Sogard and Berkeley: Movement, growth, and survival of Anoplopoma fimbria off Oregon 
241 
Days at large 
Figure 4 
Recapture depth for sablefish {Anoplopoma fimbria) initially tagged in (A) 
depth zone 1 (141-302 m), (B) depth zone 2 (327-649 m), and (C) depth zone 
3 (1112-1225 m) off Newport, Oregon, during 1996-1998 (tagging set 1) or 
2003-2004 (tagging set 2) by time at large in days. Gray boxes indicate the 
range of depths at tagging. Fish from both tagging sets are combined. Solid 
symbols denote fish recaptured during the spawning season (November- 
April) and open symbols denote fish recaptured in the nonspawning season 
(May-October). 
initial capture depth was also evident in the distance 
moved; no fish from depth zone 3 traveled farther than 
700 km (Fig. 5B). 
Growth 
Recapture reports with information on sex, size, depth, 
and gear were available for 357 females and 181 males. 
Sample sizes by depth zone were 68, 188, and 101 fe¬ 
males and 51, 108, and 22 males for depth zones 1, 
2, and 3, respectively. Application of the full nonlinear 
regression model incorporating initial fish size, days at 
large, sex, initial capture depth, recapture depth, and 
recapture gear accounted for a substantial level of vari¬ 
ation in growth (r2=0.79; Table 4). All subset models ex¬ 
cluding 1 or more parameters provided inferior explan¬ 
atory power, with values of Maliows’s Cp far exceed¬ 
ing the number of parameters (all Cp estimates >30), 
indicating that the full model was the best supported 
descriptor of the data (Table 5). To illustrate these ef¬ 
fects we plotted growth estimates from the full model 
while setting the time at large to 1 year, recapture gear 
as fixed gear, and tagging and recapture depths as the 
midpoint of each depth zone. Growth increments were 
calculated separately by sex for the range of initial fish 
sizes observed for recaptured fish from each depth zone 
(Fig. 8). As expected, small fish grew faster than large 
fish, and females grew faster than males. Based on 
model estimates, growth rates were lower by 42% for 
males than for females. Growth also was substantially 
lower with increasing depth. Holding fish size constant 
and using the midpoint of each depth zone, we found 
that fish in zone 2 grew about 36% more slowly than 
fish in zone 1. Growth rates of fish in zone 3 were re¬ 
duced by 68% compared with growth rates of fish in 
zone 2, and by 79% compared with growth rates of fish 
in zone 1. Fish recaptured in trawls had growth rates 
about 22% lower than those of fish recaptured by fixed 
