FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 74, NO. 2 



southern and central California fisheries. Miller 

 et al., Collins, and Collins and Spratt, on the other 

 hand, reported their results separately for each 

 fishery. 



To compare growth of anchovies in the wild with 

 that of laboratory-reared anchovies, we limited 

 the comparison to fish from southern California to 

 eliminate possible regional biases in grow^th. We 

 also adjusted Miller et al.'s (1955) data upward by 

 1 yr to make them comparable to those of Collins 

 (1969) and Collins and Spratt (1969) (Figure 5). 

 This was necessary because Miller et al. did not 

 correct their age readings for date of capture (Au- 

 gust to March) and growth on the margin of the 

 scale relative to the birthdate (April 1); hence, 

 they underestimated the age of their fish by ap- 

 proximately 1 yr. 



The growth curves in Figure 5 indicate that 

 anchovies in the wild are 95 to 115 mm long at 

 about lyroldand 115 to 125 mm long at about 2 yr 

 old and possibly grow^th was slower in the 1960's 

 than in the 1950's owdng to the dramatic increase 

 in the northern anchovy population (Spratt 1975). 

 Our growth estimates for laboratory-reared an- 

 chovies are 102 mm for 1 yr olds and 1 19 mm for 2 

 yr olds; hence, growth of laboratory-reared fish 

 seems to be similar to that of anchovies in the wild. 

 However, we note that this direct comparison is 

 not entirely valid because inherent biases exist in 

 the grovvi;h curves in Figure 5. The biases exist 

 because: 1) larger fish are generally more avail- 

 able to the reduction fishery than the live-bait 

 fishery (Messersmith 1969) and thus are over- 

 represented in the data for the reduction fishery; 

 2) live-bait fishermen "consciously avoid taking 

 large anchovies, since they are less desirable for 

 bait than smaller anchovies" (MacCall 1973:5-6) 

 and thus large fish are underrepresented in the 

 data for the live-bait fishery; 3) the true birthdate 

 of anchovies aged by otolith or scale readings is not 

 known although it is known that the birth date 

 varies (Kramer and Smith 1971; Smith 1972), the 

 ages, therefore, are not exact ages; and 4) growth 

 of several year classes are averaged and con- 

 sequently, variability in growth is reduced. 



Spratt (1975), who also studied growth of the 

 northern anchovy from otoliths, accounted for 

 some of these biases by using back-calculated 

 lengths and fish from the reduction fishery, live- 

 bait fishery, and catches of a research vessel. He 

 estimated that the mean standard length of an- 

 chovies in the wild is 92 and 112 mm at the end of 

 the first and second year of life, respectively. These 



I60r 



150 



LLJ 



Q 



< 

 Q 



< 

 Ul 



in 



(3 



< 

 OH 



UJ 



> 



140 



130 



120 



110 



100 



90- 



80- 



70- 



1953-54 CANNING-REDUCTION 



FISHERY 

 1965-66 REDUCTION FISHERY 

 1966-67 REDUCTION FISHERY 



1966 LIVE-BAIT FISHERY 



1967 LIVE-BAIT FISHERY 



1 



n m 



AGE GROUP 



12 



m. 



Figure 5. — Growth curves for northern anchovy caught off 

 southern California in the fisheries for reduction (Collins 1969), 

 live-bait (Collins and Spratt 1969), and canning-reduction (Mil- 

 ler et al. 1955). 



estimates are somewhat less than ours for 

 laboratory-reared fish but they are close. 



It appears that growth of anchovies in the wdld is 

 similar to that estimated, on an annual basis, from 

 our growth curve. We have not demonstrated, 

 however, whether there is a cyclic pattern in 

 growth of anchovies in the wild similar to that 

 revealed in our results for laboratory-reared fish. 

 On the other hand, studies on growth of other 

 temperate fishes have shown that a seasonal cycle 

 is common, which leads us to believe that a sea- 

 sonal cycle exists for anchovies in the wild. The 

 use of our growth curve for describing the feeding 

 djmamics of northern anchovies of at least 2 yr of 

 age in the California Current is therefore practical 

 until a seasonal growth curve is described for an- 

 chovies in the wild. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



We are indebted to the many individuals that 

 contributed to the development of rearing proce- 

 dures for the northern anchovy at the Southwest 

 Fisheries Center, La Jolla, Calif. We especially 

 acknowledge the contributions of Roderick Leong 

 and Pedro Paloma, who generously provided us 

 with unpublished data. David Kramer, Reuben 

 Lasker, William Lenarz, Alec MacCall, and James 



278 



