FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 83, NO. 2 



and Kimbrell (1980), Lipskaya (1982\ and De- 

 vonald (1983), this larva is "mackerel-like" 

 (though Scomber and Trachurus, especially the 

 latter, tend to spawn farther offshore than our 

 sampling location). This larva requires a much 

 lower concentration of "large" prey, 50 1 \ and a 

 large number of zooplanktonic taxa are potential 

 food: all copepod nauplii; lamellibranch and 

 cyphonautes larvae; Acartia, Labidocera, Met- 

 ridia, and Pleuromamma immature copepodites; 

 "Paracalanus" , Oithona, Euterpina, Corycaeus, 

 Oncaea, and Microsetella copepodites and adults; 

 euphausiid nauplii and calyptopes; CI, CII, and 

 CIII Calanus; "other copepods"; cladocerans; and 

 (see Lipskaya 1982) appendicularians. Nauplii 

 and lamellibranch and cyphonautes larvae are 

 considered small prey, the remainder being large. 

 This spectrum of prey is also appropriate for young 

 postlarval anchovy. 



Figure 4 shows the prestorm and poststorm 

 diurnal vertical distributions of food for the two 

 prototypical larval types, in terms of the equiva- 

 lent "large prey" for each; the figure legend gives 

 the conversion factors used. In no instance was the 



laboratory-determined critical concentration of 

 prey exceeded. We do not believe that this conclu- 

 sion is due to destruction of prey during preserva- 

 tion. 



We tested hypotheses concerning the vertical 

 stratification and the effect of the storm on dis- 

 tributions of prey by two-way ANOVAs on log- 

 transformed abundances from the diurnal profiles 

 (3, 5, 7, and 9) similar to those used for phyto- 

 planktonic taxa (Section B above), since variances 

 were homogeneous by Barlett's test. We used our 

 data on the diurnal abundances of total larval fish 

 to examine correlations with the food of 

 "anchovy-like" larvae by means of the tau coeffi- 

 cient for these profiles. 



It is apparent from Figure 4A that "small prey" 

 dominated the food supply for "anchovy-like" lar- 

 vae, even when expressed as its equivalence in 

 terms of large prey. Because this category had not 

 increased significantly after the storm, neither 

 had total prey for these larvae; however, large prey 

 were both more abundant and more strongly 

 stratified. 



The food supply of "mackerel-type" larvae was 



E 

 I- 



CL 



UJ 

 Q 



EQUIVALENT LARGE PREY, lOV liter 



1 



EQUIVALENT LARGE PREY/ liter 



20 



\ 



30 



I 



40 



I 



50 



I 



B 



30 



I 



40 



I 



Large prey 

 Small prey 



50 



_i 



60 



I 



Large prey 

 Small prey 



PRE -STORM 



POST- STORM 



Figure 4. — Median vertical, diurnal distributions of larval fish food, as "equivalent large prey", before and after the storm. Taxa 

 comprising categories of prey are li.sted in text. A. Prey of "anchovy-like" larvae. Graphed concentrations of small prey are 0.1 x actual 

 concentrations. B. Prey of "mackerel-like" larvae. Graphed concentrations of small prey are 0.2 x actual concentrations. 



162 



