96 
Fishery Bulletin 111(1) 
Table 3 
Dates of trips during which longlines were set and re- 
trieved in the southwestern region of the Gulf of Maine 
in the spring of 2006 and 2007 to collect samples of fe- 
male Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) over a 12-h 
period with the objective of having 2 consecutive trips 
represent sampling over a 24-h period. 
24-h period 
Year 
Sampling dates 
1 
2006 
3/12, 3/28, 3/31 
2 
2006 
4/7, 4/10, 4/28 
3 
2006 
4/30, 5/4, 5/8 
4 
2006 
5/8, 5/16 
5 
2007 
3/26,3/31,4/10 
6 
2007 
4/10, 4/21, 4/24 
7 
2007 
5/1, 5/22 
8 
2007 
5/24, 5/30 
Results 
The results of each stage are formatted to explain both 
types of percent agreement as a function of each of the 
two staging methods. For each stage, the results of the 
macroscopic field staging method are presented first, 
followed by the results of the histological laboratory 
staging method. 
All 6 ovaries classified as immature (I) with the field 
index were also classified as the equivalent histological 
stage (1.0) in the laboratory. In contrast, all but 2 of 
the 8 samples classified as I (1.0) with the laboratory 
staging method were also classified as I with the field 
index (Table 4). Two samples classified as 1.0 in the 
laboratory were classified as regenerating (RE) with 
the field index. 
Only 4 of the 9 ovaries classified as developing (D) 
with the field index were also classified as developing 
(2.0) with the laboratory staging method (Table 4). Two 
of the remaining ovaries classified as D with the field 
index were classified as the adjacent histological stage 
3.1, and 2 samples contained early POFs (stage 4.1) 
and 1 sample contained late POFs (stage 4.2). In con- 
trast, 7 of the 12 ovaries classified as 2.0 in the labora- 
tory were classified as the adjacent HI with the field 
index, and 1 sample was classified as RE. 
Twelve of the 32 ovaries classified as HI with the 
field index were also classified as the equivalent his- 
tological stage 3.1 (Table 4) in the laboratory. Seven of 
the ovaries classified as HI with the field index were 
Table 4 
Contingency table showing the results from the cross classification between the histological maturity stag- 
es (columns) and the field maturity stages (rows) in the indices used in this study of methods for staging 
the reproductive maturity of female Haddock ( Melanogrammus aeglefinus). The gray squares represent 
where the cross classification is expected to have the highest frequencies of agreement. n=sample size; 
PA=percent agreement; NA=not applicable. If NA was used in place of PA, then that stage was not expected 
to agree with any of the opposing index stages. 
Maturity-index stages based on field examination 
03 
C 
6 
03 
X 
OJ 
03 
o 
'&) 
-C 
G 
I 
D 
HI 
H2 
H3 
RR 
S 
RE 
n 
PA 
1.0 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
8 
75% 
2.0 
0 
4 
7 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
12 
31% 
3.1 
0 
2 
12 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
16 
75% 
3.2 
0 
0 
2 
21 
2 
0 
4 
0 
29 
72% 
3.3 
0 
0 
5 
9 
22 
17 
2 
2 
57 
39% 
4.1 
0 
2 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
NA 
4.2 
0 
1 
5 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
9 
NA 
5.0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
4 
16 
21 
19% 
6.0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
12 
13 
92% 
n 
6 
9 
32 
33 
25 
19 
12 
33 
PA 
100% 
44% 
38% 
64% 
88% 
NA 
33% 
36% 
-a 
c 
