UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the tagging method in the enumeration of sockeye salmon populations Howard, Gerald Vincent 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 H6 S7.pdf [ 10.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0107074.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0107074-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0107074-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0107074-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0107074-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0107074-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0107074-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0107074-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0107074.ris

Full Text

A Study of the Tagging Method i n the Enumeration of Sockeye Salmon Populations by Gerald Vincent Howard A Thesis submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of The Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of BIOLOGY AND BOTANY The University of B r i t i s h Columbia APRIL, 1947 CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION 1 II. METHODS 4 .Counting and tagging the f i s h 4 Examining the dead f i s h , 4 I I I RESULTS .... 6 Number of sockeye tagged & Number of dead sockeye examined -6. Duration and magnitude of the two sockeye runs .... 7 Sex and s i z e r a t i o s of the two sockeye populations. 7 Nature of the runs 8 C a l c u l a t i o n of the number of sockeye on the spawning grounds 12 1. A p p l i c a t i o n of the t e s t of homogeneity .... 12 2. Homogeneity of the t a g r a t i o data f o r 1938. 14 3. P o p u l a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r 1938 19 4. Homogeneity of the tag r a t i o data f o r 1939. 19 5. P o p u l a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r 1939 23 6,. Standard e r r o r of the c a l c u l a t e d popula-t i o n s 24 Reduction of the tagging p e r i o d 25 1, T h e o r e t i c a l considerations. 25 2. Reduction of the tagging p e r i o d i n 1938 ... 28 3.. Reduction of the tagging p e r i o d i n 1939 ... 33 IV DISCUSSION 36 Y" SUMMARY-AND CONCLUSIONS 38 VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 41 VI I LITERATURE CITED ' 43 A Study of the Tagging Method  in the Enumeration of Sockeye Salmon Populations by Gerald Vincent Howard. ABSTRACT In 1938 and again in 1939 the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission conducted experiments at Cultus Lake in order to test a method of calculating sockeye salmon populations by tagging a certain proportion of the run and to determine the accuracy of the calculated populations. In addition, these experiments were designed to test the value of certain standard s t a t i s t i c a l procedures which are employed in the analysis of the data. A l l the sockeye entering the lake were counted through a weir in order to check the accuracy of the calculated populations. The sexes had differential times of migration into the lake. The major portion of each run died within a 7-week period. Tagged fish lived a shorter period of time after passing through the weir than the untagged fish did. A higher ratio of tagged fish died immediately above the tagging location and indicated handling causes some harm to these fi s h . Accurate results were obtained when certain conditions were f u l f i l l e d . Sampling of the dead fish should be conducted throughout the season i n a uniform manner. The tag r a t i o should be determined from the t o t a l number of f i s h examined r e g a r d l e s s of sex or s i z e . Use of the Ghi-square t e s t of homogeneity i n order to determine whether or not the tagged f i s h are u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d i n the po p u l a t i o n has an important a p p l i c a t i o n p r o v i d i n g tagging operations commence p r i o r t o the time the major p o r t i o n of the run commences t o d i e . Accurate r e s u l t s are obtained a l s o from tagging d u r i n g l i m i t e d periods of the m i g r a t i o n but should commence p r i o r t o the time the major p o r t i o n of the run begins to d i e . A Study of the Tagging Method i n the Enumeration of Sockeye Salmon Populations INTRODUCTION A run of salmon r e t u r n i n g t o a r i v e r system as a d u l t s i n a given year c o n s i s t s u l t i m a t e l y of two p o r t i o n s , a m o r t a l i t y group ( e i t h e r the r e s u l t of f i s h i n g or of n a t u r a l causes or both) and an escapement group which reaches the spawning grounds. Since the measurement of the t o t a l run i s a funda-mental requirement f o r the c o n t r o l of the sockeye salmon f i s h e r y of the Fra s e r R i v e r , methods f o r enumerating the i n -d i v i d u a l components are necessary. The numbers of sockeye salmon taken by the f i s h e r y can be .determined by a complete system of catch s t a t i s t i c s . Up u n t i l the present time l i t t l e has been done towards the complete e v a l u a t i o n of ,the various l o s s e s r e s u l t i n g from n a t u r a l mor-t a l i t y . Although the determination of the numbers which escape t o the spawning grounds i s d i f f i c u l t , s o l u t i o n s of t h i s problem are being devised. On some t r i b u t a r i e s of the F r a s e r i t i s p o s s i b l e to erect weirs and a c c u r a t e l y enumerate the f i s h as, f o r example, at C u l t u s , Bowron and Seton Lakes. However, t h i s method i s not a p p l i c a b l e i n some spawning areas and even to apply i t everywhere p o s s i b l e would e n t a i l a great expenditure of •funds. In l i e u of the weir method a system of -2-tagging has been studied and a p p l i e d to enumerate the spawning populations of many of the t r i b u t a r i e s t o the F r a s e r R i v e r . At a s u i t a b l e place near the entrance to a spawning area, a number of m i g r a t i n g sockeye are caught and tagged. Sub-sequently, a systematic search i s made of the spawning grounds; l a r g e samples of dead sockeye are examined and records made of the numbers of tagged and untagged carcasses. Assuming that the tags are d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the population i n a random manner and that they appear i n the same p r o p o r t i o n among the dead f i s h as they occur i n the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n , the t o t a l population may be c a l c u l a t e d from the f o l l o w i n g equation: T o t a l number tagged - Number of tagged carcasses T o t a l p o p u l a t i o n ~ T o t a l number of carcasses In 1938 and again i n 1939 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 conducted experiments at Cultus Lake i n order to t e s t a method of c a l c u l a t i n g sockeye salmon populations by tagging a c e r t a i n p r o p o r t i o n of the run. The a c t u a l tagging and recovery program was c a r r i e d out under the s u p e r v i s i o n of Dr. J . L. Kask. I t was evident that the r e s u l t s and knowledge obtained from these experiments would be basic i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of such a method of determining sockeye salmon populations i n the v a r i o u s other t r i b u t a r i e s of the Fraser R i v e r . Subsequently, tagging programs were c a r r i e d out on the H a r r i s o n and South Thompson r i v e r systems to determine among other t h i n g s , the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s obtained i n the Cultus Lake i n v e s t i g a t i o n . -3-The experiments at Cultus Lake were not planned by the w r i t e r but were a part of the Commission's program. A a member of the s t a f f the w r i t e r undertook to study the data i n order to determine the accuracy of the c a l c u l a t e d populations and the d i f f i c u l t i e s which might be encountered i n - t h e a p p l i -c a t i o n of the tagging method as a means of enumerating sockeye salmon pop u l a t i o n s . Cultus Lake (see Figure 1) i s a small body of water with a surface area of approximately 2% square m i l e s and a maximum depth of 130 feet ( R i c k e r , '37). I t i s connected w i t h the Fraser R i v e r by Sweltzer Creek and the Vedder R i v e r . The lake i s approximately 70 mi l e s by water from the mouth of the Fraser R i v e r . I t i s "fenced" at i t s o u t l e t and a l l f i s h e n t e r i n g the lake can be counted. Thus, a check of the accuracy of a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s was a v a i l a b l e . Most of the sockeye salmon that spawn at Cultus Lake each year are 4 - year o l d f i s h . Those r e t u r n i n g i n 1938 were the progeny of 5-| m i l l i o n eyed eggs planted i n f o u r t r i b u t a r y streams of Cultus Lake i n the spri n g of 1935! As two of the streams i n which the eggs were planted d r i e d up completely, the r e t u r n i n g 4 - year olds were probably the s u r v i v o r s of the 3,122,860 eggs (F o e r s t e r , '29 and »37, F o e r s t e r and R i c k e r , •42) planted i n Spri n g Creek and Smith F a l l s Creek. The F i s h e r i e s Research Board of Canada marked a l l the downstream migrants from t h i s experiment by the removal of two v e n t r a l f i n s ( F o e r s t e r , '44). Spr i n g Creek was the only t r i b u t a r y - . stream which had spawners i n 1938 and these sockeye were from -4-a r t i f i c i a l l y introduced eggs i n 1935. In 1939 the run t o Cultus Lake was the progeny of the n a t u r a l spawning of 10,174 females and 5,615 males i n 1935 ( F o e r s t e r , r 4 4 ) . METHODS Counting and Tagging the F i s h In 1938 a l l the f i s h that a r r i v e d at the counting weir were counted and dipped over the fence with dip n e t s . During t h i s procedure the sex of each f i s h was determined. In 1939 a l l f i s h , except those tagged, were counted through an escape gate designed so that only one sockeye at a time could get through. The f i s h passed over a white f l a s h -board so that the sex of each was determined. T h i s proved t o be a great advance i n counting over the system employed the previous season. The u t i l i z a t i o n of t h i s method saved much time and made i t necessary to handle only those f i s h r e q u i r e d f o r t a g g i n g . The tagging procedure was the same f o r both years. Each f i s h was tagged w i t h two white c e l l u l o i d d i s c s . A n i c k l e p i n was used to hold these d i s c s on e i t h e r side of the- back at the base of the d o r s a l f i n (MacKay, Howard and K i l l i c k , T 4 4 ) . Only one of these d i s c s was numbered. The tags were attached f i r m l y and were c l e a r l y v i s i b l e on the spawning grounds. Examining the Dead F i s h In order to get the r a t i o between the number of tagged dead sockeye and the number of untagged dead sockeye, a l l of the spawning areas were p a t r o l l e d as f r e q u e n t l y as p o s s i b l e . Tributary streams and some parts of the lake were visited daily. The d i s t r i c t xvas divided into three s t a t i s t i c a l areas (see Figure 1), namely: 1. "Above Traps Area" - between the adult counting fence and the fry counting fence located 150 yards up-stream from the adult counting fence. 2. "Lake Proper Area" - the main lake area, excluding "Above Traps Area" and Spring Greek. 3. "Spring Creek" - Spring Creek. A l l three s t a t i s t i c a l areas were ut i l i z e d in 1938 but only two areas were used in 1939 because very few sockeye spawned in Spring Creek during the latter season. These few fish were included with those in the Lake Proper Area. The latter area i s immediately adjacent to Spring Creek. The water i s shallow in the Above Traps Area so that the number of fish collected represents approximately a l l of the fi s h that die in this area. In the Lake Proper Area, how-ever, only those fis h can be recovered that spawn and die in the shallow-water along the shoreline._ Spring Creek is a small stream It miles long, 6 to 9 feet wide with a depth of & to 16 inches. It is possible to recover practically a l l of the carcasses from the stream. The following data were recorded for each dead f i s h : date, s t a t i s t i c a l area, sex, condition of carcass, degree spawned, presence of tag scar and tag number. A l l dead f i s h that i t was possible to recover were examined and recorded. # -6-Thus, the samples c o n s i s t e d of a l l recoverable f i s h seen during the season. The dead f i s h were removed from the water to preclude d u p l i c a t i o n of data. RESULTS Number of Sockeye Tagged In both seasons the number of f i s h tagged was i n propor-t i o n t o the number e n t e r i n g the l a k e . One t h i r d of the sockeye salmon was tagged at the counting fence i n 1938 (see Table V ) . L i k e w i s e , 3660 f i s h or one t w e n t i e t h of the run were tagged i n 1939. The numbers and percentages of the various c a t e g o r i e s of f i s h i n the two runs and the correspond-i n g numbers and percentages of each category tagged are given i n Table V. Because of the counting method used i n 1939 the small sockeye or jacks were not separated from the la r g e f i s h . In 1938 the percentage of. each of the four sex and s i z e c a t -egories tagged was a close r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the percentage of each group i n the t o t a l run (see Table V ) . The same a p p l i e s f o r the two sex groups, males and females, i n 1939 (see Table V ) . Number of Dead Sockeye Examined Table VI shows the number of dead sockeye examined i n the s t a t i s t i c a l areas i n 1938 and 1939 r e s p e c t i v e l y . A l t o g e t h e r 4,735 or 35.4 per cent of the f i s h that entered i n 1938 were recovered and 9,832 or approximately 13.4 per cent;of'the t o t a l 1939 run were recovered. The smaller p r o p o r t i o n r e -covered i n 1939 was l a r g e l y a r e s u l t of the f a c t that very few sockeye entered any of the t r i b u t a r y streams, or areas where the recovery of carcasses was r e l a t i v e l y easy. Also the mag-nitude of the run was such that the available help to pa t r o l the grounds was not s u f f i c i e n t to cover a l l parts of the lake re g u l a r l y . Duration and Magnitude of the Two Sockeye Runs: In 1938 there were 13,342 sockeye. salmon counted (see Table I) into Cultus Lake. The f i r s t f i s h entered the counting traps on September 27 and the l a s t f i s h was counted into the lake on December 21. In 1939, 73,189 sockeye (see Table II) were counted into the lake between October 10 and January 20, 1940. The migration into the lake continued for 84 days i n 1938 and 97 days i n 1939. Sex and Size Ratios of the Two Sockeye Populations Of the 13,342 sockeye i n the 1938 run, 5,511 or 41.4 per cent were males and 7,831 or 56.6 per cent were females (see Table V). A large proportion, approximately 71 per cent of the t o t a l males were small 3 - year olds with the remainder 4 and 5 - year olds. Only 6 per cent of the t o t a l number of females were 3 - year olds. The small males and. females are known as "jacks"; and they are those sockeye that have matured i n t h e i r t h i r d year. In most cases they were readily-distinguished from the large f i s h by size (see Tables III and IY and Figures 2 and 3). On the basis of the d i s -t r i b u t i o n of sizes as shown i n Figures 2 and 3;, the male jacks are defined as those f i s h that are 55 cm. or less i n -8-length and females 52 cm. or l e s s . In 1939 there were 21,616, or 29.5 per cent males and 51,565, or 70.5 per cent females (see Table V). Eight sockeye were counted through without determining the sex of each. A small proportion, probably l e s s than 5 per cent of the t o t a l run consisted of 3 - year olds and these small f i s h were not segregated from the large at the counting fences. Nature of the Runs Tables were, compiled to show the number of tagged sockeye recovered each week throughout the season. They designate also the week i n which these recoveries, were tagged. Individual tables give t h i s information for each of the four sex and size categories in the three s t a t i s t i c a l areas. Tags are sometimes lost from the f i s h but the tag scars on these individuals are recognized e a s i l y . There were 53 such scars i n 1938 and 2 i n 1939. These, scars were omitted from the present tables as the dates of gagging were not known. Only a small number of male and female jacks were found i n Spring Greek i n 1938 (see Table ¥11) and they are not considered at the present time. Conclusions cannot be drawn from such small samples. On examining the tables for 1938 (see Tables IX to XVIII) i t i s noted that the majority of the tagged sockeye were're-covered during the 7 week period from November 15 to January 8. This condition holds for the i n d i v i d u a l sex and size categories i n the three areas with one exception, the -9-small females i n the Above Traps Area (see Table XII) where there was only a small sample of 7 f i s h . Of the t o t a l number of tagged f i s h recovered i n the Above Traps Area 150 or 75 per cent were recovered during the designated 7 weeks, (see Table XIX). In the two remaining areas the Lake Proper Area and Spring Creek, 81 per cent and 97 per cent respectively were recovered i n t h i s period. In the Above Traps Area a larger percentage of the tagged f i s h died prior to November 15 (see Table XIX).than i n the other two areas. Either the f i s h that spawned i n t h i s area passed through the weir before those did that spawned in the other two areas, or the f i s h spawning i n t h i s l o c a l i t y died sooner than the other two groups did. An examination of the tables shows that there was no d i f f e r e n t i a l period of migration through the counting fences to the three spawning areas as recoveries from a l l successive tagging weeks were found in the three areas. The Above Traps Area and the Lake Proper Area had a larger percentage of the t o t a l number of tagged f i s h within the area dying a f t e r January 8 than was the case i n Spring Creek. Close examination of the tables shows that the tagged f i s h were recovered aft e r a longer period of time i n the Lake Proper Area and Spring Creek than they were i n the Above Traps Area. The average number of days out i s given i n Table XIX. In each area i t i s seen that the males l i v e d longer than the females; and in the Lake Proper Area the 3 - year old sockeye l i v e d longer than the 4 - year olds d i d . - 1 0 -It i s important to know why the tagged f i s h i n the Above Traps Area died sooner than the f i s h i n the other two areas. The dead females were examined f o r the degree spawned and t h i s information was expressed as. a percentage. Each dead female was recorded as 100, 75, 50, 25 or 0 per cent, spawned. For the tagged females i n the three areas the average degree spawned i s given by the week of recovery (see Tables X, XII, XIV, XVI and XVIII). Similar information i s given for corresponding samples of untagged large females. When the tagged and untagged females are compared there i s no apparent difference between the degree spawned. Approximately 95 per cent of the females examined, i n a l l three areas prior to November 15, were unspawned. The success of spawning after that time was d i s t i n c t l y better i n the Lake Proper Area than i n the two remaining areas. Previously, i t was stated that the sockeye spawning i n Spring Creek were the progeny of eyed eggs planted i n that stream and that they were therefore an introduced run. Few sockeye spawned i n t h i s stream the following cycle year (1942) and i t may be assumed that t h i s stream w i l l not support'a natural run of the 1938 magnitude. This may explain why the females did not spawn well i n 1938. The data for 1939 are i n agreement with the 1938 data. Here, i t was found that the majority of the tagged sockeye were recovered during the 7 week period December 1 to January 18 (see-Tables XIX, XX, XXI, XXII and XXIII) and that a larger per-centage of the tagged f i s h i n the Above Traps Area died p r i o r -11-to December 1 than i n the Lake Proper Area (see Table XIX}. Tagged f i s h were recovered a f t e r a longer period of time i n the Lake Proper Area; and the males l i v e d longer a f t e r tagging than the females did. There was no d i f f e r e n t i a l period of migration through the weir to the two areas. The females i n the Lake Proper Area spawned more successfully than those i n the Above Traps Area did (see Tables XXI and XXII) and spawning in both areas was better a f t e r December 1. The Above Traps Area and the Lake Proper Area cannot be considered to have two d i s t i n c t populations. Knowing that the females spawned with more success i n the Lake Proper Area than those did i n the Above Traps Area the weak or injured f i s h evidently tend to remain immediately above the counting fences. The fact that the tag r a t i o was somewhat higher than expected (20:1) i n the Above Traps Area may indicate that the additional handling during tagging causes some of the tagged sockeye to remain i n t h i s area rather than continue t h e i r migration to the more distant areas. The analysis shows that the population in the Cultus Lake area i n 1938 was made up of three groups, the a r t i f i c i a l l y introduced run i n Spring Creek, the weak or injured f i s h i n the Above Traps Area and those f i s h i n the Lake Proper Area. In 1939 the run con-sisted of the weaker f i s h i n the Above Traps Area and the remaining numbers i n the Lake Proper Area. It was pointed out that the major portion of the tagged f i s h died i n a 7 week period i n both years. Likewise, a -12-major portion of the untagged f i s h died within t h i s period. The i n t e r e s t i n g feature about t h i s condition i s the knowledge, that i t would'have been possible to tag samples of the population at any time p r i o r to the beginning of the 7 week period, and s t i l l obtain approximately the same r e s u l t s as were obtained by tagging i n proportion to the number of sockeye entering the counting fences throughout the migration. The advantage of not having to tag i n proportion to the number passing the tagging location throughout the migration i s immediately obvious. In actual practice t h i s condition cannot be f u l f i l l e d because the t o t a l number of salmon passing a p a r t i c u l a r location each day i s not known. How-ever, tagging must take place during the f i r s t part of the migration. This period w i l l be governed by the time that the major portion of the run begins to die. Calculation of the Number of Sockeye on the Spawning Grounds 1. Application of the test of homogeneity It i s possible to calculate accurately the magnitude of unknown animal populations providing, that the marked animals are d i s t r i b u t e d uniformly within the population and that the sampling f o r the r a t i o of marked to unmarked animals i s representative of the-entire population. T h e o r e t i c a l l y , i f the sampling i s made uniformly throughout the population, the average tag r a t i o of the samples w i l l be the same as the average for the whole population, regardless of whether or not the tags are uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d . The f a c t that the f i s h -13-were tagged i n proportion to the number entering the lake made it. possible to have the tags uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the population. T h e o r e t i c a l l y then, the tag r a t i o in any sample of dead f i s h should be the same as that i n the whole population. The experiments were designed to give the t h e o r e t i c a l condition stated above, namely, that the tag r a t i o i n any given sample of dead f i s h should be the same as that i n the whole.population. S t a t i s t i c a l procedures were applied i n order to determine whether or not t h i s s i t u a t i o n was true. These tests were made also to ascertain the homogeneity of the various dead f i s h samples and to f i n d out whether or not these samples could be grouped together to a r r i v e at tag r a t i o s required i n the population c a l c u l a t i o n s . The Chi-square test was u t i l i z e d f o r the analysis out-l i n e d . This test was designed by i t s originator, K a r l Pearson, as a c r i t e r i o n for t e s t i n g hypotheses about frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s . It i s used to test an hypothesis based either on a theory or on the border t o t a l s . With t h i s test i t i s possible to determine whether or not the samples are homogeneous and whether or not they are from a known population. When the Chi-square and the p r o b a b i l i t y i s within certain l i m i t s the.samples are considered to be homogeneous and the hypothesis that the samples are drawn from the same population i s confirmed. I f the Chi-square i s larger, the hypothesis i s rejected. In the present analysis because of the great v a r i a b i l i t y inherent i n the data, i t was decided -14-to consider values of Chi-square corresponding to p r o b a b i l i t i e s lower than 1 per cent s i g n i f i c a n t . Sampling of dead sockeye was carried on throughout the season i n both 1938 and 1939 and consisted of a l l recoverable f i s h . These samples were tested for homogeneity i n two week periods i n 1938 and weekly periods i n 1939. These periods were chosen because d a i l y samples were too small. In many instances the samples from these periods were also too small and were themselves grouped. 2. Homogeneity of the tag r a t i o data for 1958 The two weekly dead f i s h samples were grouped according to the area of recovery and the sex and size category. These samples were tested f o r homogeneity using the border t o t a l s (see Tables XXXV to XXVI."),.. The limited numbers of small sockeye i n Spring Creek and the small females i n the Above Traps Area made i t impossible to test these groups. Only the small males i n the Above Traps Area are not homogeneous. Examining Table XXIV i t i s seen that the large contribution to the t o t a l Chi-square from the f i r s t part of the season re s u l t s i n the small males being heterogeneous i n t h i s area. Here the number of tagged f i s h was much larger than expected. Table XI shows that there was a d i s t i n c t group of small males recovered tagged i n the Above Traps Area during the two week period from October 18 to October 30. These f i s h were apparently injured or i n a weak condition as many of them died soon after tagging. -15-There i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n for grouping the three areas together for each of the categories of sockeye except the small males, although these samples are treated also. This i s done (see Table XXVII) and the r e s u l t i n g samples are tested for homo-geneity i n the same manner as was done for the i n d i v i d u a l areas. It i s seen that three size groups are homogeneous and that the small males are not. The Above Traps samples are responsible for t h i s s i t u a t i o n for the Lake Proper samples are homogeneous. With the exception of the small males i n the Above Traps Area and a l l areas combined, samples of the remaining categories i n each area are homogeneous. Tests are now made to determine whether or not these various categories may be grouped together within t h e i r respective area (see Table XXVIII). Although the small males are not homogeneous i n the areas stated, they are included with the three other categories i n these p a r t i c u l a r areas. In each of the four tests the four categories of sockeye are found to be homo-geneous and may be regarded as being drawn from the same population. These te s t s of homogeneity lead to c e r t a i n conclusions. There i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n from the foregoing r e s u l t s i n calculate-ing the population for the whole d i s t r i c t with the tag r a t i o obtained from the t o t a l number of f i s h examined i n any of the in d i v i d u a l areas or from the t o t a l number of f i s h examined i n a l l three areas. -16,-It has been demonstrated that the. samples of sockeye, regardless of sex, size, time, or area, may be grouped together i n order to determine the tag r a t i o i n the t o t a l population. Normally, these s t a t i s t i c a l t e sts would probably be considered s u f f i c i e n t enough to calculate the population. However, i n t h i s experiment the actual or true tag r a t i o i s known because every t h i r d f i s h was tagged at the counting fence. With t h i s added information the t e s t s of homogeneity are calculated a second time, using t h i s 3 to 1 r a t i o . At the same time i t i s possible to determine the in t e r a c t i o n or heter-ogeneity Chi-square when the samples are not homogeneous. This value i s informative since deviations are squared, and since the progeny Chi-squares therefore f a i l to d i stinguish between the positive and negative.discrepancies from expected values. The in t e r a c t i o n furnishes a test of discrepancies among them. The results which are given i n Tables XXIX. to XXXII do not d i f f e r to any great extent from those obtained from the border t o t a l s except that in the majority of cases, 9 out of 13, the values of Chi-square are increased. This i s to be. expected because i t was noted (see Tables VI and Y I I ) that the percentage of tagged sockeye present i n the Lake Proper Area and Spring Creek was less than the percentage tagged at the counting fences. Conversely, there was a higher percentage of tagged f i s h i n the Above Traps Area. The test with the 3:1 r a t i o gives additional information as to why the small male samples are not homogeneous i n the Above Traps Area and a l l three areas combined (see Tables XXIX and XXXII). In each instance i t i s the in t e r a c t i o n that r e s u l t s i n t h i s condition. This i n turn i s brought about because the tag r a t i o was much higher than was expected i n the Above Traps Area during the f i r s t part of the sampling. However, the pooled Ghi-square values show that both samples may be regarded as being drawn from the 3:1 population. The s i g n i f i c a n t feature presented'by these tests i s , that although the samples may be homogeneous by sex, size and time they are not necessarily representative of the population and conversely, that although the samples may not be homogeneous by sex, size and time they have a tag r a t i o which i s the same as that i n the t o t a l population. These two conditions are i l l u s t r a t e d by the large and small males i n the Lake Proper Area (see Table XXX) and by the small males i n the Above Traps Area (see" Table XXIX) respectively. Now that there i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r grouping the four sex and size categories of sockeye together i n each area, the next step i s to test the two weekly samples i n each area,according to time. These tests are shown i n Tables XXXIII to XXXVI. The Above Traps Area and the three areas combined are not homogeneous. However, the t o t a l sample i n each case may be considered as being drawn from the population with the known 3:1 tag r a t i o (see Table XXXVII). The Lake Proper samples are homogeneous by time but are not from the 3:1 population; and the Spring Creek samples are both homogeneous as to time -18-and are drawn from the population with the known tag r a t i o . These data i l l u s t r a t e certain conditions that would be very misleading under ordinary conditions where the actual tag r a t i o would not be known. It i s necessary to have the samples homogeneous by areas, sex, size and time i n order to use the t o t a l of a l l the samples i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of the population. Grouping the areas, sexes and sizes together was j u s t i f i e d . However, the r e s u l t s are somewhat confusing when the samples of a l l size groups are tested according to time. Those of the Above Traps Area and those from a l l areas are not homogeneous and would not o r d i n a r i l y be used to obtain the tag r a t i o f o r the population c a l c u l a t i o n . On the other hand, those ;samples from the Lake Proper Area and Spring Creek are homogeneous by time. When the t o t a l of the two weekly samples are tested with the known S r i tag r a t i o without regard for time, the Lake Proper Area i s the only sample that cannot be considered as being drawn from the population with the known tag f a t i o . Had the actual tag r a t i o been unknown, samples from the Above Traps Area or a l l areas combined would not be used on the basis of the homogeneity te s t , i n any c a l c u l a t i o n of the population. The population would be calculated from the samples obtained from either the Lake Proper Area, Spring Creek or these two areas combined. But with the test using the actual tag r a t i o i n the population the t o t a l sample examined i n the Lake Proper Area alone i s found not to be representative of t h i s population. It is. p l a i n to see then, that tag r a t i o samples cannot always be discarded on the -19-basis that they are not homogeneous according to accepted c r i t e r i a of the Chi-square t e s t . 3. Population calculations f o r 1958. In the previous section of t h i s paper i t was found that the samples from the Above Traps Area and a l l areas combined were not homogeneous by time but that they were both repres-entative of the actual population. Had the actual tag r a t i o not been known these samples would not be used i n the c a l -culation of the population. They are used here and give populations of 12,144 and 13,765 sockeye respectively, (see Table XXXVII). The actual population passing through the counting fence was 13,342. The error i n each case i s 9.0 per cent and 3.2 per cent. Now i f the samples from the Lake Proper Area and the Spring Creek Area are used the populations are 14,834 and 13,606 sockeye with errors of 11.2 per cent and 2.0 per cent respectively. There i s no c o r r e l a t i o n between the Chi-square value and the percentage error of the calculated population (r = .00005). For each Chi-square table the corresponding calculated population i s shown (see Table XXXVII). It i s seen, that i n general, there i s no p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the value of Chi-square and the magnitude of the population'cal-culated from the tag r a t i o . 4. Homogeneity of the 1959 tag r a t i o data. The tagged sockeye were uniformly di s t r i b u t e d throughout the 1939 population as was the case in. 1938. Every twentieth f i s h entering the lake at the counting fence was tagged. - 2 0 -Table V shows that the proportions of males and females tagged were close to the corresponding proportions i n the t o t a l run. The sampling of the dead f i s h i n order to obtain the tag r a t i o was conducted throughout the season i n the same manner that the 1938 data were co l l e c t e d . The s t a t i s t i c a l measures applied to the 1939 data are s i m i l a r to those u t i l i z e d i n 1938. They d i f f e r i n two respects, f i r s t the samples are selected by -weekly periods instead of the two week periods; and secondly they are segregated by sex alone instead of both sex and s i z e . Because there were few small sockeye i n t h i s year, size grouping was not considered to be of any p r a c t i c a l value. The Chi-square test shows that the male and the female samples from each of the two s t a t i s t i c a l areas are homogeneous according to time (see Tables XXXYIII and XL). Combining the two areas and t e s t i n g the sexes, shows that the male samples are homogeneous with reference to time but that the females are not (see Table XL). The males and females i n both the Above Traps Area and the Lake Proper Area, according to accepted s t a t i s t i c a l practices, may be grouped together and tested f o r homogeneity. In each case the two samples are found to be homogeneous and drawn from the same population. The females i n the weekly samples of the two areas combined were heterogeneous and consequently should not be. combined with the males. However, the test of homogeneity indicates that they are drawn from the same population. Tests of homogeneity of the weekly samples i n each area -21-are repeated using the actual tag r a t i o in the population as determined at the counting fences. Unlike the r e s u l t s obtained with the 1938 data when'similar tests were made, these r e s u l t s d i f f e r m a t e r i a l l y from those obtained using the border t o t a l s . The male and female samples i n the Above Traps Area were found to be homogeneous when segregated according to weekly periods. Tests with the known tag r a t i o show that they are heterogen-eous and cannot be considered as being drawn from the pop-ul a t i o n with the 20:1 tag r a t i o (see Table XLII). The pooled Chi-square values indicate that i n t e r a c t i o n i s not responsible for t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Using the 20:1 tag r a t i o hypothesis, the r e s u l t s f o r the Lake Proper Area remain unchanged, although the P value for the females approaches significance (see Table XLIII). Both the male and the female samples may be considered as being drawn from the population with the known tag r a t i o . When the two areas are combined and the weekly samples of the two sexes are tested the males are again homogeneous and the females remain heterogeneous (see Table XLIY). However, the females are heterogeneous as the r e s u l t of i n t e r a c t i o n . The pooled Chi-square value indicates that they are drawn from the known population. The r e s u l t s of the Chi-square tests based upon the border t o t a l s showed that the samples of males and females were homogeneous. The weekly samples of males and females are combined now i n both areas. In each case these samples are found to be homogeneous with respect to time (see Tables XLV. and XLV I). Because the females were not homogeneous in the combined areas these samples should not be grouped with the males. When they are the total sample i s not homogeneous (see Table XLYII). Referring to Table XLVIII, i t i s seen that although the weekly samples of sockeye are homogeneous in both the Above Traps Area and the Lake Proper Area, neither may be considered as being drawn from the population with the known tag ratio. In contrast, the weekly samples from the two areas combined are not homogeneous, but the total sample i s drawn from the known population. The results, obtained from the 1939 experiment agree with those obtained for 1938. The tag ratio samples can not always be discarded on the basis that they are not homogeneous with respect to time. The dead fish samples from the s t a t i s t i c a l areas show that the tag ratio usually was higher than expected during the f i r s t part of the dead fish recovery and lower than expected during the latt.er part. The weekly distributions of the tagged and untagged f i s h indicate that the untagged f i s h live for a longer period of time than the tagged f i s h do. Reference to the Chi-square tables show that this situation is usually more apparent for the dead fish samples which are-found to be heterogeneous with respect to time. In these instances the tests of homogeneity are affected by interaction for the total samples are often representative.of the known population. Conversely, the tag ratio samples can not always be accepted solely on the basis that they are homogeneous with -23-respect to time because these samples may not be representa-t i v e of the known population. 5. Population Calculations for 1959. As was stated i n a preceding section, accepted s t a t i s t i c a l practices make i t desirable that population calculations be made from tag r a t i o samples that are homogeneous. Accordingly, the population should be calculated from the samples colleeted-i n either the Above ETraps Area or the Lake^Proper Area but not * from both areas combined. Using the data from the Above Traps Area a population of 45,4.25 sockeye (see Table XLYIII) i s obtained. This number i s 27,764 or 38 per cent less than the 73,189 counted through the fence. When the samples from the Lake Proper Area and the two areas combined are used, pop-ulations of 84,121 and 75,441 are obtained. The errors en-countered are 14.9 per cent and 3.8' per cent respectively. Obviously, the population from both areas combined has the least error. This might have been anticipated when i t was noted that the t o t a l sample proved to be homogeneous when tested with the known r a t i o at the counting fence. The samples from the Above Traps Area and the Lake Proper Area were not homogeneous with respect to the known r a t i o . On the basis of the homogeneity te s t s alone, had the actual r a t i o not been known, the samples from either the Above Traps Area or the Lake Proper Area might have been considered the most r e l i a b l e measure of the tag r a t i o i n the population and the population would have been calculated with t h i s r a t i o . -24-The r e s u l t s obtained indicate that the Chi-square test may be too delicate a test of homogeneity. 6. Standard Error of the Calculated Populations. It i s es s e n t i a l to determine the accuracy of the populations which have been calculated from these tagging experiments. The t h e o r e t i c a l standard error may be determined by substituting i n the following equation (Pearson, '28): ' 6g = (p*L) (qi-q*!) (n-1) (q 1-!) (q-2) 2 (q-3) where, l 6 - t h e o r e t i c a l standard error N = Population p - untagged recoveries n = t o t a l recoveries q!= tags put out q - tags recovered Using t h i s equation the 1938 and 1939 t h e o r e t i c a l standard errors f o r the calculated populations are 236 and 316.6 respectively. Thus, the 1938 population was 13,765 * 236 and the 1939 population was 75,441 i 3166. The standard error for the various populations as calculated from the three separate s t a t i s t i c a l areas might also be determined with the aid of the above equation. When similar tagging or marking experiments are con-ducted i n order to evaluate a population, the above equation may be u t i l i z e d to determine the standard error of the c a l -culated population. -25-Reduction of the Tagging Period 1. Theoretical considerations. The proportions of f i s h tagged and recovered i n both years are much greater than can be handled under regular f i e l d con-di t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y when the runs of f i s h are great and the available personnel i s l i m i t e d . A more important consideration i s the r e a l i z a t i o n that i t i s not always possible to tag salmon that are entering a spawning area throughout the migration as was done i n the two experiments, at Cultus Lake. Physical conditions f o r example might make i t impractical or impossible to tag throughout the season. Floods often make i t impossible to operate a trap or weir and may destroy such structures during tagging operations. Under these or similar circumstances, or f o r lack of funds, i t may be possible to tag during a limited period of the migration. I t i s also of con-siderable interest to see just how f a r the numbers of f i s h to be tagged and the numbers of dead f i s h to be examined can be reduced, i n order to obtain r e s u l t s that do not have too great a standard error. It should be noted at the outset that the enumeration of a population with no error can only be achieved by a c t u a l l y counting a l l the f i s h that enter a watershed. This., i n terms of tagging, would amount to tagging a l l the f i s h i n which case however, i t would not,.be necessary to c o l l e c t any carcasses to get the actual population. If only half the f i s h were tagged, i t would be necessary to examine some carcasses to get the -26-r a t i o of tagged to untagged f i s h but, because every second f i s h would have been tagged, i t would not be necessary to examine many carcasses before the true r a t i o (50:50) would be obtained. If only one i n every hundred f i s h were tagged (or even a much smaller proportion as i s conceivable i n cases of heavy runs) then the number of carcasses that i t becomes necessary to examine must be increased. I f , f o r example, one. f i s h i n a hundred were tagged, then t h e o r e t i c a l l y only one tagged f i s h would be recovered i n every hundred dead f i s h examined. The axiomatic concept i s t h i s : When the tag r a t i o i s small a greater number of carcasses must be examined to ensure a proper chance f o r recovering a s u f f i c i e n t number of tags so that errors are reduced to a minimum. When the tag r a t i o i s large, on the other hand, a r e l a t i v e l y small number of carcasses need be examined. The reason for stat i n g the. above concept i s to point out that i n planning an experiment under natural conditions, when the tag r a t i o w i l l be unknown, the number of tags that must be placed should be determined i n each case by the chances of re-covering the carcasses. I f carcasses'are d i f f i c u l t to recover, as they are i n some lake areas or deep, fast streams, then tags must be applied i n greater numbers. The r e c i p r o c a l nature of t h i s concept i s important. Another consideration i n planning such enumeration exper-iments i s the manner i n which the run dias oh the spawning -27-grounds. This includes the behavior of both the tagged and the untagged f i s h . It was pointed out that the major portion of the runs at Cultus Lake died i n a 7 - week period and that the tagged f i s h died somewhat sooner than the untagged f i s h after passing through the counting fences. It was seen also that tagged f i s h from any part of the tagging period lerere-._; covered during any part of the recovery period remaining a f t e r the time of tagging. I f the tagging i s not ca r r i e d on through-out the migration, i t should be conducted sometime pr i o r to tlie time when the major portion of the run begins to die. In addition, sampling of the dead must be c a r r i e d out during the entire spawning period a f t e r the tagging has started. The tagging period may be reduced a r b i t a r i l y . i n the present study while the number of carcasses examined remains, constant. Only those f i s h tagged within a s p e c i f i e d period are considered: a l l the other tagged f i s h would be considered as untagged. In t h i s way i t i s possible to examine the r e s u l t s that would have been obtained had i t been either impossible or impractical to tag sockeye during other parts of the season. Unfortunately, i t i s impossible to reduce the number of dead f i s h examined. A l l recoverable f i s h were removed from the water and there i s no way that t h i s number can arbitrarily be redueed. In the present analysis the tagging i s reduced into three periods for both years.. The three periods, which are chosen are the f i r s t , middle and l a s t of each of the two -28-seasons. In 1938 these periods are: September 2? to November 8, October 21 to November 23, and November 9 to December 23, while i n 1939 they become: October 10 to November 16, November 1 to December 3, and November 17 to December 29. 2. Reduction of the Tagging Period i n 1958 There i s one d i f f i c u l t y , which fortunately i s not . serious, i n the treatment of these data but which can not be overcome. For the f i r s t period (September 27 to November 8) i t i s possible to use a l l the dead f i s h examined. However, for the other two periods, only those f i s h examined aft e r October 21 and November 9 respectively can be used to obtain the tag r a t i o . This becomes obvious when i t i s re a l i z e d that the sockeye dying pr i o r to these dates were removed from the grounds and none of them could have tags from the two l a t t e r periods i n question. For the middle half of the season there were only 14 dead sockeye examined prior to October 21; and for the second half there were 88 sockeye examined before November 9. These numbers are small i n comparison to the t o t a l number of 4735 sockeye examined and the fact that they are omitted from the calculations w i l l not materially affect the r e s u l t s . The dead f i s h samples are tested for homogeneity i n a similar manner to the te s t s applied-to the samples from tagging throughout the migration. The data from each of the three arbitary periods are treated. F i r s t the size and sex -29-categories i n each area are tested for homogeneity as to time. 1 Then, the t o t a l samples of the four categories i n each area are tested i n order to determine whether or not they are homogeneous when grouped together. Subsequently, the two week samples of the four categories are'tested f o r homogeneity with respect to time and area. These tests are given i n Tables XLIX to LXXII. In addition, the t o t a l sample from each of these areas i s tested to see whether or not i t i s drawn from the population with the known tag r a t i o (see Table XXXVII). Tests for the f i r s t tagging period September 27 to November 8 , show that both the large males and large females are heterogeneous according to time i n each area, whereas both the small males and small females are homogeneous (see Tables XLIX to L I ) . In the second period October 21 to November 23, a l l categories are homogeneous except the small males in the Above Traps Area (see Tables LVII to LIX). The same situation occurs i n the t h i r d period November 9 to .. December 2 3 , except that i n t h i s case the large females i n Spring Greek are not homogeneous (see Tables LXVI to LXVII). It was pointed out that the tagged sockeye l i v e a shorter period of time than the untagged ones do. As a result i t was found that during the f i r s t part of the dead f i s h sampling the tag r a t i o was higher than expected. Like-wise, i t was lower than expected at the end of the season. For ...the tagging period September 27 to November 8 t h i s s i t u a t i o n contributes lar g e l y to the t o t a l Chi-square in the -30-' homogeneity tests of the large f i s h . The 3 - year old sockeye were found to l i v e somewhat longer than the 4 - year o l d sockeye. For t h i s reason the samples of small f i s h are not affected to the same extent i n these tests that the large f i s h are. However, for the other two periods a certain number of f i s h entered the lake before tagging commenced. Thus, by the time the f i r s t tagged f i s h died there was a larger number of untagged f i s h dead on the grounds than was the case f o r the f i r s t tagging period. In other words, the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of death between tagged and untagged sockeye i s masked to a large degree when tagging does not take place immediately the migration into the lake begins. In the f i r s t tagging period when the four categories of sockeye are grouped together by areas they are found to be a homogeneous (see Table L I I ) . As was the case for the in d i v i d u a l categories tested with respect to time and area, the grouped categories tested i n the same manner are hetero-geneous (see Table L I I I ) . This condition results, also from the higher tag r a t i o at the beginning of the dead recovery. Examining the data f o r the second tagging period, the tests of homogeneity according to area and size and sex category show that the samples from the Lake Proper Area and a l l areas combined are i n each case heterogeneous (see Table LX) . The females have a higher number of tags and the males a lower number than was expected. This s i t u a t i o n r e s u l t s from the fact that there was a d i f f e r e n t i a l time of -31-migration into the lake between the males and females. During the f i r s t part of the migration there was a higher proportion of males than females, thereafter there were more females entering the lake (see Table I ) . With tagging being car r i e d out during the middle part of the season when the proportion of females was higher than the proportion i n the population i t i s natural that the- proportion of females tagged was higher than the proportion of males. When the two week dead f i s h samples are tested for homogeneity according to the area of recovery without regard to sex, the samples are a l l homo-geneous except those of the Above Traps Area (see Tables LXI to LXIY). The samples from the l a t t e r area are heterogeneous as a res u l t of low tag r a t i o at the end of the season. These' tests show that the i n t e r a c t i o n caused by the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of migration of the two sexes, i s eliminated when the sexes are grouped together. The data from the t h i r d period of tagging which corres-ponds to the second half of the migration, also show the r e s u l t s of the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of migration of the two .sexes (see Table L23ZTII). The tests of homogeneity according to time and without regard for sex or size show samples from two of the areas are homogeneous namely, the Above Traps Area and the Lake Proper Area (see Tables LXIX and LXX) . The remaining area and a l l areas combined are not homogeneous (see Tables L2XL and LXXII). When tagging i s conducted l a t e i n the season only, after the major portion of the run begins -52-toldre the f i r s t samples have too few tags and the l a t e r samples have too many. This c o n d i t i o n causes r e s u l t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n making the samples heterogeneous w i t h respect to time. F i n a l l y , the t o t a l sample from each of the i n d i v i d u a l s t a t i s t i c a l areas i s t e s t e d i n order to determine whether or not these samples are drawn from the po p u l a t i o n with the known t a g r a t i o . These t e s t s are made f o r the three a r b i t a r y tagging periods and the r e s u l t s are summarized with the t e s t s of homogeneity according to time (see Table XXXVII). I n a d d i t i o n to these data the t a b l e gives the c a l c u l a t e d p o p u l a t i o n that i s obtained from the t a g r a t i o .in the i n d i v i d u a l areas f o r each of the tagging p e r i o d s . The samples from the Lake Proper Area are the only ones which are c o n s i s -t e n t l y drawn from the known po p u l a t i o n . The summarized r e s u l t s s u b s t a n t i a t e the .previous knov/ledge that samples which are homogeneous according to time are not n e c e s s a r i l y drawn from the population with the known t a g rat i o . . Considering the c a l c u l a t e d populations obtained, from the three reduced tagging p e r i o d s , i t i s apparent that the best r e s u l t s are obtained from the second pe r i o d namely, October 21 to November 23 (see Table XXXVII). The tagging i n t h i s case began before the major p o r t i o n of the f i s h began to d i e . The r e s u l t s from t h i s period are b e t t e r than those obtained from the f i r s t period because a l a r g e r number of untagged f i s h were dying at the time the tagged f i s h were and as a r e s u l t the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of death was masked. The r e s u l t s are -35-b e t t e r a l s o than those of the t h i r d p e r i o d . For the t h i r d p e r i o d the tagging commenced a f t e r the major p o r t i o n of the run began to d i e . In t h i s case the tag r a t i o i s low at the beginning of the season and high during the l a t t e r p a r t . For these reasons the dead f i s h samples of the f i r s t and t h i r d periods are more l i k e l y to be heterogeneous according to time than the samples from the second p e r i o d . The present a n a l y s i s shows that when tagging takes place over a l i m i t e d p e r i o d of the m i g r a t i o n the sex and s i z e c a tegories should not be segregated f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n of t e s t s of homogeneity. The d i f f e r e n t i a l time of m i g r a t i o n of these groups would cause them to be tagged i n proportions which would not correspond t o the proportions i n the pop u l a t i o n . 3. Reduction of the Tagging P e r i o d i n 1959. Sockeye were tagged from October 10 t o December 29 i n 1959. Tagging i s a r b i t a r l l y reduced i n t o three periods i n e x a c t l y the same manner i l l u s t r a t e d f o r the 1938 data i n the preceding s e c t i o n . These periods are: October 10 to November 16, November 1 to December 3, and November 17 to December 29. The s t a t i s t i c a l treatment a f f o r d e d the samples of dead f i s h i s i d e n t i c a l t o that a p p l i e d to the 1938 data. For the three period's the sexes i n each area are t e s t e d f o r homogeneity according to time (see Tables LXXIII t o LXXV). The m a j o r i t y of these samples are homogeneous. Those that are heterogeneous are, the females i n both areas, f o r the -34-f i r s t p e r i o d and the females i n the Lake Proper Area -for the t h i r d p e r i o d . The heterogeneous, samples occur f o r the same reasons that they d i d i n the 1938 data. In the f i r s t p e r i o d i t i s the r e s u l t of the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of death between the tagged and the untagged sockeye. For the l a t t e r , p e r i o d i t i s the r e s u l t of tagging a f t e r the major part of the run commences to' d i e . In the f i r s t tagging p e r i o d when the sexes are grouped together by areas they are homogeneous (see Table LXXV").. How-ever, the weekly samples are heterogeneous (see Tables IXOfI to L Z X V I I I ) . These r e s u l t s are i n agreement w i t h those obtained f o r the f i r s t tagging p e r i o d i n 1938 and are the e f f e c t of the higher tag r a t i o at the beginning of the season. The data f o r the second p e r i o d of tagging show the samples from each area and the two areas combined are homo-geneous when they are t e s t e d according to area and sex (see Table LXSXI.) . The weekly samples of the two sexes together are homogeneous i n each area (see Tables LXOQQI to IXDZIY) . I d e n t i c a l t e s t s a p p l i e d t o the samples from the t h i r d t agging pe r i o d demonstrate s i m i l a r r e s u l t s except that the samples are not homogeneous according t o time i n the Lake Proper Area (see Tables LXXXVII t o XC). The l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n occurs because the tag; r a t i o was higher than expected during the l a t t e r part of the sampling. The dead f i s h samples i n the second and t h i r d tagging periods i n 1939 are found to be homogeneous more oft e n than -35-th. e 1938 samples were during these two periods. The reason for t h i s phenomenon i s apparent. Although there was a greater proportion of males at the beginning of the season than there was during the l a t t e r part of the migration, the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of migration between the sexes was not as pronounced as i t was in 1938 (see Tables I and I I ) . In addition f o r the t h i r d period, operations commenced two weeks p r i o r to the 7 week period during which the major portion of the run began to die. The t h i r d period of tagging i n 1938 commenced about the same time that the. major portion of the run started to die. The t o t a l sample from 'each s t a t i s t i c a l area i s tested to ascertain whether or not these samples are drawn from the population with the known tag r a t i o (see Table 2LYIII). Again, i t i s seen that samples which are homogeneous can not be considered necessarily as being drawn from the population with the known tag r a t i o . The r e c i p r o c a l s i t u a t i o n i s true also. The populations calculated from the tag r a t i o s i n the Above Traps Area i l l u s t r a t e conclusively that the tag r a t i o s are too high in-each period. Conversely, the Lake Proper Area has tag. r a t i o s which are too low. This condition e x i s t s i n every case but one i n both years. The one exception is.-the f i r s t period of tagging i n 1938. The combined samples from the two areas usually give the best estimate of the population. Results obtained for the reduced tagging periods i n 1939 are i n agreement with those attained i n the analysis of the -36-1938 data. The data i n each case show that when tagging- takes place over a limited period of the migration the sexes and size categories should not be segregated for the application of homogeneity t e s t s . D i f f e r e n t i a l time of migration between the sexes and sizes causes them to be tagged i n proportions unequal to those i n the population. The tagged f i s h are more uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d among the untagged f i s h when tagging operations commence prior to the time that the major portion of the run begins to die, and some time long enough a f t e r the beginning of the migration to mask the d i f f e r e n t i a l rate of death between the tagged and the untagged f i s h . DISCUSSION The analysis of the dead f i s h samples and the r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s study gives a basis upon which to set f o r t h the applications and l i m i t a t i o n s of the Chi-square test of homogeneity i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of a spawning sockeye salmon population. It has been emphasized that t e s t s of homogeneity with respect to time should be applied to samples of dead f i s h regardless of sex or siz e . This test i s of no value when applied to the i n d i v i d u a l categories because the sex and size groups, usually have d i f f e r e n t i a l times of migration. When i t i s applied to a p a r t i c u l a r size or sex group the r e s u l t s often indicate heterogeneity when the t o t a l sample i s represent-ative of the actual population. In such cases i n t e r a c t i o n causes.the.total Chi-square value to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Testing dead f i s h samples for homogeneity according to periods of time has an important ap p l i c a t i o n providing the tagging operation begins p r i o r to the time when the major portion of the run commences to die. I f t h i s condition i s f u l f i l l e d the dead samples should show homogeneity. I f they show homogeneity they can be used with the- assurance that the tagged f i s h are di s t r i b u t e d uniformly i n the population. When tagging operations commence immediately the migration st a r t s , i t was found that the dead f i s h samples at the f i r s t part of the sampling nearly always has a higher tag r a t i o than i s expected. This si t u a t i o n may lead to the samples being heterogeneous according to time as a re s u l t of the c o n t r i -butions of the f i r s t dead samples to the t o t a l Chi-square. It was emphasized that t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s the r e s u l t of the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of death between the tagged and the untagged f i s h . Then, i f the dead f i s h samples show heterogeneity which i s s o l e l y the resu l t of t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l time of death, they may be considered r e l i a b l e . These experiments demonstrate the best period i n which to begin tagging operations i n order to obtain the most uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of the tagged f i s h i n the -population. This i s the period p r i o r to the time when the major portion of the population begins to die, but at the same time long enough after the migration commences to overcome the d i f f i c u l t y brought about by the d i f f e r e n t i a l time of death between tagged and untagged sockeye. -38-Th.e application and l i m i t a t i o n s of the use of the Chi-square test of homogeneity are based upon uniform and con-tinuous sampling of the dead f i s h throughout the season. At the present time there i s no known method of reducing the period or changing the manner of sampling the dead. Experi-ments w i l l have to be designed and carried out i n order to determine whether or not t h i s sampling period may be reduced. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Tagging experiments at Cultus Lake, B r i t i s h Columbia, were conducted by the International P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission during the years 1938 and 1939. The purpose of these experiments was to develop a method of ca l c u l a t i n g sockeye salmon populations by tagging parts of such populations and to evaluate the accuracy of such c a l c u l a t i o n s . At the same time, these experiments were designed to test the value of certa i n standard s t a t i s t i c a l procedures which are employed normally i n the analysis of the data upon which the calculations are based. Methods used i n tagging the f i s h and examining the carcasses have been outlined. Actual counts at the fence were made i n 1938 and 1939 when the runs had durations of 84 and 102 days respectively. As would be expected, the two runs were not characterized by the same sex r a t i o s or age groups. One-third of the run was tagged i n the f i r s t season and one-twentieth i n the second. It was found.in both years that the random samples tagged represented the various age and sex groups i n approximately -39-the same proportion that these groups were present i n the . t o t a l runs. The sexes had d i f f e r e n t i a l times of migration into the lake. There was a higher proportion of males during the f i r s t part of the season than there was during the l a t t e r part of the migration. Large samples of dead f i s h were examined uniformly throughout the spawning period (4,73-5 i n 1938 and 9,832 i n 1939). The c o l l e c t i o n of carcasses revealed that the.tags were recovered i n approximately the same proportion i n which they were released. The major portion of each.run died within a 7 week period. Tagged f i s h l i v e d f or a shorter period of time after passing through the weir than the un-tagged f i s h did. The period between tagging and death varied i n d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s ; on the average the males l i v e d longer than the females did and the 3 - year olds l i v e d longer than the 4 and 5 r.,year olds did. A higher r a t i o of tagged f i s h died immediately above the tagging l o c a t i o n than i n any other area. The l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n resulted from the fact that handling during tagging apparently causes some of the tagged f i s h to remain i n the area immediately above the tagging location rather than continue t h e i r migration to the more distant areas. From the tagging experiments the populations, when a l l tags were considered, were calculated to have been 13,765 i n 1,938 and 75,441. i n 1939; act u a l l y the population i n these two years were 13,342 and 73,189 respectively. The tagging -40-periods were then a r b i t a r i l y reduced and from the r e s u l t i n g tag r a t i o s the populations were calculated again. It was found that the tagging period could be reduced while r e t a i n i n g a reasonably accurate estimation of the spawning population. The calculated populations for the three reduced periods in 1938 were 15,385, 12,747, and 11,618 respectively. For 1939 they were 72,714, 79,255, and 76,092 respectively. This paper has been devoted to an analysis of the tag r a t i o samples which were used subsequently to calculate the populations. From t h i s p a r t i c u l a r analysis and various other r e s u l t s of these experiments, i t i s possible to draw certain conclusions. These conclusions are based upon the r e s u l t s of the' work at Gultus Lake. They may not be e n t i r e l y applicable to other spawning areas. However, the author i s confident that many of the conclusions drawn from these experiments w i l l be of great assistance i n the planning of s i m i l a r enumeration experiments i n other parts of the Fraser River watershed and *w other r i v e r systems. The most important conclusions drawn from these two con-t r o l l e d enumeration experiments are outlined here: 1. Sampling of the dead f i s h should be conducted through-out the.spawning period and should be carried out as uniformly as possible with the same degree of e f f o r t . The f u l f i l l m e n t of t h i s condition i s the basis for a l l the conclusions stated herein. 2. The tag r a t i o should be determined from the t o t a l -41-number of f i s h examined;. It should not be established from any one of the i n d i v i d u a l sex or size categories. 3. Use of the Chi-square test to determine whether or not dead f i s h samples are homogeneous according to time has an important application providing the tagging operation commences prior to the time the major portion of the run begins to die. 4. I f the dead f i s h samples show homogeneity they can be used to obtain the tag r a t i o with the assurance that the tagged f i s h are di s t r i b u t e d uniformly i n the population. 5. When tagging operations commence immediately the migration starts the f i r s t part of the sampling usually has a higher tag r a t i o than expected. Sometimes t h i s condition causes the samples to be heterogeneous. I f t h i s i s the sole reason for heterogeneity the samples can usually be con-sidered r e l i a b l e . 6. Accurate r e s u l t s may be obtained from tagging through-out the migration or during l i m i t e d periods of the migration but should commence prior to the time the major portion of the run begins to die. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to the International P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission f o r per-mission to use the material comprising t h i s paper and to thank Dr. R. Yan Cleve for his advice and encouragement during the analysis of the data. In addition, the author i s -42-indebted to Dr. 1 . A. Clemens of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and Dr. J . L. Kask of the C a l i f o r n i a Academy of Sciences for t h e i r many suggestions and c r i t i c i s m s . -43-LITERATURE CITED.' Foerster, R. E. . Increasing the survival rate of young sockeye salmon by re-moving predatory f i s h e s . (Canada. B i o l o g i c a l board. Progress reports of the P a c i f i c coast stations, no.32, p.22. Prince Rupert, 1937) An investigation of the l i f e h i s t o r y and propagation of the sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Cultus Lake,. B r i t i s h Columbia. I. .Introduction and the run of 1925. (Canada. B i o l o g i c a l board. Contributions, n.s.., v.5, no.l, 35 p. Toronto, 1929) . Letter of December 22, 1944. Foerster, R. E., and Ricker, ¥. E. .. The effect of reduction of predaceous f i s h upon su r v i v a l of young sockeye salmon at Cultus lake. (Canada. F i s h e r i e s re-search board. Journal, v.5, no.4, p.328. Toronto, 1942) MacKay, D. C. G., Howard, G. and K i l l i c k , S. R. Sockeye salmon tagging at Sooke and. Johnstone s t r a i t . (International p a c i f i c salmon f i s h e r i e s commission. Annual report, 1943, p.21-22. New Westminster, 1944) Pearson, K a r l . On a method of ascertaining l i m i t s to the actual number of marked members i n a population of given size from a sample. (Biometrika, V.20A, p.153. Cambridge, 1928) ' Ricker, W. E. Physical and chemical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Cultus lake, B r i t i s h Columbia. (Canada. B i o l o g i c a l board. Journal, v.3, no.4, p.363-402. Toronto, 1937) Table I Number of sockeye salmon counted into the lake each week during the 1938 season. No. of No. of Per Cent Per Cent Unknown Week Ending: Males Females Males Females Sex Total October 1 95 42 69.3 30.7 - 137 8 408 240 63.0 37.0 mm 648 15 1,090 947 53.5 46.5 - . 2,037 22 894 702 56.0 44.0 - 1,596 29 413 650 38.9 61.1 - 1,063 November5 506 705 41.8 58.2 - • 1,211 12 337 504 40.1 59.9 - 841 19 1,226 2,591 32.1 67.9 - 3,817 26 143 869 14.1 85.9 - 1,012 December3 347 462 43.0 57.0 - 809 10 50 109 31.5 68.5 159 17 1 10 9.1 90.0 - 11 24 1 - 100.0 - - 1 Tota Is 5,511 7,831 41.4 58.6 0 13,342 Table I I Number of sockeye salmon counted into the lake each week during the 1939 season. No. of No. of Per Cent Per Cent Unknown Week Ending: Males Females Males Females Sex Total October 14 325 291 52.8 47.2 - 616 31 1,010 1,254 44.6 55.4 - 2,264 28 713 1,077 39.8 60.2 - 1,790 November 4 912 2,379 27.7 72.3 2 3,293 11 1,943 4,185 31.7 68.3 - 6,128 18 8,009 16,934 32.1 67.9 2 24,945 25 4,317 11,318 27.6 72.4 1 15,636 December 2 2,916 9,730 23.1 76.9 3 12,649 9 1,163 3,299 26.1 73.9 - 4,462 16 263 871 23.2 76.8 - 1,134 - 23 35 171 17.0 83.0 - 206 30 9 42 17.7 82.3 - 51 January 6 1 12 7.7 92.3 - 13 12 - 1 m» 100.0 1. 20 - 1 - 100.0 1 Totals 21,616 51,565 29.5 70.5 8 73,189 Table I I I Length frequencies of sockeye salmon tagged i n 1938. Lengths are taken to nearest centimetre. Per Cent Per Cent No, of Per Cent No. of of No. of of . Females •& of Cms. kales T o t a l Females T o t a l Males T o t a l 43 2 1.1 2 0.5 44 1 0.6 - - 1 0.2 45 1 0.6 - - 1 0.2 46 2 1.1 wm - 2 0.5 47 4 2.2 2 0.8 6 1.4 48 7 3.9 4 1.7 11 2.6 49 12 6.7 - - 12 2.9 50 20 11.2 1 ' 0.4 21 5.0 51 20 11.2 1 0.4 21 5.0 52 25 14.0 - 25 6.0 53 15 8.4 3 0.8 17 4,1 54 11 6.2 15 * 6.3 26 6.2 55 7 3.9 2 0.8 9 2.2 56 3 1.7 25 10.5 38 6.7 57 2 1.1 41 17.2 43 10.3 58 2 1.1 60 25.2 62 14.9 59 2 1.1 29 12,2 31 7.4 60 10 5.6 36 15.1 46 11.0 61 4 2.2 12 5.0 16 3.8 62 7 3.9 6 ' 2.5 13 3.1 63 12 6.7 1 0.4 13 3.1 64 3 1.7 - 3 0.7 65 4 2,2 1 0.4 5 1.2 66 2 1.1 - - 2 0.5 67 - • - ' - - -68 1 0.6 — — 1 0.2 Totals 179 238 417 Table IV Length frequencies of sockeye salmon tagged i n 1959; Lengths are taken to nearest centimetre. Per Cent Per Cent No. of Per Cent Na. of of No. of of Males & of Cms.. Males T o t a l Females T o t a l Females . T o t a l . 43 ... mm _ ** 44 - - 1 0.2 1 0.1 45 3 1.0 - mm 3 0.4 46 2 0.7 - 2 0.2 47 2 0.7 - - 2 0.2 46 3 1.0 1 0.2 4 0.5 49 2 0.7 - - 2 0.2 50 5 1.7 - - 5 0.6 51 4 1.4 7 ' i . 3 11 1.3 52 2 0.7 6 1.1 6 1.0 53 3 1.0 24 ' 4,.4 . 27 3.2 54 3 1.0 47 6 50 6.0 55 1 0.4 64 ' 11.7 65 7.8 56 7 2.4 107 19.5 114 13.6 57 9 3.1 98 17.9 107 12.8 58 19 6.6 83 15.1 102 12.2, 59 29 10.0 6.4 11.7 93 11.1 60 34 11.8 51 5.6 65 7.8 61 49 17.0 9 1.6 58 6.9 6E 48 16.6 5 0.9 53 6.3 63 29 10.0 1 0.2 30 3.6 64 22 7.6 - - 22 2.6 65 9 3.1 - - 9 1.1 66 3 1.0 - 3 0.4 67 - mm mm mm - -68 1 0.4 1 0.2 2 0.2 Totals 289 549 838 Table V Numbers and percentages of male and female sockeye.in each size category and the numbers and percentages tagged i n 1938 and 1939 No. i n Run 1938 1939 Percent 1938 of T o t a l 1939 No. 1938 Tagged 1939 Percent 1938 of T o t a l 1939 Large Males Large Females 1,603 7,377 26,616* 51,565* 12.1 55.2 29.5 70.5 594 2,429 1,123 2,429 13.4 55.0 30.7 66.4 Small Males Small Females 3,908 454 29.3 3.4 1,261 132 82 18 28.6 3.0 2.2 0.5 Unknown Sex 8 8 0.2 Totals 13,342 100.0 100.0 4,416 3,660 100.0 100.0 * Small sockeye not segregated i n the counting i n 1939 Table VI Numbers of dead sockeye examined i n the three s t a t i s t i c a l areas of Cultus Lake i n 1938 and 1939. Area 1938 1939 Spring Creek 2,696 Lake Proper Area 1,478 8,504 Above Traps Area 561 1,328 Totals 4,735 9,832 Table VII Relative numbers of large and small sookeye recovered tagged i n the three s t a t i s t i c a l areas i n 1938 Above Traps Lake Proper Spring Creek A l l Areas Area Area Area Per- Per- Per- Per-No. cent No. cent No. cent No. cent Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. Rec. Large Males 246 16.2 36 17.6 44 10.0 166 19.0 Large Females 1026 67.5 85 41.7 240 54.6 701 80.1 Small Males 222 14.6 76 37.3 140 31.8 6 0.7 Small Females 25 1.7 7 3.4 16 3.6 2 0.2 Totals 1519 204 440 875 Table VIII Relative numbers of large and small sockeye recovered tagged i n three s t a t i s t i c a l areas i n 1939. A l l Areas Above Traps Area Lake Proper Area No. Rec. Per-cent Rec. No. Rec. Per-cent Rec. No. Rec. Per-cent Rec. Large Males 152 31.9 46 43.0 106 28.6 Large Females 314 65.8 58 54.2 256 69.2 Small Males 8 1.7 2 1.9 6 1.7 Small Females 3 0.6 1 0.9 2 0.5 N Totals 477 107 370 Table IX Numbers of Large Males Recovered Tagged i n the Above Traps Area each Week, Segregated According to the Week of Tagging (1938) Date of Tagging Date of Recovery - One Week Period Ending One Week Period Ootober November December January Ending: 10 17 24 31 7 14 2 l 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 October 3 10 17 24 31 November 7 14 21 28 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 December 5 12 19 1 1 1 1 1 Totals 2 4 1 1 4 3 6 5 2 3 3 Table X Numbers of large females recovered tagged i n the Above Traps Area each week, segrega'ted according to the week of tagging. The percentage spawned of tagged and untagged females i s summarized for each week of recovery. (1938) Date of tagging One week Period Ending: Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending  October November" December" : January 10 I? 24" 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 T6 23 30 October 10 17 24 31 November 7 14 21 28 December 5 12 19 1 2 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 6 11 1 6 2 4 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Totals 1 2 5 3 2 6 9 14 22 11 4 .3 2 * % spawned (tagged) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.6 44.6 38.6 50.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 <fo spawned (untagged) 0 0 16.7 0 0 0 4.516.2 52.3 53.9 55.9 94.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table XI Numbers of small males recovered tagged i n the Above Traps Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging (1938). Date of tagging Date of Recovery - One Week Period Ending One week Period October November December January Ending 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 "9 16 23 30 October 3 1 10 1 17 2 3 2 1 24 5 2 1 2 1 2 1 31 3 1 1 November 7 2 14 1 1 1 1 21 3 7 11 4 1 2 28 December 5 1 5 4 2 12 19. 1 Totals 7 8 2 2 5 10 21 8 8 4 1 Table XII Numbers of small females recovered tagged i n the Above Traps Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging. The percentage spawned of these tagged females i s summarized f o r each week of recovery. (1938) Date of tagging Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending " One week Period October • November "" December January Ending; 10 17 24 51 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16, 23 30 October 3 10 1 17 24 1 1 1 1 1 31 November 7 14 1 21 28 December 5 12 19 ; Totals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 % spawned 0 0 100.0 100.0 0 75.0 0 Table XIII Numbers of large males recovered tagged i n the Lake Proper Area each week, segregated according'to the week of tagging (1938). Date of Tagging Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending One Week Period October November December January Ending: 10 17 24 31 7 14 Zl 28 5 12 19 26 2 9~~Tf 23 30 October 3 1 1 10 2 1 1 1 2 1 17 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 24 2 1 2 1 31 1 2 November 7 14 1 21 1 3 3 28 1 December 5 1 12 19 Totals 1 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 2 4 1 Table XIV . Numbers of large females recovered tagged i n the Lake Proper Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging. The percentage spawned of tagged and untagged females i s summarized for each week of recovery. (1938) Date of Tagging Dateof Recovery - One week Period Ending One Week Period October November December January Ending: 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 October 3 10 17 1 24 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 9 6 10 6 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 31 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 5 6 1 1 November 7 1 3 2 1 1 1 14 21 28 1 5 3 13 1 3 12 1 2 31 4 3 12 4 1 8 3 5 7 7 2 2 1 December 5 . 1 2 19 4 1 4 1 3 Totals 2 2 7 4 7 25 37 67 35 18 18 11 4 fo spawned (tagged) fo spawned (untagged) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 17.9 15.9 55.09L9 93.7 95.7 100.0100.0100.0 52.2 84,6 95,3 95^ 96.5 92.2 96.4 103.0 66.7 Table XV >. Numbers of small males recovered tagged i n the Lake Proper Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging (1938 ) Date of Tagging One Week Period Ending: Date of Recovery - One Week Period Ending  October November December January 10 17 24 31 7 14 2 l 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 October 3 10 17 24 31 November 7 14 21 28 December 5 12 19 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 5 9 2 4 2 1 1 1 4 9 9 2 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 7 17 1 1 1 1 1 Totals 5 14 29 44 8 12 5 3 Table XVT . Number of small females recovered tagged i n the Lake Proper Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging. The percentage spawned of thes tagged females i s summarized for each week of recovery. (1938) Date of Tagging One week Period Ending: Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending  October November December January 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 October 3 10 17 24 31 November 7 14 21 28 December 5 12 19 1 1 1 2 2 2 Totals 1. 5 3 4 # spawned 0 100.0 75.0 91.7 100.0 100.0 Table XVTI Numbers of large males recovered tagged i n Spring Greek each, week, segregated according to the week of tagging. (1938) Date of tagging Date of Recovery - One Week Period Ending One Week Period October November December January Ending: 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 October 3 2 1 1 10 6 4 2 3 17 1 3 7 6 1 1 24 1 13 13 4 1 31 1 4 2 November 7 1 1 1 1 14 1. 4 . 6 8 6 21 4 10 12 15 28 December 5 12 19 Totals 1 .8 40 43 28 .31 ..2 1 1 Table XVTII Numbers of large females recovered tagged i n Spring Creek each week, segregated according to the week of tagging. The percentage spawned of tagged and untagged females i s summarized f o r each week of recovery (1938) Date of Tagging Date of Recovery - One week period Ending One week period October November December January Ending 10 17 W 31 7 14 21 28 5 12" 33 26 2 9 16 23 30 October 3 10 17 24 31 November 7 14 . 21 28 December 5 12 19 Totals 3 2 1 9 3 2 3 i 16 21 14 6 3 12 41 38 23 9 3 1 9 22 19 3 3 2 4 7 12 2 2 5 12 19 11 4 2 2 2 27 64 51 53 16 5 3 2 1 4 16 25 10 3 6 1 1 14 18 2 10 2 1 1 i " 49 143 176 128 122 42 11 13 5 fo spawned (tagged) fo spawned (untagged) 035.9 18.9 25.6 36.7 55.3 46.4 61.4 55.8 0 0 50.030.4 21.3 19.5 36.0 53.5 53.5 73.5 27.4 0 0 Table XIX Number Percent Av. Before Nov.15 After Before Nov.15 After days 1938 Nov.15 Jan.8 Jan. 8 Tota l Nov.14 Jan. 8 Jan.8 out Above Traps Area Large Males 7 24 3 34 20.6 70.6 8.8 28 Large Females 11 68 5 84 13.0 81.0 6.0 23 Small Males 15 - 56 5 76 19.7 73.7 6.6 29 Small Females 4 2 1 7 57.1 28.6 14.3 21 Lake Proper Area Large Males 6 28 5 39 15.4 71.8 12.8 47 Large Females 11 193 33 237 4.7 81.4 13'. 9 40 Small Males 2 105 21 128 1.6 82.0 16.4 54 Small Females 1 13 1 15 6.6 86.7 6.6 49 Spring Creek Large Males 1 153 1 155 0.6 98.8 0.6 36 Large Females 1 671 19 691 0.1 97.1 2.8 31 Before Dec. 1 After Before Dec. 1 After 1939 Dec. 1 Jan.18 Jan.18 Tot a l Dec. 1 Jan. 18 Jan. 18 Above Traps Area -Males 3 45 0 48 6.2 93.8 0.0 32 Females 11 47 0 58 19.0 81.0 0.0 19 Lake Proper Area Males 2 108 2 112 1.8 96.4 1.8 41 Females 8 248 1 257 3.1 96.5 0.4 37 Table XX . Numbers of males recovered tagged i n the Above Traps Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging. (1939) Date of Tagging Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending One week Period October November December January February Ending 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 IT"^18 25 1 8 October 12 19 26 November 2 9 16 23 30 December 7 14 21 28 January 4 4 2 1 1 1 3 5 4 4 3 1 3 1 3 Totals 7 10 11 Table XXI , Numbers of females recovered tagged i n the Above Traps Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging.. The percentage spawned of tagged and untagged females i s summarized for each week of recovery. (1939) Date of tagging One Week period Ending: Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending  October November December January February 19 26 . 2 9 16 25 50 7 14 21 28.4 11 18 25 1 8 October 12 19 26 November 2 9 16 23 30 December 7 14 21 28 Totals 4 7 11 16 6 6 1 % spawned (tagged) 0 0 035.7 31.8 51.6 33.3 33.3 100.0 # spawned (untagged) 16.7 0 0 3.63.623.6 32.9 64.5 29.5 34.7 56.0 0 0 Table XXI Numbers of females recovered tagged i n the Above Traps Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging. The percentage spawned of tagged and untagged females i s summarized f o r each week of recovery, (1939) Date of tagging One Week period Ending:  Date o f Recovery - One week Period Ending  October November December January February 19 26 2 9 16 25 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 October 12 19 26 November 2 9 16 23 30 2 1 4 1 3 December 7 3 5 14 4 1 1 21 1 1 28 January 4 4 Totals 7 11 16 6 6 1 % spawned (tagged) 0 0 035.7 31.8 51.6 35.5 35.5 100.0 spawned (untagged) 16.7 0 0 5.65.625.6 52.9 64.5 29.5 54.7 56.0 0 0 Table XXII Numbers of males recovered tagged i n the Lake Proper Area each week, segregated according to the week of tagging. (1939) Date of Tagging Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending One week Period October November December January February Ending 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 "11 18 25 1 8 October 12 19 1 3 26 1 November 2 1 1 1 1 9 2 2 2 2 1 1 16 1 5 9 12 6 6 6 23 1 3 5 5 1 3 30 2 2 5 1 December 7 2 2 1 6 14 2 2 1 1 21 1 28 January 4 Totals 1 1 4 13 16 23 19 15 18 1 1 Table XXIII Numbers of females recovered tagged i n the Lake Proper Area each week, segregated according to the week of Tagging. The percentage spawned of tagged and untagged females i s summarized for each week of recovery (1939) Date of Tagging Date of Recovery - One week Period Ending One week Period October November December January February Ending: 19 26 2 9 16 25 50 7 14 21 88 4 " T l 18 25 1 8 October 12 1 19 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 1 November 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 9 2 2 1 8 6 4 3 16 1 2 23 24 12 8 5 2 1 23 1 2 3 6 12 12 4 7 30 2 8 8 11 3 5 December 7 2 2 5 9 10 10 14 3 3 1 1 2 21 1 28 1 January 4 Totals 3 5 10 43 53 45 47 23 27 1 % spawned (tagged) 100.0 60.0 80.0 83.7 84.0 83.3 97 .3 89.1 98.1 100.0 fo spawned (untagged) 42.9 84.3 79.7 81.0 84.5 89.1 80.8 93.7 97.7 99.5 100.0 100.0 Table XXTV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex, size and time. (1938). Two week Exp. Exp. Ohi- . period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Large Males Oot. 24 0 2 2 Nov. 7 4 4 8 21 0 2 2 Dec. 5 6 7 13 13.75 11.25 2.2727 . 19 20 13 33 18.15 14.85 0.4190 Jan. 2 12 5 17 12.10 9.90 0.6630 16 2 3 5 Totals 44 36 80 44.00 36.00 3.3547 Chi-Sq. = 3. 3547 df = 2 P = .19 Large Females Oct. 24 2 3 5 Nov. 7 10 9 19 21 7 2 9 15.54 8.46 2.2877 Dec. , 5 28 15 43 53.66 18.34 0.1513 19 63 36 99 64.08 34.92 0.0516 Jan. 2 34 15 49 31.72 17.28 0.4647 16 9 3 12 11.00 6.00 0.2576 30 3 2 5 Totals 156 85 241 156.00 85.00 3.2129 Chi-Sq. = 3.2129 df = 4 P - .52 Table XXIV (cont'd) Sex and Exp. Exp. Chi-Size Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged square Small Males Oct. 24 2 7 9 Nov. 7 2 8 10 21 2 2 4 12.43 6.57 16.5338 Dec. 5 5 7 12 10.47 5.53 3.3274 19 61 31 92 60.22 31.78 0.0716 Jan. 2 . 58 16 74 48.44 25.56 5.4624 16 8 4 12 12.44 6.56 0.5070 30 6 1 7 Totals 144 76 220 144.00 76.00 25.9022 Chi-Sq. = 25.9022 df = 4 P .01 Small Females Oct. 24 0 2 2 Nov. 7 2 2 4 21 0 0 0 Dec. 5 2 0 2 19 4 1 5 Jan. 2 0 1 1 16 4 1 5 30 1 0 1 Totals 13 7 20 Table XXV" Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938.). Two week Exp. Exp. Chi-period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Large Males Oct. 24 - - -Nov. 7 2 1 3 21 14 10 24 20.51 6.49 4.1258 Dec. 5 28 9 37 28.10 8.90 0.0011 19 45 9 54 41.02 12.98 1.6066 Jan. 2 30 9 39 29.62 • 9.38 0.0203 16 19 6 25 19.75 6.25 0.1185 30 1 0 1 Totals ' 139 44 183 139.00 44.00 5.8723 Chi-Sq. = 5.8723 df = 4 P = .20 Large Females Oct. 24 - - -Nov. 7 2 4 6 21 24 11 35 27.76 13.24 0.3456 Dec. 5 56 32 88 59.57 28.43 0.6622 19 216 107 323 218.67 104.33 0.1009 Jan. 2 124 53 177 119.83 57.17 0.4493 16 73 29 102 77.17 36.83 0.5884 30 8 4 12 Totals 503 240 743 503.00 240.00. 2.1464 Chi-Sq. = 2.1464 df = 4 P = .72 Table XXV (cont'd) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged "CnT: Square Small Males Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 24 7 21 5 19 2 16 30 Totals 1 10 24 131 136 54 -11 0 5 7 49 57 18 4 1 15 31 180 193 72 15 11.58 22.44 130.30 139.70 62.98 4.42 8.56 49.70 53.30 24.02 367 140, 507 367.00 140.00 0.7804 0.4447 0.0137 0.1237 0.2347 1.5972' Chi-Sq. = 1.5972 df - 4 P = .83 Small Females Oot. Nov. Dec. Jan. 24 7 21 5 19 2 16 30 Totals 1 4 10 10 4 1 0 7 7 1 2 4 17 17 5 14.83 14.17 29 16 45 29.00 8.17 7.83 16.00 0.0054 0.0037 0.0091 Chi-Sq. = 0.0091 df = 1 P = .98 Table XXVI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) Two week period Tagged Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Large Males Nov. 7 0 '1 1 21 23 8 31 22.51 9.49 0.0360 Dec. 5 182 89 271 190.67 80.33 1.3298 19 163 62 225 158.31 66.69 0.4687 Jan. 2 24 5 29 22.51 9.49 1.8247 16 2 1 3 30 0 0 0 Totals 394 166 560 394.00 166.00 3.6592 Chi -Sq. = 3.6592 df = 3 F = .30 Large Females Nov. 7 _ -21 60 51 111 74.02 36.98 7.9708 Dec. 5 715 326 1041 694.16 346.84 1.8779 19 518 252 770 513.46 256.54 0.1204 Jan. 2 77 53 130 86.69 43.31 3.2511 16 21 13 34 22.67 11.33 0.3692 30 12 6 18 12.00 6.00 0.0000 Totals 1403 , 701 2104 1403.00 701.00 13.5894 Chi -Sq. = 13.5894 df - 5 P s .02 Table XXVT (cont fd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the spring Creek area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Nov. 7 21 1 0 1 Dec. 5 1 0 1 19 14 4 18 Jan. 2 1 . 2 3 16 - - -30 - - - -Totals 17 6 23 Small Females Nov. 7 _ «_ _ 21 2 1 3 Dec. 5 2 1 3 19 3 0 3 Jan. 2 - - -16 - - -30 - - -Totals 7 2 9 Table XX7TI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas combined segregated by sex, size and time (1938) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Large Males Oct. 24 0 2 2 Nov. 7 6 6 12 9.81 4.19 4.9442 21 37 20 57 39.96 17.04 0.7335 Dec. 5 216 105 321 225.06 95.94 1.2198 19 228 84 312 218.74 93.26 1.3114 Jan. 2 66 19 85 59.59 25.41 2.3065 16 23 10 33 23.84 10.16 0.0036 30 1 0 1 Totals 577 246 823 577.00 246.00L 10.5190 Chi-Sq. = 10.5190 df = 5 F = .06 Large Females Oct. 24 2 3 5 Nov. 7 12 13 25 20.03 9.97 5.4622 21 91 64 155 103.50 51.50 4.5437 Dec. 5 799 373 1172 782.60 389.40 1.0344 19 797 395 1192 795.95 396.05 0.0042 Jan. 2 235 121 356 237.72 118.28 0.0936 16 103 45 148 98.83 49.17 0.5295 . 30: 23 12 35 23.37 11.63 0.0177 Totals 2062 1026 3088 2067.00 1026.00 11.6853 Chi-Sq. = 11.6853 df = 6 P = .07 Table XXVTI (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas combined segregated by sex, size and time (1938) Two week " period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Oct. 24 2 7 9 Nov. 7 3 8 11 14.08 5.92 19.7782 21 13 7 20 14.08 5.92 0.2798 Dec. 5 30 14 44 30.98 13.02 0.1048 19 206 84 290 204.15 85.85 0.0567 Jan. 2 195 75 270 190.08 79.92 0.4302 16 62 22 84 59.14 24.86 0.4673 30 17 5 22 15.49 • 6.51 0.4974 Totals 528 222 750 528.00 222.00 21.6144 Chi-Sq. = 21.6144 df = 6 P < .01 Small Females Oct. 24 0 2 2 Nov. 7 2 2 4 21 3 2 5 Dec. 5 8 1 9 13.24 6.76 0.0129 19 17 8 25 16.56 8.44 0.0346 Jan. 2 10 8 18 19.20 9.80 0.0429 16 8 2 10 30 1 0 1 Totals 49' 25 74 49.00 25.00 0.0904 Chi-Sq., - 0.0904 df = 2 P = .95 Table XXVIII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n eaoh of the areas segregated by sex and size (1938).. Sex and Size Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Above Traps Area Large Males 44 Small Males 144 Large Females 156 Small Females 13 36 76 85 7 80 220 241 20 50.91 140.00 153.36 12.73 29.09 80.00 87.64 7.27 2.5793 0.3143 0.1249 0.0157 Totals 357 204 561 357.00 204.00 3.0342 Chi-Sq. = 3.0342 df r 3 P - .39 Lake Proper Area Large Males 139 Small Males 367 Large Females 503 Small Females 29 44 140 240 16 183 507 743 45 128 -.52 356.07 521.81 31.60 54.48 150.93 221.19 13.40 2.8706 1.1270 2.7777 0.7184 Totals 1,038 440 1,478 1,038.00 440.00 7.4937 Chi-Sq. = 7.4937 df - 3 P = .06 Table 3QCVTII (cont'd) Sex and Size Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Spring Greek Area Large Males 394 Small Males 17 Large Females 1403 Small Females 7 166 6 701 2 560 23 2104 9 378.24 15.54 1421.14 6.08 181.76 7.46 682.86 2.92 2.0232 0.4229 0.7134 0.4291 Totals 1821 875 2696 1821.00 875.00 3.5886 Chi -Sq. - 3. 5886 df = 3 P = .31 A l l Areas Large Males Email Males Large Females Small Females 577 528 2052 49 246 222 1026 25 823 750 3088 74 558.98 509.40 2097.36 50.26 264.02 240.60 990.64 23.74 1.8109 1.9896 1.8582 0.0985 Totals 3216 1519 4735 3216.00 1519.00 5.7572 Chi -Sq. = 5. 7572 df = 3 P - .12 Table XXIX Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area by sex, size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged To t a l Exp. Chi- Chi-Tagged Square Square Large Males Oct. 24 0 2 2 Nov. 7 4 4 8 21 0 2 2 Dec. 5 6 7 13 16.73 8.27 8.1841 19 20 13 33 22.08 10.92 0.5921 Jan. 2 12 5 17 14.72 7.28 0.1064 16 2 3 5 8.8826 Totals 44 36 80 53.52 26.47. 5.1160 Total Chi-Sq. = 8.8826 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 5.1160 df s 3 df = 1 P = .03 P = .02 Table XXIX (cont'd) Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Tramps Area by-sex, size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938) Two week Tota l period ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Chi- Chi-Tagged Square Square Large Females Oct. 24 2 3 5 Nov. 7 10 9 19 16.06 7.94 3.1024 21 7 2 9 Dec. 5 28 15 43 34.79 17.21 0.0038 19 63 36 99 66.23 32.77 0.4759 Jan. 2 34 15 49 32.78 16.22 0.1372 16 9 3 12 11.37 5.63 0.1054 30 3 2 5 3.8247 Totals 156 85 241 161.23 79.77 0.5125 Total Chi-Sq. = 3.8247 df = 5 P = .57 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 0.5125 df = 1 P = .22 Table XXIX (cont'd) Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area by-sex, size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938) Two week Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Small Males -Oct. 24 2 7 9 Nov. 7 2 8 10 21 2 2 4 12.71 6.29 18.0299 Dec. 5 5 7 12 10.70 5.30 3.8625 19 61 31 92 61.55 30.45 0.0015 Jan. 2 58 16 74 49.51 24.'49 4.3991 16 8 4 12 12.71 6.29 0.3955 30 6 1 7 26.6885 Totals 144 76 220 147.18 72.82 0.2076 Tota l Chi-Sq. = 26.6885 df = 5 P < .01 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 0.2076 df = 1 P = .66 Interaction Chi-Sq. = 26.4809 df = 4 P < .01 Small Females • Totals 13 7 20 13.38 6.62 0.0326 Chi-Sq. = 0.0326 df = 1 P = .97 Table XXX Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples in- the Lake Proper Area by sex, size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938). Two week Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- C h i -ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Large Males Nov. 7 2 1 3 81 14 10 24 18.06 8.94 0.7096 Dec* 5 28 9 37 24.75 12.25 1.2890 19 45 9 54 36.13 17.87 3.9474 Jan. 2 30 9 39 26.09 12.91 1.7701 16 19 6 25 17.39 8.61 1.1829 30 1 0 1 8.8990 Totals 139 44 183 122.43 60.57 6.7756 Total Chi-Sq. . 8.8990 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 6.7756 df = 5 df = 1 P - .16 P < .01 Table XXX (cont'd) Two week : Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- C h i -endlng: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Large Females Nov. 7 2 4 6 21 24 11 35 27.43 13.57 0.2252 Dec. 5 56 32 88 58.87 29.13 0.4227 19 216 107 323 216.09 106.91 0.0001 Jan. 2 124 53 177 118.42 58.58 0.7944 16 73 29 102 76.27 37.73 0.8863 30 • 8 4 12 2.5287 Totals 503 240 743 497.08 245.92 0.2130 Total Chi-Sq. Pooled Chi-Sq. = 2.4458 - 0.2130 df = 5 df = 1 P r .81 P = .64 Table XXX (cont'd) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Total Chi-Square Small Males Nov. Dec. Jan. 7 81 5 19 8 16 30 1 10 84 131 136 54 11 0 5 7 49 57 18 4 1 15 31 180 193 72 15 10.70 20.74 120.42 129.12 58.21 5.30 10.26 59.58 63.88 28.79 0.0254 1.5482 2.8083 1.1076 2.3934 7.8829 Totals 367 140 507 339.19 167.81 6.8895 Total Chi-Sq. Pooled Chi-Sq. = 7.8829 = 6.8895 df = 5 df = 1 P - .16 P ^ .01 Table XXX (cont'd) Two week ^ Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Small Females Nov. 7 21 1 1 2 Dec. 5 4 0 4 19 10 7 17 15.39 7.61 0.2990 Jan. 2 10 7 17 14.72 7.28 0.1064 16 4 1 5 30 - - 0.1363 Totals 29 16 45 30.11 14.89 1.2367 Total Chi-Sq. = 0.1363 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 1.2367 df = 2 df = 1 P = .94 P = .27 Table XXXI Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area by sex, size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938). Two week Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- C h i -ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square S quare Large Males Nov. 7 1 1 21 23 8 31 21.42 10.59 0.3567 Dec. 5 182 89 271 181.30 89.70 0.0082 19 163 62 225 150.53 74.47 3.1211 Jan. 2 24 5 29 21.42 10.59 2.9730 16 2 1 3 30 6.4590 Totals. 394 166 560 374.65 185.35 3.0195 Total Chi-Sq. = 6.4590 df = 4 P = .16 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 3.0195 df - 1 P = .08 Table XXXI (cont'd) Two week Total period Exp. Exp. C h i - Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Large Females Nov. 7 _ •* _ £1 60 51 111 74.26 36.74 8.2731 Dec. 5 715 326 1041 696.44 344.56 1.4943 19 518 252 770 515.14 254.86 0.0480 Jan. £ 77 53 130 86.97 43.03 3.4529 16 21 13 34 22.75 11.25 0.4068 30 12 6 18 12.04 5.96 0.0004 13.6755 Totals 1403 701 2104 1407.61 696.39 0.0456 Total Chi-Sq. Pooled Chi-Sq. = 13.6755 = 0.0456 df = 6 df = 1 P = .03 P = .85 Table XXXI (cont'd) Exp. Exp. Chi- Total Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagp ;ed . Square Chi-Sq. Small Males Totals 17 6 23 15.39 7. 61 0.5090 Chi-Sq. = 0.5090 = 1 P - .50 Small Females Totals 7 2 9 6.02 2. 98 0.4818 Chi-Sq. - 0.4818 df = ' l P = .22 Table XXXII Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas by sex. size, and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938) Two week T o t a l period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged' Tagged Square Square Large Males Oct. 24 0 2 2 Nov. 7 6 6 12 21 37 20 57 47.50 23.50 1.2973 Dec. 5 216 105 321 214.75 106.25 0.0220 19 228 84 312 208.73 103.27 5.3747 Jan. 2 66 19 85 56.87 28.13 4.4290 16 23 10 33 22.75 11.25 0.2076 30 1 0 1 11.3306 Totals 577 246 823 550.60 272.40 3.8244 To t a l Chi-Sq. = 11.3306 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 3.8244 df = 5 df = 1 P - .05 P = .05 Table XXXII (cont'd) Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas by sex, size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938) Two week Tot a l period Exp. Exp. Chi - C h i -ending: Untagged Tagged To t a l Untagged Tagged Square Squa re Large Female's Oct. 24 2 3 5 Nov. 7 12 13 25 20.07 9.93 5.5463 21 91 64 155 103.70 51.30 3.8244 Dec. 5 799 373 1172 784.09 387.91 0.8566 19 797 395 1192 797.47 394.53 0.0009 Jan. 2 , 235 121 356 238.17 117.83 0.1275 16 103 45 148 99.01 48.99 0.4858 30 23 12 35 23.42 11.58 0.0227 10.8642 Totals 2062 1026 3088 2065.92 1022.08 0.0199 Tota l Chi-Sq. = : 10.8642 df s 7 P = .15 Fooled Chi-Sq. = 0.0199 df r 1 P = .90 Table XXXEI (cont'd) Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas by sex, size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938) Two week Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged SquareSquare Small Males Oct. 24 2 7 9 Nov. 7 3 8 11 13.38 6.62 15.8564 21 13 7 20 13.38 ' 6.62 0.0326 Dec. 5 30 14 44 29.44 14.56 0.0322 19 206 84 290 194.01 95.99 2.2387 Jan. 2 195 75 270 180.63 89.37 0.6786 16 62 22 84 56.20 27.80 1.8087 30 17 5 22 14.72 7.28 1.0673 21.7145 Totals 528 222 750 501.76 248.24 4.1459 To t a l Chi-Sq. = 21.7145 df s 7 P < .01 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 4.1459 df = 1 P = .04 Interaction Chi-Sq. = 17.5686 df = 6 . . . P < .01 Table XXXII (cont'd) Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas by sex-size and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1938) Two week Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Small Females Oct. 24 0 2, 2 Nov. 7 2 2 4 21 3 2 5 Dec. 5 8 1 9 13.38 6.62 0.0326 19 17 8 25 16.73 8.27 0.0132 Jan. 2 10 8 18 19.40 9.60 0.0249 16 8 2 10 30 1 0 .1 0.0707 Totals 49 25 74 49.51 24.49 0.0159 Total Chi-Sq.. = 0.0707 df = 3 P = .99 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 0.0159 df = 2 P = .99 Table XXXIII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1938) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 24 4 14 18 11.45 6.55 13.3209 Nov. 7 18 23 41 26.09 14.91 6.8981 21 9 6 15 9.55 5.45 0.0872 Dec. 5 41 29 70 44.55 25.45 0.7781 19 148 81 229 145.72 83.28 0.0981 Jan. 2 104 37 141 89.73 51.27 6.2412 16 23 11 34 29.91 17.09 0.8779 30 10 3 13 Totals 357 204 561 357.00 204.00 28.3015 Chi-Sq. = 28.3015 df = 6 P < .01 Table XXXIV Teat of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by time (1938) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged S qua re Nov. 7 5 5 10 21 49 27 76 60.39 25.61 2.2705 Dec. 5 112 48 160 112.37 47.63 0.0041 19 402 172 574 403.13 170.87 0.0107 Jan. 2 300 126 426 299.18 126.82 0.0075 16 150 54 204 143.27 60.73 1.0619 30 20 8 28 19.66 8.34 0.0198 Totals 1038 440 1478 1038.00 440.00 3.3745 Chi-Sq. =3.3745 df = 5 P = .63 Table XXXV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by time (1938) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-. ending Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 7 0 1 1 21 86 60 146 99.29 47.71 5.4809 Dec. 5 900 416 1316 888.89 427.11 0.4279 19 698 318 1016 686.25 329.75 0.6199 Jan. 2 102 60 162 109.42 52.58 1.5503 16 23 14 37 24.99 12.01 0.4882 30 12 18 12.16 5.84 0.0065 Totals 1821 875 2696 1821.00 875.00 8.5737 Chi-Sq. = 8.5737 df = 5 P r .13 Table XXXVI Test of homogeneity of tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by time (1938) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 24 4 14 18 12.23 5.77 17.2771 Nov. 7 23 29 52 35.32 16.68 3.5255 21 144 93 237 * 160.97 76.03 5.5767 Dec. 5 1053 493 1546 1050.04 495.96 0.0260 19 1248 571 1819 1235.46 583.54 0.3968 Jan. 2 506 223 729 495.13 233.87 0.7438 16 196 79 275 186.78 88.22 1.4187 30 42 17 59 40.07 18.93 0.2898 Totals 3216 1519 4735 3216.00 1519.00 29.2544 Chi-Sq. = 29.2544 df = 7 F < .01 Table XXXVII Test of homogeneity of tag r a t i o samples on the spawning grounds using the- known tag r a t i o at the counting fence and the border t o t a l s of the two-week periods (1938) . C h i - S q . Period from and Exp. Exp. Chi- 2-week ' Area Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square P periods df P Cal. Pc A l l season Above Trap's 357 204 561 375.32 185 .68 2.7017 .10 28,3015 6 <L .01 12,144 Lake Proper 1,038 440 1,478 988.80 489.20 7.3963 < .01 3 .3745 5 .63 14 ,834 Spring Greek 1,821 875 2 ,696 3,803.64 892.36 0 .5048 .22 8.5737 5 .13 13 ,606 A l l Areas 3,216 1,519 4 ,735 3,167.79 1 ,567 .21 2.2167 .13 29.2544 7 < .01 13,765 Sept. ,27 - Nov. 8 Above. Traps 484 77 561 462.36 98.64 6.3050 .015 142.3730 4 <;oi 17,092 Lake Proper 1,255 233 1 ,4781 ,218 .11 259.89 3 .3758 .07 33 .2548 4 < .01 14,881 Spring Creek 2 ,274 422 2,696 2 ,221.95 474.05 6.'9343 < .01 159.4505 3 < .01 14 ,988 A l l Areas 4,013 722 4 ,735 3,902.42 832 .58 17.8202 < o01 294.2499 6 ^ .01 15,385 Oct. 2 1 - Nov. 23 .. . • -Above Traps 423 124 547 434,09 112.91 1.3726 .24 19.2312 4 < .01 12,149 Lake Proper 1,201 277 1,478 1 1 7 2 . 9 2 305 .08 3.2567 .06 2.2167 5 .82 14 ,695 Spring Creek 2 ,077 619 2 ,696 2,139.50 556.50 8 .8451 <.oi 1.4150 4 .85 11 ,995 A l l Areas 3,701 1,020 4 ,721 3,746.51 974.49 2.6782 .10 11.5206 6 .07 12 ,747 Nov. 9 - Dec. 3 Above Traps 374 127 501 423.27 77 .73 36.9655 <r.oi 2.9822 3 •3.9 8 ,166 Lake Proper 1,249 202 1,451 1,225.88 225.12. 2.8104 .09 2 .0643 3 "* o 55 14,869 Spring Creek 2,196 499 ' 2^695 2,276.72 418.28 18 .4393 < » o i 97.1141 4 < .01 11,180 A l l Areas 3,819 828 4,647 3 ,926.02 7 2 0i9 8 18.8030 < .01 48.3033 5 C .01 11 ,618 Table XXXVIII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex and time (1939) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Males Oct. 19 1 0 1 26 0 0 0 Nov. 2 1 0 1 9 5 0 5 16 7 1 8 23 5 0 5 30 10 2 12 Dee. 7 47 7 54 78.75 7.25 1.1391 14 111 7 118 108.05 9.95 0.9552 21 125 10 135 123.61 11.39 0.1853 28 98 11 109 99.80 9.20 0.3846 Jan. 4 59 7 66 60.43 5.57 0.0047 11 33 2 35 32.05 2.95 18 19 1 20 18.31 1.69 Totals 521 48 569 521.00 48.00 2.6689 Chi-Sq. = 2.6689 df - 4 P = .61 Table X T O T I I (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex and time (1939) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Females Oct. 19 2 0 2 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 6 0 6 9 14 0 14 11 12 2 14 23 28 4 32 65.40 5.60 0.0310 30 42 5 47 43.35 3.65 0.5414 Dec. 7 114 8 122 112.52 9.48 0.2505 14 127 11 138 127.27 10.73 0.0074 21 145 16 161 148.48 12.52 1.0488 28 121 6 127 117.13 9.87 1.6453 Jan. 4 56 6 62 84.85 7.15 0.0034 11 21 1 22 18 7 0 7 25 1 0 1 Totals 700 59 759 700.00 59.00 3.5278 Chi-Sq. = 3.5278 df = 6 P = .75 Table XXXIX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex and time (1939) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Males Nov. 23 3 1 4 30 10 1 11 Dec. 7 78 4 82 14 291 13 304 383.01 17.99 0.0000 21 364 16 380 362.95 17.05 0.0677 28 440 23 463 442.22 20.78 0.2483 Jan. 4 471 19 490 468.01 21.99 0.4257 11 339 15 354 338.12 15.88 0.0511 18 311 18 329 389.69 18.31 0.1633 25 , 52 1 53 Feb. 1 22 0 22 8 . 3 1 4 Totals 2384 112 2496 2384.00 112.00 0.9561 Chi-Sq. = 0.9561 df = 5 P = .96 Table XXXIX (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex and time (1939) One week period ending Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. T o t a l Chi-Square Females Nov. 23 12 3 15 30 30 5 35 Dec. 7 165 10 175 215.35 9.65 7.5489 14 786 44 830 794.36 35.64 2.0490 21 1251 53 1304 1248.00 56.00 0.1679 28 1150 45 1195 1143.68 51.32 0.8132 Jan. 4 1029 47 1076 1029.79 46.21 0.0141 11 604 23 627 600.07 26.93 0.5993 18 625 27 652 718.75 32.25 0.5852 25 72 1 73 Feb. 1 23 0 23 8 3 0 3 Totals 5750 258 6008 5750.00 258.00 11.7776 Chi-Sq. = 11.7776 df r 6 P = .10 Table XL Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by sex and time (1939) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged S qua re Males Oct. 19 1 0 1 26 0 0 0 Nov. 2 1 0 1 9 5 0 5 16 7 1 8 23 8 1 9 30 20 3 23 Dec. 7 125 11 136 173.45 9.55 4.5962 14 402 20 422 399.97 22.03 0.1992 21 489 26 515 488.12 26.88 0.0304 28 538 34 572 542.14 29.86 0.6025 Jan. 4 530 26 556 526.98 29.02 0.3337 11 372 17 389 368.69 20.31 0.5692 18 330 . 19 349 405.65 22.35 • 0.0860 25 52 1 53 Feb. 1 22 0 22 8 3 1 4 Totals 2905 160 3065 2905.00 160.00 6.4172 Chi-Sq. = 6.4172 df = 6 P s .39 Table XL (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by sex and time (1939) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Females Oct. 19 2 0 2 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 6 0 6 9 14 0 14 16 12 2 14 23 40 7 47 30 72 10 82 161.08 7.92 16.2629 Dec. 7 279 18 297 283.09 13.91 1.2617 14 913 55 968 922.65 45.35 2.1543 21 1396 69 1465 1396.38 68.62 0.0022 28 1271 51 1322 1260.07 61.93 2.0238 Jan. 4 1085 53 1138 1084.69 53.31 0.0027 11 625 24 649 618.60 30.40 • 1.4136 18 632 27 659 723.44 35.56 1.6862 25 73 1 74 Feb. 1 23 0 23 8 3 0 3 Totals 6450 317 6767 6450.00 317.00 24.8074 Chi-Sq.. = 24.8074 : df s 7 P < .01 Table XLI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n each of the areas segregated by sex (1939) Sex Untagged Tagged Tot a l Exp. ' Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Above Traps Area Males Fema l e s 521 700 48 59 569 759 523.15 697.85 45.85 61.15 1.0965 0.0822 Totals 1221 107 1328 1221.00 107.00 1.1787 Chi' -Sq. = 1.1787 df = 1 P s .27 Lake Proper Area Males Females 2384 5750 112 258 2496 6008 2387.40 5746.60 108.60 261.40 0.1112 0.0462 Totals 8134 370 8504 8134.00 370.00 0.1574 Chi. -Sq. Z 0.1574 df = 1 P r .70 A l l Areas Males Females 2905 6450 160 317 3065 6767 2916.30 6438.70 148.70 328.30 0.9025 0.4087 Totals 9355 477 9832 9355.00 477.00 1.3112 Chi-Sq. r 1.3112 df = 1 P = .26 Table XLII Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area by sex and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1939) One week Tota l period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Males Oct.17-19 1 0 1 26 0 0 0 Nov. 2 1 0 1 9 5 0 5 16 7 1 8 23 5 0 5 30 10 2 12 Dec. 7 47 7 54 14 111 7 118 193.78 10.22 4.7351 21 125 i o 135 128.24 6.76 1.6348 28 98 11 109 103.54 5.46 5.9176 Jan. 4 59 7 66 • 114.94 6.06 2.6968 11 33 2 35 18 19 1 20 14.9843 Totals 521 48 569 540.50 28.50 14.2387 Total Chi-Sq. = 14.9843 df = 4 P <C .01 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 14.2387 df B 1 P <. .01 Table XLII (cont'd) One ' week Total period Exp. Exp. . Chi- Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Females Oct. 19 2 0 2 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 , 6 0 6 9 14 0 14 16 12 2 14 23 28 4 32 30 42 5 47 * 113.05 5.95 4.5117 Dec. 7 114 8 122 115.90 6.10 0.6230 14 127 11 138 131.10 6.90 2.5645 21 145 16 161 152.95 8.05 8.2645 28 121 6 127 179.05 10.95 0.4073 Jan. 4 56 6 62 11 21 1 22 18 7 0 7 25 1 0 1 16.3710 Totals 700 59 759 721.05 37.95 12.2905 Total Chi-Sq. = 16.3710 df = 5 P .01 Pooled Chi-Sq. - 12.2905 df - 1 P .01 Table XLIII Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area by sex and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1939) One week Total period , Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Square Males Nov. 23 3 1 4 30 10 1 11 Dec. 7 78 4 82 14 291 13 304 ' 380.95 20.05 0.0579 21 364 16 380 361.00 19.00 0.4986 28 440 23 463 439.85 23.15 0.0010 Jan. 4 471 19 490 465.50 24.50 0.0130 11 339 15 354 336.30 17.70 0.4335 18 311 18 329 397.60 20.40 0.0082 25 52 1 53 Feb. 1 22 0 22 8 3 1 4 1.0122 Totals 2384 112 2496 2371.20 124.80 1.3819 Total Chi-Sq. = 1.0122 df = 6 P = .99 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 1.3819 .df a 1 P r .24 Table 2XIII (cont'd) Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area by sex and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1939) One week Total period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending Untagged Tagged To t a l Untagged Tagged Square Square Females Nov. 23 12 3 15 30 30 5 35 Dec. 7 165 10 175 213.75 10.25 6.1408 14 786 44 830 788.50 41.50 ©.1585 21 1251 53 1304 1238.80 65.20 2.4030 28 1150 45 1195 1135.25 59.75 3.8329 Jan. 4 1029 47 1076 1022.20 53.80 0.9047 11 604 23 627 713.45 36.55 2.1025 18 625 27 652 25 72 1 73 Feb. 1 23 0 23 8 3 0 3 17.8835 Totals 5750 258 6008 5707.60 300.40 6.2995 To t a l Chi-Sq. = 17.8835 df B 7 P - .015 Pooled" Chi-Sq. = 6.2995 df r 1 P = .015 Interaction Chi-Sq. = 11.5840 df = 6 P s .07 Table XLTY Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas by sex and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1939) One week To t a l period Exp. Exp. Chi- Ghi-ending Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Square Males Oct. 19 1 0 1 26 0 0 0 Nov. 2 1 0 1 9 5 0 5 16 7 1 8 23 8 1 9 30 20 3 23 Dec. 7 125 11 136 173.85 9.15 5.3980 14 402 20 422 400.90 21.10 0.0604 21 489 26 515 489.25 25.75 0.0026 28 538 34 572 543.40 28.60 1.0732 Jan. 4 530 26 556 528.20 27.80 0.1227 11 372 17 389 369.55 19.45 0.3249 18 330 19 349 406.60 21.40 0.0079 25 52 1 53 Feb. 1 22 0 22 8 3 1 4 6.9897 Totals 2905 160 3065 2910.78 153.22 0.2295 Tota l Chi-Sq.. = 6.9897 df = 7 P = .43 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 0.2295 df = 1 P = .62 Table XLIV (cont'd) Comparison of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas by sex and time, with the known r a t i o at the counting fence (1939) One week Tota l period Exp. Exp. Chi- Chi-ending Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Square Females Oct. 19 2 0 2 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 6 0 6 9 14 0 14 16 12 2 14 23 40 7 47 30 72 10 82 160.55 8.45 13.8652 Dec. 7 279 18 297 282.15 14.85 0.7034 14 913 55 968 919.59 48.41 0.9429 21 1396 69 1465 1391.74 73.26 0.2607 28 1271 51 1322 1255.89 66.11 3.6353 Jan. 4 1085 53 1138 1081.09 56.91 0.2827 11 625 24 649 616.55 32.45 2.3162 18 632 27 659 721.05 37.95 2.7461 25 73 1 74 Feb. 1 23 0 23 8 3 0 3 24.7525 Totals 6450 317 6767 6428.60 338.40 1.4245 To t a l Chi-Sq. = 24.7525 df = 8 P < .01 Pooled Chi-Sq. = 1.4245 df * 1 p s .24 Interaction Chi-Sq. = 23.3280 df = 7 P < .01 Table XLV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1939). One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 19 3 0 3 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 7 0 7 9 19 0 19 16 19 3 22 23 33 4 37 84.59 7.41 0.0247 30. 52 7 59 54.25 4.75 1.1591 Dec. 7 161 15 176 161.82 14.18 0.0516 14 238 18 256 235.37 20.63 0.3647 . 21 270 26 296 272.15 23.85 0.2108 28 219 17 236 216.98 19.02 0.2333 Jan. 4 115 13 128 195.84 17.16 0.0016 11 54 3 57 18 26 1 27 25 1 0 1 Totals 1221 107 1328 1221.00 107.00 2.0458 Chi-Sq.. = 2.0458 df = 6 P = .92 Table XLVI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by time (1939). One week period Exp. Exp. Chi ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 23 15 4 19 30 40 6 46 Dec. 7 243 14 257 307.99 14.01 7.4475 14 1077 57 1134 1084.66 49.34 1.2433 21 1615 69 1684 1610.72 73.28 0.2614 28 1590 68 1658 1585.86 72.14 0.2484 Jan. 4 1500 66 1566 1497.87 68.13 0.0695 11 943 38 981 938.32 42.68 0.5365 18 936 45 981 1108.58 50.42 0.1215 25 124 2 126 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 6 1 7 Totals 8134 370 8504 8134.00 370.00 9.9281 Chi-Sq. - 9.9281 df - 6 P - .13 Table XLVII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by time (1939)* One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged To t a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 19 3 0 3 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 7 0 7 9 19 0 19 16 19 3 22 23 48 8 56 105.61 5.39 6.1370 30 92 13 105 99.91 5.09 12.9186 Dec. 7 404 29 433 411.99 21.01 3.1936 14 1315 75 1390 1322.56 67.44 0.8907 21 1885 95 1980 1883.94 96.06 0.0123 28 1809 85 1894 1802.11 91.89 0.5429 Jan. 4 1615 79 1694 1611.82 82.18 0.1294 11 997 41 1038 987.64 50.36 1.8284 18 962 46 1008 1129.42 57.58 1.3374 25 125 2 127 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 6 1 7 Totals 9355 477 9832 9355.00 477.00 26.9903 Chi-Sq. o 26.9903 df « 8 P «=: .01 Table : XEVIII Test of homogeneity of tag.ratio samples on the spawning grounds u s i n g the known tag r a t i o at the counting fence and the border t o t a l of the week periods (1939) Chi-Sq. Period and Area Untagged Tagged : Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged C h i -Square P from week periods df P C a l . Pop. A l l season Above Traps 1,221 107 1,328 1,261.59 66.41 26.1146 <.01 2.0458 6 .92 45,425 Lake Proper 8,134 370 8,504 8,078.74 425.26 7.5587 <.01 9.9281 6 .13 84,121 A l l Areas 9,355 477 9,832 9,340.33 491.67 0.4607 .49 26.9903 8 C .01 75,441 Oct. 10 - Nov. 16 Above Traps 1,287 41 1,328 1,296.91 31.09 3.2345 .07 13.1103 3 C .01 55,096 Lake Proper 8,315 189 8,504 8,304.91 199.09 0.6340 .42 69.2772 6 £ . 0 1 76,536 A l l Areas 9,602 230 9,832 9,601.82 230.18 0.0002 .99 99.4585 7 ^.01 72,714 Nov. 1 - Dec. 3 Above Traps 1,235 80 1,315 1,260.33 54. 67 12.2451 <v.01 4.3145 6 .63 50,019 Lake Proper 8,207 297 8,504 8,150.43 353.57 9.4436 ^.01 7.1260 7 .42 87,130 A l l Areas 9,442 377 9,819 9,410.76 408.24 2.4943 .12 12.8758 8 .12 79,255 Nov. 17 - Dec. 29 Above Traps 1,207 66 1,273 1,238 . 93 34.07 30.7473 <.01 3.2736 4 .51 37,785 Lake Proper 8,323 181 8,504 8,276.38 227.62 9.8111 <.01 27.4241 6 i~ .01 92,041 A l l Areas 9,530 247 9,777 9,515.31 261i69 0.8473 .17 12.9347 6 .03 76,092 Table XLIX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938)(Tagging Sept. 27-Nov. 8). Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square . Large Males Oct. 24 0 2 2 • Nov. 7 4 4 8 21 0 2 2 Dec. 5 8 5 13 20.31 . 4.69 16.0089 19 31 2 33 44.69 10.31 8.2432 Jan. 2 17 0 17 16 5 0 5 30 - - -Totals 65 15 80 65.00 15.00 24.2521 Chi-Sq. s 24.2521 df - 1 P ^1.01 Table XLIX (cont'd) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l 0 Untagged Tagged Square Large Females Oct. 24 2 3 5 Nov. 7 10 9 19 21 7 2 9 Dec. 5 40 3 43 68.43 7.57 13.0465 19 94 5 99 148.57 16.43 6.0108 Jan.• 2 47 2 49 16 12 0 12 30 5 0 5 Totals 217 24 241 217.00 24.00 19.0573 Chi-Sq. = 19.0573 df = 1 P <.01 Table XLIX (cont'd) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi -ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Oct. 24 2 7 9 Nov. 7 2 8 10 21 2 2 4 Dec. 5 9 3 12 107.95 19.05 0.0558 19 85 7 92 Ian. 2 71 3 74 79.05 13.95 5.3859 16 10 2 12 30 6 1 7 Totals 187 33 220 187.00 33.00 5.3859 Chi-Sq. = 5.3859 df = 1 P = .02 Table XLIX (cont'd) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Small Females Oct. £4 0 2 £ Nov. 7 £ £ 4 £1 -Dec. 5 2 0 2 19 5 0 5 Jan. 2 O i l 16 5 0 5 30 1 0 1 Totals 15 5 20 Table L Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938)(Tagging Sept.27-No v.8). Two week pe ri o d Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Large Males Oct. 24 _ _ -Nov. 7 2 1 3 21 15 9 24 Dec 5 30 7 37 53.86 10.14 5.5147 19 49 5 54 45.44 8.56 2.7368 Jan. 2 34 5 39 54.70 10.30 1.2564 16 23 2 25 30 1 0 1 Totals. 154 29 . .183 154.00 29.00 9.5079 Chi-Sq. = 9.5079 df = 2 P <.01 Table L (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938)(Tagging Sept.27-Nov.8) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Large Females Oct. 24 -Nov. 7 2 4 6 21 25 10 35 35.65 5.35 16.0843 Dec. 5 77 11 88 76.51 11.49 0.0240 19 276 47 323 280.83 42.17 0.6363 Jan. 2 157 19 176 153.03 22.97 0.7891 16 98 5 103 99.98 15.02 6.2306 30 11 1 12 Totals 646 97 743 646.00 97.00 23.7643 Chi-Sq. = 23.7643 df r 4 P < .01 Table L (cont'd} Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938)(Tagging-Sept.27-Nov.8) Two week period ending Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Small Males Oct. 24 Nov. 7 21 Dec. 5 19 Jan. 2 16 30 1 10 27 145 163 59 14 0 5 4 35 30 13 1 1 15 31 180 193 72 15 38.84 148.76 159.50 71.90 8.16 31.24 33.50 15.10 0.1047 0.5476 0.4425 0.0918 Totals 419 88 507 419.00 88.00 1.1866 Chi-Sq. = 1.1866 • df = 3 P = .75 Table L(cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938)(Tagging Sept.27-Nov.8) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Small Females Oct. 24 -Nov. 7 - - -21 1 1 2 Dec. 5 4 0 4 19 13 4 17 17.89 5.11 0.1993 Jan. 2 13 4 17 16 5 0 5 17.11 4.89 2.0828 30 -Totals 36 9 45 36.00 9.00 2.2821 Chi-Sq. = 2.2821 df = 1 P = .13 . Table LI Test of homogeneity of the tag ratio samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Sept. 27 - Nov. 8) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Large Males Oct. 24 _ _ Nov. 7 0 1 1 -21 24 7 31 26.40 5.60 1.2468 Deo. 5 200 71 271 223.57 47.43 14.1978 19 206 19 225 185.63 39.37 12.7747 Jan. 2 29 0 29 16 3 0 3 26.40 5.60 6.7879 30 — - -Totals 462 98 560 462.00 98.00 35.0072 Chi -Sq. s 35.0072 df « 3 P < .01 I Table LI (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Sept. 27 - Nov. 8) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Sq.ua re Large Females Oct. 24 _ _ Nov. 7 - - -21 64 47 I l l 94.17 16.83 63.7495 Dec. 5 834 207 1041 883.17 157.83 18.0558 19 710 60 770 653.25 116.75 32.5152 Jan. 2 128 2 130 154.41 27.59 21.8011 16 33 1 34 30 16 2 18 Totals 1785 ' 319 2104 1785.00 319.00 136.1216 Chi-•Sq.s 136.1216 df= 3 P < .01 Table LI (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Sept. 37 - Nov. 8) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Oct. 34 Nov. 7 - - -31 1 0 1 Dec. 5 1 0 1 19 16 3 18 Jan. 3 2 1 3 16 - - -30 - - -Totals 30 3 33 Small Females Oct. 34 _ Nov. 7 - - -31 3 1 3 Dec. 5 3 1 3 19 3 0 3 Jan. 3 - - -16 - • 30 - - -Totals 7 3 9 Table LII Test of homogeneity of the tag. r a t i o samples i n each of the areas segregated by sex and size (1938) (Tagging Sept. 27 - Nov. 8 ) Sex and Size Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Above Traps Area Large Males Small Males Large Females Small Females 65 187 217 15 15 33 24 5 80 220 241 20 69.02 189.81 207.92 17.25 10.98 30.19 33.08 2.75 1.7059 0.3031 2.8888 2.1344 Totals 484 77 561 ' 484.00 77.00 7.0322 Chi -Sq. = 7.0322 df s 3 P = .07 Lake Proper Area Large Males Small Males Large -Females Small Females 154 419 646 35 29 88 97 10 183 507 743 45 155.27 430.16 630.39 38.18 27.73 76.84 112.61 6.82 0.0686 1.9103 2.5504 1.7477 Totals 1254 224 1478 1254.00 224.00 6.2770 Chi-Sq. = 6.2770 df = 3 P = .10 Table L I I (cont'd) Test of homogeneity-segregated by sex c of the tag r a t i o samples i n each and size (1938) (Tagging Sept. 27 of the Areas - Nov. 8 ) Sex and Size Untagged Tagged Tot a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Spring Creek Area Large Males 462 Small Males 20 Large Females 1785 Small Females 7 98 3 319 2 560 23 2104 9 472.34 19.40 1774.67 7.59 87.66 3.60 329.33 1.41 1.4461 0.1186 0.3841 0.2928 Totals 2274 422 2696 2274.00 422. 00 2.2416 Chi-Sq. = 2.2416 df s 3 P = .53 A l l Areas Large Males Small Males Large Females Small Females 681 626 2648 57 142 124 440 17 823 750 3088 74 697.34 635.48 2616.48 62.70 125.66 114.52 471.52 11.30 2.5076 0.9262 2.4867 3.3934 Totals 4012 723 4735 4012.00 723.00 9.3139 Chi-Sq. = 9.3139 df — 3 P = .03 Table LIII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Sept. 27 - Nov. 8 ). Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 24 4 14 18 Nov. 7 18 23 41 50.90 8.10 109.5211 21 9 6 15 12.94 2.06 8.7354 Dec. 5 59 11 70 60.39 9.61 0.2331 19 215 14 229 197.57 31.43 11.2038 Jan. 2 135 6 141 162.20 25.80 12.6796 16 32 2 34 30 12 1 13 Totals 484 77 561 484.00 77.00 142.3730 Chi-Sq. s 142,3730 df s 4 P<C .01 Table LI? Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Sept. 27 - Nov. 8 ) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 24 mm Nov. 7 5 5 10 21 51 25 76 73.02 12.98 26.2845 Dec. 5 138 22 160 135.86 24.14 0.2234 19 483 91 574 487.40 86.60 0.2633 Jan. 2 367 58 425 360.87 64.13 0.6900 16 185 20 205 197.85 35.15 5.7936 30 26 2 28 Totals 1255 223 1478 1255.00 223.00 33.2548 Chi- Sq. = 33.2548 df = 4 P < .01 Table LV Teat of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by time (1938)(Tagging Sept. 27 - Nov. 8) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Oot. 24 — _ 0 Nov. 7 0 1 1 21 91 55 146 123.99 23.01 56.0762 Dec. 5 1037 279 1316 1110.01 205.99 30.6790 19 935 81 1016 856.97 159.03 45.3912 Jan. 2 159 3 162 183.03 33.97 27.3041 16 36 1 37 30 16 2 18 Totals 2274 422 2696 2274.00 422.00 159.4505 Chi-Sq; = 159.4505 df = 3 P < .01 Table LvT Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Sept. 27 - Nov. 8 ) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Oct. 24 4 14 18 Nov. 7 23 29 52 59.33 10.67 115.5768 21 151 86 237 200.86 36.14 81.1654 Dec. 5 1234 312 1546 1310.26 235.74 29.1080 19 1633 186 1819 1541.64 277.36 35.5073 Jan. 2 661 67 728 616.99 111.01 20.5870 16 253 23 276 233.92 42.08 10.2076 30 54 5 59 50.00 9.00 2.0978 Totals 4013 722 4735 4013.00 722.00 294.2499 Chi-Sci. s 294.2499 df = 6 P<c .01 Table LVTI Teat of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23 ) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Ghi-Square large Males Oct. 24 " 1 0 1 Nov. 7 5 3 8 21 1 1 2 Dec. 5 9 4 13 17.02 6.98 0.2103 19 23 10 33 23.39 9.61 0.0808 Jan. 2 14 3 17 15.59 6.41 0.4377 16 3 2 5 30 mm - mm Totals 56 23 79 56.00 23.00 0.7288 Chi-Sq. = i 0.7288 df = 2 P = .70 Table LvTI (cont'd) Teat of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23). Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Large Females Oct. 24 0 "1 1 Nov. 7 16 3 19 21 - 7 2 9 22.15 6.85 0.1381 Dec. 5 29 14 43 32.84 10.16 1.9003 19 71 28 99 75.61 23.39 1.1897 Jan. 2 43 6 49 50.40 15.60 4.8486 16 11 1 12 30 4 1 5 Totals 181 56 237 181.00 56.00 8.0767 Chi-Sq. = 8.0767 df = 3 P s .05 Table LVT I (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23). Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Oct. 24 * 0 1 1 Nov. 7 5 5 10 21 3 1 4 Dec. 5 7 5 12 21.27 5.73 8.7092 19 69 23 92 72.47 19.53 0.7827 Jan. 2 67 7 74 73.26 19.74 6.1008 16 9 3 12 30 7 0 7 Totals 167 45 212 167.00 45.00 15.5927 Chi -Sq. = 15.5927 df= 2 P ^ .01 Small Females -Oct. 24 1 0 1 Nov. 7 4 0 4 21 - - -Dec. 5 2 0 2 19 5 0 5 Jan. 2 0 1 1 16 5 0 5 30 1 0 1 Totals 18 1 19 Table L7III Test of homogeneity of Area segregated by sex, the tag size and r a t i o samples i n the Lake time (1938) (Tagging Oct. Proper 21-Nov. 23) Two week period ending Untagged Tagged Tot a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Large Males -Nov. 7 21 Dec. 5 19 Jan. 2 16 30 3 19 35 53 36 33 1 0 5 3 1 3 3 0 3 34 37 54 39 35 1 59.10 109.90 4.90 9.10 0.9746 0.4886 Totals 169 14 183 169.00 14.00 1.4632 Chi-Sq. = 1.4633 df - 1 P = .32 Table LvTII (cont'd) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi -Square Large Females Nov. 7 4 2 6 21 28 7 35 31.24 9.76 0.0777 Dec. 5 61 27 88 67.04 20.96 2.2847 19 243 80 323 246.05 76.95 0.1587 Jan. 2 139 38 177 134.83 42.17 0.5413 16 81 21 102 86.84 27.16 0.8365 30 10 2 12 Totals 566 177 743 566.00 177.00 3.8989 Chi-Sq. _ 3.8989 df = 4 P = .42 Table LVTII (cont'd) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-S quare Small Males Nov. 7 1 0 1 -21 12 3 15 Dec. 5 27 4 31 40.14 6.86 0.0034 19 156 24 180 153.73 26.27 0.2297 Jan. 2 161 32 193 164.83 28.17 0.6097 16 64 8 72 74.30 12.70 0.2665 30 12 3 15 Totals 433 74 507 433.00 74.00 1.1093 Chi-Sq. z 1.1093 df = 3 P r .77 Table LVIII (cont'd) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Small Females Nov. 21 2 0 2 Dec. 5 4 0 4 19 12 5 17 17.38 5.62 0.0905 31 12 5 17 16.62 5.38 0.0946 Jan. 16 4 1 5 Totals 34 11 45 34.00 11.00 0.1851 Chi-Sq. = 0.1851 df 5 1 P = .88 Table LIX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23). Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square large Males Nov. 7 1 0 1 21 29 2 31 25.88 6.12 3.4295 Dec. 5 218 53 271 219.22 51.78 0.0355 19 177 48 225 182.01 42.99 0.7218 Jan. 2 26 3 29 25.89 6.11 0.9006 16 2 1 3 Totals 453 107 560 453.00 107.00 5.0874 Chi--Sq. = 5.0874 df = 3 P = .16 Large Females Nov. 7 _ _, 21 81 30 111 84.36 26.64 0.5576 Dec. 5 799 242 1041 791.14 249.86 0.3253 19 586 184 770 585.19 184.81 0.0047 Jan. 2 96 34 130 98.80 31.20 0.3306 16 25 •9 34 39.51 12.49 0.6639 30 12 6 18 Totals 1599 505 2104 1599.00 505.00. 1.8821 Chi-Sq. r 1.8821 df = 4 P " .76 Table LIX (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23). Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending; Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Nov. 7 21 Dec. 5 19 Jan. 2 16 30 Totals 18 5 23 Small Females Nov. 7 - - -21 2 1 3 Dec. 5 2 1 3 19 3 0 3 Totals 7 2 9 1 0 1 1 0 1 14 4 18 2 1 3 Table LX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n each of the areas by sex and size (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21-Nov. 83) Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged "cET^  Square Above Traps Area Large Males Small Males Large Females Small Females 56 167 181 18 83 45 56 1 79 812 837 19 60.95 163.55 188.84 14.66 18.05 48.45 54.16 4.34 1.7595 0.3185 0.0810 3.3314 Totals 488 185 547 488.00 185.00 5.4904 Chi-Sq. = 5.4904 df = 3 P = .14 Lake Proper Area Large Males Small Males Large Females Small Females 169 433 566 34 14 74 177 11 183 507 743 45 148.83 412.38 604.85 36.60 34.17 94.68 138.75 8.40 14.6395 5.5541 12.9659 0.9895 Totals 1202 276 1478 1202.00 276.00 34.1490 Chi-Sq. = 34.1490 df = 3 P <C.01 Table LX (cont»d) Untagg ed Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Spring Creek Area Large Males Small Males Large Females Small Females 453 18 1599 7 107 5 505 2 560 23 2104 9 431.42 17.72 1620.93 6.93 128.58 5.28 483.07 2.07 4.7013 0.0192 1.2923 0.0051 Totals 2077 619 2696 2077.00 619.00 6.0159 Chi -Sq. = 6.0159 df : 3 P = .11 A l l Areas Large Males Small. Males Large Females Small Females 678 618 2346 59 144 124 738 14 822 742 3084 73 644.40 581.69 2417.68 57.23 177.60 160.31 666.32 15.77 8.1088 9.6900 9.8562 0.2534 Totals 3701 1020 4721 3701.00 1020.00 27.8884 Chi -Sq. = 27.8884 df = 3 P <, .01 Table IXL Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23) Two week period • Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 24 2 2 4 Nov. 7 30 11 41 21 11 4 15 46.40 13.60 1.0991 Dec. 5 47 23 70 54.13 15.87 4.1425 19 168 61 229 177.09 51.91 2.0584 Jan. 2 125 16 141 109.04 31.96 10.3060 16 28 6 34 36.34 10.66 1.6252 30 12 1 13 Totals 423 124 547 423.00 124.00 19.2312 Chi-Sq. s 19.2312 df = 4 P < .01 Table LXEI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 7 8 2 10 21 61 15 76 69.89 16.11 0.0605 Dec. 5 127 33 160 130.01 29.99 0.3718 19 463 111 574 466.42 107.58 0.1338 Jan. 2 348 78 426 346.16 79.84 0.0522 16 171 33 204 165.77 38.23 0.8805 30 23 5 28 22.75 5.25 0.7179 Totals 1201 277 1478 1201.00 277.00 2.2167 Chi-Sq. = 2.2167 df = 5 P = .82 Table LXIII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 7 1 0 1 21 . 113 33 146 113.25 33.75 0.0216 Dec. 5 1020 296 1316 1013.85 302.15 0.1625 19 780 236 1016 782.73 233.27 0.0414 Jan. 2 124 38 162 124.80 37.20 0.0223 16 27 10 37 42.37 12.63 1.1672 30 12 6 18 ' Totals 2077 619 2696 2077.00 619.00 1.4150 Chi-Sq. z 1.4150 df r 4 P z .82 Table LXIV Test of homogeneity of the tag ra t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Oct. 21 - Nov. 23) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 24 2 2 4 Nov. 7 39 13 52 43.90 12.10 0.8866 21 185 52 237 185.79 51.21 0.0156 Dec. 5 1194 352 1546 1211.98 334.02 1.2345 19 1411 408 1819 1426.00 393.00 0.7303 Jan. 2 597 132 729 571.50 157.50 6.2664 16 226 49 275 215.58 59.42 2.3309 30 47 12 59 46.25 12.75 0.0563 Totals 3701 1020 4721 3701.00 1020.00 11.5206 Chi-Sq. r 11.5206 df = 6 P = .07 Table LXV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dec. 3) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Large Males Nov. 21 1 0 1 Dec. 5 11 2 13 19 24 9 33 34.06 12.94 0.4014 Jan. 2 12 5 17 15.94 6.06 0.8572 16 2 3 5 30 - - -Totals 50 19 69 50.00 19.00 1.2586 Chi-Sq. s 1.2586 df • 1 . P a .26 Large Females Nov. 21 9 0 9 Dec. 5 31 12 43 37.14 14.86 0.7706 19 67 32 99 70.72 28.28 0.6850 Jan. 2 36 13 49 37.14 18.86 0.0591 16 9 3 12 30 3 2 5 Totals 155 62 217 155.00 62.00 1.5147 Chi-Sq. = 1.5147 df = 2 P = .47 Table LXV (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dec. 3) Twoweek period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Nov. 21 4 0 4 Dec. 5 8 4 12 19 68 24 92 84.36 23.64 1.0294 Jan. 2 61 13 74 72.64 20.36 1.1954 16 9 3 12 30 7 0 7 Totals 157 44 201 157.00 44.00 2.2248 Chi--SQ. = 2.2248 df = 1 P = .14 Small Females • Nov. 21 _. _ Dec. 5 2 0 2 19 4 1 5 Jan. 2 1 0 0 16 4 1 5 30 1 0 1 Totals 12 2 14 * Table LXVT Test of homogeneity of the Tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9-Dec. 3) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Large Males Nov. 21 21 0 21 Dec. 5 35 2 37 19 52 2 54 105.67 6.33 0.9090 Jan. 2 36 3 39 61.33 3.67 1.5678 16 22 3 25 30 1 0 1 Totals 167 10 177 167.00 10.00 2.4768 Chi-Sq. = 2.4768 df . 1 P = .11 Large Females Nov. 21 24 Dec. 5 67 1 21 25 88 90.93 22.07 0.0003 19 266 57 323 259.90 63.10 0.7329 Jan. 2 141 36 177 142.43 34.57 0.0735 16 78 24 102 91.74 22.26 1.2542 30 9 3 12 Totals 585 142 727 585.00 142.00 2.0609 Chi-Sq. s 2.0609 df = 3 P - .57 Table LXVT (cont'd) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Small Males Nov. 21 12 0 12 Dec. 5 28 3 31 19 170 10 180 203.94 19.06 2.1068 Jan. 2 172 21 193 176.50 16.50 1.3420 16 67 5 72 77.56 7.44 0.3577 30 11 4 15 •,, Totals 460 43 503 460.00 43.00 3.8065 Chi-Sq. = 3.8065 df - 2 P = .15 Small Females Nov. 21 1 0 1 Dec. 5 4 0 4 19 15 2 17 18.50 3.50 0.7645 Jan. 2 13 4 17 16 4 1 5 18.50 3.50 0.7645 30 - - -Totals 37 7 44 37.00 7.00 1.5290 Chi-Sq. = 1.5290 df = 1 P = .22 Table LXvTI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dec. 3) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Ch i -Square Large Males Nov. 21 Dec. 5 28 236 179 24 2 469 3 35 46 5 1 90 31 271 225 29 3 559 253.38 188.77 26.85 469.00 48.62 36.23 5.15 90.00 2.7648 3.1403 0.1672 6.0723 Chi-Sq. = 6.0723 df = 2 P = .05 Large Females Nov. 21 Dec. 5 19 Jan. 2 16 30 Totals 81 917 575 82 22 13 1690 Chi-Sq. s 89.0980 30 124 195 48 12 5 111 1041 770 130 34 18 89.16 836.16 618.49 104.42 41.77 414 2104 1690.00 21.84 204.84 151.51 25.58 10.23 df = 4 P < .01 3.7956 39.7191 15.5416 24.4642 5.5775 414.00 89.0980 Table LZVII (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by sex, size and time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dec. 3) Two week period ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Chi-Tagged Square Small Males Nov. 21 Dec. 5 19 Jan. 2 16 30 1 1 15 2 0 0 3 1 1 1 18 3 Totals 19 23 Small Females Nov. 21 Dec. 5 19 Jan. 2 16 30 3 2 3 1 0 3 3 3 Totals 8 Table LXvTII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o sampres i n each of the areas by sex and size (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9-Dec. 3) Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged H x p : — Tagged Chi-Square Above Traps Area Large Males 50 Small Males 157 Large Females 155 Small Females 12 19 44 62 2 69 201 217 14 51.51 150.05 161.99 10.45 17.49 50.95 55.01 3.55 0.1747 1.2699 1.1898 0.9067 Totals 374 127 501 374.00 127.00 3.5411 Chi-Sq. r 3.5411 df = 3 P = .32 Lake Proper Area Large Males 167 Small Males 460 Large Females .585 Small Females 37 10 43 142 7 177 503 727 44 152.36 432.98 625.79 37.87 24.64 70.02 101.21 6.13 10.1051 12.1130 19.0981 0.1435 Totals 1249 202 1451 1249.00 202.00 41.4597 Chi-Sq. =41.4597 df r 3 P ^ .01 Table LXVTII (cont'd) Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Spring Creek Area Large Males Small Males Large Females Small Females 469 1690 19 8 90 414 4 1 559 2104 23 9 453.42 1706.62 18.66 7.30 105.58 397.38 4.34 1.70 2.8344 0.8570 0.0328 0.3553 Totals 2186 509 2695 2186.00 509.00 4.0795 Chi-Sq. = 4.0795 df = 3 P = .25 A l l Areas Large Males Small Males Large Females Small Females 686 2307 759 57 119 501 208 • 10 805 2808 967 67 659.83 2301 ...63 792.62 54.92 145.17 506.37 174.38 12.08 5.7556 0.0694 7.9078 0.4369 Totals 3809 838 4647 3809.00 838.00 14.1697 Chi -Sq. . 14.1697 df = 3 P <. .01 Table LXIX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dec, 3 ) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 21 14 0 14 Dec. 5 52 18 70 62.71 21.29 0.6810 19 163 66 229 170.95 58.05 1.4585 Jan. 2 110 31 141 105.26 35.74 0.8420 16 24 10 34 35.08 11.92 0.0007 30 11 2 13 Totals 374 127 501 374.00 127.00 2.9822 Chi-Sq. = 2.9822 df = 3 P = .39 Table LXX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area Segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dec. 3 ) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 21 58 1 59 Dec. 5 134 26 160 188.52 30.48 0.4615 19 503 71 574 494.09 79.91 ' 1.1542 Jan. 2 362 64 426 366.69 59.31 0.4309 16 171 33 204 199.70 32.30 0.0177 30 21 7 28 Totals 1249 202 1451 1249.00 202.00 2.0643 Chi-Sq. = 2.0643 df = 3 P = .55 Table LXXI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Spring Creek Area segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dee. 3 ) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Squa re Nov. 21 113 33 146 118.97 27.03 1.6182 Dec. 5 1166 150 1316 1072.33 243.67 44.1902 19 772 244 1016 827.88 188.12 20.3706 Jan. 2 108 54 162 132.00 30.00 23.5636 16 24 13 37 44.82 10.18 7.3715 30 13 5 18 Totals 2196 499 2695 2196.00 499.00 97.1141 Chi-Sq. = 97.1141 df = 4 P < .01 Table LXXII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by time (1938) (Tagging Nov. 9 - Dec. 3 ) Two week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 21 185 34 219 179.98 39.02 0.7858 Dec. 5 1352 194 1546 1270.53 275.47 29.3188 19 1438 381 1819 1494.89 324.11 12.1507 Jan. 2 580 149 729 599.11 129.89 3.4211 16 219 56 275 226.00 49.00 1.2168 30 45 14 59 48.49 10.51 1.4101 Totals 3819 828 4647 3819.00 828.00 48.3033 Chi-Sq. = 48.3033 df r 5 P < .01 Table LXXIII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged To t a l Untagged Tagged Square Males Oct. 19 1 0 1 23 - — -Nov. 2 1 0 1 9 5 0 5 16 7 1 8 23 5 5 30 10 2 12 Dec. 7 49 5 54 14 115 3 118 21 129 6 135 28 105 4 109 Jan. 4 63 3 66 11 35 0 35 18 20 0 20 25 - - -195.39 129.31 220.30 8.61 5.69 9.70 0.6926 0.0176 0.7846 Totals 545 24 569 545.00 24.00 1.4948 Chi-Sq. = 1.4948 df = 2 P = .47 Table LXXIII (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area -segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Females Oct. 19 2 0 2 23 4 0 4 Nov. 2 6 0 6 9 14 0 14 16 12 2 14 23 28 4 32 30 44 3 47 Dee. 7 119 3 122 235.60 5.40 8.2516 14 136 2 138 506.40 11.60 3.8412 21 159 2 161 28 126 1 127 Jan. 4 62 0 62 11 22 0 22 18 7 0 7 25 1 0 1 Totals 742 17 759 742.00 17.00 12.0928 Chi-Sq. r 12.0928 df s 1 P < .01 Table LXXTV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged. Square Males Nov. 23 3 1 4 30 10 1 11 Dec. 7 78 4 82 14 292 12 304 390.55 10.45 5.6008 21 369 11 380 370.10 9.90 0.1255 28 450 13 463 450.95 12.05 0.0769 Jan. 4 481 9 490 477.25 12.75 1.1324 11 347 7 354 344.78 9.22 0.5488 18 322 .7 329 397.37 10.63 5.3478 25 53 0 53 Feb. 1 22 0 22 8 4 0 4 Totals 2431 65 2496 2431.00 65.00 12.8322 Chi-Sq. = 12.8322 df r 5 P. r .03 4 Table LXXXV (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16) One week period Exp. Exp. C h i -ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Females Nov. 23 12 3 15 30 31 4 35 Dec. 7 167 8 175 14 794 36 830 1033.23 21.77 40.0732 21 1270 34 1304 1277.09 26.91 1.9074 28 1178 17 1195 1170.34 24.66 2.4295 Jan. 4 1064 12 1076 1053.79 22.21 4.7924 11 621 6 627 1349.55 28.45 12.2171 18 649 3 652 25 72 1 73 Feb. 1 23 0 23 8 3 0 3 Totals 5884 124 6008 5884.00 124.00 61.4196 Chi-Sq. i 61.4196 df a 4 P < .01 Table LXXV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n each of the areas segregated by sex (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16 ) Sex Untagged Tagged T o t a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Above Traps Area Males Females 545 742 24 17 569 759 551.43 735.57 17.57 23.43 2.4282 1.8208 Totals 1287 41 1328 1287.00 41.00 4.2490 Chi-Sq. = 4.2490 df = 1 P = .04 Lake Proper Area Males Females 2431 5884 65 124 2496 6008 2440.53 5874.47 55.47 133.53 1.6746 0.6957 Totals 8315 189 8504 8315.00 189.00 2.3703 Chi-Sq. = 2.3703 df = 1 P = .12 A l l Areas Males Females 2976 6626 89 141 3065 6767 2993.30 6608.70 71.70 158.30 4;1842 1.9360 Totals 9602 230 9832 9602.00 230.00 6.1202 Chi-Sq. = 6.1202 df = 1 P r .015 Table LXXVI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Oct. 19 3 0 3 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 7 0 7 9 19 0 19 16 19 3 22 23 33 4 37 30 54 5 59 Dec. 7 168 8 176 316.91 10.09 9.3109 14 251 5 256 248.10 7.90 1.0985 21 288 8 296 286.87 9.13 0.1444 28 231 5 236 435.14 13.86 2.5565 Jan. 4 125 3 128 11 57 0 57 18 27 0 27 25 1 0 1 Totals 1287 41 1328 1287.00 41.00 13.1103 Chi-Sq. = 13.1103 df = 3 P < .01 Table LXXVII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16 ) One week "" -——-——-^^ period Exp. Exp "Chi-ending; Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 23 15 4 19 30 41 5 46 • Dec. 7 245 12 257 314.85 7.15 27.4376 14 1086 48 1134 1108.80 25.20 21.0974 21 1639 45 1684 1646.56 37.44 1.5612 28 1628 30 1658 1621.15 36.85 1.3022 Jan. 4 1545 21 1566 1531.20 34.80 5.5964 11 968 13 981 959.20 21.80 3.6330 18 971 10 981 1133.24 25.76 8.6494 25 125 1 126 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 7 0 7 Totals 8315 189 8504 8315.00 189.00 69.2772 Chi-Sq. = 69.2772 df r 6 P < .01 Table LXXVTII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n A l l Areas segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Oct. 10 - Nov. 16) One week period ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Oct. 19 3 0 3 26 4 0 4 Nov. 2 7 0 7 9 19 0 19 16 19 3 22 23 48 8 56 30 95 10 105 210.95 5.05 51.5827 Dec. 7 413 20 433 422.87 10.13 9.8471 14 1337 53 1390 1357.48 32.52 13.2066 21 1927 53 1980 1933.69 46.31 0.9895 28 1859 35 1894 1849.69 44.31 2.0030 Jan. 4 1670 24 1694 1654.37 39.63 6.3121 11 1025 13 1038 1013.72 24.28 5.3660 18 998 10 1008 1159.23 27.77 10.1515 25 126 1 127 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 7 0 7 Totals 9602 230 9832 9602.00 230.00 99.4585 Chi-Sq. r 99.4585 df = 7 P < .01 Table LXXTX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 1 - Dec. 3) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Males Nov. 2 _ _ 9 5 0 5 16 8 0 8 23 5 0 5 30 . 11 1 12 Dec. 7 47 7 54 77.92 6.08 0.6536 14 112 6 118 109.47 8.53 0.8089 21 126 9 135 125.24 9.76 0.0638 28 99 10 109 101.12 7.88 0.6148 Jan. 4 59 7 66 112.25 8.75 0.0693 11 34 1 35 18 20 0 20 25 - - -Totals 526 41. 567 526.00 41.00 2.2104 Chi-Sq. - 2.2104 df s 4 P « .70 Table LXXTX (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex and time (1939) ( Tagging Nov. 1 - Dec. 3 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending; Untagged Tagged To t a l Untagged Tagged Square Females Nov. 2 1 0 1 9 14 0 14 16 13 1 14 23 31 1 32 30 43 4 47 102.37 5. 63 0.0414 Dec. 7 114 8 122 115.64 6.36 0.4462 14 128 10 138 130.79 7.21 1.1391 21 151 . 10 161 152.61 8.39 0.3259 28 123 4 127 207.59 11.41 0.3426 Jan. 4 62 0 62 11 21 1 22 18 7 0 7 25 1 o 1 Totals 709 39 748 709.00 39.00 » 2.2952 Chi-Sq. r 2.2952 df r 4 P = .68 Table LXXX Teat of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 1 - Dec. 3 ) One week period ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Exp. • Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Males Nov. 23 4 0 4 30 11 0 11 Dec. 7 79 3 82 14 296 8 304 386.38 14.62 0.9302 21 365 15 380 366.14 13.86 0.0973 28 441 22 463 446.12 16.88 1.6117 Jan. 4 474 16 490 472.14 17.86 0.2010 11 340 14 354 341.09 12.91 0.9551 18 316 13 329 393.13 14.87 0.2441 25 53 0 53 Feb. 1 22 0 22 8 4 0 4 Totals 2405 91 2496 2405.00 91.00 4.0394 Chi-Sq. = 4.0394 df - 5 P s .55 Table LXXX (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area Segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 1 - Dec. 3 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged To t a l Untagged Tagged Square Females Nov. 33 30 15 35 0 0 15 35 Dec. 7 169 6 175 217.29 7.71 0.3927 14 793 38 830 801.54 28.46 3.3114 31 1358 46 1304 1259.29 44.71 0.0385 38 1157 38 1195 1154.03 40.97 0.2229 Jan. 4 1036 40 1076 1039.11 36.89 0.2715 11 612 15 627 605.50 21.50 2.0349 18 630 22 652 725.24 25.76 0.3062 35 72 1 73 Feb. 1 8 23 3 0 0 23 3 Totals 5802 206 6008 5802.00 206.00 6.5781 Chi-Sq. s 6.5781 df te 6 P m .37 Table LXXXI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n each of the areas segregated by sex (1939) (Tagging Nov. 1 - Dec. 3 ) Sex Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Above Traps Area Males 526 Females 709 41 39 567 748 532.51 702.49 34.49 45.51 1.3084 0.9898 Totals 1235 80 1315 1235.00 80.00 2.2982 Chi-Sq. = 2.2982 df = 1 P = .13 Lake Proper Area Males 2405 Females 5802 91 206 2496 6008 2408.83 5798.17 87.17 209.83 0.1672 0.0694 Totals 8207 297 8504 8207.00 297.00 0.2366 Chi-Sq. = 0.2366 df = 1 P = .63 . A l l Areas Males Females 2931 6511 132 245 3063 6756 2945.40 6496.60 117.60 259.40 1.8337 0.8313 Totals 9442 377 9819 9442.00 377.00 2.6650 Chi-Sq. - 2.6650 d f = 3! P = TIG Table LXXXII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 1 - Dec. 3 ) One week period ' Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 2 , 1 0 1 9 19 0 19 16 21 1 22 23 36 1 37 30 54 5 59 129.60 8.40 0.2484 Dec. 7 161 15 176 165.29 10.71 1.8297 14 240 16 256 240.43 15.57 0.0127 21 277 19 296 278.00 18.00 0.0592 28 222 14 236 221.64 14.36 0.0096 Jan. 4 121 7 128 120.21 7.79 0.0853 11 55 2 57 79.83 5.17 2.0696 18 27 0 27 25 1 0 1 Totals 1235 80 1315 1235.00 80.00 4.3145 Chi-Sq. z 4.3145 df = 6 P r .63 Table LXXXIII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 1 - Dec. 3 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 23 19 0 19 30 46 0 46 Dec. 7 248 9 257 310.75 11.25 0.4663 14 1088 46 1134 1094.40 39.60 1.0717 21 1623 61 1684 1625.18 58.82 0.0837 28 1598 60 1658 1600.10 57.90 0.0790 Jan. 4 1510 56 1566 1511.31 54.69 0.0325 11 952 29 981 946.74 34.26 0.8368 18 946 35 981 946.74 34.26 0.0166 25 125 1 126 171.78 6.22 4.5394 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 7 0 7 Totals 8207 297 8504 8207.00 297.00 7.1260 Chi-Sq. = 7.1260 df r 7 P = .42 Table LXXXIV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Nov.-L - Dec. 3 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 2 1 0 1 9 19 0 19 16 21 1 2-2 23 55 1 56 30 100 5 105 195.21 7.79 0.0833 Dec. 7 409 24 433 416.37 16.63 3.3967 14 1328 62 1390 1336.63 53.37 1.4512 21 1900 80 1980 1903.98 76.02 0.2167 28 1820 74 1894 1821.28 72.72 0.0234 Jan. 4 1631 63 1694 1628.96 65.04 0.0666 11 1007 31 1038 998.15 39.85 2.0439 18 973 • 35 1008 969.30 38.70 0.3678 25 126 1 127 172.12 6.88 5.2262 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 7 0 7 Totals 9442 377 9819 9442.00 377.00 12.8758 Chi-Sq. = 12.8758 df = 8 P = .12 Table LXXXV Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 17 - Dec. 39) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Males Nov. 23 5 0 5 30 13 0 13 Dec. 7 53 3 54 14 114 4 118 180.81 8.19 0.6131 31 131 4 135 333.44 10.56 0.0191 38 103 7 109 Jan. 4 63 4 66 115.75 5.35 0.6098 11 - 33 2 35 18 19 1 30 35 — — — Totals 530 34 554 530.00 34.00 1.2410 Chi-Sq. = 1.3410 df s 3 P = .55 Table LXXXV (cont'd) Test of homog eneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 17 - Dec. 29 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Females Nov. 23 32 0 32 30 45 2 47 Dec. 7 117 5 122 189.25 11.75 2.0394 14 129 9 138 129.94 8.06 0.1164 21 147 14 161 151.60 9.40 2.3906 28 122 5 127 119.58 7.42 0.8382 Jan. 4 56 6 62 86.63 5.37 0.5254 11 21 1 22 18 7 0 7 25 1 0 1 Totals 677 42 719 677.00 42.00 5.9100 Chi-Sq.. = 5.9100 df = 4 P = .20 Table LXXXVI Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 17 - Dec. 29) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Males Nov. 23 4 0 4 30 11 0 11 Dec. 7 82 0 82 14 303 1 304 393.46 7.54 5.7813 21 375 5 380 372.84 7.16 0.6641 28 453 10 463 454.28 8.72 0.1915 Jan. 4 480 10 490 480.78 9.22 0.0673 11 346 8 354 347.33 6.67 0.2703 18 318 11 329 400.31 7.69 3.7370 25 52 1 53 Feb. 1 22 0 22 8 3 1 4 Totals 2449 47 2496 2449.00 47.00 10.7115 Chi-Sq. = 10.7115 df = 5 . P r .06 Table LXXXvT (cont'd) Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by sex and time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 17 - Dec. 29 ) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged T o t a l Untagged Tagged Square Females Nov. 23 15 0 15 30 34 1 35 Dec. 7 173 2 175 14 822 8 830 1031.48 23.52 6.8166 21 1285 19 1304 1274.91 29.09 3.5796 28 1167 28 1195 1168.34 26.66 0.0689 Jan. 4 1041 35 1076 1052.00 24.00 5.1567 11 610 17 627 613.02 13.98 0.6673 18 628 24 652 734.25 16.75 3.2097 25 73 0 73 Feb. 1 23 0 23 8 3 0 3 . Totals 5874 134 6008 5874.00 134.00 19.4988 Chi-Sq. = 19.4988 df = 5 P <T .01 Table LXXXYII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n each of the areas segregated by sex (1939) (Tagging Nov.17 - Dec. 29) Sex Untagged Tagged Tot a l Expy Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Above Traps Area Males 530 Females 677 24 42 554 719 525.28 681.72 28.72 37.28 0.8328 0.6416 Totals 1207 66 1273 1207.00 66.00 1.4744 Chi-Sq. = 1.4744 df = 1 . .P r .22 Lake Proper Area Males 2449 Females 5874 47 134 2496 6008 2442.87 5880.13 53.13 127.87 0.7227 0.3003 Totals 8323 181 8504 8323.00 181.00 1.0230 Chi-Sq. = 1.0230 df = 1 P = .32 A l l Areas Males 2979 Females 6551 71 176 3050 6727 2972.95 6557.05 77.05 169.95 0.4873 0.2210 Totals .9530 247 9777 9530.00 247.00 0.7083 Chi-Sq. a 0.7083 df 8 1 P - .42 Table LXXXvTII Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Above Traps Area segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 17 - Dec. 29) One week period Exp. Exp. Chi-ending: Untagged Tagged Total Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 23 37 ' 0 37 30 57 2 59 Dec. 7 169 7 176 257.90 14.10 1.9456 14 243 13 256 242.73 13.27 0.0058 21 278 18 296 280.66 15.34 0.4865 28 224 12 236 223.76 12.24 0.0050 Jan. 4 118 10 128 201.95 11.05 0.8307 11 54 3 57 18 26 1 27 25 1 0 1 Totals 1207 66 1273 1207.00 66.00 3.2736 Chi-Sq. = 3.2736 df = 4 P = .51 Table LXXXIX Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n the Lake Proper Area segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 17' - Dec. 89) One week Period Exp. Exp. Chi-Ending: Untagged Tagged Tot a l Untagged Tagged Square Nov. 23 19 0 19 30 45 1 46 Dec. 7 255 2 257 315.15 6.85 2.2109 14 1125 9 1134 1109.86 24.14 9.7019 21 1660 24 1684 1648.16 35.84 3.9965 28 1620 38 1658 1622.71 35.29 0.2126 Jan. 4 1521 45 1566 1532.67 33.33 4.1750 11 956 25 981 960.12 20.88 0.8307 18 946 35 981 1134.33 24.67 6.2965 25 125 1 126 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 6 1 7 Totals 8323 181 8504 8323.00 181.00 27.4241 Chi-Sq. = 27.4241 df = 6 P < .01 Table XC Test of homogeneity of the tag r a t i o samples i n a l l areas segregated by time (1939) (Tagging Nov. 17 - Dec. 29) One week period ending: Untagged Tagged Total Exp. Untagged Exp. Tagged Chi-Square Nov. 23 56 0 56 30 102 3 105 Dec. 7 424 9 433 579.00 15.00 0.6016 14 1368 22 1390 1354.88 35.12 5.0283 21 1938 42 1980 1929.98 50.02 1.3192 28 1844 50 1894 1846.15 47.85 0.0991 Jan. 4 1639 55 1694 1651,20 42.80 3.5677 11 1010 28 1038 1011.78 26.22 0.1239 18 972 36 1008 1157.01 29.99 2.1949 25 126 1 127 Feb. 1 45 0 45 8 6 1 7 Totals 9530 247 9777 9530.00 247.00 12.9347 . Chi-Sq. = 12.9347 df = 6 P - .03 Figure 1 Map of Cultus Lake w i t h i n s e t to show lower F r a s e r V a l l e y I L E N G T H I N C M S . " Figure 2 Length frequency curves of sockeye tagged in 193*5. Lengths expressed in centimetres. M A L E S F E M A L E S M A L E S ft F E M A L E S Figure 3 Length frequency curves of sockeye tagged i n 1939. Lengths expressed i n centimetres. 

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.831.1-0107074/manifest

Comment

Related Items