Fishery Bulletin 89(1), 1991 



near San Clemente, California. Night- 

 time samples were used to characterize 

 abundance and size composition, because 

 net avoidance is less at night (Allen and 

 DeMartini 1983). Fish analyzed for repro- 

 ductive variables and condition were 

 collected during daylight hours, because 

 oocytes destined for imminent spawning 

 are macroscopically recognizable within 

 ovaries only as they hydrate during 

 the half-day preceding dusk spawning 

 (DeMartini and Fountain 1981). 



Processing of samples 



Queenfish were refrigerated until pro- 

 cessed within one day of collection. Sex 

 and maturity were determined from 

 macroscopic characteristics of gonads (DeMartini and 

 Fountain 1981). Adult females were measured (stan- 

 dard length, SL, in mm), and their gonadectomized, 

 wet body weights (as a proxy for somatic weight) were 

 determined to 0.1 g. 



Ovary and egg analyses 



Both ovaries were removed (fresh) from adult females, 

 weighed damp to 0.01 g, and, for fish in ripe(ning) con- 

 dition, the presence of hydrated-state oocytes noted 

 based on macroscopic criteria ("Stage 3" ovaries: 

 DeMartini and Fountain 1981). 



Hydrated-state ovaries were fixed and preserved in 

 modified Gilson's Fluid (Bagenal and Braum 1971) for 

 about three months, after which declines in oocyte 

 diameters and dry weights should have stabilized (Wit- 

 thames and Walker 1987). These specimens are here- 

 after referred to as "Gilson's-fixed." Batch fecundity 

 was then determined for a maximum of 10 females per 

 month and year of collection. Fecundity was estimated 

 by gravimetric method (Bagenal and Braum 1971, 

 DeMartini and Fountain 1981). Counts from each sec- 

 tion were standardized to the total weight of both 

 ovaries and then averaged (Hunter et al. 1985). 



In a subsample of the Gilson's-fixed ovaries, I esti- 

 mated the median diameter (random axis) of hydrated- 

 state eggs: 10 randomly chosen oocytes per ovary pair 

 were measured within ±25 ^m (±1 "eyepiece unit" 

 or "EU") using a compound microscope with ocular 

 micrometer at 40 x magnification. I examined a max- 

 imum of 10 females per month and year. 



A linear dimension such as diameter might not ac- 

 curately represent egg volume or mass because of vari- 

 ations in chemical composition or density (Blaxter and 

 Hempel 1963). Therefore, I compared the diameter and 

 dry weight of oocytes from Gilson's-fixed ovaries. For 



46 females with hydrated-state ovaries present in 

 March- August 1984 collections, I determined the mean 

 dry weight of hydrated oocytes for one member of each 

 ovary pair. I determined the mean diameter of hy- 

 drated oocytes for the other member of the ovary pair. 

 Oocyte diameters were measured as described above. 

 I determined mean oocyte dry weight by drying lots 

 of 100 eggs to constant weight (1-2 days) in a vacuum 

 jar over anhydrous calcium chloride. Eggs were dried 

 at room temperature to avoid weight loss of volatiles 

 (Hay 1984, Hislop and Bell 1987), and an aggregate 

 weight determined to the nearest mg on an analytical 

 balance. 



Calculation of condition indices 



The relative allocation of energy to gonadal tissue was 

 indexed by the RGI of Erickson et al. (1985), as RGI 

 = (G/W b ) x 100, where G = wet weight of ovaries in 

 g, W = wet somatic weight in g, and b = the expo- 

 nent of the power equation, G = aW b . The relative 

 gonadal index (RGI) is equivalent to 100 x a, where a 

 is defined by the linearized (log-transformed) equation, 

 InG = lna + bin W (Erickson et al. 1985). It was neces- 

 sary to adjust the gonadal index for somatic weight 

 because the slope of the logarithmic gonad-to-somatic 

 weight equation was significantly greater than one (i.e., 

 the relation was allometric). 



I first attempted to index somatic robustness as 

 relative somatic condition, K n = CW/SL' 1 (Le Cren 

 1951), where W = wet somatic weight in g, SL = stan- 

 dard length in mm, C = a constant (10 5 ), and b = the 

 exponent of the regression, W = aSL b . However, the 

 exponent, evaluated as the slope of the log-transformed 

 weight-to-length equation InW = lna + blnSL, differed 

 among years, thereby invalidating the use of such an 

 index in analysis of covariance (Erickson et al. 1985, 



