Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Responses of young chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum) to changes in sea water content of the environment. Shepard, Michael Perry 1948

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1948_A8 S4 R3.pdf [ 5.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106988.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106988-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106988-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106988-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106988-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106988-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106988-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106988-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106988.ris

Full Text

R E S P O N S E S OF YOUNG CHUM 3 A M O N .  ONCORHYNCHUS K E T A  TO CHANGES I N SEA WATER  (WALBAUM)  CONTENT  OP THE ENVIRONMENT by M'iehael P e r r y  A Thesis The  Submitted  in Partial  Requirements MASTER in  the  Shepard  for OF  the  Fulfilment Degree  of  ARTS  Department of  ZOOLOGY  The  University  of  British  September,  1948.  Columbia  of  ABSTRACT A method i s ponses  of  fish  nature  of  their  young in  the  of  to  of  flow  of  on the  ronmental  sea  estuaries  of  the  water  of  content  content,  salmon streams  s e a w a r d movement o f  of  have  res-  alterations  (2  to  on the  3 C°  that  s u c h as  those  may e x e r t  The and res-  Preliminary  changes  sea  water  i n the  encountered  a directive  fry.  )  fishes'  salmon f r y to  indicate  of  been s t u d i e d .  studied.  eoho  chum s a l m o n  responses  growth to  i n temperature  were a l s o  The r e s u l t s water  i n the  environmental liquids  responses  preferential  c h e m i c a l and p h y s i c a l  Changes  various stages  s a l i n i t y change,  described.  i n the  environment.  small alterations  experiments are  alterations  environmental sea  rates  ponses  to  chum s a l m o n a t  effects in  described f o r measuring the  in  envithe  influence  on  T A B L E O F CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION MATERIALS  —  —  1  AND METHODS  Materials  11  Methods  •  18  RESULTS Changes  i n the  salmon w i t h Responses sea  of  responses  relation young  to  o f young  chum  growth.  chum f r y  to  30 dilute  water.  Effect  of  36 temperature  differences  responses  of  chum f r y  to s e a w a t e r .  Responses  of  eoho  f r y to sea  D I S C U S S I O N M D CONCLUSIONS  on  the 39  water. -  41 ---  42  SUMMARY  47  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  48  LITERATURE APPENDIX  CITED  -  49 --  i-xxx  INTRODUCTION The their  young of  fresh water  reaching in  the  hatching  changes  i n the  food conditions,  the  changes  in  s u c h as  temperature,  tent,  the  of  the  son  that  these  changes  during  their  stay  tors  that  must  be  Field  of  and o f f e r  sea  as  the  fish  final  pose  of  the  present  young of  i n the  effeets  pattern  a stream of  encountered  of  chemistry  the  sea fish.  ahout rapid  been  of to  Pacific water  the  change.  interacting  knowledge the  of  activity  the the  fish.  component  pattern.  the  migrating  water.  describe  a  into  will  The  the  salmon to  directed  fac-  affect  that  No a t t e m p t  relative-  of  define  the  nerka)  species  by  a  rea-  the  overall pieture  of  to  the  migration, a  of  hut  of  of  must  eon-  are  The  with  water  gaseous  bring  isolated factors  s t u d y has  the  stands  activity.  explanation  two s p e c i e s  environment  It  contrasted  during  change  of  conditions,  fish.  Changes  salmon (Oncorhynchus  the  far  competitors,  salinity,  l a n d - l o c k e d members  evident  change  of  and  environment  animals'  sockeye  the  the  the  water  the  the  p r o v i d e an  is  consisting  in  how s i n g l e  fish  the  encounter  environment.  current  laboratory experiments  The m o s t  of  water  understand  observations  units  predators  emphasize  influence  hut  of  the  the to  to  gained  pattern,  nature  the  the  in  serves order  sea,  their  affecting  in  hy  slow growth of  In  the  of  differences  exhibited  (kokanee)  to  migrating from  nature  balances,  growth  ly  sites  light conditions,  identities  significant  salmons,  p h y s i c a l and c h e m i c a l p r o p e r t i e s  acid-base  few  anadromous  pur-  responses stimulus the  fresh  be made  to  attribute  any response  the  sea  water,  the  stable  but  unit  of  the  fish  rather  the  sea  that  the  fish  to s p e c i f i c water w i l l  must  properties  be  of  considered  meet and compensate  as  for  as  a whole. The by  environment  acting  on i t s  influences  metabolism,  mechanism w h i c h b r i n g s (1947)  offers  a  various  of  how  the  the  they a f f e c t  animal.  how a n a d r o m o u s  chemical nature,  the  fish  of  the  organism  to  the  sensory  response.  environmental identities  the  v a r i o u s ways  a c t i v i t y of are  Fry  study of animal  m e t a b o l i s m and hence  A review of  w a t e r medium a f f e c t of  an a p p r o p r i a t e  good a p p r o a c h  considering-the  activity  o r b y s t i m u l a t i n g some  about  by  the  fish  the  activity in  activity  that  changes  offers  some  the  salt  content,  of  of  in  the  picture  l i m i t e d and c o n t r o l l e d by  especially  terms  the  their  environ-  ment . That nity  is  water  all  well  with  eertain  can  known.  It  fishes  salinities  many f r e s h  water  therefore  obvious  change  in s a l i n i t y  physical be  Some  o r be  before  anadromous  repeatedly  observed  a  threshold value  1919;  certain  Chaisson, level  quoted by  anadromous  fish,  s u b j e c t to l e t h a l of  some  entry  for  the  seem  to  sali-  that  sea  k i l l  1932,  1933).  death  in  1924).  moving from the  It  fresh  sudden  consequences,  osmo-regulatory  into  salmonoids  cause  of  will  Chidester,  osmotically prepared  development  complete  ranges  below a  (Bert,  that  only certain  been  (Crozier,  forms  w a t e r must be  must  has  above  to s e a  the  tolerate  concentrations  marine  Likewise  is  fish  i.e.  mechanism  sea. be  able  to  tolerate  -3sudden  changes  advance to  of their  develop  tion.  tshawytscha)  data)  report  transferred 7%o  that  f r y of  the  a few days. keta)  Wickett  eoho  of exposure also  of  the s a l i n e  creek,  B.C.  intertidal  E . H . Moore  i n approximately 4 % o C l .  tality  was o b s e r v e d  have  (p_. k i s u t c h )  1 6 /£o  sea water  been  found buried  at  unpub. c a n be of  C I . ) by day f o r  o f chum s a l m o n i n the  the m o u t h o f  has r a i s e d  and a l t h o u g h  Nile  chum s a l m o n  an increased  the hatched  sea  hurt  each  alevins  data)  i n the e g g s ,  to d i l u t e  that  zone  (unpub.  (Oncorhynchus  would  (about  seem  migra-  with a ehlorinity  to f u l l  have  do n o t  and W.P.Wickett,  salmon  reports  far in  before  directly  sea water  i n good c o n d i t i o n ,  gravel  eggs  time  just  salinities  sea water  to f u l l  others  spring salmon  (V.S.Black the  into  until  that  stronger  environment  while  transferred  investigators  and acclimated  (£.  mentions  that  directly  increasing  no  (1905)  and s u g g e s t s Other  their  tolerance  f r y c o u l d be  them.  of  seaward m i g r a t i o n ,  the necessary  Sumner  water  i n the s a l i n i t y  alevins  mor-  showed  i l l effects. In a p r e l i m i n a r y experiment  was  found that  solution  10  containing  end o f  two d a y s .  showed  that  parr  upon  being placed  CI.  These  tolerate when t h e y  chum a l e v i n s  placed  hand,  investigators  high salinity metamorphose  feel  no m o r t a l i t y  (Salmo  o f e h l o r i n i t y as that  develops from p a r r  the a b i l i t y  rather to  sea  Huntsman a n d Hoar  the A t l a n t i c salmon  i n sea water  by the a u t h o r ,  i n an aerated  14.773B© C I . s u f f e r e d  On t h e o t h e r of  performed  salar) l o w as of such  suddenly at  smolt.  the  it water  at  the  (1939) died 11.06% fish  to  time  In connection  with  -4this of  they  observed  the p a r e n t  could  find  movement showed  of the  from f r e s h  water  and W h i t e  inactive  (contrary  a  tor  (1940)  note  sea-going  time  i n areas  In general,  (10 h r s . ) ,  when e n t e r i n g near  trout i n the  the f u l l  Chum s a l m o n , m i g r a t i n g a s wide  tolerance  e a r l y f r y stage  water where  o f the  that  (1948) fonti-  from observa-  Atlantic  o f f the mouth  these  fish  may b e  moving i n t o  the  good  i n d i c a t i o n that  the  time  of  closely fol-^  of an osmo-regulatory mechanism. f r y , emerge  f o r sea water  the y e a r l i n g s t a g e ,  smolts  offshore.  is a  development  that  l a r g e l y absent  d i l u t e waters  sea  complete  (Salvelinus  and smolts  suggests  the  the s e a  seaward m i g r a t i o n o f anadromous salmonoids  lows  of  B o t h Huntsman  trout  are  of  the bottom  of low s a l i n i t y b e f o r e  waters  transfer  w o u l d seem f r o m the above  This  there  however,  the c o n c e n t r a t i o n  speckled  It  time  stream.  concentrated  (1947)  hut  the normal  the s u g g e s t i o n  of sea water."'  brook  spend a short  acclimating  the  to  f o r a time  that  that  in  i f  m i g r a t i n g from the r i v e r s  the parent  of metamorphosis,  Jones  a n d may b e s e e n s c a t t e r e d  tions  the  time  o f f the mouth  Huntsman a n d Hoar observed  s a l i n i t y areas"'.  more  the  the s e a .  slowly  "high  salmon  sea water  could not stand an abrupt  i s l i t t i e . movement  nalis)  to  and H o a r ) , b u t t h a t  abruptly,  of  to  even s m o l t s  resulted.  i n the  of mortality ocouring during  to s e a w a t e r  quite  there  prior  smolts  was i n c r e a s e d  survival "are  stream,  no e v i d e n c e  that  Huntsman  dead p a r r  while  cohos,  do n o t d e v e l o p  has p a s s e d .  from the g r a v e l w i t h  this  a  normally migrating tolerance  I n the A t l a n t i c  until  saLmon,  which  migrate  after  tolerance  to  spending  one  or  s a l i n i t y does  two y e a r s  not  seem  to  i n fresh water be  evident  in  a wide  the  parr  stage. Upon l e a v i n g the confronted with from  the  this  gradient  parent  a gradient  mouth of  the  has  not  E v i d e n c e has  euryhaline  their  brackish to  or  fresh  two c u r r e n t s  water.  sea water ments  t h a n to  must be  a  the  one  to be  of  rature of  fish  do n o t  Rogers  the  have  than  the  seem to  aculeatus)  two c u r r e n t s ;  from  author states  i n an  the  one  r i v e r and the  difference  the  fresh,  by  of the  saline  cer-  water the  of  sea  to  these  to  fish  other  "reactive"  involving that  the  experi-  factors  factors  in s a l i n i t y .  responses  limited  other  suoh as on the Such  data  tempeactivity  conclu-  presented.  of sticklebacks  (Gaste-  s i m u l t a n e o u s l y exposed  other  salt.  The  l o w s a l i n i t y were outgoing t i d e . tidal  and the  is  k i l l i f i s h  He e x p o s e d  However,  from the  the  sea,  salinity  from sea  profound effect  when t h e y were  estuary  estuary  a more  follow  (1939 ) o b s e r v e d  rosteus  living  the  and c u r r e n t  these  sions  water,  the  by  a very preliminary nature,  for without d e s c r i b i n g experiments than sea  to  i n the  moves  were more  not  migrating fish  w o r k e d on t h e  fresh  stream.  extending  i n d i c a t i n g that  changes  are  Ytfhether o r  estuary  to s p a w n .  fish  fresh  considered  to  sea.  on the  form which  areas  the  open  ( 1 9 2 2)  simultaneously,  He f o u n d t h a t  the  seaward migrants content,  presented  Chide s t a r  water  water  t h r o u g h the  been  heteroclitus),  the  effect  f o r m s may r e a c t  environment.  (Fundulus  to  a directive  t h e i r movement  tain  i n sea  stream  influencing known.  stream,  flow  fish  to  normally  sometimes  carried  The  fresh  flow  from  exerted  their  influence  on the  fish  always  moved i n t o  rative  experiments  a  trough,  always  at  one  estuarial  the  fresh  where  water  he  salt,  author  with  etc.,  response  c u r r e n t was more  the  estuary  than  authors  have  fishes'  response  Doudoroff ditions  and expresses  the  stressed to  (1938)  the  describe the  closely controlled,  ferences  is  r a d i c a l l y modified.  gradient  in a specially constructed  trough sider  to  as  the  other  he  temperature  the w a t e r  salinity.  gradient fish  end.  (as  responded  to  of  to  the  the  their of  It  stream. (both  this and  the  flow  fishes'  return  factors  to Both  on  the  and an e x p e r i m e n t when these  response  tank.  to  the  con-  salinity  dif-  a  length  salinity  of  at  the  i n t e n t i o n to  desired  by  other  The s a l i n i t y  was h i s the  In  in  were  salinity.  other  that  control,  conthe  w e r e made u n i f o r m t h r o u g h o u t  well  minimized. as  Using Fundulus  G i r e l l a ) , he  orientation of  H o w e v e r , w h e n he  along with  there  that  He e s t a b l i s h e d  movements  c o u l d o b t a i n no s t a b l e to  the  To e s t a b l i s h  experimental animal  respect ture  the  t e n s i o n and  t r o u g h and  that  the  0  only s a l i n i t y .  oxygen the  5% at  thought  throughout  0  corrobo-  temperature  or absence  indicate  e n d was 2 6 % d e c r e a s i n g  that  same r e s u l t s .  are  one  fish  Fundulus and M e n i d i a ,  influence  to  In  fresh water  s a l i n i t y differences  seems  the  two p a r a l l e l f l o w s  found  important  presence  that  stream.  i n the  the  d i d not  conditions, to  the  he  present  and achieved  the  of  noted  established  experiment  forms)  -6and Rogers  time  many f i s h  this  report  same  f r e s h a n d one  t w i c e as  He r e p e a t e d  short  the  the  established  s a l i n i t y gradient,  temperature  in  the  he  states  fish  with  a  tempera-  found  same w a y  that  that  -7they would In sea  have  the  water  if  gradients that  streams  affect  the  are  few. in  of  Huntsman  the  sea  the  of  water  the  of  seem to  of  salmon r i v a r w a r d . H e observed  towards  the  fronted  by a whole  current  and  these,  environment directing valid  temperature.  and  the  picture  water  gradients it  possess  the  in  s h o u l d be stimulus  of  of  the  of  sea  the  one  the  fish,  of  adult  salmon moving  the  fish  w o u l d be  such  does  the  not  con-  as such  from a fresh as  gra-  movement  in identities  factor  smolts.  observations  overall  as  water  influence  seem to be  cited  above  does  not  how m i g r a t i n g f i s h e s  respond  of  Before  the  environment.  possible  to  water,  two  relationship basic  a  discriminate and i f  so,  definite  whether  or  purposive  present to  or  not  between  the  between  sea  manner.  water defined. fish  different  concen-  receptor  the  changes  migrating  described.  not  a  g a i n i n g an  p r i n c i p l e s must be  whether  p e r c e p t i o n s h o u l d be  established In a  on  changing factors,  out  no  mouths  "Salinity  for  environment  be e s t a b l i s h e d  ability  the  find  or  situation.  and m i g r a t i o n , must  trations volved  the  of  salinity  can  based  w h i c h time  Differences  single  eontent  understanding  First  of  c o n f l i c t i n g evidence  clear-eut sea  to  of  at  a marine  movement  analysis The  in  pattern  distinguish  off  present.  A t l a n t i c salmon  principal factor  spawning stream  to  adults:  dients  not  (1948)  f o l l o w i n g statement  s t r e a m w a r d movements  the  were  responses  s e a w a r d movement  the  be  gradient  reports  gradients  H o w e v e r he m a t e s the  salinity  salmonoids,  evidence  of  the  fish  mechanism  i n -  Secondly,  it  respond  to  the  -8The has  first  been  with  17  investigated different  associating mental  response  water  to  the  experimental as  discern  the  %Q C I .  a n d some  of s a l t  in their  that the  nerves a 10$  r e m o v a l of streamward  Half had  of  returns, way t o  the  orgen".  was  gans there  of  519  nerves  river  nerve  for  change fish  is  to  an  to  nebu-  showed  (0.  affect nerka):  strait,  As computed f r o m able  ob-  stimulate  seriously  Johnstone  to  invol-  (Ameiurus  salmon  of  B.C.  tagging  make  their  olfactory  sense  use  of the  the  harmful effects  of  the  procedure. Parker  (1902,  1905)  stimulate  the  in certain  teleosts,  Smith  lateral  on  as  may b e  (1926)  d i d not  f i s h were  salinity  is  catfish  sockeye  removed.  without  able  a l l  of  permits  organs  environ-  that  environment  Craigie  tagged  that  that  by  conditioned  differences  he w a s of  adult  fish  "evident  Fraser  Although the  olfactory  A l l o w a n c e w a s made  operative  in  barbels  migration of  olfactory it  the  a  worked  that  the  He f o u n d  sense  that  UaCl s o l u t i o n .  the  a sample  their  and g u s t a t o r y  of  of  could distinguish a  presence  reports  (1938),  could develop  alone.  change,  and found  salinity  mechansim  Hoagland (1932)  with  the  sensory  ved.  losus)  he  Bull  fishes  The  olfactory  salinity  workers.  marine  change  of  could discriminate  one;  sensory  of  feeding,  salinity  scure  the  by s e v e r a l  with  only 0.06%o C I .  perception  reduction in  species  0.45  the  species  a slight  sea  little  problem,  a circulation line  canals  of  of the  failed  nerves  of  (1930,  environmental gold  fish  to the  1933)  show  that  lateral  line  observes  fluids  (Carassius  changes  through  or-  that the  auratus).  -9and f e e l s  that  this  m e c h a n i s m may o p e r a t e  and c h e m i c a l changes The s e c o n d nature ments  of of  be  basic  a response the  purposive nervous  in  fish  the  mechanism that  migration  the  The n a t u r e  of  the  d i s c u s s e d w i t h o u t an e x t e n s i v e  vous  s y s t e m and  about with  The  o s m o - r e g u l a t i o n are (e.g.  rostrata) actively  are  transferred  I n summary, water  ways.  to  i n some  trout,  a period of  dilute  waters  environment.  eels  said  species,  that  it  of  fish has  is  cannot  the  be  life pat-  adequa-  the  ner-  following do b r i n g  activities  observed nervous  v u l g a r i s or A .  to  sea  loss  of  water, fluid  they  to  chemical nature  salmonoids i n an  to  sea  the  the  salmon and  a more  shown that  of  general  actual  w a t e r may  move i n t o  been  three  osmo-regulatory system  in Atlantic  acclimation  Third,  the  s h o r t l y before  Secondly,  the  of  content  (Anguilla  the  and  1939)).  anadromous  before  phases  water  extensive  (Krogh,  develop u n t i l  movement b e g i n s .  i n sea  from f r e s h water  may be  influences  First,  seem  it  hormones  However, the  to c o u n t e r a c t  environment  of  p a r t i a l l y accomplished by  when anadromous  swallow water  hypertonic  not  changes  nervous responses.  control  sea  that  move-  t h i a mechanism  consideration  activity.  the  coordinated  mechanism cannot  tely  indicates  during  the  i n g r o w t h and r e p r o d u c t i v e  response  endocrine  that  influence  occurs  t y p e f i e d by changes  control  The w e l l  of m i g r a t i o n suggests  overlooked, for  example  might  migration.  However,  terns.  physical  environment.  i n nature.  history,  sense  problem requiring c l a r i f i c a t i o n is  during  pattern  to  does  seaward speckled  take  place  concentrated  certain  marine  in  -10forms nity  can of  notably  their  environment  A l t h o u g h some  waters  may e x e r t  there  direct  role the  i n sea  It  is  the  of  sea  fluence rents  may be  and  water  in its  of  is  chum s a l m o n f r y , m o d i f i e d by  temperature  other  changes.  the  this  capacity  on the  as and  chief  thesis a  the  to  factors  estufish  the  by  sea,  presence  of  directive  factor.  investigate  directive  to  water  the  s t r e a m m o u t h to  i n d i c a t i n g that  content  main purpose  water  a c t i v i t y of  evidence  "pressure"  of  sali-  forms,  i n sea  properties  f r o m the  i n the  euryhaline  alterations  a directive  t h e i r movement  a gradient  to  some  p r o p e r t y or  influencing ds no  small differences  and t h a t  F u n d u l u s , may r e s p o n d  content. arial  d i s c r i m i n a t e between  suggest such as  the  influence how t h i s water  on  in-  cur-  -11M A T E R I A L S A N D METHODS Materials Alevins ming stage)  (the of  larval stage),  the  and f r y  of  in  experiments.  the  Both Pacific  the  chum s a l m o n  eoho  these  salmon  species  salmons)  (0.  the  to  the  are  water  d u r i n g the  initial  phases  later  migrating  major  period of growth and feeding  turn  to  fresh water,  Spawning eggs  being  takes  place  buried  beneath  from the fish  prominent  fry.  The  the  moving  chum m i g r a t e  eoho  remain  seaward.  their  is  late  life is  later. of  soon  (the  immediately, for  a  adults  re-  after. the  coastal  for  a  sal-  approxtime  nourishment  gravel  free while  year  the  continues,  the  as  and  Fall,  deriving  fresh  and  appear  They r e m a i n  hatching  water  or the  As development  sea  The  of  in  history  alevins  gravel,  after  i n fresh  used  position:  reached  Summer  t h e i r way u p * t h r o u g h  to  were  living  spent.  gravel  hatching  y o l k sac.  a month and a h a l f The  fish,  maturity  loose  a foot  gradually "work  emerge  of  about  of  i n the  i m a t e l y a month and a h a l f  Walbaum),  Oncorhynchus  and u s u a l l y die  i n the  and r i v e r s .  anadromous  where  spawn,  deposited  mon s t r e a m s  sea  keta  swim-  PISCES NSOPTERYGII ISOSPONDYLI SALM0N0IDE.fi SALMONIDAE Oncorhynchus  salmons  the  genus  free  following systematic  Pacific  to  initial  k i s u t c h Walbaum),  Class Subclass Order Suborder Family Genus The  (the  (Oncorhynchus  belong  and have  fry  the to  swimming the  or more  majority before  The streams, of  the  generally eoho  butaries of  chum s a l m o n s p a w n i n most  the  of  the  extensive,  the  larger  fry  tinguished anal  and of  by a  fin,  from  while  region.  The  heavy marks orange is  the Four  to  the  Nile  that  of  p a r r marks  the  the  is  deep,  eoho  well  tinge  are  line  while  eoho,  but  absent  a brownish-green groups  the  i n the  blue-green  of  laboratory  captured fish  and f i s h  cohos  upper  tri-  reaches  Nile  captured  captured  lake  used  at  dis-  the  eoho  but  slender  and  in  and u s u a l l y eoho  have  pelvic  the  head  extend  broad,  line.  A light  and a n a l  f r o m the  chum.  to  in  green  of  markings.  and b r o a d  fins  The  dor-  colour,  colouration.  chums w e r e u s e d at  readily  structure  in  lateral  pectoral,  has  separate  the  below the  i n the  are  chum i s  slender  eoho  at  areas  lower  and f i n  evident  of  ehum i s  creek,  the  i n the  body shape,  the  fish  salmon  spawning  in  species  The b o d y  lateral  i n the  experimentally  tured  the  a n a l f i n are  chum.  University,  The  two e x p e r i m e n t a l  extending  in  as  coast  The  found  well  of  Fish reared Columbia,  as  comparison of  or r e d d i s h  surface  while  the  the  noticeable  sal  rivers  lest  sea.  f i s h being  chum p a r r m a r k s  lower than  the  streams.  i n the  the  shallow,  no  from the  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  Elongated rays absent  far  are  rivers  The  not  of  the  U n i v e r s i t y of  creek,  B.C.,  and u s e d  i n the  i n the  and  experiments British  transported  experimentally  Cowichan r i v e r  and  at used  Cowichan, B . C .  i n experiments  Cowichan r i v e r .  at  Lake  Cowichan were  eap-  10  FIGURE 1 -  20  30 40 AGE-DAYS  50  L i n e a r g r o w t h o f chum s a l m o n a l e v i n s r e a r e d from eggs at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  1}  Fish, r e a r e d Eggs  tured  creek,  These were transported  British  to  dishes  quate  ventilation.  pH 6 . 6 0 ,  6.1°C.  The  in late  of  to  end o f  the  The  7.2°C.  eggs were thanks  in  the  3.1°C.  due  this  to M r . I .  the  experiments  author  began  linear fig. t o be were while  1.  growth of  The  these  instantaneous  from specimens  mentally.  other  measurements  gra-  were  a  and  up  discontinued.  1948.  and M r . S.  to  was n o t e d  Hatching its  diseased Sincere  B.  S m i t h who  and m a i n t a i n i n g them  until  mid-March. is  for  fish  illustrated  for  in  l e n g t h was  sampled  in  b y D r . W.  w e r e made  from f i s h used  w a s made  to  S.  separate  found  February  preserved  A l t h o u g h no attempt  ade-  reaching  hatching period.  growth rate  obtained  tap  insure  change  Infertile  specimens  ' The m e a s u r e m e n t s  of  and January  experiments  o b t a i n i n g eggs in  large  of March and r e a c h e d  the  0.894.  a l l  l i t t l e  W. B a r r e t t  for  in  to  early March,  month.  were r e s p o n s i b l e  ' d r y method'  water rose  o n 0&a£S>. 2 9 t h ,  part  throughout  the  i n December  early A p r i l ,  latter  of  12th,  University of  saturation)  F e b r u a r y and  middle of  removed  are  of  the  cap-  on N o v .  a c o n t i n u a l flow  temperature  a l e v i n appeared  continued u n t i l  B.C.,  immediately placed  May w h e n l a b o r a t o r y  first  i n the  l a b o r a t o r y at  oxygen near  f r o m an average  height  peak  the  and p r o v i d e d w i t h  (avg.  about  Vancouver,  They were  water  dually  West  spawning females  a r t i f i c i a l l y f e r t i l i z e d by the  Columbia.  stacking  laboratory.  obtained from several  i n Nelson  1947. and  were  i n the  Hoar, experi-  the  . fish  with, r e s p e c t  to  random s a m p l i n g of sents the  a  the  day of h a t c h i n g ,  the of  fish  the  more  provide a selective  i n each  Pish  stacking  transported  near  the  average  to  dish  (200  large  to  felt  that  on a given day  rate  of  growth.  to  preWhile  elude  capture  considered  number o f  a  fish  to  pre-  300).  creek.  captured at  Nile  is  s a m p l i n g was  the  from N i l e  mouth o f  it  individuals  factor,  Chum s a l m o n f r y w e r e ated  present  active  s u f f i c i e n t l y r a n d o m due  sent 2)  a l l  estimate  a b i l i t y of  might be  fair  tne  -14-  creek  a counting fence  (47  miles  north  of  situ-  Nanaimo,  B.C.).. The extends mile  p o r t i o n of f r o m about  upstream  the 150  creek yds.  from here.  normally u t i l i z e d  above  the  The s t r e a m  mouth to  and s m a l l boulders  interspersed  varies  between  ft.  3 ft.  at  the  30  time  and 100 of  while  observation  A p p r o x i m a t e l y 80 f i s h w e r e hatehery The of  fry  can  temperature ice  to  battery (temp.  several  size  the was of  these  width  depth averaged  about  to May  and  close the  transported  fish  died  No c a u s e  to be  f i s h was  13th).  to  7°C.  by  f i s h were  to the  the  responsible 3 5 . 8 0 mm.,  Vancouver. addition  f r o m the  than  for  a  in a  water  following  other  in  placed  s u p p l y of r u n n i n g tap  day a f t e r . thought  sand.  mortality resulted  10  mainly small  c a p t u r e d and p l a c e d  On a r r i v a l ,  about  the  a  The  (Apr. 25th  gals.)  maintained  No e v i d e n t  although more  10  provided with a  7°C).  confinement average  was  the w a t e r .  jar  porting,  (cap.  with  spawning  about h a l f  bottom is  gravel  for  trans-  day  and  unnatural  this.  The  considerably  larger  -15th an  that  of  the  laboratory  reared  specimens  used  two w e e k s  previously. 3)  F i s h used experimentally From May 4 t h  performed fence.  of  9 or  to May 1 3 t h ,  chum f r y  Because  perature below  on  the 10°C.  A's t h e  fish  the  the  perature 12.0°C). iod, If  the  here,  of  mation.  was  creek  c o u l d not  of  the  i n water  part  near  the  be  to  this,  asphaltum.  the  was the  fish  The  tem-  (never  above  acclimation  times  cap-  overnight  experimental  on a c c l i m a t i o n  tem-  lowered  acclimate  maintained  of  the  creek water  To do  were  was  counting  available,  to room temperature  greater  findings  experiments  Nile  with black  rose  of  necessary  an e x p e r i m e n t  the  per-  temperature.  for  various  C y p r i n i d a e and A m e i u r i d a e a r e  roughly *applicable  period probably  for  insure  that  a  the  made  the  lengthening  The  average  d i d not  change  complete  However,  of  of  length  transported  to  the of  allow  1 C° p e r  acclimation  few f i s h m i g r a t i n g  significantly different and  the  temperature.  coated  for  (19 44)  He f e l t to  at  was f e l t  bucket  f i s h were  this  margin  buckets  Thus  Brett's  species  it  day before  i n the  &. s e r i e s  temperature  experimental  in hatchery  creek.  experimenta 1 s o l u t i o n s  6 and 7 ° C ,  tured  captured  Nile  no c o o l i n g a p p a r a t u s  between to  at  at  of  the  complete  d a y was  any of  time  of  acclimation period these  f r o m the  Vancouver  a  these  species.  impractical.  was  34.02  length  the  fish  two weeks  safe  experimentation  specimens of  accli-  previoxBly.  mm.,  not  captured  -164)  Fish  captured  Lake  Cowichan,  £  series  operated B.  G.  of  "by t h e  Cowichan r i v e r  eddy  of  mouth of  experiments Pacific  ocean  tide,  5 ft.  The  the  the  and t r a n s p o r t e d  to  B.C. carried  chum a n d  and i s  out  is  about  well  150  consists  at  point,  the  of  hatchery  Lake  This  Cowichan, captured  5 miles  influence  wide w i t h  chiefly  a  f r y were  above  ft.  at  eoho  Cowichan r i v e r .  river,  bottom  was  Biological Station  Using a hand s e i n e ,  a hack the  i n the  a  large  above  of  depth  in  the  averaging  gravel  and  small  boulders. The Lake  were  transported  Cowichan hatchery  capture) 10^-"  fish  and  retained  x 7f-' ). water  perature during  of the  a nearby  the  water  trough  period  with  minimum i n the  water  more  than  averaged  early  2 C° p e r  1 cc./l.  l o u r ime t r i c a l l y )  did not  Experimental  water  Sea of  water  British  B.C.,  and  carboys.  used  oxygen the  x  T  flow  of  The  tem-  and  11.0°C.  fluctuation  in  mid-afternoon,  variation  content  of  from  was the  pH ( d e t e r m i n e d  vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y  experiments  C o l u m b i a was  The  while  7.0°C.  This  of  co-  7.0.  solutions.  in  transported  The  creek.  reached  the  (17-§-  continuous  Diurnal  to  point  troughs  between  morning.  day.  a  spring-fed  being  f r y cans  f r o m the  hatchery  varied  temperature  29.0  sea  miles  experimentation.  the  rarely  peak  of  gallon  provided with  piped from  occured, the  20  in standard  These were  r  fresh  (about  i n 10  to  chlorinity  obtained the of  performed  the  from E n g l i s h Bay,  University three  at  i n 50  solutions  University Vancouver,  liter  obtained  glass i n March  -17and  early April  solution of  the  and  averaged  (about in  obtained  stronger  At  solutions  the  Nile  creek,  1^- m i l e s  material, once  from the  Maple  with  i n 10  Again,  to  filtered  the  were reduce  quid  involved.  cloth  was  due  to of  the  sea  water  between  12  To  danger  solutions.  at  Lake  of pollution,  A l l retaining soap  cloth.  fresh water.  solutions  Despite  an o i l y  i n the  f i l -  eliminate  by The  organic least  mixing ehlorini-  C o w i c h a n , was  from  Three  150  gallon  and  June  10th.  a l l  solutions  were  F i n e r f i l t r a t i o n was large and f r y  quantity of l i cans were large  precautions,  appeared  troughs,  were f o u n d to  trans-  barrels  and r i n s e d w i t h  these  slick  retaining  solutions  troughs  and w a t e r  were  and 1 3 % o C l .  hatchery).  cotton  orga-  b r o u g h t ^ i n at  and p a r a f f i n coated  from the  of  disintegration of  water were  bay  transported  a l l solutions  i m p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r i n g the  these  a  The p H  amount  before use.  i n experiments  the  two s h i p m e n t s  ments,  water,  obtained between May 20th  oughly washed w i t h  the  i n the  stock  through coarse  to be  of  but  obtained from Qualicum  As a n o t i c e a b l e  g a l l o n f r y cans  felt  tities  15%©01.,  d e t e r m i n e d by a Beckman pH meter  experimental site)  cotton  constant  (20 m i l e s  quantities  was  quantities  water used  bay  only 9 . 8 8 ^ , 0 1 .  was  about  A l l e x p e r i m e n t a l d i l u t i o n s w e r e made  was f a i r l y  ported  26th  barrels.  pollution  fresh  a day.  Sea  at  w a t e r was  was p r e s e n t  of  creek water  last  sea  through coarse  danger  constant  7.8.  material  tered  fairly  on A p r i l  p a r a f f i n coated  nic  ty  was  be  on the  to  in  the  quan-  the  surface  fhen used toxic  in  thor-  of  experifish,  -18a sample hours.  of  ten  The  t o x i c i t y of  days  after  last  shipment,  from  that  proved  water  water  carried in  in  the  s o l u t i o n dying w i t h i n became e v i d e n t  from the  sea  the  fry  equally toxic.  were  about  five  had b e e n made.  barrels  cans,  was  In  the  segregated  but both  Experiments  48  solutions  performed  with  these  discarded.  average  was  i n the  the  transport  transported  solutions  ments  the  t o be  The  fish placed  c h l o r i n i t y of  the  solutions  used  1 4 . 9 6 % o C l . , w h i l e t h e p H was n e a r  8.0.  in  experi-  f  Methods.  *  The  primary purpose  responses  of  consisting water  the  of  young of  a f l o w of  environment.  The  were  also  basic  ment  of  medium. the  their The  effects  to  salmon to  directed  in their  was  into  study a  the  stimulus  their  fresh  response  to  sea  water  in concentration  of  the  sea  c o n d i t i o n s , ' and  temperature  studied.  to  native nature  of  sea water  current  method  two a l t e r n a t i v e s  experiments  chum a n d eoho  changes  alterations-in  changes,  the  Changes  accompanying growth, water,  of  other  of  the  s t u d y i n v o l v e d the fish;  fresh of  the  either  water,  moving into  or moving i n t o  sea water  factors  presentation  on the  an environa sea  was m o d i f i e d t o basic  of  response.  water  study  FIGURE 2 -  A:  Top v i e w o f  B:  Plan v i e w  of  apparatus. apparatus.  Scale: .1" Scale:  =. 10"  1" =  1',2"  d 1 - Reservoir. 2 - P a r t i t i o n separating reservoir f r o m trough aim. 3 - C u r v i n g ramp l e a d i n g i n t o t r o u g h arm. 4 - Trough arm. 5 - P a r t i t i o n s e p a r a t i n g t r o u g h arras. 6 - Undivided portion of trough 7 - Screening p a r t i t i o n . 8 - Non-experimental part of undivided p o r t i o n . 9 - T r i a n g u l a r p a r a f f i n blocks forming sides of O u t l e t . 10 - A d j u s t a b l e g l a s s s l i d e s f o r c h a n g i n g w i d t h o f outlet. 11 - O u t l e t . 12 - D r a i n .  -19Apparatus. The flows  purpose  of  dom t o  of  the  experimental  move  of  a  into either  parated  situated  f r o m each  introduced  into  that  divided  at  the  at  one  end o f  reservoirs  and down t h e - t r o u g h a r m s . portion,  the  two arms  distance  down t h i s  two p a r a l l e l  f i s h would have  end  each  led  into  the  far  into  of  two  free-  the  arms,  these  end o f  was  the  that  solutions  the  a screen  divided A  was  short placed.  trough consisted  partial  p a r t i t i o n eonstructed  so  the  tapered  to  The w i d t h  width  of  the  se-  partitions  a common c h a m b e r .  portion,  consis-  'arms'.  Experimental  other  end o f  a narrow opening.  i n f i g . 2)  flowed over  A t the  undivided  at  provide  (illustrated  arm by a p a r t i t i o n .  the  An o u t l e t ' system  to  flow.  chamber  wooden t r o u g h  A reservoir  -was  solutions so  The e x p e r i m e n t a l ted  apparatus  of  the  of  a  trough  opening  could  •  be  adjusted  grooves  in  by m a n i p u l a t i n g two microscope the  floor  Experimental liter  glass  of  the  u s u a l l y were p l a c e d  or p a r a f f i n c o a t e d  experiments).  Prom here  rubber  provided with  into ft.  tubing,  two 2 above  siphoned  the  the  jars.  experimental  i n t o .the  adjusted  mental  Mason  through pressure  stopcocks) were  qt.  to  chamber,  solutions screw These  tubing,  jars The  were  were  i n two (in,  in  siphoned to  through  regulate  placed  solutions  When t h e s e  desired  or  flow,  about were  l-§then type  stopcocks  f l o w t h r o u g h the  carboys  50  field  (equiped w i t h burette  two r e s e r v o i r s .  f l o w s f r o m the  barrels  stopcocks  trough.  d e l i v e r the the  fitted  trough.  solutions  carboys,  slides,  barrels  experiwere  FIGURE 3 -  A:  D i a g r a m o f t h e m i x i n g o f two t e s t s o l u tions. B l a c k p o r t i o n and s o l i d l i n e s r e p r e s e n t p r e s e n c e o f one t e s t s o l u t i o n . White p o r t i o n and broken l i n e s indicate presence of other test s o l u t i o n . S c a l e : 1" * 10".  B:  D i a g r a m o f l i n e s o f f l o w o f one o f two test solutions flowing through experimental p o r t i o n of trough. Rate of f l o w i n b o t h t r o u g h arms 2 cm./sec. S c a l e : 1" * 5".  C:  D i a g r a m o f l i n e s o f f l o w o f one o f two test solutions flowing through experimental p o r t i o n of trough. Rate of f l o w i n arm d r a w n uppermost - 2 c m . / s e c ; i n l o w e r arm 0.7 cm./sec. S c a l e : 1" * 5".  1 - Ramp l e a a i n g i n t o t r o u g h a r m . 2 - P a r t i t i o n separating trough arms. 3 - Screening partition.  -20adjusted  so  that  This  insured  flow  throughout Flow  of  their  fig.  3,  ments  to  definite  not  ving  of  are  experimental  the  trough,  to  the  top. constant  as  the  i n conditions the  to  is  of  is  in  the  the  tend  to  in  undivi-  end o f  the  experi-  laminar  when the  seen  of  the  that of  current  move  in  a  conditions  flow  flow,  on the  velocities  the  the  (fig.  trough.  equal  trough  in  turbulent  emergence  end o f  obser-  irregular.).  flow lines It  and  illustrated  outlet  produce  opposed  equal.  is  two arms met  to  particles  inlet  p o r t i o n ' of  is  flow present  seen  quantities  solutions  t o w a r d the  of  i n c h f r o m the  the  c  by a d d i n g s m a l l  With unequal rates  nearer  full  and p r o v i d e d a  solution particles  pattern)  one  two a r m s .  undivided  flows  flows 3c),  Eddy  were  side  the  begin  from mixing  currents,  observed  of  of  in  the  slower  mo-  current. With  salt  slow moving currents,  solution  along (due  the  3b r e p r e s e n t s  evident  the  velocities  movement  about  occured  to  studied  2 c m . / s e x . ) are  two s o l u t i o n s  mixing  were  through  small  linear  Fig.  of water  f l o w i n g down t h e  (where  the  head  and g r a d u a l l y mixed  The  conditions  j a r s wer"e k e p t  experiment.  dye  solutions  trough.  the  blue  passage  ded p o r t i o n  the  the  conditions  ving  (1  Mason  a e ons t a n t  methylene  (where  the  the  to  diffuse  inside walls  to.frictional  solutions locities  (due of  the  to  of  along the  there the  floor  and a l s o  surface  tension.).  of  those  a tendency of  the  used  along  the  surface  However, w i t h i n the  for  trough  partition separating  forces)  order  was  the  and arms  of flow  experiments,  the  the vethese  -21factors  were  The as  tom,  as  of  forces  possible  the  some  this  purposes  of  protect tions  the  of  forces  the  the fish  thus  current to be  at  flow  and  was  the  and f r i c t i o n a l  the  top and  negligible for  bot-  the  the  by coating  producing a surface This covering also  from abrasions  were  and prevented  smoother  served  the  the  salt  to solu-  wood.  conducted  the  or  barrels.  2)  The  desired  rates  of  In experiments  fish  water,  to sea the  a sea  trough while  3) M s a m p l e o f  that  mid-line  of  about the  r o o m was  5) T e n m i n u t e s  lines.  the  fish  of  fish  was  on e i t h e r  selec-  the side  darkened. and at  intervals  of  10  one  other.  trough.  later,  es-  the  d i r e c t e d down  p o r t i o n of  were  car-  t r o u g h were  response  o r more  undivided  the  i n the  f l o w e d down t h e  approximately ten  of  the  s o l u t i o n was  fresh water  half  prepared  t h r o u g h the  dealing with  in  same  was e m p l o y e d :  flow  water  random and p l a c e d  4) T h e  a l o n g the  e x p e r i m e n t a l s o l u t i o n s were  tablished.  the  tension  p a r t i a l l y overcome  general procedure  1)  t r o u g h so  v e l o c i t y of  Experiments.  The f o l l o w i n g  ted at  surface  the  rough wood.  All experiments  arm o f  the  s o l u t i o n surface  felt  were  p a r a f f i n wax,  of  of  course  slowing  from soaking into  Design  boys  between Of  that  experiment.  Frictional  that  so  i n f l u e n c e was  the  trough with  negligible.  arranged  trough.  cause  but  than  t o be  o u t l e t was  equal  floor  felt  minutes  of  -22-  for  80 m i n u t e s  trough were was  used  after  this,  observed.  t o make  the  the  positions  A dimmed f l a s h l i g h t observations  a n d was  diately  after.  In  f i e l d experiments,,  counts,  a piece  of  zinc  separate trough the  (see  two arms  6)  7) tions  of  the  The  light  plastic  f r o m the This  was  to  the or  fish  a 7-§- w a t t  extinguished insure  screening  more  was  turned  inserted on,  bulb imme-  accurate to  the  immediately  a n d was  the  inserted  u n d i v i d e d p o r t i o n of was  in  removed  before  upon  com-  count.  following records  were  the  temperature  b)  The  c h l o r i n i t y of  e)  The r a t e s  d)  The p o s i t i o n s o f the f i s h : 1 . The n u m b e r o f f i s h i n e a c h o f t h e t r o u g h a r m s . 2 . The n u m b e r o f f i s h i n t h e u n d i v i d e d p o r t i o n of the t r o u g h .  made  Cowichan.  twice  of  of at  of  flow  both  made:  a)  Determination  was  or  Apparatus).  observation  pletion  Lake  the  of  both  test  solutions.  solutions.  of b o t h  solutions.  the  oxygen  content  of  Nile  creek,  and f o r  a l l  the  test  solu-  solutions  at  -23inalysis  of  data.  To p r o v i d e a tive  quantitative  d e s c r i p t i o n of  the  perimental s olutions, the  fishes'  the  rather  responses  folio-wing  to  than a  the  treatment  qualita-  various  ex-  was a p p l i e d  to  data: If  no  the  fish  'preference'  the  two a r m s ,  assume be  estimate  the  constructed  be  sponse  the of  of  the  pected  the  this  fish  is  obtained  making  factor  sideration gency  If  to  one  solutions to  an i n d e x o f  fish  were  fish of  s h o u l d be  ( G o u l d e n , 1939 ) i s  as  the  hand,  made  the  i n the  then  the  To  the  number of  Pearson's  for  vary  of  of from  variates  the  trough)  different  variates  a modified expression  ex-  becomes.  this  coefficient  of if  aXI'value  of  re-  some-mea-  m i g h t be  involving  'compensate'  the  degree  t o t a l number o f two arms  the  1946);  that  then  that  the l v a l u e  experiments  would  a  greater  observed r e s u l t s  greater  there  d i s t r i b u t i o n would  the  those  would  identically  solutions,  responding,  fish  used.  ration,  test  same  vary with  which takes  the  assumption is  1:1  they  that  d e v i a t i o n (Snedecor,  more  difficult.  so  other  1:1  down  that  an e x p r e s s i o n o f  the  comparison of  of  on the  expected  the  were n o t  and the  i n each  t r o u g h showed  flowing  expect  trough,  If  the  of  t o t a l number of  of  the  d i s t r i b u t i o n , the  direct  numbers  trough.  then  However, Rvalues the  fish  deviation offers  expected  some  the  d e v i a t i o n f r o m the  when the  is  (here  of  experimental  reasonable  to r e s u l t .  observed r e s u l t s  0.00  is  existed,  r e s p o n s e . "X  the  it  arms o f  likely  greater  the  then  either  same n u m b e r o f  'preference'  sure  for  i n the  a random d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the  about  not  when p l a c e d  variation into  of X  con-  contin,  -24' compensating used  in this  fishes' are of  1  for  the  thesis  responses  above  as  to  mentioned  an e x p r e s s i o n  the  various  e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d between .000  only,  is  obtained,  while  a maximum v a l u e Sample Data:  of  i f  a l l  .707  of  test the  is  variation, the  and has  degree  solutions.  two arms,  the  fish  of If  a  been  the the  fish  coefficient  move  into  one  arm  obtained.  calculation In experiment directed while  10  (see  through the  fresh water  distribution c o r d e d as  of  the  sea  the  when  the  in  the  was  trough left.  arms was  The re-  R i g h t Arm (no.fish)  L e f t Arm (no.fish)  5 5 3 4 6 3 4 5 6  2 1 1 2 1 4 3 2 3  the  degree  water  flow.  loc.  the  solution, numbers  fish  The p u r p o s e  (Goulden, If  arm o f  water  f l o w e d t h r o u g h the  10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  indicate  right  sea  follows:  'Time (min.)  Calculations:  appendix),  of  then  of  the  calculations  response  of  The f o l l o w i n g  cit.)  fish  of  was  fish in  theoretical each  t o t a l number of  to  fish  to  procedure  used:  s h o w no p r e f e r e n c e  the  the  is  for  r a t i o i between  t r o u g h arm i s  fish  either  i n b o t h arms  1:1. is  the  Thus 7  (as  -25in  the  10  minute  we w o u l d e x p e c t if  no p r e f e r e n c e  numbers  3-§- f i s h were  the  t o he  observed were  arm and 2  i n the  fresh water  deviation  of  values  is  where  The  these  =  t  a  i n each  arm,  the  actual  5 in  the  sea  water  The  degree  arm.  byX-  experiment)  However,  observations  expressed  a  sample  present  shown.  fish  cal  of  reading of  f r o m the  of  theoreti-  '  t h e n u m b e r o f f i s h i n one o f t h e arms. the n u m b e r o f f i s h i n one o f the arms, i f a 1:1 r a t i o : existed.  coefficient  of  contingency  is  then  calculated:  C where  With the fish sea  f i s h were were  value.  to  the  number o f  sea  water  fish  i n the  and t h e r e f o r e was  fresh  more  water,  fish  the  both  more the  contingency  a r b i t r a r i l y assigned  However, i f  i n the  arm c o n t a i n i n g the  in  solution,  responding p o s i t i v e l y ( i . e .  observed  water),  present  the t o t a l arms.  respect  coefficient tive  U »  a  had  degree  posibeen of  -26response  would  value  the  of  have been  contingency  m a y be  said that  degree  of r e s p o n s e  f l o w was  at  For three  a maximum  dings  The  time  the  of  fish  Thus  it  observation, to  the  compared w i t h if  negative  sea  zero  the  the  water  if  there  response  had  one. the  'average  made  during  figure w i l l  analysed  data  were  treated  in  be  experimental  value  the  the  each  picture the  of  any  of  of  as  series  the  for  was  average  a l l  rea-  calculated.  response.  occuring.with length  experiments,  2 0 minute  period  coefficient  these v a l u e s  changes  length  coefficients  of  expo-  conditions.  contingency  graphically,  to  response  given series  and f o r  of  sented  of  referred  to  minutes  contingency  a given experimental  Changes  a  response'. the  2)  In  with  coefficient.  a n d -f- . 7 0 7  presentation,  The m e a n o f  sure  by a  ways. 1)  This  the of  ~h . 3 9 4 a s  was no r e s p o n s e , been  expressed  i n the  exposure  after was  the  this,  the  15  average  calculated.  Repre-  time  o f response  fish  first an  plotted against  degree  of  for  to  the  give  a  oceuring experimental  conditions. 3)  Changes The  the  most  those ming  fish  part  i n the  i n the  present  of  the  fish.  t r o u g h were  a c t i v e l y swimming a g a i n s t  the  current,  side  arms  1  the  to  i n the  'activity of  undivided  from side  relative  p o r t i o n were or  generally  merely holding their  for  while  passive,  swim-  positions i n  -27the  flow.  with  the  trough, to  Thus number  is  for  the  of  trough,  'activity' dieates  is  that  portion,  numbers  more  tive  value  the  number o f undivided  relative  fish  of  fish  'activity'  observed  £ contingency  an e q u a l number o f a positive were  in  of  that  the  swimming  more  fish  the fish  coeffi-  these  two  the  degree  present  i n the  of zero  in  i n  each indicates  arms.  present  portions  of  coefficient  were  arms  the  coefficient  f i s h were  value f o r  actively  indicates  the  By c a l c u l a t i n g contingency  obtained.  fish  in  portion of  a mathematical expression of  while  that  of  i n the  obtained.  cients  vided  observed  some m e a s u r e  current  the  hy c o m p a r i n g the  nega-  A  in  the  undi-  part. 4)  The  adjustment  The  contingency  of c e r t a i n  contingency  coefficient  values.  bution  of  other,  was a l w a y s  truly  to  in  one  lated  0).  of  to  Thus  arm o f in this  expression of zero.  1  in  the  of  fish  arm a n d no f i s h  It the  0 w o u l d be  i n one was  felt  responses  that of  represented  calculations,  the  were  degree  felt  to  offer  of response  this the  a  value  fish  b y the  distriin  (e.g.  same  as  1.  a more  than i f  the  the  was  not a  dis-  value  minimum number o f  t r o u g h was e s t a b l i s h e d  manner the  calculated for  .707.  representative  tribution 16  any number o f  coefficient  Values  as  fish calcu-  representative number  were  -28Chemieal The  methods. chlorinities  of  a l l solutions  o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and at use to  of h y d r o m e t e r s . corresponding  set  of  silver The of  nitrate  c h l o r i n i t y values  test  amount  obtained ments, made  of  Measurements  according of  rent was  numbers  was  each  to  rature, that  the  tion  of  of  the  etc.  same Por  the  determined by  University  use  transposed standard  1901).  The  standard  used at  lake  Cowichan.  for  the  determination  in  the  various  present at  of  the  a  employed  the and  University in  the  field  e_t.  test  were experi-  i l l determinations  o u t l i n e d by E l l i s ,  d i d not  with  this  were  al_.  was  conditions.  15  minutes  they were  water  the  not  the  sample  tended  arm or  after  extremely  tendency size the  15  (1946).  was  to  the  of  flow,  not to  their  The  1  so posi-  identical  evident about  f i s h had been  active,  i t  tempe-  aggregate  other.  cut  fish,  initiated  even under was  diffe-  distribution  f l o w s were  consistent  This  1:1  conditions  fish  i n one  involving  exceeded  achieve  identical  case  grouped  performed  sample  when two f r e s h  groups  to  were  Yifhen t h e  degree when the  trough,  was  comparison,  fish  arms In  these  10  were  the  pH m e t e r ,  procedures  fish.  majority  experimental  by  pH made  experiments  expected of  of  the  methods.  found that  that  was  a Beckman  by c o l o u r i m e t r i c  Preliminary  the  chlorides  at  o b t a i n e d were  (Knudsen,  d i s s o l v e d oxygen  by u s i n g  Discussion  the  for  unmodified Winkler test the  creek,  Density values  hydrographical tables  solutions.  in  Nile  used  10  placed  movements  to fish. in being  -29irregular  and a p p a r e n t l y  ditions.  However,  spond  to  the  Throughout exploratory other  or  •portion  of  s p e n d more the  this often  the  the  trough.  'preference' time  i n the  favoured  a l l parts  'preference' than  soon  into  arm t h r o u g h o u t  of  of  the  first  by  the  down' and began  facing  moving i n t o  positions  i n the  In experiments for  one  test  'preferred' solution. the  other,  into  one  rather  one  where  the  to  re-  exhibited  arm a n d t h e n in the  fish they  f i s h ranged chamber the  the  the u n d i v i d e d showed would  making fewer  arm o f  con-  current.  fish  solution,  flow, The  the  flow  experimental  experimental  experimental  experiment  by moving i n t o the  by the  'quieted  flows  remainder  behaviour,  less  throughout  undirected  experimental  holding their  an a p p a r e n t  into  they  '  runs  freely and  exhibited  trough  than r e m a i n i n g i n  the  more favoured  period.  s  29  30 31 32 LENGTH IMM.)  34  FIGURE 4 - Changes i n t h e average response of' chum salmon a l e v i n s and f r y o c c u r i n g w i t h , l i n e a r growth. . C i r c l e d dots - Average response. V e r t i c a l l i n e s - S t a n d a r d e r r o r o f t h e average response.  -30RESULTS Changes  i n the  responses  o f y o u n g churn s a l m o n w i t h r e l a t i o n  to  growth. A series fish  of  experiments  representing  three  was  phases  p e r f o r m e d on t h r e e  of  the  early  life" history  the  chum s a l m o n .  Newly hatched  alevins,  the  absorbtion  the  yolk sac,  and m i g r a t i n g f r y ,  their  responses  to  with respect  of  to  Average 1)  Newly hatched Two s e t s  alevins  were  between  15.36  while  mm.  The (fig.  response  that  value  two  the  riments to  £6.8  4),  series  full  were  studied  stimulus.  sea  of  the  of  length while  these  of  first  fish  in  the  same  had  mean  days the  they  degree,  the  flow  trough was"  length  later, sea  distinctively different expected  (here  group e x p e r i -  the  to  hatched  water  armof  and r a t e  e x p e r i m e n t a l l y 10  have been  solutions  fish  mm. ±n  was n o t  might  water  from  been  (i.e.  was  the  reacting the  response  zero).  indicated  experiments  indicate  The  used  standard errors  on the  completing  involving recently  temperature  mean r e s p o n s e s  test  two s e r i e s  vidual  In both  equal  sample ,  was n e a r The  experiments  other.  averaged  stimulus  the  of  down the  second  to  three  1  of  of  Response.  and 1 5 . 9 4 % o C l . ) f l o w e d down one  on,  28.8  of  conducted.  mented the  water  of  alevins.  f r e s h water  directed  alevins  a sea  groups  that  was l a r g e r  older  that  (Snedecor,  alevins  the, response  loc.  cit.  ) calculated  for  v a r i a t i o n o c c u r i n g between  indi-  than  expe-  that  and those of  these  observed between on the fish  fry.  was  less  This  seems  uniform  FIGURE 5 - The r e s p o n s e s o f chum salmon a l e v i n s a v e r a g i n g 24.9 mm. i n l e n g t h , t o «the f a s t e r m o v i n g o f two s o l u t i o n s f l o w i n g a t ' d i f f e r e n t v e l o c i t i e s , (one a p p r o x . ' 2 c m . / s e c , t h e o t h e r a p p r o x . 0.7 cm./sec.) L i n e A - When b o t h t e s t  solutions  L i n e B - When t h e s t r o n g e r f u l l sea water. Line  current  were' f r e s h w a t e r consisted  C - When t h e weaker, c u r r e n t • c o n s i s t e d sea w a t e r , .  of•  of full  -31in  nature  suggests either  than the that  of  response  they  the  failed  currents.  of  to The  that  the  d i d not  ture  of  response.  young a l e v i n s a sea 2)  water  Alevins  do n o t  or  group  m a l l y w o u l d be  to  ference than  i n sea  with  the  some  d e s i g n of  sea  w a t e r was  (approx.  other  tests  salt. arms  of  the  flow  The r e s p o n s e s fishes'  illustrated a moderate  one  f r o m the  of  the  that  about to  in  in fig. positive  5.  to  of  which  na-  that  the either  one  alevins  It. i s  faster  which as  with  in  of  em./sec.), three  as  conditions,  flow  while  as  two  that  of  that to  in  in the  to  the  that  faster  moving i n t o than  the  the  fish  moving  both  duration are  show current  two f r e s h  other.  the  the  experimental conditions evident  the  the  in  fresh water times  of  experiments  fast  times  dif-  rather  two 90 m i n u t e times  nor-  fry.  the  solutions  The r a t e s  arm t h r e e  the  s;ac.  in experimental  f l o w was  response  is  to  assumed  for  yolk  considered with respect  exposure  said  g r a v e l beds  test  three  0.7  when g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y o f flows,  the  comprised of  changed:  fresh water  the  seen  c a n be  'preference'  c o n t r o l r u n s w.ere made w i t h  but w i t h  other.  was  flowing  may be  observed responses  content  2 cm./sec.  the  Three  was  w e r e v a r i e d so  fresh  it  absorption of  the  test  it  are  to  s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the  incidental difference the  two s o l u t i o n s the  water  turn  orientation  and so  a marked  emerge  To p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e  and i n  flow.  tested  about  ranges, differ  exhibit  c o m p l e t i n g the  The n e x t  a stable  In general  fresh water  fish,  two s t a n d a r d e r r o r s  in their  their  later  attain  overlap considerably two samples  the  When  water this  FIGURE 6 - The responses o f t h r e e groups o f chum salmon t o f u l l sea w a t e r , o c c u r i n g d u r i n g e x p e r i - • m e n t a l p e r i o d s l a s t i n g 90 m i n u t e s . «  Line A - Recently hatched alevins. averaging i n length.  27.4  mm.  L i n e B - A l e v i n s c o m p l e t i n g the a b s o r b t i o n o f the y o l k sac, a v e r a g i n g ' 2 9 . 4 mm. i n l e n g t h . Line C - M i g r a t i n g f r y , averaging  34.0  mm.  i n length.  FIGURE'7 - Changes I n . t h e  r e l a t i v e ' / a c t i v i t y * o f two  groups o f chum salmon i n e x p e r i m e n t s where b o t h t e s t s o l u t i o n s were f l o w i n g w i t h t h e same v e l o c i t y ( a p p r o x . 1 - 1.5 c m . / s e c ) .  L i n e A - A l e v i n s a v e r a g i n g 2 6 . 8 mm. i n l e n g t h . F r e s h w a t e r i n b o t h t r o u g h arms. L i n e B - Newly hatched a l e v i n s a v e r a g i n g 29.4 mm. i n l e n g t h . F u l l sea water i n one t r o u g h arm. L i n e C - M i g r a t i n g f r y a v e r a g i n g 34.0 mm. i n l e n g t h . F u l l sea w a t e r i n one t r o u g h arm.  -3£f a s t e r moving flow showed when  consisted  an e v e n more  the  full  water  sponding  to  of  the  fish  and i n t o  the  saline  the  sea  p o s i t i v e response  s l o w e r m o v i n g c u r r e n t was  m a j o r i t y response fresh  of  •  sea  water  was  to  water^ the  the  flow.  composed  of  regardless  Thus the  in  this  water,  faster  the  of  However,  sea  away f r o m the  flow.  fish  fish  flow  the  moving  were  re-  conditions  imposed. The a v e r a g e and t h e i r  length  average  the  response  reaction  to  the  experiments  four  the  of  sea  chums  (fig.  water.  4)  was  a marked  The s t a n d a r d e r r o r  performed with  sea  water  distinctly  smaller  a n d o b v i o u s l y beyond the  calculated  for  the  experiments  that  the  responses  indicates uniform 3)  case  on  of  the  the  was  29.4  positive  calculated i n one  range  of  were  for  arm was those  younger a l e v i n s .  older f i s h  mm.  This  of  a more  nature.  Fry. The  fore  last  their  der  to  the  fresh  times  entry  limit  as  f l o w was  group tested into  error,  water fast three  the  flow  current  as  the  sea,  in  that  of  the  both arms.  In  f 9 . 8 8 % o C l . ).  fish  to* t h e  conditions  sea water imposed.  all  a more  experiments  is  In  was f l o w i n g 'two,  the  Another set  dilute the  evident  f r o m the  of  the  or-  three  sea of  of  be-  that  water two in  sea water  responses  were s i m i l a r r e g a r d l e s s This  mm.  again v a r i e d so  in another fresh.  just  i d e n t i c a l -flow c o n d i t i o n s  experiments In  captured  and a v e r a g i n g 34.0  while  was p e r f o r m e d w i t h  used  fry,  two e x p e r i m e n t s  experiments  these  of  c o n d i t i o n s were  salt,  times  consisted  was the  flow  small standard  b  io  '[  2 0  *~3 o :  40 ~*~?o TIME (MINUTES)  sfe  arc  7(3  5b  v  FIGURE 8 - Charnges i n the r e l a t i v e • a c t i v i t y ' of two groups of chum salmon i n e x p e r i m e n t s where one t e s t s o l u t i o n " w a s f l o w i n g f a s t e r t h a n the o t h e r (approx. 2 cm./sec. "to approx.' 0.7 cm./sec.j. L i n e A - A l e v i n s a v e r a g i n g 29.4 mm. i n l e n g t h . w a t e r i n b o t h t r o u g h arms.  Fresh  L i n e B - A l e v i n s a v e r a g i n g 29.4 mm. i n l e n g t h . sea water f a s t e r moving c u r r e n t .  Full  L i n e C - A l e v i n s a v e r a g i n g 29.4'mm. i n l e n g t h . sea water s l o w e r moving, c u r r e n t .  Full  L i n e D - M i g r a t i n g f r y a v e r a g i n g 34.0 mm. i n l e n g t h . Sea water o f 9.88 CI. f a s t e r moving c u r rent. L i n e E - M i g r a t i n g f r y a v e r a g i n g 34.0 mm. i n l e n g t h . Sea water o f 9.88 CI. s l o w e r moving c u r rent.  *  -33error  (fig.  variation response sea of  4),  which-indicates  between of  water  the  these  than  individual  f i s h was  that  that  in  very  experiments.  a more  observed  t h e r e was  The  m a r k e d movement  eitlier  of  little  the  average toward  earlier  the  groups  fish. Changes  i n R sponse  Changes sea  water  shown at  i n the  6.  any point  in  Relation  responses  throughout  in f i g .  strong  with  e  the  The the  90  of  90  alevins  which  seemed  to  decrease  towards  •Activity'  of  the  as  As has fish  been  present  trough,  offers  affected  by a  changes fresh  in  and  sea  water  the  trough,  flows  alevins,  p o r t i o n as water  there  except  perhaps  arms.  With of  a  out,  of  the  sea  of  equal  arms.  about  in  end o f by  the  very slight  the  fry  however,  the  fish actively  Fig. the  water as  the  experiments In  numbers of  the  fish  movement  of  a marked  change  swimming i n  as  the  involving  the  the  on  arms  of  undivided  replaced  noticeable  of  the  experiments  in  a  Stimulus.  f l o w e d down b o t h  water  response  The  7 represents  many f i s h  little  are  run.  arms  of  to  intensity  a. S e a W a t e r  velocity.  When s e a  t h e r e was  water.  intermediate  'activity'  stimulus.  fish  f r y showed  a c o m p a r i s o n of. the  the  when f r e s h  flows,  the  Affected  occuring  were  i n the  of  of  period,  the  u n d i v i d e d p o r t i o n and the  a measure  salt  early  majority  pointed  'activity'  the  fresh  Fish  i n the  for  a response  Exposure.  showed no m a r k e d  period, while  older  of  experimental  'preference'  exhibited  length  three.groups  alevins  minute  and c o n s i s t e n t  the  minute  younger  to  one  of  the  response,  fish  into  was n o t e d , arms.  the the  -34Flg.  8 represents  experiments both of  the  sea  Again that  water,  of  changes  where unequal r a t e s  older  the  the  alevins  of  of  the  activity occuring  flow  fry,  a m a r k e d movement  response  the  and the  in  were  f r y was  involved.  when e i t h e r  towards  the  in In  flow  consisted  arms was  observed.  consistently  stronger  than  alevins. Summary  The of  the  been so  above  observations  v a r i a t i o n occuring  pointed out,  that  the  rates  but  not  the  experiments  older  i n the  alevins  demonstrated in  the  the of  to  the  the  sea  q u a l i f i e d by a  This  the  makes  a  newly hatched  experiments i n the  direct  in  last  making t h i s  changed  comparison  between  and those  However, i t the  has  series,  rates  significantly alter  water,  was  As  two  alevins  value.  differences  d i d not  consideration  experimental conditions.  questionable  that  be  f l o w were v a r i e d  on t h e  experiments  response  in  design of  first.  of  must  has  of  flow  the  on  the  been used  fishes'  variation relatively  unimportant. The on  the  c h l o r i n i t y of  fry,  series.  It  ments  that  alter  the  of  these  fact  in  the  sea water  w a s much l o w e r t h a n will  be  changes nature  results  of  used  i n the  experiments  that used  i n the  other  demonstrated i n the the  with  concentration  fishes'  the  i n the  next of  the  responses.  earlier  ones,  series  must  sea  Thus be  a  of  two experi-  water  do  comparison  made w i t h  this  mind.  Temperature throughout  the  conditions  entire  w e r e made a s  group of  u n i f o r m as  experiments,  all  possible  tests  being  -35earried  out w i t h  experiment exceeded  the  0.5  difference  general  trends  are  experimental  results.  larval  a l e v i n stage  to  seemed  to  water  respond  to  current  not  current.  just  the  moderate  sponse  seemed  marked  to  for  diminish  lengthened.  younger has  swim more is  been  actively than i n  The r e s p o n s e  a sea  to  i n the is  of  the  the  transition  sea  as  tendency  t h a n was  response  sea to  seemed  water  into  present  demonstrated  demonstrated water  in  that  these  to  show  freedom flow.  to  the  This  re-  experimental  a sea the  a  to  showed a  very  water  stream  experiments  current  i n the  than i n  the  responses  were  s o l u t i o n was f l o w i n g  flowed at  alone.  about  0.7  sea  at  cm./sec.  phenofish.  was  about  more  fish.  consistent  and f r e s h w a t e r  w i l l  water  This  above,  younger  so  other  water  of  newly hatched  adjusted  one  older alevins  when a s t i m u l u s  the  that  sea  the  current"observed  migrating fry note  that  v e l o c i t y of  the  a  sac,  exposure  move  to  in-  experimentally  migrating fry  to  fish  used  a sea  their  Actively  the  increasing  from t h e i r  when t h e  while  stage,  w a t e r when g i v e n or  from^the  showed a r e s p o n s e  yolk  a fresh water  be  It  never  consideration  stimulus with  alevins  i n a current  menum c o u l d n o t  intense  one  fish.  also  present,  any  solutions  from a  f r e e swimming f r y  a fresh water  of a lower concentration  It  two t e s t  However, a l e v i n s  and c o n s i s t e n t  on the  During  absorbtion of  either  conditions  the  evident  a sea water  'preference'  into  In  0  markedly d i f f e r e n t  fresh water  move  the  Recently hatched  before  10.0°C.0.9C .  between  the  tensity.  of  0°.  Several of  temperatures  flows 8  even were  cm./sec.  FIGURE 9 - Changes i n t h e average response o f chum salmon f r y t o sea water o f d i f f e r e n t concentrations. L i n e A - E x p e r i m e n t s performed a t N i l e creek, B.C. L i n e B - E x p e r i m e n t s . p e r f o r m e d a t Lake Cowichan,  B.C.  -36Responses  of  chum f r y  When t h e periments the  to  concentration  was  lowered a  chum f r y was at  Nile  water  chlorinities  of  ment  is  average  creek  and a t  used,  a  general  maximum a v e r a g e  sea  water  while  responses. tion,  to  be  i  one  observed  at;  is  to  be  needed  Thus  the  at  to  they  sea  move  moderate  each  the  ex-  responses  of  perfor-  involving  sea  16.2£  noted  that  90 m i n u t e  responses of  in both with  solutions  the  This  the  would  into into  the  positive  fish.  certain  concentra-  threshold  that  degree  value  stronger  response  a  slightly was the  fish  acclimation .  concentrat ionS.  lower s o l u t i o n s response  was  no  while of  dilute intense  maximum r e s p o n s e  some  the  of  less  1.07%oCl.,  suggest  water,  water  s t i m u l i of  0  while  con-  sea  % o C l . and 1 . 7 9 % C 1 . , of  experi-  are  groups  elicited  below a  obtained.  This  moved r e a d i l y  only a  ¥hen  observed  ex1.15 / o o C l . ,  the  were  to  concentration  noted  the  Cowichan,  for  a concentration  attracted  fish  was  1.07  1.79%oCl.  in  in  Response  9.  the  c o u l d be  with  before  monstrated  also  used  experiments  Lake  r e s p o n s e was  between  obtained  positive  seem  was  water  change  response  concentrated  no r e s p o n s e  observed being  It  to  pattern  The  of  in fig.  sidered with relation  sea  v a r y i n g f r o m 1.07  degree  illustrated  the  water.  Twenty-two  Average The  sea  significant  noted.  med on f r y with  dilute  to  the  but  de-  stronger  solutions. Changes This conditions  i n Response presumption takes  with (i.e.  place),  is  Relation  to  Length  that  acclimation  borne  out when  to  the  of  Exposure. experimental  responses  are  O  \  f  FIGURE 10 - Changes i n t h e r e s p o n s e s o f chum salmon f r y to d i f f e r e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f sea w a t e r , occuring during experimental periods l a s t i n g 90 m i n u t e s . ( N i l e creek f i s h ) . L i n e A - Mean o f responses t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between" 1 . 1 5 % 0 1 . and 1 . 9 8 % , C I . o  L i n e B - Mean o f responses t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between 1 . 9 8 % C 1 . and 8 . 4 8 % C 1 . 0  0  L i n e C - Mean o f responses t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between 8 . 4 8 % C I . and 1 2 . 7 0 % , C I .  FIGURE 11 - Changes i n -the r e s r o n s e s o f chirm f r y t o d i f f e r e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .of sea w a t e r , occvring during'experimental periods l a s t i n g 90 m i n u t e s . (Lake Cowichan f i s h ) . L i n e A - Mean o f responses t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between 1 . 8 3 % o C l . and 6 . 5 2 % C 1 . 0  L i n e B - Mean o f responses t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between 6 . 5 2 % , C I . and. 12.52 % p i . L i n e C - Mean o f responses t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between 1 2 . 5 2 % C I . and 1 4 . 6 2 ' % C I . 6  5  6  7  CHLORINITY  FIGURE  12  -  Changes i n . the r e l a t i v e ' a c t i v i t y ' of chum s a l m o n f r y o c c u r i n g w i t h c h a n g e s i n sea water c o n c e n t r a t i o n .  -37considered with sure  to  the  tween  of  the  mation of  the  the  sea water while  less  duration of  intensity.  speed  the  place,  dilution  The r a n g e  was s e e n  Thus  the  difference  and t h a t  the  rate  the  sea  elicit  of  to'result  to  of  to  of  fishes'  expo-  10. and 1 1 ) .  concentrations  and i n t e n s i t y .  fish  the  (figs.  were s e e n  strong  two e x t r e m e s  intermediate  takes  of  response,  response  £o  experimental conditions  •weak s o l u t i o n s strong  respect  The  a speedy  produced a  and slower  concentrations i n responses  it  seems  i n sea  acclimation  of  that  water  bean  accli-  content  increases  with  water. fl  'Activity' When fish tive,  of  the  the  d a t a were  a significant of  tions  brought  about  (fig.  12). of  between  the 1.79  observed about  all  the  and 3 . 7 2 % o ,  i n the  arms  tion  than  i n the  rent  threshold of  as  more arms.  inactive.  sea  compare  i n response was  fish  varied.  were  the-numbers  was n o t e d when Weaker than  the  strong  sea  concentration  increased  fish  were f o u n d i n  the  water  ones in  water  progressively fewer  1.07  0  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ) , the  CI.  the  was  fish  were  until  at  undivided  and 1 . 7 9 %  the  concentra-  the  Between  of inac-  a c t i v e l y swimming  e h l o r i n i t y of  while  Stimulus.  remaining r e l a t i v e l y  marked r e s p o n s e s  t r o u g h when t h e  12.5%oCl.,  latively  sea water more  to  those  difference  the  Nearly  A f f e c t e d hy a Sea l a t e r  analysed  a c t i v e l y swimming w i t h  concentration  arms  F i s h as  (the  fish  porappa-  were  re-  -38Summary Experiments positively place  he f o r e  climation used  to  as  indicate  full  to  stimulus,  It  vary with being  is  evident  periments  performed  Cowichan,  considerable  the  the rate  that  Nile  the  even  Several due  used  at  Nile  at  to  fry  to  concentration  of  in  dilute  waters  less  takes  rate the  of  ac-  sea  than  in  water  con-  The  water  chlorinated  a  sea  Cowichan f r e s h  water  carried  three  out  these  at  m a x i m a l l y to  Cowichan,  creek  i n the  the  and  In  ex-  Lake  average  respon-  approximately  University  indi-  stimulus,  while  the  fish  of  locations,  locations.  a response the  groups  different  solution of  demonstrated  seem to  nature  of  indicate the  to  solutions water, water  test  that  of  only  exhibited  in size  modea  re-  from those  used  these  at  the  The  fish  c r e e k and d i d  experimented two groups  markedly in their  on of  than  from a s p r i n g fed  at fish  response.  University consisted  d i s t i n c t l y mor a c i d i c  obtained  discrepancies  used.  from Nile  Therefore  differ  these  solutions  obtained  later.  expected  tap  from  in  intensity.  two w e e k s be  from three  University, Nile  U n i v e r s i t y were  would not  varied  variation existed  significantly differ creek  fry  the  Lake  At  facts the  the  fresh  The  response  responded  creek results  of  were  the  acclimation  elicited.  obtained  experiments  intensity.  sponse  not  solutions  chum f r y The  10 %oCl.  the  performed with  test  cated  is  faster  that  and u s i n g  of  a p e r i o d of  respond  solutions.  experiments  ses  water,  w h i l e " m i g r a t i n g chum f r y  a maximum r e s p o n s e  seems  centrated  sea  that  the  creek.  of  Lake It  has  FIGURE 13 - Changes i n t h e r e s j o n s e s o f chum'salmon f r y t o s-ca w a t e r o f a b o u t "7 -CI., as a f f e c t e d bv a t e m p e r a t u r e d i f f e r e n c e o f 8.5 C ° . L i n e A - Responses o f t h e f i s h t o the warmer o f two f r e s h w a t e r f l o w s one o f w h i c h was 2 C° a b o v e t h e o t h e r . L i n e B - F r e s h f l o w 2.5 flow.  C° a b o v e s e a w a t e r  L i n e C - F r e s h and s e a w a t e r f l o w s o f temperature!' L i n e D - S e a w a t e r f l o w 2.5  C  o  above  equal fresh.  -39also  "been p o i n t e d o u t  became  toxic  after  transported, These cause  a  that time  and the  the  sea  due  to  length of  the  time  chemical v a r i a t i o n s  are  the  differences  However,  the  v a r i a t i o n i n responses  being  and not  observed  Effect  of  to  water.  sea  of  temperature  the r e s p o n s e s  of  test  solution in  that  i n the of  one  other  the  fish  temperature  other,  the  water. water  the  of  about  the  fresh  stimulus. seemed  to  of  for  1  salt it  the  response above,  arm was  i n one the  near  one  of  trends  performed.  responses  the  the  raised  of  chum f r y  difference  temperature  of  C°  acclimation  the  arms,  raised the  the  However, a c c l i m a t i o n to 90  for  on the  above  tempe-  2.5 fish  the  minutes,  C° a b o v e  the  sea  were  a  tempe-  that  of the  sea  temperature  fish  the  showed  moved i n t o  higher the  with  fish  of  in  colder  When t h e  presence  and  that  the  but  the  solution.  that of  C° a b o v e  i n b o t h arms,  saline  was n o t e d  2,5  'preference'  of  s o l u t i o n was  and a f t e r  likely  observed.  was  temperature  water,  most  trough contained f r e s h water  water regardless  occur,  the  same g e n e r a l  the  be  13).  temperatures  7%oCl.  fresh water,  colder  (fig.  chum showed a m a r k e d  marked p r e f e r e n c e rature  sea  to  arm was r a i s e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 . 5  i n one  With equal of  to  had  Cowichan  retained.  of  series  a  lake  it  t o be  the  on  of  a r m , w h i c h was  When b o t h a r m s the  effects  chum f r y  was  noted  pattern,  differences  the  i t  degrees  i n a l l experimental  To i n v e s t i g a t e  rature  basic  the  distance  felt  of  magnitude  in  water used at  water 1  beginning  FIGURE 14 - Changes' i n t h e . r e s p o n s e o f chum salmon fryt o a t o x i c sea water s o l u t i o n , a s ' a f f e c t e d by a temperature d i f f e r e n c e o f 3.0 C°. L i n e A - F r e s h w a t e r f l o w 3.0 C° above t o x i c sea w a t e r . L i n e B - F r e s h and t o x i c sea water f l o w s o f equal temperatures. L i n e C - T o x i c s e a w a t e r f l o w 3.0 0° above f r e s h water.  -40to  respond  p o s i t i v e l y to  the  apparently  was  p r o b a b l y due  when b o t h ture  of  warmer the  solutions  than  saline  the  other  the  fish  of  the  in  the  regardless  temperature.  sea  water  fresh water  fresh  acclimation  o  This  stimulus  a n d the to  the  wa t e r ' s o l u t i o n w a s  f i s h responded  to  if  the  f i s h h a d moved the  fresh  sea  water  as  temperawarmer 2.5  C°  positively  to  was  and s u s t a i n e d  at  the  of  of  of  the  negative  to  proved  this  same the  120  3  water  water the  C° a b o v e  react ion  be  (fig.  solution fish  attracted  minutes,  arm.  to  temperature,  flow,  increasingly  was  solution  sea  fresh  toxic  water  raised  used  the  the  about  sea  differences  contained  response  became  until  water  water  that  into  water  sea  temperature  repelled,  h a r m f u l sea  temperature  trough  a negative the  the  the  the  3 C° a b o v e  initially  such  where  contained  However, raised  of  arm o f  exhibited  a strong  of  evident  water,  profound effect  the  of  no  solution,  flow.  and  though  presence  consisted  i n an e x p e r i m e n t  14).  sea water difference  When t h e  sea  W h e n one  'ture  the  raised,  toxic.  was  to  occured.  The seen  unfavourable  o n e was  solution  the  nearly  When t h e the  to  fresh  a l l  temperawater,  resulted.  Summary. When chum f r y  were  different  temperatures,  der  one.  The  that  of  placed for  sea  the the  they  temperature  water warmer  water  exposed  i n the fresh  to  responded  of  this  hatchery water  was m o d i f i e d ,  two f r e s h  troughs. the  flows  p o s i t i v e l y to  s o l u t i o n was  flow,  the  water  the  expected  the  same  When s e a  with colas.  water  re  'preference'  f i s h responding primarily  to  A  F I G U R E 15 - Changes i n t h e r e s p o n s e s o f eoho s a l m o n f r y to d i f f e r e n t concentrations of sea w a t e r , o c c u r i n g d u r i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l per i o d s l a s t i n g 90 m i n u t e s . L i n e A - Mean o f r e s p o n s e s t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n 1.55«&»C1. a n d 6.10 % C I . 0  L i n e B - Mean o f r e s p o n s e s t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s between 6 . 1 0 % C 1 . and 1 1 . 5 0 % C l . 0  a  L i n e C - Mean o f r e s p o n s e s t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b e t w e e n 1 1 . 5 0 % , C I . and 1 5 . 3 0 % C l . o  *  -41the to  temperature the  warmer  exposure,  difference 'attract'  temperature  the  water f l o w .  fish Thus  was the  with  above,  it  occured,  apparent  into  found  even  and a f t e r  case  the of  that  water  a  toxic  sea  difference the  fish  though this  was  water  the  the  stimulus,  warmer flow,,  acclimation  12 0 m i n u t e s  a c c l i m a t i o n to  s p e e d e d when a s e a  temperature  was  colder' flow  the  presence  a  However, i n t h i s  b e g a n r e s p o n d i n g p o s i t i v e l y to  fish  When t h e ciated  difference.  of  sea  temperature tending  to  applied. s o l u t i o n was  s u c h as  that  asso-  described  r e s p o n d e d p o s i t i v e l y to  e n t a i l e d moving  into  the  the  harmful  solution.  Responses  of  eoho  When t h e of sea  responses  water were  observed. "close  to  zero  centrated  about sea  It  a  same d e g r e e .  the  of  brought  of  to v a r i o u s  as  the  about  concentrations r e a c t i o n was  an i n i t i a l  experiment  about  note  that  a  consistently at  the  end o f  had caused a n e g a t i v e  Thus  it  seems  a l l concentrations,  most m a r k e d n e g a t i v e  that the  eoho  More  the con-  strong  nega-  the  minute  90  response  of  f r y avoided  stronger  responses.  response  progressed,  to a n i n c r e a s i n g d e g r e e .  brought is  fry  t y p i c a l l y negative  but  concentrations  water flows  eliciting  15),  water.  eoho  sea'water  solutions  a l l  the  of  tested,  (fig.  response.  period,  sea  Weaker s o l u t i o n s  f i s h a v o i d e d the  tive  f r y to  solutions  -42D I S C U S S I O N AND C O N C L U S I O N S When chum s a l m o n f r y f i r s t they are  presented  fresh water first the  freshwater  dilute  just  of  prior  of  then  w o u l d be lying from  it  rather  extends  far  content is  water  been  with  but  the  is  as  to  response  was e l i c i t e d .  to  the  before undergo  sea  the  he  sea  rivers  into  on  for  1  If  is  river  mouth  d i l u t e sea  water  P r y moving  the this  i n smaller  that  concen-  influence gradient  streams,  of in  the  chum f r y  responded  to  response  of  inten-  increased,  took place  The r a t e seemed the  fry  flow.  increasing  sea,  by  g i v e n an  the  where  the  water  diluted  saline  stream.  to  r e l a t i v e l y small outflow.  concentration  of  the  i n t o more  move  the  immediate  water  increased  fish  The  were  or  sea,  returning  'preference  fish  encounter  out  concentration  to the  response  a  fry reaching  larger  demonstrated  exposure  the  that  open sea  an a l m o s t  the  sea,  a fresh  gradual, while  s t e e p due  has  into  the  In experiments  the  mouth of  In  water  sity,  the  water.  sea  stream.  cases,  t h a n r e p e l l e d by the  of  water  i n most  into  either  of  e x p e r i m e n t a l and n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s  to  fresh  It  entry  stream  the  gradient  would  seems l i k e l y  sea  influence  environment.  e x h i b i t e d when t h e  immediately off  trations  saline  moving e i t h e r  attracted  the  a  parent  to  the  o p p o r t u n i t y of  fish  the  a n a l o g y between  valid,  sea  the  s e a w a t e r was  opportunity an  an  or moving into  confronting  captured  with  reach  to  sea  at  a  before which  bear water.  an  This  longer  of  relationship  indicates sea  of  positive  intensity  inverse This  period  a marked  the  concentrated  a period of a c c l i m a t i o n .  strong  dilute  water,  acclimation  is  that they  -43probably curing time  with  (loc.  (1948)  This  in  (here  sea  water  chloride begins  to  drop,  hours.  With  general change  the  which part  at  the  dient  fish  to  between  to  sea  this  effect  less. to  full  presence  salmon  stream,  at  movement  rate  water.  at  the  In  would not  12  of  extent chum f r y  a  larger likely  to  exert  the  the  as  then within the  same  chloride  seem t o  require  a  water  directive  is  The  off influ-  rate  at  controlled  in  fish  can  physiological-  Thus  the  steep  estuary  might  of  the  to  permit  streams w i t h be  and  i n sea  small stream  the  placed  water.  s e a w a r d movement  through  of  tissue  content  of  in  chum  0  a gradient  which  and  relation in  hours  chum s a l m o n f r y . to  discus-  cells  7% C1,),  a gradient  seems  the  their  (near  environment.  mouth o f  to  studied  about  sea  of  respond  changing the  Thus  fully  secreting  0  the  fish  regulation,  and 1 7 % C 1 . ) ,  although  the  oc-  some  when chum f r y a r e  solutions  the  by the  are  approximately normal  adjust  seem to  of  take  concentration  that  steadily for  dilute  a slow passage  to  15  data)  water  author reports  temporary b a r r i e r  tion  (unpub.  to s e a  occured  the  present  tating  chloride  seaward  least,  adjust  of  more  general,  the  study  reaching  24 h o u r s  on  complete  considerably  mouth of a  ence  osmotic  rises  pattern was  In  ly  content  processes  of  content  salmon f r y .  conditions  study  Black  activities  processes  cit.)  V. S.  chloride  regulatory  these  These  Fundulus.  about  for  salinity alterations.  tissue  24  changes,  the  osmotic  i n Krogh's  the  with  normal  Copeland's in  associated  salinity  to r e s t o r e  after sed  closely  evident.  present  fry,  gradual  graa  necessi-  acclimagradients,  -44Growth be  of  attended  by an  ter  stimulus.  sea  water  Fry  however,  flow. take the  chum s a l m o n f r o m a l e v i n  Although  life  of  the  seaward  As  has  been  content  vironment,  were  conditions.  not  has  of moving into  rent  rates  sea  d i d not  water,  to  tidal  The  May 1 3 t h ,  river 1948,  son between  the  a sea  to wa-  avoid  for  i t .  toward a  saline  m e c h a n i s m seemed  fresh water  reaching  its  phase  peak at  p r e v i o u s l y , the  i n the  to  of  about  fish  noted  if  the  that  experimental  migrating fry,  c a n be  stated  small in  flowing  It  was a l s o  at  far  below those  flow at  the  flow  w o u l d be  slight varitions  to  sea  water  normally found  Thus  question.  i n current,  this  experiments with  creek  on  any c o m p a r i -  c o n d i t i o n s and those open  diffe-  consisted  mouth o f l i l e  1 meter/sec).  the  that  slower moving current the  to  alterna-  demonstrated  i n the  factor  temperature  two c u r r e n t s  to  en-  diffe-  chum f r y r e s p o n d e d  used  sea  Two o t h e r  of  flow  in  fish's  when an  of  (e.g.  the  differences  responding primarily  was a p p r o x .  by the  in  currents,  the  were  flows  changes  experiments;  and s m a l l  velocities  that  to  seems  did not  response  seaward m i g r a t i o n .  either  2 cm./sec),  or  alevins  response  fresh water  occur  the  respond  only alterations  was p r e s e n t e d .  stimulus. (0.7  been  two  tive  of  the  velocity,  It  stage  movement.  considered  moving of  response  history,  fry  showed no p r e f e r e n c e  this  p o i n t e d out  are  in flow  faster  of  occuring with  differences rences  they  g r a d u a l l y throughout  young chums'  water  newly hatched  showed a marked p o s i t i v e  development  place  time  i n c r e a s i n g a b i l i t y to  i n experiments,  The  to  encountered However,  do n o t  i t  -45significantly dients  that  on the  It  is  of  the  sea,  the  g r a d i e n t as  temperature  of  above  moving  the  i f  the  well the  to  into  the  the  stream water  one  gra-  of  fish  below that at  o c e a n was b e t w e e n 9 a n d 1 0 ° its  Nile  C at  indicate the  the  than i f  a Thus  slowly  that  within  f i s h avoided an  the  alterna-  was h e a t e d  fish.  2.5  When s e a  overcame  C°  water  their  a n d r e s p o n d e d p o s i t i v e l y to the  analogy between  it  is  suggested  of  the  creek,,  the  C ,  to  ocean the  the  that  (e.g.  exi f  while  that  of  the* s e a  on t h e  fish  the  from  temperature  surface),  directive influence  p e r i o d needed f o r adjustment longer  below  gradient.  of whieh  was b e t w e e n 6 a n d 7 °  exert  were  faced with  presented with  Again applying  1948,  water  2 hours),  temperature  were  to May 1 3 t h ,  p r o b a b l y be  sea. water  temperature  Experiments  and n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s ,  would s t i l l  of  f i s h w o u l d e n t a i l ad j u s t m e n t s . to  two f l o w s ,  higher  temperature  May 4th  sea  when t h e y . w e r e  solution.  perimental  the  as,a  (here  the warmer f l o w ,  saline  stream  stream  a c c l i m a t i o n temperature  comprised aversion  influence  m i g r a t i n g f i s h w o u l d be  experimental period  tive  the  directive  environmental changes.  higher  the  that  s e a w a r d movement o f  both the  the  fish.  evident  temperature the  alter  of  the water  although  new e n v i r o n m e n t - w o u l d  no t e m p e r a t u r e  difference  were  present. In experiments, tively  to  to s e a  water  fish  sea  entered  water.  eoho  I n the  d i d n o t seem the  sea.  fry unlike chums,  to appear  I f .a  similar  the the  chums,  respond  most marked  until  just  response  before  pattern  nega-  response the is  -46involved  i n the  development water  phases In  ting  role mouth  does  not  of  their  summary,  the  chum s a l m o n f r y  respond ment.  s e a w a r d movement  to It  changes is  to  the  sea.  life  the  to  occur  possess  that  eoho y e a r l i n g s , during  the  early  its  final  fresh  history.  evidence  i n the  thought  in effecting  seem  of  presented  indicates  that  migra-  a m e c h a n i s m p e r m i t t i n g them  sea this  movement  water  content  of  their  mechanism p l a y s an of  the  fish  to  environ-  important  f r o m the  stream  -47-  SUMMARY Experiments  were  p e r f o r m e d on the  s a l m o n w h e r e i n the  fish  moving  a  the  either  results 1)  into  fresh  indicates  During the  the  for  the  velocity  flow  is  the  not  chum a n d  with  alternative  the  flow.  of  following:  stage,  larval  a l e v i n stage  chum s a l m o n f r y for  sea  will  of  respond  to a  show  water  two f r e s h w a t e r  faster  altered  flow,  their  slight  to an  rather  difference  currents response  by to  sea  by such s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s  in  conditions. respond  i m m e d i a t e l y to  difference,  rate  which  response  the  concentration  the  temperatures  been  water  the  the  of  such  before  than i f  sea  a maximum to  water.  closest  they w i l l  differences,  a  slight  temperature  to  difference  currents the  one  is  sea  peridd  elicited,  difference  by they  respond to  t h o u g h the  a marked response the  water  relationship  two f r e s h w a t e r  to,  a sea  they reach  respond to  temperature  acclimated  despite  occuring longer  of  chum f r y w i l l  'choosing' have  at  bearing a roughly inverse  Although in  of  Examination  Chum f r y do n o t  the  eoho  water.  chum f r y  'choosing' water  water  marked p r e f e r e n c e  fresh  2.) A l t h o u g h  4)  or sea  f r e e swimming f r y  than  3)  the  presented  t r a n s i t i o n from the  increasingly  in  were  young of  were  is not  present. 5)  Coho f r y show a m a r k e d a v e r s i o n t o dilute  concentrations.  sea  water  even  i n  -48-  o  ACKNOWIEDGEMBITS The the  author  Department  wishes of  to  t h a n k D r , W.  Zoology of  the  Columbia,  for  necessary  t r a v e l l i n g expenses.  ledge  stimulating  of  the  the  Department  search. for  p r o v i d i n g funds  Thanks  his  of  are  valuable  A . Clemens,  U n i v e r s i t y of  for  special  It  is  encouragement  to  a pleasure  to  and acknow-  p r o v i d e d b y D r . W. S .  my f e l l o w  suggestions  of  British  equipment  Z o o l o g y , who s u p e r v i s e d due  Head  the  student  regarding  the  author's  Mr. D. F.  design  of  Hoar re-  Alderdice the  apparatus. For B.  0.,  F.  Heave  Part  the  of  the  cisms  author  of the  National of  providing facilities  the  indebted  Pacific  Research -Council  Dr.  of  Nile  c r e e k and l a k e  to  D r . R.  S.  Foerster  Biological Station,  f i e l d w o r k was  Department of  is  at  conducted grant  while  are  gratefully  and M r . B.C.  employed under  administered  B i o l o g y and B o t a n y .  and M r s . B l a c k  Nanaimo,  Cowichan  The  by D r . S . advice  C.  and  acknowledged.  a Black criti-  -49-  LITERATURE CITED Brett, J . R. 1944. Some l e t h a l t e m p e r a t u r e r e l a t i o n s Algonquin Park fishes. U n i v . Toronto Stud. B i o l . Pub. O n t . F i s h . Res. D a b . , 63: 1-49. B u l l , H . 0. 1938. S t u d i e s on c o n d i t i o n e d r e s p o n s e s P a r t V I I I . Dove M a r . l a b . R e p . 3 r d S e r . , H o . 5 ,  of 52,  in fishes. 19-36.  Chaisson, A . F . 1932. Changes i n the b l o o d c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f R a j a c r i n a e e a , p r o d u c e d by m o d i f i c a t i o n o f s a l i n i t y o f the e x t e r n a l m e d i u m . C o n t r . Can. B i o l , and F i s h . , 5: 477-483. "  pleuronectes 67-72.  1933. The t o x i c i t y o f f r e s h w a t e r on P s e u d o americanus. C o n t r . C a n . B i o l , and F i s h . , 7:  Chidester, F . E . 1922. Studies i n f i s h migration I I . i n f l u e n c e o f s a l i n i t y on' t h e d i s p e r s a l o f f i s h e s . Hat.,56: 373-380.  The Amer.  1924. A c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f the e v i d e n c e of p h y s i c a l and chemical i n f l u e n c e s i n f i s h m i g r a t i o n . Brit. J. Exp. Biol., 11: 79-118. Copeland, D. E . 1948. The c y t o l o g i c a l b a s i s o f c h l o r i d e t r a n s f e r i n the g i l l s of F u n d u l u s h e t e r o c l i t u s . J. Morph., 82, H o . 2: 201-228. C r a i g i e , E . H . 1926. A p r e l i m i n a r y experiment upon the r e l a t i o n of the o l f a c t o r y s e n s e to the m i g r a t i o n o f the s o c k e y e s a l m o n . T r a n s . R o y . S o c . C a n . , 20 I o . 5 : 215-224. C r o z i e r , W. J . 1 9 1 9 . On t h e r e s i s t a n c e o f F u n d u l u s t o c o n centrated sea water. Amer. H a t . , 53, Ho. 625: 180-185. Doudoroff, P . 1938. Reactions of marine fishes gradients. B i o l . B u l l . , 75: 494-509.  to  temperature  E l l i s , M . M . , B. A . W e s t f a l l , and M a r i o n D. E l l i s , 1946. Determination of water q u a l i t y . U . S . F i s h and W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , Res. R e p ' t . 9: 1-122. Fry,  F. E . J . 1947. Effects activity. Univ. Toronto Res. L a b . , 68: 1-67.  o f the environment o n animal Stud. B i o l . 55, Pub. Ont. F i s h .  Goulden, C. H . 1939. Methods of s t a t i s t i c a l W i l e y a n d S o n s , I n c . , Hew Y o r k .  analysis.  John  -50Hoagland, H . 1932. Impulses from sensory P r o c . N a t . A c a d . S c i . , 18: 701-705.  nerves  H u n t s m a n , A'. G . 1 9 4 8 . Methods Ecology, 29: 30-42.  -  •  salmon to 409-411.  and W. 3 . sea water.  in. E c o l o g y  of  catfish.  Biapocrisis.  Hoar, 1939. Resistance of A t l a n t i c J . F i s h . Res. B d . C a n . , 17, 5:  J o n e s , J . W. 1947. Salmon smolts and T r o u t M a g . , 57: 63-76.  and  salt  Ihudsen, M . 1901. Hydrographical Tables. and N o r t h g a t e . London.  water. 63  Salmon  pp. Williams  K r o g h , A". 19 3 9 . Osmotic r e g u l a t i o n i n aquatic anamils. pp. Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Cambridge. P a r k e r , G . H . 1902. H e a r i n g and a l l i e d s e n s e s B u l l . U . S . F i s h Comm., 2 2 : 45-64. '  in  in  Fish.  1905. The f u n c t i o n o f t h e l a t e r a l l i n e fishes. B u l l . U . S . B u r . F i s h . , 24: 183-207.  Rogers, H . M . 1939. Methods of an e s t u a r y . S c i e n c e , 89:  entrance 412-413.  of  242  certain  organs  fish  Smith, M . S. 1930. A mechanism of intake and e x p u l s i o n c o l o u r e d f l u i d s by the l a t e r a l l i n e c a n a l s as s e e n p e r i m e n t a l l y i n the g o l d f i s h ( C a r a s s i u s auratus). B i o l . B u l l . , 58: 313-319. 1933. f l u i d s i n the 56: 365-372.  of ex-  The m e c h a n i s m o f i n t a k e a n d o u t f l o w o f l a t e r a l line canals of fishes. Anat. Rec,  S n e d e e o r , G . W. 1 9 4 6 . Sta t i s t i c a l M e t h o d s . Iowa S t a t e C o l l e g e P r e s s . Ames, Iowa. Sumner, of U.  into  485  F . B . 1905. The p h y s i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s changes i n the d e n s i t y and s a l i n i t y o f S. Bur. F i s h . , 25: 55-108.  pp.  The  upon f i s h e s water. Bull.  White, H . C. 1940. L i f e h i s t o r y of sea r u n n i n g brook t r o u t ( S a l v e l i n u s f o n t i n a l i s ) of Moser R i v e r , N . S. J. Fish. R e s . B d . C a n . , 5: 1 7 6 - 1 8 6 .  APPENDIX  1  Experiments  21  to  36  R e s p o n s e s o f chum s a l m o n f r y to d i l u t e s e a w a t e r (performed at N i l e creek, B. C . ) .  Experiments  37  to  43  R e s p o n s e s o f chum s a l m o n f r y to d i l u t e s e a w a t e r (performed at L a k e C o w i c h a n , B . C . ) .  Experiments  44  to  51  R e s p o n s e s o f eoho s a l m o n f r y to s e a w a t e r ( p e r f o r m e d a t Lake Cowichan, B . C . ) .  Experiments  52  to  58  E f f e c t of temperature differ e n c e s on the r e s p o n s e s of chum s a l m o n f r y ( p e r f o r m e d at Lake Cowichan, B . C . ) .  Samples  A to  Samples  1  to  to 2 0  Changes i n the r e s p o n s e s of y o u n g chum s a l m o n w i t h r e l a t i o n to g r o w t h ( p e r f o r m e d at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia).  Experiments  D 38  Measurements  of  preserved  fish.  Measurements of exper imen t s .  f i s h used  in  i Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no. —•  Temp. ° C : Chlorinity Rate o f F l o w : cm./sec.  1 -March 2 2nd, 1 9 4 8 . 8:30 P . M . 1 R i g h t Arm 7.5 0.00 1.21  :  Distrihution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Experiment Date • Time Sample n o .  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 1 1 1 1 1 3 4  no. •  Temp.°C: G h l o r i n i t y %c: Rate o f F l o w : cm./see. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  of  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 3 3 2 2 4 3  .  Cont.  Coeff.  .447 .447 . .268 .268 .500 .000 .316  D i s t r i t m t i o n of L e f t Arm (no.fish) 3 1 1 2 3. 3 3 3 3  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 6 5 6 6 4 4 4  1948.  R i g h t Arm 7.5 0.00 1.19  R i g h t Arm (Ifo.fish) 5 5 5 5 5 4 2 6 4  Arm 7.5 0.00 1.21  Fish  2  2 March 23rd, 7:25 P . M . 2  left  Left  Arm 7.5 0.00 1.19  Fish Cont.  Coeff. .219 .555 .555 .394 .219 .141 .195 .315 .141  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 2 4 4 3 2 3' 5 1 3  i i Experiment- no.3 Date -March 23rd, Time —-10:00 P.M. Sample n o . 3 Temp. C : Chlorinity Rate o f F l o w : cm./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  no.  Temp. ° C : Chlorinity % Rate of F l o w : cm./sec.  R i g h t Arm 7.5 0.00 1.19 Distribution  R i g h t Arm (no. fish) 2 3 2 1 1 1 1  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  :  c  L e f t Arm (no. f i s h ) 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 . -  4 March 2 4th, 7:00 P . M . -1  :  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 4 4 1 3 1 2 4 3 3  1948.  of  Left  Fish  Cont.  Coeff.  .195 .447 .268 .000 .268 .268 .500  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 4 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2  Undiv. Port. (no. f i s h ) 4 5 6 6 4 5 4  1948.  R i g h t Arm 9.0 15.36 1.16 Distribution  Arm 7.5 0.00 1.19  of  Left  Arm 9.2 0.00 1.16  Fish  Cont.  Coeff.  .000 .141 .000 .195 .268 .000 .500 .447 .195  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 1 2 7 4 6 4 3 5 4  i i i Experiment Date Time Sample h o .  no.  o Temp. C : Chlorinity Rate o f P l o w : cm. / s e c .  5 March 24th, -9:00 P . M . 2  R i g h t Arm 9.1 15.36 1.00  :  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 3 2. 2 2 2 2 2 1 2  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  Temp. ° C : C h l o r i n i t y °/ Rate o f F l o w : cm./sec.  0O  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 4  6 --March 2 5th, 11:30 A . M . 3  :  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 3 6 3 3  of  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 3 1 3 1 2 2 2 2  left  Arm 9.2 0.00 1.00  Pish  Cont.  Goeff.  Undiv. Port. "(no.fish) 4 4 4 5 4 2 5 5 2  .447 .000 .000 .268 .000 .316 .000 .268 .316  1948.  R i g h t Arm 9.5 15.36 1.01 Distribution  2 3 3 3  1948.  of  •  Left  Arm 9.7 0.00 1.01  Fish  Cont.  Coeff.  .000 .581 .000 .447 .000 .195 .195 .195  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 3 1 3 5 4 3 3 3  iv Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  ---7 A p r i l 1st, 7:45 P.M. 4  Temp. ° G : Chlorinity % : Rate o f Plow.' cm./sec. R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 1 1 1 3 2 4 1 3  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  Temp. ° C : Chlorinity % Rate o f P l o w : cm./sec.  G  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 • 50 60 70 80 90  Pish Cont.  L e f t ' Arm (no.fish) 4  Coeff.  .500 .500 .500 .195 .195 .141 .268 .141  8 A p r i l 6th, 9:55 P.M. 5  Dis t r i h u t i o n of L e f t Arm (no. f i s h ) 3 2 5 3  2 5 6 4  Undiv. Port, (no.fish) 4 3 3 4 4 1 6 2  19 4 8 .  L e f t Arm 9.5 15.94 1.38  R i g h t Arm 9.3 0.00 1.35  :  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 2 3 3 3 6 1 1 1  D i s t r i b n t i o n of  4 4 2 3 3 2 4  no.  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 .98  R i g h t Arm 9.7 15.94 .98  0  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  1948.  Pish  Cont.  Coeff. .195 .195 .219 .000 .333 .555 .581 .500  Undiv. Port, (no.fish) 4 5 2 4 2 4 3 4  V  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  Temp. 0 : Chlorinity % Rate of Flow: cm./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  6 t h , 1948 P.M. R i g h t Arm 10.£ 0.00 1.40  0  Distribution  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 1 2 4 5 1 1  l e f t Arm (no. f i s h ) 2 1 3 2 2 4  2 3  2. 2  Experiment Date - Time Sample n o .  no.  Temp. C: Chlorinity \ Rate of Flow: cm./sec.  0  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  - - -9 —-April 11:50 6  of  l e f t Arm 10.5 15.94 1.33  Fish  Cont.  Coeff.  .268 .268 .141 .394 .269 .500 .000 .195  10 - — A p r i l 10th, 1:00 P . M . 7  D i s t r i b u t i o n of  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 5 5 3 4 6 3 4 5 6  l e f t Arm (no. fish) 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 2 S  4 3  1948.  l e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.33  R i g h t Arm 10.0 16.00 0.67  :  Undiv. Port, (no. f i s h ) 6 6 2 2 5 3  Fish  Cont.  Coeff.  .394 .555 .447 .316 .581 .141 .141 .394 .315  Undiv. Port, (no. f i s h ) 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 1  vi Experiment no. —-11 Date — - A p r i l 10th, Time = •--—•-3:00 P . M . Sample n o . •—8  R i g h t Arm 9.2 16.00 1.33  Temp.°C: Chlorinity%o : Rate of P l o w : em./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  D i s t r i b u t i o n of  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 8 6 7 6 4 5 7 5 5  Experiment Date ~ Time Sample n o .  no. •->  1948.  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2  Pish  Cont.  Coeff.  .614 .333 .479 .333 .316 .394 .600 .555 .394  ---12 A p r i l 10th, 5:00 P . M . 9  D i s t r i b u t i o n of R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 2 1 1 1 2 3 3  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 0 1 1 2 4 2 1 3 2  1948.  R i g h t Arm 10.0 0.00 0.67  Temp. C: Chlorinity : Rate of Plow: cm./sec.  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70  L e f t Arm 9.5 0.00 0.67  L e f t Arm (no. f i s h ) 5 3 6 3 3 2 3  L e f t Arm 9.6 16.00 1.33  Pish Cont. .394 .447 .581 .447 .195 .195 .000  Coeff.  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 2 4 2 5 5 3 3  vii Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  13 - A p r i l 13 t h , 9:00 P . M . 10  Temp.°0: Chlorinity % Rate of P l o w : cm./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  B i g h t Arm 10.2 16.00 0.62  :  c  D i s t r i b u t i o n of  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 7 6 3 4 3 2 3 4 2  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 0 2 3 1 2 4 2 1 3  L e f t Arm 10.2 0.00 2.00  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .600 .333 .000 .500 .195 .316 .195 .500 .195  Undiv. Port. (no. f i s h ) 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 5 5  n o . •— - 1 4 — - A p r i l 11th, 1948. 9:00 P . M . 8 R i g h t Arm 10.0 0.00 0.80  Temp.°C: Chlorinity /£ : l a t e of F l o w : cm./sec • Q  Dis t r i b u t i o n Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  1948 .  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 3 1 0 4 1 2 2 1 2  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 2 1 5 2 1 2 5 3 5  of  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.21  Fish Cont. .195 .000 .555 .316 .000 .000 .394 .447 .394  Coeff.  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 4 6 4 3 6 5 4 4 2  viii Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no;---15 -April 12th, -—8:00 P . M . 10  Temp.°C: Chlorinity Rate o f Flow: cm./sec.  Right Arm 9.4 0.00 0.67 •  Q  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  1948.  :  Distribution of  R i g h t Arm ( n o . f i sh) 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 3 2 5 6 3 3 4 5  Experiment no. 16 Date — A p r i l 12th, Time —11:00 P.M. Sample n o . 11 Temp.°C: Chlorinity % Rate of Flow: cm./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  0  l e f t Arm 9.4 0.00 1.82  Fish Cont.  Qoeff. •  .268 .000 .000 .219 .315 .195 .195 .500 .394  1948.  Right Arm 10.8 0.00 1.86  :  Distribution  Right Arm (no.fish) 2 1 3 1 0 3 3 3 1  Undiv. Port. (no. f i s h ) 7 3 5 2 1 3 4 3 1  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 3 3 2 6 5 3 4 2 5"  of  l e f t Arm 10.5 0.00 0.67  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .195 .447 .195 .581 .555 .000 .141 .195 .555  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 3 5 4 1 3 4 3 5 4  ix Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  17 - — A p r i l 27th, — 9:00 P . M . • 12  Temp. C: C h l o r i n i t y %<J Rate o f P l o w : cm./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm 9.0 0.00 1.83  :  D i s t r i b u t i o n of  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0  Experiment Date Time - - Sample n o .  no.  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 7 9 7 8 8 9 7 7 7  •  18 — A p r i l 2 Tfch, ---11:30 P . M . 13  Temp. C: Chlorinity <% : Rate o f Plow: cm./sec.  )  Distribution  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 10 8 7 10 6 9 8 8 7  Left •  Arm 9.2 9.88 0.63  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .600 .626 .479 .614 .614 .626 .600 .600 .600  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1  1948 .  R i g h t Arm 10.0 0.00 0.66  0  Time (min. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  1948.  of  L e f t Arm 9.7 9.88 1.92  Pish  Cont.  Coeff.  .633 .614 .600 .633 .581 .626 .614 .614 .479  Undiv. Port. (no. 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 1  X  Experiment n o . 19 Date - — A p r i l 28th, Time —11:00 A.M. Sample n o . 14 Temp. C : Chlorinity Rate o f Plow: cm./sec. 0  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Right Arm 10.2 0.00 1.31  /  '  :  Distribution  Right Arm (no.fish) 0 1 0 1  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 11 9 10 10  1 0 0 0  8 • 10 10  -  Time (min.) 10: 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  0  Cont.  Coeff.  .640 .626 .633 .633  -  .626 .614 .633 .633  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 1 1 2 1  -  2 2 0 0  1948.  Distribution of L e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 . 1  L e f t Arm 9.8 9.88 1.31  Pish  R i g h t Arm 10.8 9.88 1.19  :  Right Arm (no.fish) 8 10 8 8 7 7 7 8 5  of  9  Experiment n o . 20 Date _-—ww_April 28th, Time -10:45 P . M . Sample n o . 15 o Temp. C : Chlorinity % Rate o f P l o w : cm./sec.  1949.  L e f t Arm 10.8 0.00 1.26  Pish  Cont.  Coeff.  .614 .633 .614 .614 .600 .600 .600 .614 .555  Undiv. Port. (no.fish ) • 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 3  xi Experiment Date Time  no.  £1 —May 9 t h , 1948. 5:00 P . M .  Temp.°C: Chlorinity 'oo Rate o f F l o w : cm./sec. Time (sec.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  : Distribution  Right Arm (no.fish) 4 3 3 4 6 6 5 5 2  Experiment Date Time  no.  Temp.°C: Chlorinity Rate of F l o w : cm./sec. Time (sec.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm 10.3 0.00 1.22 of  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 4 3 5 3 3 4 3 4 5  22 -May 12th, 9:00 A . M .  Cont.  Coeff.  .000 .000 .219 .141 .315 .197 .219 .110 .394  Dis t r i b u t i o n o f L e f t Arm (no.fish) 7 6 4 6 5 4 5 3  -  Undiv. Port. (No.fish) 2 5 3 3 3 2 4 3 4  1948.  :  —  Fish  R i g h t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.25  Right Arm (no.fish) 2 2 4 3 3 3 2 2  L e f t Arm 10.£ 1.07 1.22  L e f t Arm 10.0 1.15 1.25  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .479 .333 .000 .316 .219 ' .141 .394 .195  -  Und i v . P o r t . (no.fi 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 5  -  xii Experiment Date Time  no.  Temp.G: Chlorinity % Rate o f P l o w : em./sec.  0  23 May 1 0 t h , 19 4 8 . 5:00 P . M . R i g h t Arm 10.1 1.79 1.25  :  Distribution Time (sec. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  )  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 9 8 7 6 9 10 9 9 7  Experiment Date Time  no.  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 0 0 1 0 •1 0 0 1 0  —-24 -May 1 0 t h , 9:20 A . M .  Time (sec. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  )  Pish  Cont.  Coeff.  .625 .614 .600 .581 .625 .633 .625 .625 .600  R i g h t Arm 10.0 1.98 1.25  : Distribution  Right Arm (no.fish) 8 9 8 9 9 11 11 11 11  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 4  1948  0  Temp. C: Chlorinity Rate of Plow: cm. / s e c .  of  l e f t Arm 10.2 0.00 1.25  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 1 2 1 0' 0 1 0 0  of  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.31  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .614 .626 .515 .626 .62 6 .640 .640 .640 .640  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 3 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 1  x i i i Experiment Date Time  no".  Temp.°C: C h l o r i n i t y %a Rate of F l o w : em./sec. Time (sec.) 10 20 30' 40 50 60 70 80 90  ---25 —May 10th, 1948 10:10 P . M . R i g h t Arm 10.0 3.34 1.25  :  Distribution  Right Arm (no.fish) 10 7 10 5 9 8 8 8 9  Experiment Date Time  no.  Temp.C: Chlorinity % Rate of F l o w : cm./sec.  h  L e f t Arm (no . f i s h ) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -  —26 Mgry 12 t h , 2:15 P . M .  :  of  )  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 4 4 4 3 4 3 0 2 2  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .633 .479 .633 .555 .62 5 .614 .614 .614 .62 5  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 1 2 1 6 2 3 3 1 2  1948. R i g h t Arm 10.1 0.00 1.25  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time (sec. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.25  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 6 4 6 8 8 7 10 9 10  L e f t Arm 10.2 3.72 1.25  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .197 .000 .197 .414 .316 .371 .633 .537 .554  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 2 4 2 1 0 1 2 1 0  xiv  Experiment Date - — Time  no.  Temp. 0: C h l o r i n i t y ^>o Rate of Plow: cm./sec •  27 -May 8 t h , 1948. -9:20 P . M . R i g h t Arm 9.7 4.04 1.28  :  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time (sec. ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Right Arm (no.fish) 5 5 6 7 5 4 3 5 5  Experiment Date Time  no.  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 3 1 3 0 1 3 3 3 1  Pish Cont .  -  Coeff.  .219 .555 .315 .600 .555 .141 .000 .219 .555  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 2 3 1 4 4 2 4 2 4  28 May 9 t h , 1948. 1:00 P . M . R i g h t Arm 10.0 4.20 • 1.22 !  0 Temp. C : C h l o r i n i t y : /eo Rate of Plow: cm. / s e c •  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  L e f t Arm 9.7 0.00 1.22  Right Arm (no.fish) 3 5 ' 6 6 5 4 6 10 9  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 2 2 2 1 3 1 0 1 2  of  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.22  Pish, Cont.  Coeff.  .595 .394 .333 .581 .219 .500 .581 .633 .472  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 4 3 2 4 2 6 5 0 0  XV Experiment Date Time  no.  Temp.°C: C h l o r i n i t y °/ Rate of Plow: cm./see.  0 o  29 --May 10th, 2:45 P . M .  1948. R i g h t Arm 10.0 5.84 1.25  :  Distribution of Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Right Arm (Io.fish) 7 6 7 6 5 5 7 7  Experiment Date Time  no.  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 1 1 2 3 4 3 3  Pish  Cont.  Coeff.  .600 .581 .600 .333 .219 .110 .372 .372  Undiv. Port, (no.fish) 2 5 3 2 3 3 1 2  -—30 —May 9th, 1948. 8:15 P . M . Right Arm 10.0 0.00 1.22  Temp. 0: Chlorinity % : Rate of P l o w : em./sec. Q  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.25  Right Arm (no.fish) 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 1  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 8 5 6 6 7 7 7 4 6  L e f t Arm 10.0 8.48 1.25  Pish  Cont.  Goeff.  .614 .394 .581 .333 .479 .600 .600 .500 .581  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 1 1 5 2 1 4 4 5 3  xvi  Experiment Date - - Time  no.  31 — — M a y 1 2 t h , 19 4 8 . 9:40 P . M .  Temp.°C: C h l o r i n i t y %o Rate of Plow: em./sec.  R i g h t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.25  :  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 4 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 0  Experiment Date Time  no.  0 Temp. C: Chlorinity: °/ Rate of Plow: cm./sec •  of  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 5 4 6 7 6 7 6 9 11  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .110 .500 .448 .481 .581 .579 .614 .626 .640  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 3 6 4 2 4 3 2 0 0  ---32 May 1 2 t h , 1948. --12:10 P . M . Right Arm 10.0 0.00 1.25  6 a  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  L e f t Arm 10.0 8.48 1.25  Right Arm ( n o . f i sh) 1 2 3 2 1  2 2 2 2  Left A m (no.fish) 2 5 4 5 4 3 9 7 7 r  L e f t Arm 10.0 10.73 1.25  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .315 .394 .141 .394 .530 .195 .537 .485 .485  Undiv. Port. (no. f i s h ) 8 4 4 4 6 8 2 3 4  xvii E x p e r i m e n t no.Date • lime — • Temp.°C: Chlorinity % Rate of P l o w : cm./sec.  33 May 1 O t h , —7:15 P . M .  B i g h t Arm 10.0 12.47 1.25  :  0  1948.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time (min*) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 4 2 2 4 2 4  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 3 2 2 3 2 3  4 4  3 3  -  Experiment Date - - Time  no.  Arm 10.0 0.00 1.25  Pish  Cont.  Coeff.  "Undiv. P o r t , (no.fish) 4 6 7 5 7 4  .141 .000 .000 .141 .000 .141  -  -  -  .141 ,141  4 4  34 M a y 8 t h , 19 4 3 . 7:30 P . M .  o Temp. C: Chlorinity / : Rate of Plow: cm./sec.  R i g h t Arm 9.5 0.00 1.22  a  0 0  Distribution Time (min. ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  left  Right Arm (no . f i s h ) 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 2 4 4 4 6 5 5 6 6  of  Left  Arm 9.5 12.50 1.22  Pish Cont. .000 .316 .141 .141 .333 .394 .394 .581 .581  Coeff.  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 5 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3  xviii Experiment Date Time  no.  •  35 —May 7th, 1948. -—11:00 A . M . E i g h t Arm 9.7 0.00 1.19  Temp.°C: C h l o r i n i t y Voo : Rate of Plow: cm./sec.  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no. fish) 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0  Experiment Date Time  no. -  Pish Cont.  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 2 4 4 5 2 0 5 2 5  Arm 9.7 12.70 1.25  Coeff.  .000 .500 .500 .555 .268 .000 .555 .268 .558  Unaiv. Port. (no.fish) 6 6 4 3 7 8 3 7 4  ---36 '-May 9th, 1948. 10:00 A'.M, Right Arm 8.9 0.00 1.19  Temp.°C: Chlorinity% : Rate of Plow: cm./sec. 0  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  of  Left  Right A m (no.fish) 3 3 3 6 4 2 4 4 3 r  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 2  of  Left  Arm 9.2 16.22 1.16  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .195 .195 .195 .333 .141 .195 .500 .316 .195  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 6 6 6 2 3 4 4 3 4  xix Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  37 — M a y 20th, 1948. 10:30 A . M . 18 R i g h t Arm 9.5 0.00 1.43  Temp.°C: C h l o r i n i t y %o : Rate of Plow: cm./sec.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 1 2 5 4 2 4 4 2  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 2 5 4 2 2 3 4 5 4  Experiment no. Date [Dime Sample n o .  38 May 2 1 s t , —4:15 P . M . 19  d  0  Cont.  Coeff.  .268 .555 .316 .39 4 .316 .195 .000 .110 .316  Right Arm (no.fish) 5 6 2 2 2 5 3 0  undiv. Port. (no.fish) 8 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 6  1948.  Distribution of  iO  Pish  R i g h t Arm 11.3 0.00 1.62  Temp.°C: C h l o r i n i t y /o : Rate o f P l o w : cm./sec.  Time (min. ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  l e f t Arm 9.7 0.00 1.43  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 5 5 7 8 7 7 7 9 6  l e f t Arm 11.3 1.83 1.62  Pish Cont.  Ooeff.  .000 .095 .479 .515 .479 .164 .371 .626 .581  Undiv. Port, (no.fish) 0 3  2  1 1 1 3 3 4  XX Experiment no. 39 Date May 2 1 s t , 19 4 8 . Time —-__-__i:oo P . M . Sample n o . 20 Temp.°C: Chlorinity Rate o f Flow: cm./sec  Right Arm 10.2 0.00 1.52  :  M s t r i b t i t i o n. o f Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130  '  RightArm (no . f i s h ) 6 6 7 6 4 2 2 4 2 2 Z  3 1  Expferiment n o . Date Time • Sample n o . Temp.°C: Chlorinity % Rate o f Flow: cm./sec.  0  Coeff.  .078 .000 .078 .095 .316 .515 .555 .515 .515 .555 .414 .371 .626  Undiv. Port.) (no . f i s h ) 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3  40 May 2 1 . s t , 1 9 4 8 . 9:45 A . M . 21 R i g h t Arm 10.0 6.52 1.52  :  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Fish  Cont.  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 7 6 6 5 8 8 10 5 8 10 8 7 9  L e f t Arm 10.3 3.73 1.52  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 7 8 7 9 7 6 7 6 5  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 5 3 3 2 2 3 • 2 1 3  of  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.52  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .164 .414 .371 .537 .479 .316 .479 .581 .219  Undiv. Port. (no. fish) 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 5 3  xxi Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  Temp.°0: Chlorinity % Rate of Flow: cm./sec.  Q  41 May 2 2 n d , 1948. 10:00 A . M . 22 R i g h t Arm 11.2 0.00 1.43  :  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 3  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 7 6 5 7 4 7 7 8 7  n o . - •—-42 --May 2 0th, 5:00 P . M . 23  Temp.°C: Chlorinity % : Rate of F l o w : cm./sec. 0  of  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 3 4 2 5 3 4 7 4 5  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .263 .197 .110 .263 .000 .263 .371 .515 .371  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2  1948.  Right Arm 11.7 0.00 1.43 Distribution  Time (min.) !0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  l e f t Arm 11.3 9.58 1.43  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 6 4 5 5 4 5 4 6 5  of  L e f t Arm 11.7 12.52 1.43  Fish  Cont.  Coeff.  .316 .000 .394 .000 .141 .110 .263 .197 .000  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 4 5 6 3 6 3 1 2 2  xxii Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  —^43  •—•—•-May  2:10 24  2 0 t h , 1946. P.M. S i g h t Arm 10.6 14.62 1.62  Temp.°C: Chlorinity / : Rate o f P l o w : . cm./see. a  Q o  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 5  Experiment Pate Time Sample n o .  no.  of  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 6 5 6 3 3 4 6 5 4  left  Arm 10.4 0.00 1.57  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .095 .000 .095 .000 .219 .000 .197 .219 .110  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 3 5 2 8 6 6 4 4 3  ---44 May 2 5 t h , 19 4 8 . ---10:00 A . M . 25 R i g h t Arm 10.0 0.00 2.80  T e m p . o, C: C h l o r i n i t y / -. Rate of Plow: cm./sec. w  0Q  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  \  Right Arm (no . f i s h ) 8 5 7 5 4 6 5 4 5  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 5 6 3 8 4 3 7 5 6  of  L e f t Arm 10.0 0.00 2.36  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .210 .095 .371 .210 .000 .316 .164 .110 .095  Und i v (no 0 2 2 0 4 4 1 4 2  xxiii  Experiment T ime Sample  no. — 4 5 May 2 5 t h , 1948. 1 2 : 15 A . M . 26  no.  R i g h t Arm 10.2 0.00 1.28  Q  C o .r i nC i: t y / £ , , : T ehml p Rate of Flow: cm./sec • Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Left A m (no.fish) 9 6 10 8 7 5 4 8 4  Right A m (no.fish) 3 6 2 3 5 4 4 3 4  no. •  .447 .000 .555 .414 .164 .110 .000 .414 .000  Right Arm 11.7 0.00 2.15  0 Q  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Coeff.  Undiv. Port. (no . f i s h ) 2 2 2 2 0 3 4 1 4  46 May 2 6 t h , 19 4 8 . 2:30 P . M . 27  Temp. C : Chlorinity / : Rate of Flow: cm./sec. a  Fish Cont.  r  r  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  of  L e f t Arm 10.2 0.00 2.36  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 5 4 4 8 6 6 4 6 8  L f t Arm (no.fish) 8 6 5 3 4 2 5 4 2 e  of  Left  Arm 11.7 1.55 2.07  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .226 .195 .110 .414 .195 .448 .118 .195 .515  Undiv. ( n o .•: 1 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 3  xxiv Experiment Date Time - - Sample n o .  no.  Temp.C: Chlorinity % Rate of Plow: cm./sec.  0  47 — -May 8 6 t h , 1948. -10:00 A . M . 28 Right Arm 11.0 3.00 2.00  :  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  Right A m (no.fish) 8 8 7 6 4 4 4 4 2 r  Experiment Date Time Sample n o ,  no.  of  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 3 5  Coeff,  .414 .226 .167 .095 .267 .267 .195 .110 .481  5 7 7 6 5 7  Arm 11.0 0.00 2.00  Pish Cont.  5  Undiv . P o r t . (no . f i s h ) 1 0 1 3 1 2 2 3 2  ---48 -May 26th, 1948. 12:15 A . M . 29  _ Temp. C : Chlorinity % : Rate of P l o w : cm./sec.  R i g h t Arm 11,7 0.00 2.00  0  Distribution Time (min. ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  left  Right Arm (no.fish) 2 0 0 2 0 2 6 4 6  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 8 7 5 6 5 5 2 3 3  of  L e f t Arm 11.5 6.10 1.92  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .515 .600 .555 .448 .555 .394 .448 .142 .317  Undiv. Port. (no . f i s h ) 1 5 7 4 5 5 3 5 3  XXV  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  —-49. -May 2 7th, 1948. 10:30 A . M . 30 R i g h t Arm  Temp.C: Chlorinity % Rate of Flow: em./sec.  9.7 0.00 2.07  Q  Distribution Time (min. ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 9 9 7 8 7 5 8 8 8  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  of  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 2 1 0 2 4 3 3 2 3  Arm  9.7 9.40 2.07  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .472 .672 .600 .515 .263 .243 .414 .515 .414  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 2 . 3 7 3 2 5 2 3 2  50 May 2 8 t h , 1948. -10:30 A . M . 31 R i g h t Arm 10.0 0.00 1.92  Temp. C: Chlorinity % : Rate o f F l o w : cm . / s e c . Q  Distribution Time (min. ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  left  Right Arm (no . f i s h ) 6 6 4 2 3 4 5 6 4  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 0 3 3 2 6 4 4 4 3  of  left  Arm 10.0 11.50 1.92  Fish Cont.  Coeff*  .614 .317 .141 .000 .317 .000 .110 .195 .141  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 6 3 5 7 3 4 3 2 5  xxv i Experiment no. Date • Time Sample n o .  ---51 —May 28th, 2:00 P . M . 32  1948.  R i g h t Arm 9.7 0.00 2.07  0  Temp. C; C h l o r i n i t y /o ' Rate of Flow: cm./sec. c  Distribution Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  R i g h t Arm (no. f i s h ) 10 7 10 6 5 6 4 5 4  Experiment no.' Date Time Sample n o . Temp. G : Chlorinity% Rate of Flow: cm./sec.  0  of  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2  Arm 9.7 15.30 2.07  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .632 ' .485 .633 .581 .555 .581 .521 .555 .318  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 2 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 2  ---52 - M a y 2 8 t h , 1948 . -9:25 P . M . 33 R i g h t Arm 14.5 0.00 2.00  :  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120  left  R i g h t Arm (no. f i s h ) 3 3 5 4 3 3 4 5 3  -  5 6  L e f t Arm ( n o . f i s h) 6 9 9 10 9 10 10 8 7 _  9 8  L e f t Arm 12.0 0.00 2.00  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .317 .447 .272 .39 3 .447 .458 .393 .226 .371 _  .272 .134  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 _ 0 0  xxvii Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  ---53 -June 1st, 9:50 A . M . 33  1948.  R i g h t Arm 11.5 7.50 2.00  0  Temp. C : Chlorinity % Rate of Flow: cm./sec.  :  0  Distribution Time (min. ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 9 10  -  9 10 11 11 10 10 10 12  Experiment no. Late Time — Sample n o . T  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 5 6  Fish Cont..  Coeff.  .272 .243  -6  -  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 0 0  -  .195 .243 .351 .351 .317 .243 .243 .448  1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0  R i g h t Arm 14.5 7.35 2.00  L e f t Arm 12.0 0.00 2.00  6 5 5 5 6 6 4  ---54 — M a y 2 8 t h , 19 4 8 . -5:05 P . M . 34  Temp.C: Chlorinity:%, : Rate of Flow: cm./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 12 0  of  l e f t Arm 11.5 0.00 1.92  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 6 6 7 8 7  Distribution L e f t Arm (no.fish) 8 8 9 11 10 7 9 7 6 6 6 7  of  Fish Cont.  Coeff.  .316 .316 .358 .423 .393 .164 .359 .078 .000 .078 .141 .000  Undiv. .Port. (no . f i s h ) 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0  xxviii Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  Temp* C : Chloranity % Rate of Plow: cm./seci  Distribution  no.  Temp.C: Chlorinity % Sate of Plow: cm./sec.  of  L e f t Arm (no.fish) 6 5 5 4 3 4 6 4 2 2 1 2  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) •5 3 3 5 5 6 8 7 10 8 11 12  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .141 .274 .224 .393' .496 *263 .141 .316 .569 .555 .561 .581  R i g h t Arm 11.0 11.22 2.07 Distribution of  -  L e f t Arm 14.5 0.00 2.00  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 3 1 2 0 0 4 1 3 1 2 0 0  56 ----June 2nd, 1948. -10:25 A . M . 36  :  0  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130  B i g h t Arm 11.5 7.45 2.07  R i g h t Arm (no. f i sh) 8 9 8 10 11 7 8 8 11 10 13 12  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  1948.  :  0  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120  55 -June 1 s t , 2:05 P . M . 35  L e f t Arm (no.fish ) 7 7 6  L e f t Arm 14.0 0.00 1.92  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .164 .371 .316  Und i v . (no.: 4 5 5  .164 .000 .095 .224 .263 .555 .316 .569 .646  2 4 3 1 3 2 2 1 1  1  -  7 5 5 5 4 2 4 2 1  _  xxix Experiment no. Date Time Sample n o . Temp.°C Chlorinity: % Rate of Plow: cm./sec.  57 June E n d , 1:35 P . M . 37  1948. R i g h t Arm 11.0 11.70 1.92  :  Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130  Distribution  R i g h t Arm (no.fish) 2 1 3 1 4 3 2 1 2. 3 4 3 3  Experiment Date Time Sample n o .  no.  Temp.°C: Chlorinity % Rate of Plow: cm./sec. Time (min.) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 12 5  0  0  l e f t Arm (no.fish) 13 14 11 14 9 11 12 13 8 9 9 9 10 58 June 2 n d , 5:00 P . M . 38  Distribution r  Pish  Cont.  Coeff.  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 6 4 3 4 3  .592 .683 .496 .683 .358 .496 .581 .651 .515 .447 .358 .447 .458  1948.  :  Right A m (no.fish) 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 •1 0 1  of  l e f t Arm 14.7 0.00 1.92  L e f t Arm (no. f i s h ) 14 14 8 9 10 9 6 8 8 10 12 10 12  R i g h t Arm 12.0 11.63 1.92 of  L e f t Arm 12.0 0.00 1.92  Pish Cont.  Coeff.  .600 .683 .614 .626 .555 .537 .581 .515 .515 .632 .646 .632 .646  Undiv. Port. (no.fish) 0 1 6 4 1 2 6 3 3 3 0 3 0  XXX  Mean Lengths Sample no. A B G D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  Late Feb. 2 Feb. 7 F e b . 16 F e b . 25 M a r . 22 M a r . 23 M a r . 23 Apr. 1 Apr. 6 Apr. 6 A p r . 10 A p r . 10 A p r . 10 Apr1.12 A p r . 12 A p r . 27 A p r . 27 A p r . 28 A p r . 28 May 12 May 12 May 20 May 21 May 21 May 21 May 22 May 20 May 20 May 25 May 25 May 26 May 26 May 26 M a y , 27 May 28 May 28 May 28 May 28 Jun. 1 Jun. 1 Jun. 2 Jun. 2  of  Experimental  Number o f F i s h i n sample  Fish Mean Len mm.  6 8 10 40 11 10 9 10 10 9 10 10  18.2 20.3 21.9 23.7 26.3 28.0 26.1 26.8 29.1 28.4 29.4 29.3  8 10 8 10 10 9 20 26 9 8 13 12 13 11 12 12. 13 14 12 12. 12 12 10 12 16 13 13 14 15  31.2 31.0 34.9 34.7 34.3 35.4 34.3 34.8 37.3 36.2 35.7 36.3 36.2 36.6 35.9 34.0 34.1 31.9 34.5 34.4 33.9 33.8 32.3 35.6 35.7 35.6 36.5 37.2 37.2  -  -  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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.831.1-0106988/manifest

Comment

Related Items