Ity Staging of Sole, Plaice, Dab and Flounder (WKMSSPDF)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ICES CM ICES WKMSSPDF REPORT 2010 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ICES CM 2010/ACOM:50 REF. PGCCDBS Report of the Workshop on Sexual Matur- ity Staging of sole, plaice, dab and flounder (WKMSSPDF) 22-26 February 2010 Ijmuiden, Netherlands International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2010. Report of the Workshop on Sexual Maturity Staging of sole, plaice, dab and flounder (WKMSSPDF), 22-26 February 2010, Ijmuiden, The Netherlands. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:50. 96 pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen- eral Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2010 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES WKMSSPDF REPORT 2010 | i Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction of common maturity scale ...................................................................... 1 Classification criteria for maturity stages .................................................................... 1 Comparison of stagings ................................................................................................. 1 Comparison of macroscopic staging with histology .................................................. 1 Optimal sampling time .................................................................................................. 1 Future workshops ........................................................................................................... 2 1 Opening of the meeting ................................................................................................ 3 2 Adoption of the agenda ................................................................................................ 3 3 ToR a: Overview and comparison of currently used maturity scales .................. 4 4 ToR d: Proposal of a common scale ............................................................................ 5 5 ToR c: Standardisation of classification criteria and comparison of staging .............................................................................................................................. 6 5.1 Standardisation of classification criteria ............................................................ 6 5.1.1 Sole ............................................................................................................. 6 5.1.2 Plaice .......................................................................................................... 8 5.1.3 Dab ............................................................................................................. 9 5.1.4 Flounder .................................................................................................. 10 5.2 Comparison of staging ....................................................................................... 12 5.2.1 First comparison, from pictures ........................................................... 12 5.2.2 Second comparison, fresh material ..................................................... 20 5.2.3 Third comparison, from pictures ......................................................... 30 6 ToR b: Validate macroscopic maturity determination with histological information ................................................................................................................... 39 6.1 First comparison, macroscopic pictures .......................................................... 39 6.2 Second comparison, macroscopic pictures ...................................................... 39 7 ToR e: Identify optimal sampling time to estimate maturity ogives ................. 41 7.1 Optimal sampling time ...................................................................................... 41 7.2 Understanding species biology ......................................................................... 42 8 Guidelines for future workshops on maturity staging ......................................... 42 8.1 Staging from fresh material vs. pictures .......................................................... 42 8.2 Guidelines for the pictures to be taken ............................................................ 42 8.3 Guidelines for the storage and use of pictures in a workshop ..................... 43 9 Next meeting ................................................................................................................. 43 ii | ICES WKMSSPDF REPORT 2010 10 References ..................................................................................................................... 44 Annex 1: List of participants............................................................................................... 45 Annex 2: Agenda WKMSSPDF IJmuiden (Netherlands), 22-26 February 2010 ................................................................................................................................. 48 Annex 3: WKMSSPDF terms of reference for the next meeting .................................. 50 Annex 4: Recommendations ............................................................................................... 52 Annex 5: Overview of currently used scales per country .............................................. 53 Annex 6: Length composition, sex ratio and sampling range of picture samples .......................................................................................................................... 62 Annex 7: Reference pictures for maturity stages of flatfish ......................................... 67 Annex 8: Results of staging sessions ................................................................................ 79 ICES WKMSSPDF REPORT 2010 | 1 Executive summary Introduction of common maturity scale When assigning maturity stages to fish, it is important to have an understanding of the biology of the fish and its reproductive cycle in the sampling area. This helps to distinguish the transitions between the different stages. WKMSSPDF 2010 proposed to adopt the 6 point scale as proposed by the gadoid workshop WKMSCWHS 2007 (ICES, 2008). From wide ranging discussions it has be- come evident that outside the spawning period it is not reliably possible to distin- guish between what is described as a resting stage 5 and a re-maturing stage 2 (histological pictures have given credence to this). To this end it is recommended for flatfish, stage 5 should only be used during the proposed sampling period (see ‘Op- timal sampling time’) and only to describe a skipped spawning fish. It is recommended that institutes carry out in-house workshops on the reproductive biology of the fish and maturity staging, also as a follow-up of WKMSSPDF2010 to introduce the new common scale. An important aspect of the introduction of the new common scale is to take care that all institutes will be able to transpose their own scale into the common scale. This will give the flexibility for the institutes sometimes to keep their own scale but to internationalise their data in an easy way. Classification criteria for maturity stages For all species, classification criteria were defined in subgroups and presented in a similar way. Plaice and dab were discussed in the same subgroup since only a few experts on dab were present at the workshop. As far as possible, the subgroups worked on a reference picture collection per species per sex. Comparison of stagings The stagings were done by 19 readers, in three rounds (picture-fresh-picture). The first staging (from pictures) had low agreement (<60%) for all species. The fresh stag- ing had a clearly higher agreement (>75%) for all species. In the third staging (from pictures) progress was made in percentage agreement compared to the first staging, but there was still a lower agreement on the stages then the staging from fresh mate- rial. This is not surprising since touching is one of the ways to identify maturity stages in fish. Comparison of macroscopic staging with histology The comparison between the macroscopic staging and histological slides shows that there is an early development stage in gonads seen in the histological samples which cannot easily be indentified macroscopically. The general percentage of agreement between histological slides and macroscopic scales is very low. This might be caused by the number of samples outside the recommended sampling period. Optimal sampling time As it is difficult to identify the proper maturity stage when fish is not clearly develop- ing, data collection for maturity ogives is recommended during the pre-spawning season. This implies that sampling for maturity staging for sole, plaice, dab and flounder should be done during late fourth quarter until the end of the first quarter. 2 | ICES WKMSSPDF REPORT 2010 For assessment purposes, only data from one month before the spawning season (to be identified based on the collected data) until the start of the spawning season should be used for the estimation of maturity ogives for sole, plaice, dab and floun- der. Any macroscopic staging outside of this period can be misinterpreted and should not be used for maturity ogives. However, collecting maturity