Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Significance of certain scale characters in the recognition of Fraser River sockeye races Hamilton, James Arthur Roy 1947

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1947_A8 H2 S5.pdf [ 13.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0107059.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0107059-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0107059-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0107059-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0107059-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0107059-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0107059-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0107059-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0107059.ris

Full Text

SIGNIFICANCE OF CERTAIN SCALE CHARACTERS IN THE RECOGNITION OF FRASER RIVER SOCKEYE RACES by  James Arthur Roy Hamilton  A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of The Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of ZOOLOGY  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia APRIL, 1947  Significance of Certain Scale  Characters  i n the Recognition of Fraser River Sockeye Races Table of Contents Introduction Materials and Methods Sockeye Scale Structure Results and Discussion 1. Age composition of Fraser r i v e r races. 1. Lacustrine l i f e . 2. Age at maturity. 3. Precocious II, C i r c u l i  sockeye abundance.  counts.  1. Procedure i n enumerating r i n g s . 2. C i r c u l i counts f o r sex. 3. C i r c u l i counts f o r age. 4. Lacustrine ring  counts.  a. Comparison of r i n g counts between years with races. b. Comparison between areas within years. c. C o r r e l a t i o n between annual changes i n different.areas. d. Segregation of races by f i r s t season rings, e. D i s t r i b u t i o n s of f i r s t season rings i n 1916-1918.  5. Second season or f i r s t season salt water rings. 6. Association of f i r s t season and second season rings. 7. Comparison of numbers of rings i n y e a r l i n g and adult scales. 8 . F i r s t season ring counts of precocious sockeye. I I I . General appearance of scales. IV. Ring counts and the environment.  Summa ry Acknowledgments. References.  J  Significance of Certain Scale Characters i n the Recognition of Fraser River Sockeye Races Abstract The Fraser River sockeye population i s segregated graphically into a number of i n d i v i d u a l races.  The  geo-  scales of  these f i s h contain several characters which might be used i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these races.  They are number of annuli  (winter "checks"), number of f i r s t season and second season rings, a d d i t i o n a l "checks", and general appearance of scales. With few exceptions the Fraser River sockeye are of the 42 age group.  Birkenhead River, Cultus Lake, and Chilko Lake  sockeye have varying numbers of 53 f i s h .  The Harrison River  f i s h i n general migrate immediately to sea as f r y . River sockeye i n general return as 52 f i s h .  The  Pitt  Any difference  *  that e x i s t s i n ring counts between the sexes of sockeye i s not s i g n i f i c a n t .  In general i t was  found that the younger  sockeye (32) have greater numbers of f i r s t season l a c u s t r i n e rings than do the 42 sockeye and that i n turn the 42 f i s h have more rings than do the 52 f i s h .  There i s considerable v a r i a -  b i l i t y from year to year i n both f i r s t season and second season ring counts f o r each race.  The greatest association i n  f i r s t season r i n g counts occurs on adjacent years.  The  ring  counts between races within years are i n many cases statistioaJJy different.  The yearly v a r i a b i l i t y within races and the over-  lapping i n r i n g counts makes the separation of the races i n  a homogeneous population an i m p o s s i b i l i t y .  The ring counts  of y e a r l i n g migrant sockeye have fewer rings than do the adult sockeye of the same brood year. a d d i t i o n a l checks.  Most of the races have  On the basis of these studies i t i s  impossible to segregate  the various Fraser River races by  using scale characters alone.  Introduction: Over a p e r i o d of years c e r t a i n of the F r a s e r R i v e r sockeye p o p u l a t i o n s have shown a marked d e c l i n e i n numbers of f i s h present on the spawning beds, u n t i l to-day areas they may thousands.  i n some  be enumerated i n mere hundreds r a t h e r than  Other p o p u l a t i o n s have i n c r e a s e d i n abundance  while the remainder tend to stay a t a more s t a b l e l e v e l . I t i s the o b j e c t of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission to b u i l d up these d e p l e t e d races to a more s u b s t a n t i a l l e v e l , i f not to t h e i r o r i g i n a l one, to m a i n t a i n the present abundance of the remaining One  races.  measure undertaken f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the  r a c e s was  the removal of numerous o b s t a c l e s t h a t o b s t r u c t e d  t h e i r m i g r a t i o n to the spawning beds. their  and  s u r v i v a l i t was  necessary  To f u r t h e r augment  to c u r t a i l the  f i s h e r y to permit f r e e passage of those  commercial  races t h a t showed  signs o f d e p l e t i o n . Before p u t t i n g such- r e s t r i c t i o n i n t o e f f e c t i t was necessary  to determine the p e r i o d of m i g r a t i o n o f each race  through the f i s h e r y .  As a r e s u l t of the v a r i o u s t a g g i n g  experiments from 1938  - 1945,  i t has come to l i g h t t h a t the  bulk of the f i s h of the p r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r r a c e s pass through  the f i s h e r y between l a t e June and l a t e September.  While t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p p i n g i n t h e i r p e r i o d s of  m i g r a t i o n , the races are commercially order:  exploited i n this  S t u a r t Lake ( e a r l y ) , Bowron Lake, C h i l k o Lake,  S t e l l a k o R i v e r , S t u a r t Lake ( l a t e ) , Adams R i v e r and C u l t u s Lake • While the t a g g i n g experiments have c o n t r i b u t e d much to the s o l u t i o n o f t h i s problem i t was f e l t i n f o r m a t i o n might be gleaned  that a d d i t i o n a l  by a study o f the i n d i v i d u a l  p o p u l a t i o n s from a r a c i a l s t a n d p o i n t .  With the s o l u t i o n  of t h i s problem i n mind the r a c i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n was undertaken. Numerous c h a r a c t e r s might be used f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n of f i s h r a c e s .  P r i t c h a r d (1945) s t u d i e d the p y l o r i c  caeca  of the pink salmon and McGregor (1923) on the Sacramento and Klamath R i v e r s showed t h a t "pyloric caeca and egg counts might be used f o r the s e p a r a t i o n o f the s p r i n g salmon from each of these  rivers.  V e r t e b r a l counts have been o f c o n s i d e r a b l e value i n s e p a r a t i n g p o p u l a t i o n s o f h e r r i n g on the P a c i f i c Thompson (1916), R o u n s e f e l l and Dahlgren (1935).  coast, Schaefer  (1936) by means o f v e r t e b r a l f r e q u e n c i e s was a b l e to show, the h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f the P a c i f i c Gilbert 1937)  coast smelt  populations,  (1913 - 1925) and Clemens and Clemens (1925 -  were able t o show through t h e i r a n a l y s e s o f s c a l e s  the i n h e r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f sockeye i n h a b i t i n g the v a r i o u s B r i t i s h Columbia c o a s t a l streams, v i z . Skeena R i v e r , Naas  3. R i v e r , R i v e r s I n l e t and attempted to separate  the F r a s e r R i v e r .  G i l b e r t not only-  the spawning p o p u l a t i o n s  i n these major  streams but c a r r i e d the study a step f a r t h e r and  tried  to  show t h a t through d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c a l e c h a r a c t e r s the i n d i v i d u a l races of the F r a s e r R i v e r i t s e l f might be He  s t a t e s without  the s c a l e nucleus like  segregated.  q u a l i f i c a t i o n that c e r t a i n differences i n separates  the races i n the F r a s e r r i v e r  individual finger prints. Over a p e r i o d of years r a c i a l samples of  p y l o r i c caeca, g i l l  r a k e r s , eggs and  vertebrae,  s c a l e s have been  c o l l e c t e d from sockeye f o r the purpose of determining value i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of the v a r i o u s F r a s e r R i v e r The  contents  a l o n e , and  their races.  of t h i s paper d e a l w i t h the study o f the s c a l e s  i s to be f o l l o w e d a t a l a t e r date by an  g a t i o n of the remaining  investi-  characters.  M a t e r i a l s and Methods: From a g e o g r a p h i c a l  standpoint  the F r a s e r r i v e r popu-  l a t i o n has been d i v i d e d , f o r the purpose of r a c i a l i n t o ten areas:  separation  S t u a r t Lake, S t e l l a k o R i v e r , Bowron Lake,  C h i l k o Lake, Adams R i v e r , C u l t u s Lake, Birkenhead R i v e r , Weaver Creek, H a r r i s o n R i v e r and P i t t Lake. shown i n the accompanying  These areas  are  map.  For the past e i g h t years,1938 - 1945,  s c a l e samples have  been taken from a d u l t sockeye spawning i n these a r e a s ,  as  w e l l as from the commercial f i s h i n g areas, Sooke, Anacortes  and  Steveston.  These samples were placed  with i n f o r m a t i o n length The  i n s c a l e books  p e r t a i n i n g t o each; v i z . , t o t a l and standard  of f i s h , sex, weight and c o n d i t i o n a t time o f sampling.  s c a l e s were cleaned i n the u s u a l manner, mounted i n  glycerine  j e l l y and examined under a promar p r o j e c t o r o f  power X40. Sockeye S c a l e  Structure:  In appearance the sockeye s c a l e i s a f l a t  structure,  s l i g h t l y e l i p t i c a l i n shape, w i t h a number o f c o n c e n t r i c r i n g s on i t s s u r f a c e ,  A c l o s e examination o f the s c a l e under  a microscope w i l l show t h a t these r i n g s a r e not a l l o f the same dimension o r e q u a l l y spaced .one  from the o t h e r .  The  r i n g s c l o s e s t t o the nucleus a r e g e n e r a l l y o f a f i n e and  c l o s e l y spaced w h i l e those nearer the p e r i p h e r y  structure o f the  s c a l e a r e heavy i n appearance and more w i d e l y spaced. When the young sockeye has a t t a i n e d a l e n g t h imately  30 num. the f i r s t  (Dunlop, 1924),  c i r c u l u s appears on the s c a l e  A f t e r t h i s p e r i o d , as growth o f s c a l e and  f i s h progress a d d i t i o n a l c o n c e n t r i c spacing  of approx-  r i n g s a r e l a i d down, the  of these r i n g s b e i n g dependent on the r a t e s o f  growth o f s c a l e and f i s h  (van Oosten 1928).  When the growth i s r e t a r d e d formed on the s c a l e s .  or a r r e s t e d  This was e s t a b l i s h e d  "checks" a r e experimentally  by Hoffbauer (1898) i n a study o f carp s c a l e s . that d u r i n g  the warm months the c o n c e n t r i c  He noted  r i n g s were w e l l  separated  but as w i n t e r came on and  a l l the body growth  ceased they became more approximated and  this  condition  p r e v a i l e d u n t i l the approach of s p r i n g when they a g a i n were w i d e l y spaced. the r e t a r d e d  T h i s area of c l o s e c i r c u l i he c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  growth, and  concluded t h a t the number of such  marks gave an index to the age  of the f i s h .  In a  experiment, Walter (1901) working w i t h the carp Hoffbauer's f i n d i n g s and  Van  confirmed  Oosten (1923) concluded  the a n n u l i i n w h i t e f i s h s c a l e s are that of the w i n t e r s  later  of the f i s h e s  that  "of the same number as life".  That the a n n u l i frequency corresponds to the age f i s h has Gilbert  of  the  been demonstrated i n d i r e c t l y by marking experiments. (1913) s t a t e s t h a t s e v e r a l marked P a c i f i c  salmon returned  to the area of l i b e r a t i o n and  s c a l e s were i n agreement with t h e i r known age.  coast  that  coho  their  Also i n a  s i m i l a r experiment, ( F r a s e r j l 9 1 9 ) the s c a l e s of s p r i n g coho salmon showed p e r f e c t harmony w i t h the known age  and of  each f i s h . G e n e r a l l y a p o r t i o n of the l i f e h i s t o r y of the is lacustrine.  The  sockeye  lake growth area of the s c a l e i s r e p r e -  sented by a v a r y i n g number of f i n e c l o s e l y spaced r i n g s . In c o n t r a s t , the f o l l o w i n g sea growth r i n g s are heavy  and  are more w i d e l y spaced, thus p e r m i t t i n g a ready means f o r separating  the growth p e r i o d s  In an extensive  i n the two  environments.  study of the red - salmon of the K a r l i k  R i v e r , G i l b e r t and R i c h  (1927) i n s t i t u t e d a terminology f o r  6. d e s c r i b i n g the age - groups encountered i n a sockeye population.  T h e i r nomenclature  takes i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the  age a t which the sockeye migrates to the sea and secondly the  age a t which they mature,  spawn and d i e .  For example,  a sockeye l e a v i n g the lake i n i t s second year and maturing, spawning  and d y i n g i n i t s f o u r t h year i s s y m b o l i c a l l y  to  as a 4g f i s h , a f o u r w i t h a s u b s c r i p t 2.  5  f i s h departed f o r the sea i n i t s t h i r d year and  3  referred  Similarly a matured  in i t s f i f t h . R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n : Age Composition o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races Gilbert 1937)  (1913 - 1925)  and Clemens and Clemens (1925 -  i n t h e i r work on the sockeye salmon noted over t h i s  p e r i o d t h a t the F r a s e r R i v e r sockeye were predominantly f i s h of  the 4  of  4 i , 3g, 4g, 5£, 53 and 63 groups were encountered.  2  age groups.  However i n a d d i t i o n v a r y i n g numbers  S i n c e the sockeye o f the p r i n c i p a l c o a s t a l streams are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a d i f f e r e n t age c o m p o s i t i o n , i t would  appear  that so a l s o might the i n d i v i d u a l r a c e s i n the F r a s e r  itself.  Lacustrine  Life:  The l a c u s t r i n e l i f e o f the F r a s e r R i v e r sockeye  varies  i n extent but the m a j o r i t y of the f i s h remain i n the lake for  one year (Table I ) .  The two p r i n c i p a l lower r i v e r  races,  C u l t u s Lake and Birkenhead R i v e r , have c o n s i d e r a b l e numbers of  sockeye that remain an a d d i t i o n a l year i n f r e s h water  before m i g r a t i n g t o s e a .  The C h i l k o a r e a i s the only o t h e r  c o n t a i n i n g n o t i c e a b l e numbers o f t h i s type o f migrant. The H a r r i s o n R i v e r race i s unique among the F r a s e r R i v e r r a c e s i n t h a t the s c a l e s i n d i c a t e t h a t the m a j o r i t y of  the migrants pass immediately to the sea a f t e r  from the g r a v e l .  emerging  G i l b e r t r e f e r r e d to t h i s type o f s c a l e  as the sea - r u n type, i n c o n t r a s t to the lake - t y p e . - The customary c l o s e , f i n e r i n g s and d i s t i n c t w i n t e r check e x h i b i t e d by lake type s c a l e s are absent, the c i r c u l i are w i d e l y spaced, c o n s i d e r a b l y h e a v i e r i n appearance, and r u n i n t o the second year growth r i n g s w i t h no d i s t i n g u i s h i n g w i n t e r check t o separate c l e a r l y the two zones, ( F i g u r e 2 4 ) . J u s t where these f i s h spend t h e i r f i r s t is d i f f i c u l t  year of l i f e  t o s a y . There i s no lake between the spawning  area and the s e a , the c l o s e s t one b e i n g H a r r i s o n Lake, which is  approximately three m i l e s up stream from the spawning  area.  However s c a l e s taken from sockeye i n h a b i t i n g  this  lake are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those encountered i n the r i v e r race. Age A t M a t u r i t y : U n f o r t u n a t e l y i n most cases sockeye s c a l e s when obtained from mature or spawned and spent f i s h a r e not i n t a c t owing to  the a b s o r p t i o n o f the margins. Sockeye  salmon have been tagged by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l  P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission a t Sooke s i n c e 1938,  8. and a t Salmon Banks, and Sandheads d u r i n g the 1939 are  - 1941.  seasons  The d e s t i n a t i o n s o f some o f the tagged  f i n a l l y known.  sockeye  S c a l e s taken from these f i s h a t the  time of marking have the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as those taken d i r e c t l y from the spawning p o p u l a t i o n w i t h the added  advant-  age of b e i n g i n t a c t . The s c a l e s of a l l tagged sockeye which reached  their  d e s t i n a t i o n were read f o r age, the r e s u l t s of which are compiled i n Table I I .  The m a j o r i t y o f the f i s h r e t u r n t o  spawn i n t h e i r f o u r t h year, the o n l y race showing.a p r e ponderance of f i v e - year f i s h b e i n g P i t t r i v e r i n  1945.  A l l the other r a c e s have on c e r t a i n years numbers of these o l d e r f i s h but they at no time become the dominant age The 5 3 age group  i s c o n f i n e d p r i m a r i l y t o the lower  group.  river  r a c e s , C u l t u s Lake, and Birkenhead R i v e r . Gilbert  (1913 - 1925)  u s i n g s c a l e samples from  captured a t Sooke Traps and other commercial attempted  f i s h i n g areas  to show t h a t a heavy m i g r a t i o n to the F r a s e r R i v e r  of 42 f i s h was of f i s h  sockeye  f o l l o w e d the next year by a s i z e a b l e number  i n t h e i r f i f t h year.  On some years he was  note t h i s , however c e r t a i n exceptions presented  a b l e to  themselves.  Since h i s samples were drawn from s e v e r a l races as they passed through the f i s h e r i e s the numbers of 5  2  f i s h of a  c e r t a i n r a c e , w h i l e a c t u a l l y present i n s i z e a b l e numbers c o u l d r e a d i l y be obscured by a l a r g e number of 4 another r a c e .  2  f i s h of  9. The  spawning ground samples present the most s a t i s -  f a c t o r y m a t e r i a l f o r comparing the abundance of the 4 5g year c l a s s e s of the same brood  the  over-  shadowing e f f e c t of other r a c e s has been e l i m i n a t e d .  From  Table I I an i n s i g h t  i n t o the age  year, f o r here  and  2  composition  the F r a s e r R i v e r races has been had.  The  of s e v e r a l of  s i z e of the  spawning 4g p o p u l a t i o n i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the numbers of 5  2  f i s h present i n each race i s t a b u l a t e d i n Table I I I , The  escapement i n 1944  to Bowron Lake c o n s i s t e d of  f o r t y - f i v e percent 5g sockeye. t o t a l escapement was for  6,215  In the preceding year  the  f i s h , the l a r g e s t number recorded  t h i s ' a r e a over a f o u r - y e a r p e r i o d .  The C h i l k o race  conformed i n g e n e r a l t o t h i s sequence of events.  In  1944,  328,655 sockeye were enumerated a t the C h i l k o d i s t r i c t the f o l l o w i n g year twenty - one sockeye present were 5 While these two  2  and  percent of the 186,337  fish.  examples i n d i c a t e t h a t l a r g e 4g  g r a t i o n s are f o l l o w e d by c o n s i d e r a b l e numbers of 5g such r a c e s as S t e l l a k o R i v e r , and Birkenhead adhere to t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .  mifish,  r i v e r do  I t must not be  not  overlooked  that these f i g u r e s only i n c l u d e the t o t a l escapement to the spawning beds and do not take i n t o account  the numbers t h a t  each race c o n t r i b u t e s to the commercial f i s h e r y . P r e c o c i o u s Sockeye Abundance: I t has been a common p r a c t i c e f o r fishermen  and  10. s c i e n t i s t s a l i k e to p r e d i c t w i t h i n l i m i t s the s i z e of the m i g r a t i o n from the number of p r e c o c i o u s  or '3g  sockeye.  These " j a c k s " , as they are commonly r e f e r r e d t o , r e t u r n to the spawning beds one  and  two  years before t h e i r 42 and  5  2  3  2  kin. The  field  personnel w h i l e enumerating the spawning  p o p u l a t i o n i n each d i s t r i c t have i n the past noted t h a t sockeye may  be separated  from the 42 and  52 f i s h not  c r i t i c a l examinations of s c a l e s but by l e n g t h The  by  frequencies.  b a s i s of the d i v i s i o n i s e v i d e n t from F i g u r e I where the  3g sockeye show d i s t i n c t s e p a r a t i o n from the l a r g e r 4 5  2  fish.  1.2  cms  5.5  cms.  The  " j a c k s " i n 1941  whereas those and  64.7  cms  s e p a r a t i o n between 32»  had  and  cms.  42 and  for  the mean l e n g t h of " j a c k s " was  and  f o r the 42 and  and  66.40 cms. Using  a mean l e n g t h of 41.56  f o r the 42 and t 2.05  52 f i s h were 60.8  F u r t h e r , i n 1944 52 f i s h was o n l y 39.7  52 sockeye i t was  + 3.6  cms^  cms+  the  even g r e a t e r cms  64.66 cms  $ 1.1  +5.7  cms. cms.  cms.  s i z e as a means f o r s e p a r a t i n g the 32 f i s h  the remainder, the data of Table IV show t h a t w i t h exceptions  and  2  a l l races c o n t a i n p r e c o c i o u s  ions b e i n g Weaver Creek and  few  sockeye, the  P i t t Lake r a c e s .  from  Only on  exceptcertain  years are " j a c k s " found i n the S t u a r t Lake, S t e l l a k o R i v e r , Bowron Lake, Adams R i v e r and C h i l k o Lake.  The  discrepancy  between Table I I and .Table IV i n the numbers of " j a c k s "  11. p r e s e n t i n each race,each year, l i e s i n p a r t on the inadequacy of the f i s h i n g gears a t the areas o f sampling  t o apprehend  these  determination  s m a l l f i s h , w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t i n age  from s c a l e s alone the 3 The  2  s c a l e samples are o f t e n l a c k i n g .  g r e a t e s t number o f " j a c k s " are recorded on the  p r e c e d i n g a l a r g e 42 m i g r a t i o n .  The C u l t u s Lake m a t e r i a l  s u p p l i e s the most a c c u r a t e data i n t h i s r e s p e c t . t h i r t y - t w o percent of the 13,342 sockeye counted were of the 32 type.  The  was  In  i n t o the l a k e  a n y t h i n g encountered  I n 194£ a somewhat s i m i l a r  in  situation  n o t i c e d , f o r the run on t h i s year of 37,000 sockeye  preceded  was  i n 1941 by a l a r g e number of " j a c k s " .  Owing to l e s s a c c u r a t e methods of enumeration the for  1938,  f o l l o w i n g year 73,189 f i s h were  enumerated, a number f a r exceeding t h i s area f o r some time.  year  data  o t h e r r a c e s i s "not as r e l i a b l e as t h a t f o r C u l t u s Lake,  but as a whole the l a r g e runs i n t o other areas are preceded g r e a t e r numbers of 3 Circuli  2  ' by  fish.  Counts;  I t has been demonstrated t h a t s c a l e and f i s h growth are c l o s e l y c o r r e l a t e d (Walter 1901).  I t i s evident that  adverse  growing c o n d i t i o n s w i l l r e s u l t i n poor growth of both f i s h s c a l e , and  s i n c e growth c o n d i t i o n s i n the v a r i o u s l a k e s  throughout  the F r a s e r system are not uniform,  i n growth of f i sh and  s c a l e may  be  and  c e r t a i n variations  expected.  A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between the s i z e of the  12. f i r s t annual growth zone and the number of c i r c u j l within that zone for the Stellako scales. l a t i o n (r) was  The  calculated to be +.91  c o e f f i c i e n t of corre-  and was  s i g n i f i c a n t , for  at 33 degrees of free'dom and P = 1$, r « 4.449. To further show the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the size of the growth zone and the numbers of rings within that zone, P i t t River scales with fewer rings were examined. c o r r e l a t i o n was  Here again the  high and s i g n i f i c a n t , r = +.94,  P<  .01.  The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two variates i s graphically represented i n Figure £, and demonstrates further that  any  change i n the size of the growth zone i s followed by a change i n the number of•rings within that zone.  Any growth condition  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a lake, should i t be of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude to leave i t s e f f e c t on the growth of the scale could be expected to e f f e c t the numbers of rings on that scale. Procedure In Enumerating Rings: Ring, counts can be made along numerous r a d i i , however since the c i r c u l i do not always form complete semi-circles but may  be broken and coalesced,  i t was  necessary to e s t a b l i s h  a uniform method f o r t h e i r enumeration.  The  counts were not  taken along the l a t e r a l r a d i i because the c i r c u l i at t h i s p o s i t i o n consisted of several rings fused together.  While i t  does not show i n Figure 3 the c i r c u l i along the anterior radius i n many of the cases were incompletely  formed or were damaged.  The r a d i i that promised to be most r e l i a b l e were those l y i n g along the l i n e s A and B which are situated about 15° to the  l e f t and r i g h t r e s p e c t i v e l y o f the a n t e r i o r r a d i u s ( f i g u r e 3 ) . S i n c e e i t h e r might be used i n c o u n t i n g , i t was n e c e s s a r y to compute the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f any d i f f e r e n c e which might e x i s t i n counts a l o n g the two r a d i i . of f i f t y  The r e s u l t s o f the r e a d i n g s  s c a l e s are g i v e n i n T a b l e Y.  The  small " t " value  of .044, P ) .01 shows t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e o f .04 between the counts on r a d i i A and B i s o f no and t h a t counts may  circuli  significance  be made i n d i s c r i m i n a n t l y a l o n g e i t h e r ,  without any e r r o r r e s u l t i n g . C i r c u l i Counts f o r Sex: To demonstrate the presence o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n r i n g counts between the sexes i t was  e s s e n t i a l to eliminate  any  e r r o r t h a t might a r i s e through d i f f e r e n c e s i n age groups.  In  examining the r i n g counts of both males and females, P i t t  Lake,  5£ sockeye were used. The d i f f e r e n c e o f .16 c i r c u l i between males and females i n 1941 was  o f no s i g n i f i c a n c e .  .353, P^ .01. the  The c a l c u l a t e d t - v a l u e  I n 1945 the d i f f e r e n c e o f .12 r i n g s between  sexes gave a t - v a l u e o f .311, P'^ .01 which a g a i n was  no s i g n i f i c a n c e . counts may  was  of  The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of these r i n g  be found In T a b l e V I .  C i r c u l i Counts F o r Age: I t has been noted p r e v i o u s l y  t h a t age groups cannot be  i d e n t i f i e d from spawning ground s c a l e samples owing t o  14. m a r g i n a l e r o s i o n of the s c a l e .  While t a g g i n g s t a t i o n  scale  samples were used f o r age d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c e r t a i n of the r a c e s , they•were  too few i n number to make comparisons i n  r i n g counts between the F r a s e r r i v e r r a c e s , and so, the l a r g e r spawning  ground samples were c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y .  Depending on the r a c e s e l e c t e d , the s c a l e samples  taken  might be from s e v e r a l age groups p r e s e n t on the spawning  beds.  U n l e s s environmental conditions i n the l a k e s o f the F r a s e r r i v e r water shed are i d e n t i c a l , and t h e r e i s l i t t l e  assurance  t h a t they a r e , i t might be expected t h a t the l a c u s t r i n e growth and numbers of r i n g s o f the i n d i v i d u a l age  groups  encountered i n any spawning ground sample m i g h t ' d i f f e r .  It  was t h e r e f o r e necessary b e f o r e making g e n e r a l comparisons o f r i n g counts o f the v a r i o u s r a c e s from spawning  ground  samples  t o compare the numbers o f lake growth r i n g s of the v a r i o u s age  groups. Only c e r t a i n r a c e s s u p p l i e d s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r  such a comparison.  The d i f f e r e n c e s i n r i n g counts between  the age groups from s e v e r a l areas are shown i n T a b l e V I I . The age groups found i n the t a b l e are not o f the same brood year, but are those encountered when the samples were t a k e n . Only those s c a l e s o f known age were c o n s i d e r e d , d o u b t f u l cases were d i s c a r d e d . The number of r i n g s i n the f i r s t year o f growth of the 4  2  age group i n 1938  showed a mean of 11.52  while the 5g  fish  15. had  a mean a t 10.76 r i n g s .  The d i f f e r e n c e  between the means was not s i g n i f i c a n t . value was 1.15, P >.3.  The c a l c u l a t e d t -  A s i m i l a r treatment o f the age groups  encountered i n 1940 showed a d i f f e r e n c e the  4  2  and 52 age groups.  significant.  The  o f .12 r i n g s between  Here a g a i n the d i f f e r e n c e  I n 1941 and 1944 the d i f f e r e n c e s  g r e a t e r magnitude between the 4 first  o f .76 r i n g s  case the d i f f e r e n c e  and 5  2  2  was not  were o f  age groups.  o f 2.84 r i n g s approached  I n the significance.  p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h i s t - v a l u e was about one p e r c e n t .  difference  o f .48 c i r c u l i i n 1944 between the 4  groups gave a t - v a l u e o f 1.00.  2  The  and 5g age  "P" i s seen t o be about .05  and was t h e r e f o r e o f no s i g n i f i c a n c e . The  Pitt  lake race f u r n i s h e s  additional material  comparison o f r i n g counts f o r age groups. difference  between the mean r i n g s o f the 4  found i n the sample was 1.58. 2.16, the  f o r the  I n 1941 the 2  and 5  The c a l c u l a t e d  2  sockeye  t - v a l u e was  the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o b a b i l i t y o f which i s .05, and so difference  was o f no s i g n i f i c a n c e .  The d i f f e r e n c e  between these two age groups f o r the same race i n 1945 was only .16 c i r c u l i f o r which "t° was .43, a value f a r l e s s than that r e q u i r e d The  f o r significance  difference  at p r o b a b i l i t y  o f 1.42 c i r c u l i i n the mean l a c u s t r i n e  r i n g counts between 4  2  and 5  2  Chilko  enough t o approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . 2.89,  P < .01.  l e v e l .01.  lake sockeye was great -  The c a l c u l a t e d  t - v a l u e was  16. I n 1941 and 1944  the Birkenhead r i v e r race as noted  above c o n t a i n e d a number o f t h r e e year o l d g r i l s e .  The  scale  r i n g counts f o r t h i s group were compared w i t h those of the f o u r and f i v e year groups.  I n both 1941 and J.944 the  "jacks"  had a g r e a t e r number of r i n g s i n the s c a l e s than d i d the I n 1944 w h i l e the r i n g s i n the 3  age group.  more numerous than i n the 4 the 1941  2  s c a l e s such was  2  5  2  s c a l e s were not the case i n  sample.  I t would appear from the 1944 Birkenhead m a t e r i a l t h a t the y e a r l i n g migrants w i t h the l a r g e s t number of r i n g s r e t u r n i n t h e i r t h i r d year t o spawn, the group having fewer r e t u r n as 4  2  rings  f i s h , w h i l e the s m a l l e s t y e a r l i n g migrants  r e t u r n as 5g a d u l t s .  F u r t h e r the r i n g counts of the 4 g age  group i n each o f the r a c e s i n Table V I I are g r e a t e r i n a l l cases than are those o f the 5g age group.  The 3  g  sockeye i n  1941 however do not f a l l i n l i n e i n t h i s r e s p e c t f o r they have fewer r i n g s than do the o l d e r 4  2  fish.  Since the age groups i n the t a b l e are not o f the same brood year and were i n r e s i d e n c e i n the lake on d i f f e r e n t • years the tendency f o r the younger  f i s h t o have g r e a t e r  numbers o f r i n g s might be merely a r e s u l t o f d i f f e r e n t  en-  vironmental c o n d i t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n an i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the groups themselves. the 4 5  2  2  However i n the Birkenhead r a c e ,  i n d i v i d u a l s o f 1940 are o f the same brood year as the  f i s h of 1941, and here a g a i n w i t h the i n f l u e n c e o f different  17. environmental conditions eliminated the 4 greater numbers of rings than do the 5  2  2  sockeye have  fish.  Unfortunately  no a d d i t i o n a l data were available to further demonstrate  this,  but from the consistently higher numbers of rings of the 42 f i s h over the 52 f i s h i t might be suspected that the younger age groups do have more rings i n the f i r s t season of growth. In the l i g h t of t h i s information, i t i s evident that general comparisons of r i n g counts over the Fraser River water shed should be confined to an i n d i v i d u a l age c l a s s , notably the 4  2  group, since i n so many cases t h i s age class  was the p r e v a i l i n g type on the spawning beds.  The 32 sockeye  were readily segregated from t h e i r older k i n on the bases of the differences i n t o t a l length, and the remaining age groups, save the 52 class, were separated e a s i l y by means of t h e i r scales.  However due to marginal erosion of the scales  and the degree of overlapping i n t h e i r t o t a l lengths the 4  2  and 52 f i s h i n the samples were inseparable. The samples to be used i n the comparison of the races contained both these classes, and while t h i s has i t s disadvantages, i t was f e l t that i n many cases the 52 f i s h were so i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y few that the 42 d i s t r i b u t i o n s of ring counts would be l i t t l e effected by t h e i r i n c l u s i o n . Comparison of Lacustrine Ring Counts Between Years Within Races: I t i s obvious from Tables vTII - XVI and figures 4 - 1 3  18. t h a t there was  a c e r t a i n degree of v a r i a b i l i t y from year to .  year i n numbers of f i r s t race.  The  season l a c u s t r i n e c i r c u l i  range i n mean v a l u e s over the e i g h t year p e r i o d f o r  the S t u a r t Lake race was  15.80-19.74 r i n g s , S t e l l a k o R i v e r  17.05-21.44 and Weaver Creek 16.98-20.15. counts f o r the Birkenhead  R i v e r race was  The  range i n mean  10.06-13.28, Bowron  Lake 11.70-14.69, and Adams R i v e r 11.50-15.22. to  i n each  In contrast  these the C u l t u s Lake race has a range extending over  c i r c u l i from 9.09-17.54 and P i t t Lake 8.31  8.45  r i n g s from 12.63-  20.94 r i n g s . Many of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s were skewed, and w h i l e departure  from the normal curve was  Lake, S t e l l a k o R i v e r , Birkenhead  most common i n the C u l t u s  R i v e r and C h i l k o Lake, n e a r l y  a l l the r a c e s had at l e a s t one d i s t r i b u t i o n which was i n one  d i r e c t i o n or the o t h e r .  this  In the f i r s t  two  d i s t r i b u t i o n s were p o s i t i v e l y skewed^whereas.the  skewed  r a c e s the Birkenhead  R i v e r and C h i l k o Lake d i s t r i b u t i o n s were d i s t o r t e d i n the other  direction. W i t h i n a s e r i e s of frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s i t i s q u i t e  p o s s i b l e to have s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant differences  between the means a r i s i n g from chance alongj.  I t i s therefore  necessary t o t r e a t the data as a whole t o determine whether a l l , the samples ma*y be  sub-samples of a s i n g l e p o p u l a t i o n .  I f the means are homogeneous then the sub-samples must be considered as b e i n g drawn from a s i n g l e p o p u l a t i o n .  19. F o r t e s t i n g the homogeneity o f a p o p u l a t i o n , developed  Fisher(1934)  what i s r e f e r r e d t o as the " A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e " ,  which r a t h e r than b e i n g the comparison o f two means, i s the comparison o f s e v e r a l .  T h i s t e s t has become very p o p u l a r i n  f i s h e r i e s r e s e a r c h and was used by Buchanan-Wollaston (1933) on the A t l a n t i c h e r r i n g , R o u n s e f e l l and Dahlgren (1935) on the P a c i f i c h e r r i n g , and by Schaefer The  (1936) on the s u r f  smelt.  u n d e r l y i n g assumptions I n a p p l y i n g the a n a l y s i s o f  v a r i a n c e t o any s e r i e s of data a r e t h a t the samples a r e drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s which are normal and which have common variances. s-j_ and s 2  2  To determine whether the samples w i t h 2  are drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h common v a r i a n c e s  the F t e s t was developed  and i s c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s :  nitsi) F=  n where n i and n s i  2  2  ni- l  Msg)  two",  variance  2  2  - 1  are numbers o f v a r i a t e s i n samples "one and  2  and s 2 are the v a r i a n c e s i n samples "one and two". 2  I f the hypothesis  i s t r u e , t h a t t h e samples were drawn  from normal p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e , then the F value approaches one. The c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e o f F may be l a r g e r o r smaller than one. as s i  2  I f t h e l a r g e r sample v a r i a n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d  then F w i l l always be g r e a t e r than one.  On the o t h e r  20.  hand, i f the smaller variance i s S T _ then F w i l l always be 2  the r e c i p r o c a l of the other, and i s less than one. The F-table was developed  f o r t e s t i n g the r e s u l t s ob-  tained i n the analysis of variance and may also be applied to the r e s u l t s of the F-test.  The p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s of 1$ and  5$ give only the F-values greater than one. But F may be greater or l e s s than one, depending on whether s i i s the 2  larger or the smaller sample variance, hence, the 1% and 5$ levels test only half the p o s s i b l i l i t i e s and the true l i m i t s are actually 2$ and 10$. When using the F-test as a preliminary to the Analyses of Variance i t i s preferable to apply the Analyses of Variance with extreme caution when the p r o b a b i l i t y /  of the variances of the populations being equal i s less than 10%. The r e s u l t s of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the F-test to the data of Tables VIII - XVI are given i n Tables XVII - XXV.  There i s  l i t t l e doubt that the population variances of Cultus Lake, Birkenhead  River, Weaver Creek, Chilko Lake, Adams River, and  Stuart Lake races are heterogeneous.  The P i t t River,  Stellako  River and Bowron Lake races approach very cbsely the stage when the population variances may be considered verging on equality.  However even i n these races the differences i n  several of the sample variances gave F-values that were greater than those recorded at the 10% l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y thus casting doubt on the hypothesis that the samples were  21. drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h common  variance.  I t has been c l e a r l y shown t h a t due t o the h e t e r o g e n e i t y of the v a r i a n c e s i t was i n a d v i s a b l e of v a r i a n c e  t o these data and t h a t  t o a p p l y the a n a l y s i s some o t h e r  statistical  measure must be used t o t e s t the d i f f e r e n c e s between the samples. The s t a t i s t i c a l treatment most commonly used f o r the comparison o f groups o f data i s the t - t e s t .  T h i s t e s t makes  a comparison o f two means a t a time r a t h e r than s e v e r a l .  The  d i f f e r e n c e between the means i s noted, the standard e r r o r o f the  d i f f e r e n c e between the means c a l c u l a t e d , and the s i g -  n i f i c a n c e o f the d i f f e r e n c e the  ( t ) determined from the r a t i o o f  d i f f e r e n c e between means d i v i d e d by the standard e r r o r  of the d i f f e r e n c e as f o l l o w s : D t =  '  n  l  n  2  where D = Difference 3^2  s  between the means  V a r i a n c e o f sample one.  n i = Number i n sample one. To t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s value the tables o f t are t h e n c o n s u l t e d .  I f the c a l c u l a t e d t - v a l u e  f a l l s beyond  t h a t recorded f o r the p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l most s u i t a b l e f o r the data the d i f f e r e n c e s between the means are c o n s i d e r e d t o  22. be  significant. To  be  o b t a i n r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s from the t - t e s t the samples t o  compared should be o f equal s i z e and v a r i a n c e ,  otherwise,  i f these q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a r e l a c k i n g and the t - t e s t i s used the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the r e s u l t s may be q u i t e u n r e l i a b l e and misleading.  When the samples a r e o f e q u a l s i z e and unequal  v a r i a n c e the t - t e s t g i v e s not too u n s a t i s f a c t o r y  results. I f ,  under these c o n d i t i o n s ,  f o r the l e v e l  the Ifo p o i n t  of s i g n i f i c a n c e the i n v e s t i g a t o r  i s selected  can be assured t h a t the l e v e l  at which he i s t e s t i n g the data i s no g r e a t e r than the 2% level. On the o t h e r hand when the data d i f f e r s i n both s i z e and v a r i a n c e , the d i s c r e p a n c y between the r e c o r d e d l e v e l o f significance greater.  found i n the t - t a b l e and the a c t u a l l e v e l becomes  T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e f o r s m a l l samples o f the  order o f 10-25 i n d i v i d u a l s .  I n t h i s case i f both the q u a l i -  f i c a t i o n s are lacking-the c a l c u l a t e d point  t - v a l u e might f i t the 5$  o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , when a c t u a l l y f o r r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s the  data should be t e s t e d  a t the 20#-30# l e v e l s .  It i s felt  that  f o r samples o f one hundred o r more i n d i v i d u a l s the d i s c r e p a n c y between the recorded l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and the a c t u a l l e v e l s a r e not too g r e a t . An a l t e r n a t i v e method was developed whereby the differences i n means o f unequal samples c o u l d be t e s t e d . to as the F i s h e r - B e h r e n s t e s t .  This i s referred  U n f o r t u n a t e l y a t the time o f  23. w r i t i n g t h i s paper n e i t h e r the o u t l i n e o f the method nor t h e necessary F i s h e r - B e h r e n s t a b l e were a v a i l a b l e . Even though the s c a l e samples f a l l i n many i n s t a n c e s beyond t h e bounds o f e q u a l v a r i a n c e and e q u a l s i z e i t i s p o s s i b l e , t h a t w i t h the samples as .large as they a r e , t h e t - t e s t would give not too u n s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . shortcomings  With the  o f the t - t e s t i n mind, i t was a p p l i e d t o the  s c a l e r i n g data and the mean c i r c u l i  counts f o r each year  were compared w i t h those o f a l l o t h e r y e a r s , the r e s u l t s o f which may be found i n T a b l e s XXHTrXXXTT. r  The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f  the d i f f e r e n c e s are noted i n column f i v e o f the t a b l e a t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .01. That the m a j o r i t y o f the F r a s e r r i v e r sockeye  mature,  spawn, and d i e i n t h e i r f o u r t h year, thus a d h e r i n g t o a f o u r year c y c l e has been d e f i n i t e l y e s t a b l i s h e d .  I f an area  supports a spawning p o p u l a t i o n each year, then, over a f o u r year p e r i o d there are f o u r separate groups o f f i s h , e a c h t o a l a r g e degree independent  o f the o t h e r .  Not u n t i l the f i f t h  year when the progeny o f the spawning p o p u l a t i o n o f the f i r s t year r e t u r n t o d e p o s i t t h e i r eggs, can a c l o s e between groups be expected.  association  While we are d e a l i n g w i t h i n -  d i v i d u a l r a c e s , i s o l a t e d g e o g r a p h i c a l l y one from t h e o t h e r , each race might be' f u r t h e r d i v i d e d i n t o c y c l i c groups, the number o f which would be determined by the age c l a s s p r e dominating.  Since there are but e i g h t y e a r s data f o r r i n g  24. counts a v a i l a b l e , f o u r complete f o u r year c y c l e s can considered.  be  I n the case of the P i t t R i v e r r a c e where the  sockeye predominate a f i v e year c y c l e must be taken  5g  into  account. There i s l e s s tendency f o r the r i n g counts on c y c l e years to be more c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d than on any  other y e a r s .  Of a  p o s s i b l e 56 comparisons of c i r c u l i counts on c o n s e c u t i v e 22 or 39.2  percent  showed d i f f e r e n c e s o f no  years  significance.  There were 49 comparisons f o r a l t e r n a t e y e a r s , and of these 18 or 36.7  percent had  statistically  s i m i l a r counts.  comparisons of counts, t h r e e years a p a r t , 14 or 35.0 had d i f f e r e n c e s o f no 29.4  From 40 percent  s i g n i f i c a n c e and on c y c l e y e a r s 10 or  percent o f the 34 comparisons had mean r i n g counts of no  significance. The  r i n g counts between y e a r s w i t h i n r a c e s have most i n  common on c o n s e c u t i v e years and w i t h i n the p e r i o d of one i n g e n e r a l the f u r t h e r the samples are separated one  cycle,  from the  o t h e r i n r e s p e c t t o time the l e s s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d they  are.  Comparison Between Areas W i t h i n Years: Because of the annual changes i n numbers of f i r s t  season  r i n g s , t h e i r use i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of the separate races i s l i m i t e d to y e a r l y comparisons.  The m a t e r i a l of T a b l e s V I I I -  XVI has been rearranged i n T a b l e s XXXV-XLITto f a c i l i t a t e comparisons o f r i n g counts between races w i t h i n y e a r s . data are g r a p h i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d i n f i g u r e s 13-20.  the These  25. C o r r e l a t i o n Between Annual Changes i n Ring Counts i n D i f f e r e n t Areas: The  question that  must he asked w i t h r e s p e c t to the  annual mean counts i s t h i s : To what extent do the yearlymean counts o f each race vary t o g e t h e r ? The  1938 year was s e l e c t e d as the base year, and the  mean v a l u e s f o r each l o c a l i t y i n years 1939 - 1945 were p l o t t e d w i t h those o f the base year i n f i g u r e 21. While  i t i s possible  t o make a v i s u a l e v a l u a t i o n  o f the  a s s o c i a t i o n between y e a r l y r i n g counts from the f i g u r e , a  /  c l e a r e r p i c t u r e may be had by a p p l y i n g a c o r r e l a t i o n . Table X L I I I shows the degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n o f r i n g counts between years and the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the at the Vfo l e v e l .  r - values  I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s between  means i n 1938 and 1941, 1939 and 1940, and i n 1940 and 1944 where the " r ' s " were +.9089, +.9424, and +.9424 r e s p e c t i v e l y approached e q u a l i t y .  On the o t h e r hand i n f i v e of t h e nine  areas the mean v a l u e s i n 1943 extended counts and as a r e s u l t produced  the range i n mean  c o r r e l a t i o n s o f +.6951,+.7090,  +.4439 and +.7330 a l l o f which a r e above the 1$ l e v e l o f significance. The  mean r i n g counts on c y c l e years a r e p o s i t i v e l y  correlated.  A s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n o f +.8543 was o b t a i n e d  f o r the c y c l e 1938-1942.  The .T- value o f +.7090 f o r t h e  1939-1943 c y c l e approached s i g n i f i c a n c e , ,05>P>.01.  In  both the c y c l e s 1940-1944 and 1941-1945 the c o r r e l a t i o n o f  26. . +.9424 and +.8836 were  significant.  U s i n g 1938 as the base year the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the %  m e a n s o f the base year and a l l the remaining years 1939-1945 was d e s i r e d . to be +.7492.  The c o e f f i c i e n t o f c o r r e l a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d Snedecor g i v e s an ' r - v a l u e a t ifo l e v e l o f  s i g n i f i c a n c e and 58 degrees  o f freedom as +.325.  S i n c e the  c a l c u l a t e d value i s f a r i n excess o f the l e v e l r e q u i r e d i t must be c o n s i d e r e d as s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n value s u b s t a n t i a t e s the obvious d e v i a t i o n from l i n e a r i t y i n the mean counts as seen i n the f i g u r e . apparent  It i s  t h a t each race from one year t o the next, although  s u b j e c t t o the y e a r l y f l u c t u a t i o n , c o n f o r m s i n g e n e r a l t o i t s own range i n rang counts.  However the v a r i a t i o n s from year t o  year are s u f f i c i e n t l y e x t e n s i v e t o make i t i m p o s s i b l e t o separate the r a c e s one from the o t h e r i n a homogeneous mass, as would be encountered  i n a commercial f i s h e r y , and t o p r e d i c t  w i t h any degree o f accuracy the r i n g counts o f a f u t u r e year would be out o f the q u e s t i o n . S e g r e g a t i o n o f Races by F i r s t Season Rings: On the bases o f the. s i m i l a r i t i e s i n r i n g counts and the d i f f e r e n c e s between o t h e r s the races have been a s s i g n e d t o separate groups.  The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the d i f f e r e n c e s between  races w i t h i n years was determined  by u s i n g t h e t - t e s t .  r e s u l t s are recorded i n T a b l e s XLIV-LI.  The  Even though the  d i f f e r e n c e s between the r a c e s w i t h i n groups may be s i g n i f i c a n t ,  27. the d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups themselves are great enough to warrant t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n . The S t u a r t Lake, S t e l l a k o R i v e r , and Weaver Creek r a c e s on the s t r e n g t h of t h e . l a r g e numbers of r i n g s present were p l a c e d i n a separate group. of the Birkenhead i n a second group.  On the o t h e r hand the few r i n g s  R i v e r and Bowron Lake s c a l e s , p l a c e d them So c l o s e were t h e i r r i n g counts t h a t on  f i v e of the e i g h t years the d i f f e r e n c e s between Bowron and Birkenhead  means were of no  significance.  The  v a r i e d so markedly t h a t they e i t h e r comprised group or c o n t r i b u t e d to one  remaining an  intermediate  of the above groups.  On f i v e o f the e i g h t y e a r s the C h i l k o r a c e f a l l s the group of few r i n g s .  I n 1940 ,and 1945  into  the r i n g s were more  numerous, p l a c i n g i t i n the i n t e r m e d i a t e group,while the count  races  in  1943  approached t h a t of Weaver Creek and S t u a r t Lake.  The Adams R i v e r race i n 1938,  1939,  and 1942  has few  enough  r i n g s to allocate i t to the Birkenhead-Bowron group but i n 1941,  and  1944  the r i n g counts p l a c e d i t i n the  1940,  intermediate  group. Owing to the i r r e g u l a r i t y i n the r i n g counts of C u l t u s Lake and P i t t Lake d i s t r i b u t i o n s i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to designate any one  group f o r them.  I n 1939,  1940,  1942,  1943,  the counts were so l i k e those of the Birkenhead  and  1944,  race t h a t on  f o u r o f these years the d i f f e r e n c e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t . 1938  the count  rose to 14.28  group and i n 1941  and 1945  p l a c i n g i t i n the  the count was  intermediate  even h i g h e r making  In  28. it  comparable t o t h a t o f S t u a r t Lake. Not  only the means, but the e n t i r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f the  two r a c e s , Birkenhead  and Bowron, show on a l l y e a r s , n e a r l y  complete s e p a r a t i o n from the S t e l l a k o R i v e r , S t u a r t Lake, and Weaver Creek r a c e s . D i s t r i b u t i o n of F i r s t  Season Rings i n 1916-18:  I n years 1916-18, G i l b e r t obtained samples o f a d u l t sockeye s c a l e s of c e r t a i n races and made comparisons o f the numbers of f i r s t  season r i n g s .  H i s r e s u l t s are found i n  T a b l e L I I w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l measures, mean, standard d e v i a t i o n , and standard  error.  He noted t h a t Weaver Creek and P i t t Lake r a c e s had more r i n g s i n t h e i r n u c l i i than d i d the Birkenhead  race.  1916 seemed t o be an e x c e p t i o n a l year f o r growth.  The year On t h i s  year very few r i n g s were noted i n the nucleus f o r each r a c e . Years 1940 and 1944 are c y c l e s o f 1916, but counts were not as low on e i t h e r o f these y e a r s . of  However i n 1918 the numbers  r i n g s are more comparable t o t h e i r l a t e r c y c l e years  1938 and 1942. G i l b e r t ' s d i s t r i b u t i o n s g i v e f u r t h e r evidence variations i n f i r s t  season r i n g s .  o f the  I n g e n e r a l w i t h the ex-  c e p t i o n o f the samples i n 1916 the r i n g counts are i n accord w i t h those encountered  i n the l a t e r y e a r s .  29. Second Season o r F i r s t Season S a l t Water Rings:, Since i n so many cases, the s c a l e s o f spawning sockeye were h e a v i l y absorbed i t was the  ground  only p o s s i b l e t o enumerate  r i n g s up to, and i n c l u d i n g , the second w i n t e r check.  The  counts of the second season r i n g s i n T a b l e s L I I I - L X are those l a i d down i n the f i r s t In  season i n s a l t water f o r 4  2  and 5  2  fish.  g e n e r a l the second season r i n g counts are more w i d e l y  d i s t r i b u t e d than are the f i r s t  season c i r c u l i ,  giving a greater  v a r i a n c e t o each d i s t r i b u t i o n . The F - t e s t was  a g a i n a p p l i e d to the y e a r l y samples o f each  race and the r e s u l t s (Tables LXI-LXEX) showed the complete of  homogeneity  i n the v a r i a n c e s .  I t was  therefore  lack  inadvisable  to apply the a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e s to the samples t o t e s t f o r homogeneity. W i t h the e x c e p t i o n of 1943,  1944 and 1945 the C u l t u s Lake  race has the g r e a t e s t number o f second season r i n g s .  The  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e s between i t and a l l o t h e r s may be had i n T a b l e s LXX-LXXVTI.  I n g e n e r a l the t h r e e lower F r a s e r  r a c e s , C u l t u s Lake, Birkenhead R i v e r , and Weaver Creek, have d e p o s i t e d more r i n g s i n the second season than have the remaining r a c e s . U n l i k e the l a c u s t r i n e r i n g s of 4g and 5  2  scales, there i s  a g r e a t e r degree of o v e r l a p p i n g i n second season r i n g s between r a c e s , and a l s o t h e r e i s f a r l e s s v a r i a b i l i t y  from year to yeas  However, w h i l e the d i f f e r e n c e s between means are i n many cases  30. s i g n i f i c a n t , the overlapping  i s so great, that to segregate  the races i n a mixed population by them alone would be impossible. Association of F i r s t Season and Second Season Rings: During the analysis of f i r s t and second season rings there appeared to be i n some instances association between the r i n g counts i n the two  growth zones.  From Table LXXvTII i t i s evident that i n a l l cases the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are not large enough to be significant. Using the data f o r a l l years grouped together,the c o r r e l a t i o n between the numbers of f i r s t season and was  only -.097  which again was  second season rings  not s i g n i f i c a n t . For 66 degress  of freedom and at 1% l e v e l of significance the quired f o r significance i s -.302.  n  r  M  value re-  In conclusion no assoc-  i a t i o n e x i s t s between f i r s t and second season rings. Comparison of Numbers of Rings In Yearling and Adult Sockeye Scales: Scales of y e a r l i n g migrant and adult sockeye a l i k e were available f o r the Cultus Lake race only.  The numbers of rings  i n the f i r s t season of growth were counted and t h e i r frequency compared with the number of rings obtained from the adult scales of the same brood year(Table of brood year 1939,  LXXEX). With the  exception  the y e a r l i n g sockeye had on the average  greater numbers of rings than did the adult scales.  The most  noticeable difference occurred when both the y e a r l i n g and adult scaies had large numbers of rings. If the yearling migrant and adult scales have been  31. randomly sampled, and i t i s f e l t they have, then t h e r e  should  be no d i s c r e p a n c y between counts, u n l e s s there has been some p r e f e r e n t i a l m o r t a l i t y or s t r a y i n g on the p a r t of a p o r t i o n of the sockeye between the times of t h e i r m i g r a t i o n and t h e i r r e t u r n to C u l t u s Lake, two years l a t e r .  The  and  select  seaward one  half  only s e l e c t i v e agency known to date which  might account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n r i n g counts between y e a r l i n g s c a l e s and a d u l t s c a l e s i s the commercial f i s h i n g The  gears which f i s h the F r a s e r R i v e r p o p u l a t i o n are of f o u r ,  types: of  gears.  f i s h t r a p s , purse s e i n e s , r e e f n e t s , and g i l l  nets,all  which might have a s e l e c t i v e e f f e c t towards sockeye.  While  the degree of s e l e c t i v i t y o f each gear has not been e s t a b l i s h e d , it  i s f e l t t h a t the g i l l n e t s are more e f f e c t i v e i n eliminating  c e r t a i n groups from the p o p u l a t i o n than are the o t h e r I n t h e i r s t u d i e s of North Sea  gears.  herring populations  Buchanan-Wollaston (1937) and Hodgeson (1927,1933) noted the s e l e c t i v i t y of d r i f t n e t s , which are e s s e n t i a l l y l i k e  that gill  n e t s , were much "sharper" than had p r e v i o u s l y been supposed and t h a t the s i z e of the h e r r i n g s captured was the s i z e of the mesh used.  dependent  I f such were the case f o r the  F r a s e r R i v e r p o p u l a t i o n , then the s i z e o f the sockeye in  the f i s h e r y , and  on  taken  the s i z e of the f i s h e s c a p i n g to the  spawning beds would be l a r g e l y determined by the. s i z e s of the meshes used i n the g i l l no evidence  net f i s h e r y .  Further, w h i l e there i s  as yet to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h a t g i l l n e t s  do  32. s e l e c t i v e l y f i s h the sockeye p o p u l a t i o n as they migrate t o the spawning a r e a s , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e r e i s some agency a t work which i s i n s t r u m e n t a l i n e l i m i n a t i n g the sockeye w i t h the l a r g e s t number o f f i r s t First  season r i n g s .  Season R i n g Counts o f P r e c o c i o u s Sockeye: In  o r d e r t o r e c o g n i z e the i n d i v i d u a l r a c e s as they pass  through the commercial f i s h e r y i t i s necessary t o be a b l e t o a n t i c i p a t e the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c a l e p a t t e r n o f each r a c e . has been o u t l i n e d p r e v i o u s l y t h a t due t o the y e a r l y  It  variability  i n r i n g counts such i s not p o s s i b l e without a s s i s t a n c e from another source. An i n d i c a t i o n o f the g e n e r a l s c a l e c h a r a c t e r s o f 42 sockeye may be had from the p r e c o c i o u s sockeye o f each r a c e .  Since  these sockeye are o f the same brood year as t h e i r 42 k i n , and since t h e i r span o f l i f e i n f r e s h water i s the same then somewhat s i m i l a r numbers o f l a c u s t r i n e r i n g s can be a n t i c i p a t e d . T h i s would undoubtedly be o f h e l p i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f races i n the commercial f i s h e r i e s since any v a r i a t i o n i n counts of 42 s c a l e s would be expected. General Appearance  of Fraser River Scales:  While the d i s c u s s i o n has been devoted t o the p e c u l i a r i t i e s i n r i n g counts o f each r a c e , the g e n e r a l appearance  o f the  s c a l e s and the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the r i n g s on the s c a l e s a r e f o r some r a c e s o f a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g n a t u r e .  F i g u r e s 22-30 show the  33. c h a r a c t e r i s t i c appearance  o f s c a l e s o f some o f the r a c e s .  The  s m a l l nucleus o f the Birkenhead R i v e r s c a l e s i s q u i t e e v i d e n t ( f i g u r e 2 7 ) . I n the second  season of growth some o f the Birken-  head R i v e r s c a l e s have what i s r e f e r r e d to as an a d d i t i o n a l "check".  T h i s i s not an annulus but i s a group o f c l o s e l y  p l a c e d r i n g s , so c l o s e l y p l a c e d t h a t they may be confused w i t h the annulus.  The Adams R i v e r race i s another showing these  a d d i t i o n a l "checks" ( f i g u r e 30). A l l the r a c e s o c c a s i o n a l l y have these The  "checks".  l a r g e n u c l e i and numerous r i n g s on Weaver Creek,  S t u a r t Lake and S t e l l a k o R i v e r s c a l e s can be seen i n f i g u r e s  25,28 and 22. I n c o n t r a s t t o the races w i t h s c a l e s b e a r i n g fewer r i n g s these c i r c u l i a r e w i d e l y spaced and a r e not so irregular.  Few a d d i t i o n a l "checks" are found i n the second  season growth zone. Ring Counts and the Environment: I f the d e p o s i t i o n o f r i n g s i s a r e s u l t o f growth condition, then the c o n d i t i o n s a r e by no means s i m i l a r throughout the F r a s e r system w i t h i n a s i n g l e year, or w i t h i n a g i v e n area from one year t o the next.  However i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o say  whether the r i n g frequency i s e n t i r e l y the r e s u l t of the environment,  only c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d experiments  can supply  the answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . In s t u d y i n g the r e l a t i o n o f the sockeye p o p u l a t i o n to i t s environment,  i t must not be overlooked t h a t the p o p u l a t i o n  34. i t s e l f forms p a r t of i t s own  environment and t h a t i t s s i z e may *  a f f e c t the g e n e r a l b i o l o g i c a l balance environment.  of the lake and thus  C e r t a i n growth c o n d i t i o n s must be f u l f i l l e d  the in .  order t h a t sockeye i n a lake may  s u r v i v e and r e a c h a s u i t a b l e  s i z e before m i g r a t i n g seawards.  The  sockeye p o p u l a t i o n  f l u c t u a t e s i n numbers and i f there i s not a  corresponding  f l u c t u a t i o n i n the growth producing i n g r e d i e n t s i n the lake then growth of the sockeye themselves i n e v i t a b l y  varies.  Xn Table LXXX i s g i v e n the average number of r i n g s i n the n u c l e a r area and the number of y e a r l i n g migrants. ing  a c o r r e l a t i o n to these two  o b t a i n e d , .05>P>.01.  The  On  apply-  v a r i a b l e s , a v a l u e o f -.932  was  c o e f f i c i e n t o f c o r r e l a t i o n (-.932)  b e i n g c l o s e r to the 1% l e v e l than the 5% l e v e l i n d i c a t e s t h a t about only t h r e e cases out of a hundred would a value of t h i s dimension  be o b t a i n e d by chance alone, and t h e r e f o r e may  c o n s i d e r e d to be  significant.  be  I n g e n e r a l then a reasonably  c l o s e negative r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between the number of  first  season r i n g s and the s i z e of the l a c u s t r i n e y e a r l i n g population. M a t e r i a l from o t h e r races i s not a v a i l a b l e to show i f t h i s holds f o r them too.  I f i t were and confirmed  the f i n d i n g s f o r  the C u l t u s lake f i s h , then s c a l e r i n g s might a c t as an of  index  population size.  Summary: 1.  Three s c a l e c h a r a c t e r s were c o n s i d e r e d of p o s s i b l e  value i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of the sockeye r a c e s i n the F r a s e r  river.  35. They were numbers o f a n n u l i (age), numbers o f f i r s t  season l a c u s t r i n e and f i r s t g e n e r a l appearance 2.  season s a l t water  circuli,  and  o f the s c a l e s .  The a n a l y s e s of the s c a l e s f o r age showed t h a t the  b u l k o f the r a c e s were composed predominantly o f o n e - y e a r - i n lake type sockeye.  The H a r r i s o n r i v e r race was the o n l y one  where the bulk o f the f i s h migrate d i r e c t l y t o sea a f t e r emerging from the g r a v e l .  V a r y i n g numbers o f y e a r l i n g  sockeye  i n the Birkenhead r i v e r , C u l t u s l a k e , and C h i l k o lake r a c e s remain an a d d i t i o n a l year i n the lake and migrate seawards i n t h e i r t h i r d year.  These t w o - y e a r - i n - l a k e sockeye  r e t u r n e d i n t h e i r f i f t h year t o spawn.  usually  The P i t t r i v e r r a c e i s  unique i n t h a t i t i s composed almost e n t i r e l y o f 5  2  sockeye, a  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c not noted f o r any o t h e r r a c e . 3. for  That t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e f l u c t u a t i o n i n r i n g counts  each race has been f u l l y emphasized.  variability i s itself  However t h i s y e a r l y  a f e a t u r e of each i n d i v i d u a l race and i n  g e n e r a l each race m a i n t a i n s i t s own c h a r a c t e r i s t i c range i n r i n g counts. 4.  The v a r i a b i l i t y may be a t r r i b u t e d t o . s u c h causes as  1. y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n s i n environmental c o n d i t i o n s i n the lake and i n the sea; 2. sample;  i n f l u x o f numbers of 52 f i s h i n t o the  3. s e l e c t i v i t y o f commercial f i s h i n g gear.  I t would  appear from the d i s c u s s i o n on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i z e o f y e a r l i n g migrant p o p u l a t i o n s and numbers o f f i r s t  season r i n g s  t h a t the environmental c o n d i t i o n s may be t o a l a r g e degree the  36. cause f o r the y e a r l y v a r i a b i l i t y . maining two  However, how  f a c t o r s e n t e r i n can o n l y be determined by f u r t h e r  study of a d d i t i o n a l spawning ground and scale  much the r e -  commercial f i s h e r y  samples. 5. While t h e r e was  c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p p i n g between the  r a c e s i n numbers of f i r s t  season r i n g s the S t e l l a k o R i v e r ,  S t u a r t Lake, and Weaver Creek p o p u l a t i o n s had the g r e a t e s t number, whereas the Birkenhead  R i v e r , Bowron Lake, and C h i l k o  Lake had the l e a s t number of r i n g s . season r i n g s were not 6. No  The  d i f f e r e n c e s i n second  so marked.  c l e a r - c u t s e g r e g a t i o n of the r a c e s can be had  by  u s i n g a s i n g l e s c a l e c h a r a c t e r alone, or even by employing a combination age,  of a l l the s c a l e f e a t u r e s namely: number o f r i n g s ,  spacing of r i n g s and annul!, and presence of  checks.  S e p a r a t i o n i n the commercial f i s h e r y would be  i m p o s s i b l e t a s k without  counts and  others.  an  employing i n a d d i t i o n to s c a l e s ,  f e a t u r e s such as time of m i g r a t i o n , g i l l r a k e r and caeca  accessory  pyloric  Furthermore, even i f a method f o r  the r e c o g n i t i o n of the r a c e s on the spawning grounds i s found, it  s t i l l remains t o be shown whether the spawning ground  samples are comparable t o those of the  fishery.  Acknowledgments; T h i s study was c a r r i e d out a t the l a b o r a t o r y o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission, and the author wishes t o express h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n and thanks t o Mr.' B. M. Brennan, d i r e c t o r o f the Salmon Commission, f o r the f a c i l i t i e s and m a t e r i a l p l a c e d a t h i s d i s p o s a l .  The  w r i t e r a l s o wishes t o express h i s indebtedness t o D r . R. Van Cleve and Dr. W. A. Clemens f o r t h e i r s u p e r v i s i o n and c r i t i c i s m o f the methods used.  To the members o f the s t a f f  of the Salmon Commission who a s s i s t e d i n the many a s p e c t s o f the r a c i a l work, and t o Miss N i n e t t e Wesson who so k i n d l y typed t h i s paper I wish t o express my a p p r e c i a t i o n .  References Buchanan - W o l l a s t o n , H. J . On the s e l e c t i v e a c t i o n of a t r a w l net w i t h some remarks on s e l e c t i v e a c t i o n of d r i f t n e t s . E x p l o r . Mer.,  Con. Perm. I n t .  Jour, du Cons., 2 ( 3 ) , 343-355,  1927.  Buchanan - W o l l a s t o n , H. J . Some modern s t a t i s t i c a l methods; t h e i r to  the s o l u t i o n of h e r r i n g race problems.  by R. A. F i s h e r .  W i t h a forward  Con. Perm. I n t . E x p l o r . Mer.,  Cons., 8 ( 1 ) , 7-47, Clemens, W.  application  Jour, du  1933.  A. and Clemens, L.  S.  C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the l i f e h i s t o r y of the sockeye Rep.  Commiss. F i s h . B. C. f o r the years 1925-1937.  Dunlop. H. The  A.  growth-rate  Oncorhynchus nerka. No.  salmon.  10, 151-160,  F i s h e r , R.  of the s c a l e s i n the sockeye C o n t r . Canad. B i o l . ,  N. S.,  salmon, Vol. II,  1924.  A.  Statistical  methods f o r r e s e a r c h workers.  O l i v e r and Boyd, Edinburgh and London,  1934.  F r a s e r , C. McLean Growth r a t e i n the P a c i f i c  salmon. T r a n s . Roy.  Soc.Can.,  F r a s e r , C. McLean. S e r i e s I I I , V o l . X I I I , 163-226, G i l b e r t , C. Age  1919.  H.  at m a t u r i t y of the P a c i f i c coast salmon o f genus  oncorhynchus.  B u l l . U. S. Bur. F i s h . , V o l . XXXII,  (1914), 1-22,  1913.  G i l b e r t , C.  1912  H.  C o n t r i b u t i o n s to the l i f e h i s t o r y o f the sockeye salmon. No's  1-10,  Rep.  Commiss. F i s h . , B. C.,  f o r the  years  1913-1925, 1914-1926. G i l b e r t , C. H. and R i c h , W.  H.  I n v e s t i g a t i o n s concerning the red-salmon runs to the Karluk r i v e r , Alask. Part I I ,  B u l l . U. S. Bur. F i s h . , V o l . X L I I I ,  1927.  Hodge son, W.  C.  P r e l i m i n a r y note on experiments c o n c e r n i n g s e l e c t i v e a c t i o n of d r i f t Mer.,  nets.  Con.  Jour, du Cons., 2(3), 356-360,  Hodgeson, W.  the  Perm. I n t . E x p l o r . 1927.  C.  F u r t h e r experiments on the s e l e c t i v e a c t i o n of commercial d r i f t n e t s . du Cons., 8 ( 3 ) , 344-356, Hoffbauer.  Con. Perm. I n t . E x p l o r . Mer.,  Jour,  1933.  C.  D i e Altersbestimmung des Karpfen  an s e i n e r Schuppe.  Hoffbauer,  C.  Allgemeine  F i s c h e r e i - Z e i t u n g , Jahrgang XXIII, Nr. 19,  October 1, A r t . I l l , 341-343, 1898. McGregor, E . A. Notes on the egg y i e l d salmon.  of Sacramento r i v e r  king  C a l i f . F i s h . Game, V o l . 9, No. 4, 1923.  McGregor, E . A. A p o s s i b l e s e p a r a t i o n o f the r i v e r salmon.  races of king  C a l i f . F i s h . Game, V o l . 9, No. 4, 1923.  P r i t c h a r d , A. L. Counts o f g i l l r a k e r s and p y l o r i c caeca  i n pink  salmon.  Jour. F i s h . Res. Bd. Can., V o l . V I , No. 5, 1945. R o u n s e f e l l , G. A. and Dahlgren, Races o f h e r r i n g , Clupea Alaska.  E. H. p a l a s i i , i n southeastern  B u l l . U. S. Bur. F i s h . , 48(17), 119-141, 1935.  Schaefer, M. B. C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the l i f e - h i s t o r y Hypomesus preteosus, i n Puget Sound.  o f the s u r f  smelt,  Wash. S t a t e Dept. F i s h .  B i o l . Rept., No. 35B, 1936. Snedecor, G. W. S t a t i s t i c a l methods. Iowa S t a t e C o l l e g e p r e s s , 1946.  Thompson, W. F, A c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the l i f e - h i s t o r y o f the P a c i f i c h e r r i n g : i t s b e a r i n g on the c o n d i t i o n and f u t u r e o f the fishery. 1916, Van  Rep. Commiss. F i s h . B. C ,  f o r year ending Dec. 31,  1917.  Oosten, J . The w h i t e f i s h e s (Coregonus c l u p e a f o r m i s ) .  the  s c a l e s o f w h i t e f i s h e s of known ages.  A study o f  Zoologica, V o l . I I ,  No. 17, June 19, 1923. Van  Oosten, J . L i f e h i s t o r y o f the lake h e r r i n g ( L e u c i c h t h y s  artedi,  Le Sueur) o f Lake Huron as r e v e a l e d by i t s s c a l e s , w i t h a C r i t i q u e o f the s c a l e method** B u l l . Bur. F i s h . V o l . XLTV, 1928. W a l t e r . E. Die Altersbestimmung des Karpfens noch der Schuppe. I n Knauthe, D i e Karpfenzucht,  p.p. 88-122 Neudamm, 1901.  Table I  Locality  Year  C u l t u s Lake  1938 19 39 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  Weaver Creek  1938 1939 1940 1941. 1942 1943 1944 1945  Birkenhead River  19 38 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  R e l a t i v e Numbers Of Sea Type, One-Year-In-Lake Type And Two - Ye a r s- I n -Lake Type Sockeye, F r a s e r R i v e r', 19 38 - 1945 Sea Type One-Year- i n Two-Years-inTotal $ Lake Type Lake Type fo Specimens 98.8 99 .0 98.5 83.4 98.9 99.3 99.1 97.4  1.2 1.0 1.5 16.6 1.1 0.7 0.9 2.6  100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 80.9 94.5 82,9 93.9 95.1 98.1 92.9 98.0  89 106 499 157 295 164 115 79 97 50 88 102 103 108 91 104  19.1 5.5 17.1 6.1 4.9 1.9 7.1 2.0  21 201 363 164 104 106 114 152  •  Table I (cont'd) R e l a t i v e Numbers Of Sea Type, One-Year-In-Lake Type And Two-Years-In-Lake Type Sockeye, E r a s e r R i v e r , 1938 - 1945 Sea Type One-Year-inTwo-Years-inTotal LocalityLake Type fo Year Lake Type fo Spec imens 1° Harrison River  1941 1942  Pitt  1938 1940 1941 1942 1943 1945  97.9 99.1 100. 100. 100. 100.  2.1 0.9  48 115 96 68 43 147  19 38 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  75 .2 96.7 100. 100. 92.4 95 .8 99.2 94.9  24.8 3.3  93 92 103 84 93 73 141 99  Adams R i v e r  1938 19 39 1940 1942 1943 1944  100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100.  219 95 89 109 247 100  S t u a r t Lake  1938 19 39 1940  100. 100. 100.  197 87 69  River  C h i l k o Lake  74.6 95 .6  71 92  25 .4 4.4  7.6 4.2 0.8 5.1  Table I (cont'd)  R e l a t i v e Numbers Of Sea Type, One-Year-In-Lake Type And Two-Years-In-Lake Type Sockeye, F r a s e r R i v e r , 1938 - 1945 Sea Type One-Year-inTwo-Years-inTotal fo Lake Type fo Lake Type fo Specimens  Locality  Year  S t u a r t Lake (cont'd)  1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  100. 100. 100. 100. 100.  206 193 40 47 215  Bowron Lake  1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  100. 100. 97.8 100. 100. 100. 100. 100.  22 102 47 85 108 193 36 44  1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100.  Stellako  River  2.2  99 96 90 104 142 339 108 77  Table I I Age Composition Of F r a s e r R i v e r P o p u l a t i o n s As Determined From S c a l e s 1938 - 1945 District  Year  C u l t u s Lake  1939 1940 1941 1944 1945  Birkenhead River  1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  Pitt  1 3  2  4  2  5  6 2  2  99.5 98.6 84.7 98.9 32.25 61.29 6.45 4.3 0.4 15.1 24.8  89.6 9.4 65 .0 35 .0 26.1 73.1  R i v e r 1943 1944 1945  95.5 97.0 2.1 78.3 21.6  5  3  Total 6 3 Number  .5 1.4 15.3 1.1  63.6 9.0 87.1 6.8 68.3 6.2 72.1 6.5 95.0 98.0 40.1 29.5 93.4 4.5  1940 1941 1945  River  Chilko  4  18.1 5.3 26.4 5.3 5.0 2.0 4.1 2.1  205 512 170 98 124 4.3  22 204 272 169 101 102 8.2 169 153 116 97 150  .8 4.5 .7  68 137 83  S t u a r t Lake  1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  100. 100. 57.8 42.2 100. 100.  424 356 19 10 284  Stellako River  1942 1943 1944 1945  100. 92.6 7.2 63.4 36.5 9.43 83.0 7.5  356 250 41 53  Bowron Lake  1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  98.7 100. 100. 97.6 2.4 44.4 45 .6 77.2 22.7  1.3  78 85 112 43 9 44  Table I I I Number of 52 Sockeye And Number of Spawners In C e r t a i n Races Of The F r a s e r R i v e r  Number of 5 Sockeye Present A t Spawning Grounds fo 2  Race  Year  .Size of Spawning Population  Bow r on  1941 1942 1943 1944  1,050 1,646 6,215 1,700  0 0 2.4 45.6  S t u a r t Lake  1941 1942 1943  4,250 5,193 2,550  0 0 42.2  Stellako  1942 1943 1944  48,064 9,142 3,294  0 7.2 36.5  C h i l k o Lake  1943 1944 1945  13,546 328,655 186,337  0 2.1 21.6  Birkenhead River  1941 1942 1943 1944  46,500 87,116 50,668 57,707  6.5 0 0 29.5  River  Table IV - Age Composition As Determined By F i e l d Observers P r e c o c i o u s Sockeye fo  Locality  Year  C u l t u s Lake  1938 1940 1941 1943 1944  32.7 0.7 20.9 1.6 1.4  Birkenhead R i v e r  1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944  0 9.4 39.4 1.3 3.4 40.2  Weaver Creek  1941 1942 1943 1944  Pitt  River  C h i l k o Lake  0.4 0.2  67.3 99.3 79.1 98.4 98.6 100. 90.6 61.6 98.7 96.6 . 59.8 100. 100. 99.6 99.8 100. 100. 100. 100.  1938 1940 1941 1942 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944  Remaining Age Groups fo  55.0 1.3 7.0 0.1  100. 45.0 • 98.7 100. 100. 93.0 99.9  Table IV (cont'd) - Age Composition As Determined By F i e l d Observers Locality-  Year  Adams R i v e r  1939 1940 1942 1943 1944  S t u a r t Lake  1938 1940 1941 1942 1943  Bowron Lake  1938 1939 1940 1941 1943 1944  P r e c o c i o u s Sockeye fo  41.9  Remaining Age Groups fo 100. 48.2 100. 100. 98.9  70.3 0.3 0.3  100. 29.7 99.7 99.7 100.  0.5  100. 100. 99.5 100. 100. 100.  Table V  Number of Rings 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  Comparison Of C i r c u l i Counts A l o n g Radius A And Radius B A s Seen In F i g u r e 2  Radius A Left 1 0 2 2 0  Radius B Right  1 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 1 1 3 5 0 2 0 0  1  6 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 6  1  4 0 2 0  1  28  1  Total  50  50  Mean  16.60  16.64  S.D.  4.4  4.6  S.E.  .622  .650  S.E.D.  .89  T  .044  P  .01  Table V I  Average F i r s t Year Scale R i n g Counts F o r Sex U s i n g  Number of Rings 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 Number Mean S.D.  M.  1941  P i t t R i v e r 5g S c a l e s Only  F.  M.  1945 F.  i  1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1  2 2 2 3 2 0 1 1  16  13  17.50  17.76  2.04  1.90 .352  1 3 9 5 16 5 11 4 5 4 1 2  1 1 6 7 9 6 4 5-  76  39 21.07  20.95 2.36  1.70 .311  Table V I I  No. o f Rings 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  6  1  Comparison o f F i r s t Season R i n g Counts o f 3g, 4g and 5g Sockeye Taken i n a S i n g l e Year's Sample  Birkenhead 1938  Birkenhead 1940  4g  5g  4g  5g  3  1 2  2  2 1 0 2 3 3 1 2 0 1  3 3 4 6 3 2 3  Number" 34  2 4 3  3 3 4 1 1 1  25  Birkenhead 1941 3g  5g  4g 1  8  7 9 8 7 9 7 6 5 2 3 0 0 2  75  1  0 0 2  1 3 2 3 5 1 8 1 2  0 2  3  0  2 1 1 1 1  *  17  26"  II  Birkenhead 1944  1  3g  4g . 5g  1 0 6 1 3 1 2 2 1 0 4 0 1  26  1 2  2 5  1  5 8 2 1 6 3 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1  42  Pitt 1941  3  4 7 2 8 10 12 2 5 1  55  3 8  4g  5g  1 1 5 2 6 9 6  4 2 3  ^5  Pitt 1945 4g  Chilko 1945 5g  4g  5g  Stellako 1943 4g  5.  ' -  3 0  2 2 2 2 5 0 1  T?  4 6  2 4  2 0 1 6  1  5 4  .  2 2 1  3 2  7  ~33  0  4  10 5 6 1 2  3? 1  2 11 11 22 14 16 8 10 4 1 2  105  6  12 10 11 12  5  1 2 4 3 2 2 1  2  1 4 21 20 16 13 13 3 5  63  15  103  7  1 0 0 1 7 3 2 3  T?  Mean 11.52 10,76 12.24 12.11 12.30 10.27 13.11 15.1113.5613.08 18.7017.1221.08 20.92 14.28 12.86 21.62 20.64 S. D. 2.7 2.4 3.20 3.41 2.2 2.4 4.04 3.61 2.38 2.68 2.46.2.35 1.99 2.34 1*90 1.65 2.06 1.67 S. E . .46 .48 ,372 .831 .44 .72 .808 .562 .321 .368 5.85 *451 .314 .199 .239 .434 .203 .403 t 1.15 _ .14 2.41 ,2.67 .. 2.46 1.00 2,16 .43 2.89 . 2.33  Table V I I I  No. ofRings 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 No. Mean S.D. S.E.  .  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts of A d u l t C u l t u s Lake Sockeye, 1938 - 1945  1938  2 0 2 7 7 10 16 19 12 ' 5 8  1959  1940  3 6 13 25 28 90 87 95 56 47 26 12 4  1 1 4 8 15 20 22 22 10 0 1 0 1  1941  2 1 4 0 2 6 13 21 17 18 16 11 9 8 3  1942 • 1945  4 8 14 26 51 55 50 37 23 14 8 2  1 17 19 39 31 21 17 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 1  292 13.39 1.98 .1162  163 9.09 2.47 .1941  1944  2 4 9 14 15 20 7 16 12 7 3 3 2  1945  1 4 7 6 8 10 10 13 10 3 4 1  •  88 14.28 2.23 .2405  105 13.53 1.87 .1825  492 13.44 2.20 .0996  131 17.43 2.88 .2518  114 77 12.47 17.54 2.66 2.54 .2500 .2894  Table IX. Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts o f A d u l t Weaver Creek Sockeye, 1938 - 1945 No. o f Rings 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 No. Mean S.D. S.E.  1938  3 3 12 17 16 18 11 11 . 4 2  97 18.40 2.03 .2061  1959  1940  1 1 1 2 7 4 12 12 6 2 2  1 1 2 3 7 16 12 14 12 6 7 0 3 3 0 1  50 16.98 2.05 .2899  88 17.84 2.74 .2930  1941  3 5 7 6 9 14 13 13 11 6 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 102 20.15 3.40 .3371  1942  1945  1944  1945  1 3 11 14 17 19 12 3 6 8 1 4 1 2 1  1 0 7 11 17 13 13 18 11 7 5 5  2 4 4 11 14 15 9 9 8 10 3 1 1  1 2 2 3 12 11 19 21 11 7 7 3 1 4  101 17.24 2.90 .2874  108 17.92 2.46 .2373  91 104 17.49 18.70 2.63 2.59 .2757 .2547  Table X  No. of ttngs 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 No. Mean S.D. S.E.  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts o f A d u l t Birkenhead Sockeye, ' 1938 - 1945  1938  3 2 1 2 4 0 2 1 1 1  1939  1940  1941  5 7 16 11 20 13 15 21 14 6 21 13 15 5 6 1 1  14 26 26 28 32 29 37 23 20 17 11 12 10 6 7 3  4 10 16 21 23 17 5 13 5 10 4 3 8 5 3 4 2 1  1942  2 3 5 13 21 15 12 15 2 7 3 0 1  17 190 301 154 99 12.64 13.01 12.69 12.96 13.26 2.74 3.79 3.64 4.08 2.59 .6640 .2749 .2098 .3292 .2592  1943 1 9 12 16 28 £0 6 3 8 1  104 10.06 1.94 .1932  1944  19 4J  1 1 8 6 14 6 17 17 18 6 7 4 1  2 8 19 26 24 12 15 17 5 7 6 1 2 4  106 13.28 2.54 .2472  149 10.91 2.92 .2396  Table X I  No. of C irculi 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 No. Mean S.D. S.E.  Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e Rin^I Counts of A d u l t P i t t R i v e r Sockeye, 1938 - 1945  1938  4 6 8 8 7 3 3 6 0 1 0 1  47 14.59 2.47 .3632  1940  1 1 5 14 18 21 14 17 11 9 3 1  114 12.63 2.16 .1660  1941  1942  1 2 2 4 15 10 9 15 11 6 18 1 2  1 4 5 9 9 15 9 5 5 2 3 1  96 17.70 2.65 .2707  68 16.00 2.40 .2910  1943  2 7 6 2 3 7 2 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 1  43 14.69 2.53 .1534  1945  1 1 3 4 14 14 33 18 23 15 10 6 1 2 1 1  147 20.94 2.50 .2062  Table 211  No. of Circuli 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 Number Mean S*D.S.E.-  Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts of A d u l t C h i l k o R i v e r Sockeye, 1938 - 1945  19 38  1939  1 3 20 10 10 7 6 1 5 1 2 2 1 1  1 4 4 9 12 20 13 10 9 2 2 2 0 0 1  70 13.38 2.88 .3447  89 13.40 2.43 .2576  1940  2 4 5 9 18 21 19 11 9 4 1  103 14.46 2.07 .2045  1941  1942.  2 3 1 14 13 19 17 5 7 0 0 0 1 2  6 5 7 12 11 13 6 5 7 2 1 5 4 1 1  84 13.05 2.31 .2529  85 13.19 • 3.43 .3705  1943  1 1 1 3 0 1 6 3 6 7 5 3 4 8 11 7 1 1 1  1944  1 3 6 29 28 25 31 12 2 1 1 0 1  1945  3 6 14 19 12 14 13 7 2 2 1 0 1  70 140 94 17.42 12.68 14.17 4.04 1.78 2.27 .4839 .1504 .2342  Table X I I I  No. o f Circuli 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 No. Mean S.D. S.E.  Comparison of F i r s t Y e a r S c a l e R i n g Counts of A d u l t Adams R i v e r Sockeye, 1938 - 1945  1938  1939  1 12 26 41 52 36 23 13 7 4 3 1  1 1 4 10 21 18 21 12 4 1 0 2  219 12.27 1.96 .1324  95 13.11 1.85 .1902  1940  2 3 7 9 14 10 15 12 11 3 1 1  89 15.22 2.33 .2469  1942  5 10 9 18 16 17 14 7 5 2 3 1 0 1 0 1  109 11.50 2.74 .2628  1943  1944  6 6 8 24 31 49 58 34 11 6 3 6 3 0 2  1 1 3 7 13 19 19 15 13 4 4 1  247 14.46 2.36 .1504  100 14.85 2.10 .2125  Table XIV  No. of Circuli 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IS 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 No. Mean' S.D. S.E. '  Comparison of F i r s t Y e a r S c a l e R i n g Counts o f A d u l t Bowron Lake Sockeye, 1938 - 1945  1939  1940  1941  1 2 5 19 23 22 18 7 1 1 0 1 2  1 3 2 3 5 12 5 8 1 3 3  1 1 10 12 18 20 10 8 2 3  22 102 12.77 11.70 2.26' 1.97 .4810 .1953  46 12.36 2.42 .3570  85 12.56 -1.84 .2001  138  1 3 3 4 4 1 4 0 1 1  1942  1943  1 0 3 14 25 16 25 13 6 3 1 1  1 2 7 17 21 43 42 19 26 10 1 2 0 1  108 14.23 1.84 .1773  193 14.69 2.02 .1461  1944  2 4 6 7 5 6 4 2  194E  1 1 3 5 13 .' 9 6 3 2 1  36 44 13.47 13.56 1.89 1.81 .3150 .2737  Table XV  No. of Circuli 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 No. Mean S.D. S.E.  Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts of A d u l t S t u a r t Lake Sockeye, 1938 - 1945  1938  1 7 11 34 34 39 33 20 11 5 2  1939  5 8 14 15 19 16 5 2 1 1 1  1940  1 8 13 10 16 11 5 3 2  1941  1 0 1 7 7 13 29 35 29 32 27 15 6 3 1  1942  1943  1944  1945  1 6 15 17 24 34 29 36 19 9 2 0 1  1 1 3 8 10 3 11 2 1  3 4 5 10 - 7 6 3 3 4 2  1 2 11 15 22 52 41 34 14 15 2 5 1  197 87 69 206 193 40 47 215 15.83 17.54 18.62 17.83 18.45 19.35 18.06 19.74 1.93 1.93 1.83 2.35 2.16 1.73 2.40 2.09 .1375 .2069 .2204 .1637 .1555 .2748 .3509 .1425  Table XVI  No. of Circuli 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  No. Mean S.D. S.E.  Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts of A d u l t S t e l l a k o R i v e r Sockeye, 1938 - 1945  1938  1939  1 2 1 8 7 16 27 15 11 5 3 3  2 0 5 7 7 20 13 14 14 8 4 0 1 1  -  1940  2 1 8 11 16 20 13 6 6 3 3 1  1941  2 0 1 1 6 6 18 9 25 13 11 9 1 0 0 1 1  1942  6 1 23 28 21 24 16 14 4 3 2  1943  1944  1 0 1 2 4 14 32 62 58 51 58 31 10 10 2 1 2  1 0 0 2 3 9 6 18 12 17 18 11 7 3 1  1945  1 0 0 2 1 2 2 14 9 16 15 7 5 2 . 1  104 142 339 108 77 99 96 90 19.66 19.28 21.52 21.44 20.-74 17.05 17.08 20.00 2.37 2.12 2.40 2.22 2.55 2.11 2.21 2.49 ..2160 .2449 .2349 .2501 .1778 .1200 .2403 .2700  Table ZV1I  Years of Comparison  Comparison of the V a r i a n c e s , s i and S 2 of C u l t u s Lake F i r s t Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 2  Variance S]_ sg 2  2  Number i n Sample nj_ n F 2  2  F. A t Levels Zfo 1(  1938 - 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  4.97 4.97 8.29 4.97 6.10 7.07 6.45  3.49 4.84 4.97 3.92 4.97 4.97 4.97  88 88 131 88 163 114 77  105 492 88 292 88 88 88  1.42 1.03 1.66 1.27 1.22 1.42 1.29  1.59 1.42 1.65 1.48 1.57 1.65 1.69  1.39 1.28 1.42* 1.32 1.38 1.42 1.45  1939  - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  4.84 8.29 3.92 6.10 7.07 6.45  3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49  492 131 292 163 114 77  105 105 105 105 105 105  1.37 2.36 1.11 1.73 2.02 1.85  1.46 1.59 1.51 1.51 1.59 1.64  1.30 1.39* 1.34 1.34* 1.39* 1.42*  1940 - 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  8.29 4.84 6.10 7.07 6.45  4.84 3.92 4.84 4.84 4.84  131 492 163 114 77  492 292 492 492 492  1.72 1.23 1.26 1.47 1.34  1.42 1.33 1.32 1.42 1.47  1.28* 1.22 1.22 1.28* 1.32  1941 - 1942 1943 1944 1945  8.29 8.29 8.29 8.29  3.92 6.10 7.07 6.45  131 131 131 131  292 163 114 77  2.12 1.36 1.17 1.27  1.48 1.51 1.54 1.65  1.32* 1.34 1.36 1.42  1942 - 1943 1944 1945  6.10 7.07 6.45  3.92 3.92 3.92  163 114 77  292 292 292  1.56 1.81 1.66  1.39 1.48 1.53  1.26* 1.32* 1.35*  1943 - 1944 1945  7.07 6.45  6.10 6.10  114 77  163 163  1.16 1.06  1.51 1.56  1.34 1.37  *1944 - 1945  7.07  6.45  114  77  1.09  1.65  1.42  Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s of common v a r i a n c e  Table X V I I I  Years of Comparison  Comparison of the V a r i a n c e s , s i and S 2 of Weaver Creek F i r s t Season R i n g Counts 1938 - 1945 2  Variance s 2 s 2 x  2  Number i n Sample n  l  n  2  F  2  F At L e v e l s 2$ lOfo  1938 - 1939 4.20 1940 7.50 1941 11.56 1942 8.41 1943 6.05 1944 6.91 6.70 1945  4.12 4.12 4.12 4.12 4.12 4.12 4.12  50 80 102 101 108 91 104  97 97 97 97 97 97 97  1.03 1.82 2.80 2.03 1.46 1.70 1.62  1.73 1.64 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59  1.48* 1.42* 1.39* 1.39* 1.39* 1.39* 1.39*  1939 - 1940 7.50 1941 11.56 1942 8.41 1943 6.05 1944 6.91 6.70 1945  4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20  88 102 101 108 91 104  50 50 50 50 50 50  1.77 2.72 1.98 1.42 1.65 1.57  1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82  1.52* 1.52* 1.52* 1.52 1.52* 1.52*  1940 - 1941 11.56 1942 8.41 1943 7.50 1944 7.50 7.50 1945  7.50 7.50 6.05 6.91 6.70  102 101 . 88 88 88  88 88 108 91 104  1.53 1.11 1.24 1.07 1.12  1.65 1.65 1.59 1.59 1.59  1.42* 1.42 1.39 1.39 1.39  1941 - 1942 1943 1944 1945  11.56 11.56 11.56 11.56  8.41 6.05 6.91 6.70  102 102 102 102  101 108 91 104  1.37 1.91 1.64 1.72  1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59  1.39 1.39* 1.39* 1.39*  1942 - 1943 1944 1945  8.41 8.41 8.41  6.05 6.91 6.70  101 101 101  108 91 104  1.39 1.19 1.25  1.59 1.59 1.59  1.39 1.39 1.39  1943 - 1944 1945  6.91 6.70  6.05 6.05  91 104  108 108  1.16 1.10  1.59 1.59  1.39 1.39  1944 - 1945  6.91  6.70  91  104  1.04  1.59  1.39  *Samples n o t drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s of common v a r i a n c e  Table XIX Comparison of the V a r i a n c e s , s i and s g of Birkenhead R i v e r F i r s t Season Ring Counts, 1938 - 1945 2  Years Of Comparison  Variance S* si* Z  1938  - 1939 14.36 1940 13.24 1941 16-. 64 1942 7.50 3.76 1943 1944 7.50 8.52 1945  1939  - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  14.36 16.64 14.36 14.36 14.36 14.36  1940  - 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  1941  - 1942 1943 1944 1945  1942  - 1943 1944 1945  1943 1944  7.50 7.50 7.50 6.70 7 -.50 6.45 7.50  Number i n Sample ni F &2  2  F At Levels 2fo, 10$  190 301 154 17 104 17 149  17 17 17 99 17 106 17  1.81 1.66 2.10 1.17 2.09 1.22 1.07  2.70 2.70 2.70 2.19 2.76 2.76 2.76  1.99 1.99 1.99* 1.25 2.02* 2.02 2.02  13.24 14.36 6.70 3.76 6.45 8.52  190 154 190 190 190 190  301 190 99 104 106 149  1.08 1.16 2.13 3.80 2.21 1.68  1.39 1.39 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.43  1.26 1.26 1.34* 1.34* 1.34* 1.29  16.64 13.24 13.24 13.24 13.24  13.24 6.70 3*76 6.45 8.52  154 301 301 301 301  301 99 104 106 149  1.26 1.96 3.49 2.04 1.54  1.43 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.43  1.29 1.34* 1.34* 1.34* 1.29*  16.64 16.64 16.64 16.64  6.70 3.76 6.45 8.52  154 154 154 154  99 104 106 149  2.47 4.40 2.57 1.95  1.51 1.51 1.51 1.43  1.34* 1.34* 1.34* 1.29*  6.70 6.70 8.52  3.76 6.45 6.70  99 99 149  104 106 99  1.78 1.04 1.26  1.59 1.59 1.59  1.39* 1.39 1.39  - 1944 1945  6.45 8.52  3.76 3.76  106 149  104 104  1.71 2.25  1.59 1.59  1.39* 1.39*  - 1945  8.52  6.45  149  106  1.31  1.59  1.39  * Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s of common variance.  Table XX  Comparison of the V a r i a n c e s , s i ^ and S2 of P i t t R i v e r F i r s t Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945  Variance s i S2,  1938 - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1945  6.10 7.02 6.10 6.40 6.24  4.66 6.10 5.76 6.10 6.10  47 96 47 43 147  114 47 68 47 47  1.32 1.13 1.06 1.05 1.00  1.68 1.86 1.82 2.04 1.72  1.45 1.54 1.53 1.65 1.47  1940 - 1941 1942 1943 1945  7.02 5.76 6.40 6.25  4.66 4.66 4.-66 4.66  96 68 43 147  114 114 114 114  1.50 1.24 1.39 1.-33  1.59 1.64 l.*79 1.59  1.39* 1.42 1.51 1.39  1941 - 1942 1943 1945  7.02 7.02 7.02  5.76 6.40 6.25  96 96 96  68 43 147  1.21 1.45 1.12  1.69 1.79 1.51  1.45 1.51 1.34  1942 - 1943 1945  6.40 6.25  5.76 5.76  43 147  68 68  1.12 1.07  1.88 1.62  1.56 1.40  1943 - 1945 10.24  6.25  43  147  1.04  1.22  1.47  2  2  Number i n Sample ni n2 F  F At Levels Zfo 10fo  Years of Comparison  Samples n o t drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s of common v a r i a n c e .  Table X X I  Years of Comparison  Comparison o f the V a r i a n c e s , S]2 and sg2, of C h i l k o Lake F i r s t Season R i n g C o u n t s , 19 38 - 1945 Variance l 2 s  2  s  2  Number i n Sample n F ni 2  F At Levels 2$  lOfo  19 38 - 1939 8.29 1940 8.29 1941 8.29 1942 11.76 1943 16.32 1944 8.29 1945 8.29  5.90 4.28 5.33 8.29 8.29 3.16 5.15  70 70 70 85 70 70 70  89 103 84 70 70 140 94  1.40 1.94 1.55 1.41 1.90 2.63 1.61  1.70 1.64 1.70 1.74 1.74 1.56 1.64  1.45 1.42* 1.45* 1.47 1.47* 1.37* 1.42*  1939 - 1940 5.90 1941 5 .90 1942 11.76 1943 16.32 1944 5 .90 1945 5.90  4.28 5 .33 5 .90 5.90 3.16 5.15  89 89 85 70 89 89  103 84 89 89 140 94  1.38 1.10 1.90 2.77 1.87 1.14  1.59 T.65 1.65 1.69 1.51 1.65  1.39 1.42* 1-.42* 1.45* 1.34* 1.42  84 85 70 103 94  103 103 103 140 103  1.24 2.75 3.82 1.35 1.20  1.65 1.65 1.64 1.51 1.59  1-. 42 1.42* 1.42* 1.34 1.39  85 70 84 84  84 84 140 94  2.20 3.06 1.69 1.03  1.70 1.70 1.65 1.64  1.45* 1.45* 1.42 1.42  1942 - 1943 16.32 11.76 1944 11.76 3.16 1945 11.76 5.15  70 85 85  85 140 94  1.39 1.70 3.73 1.65 2.28 1.65  1.45 1.42* 1.42*  1943 - 1944 16.32 1945 16.32  3.16 5.15  70 70  • 140 94  5.18 1.56 3.17 1.64  1.37* 1.42*  1944 - 1945  3.16  94  140  1.63 1.57  1.34*  1940 - 1941 5 .33 4.28 1942 11.76 4.28 1943 16.32 4.28 3.16 1944 4.28 1945 5.15 4.28 1941 - 1942 11.76 1943 16.32 1944 5.33 1945 5.33  5.15  5.33 5 .33 3.16 5.15  * Samples n o t drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s of common'variance.  Table X X I I  Comparison of the V a r i a n c e s , sj_2 and. sg2 of Adams R i v e r F i r s t Season R i n g C o u n t s , ' 1938 - 1944  Years of Comparison  Variance_ s i sg  1938  - 1939 1940 1942 1943 1944  3.84 5 .42 7.-50 5.56 4.41  3.-423.-84 3.-84 3.-84 3.84  1939  - 1940 1942 1943 1944  5.42 7.50 5 .56 4.41  1940  - 1942 1943 1944  1942 1943  2  2  Number i n Sample ni ng F  F A t Levels 2$ lOfo  219 89 109 247 100.  95 219 219 219 219  1.08 1.42 1.96 1.44 1.15  1.-51 1.-48 1.48 1.-39 1.48  1.-34 1 .-32* 1.32* 1.-26* 1.32  3.42 89 3.-42 109 3.-42 247 3.-42 100  95 95 95 95  1.53 2.12 1.56 1.24  1.65 1.59 1.48 1.5 9  1.42* 1 .-39* 1.32* 1.-39  7.50 5.56 5.-42  5 .42 109 5.42 247 89 4.-41  89 89 100  1.38 1.01 1.23  1.59 1.-57 1.65  1.39 1.-38 1.-42  - 1943 1944  7.5 0 7.50  5 .-56 109 4.-41 109  247 100  1.35 1.7-0  1.51 1.59  1.34* 1.39*  - 1944  5 .-56  4.41  247  100  1.25  1.-48  1.32  Samples n o t drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e .  Table X X I I I  Comparison of the V a r i a n c e s , Sj2 and SQ2 of S t u a r t Lake F i r s t Season R i n g Counts, 1938 - 1945  Variance^ S]_ sg  19 38 -  1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  3.72 3.72 5 .52 4.66 3.72 5'. 76 4 . 36  3.72 3.34 3.72 3.72 2.99 3*. 72 3.72  197 197 206 193 197 47 215  87 69 197 197 40 197 197  1.00 1.10 1.48 1.25 1".21 1.57 1.17  1.51 1.62 1.39 1.39 1.69 1.62 1.39  1.34 1.40 1.26* 1.26  19 39 -  1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  3.72 5.52 4.66 3.72 5 .76 4.36  3.34 3.72 3.72 2.99 3'. 72 3.72  87 206 193 87 47 215  69 87 87 40 87 87  1.10 1.47 1.24 1.22 1.56 1.16  1.69 1.48 1.48 1.94 1.78 1.57  1.45 1.32* 1". 32 1.59 1.51* 1.38  1940  -  1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  5 .52 4.66 3.34 5 .76 4.36  3.34 3.34 2.99 3 . 34 3.34  206 193 69 47 215  69 69 40 69 69  1.63 1.37 1.10 1.73 1.29  1.62 1.62 1.97 1.82 1.62  1.40* r.40 1.61 1.53* 1.40  1941  -  1942 1943 1944 1945  5 .52 5 .52 5.76 5 .52  4.66 2.99 5.52 4.36  206 206 47 206  193 40 206 215  1.18 1.80 1.06 1.26  1.39 1.88 1.62 1.39  1.26 1.55* 1.42 1.26  1942  -  1943 1944 1945  4.66 5.76 4.66  2.99 4.66 4.36  193 47 193  40 193 215  1.52 1.25 1.06  1.88 1.62 1.39  1.55 1.42 1.26  1943  -  1944 1945  5 .76 4.36  2.99 2.99  47 215  40 40  1.91 1.42  2.05 1.88  1.66* 1.55  1944  -  1945  5.76  4.36  47  215  1.34  1.62  1.42  2  2  Number i n Sample nj_ ng F  F At Levels 2$ 10$  Years of Comparison  r.45 r.52  1.26  * Samples n o t drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s of common v a r i a n c e .  Table XXIV Comparison of the Variances, s i and s g of Bowron Lake F i r s t Season Ring Counts, ' 1938 - 1945 2  F At Levels [Zfo XOfo  Years of Comparison  Variance s i sg  1938 - 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  5 .10 5.85 5 .10 5.10 5.10 5 .10 5.10  3.88 5.10 3.38 3.38 4.08 3.57 3.27  22 46 22 22 22 22 22  102 22 85 108 193 36 44  1.36 1.11 1.56 1.56 1.30 1.45 1.59  2.06 2.53 2.11 2.06 1.97 2.43 2.32  1.68 1.91 1.70 1.68 1.62 1.87 1.81  1939 - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  5.85 3.88 3.88 4.08 3.88 3.88  3.88 3.38 3.38 3.88 3.57 3.27  46 102 102 193 102 102  102 85 108 102 36 44  1.52 1.14 1.14 1.04 1.06 1.16  1.73 1.65 1.59 1.51 2.00 1.88  1.48* 1.42 1.39 1.34 1.62 1.56  1940 - 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  5 .85 5.85 5 .85 5.85 5 .85  3.38 3.38 4.08 3.57 3.27  46 46 46 46 46  85 108 193 36 44  1.16 1.75 1.45 1.08 1.78  1.78 1.73 1.62 3 • 1S 2.00  1.51 1.48* 1.42 1.69 1.63*  1941 - 1942 1943 1944 1945  3.38 4.08 3.57 3.38  3.38 3.38 3.38 3.27  85 193 36 85  108 85 85 44  1.00 1.19 1.07 1.02  1.64 1.57 2.04 1.84  1.42 1.38 1.65 1.54  1942 - 1943 1944 1945  4.08 3.57 3.38  3.38 3.38 3.27  193 36 108  108 108 .44  1.20 1.07 1.01  1.51 1.79 1.79  1.34 1.51 1.51  1943 - 1944 1945  4.08 4.08  3.57 3.27  193 193  36 44  1.11 1.22  1.94 1.82  1.59 1.52  1944 - 1945  3.57  3.27  36  44  1.09  2.06  1.66  2  2  Number in Sample ni ng. F  2  *Samples not drawn from populations of common variance.  Table XXV  Comparison o f the V a r i a n c e s , s i 2 and s of S t e l l a k o R i v e r F i r s t Season R i n g C o u n t s , 19 38 - 1945 2  2  Y e a r s of Comparison  Variance s i S2  1938  2  Number i n Sample ni n2 F  F At Levels 2$ 10$  -  1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  5.76 4.92 6.50 4.49 4.88 6.20 5.61  4.49 4.49 4.49 4.45 4.49 4.49 4.49  96 90 104 99 339 108 77  99 99 99 142 99 99 99  1.28 1.09 1.44 1.01 1.07 1.37 1.25  1.59 1.59 1.59 1.51 1.46 1.59 1.65  1.39 1.39 1.39* 1.34 1.30 1.39 1.42  19 39 -  1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  5.76 6.50 5.76 5.76 6.20 5.76  4.92 5.76 4.45 4.88 5.76 5.61  96 104 96 96 108 96  90 96 142 339 96 77  1.16 1.12 1.29 1.18 1.07 1.02  1.59 1.59 1.51 1.42 1.59 1.65  1.39 1.39 1.34 1.28 1.39 1.42  1940  -  1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  6.50 4.92 4.92 6 .20 5.61  4.92 4.45 4.88 4.92 4.92  104 90 90 108 77  90 142 339 90 90  1.31 1.11 1.01 1.25 1.14  1.59 1.51 1.42 1.59 1.64  1.39 1.34 1.28 1.39 1.42  1941  -  1942 1943 1944 1945  6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50  4.45 4.88 6.20 5.61  104 104 104 104  142 339 108 77  1.46 1.34 1.04 1.15  1.51 1.42 1.59 1.65  1.34* 1.28* 1.39 1.42  1942  -  1943 1944 1945  4.88 6.20 5.61  4.45 4.45 4.45  339 108 77  142 142 142  1.11 1.39 1.26  1.37 1.51 1.56  1.25 1.34* 1.37  1943  -  1944 1945  6.20 5.61  4.88 4.88  108 77  339 339  1.27 1.16  1.42 1.47  1.28 1.32  1944  -  1945  6.20  5.61  108  77  1.09  1.65  1.42  * Samples n o t drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e  Table XXVI S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - C u l t u s Lake > 1938 - 1945 Difference Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d byYears Total Difference of D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Compared Specimens Between MeansBetwe:en Means of D i f f e r e n c e ( t ) 1938 - 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  193 580 219 380 251 202 165  0.75 0.84 3.15 0.89 5.19 1.81 3.26  .3018 .2601 .3478 .2670 .3090 .3464 .3755  2.48* 3.22 9.15 3.25 16.79 5.22 8.68  1939 - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  597 236 397 268 219 182  0.09 3.90 0.14 4.44 1.06 4.01  .2078 .3109 .2163 .2662' .3095 .3420  0.43* 12.54 0.64* 16.67 3.42 11.72  1940 - 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  623 784 655 606 569  3.99 0.05 4.35 0.97 4.10  .2707 .1529 .2188 .2690 .3054  14.73 0.32* 19.88 3.60 13.42  1941 - 1942 1943 1944 1945  423 294 245 208  4.04 8.34 4.96 0.11  .2773 .3178 .3535 38.34  14.56 26.24 14.03 0.28*  1942 - 1943 1944 1945  454 406 369  4.30 0.92 4.15  .2260 .2756 .3117  19.02 3.33 13.31  1943 - 1944 1945  277 240  3.38 8.45  .3178 .3478  10.68 24.29  1944 - 1945  191  5.07  .3821  13.26  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e  Table XXVII S i g n i f i c a n c e o f D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Weaver Creek 1938 - 1945  Years Total Compared Specimens  Difference Between Means  Difference Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d byof. D i f f erence Standard E r r o r Between Means of D i f f e r e n c e ( t )  1938-1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  147 185 199 198 205 188 201  1.42 0.56 1.75 1.16 0.48 0.91 0.30  .3549 .3577 .3949 .3535 .3141 .3435 .3271  4.00 1.56* 4.43 3.28 1.52*  1939-1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  138 152 151 158 141 154  0.86 3.17 0.26 0.94 0.51 1.72  .4111 .4438 .4074 .3741 .4000 .3847  2.09* 7.14 0.63* 2.51* 1.27* 4.47  1940-1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  190 189 196 179 192  2.31 0.60 0.08 0.35 0.86  .4460 .4098 .3768 .4012 .3873  5.17 1.46* 0.21* 0.87* 2.22*  1941-1942 1943 1944 1945  203 210 193 206  2.91 2 .23 2.66 1.45  .4427 .4110 .4347 .4219  6.57 5.42 6.11 3.43  1942-1943 1944 1945  209 •> 192 205  0.68 0.25 1.46  .3714 .3974 .3834  1.83* 0.62* 3.80  1943-1944 1945  199 212  0.43 0.78  .3633 .3478  1.18* 2.24*  1944-1945  195  . 1.21  .3741  3.23  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o Of d o u b t f u l s i g n i f i c a n c e  2.640  0.91*  Table 2X7III Significance of Differences i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Birkenhead. River 1938 - 1945  Years Total Compared Specimens  Difference Difference Standard. Error Divided byBetween of Difference Standard Error , Means Between Means of. Difference t  •1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  207 318 171 116 121 123 166  0.49 0.17 0.44 0.74 2.46 0.76 1.61  .7183 .6957 .7409 .7127 .6913 .7085 .7056  0.68* 0.24* 0.59* 1.03* 3.55 1.07* 2.28*  •1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  491 344 299 294 296 339  0.32 0.05 0.25 2.95 0.27 2.10  .3449 .4278 .3768' .3346 .3687 .3633  0.92* 0.11* 0.66* 8.81 0.73* 5.78  •1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  455 400 405 407 450  0.27 0.57 2.63 0.59 1.78  .3898 .3331 .2851 .3240 .3178  0.69* 0.17* 9.22 1.82* 5.56  •1942 1943 1944 1945  253 259 260 303  0.30 2.90 0.32 2.05  .4183 .3807 .4111 .4062  .71* 7.61 0.77* 5.04  •1943 1944 1945  203 205 248  3.20 0.02 2.35  .3224 .3577 .3521  9.92 0.55* 6.67  •1944 1945  210 253  3.22 0.85  .3136 .3077  10.26 2.76  •1945  255  2.37  .3435  6.89  * Of no significance  Table X Z I X  S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s C i r c u l i Counts - P i t t 1938 - 1945  Years Total Compared Specimens  i n Mean F i r s t River  Year  Difference D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d byBetween • o f D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Means . Between Means o f D i f f e r e n c e t  •1940 1941 1942 1943 1945  161 143 115 90 194  1.96 3.11 1.41 0.10 6.35  .3987 .4527 .4647 .3937 .4171  4.91 6.86 3.04 .25 15.22  •1941 1942 1943 1945  210 182 157 261  5.07 3.37 2.06 8.31  .-3162 .3346 .2258 .2645  16.03 10.07 9.12 31.14  •1942 1943 1945  164 139 243  1.70 3.01 3.24  .3962 .3111 .3391  4.29 9.67 9.55  •1943 1945  111 215  1.31 4.94  .3286 .3563  3.98 13.86  •1945  190  6.25  .2569  24.32  -  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e  :  Table XXX  S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - C h i l k o Lake 1938 - 1945 Difference D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d byYears Total Between of D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Compared Specimens Means Between Means o f D i f f e r e n c e t 1938-1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  159 173 154 155 140 210 164  0.02 1.08 0.33 0.19 4.04 0.70 0.79  .4301 ,4000 .4266 .5059 .5930 .3755 .4159  0.46* 2.70° 0.77* 0.37* 6.81 1.86* 1.89*  1939-1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  192 173 174 159 229 183  1.06 0.35 0.21 4.02 0.72 0.77  .3286 .3605 .4505 .5477 .2981 .3478  3.22 0.97* 0.46* 7.33 2.41* 2.21*  1940-1941 . 1942 1943 1944 1945  187 188 173 243 197  1.41 1.27 2.96 1.78 0.29  .3240 .4230 .5244 .2537 .3108  4.35 3.00 5.64 7.01 0.93*  1941-1942 1943 1944 1945  169 154 224 178  0.14 4.37 0.37 1.12  .4483 .5458 .2941 .3435  0.31* 8.00 1.25* 3.26  1942-1943 1944 1945  155 225 179  4.23 0.51 0.98  .6082 .3987 .4381  6.95 1.27* 2.23*  1943-1944 1945  210 164  4.74 3.25  .5059 ,5375  9.36 6.04  1944-1945  234  1.49  .2782  5 .35  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o Of d o u b t f u l s i g n i f i c a n c e  Table XXXI  S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t C i r c u l i Counts - Adams R i v e r 1938 - 1945  Years Total Compared Specimens  Difference Be tween Means  Year  Difference Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d byof D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Between Means o f D i f f e r e n c e t  •1939 1940 1942 1943 1944  314 308 328 466 319  0.84 2.95 0.77 2.19 2.58  .2317 .2806 .2941 .2002' .2502  •1940 1942 1943 1944  184 204 342 195  2.11 1.61 1.35 1.74  .3116 .3240 .2422 .2851  6.77 4.96 5.57 6.10  1942 1943 1944  198 336 189  3.72 0.76 0.37  .3605 .2889 .3255  10.31 2.63o 1.13*  •1943 1944  356 209  2.96 3.35  .3026 .3376  9.78 9.92  •1944  347  0.39  .2601  1.49*  * No s i g n i f i c a n c e o Doubtful s i g n i f i c a n c e  3.62 10.51 2.61o 10.93 10.31  Table XXXII S i g n i f i c a n c e o f D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t C i r c u l i Counts - S t u a r t Lake 1938 - 1945  Years Total Compared Specimens  Year  Difference D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d byBetween of D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Means Between Means o f D i f f e r e n c e t  1938-1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  284 266 403 390 237 244 412  1.71 2.79 2.00 2.62 3.52 2.23 3.91  .2483 .2596 .2134 .2126 .3072 .3768 .1979  1939-1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  156 293 280 127 134 302  1.08 0.29 0.91 1.81 0.52 2.20  .3021 .2638 .2586 .3435 .4062 .2510  3.57 1.09* 3.51 5 .26 1.28* 8.76  1940-1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  275 262 109 116 284  0.79 0.17 0.73 0.56 1.12  .2744 .2696 .3521 .4135 .2623  2.87 0.6S* 2.07* 1.35* 4.26  1941-1942 1943 1944 1945  399 246 253 421  0.62 1.52 0.23 1.91  .2256 .3193 .3860 .2170  2.74 4.76 5.95 8.80  1942-1943 1944 1945  233 240 408  0.90 0.35 1.29  .3155 .3834 .2107  2.83 0.90* 6.12  1943-1944 1945  87 255  1.29 0.39  .4427 .3095  2.91 1.26*  1944-1945  262  1.68  .3781  4.44  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e  6.88 10.74 9.37 12.32 11.45 5.91 19.75  Table 22ZIII S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t Year C i r c u l i Counts - Bowron Lake 1938 - 1945 Difference Years Total Between Compared Specimens Means  Difference Standard. E r r o r D i v i d e d by of D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Between Means of D i f f e r e n c e t  1938-1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  124 68 107 130 215 58 66  1.07 0.41 0.21 1.46 1.92 0.70 0.79  .5186 .5983 .5205 .5118 .5020 .5744 .5531  2.06* 0.68* 0.40* 2.85 3.82 1.21* 1.42*  1939-1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  148 187 210 295 138 146  0.66 0.86 2.53 2.99 1.77 1.86  .4062 .5794 .2636 .2437 .3701 .3361  1.62* 3.07 9.59' 12.26 4.78 5.53  1940-1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  131 154 239 82 90  0.20 1.87 2.33 1.11 1.20  .4086 .'3974 .3847 .4753 .4494  0.48* 4.70 6.05 2.33*  1941-1942 1943 1944 1945  193 278 121 129  1.67 2.13 0.91 1.00  .2672 .2475 .3728 .3376  6.25 8.60 2.44* 2.96  1942-1943 1944 1945  301 144 152  0.46 0.76 0.67  .2295 .3605 .3255  2.00* 2.10* 2.05*  1943-1944 1945  228 237  1.22 1.13  .3464 .3101  3.52 3.64  1944-1945  80  0.09  .4171'  0.21*  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o Of d o u b t f u l s i g n i f i c a n c e  2.670  Table XXXIV S i g n i f i c a n c e of D i f f e r e n c e s i n Mean F i r s t Y e a r C i r c u l i Counts - S t e l l a k o R i v e r 1938 - 1945 Difference D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r D i v i d e d byYears Total Between of D i f f e r e n c e Standard E r r o r Compared Specimens Means Between Means o f D i f f e r e n c e t 1938-1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  195 189 203 241 438 207 176  0.03 2.95 2.61 2.23 4.47 4.39 3.69  .3255 .3178 .3301 .2796 .2469 .3224 .3449  0.09* 9.28 7.90 7.97 18.10 13.61 10.69  1939-1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  186 200 238 435 204 • 173  2.92 2.58 2.20 4.44 4.36 3.66  .3391 .3492 .3024 .2725 .3420 .3633  8.61 7.38 7.27 16.29 12.74 10.07  1940-1941 194 232 1942 429 1943 1944 • 198 167 1945  0.34 0.72 1.52 1.44 0.74  .3405 .2944 .2636 .3346 .3577  0.99* 2.44* 5.76 4.30 2.06*  1941-1942 1943 1944 1945  246 443 212 181  0.38 1.86 1.78 1.08  .3067 .2773 .3464 .3674  1.23* 6.70 5 .13 2.93  1942-1943 1944 1945  481 250 219  2.24 2.16 1.46  .2144 .2988 .3224  1943-1944 1945  447 . 416  0.08 0.78  .2685 .2954  0.29* 2.64o  1944-1945  185  0.70  .3605  1.94*  •  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o Of d o u b t f u l s i g n i f i c a n c e  10.44 7.22 4.52  No. o f Circuli  Cultus Lake  8 9 10 11 IE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  2 0 2 7 7 10 16 19 12 5 8  Number Mean S. D. S. E .  88 14.28 2.23 .2405  Table XXXV Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e iRing Counts of F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races. 1938 Weaver Adams BirkenPitt Chilko Stuart Bowron S t ellLake Creek • head R. Lake Lake River R i v e r akoR.  3 3 12 17 16 18 11 11 4 2 97 18.40 2.03 .2061  3 2 1 2 4 0 . 1 1 1  17 12.64 2.74 .6640  4 6 8 8 7 3 3 6 0 1 0. 1  47 14.59 2.47 .3632  1 3 20 10 10 7 6 1 5 1 2 2 1 1  70 13.38 2.88 .3447  1 12 26 41 52 36 23 13 7 4 3 1  1 7 11 34 34 39 33 20 11 5 2  219 197 12.27 15 .83 1.96 1.93 .1324 .1375  1 3 3 4 4 1 4 0 1 1  1 2 1 8 7 16 27 15 11 5 3 i  22 99 12.77 17.05 2.26 2.12 .4810 .2160  Table XXXVI No. o f Circuli 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Number Mean S. D. S. E .  Cultus Lake  1 1 4 8 15 20 22 22 10 0 1 0 1  105 13.53 1.87 .1825  Weaver Creek  1 1 1 2 7 4 12 12 6 2 2  50 16.98 2.05 .2899  Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races, 1939 Birkenhead C h i l k o Adams . S t u a r t Bowron River Lake River Lake Lake 5 7 16 11 20 13 15 21 14 6 21 13 15 5 6 1 1  190 13.01 3.79 .2749  1 4 4 9 12 20 13 10 9 2 2 2 0 0 1  1 1 4 10 21 18 21 12 4 1 0 2  89 13.40 2.43' .2576  95 13.11 1.85 .1902  5 8 14 15 19 16 5 2 1 •1 1 87 17.54 1.93 .2069  1 2 5 19. 23 22 18 7 1 1 0 1 2  102 11.70 1.97 .1953  Stellako River  2 0 5 7 7 20 13 14 14 8 4 0 -1 1 96 17.08 2.40 .2449  Table XXXVII  No. of Circuli 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Number Mean S. D. S. -E.  Cultus Lake 3 6 13 25 28 90 87 95 56 47 26 12 4  492 13.44 2.20 .0996  Comparison o f F i r s t Year Scale Ring Counts F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races, 1940 Weaver Creek  1 1 2 3 7 16 12 14 12 6 7 0 3 3 0 1 88 17.84 2.74 .2930  Birkenhead River 14 26 26 28 32 29 37 23 20 17 11 12 10 6 7 3 •  301 12.69 3.64 .2098  Pitt River 1 0 5 14 18 21 14 17 11 9 3 1  •114 12.63 2.16 .1660  Chilko Lake  2 4 5 9 18 21 19 11 9 4 1  103 14.46 2.07 .2045  Adams River  2 3 7 9 14 10 15 12 12 3 1 1  89 15.22 2.33 .2469  Stuart Lake  1 8 13 10 16 11 5 3 2  69, 18.62 1.83 .2204  StellBowron ako Lake River 1 3 2 3 5 12 5 8 1 3 3  46 12.36 2.42 .3570  2 1 8 11 16 20 13 6 6 3 3 1 90 19.00 2.22 .2349  Table XXXVIII  No. o f Circuli 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Number Mean  Cultus Lake  2 1 4 0 2 6 13 21 17 18 16 11 9 8 3  131 17.43  Weaver Creek  3 5 7 6 9 14 13 13 11 6 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 102 20.15  Comparison o f F i r s t Year Scale R i n g Counts F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races, 1941 Birkenhead River  Pitt River  4 10 16 21 23 17 5 13 5 10 4 3 8 5 3 4 2 1  154 12.96  Chilko Lake  2 3 1 14 13 19 17 5 7 0 0 0 1 2  1 2 2 4 15 10 9 15 11 6 18 1 2  96  '7.Q  17  '  Stuart Lake  1 0 1 7 7 13 29 35 29 32 ' 27 15 6 3 1  84  '§f_  13  .2529  1  206 2 * S§ .1&37  Bowron Lake  1 1 10 12 18 20 10 8 2 3  85 '  ^'li .2001  Stellako River  2 0 1 1 6 6 18 9 25 13 11 9 1 0 0 1 1 104  ^'El  .2501  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races, 1942  Table XXXIX  No. of Circuli 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Number Mean S. D. S. E .  Cultus Lake 4 8 14 26 51 55 50 37 23 14 8 2  292 13.39 1.98 .1160  Weaver Creek  1 3 11 14 17 19 12 3 6 8 1 4 1 2 1 103 17.24 2.90 .2874  Birkenhead River 2 3 5 13 21 15 12 15 2 7 3 0 1  99 13.26 2.59 .2592  Pitt River  Chilko Lake  Adams River  1 4 5 9 9 15 9 5 5 2 3 1  6 5 7 12 11 13 6 5 7 2 1 5 4 1 1  5 10 9 18 16 17 14 7 5 2 3 1 0 1 0 1  68 16.00 2.40 .2910  86 13.19 3.43 .3705  109 11.50 2.74 .2628  Stuart Lake  1 6 15 17 24 34 29 36 19 9 2 0 1 193 18.45 2.26 .1624  Bowron Lake  1 0 3 14 25 16 25 13 6 3 • 1 1  Stellako Rive:  6 1 23 28 21 24 16 14 4 3 2  108 142° 14.23 19.28 1.84 2.11 .1773 .1778  Table XL  No. of Circuli  Cultus Lake  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 Number Mean S. D. S.E.  1 17 19 39 31 21 17 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 1  163 9.09 2.47 .1941  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e R i n g Counts F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races, 1943 Weaver Creek  1 0 7 11 17 13 13 18 11 7 5 5  108 17.92 2.46 .2373  Birkenhead River  1 9 12 16 28 20 6 3 8 1  104 10.06 1.94 .1932  Pitt River  2 7 6 2 3 7 2 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 1  43 14.69 2.53 .3892  Chilko Lake  Adams River  1 1 1 3 0 1 6 3 6 7 5 3 4 8 11 7 1 1 1  6 6 8 24 31 49 58 34 11 6 3 6 3 0 2  70 17.42 4.04 .4839  247 14.46 2.36 .1504  Stuart Lake  1 1 3 8 10 3 11 2 1 .  40 ' 19.35 1.73 .2748  Stellako BowronR.River  1 2 7 17 21 43 42 19 26 10 1 2 1 1  1 0 1 2 4 14 32 62 58 51 58 31 10 10 2 1 2 193 339 14.69 21.52 2.02 2.21 .1461 .1200  Table Z L I  No. o f Circuli 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Number Mean S. D. S. E.  Cultus Lake 2 4 9 14 15 20 7 16 12 7 3 3 2  114 12.47 2.66 .2500  Weaver Creek  2 4 4 11 14 15 9 9 8 10 3 1 1  91 17.49 2.63 .2757  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races, 1944 Birkenhead River 1 1 8 6 14 6 17 17 18 6 7 4 1  106 13.28 2.54 .2472  Chilko Lake  Adams River  1 3 6 29 28 25 31 12 2 1 1 0 1  1 1 3 7 13 19 19 15 13 4 4 1  140 12.68 1.78 .1504  100 14.85 2.10 .2125  Stuart Lake  3 4 5 10 7 6 3 3 4 2  47 18.06 2.40 .3509  Bowron Lake  2 4 6 7 5 6 4 2  36 13.47 1.89 .3150  Stellako River  1 0 0 2 3 9 6 18 12 17 18 11 7 3 1 108 21 2 .24<  Table XLII  No. o f Circuli 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Number Mean S. D. S. E .  Cultus Lake  1 4 7 6 8 10 10 13 10 3 4 1  77 17.54 2.54 .2894  Weaver Creek  1 2 2 3 12 11 19 21 11 7 7 3 1 4  104 18.70 2.59 .2547  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts F r a s e r R i v e r Sockeye Races, 1945 BirkenHead River 2 9 19 26 24 12 15 17 5 7 6 1 2 4  149 10.91 2.92 .2396  Pitt River  1 1 3 4 14 14 33 18 23 15 10 6 1 2 1 1 147 20.94 2.50 .2062  Chilko Lake  3 6 14 19 12 14 13 7 2 2 1. 0 1  94 14.17 2.27 .2342  Stuart Lake  1 2 11 15 22 52 41 34 14 15 2 5 1  215 19.74 2.09 .1425  Bowron Lake  1 1 3 5 13 9 6 3 2 1  44 13.56 1.81 .2737  Stellako River  1 0 0 2 1 2 2 14 9' 16 15 7 5 2 1  77 20.74 2.37 .2700  Table X L I I I  C o r r e l a t i o n Between Annual Changes i n Ring Counts o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races r a t Vf Degrees o f C o e f f i c i e n t Level of Freedom of Correlation Significance 0  Years o f Comparison  P a i r s of Means  1938 - 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  8 9 8 9 9 8 8  6 7 6 7 7 6 6  +.6706 +.7683 +.9089 +.8543 +.6951 f.8356 +.7461  .765 .735 .765 .735 .735 .765 .765  1939 - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  8 7 8 8 8 7  6 5 6 6 6 5  +.9424 +.8703 +.8959 +.7090 +.8595 +.7155  .765 .798 .765 .765 .765 .798  1940 - 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945  8 9 9 8 7  6 7 7 6 5  +.7076 +.7487 +.8096 +.9424 +.5968  .765 .735 .735 .765 . .798  1941 - 1942 1943 1944 1945  8 8 7 8  6 6 5 6  +.7820 +.4439 +.7636 +.8886  .765 .765 .798 .765  1942 - 1943 1944 1945  8 8 8  6 6 6  f.7330 +.8869 +.7856  .765 .765 .765  1943 - 1944 1945  8 8  6 6  +.8657 +.5365  .765 .765  1944 - 1945  7  5  +.7892  .798  Table XLIV  Comparison o f F i r s t Tear S c a l e R i n g Counts o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1938 Difference Between Means  S.E. o f Difference Between Means  103 111 156 305 279 107 185  1.62 4.40 0.88 1.99 1.57 1.49 £.79  .7056 .3162 .4197 .8670 .2769 .1700 .3231  2.29* 13.09 2.09* 2.29* 5.66 2.77* 8.63  114 87 236 210 38 116  5.76 0.74 0.37 3.19 .13 4.41  .6949 .7476 .6767 .6775 .8197 .6978  8.28 0.98* 0.54* 4.70 .15* 6.31  167 316 290 118 196  5.0£ 5.13 2.57 5.63 1.35  .41£5 .7752 .2475 .5224 .2985  1£.16 6.61' 10.38 10.77 4.52  289 263 91 169  1.11 2.45 0.61 3.67  .3687 .3701 .5916 ,4062  3.01 6.61 1.03* 9.03  412 240 318  3.56 0.50 4.78  .1907 .4985 .8006  18.66 1.00* 5.97  No. i n Sample  Races Compared Cultus Birkenhead Weaver Chilko Adams ' Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Weaver Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  •  t  214 292  3.06 1.22  .5000 .2559  6.12 4.76  120  4.28  .5272  8.11  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o r approaching s i g n i f i c a n c e .  Table XLV  Races Compared  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e R i n g Counts of F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1939  No. i n Sample  Cultus Birkenhead Weaver Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Weaver Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Difference Between Means  S.E. o f Difference Between Means  t  295 155 194 200 192 207 201  0.52 3.45 0.13 0.42 4.01 1.83 3.55  .3286 .1173 .3155 .2634 .2758 .2672 .3056  1.58* 10.08 0.41* 1.59* 14.53 6.84 11.61  240 279 285 277 292 286  3.97 0.39 0.10 4.53 1.31 4.07  .3987 .3768 .3331 .3435 .3361 .3674  9.97 10.35 0.30* 13.18 3.89 11.07  139 145 137 152 146  3.58 3.87 0.56 5.28 0.10  .3873 .3464 .3549 .3492 .3794  9.24 11.17 15.77 5.12 .26*  184 176 191 185  0.29 4.14 5.73 3.68  .3209 .3301 .3224 .3459  .90* 12.54 17.77 10.63  182 197 191  4.43 1.41 3.97  .2808 .2725 .3100  15.77 5.17 12.80  189 183  5.84 0.46  .2844 .3193  20.53 1.44*  198  5.38  .3132  17.77  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e .  •  Table XLVT  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts of F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1940  Races Compared Cultus Birkenhead Weaver Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Weaver Pitt Chilko Adams 'Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako  No. i n Sample  Difference Between Means  S. E . o f Difference Between Means  792 579 605 594 579 560 537 581  0.75 4.40 1.81 0.81 1.82 5.15 1.08 6.56  .2321 .3093 .1933 .2273 .2660 .2416 . 3704 . 2551  3.231 14-. 225 9.363 3.565 6.642 21.317 2.915 25.71  .3591 .2675 .2929 .3224 .3041. .4171 .3148  14.34 0-. 22* 4.84 7.97 19.50 0.79* 23.22  389 415 404 389 370 347 391  •  5.15 0.06 1.42 . 2.57 5.93 0.33 7.31  t  202 191 176 157 134 178  5.21 3.73 2.58 0.78 5.48 2.16  .3361 .3563 .3834 .3660 .4615 .3755  15.50 10.46 6-. 7 2 2.13* 11.87 5.75  217 202 183 160 204  1.48 2.63 5.99 0.27 7.37  . 2632 .2974 .2758 .3937 .2875  5.62 8.84 21.71 0-. 68* 25.63  191 172 149 193  1.15 4.51 1.75 5.89  .3193 .3005 .4111 .3112  3.60 15.00 4.25 18.92  157 134 178  3.36 2.90 4.74  .3301 .4339 .3405  10.17 6.68 13.92  Table XLVT  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1940  Races Compared Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  No. i n Sample  Difference Between Means  S.E. o f Difference Between Means  115 159  6.26 1.38  .4195 .3209  14.92 4.30  136  7.64  .4266  17.90  Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o r o f d o u b t f u l  significance.  T a b l e XLvTI  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e R i n g Counts of F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1941  Races Compared Cultus Birkenhead Weaver Pitt Chilko Bowron Stellako Stuart Birkenhead Weaver Pitt Chilko Bowron , Stellako Stuart Weaver Pitt Chilko Bowron Stellako Stuart Pitt Chilko Bowron . Stellako Stuart Chilko Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Stellako Stua r t  No. i n Sample  Difference Between Means  S. E. o f Difference Between Means  285 233 227 215 216 235 337  4.47 2.72 0.27 4.38 4.87 2.23 0.40  .4135 .4207 .3687 .3563 .3209 .3535 .3003  10.810 6.46 0.73* 12.29 15.17 6.31 1.33*  256 150 238 239 258 360  7.19 4.74 0.09 0.40 6.70 4.87  .4711 .4254 .4147 .3847 .4135 .3674  15.26 11.14 0.21* 1.03* 16.20 13.25  198 186 187 206 308  2.45 7.10 7.59 0.49 2.32  .4312 .4207 .3911 .4195 .3741  5.68 16.87 19.40 1.16* 6.20  180 181 200 302  4.65 5.14 1.96 0.13  .3701 .3361 .3374 .3162  12.56 15.29 5.33' 0.41*  169 188 290  0.49 6.61 4.78  .3209 .3549 .3011  1.52* 18.62 15.87  189 291  7.10 5. 27  .3193 .2584  22.23 20.39  310  1.83  .2988  6.12  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e .  t  T a b l e X L V I I I Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e R i n g of F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1942 S. E . o f Difference Difference Races No. i n Between Between Compared Sample Means Means Cultus Birkenhead . 2839 0.09 392 Weaver 393 .3098 3.98 360 2.65 .3132 Pitt .3873 0.13 Chilko 377 Adams 1.85 .2872 392 .1995 5.10 Stuart 486 .2199 400 Bowron 0.12 .2123 5.93 Stellako 434 Birkenhead .2922 201 1.95 Weaver .2909 168 2.74 Pitt .4516 185 0.04 Chilko .3687 1.76 209 Adams .3057 5.90 Stuart 294 .3140 0.03 208 Bowron .3141 Stellako 242 6.02 Weaver .4086 1.33 169 Pitt .4679 166 4.11 Chilko .3885 210 5.83 Adams .3286 1.12 295 Stuart .2918 4.10 209 Bowron .2918 243 Stellako Pitt .4701 2.78 153 Chilko .3911 4.50 177 Adams .3331 2.45 262 Stuart .3405 2.77 176 Bowron .3405 3.2 8 210 Stellako Chilko .4538 1.72 194 Adams .4037 5.23 279 Stuart .4098 0.01 193 Bowron .4098 6.06 227 Stellako Adams .3088 6.95 303 Stuart .3162 1.73 217 Bowron .3162 7.78 251 Stellako Stuart .2404 5.22 302 Bowron .2406 0.83 336 Stellako Bowron .2531 6.05 250 Stellako * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e .  Counts  t 0.31* 12.84 8.46 0.33* 6.44 25.56 5.66 27.93 6.67 9.41 0.88* 4.77 16.97 0.95* 19.16 ,  3. 25 8.78 15.00 3.40 14.05 5.91 12.50 7.35 8.13 9.63 3.79 12.95 .24* 14.78 22.50 5.47 24.60 21.71 3.44 23.90  Table XLIX  Races Compared  Comparison o f F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts of F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1943  No. i n Sample  S. E . o f Difference Difference Between Between Means v Means  Cultus Birkenhead 263 Weaver 270 8.83 Pitt 205 5.60 Chilko 8.33 232 Mams 409 5.37 Stuart 10.26 202 Bowron 5.60 354 Stellako 501 12.43 Birkenhead 7.66 Weaver 209 4.63 144 Pitt 7.36 Chilko 171 Mams 348 4.40 9.29 Stuart 141 293 4.63 Bowron 11.46 Stellako 440 Weaver 3.23 151 Pitt 0.50 178 Chilko 3.46 355 Mams 1.43 148 Stuart 3.23 300 Bowron 3. 60 Stellako 447 Pitt 2.73 Chilko 113 0.23 Mams 290 4.66 83 Stuart 0.00 235 Bowron 6.83 Stellako 382 Chilko 2.96 317 Mams 1.93 110 Stuart 2.96 262 Bowron 4.10 409 Stellako Adams 4.89 287 Stuart 0.23 439 Bowron 7.06 , 586 Stellako Stuart 4.66 Bowron 232 2.17 379 Stellako 6.83 Bowron-Stellako 531 * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e .  t,  .3064 .2473 .5205 .2453 .3361 .2429 .2280  28.01 22.64 16.00 21.89 30.52 23.05 54.51  .3059 .2465 .5205 .2447 .3346 .2420 .2273  25.04 18.78 14.14 17 .98 27.76 19.13 50.41  .2824 .5385 .2808 .3619 .2785 .2658  11.43 0.92 * 12.32 3.95 11.59 13.54  .. 5069 .2147 .3146 .0000 .1946  5.38 1.07* 14.81 0.00 35.09  . 5059 .5558 .. 5049 .4980  5.85 3.47 5.86 8.23  .3132 .2095 .1923  15.61 1.09* 36.71  .3113 .2998 .1889  14.96 7.23 36.15  .  Table L  Races Compared Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e Ring Counts of F r a s e r R i v e r Races, 1944  No. i n Sample  Difference Between Means  S. E. of Difference Between Means \  206 220 254 112 161 150 222  5.14 0.81 0.21 2.38 5.59 1.00 8.97  .3714 .3507 .2917 .3271 .4302 .4012 .3464  13.83 2.30* 0.-71* 7.27 12.99 2.49 25.89  198 232 190 139 128 200  4.33 4.93 2.76 0.45 4.14 3.83  .3701 .3140 .3478 .4460 .4183 .3646  11.69 .15.70 7.93 1.00* 9.89 10.50  246 204 153 142 214  0.60 1.57 4.78 0.19 8.16  .2893 .3255 .4289 .4000 .3435  2.07* 4.82 11.14 0.47* 23.75,  138 187 176 248  2.17 5.38 0.79 8.76  .2601 .3807 .3478 . 2833  8.34 14.13 2.27* 30.92  145 134 206  3.21 1.38 6.59  .4098 .3794 .3193  17.83 3.63 20.63  83 155  4* 59 3.38  .4711 .4242  9.74 7.96  144  7.97  .3949  20.18  v  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e o r o f d o u b t f u l  significance.  Table LI  Races Compared Cultus Birkenhead Weaver Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Weaver Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Comparison of F i r s t Year S c a l e R i n g Counts o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races,. 1945 Difference Between Means  S. E. o f Difference Between Means  226 181 224 171 292 • 121 154  6. 58 1. 16 3. 40 3. 37 2. 20 3. 98 3. 20  .4571 .4647 .4404 .4538 .4135 .4753 .4732  14.39 2.49 7.72 7.42 5.32 8.37 6.76  253 251 198 319 148 181  7. 74 9. 98 3. 21 8. 78 2. 60 9. 78  .3492 .3160 .3346 .2787 .3633 .3605  22.16 31.58 9.59 31.50 7.15 27.12  296 243 364 193 226  2. 24 4. 53 1. 04 5. 14 2.04  .3211 .3449 .2917 .3728 .3704  6.97 13.13 3.56 13.78 5.50  241 362 191 224  6. 77 1. 20 7, 38 0. 20  .3120 .2506 .3420 .3391  31.69 4.78 21.57 0.58*  319 138 171  5. 57 0. 61 6. 57  .2742 .3591 .3563  20.31 1.69* 18.43  259 292  6. 18 1. 00  .3085 .3052  20.03 3.27  121  7. 18  .3834  18.72  No. i n Sample  Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e .  t  Table L l l Number o f F i r s t Season Rings o f C e r t a i n F r a s e r R i v e r Races i n Years 1916-1918 As Determined by Gilbert  Number o f Rings 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Number Mean S.D. S!E!  Y/eaver o f M o r r i s Creek 1916 1918  1 12 8 10 24 21 14 12 11 2 2 3 1  P i t t Lake 1916 1918  1 3 18 29 24 25 15 10  1 5 6 8 11 7 20 21 27 22 14 10 9 6 3 2 2 121 153 138 13.94 20.49 12.47 2.49 2.63 2.01 .2263 .2061 .1712  1 0 0 2 3 6  Birkenhead 1916 1917 4 10 11 20 12 10 9 2 1  12 11 6 5 3 0 1  58 17.20 2.27 .2982  79 8.36 1.83 .2058  7 19 20 27 19 20 12 4 9 2 1 2  142 8.78 2.39 .2006  Cultus Chilcotin 1916 1916 1918  1918  3  1 6 13 15 10 19 14 8 7 10 5 0 1 1 1  3  4 24 53 74 66 46 26 13 1  6 31 40 40 21 17 . 9 6 2 2  3 3 5 7 9 6 4 4 8 4 2 3 1  114 310 174 59 11.48 11.63 8.04 14.37 3.03 1.66 1,86 3.80 .2839 .0943.1410 .4947  Table  No. o f Circuli 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Number Mean S. D. S. E.  Llll  Cultus Lake  1 3 2 8 3 10 6 8 5 6 5 5 62 32.19 2.90 . 3683  Weaver Creek  1 1 0 1 1 3 4 5 7 6 9 12 12 6 4 4 1  77 28.97 3.20 .3648  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races 1938 Birkenhead Pitt C h i l k o Adams Stuart Bowron River River Lake River Lake Lake  1 0 1 '1 3 1 1 0 2 0 3 1 1. 0 0 2 17 29.41 4.30 1.0436  2 2 0 0 3 7 5 5 6 4 4 4 0 3 1 0 1 1 48 27.66 3.72 .5369  3 1 2 3 0 1 3 6 '2 4 4 3 3 0 1 1 3 1 2 43 28.60 4.93 .7526  6 5 10 8 5 13 10 18 23 23 18 17 17 11 7 4 4 3 0 1 203 26.45 4.01 .2816  1 2 4 5 14 12 23 24 24 26 14 12 2 4 1  168 26.35 2.61 .6367  1 1 2 0 1 2 3 1 1 3 1  16 26.56 2.98 .7450  Stellako River  1 4 6 9 15 9 9 9 6 6 4 2 1 1  82 28, 2, .3:  Table LIV  No. o f Circuli 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Number Mean S. D. S. E.  Cultus Lake  1 1 0 3 6 8 3 16 13 13 11 6 6 7 4 0 2 100 32.52 3.17 .3178  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races 1939 Weaver Creek  1 0 2 0 0 5 9 4 6 4 9 4 1  45 29.57 2.60 .3880  Birkenhead River  1 4 6 7 12 15 15 19 23 17 15 6 13 2 9 1 3  168 28.77 3.44 .2654  Chilko Lake  1 6 2 4 6 10 14 6 6 10 '2 6 2 1 2  78 27.55 3.22 .3646  Adams River  Stuart Lake  1 2 7 2 4 7 10 11 6 11 5 4 1  2 3 6 7 10 10 18 9 4 4 3 1  71 26.52 2.83 .3358  77 26.27 2.41 .2746  2  Bowron Lake  0 7 6 9 18 9 18 6 8 3  87 26.86 2.31 .2477  1  Stellako River  2 1 0 4 8 12 5 17 8 9 4 7 1 3 0 0 1  82 28.10 2.97 .3279  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races 1940  Table LV  No. of Circuli 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Number Mean S. D. S. E.  Cultus Lake  5 3 4 8 13 19 30 33 36 47 55 62 48 37 25 26 9 6 466 31.82 3.44 .1600  Weaver Creek  3 2 1 6 6 8 13 7 17 5 7 3 4 1 1  84 28.80 3.02 .3295  Birkenhead River 2 1 3 10 16 17 22 18 23 15 17 11 13 6 2 3  179 27.60 3.15 .2363  Chilko Lake  Pitt River 6 3 7 9 10 17 13 9 12 11 6 6 0 1  1  1  112 25.79 3.22 , .3043  3 6 6 7 14 4 11 7 8 7 3 3 4  83 26.63 3.16 .3468  Adams River  8 10 13 8 11 3 7 2 4 2  68 25.30 2.42 .2936  Stuart Lake  4 7 9 2 3 3 8 7 3 4 5 1 1 2  59 26.32 3.45 .4491  StealBowron ako Lake River 1 0 1 2 2 3 2 6 4 3 5 9 1 1 1 2  1 1 3 5 5 4 10 8 4 3 1  43 45 27.41 26.48 3.37 2.27 .5139 .3384  Table LVI  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races  1941  No. o f Circuli  15 16 17 18 19 ao 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 - 33 34 35 36 37 38  Number Mean  S.D. S.E.  Cultus Lake  1 3 1 2 6 5 4 8 9 16 12 11 12 13 10 9 8 3 2 135 30.37 3.79 .3419  Weaver Creek  1 1 8 4 14 11 12 12 17 7 9 2  98 • 27.19 2.50 .2525  Birkenhead River  Pitt River  1 1 1 2 0 3 0 3 5 8 8 10 19 22 6 12 11 6 6 4 1 1  1 0 0 0 3 4 5 9 10 11 11 16 8 7 1 1 1 1 0 1  130 27.52 3.86 .3385  Chilko Lake  1 1 2 1 5 5 8 12 13 10 6 4 6 3 1 2 1  90 • 81 26.53 28.07 3.00 3.16 .3162 .3511  Stuart Lake  2 1 0 '5 5 8 8 24 23 27 23 26 15 16 12 7 2 0 1 205 26.49 3.16 .2208  Bowron Lake  1 1 3 2 6 2 6 12 7 17 5 7 3 7 4  83 27.26 '3.23 .3548  St' Rl  4 6 9 7 12 15 6 7 2 0 0 0 1 69  28.1  2. .27  (  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races 1942  Table LvTI  No. of Circuli 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Number Mean S. D. S. E.  Cultus Lake  1 0 2 0 1 7 8 9 17 10 15 15 12 9 9 9 3 127 32.96 3.25 .3886  Weaver Creek 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 5 5 9 6 8 16 6 4 5 5 2 79 31.72 3.54 .3982  Birkenhead River  1 2 4 1 7 12 7 5 8 10 5 7 2 3 1 75 32.14 3.17 .3660  Pitt River  Chilko River  1 1 2 7 3 2 4 5 10 10 3 4 3 4 4 0 1  3 3 3 3 8 11 11 10 13 7 3 3 1  64 27.98 3.66 .4575  79 28.11 2.71 .3051  Adams River 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 6 2 10 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 36 29.27 3.68 .6133  Stuart Lake  3 7 4 11 20 18 21 25 21 12 8 3 6 3  162 28.29 2.84 .2232  StellBowron ako Lake River 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 0 3 7 3 9 6 2 10 12 9 11 15 17 10 14 11 14 7 8 5 6 6 7 1 5 3 1 0 2 1 1 90 126 30.51 30 3.27 3 . 3447.33<  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races 1943  Table L V I I I  No. o f Circuli 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Number Mean S. D. S. E.  Cultus Lake 3 0 1 2 5 7 11 6 9 10 12 14 15 8 9 8 5 9 9 1 1 2 147 28.97 4.56 .3768  Weaver Creek  4 4 7 7 9 12 7 13 9 7 3 3 1 1 3 90 29.92 3.28 .3296  Birkenhead River  5 2 7 6 4 11 13 11 9 11 3 6 1 1 1  91 27.21 3.16 .3312  Pitt. River  1 2 2 5 6 2 5 2 6 1 3 0 1 4 2  42 27.61 3.82 .5895  Chilko River  4 3 8 7 7 6 2 6 2 4 3 2 1  55 25.87 3.17 .4274  Adams River  4 3 6 4 3 7 5 11 6 6 2 1 1 2  61 26.77 3.25 .4161  Stua r t Lake  Stell Bowron ako Lake River  4 2 4 8 10 11 20 17 24 20 22 14 13 8 9 7 1  1 5 2 2 9 10 3 6 4 3 7 0 0 0 1  3 3 3 8 5 10 12 18 4 8 4 8 1 2  53 27.73 3.00 .4120  89 :194 28.41 28.35 3.03 3.51 .3211 .2521  Table L I X  No. o f Circuli 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Number Mean S. D. S. E.  Cultus Lake  1 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 8 7 12 8 12 10 13 5 10 2 5 3 7 2 • 115 31.59 4.28 .4099  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races 1944 Weaver Creek  1 1 2 6 6 1 7 10 6 3 8 6 6 1 1 3 3 • 71 32.12 3.86 .4581  Birken head River 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 5 6 6 10 8 8 9 5 4 6 8 6 7 1 3 104. 31.24 4.75 .4661  Chilko Lake  1 0 0 1 3 3 4 9 17 11 5 5 12 5 5 1 1 1 1 85 . 31.43 3.20 .3471  Stuart Lake •  Adams River  4 1 3 4 2 5 5 1 4 16 7 6 6 5 0 3 0 2  74 28.33 4.07 .4731  1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 2 4 3 7 8 2 2  Bowron Lake  2 1 0 0 2 3 3 4 6 3 1  Stellc River  1 1 1 2 2 5 10 12 10 11 8 10 7 7 0 1 1  •  36 26.72 3.06 .5100  25 30.20 2.66 .5320  89. 27.55 3.06 .3243  Table LX  No. o f Circuli 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Number Mean S. D. S • E.  Cultus Lake  3 0 2 2 2 3 6 4 11 7 3 5 9 4 2 1 1 65 32.49 3.67 .4552  Weaver Creek  1 0 0 2 2 2 6 10 8 7 10 11 9 4 5 7 1 3 88 33.00 3.47 .3699  Number o f F i r s t Year S a l t Water Rings of the P r i n c i p a l F r a s e r R i v e r Races 1945 Birkenhead Chilko Stuart Pitt Lake Lake River River 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 3 5 0 1 1 1 2 4 4 8 0 8 5 3 6 7 12 17 2 12 5 16 7 23 8 5 13 21 20 20 12 4 13 16 31 9 9 23 19 19 7 19 8 21 15 1 8 7 1 2 12 12 3 7 16 2 1 5 16 0 3 8 2 0 9 1 1 1 6 1 3 3 218 91 151 144 27.15 27.68 28.62 32.21 3.39 3.29 3.80 3.53 .3450 .3296 .2941 .3104  •Bowron Lake  1 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 2 4 6 6 1 5 1 3 5 2  44 30.79 3.84 .5789  Stella River  1 1 0 0 5 3 6 4 8 11 10 7 7 5 2 3 2 0 0 2 77 29.50 3.66 .4170  Table LXT Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s s i and S2 of C u l t u s Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 2  1938 - 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 . 1945 1939 - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1940 - 1941 1942 1943 1944 " 1945 1941 - 1942 1943 1944 1945 1942 •- 1943 1944 1945 1943 - 1944 1945 . 1945 1944  Sl2  s 2  10.04 11.83 14.36 10.56 20.79 18.31 13.46 11.83 14.36 10.56 20.79 18.31 13.46 14.36 11.83 20.79 18.31 13.46 14.36 20.79 18.31 14.36 20.79 18.31 13.46 20.79 20.79 18.31  8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.41 10.04 10.04 10.04 10.04 10.04 10.04 11.83 10.56 11.83 11.83 11.83 10.56 14.36 14.36 13.46 10.56 10.56 10.56 18.31 13.46 13.46  2  ni 100 466 135 127 147 115 65 466 135 127 147 115 65 135 466 147 115 65 135 147 115 135 147 115 65 147 147 115  &2 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 100 100 100 100 100 100 466 127 466 466 466 127 135 135 65 127 127 127 115 65 65  2  F 1.18 1.38 1.69 1.25 2.44 2.16 1.60 1.16 1.42 1.05 2.06 1.82 1.34 1.22 1.10 1.76 1.55 1.15 1.34 1.44 1.27 1.05 1.95 1.72 1.27 1.13 1.53 1.35  F At L e v e l s  2%  1.74 1.63 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.79 1.46 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.64 1.42 1.40 1.37 1.42 1.47 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.71 1.54 1.54 1.59 1.54 1.71 1.71  10%  1.48 1.41 1.48* 1.48 1.48* 1.48* 1.50* 1.30 1.39 1.39 1.39* 1.39* 1.42 1.28 1.27 1.25* 1.28* 1.32 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.46 1.36* 1.36* 1.39 1.36 1.46* 1.46  * Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e .  Table L X I I Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s Sj_2 and Sg2 of Weaver Creek Second Season R i n g Counts 1938 - 1945 Years o f Comparison 1938  1939  1940  1941  1942 1943 1944  -  1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 mm 1942 1943 1944 1945 1943 1944 1945 — 1944 1945 1945  -  -  -  -  S]_2 10.24 10.24 10.24 12.53 10.75 14.89 12.04 9.12 6.76 12.53 10.75 14.89 12.04 9.12 12.53 10.75 14.89 12.04 12.53 10.75 14.89 12.04 12.53 14.89 12.53 14.89 12.04 14.89  sg2 6.76 9.12 6.25 10.24 10.24 10.24 10.24 6.76 6.25 6.76 6.76 6.76 6.76 6.25 9.12 9.12 9.12 9.12 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 10.75 12.53 12.04 10.75 10.75 12.04  ni  ng  77 77 77 79 90 71 88 84 45 127 90 71 88 84 79 90 71 88 79 90 71 88 79 71 79 71 88 71  45 84 98 77 77 77 77 45 135 45 45 45 45 98 84 84 84 84 98 98 98 98 90 79 88 90 90 88  F At L e v e l s F • 2$ 10% 1.50 1.12 1.64 1.22 1.04 1.45 1.17 1.33 1.09 1.80 1.57 2.18 1.76 1.46 1.37 1.17 1.63 1.31 2.01 1.72 2.39 1.92 1.16 1.19 1.04 1.38 1.11 1.24  1.92 1.70 1.64 1.70 1.65 1.-70 1.65 1.76 1.79 1.86 1.86 1.90 1.86 1.64 1.70 1.65 1.70 1.65 1.64 1.59 1.64 1.59 1.64 1.70 1.70 1.69 1.59 1.69  1.58 1.45 1.42* 1.45 1.42 1.45 1.42 1.48 1.49 1.54* 1.54* 1.56* 1.54* 1.42* 1.45 1.42 1.45* 1.42 1.42* 1.39* 1.42* 1.39* 1.42 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.39 1.45  * Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e .  Table L X I I I Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s s ^ and s of Birkenhead R i v e r Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 2  2  2  Years o f Comparison 1938 - 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1939 - 1940 • 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1940 - 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1941 - 1942 1943 1944 1945 1943 1942 1944 1945 1943 - 1944 1945 1944 - 1945  F  s^  2  18.49 18.49 18.49 18.49 18.49 22.56 18.49 11.83 14.89 11.83 11.83 22.56 14.44 14.89 10.04 9.98 22.56 14.44 14.89 14.89 22.56 14.89 10.04 22.56 14.44 22.56 14.44 22.56  a 2 2  11.83 9.92 14.89 10.04 9.98 18.49 14.44 9.92 11.83 10.04 9.98 11.83 11.83 9.92 9.92 9.92 9.92 9.92 10.04 9.98 14.89 14.44 9.98 10.04 10.04 9.98 9.98 14.44  n^ 17 17 17 17 17 104 17 168 130 168 168 104 151 130 75 91 104 151 130 130 103 130 75 104 151 104 151 104  n  2  168 179 130 75 ' 91 17 151 179 168 75 91 168 168 179 179 179 179 179 75 91 130 151 91 75 75 91 91 151  F  At L e v e l s 2% 10%  1.65 1.96 1.30 1.92 1.94 1.15 1.35 1.19 1.26 1.16 1.17 1.91 1.22 1.50 1.02 1.01 2.28 1.45 1.47 1.48 1.51 1.03 1.01 2.23 1.42 2.25 1.43 1.56  2.12 1.71 2.09 1.69* 2.15 1.72 2.28 1.79* 2.19 1.75* 2.76 2.02 2.12 1.71 1.39 1.26 1.51 1.34 1.62 1.40 1.51 1.34 'l.51 1.34* 1.43 1.29 1.48 1.32* 1.53 1.35 1.48 1.32 1.48 1.32* 1.39 1.26* 1.69 1.45* 1.59 1.39* 1.54 1.36* 1.46 1.31 1.69 1.45 1.45* 1.69 1.40* 1.62 1.39* 1.59 1.51 .1.34* 1.51 1.34*  * Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s of common v a r i a n c e .  Table LXIV  Comparison of V a r i a n c e s s-j^ and Sg2 of P i t t R i v e r Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945  Years of Comparison 1938 -  1940 -  1941 1942 1943 -  *  1940 1941 1942 1943 1945 1941 1942 1943 1945 1942 1943 1945 1943 1945 1945  S 2 1  13.83 13.83 13.39 14.59 13.83 10.36 13.39 14.59 12.46 13.39 14.59 12.46 14.59 13.39 14.59  S 2 2  n  l  48 10.36 9.00 48 64 13.83 13.83 42 48 12.46 9.00 112 10.36 64 10.36 42 10.36 144 9.00 64 9.00 42 9.00 144 13.39 42 12.46 64 12.46 42  n  2  112 90 48 48 144 90 112 112 112 90 90 90 64 144 144  F  F At L e v e l s 10$ 2%  1.35 1.55 1.03 1.05 1.13 1.14 1.30 1.42 1.19 1.50 1.64 1.37 1.09 1.08 .1.19  1.73 1.78 1.88 2.02 1.68 1.59 1.64 1.79 1.59 1.70 1.84 1.65 1-.90 1.56 1.72  1.48 1.51* 1.56 1.64 1.45 1.39 1.42 1.51 1.39 1.45* 1.54* 1.42 1.57 1.37 1.47  Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e  Table LXV Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s s i 2 and s 2 . o f C h i l k o Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 2  Years o f Comparison 1938  1939  1940  1941  1942 1943 1944  _  1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 - 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 — 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 — 1942 1943 1944 1945 - - 1943 1944 1945 - 1944 1945 — 1945  S 2 2  24.30 24.30 24.30 24.30 24.30 24.30 24.30 10.36 10.36 10.36 10.36 10.36 10.82 9.98 9.98 10.04 10.24 10.82 9.98 10.04 10.24 10.82 10.04 10.24 10.82 10.24 10.82 10.82  10.36 9.98 9.98 7.34 10.04 10.24 10.82 9.98 9.98 7.34 10.04 10.24 10.36 9.98 7.34 9.98 9.98 9.98 7.34 9.98 9.98 9.98 7.34 7.34 7.34 10.04 10.04 10.24  n  l  43 43 43 43 43 43 43 78 78 78 78 78 91 81 83 55 85 91 81 55 85 91 55 85 91 85 91 91  n  2  78 83 81 79 55 85 91 83 81 79 55 85 78 83 79 83 83 83 79 81 81 81 79 79 79 55 55 85  F-  F At Levels 2% 10%  2.36 2.46 2.46 3.34 2.43 2.40 2.26 1.03 1.03 1.40 1.02 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.35 1.01 1.02 1.08 1.35 1.01 1.03 1.08 1.37 1.39 1.47 1.01 1.06 1.05  1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.96 1.84 1.79 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.82 1.70 1.57 1.70 1.70 1.78 1.70 1.65 1.70 1.78 1.70 1.65 1.78 1.70 1.65 1.82 1.78 1.65  1.54* 1.54* 1.54* 1.54* 1.61* 1.54* 1.51* 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.52 1.45 1.38 1.45 1.45 1.51 1.45 1.42 1.45 1.51 1.45 1.42 1.51 1.45 1;42* 1.52 1.50 1.42  Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e .  Table LXVI Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s Sj_2 and s 2 of Adams R i v e r Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1944 2  Years! O f Compa r i s o n 1938 - 1939 1940 1942 1943 1944 1939 - 1940 1942 1943 1944 1940 - 1942 1943 1944 1942 - 1943 1944 1943 - 1944  Si2  16.08 16.08 16.08 16.08 16.56 8.00 13.54 10.56 16.56 13.54 10.56 16.56 13.54 16.56 16.56  s 2 2  8.00 5.85 13.54 10.56 16.08 5.85 8.00 8.00 8.00 5.85 5.85 5.85 10.56 13.54 10.56  ni  *2  203 71 68 203 203 36 61 203 74 203 71 68 36 71 61 71 74 71 36 68 61 68 68 74 36 61 74 36 61 74  F  F. At L e v e l s 10$ 2%  1.98 2.71 1.16 1.50 1.03 1.36 1.70 1.32 2.06 2.34 1.80 2.82 1.29 1.20 1.20  1.62 1.62 1.94 1.68 1.53 1.74 1.88 1.82 1.74 1.88 1.82 1.74 1.86 2.04 2.04  1.40* 1.40* 1.59 1.44* 1.35 1.47 1.56* 1.53 1.47* 1.56* 1.53* 1.47* 1.'56 1.65 1.65  * Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e ;  0  Table LXvTI Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s s^8 and s 8 of S t u a r t Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 2  t  F At L e v e l s  Years of Comparison 1938 -  1939 -  1940 -  1941 .-  194E 1943 1944 -  1939 1940 1941 1948 1943 1944 1945 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1942 1943 1944 1945 1943 1944 1945 1944 1945 1945  s 2 2  6.81 11.90 9.98 8.06 9.00 9.36 11.49 11.90 9.98 8.06 9.00 9.36 11.49 11.90 11.90 11.90 11.90 11.90 9.98 9.98 9.98 11.49 9.00 9.36 11.49 9.36 11.49 11.49  5.80 6.81 6.81 6.81 6.81 6.81 6.81 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.80 5.80 9.98 8.06 9.00 9.36 11.49 8.06 9.00 9.36 9.98 8.06 8.06 8.06 9.00 9.00 9. 36  n  l  168 59 205 162 53 36 218 59 205 162 53 36 218 59 59 59 59 59 205 205 205 218 53 36 218 36 218 218  n  2  77 168 168 168 168 168 168 77 77 77 77 77 77 205 162 53 36 218 162 53 36 205 162 162 162 53 53 36  F  2%  10%  1.16 1.76 1.46 1.18 1.33 1.40 1.68 2.05 1.70 1.37 1.55 1.63 1.96 1.20 1.49 1.31 1.25 1.04 1.23 1.09 1.04 1.15 1.13 1.18 1.42 1.04 1.25 1.19  1.57 1.66 1.43 1.43 1.66 1.72 1.43 1.78 1.57 1.57 1.78 1.84 1.57 1.62 1.66 1.90 2.12 1.62 1.43 1.71 1.94 1.39 1.66 1.72 1.43 1.96 1.71 1.94  1.38 1.44* 1.89* 1.39 1.44 1.47 1.89* 1.51* 1.38* 1.38 1.51* 1.54* 1.38* 1.48 1.44 1.58 1.69 1.48 1.89 1.46 1.59 1.86 1.44 1.47 1.89* 1.61 1.46 1.59  *Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e .  Table L2CVTII Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s s-,2 and s 2 of Bowron Lake Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945 2  Years Of Comparison 1938 -  1939 -  1940 -  1941 -  1942 1943 1944 -  1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1942 1943 1944 1945 1943 1944 1945 1944 1945 1945  *  S2 2  8.88 11.35 10.43 10.69 8.88 8.88 14.74 11. 35 10.43 10.69 9.18 7.07 14.74 11.35 11.35 11.35 11.35 14.74 10.69 10.43 10.43 14.74 10.69 10.69 14.74 9.18 14.74 14.74  n  l  16 5.33 8.88 43 8.88 83 8.88 90 9.18 16 7.07 16 8.88 44 5.33 43 5.33 83 5.33 90 5.33 89 5.33 25 5.33 44 10.43 43 10.69 43 43 9*18 43 7.07 11* 35 44 10.43 90 83 9.18 7.07 83 10.43 44 90 9.18 90 7.07 10.69 . 44 89 7.07 9.18 44 7.07 44  n  2  87 16 16 16 89 25 16 87 87 87 87 87 87 83 90 89 25 43 83 89 25 83 89 25 90 25 89 25  F  F At L e v e l s 10% 2%  1.75 1.22 1.11 1.14 1.01 1.28 1.59 2.15 1.95 2.00 li72 li36 2.79 1.10 1.07 " 1.25 1.57 1.29 1.03 1.13 1.43 • 1.42 1.16 1.46 1.39 1.26 1.62 2.04  2.24 3.01 2.89 2.86 2.24 3il8 3.01 1.84 1.70 1.65 li65 2i03 1*84 1.84 li84 1.84 2.45 2.06 1.65 1.70 2.32 1.84 1.65 2.29 1.79 2.29 1.79. 2.45  1.77 2.16 2.09 2.07 1.77 2.24 2.16 1.54* 1.45* 1.42* 1.42* 1.65 1.54* 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.87 1.66 1.42 1.45 1.80 1.54 1.42 1.77 1.51 1.77 1.51* 1.87*  * Samples not drawn from p o p u l a t i o n s o f common v a r i a n c e .  Table I2ZEX  Years of Comparison 1938  1939  -  1940  -  1941  -  1942  —  1943 1944  -  1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1942 1943 1944 1945 1943 1944 1945 1944 1945 1945  Comparison o f V a r i a n c e s S3_2 and Sg2 of S t e l l a k o R i v e r Second Season Ring Counts 1938 - 1945  S2 X  8.82 7.89 7.89 13.76 12.32 9.36 13.39 8.82 8.82 13.76 12.32 9.36 13.39 5.15 13.76 12.32 9.36 13.39 13.76 12.32 9.36 13.39 13.76 13.76 13.76 12.32 13.39 13.39  s 2 2  7.89 5.15 5.10 7.89 7.89 7.89 7.89 5.15 5.10 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 5.10 5.15 5.15 5.15 5.15 5.10 5.10 5.10 5.10 12.32 9.36 13.39 9.36 12.32 9.36  n  l  82 82 82 126 194 89 77 82 82 126 194 89 77 45 126 194 89 77 126 194 89 77 126 126 126 194 77 77  n  2  82 45 69 82 82 82 82 45 69 82 82 82 82 69 45 45 45 45 69 69 69 69 194 89 77 89 194 89.  * Samples not drawn frompopulations  F 1.11 1.51 1.54 1.73 1.54 1.18 1.69 1.69 1.72 1.55 1.38 1.06 1.51 1.01 2.63 2.34 1.79 2.57 2.67 2.38 1.82 2.61 1.12 1.46 1.02 1.30 1.09 1.43  F At L e v e l s 2<fo  10$  1.70 1.90 1.74 1.65 1.57 1.65 1.70 1.90 1.74 1.65 1.57 1.65 1.70 1.82 1.86 1.80 1.86 1.90 1.69 1.62 1.69 1.74 1.48 1.65 1.69 1.57 1.53 1.70  1.45 1.57 1.47* 1.42* 1.38* 1.42 1.45* 1.57* 1.47* 1.42* 1.38 1.42 1.45* 1.53 1.54* 1.51* 1.54* 1:57*  1.45* 1.40* 1.45* 1.47* 1.32 1.42* 1.45 1.38 1.35 1.45  o f common v a r i a n c e .  Table LX2C Comparison of Fraser River Races by Number of Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n Salt Water  Races Compared Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Total Specimens  1938 Difference Between Means  Standard Error of Difference Between Means  t  139 79 110 105 265 230 88 144  3.22 2.78 4.53 3.59 5.74 5.84 5.63 3.69  .5176 1.1045 .6503 .8378 .4626 .7355 .8306 .4806  6.22 2.51* 6.96 4.28 12.40 7.94 6.77 7.67  94 125 120 280 245 93 159  0.44 1.31 0.37 2.52 2.62 2.41 0.47  1.1045 .6488 .8360 .4604 .7334 .8394 .4785  0.39* 2.01* 0.44* 5.47 3.57 2.90 0.98*  65 60 220 185 33 99  1.75 0.81 2.96 3.06 2.85 0.91  1.1705 1.2845 1.2961 1.2207 1.2806 1.0863  1.49* 0.63* 2.28* 2.50* 2.22* 0.83*  91 251 216 68 130  0.94 1.21 1.31 1.10 0.84  .9241 .8031 .8324 .9181 .6196  ' - 1.01* 1.50* . 1.57* 1.19* 1.35*  246 211 59 125  2.15 2.04 2.25 0.10  .8031 .9853 1.0583 .8136  < 2.670  371 219 285  0.11 0.11 2.05  .6957 .7962 .4183  0.15* 0.13* 4.90  184 250  0.21 2.15  .9798 .7078  2.14* 3.03  98  1.94  .8068  2.40*  * - of no significance o - of doubtful significance  v  2.28* 2.12* 0.12*  Table LXXI Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races byNumber o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1939  Races Compared Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Total Difference Specimens Between Means  Standard Error of Difference Between Means  145 268 178 171 177 187 182  2.95 3.75 4.97 6.00 6.25 5.66 4.42  .5010 .4135 .4827 .4615 .4195 .4024 .4560  213 123 116 122 132 127  0.80 2.02 3.05 3.30 2.71 1.47  .4690 .5319 .5128 .4243 .4593 .5079  1.70* 3.79 6.94 6.96 5.90 2.89  246 239 245 255 250  1.22 2.25 2.50 1.91 0.67  .4505 .4277 .3807 .3619 .4207  2.70O 5.26 6.56 5.27 1.59*  149 155 165 160  1.03 1.28 0.69 0.55  .4949 .4560 .4404 .4899  2.08* 1.56* 1.12*  148 158 153  0.25 0.34 1.58  .4335 .4171 .4690  0.57* 0. 81* 3.36  164 159  0.59 1.83  .3687 .4266  1. 60* 4.28  169  1.24  .4208  3.01  * - o f no s i g n i f i c a n c e o - of doubtful significance  5.88 9.06 10.29 13.00 14.89 14.06 9.69  2.80O  Table LXXII Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races byNumber o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1940 aces Compared Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Mams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Total Difference Specimens Between Means  Standard Error of Difference Between Means  550 645 578 549 534 525 509 511  3.02 4.22 6.03 5.19 6.52 5.50 4.41 5.34  .3660 .2853 .3435 .3807 .3331 .4764 .5375 .3741  263 196 167 152 143 127 129  1.20 3.01 2.17 3*50 2*48 1.39 2.32  .4049 ;4483 .4774 .4404 .5567 .6099 .4722  2.96 6.71 4.54 7.94 4.45 8.27* 4.91  291 262 247 238 222 224  1*81 0.97 2.30 1.28 0.19 1.12  *3847 .4195 .3768 .5069 .5648 .4123  4.70 2.31* 6.10 2.52* .33* 2.71o  195 180 171 155 157  0.84 0.49 0.53 1.62 0.69  .4604 .4219 .5422 .5966 .4549  1.82* 1.16* 0.97* 2.7lo 1.51*  151 142 126 128  1.33 0.31 0.78 0.15  .4538 .5665 .6196 .4837  2.93 0.54* 1.25* 0.31*  127 111 113  1.02 2.11 1.18  .5357 .5916 .4472  1.90* 3.56 2.63o  102 104  1.09 0.16  .6819 • .5621  1.59* 0.28*  88  0.93 .6148 * - ©f no s i g n i f i c a n c e o - of doubtful significance  t  8.25 14.79 17.55 13.63 19.57 11.54 8.20 14.27  1.51*  Table LXXIII Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races by Number o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1941  Races Compared Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Standard E r r o r of Total Difference Difference Specimens Between Means Between Means  t  233 265 225 216 340 218 204  3.18 2.85 3.84 2.30 3.88 3.11 2.30  .4242 .4806 .4647 .4899 .4062 .4919 .4358  7.49 5.93 8.26 4.69 9.55 6.32 5.27  228 188 179 303 181 167  0.33 0.66 0.88 0.70 0.07 0.88  .4219 .4037 .4324 .3346 .4347 .3701  0.78* 1.63* 2.03* 2.09* 0.16* 2.37*  220 211 335 213 199  0.99 0.55 1.03 0.26 0.55  .4626 . 4868 .4037 .4899 .4335  2.14* 1.12* 2.55* 0.53* 1.26*  171 295 173 159  1.54 0.04 0.73 1.54  .4722 .3847 .4743 .4159  3.26 0.10* 1.53* 3.70  286 164 150  1.58 0.81 0.00  .4147 .4990 .4438  3.80 1.62* 0.00*  288 274  0.77 1.58  .4171 .3507  1.84* 4.50  152  0.81  .4460  1.81*  * Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e  Table LXXI7 Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races by Number o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1942  Races Compared Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Pitt Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron  Standard E r r o r of Total Difference Difference Specimens Between Means Between Means  t  206 202 191 206 163 289 217 253  1.24 0.82 4.98 4.85 3.69 4.67 2.45 2.54  .5558 .5329 .6000 .4939 .7259 .4472 .5186 .5099  2.23* 1.53* 8.30 9.81 5.08 10.44 4.72 4.98  154 143 158 115 241 169 205  0.42 3.74 3.61 2.45 3.43 1.21 1.30  .5403 .6064 .5015 .8566 .4560 .5263 .5172  0.77* 6.16 7.19 2.86 7.52 2.29* 2.51*  139 154 111 237 165 201  4.16 4.03 2.87 3.85 1.63 1.72  .5856 .4764 .7141 .4283 .5020 .4929  7.10 8.45 4.01 8.98 3.24 3.49  - 143 100 226 154 190  0.13 1.29 0.31 2.53 2.44  .5495 .7648 .5089 .5727 .5639  0.23* 1.68* 0.60* 4.41 4.32  115 241 169 205  1.16 0.18 2.40 2.31  .6848 .3775 .4593 .4494  1.69* 0.47* 5.22 5.14  198 126 162  0.98 1.24 1.15  .6519 .7028 .6964  1.50* 1.76* 1.65*  252  2.22  .4098  5.41  Table LXXIT Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races by Number o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1942  Races Compared  Standard Error of Total Difference Difference Specimens Between Means Between Means  S t u a r t (cont'd) Stellako 288 Bowron Stellako 216  ' t  2.13  .3987  5.34  G.09  .4774  0.18*  Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e  Table LXXV Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races byNumber o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1943 Standard Error of Total Difference Difference Specimens Between Means Between Means  Races Compared Cultus Weaver 237 Birkenhead 238 189 Pitt Chilko 202 Adams 208 200 Stuart Bowron 236 Stellako 341 Weaver Birkenhead 181 Pitt 132 Chilko 145 Adams 151 143 Stuart 179 Bowron Stellako 284 Birkenhead? 133 Pitt 146 Chilko Adams 152 Stuart 144 180 Bowron 285 Stellako Pitt 97 Chilko 103 Adams Stuart 95 131 Bowron 236 Stellako Chilko 116 Adams 108 Stuart Bowron 144 249 Stellako Adams 114 Stuart 150 Bowron 255 Stellako Stuart 142 Bowron 247 Stellako Bowron-Stellako 283 * - Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e  t  0.95 1.76 1.36 3.10 2.20 1.24 0.56 0.62 .  .5006 .5010 .6992 .5692 .5612 .5576 .4949 .4527  1.89* 3.51 1.94* 5.44 3.92 2.22* 1.13* 1.36*  2.71 2.31 4.05 3.15 2.19 1.51 1.57  .4669 .6752 .5394 .5300 .5272 .4593 .4147  5.80 3.42 7.50 5.94 4.15 3.28 3.77  0.40 1.34 0.44 0.52 1.20 1.14  .67 60 .5403 .5310 .5282 .4604 .4159  0.59* 2.48* 0.82* 0.98* 2.60O 2.74  1.74 0.84 0.12 0.80 0.74  .7 280 .7211 .7190 .6708 .6410  2.39* 1.16* 0.16* 1.19* 1.15*  0.90 1.86 2.54 2.48  .5958 .5933 . 5338 .4959  1.51* 3.13 4.75 5.00  0.96 1.64 1.58  .5848 .5253 .4858  1.64* 3.12 3.25  1.30* .5215 0.68 .4827 1.28* 0.62 .4074 0.14* 0.06 o - of d o u b t f u l s i g n i f i c a n c e  Table LXXVT Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races byNumber o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water 1944 Standard E r r o r of Total Difference Difference Jaces Compared Specimens Between Means Between Means Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Adams Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako N  t  186 119 200 189 151 140 204  0.53 0.25 0.16 3.26 4.87 1.39 4.04  .6140 .6204 .5366 .6253 .6542 .6715 .5224  0.86* 0.40* 0.29* 5.21 7.44 2.06* 7.73  175 156 145 107 96 160  0.88 0.69 3.79 5.40 1.92 4.57  .6534 .5744 . 6580 . 6848 .7014 .5612  1.34* 1.20* 5.75 7.88  185 178 140 129 193  0.09 2.91 4.52 1.04 3.69  .5805 .6640 .6906 .7071 .5674  0.15* 4.38 6.54 1.47* 6.50  159 121 110 174  3.10 4.71 1.23 3.88  .5865 .6164 .6348 .4743  5.28 7.64 1.93* 8.18  110 99 163  1.61 1.87 0.78  .6949 .7113 .5727  2.31* 2.620 1.36*  61 125  3.48 0.83  .7368 .6041  4.72 1.37*  114  2.65  .6229  4.25  * - Of no S i g n i f i c a n c e o - Of d o u b t f u l s i g n i f i c a n c e  2.730  8.14  Table LXXVII  Comparison o f F r a s e r R i v e r Races by Number o f Rings Produced i n F i r s t Season i n S a l t Water  1945  Races Compared Cultus Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Weaver Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Birkenhead Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Pitt Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Chilko Stuart Bowron Stellako Stuart. Bowron Stellako Bowron Stellako  Standard Error of Total Difference Difference Specimens Between Means Between Means  153 216 209 156 283 109 142  0. 51 0. 28 4*.81  t  3; 87 5. 57 2. 99  5. 34  • 5865 . 5504 . 5412 .5709 . 5612 .7362 .6172  0.86* 0'. 50* 8.88 9 ' . 35 6.89 7.56 4.84  239 232 179 306 132 165  0. 79 5".32 5. 85 4. 38 2. 21 3. 50  .4827 -.4722 5049 .4949 . 6862 . 5567  1. 63* 11. 26 i r . 58 8'. 85 3.22 6.28  295 242 369 195 228  4. 55 5. 06 3. 59 1. 42 2. 71  .4266 .4636 . 4516 .6565 .5196  10.66 10.91 7*. 94 2.16* 5.21  235 362 188 221  0. 53 0, 94 3. 11 1. 82  .4527 .4415 .6488 .5099  r.17* 2.12* 4.79 4.56  309 135 168  r. 47 3. 64 2".35  .4764 .6738 . 5403  3.08 5.40 4.34  262 295  2. 17 0. 88  .6655 .5310  121  1. 29  .7134  3.26 1. 65* T.80*  *"- Of no s i g n i f i c a n c e  1  Table LXXvTII  Locality  C o r r e l a t i o n Between F i r s t Season L a c u s t r i n e Rings and F i r s t Season S a l t Y/ater o r Second Season Rings 1938 - 1945  No. o f Pairs  Degrees o f Freedom  Lacustrine Rings  sUi-xi)  6  r a t 13&5#  S a l t Water Rings  s(x -x- r  8*1  2  2  2C  2  r  l e v e l s o f sig ifo  3?o  C u l t u s Lake  8  6  54.37  12.31  10.65 + .4127  .834  .707  Weaver Creek  8  6  7.20  25.54  5.74 -.4251  .834  .707  Birkenhead R i v e r 8  6  10.02  30.65  3.00 +.1714  .834  .707  P i t t River  6.  4  42.30  3.65  4.79 +.3862  .917  .811  C h i l k o Lake  8  6  15.98  19.44  12.19 -.6926  .834  .707  Adams R i v e r  6  4  11.34  10.33  5.07 -.4694  .917  .811  Bowron Lake  8  6  7.00  21.20  8.22 +.6850  .834  .707  S t u a r t Lake  8  6  10.14  6.50  5.63 +.6950  .834  .707  Stellako River  8  6  21.40  9.9  1.34 -.0924  .834  .707  Table LXXIX  Number o f Rings 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Number Mean  Comparison o f Number o f F i r s t Season Rings from S c a l e s o f A d u l t and Y e a r l i n g Migrant Sockeye o f the Same Brood Year Brood Year 1936 1937""" 1938 1939  1940  Y e a r l . Adult Y e a r l . Adult Y e a r l . Adult Y e a r l . Adult Y e a r l . Adult S c a l e s S c a l e s S c a l e s S c a l e s S c a l e s S c a l e s S c a l e s S c a l e s S c a l e s Scales  1 1 7 19 27 41 44 44 36 17 1 1  3 6 13 25 28 90 87 95 56 47 26 12 4  239 492 14.93 13.44  1 1 2 9 8 22 20 17 9 3  2 1 4 0 2 6 13 21 17 18 16 11 9 8 3  1 2 5 11 11 36 35 46 30 20 8 4  4 8 14 26 51 55 50 37 23 14 8 2  1 4 34 65 72 39 11 3 1  1 17 19 39 31 21 17 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 1  3 8 16 44 50 44 26 9 3  2 4 9 14 15 20 7 16 12 7 3 3 2  230 203 292 163 131 114 209 92 9.09 13.11 12 8.67 19.56 17.43 17.43 13.39  Table LXXX Number o f L a c u s t r i n e F i r s t Season R i n g s and S i z e o f Y e a r l i n g Sockeye P o p u l a t i o n - C u l t u s Lake  Year o f Yearling Migration  Number i n Yearling Migration  Number o f F i r s t Year Rings of Yearlings  1,617,414  14.93  1939  196,393  19.56  1940  1,374,800  17.43  1941  3,979,156  8.67  1942  1,764,517  13.11  1938  Fig.2 .  Correlation  between  number  season  Stellako 21  Pitt  River  River  -  ©  -  x  of  circuli  growth  zone  and width  of  first  ©  G ©  20  .  j  O  0  19 ©  18 *  17  ©  «  16  £>  *  *•  ©  0  O  0  0  0  0  0  O  ©  ©  O  G'  0  O  ©  O  15 X  X  ©  *  ©  0  14 E  © x -e  '3  ©  E  £  >C  1 2  x x •* ©  II  io X  5  6  7  8  X  9  %  X  X  10  II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 Rings  Fig. 3  Pitt River sockeye scale showing radii along which all ring counts were made.  Fig.4.  Percentage  distribution  of f i r s t 1938 -  season  rings,  Cultus  Lake  1945  1945  1944  30 20-  1943  10  1942  1941  1940  1939  1938  0  1 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  II  12  13 14  Rings  15 16  17  18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4  Fig.5.  Percentage  distribution  of  first season  rings,  Weaver  Creek  1938-1945  3C  1945  20 10  30  1944  20 10 0 30  1943  20 10  1  0 •  30  I  1942  2 20 S io a.  S u c 3 tt  30  1941  20 10 0 30-  1940  20 10 0  '  30  '  »  1939  20 10  1  0 30-  1  1938  20 100  5  6  7  8  9  10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 R i ngs  Fig.6 Percentage distribution of first season rings,  Birkenhead River  1938-1945  30 20 .  1945  10 30 20  1944  I0f  0 30 20  1943  10  o30 20  1942  10 30 2tf  3020-  194 1  1940  10-  i—r 30  30f 20  2  1939  1938  3  4  5 6 7  8  9  10  II  12 13 |4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  Rings  Fig.7.  Percentage  distribution  of  first seoson rings,  1938,  30  Pitt  River.  1940-1944  I 945  20 10  3020-  I 9 43  1030  I 942  20 10  30  1941  20 10  30  1940  20 10  30" 20-  1938  IO4  5  6  7  8  9  10  II  12 13 14 Rings  15  16 17  18 19 2 0 21 2 2  23 2 4 25 26  27  Fig.8.  Percentoge distribution of first season rings, Chilko Lake. 1938-19 45  1945  1944  1943  I 942  l~H 194 1  1940  I 939  1938  io0  4  a  5 6 7  8  9  10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2tf" Rings  Fig.9. Percentage distribution of first season rings,  Adams River  1938-40, 1942-44  3020  I 944  10  0 30 20-  1943  10-  I—r  0 30 20  1942  10 0 3020  1940  10 0 30 20-  1939  10 0 30" 20-  0  1938  12  3 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Rings  Fig.10. Percentage distribution of first season rings, Stuart Lake. 1938-1945  1945  30  944  20100 30  1943  2010  o30  1942  20" 10"  o30 1941  2010-  o30-  1940  2010-  o30-  1939  2010030-  1938  5  6  7  8  9 10  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Rings  Fig.II  Percentage distribution of first season rings, Bowron 1938-1945  Lake  1945  1944  1943  1942  1941  30" 20"  1940  io-  3020" 10-  1939  1938 r-r-i  4  5 6  7  8  9 10 II 12 13 14 B Rings  16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 26 27  Fig. 12. Percentage distribution  of first seoson rings,  Stellako  River  1938-1945  4  5  6  7 8  9  10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  Fig.13. Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 1938 30 20 • Stellako River 10 • 0 30 20-  Stuart Lake  10 0 30 20-  Weaver Creek  10 0 3C20-  Pitt  River  LI  10 0 30 20  Bowron Lake  10  i—i—1  0 30 20 10  Adams River  n-,  0  •  —  30 20-  Chilko Lake  10 0 30 20  Birkenhead River  10 0 30 20 10 0  I I  1.  Cultus Lake  I 2  3  4  5  6 7  8 9 D  II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Scale Rings  Fig.14. Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 3 9  30 20  Stellako River  10  r-TT  0 30 20  Stuart Lake  10 0 30 20  Weaver Creek  10 0 30 20  Bowron Loke  10 0 30 20  Adams River  10 0 30 20  Chilko Lake  10 0 30 20  Birkenhead River  10 0 30 20 10 0 I  Cultus Lake  2 3 4 5 6 7 8  9 10  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Scale Rings  Fig.15. Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 4 0 3020 . Stellako River 10 0 30 20 100 30  Stuart Lake  Weaver Creek  20 IOf  UL  0 30 Pitt River  20 o  10 0  0.  30 20-  Bowron Lake  io-  0 3020-  Adams River  100 30f 20  Chilko Lake  10 0 3020  Birkenhead River  10  Ct 30 20 10} 0  1 2  Cultus Lake  3  4 5 6  7 8  9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Scale  Rings  Fig.16.  Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 1 9  3 0 '  Stellatv/o  2 0 -  River  10-  0 3 0 -  Stuart  2 0  Lake  10 • 0  -  3 0  O  2 0 -  C  1 0 -  a> u w  o-  •  a.  Weaver Creek  30  o2  0 -  Pitt River  >s u 10  c  0>  3 cr  0 -  a> 3 0  Iwi .  2 0  Bowron Lake  a  10  o3 0 ;  2 0  Chilko Loke  10 0 3 0 2 0  Birkenhead River  10-  o3 0 2 0  Cultus Lake  10 0  Scale  Rings  4  1  F i Q .17 Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 4 2 Stellako River  Stuart Lake  Weaver Creek  20 10 0 30  Pitt River  20 10 0 30  Bowron Lake  20 10 0 3020.  Adams River  100 30Chilko Lake  2010-  rH  0 30-  Birkenheatf River  2010030-  Cultus Lake  20-  4  5 6 7 8  9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Scale Rings  Fig.18. Comparison of first yeor scale ring counts of Fraser River races 19 43 30  Stellako River  20 10  1—1  30S tuart Lake  20 100 30  Weaver Creek  20 10  1—I  0 30 Pitt River  20 10 3020  Bowron Lake  10 30 Adams River  20 10-  i—r 3020-  Chilko Lake  10 30 20  ±z£J Birkenhead River  10 30-  tt=[ Cultus Lake  20 103  4  5  6 7 8  9  10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Scale Rings  Fig.19 Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River 19 4 4  3020-  races  Steltako River  10-  o3020-  Stuart Lake  1003020-  Weaver Creek  10-  • a> o c u  o3020-  Bowron  a. 10w 0o >» 30u c «  cr  Lake  Adams River  2010' 03020-  Chilko Lake  1003020-  Birkenhead River  10-  JZhzl  0-  4  5 6  7 8  9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Scale Rings  Fig.20 Comparison of first year scale ring counts of Fraser River  races  19 4 5  30  Stellako River  20 10 30  20 . Stuart Lake 10-  30  Pitt River  20 1030 20  „ Chilko Lake  10-  Birkenhead River  3 4  5  6  7 6  9  10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 26 27 Scole  Rings  Fig.21  Variation between years in mean first seoson ring counts using  l  i  t  1938 as base year  *  —~r  1938 1939 1940  Locality  Fig. 2 2  Stellako River sockeye tagged at Sooke, 1945. One year in lake,in fourth year. Twenty-one rings in first season.  Fig. 23  Chilko sockeye taken at spawning grounds, 1944 One  year  in lake.  Fig.24 Harrison River sockeye  taken ot spawning grounds, 1940  Showing very indistinct first season winter "check'.'  Fig.25 Weaver Creek sockeye taken at spawning grounds,1944. Sixteen rings in first season.  Fig.28  Stuort Loke sockeye togged ot Sooke Traps, 1945. One year in lake in fourth year. Note large nucleus.  4  3  2  Fig. 29  Pitt River sockeye captured at Pitt Lake for tagging, one year in lake, in fifth year.  Fig. 30  Adams River sockeye taken at spawning grounds , one year in lake, showing additional "check" in second season (A )  

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.831.1-0107059/manifest

Comment

Related Items