371.  E b e r h a r t , L. L. 1976. Sampling f o r radionuclides and other trace elements. p. 200-208. I_n C. E. Cushing [ed.] R a d i o e c o l o g y and energy resources. Proceedings of the fourth n a t i o n a l symposium i n r a d i o e c o l o g y May 12-14, 1975, Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , O r e g o n . E g g e r s , D. M. 1978. Limnetic feeding behavior of juvenile sockeye salmon i n L a k e W a s h i n g t o n and p r e d a t o r a v o i d a n c e . Limnol. Oceanogr. 23(6):1114-1125. E g g e r s , D. M. 1982. Planktivore E c o l o g y 63(2):381~390.  preference  by  prey  size.  Elinor, L. G., W. F. Hadley. 1979. Food and h a b i t a t p a r t i t i o n i n g between r o c k b a s s ( A m b l o p l i t e s r u p e s t r i s ) and s m a l l m o u t h b a s s ( M i c r o p t e r u s d o l o m i e u i ) . young o f t h e y e a r . Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 188:253-261. Fleishman, D. G. 1973. Accumulation of artificial radionuclides in fish. p. 347-370. In K l e c h k o v s k i i , G. G. P o l i k a r p o v , and R. M. Aleksakhin Teds.] Radioecology. John W i l e y and S o n s . T r a n s l a t e d from R u s s i a n . -  171  Foerster, R. E. 1929. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e l i f e h i s t o r y and p r o p a g a t i o n of t h e s o c k e y e salmon ( O n c o r h y n c h u s nerka) at C u l t u s Lake, B r i t i s h Columbia. No. 3. The downstream migration of the young in 1926 and 1927. Contrib. Canadian B i o l . Fish. 5(1):55-82. F o e r s t e r , R. E. Bull. Fish.  1968. Res.  The s o c k e y e B o a r d Can.  salmon O n c o r h y n c h u s 162:422p..  nerka.  Gallegos, A. F. 1970. R a d i o c e s i u m k i n e t i c s i n t h e components of a montane l a k e e c o s y s t e m . C o l o r a d o S a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Ph. D.. G r e e n b a n k , J . , and P. R. Nelson. 1959. Life history of the threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus in K a r l u k Lake and Bare L a k e , K o d i a k I s l a n d , A l a s k a . U. S. Fish. Wild. Serv., F i s h . Bull. 59:537-559. Grobenski, Z. D., D. Weber, B.. W e l z , and J . Wolff. 1983. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c a e s i u m and r u b i d i u m by f l a m e and furnace atomic-absorption spectrometry. A n a l y s t 108:925-932. Gustafson, P. F. 1967. Comments on r a d i o n u c l i d e s i n a q u a t i c ecosystems. p. 921-924. I_n B. A b e r g and F. P. Hungate [eds.] Radioecological concentration processes. P r o c e e d i n g s o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l symposium h e l d i n S t o c k h o l m 25-29 A p r i l , 1966. Pergamon P r e s s , New Y o r k , N.Y.. Gustafson, P. F. 1969. Cesium-137 i n f r e s h w a t e r f i s h d u r i n g 1954-1965. p. 249-257. In N e l s o n , J . D., and E v a n s F. C. [eds.] Symposium on r a d i o e c o l o g y . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e s e c o n d n a t i o n a l symposium h e l d a t Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n , May 15-17, 1967. Hakonson, T. E . , A. F. G a l l e g o s and F. W. Whicker. 1971. Use of c e s i u m - 1 3 3 and a c t i v a t i o n a n a l y s i s for measurement of c e s i u m k i n e t i c s i n a montane l a k e . p. 344-348. Ln D. J. Nelson [ed.] R a d i o n u c l i d e s i n ecosystems. Proceedings of t h e 3 r d n a t i o n a l symposium on r a d i o e c o l o g y . May 10-12, 1971. Vol. 1. Hannerz, L. 1968. The role of feeding habits in a c c u m u l a t i o n of f a l l out Cs-137 i n f i s h . Rept. Inst. F r e s h w a t e r Res. D r o t t n i n g h o l m 48:112-119.  the of  Hartman, W. L., and R. L. Burgner. 1972. L i m n o l o g y and f i s h ecology of s o c k e y e n u r s e r y l a k e s of t h e w o r l d . J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:699-715. H a s a n e n , E., J . fresh-water  K. Miettinen. 1963. Cesium-137 content fish in Finland. N a t u r e 200:1018-1019.  H a s a n e n , E . , S. Biological  E. K o l e h m a i n e n , and J . K. Miettinen. h a l f - t i m e o f Cs-137 i n t h r e e s p e c i e s o f  of  1967. fresh-  1 72  water f i s h : p e r c h , r o a c h and r a i n b o w t r o u t , p. 921-924. In W. S. Synder et al. [eds.] Radioecological concentration processes. P r o c e e d i n g s of an international symposium held in S t o c k h o l m 25-29 A p r i l , 1966. Pergamon Press, Vol. I. H a s l e r , A. D., and G. E. Likens. 1963. Biological and physical transport of r a d i o n u c l i d e s i n s t r a t i f i e d l a k e s , p. 463-470. In W. S c h u l t z and A. W. Klement [eds.] Radioecology. Proceedings of the first international symposium on radioecology held at Colorado State U n i v e r s i t y , F o r t C o l l i n s , C o l o r a d o , September 10-15, 1961. R e i n h o l d , New York. H y a t t , K. D. 1979. Feeding strategy, p. 71-119. In W. Hoar, D. J. Randall and J. R. Brett [eds.] physiology. Vol. 8. A c a d e m i c P r e s s , New York. J e n k i n s , C. E. 1969. Radionuclide distribution salmon. H e a l t h P h y s i c s 17:507-512.  in  S. Fish  pacific  Johannes, R. E., and P. A. Larkin. 1961. Competition for f o o d between r e d s i d e s h i n e r s ( R i c h a r d s o n i u s b a l t e a t u s ) and rainbow trout (Salmo g a i r d n e r i ) i n two B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 18:203-220. K a n e v s k i i , Yu. P., and D. G. Fleishman. 1972. Investigation of f o o d chains in an ichthyocoenosis of Lake Dal'nyi (Kamchatka) a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f r u b i d i u m and cesium in hydrobionts. Academy of S c i e n c e of t h e U.S.S.R. Soviet Journal o f E c o l o g y (1972) p. 191-193. Translated f r o m E k o l o g i y a No.3, p. 5-8, May-June 1971. Keast, A. 1977. Mechanisms expanding minimizing intraspecific competition fish. I_n E v o l u t i o n a r y b i o l o g y Vol. P r e s s , New York. Keast, A., and W e l s h , L. f o o d u p t a k e r a t e s , and some l a k e f i s h e s . J. 1144. Kevern, N. R. radioisotopic Kimura, K e n - i c i . 137 by the Fish. King,  niche width and in two c e n t r a r c h i d 10:333-395. Plenum  1968. Daily feeding p e r i o d i c i t i e s , d i e t a r y c h a n g e s w i t h hour of day in Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 25(6): 1133-  1966. Feeding method. Trans.  rate of c a r p Amer. Fish.  e s t i m a t e d by a Soc. 95:363.  1984. A c c u m u l a t i o n and r e t e n t i o n of common goby. Bull. of Jap. Soc.  S. F. 1964. Chlamydomonas, 45(4)-852-858.  cesiumof S c i .  Uptake^ and t r a n s f e r of cesium-137 by Daphnia and b l u e g i l l f i n g e r l i n g s . Ecology 50(3):481-487.  1 73  Kleinbaum, D. G., and L. L. Kupper. 1978. regression analysis and other multivariable Duxbury P r e s s , C a l i f o r n i a .  Applied methods.  K o l e h m a i n e n , S. E. 1972. The balances of Cs-137, stable cesium and potassium of bluegill (Lepomis m a c r o c h i r u s ) R a f . ) and o t h e r f i s h i n W h i t e Oak Lake. Health Physics 23:301-315. Kolehmainen, S. E. 1974. Daily f e e d i n g r a t e s of b l u e g i l l ( L e p o m i s m a c r o c h i r u s ) d e t e r m i n e d by a r e f i n e d radioisotope method. J. Fish. Res. B o a r d Can. 31:67-74. Kolehmainen, S. E. Hasanen and J . K. Miettinen. 1966. 137 l e v e l s i n f i s h of d i f f e r e n t l i m n o l o g i c a l t y p e s of i n F i n l a n d d u r i n g 1963. H e a l t h P h y s i c s 12:917-922.  Cslakes  K o l e h m a i n e n , S. E., and D. J. Nelson. 1969. The b a l a n c e s of Cs-137, s t a b l e c e s i u m , and t h e f e e d i n g r a t e s of b l u e g i l l ( Lepomis m a c r o c h i r u s R a f . ) i n W h i t e Oak L a k e . USAEC R e p o r t ORNL-4445, Oak R i d g e N a t i o n a l Laboratory. K o l e h m a i n e n , S. E., E. H a s a n e n , and J . K. Miettinen. 1967. Cs-137 i n f i s h , p l a n k t o n and p l a n t s i n F i n n i s h L a k e s d u r i n g 1964-5. p. 913-919. In A. B. A b e r g and F. P. Hungate [eds.] Radioecological concentration processes. P r o c e e d i n g s o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l symposium h e l d i n S t o c k h o l m 25-29 A p r i l , 1966. K o l e h m a i n e n , S. E., E. H a s a n e n , and J . K. Miettinen. 1968a. Cs-137 in the plants, plankton and f i s h of t h e F i n n i s h L a k e s and f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g i t s a c c u m u l a t i o n . p. 407-415. Proceedings of the first international congress of radiation protection. September 5-10, 1966. Kolehmainen, S. E . , H. Romantschuk, S. T a k a t a l o , and J . K. Miettinen. 1968b. P o l l u t i o n experiments with Cs-137 in l a k e s of two l i m n o l o g i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t t y p e s , pp. 181-200. In C o n g r e s s i n t e r n a t i o n a l s u r l a r a d i o p r o t e c t i o n du m i l i e u devant le development des utilizations pacifique de l'energie nucleaire, T o u l o u s e , 14-16, mars 1967. Societe F r a n c h i s e de R a d i o p r o t e c t i o n , P a r i s . K r o g i u s , F. V., and E . M. Krokhin. 1956. Causes of the fluctuations i n a b u n d a n c e o f s o c k e y e salmon i n K a m c h a t k a . Trudy Problemnikh i Tematicheskikh Soveshchanii Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk. USSR, No. 6 p. 144-149. [FRB T r a n s l a t i o n No. 197]. K r o g i u s , F. V., E . M. K r o k h i n , and V. V. Menshutkin. 1969. The p e l a g i c f i s h community i n Lake D a l n e e . An experiment in cybernetic modelling. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Trans. Ser. No. 1486. 230p..  174  K r o k h i n , E. M. of young respiration No. 209.  1959. D e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e d a i l y f o o d rations sockeye and three-spine stickleback by the method . F i s h . Res. Bd. Can. Trans. Ser.  K r o k h i n , E. M. 1969. E s t i m a t i o n of t h e b i o m a s s and abundance of the threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus in L a k e D a l ' n e y e b a s e d on t h e f o o d consumption of planktonfeeding fishes. J. Ichthyol. 10:471-475. Larkin, P. A. 1956. Interspecific c o n t r o l in freshwater f i s h . J. 13(3):327-342. Levinson, A. A. 1974. geochemistry. A p p l i e d Pub.  c o m p e t i t i o n and p o p u l a t i o n Fish. Res. Bd. Can.  Introduction to Ltd. Calgary.  exploration  M a i t l a n d , P. S. 1965. The f e e d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s of salmon, trout, minnows, s t o n e l o a c h and t h r e e - s p i n e d s t i c k l e b a c k s i n the r i v e r E n d r i c k S c o t l a n d . J. Anim. Ecol. 34:1091 33. Manzer, J. I. 1976. D i s t r i b u t i o n , f o o d , and f e e d i n g of t h e threespine s t i c k l e b a c k , Gasterosteus aculeatus, in Great Central Lake, Vancouver Island, with comments on competition for food with juvenile sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Fish. Bull. 74(3):647-668. Markovtsev, V. G. 1973. F e e d i n g and f o o d r e l a t i o n s h i p s of young s o c k e y e and t h r e e - s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k i n L a k e Dalnee. J. Fish. Res. Can. Trans. Ser. No. 2830 p. 10. Mauro, J. J. 1973. The a c c u m u l a t i o n heteroclitus in the Hudson River U n i v e r s i t y , Ph. D..  of Cs-137 by F u n d u l u s estuary. New York  McDonald, E. W., J. W. L e n t s c h , M. E i s e n b u d , G. L. Lauer, and G. P. Howells. 1971. Radiocesium distribution in w a t e r , s e d i m e n t , and b i o t a i n t h e Hudson R i v e r e s t u a r y f r o m 1964 through 1970. p. 334-343. In D. J. Nelson [ed.] Radionuclides in ecosystems. Proceedings of the 3rd n a t i o n a l symposium on r a d i o e c o l o g y . May 10-12, 1971, V o l . 1 . McPhail, J. D. 1984. Ecology and e v o l u t i o n of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus): morphology and e v i d e n c e f o r a s p e c i e s p a i r i n Enos L a k e , B r i t i s h Can. J. Zool. 62: 1402-1408.  sympatric genetic Columbia.  M i l i n s k i , M., and R. Heller. 1978. I n f l u e n c e of a p r e d a t o r on the o p t i m a l f o r a g i n g b e h a v i o r of s t i c k l e b a c k s G a s t e r o s t e u s aculeatus. N a t u r e 275(5681):642-644. Minckley,  W.  L.,  J.  E.  C r a d d o c k , and  L.  A.  Krumholz.  1963.  175  N a t u r a l r a d i o a c t i v i t y i n t h e f o o d web o f t h e b a n d e d s c u l p i n Cottus carolinae ( G i l l ) . p. 229-236. In V. Schultz and A.W. Klement J r . [eds.] Radioecology. P r o c e e d i n g s o f the f i r s t n a t i o n a l symposium h e l d a t C o l o r a d o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Fort Collins, Colarado, September 10-15 1961. Reinhold, New York. Nelson, D. J. 1969. Cesium, cesium-137, and potassium concentrations i n white crappie and other C l i n c h river fish. p. 240-248. I_n D. J. N e l s o n and F. E. Evans [eds.] Symposium on radioecology. Proceedings of the s e c o n d n a t i o n a l symposium h e l d a t Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n , May 15-17, 1967 . Nelson, W. C , and F. W. Whicker. 1969. C e s i u m - 1 3 7 i n some C o l a r a d o game f i s h , 1965-66. p. 258-265. I_n J . D. Nelson and F. E. Evans [eds.] P r o c e e d i n g s of the second n a t i o n a l symposium h e l d a t Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n , May 15-17, 1967. Nilsson, Nils-Arvid. 1958. On t h e f o o d c o m p e t i t i o n between two s p e c i e s of C o r e g o n u s i n a N o r t h - S w e d i s h l a k e . Rept. Inst. F r e s h w a t e r Res. D r o t t n i n g h o l m 39:146-161. Northcote, T. G. and P. A. Larkin. p r o d u c t i v i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia Lakes. Bd. Canada 1 3 ( 4 ) : 5 1 5 - 5 4 0 .  1956. I n d i c e s of J. Fish. Res.  P e n d l e t o n , R. C. 1962. A c c u m u l a t i o n of cesium-137 through a q u a t i c f o o d web. U.S.P.H.S. Pub. 999-Wp-25:355-63.  the  Pendleton, R. C, and W. C. Hanson. 1958. A b s o r p t i o n of cesium-137 by components of an aquatic community. P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e 2nd i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e on p e a c e f u l u s e s o f a t o m i c e n e r g y 18:419-422. Poluektov, N. S., and V. T. M i s h c h e n k o 1962. The p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e a n a l y t i c a l c h e m i s t r y o f l i t h i u m , r u b i d i u m , and cesium, p. 34-48. I_n A. P. Vinogradov and D. I. R y a b c h i k o v [ e d s . ] D e t e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f r a r e e l e m e n t s . I s r a e l program f o r s c i e n t i f i c T r a n s l a t i o n s , J e r u s a l e m . Preston, A., D. F. J e f f e r i e s , and J . W. R. Dutton. 1967. The c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f c a e s i u m - 1 3 7 and strontium-90 in the flesh of brown trout t a k e n from r i v e r s and l a k e s i n t h e British Isles between 1961 and 1966: the variables determining the concentrations and their use in r a d i o l o g i c a l assessments. Water R e s e a r c h 1:475-496. Price, W. J. absorption.  1979. Spectrochemical analysis Heyden and Son L t d . Philadelphia,  Puckett, K. J . , and L. b u r s t swimming s p e e d  by atomic U.S.A..  M. D i l l 1984. C o s t o f m a i n t a i n e d and t o j u v e n i l e c o h o salmon (Oncorhynchus  1 76  kisutch). Rabe  Can.  J.  Fish.  Aquat.  Sci.  41:1546-1551.  , F. W., and B. B. Stephens. 1977. Heavy m e t a l s i n l a k e s of the Coeur d'alene r i v e r v a l l e y , Idado. Northwest S c i e n c e 51(3):183-197.  Rankin, D. P., H. J. A s h t o n , and 0. D. Kennedy. 1979. C r u s t a c e a n z o o p l a n k t o n abundance and s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n i n s i x e x p e r i m e n t a l f e r t i l i z e d B r i t i s h Columbian l a k e s . Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. 897:27p. R e i c h l e , D. E . , P. B. Dunaway, and D. J. Nelson. Turnover and c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f r a d i o n u c l i d e s i n f o o d . N u c l e a r S a f e t y 11(1)43-55. R i c k e r , W. E. 1937. P h y s i c a l and c h e m i c a l Cultus Lake, British Columbia. J. 3(4):346-402.  1970. chains  characteristics of Biol. Bd. Can.  R o g e r s , D. E. 1968. A comparison of the food of sockeye salmon f r y and threespine s t i c k l e b a c k i n t h e Wood R i v e r lakes. I_n F u r t h e r s t u d i e s of A l a s k a s o c k e y e s a l m o n . Univ. Washington P u b l . Fish. N. S. 3:3-43. Romberg, G. P., and W. C. Renfro. 1973. Radioactivity in juvenile Columbia river salmon: a model t o d i s t i n g u i s h d i f f e r e n c e s i n movement and f e e d i n g h a b i t s . T r a n s . Amer. Fish. Soc. 1973(2):317-322. R u t h e r f o r d , D. T., K. D. Hyatt, J . E. R a d z i u l , and G. J. Steer. 1986. P h y s i c a l parameters of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) rearing lakes under study by the Enhancement Unit.' Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. S c i . 1878: 114 p. Ryan, P. M. 1984. Age, growth, and food sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) in c e n t r a l Newfoundland, Canada. Can. Tech. Aquatic. Sci. 1325:IV + I6p.. Ruggles, C. P. Lake, B r i t i s h 21 . Scott, W. B., and Canada. Fish.  of threespine t h r e e l a k e s of Rep. Fish.  1965. Juvenile s o c k e y e s t u d i e s i n Owikeno Columbia. The C a n a d i a n F i s h C u l t u r i s t 36:1E. J. Crossman Res. B o a r d Ca.  1973. Bull.  Freshwater fishes No. 184 966p..  of  S p i g a r e l l i , S. A. 1971. Ecological factors affecting the accumulation o f c e s i u m - 1 3 7 f a l l o u t by a n a t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n of l a r g e m o u t h b a s s ( M i c r o p t e r u s s a l m o i d e s ) . p. 328-33. In D. J. Nelson [ed.] Radionuclides in ecosystems. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 3 r d n a t i o n a l symposium on r a d i o e c o l o g y . May 10-12, 1971. Vol.1.  1 77  S o l y u s , A. A., D. G. F l e i s h m a n , and V. G. Leont'ev. A c c u m u l a t i o n o f c e s i u m - 1 3 7 by f i s h of freshwater Vopr. Ikhtiol. J_0 No. 6 (65) : 1 091 -1 097 .  1970. lakes.  Stephens, K., and J . G. Stockner. 1983. p r o g r a m : methods f o r t h e f e r t i l i z a t i o n Columbia 1970 tol982. Can. Tech. Sci . 1 1 9 2 : i i i + 51p..  The l a k e e n r i c h m e n t of l a k e s i n British Rep. Fish. Aquat.  Stockner, J. G. Phytoplankton Lake, B r i t i s h 32:2413-2427.  Shortreed. 1975. p r o d u c t i o n i n Babine Res. Board Can.  and K. succession Columbia.  R. and J.  S. primary Fish.  Stockner, J . G. and K. D. Hyatt. 1984. Lake f e r t i l i z a t i o n : S t a t e of the a r t a f t e r 7 y e a r s of a p p l i c a t i o n . Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. S c i . 1324:33 p. Stockner, J. G., K. S. S h o r t r e e d , a n d K. Stephens. 1980. The British Columbia lake fertilization program: limnological results from the f i r s t 2 y e a r s of n u t r i e n t enrichment. Fish, and Mar. Serv. Tech. Rep. 924:9lp.. S v a r d s o n , G. 1949. C o m p e t i t i o n between t r o u t and char trutta) and (S. alpinus). Rept. Inst. Freshw. D r o t t n i n g h o l m 29:108-111.  (Salmo Res.  T a n k a , G., A. Tomikawa, and H. Kawamura. 1977. Determination of r u b i d i u m i n b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l s u s i n g a t o m i c a b s o r p t i o n spectroscopy. Bull. Chem. Soc. Japan 50(9):2310-2316. T i l l e r , I. V. stickleback Fish. Res.  1974. Age and growth rate (Gasterosteus aculeatus) in Bd. Can. Trans. Ser. No.  of three-spine Lake Dal'nee. 2916.  Tong, S. S. C , W. D. Young, W. H. Gutenmann, and D. J. Lisk. 1974. T r a c e m e t a l s i n L a k e Cayuga t r o u t ( S a l v e l i n u s namaycush) i n r e l a t i o n t o a g e . J. Fish. Res. B o a r d Can. 1:238-239. Vanderploeg, H. A., and J. R. Kercher. 1974. E f f e c t s of l i m n o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s on bioaccumulations factors. p. 1192-1212. In O. F. N y g a a r d , H. I. A d l e r and W. K. Sinclair Proceedings of the fifth international c o n g r e s s of r a d i a t i o n r e s e a r c h h e l d a t S e a t t l e , Washington, U.S.A. J u l y 14-20, 1974.  [edsTT  Vanderploeg, H. A. R. S. B o o t h e , and F. H. Clark. 1975. A s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y model a p p l i e d t o c e s i u m movement i n an oligotrophic lake. I_n F. G. Howell, J . B. G e n t r y and M. H. S m i t h [ e d s . ] P r o c e e d i n g s o f a symposium on mineral cycling in s o u t h e a s t e r n e c o s y s t e m s , A u g u s t a G e o r g i a , May, 1974.  178  V a n d e r p l o e g , H. A., R. S. B o o t h , and F. H. Clark. 1976. A specific activity and concentration model applied to cesium-137 movement i n a e u t r o p h i c l a k e . p. 164-177. In C. E. Cushing Jr. [ed.] Radioecology and energy resources. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e f o u r t h n a t i o n a l symposium i n radioecology, May 12-14, 1975, Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Werner, E . E . , and D. J. Hall. and habitat switching in 60(2):256-264.  1979. competing  Foraging efficiency sunfishes. Ecology  W i l l i a m s , L. G. and H. D. Swanson. 1958. Concentration c e s i u m - 1 3 7 by a l g a e . Science 127:187-188.  of  Williams, L. G., and Q. Pickering. 1961. D i r e c t and f o o d c h a i n uptake of cesium-137 and strotium-85 in bluegill fingerlings. Ecology 42:205-206. Windell, J. T. 1978. D i g e s t i o n and d a i l y r a t i o n o f f i s h e s . In S. D. Gerking [ed.] Ecology of freshwater fish production. Blackwell S c i e n t i f i c Publications. Wootton, R. J. 1976. P r e s s , New Y o r k .  The b i o l o g y o f s t i c k l e b a c k s .  Academic  W o o t t o n , R. J. 1977. E f f e c t of food limitation during the breeding season on the size, body components and egg p r o d u c t i o n of female s t i c k l e b a c k s ( G a s t e r o s t e u s a c u l e a t u s ) . J. Animal. Ecol. 46:823-834. Zar,  J . H. 1984. Biostatistical H a l l , I n c . new J e r s e y .  analysis.  2nd e d .  Prentice-  179  APPENDIX I Parameter  settings  f o r measurement o f Rb and Cs  Parameter  Rb  wavelength (nm) slit (nm) EDL ( w a t t s ) d r y i n g time ( s e c ) d r y i n g temperature °C d r y i n g ramp ( s e c ) c h a r r i n g time ( s e c ) c h a r r i n g t e m p e r a t u r e °C c h a r r i n g ramp ( s e c ) a t o m i z a t i o n time (sec) a t o m i z a t i o n t e m p e r a t u r e °C argon gas f l o w sensitivity 3  ^rgon 2  3  gas f l o w 7 sec normal  780.0 4.0 2 40 110 22 40 1000 32 7 2400 80 0.0010 1  Cs 852. 1 4.0 3.9 40 110 2.2 40 1000 32 7 2400 80 0.0020 2  during atomization  a r g o n gas f l o w 3 sec i n t e r r u p t d u r i n g f i r s t s t a g e of atomization s e n s i t i v i t y i n Mg/ml f o r a b s o r b a n c e o f 0.00044 w i t h 20 jul i n j e c t i o n w i t h a P e r k i n - E l m e r As-1 a u t o s a m p l e r  180  APPENDIX I I  Interference  Materials  To Cs  was  i n measurement  a n d methods  confirm indeed  the s u p p o s i t i o n  that  this  concentration  f o r Rb  o f Rb.  Each  dilution  Only  and  i n d i v i d u a l samples  s t i c k l e b a c k , and z o o p l a n k t o n  were d i l u t e d 25x, 75x, and 125x. total  signal strength  s u p p r e s s e d a t lower d i l u t i o n s ,  each c o n s i s t i n g of sockeye,  same  o f Rb a n d Cs  tissues  contained  the  r u b i d i u m was e x a m i n e d by  procedure.  Results Total was  concentration  found  absence  of  o f Rb w i t h i n  to  increase  with  a  dilution  effect  concentrations This  result  prior  t o 1985.  each s e r i e s  dilution and  (Figure  a source of e r r o r  dilutions  33 ) .  experimental  would have y i e l d e d t h e same t o t a l  identified  of  In t h e  error, a l l  concentration.  i n the reported  values  181  Figure  33. Changes im m e a s u r e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb i n f i s h with increase i n d i l u t i o n . (symbols: soc=juvenile sockeye, s t = t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k , zoopl=zooplankton).  dilution  183  Ionization  Ionization atomic  absorption  ionization In  read the  only  therefore  analyte  Ionization the  s a m p l e s and  element  (Price,  strength  of  the  s t a n d a r d s and This  Materials  Two 100 with ion  ppb  in a l l  et  al.  can  This  an  no  a  low  a l . , 1983). as  in  this  s i g n a l has  been  interference  on  1983). usually  be  excess  of  results  to a p o i n t  et  furnace  absorption  flame  having  (Grobenski  have p r a c t i c a l l y  1979).  of  in  solved the an  by  spiking  interfering  increase  saturation  in  a n a l y s i s of  Rb  in  the  both  the  samples.  of  applied  calibration  were d i s s o l v e d ppm  elements  in  to  the  and  Cs.  methods  sets  1000  occurrence  graphite  standards with  the  Cs  atomic  interference  s i g n a l up  with  and  the  (Grobenski  p r o c e d u r e was  and  Rb  a f t e r the  should  signal  common  dealing  ionization in  occurs  and  when  is a  p o t e n t i a l s u c h as  contrast,  study,  interference  interference  NaCl.  of  Copeland et a l .  the  in d i s t i l l e d  Sodium was tissue  1973).  s t a n d a r d s of deionized  c h o s e n as  samples  25  ppb,  water.  i t probably  (Copeland  et  50  ppb  One is a al.  and  spiked major 1972,  1 84  Results  The  addition  absorbance signal  of  NaCl  signal(Figures  strength  when t r e a t e d corrective  would  resulted  34 a n d be  35).  expected  i n t h e above f a s h i o n ,  value  in dealing  constructing matrix  as  for  the  depression of the an  increase  from an i o n i z a t i o n procedure  was  in  problem of  no  with the problem.  curves  interference  calibration  a  Since  this  Recalibration  Correction  in  curves  effects  having  samples but w i t h  the  was  attempted  same  by  interference  known c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb a n d  Cs.  Materials  An and in  and methods  artificial  fish  m a t r i x was c o n s t r u c t e d f o r  ( T a b l e s 18 a n d 1 9 ) .  the zooplankton (Copeland  elements  i n the f i s h  Lake M i c h i g a n Four  et  a l .  on o b s e r v e d  1972).  m a t r i x were b a s e d  (Copeland e t a l .  zooplankton  C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of major  m a t r i x were b a s e d  Michigan  both  values i n  Concentrations on  values  elements  for  Lake  of major coho  in  1973).  m a t r i x c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Rb a n d Cs were c o n s t r u c t e d a t  185  Figure  34. Standard 1OOOppm N a C l .  curve  f o r Rb,  a l o n e and  spiked with  .0 . 2 0  + NaCl  0  20  40  Rb  60  ppb  80  100  187  Figure  35. Standard curve ppm N a C l .  for  Cs,  alone  and s p i k e d w i t h  1000  0 . IB A  +NaCl  0.14 O  no  NaCl  0 . 12  0 . 10 OJ U  c ro -a  0 . 08  c_  o  cn  ro  0 . 06  0 . 04  0 . 02  0 . 0 0  20  40  60  Cs  ppb  80  100  189  Table  18. A r t i f i c i a l  zooplankton matrix  major e l e m e n t s ( g ) > 10 ppm wt w e i g h t Al Br Ca  0.99 0.88 17.50  source  A1 0 KBr CaCl CaC0 KBr KN0 NaCl MgCl CaCl NaCl MgCl 2  2  2H 0 2  3  K  9.70  3  CI Na Mg 1  part  14.4 2.65 2.40 of the element  i s derived  2  6H 0 2H 0  2  6H 0  2  2  2  2  weight u s e d (g) 1 .87 1.31 9.74 25.88 as above 24.04 6.76 20.06 a s above a s above as a b o v e  from a n o t h e r compound(s)  listed  190  Table  19. A r t i f i c i a l  major e l e m e n t s ( g ) > 10 ppm wt w e i g h t Ca CI  2.38 7.07  f i s h matrix  source CaCl NaCl CaCl KN0 NaCl NaHC0 MgO 2  2  K Na  35.88 5.01  Mg  2.16  part  of the element  3  3  i s derived  weight used(g) 6.48 3.53 as a b o v e 9.27 as above 9.91 3.58  1  from a compound(s) l i s t e d  above  191  10 ppb,  25 ppb,  diluted  10X, 50x,  10 ppb,  25 ppb,  50 ppb,  A  50ppb,  ppb  deionized  dilutions  observed  procedure  100 ppb.  100X, a n d 200x.  distilled  The  and  and  water.  100 In  i n the data  i s summarized  series was  this prior  i n Table  E a c h c o n c e n t r a t i o n was of  standards  of  prepared  in  also  manner  the  t o 1985 was  range  of  represented.  20.  Results  Recalibration  c u r v e s were p l o t t e d  i n F i g u r e s 36 t o 39  observed  i n F i g u r e s 36 a n d 37, i n t e r f e r e n c e  at  dilutions.  lower  curves  was  A particular  f e a t u r e of  effects the  were  . As 0  present  recalibration  t h e a b s e n c e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e when d i l u t i o n s  exceeded  100X.  Selection a  number  of  curvilinear asymptotic response  of a form steps. response  o f an e q u a t i o n Since with  at higher d i l u t i o n s ;  was  fitted  z =  each  concentration  increasing the  to the equation:  A y — B + y  to f i t the data  expressed  dilution,  concentration  followed  -  a  becoming dilution  Table  20.  Construction  matrix d i l u t i o n factor 1 Ox 50x 1 OOx 200x  of 10 X X X X  recalibration concentrations 25 50 X X X X  X X X X  curves 100 X X X X  Figure  36.  Recalibration  curves  f o r Rb  in  zooplankton.  194  0.25  descending  order (dilutions)  Btandard.  200X, 100X. 50X.  10X  0.20  cu CJ  c ro n c_ o w  n  ro  0. 15  0 . 10  0.05  0.0 0  20  40  [Fib]  60  ppb  80  100  Figure  37.  Recalibration  curves  f o r Cs  in  zooplankton.  196  0.25  0.20  h  descending  order (dilutions)  Btandard, 200X. 100X. SOX, 10X  CD U  0. 15  h  c  CO  n  c_ o to n co  0. 10  0.05  0.0  h 20  40  [Cs]  60  ppb  80  100  1 97  Figure  38.  Recalibration  curves  f o r Rb  in  fish.  198  0.25  h  0.20  h  descending  order (dilutions)  200X. s t a n d a r d s . 100X, SOX,  QJ U C  10X  0 . 15  ro JD  c_ o tn  JD  ro  0 . 10  0.05  0.0  h 0  20  40  [Cs]  60  ppb  80  100  199  Figure  39.  Recalibration  curves  f o r Cs  in  fish.  descending  order (dilutions)  s t a n d a r d , 100 X. 200 X. SOX, 10X  0  20  40  [Rb]  60  ppb  80  100  201  where  A  and  B  are  coefficients. (1)  d e t e r m i n e d by e x p r e s s i n g e q u a t i o n  m — y  1  z  +  Coefficients in linear  form:  c  (2)  where m = t h e s l o p e o f t h e r e g r e s s i o n and c t h e terms  of  the  original  e q u a l s A/B a n d c e q u a l s and (1)  coefficients 1/A.  A a n d B were  of ( 1 ) ,  Substituting  B i n terms of s l o p e and i n t e r c e p t  intercept.  m in equation  for  coefficients  i n equation  (2),  In (2) A  equation  becomes:  (3) y c  m  Slopes  and i n t e r c e p t s  concentration following  for  equations  each  were t h e n set  were f o u n d  of  plotted  separately  recalibration  against  curves.  to d e s c r i b e the data:  A(1 )  m  =  A(0)  (4)  +  B(1 ) B(0)  +  (5)  The  202  Substituting  back  into  z =  where  A(0)  z = absorbance,  A(0),A(1),B(0), A(1),  B(0),  were  further  sum  equation  of  and  and  of  were  using  this  values  procedure given  indicative  of  determination Past (abs)  minimizing  The  to  this  absorbance  concentration  and  not  assumed should  dilution  A(0),  process  and  and  .  the  A plot observed  significant  predicted  Chambers  giving  the  (1984),  best  f i t  of p r e d i c t e d values  was  coefficients  of  43).  v a l u e s were a d j u s t e d  standards  21  against  highly  ( F i g u r e s 40  the observed  i n Table (6)  and  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between  coefficients  listed  equation the  this  r o u t i n e i n B e c k e r and  when i n t e r f e r e n c e was  (original what  by  are  Coefficients  d e r i v e d by  d e v i a t i o n s of  a computer  (6)  x = concentration,  coefficients.  initially  by  ( f m i n p r o g r a m page 3 1 5 ) . by  are  yields:  + y(B(0) + B ( 1 )  + A(1)  B(1)  the  this  y = dilution,  refined  squares  values  B(1)  (3)  by  1) d e t e r m i n i n g  present no  the  at d i l u t i o n  interference),  have  actually  at which the  2)  been  sampled was  absorbance factor  200x,  determining for measured.  the  203  Table  21. C o e f f i c i e n t s  for recalibration  zooplankton A(0)  A(1)  B(0)  curves fish  B(1)  A(0)  A(1)  B(0)  B(1)  Rubidium 19.87  5630  0.4158  440.9  -30.73  5827  0.9798  492.0  Cesium 15.88  4876  0.8151  470.4  -0.6584  3517  0.9914  453.2  Coefficients  of determination  1  Rudidium r =0.96 df=1,14,  p<0.0l)  r =0.75 (F=42.0, df=1,14,  p<0.0!)  p<0.0l)  r =0.92 (F=161.0, df=1,14,  p<0.0l)  2  (F=336.0,  2  Cesium r =0.92 df=1,14, 2  (F=161.0,  1  all  highly  2  significant  204  Figure  40. P r e d i c t e d versus observed absorbances zooplankton r e c a l i b r a t i o n curves.  for  Rb-  205  0 . 18  0.16  h  0 . 14 QJ CJ  c ro  0 . 12  a  c_  o cn n ro  0.10  QJ  0 . 08  h  0 . 06  h  h  u TJ QJ  C_ Q.  0 . 04  0 . 02  0. 0 0.0  0.05  0.10  observed  0.15  absorbance  0.20  206  Figure  41. P r e d i c t e d versus observed absorbances zooplankton r e c a l i b r a t i o n curves.  f o r Cs-  0. 0  0 . 05 observed  0.10  0.15  absorbance  0.20  208  Figure  42. Predicted versus r e c a l i b r a t i o n curves.  observed absorbances  for  Rb-fish  209  0 . 20  0 . 15  h  QJ CJ  c CD  n c_ o cn JQ CD  0.10  h  TD  OJ -M U •rH  "D QJ  C_ Q.  0 . 05  h  0. 0 0. 0  0 . 05  0 . 10  observed  0 . 15  absorbance  0 . 20  210  Figure  43. Predicted versus recalibration curves.  observed absorbances  for  Cs-fish  0.0  0.05  observed  0.10  0.15  absorbance  0.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 16 4
China 15 6
Russia 10 0
Canada 7 4
India 4 2
Germany 3 2
Ukraine 2 0
Mexico 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 14 0
Beijing 10 0
Saint Petersburg 10 0
Unknown 8 2
Shenzhen 5 6
Rimouski 4 4
Toronto 2 0
Redwood City 1 0
Calgary 1 0
Pune 1 0
Park Rapids 1 0
Monterrey 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097183/manifest

Comment

Related Items