268 
Fishery Bulletin 112(4) 
Table 5 
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s honestly significant difference test of mean total length at age 
(in millimeters) and total weight at age (in kilograms) for the most common ages (3-7 years) of red snapper 
(Lutjanus campechanus) sampled from recreational catches in 6 regions of the Gulf of Mexico in 2009 and 
2010. The 6 regions were South Texas (STX), North Texas (NTX), Louisiana (LA), Alabama (AL), Northwest 
Florida (NFL), and Central Florida (CFL). Each section is arranged in increasing order of mean values. Let- 
ters are used to indicate significant differences (<0.05) among the means from the comparisons according 
to the Tukey’s test. Within each row, means not connected with the same letter are significantly different. 
ANOVA Comparisons according to Tukey’s test 
Age 
n 
df 
F 
P 
NFL 
STX 
NTX 
CFL 
LA 
AL 
Total length at age 
3 
297 
291 
8.17 
<0.0001 
A 
A 
B 
B 
B 
B 
4 
686 
680 
34.27 
<0.0001 
B 
A 
B 
C 
AC 
C 
5 
536 
530 
18.59 
<0.0001 
AB 
A 
B 
C 
C 
D 
6 
167 
161 
1.63 
0.1557 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
7 
49 
43 
4.74 
0.0015 
B 
A 
A 
A 
AB 
A 
Total weight at age 
3 
238 
232 
8.58 
<0.0001 
A 
B 
AB 
AB 
A 
AB 
4 
594 
588 
21.75 
<0.0001 
A 
B 
A 
B 
B 
C 
5 
482 
476 
15 
<0.0001 
A 
A 
C 
B 
A 
D 
6 
161 
155 
3.76 
<0.0001 
A 
B 
CD 
D 
AC 
AC 
7 
47 
41 
0.9 
0.4887 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Table 6 
Chi-square statistics ( x 2 ), degrees of freedom (df), and P-values for likelihood ratio tests used with Bonfer- 
roni’s correction for multiple pairwise tests, for comparing von Bertalanffy growth models of total length (TL) 
and total weight (TW) among the 6 regions where red snapper ( Lutjanus campechanus ) were sampled in the 
Gulf of Mexico in 2009 and 2010. The regions were South Texas (STX), North Texas (NTX), Louisiana (LA), 
Alabama (AL), Northwest Florida (NFL), and Central Florida (CFL). Before regional models were compared, 
the full von Bertalanffy growth models for TL and TW (in which regions were fitted independently) were 
compared with the reduced models for TL and TW (by fitting all specimens). 
Model comparison 
TL model 
TW model 
X 2 
df 
P 
X 2 
df 
P 
Full-Reduced 
291.1 
2 
<0.001 
228.49 
2 
<0.001 
NTX-STX 
87.98 
2 
<0.001 
94.78 
2 
<0.001 
NTX-NFL 
51.89 
2 
<0.001 
22.83 
2 
<0.001 
NTX-CFL 
197.44 
2 
<0.001 
92.74 
2 
<0.001 
NTX-LA 
129.31 
2 
<0.001 
26.92 
2 
<0.001 
NTX-AL 
207.75 
2 
<0.001 
89.77 
2 
<0.001 
AL-STX 
238.25 
2 
<0.001 
183.09 
2 
<0.001 
AL-NFL 
343.75 
2 
<0.001 
50.09 
2 
<0.001 
AL-CFL 
35.17 
2 
<0.001 
13.12 
2 
0.001 
AL-LA 
54.97 
2 
<0.001 
72.15 
2 
<0.001 
LA-STX 
82.62 
2 
<0.001 
76.34 
2 
<0.001 
LA-NFL 
150.64 
2 
<0.001 
20.25 
2 
<0.001 
LA-CFL 
0.94 
2 
0.624 
30.49 
2 
<0.001 
STX— NFL 
58.26 
2 
<0.001 
96.05 
2 
<0.001 
STX-CFL 
38.20 
2 
<0.001 
46.96 
2 
<0.001 
NFL-CFL 
120.22 
2 
<0.001 
78.22 
2 
<0.001 
