Supplementary Material

Transcription

1 Supplementary Material Fig. S1 Description of the maturity macroscale in Octopus vulgaris according to Inejih (2000), and the supporting details derived from our study. The number (N) of females sampled in each macrostage is indicated. It is also indicated the specific microstages present in each macrostage and which one dominates in terms of occupied area. See main text for abbreviations. 1

2 Table S1 Results of the generalised least squares (GLS) model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity microstages within macostrage I. The model allowed each microstage to have a different variance. Intercept Microstage FV Microstage PO Microstage SO < Variances: PO = 0.38; SO = 59.95; FO = 15.18; FV = 3.50 Note: FO is the reference microstage. Table S2 Results of the GLS model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity microstages within macostrage II. The model allowed each microstage to have a different variance. Intercept < Microstage FV Microstage PO < Microstage SO Variances: PO = 0.06; SO = 45.35; FO = 52.99; FV = Note: FO is the reference microstage. 2

3 Table S3 Results of the GLS model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity microstages within macostrage III. The model allowed each microstage to have a different variance. Intercept < Microstage FV Microstage PO < Microstage SO < Variances: PO = 0.01; SO = 14.76; FO = 48.66; FV = Note: FO is the reference microstage. Table S4 Results of the GLS model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity microstages within macostrage IV. Intercept < Microstage FV < Microstage LV < Microstage PO Microstage SO < Variances: PO = 17.41; SO = 4.53e 06; FO = 0.87; FV = 6.35; LV = Note: FO is the reference microstage. 3

4 Table S5 Results of the GLS model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity macrostages within micostrage PO. The model allowed each macrostage to have a different variance. Intercept Macrostage II Macrostage III Macrostage IV Variances: I = 0.38; II = 0.06; III = 0.01; IV = 0.38 Note: Macrostage I is the reference stage. Table S6 Results of the GLS model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity macrostages within micostrage SO. The model allowed each macrostage to have a different variance. Intercept < Macrostage II Macrostage III < Macrostage IV < Variances: I = 59.95; II = 45.35; III = 14.76; IV = 0.87 Note: Macrostage I is the reference stage. 4

5 Table S7 Results of the GLS model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity macrostages within micostrage FO. The model allowed each macrostage to have a different variance. Intercept Macrostage II Macrostage III < Macrostage IV < Variances: I = 15.18; II = 52.99; III = 48.66; IV = 6.35 Note: Macrostage I is the reference stage. Table S8 Results of the GLS model used to compare the percentage of occupied area by maturity macrostages within micostrage FV. The model allowed each macrostage to have a different variance. Intercept Macrostage II Macrostage III < Macrostage IV < Variances: I = 3.50; II = 30.00; III = ; IV = Note: Macrostage I is the reference stage. 5

6 Fig. S2 Distribution of the percentage of occupied area by each of the five microscopic stages of maturation PO (A) to LV (E) versus the HMI. A curve fitted using a generalized additive model is superimposed in each panel to see the peak of occupied area across the range of HMI values. 6

7 Table S9 Results of the ANOVA used to compare the histological maturity index (HMI) by maturity macrostages according to Inejih (2000). Intercept < Macrostage II Macrostage III < Macrostage IV < Fig. S3 Pairwise comparisons of HMI by maturity macrostages using a Tukey posthoc analysis. Shown are the 95% confidence intervals on the differences between the means of the four macrostages. Note that all comparisons do not overlap zero thus they are significantly different from one another. 7

8 Table S10 Results of macrostages (I to IV) logistic regressions with a logit link. The probability of assigning a given macrostage to an individual was modelled as a function of the histological maturity index (HMI). SE: standard error; AIC: Akaike Information Criterion. Note that, HMI in macrostages II and III was incorporated to the model as a polynomial of order 2. These models were more optimal than simpler ones according to model selection criterion (AICs = ; ). Response variable Parameter Estimate SE z-value p-value Macrostage I Intercept < HMI < Null deviance = ; Residual deviance = 71.41; AIC = Macrostage II Intercept HMI HMI Null deviance = ; Residual deviance = 92.45; AIC = Macrostage III Intercept < HMI < HMI < Null deviance = ; Residual deviance = 78.47; AIC = Macrostage IV Intercept HMI Null deviance = ; Residual deviance = 29.69; AIC =

9 Fig. S4 Fitted logistic models and confidence bands for each macrostage I to IV given the HMI. 9

10 Fig. S5 Scatterplots of the histological maturity index (HMI) versus a set of morphometric measurements (A-E) and reproductive and condition indices (F-H). See the main text for abbreviations. Note that the thickness of each of the distinct parts of the oviducal gland, that is, the proximal (C), middle (D) and distal (E) rings, were only measured in those females in macroscopic stages II to IV. 10

11 Fig. S6 Cortical Alveoli (CA) stage in female ovary of pounting (Trisopterus luscus, Gadidae). Microphotography courtesy of Alonso-Fernández (2011). References Alonso-Fernández, Á., Bioenergetics approach to fish reproductive potential: case of Trisopterus luscus (Teleostei) on the Galician shelf (NW Iberian Peninsula). Ph.D. Thesis, 352 pp. 11