1962
DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659(1962)91[251:cttlho]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contributions to the Life History of the Longnose Gar, (Lepisosteus osseus) in Missouri

Abstract: The age and growth of the longnose gar in Central Missouri were determined from the branchiostegal rays. Males and femmes differed markedly in growth and longevity. One‐year‐old males were 19.5 inches long, and females were 22.0 inches long. Females continued to grow approximately one inch a year for 13 to 14 years, and outlived the males. Males matured between 3 and 4 years of age, and females at about 6 years of age. Sex ratios changed with the age of the fish; initially they were in favor of the males, and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

9
61
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
9
61
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Few longnose gar less than 625 m m TL and shortnose gar less than 525 mm TL were captured from the Wabash River, which is also consistent with results from previous studies (Netsch and Witt 1962, Klaassen and Morgan 1974, Tyler et al 1994, Johnson and Noltie 1997. Although a lack of recruitment may be one reason for not capturing smaller fish, differences in habitat use among life stages most likely had a greater influence on size at capture.…”
Section: * a * A Asupporting
confidence: 89%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Few longnose gar less than 625 m m TL and shortnose gar less than 525 mm TL were captured from the Wabash River, which is also consistent with results from previous studies (Netsch and Witt 1962, Klaassen and Morgan 1974, Tyler et al 1994, Johnson and Noltie 1997. Although a lack of recruitment may be one reason for not capturing smaller fish, differences in habitat use among life stages most likely had a greater influence on size at capture.…”
Section: * a * A Asupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Tyler et al (1994) also noted that the greatest proportion of longnose gar captured from the Red River and East Cache Creek, Oklahoma, ranged from 600 to 700 mm TL. The ranges in total length and wet weight for both gar species in the Wabash River were also consistent with observations in other U.S. river systems (Trautman 1957, Netsch and Witt 1962, Walburg 1964, Klaassen and Morgan 1974, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, Tyler et al 1994, Johnson and Noltie 1997, Pflieger 1997, Vokoun 2000. Our study also supports results from previous studies that shortnose gar are heavier for their length than longnose gar, but do not reach the size (both length and weight) of longnose gar (Trautman 1957, Walburg 1964, Vokoun 2000.…”
Section: * a * A Asupporting
confidence: 88%
See 3 more Smart Citations