That Year 1-5 is very interesting to me.
First off is the steady decline from a high RW to a sub 100RW at year 1.
Continued, but lower RW into year 2.
Back to 100 RW for year 3
Back to below RW for year 4
Then at year 5 above RW that they maintain for the rest of the study at varrying RW's.
Is this due to lack something early in the way of forage?
I guess I would have assumed that if all LMB went through this that RW for year 1 would be more similar and dropped below 100.
Haven't read the study yet, but will this evening when I get a little quite time around here. Thanks for posting.
Yes, Boondoggle. Good take away. The bass in this study did not grow at maximum potential due to forage limitations. RW wasn't constant either. So in years it improves, these are years where the weight gain is best. Mortality is highest also in years with the steepest declines of RW. The density of LMB was in most years too high for sufficient in-situ production of forage. Forage was supplemented.
Bump. Just wanted to add that the data isn't real time. It was taken once a year in autumn. It is a snap shot of average values of the population at those sampling times.
