FECUNDITY AND GONADOSOMATIC INDEX OF FLESHY

SNOUT CATFISH, Arius dispar HERRE, 1926, FROM LAGUNA DE
BAY

JULIEN DOMINIC P. TORIO

Institute of Biology
College of Science
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Biology
April 2011

Institute of Biology
College of Science
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

ENDORSEMENT

This thesis attached hereto, entitled Fecundity and gonadosomatic index of fleshysnout
catfish, Arius dispar Herre, 1926, from Laguna De Bay prepared and submitted by
Julien Dominic Piscal Torio in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Biology is hereby accepted.

Jonas P. Quilang, Ph.D.
Adviser

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of
Science in Biology.

Perry S. Ong, Ph.D.
Director

i

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

Name:
Address:
Email Address:
Date of Birth:
Place of Birth:
Nationality:
Religion:
Father’s Name:
Mother’s Name:

Julien Dominic Piscal Torio
38 Plaridel St., Brgy. Doña Aurora, Quezon City, Metro Manila
torio.julien@gmail.com
March 25, 1990
Quezon City
Filipino
Roman Catholic
Alexander S. Torio
Maxima P. Torio

Educational Attainment:
Grade School:

Lourdes School
Quezon City, Metro Manila

(1997-2003)

High School:

Ateneo de Manila High School
Quezon City, Metro Manila

(2003-2007)

College:

Institute of Biology,
University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila

(2007-2011)

Organizations:

UP Association of Biology Majors
UP Environmental Society
Office of the University Registrar
Registration Assistant

(2009-2011)
(2009-2011)

ii

(2008-2010)

Alex Torio and Dra. Friends in the Institute of Biology for the fun times we shared as well as for the support while doing my thesis. iii . Santos. Reynand Canoy and Jazzlyn Tango for providing and collecting the samples needed in this study. Emma Torio. Dr. The Institute of Biology for providing me the necessary facilities and knowledge needed for the study. Luis Aquino. Jonas Quilang. UPBI for the continuous support all throughout the duration of my senior year. Brian S. for accepting me as his advisee and helping me.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following who contributed much for this work: God. especially in my data analysis. Mika Ablaza. Reynald Reyes and Johann Montemayor for helping me in processing the samples and counting the eggs of the ovaries. Sean Aquilino. Dr. my adviser. The UP Diliman Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Development for funding the study through a PhD Incentive Award (Project No: 090921) given to my adviser. my parents. for making every endeavor a success. who supported and believed in me as their eldest son. Mika Ablaza for fixing my table of contents and the list for figures and tables.

………….13 iv .5 Arius dispar……………………………………………………….iii TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………..………………..…….………..6 Catfish fishery in Laguna de Bay……………………………………..….13 Statistical Tests………………………………………………...1 Specific objectives of the study………………………………………………..………………...iv LIST OF TABLES………………………….......……………....………………..………………………………………………………….vii ABSTRACT………………………….4 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE………………………………......7 Fecundity……………………………………………………….……..………………...……………………………………...………………………………………………………………...vi LIST OF FIGURES……………....12 Estimation of fecundity…………………………………………...12 Determination of GSI………………………………………………….……………….12 Collection of samples……………………………………………….………..……………………..ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………….……………...…….……………......TABLE OF CONTENTS ENDORSEMENT…………………………………………………………………………….….…………………….....………………………………………………….9 Gonadosomatic index……………………………………………......…..5 Laguna de Bay………………………………………….….....……………………………….….....……………………………………………………….i BIOGRAPHICAL DATA………………………………………………………………...……………...1 Background of the problem………………………….………….....…………………………………..10 MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………….………….……..viii INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….……………3 Significance of the study…………………………………………………………………….

………………….…………...15 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………….....……………………...………....……….44 v .………………….14 Sex Ratio……………………………………………………….…….16 Ovary Characteristics………………………………………….………………19 LITERATURE CITED………………………………………….………….……….....………….14 Length at Maturity…………………………………………….....………………….……….16 GSI…………………………………………………………..….………...………….RESULTS……………………………………………………….21 TABLES…………………………………………………………...…14 Fecundity……………………………………………………………..…………....………….……………………17 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………...………………………..……………….14 GSI…………………………………………………………………...16 Fecundity……………………………………………………………........…………………….………………….........32 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………….…………23 FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………….....

. 24 Table 3...... 25 Table 4...........…………………………... GSI ± SE values per month for both the male and the female population.. 26 Table 5.............. The summary of the monthly average fecundity and the averages of the independent variables per month of sampling that were done from October 2009 to September 2010………………………………………………………………………………… 31 vi . Mean fecundity of Arius dispar for a year of sampling in Laguna de Bay…......... Total number of Arius dispar collected in Laguna de Bay per month Composition according to sex is given. standard length (SL and ovary free body weight (OFBW)……………………………...... 23 Table 2..LIST OF TABLES Table 1......... The standard error of the mean for both sexes is also included…………………………................... Data used for correlation and regression analyses between fecundity of Arius dispar and the independent variables: total length (TL)....

Gonadosomatic index (GSI) values for each month of sampling for both male and female populations of Arius dispar…….……. 39 Figure 9. Scatter plot between Total Length and Fecundity for all specimens of Arius dispar that were used in the fecundity study……………………………………….40 Figure 10. Scatter plot between the fecundity and ovary free body weight of all the samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling………………………………………. Regression between the mean fecundity and mean total length of all samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling………………………………………………… 37 Figure 7. 35 Figure 5. 42 Figure 12. View under the microscope of the different sizes and maturation of the eggs present in one ovary of Arius dispar…………………………………………………… 43 vii .…………………………………………... Scatter plot between the fecundity and standard length of Arius dispar for each month of sampling…………………………………………………………………. 34 Figure 4.LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regression between the mean fecundity and mean standard length of all samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling………………………………………..……….. 38 Figure 8.. 33 Figure 3. Representative sample of a mature ovary of Arius dispar in the batch of samples…………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Figure 11. Regression between the mean fecundity and mean ovary free body weight of all samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling………………………………. Dissected ovary showing several stages of the eggs present inside it………. Mean standard length of Arius dispar samples collected each month from October 2009 to September 2010……………………………………………………………. The average fecundity per month of Sampling of Arius dispar from October 2009 to September 2010……………………………………………………………………….. 32 Figure 2. 36 Figure 6.

15±0.932± 234 obtained for samples collected in July. 2010. 1926 is a native fish species in Laguna de Bay.088). dispar and can help improve the quality of the data. The highest GSI in males is 0. Correlations and regressions were done on fecundity (F) and total length (TL).ABSTRACT Arius dispar Herre. the fecundity and gonadosomatic index (GSI) of Arius dispar were determined by a monthly collection of samples for a year from October 2009 to September 2010. The regression equations and their coefficients of determination (r2) were as follows: F = 3.99±0.36xTL1. Using gravimetric method.760 (r2= 0.19xOFBW0. In this study.067). standard length (SL) and ovary – free body weight (OFBW). whereas in females the highest GSI is 2. viii . Further studies like histological tests can better characterize the nature of the eggs in the ovary of A.764 (r2= 0.05 which was obtained for the October samples.45 which was obtained for the July samples.80xSL1. the highest average fecundity was 1.067). F = 48. F = 4.623 (r2= 0. The study can be better improved by increasing the number of ovary samples per month.

The two catfishes can be differentiated from each 1 . dispar are the catfishes present in Laguna de Bay. In contrast. In the Philippines. manillensis (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1840) and Hemipimclodus manillensis (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1840). A.000 hectares of surface area (Palma et al. Recently. These five species are Arius dispar Herre. goniaspis (Bleeker 1858). A. the sea catfish is the most important fish in the lake. manillensis and A. with around 90. thalassinus (Ruppell 1837).INTRODUCTION Laguna de Bay is the largest freshwater lake in the Philippines. A study done by Vallejo (1986) indicated that only A. A. kanduli is very abundant specifically in Laguna de Bay.This lake also contains a variety of freshwater fishes. These catfishes are hard to differentiate because their outer appearances are almost the same (Aldaba 1931). During the rainy season. It is the main animal food for the people that are living near the lake as well as people living in nearby provinces (Mercene 1978) In terms of abundance. Five different species of kanduli which are very hard to differentiate have been reported to occur in the lake. It is a very important water body since it is a main resource for food and power (electricity). however. Residents use this as their main source of livelihood by catching different kinds of fishes for food and for selling in the market. the water level in this lake rapidly increases. only two species of catfishes have been reported to be in the lake. 1926. It is the sink for small streams but it is drained by the Pasig River only. the water level subsides at a very slow rate (Aldaba 1931). 2002).

the younger catfishes are the ones that are herbivorous. In connection with life history. Members of this family usually have whisker – like structures called barbels in their head region. 2 Fecundity is the . the younger catfishes stay on shallower part of the lake at a depth of about two to three meters (Aldaba 1931). hence actual observations of their behavior cannot be made. is member of the Ariidae family. they are found usually at a shallower place in the lake. dispar. Some known breeding characteristics are that catfishes are mouth brooders wherein the male catfish incubates the eggs in its mouth. Also. also known as fleshysnout catfish. This is because the adult catfishes stay on more benthic regions of the lake. whereas A. These structures contain several receptors that the catfish uses to locate food. different studies like fecundity are being done to investigate the reproductive capability of female fish populations. at spawning during the dry season. The breeding habits of catfishes in this lake are not well-studied. Usually. The catfish Arius dispar Herre. A. The difference can be observed by inspecting the palatal tooth patches. The focus of this study is on A. 1926. The feeding habit of this fish may vary from being herbivorous to carnivorous to cannibalistic. but some males are being caught in shallower places. dispar has two small patches that are widely separated from each other (Vallejo 1986). males stay at the bottom of the lake during this stage. In contrast. the fish releases the eggs at the deepest parts of the lake. manillensis has two ovate patches. Order Siluriformes.other using physical characteristics. Usually.

However. Several studies on fecundity were already done for several fish species including many catfishes. 3 . Fecundity studies involve the extraction of the ovary and the counting of the eggs that are present inside the ovary. Gonadosomatic index (GSI) is also included alongside fecundity investigations. And since the study of fecundity has not yet been done in this catfish species. this project can provide new information for the fecundity of the catfish.number of eggs that an organism releases during spawning season (Zamarro 1992). Moreover. Comparison of indices can determine certain stresses that may have affected the growth and the reproductive capability of the fish. This project aims to use fecundity and GSI studies to determine the reproductive capability and state of the samples that were taken from Laguna de Bay. more knowledge about its reproductive biology can greatly help in the conservation and proper exploitation of this fishery resource. proper methods for fish catching must be observed and be taught to the fishermen. Fecundity studies are important to determine the number of individuals that is expected from the generation of fishes that were collected from a given water body. Since catfishes are an important part of the Laguna de Bay fish population. Different actions are done if ever there is a threat in the reproductive capability of the species in the study. This kind of study is commonly used to determine the maturation of the gonad and spawning season of the fish (Al-Zibdah & Kan’an 2009). no studies have been published about the fecundity of A. to this date. dispar. Different studies show that some external factors like chemicals pose negative effects in the gonadal development of an organism.

dispar.A. Lastly. this study may become a stepping stone to several biological and even economic studies in the future. 4 .

The sea catfishes. This species is a member of Family Ariidae or the sea catfishes. to depths as shallow as three meters. dispar is an excellent food fish (Kailola 1999). The spawning of kanduli happens in the deepest part of the lake and sometimes. dispar in Laguna de Bay is during the dry season which is from February to May. in this case the male catfish. locally known as kanduli. 1926 is commonly known as the Fleshysnout catfish. Also. which makes it a hard task to make direct observations directly (Aldaba 1931). there are some studies that have been done on the breeding and spawning habits of kanduli. dispar. Catfishes. Sea catfishes are mouth brooders which means that the eggs are kept in the mouth of the parent. During this time. It is in between these months that the greatest activity is observed. 5 . A. the catfishes usually are in schools which make them very predictable to catch. as any other catfish.REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Arius dispar Arius dispar Herre. Aldaba (1931) found that the spawning season of A. It can be mostly seen in freshwater systems like turbid inshore waters and brackish water lagoons. somehow stay on the deeper parts of the water. are not very well studied biologically due to the difficulty of sampling and of conducting direct observations. Incubation on the other hand is the time when the eggs are kept in the mouth of the male catfish. including A. However.

of which the catfishes are the most abundant (Mane 1929). Heavy metals and organic pollutants are some of the substances that contribute to the wastes that drain into the lake. Several streams empty into it but only the Pasig River drains it (Aldaba 1931). making it an important animal for the people who use this fish as their form of livelihood.Laguna de Bay Laguna de Bay is the largest and most important lake in Philippines (Palma et al . The lake houses five types of catfishes (Aldaba 1931). Furthermore. 6 . The reduction causes the disappearance of zooplankton leaving some fishes with no food source. This is due to the decrease in the algal community present in the lake. The local fishing industry is very active since there are about twenty species of fishes that are considered as food. The lake houses a variety of fishes which are now being studied for genetic and taxonomical purposes. These catfishes almost share the same physical characteristics which make it very hard to differentiate them when they are in a pile. Some of these fishes can be caught in very large amounts. the lake has high amounts of toxic and hazardous wastes that come from industries near the lake. The news bulletin stated that the fishery in the lake is in peril. In a recent news bulletin the state of Laguna de Bay fishery was tackled (Benaning 2010). But Vallejo (1986) reported only two species. The lake is a very important part of the livelihood of the people living around it. 2002). The lake is found southeast of Manila Bay (Delos Reyes & Martens. The abundance of catfishes is very remarkable. 1994).

The most dominant species during these years is tilapia. The study also included the different fishing techniques and the socio-economic status of the fishermen in the lake. The study recorded the total catch in 1995 and 1996. (2002) investigated species composition of Laguna de Bay and the abundance of the different agricultural fish species that is found in the lake. Palma et al. 7 . snails. These factors included the use of pukot. Palma et al. It showed that only 13 species of fish were caught in the lake. The author discussed and enumerated some factors that may have contributed in the depletion of the catfish population in the lake.Catfish fishery in Laguna de Bay Owing to their abundance. 2002). and large demand for prawns. Different fishery studies showed that there is a decline in the amount of catfish being caught per year (Villadolid 1934. The catfishes are trapped in the device since it has a high “catching power. The pukot or the drag seine is a device that collects the bulk of the fishes in Laguna de Bay. This study indicated the decrease in the population of the catfishes in the lake. dominance of young kanduli in markets. This simple gear causes the depletion of the catfish since it catches almost everything in its path including the ones that are spawning. catfishes play a major role in the livelihood of people living near Laguna de Bay. Villadolid (1934) put forward different causes of the depletion of the fish species in Laguna de Bay. and small fish. This is due to some anthropogenic activities that may have affected the water quality.” This device also causes the disturbance in the ecology at the bottom of the lake which affects the food of kanduli which are bottom feeders.

Another factor that was mentioned in the study is the dominance of the immature
and young kanduli in the local market (Villadolid 1934). This means that fishermen do
not let the young catfishes grow to their full size to reach sexual maturity. This results in
the depletion of the possible reproducers for the next generation of catfishes.
Large market demand for other organisms may have contributed to the decrease
of catfish population. These organisms are prawns, snails and small fishes. The demand
results in the use of exploitative methods which destroys the ecosystem in the lake. Mass
depletion of the food of the fish will also result in the decrease in the fish population.
Periodic occurrence of bad water in Laguna de Bay may have also contributed to
the catfish decline of population in the lake. This bad water incidence results in mass
death of the organisms in the lake including the commercially important fishes like the
kanduli. It is believed that this incident is caused by different external factors like the salt
water that comes from Manila Bay and the decay of algae locally known as lia. During
this event, the lake is very hypoxic and has large amounts of poisonous gases . The
chlorine content of the water is also higher compared to normal water of Laguna de Bay.
In the past, catfishes dominated the major portion of the catch.

Recently,

catfishes have constituted only a minor portion of the catch giving way to other
commercially important fishes like the biyang – puti. A more recent study reported that
tilapia is the most abundant fish in the catch (Palma et al. 2002)

8

Fecundity
The study on fecundity is often done to determine the reproductive capability of a
certain organism. It is the potential of the female population to reproduce. Fecundity
studies are needed since there are different reproductive strategies a certain organism
employs, like spawning patterns (Marimuthu & Haniffa 2006). In addition, the study of
fecundity also investigates the index of density dependent factor that affects the size of
the population (Bhuiyan et al. 2006).
Gravimetric method is most commonly used to estimate the fecundity of fishes.
This method is based on the relationship of the weights of the ovary and the oocyte
density that is present in the weighed ovary. This technique is very useful in determining
batch fecundity, total fecundity and potential annual fecundity of the fish (Murua et al .
2003).
A usual result in fecundity studies is that the fecundity of a fish is linearly related
to its body weight or to its body length. One example is the study of Marimuthu and
Haniffa (2006) wherein they investigated the fecundity of Channa punctatus, also known
as spotted snakehead. In their study, the experimenters studied 50 gonads. Results show
that smaller size gave lower fecundities compared to large ones. The fecundity of the
specimens varied from 2,116 eggs up to 11,332 eggs.
Bhuiyan et al. (2006) did a similar study for Puntius gonionotus. They also
studied the characteristics of ovary along fecundity. They found that the fecundity of the
55 female ovaries ranged from 1,434 eggs up to 42,032 eggs. When graphed against

9

body weight and body length, the graph also showed linear relationships. A more recent
study on fecundity was on Gadus morhua also known as the Atlantic cod (Thorsen et al.
2010). Aside from the usual result of having linear relationship between the fecundity
and body weight or body length, the authors also found that there is a reduction in
relative potential fecundity when the fish reaches maturity at the point of spawning.

Gonadosomatic index
To investigate and examine the gonadal maturation and spawning season,
gonadosomatic index (GSI) analysis is done (Al-Zibdah & Kan’an 2009).

Also,

gonadosomatic index is often used to indirectly assess the effect of the environment or
internal cues to the reproductive status of the fish (Brewer et al. 2007). Studying the GSI
also helps in the improvement or monitoring of spawning seasons in different fishing
sites. Different studies of GSI were done to different kinds of fishes. The studies often
concentrate on the spawning season of the fish and the different effects of external factors
that may affect the gonad maturation.
One study that was done was on Coregonus lavaretus or commonly known as
Whitefish by Rosch (2000). This six-year study investigated the variation of GSI of
whitefish in the lake. The result showed that there were no significant changes in the
GSI of the whitefish even though there were some external factors observed.
Another study on fish GSI was by Khallaf et al. (2003) on the Nile tilapia,
Oreochromis niloticus. They found that heavy metals and pesticides greatly affect the

10

(2009). It was noted in the study that the lagoon was polluted and this pollution may have affected to the gonadal development of the candidate fish species. Multiple regression analysis shows that these external factors only affected the female gonads. this project focused on the effects of the external environment on the development of the gonads by analysis of GSI. The fish came from the Bizerte lagoon. 11 .GSI of the gonads. Similar to the preceding study. Another study was on Gobius niger by Louiz et al. The pollution had negative effects on the gonads of the fish species.

Weight was measured to the nearest milligram. the average number of eggs for all regions was multiplied by the total weight of the ovary. The gonads were then stored in 10% formalin. The extracted gonads were weighed after the removal of moisture by letting the ovary dry up on top of a paper. To estimate the fecundity of the fish.MATERIALS AND METHODS A. the anterior. The gonads were extracted and the sex of each fish was determined. 1969). The fecundity was measured using gravimetric method (Kipling & Frost. Standard length.698 fish were collected. 2009 to September. dispar individuals were collected from Binangonan. The formula for fecundity is as follows: F total num er of eggs in all su sample x weight of ovary total weight of su samples Using the body weight of the fish and its gonadal weight. 2010. middle and posterior. fork length. total length. Three regions of each lobe of the ovary were obtained. The eggs in the sub-sample were separated from the tissue. 907 of which were males and 791 were females. A total of 181 ovaries were opened and the eggs were teased apart for counting. the GSI was obtained using the equation: 12 . and weight of each fish were recorded. The identification and processing of the fishes were done in the laboratory. After which. Tanay and Calamba areas around the Laguna de Bay every month from October. A total of 1. the eggs in the petri dish were counted using a stereomicroscope. The sub-sample was placed in a petri dish where it was immersed with formalin.

data were compiled and statistical tests were done and graphs were generated.After obtaining the fecundity. The fecundity was regressed against three independent variables: total length (TL). or OFBW). 13 . and ovary-free body weight (OFBW). where F is the fecundity. V is the independent variable in the equation (either TL. SL. a and b are the two model parameters. The equation of each regression was given by F=aVb. standard length (SL).

It showed that the fecundity value peaked at July 2010.495 eggs that were seen in the month of July 2010 while the lowest fecundity. that there is another peak in April. GSI The GSI was computed for each month of sample (see Table 2). The mean fecundity for each month was given in Table 3.RESULTS Sex Ratio The total number of individuals that were collected for Arius dispar was 1. however. The sex ratio was 53:47. It can be seen. Fecundity The fecundity per month of sampling was obtained. The total male population for the whole year of sampling was 907 while the female population consisted of 791 individuals (see Table 1). the male GSI peaked in October 2009 while in females. This may be due to the multiple spawning capability of A. The highest recorded fecundity was 4. it peaked in July. 2010. standard length and ovary – free 14 . Linear regression was done using SPSS to find the correlation between fecundity and each of the independent variables. 1. 2010.698. 104. As seen on Fig. There was also a wide range of fecundity per month as seen in Table 3. dispar. The log of fecundity of each ovary that was opened was regressed against the log the total length. was seen on February of the same year (Figure 2).

19xOBFW0. respectively.764 (r2= 0. there was a similar peak seen in both graphs (Figure 1.36xTL1. Comparing the two bar graphs generated from GSI and the mean of standard length of the fish. The relationships between each variable are seen below.137 (r2= 0. The means of its SL are 19.623 (r2= 0.432) Mean Fecundity – Ovary Free Body Weight (Figure 8): F = 0.067) Fecundity – Standard Length (Figure 4): F = 4.9. Mean Fecundity – Total Length (Figure 6): F = 3.33x10-6xSL6. sexual maturity is seen in April 2010 as well as July 2010.760 (r2= 0. In the male population.1. sexual maturity is seen in October 2009 wherein the mean of its SL is 19.393) Length at Maturity To determine the length of the fish at sexual maturity.4 and 20.067) Fecundity – Ovary Free Body Weight (Figure 5): F = 48. 15 .382) Mean Fecundity – Standard Length (Figure 7): F =4. 10). The relationship of fecundity to each independent variable is as follows: Fecundity – Total Length (Figure 3): F = 3.778 (r2= 0.body weight (Dadzie 2008) (see Table 4 for the values of fecundity and the independent variables).21xOBFW1. the standard length and GSI were correlated.17x10-6xTL6. In the female population.435 (r2= 0.80xSL1.088) The mean of the fecundity per month was also obtained and was plotted against the independent variables (Table 5).

In this case. These changes may be due to external or environmental factors that may affect the reproductive strategy of the fish (Kamanga et al. a larger ovary does not mean a larger number of eggs. It was observed that the eggs in ovary itself have variations in its stage of development (Figure 16 . Sexually mature specimens usually have a larger ovary. However. The two peaks may be the result of the biannual development of the eggs of Arius dispar. 2007). Comparison and correlations between previous GSI values and present values cannot be done due to the lack of information. The size and shape of the ovary also varies with its sexual maturity. 1926 was calculated and determined for both sexes. GSI studies also focus on changes in the reproductive pattern of the fish over the years. The ovary of A. dispar is unique in the sense that its eggs does not mature at the same time (Figure 12). the GSI of Arius dispar Herre. it can be inferred that the spawning season of Arius dispar is during the months of April and July. The development of the eggs inside the ovary has already been studied and it was determined that develops every six months (Mane 1929). No related studies on GSI of Arius dispar have been done prior to this. in this study. Ovary Characteristics The ovary of Arius dispar was bilobed and its oviduct length varies depending on the maturity of the ovary (Figure 11).DISCUSSION GSI GSI analysis is usually done to determine the spawning season or reproductive periods of the fishes that are being studied (Brewer et al. 2002). From the data obtained.

There are cases wherein all the three stages of development of the egg are present in one ovary. It can be inferred that at the time of spawning. there is still a low 17 . Fecundity There were no known studies about the fecundity of Arius dispar before this project started. In this technique. This is an indication of the non-linearity of the points generated from the individuals sampled. immature ones are left behind to stay for further development. These two reasons may be the greatest cause to the non-linearity of the relationships of egg number to the different independent variables regressed on it. The correlation somehow improved when the mean for each variable was obtained. For example. However. Methods and techniques that were done in this study were adapted from different researches that were made on different fish species. The fecundity per month varied due to the stage of sexual maturity of the fish. During April and July. Also. The gravimetric method was used to estimate the fecundity of A. for the regression between fecundity and total length of the fish. dispar.13). well developed eggs are the only that go out the ovary. 1969). The data obtained were very varied to the point that there no significant relationships can be made. several sub samples were collected in each ovary and the eggs contained in these sub samples were counted (Kipling & Frost. GSI was at its peak as well as the fecundity of the fish. the egg sizes greatly vary in one ovary. the r2 of the graph was very low (r2= 0.067). The different correlations of fecundity with the different independent variables showed no significant relationship. according to the r2 generated from the plots.

correlation between the two variables. The coefficients of determination (r2) were very weak to conclude a strong correlation between fecundity and the different independent variables regressed with it. The respective r2 values for each of the mean fecundity plots greatly increased compared to the plots generated from the raw fecundity data. 18 .

Fishermen can be informed with this observation to have a better collecting strategy and not damaging the natural reproductive pattern of the organism. Determining the diameter of the oocyte found in each sub-samples will also give more information. Using the GSI obtained. the fishermen can still continue with their livelihood without endangering the natural spawning pattern of the fish as well as its reproductive pattern. Also. Another study 19 . The peaks of the GSI and fecundity coincided which is an indication of a correlation between the GSI and fecundity within the whole year of sampling. limiting the catch to a certain amount can also help in the regeneration of the population of the catfish in the lake. Other studies on the biology and genetics of this species should be done as it is a native and commercially important fish species. The study is a stepping stone for further researches on the reproductive biology of A.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study met its objectives of and was successful of determining the GSI and fecundity of Arius dispar individuals that were collected in Laguna de Bay. dispar. better fish catch can be obtained. Limiting the catch can help in replenishing the amount that was lost due to the previous catch. Further studies can be made to characterize and improve the accuracy of the fecundity values obtained from the experiment. several samples per month should be included. The study of fecundity of Arius dispar that was done in the study can help in realizing the limit of the catch. linear relationships were not clearly established between fecundity and the different independent variables. For more accurate results. However. With this. Avoiding improper fish collection and taking to account a scientific knowledge on the growth and reproductive pattern of the fish. the spawning season of the fish was also determined.

that can be done is on histological tests of the ovary which can characterize the different stages of development of the eggs present in each of the sub-samples used. 20 .

The biology of Oreochromis niloticus in polluted canal. 1969. KAUNDA.K. Ecotoxicology 5:405. S. D. reproduction. Philippines I.mb.com. size at maturity and fecundity of Parastromateus niger (Carangidae) in Kuwaiti waters.A. C. condition factor. 1: 21 – 24 KHALLAF. C. gonado-somatic index.C. Philipp J Sci 45(1): 29-39. GALAL. BENANING. Ecol Freshw Fish. Fish Res. 2009. M. 2(3): 119 -128. AUTHMAN. Mla.J. Rome Italy: FAO. W. Jordan. 2010. Aqua-Fish Technical Report. Fecundity and ovarian characteristics of Puntius gonionotus (bloch/bleeker) (Cyprinidae: Cypriniformes). 1827 – 1879 KAMANGA.F. M... M. KIPLING. M. 2007. FROST. M. 2008. N. A. J. p.The kanduli fishery of Laguna de Bay. ISLAM. T.LITERATURE CITED AL-ZIBDAH. L.. Length-length relationship. RABENI. KAILOLA. O. Geoecology of Laguna de Bay.J. Variation of fecundity of pike. BEN-HASSINE. BEN-ATLA. Effect of temperature on gonadosomatic (GSI) of Oreochromis karongae (Trewavas).ph/articles/275250/laguna-de-bay-fisheries-imperiled (Date Accessed: September 19.N. 14: 99 – 102.O. MARTENS.. Bull. Aspects of growth. J. R. 2010) BHUIYAN. K.S. M. 1: 221–237. P. ALDABA.336 DELOS REYES. I.... E. MANYALA. 2002. Laguna de bay fisheries imperiled. length-weight relationship. ZAMAN. 1931. DADZIE. 100: 266 – 273 21 . KAN’AN. 2009. Teleost) from Bizerta lagoon (Tunisia): Evidence of reproduction disturbance. J Bio-science. Retrieved from http://www3. 1999 Ariidae: In FAO Species Identification Guides for Fishery Purposes: The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. E. LOUIZ. Esox lucius (L. Gonadosomatic index and gonad histopathology of Gobius niger (Gobiidea. 2006. techno-commercial impact on the trophic level structure of the Laguna de Bay aquatic ecosystem 1968 – 1980. PAPOULIAS. Ecol Model. J Appl Ichthyol. F. V. Comparing histology and gonadosomatic index for determining spawning condition of small-bodied riverine fishes..P.. E. M. 2003. and feeding habit of three pomacentrid fish from gulf of Aqaba. 17: 54 – 58. Jordan J Biol Sci.75/76: 497 -509. BREWER. S. J Fish Biol. 24: 334 . ABOU-SEEDO.) in Windmere. MTIMUNI. K. F. 1994.

R. Fecundity and growth of atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L. R. 1929. JUNQUERA. WITTHAMES. 1985.C. 16(1):1 – 24. Nat Appl Sci Bull.M.196. VALLEJO. A. ZAMARRO. 2000. 33: 33 – 54 PALMA. Philipp J Sci. Fishes of laguna de bay. 1(3): 291 – 296. 2002. K. Phil J Fish. SABORIDO-REY. 2006.A.M. D. KJESBU.. 29(1-3): 205 – 209.. ROSCH. F. A. 22 . A preliminary study of the life history and habits of kanduli (Arius spp. P. O. 1978.M. 1992. 37(4): 285-346 VILLADOLID. THORSEN. 5: 121-128. G. MERCENE. Aquat Ecosyst Health. H.L. A. A. 104: 45 – 55.) in Laguna de bay. KRAUS. The Phil Agri. J. THORSEN.S. S.. R. MURUA. NASH. 54(4): 545 – 552. Kanduli fisheries of Laguna de Bay Philippine islands. 30: 193 . Studies on fecundity of captive reared spotted snake head Channa punctatus (Channidae). J Fish Aquat Sci. 2010. MARTEINDOTTIR.V. J Northwest Atl Fish Sci. Kanduli population survey of Laguna de Bay. Procedures to estimate fecundity of marine species in relation to their reproductive strategy. Fish Res. Gonadosomatic index (GSI) of female whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) in lake constance. 2003. WITTAHAMES. Limnologica.) along a latitudinal gradient. M. E.MANE.. S. HANIFFA. P. DIAMANTE. 1934. Neth J Sea Res.N.R. An assessment of fishery resources of Laguna de Bay. POL.R. A. Determination of fecundity in American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides) and its variation from 1987 to 1989 on the tail of the grand bank. 18(22): 81 – 108 MARIMUTHU. G. A.D.

78 46.02 February 2010 278 180 98 64.18 58.58 23 . Composition according to sex is given.25 March 2010 249 130 119 52.23 July 2010 109 47 62 43.TABLES Table 1.79 April 2010 68 28 40 41.77 37.21 47.77 Total 1698 907 791 53.42 46.48 51.82 May 2010 115 60 55 52.75 35. Month All Male Female %Male %Female October 2009 33 16 17 48.22 42.88 August 2010 161 77 84 47.12 56. Total number of Arius dispar collected in Laguna de Bay per month.83 52.98 34.17 47.83 June 2010 94 59 35 62.22 December 2009 194 111 83 57.78 January 2010 97 64 33 65.52 November 2009 119 64 55 53.23 60.17 September 2010 181 71 110 39.

Table 2.05±0.84±0.37±0.74±0.04±0.01 0.69 0.05±0.07±0.01 0.37 24 .57 1.38 2.23±0.00 0.01 0.15±0.34±0. GSI ± SE values per month for both the male and the female population.42±0.04±0.50 1.07±0.01 0.64 2.06 2.99±0. Month Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Male 0.05±0.45 2.02 0.11±0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.52±0.05±0.07±0. The standard error of the mean for both sexes is also included.01 0.06±0.97±0.12±0.01 0.96±0.37±0.37 2.00 Female 0.01 0.

Table 3. Month Number of Samples October 2009 10 November 2009 10 December 2009 10 January 2010 10 February 2010 16 March 2010 26 April 2010 10 May 2010 17 June 2010 15 July 2010 21 August 2010 21 September 2010 15 Range Mean SEM 207 1367 800 111 431 1541 948 89 642 1239 881 68 268 1401 687 122 104 902 450 50 366 4109 1177 177 412 3907 1443 340 353 3907 975 172 502 3142 1086 204 375 4495 1932 234 220 4253 1868 234 267 2041 1113 152 Legend: SD. Mean fecundity of Arius dispar for a year of sampling in Laguna de Bay. Standard Deviation. Standard Error of the Mean 25 . SEM.

33 1.16 2.00 1.87 3.25 1.40 1.33 1.41 1.26 1.27 1.92 2.35 1.45 1.36 1.09 2.33 1.95 3.41 1.28 1.38 1.14 3.35 1.04 2.98 2.04 2.34 1. Data used for correlation and regression analyses between fecundity of Arius dispar and the independent variables: total length (TL).02 1.35 1.30 1.27 1.99 2.27 1.84 2.36 1.63 3.01 3.26 1.05 2.92 2.09 2.85 2.02 2.15 3.36 1.37 1.31 1.83 2.68 2.00 1.82 1.81 2.Table 4.96 2.33 1.30 1.95 2.04 2.98 2.02 3.94 2.37 1.00 2.45 1.37 1.35 1.85 2.20 1.26 1.37 1.35 1.33 1.38 1.34 1.28 1.28 1.94 2.45 1.32 1.25 1.93 2.42 1. 3833333 Specimen ID ABi 1 ABi 2 ABi 16 ABi 21 ABi 27 ABi 28 ABi 32 ABi 34 ABi 38 ABi 43 ABi 59 ABi 60 ABi 67 ABi 87 ABi 107 ABi 149 ABi 155 ABi 163 ABi 166 ABi 182 ABi 204 ABi 216 ABi 229 ABi 250 ABi 259 ABi 262 ABi 282 ABi 300 ABi 309 ABi 313 ABi 435 ABi 440 ABi 443 ABi 456 ABi 462 ABi 464 log Fecundity 2.89 2.29 1.02 2.14 2.37 1.41 1.32 1.17 1.93 3.40 1.28 1.31 1.25 1.28 1.33 1.32 1.99 2.42 1.41 1.89 2.32 2.89 1.28 1.24 1.93 2.32 1.19 2.92 26 .96 3.28 1.67 2.16 1.15 2.36 1.29 1.32 1.17 1.42 1.05 3.26 1.22 2.90 2.39 1.43 3.00 1.86 2.97 2.91 2.36 1.90 2.17 2.37 1.62 2. standard length (SL) and ovary free body weight (OFBW).12 2.21 1.34 1.42 1.93 2.36 1.07 1.08 1.60 logTL logSL logOFBW 1.12 1.08 2.

33 ABi 972 2.45 1.55 ABi 1075 3.29 1.30 1.35 1.16 2.00 ABi 1012 2.82 ABi 738 2.00 27 .41 1.38 1.29 1.93 2.38 1.29 1.08 2.39 1.41 1.27 1.01 2.76 ABi 520 2.36 1.26 1.41 1.35 1.38 1.16 ABi 820 2.29 2.29 1.64 ABi 678 2.96 ABi 1100 2.26 1.32 1.29 2.47 1.45 1.62 ABi 893 3.99 1.30 1.26 1.61 ABi 1033 3.71 ABi 1025 2.50 2.96 ABi 698 2.36 ABi 607 2.26 1.23 1.97 ABi 890 2.09 1.03 2.33 1.21 1.26 1.30 1.59 ABi 864 3.07 1.34 1.35 1.93 2.50 ABi 992 3.56 ABi 753 3.24 1.32 1.17 1.18 ABi 1081 2.63 ABi 916 3. (Continued).32 1.85 ABi 953 3.38 1.98 2.32 1.31 1.89 2.34 1.27 1.45 1.41 1.38 1.42 1.28 ABi 852 3.03 ABi 766 3.43 1.24 1.36 1.48 1.13 1.99 1.36 1.32 1.79 ABi 978 3.15 ABi 515 2.86 2.00 ABi 936 2.32 1.31 1.94 1.08 2.37 1.92 2.34 1.84 1.35 1.20 ABi 733 2.36 1.23 ABi 1047 2.43 ABi 684 2.39 1.Table 4.87 2.37 2.59 ABi 604 2.05 1.36 1.45 1.29 1.30 ABi 767 3.40 1.78 logTL logSL logOFBW 1.07 2.27 1.70 ABi 848 3.29 1.26 1.98 2.24 1.37 1.32 1.69 ABi 627 2.58 ABi 537 2.71 ABi 689 2.69 ABi 724 3.02 ABi 713 2.10 1.97 1.01 2.39 1.10 2.30 ABi 884 2.27 1.23 1.34 1. Specimen log ID Fecundity ABi 468 3.37 1.32 1.27 1.28 1.95 2.00 ABi 915 2.38 1.93 2.51 1.71 ABi 566 2.43 1.11 2.29 1.40 1.39 1.36 1.34 1.39 1.96 2.

14 ABi 1241 2.77 2.40 ABi 1356 3.38 1.26 2.31 2.10 ABi 1378 3.24 1.29 1.31 1.26 1.14 2.08 1.38 1.05 2.38 1.31 1.88 1. (Continued).43 1.85 ABi 1146 2.13 ABi 1394 3.94 ABi 1230 3.29 1.14 2.89 2.68 ABi 1164 2.50 ABi 1234 3.70 ABi 1296 2.08 2.99 2.44 1.45 1.90 ABi 1215 2.34 1.26 1.39 28 .07 2.17 2.97 2.33 1.32 1.54 1.31 1.87 2.13 2.44 ABi 1232 3.03 2.05 1.07 1.57 logTL logSL logOFBW 1.41 1.34 2.08 ABi 1447 3.33 1.60 ABi 1456 2.44 1.90 1.05 ABi 1350 3.35 1.34 1.26 1.39 1.10 ABi 1440 3.72 ABi 1263 2.41 1.35 1.30 1.00 1.92 1.35 1.31 1.33 1.26 1.39 1.25 1.89 ABi 1109 2.34 1.39 1.24 ABi 1397 3.91 ABi 1280 2.26 ABi 1132 2.81 ABi 1303 2.11 2.82 ABi 1333 3.89 1.09 2.30 1.21 ABi 1423 2.00 2.41 1.49 1.29 1.43 1.40 1.43 1.41 ABi 1346 3.29 ABi 1421 3.Table 4.38 1.32 1.80 ABi 1285 2.39 1.23 ABi 1417 3.25 1.33 1.41 1.42 1.31 1.37 1.21 ABi 1375 3.24 2.70 ABi 1427 3.36 1.35 1.27 1.17 2.36 1.33 1.04 ABi 1181 2.30 2.45 1.06 2.39 1.74 ABi 1142 2.13 ABi 1334 3.31 1.39 1.75 ABi 1171 3.44 1.88 2.22 2.31 1.22 1.45 2.37 1.33 2.38 1.98 ABi 1125 3.34 1.25 ABi 1451 3.30 1.39 1.28 1.30 1.91 ABi 1277 2.03 ABi 1320 2.36 1.41 1.80 ABi 1305 3.35 1.41 1.39 1.18 2.37 1.08 1.85 1.32 1. Specimen log ID Fecundity ABi 1106 2.48 ABi 1401 3.24 2.29 1.51 1.

08 2.94 ABi 1779 2.30 1.89 ABi 1645 3.92 ABi 1810 2.95 1.18 ABi 1605 3.32 1.42 1.43 ABi 1833 3.43 1.34 1.98 ABi 1788 3.16 ABi 1599 3.41 1.37 1.35 1.45 1.07 2.21 ABi 1583 3.08 2.23 1.26 1.32 1.03 ABi 1729 3.14 2.46 1.09 2.04 ABi 1994 3.22 ABi 1471 3.11 2.30 1.40 1.03 ABi 1733 3.34 1.09 2.42 1.46 1.26 1.28 2.40 1.22 ABi 1732 3.37 1.94 2.37 1.26 1.34 ABi 1635 3.26 1.42 2.Table 4.36 1.99 1.10 2.04 ABi 1587 3.34 1.39 1.45 ABi 1642 2.27 1.00 1.35 1.34 ABi 1651 3.27 1.52 ABi 1899 3.06 2.58 ABi 1535 3.15 2.42 1.55 ABi 1509 2.46 1.21 ABi 1650 3.52 ABi 1520 3.94 ABi 1949 2.63 ABi 1582 3.40 1.26 1.18 2.39 1.34 2.31 1. Specimen log ID Fecundity ABi 1458 3.27 1.31 ABi 1763 3.31 1. (Continued).36 1.02 2.36 1.32 1.05 ABi 1766 2.14 ABi 1702 3.29 1.47 1.02 2.43 1.07 2.32 1.96 2.31 1.32 2.10 2.10 2.25 ABi 1907 2.36 1.28 1.18 2.34 1.07 1.30 ABi 1801 2.16 2.38 1.38 1.11 ABi 1892 2.32 1.42 1.33 1.40 1.41 1.34 1.38 1.35 1.34 1.33 1.65 ABi 1464 3.40 1.20 ABi 1751 3.40 1.29 ACa 137 2.38 2.11 2.68 ABi 1963 3.55 ABi 1634 2.37 1.36 1.39 29 .43 1.25 1.27 2.21 2.41 1.29 2.28 1.72 logTL logSL logOFBW 1.31 1.51 1.39 ABi 1726 3.31 1.92 ABi 1813 2.33 1.45 1.43 ABi 1658 3.97 2.05 2.05 2.38 1.39 1.34 ABi 1738 3.30 1.17 2.33 1.39 1.94 2.37 1.29 1.

39 1.08 1.24 1.08 1.39 1.01 2.42 1.26 1.33 1.38 1.85 2.31 1.84 ACa 185 2.37 1.73 ATa 76 2.30 1.38 ATa 181 2.14 1.24 1.30 1.21 1.35 ATa 200 3.16 2.57 logTL logSL logOFBW 1.39 1.85 2.92 ACa 163 2.00 ATa 160 2.29 1.20 2.89 ATa 39 2.33 1.34 1.71 ATa 194 3.71 ACa 193 3.19 2.13 1.17 2.78 ACa 156 2.23 1.83 1.39 1.41 1.30 1.26 1.29 1.28 1.64 ATa 17 2.54 ATa 37 2.33 1.41 1.37 1.82 2.73 ACa 152 2.91 ACa 204 3.36 1.39 1.29 1.37 1.90 1. Specimen log ID Fecundity ACa 141 2.30 1.98 ACa 279 3.31 1.37 1.38 1.98 ATa 274 3.35 1.95 1.10 2.16 2.94 2.64 ATa 186 2.05 2.30 1.04 ACa 276 2.28 1.33 1.13 ACa 263 3.Table 4.02 1.75 ATa 93 2.61 ATa 203 2.05 2.25 1.18 ACa 235 3.30 2. (Continued).35 1.31 1.77 30 .38 1.05 2.33 1.00 1.31 1.28 1.40 1.45 1.85 ACa 171 2.00 ACa 194 2.32 1.91 2.

13 19. logTL logSL logOFBW 800. TL.40 1.11 19.21 24.99 1.64 3.30 February 450.43 1.11 2.16 1.12 2.38 1.40 20.31 94. standard length.31 September 1113.24 23.36 2.31 April 1442.23 2.34 2.46 2.90 1. total length.37 1.07 1.84 130.36 1.39 1.89 25.30 May 974. fecundity. The summary of the monthly average fecundity and the averages of the independent variables per month of sampling that were done from October 2009 to September 2010.34 August 1868.24 19.05 2.31 26.82 20.51 2.09 2. Ovary free body weight October 31 1.59 24.68 112.09 107.46 129.07 2.38 1.84 1.29 July 1932. Average Month Fecundity TL SL OFBW logFec.14 3.25 3.30 Legend: F.49 23.15 24.29 1.73 24.31 June 1085.29 127.69 23.38 1.71 19.48 3.77 117.56 23.80 20.83 19.96 23.37 1.29 November 947.80 122.67 3. OFBW.04 1.Table 5.62 3.05 1.10 2.51 20.98 1.83 20.12 168.89 19.32 January 686.01 106.14 2.28 December 880.39 1.94 1.41 1.11 .39 1.97 2.03 2.27 1.51 2.21 114.18 129.28 March 1176.76 22. SL.65 1.06 2.03 2.95 24.

50 0. Gonadosomatic index (GSI) values for each month of sampling for both male and female populations of Arius dispar.00 2.00 0.00 Male 1.00 Gonadosomatic Index (%) 3.50 Female 1.FIGURES 4.50 3.00 Month Figure 1.50 2. 32 .

0000 Figure 2.0000 0. The average fecundity per month of Sampling of Arius dispar from October 2009 to September 2010. 33 .0000 2000.0000 500.0000 1000.2500.0000 1500.

00 Linear (logFecundity) 1.40 logTotal Length 1. Scatter plot between Total Length and Fecundity for all specimens of Arius dispar that were used in the fecundity study.55 Figure 3.00 2.30 1.50 1.00 3.25 1.45 1.4.50 1.50 logFecundity 3.60 .50 logFecundity 2. 34 1.35 1.

40 Figure 4.25 logFecundity 1.75 logFecundity 3.35 logStandard Length 1.75 Linear (logFecundity) 1.25 1.15 1.75 2.50 .25 3. Scatter plot between the fecundity and standard length of Arius dispar for each month of sampling.4.25 2.30 1. 35 1.45 1.20 1.25 1.

00 Linear (logFecundity) 1.70 1.50 logFecundity 2.00 2.10 logOFBW 2.90 2. Scatter plot between the fecundity and ovary free body weight of all the samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling.00 3.80 1.00 2.30 2.60 1.20 2.50 2.60 Figure 5. 36 .4.50 1.50 logFecundity 3.40 2.

50 2.50 3.50 Linear (logFecundity) y = 6.39 1. 37 .40 1. Regression between the mean fecundity and mean total length of all samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling.00 logFecundity 1.36 1.00 1.382 1.44 logTotal Length Figure 6.4994 R² = 0.00 0.42 1.50 0.3.5.38 1.41 1.00 logFecundity 2.37 1.1366x .43 1.

50 3.00 logFecundity 1.50 0.3.00 1.3642 R² = 0.5.00 0.28 1.00 logFecundity 2.30 1.35 logStandard Length Figure 7.50 2. 38 .31 1.29 1.32 1.27 1.432 1. Regression between the mean fecundity and mean standard length of all samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling.4351x .34 1.50 Linear (logFecundity) y = 6.33 1.

3.7781x .0.00 1.05 2.25 logOvary Free Body Weight Figure 8. 39 .50 2.50 Linear (logFecundity) y = 1.00 0.393 1.6857 R² = 0.50 0. Regression between the mean fecundity and mean ovary free body weight of all samples of Arius dispar for each month of sampling.50 3.00 logFecundity 2.10 2.00 2.95 2.00 logFecundity 1.20 2.15 2.

0 15. Mean standard length of Arius dispar samples collected each month from October 2009 to September 2010.0 SL Mean (M) SL Mean (F) 5.0 0. 40 .0 20.Mean Standard Length per Month of Sampling Standard Length (SL) (cm) 25.0 Month Figure 9.0 10.

41 .Figure 10. Representative sample of a mature ovary of Arius dispar in the batch of samples (scale bar = 1 cm).

Figure 11. 42 . Dissected ovary showing several stages of the eggs present inside it (scale bar = 1 cm).

Figure 12. 43 . View under the microscope of the different sizes and maturation of the eggs present in one ovary of Arius dispar (20x).

0458 0. Weight of Subsample 2.6063 0.4056 0.0285 0. WS5. Eggs of Subsample 5.4525 0.46 October ABi 32 0.0416 0.0160 0.0257 166 207 79 133 148 89 1540.0140 0. EGS3.06 October ABi 27 0.0280 0.0132 0.0350 0.0176 0.73 October ABi 16 0.0250 0. Weight of Subsample 5.0259 0.0199 102 80 57 85 59 77 770.0233 0.0085 0.0451 0.0479 0.3290 0.0807 0.0427 0.0495 0. Total weight (TW).0190 0.0265 0. WS1.0231 0.0380 0.76 November ABi 155 0.0335 0.4860 0.0297 0.0334 0.0112 0.2173 0.0435 0. WS6. weight of sub-samples (WS).0308 0.0295 0.0424 0.2040 0.0573 0.4922 0.80 November ABi 67 0.0233 0.3555 0.2783 0.79 November ABi 149 0.34 November ABi 163 0.0144 0. 44 Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ABi 1 0.0275 0.0376 0.0447 0.0936 0.0203 0. Eggs of Subsample 4.3455 0.0215 0.0445 0.24 November ABi 166 0.0456 0.0312 0.0936 0.0275 0. Eggs of Subsample 1.0371 0.0335 0.0342 78 95 61 75 83 66 848. Weight of Subsample 3.0371 0.0450 0.0930 0.0354 65 78 51 63 66 69 467.0431 69 50 92 139 44 39 1102.0250 0.0404 0.0149 0.0207 0.0281 0.0260 0.16 November ABi 60 0. EGS5.0315 0. EGS1.0443 0. EGS6.0310 0.0313 0. Weight of Subsample 4.0305 70 71 58 143 110 80 801.0341 103 142 131 97 90 131 1407.3167 0.0233 0. Weight of Subsample 1.0336 0. Total Weight.44 October ABi 59 0.52 October ABi 2 0.0602 148 147 40 125 130 137 1044.0365 0.0419 0.3363 0.0186 0.0447 0.5701 0.0380 106 76 93 118 108 104 1027.0205 0.0416 0.1925 0.3214 0. Weight of Subsample 6. EGS4.0347 0.0369 0.1105 0.0496 60 46 46 31 37 73 430.0330 0.0303 0.3875 0.0496 0.23 October ABi 28 0. WS3.0267 0.1710 0.0841 0.0457 108 100 71 90 93 97 902. Eggs of Subsample 3.54 November ABi 87 0.0280 0.0466 0.0382 0.79 November Legend: TW. fecundity and month of collection from October 2009 to September 2010.4560 0.0632 0.APPENDIX A Egg count and ovary section weight of six sections of Arius dispar ovary samples.91 November ABi 182 0.0247 57 61 54 74 96 81 678.0264 68 104 41 49 80 61 882.0330 114 74 74 143 60 54 1041.0771 0.06 October ABi 34 0.2867 0.0563 0. WS4.0369 0.0558 0. EGS2.0234 0.0401 81 60 69 76 100 92 859.0579 88 218 119 145 70 53 1367.0354 0. Eggs of Subsample 2.0128 31 73 38 49 74 61 207.0779 52 60 62 62 39 39 708.53 November ABi 107 0.0124 0.0251 0. egg count per sub-samples (EGS).0473 67 50 49 59 80 40 481.0443 0.0327 0.12 October ABi 38 0.0184 0.0296 0.56 October ABi 21 0.0698 0. . WS2.0145 0.0796 0.0531 0.0204 0.0786 0.22 October ABi 43 0.9470 0.0470 152 101 97 72 82 135 909.0175 0. Eggs of Subsample 6.0268 0.

0501 0.0672 0.0382 0.0816 0. .20 January ABi 515 0.0234 0.0544 137 65 26 111 89 73 735.0637 0.0885 0.1332 0.0401 0.0476 0.0445 0.0795 0. 45 Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ABi 204 0.0974 49 48 32 51 71 41 382.0769 0.08 January ABi 464 0.51 February ABi 604 0.1112 0.1336 0.45 February ABi 684 0.036 134 104 68 146 104 59 983.0396 0.44 January ABi 537 0.0891 73 66 34 70 57 55 508.0519 0. Weight of Subsample 3.0404 0.0535 326 72 25 130 74 20 1211.0683 77 104 51 65 63 70 574. Weight of Subsample 5. EGS6.0249 0.0489 0. WS1.0756 127 25 57 64 28 20 386.0303 0.0492 0.0922 375 46 28 402 34 20 1401.0853 73 110 35 122 102 34 980.19 January ABi 566 0.145 0.Appendix A (Continued).0552 0.0542 0.0471 0.0556 0.0852 0.0615 0. Eggs of Subsample 3.0682 0.0464 0.0396 0.0200 0.0486 0.0498 0.0497 0.0681 0.96 February ABi 607 0.0898 0.1333 81 66 63 81 60 60 493.0467 0. Eggs of Subsample 2.95 December ABi 262 0.3977 0.1650 0.39 January ABi 462 0.0460 0. Eggs of Subsample 6.0487 0.5015 0.1159 0.0671 0.0596 0.0458 110 22 50 32 39 55 399.5356 0.0478 0.4512 0.0400 0.6120 0.0806 0.0481 0.0527 0.8628 0.1535 0.0204 0.0239 0.0567 0.94 December ABi 216 0.5782 0.33 January ABi 520 0.4029 0.1296 0.062 129 91 93 110 128 156 1127.1048 0.0463 0.0774 0.5481 0.0412 0.0853 0.62 December ABi 435 0.0366 85 76 83 97 70 96 797.0410 0.93 January ABi 443 0.87 December ABi 300 0.0376 0.0381 0.0843 0.5504 0.0619 0.5251 0.6021 0.0214 18 45 11 25 75 6 270.3406 0.078 0.0607 0.0437 0.0948 43 45 13 28 18 19 230. WS4.0478 73 70 40 52 26 35 417.1696 0. Total Weight.0261 0.0468 0.0344 0.0483 71 86 106 67 59 73 642.0399 0.1036 66 46 72 45 102 139 1238.0576 0.0442 0.0601 0.0362 0.0427 0.68 February Legend: TW.0607 0. WS3.1124 0.0249 0.0452 0.1040 0.0740 0.0371 0. Eggs of Subsample 1.3933 0.0488 0.3858 0.0898 0.0487 0.0607 0. EGS3.7645 0.1016 0.1418 58 70 29 58 11 53 438.077 141 121 69 132 93 64 1117. Weight of Subsample 4.3286 0. EGS2.0213 0.19 December ABi 259 0.0568 31 21 30 15 56 30 268.56 January ABi 468 0.0578 0.0573 0. WS2.39 December ABi 250 0.92 February ABi 627 1.7783 0.31 January ABi 456 0.7439 0. WS5.11 January ABi 440 0.0543 0.0475 98 97 90 127 67 78 769. Weight of Subsample 1.059 0.0406 0. EGS1.0600 0.0772 0.0821 0.0573 0.0992 0.1866 0.0648 0. Weight of Subsample 2.1013 0.0442 0.0326 0.0313 0. Eggs of Subsample 5.4947 0.0414 0.1728 82 97 77 65 68 91 690.1124 55 89 56 95 91 43 717.0425 0.0606 0.5009 0.0752 0.0619 0.76 December ABi 313 0. Weight of Subsample 6.1234 0.6957 0.3804 0.0716 0.0473 0.0939 0.0317 0. Eggs of Subsample 4.0302 0.0724 0.46 December ABi 282 0.0599 0. EGS4.0425 0.0538 0.0517 0.1002 0.0402 32 97 64 104 95 100 705.0481 0.5964 0.0357 0.0739 0.0259 0.60 December ABi 229 0. WS6.0340 0.0794 0.10 December ABi 309 1.0874 0.0648 0.0734 72 81 22 84 130 94 517. EGS5.05 February ABi 678 0.

6473 2.0191 0.0891 0.0502 0.3990 0.0660 0.1623 153 13 8 125 9 6 710.4503 1.0578 48 24 7 181 4 4 1001.76 April ABi 890 2. Eggs of Subsample 5.2200 0.1363 385 76 14 279 110 10 3129. Weight of Subsample 2.1196 21 54 2 30 26 3 425.1312 0.59 March ABi 848 9. WS1.0182 0.0100 1.0587 0.6278 1.0142 0.0807 0. WS2.2005 0.0948 0.09 March ABi 738 6.0182 0.3629 56 31 16 120 24 5 613.0342 0. Weight of Subsample 3. .3004 1. Eggs of Subsample 4.1958 0.1214 0.0370 1.3734 0.0462 0.9880 0.0183 0.0161 0. 46 Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ABi 689 0.73 April ABi 936 1.6668 0.2525 0.5163 0.1661 0.1765 0.7323 152 31 3 160 36 1 2147.51 April ABi 852 14.76 May Legend: TW.4171 0.0054 0.2132 0.3473 0.0255 0.0891 0.0830 0.5174 0.1140 0.7065 0.5300 0.6859 0.97 April ABi 916 1.1268 0.0947 0. Weight of Subsample 6. WS5. WS6.12 February ABi 698 0.1229 71 50 4 31 133 32 506.0225 0.0699 0.1449 0.0206 1.0906 15 17 14 242 29 23 929. EGS5.1564 0.1418 0.1420 0.2062 0. WS3.8732 0.0305 0.2733 0.0729 0.0382 0.0304 1.0444 0.01 April ABi 884 1.0708 31 18 20 15 3 12 104.0198 1. Total Weight.0482 0.3080 0.1122 0.0183 0.0249 0.0617 119 168 70 58 120 75 994.6095 0.8404 1.8654 1.0966 0. Weight of Subsample 1.8563 0.1305 0. EGS6.4641 0. EGS4.0970 289 24 3 217 11 6 1459. WS4.4418 190 78 4 424 43 16 1572. Eggs of Subsample 3.1286 0.2207 1. Eggs of Subsample 1.3360 0.0817 0. EGS3.1579 190 38 4 261 20 4 1990.3099 0.0830 0.0612 1.0489 0.3096 0.3477 0.2322 0. Eggs of Subsample 2. Weight of Subsample 4.4825 0.0382 0. EGS1.5497 0.0674 0.0327 3.45 April ABi 953 16.8680 0.1102 0.0710 0.46 March ABi 766 3.1590 0.1692 0.0458 0.1274 20 15 6 167 17 6 486.0203 0.68 May ABi 1033 3.1883 0.9562 2.1608 0.20 March ABi 733 23.Appendix A (Continued).0273 0. Weight of Subsample 5.0312 0.0209 0.28 March ABi 724 2.2113 0.1961 218 7 8 301 15 8 1679.0869 0.58 April ABi 915 2.0582 0.0728 0.0139 0.0241 0.0230 0.3146 0.1093 0.05 April ABi 864 10.9866 0.0187 0.1596 0.0333 0.1428 0.0858 0.8192 19 66 14 81 76 32 365.18 April ABi 972 3.3128 0.7480 0.0341 1.1386 45 58 47 66 41 56 406.1649 0.58 March ABi 753 2.0726 463 16 5 255 13 8 1904.0957 0.0234 2.3901 0.0205 0.2140 0.1430 0.0740 0.0389 121 106 73 49 61 84 902.2011 0.1877 257 35 34 74 34 3 1060.91 May ABi 992 0.0135 0.9827 318 13 35 311 32 23 1997.0074 0.51 May ABi 978 2.3746 0.3113 0.1018 0.2221 70 38 4 77 36 3 412.1464 0.31 March ABi 767 23.2353 237 51 5 210 954 1 3907.0179 0.0498 2.47 February ABi 713 1.2200 0.2939 0.0100 0.4717 0.38 April ABi 893 1.1673 0.0250 0.4150 0.1318 0.1791 98 81 67 61 66 62 509. EGS2.0318 0.1981 0.8212 0.1422 0.84 May ABi 1012 0.0138 0.3485 0.0381 0.1529 56 50 7 125 11 20 665.0801 0. Eggs of Subsample 6.2275 171 36 55 146 23 12 989.0773 0.70 May ABi 1025 0.40 March ABi 820 1.

WS5.5930 0.2605 0.1230 0.0476 0.0352 0.0855 0.1285 0.6071 0.0711 0.0347 52 57 75 67 94 137 805.9106 0.0438 0.1268 1.49 May ABi 1132 0. Weight of Subsample 6.08 0.0494 0.0631 0.1256 0.34 June ABi 1241 0.1023 0.0483 0.0341 50 59 44 169 141 59 631.1334 0.0405 0.1772 157 9 8 200 34 11 863.0186 0.2730 0.46 June ABi 1232 17.0482 1. EGS1.81 June ABi 1215 1.54 May ABi 1125 18.1151 0.0265 0.0703 0.1508 0. EGS4.0296 0.0339 0.0425 0.1151 93 29 8 108 19 9 961.0473 0.1052 117 75 49 23 62 42 482. EGS6. Eggs of Subsample 1.0098 0.32 May ABi 1081 0.25 June ABi 1280 0.0992 0.0857 0. Weight of Subsample 3.3871 0.0346 0. EGS2.8567 0.0900 0.39 June ABi 1277 0.2389 0.3004 0. Eggs of Subsample 6.0813 0.8257 0.58 June ABi 1303 0.0394 0.1106 0.0558 135 59 76 143 105 138 908.0902 0.0394 0.80 June Legend: TW.0481 0.0499 0.0337 85 63 184 56 79 64 645.5238 0.2545 0.0376 0.0630 0. WS3.0194 0.1568 0.016 0.0886 1.1186 0.0236 1.27 June ABi 1234 2.1104 0.67 May ABi 1146 0.0732 0.0448 73 77 59 74 66 46 553.5806 400 15 17 138 7 10 1812.061 0. Weight of Subsample 5.97 May ABi 1100 0.0514 65 102 98 104 99 126 1059.0137 0.1205 222 21 2 150 17 23 1514.24 June ABi 1305 0.0606 134 78 62 77 88 37 530.0128 0.0248 0.0983 202 82 74 68 65 19 702.0267 0.0436 0.1692 0.1127 0. WS6.48 May ABi 1109 17.0307 0.0441 0.55 May ABi 1142 0. Total Weight. 47 Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ABi 1047 1. Eggs of Subsample 3.1168 0. .0214 0.0457 0.0333 0.0237 0.041 268 132 55 105 65 129 811.7382 0. Weight of Subsample 4.0277 0.0873 1.16 June ABi 1230 3.0336 50 71 66 80 59 102 629.1984 0.Appendix A (Continued).0260 0.0737 57 65 72 136 65 25 566.2536 401 46 2 417 8 7 2732.0426 0.0595 0.57 June ABi 1296 0.5312 0. WS4.2282 0. EGS5.0404 0.06 0.73 May ABi 1171 1.9889 1.1303 108 10 10 171 116 12 1108.1397 0.4283 0.0735 57 100 65 45 68 52 663.1383 1.1029 0.6805 0.2970 0.0694 0.1079 0.0263 0.1871 0.1020 150 69 62 223 32 88 781.0488 0.9431 0.0443 0.0884 0.0743 0.09 June ABi 1263 0.72 May ABi 1106 0.1175 0. EGS3.0570 93 76 41 37 70 41 598.83 June ABi 1181 0.0758 0.0166 0.7131 0.1248 0.2169 0.2055 40 21 15 53 13 6 352.316 0.0529 0.0483 0.5035 1.57 May ABi 1075 1.4931 0. Weight of Subsample 2. Weight of Subsample 1.0278 0.031 250 73 98 103 97 79 797.1676 0.055 0.62 June ABi 1320 0.0945 0.0392 0.3281 0.0200 0.0625 0.0239 0.0387 0.0906 0.0372 0.0626 0.0635 61 39 47 70 58 33 501.1841 0.0234 0. WS2.1557 0.0285 0.1634 0.7897 1.4578 0.1492 0.0393 0.7463 0.0594 0.0387 0.95 May ABi 1164 0.0837 0.1285 0.03 June ABi 1285 0.0207 0.7930 300 10 7 426 11 7 3142.0226 0.9613 0.4344 0. WS1.0280 0.0396 0. Eggs of Subsample 4.4292 0.031 0. Eggs of Subsample 5.1383 0.0316 0.0422 0.1394 0.1011 0.1685 0. Eggs of Subsample 2.2239 209 46 8 159 27 8 1367.1105 0.055 0.

0479 0.0296 0.0481 0.0156 210 45 12 203 42 1 1251. WS2.3830 0.0175 1.0484 0. Weight of Subsample 3.7295 0.74 July ABi 1378 4.9454 0.8338 0.0723 0. Eggs of Subsample 1.7460 478 58 19 277 61 35 1930.9939 0. WS5.8885 0.6000 0.38 August ABi 1520 8.0283 2.0182 0.0954 0.3290 0.0293 0.57 July ABi 1440 5.2961 302 19 25 315 7 14 1632. EGS5.6337 0.7277 0. Eggs of Subsample 5.6302 0.6169 0.26 July ABi 1447 10.0343 0.4757 0.8064 0.9236 0.3635 0.0412 1.0757 1. WS3.4660 0.1598 0.2670 0.3213 130 38 15 255 82 6 1120.5089 0.0136 0.0488 0.0374 1.4103 204 27 4 327 11 14 1765.0567 0.1761 0.0476 0.0118 0.1272 0. Total Weight.4648 0.1620 0.1561 0.0570 1.0650 0.6365 0.1615 0.0210 0.2680 661 96 8 220 66 12 4495.09 July ABi 1423 1.1030 1.0185 0.0733 0.0200 1.9312 0.6057 0.7400 0.8498 2.2027 0.0516 0.1100 0.0883 1.96 July ABi 1350 7. WS1.0575 1.7390 464 68 17 664 51 18 3017.9084 0.3781 230 7 8 196 55 27 1335.0526 1.5616 0.7372 2.0272 0.39 July ABi 1456 2.4102 25 39 15 35 150 14 1094.0689 1.4910 0.2401 0.6624 0.0670 1.1053 0.8439 0.30 July ABi 1509 1.7481 0.5240 0.9429 2.6813 707 41 2 124 28 14 2527.7703 318 65 19 510 18 21 1709.0067 1.0434 0.82 August ABi 1583 4.4170 0. Eggs of Subsample 4.5561 239 170 13 99 33 11 1203.5727 0. Weight of Subsample 5.0107 0.1062 0.78 July ABi 1401 4.0596 0.0744 0.65 July ABi 1397 7.1048 1.2103 0.1850 1. EGS1.0234 0.7636 0.2743 0.33 July ABi 1356 9.0261 0.0609 1.7443 0.Appendix A (Continued).4062 333 27 32 223 58 10 3789.0603 0.0807 1.0949 324 75 9 132 86 25 1735.1860 0.0865 0. EGS3. Weight of Subsample 2. WS6.6599 1.4931 0.0652 0.3995 0.6217 199 107 30 365 27 11 3551. EGS6.5042 0.4168 0.2535 0.0558 0. 48 Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ABi 1333 1. .8678 254 30 10 211 30 10 2550.8648 0.0640 1.5940 100 36 16 178 18 11 1623. Eggs of Subsample 2.5612 0.3253 7 36 4 100 29 15 374.1844 44 16 13 52 18 14 328.0645 1.2330 0.6747 1.3550 0.68 July ABi 1471 23.9260 0.37 July ABi 1346 3. Weight of Subsample 4.1025 1.0545 0.0494 3.0510 0. EGS2.94 July ABi 1375 15.2561 0.0325 1.1516 0.1823 0.1416 318 30 15 294 27 6 1648.0205 0.41 July ABi 1334 18.0142 0.77 July ABi 1458 7.0178 0. EGS4.0471 0. Weight of Subsample 6.0215 0. Eggs of Subsample 6.7322 0.0366 0.8984 0.4161 0.2410 0.23 July ABi 1464 23.6610 411 79 13 419 55 3 3982.3329 0.4210 0.0951 0. Weight of Subsample 1.7902 0.2147 0.7158 1.1249 0.3605 0.0596 0.2767 0.51 August ABi 1535 27.7968 0.0326 0.2478 0.0497 0.8605 368 66 36 153 32 21 1272. WS4.0214 1. Eggs of Subsample 3.01 July ABi 1394 8.0332 0.79 August ABi 1582 20.7654 1.4196 515 90 15 160 64 33 4252.97 July ABi 1417 6.67 July ABi 1427 12.4890 0.4591 0.0439 249 18 16 99 89 16 1362.38 July ABi 1421 2.5492 0.8545 0.0800 0.2729 0.7608 0.06 July ABi 1451 16.6312 320 225 25 145 28 3 1615.1382 72 45 19 19 9 13 495.09 August Legend: TW.

5317 0.06 0.0351 0. WS1.1509 0.1056 1.0090 2.2263 0.0214 1.8528 0.0529 309 34 15 55 18 7 1514.1385 0.98 August ABi 1738 5.6481 0.54 August ABi 1634 2. Weight of Subsample 3.0646 2. Weight of Subsample 4.7121 266 36 11 174 18 21 1387.0160 0.0757 0. EGS3.0447 1.35 September ABi 1801 1.82 August ABi 1751 25.0519 0.9310 0.5040 2.7607 1.3548 1.2233 0.0457 0.1844 0.6331 0.7223 0.0256 0.9217 0.0535 0.6775 0.1173 130 40 30 200 18 11 2188. Eggs of Subsample 3. Weight of Subsample 2.2086 0.94 August ABi 1733 4.40 August ABi 1645 17.0813 0.3390 0.3320 0.90 September ABi 1766 0.9623 13 59 5 58 11 13 327.3307 0.0300 0.0324 0.5550 101 84 18 61 18 7 948.0361 0. WS6. Weight of Subsample 1.5045 0.03 August ABi 1605 2.1250 278 52 18 119 74 14 2040.3123 0. EGS2.7327 0.0283 0.7362 404 37 11 370 43 22 1662.1574 0.0228 0.0381 0.99 August ABi 1702 17. Eggs of Subsample 5.0594 0.2070 0.0208 1.0244 0.4742 1.3799 390 8 24 175 26 10 2166.2619 117 19 13 540 13 17 2801.7467 0. EGS5.3444 0.0167 0.0300 0.9547 0.0924 0. .0893 0.2718 0.2559 0.0314 0.6038 2.76 September ABi 1813 0.2559 1.07 August ABi 1650 32.1125 0.1519 2.0077 0.8774 0.2494 0.0507 0.3062 170 14 33 97 17 16 1082.6723 1.8933 0.1180 0.0763 0.1184 0. Weight of Subsample 5.0163 0.0544 0.1912 73 68 19 140 21 34 835. EGS6.8194 280 52 26 200 71 7 1447.0222 1.2274 0.5154 1.7489 0.0410 0.2791 4.0794 0.0756 92 109 14 202 43 37 1124.7228 0.3171 134 21 14 253 23 10 1595.3282 2.4075 1.0094 0.0191 0.3378 0.6571 0.0357 0.4874 1.2505 0.6441 0.0256 32 56 28 29 37 15 781.0292 83 95 73 90 111 96 840.6893 0.04 August ABi 1599 1.0690 0.9300 0.0546 1.82 September ABi 1833 11.3582 1. WS4.Appendix A (Continued).2506 229 58 19 159 17 9 1273.7956 0.0642 0.33 August ABi 1635 4.3969 1.92 August ABi 1729 6.2675 361 32 22 456 121 23 2449.8958 0.9111 0.02 August ABi 1651 12.1016 130 69 118 160 88 105 878.7724 0.0256 0.2560 0.9875 2. Eggs of Subsample 1.6555 0. 49 Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ABi 1587 5.3751 205 325 18 256 38 20 2664.0335 0.69 August ABi 1732 17.7443 86 55 10 183 67 26 1061.0845 0. Weight of Subsample 6.6285 0.5891 0.00 September ABi 1779 22.0321 0. Total Weight.43 August ABi 1642 0.09 22 49 49 52 18 37 266. EGS4.9417 142 123 55 206 4 6 1609.4092 1.0320 1. Eggs of Subsample 6.90 September Legend: TW.0361 2.4428 0.0196 0.0609 0. Eggs of Subsample 2.3161 0.25 September ABi 1810 0. WS2.8356 0.0436 0.0123 0.2354 0.0146 0.9347 0.4545 0.0608 2.1298 1.7520 0.0085 0.00 September ABi 1788 8.0434 0.0119 0.6366 1.0239 0.9428 111 338 14 230 22 8 2007.0189 0.6166 0.9892 0.92 September ABi 1763 18.4867 0. WS3. WS5.0579 0.0641 1. Eggs of Subsample 4.0243 0.0878 0. EGS1.7845 0.0980 0.11 August ABi 1726 2.33 August ABi 1658 8.7258 0.1834 0.0518 0.9290 0.1846 0.8210 34 18 16 18 106 6 220.1226 0.96 September ABi 1892 12.2440 0.0565 0.4332 0.8378 0.0630 0.1534 810 27 14 445 24 25 3509.2881 0.

Weight of Subsample 6.0298 0.0482 0. EGS5.8745 1.0435 0.0634 0.0651 160 82 17 101 75 14 531. . Weight of Subsample 5. Eggs of Subsample 3.75 March ACa 141 0.0387 0.0223 62 16 17 82 34 15 522.1396 0.5939 0.0138 0.54 March ATa 160 0.3928 0.0522 87 87 70 145 50 67 705. WS4.1045 0. EGS2.1542 0.3297 0.32 September ACa 137 14.0215 0. 50 Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ABi 1899 2.0631 0.0106 1.2273 0.3771 215 94 2 45 15 14 692.80 March ACa 185 0. WS6.2881 0.1498 186 22 44 97 58 8 825.1930 2.0345 0.3363 0.0710 0.0415 0.2928 0.7582 144 62 7 115 14 10 1096.6841 0.0575 0.1136 0.8717 0.0407 0.4769 0. Weight of Subsample 3.8824 0.Appendix A (Continued).0527 0.8945 0.4513 0.2336 0.0600 0.2457 0.0261 0.0393 0.8903 0.73 March ACa 152 2.66 September ABi 1963 10.4492 0.0776 52 93 36 66 93 41 507.0553 0.2000 2.6580 350 75 16 192 61 39 1937. EGS4.3000 0.0515 0.19 March ACa 204 12.5470 0.6670 199 50 35 182 105 37 4108.0455 0.0752 0.0190 0.4670 87 57 8 197 70 6 945.38 March Legend: TW.12 September ABi 1907 2.0282 60 64 55 180 48 24 517.0489 0.9601 0. Eggs of Subsample 1.0367 0.18 September ABi 1949 0.0387 0.0294 0.9160 0.1332 0.1747 0.0148 0.2352 0.0977 0.0279 0.3890 0.0230 0.62 March ACa 193 3.0264 0.1466 0.0302 0.0217 0.0705 0.1704 0.0334 0. Weight of Subsample 2.0383 0.8457 0.16 March ACa 276 5.0397 1.1021 0.0130 0.0823 0.9563 0.92 March ACa 163 0.0247 1. Eggs of Subsample 4.0020 331 92 14 92 57 10 2226. WS1. Weight of Subsample 1.1109 0.0253 1.0169 0.1936 0.31 February ATa 17 0.22 March ACa 263 8.2515 0.5323 2.18 February ATa 194 15.0174 0. EGS3.0532 0.1039 115 13 8 292 22 25 1357.0058 0. Eggs of Subsample 5.0112 0.6778 193 46 3 111 48 10 1105.9843 0.0295 92 33 9 95 31 25 438. Eggs of Subsample 2.80 March ACa 171 2.3599 0.1177 0.3797 0.1380 0.2460 0.9009 0. Total Weight.0181 0.4004 0.2160 0. EGS6.8970 0.6954 0.0320 2.3390 411 19 3 285 17 12 1769.2226 0.0219 70 44 55 49 88 30 474. WS3.4055 0. WS5.1675 1.07 September ABi 1994 7.2018 96 47 8 62 17 16 597.1108 0.0641 0.88 March ATa 203 15.02 0.0618 0.6006 0.3190 126 51 14 157 70 5 1497.5495 177 30 2 227 19 8 993.5050 0.1620 0.0143 0.4000 0.4107 215 10 22 259 48 24 877.0245 0.1049 0.0542 0.61 March ACa 156 1.0377 0.5077 1.3985 1.20 March ACa 235 2.0278 0.2395 0.0106 0.4096 145 63 9 161 80 17 944.1424 0.0089 0.4571 0.2520 0. EGS1.7932 0.0521 0.0363 188 430 24 19 29 11 815.0138 0.74 February ATa 181 0.6537 0.0227 0.4480 0.0791 69 48 37 110 71 51 439.2626 195 11 9 252 40 14 1007.66 February ATa 186 0. WS2.0191 43 45 34 26 16 4 238.2112 0.3291 0.65 March ACa 194 7.8149 1.4434 0.0514 0.9432 0.7374 0.6746 0.8202 0.4863 0.3268 0.0544 0.1671 0.6635 0.0232 0. Weight of Subsample 4.1276 0.2752 1. Eggs of Subsample 6.7916 0.93 March ATa 200 8.0573 0.78 March ACa 279 2.1549 0.7366 0.5786 0.3670 0.0163 0.

0335 0.0822 0.1000 0. Eggs of Subsample 1. EGS4.1035 0.1139 0. Weight of Subsample 5. EGS5. WS5.1265 0. EGS2.44 February 51 Legend: TW. EGS3.0134 0.2736 0.1069 68 56 48 84 105 20 535.0671 0.7890 0.1040 90 45 50 100 42 18 374.0318 0.0793 35 44 135 156 80 45 778. Weight of Subsample 4. Total Weight.8000 0.0097 0.0761 0.4540 0.0895 231 20 27 240 43 60 3487.5915 0.0977 0. Weight of Subsample 3.2289 0.86 February ATa 93 0. Eggs of Subsample 4. Weight of Subsample 2. Eggs of Subsample 6. WS3.92 March ATa 37 0. Weight of Subsample 6.0455 0.0485 0. EGS1.7658 0.0141 54 136 80 52 48 61 560.0753 0.00 February ATa 39 0.Appendix A (Continued).1781 0.1041 0.55 February ATa 76 0. WS1.1114 0.0346 0.0153 0. Eggs of Subsample 5. EGS6. Weight of Subsample 1.0966 0. Eggs of Subsample 2. . WS4.0895 0. Specimen ID TW WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 EGS1 EGS2 EGS3 EGS4 EGS5 EGS6 Fecundity Month ATa 274 9. Eggs of Subsample 3. WS6. WS2.1167 0.