|
OK, i'm out of here
i'll see you at home
kissy.kiss
Shareef Siddeek wrote:
>
> > Shareef Siddeek wrote:
> > Are we correct in assuming these vital parameters length dependent?
> >
>
> > Steve Gutreuter wrote:
>
> >
> > This is an important question, I think. In my opinion, the answer is
> > 'sometimes (most of the time?), yes.' There is a substantial literature
> > on this issue.
> >
> > In general, we might expect body size to mediate life history parameters
> > in organisms that have indeterminate growth, show a wide range in
> > body size, show size-selective predation (e.g., via gape limitation
> > of animals that swallow food whole), are affected by size-selective
> > predators, and etc. These features apply to many (most?) fishes.
> >
> > I think the inclusion of size-based assessments is entirely appropriate and
> > natural.
>
> In general what Steve has said is true mostly for finfish, young stages of
> animals and small and edible (to predators) form of animals (not animals with
> spines and other abnormal morphology and behavior). That is another story. My
> specific question is that if we are to partition, for example, natural
> mortality into two components: a constant part + a size specific part; then
> the size specific part is a function of prey size and predator abundance in
> the vicinity, etc. But how does the constant part behave? Is it size or age
> specific. The constant part includes all other causes (diseases,
> environmental stress, old age, etc.). My thinking is that this constant part
> results from a cumulative effect over time; therefore should be age specific
> not size specific. Is this correct?
>
> Cheers
> Siddeek.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
To leave the Fish-Sci list, Send blank message to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
For information send INFO FISH-SCI to [log in to unmask]
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
|
