FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 81. NO. 1 



Table 1.— Percentages by month, area, and year of king mackerel otoliths having opaque margins. ( 



ber of fish. 



: total num- 



Table 2.— Percentages of king mackerel by area and year within each age group, developed from age-length keys and length- 

 frequency distributions. 



Area 



Age in years 



Year 



10 



11 



12 



13 



14 



No 



fish 



0.8 



2.0 



0.6 



27 6 3.5 6 9 6.9 _____ 2 9 



20.6 32.5 3.6 3.3 5.8 — — — — 533 



100 — _______ 10 



20.0 24 36.0 8.0 12 — — — — — 25 



2 2.6 — — — 498 



0.8 - — 1.107 



136 19 7 1 4 — — — — — 147 



20.0 8.6 3.5 3.5 — — — — 115 



7 7 6.5 17 14 14 ___ 2.507 



9.3 4.7 2.3 — — — — — 43 



23.6 99 10.8 — — — — — — 780 



30 1 10.9 6.7 2.9 6.7 — — — — 239 



144 24 4 11.9 7.7 77 109 88 44 13 08 479 



5.8 6 0.6 0.4 1 — — 1,393 



16 8 0.1 — — 1,463 



5.6 112 4 4 5 6 2.4 8 0.9 — 249 



19 2 16 4 8.5 4 3.2 — 4 — — 402 



86 0.3 4 2 2 1.7 1.7 1.1 07 0.2 1 5,216 



length occurred from year to year and from area 

 to area. Only data for Louisiana, however, where 

 five or more individuals were used in computing 

 a mean, showed the range of means within an age 

 group to vary more than 100 mm. 



In 2 yr of sampling in Louisiana, over 300 fe- 

 males were sampled, but too few males were col- 



lected to back-calculate size at previous ages. 

 Generally, the Louisiana fish were also much 

 larger than those taken elsewhere, and we con- 

 cluded that this must be an anomalous group of 

 fish. We separated Louisiana females from other 

 females for growth computations, except those 

 dealing with compensatory growth. 



100 



